Re: Materialism and Buddhism
Understood, yet the notion that highly developed chemicals, a woodchuck, ourselves, somehow are required to finalize the probability cloud of swirling particles. How convinced am I of this as being true? If you are saying its unnecessary, by evidence that we have today, I'd agree. On the idea of the unknown, and what is the adjacent possibility I would say it's worth exploring. Perhaps, high value chem processing is what is needed to ice the cake, and to calculate, or chrystalize the world. Or, maybe not. On decoherence, we then to creep into the twilight zone of Everett's MWI, as I am not satisfied by the Bohr standard model of QM. And, I may be wrong on this as well. Mitch But why should the fact that some chemicals replicate instantiate reality? Life is really replication with evolution - if you don't include evolution then you could regard as crystals as replicating. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 5:23 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 7/4/2013 1:15 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Good point. But replication would be a means for establishing reality. Perhaps, life reproducing sustains reality? But why should the fact that some chemicals replicate instantiate reality? Life is really replication with evolution - if you don't include evolution then you could regard as crystals as replicating. For me it's quite bizzare in the sense that it's non-intuitive. On the other hand it applies the observer as what or who establishes reality. The decoherence account of (almost) deriving the classical world (aka reality) from QM doesn't depend on observers except in the sense of devices with many degrees of freedom with states robust against entanglement with the environment. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 3:18 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 7/4/2013 5:31 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting Dr. Marchal, Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something then? Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, together, came up with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make probability real. That life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act as an observer to sense the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities swirling around us. That, life consciously, and unconsciously selects the physical cosmos. They have called it the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is what causes the math to process as axioms, as programs (if you are a Stephen Wolfram fan?) to emerge from the great probability 'cloud.' Or, am I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both cases, yours, and theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it chrystalizes out of observation. Except life is well modelled as chemistry and physics; so I don't see any gain in introducing replication as a foundational concept. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
On 04 Jul 2013, at 14:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting Dr. Marchal, Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something then? Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, together, came up with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make probability real. That life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act as an observer to sense the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities swirling around us. It is less wrong that many others idea, with respect to comp. That, life consciously, and unconsciously selects the physical cosmos. Life, or consciousness. or consciousness filters non life. Comp, or if you prefer, the correct understanding of comp is sympathetic with such idea, unless simplified or taken too much literally. All we need to have are the relations between number derivable from the addition and multiplication laws. This emulates, in the arithmetical Turing sense, the histories, and we, first persons are distributed in those histories. I have often used the term biology instead of psychology or theology. They have called it the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is what causes the math to process as axioms, as programs (if you are a Stephen Wolfram fan?) Wolfram is still physicalist, and is close to digital physicalism, which is not only a digital way to eliminate the subject, both also a deny of the quantum reality. But I love cellular automata, and he wrote entertaining books. to emerge from the great probability 'cloud.' The question is probability cloud of what? Which events? What is bio? The amoeba problem is solved by phi_e() = e. I explain later. Sex, embryogenesis and regeneration problems are solved by a variant of above. Numbers does that all the time, but the consciousness flux starts when the number self-refers, and build coherent maps of their most probable scenarios/dreams, until they wake up in more coherent scenarios, ad infinitum. Or, am I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both cases, yours, and theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it chrystalizes out of observation. I think you understood well. The approach is of course different. I start from the assumption that we are machines, and shows that the physical chrysalises out of observation. In fact, it is just one aspect of a theological reality (with immortal soul) which crystalizes, or chysalises, you must choose :), from very simple, but Turing universal (derivable from elementary arithmetic). Biocentrism would be a part of the more theological processes, and a part of physics needs some of the incommunicable (theological) resources. The quantum, actually appears only on the theological part of the observation, which fits better with the neoplatonists, compared to a biocentrism still possibly conceived through an aristotelian conception of reality. I don't know for sure as I did not study them. In Charlie Stross's work of science fiction, Accelerondo, Stross posits that the Big Bang was a statistical computation that ran over 14 billion years ago, and we are the remnant of the statistical processing. That science fiction. Reality is beyond fiction :) What can be said (or argued for) is that *assuming* that we are machine (comp), itself fiction or reality we can never know (in science), we belong to an infinity of (probably deep, in Bennett or related sense) computations, and we can share them due to their linearity at their core. It is an open problem if some oracles are at play, but something like evolution is close to the halting oracle (in Turing sense). Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 3:22 am Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 03 Jul 2013, at 23:48, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dr. Marchal, Hello. It's not an opinion, but a question motivated by observation. It doesn't make this point of view, axiomatically, correct. But, I do feel this issue needs to be addressed at some point, via scientific measure. The question is how? What would be our motivation to undertake this study-do non-material things exist? Can non-material object exist. Or am I asking do non-existing objects exist? Or, do non-material things exist elsewhere in our universe, but a difficult to ordinarily detect? You seem to assume that there is a physical universe. I don't assume that. You seem to assume Aristotle idea that what exist = what we can see, or observe, measure ... but the ancient dream argument already show that such inference is not valid. God created the natural numbers and said add and multiply. All the rest are dreams which exist due to the Turing universality of add and multiply. You might have a difficulty to conceive that physical existence might
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
On 03 Jul 2013, at 23:48, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dr. Marchal, Hello. It's not an opinion, but a question motivated by observation. It doesn't make this point of view, axiomatically, correct. But, I do feel this issue needs to be addressed at some point, via scientific measure. The question is how? What would be our motivation to undertake this study-do non-material things exist? Can non-material object exist. Or am I asking do non-existing objects exist? Or, do non-material things exist elsewhere in our universe, but a difficult to ordinarily detect? You seem to assume that there is a physical universe. I don't assume that. You seem to assume Aristotle idea that what exist = what we can see, or observe, measure ... but the ancient dream argument already show that such inference is not valid. God created the natural numbers and said add and multiply. All the rest are dreams which exist due to the Turing universality of add and multiply. You might have a difficulty to conceive that physical existence might not be a primitive existence. Platonist have at the start doubt that the physical reality is not a sort of illusion. Comp explains that oit might be more rational to think so. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 03 Jul 2013, at 20:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Not to be a jerk, but can someone give us an example of non- materialism? Even human thoughts is neurons and chemicals sizzling away in the skull. This is your assumption. But Platonist believed that this view might be wrong. And I argue that if we are machine, it ill be easier to explain the illusion of matter to conscious number relations (like what computer handled) than to expolain the illusion of consciousness to material things. Is not Ontology a discussion on what exists? Yes, and with comp, you can consider that only 0 and its successor exists, and that they obey to some laws (succession, addition, multiplication: that's enough). Then you can prove in that theory that all pieces of computations exist, and that matter appears, in the conscious relative numbers as a stable illusion, obeying laws, etc. (Epistemology is what is knowledge or what do we know? If I remember right). Yes. Can it then be said, via math that non-material objects exists? They certainly exists in the logical sense: that we can prove that prime number exists once we accept that 0 exist. Does it really exist? But that is a new notion, and if you use it you have to define it. If no intelligence is alive to perform the neuron actions sufficient to comprehend or even search for the non-material, then perhaps it cannot exist? With comp we can more easily define intelligence in arithmetic than in physical terms. Don't take this as true, but arithmetic gives an example of rational, objective idealism, where matter apperance can emerge from infinities of number relations. Other idealism exist by assuming that the fundamental reality is consciousness, or God, or whatever considered as being outside the physical realm. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Pierz pier...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 2:22 pm Subject: Materialism and Buddhism I studied Mahajana Tibetan Buddhism in Dharamsala (home of the Dalai Lama in exile) back in the day and I agree with Bruno and others that Buddhism is closer to idealism than materialism. However Buddhism ultimately rejects 'mind' too, since what we think of as mind is closely related to the personal self. The ultimate reality in Buddhism is nirvana or the void and all phenomena including mental phenomena are empty of inherent existence. It is 'a- theistic' in the sense that this ultimate reality is not a being like a god with an identity and thoughts. However Tibetan Buddhism, like other forms, does believe in the idea of god-like (and demon-like) beings in the phenomenal realms. To equate Buddhism with materialism on the basis of a few selected quotes would constitute a highly tendentious reading of the dharma and in my view is quite wrong. There is no possibility of liberation in materialism and the phenomenal world is seen as the 'real world', the very antithesis of the Buddhist view. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
Interesting Dr. Marchal, Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something then? Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, together, came up with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make probability real. That life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act as an observer to sense the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities swirling around us. That, life consciously, and unconsciously selects the physical cosmos. They have called it the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is what causes the math to process as axioms, as programs (if you are a Stephen Wolfram fan?) to emerge from the great probability 'cloud.' Or, am I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both cases, yours, and theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it chrystalizes out of observation. In Charlie Stross's work of science fiction, Accelerondo, Stross posits that the Big Bang was a statistical computation that ran over 14 billion years ago, and we are the remnant of the statistical processing. Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 3:22 am Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 03 Jul 2013, at 23:48, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dr. Marchal, Hello. It's not an opinion, but a question motivated by observation. It doesn't make this point of view, axiomatically, correct. But, I do feel this issue needs to be addressed at some point, via scientific measure. The question is how? What would be our motivation to undertake this study-do non-material things exist? Can non-material object exist. Or am I asking do non-existing objects exist? Or, do non-material things exist elsewhere in our universe, but a difficult to ordinarily detect? You seem to assume that there is a physical universe. I don't assume that. You seem to assume Aristotle idea that what exist = what we can see, or observe, measure ... but the ancient dream argument already show that such inference is not valid. God created the natural numbers and said add and multiply. All the rest are dreams which exist due to the Turing universality of add and multiply. You might have a difficulty to conceive that physical existence might not be a primitive existence. Platonist have at the start doubt that the physical reality is not a sort of illusion. Comp explains that oit might be more rational to think so. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 03 Jul 2013, at 20:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Not to be a jerk, but can someone give us an example of non-materialism? Even human thoughts is neurons and chemicals sizzling away in the skull. This is your assumption. But Platonist believed that this view might be wrong. And I argue that if we are machine, it ill be easier to explain the illusion of matter to conscious number relations (like what computer handled) than to expolain the illusion of consciousness to material things. Is not Ontology a discussion on what exists? Yes, and with comp, you can consider that only 0 and its successor exists, and that they obey to some laws (succession, addition, multiplication: that's enough). Then you can prove in that theory that all pieces of computations exist, and that matter appears, in the conscious relative numbers as a stable illusion, obeying laws, etc. (Epistemology is what is knowledge or what do we know? If I remember right). Yes. Can it then be said, via math that non-material objects exists? They certainly exists in the logical sense: that we can prove that prime number exists once we accept that 0 exist. Does it really exist? But that is a new notion, and if you use it you have to define it. If no intelligence is alive to perform the neuron actions sufficient to comprehend or even search for the non-material, then perhaps it cannot exist? With comp we can more easily define intelligence in arithmetic than in physical terms. Don't take this as true, but arithmetic gives an example of rational, objective idealism, where matter apperance can emerge from infinities of number relations. Other idealism exist by assuming that the fundamental reality is consciousness, or God, or whatever considered as being outside the physical realm. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Pierz pier...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 2:22 pm Subject: Materialism and Buddhism I studied Mahajana Tibetan Buddhism in Dharamsala (home of the Dalai Lama in xile) back in the day and I agree with Bruno and others that Buddhism is closer o idealism than materialism. However Buddhism ultimately rejects 'mind' too
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
On 7/4/2013 5:31 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting Dr. Marchal, Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something then? Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, together, came up with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make probability real. That life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act as an observer to sense the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities swirling around us. That, life consciously, and unconsciously selects the physical cosmos. They have called it the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is what causes the math to process as axioms, as programs (if you are a Stephen Wolfram fan?) to emerge from the great probability 'cloud.' Or, am I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both cases, yours, and theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it chrystalizes out of observation. Except life is well modelled as chemistry and physics; so I don't see any gain in introducing replication as a foundational concept. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
I happen to read the intro summary of the e-book (annonced on another list): *Scientific Hinduism*: Bringing Science and Hinduism Closer via Extended Dual-Aspect Monism (Dvi-Pak?a Advaita) *By Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal* (Vision Research Institute, 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 and 428 Great Road, Suite 11, Acton, MA 01720 USA; Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana, A-60 Umed Park, Sola Road, Ahmedabad-61, Gujrat, India; Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana, c/o NiceTech Computer Education Institute, Pendra, Bilaspur, C.G. 495119, India; and Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana, Sai Niwas, East of Hanuman Mandir, Betiahata, Gorakhpur, U.P. 273001, India rlpvi...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/HomeScientificHinduism: Bringing Science and Hinduism Closer via Extended Dual- ua---Aspect Monism (the DAMv framework: Dvi Aspect Monism (the DAMv framework: Dvi Aspect Monism (the DAMv framework: DviPak PaPa Pak?a Advaita) a Advaita) RLP Vimal RLP Vimal) in which the Hindu belief system is portraited as th only religion and 'a' soul (mind) has its extra life (existnece) while in connection with the body: as a persona entity. Not far from *Bruno's God created the natural numbers and said add and multiply... *(* *indeed a pleonasm, since multiplication is a multiple form of addition) neglecting my* ignorance *about whom is he referring to. IMO with so much assumed not knowing about it is easy to devise (personal?) belief systems and complement them to worldviews (religions) including our conventional sciences. Materialism is a narrowed-down* idealism* of a world based on primitive physical observations of the past. Idealism proper is a free fantasy. Hinduism and more western religions are made-up from make-believe fundamentals according to the founder theories. (Many of them??) Whoever cannot live without a firm believe about the world should stick his head into the sand and be happy. I am not happy with agnosticism, but that is the most I can achieve. In - M Y - belief system I postulate lots of pertinent details we cannot have any idea about and take everything as conditional: if they do not interfere with some newer info acquisition. Otherwise I am OK. John M On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:31 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting Dr. Marchal, Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something then? Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, together, came up with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make probability real. That life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act as an observer to sense the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities swirling around us. That, life consciously, and unconsciously selects the physical cosmos. They have called it the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is what causes the math to process as axioms, as programs (if you are a Stephen Wolfram fan?) to emerge from the great probability 'cloud.' Or, am I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both cases, yours, and theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it chrystalizes out of observation. In Charlie Stross's work of science fiction, Accelerondo, Stross posits that the Big Bang was a statistical computation that ran over 14 billion years ago, and we are the remnant of the statistical processing. Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 3:22 am Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 03 Jul 2013, at 23:48, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dr. Marchal, Hello. It's not an opinion, but a question motivated by observation. It doesn't make this point of view, axiomatically, correct. But, I do feel this issue needs to be addressed at some point, via scientific measure. The question is how? What would be our motivation to undertake this study-do non-material things exist? Can non-material object exist. Or am I asking do non-existing objects exist? Or, do non-material things exist elsewhere in our universe, but a difficult to ordinarily detect? You seem to assume that there is a physical universe. I don't assume that. You seem to assume Aristotle idea that what exist = what we can see, or observe, measure ... but the ancient dream argument already show that such inference is not valid. God created the natural numbers and said add and multiply. All the rest are dreams which exist due to the Turing universality of add and multiply. You might have a difficulty to conceive that physical existence might not be a primitive existence. Platonist have at the start doubt that the physical reality is not a sort of illusion. Comp explains that oit might be more rational to think so. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 03 Jul 2013, at 20:46
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
Good point. But replication would be a means for establishing reality. Perhaps, life reproducing sustains reality? For me it's quite bizzare in the sense that it's non-intuitive. On the other hand it applies the observer as what or who establishes reality. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 3:18 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 7/4/2013 5:31 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting Dr. Marchal, Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something then? Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, together, came up with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make probability real. That life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act as an observer to sense the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities swirling around us. That, life consciously, and unconsciously selects the physical cosmos. They have called it the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is what causes the math to process as axioms, as programs (if you are a Stephen Wolfram fan?) to emerge from the great probability 'cloud.' Or, am I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both cases, yours, and theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it chrystalizes out of observation. Except life is well modelled as chemistry and physics; so I don't see any gain in introducing replication as a foundational concept. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
On 7/4/2013 1:15 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Good point. But replication would be a means for establishing reality. Perhaps, life reproducing sustains reality? But why should the fact that some chemicals replicate instantiate reality? Life is really replication with evolution - if you don't include evolution then you could regard as crystals as replicating. For me it's quite bizzare in the sense that it's non-intuitive. On the other hand it applies the observer as what or who establishes reality. The decoherence account of (almost) deriving the classical world (aka reality) from QM doesn't depend on observersexcept in the sense of devices with many degrees of freedom with states robust against entanglement with the environment. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 3:18 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 7/4/2013 5:31 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting Dr. Marchal, Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something then? Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, together, came up with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make probability real. That life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act as an observer to sense the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities swirling around us. That, life consciously, and unconsciously selects the physical cosmos. They have called it the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is what causes the math to process as axioms, as programs (if you are a Stephen Wolfram fan?) to emerge from the great probability 'cloud.' Or, am I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both cases, yours, and theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it chrystalizes out of observation. Except life is well modelled as chemistry and physics; so I don't see any gain in introducing replication as a foundational concept. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
H Roger, Buddhism is very vast. Basically all school of philosophy are represented. My own reading of the Hinaya texts makes me believe that they were right at the start idealists, and that they follow somehow the vedas, which are idealists. Mahayana buddhism confirms this idealism. I am not sure of a buddhist who would be materialist in the western sense of the word. Many are weak-materialist, but even this is debatable. I do think there is a trend among some atheists to reinterpret buddhism like it would be coherent with atheism, but few buddhists follows this trend. Then with comp, even weak materialism is made into vitalist like superstition, to be short. Bruno On 03 Jul 2013, at 17:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch Thanks very much for this, but apparently the Buddhists think that mind is not mental or idea-like as in Idealism, but brick-and-mortar-like, as in western Materialism. Apparently the Buddhists believe, as our materialists do, that mind and matter (ideas and rocks) are One: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/ Perhaps no other classical philosophical tradition, East or West, offers a more complex and counter-intuitive account of mind and mental phenomena than Buddhism. While Buddhists share with other Indian philosophers the view that the domain of the mental encompasses a set of interrelated faculties and processes, they do not associate mental phenomena with the activity of a substantial, independent, and enduring self or agent. Rather, Buddhist theories of mind center on the doctrine of not-self[1] (Pali anatta, Skt.[2] anatma), which postulates that human beings are reducible to the physical and psychological constituents and processes which comprise them. This boggles my mind. I am purely matter. ? Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-07-02, 17:21:59 Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism I would say Buddhism is closer to idealism than materialism: ?ind precedes all phenomena, mind matters most, everything is mind- made.? -- Gautama Buddha Jason On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Materialism and Buddhism Materialism, since it contains no subjectivity or self, and is atheisti seems to be a form of Buddhism, so that is is possible that it is understandable through Buddhist psychology. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
Hi Roger, I was searching for my Vasubandhu text (an important idealist buddhist) but realize that your link to Stanford provides a rather good summary. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/ It includes notably Vasubandhu's reference to the dream argument. The yogavasistha also includes many references to idealist tradition in Buddhism and Hinduism. A nice book on the Yogavasistha is the book by Wendy Doniger O' Flaherty Dreams, Illusions and Other Realities (The University of Chicago Press, 1984). Bruno On 03 Jul 2013, at 16:04, Bruno Marchal wrote: H Roger, Buddhism is very vast. Basically all school of philosophy are represented. My own reading of the Hinaya texts makes me believe that they were right at the start idealists, and that they follow somehow the vedas, which are idealists. Mahayana buddhism confirms this idealism. I am not sure of a buddhist who would be materialist in the western sense of the word. Many are weak-materialist, but even this is debatable. I do think there is a trend among some atheists to reinterpret buddhism like it would be coherent with atheism, but few buddhists follows this trend. Then with comp, even weak materialism is made into vitalist like superstition, to be short. Bruno On 03 Jul 2013, at 17:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch Thanks very much for this, but apparently the Buddhists think that mind is not mental or idea-like as in Idealism, but brick-and-mortar-like, as in western Materialism. Apparently the Buddhists believe, as our materialists do, that mind and matter (ideas and rocks) are One: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/ Perhaps no other classical philosophical tradition, East or West, offers a more complex and counter-intuitive account of mind and mental phenomena than Buddhism. While Buddhists share with other Indian philosophers the view that the domain of the mental encompasses a set of interrelated faculties and processes, they do not associate mental phenomena with the activity of a substantial, independent, and enduring self or agent. Rather, Buddhist theories of mind center on the doctrine of not-self[1] (Pali anatta, Skt.[2] anatma), which postulates that human beings are reducible to the physical and psychological constituents and processes which comprise them. This boggles my mind. I am purely matter. ? Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-07-02, 17:21:59 Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism I would say Buddhism is closer to idealism than materialism: ?ind precedes all phenomena, mind matters most, everything is mind- made.? -- Gautama Buddha Jason On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Materialism and Buddhism Materialism, since it contains no subjectivity or self, and is atheisti seems to be a form of Buddhism, so that is is possible that it is understandable through Buddhist psychology. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Materialism and Buddhism
Hi Roger This boggles my mind. I am purely matter. ? Should be: This boggles my mind. I am not I. regards. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:22:11 +0200 Hi Roger, I was searching for my Vasubandhu text (an important idealist buddhist) but realize that your link to Stanford provides a rather good summary. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/ It includes notably Vasubandhu's reference to the dream argument. The yogavasistha also includes many references to idealist tradition in Buddhism and Hinduism. A nice book on the Yogavasistha is the book by Wendy Doniger O' Flaherty Dreams, Illusions and Other Realities (The University of Chicago Press, 1984). Bruno On 03 Jul 2013, at 16:04, Bruno Marchal wrote:H Roger, Buddhism is very vast. Basically all school of philosophy are represented. My own reading of the Hinaya texts makes me believe that they were right at the start idealists, and that they follow somehow the vedas, which are idealists. Mahayana buddhism confirms this idealism. I am not sure of a buddhist who would be materialist in the western sense of the word. Many are weak-materialist, but even this is debatable. I do think there is a trend among some atheists to reinterpret buddhism like it would be coherent with atheism, but few buddhists follows this trend. Then with comp, even weak materialism is made into vitalist like superstition, to be short. Bruno On 03 Jul 2013, at 17:15, Roger Clough wrote:Hi Jason Resch Thanks very much for this, but apparently the Buddhists think that mind is not mental or idea-like as in Idealism, but brick-and-mortar-like, as in western Materialism. Apparently the Buddhists believe, as our materialists do, that mind and matter (ideas and rocks) are One: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/ Perhaps no other classical philosophical tradition, East or West, offers a more complex and counter-intuitive account of mind and mental phenomena than Buddhism.While Buddhists share with other Indian philosophers the view that the domain of the mental encompasses a set of interrelated faculties and processes, they do not associate mental phenomena with the activity of a substantial, independent, and enduring self or agent. Rather, Buddhist theories of mind center on the doctrine of not-self[1] (Pali anatta, Skt.[2] anatma), which postulates that human beings are reducible to the physical and psychological constituents and processes which comprise them. This boggles my mind. I am purely matter. ? Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-07-02, 17:21:59 Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism I would say Buddhism is closer to idealism than materialism: ?ind precedes all phenomena, mind matters most, everything is mind-made.? -- Gautama Buddha Jason On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Materialism and Buddhism Materialism, since it contains no subjectivity or self, and is atheisti seems to be a form of Buddhism, so that is is possible that it is understandable through Buddhist psychology. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Materialism and Buddhism
I studied Mahajana Tibetan Buddhism in Dharamsala (home of the Dalai Lama in exile) back in the day and I agree with Bruno and others that Buddhism is closer to idealism than materialism. However Buddhism ultimately rejects 'mind' too, since what we think of as mind is closely related to the personal self. The ultimate reality in Buddhism is nirvana or the void and all phenomena including mental phenomena are empty of inherent existence. It is 'a-theistic' in the sense that this ultimate reality is not a being like a god with an identity and thoughts. However Tibetan Buddhism, like other forms, does believe in the idea of god-like (and demon-like) beings in the phenomenal realms. To equate Buddhism with materialism on the basis of a few selected quotes would constitute a highly tendentious reading of the dharma and in my view is quite wrong. There is no possibility of liberation in materialism and the phenomenal world is seen as the 'real world', the very antithesis of the Buddhist view. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
Not to be a jerk, but can someone give us an example of non-materialism? Even human thoughts is neurons and chemicals sizzling away in the skull. Is not Ontology a discussion on what exists? (Epistemology is what is knowledge or what do we know? If I remember right). Can it then be said, via math that non-material objects exists? If no intelligence is alive to perform the neuron actions sufficient to comprehend or even search for the non-material, then perhaps it cannot exist? Mitch -Original Message- From: Pierz pier...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 2:22 pm Subject: Materialism and Buddhism I studied Mahajana Tibetan Buddhism in Dharamsala (home of the Dalai Lama in exile) back in the day and I agree with Bruno and others that Buddhism is closer to idealism than materialism. However Buddhism ultimately rejects 'mind' too, since what we think of as mind is closely related to the personal self. The ultimate reality in Buddhism is nirvana or the void and all phenomena including mental phenomena are empty of inherent existence. It is 'a-theistic' in the sense that this ultimate reality is not a being like a god with an identity and thoughts. However Tibetan Buddhism, like other forms, does believe in the idea of god-like (and demon-like) beings in the phenomenal realms. To equate Buddhism with materialism on the basis of a few selected quotes would constitute a highly tendentious reading of the dharma and in my view is quite wrong. There is no possibility of liberation in materialism and the phenomenal world is seen as the 'real world', the very antithesis of the Buddhist view. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
On 03 Jul 2013, at 20:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Not to be a jerk, but can someone give us an example of non- materialism? Even human thoughts is neurons and chemicals sizzling away in the skull. This is your assumption. But Platonist believed that this view might be wrong. And I argue that if we are machine, it ill be easier to explain the illusion of matter to conscious number relations (like what computer handled) than to expolain the illusion of consciousness to material things. Is not Ontology a discussion on what exists? Yes, and with comp, you can consider that only 0 and its successor exists, and that they obey to some laws (succession, addition, multiplication: that's enough). Then you can prove in that theory that all pieces of computations exist, and that matter appears, in the conscious relative numbers as a stable illusion, obeying laws, etc. (Epistemology is what is knowledge or what do we know? If I remember right). Yes. Can it then be said, via math that non-material objects exists? They certainly exists in the logical sense: that we can prove that prime number exists once we accept that 0 exist. Does it really exist? But that is a new notion, and if you use it you have to define it. If no intelligence is alive to perform the neuron actions sufficient to comprehend or even search for the non-material, then perhaps it cannot exist? With comp we can more easily define intelligence in arithmetic than in physical terms. Don't take this as true, but arithmetic gives an example of rational, objective idealism, where matter apperance can emerge from infinities of number relations. Other idealism exist by assuming that the fundamental reality is consciousness, or God, or whatever considered as being outside the physical realm. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Pierz pier...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 2:22 pm Subject: Materialism and Buddhism I studied Mahajana Tibetan Buddhism in Dharamsala (home of the Dalai Lama in exile) back in the day and I agree with Bruno and others that Buddhism is closer to idealism than materialism. However Buddhism ultimately rejects 'mind' too, since what we think of as mind is closely related to the personal self. The ultimate reality in Buddhism is nirvana or the void and all phenomena including mental phenomena are empty of inherent existence. It is 'a-theistic' in the sense that this ultimate reality is not a being like a god with an identity and thoughts. However Tibetan Buddhism, like other forms, does believe in the idea of god-like (and demon-like) beings in the phenomenal realms. To equate Buddhism with materialism on the basis of a few selected quotes would constitute a highly tendentious reading of the dharma and in my view is quite wrong. There is no possibility of liberation in materialism and the phenomenal world is seen as the 'real world', the very antithesis of the Buddhist view. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
Dr. Marchal, Hello. It's not an opinion, but a question motivated by observation. It doesn't make this point of view, axiomatically, correct. But, I do feel this issue needs to be addressed at some point, via scientific measure. The question is how? What would be our motivation to undertake this study-do non-material things exist? Can non-material object exist. Or am I asking do non-existing objects exist? Or, do non-material things exist elsewhere in our universe, but a difficult to ordinarily detect? -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 03 Jul 2013, at 20:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Not to be a jerk, but can someone give us an example of non-materialism? Even human thoughts is neurons and chemicals sizzling away in the skull. This is your assumption. But Platonist believed that this view might be wrong. And I argue that if we are machine, it ill be easier to explain the illusion of matter to conscious number relations (like what computer handled) than to expolain the illusion of consciousness to material things. Is not Ontology a discussion on what exists? Yes, and with comp, you can consider that only 0 and its successor exists, and that they obey to some laws (succession, addition, multiplication: that's enough). Then you can prove in that theory that all pieces of computations exist, and that matter appears, in the conscious relative numbers as a stable illusion, obeying laws, etc. (Epistemology is what is knowledge or what do we know? If I remember right). Yes. Can it then be said, via math that non-material objects exists? They certainly exists in the logical sense: that we can prove that prime number exists once we accept that 0 exist. Does it really exist? But that is a new notion, and if you use it you have to define it. If no intelligence is alive to perform the neuron actions sufficient to comprehend or even search for the non-material, then perhaps it cannot exist? With comp we can more easily define intelligence in arithmetic than in physical terms. Don't take this as true, but arithmetic gives an example of rational, objective idealism, where matter apperance can emerge from infinities of number relations. Other idealism exist by assuming that the fundamental reality is consciousness, or God, or whatever considered as being outside the physical realm. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Pierz pier...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 2:22 pm Subject: Materialism and Buddhism I studied Mahajana Tibetan Buddhism in Dharamsala (home of the Dalai Lama in exile) back in the day and I agree with Bruno and others that Buddhism is closer to idealism than materialism. However Buddhism ultimately rejects 'mind' too, since what we think of as mind is closely related to the personal self. The ultimate reality in Buddhism is nirvana or the void and all phenomena including mental phenomena are empty of inherent existence. It is 'a-theistic' in the sense that this ultimate reality is not a being like a god with an identity and thoughts. However Tibetan Buddhism, like other forms, does believe in the idea of god-like (and demon-like) beings in the phenomenal realms. To equate Buddhism with materialism on the basis of a few selected quotes would constitute a highly tendentious reading of the dharma and in my view is quite wrong. There is no possibility of liberation in materialism and the phenomenal world is seen as the 'real world', the very antithesis of the Buddhist view. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post
Materialism and Buddhism
Materialism and Buddhism Materialism, since it contains no subjectivity or self, and is atheisti seems to be a form of Buddhism, so that is is possible that it is understandable through Buddhist psychology. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
I would say Buddhism is closer to idealism than materialism: “Mind precedes all phenomena, mind matters most, everything is mind-made.” -- Gautama Buddha Jason On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Materialism and Buddhism Materialism, since it contains no subjectivity or self, and is atheisti seems to be a form of Buddhism, so that is is possible that it is understandable through Buddhist psychology. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
