Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Science and Meditation

Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challenge?

Toggle
Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challenge? Psi Phi 11/28/13 11:45 AM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng triple think 11/28/13 2:59 PM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng triple think 11/28/13 4:50 PM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng Psi Phi 11/28/13 5:16 PM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng triple think 11/29/13 7:27 AM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng Psi Phi 11/28/13 9:17 PM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng Psi Phi 11/28/13 7:36 PM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng sawfoot _ 11/29/13 2:47 AM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng triple think 11/29/13 1:30 PM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng Psi Phi 11/30/13 10:26 AM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng sawfoot _ 11/30/13 11:22 AM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng Psi Phi 11/30/13 1:16 PM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng sawfoot _ 11/30/13 3:07 PM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng C C C 11/29/13 12:48 AM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng Psi Phi 11/30/13 10:04 AM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng C C C 12/1/13 4:53 AM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng Psi Phi 12/1/13 6:01 PM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng (D Z) Dhru Val 11/29/13 1:13 AM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng Psi Phi 11/30/13 9:49 AM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng Psi Phi 11/30/13 7:45 PM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng Dream Walker 12/1/13 11:59 AM
RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng Psi Phi 12/1/13 6:16 PM
Since there does not seem to be any definite proof for the existence or non-existence of fairies, How 'bout looking into the
proof for the existence or non-existence of a permanent self?

It used to be that to think of the idea of a non-self as absurd! After all "I" am here typing this , right? But, now it seems absurd to think that there is a self.

But, it seems an error to believe anything blindly and without investigation.

My body, human bodies, less than 1 percent human (by number)

There are 100 trillion microbes living inside of you. That's ten times the number of human cells in your body. And together, those microbes have more than three million genes--150 times the number of "human" genes in your body. If you assembled a genetic senate, your own DNA would have to fight for a single seat. Maybe we aren't quite as human as we thought.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/2011/02/less-than-one-percent-human.html

So, the body is definitely not a self, it is more akin to an aquarium or terrarium.

"We" can watch our breath, but , though seems to be controlled, mostly breathing occurs independently based upon causes and conditions.

So, similarly, "We" can watch our thoughts, but , though it seems to be controlled, mostly thoughts occur independently based upon causes and conditions.

Anyway , cutting this short.

But, the challenge is whether there really is or not a permanent self. Maybe this will have to be re-phrased as just, The challenge is whether there really is or not a self.

P.S. (Sure, the one proof is the actual experience of non-self, but that , at this time can't be written on a post.)

And for the Turkeys it was the Apocalypse...

Bryan

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/28/13 2:59 PM as a reply to Psi Phi.
Psi Phi:
Since there does not seem to be any definite proof for the existence or non-existence of fairies, How 'bout looking into the
proof for the existence or non-existence of a permanent self?...

P.S. (Sure, the one proof is the actual experience of non-self, but that , at this time can't be written on a post.)

And for the Turkeys it was the Apocalypse...

Bryan
Best of luck, gotta go, clowns'l get me...

-triplesponge

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/28/13 4:50 PM as a reply to Psi Phi.
Send in the clowns...there's got to be...
sawfoot _:
And as for selves? I am not sure I understand the question exactly.

This is plain as dirt. Clearly you do not.
sawfoot _:
A self isn't something we can point to like a heart or liver.
This is PURE ignorance. (Then stop pointing it at us.)
sawfoot _:
It is a holistic, multifarious and nebulous construct.
Your evidence?
sawfoot _:
But it seems to be a useful one.
This is PURE delusion. Consider your very first triplethunk Question fully and so answered.

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/28/13 5:16 PM as a reply to triple think.
Side note from Self talk


Okay , you set me up, just back from a meditation session and the "Send in the Clowns song" thought arises, leading me to think of a way to add the "send in the clowns" to the post, but there it is already. Now, this one can be easily dismissed, due to associated thinking, you mentioned clowns in your earlier post, which led my mind to think of clowns, and send in the clowns, and indeed it probably is that way. But, how many Synchronicities does one have to experience to realize that there might be something else going on...

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/28/13 7:36 PM as a reply to Psi Phi.
Heya Everyone,

Hmm,

Believing and Knowing,

One can believe something and not know it,

One can not believe something and not know it,

One can know something and not believe it,

One can know something and believe it.

( I have to mull over the above thoughts, or maybe a better brain could jump in ) Might need to be edited.

But , until one experiences what someone else has experienced, they definitely will not know it , but they might believe it , or believe the possibility of the experience. Unless one were omniscient, which is highly unlikely.

So if the general population believes in a self, then that belief should be investigated. It is kind of an intrinsic understanding that we are a self, and if a self isn't something we can point to like a heart or liver. Then what is it?, or is there really a self, or is it an illusion? If It is a holistic, multifarious and nebulous construct, then what is it constructed of? If we think it is constructed of us entirely , then we are wrong on a believing level and a scientific level, even just from a purely biological standpoint.

So, can we assume the body is not the self? If so we can move on.

Then what about energy, or patterns of energy. Well where did the energy come from and where does it go when the body breaks apart. The energy and electrons we use today are the same ones that have been around for billions of years. And, indeed each electron, I have heard that electrons do not age and they are all identical, as we know today, so the self is made up of things that are billions of years old, so we, are actually billions of years old, at least.

So, I ask again, to whomever, for I wish to learn, because there is some clinging to this self concept,

Re-question:

If there is a self, some people believe in it, some people think they know there is one, then where is it? Especially if one can't point to a self why does one believe in it?



Indeed the self concept seems to be a useful one, but also the source for much hatred and greed in the world.

Peace

Bryan

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/29/13 7:27 AM as a reply to Psi Phi.
Psi Phi:
So, can we assume...
Not as a 'Proof' or 'Falsification' of or for 'Self's Rule'. Ever.
Psi Phi:
... the body is not the self? If so we can move on.
Not in safety.
Psi Phi:
Then what about energy, or patterns of energy. Well where did the energy come from and where does it go when the body breaks apart? The energy and electrons we use today are the same ones that have been around for billions of years?
As you know or are or to your knowledge? In this same or some other way? Or similarly so assumed aka acquired?
Psi Phi:
And, indeed each electron, I have heard that electrons do not age and they are all identical, as we know today, so the self is made up of things that are billions of years old, so we, are actually billions of years old, at least.
See: Weasel Words - Wikipedia
Psi Phi:
So, I ask again, to whomever, for I wish to learn, because there is some clinging to this self concept,

Re-question:

If there is a self, some people believe in it, some people think they know there is one, then where is it? Especially if one can't point to a self why does one believe in it?
No. No such animal, not in or since Adam A. No Known Proofs Exist nor does the Self. Why do some believe in such? Ignorance, Delusion and all related causes and conditions.
Psi Phi:
Indeed the self concept seems to be a useful one, but also the source for much hatred and greed in the world.

Peace

Bryan
No Proof of any utility for said fiction likewise known to date. Would like to see 'one'.

metta, upekkha, rainbows and radios,
-triplethink
Psi Phi:
Side note from Self talk...
But, how many Synchronicities does one have to experience to realize that there might be something else going on...
Bud ha bud ha bud ha
that's are shoes wrotes

-trips on faces

czech on b load a b low, nope zip yawn...
2czech still runnin' w scissors thx, jus' about over & out lookin' in, will be in next time it needz sleeeeeeeep. bee then carry on ...see yer sun day, thank you, Jesus... gKnight.

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/28/13 9:17 PM as a reply to triple think.
What do you know about trips on faces? More synchronicities? I have never had a good explanation for that phenomenon. If you do not catch my drift, okay, I`ll let it go.

As to energy, well, if one traces back the origin of where it comes from , in time or place, it just keeps going back
For example, if I eat a potato, the energy derived from it came from the sunlight and the earth, the body absorbs it, and combines with it and things change and move along.

Agreed we can not move along in safety.

Maybe this is a weasel writing and I have to use weasel words, I am sure it is some sort of compliment, so thank you in advance, of not knowing the meaning of weasel words.

Hmmmm, yes the useful utility of the self concept, upon further reflection, does not seem to have useful utility. Except in language perhaps, though it is kind of absurd to say, I think, if there is just thinking, or I feel if there is just feeling. As further proof it is ridiculous to say I farted, it is just based on cause and conditions, there is no I involved in the fart occuring process, it is somewhat uncontrollable.

B real

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/29/13 12:48 AM as a reply to Psi Phi.
You can use language and logic to 'prove' the existence of self.

In the sentence "I watch the TV", the verb (watching) separates the subject ('I') from the object (TV).

Anything I can observe or watch or witness cannot also be me. As you say, the body, thoughts and senses can also be observed.

I can with some difficulty then define or describe the 3 parts of speech. The TV is flat, rectangular, black and so on. The verb 'watch' is hard to define. To me it seems like a connecting thread between subject and object.

The subject, 'I', can be defined as Awareness itself; the thing that is doing the watching. I am the Witness. Proof enough? If not, can you prove the TV exists? I don't think I could. Self is true and real only at the level of egoic consciousness, because if you look too closely at the Witness it collapses into nothingess. Subject and object become one.

Just a different angle.

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/29/13 1:13 AM as a reply to Psi Phi.
There are 100 trillion microbes living inside of you.


Can you provide definite proof of the 100 trillion microbes living inside me ?

Aren't they just self-replicating sets of organic molecules ??

And molecules just clusters of atoms ???

Atoms are composed of elementary sub-atomic particles ????

And then we are left with weird quantization stuff that we have equations for but no one can really make sense of... ?????

Forget this nonsense... Slap the floor!!

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/29/13 2:47 AM as a reply to Psi Phi.
sawfoot_:
And as for selves? I am not sure I understand the question exactly. A self isn't something we can point to like a heart or liver. It is a holistic, multifarious and nebulous construct. But it seems to be a useful one.


The problem with the question is that since "self" is a holistic, multifarious and nebulous construct, then I am not sure which of the many kinds of self constructs we are supposed to be finding evidence for.

So scientists when talking about selves like to discuss different kinds of self. See for, example, this influential paper (abstract below) for an attempt to demarcate different selves:

Ulric Neisser:

Neisser, U. (1988). Five kinds of self‐knowledge. Philosophical psychology, 1(1), 35-59.

Self‐knowledge is based on several different forms of information, so distinct that each one essentially establishes a different ā€˜self. The ecological self is the self as directly perceived with respect to the immediate physical environment; the interpersonal self, also directly perceived, is established by species‐specific signals of emotional rapport and communication; the extended self is based on memory and anticipation; the private self appears when we discover that our conscious experiences are exclusively our own; the conceptual self or ā€˜self‐concept’ draws its meaning from a network of socially‐based assumptions and theories about human nature in general and ourselves in particular. Although these selves are rarely experienced as distinct (because they are held together by specific forms of stimulus information), they differ in their developmental histories, in the accuracy with which we can know them, in the pathologies to which they are subject, and generally in what they contribute to human experience.


To the extent that selves are useful constructs in theories of human behaviour then we can say there are scientific reasons to believe in selves.

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/29/13 1:30 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:
sawfoot_:
And as for selves?... and what they contribute to human experience.
got 2 or 3 a gree-n's

To the extent that selves are useful constructs in theories of human behaviour then we can say there are scientific reasons to believe in selves.
sign, blimp, I feel good - Brown, James - TTTF, Mitchell, Joni - lost in the Circle Game - TTTF, zzzz merinin 4czeck gotcha gin -3T

add

jup 25 up 5 down
in some eccentric orbit round sirius

re:above as such

in the pid gin
I wuz
the - 3 birds in paris
I felt unfettered an alive!
knocking on my crypt frum ccbc1 -on the hopin itune box mus be charrlotown 1 agin
mitchell, joni70, celebrate no doubt catcha later local momma
no way
Elvira Kurt Q'ed up in the greater vehicle, human cheeze gotta green no doubt will stick with the cheddar!
3n out

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/30/13 9:49 AM as a reply to (D Z) Dhru Val.
D Z:
There are 100 trillion microbes living inside of you.


Can you provide definite proof of the 100 trillion microbes living inside me ?

(Yes it is true, it is called a microbiome, the cells are smaller and collectively weigh on average less than 3 pounds. I would not try to post something misleading or not verifiable through personal investigation or knowledge in the public domain.)

Aren't they just self-replicating sets of organic molecules ??

(Yes, and come to think of can't we classify humans as self-replicating sets of organic molecules?)

And molecules just clusters of atoms ???

(Okay)

Atoms are composed of elementary sub-atomic particles ????

(Yep)

And then we are left with weird quantization stuff that we have equations for but no one can really make sense of... ?????

( So what it breaks down to is things coming together and falling apart, things arising and passing away, impermanence, and since humans are made of the same "stuff", there indeed is no personal permanent self.)

Forget this nonsense... Slap the floor!!


(Slappin' with ya, tag team!)

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/30/13 10:04 AM as a reply to C C C.
C C C:
You can use language and logic to 'prove' the existence of self.

(So what if language and logic are stripped away, like when you go to sleep at night, when in deep sleep there is no language and logic, what is logically deduced as a self and described by the language centers of the mind, are effectively switched "off" in deep sleep. So there is a self, but only sometimes, when we are awake, and only in the normal mundane waking consciousness? So there is a "part-time self?")

In the sentence "I watch the TV", the verb (watching) separates the subject ('I') from the object (TV).

(The eye(the sense organ) is there, the object is there (TV), the eye consciousness (the seeing). The "I" is just put in there, that is the delusion, the "I" is added, like storytelling.)

Anything I can observe or watch or witness cannot also be me. As you say, the body, thoughts and senses can also be observed.

(okay)

I can with some difficulty then define or describe the 3 parts of speech. The TV is flat, rectangular, black and so on. The verb 'watch' is hard to define. To me it seems like a connecting thread between subject and object.

(What about seeing the TV without the language involved)

The subject, 'I', can be defined as Awareness itself; the thing that is doing the watching. I am the Witness. Proof enough? If not, can you prove the TV exists? I don't think I could. Self is true and real only at the level of egoic consciousness, because if you look too closely at the Witness it collapses into nothingess. Subject and object become one.

( So, there can be just Awareness. It doesn't have to include "I" am aware. )


Just a different angle.

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/30/13 10:26 AM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:
sawfoot_:
And as for selves? I am not sure I understand the question exactly. A self isn't something we can point to like a heart or liver. It is a holistic, multifarious and nebulous construct. But it seems to be a useful one.


The problem with the question is that since "self" is a holistic, multifarious and nebulous construct, then I am not sure which of the many kinds of self constructs we are supposed to be finding evidence for.

So scientists when talking about selves like to discuss different kinds of self. See for, example, this influential paper (abstract below) for an attempt to demarcate different selves:

Ulric Neisser:

Neisser, U. (1988). Five kinds of self‐knowledge. Philosophical psychology, 1(1), 35-59.

Self‐knowledge is based on several different forms of information, so distinct that each one essentially establishes a different ā€˜self. The ecological self is the self as directly perceived with respect to the immediate physical environment; the interpersonal self, also directly perceived, is established by species‐specific signals of emotional rapport and communication; the extended self is based on memory and anticipation; the private self appears when we discover that our conscious experiences are exclusively our own; the conceptual self or ā€˜self‐concept’ draws its meaning from a network of socially‐based assumptions and theories about human nature in general and ourselves in particular. Although these selves are rarely experienced as distinct (because they are held together by specific forms of stimulus information), they differ in their developmental histories, in the accuracy with which we can know them, in the pathologies to which they are subject, and generally in what they contribute to human experience.


To the extent that selves are useful constructs in theories of human behaviour then we can say there are scientific reasons to believe in selves.



So what you are implying is that not only there is a self , but also a bunch of selves? That those selves exist because of various conditions, (from reading the excerpt above). When the conditions change the self changes to another more appropriate self? What happens to the self that was just there a minute ago? Sounds like a bunch of impersonal reactions to thoughts , emotions, physical surroundings, etc, Why include a self concept? Not trying to aggravate you , but trying to really and objectively look into this self-concept.

For instance, say one has an emotional reaction to (species‐specific signals of emotional rapport and communication), for instance a friend waves at you, then a positive emotion arises within you, happiness arises, Then one thinks, " I am glad to see such and such, insert continuing storyline here). Why is there such a need to add in the "I" am feeling happiness? There is simply the emotion of happiness arising. The "I" am happy is an after the fact description. This wasn't a good story example, so sorry.

Let me put it this way, Observe a worm, poke it, it will recoil from pain, pain sensation directly perceived with respect to the immediate physical environment, do we add the self concept here when looking at the worm?


Just sayin'

B

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/30/13 11:22 AM as a reply to Psi Phi.
Psi Phi:


So what you are implying is that not only there is a self , but also a bunch of selves? That those selves exist because of various conditions, (from reading the excerpt above). When the conditions change the self changes to another more appropriate self? What happens to the self that was just there a minute ago? Sounds like a bunch of impersonal reactions to thoughts, emotions, physical surroundings, etc, Why include a self concept? Not trying to aggravate you, but trying to really and objectively look into this self-concept.

For instance, say one has an emotional reaction to (species‐specific signals of emotional rapport and communication), for instance a friend waves at you, then a positive emotion arises within you, happiness arises, Then one thinks, " I am glad to see such and such, insert continuing storyline here). Why is there such a need to add in the "I" am feeling happiness? There is simply the emotion of happiness arising. The "I" am happy is an after the fact description. This wasn't a good story example, so sorry.

Let me put it this way, Observe a worm, poke it, it will recoil from pain, pain sensation directly perceived with respect to the immediate physical environment, do we add the self concept here when looking at the worm?



Those reactions to thoughts, emotions and physical surroundings are personal not impersonal - they are happening to you, not to anyone else. They are your experiences. The emotion of happiness is existing in your mind, not in your friend's mind. And the worm (likely) doesn't have the level of conscousness awareness, memory and conceptual organisation to tap into the kinds of knowledge and experiences that we talk about when we use the term to talk about humans.

So there aren't a bunch of selves, rather, the term self can refer to different types of self-concept, which rely on different kinds of information. And these different aspects of self all add up to constitute a general sense of self why rely on different sources of information (ie as described in the abstract) - for example, our episodic memories that create a personal history, our ability to distinguish ourselves from other agents, our body sense. our conceptual knowledge of ourself (e.g. our names, where we live, our habits and tendencies, knowledge of how others perceive us), and our awareness of our conscious awareness. None of these things are stable and fixed - they are fluid and dynamic (and a product of conditions), and some aspects will be more in focus at different times (though our self of being a body in space distinct from our environment is relatively constant). There isn't one thing we can hang onto to say "this is my self", as our sense of sense is based on this dynamic conglomeration. So I would not say that are "a self", but rather we have "self-concept(s)" and that plays an important role in determining behaviour.

Note this is my interpretation of a "scientific" meaning of self, as opposed to a buddhist one.

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/30/13 1:16 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:
Psi Phi:


So what you are implying is that not only there is a self , but also a bunch of selves? That those selves exist because of various conditions, (from reading the excerpt above). When the conditions change the self changes to another more appropriate self? What happens to the self that was just there a minute ago? Sounds like a bunch of impersonal reactions to thoughts, emotions, physical surroundings, etc, Why include a self concept? Not trying to aggravate you, but trying to really and objectively look into this self-concept.

For instance, say one has an emotional reaction to (species‐specific signals of emotional rapport and communication), for instance a friend waves at you, then a positive emotion arises within you, happiness arises, Then one thinks, " I am glad to see such and such, insert continuing storyline here). Why is there such a need to add in the "I" am feeling happiness? There is simply the emotion of happiness arising. The "I" am happy is an after the fact description. This wasn't a good story example, so sorry.

Let me put it this way, Observe a worm, poke it, it will recoil from pain, pain sensation directly perceived with respect to the immediate physical environment, do we add the self concept here when looking at the worm?



Those reactions to thoughts, emotions and physical surroundings are personal not impersonal - they are happening to you, not to anyone else. They are your experiences. The emotion of happiness is existing in your mind, not in your friend's mind. And the worm (likely) doesn't have the level of conscousness awareness, memory and conceptual organisation to tap into the kinds of knowledge and experiences that we talk about when we use the term to talk about humans.

So there aren't a bunch of selves, rather, the term self can refer to different types of self-concept, which rely on different kinds of information. And these different aspects of self all add up to constitute a general sense of self why rely on different sources of information (ie as described in the abstract) - for example, our episodic memories that create a personal history, our ability to distinguish ourselves from other agents, our body sense. our conceptual knowledge of ourself (e.g. our names, where we live, our habits and tendencies, knowledge of how others perceive us), and our awareness of our conscious awareness. None of these things are stable and fixed - they are fluid and dynamic (and a product of conditions), and some aspects will be more in focus at different times (though our self of being a body in space distinct from our environment is relatively constant). There isn't one thing we can hang onto to say "this is my self", as our sense of sense is based on this dynamic conglomeration. So I would not say that are "a self", but rather we have "self-concept(s)" and that plays an important role in determining behaviour.

Note this is my interpretation of a "scientific" meaning of self, as opposed to a buddhist one.


Indeed, what you have written is mostly not opposed to a buddhist view of a self nor a scientific view of self, but rather conjoined. Reality is what it is. Buddha taught to investigate everything for one's self, same as should be done in science.
Everything should be open to investiagation and scrutiny.

To summarize what I understand from your post reply.

1) The "self" is actually a Self-concept,
2)The "self" is fluid, dynamic and not fixed.

You got two in a row

Now , aside from the above, would you consider as a fact that everything comes together and eventually falls apart, and in doing so creates a friction or a tension, and in such a way that nothing , anywhere is stable enough (from a large time perspective) to be considered permanently satisfactory. Take for instance a bridge, it will under go decay and need repairs, will be a real pain in the donkey to upkeep, and no matter what will fall apart. The same could be said of the nearest star, (The Sun), though we don't have any upkeep technology yet. The same is also for the body and mind, as it also is part of the universe, and is subject to decay and impermanence, and is unsatisfactory, as you will see as the aging process continues over the years, such fun.

So, the final question, Could one say that everything is unsatisfactory, because of the very nature of the universe, in that everything is fluid, dynamic and everchanging?

might need to expand on this, but will start there, and thanks for your thoughts.

B

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/30/13 3:07 PM as a reply to Psi Phi.
Psi Phi:

Now , aside from the above, would you consider as a fact that everything comes together and eventually falls apart, and in doing so creates a friction or a tension, and in such a way that nothing , anywhere is stable enough (from a large time perspective) to be considered permanently satisfactory. Take for instance a bridge, it will under go decay and need repairs, will be a real pain in the donkey to upkeep, and no matter what will fall apart. The same could be said of the nearest star, (The Sun), though we don't have any upkeep technology yet. The same is also for the body and mind, as it also is part of the universe, and is subject to decay and impermanence, and is unsatisfactory, as you will see as the aging process continues over the years, such fun.

So, the final question, Could one say that everything is unsatisfactory, because of the very nature of the universe, in that everything is fluid, dynamic and everchanging?



Well, I am not sure how much you still care about the topic of the post title and where you are going with this, but that still in mind I wouldn't say everything is unsatisfactory, no. Everything is dynamic, yes, from a scientific viewpoint. But satisfaction is a human level value judgement in the eye of the beholder. So I don't see Buddhism as a model of reality, but rather a perspective on the human condition - though as a model of reality it can match up well at times.
.

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
11/30/13 7:45 PM as a reply to Psi Phi.
Well, in order not to stir up dukkha, I should let this thread pass away, there are just a few more thoughts.

First, if one has a 16 ounce glass, and it is half full, one might view it pleasantly, ah, half a glass, or one might view it unpleasantly , arg just a half glass left.

Or just view it as it is 8 ounces of water in a 16 ounce glass.

Similarly, one sees a 20 pound pile of sand, next to that is sand castle made from 20 pounds of sand.

Either way it is 20 pounds of sand.

And lastly, one sees a collection of "x" number of Universe stuff. And one sees a collection of the same "x" number of Universe stuff in a human formation.

Either way it is a collection of "x" number of Universe stuff.

I foremostly have to proactively apologize for the above thought, it seems so cold and impersonal. My thinking of humanity does not fall upon these lines, I strive to be compassionate and all that, yeah, I have work to do, for sure. But, what if this really is the case, then why do we cling and crave and people display anger , have wars, hoard resources while others starve, "self" generated dukkha, dukkha, dukkha.
Yup, Ignorance, right? The way it is?

But, if we are just a collection of Universe stuff, then what is there really any reason for craving? And if there is none of the craving , there is no dukkha being generated, right?

Anyway, just thoughts arising and passing away...

Actually, since I don't want to deceive, I take great solace and peace in knowing that's all it is, that we are just a collection of Universe stuff.
Dukkha can even become laughably absurd, I mean how much pain do we have to suffer through, this existence is , sometimes, by definition Ridiculous!

B now

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
12/1/13 4:53 AM as a reply to Psi Phi.
Psi Phi:


1. (So what if language and logic are stripped away, like when you go to sleep at night, when in deep sleep there is no language and logic, what is logically deduced as a self and described by the language centers of the mind, are effectively switched "off" in deep sleep. So there is a self, but only sometimes, when we are awake, and only in the normal mundane waking consciousness? So there is a "part-time self?")

2. (The eye(the sense organ) is there, the object is there (TV), the eye consciousness (the seeing). The "I" is just put in there, that is the delusion, the "I" is added, like storytelling.)

3. (What about seeing the TV without the language involved)

4. ( So, there can be just Awareness. It doesn't have to include "I" am aware. )



Hi Phi, Good questions for conversation. My angle is this:

1. Yes, a part time self, created by language and consciousness. In deep sleep there is unconsciousness. Nisaggardatta reckons "Awareness becomes consciousness when it has an object". Guys like him live as this Awareness during deep sleep, apparently. Aware 24/24/7.

Some more Nisa: "Consciousness must have a background of Awareness.... But there can be Awareness without Consciousness, as in deep sleep: there is no Consciousness, but on waking one is aware of being in deep sleep".

2. Sounds right to me. Duality happens immediately one wakes and becomes conscious. Duality means there is 'I' and 'other'; 'me' and 'not me'. The most powerful trance. It's power is derived by the fear of non-existence of self.

3. Sounds like enlightenment...?

4. I know what you're saying. If I claim "I am Awareness", then that makes Awareness the object, and then.... what is the 'I' that observes it? But when I direct attention inwards to the thing doing the attending, I find I can't make an object of it. It's like trying to balance on a wet slippery log. And if I succeed for a moment in holding my balance, it sort of collapses in on itself, becomes spacious, frightening, etc. Frightening because I don't want to know the truth.

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
12/1/13 11:59 AM as a reply to Psi Phi.
This is my current understanding from my present point of view...subject to change as I gain more experience, think and read more-

The self is multiple layers of subconscious processes. These processes are developed to create permanent order of the chaos of all the physical reality data that is being perceived.

1_Perception of time............................
2______Perception of duality................
3__________Perception of self........................Arahat
3.1____________agency/centeredness/doer.....Anagami
3.2____________symbols/thoughts.................Sakadagami
3.3____________sensory data/5 senses..........Sotapanna
3.4____________rules of external reality..........A&P

These processes are developed in early infancy and run unnoticed until one looks closely to what is happening in the moment to moment of experience. They also cause stress/dhukka.
Enlightenment occurs when these entangled perception processes are permanently shut down.
Check out -
Object permanence
Mirror stage
Self concept
Self schema vs derived material qualities- List
I don't know how to "prove" subconscious, process, ideas, developmental phases etc. but it is fun to think about.
Just another way to look at it.
~D

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
12/1/13 6:01 PM as a reply to C C C.
C C C:
Psi Phi:


1. (So what if language and logic are stripped away, like when you go to sleep at night, when in deep sleep there is no language and logic, what is logically deduced as a self and described by the language centers of the mind, are effectively switched "off" in deep sleep. So there is a self, but only sometimes, when we are awake, and only in the normal mundane waking consciousness? So there is a "part-time self?")

2. (The eye(the sense organ) is there, the object is there (TV), the eye consciousness (the seeing). The "I" is just put in there, that is the delusion, the "I" is added, like storytelling.)

3. (What about seeing the TV without the language involved)

4. ( So, there can be just Awareness. It doesn't have to include "I" am aware. )



Hi Phi, Good questions for conversation. My angle is this:

1. Yes, a part time self, created by language and consciousness. In deep sleep there is unconsciousness. Nisaggardatta reckons "Awareness becomes consciousness when it has an object". Guys like him live as this Awareness during deep sleep, apparently. Aware 24/24/7.

Some more Nisa: "Consciousness must have a background of Awareness.... But there can be Awareness without Consciousness, as in deep sleep: there is no Consciousness, but on waking one is aware of being in deep sleep".

Amazing, Yoga Nidra at perfection

2. Sounds right to me. Duality happens immediately one wakes and becomes conscious. Duality means there is 'I' and 'other'; 'me' and 'not me'. The most powerful trance. It's power is derived by the fear of non-existence of self.

Yes, the fear of non-existence of self, and this self has to be a self-formation, like an instinctual pattern of neurons fight for territory in the brain, branching out like a vine, seeking to justify it's own existence, and perhaps can trigger fear chemicals when threatened, just thought and pondering


3. Sounds like enlightenment...?

I dunno, or just Bare Attention

4. I know what you're saying. If I claim "I am Awareness", then that makes Awareness the object, and then.... what is the 'I' that observes it? But when I direct attention inwards to the thing doing the attending, I find I can't make an object of it. It's like trying to balance on a wet slippery log. And if I succeed for a moment in holding my balance, it sort of collapses in on itself, becomes spacious, frightening, etc. Frightening because I don't want to know the truth.


Agreed awareness of awareness, maybe trying to find the thing doing the attending, but what if there is no thing (nothing) doing the attending, there is observing but no "observer", I have to keep practicing and contemplating upon this, if there is a this

Gotta Run

RE: Scientific (or any) proof for self, How 'bout a challeng
Answer
12/1/13 6:16 PM as a reply to Dream Walker.
Dream Walker:
This is my current understanding from my present point of view...subject to change as I gain more experience, think and read more-

The self is multiple layers of subconscious processes. These processes are developed to create permanent order of the chaos of all the physical reality data that is being perceived.

1_Perception of time............................
2______Perception of duality................
3__________Perception of self........................Arahat
3.1____________agency/centeredness/doer.....Anagami
3.2____________symbols/thoughts.................Sakadagami
3.3____________sensory data/5 senses..........Sotapanna
3.4____________rules of external reality..........A&P

These processes are developed in early infancy and run unnoticed until one looks closely to what is happening in the moment to moment of experience. They also cause stress/dhukka.
Enlightenment occurs when these entangled perception processes are permanently shut down.
Check out -
Object permanence
Mirror stage
Self concept
Self schema vs derived material qualities- List
I don't know how to "prove" subconscious, process, ideas, developmental phases etc. but it is fun to think about.
Just another way to look at it.
~D


Hey, this will take a while to look at, thank you for the info.
I have thought before about your statement:
These processes are developed in early infancy and run unnoticed until one looks closely to what is happening in the moment to moment of experience. They also cause stress/dhukka.
Starting with our first breath and the initial wiring delusion it causes, Again this is just pondering I don't remember my first breath or anything.
But here goes, we are born , we need air, the body panics, there is much pain, the mind/will wants to exist, the mind has the craving to exist, the first breath occurs, the mind links the craving to exist with the occurrence of the first breath, the first breath is pleasant, (or rather a Schopenhauerian pleasure being only the absence of pain), the delusion of mind causing the pleasant sensation is further reinforced, and the self delusion grows as you stated, "These processes are developed in early infancy and run unnoticed until one looks closely to what is happening in the moment to moment of experience. They also cause stress/dhukka." And the processes cause stress/dukkha, precisely because the processes are not in line with actual reality.
But... I gotta contemplate some more...
Yikes

B