The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Dhamma_no_drama Dhamma_no_drama 5/30/19 1:07 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 5/31/19 3:58 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Chris M 5/31/19 4:29 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 5/31/19 4:40 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Chris M 5/31/19 4:50 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 6/3/19 9:55 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 6/4/19 5:04 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Chris M 6/4/19 7:16 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 6/6/19 4:14 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 6/7/19 5:43 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 5/31/19 4:53 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Chris M 5/31/19 5:10 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 5/31/19 4:58 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Chris M 5/31/19 5:09 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 5/31/19 6:16 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 5/31/19 7:06 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Chris M 6/1/19 10:25 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 6/3/19 9:57 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 6/1/19 8:26 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 6/3/19 10:18 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 6/4/19 5:01 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 6/6/19 4:20 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Chris M 6/1/19 7:33 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 6/1/19 8:22 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Chris M 6/1/19 10:29 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 6/1/19 10:55 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Chris M 6/1/19 12:01 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 6/1/19 2:02 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 6/1/19 4:10 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/4/19 6:31 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard shargrol 6/4/19 7:34 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 6/4/19 10:03 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard shargrol 6/4/19 11:00 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 6/6/19 4:02 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 5/31/19 4:41 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/4/19 6:08 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 6/6/19 4:07 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/6/19 5:24 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 6/6/19 5:30 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/7/19 8:26 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 6/13/19 9:28 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/14/19 8:10 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 6/16/19 11:20 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/17/19 2:40 AM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard terry 6/20/19 5:41 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Stickman2 6/18/19 1:01 PM
RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard Dhamma_no_drama Dhamma_no_drama 6/20/19 7:22 PM
thumbnail
Dhamma_no_drama Dhamma_no_drama, modified 4 Years ago at 5/30/19 1:07 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/30/19 1:05 AM

The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 27 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
One of the weirdest theoretical implications of quantum mechanics is that different observers can give different—though equally valid—accounts of the same sequence of events. As highlighted by physicist Carlo Rovelli in his relational quantum mechanics (RQM), this means that there should be no absolute, observer-independent physical quantities. All physical quantities—the whole physical universe—must be relative to the observer. The notion that we all share the same physical environment must, therefore, be an illusion.

Such a counterintuitive prediction—which seems to flirt dangerously with solipsism—has been clamoring for experimental verification for decades. But only recently has technology advanced far enough to allow for it. So now, at last, Massimiliano Proietti and collaborators at Heriot-Watt University, in the U.K., seem to have confirmed RQM; as predicted by quantum mechanics, there may well be no objective physical world.

Yet, our perceptions of the world beyond ourselves are quite consistent across observers: if you were to sit next to me right now, we would describe my study in very similar, mutually consistent ways. Clearly, observers must share an environment of some sort, even if such an environment is not physical—i.e., not describable by physical quantities.

Possible solutions to this dilemma have been proposed. For instance, writing for this magazine last year, I maintained that physical quantities describe merely our perceptions and are, therefore, relative to each of us as observers. What is really out there, underlying our perceptions, is constituted not by physical but by transpersonal mental states instead. Perceived physicality is merely a representation of that surrounding mental environment, brought into being by an act of observation.

This isn’t a new view. In fact, it is very old. For instance, already in the early 19th century, Arthur Schopenhauer argued that the physical world of discrete objects in spacetime is merely a subjective representation in the mind of an observer. What is really out there is what Schopenhauer called the “Will”: transpersonal mental states with a volitional character, which transcend our ability to sense or measure. It is the volitional character of these states that explains the universe’s evolution according to causal chains; the universe moves and changes because it is compelled to do so by the patterns of its own underlying willing.

Despite the objections one might have to Schopenhauer’s ideas, they do seem to make sense of RQM’s counterintuitive predictions: physics was developed to describe perceptual states alone, not endogenous mental states such as volition. For this reason, physical descriptions are always observer-dependent; they don’t capture the world as it is in itself, but merely how it presents itself to each of us, given our respective point of view within the environment. Make no mistake: there still is a common environment of transpersonal volitional states, in which we are all immersed; it’s just that this environment is not what physics directly describes.

Making sense of RQM by inferring that our surrounding environment is essentially mental—a view called “objective idealism”—avoids solipsism. However, it carries with it a seemingly difficult problem: if what is really out there are transpersonal volitional states, then why do seeing or hearing feel so different from desiring or fearing? If my perceptions represent underlying states akin to desire and fear, why do I see forms and colors instead?

If only we could provide a compelling rationale for this qualitative transition, we would be able to leverage objective idealism to make sense of RQM and the latest experimental results. But can we? As it turns out, we very well can; even in more ways than one.

Over the past several years, Donald Hoffman’s group at the University of California, Irvine, has shown that our perceptual apparatus hasn’t evolved to represent the world truthfully, as it is in itself; if we saw the world as it really is, we would be swiftly driven to extinction. Instead, we see the world in a way that favors our survival, not the accuracy of our representations. In Hoffman’s analogy, the contents of perception are like icons on a computer desktop: a set of visual metaphors that facilitate one’s job by illustrating the salient properties of files and applications, but which don’t portray these files and application as they really are.

Approaching the problem from a different angle, Karl Friston and collaborators have shown that, if an organism is to represent the states of the external environment in order to properly navigate this environment, it must to so in an encoded, inferential manner. The reason is that, if the organism were to simply mirror the states of the external environment in its own internal states, it would not be able to maintain its structural integrity; its internal states would become too dispersed and the organism would dissolve into an entropic soup. Perceptual encoding is necessary for the organism to resist entropy and thus remain alive.

What both of these lines of argument suggest is this: the screen of perception is much more akin to a dashboard than a window into the environment. It conveys relevant information about the environment in an indirect, encoded manner that helps us survive. The forms and colors we see, the sounds we hear, the flavors we taste are all like dials: they present to us, at a glance, information that correlates—in a manner fundamentally beyond our ability to cognize—with the mental states of the environment out there.

Instead of having to feel the myriad mental states surrounding us—which would be akin to how a telepath would feel overwhelmed and disoriented in the middle of an agitated crowd—we encode them neatly in the pixels of the screen of perception.

Evolution has provided each of us with a dashboard of dials that inform us about the environment we live in. But we don’t have a window to look directly at what is out there; all we have are the dials. The error we make is in mistaking the dials for the external environment itself.

Physics models and predicts the behavior of the dials. Although we are all immersed in a common environment, each of us interacts with it in a different way, from a different perspective. Therefore, we each gather different information about the environment, and so our respective dials may not always agree. This doesn’t mean that there is no common environment; it means only that this environment isn’t physical.

For as long as we insist that the world, as it is in itself, must have the forms and contours of the images on the screen of perception, quantum mechanics will continue to be paradoxical. For as long as we believe that physical theory models the shared environment underlying our perceptions—as opposed to the perceptions themselves—quantum mechanics will continue to be puzzling. As discussed much more extensively in my latest book, there is only one reasonable way out: to regard our perceptions as a dashboard of dials providing salient, though indirect, information about a mental universe out there.

by Bernardo Kastrup


Link for the article with all the links: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-universe-as-cosmic-dashboard/?redirect=1

I would love to hear your thoughts on this! Sounds pretty Buddhist to me. 
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 3:58 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 3:43 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
 "Over the past several years, Donald Hoffman’s group at the University of California, Irvine,"

I thought it must be him when I saw cosmic dashboard. I've got his book Visual Intelligence. He's got an interesting way of putting things.
However, once he's destroyed our belief in an objective reality, I don't see how he answers the question of whether his own perceptions of all of his work are reliable or not ? Nobody seems to ask him that on his vids. (Don't ask me about the maths part of it all, I haven't the foggiest).

 "has shown that our perceptual apparatus hasn’t evolved to represent the world truthfully, "

I mean, how do we know he's seeing an accurate representation of his own experiements and his own mathematics ?

  "as it is in itself; if we saw the world as it really is, we would be swiftly driven to extinction."


It also seems to make science totally about utility, rather than truth, with the only point of it being to help Donald Hoffman reproduce. I can see this getting the same criticisms as postmodernists are getting - there is no truth and academia is all about power.

I think the data point missing from self-serving evolutionary frameworks is a non-dual one where the self is an illusion. You have to fit that into evolutionary theory somehow. Like most scientists I don't think Hoffman has anything to say on that, which is fair enough as he's not a mystic, though he goes to Science & Non Duality conferences so maybe he will eventually. So it's left to folk like Krastrup and Ken Wilber and various others to try and synthesise evolution and spirituality from an insider's point of view.

I look at Krastrup's stuff occasionally, find it pretty interesting. It's al interesting really.

Maybe another way of asking is from a more basic angle, asking how buddhists see evolution theory ?

cheers,
Stick
Top
thumbnail
Chris M, modified 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 4:29 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 4:29 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 5145 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
I think the data point missing from self-serving evolutionary frameworks is a non-dual one where the self is an illusion. You have to fit that into evolutionary theory somehow. Like most scientists I don't think Hoffman has anything to say on that, which is fair enough as he's not a mystic, though he goes to Science & Non Duality conferences so maybe he will eventually. So it's left to folk like Krastrup and Ken Wilber and various others to try and synthesise evolution and spirituality from an insider's point of view.

The thing called "not-self" is usually misinterpreted, IMHO, and in a way that is misleading. Not-self is better understood not as a concept but as an experience, as a view on the fundamental nature of how the mind generates what we experience. The self is not actually just an illusion. It exists in the mind, though ephemerally, much the time - it's just not permanent in any one manifestation and appears when we're threatened or when it can be useful for survival purposes. The self is as real or as unreal as any other object or concept we perceive - and all objects are defined by these fundamental attributes -- not-self, impermanence, and discomfort (suffering, in Buddhist terminology).

I don't see how not-self has any effect at all on whether a Buddhist can accept the fact of evolution. The Dalai Lama said as much when he said there is no conflict between science and Buddhism.
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 4:41 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 4:37 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Cláudio Cruz:
One of the weirdest theoretical implications of quantum mechanics is that different observers can give different—though equally valid—accounts of the same sequence of events. As highlighted by physicist Carlo Rovelli in his relational quantum mechanics (RQM), this means that there should be no absolute, observer-independent physical quantities. All physical quantities—the whole physical universe—must be relative to the observer. The notion that we all share the same physical environment must, therefore, be an illusion.

Such a counterintuitive prediction—which seems to flirt dangerously with solipsism—has been clamoring for experimental verification for decades. But only recently has technology advanced far enough to allow for it. So now, at last, Massimiliano Proietti and collaborators at Heriot-Watt University, in the U.K., seem to have confirmed RQM; as predicted by quantum mechanics, there may well be no objective physical world.

Yet, our perceptions of the world beyond ourselves are quite consistent across observers: if you were to sit next to me right now, we would describe my study in very similar, mutually consistent ways. Clearly, observers must share an environment of some sort, even if such an environment is not physical—i.e., not describable by physical quantities.

Possible solutions to this dilemma have been proposed. For instance, writing for this magazine last year, I maintained that physical quantities describe merely our perceptions and are, therefore, relative to each of us as observers. What is really out there, underlying our perceptions, is constituted not by physical but by transpersonal mental states instead. Perceived physicality is merely a representation of that surrounding mental environment, brought into being by an act of observation.

This isn’t a new view. In fact, it is very old. For instance, already in the early 19th century, Arthur Schopenhauer argued that the physical world of discrete objects in spacetime is merely a subjective representation in the mind of an observer. What is really out there is what Schopenhauer called the “Will”: transpersonal mental states with a volitional character, which transcend our ability to sense or measure. It is the volitional character of these states that explains the universe’s evolution according to causal chains; the universe moves and changes because it is compelled to do so by the patterns of its own underlying willing.

Despite the objections one might have to Schopenhauer’s ideas, they do seem to make sense of RQM’s counterintuitive predictions: physics was developed to describe perceptual states alone, not endogenous mental states such as volition. For this reason, physical descriptions are always observer-dependent; they don’t capture the world as it is in itself, but merely how it presents itself to each of us, given our respective point of view within the environment. Make no mistake: there still is a common environment of transpersonal volitional states, in which we are all immersed; it’s just that this environment is not what physics directly describes.

Making sense of RQM by inferring that our surrounding environment is essentially mental—a view called “objective idealism”—avoids solipsism. However, it carries with it a seemingly difficult problem: if what is really out there are transpersonal volitional states, then why do seeing or hearing feel so different from desiring or fearing? If my perceptions represent underlying states akin to desire and fear, why do I see forms and colors instead?

If only we could provide a compelling rationale for this qualitative transition, we would be able to leverage objective idealism to make sense of RQM and the latest experimental results. But can we? As it turns out, we very well can; even in more ways than one.

Over the past several years, Donald Hoffman’s group at the University of California, Irvine, has shown that our perceptual apparatus hasn’t evolved to represent the world truthfully, as it is in itself; if we saw the world as it really is, we would be swiftly driven to extinction. Instead, we see the world in a way that favors our survival, not the accuracy of our representations. In Hoffman’s analogy, the contents of perception are like icons on a computer desktop: a set of visual metaphors that facilitate one’s job by illustrating the salient properties of files and applications, but which don’t portray these files and application as they really are.

Approaching the problem from a different angle, Karl Friston and collaborators have shown that, if an organism is to represent the states of the external environment in order to properly navigate this environment, it must to so in an encoded, inferential manner. The reason is that, if the organism were to simply mirror the states of the external environment in its own internal states, it would not be able to maintain its structural integrity; its internal states would become too dispersed and the organism would dissolve into an entropic soup. Perceptual encoding is necessary for the organism to resist entropy and thus remain alive.

What both of these lines of argument suggest is this: the screen of perception is much more akin to a dashboard than a window into the environment. It conveys relevant information about the environment in an indirect, encoded manner that helps us survive. The forms and colors we see, the sounds we hear, the flavors we taste are all like dials: they present to us, at a glance, information that correlates—in a manner fundamentally beyond our ability to cognize—with the mental states of the environment out there.

Instead of having to feel the myriad mental states surrounding us—which would be akin to how a telepath would feel overwhelmed and disoriented in the middle of an agitated crowd—we encode them neatly in the pixels of the screen of perception.

Evolution has provided each of us with a dashboard of dials that inform us about the environment we live in. But we don’t have a window to look directly at what is out there; all we have are the dials. The error we make is in mistaking the dials for the external environment itself.

Physics models and predicts the behavior of the dials. Although we are all immersed in a common environment, each of us interacts with it in a different way, from a different perspective. Therefore, we each gather different information about the environment, and so our respective dials may not always agree. This doesn’t mean that there is no common environment; it means only that this environment isn’t physical.

For as long as we insist that the world, as it is in itself, must have the forms and contours of the images on the screen of perception, quantum mechanics will continue to be paradoxical. For as long as we believe that physical theory models the shared environment underlying our perceptions—as opposed to the perceptions themselves—quantum mechanics will continue to be puzzling. As discussed much more extensively in my latest book, there is only one reasonable way out: to regard our perceptions as a dashboard of dials providing salient, though indirect, information about a mental universe out there.

by Bernardo Kastrup


Link for the article with all the links: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-universe-as-cosmic-dashboard/?redirect=1

I would love to hear your thoughts on this! Sounds pretty Buddhist to me. 



aloha cc,

    The scientist as primitive. It is as if you introduced and explained television to a primitive society, and the elders examined it and wondered. They consulted among themselves, and finally agreed on a question: "Can the little man in the box say what he wants to say, or does he have to say what the broadcasting station tells him to say?" The question is not unreasonable - I ask it myself from time to time - but the truth is, there is no little man in the box.

terry
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 4:40 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 4:40 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
I think the data point missing from self-serving evolutionary frameworks is a non-dual one where the self is an illusion. You have to fit that into evolutionary theory somehow. Like most scientists I don't think Hoffman has anything to say on that, which is fair enough as he's not a mystic, though he goes to Science & Non Duality conferences so maybe he will eventually. So it's left to folk like Krastrup and Ken Wilber and various others to try and synthesise evolution and spirituality from an insider's point of view.

The thing called "not-self" is usually misinterpreted, IMHO, and in a way that is misleading. Not-self is better understood not as a concept but as an experience, as a view on the fundamental nature of how the mind generates what we experience. The self is not actually just an illusion. It exists in the mind, though ephemerally, much the time - it's just not permanent in any one manifestation and appears when we're threatened or when it can be useful for survival purposes. The self is as real or as unreal as any other object or concept we perceive - and all objects are defined by these fundamental attributes -- not-self, impermanence, and discomfort (suffering, in Buddhist terminology).

I don't see how not-self has any effect at all on whether a Buddhist can accept the fact of evolution. The Dalai Lama said as much when he said there is no conflict between science and Buddhism.







oh, well, if the dalai lama said it...
Top
thumbnail
Chris M, modified 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 4:50 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 4:50 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 5145 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
Are you rejecting the corroborating evidence?  emoticon
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 4:53 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 4:53 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
I think the data point missing from self-serving evolutionary frameworks is a non-dual one where the self is an illusion. You have to fit that into evolutionary theory somehow. Like most scientists I don't think Hoffman has anything to say on that, which is fair enough as he's not a mystic, though he goes to Science & Non Duality conferences so maybe he will eventually. So it's left to folk like Krastrup and Ken Wilber and various others to try and synthesise evolution and spirituality from an insider's point of view.

The thing called "not-self" is usually misinterpreted, IMHO, and in a way that is misleading. Not-self is better understood not as a concept but as an experience, as a view on the fundamental nature of how the mind generates what we experience. The self is not actually just an illusion. It exists in the mind, though ephemerally, much the time - it's just not permanent in any one manifestation and appears when we're threatened or when it can be useful for survival purposes. The self is as real or as unreal as any other object or concept we perceive - and all objects are defined by these fundamental attributes -- not-self, impermanence, and discomfort (suffering, in Buddhist terminology).

I don't see how not-self has any effect at all on whether a Buddhist can accept the fact of evolution. The Dalai Lama said as much when he said there is no conflict between science and Buddhism.






aloha chris,

   The idea that the self is an object, a dharma, is not self-evident. We have spoken before of gradations of reality, and I know you like to think every object has the same quality of being, but I am not so sure.

   The classic difference between madhyamika and yogacara involves just this sort of distinction. To the mahyamikas, if one mistakes a rope for a snake, the two "objects" are equally unreal. To yogacaras, the snake is unreal and the rope has a sort of phenomenological existence as a "real phenomenon."

   In the case of the self, it is clearly the snake and not the rope. I leave it with you to decide if it is phenomenologically "real." In buddhism, the self is a delusion, a mistake, the whirling torch taken for a ring of fire. A blade of grass thinking itself free and independent, while its roots are common to the clump.

terry
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 4:58 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 4:55 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
I think the data point missing from self-serving evolutionary frameworks is a non-dual one where the self is an illusion. You have to fit that into evolutionary theory somehow. Like most scientists I don't think Hoffman has anything to say on that, which is fair enough as he's not a mystic, though he goes to Science & Non Duality conferences so maybe he will eventually. So it's left to folk like Krastrup and Ken Wilber and various others to try and synthesise evolution and spirituality from an insider's point of view.

The thing called "not-self" is usually misinterpreted, IMHO, and in a way that is misleading. Not-self is better understood not as a concept but as an experience, as a view on the fundamental nature of how the mind generates what we experience. The self is not actually just an illusion. It exists in the mind, though ephemerally, much the time - it's just not permanent in any one manifestation and appears when we're threatened or when it can be useful for survival purposes. The self is as real or as unreal as any other object or concept we perceive - and all objects are defined by these fundamental attributes -- not-self, impermanence, and discomfort (suffering, in Buddhist terminology).

I don't see how not-self has any effect at all on whether a Buddhist can accept the fact of evolution. The Dalai Lama said as much when he said there is no conflict between science and Buddhism.





Well, some people do indeed say they have no self. Also, evolution is only one part of science, and not necessarily the last word on how things operate. And so there isn't just one evolution to accept the fact of, there are a variety of versions, with most of them drawing only on a limited data set. The data should underly the conclusions, and different data will lead to different conclusions. Prof Hoffman is using only sensory and instrumental data. I would expect the Dalai Lama's take on evolution to be quite different from many other scientists due to his different understanding of self. Reincarnation, for a start. You could say that the Tibetans had a concept of evolution waaaaay before the English got round to it.

Hm hm.

And of course some versions of evolution can have terrible consequences, back to Anne Frank again.
Top
thumbnail
Chris M, modified 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 5:10 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 5:01 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 5145 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
In buddhism, the self is a delusion, a mistake, the whirling torch taken for a ring of fire. A blade of grass thinking itself free and independent, while its roots are common to the clump.

It's not quite that simple in my experience, terry. It's one thing to accept the notion that there is, literally no self. It's another thing to investigate the habitual presumption of the self. When I have done that I find that there is no permanent self, no continuing, controlling entity. That is what I think the "no self" language people generally use refers to, so in this sense it's true - there is no self. On the other hand, there is a construct that appears at times that mimics the appearance of permanence, continuity, and control. So in this sense there's a "self" but it's not what we commonly refer to as "self." So I agree with you that there is no self as defined in the first instance. Your call on whether to agree with me in regard to the second instance.

emoticon
Top
thumbnail
Chris M, modified 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 5:09 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 5:09 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 5145 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
And so there isn't just one evolution to accept the fact of, there are a variety of versions, with most of them drawing only on a limited data set. 

Well, okay, but it's a fact that organisms evolve over time to adapt to their local environment. We can argue all day, probably all year, about the details of the various genetic or what-have-you mechanisms. There are, for example, instances of organisms evolving in response to changes in their environment, such as bacteria evolving resistance to many modern antibiotics. Stuff happens.
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 6:16 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 5:58 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
And so there isn't just one evolution to accept the fact of, there are a variety of versions, with most of them drawing only on a limited data set. 

Well, okay, but it's a fact that organisms evolve over time to adapt to their local environment. We can argue all day, probably all year, about the details of the various genetic or what-have-you mechanisms. There are, for example, instances of organisms evolving in response to changes in their environment, such as bacteria evolving resistance to many modern antibiotics. Stuff happens.

The computer just destroyed my great reply. Oh well I can cook up some more.

So, Hoffman says that when we see an apple it isn't the real apple, it's a useful representation. Nothing new there.

Quoting Hoffman

"If our sense evolved and are shaped by natural selection the probability is zero that any of our perceptions are telling us the truth about objective reality."

Ok, so, we don't see the truth.

Then how can we trust our senses to tell us the truth about what happens to finches and tortoises on isolated Galapagos Islands ?

How do we know evolution is proceeding as our senses tell us it is proceeding ?

Seems like a "this statement is false" type of paradox trap.
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 6/3/19 9:55 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 6:52 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
Are you rejecting the corroborating evidence?  emoticon
evidently...

when the dl was a boy - a lonely child surrounded by adults who treated him like a god - he was fascinated with clocks and motorcars., and liked to hang out with the chauffer and help him with maintenance...by the time he was an adult he could tell those old lamas a thing or two...he likes to hang out with scientists and is an inveterate name dropper...a charming old boy withal...

t
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 7:06 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 5/31/19 7:06 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Stickman2:
Chris Marti:
And so there isn't just one evolution to accept the fact of, there are a variety of versions, with most of them drawing only on a limited data set. 

Well, okay, but it's a fact that organisms evolve over time to adapt to their local environment. We can argue all day, probably all year, about the details of the various genetic or what-have-you mechanisms. There are, for example, instances of organisms evolving in response to changes in their environment, such as bacteria evolving resistance to many modern antibiotics. Stuff happens.

The computer just destroyed my great reply. Oh well I can cook up some more.

So, Hoffman says that when we see an apple it isn't the real apple, it's a useful representation. Nothing new there.

Quoting Hoffman

"If our sense evolved and are shaped by natural selection the probability is zero that any of our perceptions are telling us the truth about objective reality."

Ok, so, we don't see the truth.

Then how can we trust our senses to tell us the truth about what happens to finches and tortoises on isolated Galapagos Islands ?

How do we know evolution is proceeding as our senses tell us it is proceeding ?

Seems like a "this statement is false" type of paradox trap.


   Possibly the most significant thing  said in the new testament is pilate's question: "What is truth?" Scientists frequently speak as though such concepts as "truth" were fully understood and agreed upon by all. Like "justice" or "beauty," philosophers know it cannot be defined.

   Yes, there is a paradox: "the truth is, we can't see the truth." So how does he know?

   Scientists have no business speaking of truth.

terry
Top
thumbnail
Chris M, modified 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 10:25 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 7:31 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 5145 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
Scientists have no business speaking of truth.

Absolutely, terry. Those "scientists" who speak of "truth" aren't really scientists because they obviously don't understand science. There should be no truth in science, just hypotheses and theories waiting to be disproven, upended, replaced.
Top
thumbnail
Chris M, modified 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 7:33 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 7:33 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 5145 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
Seems like a "this statement is false" type of paradox trap.

Are you sure you're interpreting Hoffman in the way Hoffman intended?   emoticon
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 8:22 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 8:22 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
Seems like a "this statement is false" type of paradox trap.

Are you sure you're interpreting Hoffman in the way Hoffman intended?   emoticon
He needs to make it clear that he's considered this awkward application of his theory. If he's reproduced then he's safe, he can say what he wants, the purpose of his dashboard has been served.
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 8:26 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 8:24 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
terry:
Stickman2:
Chris Marti:
And so there isn't just one evolution to accept the fact of, there are a variety of versions, with most of them drawing only on a limited data set. 

Well, okay, but it's a fact that organisms evolve over time to adapt to their local environment. We can argue all day, probably all year, about the details of the various genetic or what-have-you mechanisms. There are, for example, instances of organisms evolving in response to changes in their environment, such as bacteria evolving resistance to many modern antibiotics. Stuff happens.

The computer just destroyed my great reply. Oh well I can cook up some more.

So, Hoffman says that when we see an apple it isn't the real apple, it's a useful representation. Nothing new there.

Quoting Hoffman

"If our sense evolved and are shaped by natural selection the probability is zero that any of our perceptions are telling us the truth about objective reality."

Ok, so, we don't see the truth.

Then how can we trust our senses to tell us the truth about what happens to finches and tortoises on isolated Galapagos Islands ?

How do we know evolution is proceeding as our senses tell us it is proceeding ?

Seems like a "this statement is false" type of paradox trap.


   Possibly the most significant thing  said in the new testament is pilate's question: "What is truth?" Scientists frequently speak as though such concepts as "truth" were fully understood and agreed upon by all. Like "justice" or "beauty," philosophers know it cannot be defined.

   Yes, there is a paradox: "the truth is, we can't see the truth." So how does he know?

   Scientists have no business speaking of truth.

terry

Well maybe but if you're, say, a medic, and you will want a true/false answer from a scientist regarding the question of whether this needle full of fluid will kill or cure. And I suppose by evolution theory that's the only truth permissible.
Top
thumbnail
Chris M, modified 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 10:29 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 10:29 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 5145 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
He needs to make it clear that he's considered this awkward application of his theory. If he's reproduced then he's safe, he can say what he wants, the purpose of his dashboard has been served.

Are you saying that Hoffman's theory needs independent confirmation? If so, sure, that would be a good thing for Hoffman.
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 10:55 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 10:32 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
He needs to make it clear that he's considered this awkward application of his theory. If he's reproduced then he's safe, he can say what he wants, the purpose of his dashboard has been served.

Are you saying that Hoffman's theory needs independent confirmation? If so, sure, that would be a good thing for Hoffman.
No I mean we should measure the success of his theory by the number of children it gives him. If none, then his dashboard may need some new dials.
The Catholic church had easily the best evolved sensory apparatus, kids all over the shop, wildy successful. The one's least into evolution are the most into breeding, nice irony.

Really, though, Hoffman's theory of samsara implies that the more unsuccessful you are then the closer to truth your worldview must be. Dying virgins are nearest to reality.
Top
thumbnail
Chris M, modified 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 12:01 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 12:01 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 5145 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
I'm not sure you're being serious about this stuff so I'll let it ride. 
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 2:02 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 2:02 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
Not my fault if the implications of a theory are absurd.... emoticon
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 4:10 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/1/19 4:10 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
OK you win, how do you get around applying Hoffman's theory to itself and ending up with nothing reliable ?
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 6/3/19 9:57 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/3/19 9:57 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
Scientists have no business speaking of truth.

Absolutely, terry. Those "scientists" who speak of "truth" aren't really scientists because they obviously don't understand science. There should be no truth in science, just hypotheses and theories waiting to be disproven, upended, replaced.

yes, but...

(wink)
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 6/3/19 10:18 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/3/19 10:18 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Stickman2:
terry:
Stickman2:
Chris Marti:
And so there isn't just one evolution to accept the fact of, there are a variety of versions, with most of them drawing only on a limited data set. 

Well, okay, but it's a fact that organisms evolve over time to adapt to their local environment. We can argue all day, probably all year, about the details of the various genetic or what-have-you mechanisms. There are, for example, instances of organisms evolving in response to changes in their environment, such as bacteria evolving resistance to many modern antibiotics. Stuff happens.

The computer just destroyed my great reply. Oh well I can cook up some more.

So, Hoffman says that when we see an apple it isn't the real apple, it's a useful representation. Nothing new there.

Quoting Hoffman

"If our sense evolved and are shaped by natural selection the probability is zero that any of our perceptions are telling us the truth about objective reality."

Ok, so, we don't see the truth.

Then how can we trust our senses to tell us the truth about what happens to finches and tortoises on isolated Galapagos Islands ?

How do we know evolution is proceeding as our senses tell us it is proceeding ?

Seems like a "this statement is false" type of paradox trap.


   Possibly the most significant thing  said in the new testament is pilate's question: "What is truth?" Scientists frequently speak as though such concepts as "truth" were fully understood and agreed upon by all. Like "justice" or "beauty," philosophers know it cannot be defined.

   Yes, there is a paradox: "the truth is, we can't see the truth." So how does he know?

   Scientists have no business speaking of truth.

terry

Well maybe but if you're, say, a medic, and you will want a true/false answer from a scientist regarding the question of whether this needle full of fluid will kill or cure. And I suppose by evolution theory that's the only truth permissible.
aloha stick,

   If I am a medic I know pretty much which fluids kill and which don't. I've worked in hospitals where we used to say a patient died of so and so rather than of such and such.

   Medicine is collaborative. True/false answers are often elusive. Whoever on the spot has the most training - the senior available doctor, by preference, but they don't ride the ambulances any more and trauma care first responders must do their best - generally calls the shots. Many honest best guess mistakes are overlooked, in practice. No matter how much experience you have, you see new things all the time, and experienced medical professionals around you may have seen what you have not. The patient comes first, and nurses spend more time with their patients than the doctors do. I knew a podiatrist once who provided many timely diagnoses that had been missed by other doctors just from looking at their feet. She was a sweetheart. She once told me, "terry, you want to know 90% of everything you'll ever need to know about dermatology?" - ok - "If it is wet, dry it; if it is dry wet it; and if neither of those work, fill it full of sterioids." And many other wise things.

   Darwinism is not the best permitter of truth. Some die that others may live.

terry



from "the charge of the light brigade" by tennyson


II
“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
   Someone had blundered.
   Theirs not to make reply,
   Theirs not to reason why,
   Theirs but to do and die.
   Into the valley of Death
   Rode the six hundred.

III
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
   Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
   Rode the six hundred.
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 5:01 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 5:01 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
But Terry, the dermatolgist was either right or wrong.

Ah, Afghanistan, we never learn....
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 5:04 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 5:04 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
terry:
Chris Marti:
Are you rejecting the corroborating evidence?  emoticon
evidently...

when the dl was a boy - a lonely child surrounded by adults who treated him like a god - he was fascinated with clocks and motorcars., and liked to hang out with the chauffer and help him with maintenance...by the time he was an adult he could tell those old lamas a thing or two...he likes to hang out with scientists and is an inveterate name dropper...a charming old boy withal...

t
Yeeeears ago I read Seven Years in Tibet, in which Heinrich Harrer becomes tutor to DL and thus opens his mind to modernity. It's a good ol' read.
Top
thumbnail
Chris M, modified 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 7:16 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 7:16 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 5145 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
It's a good ol' read.

It's also a movie starring Brad Pitt.
Top
shargrol, modified 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 7:34 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 7:34 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2391 Join Date: 2/8/16 Recent Posts
“Well some people do indeed say they have no self”

say that sentence 10 times without cracking a smile! emoticon
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 10:03 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 10:03 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
I got to 7
Top
shargrol, modified 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 11:00 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 11:00 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2391 Join Date: 2/8/16 Recent Posts
;)
Top
thumbnail
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö, modified 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 6:08 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 6:08 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 7134 Join Date: 12/8/18 Recent Posts
I do believe that seeing the world as unstructured as it really is, all the time, would indeed leed to extinction. It would be too much to process and nobody would be able to get anything done or even know where to put the food, or their genitals for that matter (bye bye procreation).

As an autistic person with ADHD and Tourette I know how affected executive function is by just that small increase in complexity. I get overwhelmed by details and nuances and variations that my brain insists on separating instead of smoothing over and generalizing. As a researcher, that is both my geatest strength and my toughest challenge. They say that we don’t see the forest for all the trees. Well, most pople don’t see the trees for all the forests, let alone the other components and qualities of the field of experience that we refer to as a forest.
Top
thumbnail
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö, modified 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 6:31 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/4/19 6:31 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 7134 Join Date: 12/8/18 Recent Posts
Stickman2:
OK you win, how do you get around applying Hoffman's theory to itself and ending up with nothing reliable ?



The theory is about what would happen according to our current relatively concensual view of reality, one that is based on conceptual knowledge. Of course, if people really saw reality without any kind of generalization, then all questions and theories would be utterly meaningless. Nobody would have a concept such as ”real” or ”people” or ”extinction” or ”question” or ”science” or ”meaning”.

Then again, one could object that since generalizations occur, they are part of the reality as it is. Maybe that’s the Buddhist view, I don’t know. Anyway, the generalizations are not everything that is, if anything is.
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 6/6/19 4:02 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/6/19 4:02 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
shargrol:
“Well some people do indeed say they have no self”

say that sentence 10 times without cracking a smile! emoticon


I got to zero...

(smile)

"I have no I" - I cannot lie - is a paradox...

"I am nothing and I am everything"; "I am the alpha and the omega"; "I am the light of this world" 




according to henry corbin, "the history of islamic philosphy":


4. These affirmations culminate in the famous 'Sermon of the Great Declaration' (Khutbah al-Bayan), attributed to the first Imam, although in it an eternal Imam finds expression: 'I am the Sign of the All-Powerful. I am the gnosis of the mysteries. I am the Threshold of Thresholds. I am the companion of the radiance of the divine Majesty. I am the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden. I am the Face of God. I am the mirror of God, the supreme Pen, the Tabula secreta. I am he who in the Gospel is called Elijah. I am he who is in possession of the secret of God's Messenger.' The sermon proceeds to proclaim seventy more such affirmations, all equally extraordinary.
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 6/6/19 4:07 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/6/19 4:07 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
I do believe that seeing the world as unstructured as it really is, all the time, would indeed leed to extinction. It would be too much to process and nobody would be able to get anything done or even know where to put the food, or their genitals for that matter (bye bye procreation).

aloha linda,

   While you are correct that seeing the world unstructured leads to extinction, you are incorrect in thinking that the "extinct" can't function "normally" to all intents and purposes. We don't need the ego's supervision to cope. Indeed, we would cope much better without it altogether.

   There is more than enough food and procreation going down.

   It's already too much to process.

terry
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 6/6/19 4:14 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/6/19 4:14 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Stickman2:
terry:
Chris Marti:
Are you rejecting the corroborating evidence?  emoticon
evidently...

when the dl was a boy - a lonely child surrounded by adults who treated him like a god - he was fascinated with clocks and motorcars., and liked to hang out with the chauffer and help him with maintenance...by the time he was an adult he could tell those old lamas a thing or two...he likes to hang out with scientists and is an inveterate name dropper...a charming old boy withal...

t
Yeeeears ago I read Seven Years in Tibet, in which Heinrich Harrer becomes tutor to DL and thus opens his mind to modernity. It's a good ol' read.


   He also wrote a lengthy autobiographical work, "the universe in a single atom," full of an educated layman's grasp of the philosophy of science, all muddle-headed and half-baked, but earnestly delivered. If he actually knew any science he probably wouldn't be so credulous. I imagine most scientists would find his simplicity amusing.

t
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 6/6/19 4:20 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/6/19 4:20 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Stickman2:
But Terry, the dermatolgist was either right or wrong.

Ah, Afghanistan, we never learn....


there is always the ten per cent that doesn't follow the rule...
predicting a 90% chance of rain won't make it rain...
doesn't make the prediction right or wrong...


and the great game goes on...
Top
thumbnail
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö, modified 4 Years ago at 6/6/19 5:24 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/6/19 4:50 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 7134 Join Date: 12/8/18 Recent Posts
terry:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
I do believe that seeing the world as unstructured as it really is, all the time, would indeed leed to extinction. It would be too much to process and nobody would be able to get anything done or even know where to put the food, or their genitals for that matter (bye bye procreation).

aloha linda,

   While you are correct that seeing the world unstructured leads to extinction, you are incorrect in thinking that the "extinct" can't function "normally" to all intents and purposes. We don't need the ego's supervision to cope. Indeed, we would cope much better without it altogether.

   There is more than enough food and procreation going down.

   It's already too much to process.

terry


I wasn’t talking about ego at all. I was talking about making no generalizations whatsoever. That’s a completely different thing. The mammal doesn’t cope with that, and that’s what I was talking about. Not any animals that I know of, probably... except maybe for clams and the like. Other forms of existing might make it, though, and thus make awareness possible. Awareness doesn’t depend on the survival of homo sapiens, of course.
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 6/6/19 5:30 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/6/19 5:28 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
terry:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
I do believe that seeing the world as unstructured as it really is, all the time, would indeed leed to extinction. It would be too much to process and nobody would be able to get anything done or even know where to put the food, or their genitals for that matter (bye bye procreation).

aloha linda,

   While you are correct that seeing the world unstructured leads to extinction, you are incorrect in thinking that the "extinct" can't function "normally" to all intents and purposes. We don't need the ego's supervision to cope. Indeed, we would cope much better without it altogether.

   There is more than enough food and procreation going down.

   It's already too much to process.

terry


I wasn’t talking about ego at all. I was talking about doing no generalizations whatsoever. That’s a completely different thing. The mammal doesn’t cope with that, and that’s what I was talking about. Not any animals that I know of, probably... except maybe for clams and the like. Other forms of existing might make it, though, and thus make awareness possible. Awareness doesn’t depend on the survival of homo sapiens, of course.


all "doing" involves ego...

"unstructured" doing is "not doing" or letting be...

the being who "does" generalizing is the ego, and the "being" who does no generalizing and really responds to everything as it is right now in its uniqueness, and, being present, has no memory, is the "true self," the (paradoxical) non-existent self...

awareness "as we know it" is human; animals don't plan their actions, don't name their goals...they just go for it without thought or design, without contriving...

this is why humans often confuse the path and the goal...

t



from merton's "the way of chuang tzu":


THE NEED TO WIN

When an archer is shooting for nothing
He has all his skill.
If he shoots for a brass buckle
He is already nervous.
If he shoots for a prize of gold
He goes blind
Or sees two targets­
He is out of his mind!
His skill has not changed.
But the prize
Divides him.
He cares.
He thinks more of winning
Than of shooting-
And the need to win
Drains him of power.
[xix. 4·]
Top
thumbnail
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö, modified 4 Years ago at 6/7/19 8:26 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/7/19 2:11 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 7134 Join Date: 12/8/18 Recent Posts
Are you imagining life without ever doing anything (EDIT: or having some sense of doing)? How would that manifest? Don’t you think even awareness would have to make some kind of generalization in order to keep the mammal alive? Food - not food, danger - safety... After all, the theory was about humanity, not awareness. Plants can survive without an ego and without doing anything, so they probably do not need generalizations. Somehow they know to turn towards the light, but that is probably made without generalizations. Those plants that catch insects probably also do it without some conceptual awareness. I really cannot see that happening for humans. Can you? And would it still be humans then? Living like plants?
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 6/7/19 5:43 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/7/19 5:43 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
terry:
Stickman2:
terry:
Chris Marti:
Are you rejecting the corroborating evidence?  emoticon
evidently...

when the dl was a boy - a lonely child surrounded by adults who treated him like a god - he was fascinated with clocks and motorcars., and liked to hang out with the chauffer and help him with maintenance...by the time he was an adult he could tell those old lamas a thing or two...he likes to hang out with scientists and is an inveterate name dropper...a charming old boy withal...

t
Yeeeears ago I read Seven Years in Tibet, in which Heinrich Harrer becomes tutor to DL and thus opens his mind to modernity. It's a good ol' read.


   He also wrote a lengthy autobiographical work, "the universe in a single atom," full of an educated layman's grasp of the philosophy of science, all muddle-headed and half-baked, but earnestly delivered. If he actually knew any science he probably wouldn't be so credulous. I imagine most scientists would find his simplicity amusing.

t

Right. Well.... I won't wait for the film then.
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 6/13/19 9:28 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/13/19 9:16 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Are you imagining life without ever doing anything (EDIT: or having some sense of doing)? Are you imagining life without ever doing anything (EDIT: or having some sense of doing)? Don’t you think even awareness would have to make some kind of generalization in order to keep the mammal alive? Food - not food, danger - safety... After all, the theory was about humanity, not awareness. Plants can survive without an ego and without doing anything, so they probably do not need generalizations. Somehow they know to turn towards the light, but that is probably made without generalizations. Those plants that catch insects probably also do it without some conceptual awareness. I really cannot see that happening for humans. Can you? And would it still be humans then? Living like plants?


q1  "Are you imagining life without ever doing anything (EDIT: or having some sense of doing)?"


yes



q2  "Don’t you think even awareness would have to make some kind of generalization in order to keep the mammal alive?"


no


"Food - not food, danger - safety... After all, the theory was about humanity, not awareness. Plants can survive without an ego and without doing anything, so they probably do not need generalizations. Somehow they know to turn towards the light, but that is probably made without generalizations. Those plants that catch insects probably also do it without some conceptual awareness."


plants r us 


q3  "I really cannot see that happening for humans. Can you?" 


absolutely...I'm certain that it happens all the time...



q3 & 4  "And would it still be humans then? Living like plants?"


living, yes...truly living with all the sincerity, courage and forthrightness of a plant...I recommend the book "brillant green" by mancuso and viola...



   It is the "doing" part that confuses you. Generalizations are made, but no one actually makes them, because there is actually no one to make them. We imagine we are "doing" things and thus perforce imagine there is a "doer" doing them. In reality, no "doer" can be apprehended.

   I was trying to explain to stick why the search for the self, aka "self inquiry" or "who am I?" is futile. It isn't simply the intellectual knowledge that no self can be apprehended because you cannot find one anywhere you look, it is the insight that the very self doing the pondering is the one being looked for. Like looking for your glasses when you are wearing them, or looking for a jewel inplanted in your forehead. It is in the very present act of apprehension that the apprehender can be inferred, as  the creator is inferred from the creation. Our common father, or common self, is the mirror of reality which is your mind. Our mind. The mind.


terry

   
God, the supreme being, is neither circumscribed by space, nor touched by time; he cannot be found in a particular direction, and his essence cannot change. The secret conversation is thus entirely spiritual; it is a direct encounter between God and the soul, abstracted from all material constraints.

Avicenna
Top
thumbnail
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö, modified 4 Years ago at 6/14/19 8:10 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/14/19 8:10 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 7134 Join Date: 12/8/18 Recent Posts
The thing is, I interpreted the theory discussed as assuming that seeing reality as it is meant seeing it without the generalizations, and that was what I was talking about. At least I tried to. Language makes it hard. Even if we let go of all sense of a doer, which I think is possible even if I’m definitely not there yet (and even if I - perhaps erroneously - believe that most awakened beings for practical purpose and because of temporary lacking mindfulness do apply some sense of choicemaking at least some times in their daily lives), the mammal’s survival is still dependent on generalizations. I don’t think even buddhas are capable of seeing all the nuances of exactly everything all the time. Not that I know. That’s just speculation on my part, but so far I haven’t heard any evidence against it. It doesn’t really matter whether or not there is a doer of the generalizations. I was operating within the limitations of the theory, on purpose, to try do justice to what I believe it might capture. I don’t think that theory involves knowledge of awareness being aware of generalizations as they are. I think he was talking about how overwhelming it would be if information wasn’t somehow simplified by way of generalizations. And I think he is right about that. However, I don’t think he is right in assuming that extreme complexity to be some fundamental truth about the world. The generalizations are just as real (or just as unreal, or both). It’s just important to not mistake them for correct representations of the full complexity. Maps are as real or as unreal as the terrain, but they are not the terrain.

Still, it is interesting to hear your perspective (or the non-perspective of not you). Of course I have much more to learn about there being no doer, because I’m only at the beginning of my journey (speaking with words of duality for practical purposes).
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 6/16/19 11:20 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/16/19 10:51 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
The thing is, I interpreted the theory discussed as assuming that seeing reality as it is meant seeing it without the generalizations, and that was what I was talking about. At least I tried to. Language makes it hard. Even if we let go of all sense of a doer, which I think is possible even if I’m definitely not there yet (and even if I - perhaps erroneously - believe that most awakened beings for practical purpose and because of temporary lacking mindfulness do apply some sense of choicemaking at least some times in their daily lives), the mammal’s survival is still dependent on generalizations. I don’t think even buddhas are capable of seeing all the nuances of exactly everything all the time. Not that I know. That’s just speculation on my part, but so far I haven’t heard any evidence against it. It doesn’t really matter whether or not there is a doer of the generalizations. I was operating within the limitations of the theory, on purpose, to try do justice to what I believe it might capture. I don’t think that theory involves knowledge of awareness being aware of generalizations as they are. I think he was talking about how overwhelming it would be if information wasn’t somehow simplified by way of generalizations. And I think he is right about that. However, I don’t think he is right in assuming that extreme complexity to be some fundamental truth about the world. The generalizations are just as real (or just as unreal, or both). It’s just important to not mistake them for correct representations of the full complexity. Maps are as real or as unreal as the terrain, but they are not the terrain.

Still, it is interesting to hear your perspective (or the non-perspective of not you). Of course I have much more to learn about there being no doer, because I’m only at the beginning of my journey (speaking with words of duality for practical purposes).

   Paul morphy, the great chess player, would play a room full of people blindfolded, walking from game to game around a long table, and win all the games. Some chess players would brag that they could think five, six, maybe eight moves ahead, and they asked morphy how many moves he thought ahead. He told them, only one, but it is the right one.
   
   Ram dass said (quoting bhagwan dass), "If you can be here now, when later becomes now you will have super consciousness and super energy and know exactly what to do." 

   One of the tricky things about being awake and mindfulness is that when you are not awake and not aware, you are unaware of it. The illusion of continuous consciousness is rarely breached. Only in the moment that we wake up are we aware we have been asleep. And every moment is the moment of awakening. Beginner's mind; everything all fresh and new, pristine, limpid. Confucius said, the mind of the superior man is like a cocked crossbow with a hair trigger. Perfectly quiescent, perfectly ready to go off.

   What can I say about non-choice, aka non-doing, aka wu wei? "Wei wu wei" means "doing non-doing." Choosing non-choice, knowing that choosing non-choice is no choice at all. In practice, if choices are presenting themselves to you, you may not be seeing things accurately. When every step is as choreographed, induces de ja vu madly as though you had done it all before just like this, and everything seems to have a symbolic significance beyond time, then you may know choicelessness viscerally. Everything is as it should be and cannot be otherwise. Only doubt and denial obscure this.

   The ego, the actor who reads the lines, has no choice in the matter, read them badly or well. We see our selfs responding as if in a dream. We play the fool, we play the wise man: there is no difference. Only in the play are choices presented and acted out, as comedy and as tragedy.

   Heidegger pointed out that when we are using a tool, the tool disappears for us. We may see a hammer lying about and think of it as a tool for pounding nails and fastening wood pieces together thereby, but when we are actually pounding nails the hammer is not part of our awareness, nor the hand that wields it, or the brain that guides the hand. When words become our tools, we are not aware of the words, they simply express our meaning without being chosen specifically to do so. In the same manner, we can proceed with life using the coping tools (skills) we have without it entering our awareness that there are choices that need to be weighed and considered. Plans to made, schemes to be devised, events to be managed and contrived for goals and ends - all of these can be and are dispensed with by active people. I have worked with doctors extensively, and have seen an incredible number of life-giving decisions be made one after another, all day and into the night, without error or fatigue, by people who simply applied themselves in the moment and didn't second guess or prefigure. You do what needs to be done, and with enough practice you do it wei wu wei.

   
terry


   Quran, sura 3:54: "And they schemed and God schemed, but God is the best schemer."
Top
thumbnail
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö, modified 4 Years ago at 6/17/19 2:40 AM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/17/19 2:40 AM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 7134 Join Date: 12/8/18 Recent Posts
Thanks for sharing! In my practice I find that in the best sessions I do not have a sense of making any choices, or doing anything whatsoever, and I strongly believe that there is no I driving any of my practice. Meditation just occurs because it has to, and the I that imagines itself to be, just surrenders to the process. ”I” find it fascinating.
Top
thumbnail
Stickman2, modified 4 Years ago at 6/18/19 1:01 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/18/19 1:01 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 375 Join Date: 7/24/17 Recent Posts
Claudio, I'm sorry if I discouraged any response on this by getting carried away with stuff.
Top
thumbnail
terry, modified 4 Years ago at 6/20/19 5:41 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/20/19 5:41 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 2429 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Thanks for sharing! In my practice I find that in the best sessions I do not have a sense of making any choices, or doing anything whatsoever, and I strongly believe that there is no I driving any of my practice. Meditation just occurs because it has to, and the I that imagines itself to be, just surrenders to the process. ”I” find it fascinating.

yes...

this principle of wei wu wei can be applied to everything we do, until we become so attenuated we disappear, and doing proceeds by itself...

we discover, fascinated, we don't exist...

(poof)

t
Top
thumbnail
Dhamma_no_drama Dhamma_no_drama, modified 4 Years ago at 6/20/19 7:22 PM
Created 4 Years ago at 6/20/19 7:22 PM

RE: The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

Posts: 27 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
Stickman2:
Claudio, I'm sorry if I discouraged any response on this by getting carried away with stuff.


No problem, I'm glad you all are having an engaging discussion
;)
Top

Breadcrumb