Buddhism and neuroscience

[factseeker88]

"Neurology and neuroscience do not appear to profoundly contradict Buddhist thought. Neuroscience tells us the thing we take as our unified mind is an illusion, that our mind is not unified and can barely be said to “exist” at all. Our feeling of unity and control is a post-hoc confabulation and is easily fractured into separate parts. As revealed by scientific inquiry, what we call a mind (or a self, or a soul) is actually something that changes so much and is so uncertain that our pre-scientific language struggles to find meaning."

Buddhism and the Brain § SEEDMAGAZINE.COM/


“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Yup...

 

[von bek]

Yeah. Check out the Abhidhamma. Consciousness is comprised of a continuous series of interconnected mental states, constantly rising and falling.

 

[factseeker88]

"Perhaps you were expecting some surprise, for me to reveal a secret that had eluded you, something that would change your perspective of events, shatter you to your core. There is no great revelation, no great secret. There is only you." -Kreia>>

Great stuff, Do you go along with it, take it as fact.?

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes. The unity of mind and thought are brought into perspective admist the level it's viewed. Alan Watts talked about this.

 

[factseeker88]

Yeah. Check out the Abhidhamma. Consciousness is comprised of a continuous series of interconnected mental states, constantly rising and falling.

I don't detect that in myself. My consciousness needs to be stimulated. Your post, for example, stimulated my response.

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Great stuff, Do you go along with it, take it as fact.?

Why wouldn't I? Science is science.

 

[Ablaze]

These two disciplines (Buddhism and Neuroscience) lend support to one another in manifold ways, giving rise to the ripening field of Contemplative Neuroscience. There is a bright future ahead of us, replete with growing collaboration between Buddhists and Neuroscientists and even the seamless merging of the two, which I hope to make my life's work.

Often we hear that Neuroscientists are now confirming what the Buddha discovered over 2500 years ago: that mind and body are neither the same nor different - not two, not one. Consciousness cannot be localized to a certain portion of the central nervous system but at the same time depends on physical substrates for its functioning. What we call mind cannot be reduced to matter, yet it emerges therefrom. The neural connections that make up the brain are in no way stable. Constantly firing in a multitude of directions, they produce an array of thoughts. The inner workings of the brain are not still and unmoving, permanent or otherwise characterized by constancy. Hence, there is no reason to believe the mind, consciousness, brain, or body is "self."

No wonder the Buddha taught:

"Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another."

Assutava Sutta (SN 12.61)

 

[factseeker88]

Why wouldn't I? Science is science.

True but I don't see where science fits into this...

"There is no great revelation, no great secret. There is only you." -Kreia>>

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

 

[Gjallarhorn]

True but I don't see where science fits into this...

"There is no great revelation, no great secret. There is only you." -Kreia>>

It's not a scientific revelation. It's just a statement. A tautology in fact.

 

[factseeker88]

It's not a scientific revelation. It's just a statement. A tautology in fact.

What you seem to be saying is it's not a fact.



[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"The truth of things will not[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]comply with our conceits, and interests. Our belief or disbelief[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of a thing does not alter the nature[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of things” Tillotson[/FONT]

 

[Aupmanyav]

Constantly firing in a multitude of directions, they produce an array of thoughts. The inner workings of the brain are not still and unmoving, permanent or otherwise characterized by constancy.

Hence, there is no reason to believe the mind, consciousness, brain, or body is "self." No wonder the Buddha taught:

Greetings, returning to the forum after a long time, I see a difference of subjects between the two paragraphs.

'Constantly firing in multitude of directions' is the way the brain/mind works. It informs all its constituents and also fires in directions not yet explored (I suppose they call it 'fuzzy logic', intuition, 'eureka' directions). Informing its constituents is necessary to keep 'fuzzy logic', intuition, 'eureka' directions in control. There is constant cross-checking between the two/or should be, otherwise thinking goes hay-wire. That is mental self as different from the bodily self, of course, both transient, without 'atta'.

What Buddha was pointing out is the various philosophies of life that we flit from one to another. That is confusion, indecision, ignorance. Just as Krishna said:

'Vyavasayatmika buddhih ekeha, Kuru-nandana; bahu-shakha hi anantah cha, buddhayah avyavasayinam.'
(The resolute have only one way of thought, O Son of Kurus, the intelligence of those who are irresolute is many-branched). BG 2.41

I should know, The Buddha is my guru. I come in peace.

 

[factseeker88]

It's not a scientific revelation. It's just a statement. A tautology in fact.

Talking about something doesn't make it a fact. Courts call it hearsay evidence.

:yes::yes::yes:

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Talking about something doesn't make it a fact. Courts call it hearsay evidence.

:yes::yes::yes:

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

What issue do you have with my (old) signature, specifically?

I was not saying it was a fact. I said it was a tautology. A=A.

 

[factseeker88]

Constantly firing in multitude of directions' is the way the brain/mind works. It informs all its constituents and also fires in directions not yet explored (I suppose they call it 'fuzzy logic', intuition, 'eureka' directions). Informing its constituents is necessary to keep 'fuzzy logic', intuition, 'eureka' directions in control.>>

I disagree, the mind can only respond to situations they relate with, the only way it knows how. Your post, for example, caused me to respond the only way I know how.

 

[Yeshe Dondrub]

Neuroscience - and approved study of our teachers. Explore, experience, and test it.

Buddhists are scientist in dharma. We are told not to take the Buddha's word for it. To test it, reflect, test some more, and let clarity take you there.