Self, Mind, Consciousness and Awareness

Hey Gozen!

Yeah, science is so useful and beneficial to the progression of society, but it is but one stream of progress amongst many; others might be art, commerce, politics, religion. It is but one formal method of constructing fallible knowledge. Implicit to science as we know it in the modern and post-modern world is a particular kind of epistemology - or philosophy of knowledge - with an associated set of assumptions about the nature of reality, and how best to go about knowing that reality i.e empiricism, positivism, interpretivism and critical realism; and others, depending on whose pet theory you are speaking from.

[cont.] Edited for spelling.

Modernist science of the enlightenment era which still dominates for the most part, particularly in the public's mind, assumes real, mind-independent entities are being discovered through formal reality testing - truth is being attained to i.e. positivism. However, the post-modern view is that knowledge is constructed by consensus and is culturally relative; as such, it does not represent truth or a mind-independent reality; rather it is a social construction. Both of these positions conflate ontology and epistemology. A more sophisticated understanding may be critical realism which suggests there is a real independent world out there to be discovered, however, our knowledge of it is constructed, fallible, provisional and progressive. Thus, knowledge reflects the limitations and fallibility of science. As such, our theories about reality are not to be taken as real or accurate depictions of said reality; rather, they are provisional representations. Therefore, we may break all the sacred cows as new data presents. ;-P It then follows science does not have all the answers, and scientists are not to be deified as the new priests of the scientific age with the answers to humanities every ill. Nor should be enlightened priests as it were.

[cont.] Edited for spelling.

Aside from the above variations in scientific theory, there are other relevant epistemologies too (alternative schools of thought to that which represents scientific empiricism), such as rationalism which suggests things can be known apriori; that is, without recourse to sensory experience (the five sense doors of western philosophy, not Buddhist psychology). Certain kinds of meditation practice and realization may fall into this category; as would logically deduced laws and thought experiments and so on. So, in this way we can see empiricism or science as we know it, is only one form of knowledge and not a form we ought to necessarily privilege above other epistemologies; indeed, such contemporary deification is but one arbitrary socio-political construction amongst many found in our society at this time in history.

In kind regards,

Adam. Edited for clarity.

"That is what I meant by the trap of conceptualizing about the nature of reality rather than directly apprehending it. "

Adam, I wasn't suggesting it has to be one or the other as they are not mutually exclusive. You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy and making some assumptions about what I said that I don't believe follow at all.

I believe both... yes both,...have value. I 'm pursuing a practice so that I can directly see the nature of reality. That doesn't preclude me from reading and enjoying philosophy and science. In fact, it seems to add to the pleasure. No need, as I see it, to completely stop thinking conceptually. And we ignore science at our peril. I believe we have responsibility, especially in a democratic society, to know what's going on. What's being done in our name. Yes, I could retreat into my practice and do nothing else, but that's not the ultimate goal of a practice, at least as I see it. I prefer to pay attention and try to integrate the world I encounter using my practice as a guide.

I honestly think we practitioners sometimes get a disease, like a lot of other folks get, I guess. Call it "my way or the highway" disease.


"Yeah, Dennett is great. He is standard reading for all first year philosophy students."

Well, I guess I qualify at the freshman comprehension level in philosophy. I pray you did not intend this comment in the way it comes across, Adam.

Oh, I also really like that approach to science, philosophy, giving advice to others and even practice that says "I really just don't know."

"@cmarti: Anyway, the reason it's relevant is that science and philosophy are now coming to the same set of conclusions Buddhists have been coalescing around for years, but from very different perspectives

Adam, I wasn't suggesting it has to be one or the other as they are not mutually exclusive. You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy and making some assumptions about what I said that I don't believe follow at all.

honestly think we practitioners sometimes get a disease, like a lot of other folks get, I guess. Call it "my way or the highway" disease.
"

Hi Chris,

What you are calling a false dichotomy come in response to your statement that you believed science and philosopy were coming to the same conclusions as Buddhists. It seems some don't see it this way, stating in essence that science and Buddhism come from very different approachs. Rather than calling a false dichotomy, you might present some key areas where science and Budhism were coming to the same conclusions.

Although Adam can speak for himself, you have called him out in public, so will say I find you some what harsh on Adam and see no "highway disease" in his contribution here.

Chris, with respect to what I say here, I don't want us / them thing we are in this together and I respect you, your practice is more advanced than mine, and I value your contributions highly.

Regards
Gary

Gary, I see what you're saying. I'm not trying to call out Adam. I wasn't even thinking of Adam when I said "... we practitioners sometimes get a disease, like a lot of other folks get, I guess. Call it "my way or the highway" disease." I was actually thinking of myself because I tend to get preachy about practice and the things I believe are "true." As for the false dichotomy, I think it's there and we probably should discuss it in more detail on the topic I created here for the intersection of science and buddhism. (That's not an insult to Adam, by the way.) Anyway, I'm certainly not incapable of screwing up a perfectly good conversation now and then. Sorry if anyone took offense.

"... you might present some key areas where science and Budhism were coming to the same conclusions."

I have, and did, Gary. Dennett was my example, and even though he's technically a philosopher he is very close to the scientific community who now quite clearly disavow any notion of a permanent "self," among other similarities.

As far as these matters are concerned, it never got much better (For me!) than Gregory Bateson. That incredibly versatile anthropologist, philosopher, biologist, cyberneticist who wrote Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Mind and Nature, Naven, and so on. A bit off the beaten path, but worth his weight in gold.

These days the branch of science that I'm finding most helpful is cognitive neuroscience. For me one of the last fronteirs for objectivist science is the mapping of brain function through functional magnetic resonance imagery and similar technologies. This stuff always ends up on a collision course with philosophy and contemplative enquiry.

But to be specific, I was just reading about the existence of two potentially distinct neural networks for the generation of 'self-experience'. One, centered around the medial prefrontal cortex is more involved with the generation of a narrative 'I' based on memories, expectations, assumptions. The other is more involved with paralimbic structures and sections of the somatosensory cortex. This appears to be a more ancient set of connections and is based not on a narrative self but on an experiential one. It's actually more of what we'd call a not-self, more like a nexus for the organization and coordination of sense perceptions but without the imposition of narratives of time, memory, and expectation.

In most people, these two networks are integrated and bound up with one another, but in a group of mindfulness meditators, the 'narrative' network was suppressed, and the 'experiential' one gained primacy.

Pretty cool application of cognitive neuroscience, in my opinion.

I'll try to find a link for the article

scan.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nsm030v1

That's an html version of the full article, and there's a link for the .pdf that you can download for free. That might be more convenient.

Hey Chris!

Nice to hear from you as always! You wrote:

"I believe both... yes both,...have value."

Then we are on the same page! I didn't actually say anything about you personally, and your beliefs. Just pointing to a possible trap I have generally observed, is all.

In the past I had opportunity to take up post-graduate studies in philosophy of science and metaphysics more generally; however, I chose to go a different way due to the dissatisfaction I found in intellectual speculation and the development of relative knowledge. I observed a great deal of, metaphorically speaking, intellectual masturbation amongst my peers; and continue to to this day, in both spirituality, the arts and the sciences. So much potential and obvious value in these streams of development, and yet societies ills continued to pile up before my very eyes. So, as I previously said in an earlier post, science and the arts is of profound value and use, both to me personally, and to society more generally; and diversity is that which I value and point to - in science and all schools of thought. So, no dichotomies at all; more like a singlular unity in mulitiplicity, that is able to tolerate and accommodate difference and contradiction (as there is much diversity and disagreement in science itself) - which eventually dissolves into the fundamental emptiness of the Way - the Tao.

In kind regards,

Adam.

"Yeah, Dennett is great. He is standard reading for all first year philosophy students."

Yeah, that did come across a little snide, sorry about that. My bad! ;-P I meant literally, he is first year reading in philosophy, at least at the uni I went to! Which is a testament to the quality of his work; as he is used as a foundation in the development of philosophical understanding. So your in great company, Chris, if you think so highly of him!

In kind regards,

Adam.

Dear brothers and sisters of the Way,

There are many diverse paths to and in the Tao. All are fundamentally equal in their emptiness. All eventually dissolve into their fundamental nature, revealing the Way of no Way as that which always was, IS and will be here and now. May we each know the peace and happiness of our Way that passeth scientific measurement! ;-P

In kind regards,

Adam.

"Dear brothers and sisters of the Way,

There are many diverse paths to and in the Tao. All are fundamentally equal in their emptiness. All eventually dissolve into their fundamental nature, revealing the Way of no Way as that which always was, IS and will be here and now. May we each know the peace and happiness of our Way that passeth scientific measurement! ;-P

In kind regards,

Adam."

Hi Adam,
That sounds very Confucius like. Being his birthday and all I'll start a thread where you can put your favourite Confucius quote.