Science And Buddhism

[camerata]

So here's the big question: Suppose science proved conclusively that rebirth from life to life was real, what would the effect be on the world?

Suppose that researchers found that by stimulating a very specific part of the brain with an electrical current, young children were able to remember details of multiple former lives that they otherwise couldn't have knowledge of, and this could be repeated in any part of the world. Would everyone buy it?

I reckon the Hindus, Buddhists, and other religions believing in rebith/reincarnation might argue - in a gentlemanly way - about whose religion the discovery supported.

I reckon the Muslims would reject it completely as a Western conspiracy to wipe out their religion.

Similarly, I think the hardcore Christians would reject it out of hand since they've been rejecting science for two millenia already.

But the large numbers on non-practising Christians, lapsed Christians, agnostics, secular humanists and all the rest may well be convinced that here is something worth looking into.

[Abandon]

I studied the brain and its functions in depth during my psychology degree, and I am not at all concinced as you are Cam ...

I see no evidence at all that conscious experience is generated in the brain. All neurons do is link to other neurons, and send fire a shot of electricity. There is no message sent, generated, or organ to do any 'thinking'. there is no locality of memory. And the 'areas' of the brain that perform functions in fact can be in differentplaces with different people. It is a fabrication and a lie when 'scientists' say 'this area of the brain does xyz'. If you look carefully at their language this is exposed ... 'is linked with memory', is conncected to language' etc...

[camerata]

Very interesting article on Buddhism and Science at:

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Verh...hismScience.htm

Buddhism and Science:

Probing the Boundaries of Faith and Reason

Religion East and West, Issue 1,

June 2001, pp. 77-97

"The contribution that Buddhism and other religions can make to the spiritual crisis facing modern society…, may not lie in their compatibility with science, but in their ability to offer something that science cannot."

"Science may not only have limited relevance for interpreting Buddhism, but may distort our very understanding of its meaning."

[sleepyjohn]

"Science may not only have limited relevance for interpreting Buddhism, but may distort our very understanding of its meaning."

The whole of the Buddha's most self-recommended discourse, the teachings on Satipatthana, is about learning about and seeing for real our constituent parts.

This being the case I am convinced if the Buddha were alive today he would make the Laws of Natural Selection compulsory reading. They explain so perfectly our physical, but more importantly MENTAL makeup....in fact I might say everything about it....that they are a huge help in seeing through the illusion of self.

I have to say it actually rather worries me when I hear people questioning Natural Selection....I feel if anyone could find reasons to disagree with it they conversely could find reasons to believe in anything at all, and that I'm afraid scares me.

To go a little further one can look at what might have come about through NS.....what about Dukkha for instance...there's every reason why having elements of dissatisfaction in our makeup could be an evolutionary tool that aids our survival until the moment when our genes are passed on....the only period that counts in natural selection I'm afraid.

To know that tha dissatisfaction elements of Dukkha arise from NS could be very useful as one can "follow the path" of it's arising, see it's origination for real, rather than have to wonder at where this kind of magically inbuilt thing comes from.

The same can be said of the notion of "self"!

Just as a thought provoker before bedtime.....could time be merely a product of the mind that's evolved as a useful tool. Just another useful illusion?

Of course it could be!

Sweet dreams

Sleepyjohn

[sabaijai]

Very interesting article on Buddhism and Science at:

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Verh...hismScience.htm

Buddhism and Science:

Probing the Boundaries of Faith and Reason

Religion East and West, Issue 1,

June 2001, pp. 77-97

"The contribution that Buddhism and other religions can make to the spiritual crisis facing modern society…, may not lie in their compatibility with science, but in their ability to offer something that science cannot."

"Science may not only have limited relevance for interpreting Buddhism, but may distort our very understanding of its meaning."

Nice article esp this part:

Thus, in a quest to reach an easy and elegant reconciliation of faith and reason, we may unwittingly fall prey to "selective perception"—noticing and embracing only those elements of Buddhism that seem consonant with our way of thinking and giving short shrift to the rest. Overplaying the similarities between science and Buddhism can lead into a similar trap, where our dominant Western thought-way (science) handicaps rather than helps us to understand another worldview. In Buddhism, this is called "the impediment of what is known."

[meadish_sweetball]

Interesting.

[longway]

If anyone is interested there is a very good book called the 'Tao of Physics'. It was first published in the 70s I think.

It draws a link between modern physics and Eastern mystiscim emphasing hinduism, buddhism and taoism.

The main points are that it is the observer that makes the categorisation when taking measurements, before observation many of the sub-atomic 'particles' properties exist only as potentials ie the observer and the observed are intrinsically related.

The other point he makes is that despite the theories of quarks as being fundamental particles, there is no physical evidence for their existence. Also particles can only interact with other particles through other particles! So there is no known method on how quarks ineract. (I think that statement is correct)

A particle he says is not a 'physical' object but an probability wave and energy pattern with certain characteristics. Dont ask me to explain it, he does a good job though.

There is a theory in physics called the S matrix theory where there are no 'fundamental' particles, but where all objects can only be defined by their relationship with other objects. ie everything is interelated.

Its amazing how the Buddha came up with these observations thousands of years ago, about reality being an illusion and the interdependence of everything.

I guess the S matrix theory, first proposed by a Japanese, is only one theory of many. The book is well worth a read just to get a glimpse of how weird our universe is, and the strange paradoxes physics researchers have to overcome. Common sense has no place in physics, just like TV.

[camerata]

The whole of the Buddha's most self-recommended discourse, the teachings on Satipatthana, is about learning about and seeing for real our constituent parts.

This being the case I am convinced if the Buddha were alive today he would make the Laws of Natural Selection compulsory reading. They explain so perfectly our physical, but more importantly MENTAL makeup....in fact I might say everything about it....that they are a huge help in seeing through the illusion of self.

Some folks (Buddhadhasa was one) consider the arahant or boddhisattva (in Mahayana) to be the end and ultimate achievement of man's evolution, i.e. the perfect being. An associated idea is that enlightenment is a group objective for all mankind. So we teach Dhamma to our children with the idea that as generations go by more and more people become enlightened, even if we ourselves do not.

[Ijustwannateach]

I'm afraid I'm pretty much a scientific materialist, and I know only a little about Buddhism (though it seems to make more sense than Christianity). I do know a little bit about philosophy of mind and science, though.

The philosophical schools which hold that there is some form of "special" aspect to human cognitive functioning which cannot be explained in all aspects by physical/chemical explanations are called the "essentialists." There aren't many left, frankly, who get much respect or attention in mainstream philosophy.

One of the few who do is John Searle. He's most famous/notorious for his paper introducing the "Chinese Room." This was a room into which strips of paper with conversational items written in Chinese were inserted. There were people in the room, who did not know Chinese, but who had a set of instructions to follow as well as huge cabinets full of further instruction cards. In the course of following the instructions applicable to each Chinese sentence, a strip of paper would be assembled which contained a reasonable Chinese response to the conversational item that had been inserted. For the purposes of this thought experiment, you can imagine the Room any size necessary to accomplish this.

Searle's point was that, as the materialists were basically arguing that the mind based only on a physical brain, without any extra-physical "understander," could yet function in such a way as to understand human languages, that they were saying something as ridiculous and obviously incorrect as that the Chinese Room understands Chinese. I'm not sure if he was surprised or not that the materialists responded by saying that was exactly the point: the Room, if it functions as such, *is* a Mind.

Personally, I think that if there are any complete impediments to creating minds in non-organic material they will mainly be based on miniaturization and real-time speed issues, rather than anything spiritual. Considering the wastes and abuses made of the uncontroversially real and miraculous minds inside 6 or so billion human beings, not to mention those of the animals, I am doubtful of our need to create them in another medium and our ethical capacity to take on such a responsibility.

"Steven"