Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Bildr

Where Science and Buddhism Meet

41 posts in this topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice videos, but I think the author pushes the similarities a bit too far. I also object to his interpretation of consciousness and reality. The mind creates its own reality within the mind. The mind does not create reality outside of the mind.. The fundamental reality of the universe lies external to mind or consciousness.

Another thing I object to is his use of the term observation as regards to quantum mechanics. For instance, it is not our conscious observation that affects the outcomes of the double-slit experiment, it is our measurements that affects the outcomes. Just looking at something, or not looking at it, have no effect on the behavior of quantum particles. .

"Reality does not exist without the mind defining it," he states. The mind only defines reality within the mind. My desk exists even when there is no mind observing it.

The author also states, "The lines between science and spirituality have become inevitably blurred. The concepts interchangeable." I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing I object to is his use of the term observation as regards to quantum mechanics. For instance, it is not our conscious observation that affects the outcomes of the double-slit experiment, it is our measurements that affects the outcomes. Just looking at something, or not looking at it, have no effect on the behavior of quantum particles.

I agree with StarMountainKid, but I believe it was Heisenberg who said that the mere observation of a phenomenon actually changes the phenomenon. Of course, in his noted paper he refers to measurements rather than observations, therefore it's not surprising that people relate and confuse the Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect which highlights the effect of the observer on the system. Forget the spiritualists, I believe I have read articles even by physicists who relate the two, without realizing the difference. Interesting thread though, and I would like to see how this discussion turns out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1. I also object to his interpretation of consciousness and reality. The mind creates its own reality within the mind. The mind does not create reality outside of the mind.. The fundamental reality of the universe lies external to mind or consciousness.

2. Another thing I object to is his use of the term observation as regards to quantum mechanics. For instance, it is not our conscious observation that affects the outcomes of the double-slit experiment, it is our measurements that affects the outcomes. Just looking at something, or not looking at it, have no effect on the behavior of quantum particles. .

3. "Reality does not exist without the mind defining it," he states. The mind only defines reality within the mind. My desk exists even when there is no mind observing it. The author also states, "The lines between science and spirituality have become inevitably blurred. The concepts interchangeable." I think not.

Hi StarMountainKid

1. Colour and sound are mental perceptions located outside of your head.

2. The human eye isnt developed enough to see atoms so this is correct.

3. Reality is mind and your desk is a collection of mental perceptions.

In philosophy there are two main stances -

A. Even though reality is created by the mind something objective exists behind it.

B. Non-dualsm (Buddhsm) means that nothing objective exists behind the experience we call reality.

Most people in the Western World adopt A because B is to far out for them. However as any good scientist or philosopher will tell you theres not one shred of evidence that anything exists independantly of your mind. Nuts but truth. The wavefunction in Quantum Mechanics is the same as the prime substance in Buddhism. In our language its pure potential from which any possibility can arise.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1. Colour and sound are mental perceptions located outside of your head.

Still on about this silly argument that has been explained for you numerous times?
Most people in the Western World adopt A because B is to far out for them. However as any good scientist or philosopher will tell you theres not one shred of evidence that anything exists independantly of your mind. Nuts but truth. The wavefunction in Quantum Mechanics is the same as the prime substance in Buddhism. In our language its pure potential from which any possibility can arise.
You're confusing fringe theories with well established science.

All of the natural sciences (that is astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, etc) has proven your idea wrong.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still on about this silly argument that has been explained for you numerous times?

You're confusing fringe theories with well established science.

All of the natural sciences (that is astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, etc) has proven your idea wrong.

People need warning about this member.

He got given the psychological links about human perception and links showing colour is created by the mind in response to electrical impulses from the eyes. Hi is blatently biased, ignores all areas of main stream science and philosophy that dont fit his world view, isnt qualfied to talk about science and will argue against those that are.

In addition he is evasive and likes to play Mr Ostrich by burrowing his head in the sand whenever a question appears he doest want to answer. So here we go yet again, this time please answer the following two questions Mr Ostrich -

1. Is colour human perception or is it a property of light?

2. How do you explain away the first paragrah which tells you its perception - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision

I suspect this question will get side stepped as usual by Mr Ostrich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Osterich?

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

People need warning about this member.

He got given the psychological links about human perception and links showing colour is created by the mind in response to electrical impulses from the eyes. Hi is blatently biased, ignores all areas of main stream science and philosophy that dont fit his world view, isnt qualfied to talk about science and will argue against those that are.

In addition he is evasive and likes to play Mr Ostrich by burrowing his head in the sand whenever a question appears he doest want to answer. So here we go yet again, this time please answer the following two questions Mr Ostrich -

1. Is colour human perception or is it a property of light?

2. How do you explain away the first paragrah which tells you its perception - http://en.wikipedia....ki/Color_vision

I suspect this question will get side stepped as usual by Mr Ostrich.

Mr Ostrich, (also known as Mr Right Wing) can't read his own sources. The article states its bological and mechanical, and based on a property of light.

"Color vision is the capacity of an organism or machine to distinguish objects based on the wavelengths (or frequencies) of the light they reflect, emit, or transmit. Colors can be measured and quantified in various ways; indeed, a human's perception of colors is a subjective process whereby the brain responds to the stimuli that are produced when incoming light reacts with the several types of cone photoreceptors in the eye."

What is the point of asking a question when you're too incompetent to understand the answer from your own links?

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Colour and sound are mental perceptions located outside of your head.

2. The human eye isnt developed enough to see atoms so this is correct.

3. Reality is mind and your desk is a collection of mental perceptions.

In philosophy there are two main stances -

A. Even though reality is created by the mind something objective exists behind it.

B. Non-dualsm (Buddhsm) means that nothing objective exists behind the experience we call reality.

Hi Mr Right Wing

1. How can a mental perception be located outside one's head? All mental perceptions are located inside the head.

2. ok.

3. The reality of the concept "desk" is a mental perception which only exists withing one's mind, but the reality of the atoms that make up the "desk" exist external to perception. I think we agree here.

A. I agree, but I object to using the term "Reality" as our perceptions within the mind. The true Reality exists external to the mind.

B.

However as any good scientist or philosopher will tell you theres not one shred of evidence that anything exists independantly of your mind.

How do you correlate that with your #1. statement that "Colour and sound are mental perceptions located outside of your head"?

If nothing exists independently of the mind, how could the universe have existed before the human mind evolved?

A Chinese Ch'an master, Hung Po or someone said, "The true nature of reality is invisible and cannot be perceived by the conscious mind." This "true nature" is the emptiness or Void from which all things arise, and this potential does exist independent of mind, as he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Ostrich, (also known as Mr Right Wing) can't read his own sources. The article states its bological and mechanical, and based on a property of light.

What is the point of asking a question when you're too incompetent to understand the answer from your own links?

The article says (as you are fully aware) -

Color vision is the capacity of an organism or machine to distinguish objects based on the wavelengths (or frequencies) of the light they reflect, emit, or transmit. Colors can be measured and quantified in various ways; indeed, a human's perception of colors is a subjective process whereby the brain responds to the stimuli that are produced when incoming light reacts with the several types of cone photorecptors in the eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article says (as you are fully aware) -

Color vision is the capacity of an organism or machine to distinguish objects based on the wavelengths (or frequencies) of the light they reflect, emit, or transmit. Colors can be measured and quantified in various ways; indeed, a human's perception of colors is a subjective process whereby the brain responds to the stimuli that are produced when incoming light reacts with the several types of cone photorecptors in the eye.

Thanks for repeating it. What part don't you comprehend? The fact it's using human perception of color as an example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1. How can a mental perception be located outside one's head? All mental perceptions are located inside the head..

2. The reality of the concept "desk" is a mental perception which only exists withing one's mind, but the reality of the atoms that make up the "desk" exist external to perception. I think we agree here.

1. Buddhism leads people to the realisation that the universe they experience and their mind are the same thing which they call oneness. If you take a Western philosophical approach you end up at the same place. All perceptions (which collectively we call reality) are created and experienced by the mind. As reality is just those perceptions you are in fact living in your mind. Reality is your mind.

2. So lets ask are atoms real? The double slit experiment shows that when theres no information on an atom it isnt a particle. Instead its a strange thing called a wavefunction which represents all possibilities. In Buddhism the prime substance is the same thing and it too represents all possbilites. In Buddhism the mind brings into being a reality out of the prime substance when it attempts awareness (gains information).

Materalists dont like the idea that ones perceptions alter reality and its because they dont like the fact that ones perceptions are reality. They praise scientists such as Galileo while ignoring the fact that as all perceptions are created by the mind the mind is at the centre of the universe. The mind collapses probabilities (prime substance) into reality when it gains information (awareness). What you actually perceive when you look out of your eyes determines reality. Thats why books like the secret try to get people perceiving positively.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for repeating it. What part don't you comprehend? The fact it's using human perception of color as an example?

My God this is laughable.

I remember why I stopped replying to you now. You're going on my ignore list.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a month or so I imagine Mr Right Wing will be making an ass of himself again with the same question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I read The Universe in a Single Atom by the Dalai Lama and thought it was really well-done:

I tried to talk about it once on here and got accused of supporting a theocracy, lmao. However, if you aren't an alarmist drama queen and have an open mind, I'd highly recommend it. :)

Edited by ChloeB
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Buddhism leads people to the realisation that the universe they experience and their mind are the same thing which they call oneness.

Not quite.

The physical universe and the mind are complimentary, in that the physical universe exists and is independent of the mind, but it is the mind which allows us to translate this physical universe into our expriences of it.

What you have called 'Buddhism' is actually mysticism. I agree that 'oneness' exists in Buddhist philosophy, but it is not as you describe - a mystic state - but instead is a state of awareness of the universe as a system. Modern Buddhism has evolved from it's ancient roots and is largely no longer the 'search for the mystic dream state' often promoted by Western practitioners who have not grasped the reality of Buddhist thought.

2. So lets ask are atoms real? The double slit experiment shows that when theres no information on an atom it isnt a particle. Instead its a strange thing called a wavefunction which represents all possibilities. In Buddhism the prime substance is the same thing and it too represents all possbilites. In Buddhism the mind brings into being a reality out of the prime substance when it attempts awareness (gains information).

This would be useful if the double-slit experiment was relevant to atoms, but it is not. Being part of Quantum Physics, the double-slit experiment is relevant to quantum particles - which an atom is not. Specifically, the double-slit experiment was conducted using photons - quantum particles of light.

Secondly, the quantum particle does not exist in a 'waveform state' if unobserved. The wavefunction is merely descriptive of all states a quantum particle may exist in, but does not describe what state it does exist in.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The physical universe and the mind are complimentary, in that the physical universe exists and is independent of the mind, but it is the mind which allows us to translate this physical universe into our expriences of it. What you have called 'Buddhism' is actually mysticism. I agree that 'oneness' exists in Buddhist philosophy, but it is not as you describe - a mystic state - but instead is a state of awareness of the universe as a system.

2. This would be useful if the double-slit experiment was relevant to atoms, but it is not. Being part of Quantum Physics, the double-slit experiment is relevant to quantum particles - which an atom is not. Specifically, the double-slit experiment was conducted using photons - quantum particles of light.

3. Secondly, the quantum particle does not exist in a 'waveform state' if unobserved. The wavefunction is merely descriptive of all states a quantum particle may exist in, but does not describe what state it does exist in.

1. Philosophy has many different camps when it comes to understanding the true nature of reality. Believing in an objective material universe behind our experiences of reality is one such stance but non-dualism is another. Materialism can be shown to be wrong, non-dualism has never been shown to be wrong and and non-dualism is not mysticism. The experience of oneness is not a mystic state and I dont know why you think this. I suspect you think Buddhism is a religion like Christainity when it isnt its a non-dualist philosophy. Oneness is just the realisation that all awareness is mental perception. Many have a problem considering reality is just the mind.

2. People who havent studied physics but maybe watched a dual-slit experiment being done with photons on Youtube could make the mistake of thinking it only works on photons. It doesnt. It works on atoms and even small objects. I dont know if my knowledge is still up to date about the largest object they've got it to work on but when I was at college it was buckyballs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminsterfullerene

3. Particle behaviour ceases with no measurement and is replaced with wave behaviour which is the wavefunction. Wavefunctions have different properties than particles such as the ability to produce an interference pattern, non-locality, quantum teleportation etc.

Non-duality is the unification of both being and non-being into one state. When non-duality is collapsed you then get being and non-being seperated from each other. The wavefunction is the same unification of being and non-being only with atomic particles. When you measure the wavefunction it seperates into being (particle) and non-being (the other possibilities for particle that now dont exist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You haven't answered a previous question of mine.

Mr Right Wing said:

However as any good scientist or philosopher will tell you theres not one shred of evidence that anything exists independantly of your mind.

If nothing exists independent of the mind, how could the universe have existed before the human mind evolved?

Materalists dont like the idea that ones perceptions alter reality and its because they dont like the fact that ones perceptions are reality. They praise scientists such as Galileo while ignoring the fact that as all perceptions are created by the mind the mind is at the centre of the universe. The mind collapses probabilities (prime substance) into reality when it gains information (awareness). What you actually perceive when you look out of your eyes determines reality.

Again, I must say perceptions alter reality only inside one's mind. The mind creates its own reality within itself. The stars exist even when they are not perceived by the eye.

The mind collapses probabilities into reality when it gains information, but that reality exists inside the mind. Quantum probabilities are collapsing into reality all the time outside of the mind as elementary particles interact with one another. Mind is not necessary for the reality of the universe, nor does mind cause the universe to exist as it does externally.

I remember a statement by a Zen Buddhist master, though I don't remember his name: "There was no conscious awareness at the creation of the universe." The true nature of Reality lies beyond mind, beyond consciousness. The mind is only aware of itself.

Edited by StarMountainKid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CloeB, very nice video introduction to the Dalai Lama's book, which I haven't read. I once attended a lecture by the Dalai Lama, and it was, needless to say, a great experience. I've been interested in Buddhism and Zen and Taoism all my life. Spirituality without an agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1. If nothing exists independent of the mind, how could the universe have existed before the human mind evolved?

2. Again, I must say perceptions alter reality only inside one's mind. The mind creates its own reality within itself.

3. The stars exist even when they are not perceived by the eye.

4. The mind collapses probabilities into reality when it gains information, but that reality exists inside the mind. Quantum probabilities are collapsing into reality all the time outside of the mind as elementary particles interact with one another.

1. In non-dualism the mind is not created by reality it is reality which is created by the mind.

2. It is the mind which creates all perceptions including those perceptions we call reality.

3. A star is a collection of perceptions created by the mind.

4. Again as your perceptions exist around you your mind isnt located inside your brain.

May I also point out the reason why ancients believed these things is more than philosophical reasoning. They used drugs which allowed them to directly experience their consciousness as a field surrounding them and that field is reality. I've been on high doses of the salvia too (its legal where I live and they sell it in shops).

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CloeB, very nice video introduction to the Dalai Lama's book, which I haven't read. I once attended a lecture by the Dalai Lama, and it was, needless to say, a great experience. I've been interested in Buddhism and Zen and Taoism all my life. Spirituality without an agenda.

Glad you liked it, SMK. It's a pretty short little book and he doesn't try to substantiate Buddhism or spirituality with making a lot of outlandish claims that science confirms it, but it was really good, pretty simple for someone like me to understand as well. I can't believe you got to see the Dalai Lama, that's usually on a lot of people's list of things to do before they die, but that's awesome. I'm interested in all that too, but you are way ahead of me, hehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

May I also point out the reason why ancients believed these things is more than philosophical reasoning. They used drugs which allowed them to directly experience their consciousness as a field surrounding them and that field is reality. I've been on high doses of the salvia too (its legal where I live and they sell it in shops).

You know what I always think about....okay so you saw the movie, Avatar, how they do the consciousness transfer? That's not that unrealistic to think that's possible right? But if you could so be out of your own body and in another, feeling like you are now that body and not the other, doesn't that sort of make it seem like consciousness is separate? I mean I guess it doesn't necessarily, but it seems that way, if it could disconnect like that and believe it is another body. Just a thought, a weird one, I had, lol, but you know what I'm saying? If consciousness is so rooted in the mind, that shouldn't be possible should it?

Edited by ChloeB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mr Right Wing

1. How can a mental perception be located outside one's head? All mental perceptions are located inside the head.

2. ok.

3. The reality of the concept "desk" is a mental perception which only exists withing one's mind, but the reality of the atoms that make up the "desk" exist external to perception. I think we agree here.

A. I agree, but I object to using the term "Reality" as our perceptions within the mind. The true Reality exists external to the mind.

B.

How do you correlate that with your #1. statement that "Colour and sound are mental perceptions located outside of your head"?

If nothing exists independently of the mind, how could the universe have existed before the human mind evolved?

A Chinese Ch'an master, Hung Po or someone said, "The true nature of reality is invisible and cannot be perceived by the conscious mind." This "true nature" is the emptiness or Void from which all things arise, and this potential does exist independent of mind, as he says.

Nice reply star ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non dualism leads pantheism or panentheism. Both a are seriously flawed. Although I am not a materialist, I do believe outside of the mind there is a physical reality! It's true nature is unknown and cannot be proven one way or another. We could be sitting on mars with electrodes in us and living this simulation. Can you prove otherwise? No!

I agree with Leo- this is more mysticism! If a bus hit you head on, and it's the mind that creates that reality, thus you should be able to manipulate reality matter itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You haven't answered a previous question of mine.

If nothing exists independent of the mind, how could the universe have existed before the human mind evolved?

That is a involuntary way to affirm that we are alone in this universe. What IF consciousness IS truly the essence of our universe and that beings does exist since ''the beginning?'' the big bang is a theory that fist our current understanding of the universe. I know I have no fact or proof about what i'm affirming, but like i said; WHAT IF? You know, most theoretical scientist does says that the only empirical and absolute knowledge we have about the universe, is that we know SO LITTLE!

Even the famous Neil Degrasse says that too(We Don't Know What's Driving 96% Of The Universe); [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQm3q6HwLK8[/media]

Edited by Bildr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.