graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 2, 2013 1:16:59 GMT 1
If the mind is not made up of atoms, how can one say that it exists? Isn't "mind" just a label for a conglomerate of feelings and sensations? Or is there something separate from these? Where do thoughts come from and what initiates them?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Apr 2, 2013 23:24:25 GMT 1
Dear Graham, 1. Can the mind exist if it isn't made of atoms? Even within the materialist, scientific worldview not every phenomena is made up of atoms i.e. light. Sound though dependent on atoms is the label we attach to the way we perceive the wave of vibration spreading out from the sound source so it too isn't made of atoms. 2. Isn't the mind just a label for...feelings and sensations? Or is there something separate from these? When I fall asleep, does my mind cease? I'm no longer aware of feelings, thoughts or sensations. What about doing an operation? I would say my mind continues doing these times. 3. Where do thoughts come from and what initiates them? Some thoughts arise because of the conditions right there and then e.g. the smell of chips leads to the thought, "Shall I have something to eat. Am I hungry? I want chips!" Other times, thoughts just seem to bubble up out of nowhere - sometimes from memories, other times thoughts just pop up without an obvious cause. During meditation sessions, the experience of thoughts bubbling up and drifting off until one grabs our attention and suddenly we're riding it, and then the next pulls our attention in another direction...and then another and another. And then we remember, watch the breath. But the thoughts keep bubbling away (at least for me anyway). These are my answers for now...maybe with more understanding I'll come up with other answers.  |
|
johns
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by johns on Apr 3, 2013 1:45:39 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Apr 3, 2013 4:41:41 GMT 1
I think this timeless question of whether the mind exists or not is very similiar to whether the Self exists or not. In Buddhist philosophy there is No independent "Self". It's an illusion of the ego. What we call "self" is an interdependent "sum of parts" both within our bodies (with numerous interdependent organs) and within our environment and communities.
So I would say No. There is no "I" or independent mind free from our brain or human flesh. Yet there may be other "minds" of varying degree that consist of different natural materials. These plant, animal, and (other?) "minds " or forms of consciousness transform, change, and evolve into different earthly manifestations over time. I think this would be the most "scientific" explanation or argument for reincarnation also. So for reincarnation to be real, there has to be no inherent self which is born or dies. What we call the death of Self is transformed into decayed elements in the soil and becomes other living things over time. Perhaps in a thousand years remnants of your original body are somehow transported into plant, animal or human life. But this is just my own take on it.
|
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 3, 2013 15:48:06 GMT 1
Dear Graham, 1. Can the mind exist if it isn't made of atoms? Even within the materialist, scientific worldview not every phenomena is made up of atoms i.e. light. Sound though dependent on atoms is the label we attach to the way we perceive the wave of vibration spreading out from the sound source so it too isn't made of atoms. 2. Isn't the mind just a label for...feelings and sensations? Or is there something separate from these? When I fall asleep, does my mind cease? I'm no longer aware of feelings, thoughts or sensations. What about doing an operation? I would say my mind continues doing these times. 3. Where do thoughts come from and what initiates them? Some thoughts arise because of the conditions right there and then e.g. the smell of chips leads to the thought, "Shall I have something to eat. Am I hungry? I want chips!" Other times, thoughts just seem to bubble up out of nowhere - sometimes from memories, other times thoughts just pop up without an obvious cause. During meditation sessions, the experience of thoughts bubbling up and drifting off until one grabs our attention and suddenly we're riding it, and then the next pulls our attention in another direction...and then another and another. And then we remember, watch the breath. But the thoughts keep bubbling away (at least for me anyway). These are my answers for now...maybe with more understanding I'll come up with other answers. Thanks, I appreciate the reply. I was thinking about your analogy of light and sound. Thats a really good point, but aren't these just "effects"? They only occur as the byproducts of a series of causes and events. I think Buddhist philosophy asserts that the mind is without cause, no? What is the mind without sensory experiences and thoughts? |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 3, 2013 15:55:55 GMT 1
I think this timeless question of whether the mind exists or not is very similiar to whether the Self exists or not. In Buddhist philosophy there is No independent "Self". It's an illusion of the ego. What we call "self" is an interdependent "sum of parts" both within our bodies (with numerous interdependent organs) and within our environment and communities. So I would say No. There is no "I" or independent mind free from our brain or human flesh. Yet there may be other "minds" of varying degree that consist of different natural materials. These plant, animal, and (other?) "minds " or forms of consciousness transform, change, and evolve into different earthly manifestations over time. I think this would be the most "scientific" explanation or argument for reincarnation also. So for reincarnation to be real, there has to be no inherent self which is born or dies. What we call the death of Self is transformed into decayed elements in the soil and becomes other living things over time. Perhaps in a thousand years remnants of your original body are somehow transported into plant, animal or human life. But this is just my own take on it. Buddhist philosophy is very clear that there is no independent self (on an ultimate level). From my understanding, the mind is not the self. And then I would ask, why/how is my mind different from yours? |
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Apr 4, 2013 8:20:52 GMT 1
A pregnant pause?
Because of the different karmic seeds...the history... of your mind is different from mine.
These are my thoughts based on personal speculation rather than researched, doctrinally correct answers. As such, take them with a pinch of salt and feel free to disagree if they don't help.
Clive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Apr 4, 2013 10:49:14 GMT 1
Dear Graham, Thank you for your questions! I realise that I've been using mind as a synonym for mind and mindstream. Inspired by your questions, I've been rereading different articles and snippets from books and thought a lot about rebirth and emptiness of self. In danger of exposing yet more of my ignorance  I think mindstreams are described as beginning-less, not causeless. This is part of the explanation for previous rebirths and continuity of the mind after this form ceases. Anyway, just wanted to thank you for your questions. Clive. |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 4, 2013 14:58:14 GMT 1
I think mindstreams are described as beginning-less, not causeless. Clive. That's a good point, and I think a really important distinction to make. But if they are beginningless, at what point did my mind and your mind begin to differ? Are there a fixed set of minds floating around in the universe? Where did they come from? I think I've come to either one of two conclusions on this. The first is that there is no such thing as a mind. There are no karmic imprints, there's no rebirth... there's just physics. This "me" is an illusion, just a bunch of nervous impulses that go away when our hearts stop pumping blood and oxygen to our brains. The second, perhaps more optimistic, conclusion I've considered is that this "me" experience is not different for any sentient being. This idea of "me" is the exact same for everything that has a consciousness. Because of our different bodies, backgrounds, familial upbringings and a seemingly infinite number of other factors that add to this story that we create about our lives, we feel like we are separate. However, at its most basic level, this feeling of "me" is no different for anyone. There is only one "mind" and it is something we all have and share. |
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Apr 5, 2013 11:48:07 GMT 1
The Sentience Quotient concept introduced by R. A. Freitas Jr. would seem to be of use here. It defines sentience as the relationship between the information processing rate of each individual processing unit, the weight/size of a single unit and the total number of processing units. According to this equation, humans have an SQ of +13. All other animals with a nervous system cluster within several points of the human value. Plants cluster around an SQ of −2 while carnivorous plants have an SQ of +1. Meanwhile, the Cray-1 had an SQ of +9. IBM Watson has an SQ in the range of +11 to +12. If we develop mind at some point as we develop in our mothers when the brain becomes complex enough, why wouldn't these computers when switched on? So are supercomputers sentient?  I would say that they are not. They lack something, and that something I think is mind. I don't think mind is a product of the brain, of the firing of neurons and the processing of information. Your other suggested conclusion, that we all are of one mind differently expressed (I hope I haven't misinterpreted your position) I do not follow. Why would there either have to be no mind or one mind? Why not many minds? Oh, and the question of where do these beginning-less minds come from is as unanswerable as how large is an infinite universe or what existed before the big bang. Again, these are my own musings so take with a pinch of salt. Clive. |
|
jeff
Senior Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by jeff on Apr 5, 2013 13:27:23 GMT 1
Oh, and the question of where do these beginning-less minds come from is as unanswerable as how large is an infinite universe or what existed before the big bang.Clive. Absolutely right. Remember though that it is not that there are no answers to these question but that the answers are not conceivable by us. That's a very difficult thing to accept since we feel that we should be able to use our current intelligence levels to at least apprehend the answers to everything. The more I think about this the more I am able to accept that I currently am not able to apprehend the concepts of "beginningless" (which probably involves the idea of "time" as an illusion), and other such assertions. So, while I do find that frustrating, I am still able to expand my powers of apprehension to include other phenomena without needing the "whole picture". |
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Apr 6, 2013 19:51:18 GMT 1
Totally agree with Jeff here.
Such questions are certainly 'interesting' - in the same way as that I find astronomy interesting. Whether the answers to such questions are relevant to our life here and now? The Buddha regularly chose to stay quiet when people asked such questions. Not that there may not be answers, but getting stuck in such kind of questions - which cannot really be grasped or proven by us - is often just a way to pass the time, possibly even a way to avoid the important questions in life....
I tend to respond similar to a question in a very different thread; is is really important to know how the electricity is generated if you want to switch on the light?
|
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 13, 2013 15:44:02 GMT 1
I tend to respond similar to a question in a very different thread; is is really important to know how the electricity is generated if you want to switch on the light? Absolutely. What are you supposed to do when the light doesn't come on? |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 13, 2013 16:08:48 GMT 1
Your other suggested conclusion, that we all are of one mind differently expressed (I hope I haven't misinterpreted your position) I do not follow. Why would there either have to be no mind or one mind? Why not many minds? Oh, and the question of where do these beginning-less minds come from is as unanswerable as how large is an infinite universe or what existed before the big bang. My view: Many minds makes no since because it implies that there is a fixed and permanent number of minds that are in existence. Are we saying that when the world was created, somehow 6 billion, 6 trillion or 6 gazillion minds somehow developed and, that, fortunately, there was the precise number of sentient beings in the universe for them to enter? Maybe (obviously) I do not understand how all that stuff works. Also, you say understanding the beginning of the universe is unanswerable. I say that it is, and that to be human is to seek the answer to this question. Saying "I'm never going to know, I'm just going to try to end my suffering and maybe help a few others" is quite lazy, if you ask me. When you give up on this question, I wonder where the purpose or meaning for one's life comes from. Is there not a burning desire in you to understand? There definitely is in me. I'm not saying that the answer to these questions aren't difficult, but they are there, just like the answers to so many other questions have been made available through science. By the way, the "big bang" is a theory... one that makes about as much sense to me as a God. |
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Apr 13, 2013 18:50:19 GMT 1
Absolutely. What are you supposed to do when the light doesn't come on? Good point, I like the pun as well! ;D What I would say is that then you may want to fix the light, but that is something different from insisting to know what an electron is (and basically, physicists still have serious problems with that one). So yes, up to a certain point, we need to know and understand things, but we should avoid getting stuck in questions that millions of people over thousands of years have not been able to work out. In that sense, also as a response to your next post, often I would think it is a million times better to 'be lazy' and help a few other suffering beings rather then forgetting about others and wasting our time with a probably unsolvable question.... Perhaps a slip, but to me, the purpose of life is something very different from the quesiton how many there are and how they came into existence. The purpose of life probably has everything to do with what we should be doing right now. But knowing the answers to where we all come from etc. - even if answerable - usually turns into a intellectual way of passing the time, and nothing more. Don't overlook that the answer to the purpose of life is not a scientific question; it's a philosophical/spiritual question I would think. Strictly said, one could even say that science does not really gives answers, it just presents models and theories with which we can comprehend the world better. Strictly spoken science has no concern with good and bad, or right and wrong - and I however fond I am fond of technology and matters like astronomy, these do not answer the most important questions of life, such as how can I become happy and rid myself and others of suffering and problems... From the Buddhist point of view, there is no definite answer to the number of beings, some think there was a fixed number to start with, others think new sentient beings appear in the universe, but in the end it matters very little in terms of our life and what we should do with either answer.  Although this may seem out of context, and perhaps I've mentioned this before, but I so hope you will have the opportunity to meet a real master. Rather then answering the questions we are now discussing, he may well show you the light and the path towards happiness.  |
|
|
|
Post by bristollad on Apr 14, 2013 10:04:00 GMT 1
No. I'm not saying when the universe was created 6 whatevers minds were also created. Minds are beginningless. Each moment of mind has as a cause a previous moment of mind so there is no beginning. As Jeff mentioned, this can be frustrating to accept. To me its like the question, what is the biggest (or smallest) number? As a child I was intrigued by this question but as I grew older I let it go - because it's not useful or answerable within our mathematical framework. Questions of how the universe began are intriguing but not that useful - these days I just think of it as one result which had its cause in the moments before...and so on. Can humans prove what caused that result (the beginning of this universe), not at the moment. Are we even able to deduce what those causes were, not at the moment. Does it affect my direction in life, no. Ceasing to do evil, learning to do good and cleansing my own mind gives me enough to do without worrying about unanswerable questions Clive |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 14, 2013 16:21:29 GMT 1
Ceasing to do evil, learning to do good and cleansing my own mind gives me enough to do without worrying about unanswerable questions There are no questions that are unanswerable. |
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Apr 14, 2013 17:22:14 GMT 1
Sorry, can't agree with you there. Enlightened minds may be able to know the answers but judging from the Buddha's reaction to these origin questions, the answers are either not helpful or inexpressible in ordinary terms...but there are plenty of more useful answerable questions to work on before I need to worry about the unanswerable ones. I've got a sneaking suspicion that these types of questions do not make sense when seen from a buddha's viewpoint.Clive. |
|
brian
Senior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by brian on Apr 14, 2013 20:44:02 GMT 1
The Mind is awareness. Simply consciousness that is either closed and selfish or selfless and open. Meditation frees the mind from attachments, aversions and delusions. The Mind is an expression of the brain. It's like a projection onto the world. It is the interface between within and without. Some minds are greater than others. A buddha's mind is excellent whereas a bipolar, criminal drug addict's mind is very poor. It depends alot on cultivation and enhancement and of course genetics. Some people don't want to be enlightened. They prefer the darkness and will stay there all their lives. I feel sorry and compassionate for them but they apparently must exist. Just as pain must exist for there to be pleasure. But overall, Mind is mostly an illusion, a dreamcatcher. Let it gather goodness and helpfulness and let go of bad stones.
|
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 15, 2013 5:06:11 GMT 1
Sorry, can't agree with you there. Enlightened minds may be able to know the answers but judging from the Buddha's reaction to these origin questions, the answers are either not helpful or inexpressible in ordinary terms...but there are plenty of more useful answerable questions to work on before I need to worry about the unanswerable ones. I've got a sneaking suspicion that these types of questions do not make sense when seen from a buddha's viewpoint.Clive. If we can agree on the idea that everything has a cause, I would argue that it is possible to find that cause. Enlightened mind or not, the answers are out there. Useful or not, there is a precise reason every single phenomenon in our world occurs. |
|
I think mindstreams are described as beginning-less, not causeless. This is part of the explanation for previous rebirths and continuity of the mind after this form ceases.
I would say that they are not. They lack something, and that something I think is mind. I don't think mind is a product of the brain, of the firing of neurons and the processing of information.
