Expert: Bodhicitta - 6/15/2008

Question
QUESTION: I am familiar with physics, engineering, mathematics, philosophy, and religion, so whatever you say, I ought to be able to receive.

I was wondering what your opinion of metaphysical dualism as realism, defined as materials with abstract collective properties generating a secondary metaphysical material that is a real entity, for lack of a better word, as a spiritual substance.  For example, in the most abstract of spaces, a thought like the word chair written on paper when it is read by a person and processed by the mind, has a tangible chair-ness to it.  Another person might say that it is just an association from memory generating the sense of chair, and so the chair-ness doesn't exist as a tangible spiritual material.  So then one can observe a piece of red paper.  The red-ness also creates an association in the human mind looking at the red square.  It too is nothing more than collections of neurons tuned into registering red, and memories of red registered from the past making associations in neurons.  But to anyone looking at the red paper, the redness generates a tangible sensation of red-ness.  Another person might say, the system of sensing and introspection makes the red-ness.  But then one can take a computer and connect a color camera, and have it also associate memory to the proper hue phase of red.  Can we say then, that it is a system of sensing and introspection of binary ones and zeros and digital instruction working on color, and so the computer sees red-ness very much like a human sees vivid-red-ness.

The point being, how can atomic-reductionist-science, explain the tangible but abstract sensation of vivid red-ness arising holistically from a whole system of sensing and processing with introspective feedback?  Does it make some theoretical sense that there can be a metaphysical substance with spiritual force producing a real tangible expression in a complex of processing that imputes experience over pure processing objects?  So it is still materialistic, but not imaginary, I might theorize that this metaphysical-material is a collective-quantum-entanglement-substance composed of amplified-concentrated-correlated-quantum-measurement-flow that is formed inside of partitioned-material-processing-systems.  Such a theory would indicate that a computer with nothing more than,, sensors, logic gates, clocks, ones, and zeros, and proper programming,, could actually sense red-ness in an analogous way as human flesh doing much the same processing.

I have also reading on some Buddhist matters long ago, and I remember something about correlated dharmas in Buddhist particle physics theories.  Are correlated dharmas considered to be a real tangible substance, or an illusion created by the incidental correlation of such dharmas?

What do you think?  What can you say, especially regarding the Buddhist aspects of material dualism, or illusion as tangibility?


ANSWER: Hi Shawn
Your question as I understand it tries to compare the Buddhist approach with a modern Western Philosophical, Psychological, Physics framework
of reality. The classical Phenomenon Numenon.The arising of a chair from the elements that compose it. Whether computers could be aware of redness. etc

This is not uninteresting. I am sure you will have a lot of fun - comparing the Buddhist and Western approaches.

It is a non trivial
activity. It requires an indepth  mastery of many disciplines. A few writers have
attempted it. there have been a number of exchanges between Buddhists
and scientists. But in my opinion these exchanges are unsatisfactory. It
is early days and there is much work to be done here.

For these reasons I can really only give you a cursory reply at this time. I am interested in this exploration myself. But I am not
sure Allexperts will be the form to pursue this.

Reading your question you seem already to have a good grasp
of Western Philosophy and Science.I would say you now need to
obtain a basic training in Buddhist meditation to find the
answers you are looking for.


The objective of Buddhism is to explore the mysterious nature of awareness in order to unlock the true nature of being. There are
no assumptions about the so called external world. The method is
collecting the raw data of experience, meditating on it, obtaining non-conceptual non-dual insight and achieving access to a transcendental
non-dual world that is coincident with the dual.

Bodhicitta




---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you BodhiCitta

For now, could you give a small portion of a few accounts regarding how science has unsatisfactory exchanges with Buddhism?

Incidentally, the only comparison with Buddhism that I was aware of, was contained only in my last paragraph:
====Shawn: "I was also reading on some Buddhist matters long ago, and I remember something about correlated dharmas in Buddhist particle physics theories.  Are correlated dharmas considered to be a real tangible substance, or an illusion created by the incidental correlation of such dharmas?  I intended that one paragraph to be the only known Buddhist connection to my dualistic material thinking."

All of the rest of my question before that paragraph, was describing the dualism of macroscopic-holist-correlated-measurement-experiential-spiritual-transcendental-matter field as being separate from the familiar to western thought of microscopic-reductionist-matter-energy field.  If my thinking in all of the other paragraphs happens to be of Buddhist thought, then I was unawares of this relationship as I understand my own question, where I am trying to unify spirit and matter concepts in my mind, versus comparing teaching traditions, as I thought of all of the information, as one thing in my mind, but partitioned separately in western perspective, as you mention.

If allexperts is not your preferential platform for dialog, you may use my, rubbercraft1 at yahoo dot com, email, or my, LoneRubberDragon dot blogspot dot com, in the comments section, to dialog through my blog, as well, you may examine some of my more turbulent deep thoughts in that, my one page blog.  It is a work in progress, but what isn't?

Shawn


Answer
<<For now, could you give a small portion of a few accounts regarding how science has unsatisfactory exchanges with Buddhism?>>
I have been present at a number of such attempts.There probably
are transcripts but I do not have the references. An example
includes the Dalai Lama talking with Physicists at CERN. The exchanges
were so obviously broken that it doesn't really warrant deep analysis.
One fundamental problem is motivation, language and frames of reference. Both parties were politely talking about their own
stuff with no understanding of the terms or language used by the
other.

<<
Incidentally, the only comparison with Buddhism that I was aware of, was contained only in my last paragraph:
>>
I know. I assumed you did want to make such a comparison, but lacked
the necessary background in Buddhism to do so?

<<
====Shawn: "I was also reading on some Buddhist matters long ago, and I remember something about correlated dharmas in Buddhist particle physics theories.  Are correlated dharmas considered to be a real tangible substance, or an illusion created by the incidental correlation of such dharmas?  I intended that one paragraph to be the only known Buddhist connection to my dualistic material thinking.">>
I understood this. My question to you is to define your inquiry
and question?


<<
All of the rest of my question before that paragraph, was describing the dualism of macroscopic-holist-correlated-measurement-experiential-spiritual-transcendental-matter field as being separate from the familiar to western thought of microscopic-reductionist-matter-energy field.
>>
From a Western thought perspective as I understood it.


<<
If my thinking in all of the other paragraphs happens to be of Buddhist thought, then I was unawares of this relationship
>>
I assumed it wasn't Buddhist as you have no expertise in that area.

<<
If allexperts is not your preferential platform for dialog, you may use my, rubbercraft1 at yahoo dot com, email, or my, LoneRubberDragon dot blogspot dot com, in the comments section, to dialog through my blog, as well, you may examine some of my more turbulent deep thoughts in that, my one page blog.  It is a work in progress, but what isn't?
>>
My suggestion to you was to gain some understanding in Buddhism
so you could pursue your inquiry, should that be what you wish to do.

This would involve understanding the motivation, and methodology
of Buddhism - which I outlined.

If you gained that perspective I would be interested to find out
how your inquiry procedes. I will note your blogspot link.
Best wishes

So what is your training and background?

Bodhicitta