Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Joshua10]

Pattern-chaser, would you believe that your dear self is some sort of illusion?

Perhaps I would if I were convinced, but I have discovered nothing, so far, that would persuade me that my self is, or is not, "some sort of illusion".

As a Buddhist, I am convinced that my dear self
is NOT any kind of illusion in any sense of this word.

The self is real as everything else in reality.

SELF exists in reality.SELF is not an illusion.

Duality is associated with consciousness “toggling”.This is when SELF is controlled by the interacting + and - electromagnetic forces in nature in unawareness.SELF knows this because SELF is aware of the 2 waking consciousness states which SELF experiences in the form of the in (+) and out (-) of the moment consciousness states.SELF is not the in (+) and out (-) of the moment consciousness states.SELF merely experiences these consciousness states.

The Buddha knew nothing of this.

Once aware, SELF doesn’t associate itself with these 2 consciousness states anymore but separates itself from them and symmetrically balances these forces out by the philosophical formula +/-=+/-

SELF is aware; present and still at the FULCRUM or at the centre, separate from these + and - electromagnetic forces. At the = sign if you like.

The Buddha merely “toggled” back and forth to the right and left believing he was an illusion, trapped in duality a “prisoner of consciousness “toggling” because he had no control of these + and - electromagnetic forces of nature because he was totally controlled and unaware.

The Buddha was trapped in darkness and didn’t realise it.He was unable to escape from it.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser, would you believe that your dear self
is some sort of illusion, AS OPPOSED TO THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE REAL ?

Being moderately uncertain about the whole issue of the 'self', yes, I would consider the possibility...?

[Pattern-chaser]

What is "reality", and what is its ultimate nature?

I don't know, but that's what metaphysics was invented for, and following that path is (IMO) quite a lot of fun anyway, even though we can guarantee no certain conclusions.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Pattern-chaser, would you believe that your dear self
is some sort of illusion, AS OPPOSED TO THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE REAL ?

Being moderately uncertain about the whole issue of the 'self', yes, I would consider the possibility...?

Dear Pattern-chaser, as a well-educated Buddhist, from the bottom of my warm heart,
I strongly advise you AGAINST considering this obviously silly possibility..

Our suffering is painfully real, our life is real, and we all are real,
and I have no illusions about it whatsoever, my friend.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser, would you believe that your dear self
is some sort of illusion, AS OPPOSED TO THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE REAL ?

Being moderately uncertain about the whole issue of the 'self', yes, I would consider the possibility...?

Dear Pattern-chaser, as a well-educated Buddhist, from the bottom of my warm heart,
I strongly advise you AGAINST considering this obviously silly possibility..

Our suffering is painfully real, our life is real, and we all are real,
and I have no illusions about it whatsoever, my friend.

I adhere to logic whenever it is relevant and appropriate. And logic tells me that everything is a possibility until we have sufficient reason to reject it as impossible (i.e. no longer a possibility). ... Unless you have some sort of proof, or something similar, that would demonstrate that the self is not an illusion, or anything like it?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

... Unless you have some sort of proof, or something similar, that would demonstrate that the self is not an illusion, or anything like it?

Dear Pattern-chaser, in spiritual Buddhist philosophy,
we don't prove anything to others.

We do long meditations alone, in order to accept or reject some assertions,
conclusions, or premises, to the best of our own ability.

I don't know if you realize that nothing whatsoever can be objectively proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, even in formal mathematics, which has been
demonstrated to be an irrefutable fact by Kurt Godel :

www. quantumantigravity.wordpress. com/up/

Spiritual experimental philosophy of Buddhism constitutes
a mere world-view along with its practical methods of self-discovery,
which you may decide to adopt, or not, based on your
own logical reasoning.

Spiritual experimental philosophy of Buddhism is scientifically logical,
and requires scientifically logical debate to arrive at conclusions,
or dismiss them.

In Buddhism, not only you don't have to accept anything,
but you must be skeptical of everything,
especially of what you deeply and blindly believe to be true
in your conceptual "blind spots".

Dear Pattern-chaser, all I wrote to you was :
" from the bottom of my warm heart, I strongly advise you AGAINST
considering this obviously silly possibility. " [/b]

That was all.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Why philosophy of Idealism is counter-intuitive?
By Dr. Jonathan Österman, Ph.D., ETH Zürich, Switzerland


The view of the philosophy of Idealism is counter-intuitive to most people, and even to most philosophers.

It is not my intention to try and convert anyone to the philosophy of Idealism.

Many educated people, and many scientists who have educated these people, naturally hold the view of scientific materialism, which believes that “mind” is simply another way of saying that “brain thinks”, and that “consciousness”, as something separate from brain, simply does not exist in any other way than being an illusion that we all naturally experience and deeply believe in. And therefore, there is no such thing as “free will” either, our apparent “free will” being another associated illusion. Emergence of life was an accident, and our Universe is essentially meaningless.

OK, fine. If you like this view, then be happy with it. It does not bother me a bit, as a philosophical Idealist that I am. I think your view is naive and philosophically childish, and you think that my view is clearly and obviously wrong, to say the least. We agree to respectfully disagree.

Dr. David Chalmers PhD wrote:

” When I was in graduate school, I recall hearing: “One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an Idealist”. I don’t know where this comes from, but I think the idea was something like this. First, one is impressed by the successes of science, endorsing materialism about everything and so about the mind. Second, one is moved by problem of consciousness to see a gap between physics and consciousness, thereby endorsing dualism, where both matter and consciousness are fundamental. Third, one is moved by the inscrutability of matter to realize that science reveals at most the structure of matter and not its underlying nature, and to speculate that this nature may involve consciousness, thereby endorsing panpsychism. Fourth, one comes to think that there is little reason to believe in anything beyond consciousness and that the physical world is wholly constituted by consciousness, thereby endorsing Idealism.”

Well, then, in a spirit of open-minded curiosity, let me ask you the following question, and let us know your answer, please.

My question pertains to the physical materialistic explanation of the mechanism (process) of sensory perception.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s consider the process of seeing only, because our sense of sight is dominant in our human experience.

THE PHYSICAL MATERIALISTIC EXPLANATION OF OUR EXPERIENCE OF SEEING:

Please, correct me if I am wrong, the long story short, photons hit the bottom of our eyes, as a result of it electric signals are being sent from eyes along the optic nerve to the visual cortex. The visual cortex, somehow, manages to do a very complex processing of these electric signals, and the end result of this processing is us seeing the external physical reality, OUT THERE.

The external physical reality OUT THERE, as opposed to the internal physical reality IN HERE, meaning inside the visual cortex, where our seeing happens, and our internal experience of this seeing (a produced image of reality), according to the scientific materialism, can’t be happening anywhere else than inside our visual cortex, similar to us being able to see our night dreams inside our sleeping brain.

So, how does it work in scientific detail ?

How exactly does it happen, according to mainstream physics, that we can see OUTSIDE of our brains also, and not exclusively INSIDE our brains?

Because the scientific fact is that we all see the external physical reality where it really is, OUT THERE, outside of our visual cortex exclusively, and never inside of it, like when we are sleeping?

Is it a wrong, or stupid, question?

Is it only me, who makes a problem of something obvious that is not a problem at all?

Well, I am not alone. Misery loves company!

William P. Byers, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Statistics wrote:

“ It is certainly conceivable that the clarity we perceive in the external world is something we bring to the world, not something that is there independent of us. The clarity of the natural world is a metaphysical belief that we unconsciously impose on the situation. We consider it to be obvious that the natural world is something exterior of us and independent of our thoughts and sense impressions; we believe in a mind-independent reality. Paradoxically, we do not recognize that the belief in a mind-independent reality is itself mind-dependent. Logically, we cannot work our way free of the bubble we live in, which consists of all of our sense impression and thoughts. The pristine world of clarity, the natural external world independent of the observer, is merely a hypothesis that cannot, even in principle, ever be verified. To say that the natural world is ambiguous is to highlight this assumption. It is to emphasize that the feeling that there is a natural world ‘out there’ that is the same for all people at all times, is an assumption that is not self-evident. This is not to embrace a kind of solipsism and to deny the reality of the world. It is to emphasize that the natural external world is intimately intertwined with the internal world of the mind.”

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

What is "reality", and what is its ultimate nature?

I don't know, but that's what metaphysics was invented for, and following that path is (IMO) quite a lot of fun anyway, even though we can guarantee no certain conclusions.

According to Buddhism, reality is everything that we experience in our normal human life.

Among other things, matter, energy, space and time, Western science
and technology are, of course, valid and real.
What would be the point in denying it ?

However, reality is not limited to human experience only.
There are also animals and plants. All these valid realities intersect
to some extent, obviously.

Now that we know what reality is (according to Buddhism),
there is also a question about the ultimate nature of reality.

According to Buddhism, the ultimate nature of reality,
the ontological ground of all existence,
is the continuum of the subtlest level of consciousness,
which had no beginning, and will have no end, either.

According to Buddhism, this continuum of the subtlest level
of consciousness, is impersonal.

In general, according to Buddhism, any level of consciousness is impersonal.

Personality (of an animal person or of a human person)
comes into play when a mind comes into existence,
a mind being made of a gross level of consciousness.
"Mind" is always a mind of a particular person, also referred to
in Buddhism, as a sentient being.

According to Buddhism, there also exist disembodied minds
of persons, who previously had biological living bodies,
and in the West we refer to them as "ghosts".

A "ghost" is a person who is having a permanent Out-of-Body Experience :

www. youtube. com/watch?v=_lLe-J6ibqI

I suggest that you may also research Near-Death Experiences on Youtube.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

I adhere to logic whenever it is relevant and appropriate.

When is adhering to logic irrelevant for you ?

And when is adhering to logic inappropriate for you ?

[Joshua10]

If I were a Buddhist or an Atheist I would be very concerned that I do not have a source for my starting philosophical guess that equal but opposite forces in nature cancel out.This thought being directly related to the misguided guess that as good is bad and bad is good then all equal but opposite forces in nature cancel out.

I would be very concerned that my religious beliefs and science are founded upon half logic possibilities when the cosmos is definitely constructed on the basis of full logic possibilities because the 2 electromagnetic forces in nature do not cancel out but rather they produce 4 off possible interactions between two objects .i.e. -/+ and +/- (attraction) but also -/- and +/+ (repulsion).These 4 off electromagnetic interactions are occurring throughout the cosmos at both the macro and micro levels.

As generally accepted science has trusted in the false religious “Cult of Shiva’s” starting philosophy that equal but opposite forces cancel out in nature (which is ridiculous because in the present or in reality equal but opposite electromagnetic forces still exist which proves its science is false) it has ended up with one sided; biased; unbalanced and unsymmetrical theories and forces that in no way explain what is happening the cosmos and this is being confirmed by actual observations.

Yes,I would be very concerned indeed.

[Pattern-chaser]

I adhere to logic whenever it is relevant and appropriate.

When is adhering to logic irrelevant for you ?

And when is adhering to logic inappropriate for you ?

One example: personal social relationships or discussions sometimes take place wholly outside the purview of logic. In such circumstances, logic is irrelevant and inappropriate.





N.B. By logic I mean the near-mathematical philosophical logic you can find in books. By "logical", I do not mean "makes sense" — the word for that is "reasonable", not "logical".

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

I adhere to logic whenever it is relevant and appropriate.

When is adhering to logic irrelevant for you ?

And when is adhering to logic inappropriate for you ?

One example: personal social relationships or discussions sometimes take place wholly outside the purview of logic. In such circumstances, logic is irrelevant and inappropriate.

N. B.

By logic I mean the near-mathematical philosophical logic you can find in books. By "logical", I do not mean "makes sense" — the word for that is "reasonable", not "logical".

Good.

So, what do you think about this :

viewtopic.php?p=451730#p451730

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Preaching is not actually permitted.

My dear friend Sy Borg,

Hi.

I do realize that you are a vey kind, friendly, and intelligent Site Admin,
and I am just a newbe user here, so this is where our philosophical debate
might end on a bad day, with you remaining on this forum as a winner.

Did you imply that I was preaching ?

You might have noticed that my religion is Buddhism :

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19194

However, I was born in a traditional Roman-Catholic family in Europe.
At a time in my life when I completed my basic university education,
and started thinking critically for myself, I left Roman-Catholic religion
behind, for good, even though my parents were not happy about it.

In your opinion, do I preach Buddhism in my above topic?

You might not know this fact that Buddhists never preach Buddhism, as a matter of principle, because Buddhism is not rooted in blind faith needed to defend a purported existence of some invisible Creator Deity or deities in a fanatical opposition to other Creator deities.

So, why would you think that I would like to preach the Holy Bible (above) ?

As opposed to supernatural Creator God Yahweh, the Bible exists, and as such is subject to scientific research of academic atheistic historians, too.

My dear friend Sy Borg, NO OFFENCE, but in my humble opinion, some people on this forum, perhaps even including you, seem to be preaching Darwinian Evolution, simply because the hypothesis of random and blind Darwinian Evolution, exactly like the Bible, has been well historically established, and many atheists have developed a religious blind faith in it, such that on discussion forums they attack anyone who dare to express doubts about it, or worse, dare to ask inconvenient questions, like for example about Cambrian Explosion. All of this being conveniently ignored for the sake of objective scientific Truth.

In my humble opinion, the ideas of Big Band and Darwinian Evolution are clearly another instance of atheistic Creation Myths, and you might even know that the idea of Big Bang was originally proposed by a Roman-Catholic priest.

Buddhism is not a theistic creationist religion. Buddhism is not even a religion, and I am an experimental quantum physicist, and i don't preach anything. I am skeptical of everything, including my own pet-ideas, and therefore I continue to philosophically and scientifically freely debate everything with an open and unbiased mind.

I am sure you know that many prominent mainstream academic scientists hold strong religious beliefs. Human life has never been black-and-white only. Human life is deeply nuanced and frequently ambiguous, and none of us is perfect and omniscient. It was the modern quantum physics which demonstrated to us that Western science knows much less than scientists would be willing to publicly admit.

The Vatican had been engaging in Witch-hunts and the like, so now is pay-back time?

If you don't know, the philosophical view of Buddhism is called The Middle Way (Madhyamaka), and so this is where my mind peacefully remains, between the two extremes of the materialistic atheistic science and the theistic blind faith fanaticism, which are, sadly, the two sides of the same proverbial coin.

I hope that we still agree to respectfully disagree ?

With respect and much gratitude, I am
Sincerely yours,
Jon

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

SELF exists in reality. SELF is not an illusion.

Duality is associated with consciousness “toggling”.This is when SELF is controlled by the interacting + and - electromagnetic forces in nature in unawareness. SELF knows this because SELF is aware of the 2 waking consciousness states which SELF experiences in the form of the in (+) and out (-) of the moment consciousness states.SELF is not the in (+) and out (-) of the moment consciousness states.SELF merely experiences these consciousness states.

The Buddha knew nothing of this.

Once aware, SELF doesn’t associate itself with these 2 consciousness states anymore but separates itself from them and symmetrically balances these forces out by the philosophical formula +/-=+/-

SELF is aware; present and still at the FULCRUM or at the centre, separate from these + and - electromagnetic forces. At the = sign if you like.

The Buddha merely “toggled” back and forth to the right and left believing he was an illusion, trapped in duality a “prisoner of consciousness “toggling” because he had no control of these + and - electromagnetic forces of nature because he was totally controlled and unaware.

The Buddha was trapped in darkness and didn’t realise it. He was unable to escape from it.

Joshua10, I didn't know that.

Thank you very much for revealing the hidden truth about the Buddha and his Buddhism.

But, did you know that the Buddha had been born 500 years before Jesus Christ was born?
I hope you do not blame Buddha for not accepting Christ as his Saviour?
Buddha simply did his best under the circumstances,
and Buddhism today is the fourth largest religion in the world
in terms of the number of followers estimated at 500 million.

Your above post is very important for members of this forum to know about
in case they would like to convert to Buddhism after my preaching.

Joshua10, I want to convert to your religion.

What is your religion, Josh?


Joshua10 wrote above :

" SELF exists in reality. SELF is not an illusion."

Of course, I do agree with you, my friend!

But you did not answer my question : What is your self, Josh ?

[Celestine Apiche]

Buddhism's central philosophy revolves around the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. It begins with the recognition of suffering, understanding its cause, realizing that there is an end to suffering, and following a path to achieve that end. The Eightfold Path includes right understanding, intention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration. Ultimately, Buddhism aims at attaining enlightenment and breaking free from the cycle of rebirth.