What is this mind?

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure Luckyme is really "getting" where you are going with this or I dont think he would be as dismissive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're overreading my point. One of my best friends of decades teaches Zen Buddhism and we have discussed it many times for many hours. My own philosophy contains elements of zen holism. I'll restate -

If there is one general lesson we have learned it is that the way things "seem to me" are often very far off the mark when we can find objective measurements and tests. This applies to how a mind works as well and that area is one of the most fascinating of modern science.

There is plenty of value in some of the meditation techniques and the effect on your mind. It is the cause for that experience that I am disputing not the experience or it's benefits. Once we're aware that a zen master acheives what he does by controlling certain specific physical brain action ( like reducing blood flow to certain areas) and that effect can also be reached by other methods it gets us to firmer ground about what is going on. Similarly, once we're aware of the modular nature of mind, not of little minds but of tiny bits doing tiny roles it gives us a better picture that stands up to tests.

There is very little connection between what is occurring and how we experience it when it comes to the actions of the mind. It's not one of the last frontiers of science because it's obvious to us.

Blurring "what I experience" and "what is going on" and treating of them as the same thing is what I was trying to counter. I used the railway tracks and the meditative experience of 'oneness' as examples.

If it's not clear, no harm no foul,

luckyme

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure Luckyme is really "getting" where you are going with this or I dont think he would be as dismissive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're overreading my point. One of my best friends of decades teaches Zen Buddhism and we have discussed it many times for many hours. My own philosophy contains elements of zen holism. I'll restate -

If there is one general lesson we have learned it is that the way things "seem to me" are often very far off the mark when we can find objective measurements and tests. This applies to how a mind works as well and that area is one of the most fascinating of modern science.

There is plenty of value in some of the meditation techniques and the effect on your mind. It is the cause for that experience that I am disputing not the experience or it's benefits. Once we're aware that a zen master acheives what he does by controlling certain specific physical brain action ( like reducing blood flow to certain areas) and that effect can also be reached by other methods it gets us to firmer ground about what is going on. Similarly, once we're aware of the modular nature of mind, not of little minds but of tiny bits doing tiny roles it gives us a better picture that stands up to tests.

There is very little connection between what is occurring and how we experience it when it comes to the actions of the mind. It's not one of the last frontiers of science because it's obvious to us.

Blurring "what I experience" and "what is going on" and treating of them as the same thing is what I was trying to counter. I used the railway tracks and the meditative experience of 'oneness' as examples.

If it's not clear, no harm no foul,

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I am no scientist, I readily admit that, but from what i have read on this subject, more and more studies are being done with meditators. Most of what the neuroscientists are finding about the brain, meditators have known for possibly thousands of years.
Look up the study recently done on tibetan monks.
"Meditation alters perceptual rivalry in Tibetan Buddhist monks"
From what i've seen, much of what scientists are observing about the world around us has been observed, perhaps with different language to explain it, by meditators.
So i disagree with your thesis.

-g

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of what the neuroscientists are finding about the brain, meditators have known for possibly thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? They've known how it works? I think you have to separate experiencing the phenomena from the mechanism. That's like saying most of what neuroscientists are finding out about drug effects junkies have known for years.
Read the Dalai Lama's comments on this. He doesn't seem to discount sciences place in understanding what's going on.

You are correct--i misstated my claim on that.
Meditators dont necessarily understand the underlying brain mechanisms. But I think that the practices which have evolved are part of more clearly seeing and experiencing the world. That does not give them "all the answers".
I simply think that meditation is reliable enough to use as a way of understanding my own experience without relying on the knowledge of others.
An example: I am an athlete who uses interval training to improve my performance. perhaps i dont even call it interval training, i stumbled upon the techniques and use them to my benefit.
A scientist comes along, studies interval training and realizes the underlying mechanisms that make it effective.
Did I KNOW what the scientist knows? COurse not. But I knew the part that mattered. I knew that interval training helped my performance. There is a place for both of these realms of knowledge. The athletes, which is experiential, and the scientists, which is observational.

g

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of what the neuroscientists are finding about the brain, meditators have known for possibly thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? They've known how it works? I think you have to separate experiencing the phenomena from the mechanism. That's like saying most of what neuroscientists are finding out about drug effects junkies have known for years.
Read the Dalai Lama's comments on this. He doesn't seem to discount sciences place in understanding what's going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

But would you rather see how the mind works, or see with the mind that works. I think seeing how the mind works, which science can provide important clues to, is a necessary step to seeing with the mind that works, but is a step towards seeing with the mind that works. The conceptual step isn't the realization itself.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of what the neuroscientists are finding about the brain, meditators have known for possibly thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? They've known how it works? I think you have to separate experiencing the phenomena from the mechanism. That's like saying most of what neuroscientists are finding out about drug effects junkies have known for years.
Read the Dalai Lama's comments on this. He doesn't seem to discount sciences place in understanding what's going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But would you rather see how the mind works, or see with the mind that works.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the issue. These are very different things. I was just pointing that out since Gorvinator's original post equated them.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of what the neuroscientists are finding about the brain, meditators have known for possibly thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? They've known how it works? I think you have to separate experiencing the phenomena from the mechanism. That's like saying most of what neuroscientists are finding out about drug effects junkies have known for years.
Read the Dalai Lama's comments on this. He doesn't seem to discount sciences place in understanding what's going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But would you rather see how the mind works, or see with the mind that works.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the issue. These are very different things. I was just pointing that out since Gorvinator's original post equated them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I see what youre saying, disregard my post [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].