[Baztek]

Reincarnation as understood by Deepak Chopra and co. (a continuity of self is maintained across multiple incarnations etc.) is illogical and not the Buddhist understanding of reincarnation, where the accent is not on the continuity of the self but the principle of craving which undergirds the self's phenomenal manifestation. As in, kill yourself and the impersonal thirst for being that you essentially are - and which your ego is simply an accretion around - will keep dragging you back in until it is finally extinguished.

I don't blame you guys for having these notions of these concepts since popularizers are pretty pleb-tier themselves but I promise you guys Alan Watts aren't the end-all be-all of Eastern thought.

[SmilerLoki]

The question "what is the nature of meaning" isn't a scientific question, it's a philosophical question

Indeed.

but at the same time meaning is something ascribed to things by neural circuits, and to understand these neural circuits you need science.

And this, I'm not so sure about. The mechanical functions of those circuits, it can be assumed, create the fundamental material framework for meaning to arise (that is, it creates us, so we can discuss meaning). As for meaning itself, it is a philosophical concept, and I'm not at all hasty to ascribe all philosophy to material science. Right now, philosophy might not even conform to the principle of fundamental objectivity, which science is based on.

To be clear, I'm not trying to prove anything, since I don't really see a way. I merely postulate that there is more than one framework of understanding some concepts. For example, "self", "consciousness", "morals", and "meaning".

[TLEILAXU]

There's really nothing new science is telling us that a intuition, arduous study, and introspection hasn't already revealed.

Here's my problem with your argument: Science confirms Buddha's insight (that there's no self-moving soul) -> extrapolation -> "There's really nothing new science is telling us that a intuition, arduous study, and introspection hasn't already revealed."
Buddha may even have been somewhat blind to his own insight, given his religion's seemingly need for a soft version of free will. This is the essence. Science reveals those blindnesses.

[SmilerLoki]

Here's my problem with your argument: Science confirms Buddha's insight (that there's no self-moving soul) -> extrapolation -> "There's really nothing new science is telling us that a intuition, arduous study, and introspection hasn't already revealed."

Sorry to barge in, but I just want to say this is completely not how I understood what Baztec was saying. Right now philosophical questions are not entirely scientific in the sense that they are based on largely subjective things (at least things we call "subjective" for now), which can also be things in themselves in some frameworks of reasoning. In this fashion these questions are mulled over for millennia, and right now science doesn't really offer any new perspectives on them. It tries to understand our brain circuits, not the end result those circuits provide.

[TLEILAXU]

Here's my problem with your argument: Science confirms Buddha's insight (that there's no self-moving soul) -> extrapolation -> "There's really nothing new science is telling us that a intuition, arduous study, and introspection hasn't already revealed."

Sorry to barge in, but I just want to say this is completely not how I understood what Baztec was saying. Right now philosophical questions are not entirely scientific in the sense that they are based on largely subjective things (at least things we call "subjective" for now), which can also be things in themselves in some frameworks of reasoning. In this fashion these questions are mulled over for millennia, and right now science doesn't really offer any new perspectives on them. It tries to understand our brain circuits, not the end result those circuits provide.

And what happens when those very questions are blind to the nature of the brains that produced them?

[SmilerLoki]

And what happens when those very questions are blind to the nature of the brains that produced them?

Are they? Can they even be, if the necessary complexity for them to arise requires all those circuits to work together, nothing less? So only the system itself is defining, and not its individual parts?

For example, let's take the literary series that ignited our discussion. Are only some of its words defining? Or just some chapters? Or even some books? Or is it only the series as a whole that defines itself?

[TLEILAXU]

And what happens when those very questions are blind to the nature of the brains that produced them?

Can they even be, if the necessary complexity for them to arise requires all those circuits to work together, nothing less?

We're all blind to the darkness that comes before, as they say.

[SmilerLoki]

We're all blind to the darkness that comes before, as they say.

I'm not at all sure it's relevant for every facet of our life and reasoning, even if it is technically true.

Also, that entire exercise with the Dunyain brought forth supremely controversial results.

[The Sharmat]

Science can't contradict these philosophical concepts because human scientific knowledge of these areas is still extremely rudimentary.

[SmilerLoki]

Science can't contradict these philosophical concepts because human scientific knowledge of these areas is still extremely rudimentary.

My point wasn't that it fundamentally can't (that question is open, but it's a fair bit more advanced than what I had in mind). I was talking precisely about science being somewhere at the start of a long road to quite possibly gaining those much needed new perspectives on philosophical issues. Not to mention relevant information obtained through the scientific method is valuable even if it doesn't further philosophical understanding.

[Baztek]

There's really nothing new science is telling us that a intuition, arduous study, and introspection hasn't already revealed.

Here's my problem with your argument: Science confirms Buddha's insight (that there's no self-moving soul) -> extrapolation -> "There's really nothing new science is telling us that a intuition, arduous study, and introspection hasn't already revealed."
Buddha may even have been somewhat blind to his own insight, given his religion's seemingly need for a soft version of free will. This is the essence. Science reveals those blindnesses.

You think I'm implying science needed to confirm these insights so Buddhists can breathe a little easier. If anything science just peeked under the hood to get a better look at why the engine keeps catching when the Buddha et al diagnosed it as a transmission problem millennia ago. Like okay the analogy isn't perfect because Buddhism still proposes a solution that is more of an inner science than an objective one but you get the idea.

 

Science can't contradict these philosophical concepts because human scientific knowledge of these areas is still extremely rudimentary.

My point wasn't that it fundamentally can't (that question is open, but it's a fair bit more advanced than what I had in mind). I was talking precisely about science being somewhere at the start of a long road to quite possibly gaining those much needed new perspectives on philosophical issues. Not to mention relevant information obtained through the scientific method is valuable even if it doesn't further philosophical understanding.

I think people who think science can, say, explain subjectivity qua subjectivity don't really understand the problem. Try to imagine in your mind some hypothetical solution to consciousness, some diagram, formula, description, etc. that once and for all, explains, say, how/why the experience of my watching film x is the way it is or whatever in such a way that is immediately accessible to concrete intuition.

Something like, "the lighting in the scene affects you in the register of melancholy because tensor fields in your neurons resonate according to this particular frequency in a way orthogonal to the synaptic gap", like some bullshit like that, and you'll see how completely absurd it is to try to propose a thoroughly mechanical explanation of how any particular conscious experience isn't already what it is, but really [tortured physical explanation provided by physicalist who just twisted himself into a pretzel trying to get it out]

[SmilerLoki]

I think people who think science can, say, explain subjectivity qua subjectivity don't really understand the problem. Try to imagine in your mind some hypothetical solution to consciousness, some diagram, formula, description, etc. that once and for all, explains, say, how/why the experience of my watching film x is the way it is or whatever in such a way that is immediately accessible to concrete intuition.

Something like, "the lighting in the scene affects you in the register of melancholy because tensor fields in your neurons resonate according to this particular frequency in a way orthogonal to the synaptic gap", like some bullshit like that, and you'll see how completely absurd it is to try to propose a thoroughly mechanical explanation of how any particular conscious experience isn't already what it is, but really [tortured physical explanation provided by physicalist who just twisted himself into a pretzel trying to get it out]

Even if this kind of explanation is found, there is like a million questions still. Okay, we have a working mechanical framework of understanding consciousness, good. How does it diminish the validity of some form of philosophical/sensitivist framework where each emotion, for example, is a thing in itself? There is Newtonian formalism, and then there are Lagrangian and Hamiltonian ones. They are all valid.

On the other hand, I would like to have more information even if it doesn't necessarily objectively solve everything. So I salute scientific advancement.

Again, I don't seem to have a point here, really. I have a mentality to use things that are immediately useful (more things equals more options, then) and not feel any existential dread about what those things might potentially mean in the grand scheme of the universe. But that's just my personal attitude.

[Baztek]

You have the right attitude. I like learning about what science has to say about the natural world, it's a fantastic supplement to a more holistic sense of reality, just forests and trees and all that. My main point is: if the nullity of the self threatens to send you careening into the abyss of sranc-tier hedonism, sounds like a you problem my brah.

[SmilerLoki]

You have the right attitude. I like learning about what science has to say about the natural world, it's a fantastic supplement to a more holistic sense of reality, just forests and trees and all that. My main point is: if the nullity of the self threatens to send you careening into the abyss of sranc-tier hedonism, sounds like a you problem my brah.

I'm inclined to agree with this point.

[Walter]

One more time, there is no 'you' to be sent careening into the abyss of sranc-tier hedonism.  Causes within, etc.  You will be able to mix and match your personality/emotions like you do smartphone apps.