--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness > > > is a product of brain functioning, etc; > > > > You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). > > That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between > the added asterisks): > > > > > "Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded > > > > awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every > > > > aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When > > > > we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the > > > > spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when > > > > spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is > > > > physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the > > > > brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that > > > > wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be > > > > lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our > > > > understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it > > > > is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is > > > > measurable." > > > Isn't it more accurately summarized as "everything has a physical > > level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning"? > > Metaphysically that's a big difference. > > Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit > that consciousness is caused by ("is the product of") brain > functioning. And "is physical" is not the same as "has a > physical level." > > He may have "really meant" something more like your summary, > but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. > I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he > inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences > between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what > he wrote. >
I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?), true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY was not a reductionist/materialist as would seem to be implied by "consciousness is the product of brain functioning".
