--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <. Can you help me with the > mind body question? > In Essence, Buddhist > > is "Naturalist" but not necessarily "materialist"; but Buddhists > are > > not inclined to separate mind from matter. > > Do they think of it like the traditions that posit a mental body? >Ans: just IMHO....perhaps Vaj can answer this in a more technical fashion; but being a Buddhist; "mind" = what we - ordinary folks - call (mind + matter); but I would imagine that in Buddhism, just as in Hinduism, there are elaborate treatises on the nature of the subtle bodies. It (philosophical and religious orientations) may often be a matter of emphasis. Buddhism even more than most branches of Hinduism, emphasizes the continuum of "existence" without even bothering (say, when you read the works of the Dalai Lama) to mention a separation between Being, not-Being; mind and matter. Toward the other extreme of dualism, we can get into the Greak dichotomy between Soul and matter (incorporated into Midieval Christianity); or, if one refers to the Judaic Hebrew texts (Ec: 9:5), the "Soul" IS the body, since when "you're" dead, you're in the grave, eaten by worms (but awaiting the Resurrection of the body). Personally, I find the continuum aspect to Buddhism refreshing: although I will hasten to add that I have had numerous contacts with "dead" people such as my parents, who obviously still exist (having subtle non-physical bodies). But subtle or physical, bodies are "mind" along with everything else. Thus, the determinism of matter such as molecules would not be distinguished from the determinism of "mind" in Buddhism. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" > <matrixmonitor@> wrote: > > > > ---Forgot to paste in the paragraph. Here it is: > > > > Free will - you only think you have it > > 04 May 2006 > > Zeeya Merali > > Magazine issue 2550 > > Underneath the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could lie a deeper > > reality in which, shockingly, all our actions are predetermined > > "WE MUST believe in free will, we have no choice," the novelist Isaac > > Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, "We must > > believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice," if two new studies > > are anything to go by. > > > > Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist finished polishing up > > his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the > > apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. A week after he announced > > it, two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has profound > > implications beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of quantum > > physics means we must give up the cherished notion that we have free > > will. The mathematicians believe the physicist is wrong. > > > > "It's striking that we have one of the greatest scientists of our > > generation pitted against two of the world's greatest > > mathematicians," says Hans Halvorson, a philosopher of physics at > > Princeton University. > > > > Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is ... > > > > The complete article is 1310 words long. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, previous contributors, for posting your respective opinions > > > on the relationship between free will and determinism; a topic in a > > > recent New Scientist article. Regarding the question as to whether > > > the "mind" aspect to free will is or can be somehow separate from > > the > > > determinism of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles; this > > > controversy was not alluded to specifically, in the article. My > > > impresssion is however, that among the two protagonists (pro vs > > con > > > free will); there's a tacit agreement that "mind" would definitely > > be > > > included as a subset in the supposed determinism of the "physical" > > > particles. Even from a Buddhist perspective, I don't see how such > > a > > > dualist agenda could be supported. In Essence, Buddhist > > > is "Naturalist" but not necessarily "materialist"; but Buddhists > > are > > > not inclined to separate mind from matter. But let's put this > > > question aside for the moment, and assume that IF matter is > > > determined, THEN mind and the alleged free will within/as mind is > > > also determined by prior causes. This (at this time) is an > > > unprovable assumption, but that's the assumption(IMO) the > > scientists > > > have agreed upon in laying out the framework for their hypotheses. > > I > > > left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy > > > what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph. Before > > > pasting it in, I will briefly summarize the basic issues. > > > The article is entitled "Free Will, you only think you have it".; > > > and alludes to the "against" free will, pro determinism researcher, > > > Nobel Prize winner Gerhard d'Hooft (or something like that -- can't > > > remember how to spell his name). On the pro-free-will (against > > > determinism) side, we have John Horton Conway, a famous > > mathematician > > > at Princeton, inventor of the "Game of Life" cellular automaton. > > > Interestingly, these two giants of science are "going at it" not > > with > > > philosophy, but rather with mathematical formulas; but at this > > time, > > > d'Hooft only believes he's on the right track. Conway differs, and > > > believes that the QM reality of existence is indeterminate. > > > However, I would add that in math, there are many hypotheses that > > > remain unproven, and there's no guarantee that there will "ever" be > > a > > > proof pro or con. > > > At any rate, the basic assumption among the two combatants is > > > that "mind" is only a subset of matter; so the question boils down > > to > > > determinism vs indeterminism (thus, no free will vs free will). > > > Last point, the article writer brought up the interesting point of > > > the downside to the pro side. (Conway believes QM - and thus > > > the "gross" level of reality...in fact: existence itself) is > > > fundamentally indeterminate, thus allowing for free will. The > > > downside is that to an extreme, in the absence of determinism, > > > RANDOMNESS is the prodominant status of QM: quantum particles and > > > thus all of existence as an emergent property, is inherently random. > > > So, is a rather bleak tradeoff: if QM reality is indeterminant, > > free > > > will existence exists, but at a big price: it's "free" but is > > > fundamentally random. > > > > > >
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lik1AB/fOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
