Thanks man, that was really interesting. "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 "
So now I'm Jewish above the waist too! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- 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 --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/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/
