Re: a quantum view of free will
- Hi Connie,
Sounds like we have some interests in common. At university, I took
courses in quantum mechanics and elementary particle physics.
I followed the link below and downloaded parts of the 1000+ page
book. Interesting reading.
A few months back, we had a discussion on DSG regarding Ethical vs.
Scientific views. My perspective is that Buddhism is primarily
ethical / soteriological and therefore takes a pure phenomological
approach. I don't think it makes sense to try and treat Buddhism like
science, where the primary objective is to create a model of reality.
What is your view on this?
Have you read, "Buddhist Theory of Causation and Einstein's Theory of
Relativity" by Filita P. Bharucha? What are your comments on this
I was recently sent a paper, "On the Stages of Perception: Towards a
Synthesis of Cognitive Neuroscience and the Buddhist Abhidhamma
Tradition" by Brian (Les) Lancaster. Please drop me an email if you
are interested in getting a copy.
Sorry, gotta go. They are boarding my flight from LA to KL.
Rob M :-)
--- In email@example.com, "connie" <nichicon@h...>
> Friends of the rat who might be interested in another theory ofin
> consciousness ~
> Our amazing lab rat, whilst meditating on the absurdities of being
> any way related to the foolish three blind mice, nonetheless foundwith
> itself warping through one of the inevitable worm holes and landed
> such force on theoretical physicist Matti Pitakanen'sout
> http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka that the half chewed pellet fell
> of it's mouth. There, the rat found a theory of Topologicalmagnitude of
> Geometrodynamics, "an attempt to unify fundamental interactions by
> assuming that physical spacetimes can be regarded as submanifolds of
> certain 8-dimensional space". Holy kalapa, sniffed our whiskered
> friend, that might help explain why the estimated order of
> the number of moments of consciousness per unit time given by thenot
> Buddhists agrees with that obtained from Penrose-Hameroff theory,
> that the rat has a clue what P-H theory, density matrix eigenstatesor
> future light cones entail, but there are always quantum leaps ofexplanation
> imagination. At which thought, the rat's eyes lit upon an
> that "Each quantum jump in the endless sequence of quantum jumpsfuture.
> corresponds to different "I" with its own memories and plans of
> "Me" is just God at this moment, or "Now". "You" is just "Me" atillusion
> different moment. Since the continuous personal existence is an
> there is no Death. Personal 'Me' dies and is reborn, when this Godmeans
> decides to look somewhere else. Or 'I' destroys the old world and
> creates a new one like in a dance of Shiva. Brahman=Atman identity
> the realization of this arbitrariness and the next step is torealize
> that there is no Atman nor any Brahman!" The rat stifled a snickeras
> Matti led a student into the room explaining that "standard quantumwith
> measurement theory is a prediction of TGD and relates very closely
> consciousness. In a similar manner, the generalization of quantumTGD
> hologram principle is equally crucial for quantum TGD as it is for
> inspired theory of consciousness. Furthermore, the states ofstates
> supercanonical representations are genuine quantum gravitational
> (state functionals in the 'world of worlds'). Hence they correspondto
> higher level of abstraction than ordinary quantum states and arenatural
> correlates of brain consciousness. So called massless extremals(MEs)
> carrying these supercanonical representations seem to be forthe
> consciousness what hydrogen atom is for atomic physics." At that,
> rat grabbed up the rest of the pellet and the edge of a drifting
> mindlike spacetime sheet and disappeared back into the maze.
> By the way, Sarah, it is said that "living organisms become in TGD
> Universe essentially objects of astrophysical size", so it seems
> reasonable that Buddha did possess more than just Towering Wisdom.
D: I appreciate your thoughtful response, which actually addresses
parts of the paradox I was trying to get at, by using the issue of
We probably can manage various learning methods simultaneously,
[alright, sequentially ;-) ]. IMO the main thing is avoiding
premature closure on 'other' methods and constructs, e.g. concepts,
until understanding the present dhammas becomes natural and
continous. Again IMO there is no need to reject concepts while
trying to make some point, and then blithely utilizing them,
sometimes in the next sentence! This apparently schizophrenic
approach can be unsettling to u.w. such as me.
J: There is no question of the dhamma rejecting concepts, as I
understand the teachings. Concepts are expounded upon at length in
(for example) certain parts of the Abhidhamma. They are a necessary
part of the life of everyone living in the sensuous planes. Even the
fully enlightened being thinks conceptually of persons and objects,
time and distance, life and death, and of course no speech of any
kind is possible without massive conceptualising.
What the teachings do is to explain the difference between concepts
and dhammas. Dhammas such as heat and hardness (experienced through
the body-sense), sound (experienced through he ear-sense) and so on
are universal and unchangeable phenomena that are experienced by
everyone. The teachings explain to us how those dhammas can be known
more truly for what they truly are (instead of being taken for
something that they arent). They each have their own individual
characteristic, and also share certain characteristics in common, and
it is these characteristics that gradually become known as
understanding is developed.
D: There have been some interesting observations on science and
Buddha's teachings. The only way to explore this exciting area
(either of convergence or divergence) is to use concepts.
Sound, its effect on the ear and mind-doors etc. can be fruitfully
explored using both constructs. I believe it cannot be done by being
fanatically averse to 'lowly' concepts.
J: The object of the study of the dhamma as urged by the Buddha, to
my understanding, is the seeing of any presently arising dhamma as it
truly is (i.e., rather than the study of a specific, chosen dhamma).
In order for this to occur there needs to be the discrimination
between dhammas and concepts. This discrimination is neither a
rejection of nor an aversion to concepts. Concepts are a necessary
and unavoidable part of functioning in this world and developing
D: I hope this is not just my clinging to concepts, but rather an
appreciation for their limited value.
I (being an u.w. interested in the rising and falling of theories in
the span of recent history) cannot intelligently comment on 'correct
answers', and suspect that in many cases, correctness is just another
J: I forget the exact context of my reference to correctness was,
but I would assume it was in the sense of being in accordance with
what is found in the texts, that being one of our 'quests' here, as I
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk