Is Mind Only Just a Buncha Woo-Woo?
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 07. 2024
- Donate by PayPal - hardcorezen.info/donate
My Patreon page - www.patreon.com/user?u=4874189
LETTERS TO A DEAD FRIEND ABOUT ZEN audiobook - www.audible.com/pd/Letters-to...
My other audiobooks - www.audible.com/search?keywor...
My blog - hardcorezen.info
Write me at bw@hardcorezen.info
Materialism cannot end suffering that's for sure. Thanks for the videos!
yes it can, if it's true! when you die you no longer suffer
Great video, it touches on a subject that’s been central to my practice for the last decade or so. Started out more ‘woo’, but a need for integrity and honesty in practice forced a turn towards materialism. Yet somehow that didn’t quite work either, it explained things away without really touching on the heart of experience. Zen became a middle way between two equally unsatisfying alternatives in that sense.
Thanks again, for the food for thought.
In the philosophy of mind vernacular, the topic is referred to as "The Mind-Body Problem" and people usually (in general) take 1 of 3 sides: 1) everything is material (Materialists, Physicalists, etc); 2) there is something spritual or psycho-physical that connects the body and mind, like a god or undiscovered natural force (Dualists, like Descartes and even the 'universal consciousness' crowd); or 3) everything is just a product of the mind (Idealists). There's lots of "subgenres," but I think Buddhism falls outside the 3 groups because there is no distinction between what is physical and mental. The mind minding is no more special than a ziggy ziggying. Also, Dogen's long list of stuff starts to make sense... the "mind" is everything. not in an idealist sense but in a non-dualistic sense.
exactly, and it is also beyond either "belief" or "logical thought", it is an experience.
Is it possible to explain something to a rationalist (i.e., discriminating mind) "in a non-dualistic sense?" That seems a large gulf between two 'schools' of thought.
@@JimTempleman like another commenter said, it kinda flirts with the limits of logical thought. Any explanation of non-dualism sounds kinda woo woo [like what Brad is talking about]. In my opinion, this is where “skillful means” comes into play-which I take to mean, “speak with your actions, not your words (but also your words).”
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb
> The mind is the body.
The mind emanates from the body.
> Actually you can observe this yourself.
Actually that is all you can observe/experience.
> You can sit, observe the body, enter Dhyana, and see that the mind has actually no location.
When you’re inside of something, like a fish in a body of water, you experience the body of water as having no location. Or a radio transmission, it appears all around you, so it mustn't be transmitted from a tower, now mustn't it?
> It is not in your head, it is all over.
It’s silly to exclude your head. But yes, there are the sympathetic, parasympathetic, and musculoskeletal nervous systems that connect the brain to the rest of the body. And the Dharmakaya that connects you to your universe via dependent arising.
> The Buddha taught this.
True, but Mahayana, and Chan/Zen extended his work.
> He taught direct experience.
So did James J. Gibson, a perceptual psychologist.
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb I totally agree. The mind is the body. But also the our body is everything. I can’t remember the name of the zen priest, but he uses the 1=0=infinity metaphor to describe inter-being, and I think the same model can be applied to what we call the “mind.” It’s the body. It’s everything. It’s nothing.
this is the funniest video i’ve seen by you. informative casual and entertaining. greatly appreciated.
I do hope you can get into your writing groove *and* keep making videos! They are both so good!
"Because it leaves you thinking the ONLY thing you can do in life is just get as much as you can..."
The best statement ever written for this point of view was by the Marquis De Sade in the 1700s. His essay is called 'Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man'.
PRIEST: Now that the fatal hour is upon you wherein the veil of illusion is torn aside only to confront every deluded man with the cruel tally of his errors and vices, do you, my son, earnestly repent of the many sins to which you were led by weakness and human frailty?
DYING MAN: Yes, I do so repent.
PRIEST: Then in the short space you have left, profit from such timely remorse to ask
that you be given general absolution of your sins, believing that only by considering the
reverence of the most comfortable and holy sacrament of penitence may you hope for
forgiveness at the hand of Almighty God our Eternal Father.
DYING MAN: I understand you no better than you have understood me.
PRIEST: What’s that?
DYING MAN: You did not understand what I meant.
PRIEST: But what other interpretation...?
DYING MAN: The one I shall now give. I was created by Nature with the keenest
appetites and the strongest of passions and was put on this earth with the sole purpose of placating both by surrendering to them. They are components of my created self and are no more than mechanical parts necessary to the functioning of Nature’s basic purposes. Or if you prefer, they are incidental effects essential to her designs for me and conform entirely to her laws. I repent only that I never sufficiently acknowledged the omnipotence of Nature and my remorse is directed solely against the modest use I made of those faculties, criminal in your eyes but perfectly straightforward in mine, which she gave me to use in her service. I did at times resist her, and am heartily sorry for it. I was blinded by the absurdity of your doctrines to which I resorted to fight the violence of desires planted in me by a power more divinely inspired by far, and I now repent of having done so. I picked only flowers when I could have gathered in a much greater harvest of ripe fruits. Such is the proper cause of my regret; respect me enough to impute no other to me.
I don't know why materialism must lead to selfishness & mindless accumulation of stuff. Caring for others gives my life meaning even if I believe that meaning is something produced by my physical brain.
Materialism is Dictatorship. Dictatorship doesn't necessarily lead to selfish accumulation of stuff, but then non-accumulators aren't the sort to become dictators.
@@xxxYYZxxx Why is materialism dictatorship?
Because it's a self-contradiction advanced as a reasonable claim. It's a self contradiction because if only materialism exists, then mind can't possibly muster generic, universal statements about material. Only the logical precedents can be generic and universal, while ancillary or subordinate conditions can't, except of-course as sheer dictatorship. @@matthewhiebert7004
Consider what Chris Langan (200 IQ) says about the mind/body issue: "In response to David Garrett, Rex Kerr says that what David calls "the mental aspects of reality" may be ontologically secondary and "emergent". No, they may not, at least insofar as emergence is an orderly process requiring coordination by general, abstract syntactic principles. That is, where emergence entails syntax, and syntax is abstract (mental or trans-physical) in nature, mental reality is critical to the emergence of physical reality and not vice versa. The fact that mind then achieves physical instantiation is beside the point; syntax is still more general than, and therefore logically prior to, the physical objects and states which instantiate it."@@matthewhiebert7004
I agree Matthew. Seems to me like a little bit of a simplistic take on it. I'm agnostic. But i suspect that the human species could be naturally empathetic as otherwise the human species may have very quickly become extinct early on, by being overcome by predators. Same situation too with buffalo. And other species. Point being that materialism won't necessarily automatically dictate a dog-eat-dog type of existence. Or the idea that beings would end up only being only out to get all they can gain for themselves alone. There again, perhaps it's just the adage applies that if enough people believe it to not be so, then it must not be so. Its not like as if buffalo are reading the bible, or will have studied Zen Buddhism, for reason to explain why they won't turn tail and run, to serve themselves alone, upon coming under attack from a pack of lions.
I care no more whether the entire universe was created only by mind or something else. I just know that my own mind "creates" my own future through karma. The content of my mind will be the "basis" for my future because the law of karma exists. Karma is produced through our own mind and action.
nice head-shrinking effect i get everytime i come here. just ordered the other-side book !
Really enjoyed this talk 👍
Good luck with the book. Happy Christmas.
A long while ago, I lost sight of the purpose of debates like this. Not trying to act above it all or anything. I just don’t get the interest. Not even sure why I feel the need to make this comment. I’m a bit sleepy, so maybe that’s it.
Maybe you need someone to tell you to sleep more and that’s why you made the comment.
In the simplest terms I get what you mean just because the eastern philosophy is one and the same chaldean mind model that we physically or mathematically mapped now. String Theory math likely went deep into this line of thought in an abstract way.
Both are subjugated and trapped in platos cave mystified by the shadows on the wall, even though the east unties themselves and may be aware of the escape they don't, they submit within.
Our mechanics and technicians are in the entrance inside now but early classical American minds escape stand outside in the real world
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb oh its definitely eastern pagan philosophical beliefs we even find the same lineage in north & south America no different than the west they all just have theyre own spin on it.
But its one and the same chaldean models they gp on to perfect it and become the full embodiment of it.
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb Yeah I agree we are a sack of flesh navagating the world around us,, a human dashboard that can't ever be ignored or removed from the system no matter how hard we try ,no matter how many instruments we put between us and reality itself.
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb The east nature is god routine is very much there. Consciousness everywhere is one and the same chaldean model. We physically mapped this mindset mathematically now.
Idealism = mind shapes reality; Physicalism = matter/environment shapes brain processes which generate consciousness. Panpsychism (gaining popularity) = consciousness is fundamental and exists at all levels, including the atomic level. It builds up to a very complex system, which is us.
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb the Buddhas philosophy at its core is idealism. The foudnation of all Buddism is base don that all phenomenon orignate within the mind
Really liked this one! A lot of fun topics, was all over the place in a good way.
A problem with materialism is, even if it's true, that isn't how the mind operates. You can talk about observable and repeatable phenomena all day, but its just noise to the brain. The brain doesn't care about chemicals and matter, it cares about symbolic constructs; people, feelings, sensations, thats how the brain computes. Starving oneself of that is inhumane to the self. People seem to starve themselves of things for social reasons a lot; food, philosophy, relationships, because they think they're "supposed to". Because you're not good enough, because you're too good for it, you're either higher or lower in a hierarchy so therefor you must and cannot have certain things, think certain ways, do certain things.
I think the biggest argument against materialism is its circular nature. We're using these sense perceptions that we have in order to try to conceptually define what these sense perceptions detect, but we often don't stop to think about whether the sense organs themselves are detecting reality as it actually exists. That's what's so mindblowing about the fitness beats truth theorem to me, because it shows that it is highly likely that the way evolution shaped our sense perceptions actually do NOT have anything to do with perceiving reality as it actually exists.
“If enough people believe it, it makes it true.” Succinctly put. I grew up catholic and any time we had “interfaith” events (which only ever consisted of other local christian groups) there was always this pressure to be “saved” which drove me up the wall. As I met more folks like that I began to clearly see how hollow(?) and performative their faith was, it was super weird. Imagine my surprise to find out that there are evangelical Buddhist groups as well (admittedly not many)!
Anyway, I always look forward to videos and new books. Have a lovely holiday!
Thanks, Gassho.
Hilarious video Brad ! You made me laugh …being human …! Everything observed may be described, rightly or wrongly but nothing ultimately can be explained (my opinion).
Loved the Monkees reference, and you were on point with the issue of original material, especially for the late Michael Nesmith, a songwriter of note for other artists (Stone Ponies + Nitty Gritty Dirt Band)
Bernardo Kastup is the guy! Subjective idealism. some PHD guy thoroughly discusses subjective idealism over about five you tube videos. the most comprehensive discussion of the subject. A buddhist-vedandist with a totally "western logical" perspective. You got to see it Brad
I have that same guitar. Awesome
i just mind my own business
Yes, please, to a book on Yogacara. I am just about to start reading Making Sense of Mind Only. I wonder if it would be worth writing to or speaking to Bill Waldron about his use of the term 'realism' to clarify his meaning?
Nishijima Roshi seems to use 'realism' in Three Philosophies One Reality to refer to the negation of both idealism and materialism but I am not well versed enough in philosophy to know if that accords with how the term is generally used.
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb Right, and I don't think that use of realism accords with how it is generally used in philosophy.
It seems like "realism" has a definition among philosophers. It's not entirely clear to me if it's always used as a synonym for materialism, but it seems to be used that way.
Nishijima Roshi used the word "realism" differently. He used it in a more colloquial sense, more in the way that most people outside of the world of philosophy people use the word.
Words are slippery.
I've been deconstructing from Catholicism, watching lots of debates, apologists, etc. And i too react negatively to snarky attitudes, anger or condescending attitudes. Really enjoying your videos. I'm considering getting into either Buddhism or advaita vedanta. Cheers.
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb oh ok cool, thanks
TMM stands for The Messianic Manic, I believe. Good channel.
Isn’t the more pertinent question, “ Isn’t Zen a nunca woo woo?”🤷♂️
Hardcore materialistic scientists want to know
Narcissists are ego centric they don't have empathy and tend to be materialistic they can't feel energy or positive feelings so spirituality is woo woo. The opposite is true for empathic spiritual people we feel energy and know there's something more.
Mind Only is just a buncha Ziggy. Mu! Mu!
Gram Parsons…. Oh yeah
I have a difficult time wrapping my head around things that give our life purpose versus the purpose of our things. How can you let go of living your life with things that bring pleasure while you are alive? Why do we strip down our minds to accept pleasure as a problem. ? I see them at times, as just who we might be or become.
Now i want to know what stuff Homeless Kodo was into...
*lol*
Can’t be disproven.
it's exciting to not know
Brad talks that the pitfall of a materialistic belief is that that kind of people degrade so called idealistic believes on the premise "they just believe in any woo-hoo which makes them feel better". But at the end of the video he himself said, that he prefers to have a Buddhist approach, because (tada!) it makes him feel better.
I always have lots of respect to Brad Warner and his way of writing good Buddhist books. But sometimes I catch myself on a thought, that "that one video rant wasn't prepared good enough"... Thank you, Brad, for all your stuff :)
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb , xcuse me, but no. Dhyāna means some ecstatic trance, like samādhi which means "higher state of mind". Observing body (in body) is one fourth of sati-patthana method.
In sati-patthana we cultivate observation of the four-fold flow - body-feelings-thoughts-ideas.
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb we'll, my note was about the meaning of the words dhi-ana and sam-adhi. You are writing about the process of sati-patthana, mindful observation. OK, no argument needed.
It may seem off topic but GRAM PARSONS!!!
The Buddha is the mind. The mind is the Buddha.
I do want to start by saying I really enjoy your content and books,
I don't want to be contrarian or cynical but as a naturally skeptical person I do have to ask; how does this come down to anything more than preference?
Specifically the idea that it isn't just lights out after physical death and morals being something objective and intrinsic?
I do acknowledge that lights out and no objective morals can be a bit depressing and nilhilistic but do we actually have any proof or reason to believe that that isn't the case; outside of preference?
ultimealey it all is just preference, you have to find the path you prefer. The reason is that we really don't know, and therefore it is in the realm of preference, or faith if you like. At least Buddhists aren't forcing their view on you (mostly). At the end of all argument and debate, do what you do. It helps if you are a good person while you are alive and help to make the universe better for other sentient beings, but there is no way to prove you "should" do that, and there really shouldn't have to be :)
@@t.c.bramblett617 Good reply, thank you.
I was speaking with a friend about this stuff and this is the conclusion we came to.
The core difference between an atheist worldview and non-duality (Buddhist, Advaita, etc ) worldview is the interconnectedness of the whole realm of experience. That's the big difference, and understanding yourself being intimately connected to everything else naturally (let's hope) stirs compassion in how you live your life.
I read a book, look! I know everything. (in a childish voice, that only an American person would do)
The Dinosaur Cookie Cutters would be a good name for a really bland pop rock band.
Hi. I know you believe that, and heck, maybe you are right. But Shakyamuni isn't around anymore, and it really doesn't matter to me what he did say. It only matters to me if what we think he might have said is correct (and wise), and asserting your belief that it is correct doesn't help me see, either that he was correct or incorrect.
Here’s the problem I’ve come up against. There are a lot of variations in the way Mind-Only is meant, and how it is presented, in different Sutras or by different masters. Some are major departures, others are more subtle differences. When I have discussions with other people, they tend to have picked some author’s viewpoint and rarely budge.
Personally, I’ve come to the conclusion that I should simply pick the version that makes the most sense to me. (Which is funny because:) I believe that everyone’s ‘reality’ derives from their personal experience. At the same time, I take learning through experience quite seriously and broadly. This works for me, but it certainly isn’t what most people take to be ‘mind only’ and I don’t see any way of bringing them over to my side by means of a rational discussion.
BTW Neural brain states all derive through experience. Most Chan masters practiced to attain enlightenment. -That’s experience! I don’t see any conflict between this approach (which you seem to consider ‘materialism’) and Buddhist beliefs. I don’t see any connection leading from this approach to the conclusion that: ‘greed is good.’ I see it as leading to the conclusion that experience has value and that the enlightenment experience has virtuous merit. I take the enlightenment experience to be seeing the world in a different, more purified way, i.e., via a different ‘mind state.’
I see materialism as only taking the properties of physical objects into account, without considering the complexity of internal mental states. Perhaps I should call that ‘coarse materialism.’
Anyway, if you decide to address the slippery slope of ‘mind-only’ I’m sure you will do a far better job than most, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with!
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb He experienced seeing the world through the 'eyes' of unity. In other words he perceived the unity present throughout the world he experienced. Seeing the unity of 'things' is seeing 'things' as they are (i.e., suchness). All within the eternity of now: “one thought for ten thousand years.” Beyond that, look to the Sutras.
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb Because you don't know how. You don't have an efficient method.
I rediscovered an effective earlier method when attempting to follow Master Sheng Yen’s book: “The Method of No Method,” while also reading a variety of other Zen/Chan books.
Here’s the original instruction (as far as I can find):
Heze Shenhui (684-758): founder of the Heze School of Chan
- Carl Bielefeldt (1988) Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation. p. 93
“In the Ting shih-fei lun [circa 740], when asked about no-thought, Shen-hui [684-758] replies that it is not thinking about being or nonbeing, about good or evil, bodhi or nirvana, and so on; it is nothing but the prajna-paramita, which is itself the ekavyuha-samadhi [One Action Samadhi]. He then describes this samadhi:
“Good friends, for those at the stage of practice, whenever a thought occurs to the mind, be aware of it. When what has occurred to the mind disappears, the awareness of it vanishes of its own accord. This is no-thought.”
[JimT: Open to misinterpretation: The practitioner might think he means: aware of the thought’s content. No it means aware of having the thought.]
Here’s Dogen’s version that he eventually edited out:
3.a. Bielefeldt - Fkzzg (1) - (B) the Tenpuku version of the Fukan zazen gi: 1233
Once you have settled your posture, you should regulate your breathing. Whenever a thought occurs, be aware of it; as soon as you are aware of it, it will vanish. If you remain for a long period forgetful of objects, you will naturally become unified. This is the essential art of zazen. Zazen is the is the dharma gate of great ease and joy.
I wrote about my experience in three posts on the “Dharma Wheel” forum under:
Buddhism Forum - Buddhism Discussion Forum - Upāya - Meditation
They were entitled:
“Undriven-Mind: letting go of the next thought”
“An Interpretation of: ‘To Turn Around’”
“The Noble Truths as Skillful Means”
After that experience I’m writing an extended ‘article’ about it, but I now see I need to explain the whole thing, otherwise people won’t understand and poke at it because those earlier discussions were rather sketchy. It might be ready in a year or two.
17:24 : Lot of grasping going on here. 😉
Wisdom as body and mind is what DBT interprets as “wise mind”. They split it into emotional and logic minds. I feel like that’s a byproduct of the west philosophy dividing right/left brain, emotions/information, it’s never a thing that can really find true equanimity
Since the jury is still out on what "matter" is anyway, and we do not have an exhaustive list of the causal powers of "matter", it isn't possible to define materialism by reference to matter. For this reason, I think it is better to frame the materialist non-materialist divide in terms of how the first personal perspective is regarded. For the non-materialist the first personal perspective is argued to provide a kind of unique access to "real" contents or datum (of the subjective variety), and moreover, science ought to acknowledge the reality of the first personal perspective and the contents it surveys. Anyone who denies this is a materialist. Simple.
I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps something wasn't clear in what I said?
I don't doubt that they came to many conclusions, but I do doubt that what they tell us is worthy of our attention. This may not come across so well, but I suspect our ways of looking at and analyzing things are so far apart that we couldn't have a fruitful discussion. You're welcome to try to convince me that I ought to pay attention to this or that tradition, but I'm cynical and predict that you'd only convince me to stop paying attention to you.
Zen also has silly beliefs. What's with all that chanting and bowing? Seems like magical thinking. Best wishes
the best way is a synthesis of the material and the spiritual. Zorba the Buddha so to speak. Zorba the fun loving, singing, dancing, drinking, eating, enjoying all the pleasures of the material world--and Buddha, the spiritual side. I'm not interested in "guru/saints/yogis" who go to live alone in the Himalayas They must be the most boring people in the whole world.
Sounds like this needs to become a serious insightful koan before any books on the subject are written.
@@HerFavColor-ut9qb Thanks, I can agree with that definition. I meant it as a really serious question that might provoke great doubt and insight if held strongly enough.
I believe you are confusing materialism with nihilism here. I'm quite convinced that there is nothing supernatural in the world, but that does not mean that suffering, pain, evil or good do not exist. Buddhist philosophy is literally about the suffering that is caused by consciousness. Consciousness can have purely material origins, and perhaps some day even be explained and understood, and still the study of the human experience is relevant. Suffering, pain, evil, good - they arise from consciousness. And so does morals - once there are good and evil choices, the need to distinguish between them arises.
I love your videos, Brad, but I think you're making some false assumptions here! Yes, everything that exists is physical. I guess you could say that the universe and life itself and even "mind" is material. There is no such thing as a soul or a spirit. Mind is body and vice versa. Now you might feel that thinking this way is "depressing" and that it leads to "gathering as much stuff as possible", although why it would trigger those responses, I don't know. Life, brief and "meaningless" though it may be, can be filled with good stuff like love, friendship, compassion, music, good food etc. Just because you can't take anything with you (well, you're not going anywhere anyway) doesn't mean you should enjoy them less while you can. Quite the opposite! Keep up the good work!
Are love, friendship, and compassion material?
i'd take your glasses off, they magnify and make your eyes look unpleasant
On the contrary, claims that reality extends beyond cognitive modeling are definitively "woo woo", as CTMU author Chris Langan succinctly explains...
"Suppose that cognition is not the only model for self-organizing systems, i.e. that such systems can be essentially non-homomorphic to cognitive processing. If so, then they lack meaningful cognitive representations, defying characterization in terms of mental categories like space, time and object. But then they fall outside reality itself, being indistinguishable as causes, effects, or any kind of phenomena whatsoever. In a word, they are irrelevant with respect to that part of reality isomorphic to human cognition. It follows that by any reasonable definition, reality is "cognitive" up to isomorphism with our own mental structures."
"Cognition can be partitioned into general and nongeneral functions. When we take the intersect of all of our individual cognitive functions, nongeneral "options" like beliefs and intentions cancel out and leave only those functions which are general to all...the mental functions by virtue of which we all directly apprehend one and the same causally-connected reality. In the CTMU, this cognitive intersect is called the Human Cognitive Syntax or HCS. By the above reasoning, the universe (aka reality, aka spacetime) is "cognitive" up to isomorphism with the HCS. To avoid this conclusion, one must break out of the above reasoning. But this is not as easy as one might previously have been led to believe." C.M. Langan, author of the CTMU
Given that no proof or shred of evidence of any non-cognitive reality could possibly be mustered, we're left only with the pure dictatorship of the notion. Space is generic information (eg, location, state), time is generic cognition (the processing of state-transitions), and Telesis (cross-temporal feedback) is generic "process".
How can anyone say what is: "non-homomorphic to cognitive processing" without fully delineating what "cognitive processing" entails? I get the impression that when he says: "they lack meaningful cognitive representations," he's really saying that they don't utilize any form of representation. Now tell me any form of processing that doesn't use some form of representation? By now you should see how nebulous his argument is.
Per the CTMU, space is generic information (state) and time is generic cognition (state-transitional processing), while Telesis (cross temporal feedback) is the non-temporal generalization of process. When he states "they lack meaningful cognitive representations", Langan is arguing against non-cognitive, eg non-representational processing of self-contained systems (eg, the real universe). @@JimTempleman
@@xxxYYZxxx So his point is that a generic representational system is not the same as a specific non-representational system.
Ok, I can accept that tautology: A doesn't equal not-A.
PS. Last time I looked the real universe included all cognitive systems that have or will exist in this universe.
And substituting "the real universe" (your e.g.) for his "such [self-organizing] systems" in his first paragraph you get:
Suppose that cognition is not the only model for self-organizing systems, i.e. [the real universe] can be essentially non-homomorphic to cognitive processing. If so, then [the real universe] lacks meaningful cognitive representations, defying characterization in terms of mental categories like space, time and object. But [the real universe] falls outside reality itself, being indistinguishable as causes, effects, or any kind of phenomena whatsoever. In a word, [the real universe] is irrelevant with respect to that part of reality isomorphic to human cognition. It follows that by any reasonable definition, reality is "cognitive" up to isomorphism with our own mental structures.
That doesn't quite make sense.
I guess that what he means to say is that: if we cannot represent every aspect of the real universe, we can ignore it, because we cannot do otherwise?
CTMU means "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe". IOW, the real universe is fundamentally "cognitive-theoretic" (ie, mind-stuff). CTMU models reality as a Language, or more specifically a Theory/Domain ensemble whereby reality-as-Theory is reflexively identical to the reality-Domain it describes. The CTMU model is very specific and air-tight with respect to science and logic. I think you're somehow misreading Langan's statement, as he's not supposing the real universe lacks, or could possibly lack, cognitive representation. He's arguing the universe is fundamentally "cognitive-theoretic" and against the supposition that reality (or any self contained system) isn't cognitive in nature. Note that cognition is more generic than consciousness, as even mechanical devices, like an abacus or calculator or the transmission in an automobile, operate via cognitive processes (input/output), while the CTMU extends the notion of cognitive processing to all temporal, spatial, and material processes.@@JimTempleman
@@xxxYYZxxx The problem is that I was trying to decipher his meaning directly from what he said in the first paragraph. That was effectively taking it out of context. When someone developed a large context system it becomes nearly impossible to make every paragraph referring to it as self explanatory.
> "The CTMU model is very specific and air-tight with respect to science and logic."
I'd be happy as long as it can represent and process everything that an organic neural network can address.
I assume you are aware that the state of enlightenment is said to beyond words and thoughts:
"The Ultimate truth is beyond words. Doctrines are words. They are not the Way."
~ Bodhidharma.
“Silent illumination is just dropping all thoughts and words and going directly to the state of Chan [Zen].”
- Chan Master Sheng Yen (2005) Getting the Buddha Mind