# A Buddhist Definition of Mind
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [December 15, 2011, 3:27pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586 "2011-12-15T15:27:33Z")
**Posts on this page:** 17
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 11:38am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/21 "2012-06-05T11:38:46Z")
> [@Amorphos](#):
>
> ^^ great post james
>
> Great thread anon.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > In Buddhism, mind is what distinguishes sentient beings from rocks or trees or bodies of water.
>
> Is it? I would have thought it was the vehicle that made the difference. I would just like to see a little more contemporary thought go into this, everyone from atheists to religionist and spiritualists make these assumptions without any basis.
What do you mean by “the vehicle”? Anyway, an assumption is exactly what this is. Buddhism is always about investigation. Definitions are therefore always just markers of a sort. They even formally change, depending on context. That’s why the definition posted is “a” definition, not “the” definition.
> [@](#):
>
> In contrast I could say; in druidry everything in nature has spirit and mind can transmigrate form, ergo there is nothing distinguishing us from bodies of water.
Nothing at all?
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > That which possesses discriminating awareness, that which possesses a sense of duality-which grasps or rejects something external-that is mind. Fundamentally, it is that which can associate with an “other”-with any “something” that is perceived as different from the perceiver. That is the definition of mind. The traditional Tibetan phrase defining mind means precisely that: “That which can think of the other, the projection, is mind.”
>
> Two things; how far do we have to go down the evolutionary tree of life, to reach a kind of life which doesn’t associate with something other than itself? Trees for example.
> Secondly, what is the very base of mind; perception appears to be a focussing of awareness, Buddha being [if that is the base] or such seems to be pure unfocused awareness.
> Which brings us on to an interesting question concerning awareness and that base of mind; what we are saying is that ‘it is an awareness which is not aware of anything in particular’?
> I’d like to think of what that is in terms of a body of water.
Well keep in mind that according to Buddist principles, the definition of mind given above leads necessarily to the conclusion that mind is fundamentally a misconception. In other words, Buddhism posits selflessness, which is the lack of fundamental difference between self and other, while the definition above says that mind is exactly this mistaken dualistic perspective.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Mind cannot exist without emotions.
>
> Emotions occur where sensory input, hormones etc are perceived. Take away their vehicle and what do we then have?
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. What is this “vehicle”?
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > According to the Buddhist tradition, there are eight types of consciousness and fifty-two types of conceptions and all kinds of other aspects of mind, about which we do not have to go into detail
>
> Ya and 72,000 energy meridians deriving from the chakra energy centres etc. 52 types of conceptions? shouldn’t we add a few zero’s to that. yes we do need to go into detail imho.
The text is a transcript of an actual talk he gave. He’s saying there is no need to get into all that during that talk. The whole point of the Buddhist path is to get into detail.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > By meditating, we are dealing with the very mind that devised our eyeglasses and put the lenses in the rims.
>
> Intelligent design, creationism? We are always assuming that, but is it true, isn’t there more a relationship between mind and the machine, such that neither can really take credit/be held responsible.
I’m not really sure where credit and responsibility come into this picture. Creationism posits a fundamental divorce between God and creation, between what is sacred and what is mundane, between mind and matter. Concerns over what is fundamentally real, what is substantial, etc. all follow in that same tradition. I think most schools of Buddhism really aren’t concerned with those matters. Or to put it differently, they are concerned with giving practitioners the tools that would most help them to sort out these matters themselves - conceptual tools, analytic tools, ritual forms (a kind of subjective experimentation, for lack of a better phrase), etc.
---
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 11:40am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/22 "2012-06-05T11:40:20Z")
> [@maximohudson](#):
>
> I still don’t think we have really demonstrated here that there is some “thing” called mind which exists. What are its components and qualities, what is its shape and form? Does it have inherent existence? Humans are quite good at creating all sorts of concepts. No one has yet convinced me yet that mind is not merely a concept. When folks refer to “the ineffable nature of mind,” do they do so because there is some “mind essence” that cannot easily be described or because there is actually no “mind essence” to describe? Unless an essence of mind can be demonstrated, my tendency is to believe the latter.
>
> Perhaps, just as there is no “self” that can be said to possess inherent existence, there is also no mind that can be said to possess inherent existence. We appear to be aware of awareness. Perhaps it is awareness itself which has created such concepts/constructs as self, soul and mind as part of a process of MISPERCEPTION.
>
> Perhaps mind is merely a construct based upon such misperception. This would make a certain amount of sense since it cannot be readily observed and appears to be arbitrarily defined.
Great questions, you sound like a Buddhist or something.
---
### Author:  [@Moreno](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Moreno)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 12:56pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/23 "2012-06-05T12:56:21Z")
> [@maximohudson](#):
>
> I still don’t think we have really [size=150]demonstrated[/size] here that there is some “thing” called mind which exists. What are its components and qualities, what is its shape and form? Does it have inherent existence? Humans are quite good at creating all sorts of concepts. No one has yet convinced [size=150]me[/size] yet that mind is not merely a concept.
Given what is implicit above, demonstrating something to this ‘me’ seems like a bizarre criterion.
What is this me that thinks that only things that are demonstrated to its satisfaction exist?
---
### Author:  [@Moreno](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Moreno)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 1:03pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/24 "2012-06-05T13:03:53Z")
> [@anon](#):
>
> > [@maximohudson](#):
> >
> > Obviously a definition of mind has been posted here, however, a thoughtful person might still ponder whether this definition of mind describes a distinguishable entity (the entity of mind) or whether it is merely a cobbled together concept formed from various discernible components related to a process of perception.
>
> My memories aren’t accessible to you;
My experience is that some people do have access to other people’s memories. Direct access. The problem of other minds is just accepted as a metaphysical fact, when it seems to me a culturally enforced rule, not something ultimately true.
---
### Author:  [@Moreno](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Moreno)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 1:06pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/25 "2012-06-05T13:06:01Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> Nothing physical can be seen or touched, or accepted as physical until the mind declares that it is relevant to do so. Thus a “photon” is only a physical entity because a mind decided that it was an “it” of relevance and thus gave it a name. A mind is similar. It is an “it”, and object, merely because a mind declared that it is a relevant entity for understanding one’s environment.
>
> Every physical entity is merely a functioning, a behavior. There is no truly solid anything doing that behavior. The entire universe is nothing but behavior upon behavior, affect upon affect, change upon changing (aka. “spirit”). The mind divides the behaviors/spirits into entities of relevance and names them, “a government”, “a misbehavior”, “an immorality”, “a wave”, “a particle”, “a dog”, “a person”, “a soul”. What we decide to name and declare as an entity, is merely what we perceive to be relevant behavior to us in a way separate from other behaviors.
>
> Merely by the number of people speaking of “mind”, it is obviously relevant. It is defined and identified as the behavior of a brain (of some sort). Thus it exists as an entity just like any other.
We do tend to think of other minds via their behavior, but our own experience of mind is not via behavior alone. We presume a facet therefore in all minds that is beyond behavior, that is experience. One can argue, as the behaviorists and materialists do, that this experiencing is also behavior, but I find that incomplete at best.
---
### Author:  [@Moreno](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Moreno)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 1:09pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/26 "2012-06-05T13:09:18Z")
> [@maximohudson](#):
>
> Part of the problem of imbuing humans with a mind and then further defining this mind as a “non-material” “knowing agency” as suggest by His Holiness the Dalai Lama is that it leads folks to believe in human/animal exceptionalism. However, if we look at what we can observe in lifeforms, what we observe isn’t beings with minds and no minds (using the above definition), what we observe are lifeforms which all exhibit awareness. Plants will track the sun for example, tube worms, a very “primitive” life form, have been shown to demonstrate pattern recognition (. In the context of traditional Buddhist thought, it may be that the view of human/animal exceptionalism was necessary in order to justify the traditional vegetarian diet which was a carry-over (like the concept of mind) from the predominant Indian Jain and Vedic traditions at the time of the historic Gotama buddha.
We are biased. We have a history, especially a Western history 😃 of granting consciousness only to things like ‘us’. Or really white men. The closer you are to being a white man, the more likely you will be granted to have consciousness or mind. So men of other races, white women, women, animals, all have begrudgingly been granted consciousness - though even a few decades ago a scientist talking about the intentions, emotions, cognition, etc. of animals would likely have met professional problems and not small ones.
We couple consciousness or mind with things that behave and behave like us. But we have no reason for assuming that consciousness must be coupled with behavior, let alone behavior like ours.
---
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 9:02pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/27 "2012-06-05T21:02:31Z")
> [@Moreno](#):
>
> > [@anon](#):
> >
> > > [@maximohudson](#):
> > >
> > > Obviously a definition of mind has been posted here, however, a thoughtful person might still ponder whether this definition of mind describes a distinguishable entity (the entity of mind) or whether it is merely a cobbled together concept formed from various discernible components related to a process of perception.
> >
> > My memories aren’t accessible to you;
>
> My experience is that some people do have access to other people’s memories. Direct access. The problem of other minds is just accepted as a metaphysical fact, when it seems to me a culturally enforced rule, not something ultimately true.
I’m not sure if you think you’re disagreeing with me or not.
---
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 9:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/28 "2012-06-05T21:26:29Z")
> [@maximohudson](#):
>
> “In general, the mind can be defined as an entity that has the nature of mere experience, that is, “clarity and knowing.” It is the knowing nature, or agency, that is called mind, and this is non-material. But within the category of mind there are also gross levels, such as our sensory perceptions, which cannot function or even come into being without depending on physical organs like our senses. And within the category of the sixth consciousness, the mental consciousness, there are various divisions, or types of mental consciousness that are heavily dependent upon the physiological basis, our brain, for their arising. These types of mind cannot be understood in isolation from their physiological bases.” -HHDL [angelfire.com/mt/thubtentenzin/page5.html](http://www.angelfire.com/mt/thubtentenzin/page5.html)
>
> Okay, under this definition, mind is a “non-material” “knowing agency.” So it sounds like it falls under the category of non-material things, which in English translates into HOCUS POCUS. Don’t believe me? Here’s the definition.
>
> “hocus pocus - Unnecessarily mysterious or elaborate activity or talk to cover up a deception, magnify a simple purpose, etc.”
>
> [dictionary.reference.com/browse/hocus+pocus?s=t](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hocus+pocus?s=t)
>
> Sounds to me like a Lamaist definition of mind fits this definition well. What I am aware of is that we are aware of awareness. Awareness seems to rely on perception. The process of perception regularly involves misperception. Perhaps notions of mind, soul and self are the byproduct of our awareness being influenced by misperception.
>
> In terms of science and logic, I really don’t think it’s necessary to posit about consciousness in this day and age in terms of a “non-material” “knowing agency,” but then this is just my take on things. -mh
I’m not sure I understand your objections. In the linked article, HHDL states, “Thus it is important to understand that when we talk about mind, we are talking about a highly intricate network of different mental events and state.” In other words, mind is being defined as made up of mental events and mental states. I’m not aware of HHDL making metaphysical claims about mind, or pretending to be an accomplished neuroscientist.
Also, keep in mind James’s point that the Buddhist teachings are all related to the real issue of suffering in people’s lives. Buddhist definitions of mind, then, are related to how we perceive ourselves, and how we can begin a path of self exploration at that very point. Ultimately, the difference between mind and matter that many people think is truly fundamental, might be seen as delusion - the difference is practical, it makes sense at a certain scale so to speak.
---
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/29 "2012-06-05T21:31:51Z")
> [@maximohudson](#):
>
> Part of the problem of imbuing humans with a mind and then further defining this mind as a “non-material” “knowing agency” as suggest by His Holiness the Dalai Lama is that it leads folks to believe in human/animal exceptionalism. However, if we look at what we can observe in lifeforms, what we observe isn’t beings with minds and no minds (using the above definition), what we observe are lifeforms which all exhibit awareness. Plants will track the sun for example, tube worms, a very “primitive” life form, have been shown to demonstrate pattern recognition (. In the context of traditional Buddhist thought, it may be that the view of human/animal exceptionalism was necessary in order to justify the traditional vegetarian diet which was a carry-over (like the concept of mind) from the predominant Indian Jain and Vedic traditions at the time of the historic Gotama buddha.
Personally, I think the concept “mind” makes sense of a spectrum of experience and behavior. I think it’s interesting and not unreasonable to talk about the minds of plants, though I have a hard time thinking of plants as self-aware or experiencing moral dilemmas. I have no fixed opinion on this kind of thing though.
> [@](#):
>
> In fact, an argument could be made that the Buddha only spoke about mind in the context of his awakened state, because mind was already a highly developed concept that the spiritually elite of the time could readily understand. For example, a Buddhist familiar with Christianity can readily explain the compassionate teachings of Christ to a Christian using Christian nomenclature. It is entirely possible that Buddha taught about the concept of mind, not because he believed there was some “non-material” “knowing agency” called mind, but because his followers understood human consciousness in terms of this mind-concept and requested that he explain the “awakened state” in such terms.
Sure. The path is important, not the answers. Because the answers don’t make sense in the same way to all people anyway - so answers are meaningless. Answers are worthless without understanding - and with understanding, multiple answers become possible, depending on the audience, the context, etc.
---
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/30 "2012-06-05T21:42:21Z")
> [@maximohudson](#):
>
> Sorry if my posts are turning out to be diary of my thought-process on this topic (but I am doing research and taking into account what others have expressed in this thread). This is a topic I am “struggling” with at the moment. This being said, here is my latest on the topic. Thank you for your patience.
>
> “The fundamental reality of mind is pure, non-dual awareness, rigpa. Its essence is one with the essence of all that exists.” - Geshe Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche,
>
> This being the case, why do so many Buddhist texts refer to “mind,” the “nature of mind,” and the eternally frustrating “ineffable nature of mind”? I am aware of awareness. Mind, however, seems like a construct cobbled together from various aspects of the human cognitive process, the process of perception and awareness.
>
> As far as I can tell, there is no actual entity called mind. So my question is, why don’t Buddhists just focus on awareness instead of mind which appears to be a concept?
>
> My own theory is that because the theory of mind was well developed long before the birth of the historic Buddha, the spiritually elite of his time asked him to explain his awakened state in terms of “mind theory,” a theory of consciousness those of the Jain and Vedic traditions could easily understand. Consequently we have a legacy of teachings by the Tathagata on the topic of mind which we now just blindly follow without ever bothering to ask whether-or-not mind even exists.
> [@Tilopa](#):
>
> Although the nature of mind is called “clear light”,
> Its every ascription is baseless verbal fiction.
You’re frustrated by the expression “ineffable nature of mind”, yet you complain about teachings that treat mind conceptually? Take your pick, it’s all out there. Buddhists claim there are various categories of mind. It gets kind of involved. Psychologists do the same. They all have their categories, they all talk about the mind as a coherent “entity”, and it all makes sense because they have various goals and ask you to look at things in a certain way in order to achieve those goals.
If you think suffering can be eradicated and that life can flourish if we develop and take the right drugs at the right time, then you might think the Buddhist project is complete bunk. If not, then there are certain conceptions that are utilized. They are tools, not absolute truths, and they help the people who know how to use them, and actually do use them.
Some people blindly follow teachings, some don’t. That’s always the case.
I don’t mind if you journal here, by the way. Journal away! 🙂
---
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/31 "2012-06-05T21:43:42Z")
> [@Amorphos](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > No one has yet convinced me yet that mind is not merely a concept.
>
> It is when it is thinking that concept.
>
> I don’t think there is a mind essence as such, more an emptiness or non essence.
>
> In all honesty, can we not say a similar thing about mind if it is a physical thing? Try explaining it as such, start with colour is perceptual yet isn’t seen in the brain. How do you jump from particles to ideas, concepts, and visualisations, thought, imagination?
I agree, Amorphos. A rock is a concept. When isn’t it a concept? When you’re not conceptualizing about it. But then it’s not a rock.
---
### Author:  [@Moreno](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Moreno)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 9:47pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/32 "2012-06-05T21:47:23Z")
> [@anon](#):
>
> My memories aren’t accessible to you;
> [@](#):
>
> My experience is that some people do have access to other people’s memories. Direct access. The problem of other minds is just accepted as a metaphysical fact, when it seems to me a culturally enforced rule, not something ultimately true.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m not sure if you think you’re disagreeing with me or not.
I think I am disagreeing, so much I can say. You said your memories were not accessible to the other person and I took this as coming from the ‘law’ that in general this must be the case. That one as a rule does not have access to another person’s memories - directly that is, not through them telling you. I disagree with that idea.
---
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 9:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/33 "2012-06-05T21:49:46Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> Nothing physical can be seen or touched, or accepted as physical until the mind declares that it is relevant to do so. Thus a “photon” is only a physical entity because a mind decided that it was an “it” of relevance and thus gave it a name. A mind is similar. It is an “it”, and object, merely because a mind declared that it is a relevant entity for understanding one’s environment.
>
> Every physical entity is merely a functioning, a behavior. There is no truly solid anything doing that behavior. The entire universe is nothing but behavior upon behavior, affect upon affect, change upon changing (aka. “spirit”). The mind divides the behaviors/spirits into entities of relevance and names them, “a government”, “a misbehavior”, “an immorality”, “a wave”, “a particle”, “a dog”, “a person”, “a soul”. What we decide to name and declare as an entity, is merely what we perceive to be relevant behavior to us in a way separate from other behaviors.
>
> Merely by the number of people speaking of “mind”, it is obviously relevant. It is defined and identified as the behavior of a brain (of some sort). Thus it exists as an entity just like any other.
I agree, James. But I wonder if there is a subtle mistake here, in substantializing individual minds. We don’t just arbitrarily create categories. We are in no position to do so. There are natural boundaries, limits, etc. which we perceive. They aren’t just visual boundaries, there are entities that function coherently. Reality isn’t a cloudy sky, there for us to pick out shapes and give them names. There are animals, planets, galaxies… all of which follow certain rules. We interact with this reality. We engage with it. But surely there are different scales at work, we can only perceive things in certain ways.
---
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/34 "2012-06-05T21:52:08Z")
> [@Moreno](#):
>
> > [@anon](#):
> >
> > My memories aren’t accessible to you;
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > My experience is that some people do have access to other people’s memories. Direct access. The problem of other minds is just accepted as a metaphysical fact, when it seems to me a culturally enforced rule, not something ultimately true.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I’m not sure if you think you’re disagreeing with me or not.
>
> I think I am disagreeing, so much I can say. You said your memories were not accessible to the other person and I took this as coming from the ‘law’ that in general this must be the case. That one as a rule does not have access to another person’s memories - directly that is, not through them telling you. I disagree with that idea.
But in the post you quoted, I said “But keep in mind this isn’t about what is ultimately the case - it is about how we see the world, how we function.”
But yes, as a general rule you don’t have access to my memories. This is testable, of course… 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Moreno](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Moreno)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/35 "2012-06-06T04:20:41Z")
> [@anon](#):
>
> But in the post you quoted, I said “But keep in mind this isn’t about what is ultimately the case - it is about how we see the world, how we function.”
Yeah, I couldn’t quite see how that was modifying what went before.
> [@](#):
>
> But yes, as a general rule you don’t have access to my memories. This is testable, of course… 🙂
I don’t seem to have access to your memories, but if you want to test the general rule, I would go to shamans who are recommended by the shamans shamans recommend. At least, that’s where I have been blown away.
---
### Author:  [@anon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/36 "2012-06-07T20:54:45Z")
> [@Moreno](#):
>
> > [@anon](#):
> >
> > But in the post you quoted, I said “But keep in mind this isn’t about what is ultimately the case - it is about how we see the world, how we function.”
>
> Yeah, I couldn’t quite see how that was modifying what went before.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > But yes, as a general rule you don’t have access to my memories. This is testable, of course… 🙂
>
> I don’t seem to have access to your memories, but if you want to test the general rule, I would go to shamans who are recommended by the shamans shamans recommend. At least, that’s where I have been blown away.
Well I don’t know much about shamans, or what that has to do with mindreading, but if shamans can read people’s minds while ordinary people can’t, it surely means that as a general rule we can’t read each others minds, while it’s not ultimately the case that other people’s minds can’t be read.
Sorry, I’m just confused as to what you’re getting at.
Perhaps V.S. Ramachandran is a shaman of sorts. He claims, for instance, that it is possible to know what it is like to be a bat, without in fact being a bat. “He says, This is what philosophers have assumed for centuries, that there is a barrier which you simply cannot get across. But is this really true? We think not…” (V. S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein, “Three Laws of Qualia”)
---
### Author:  [@Moreno](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Moreno)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2012, 9:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586/37 "2012-06-07T21:57:58Z")
> [@anon](#):
>
> Well I don’t know much about shamans, or what that has to do with mindreading, but if shamans can read people’s minds while ordinary people can’t, it surely means that as a general rule we can’t read each others minds, while it’s not ultimately the case that other people’s minds can’t be read.
I really do keep getting the impression that when I disagreed with you it was from a correct understanding of your position. In post after post.
That said. Your original post made it sound like one could rule out reading another person’s memories without qualification. It can’t be done. Period. Since you wrote without qualification about what must be the case with ‘you’. So if there are exceptions, where one person, or many, can do this, then this is incorrect. It cannot be ruled out.
I do think that many more people DO get access to such things, to varying degrees of regularity, but my suggestion about shamans was for skeptics. I think the separation posited between minds is culturally determined and that there is a huge emotional charge around the ability.
I have also encountered a number of Buddhists, especially in the East, with whom I have had similar experiences and for whom these were taken as a given side effect of prolonged practice for at least some practitioners.
> [@](#):
>
> Sorry, I’m just confused as to what you’re getting at.
>
> Perhaps V.S. Ramachandran is a shaman of sorts. He claims, for instance, that it is possible to know what it is like to be a bat, without in fact being a bat. “He says, This is what philosophers have assumed for centuries, that there is a barrier which you simply cannot get across. But is this really true? We think not…” (V. S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein, “Three Laws of Qualia”)
Great reference, thanks. This is in the ballpark of what I am saying, sure. The idea that other people’s subjective experiences cannot be accessed by another person - one subset would be memories. But thanks for the link. I very much like Nagel’s essay on knowing what it is like to be a bat - I disagree with it partially (around the issue we are discussing but not otherwise), but I think it is extremely well argued and clear and clever. It seems like the article you mention does not directly deal with bats or Nagel’s article - I just did a search in it for bat and Nagel - but it looks very interesting. Again thanks.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-buddhist-definition-of-mind/32586.md?page=1)