Factually you should have stated;
From my perspective, pattern recognition is fundamental to human-beings but it is preceded by the subconscious fear of death.
Note subconscious fear of death not conscious fear of death.
That doesn’t explain how you interpreted what you claimed I stated - that is my point. Not what you think I should of stated. My claim was clear, and this is not the first time you’ve done this in discussion with me. If you interpret statements/claims as something that they don’t actually mean, that is a problem for your arguments in terms of analysis and synthesis.
Since you’ve done this with me, where my claim was very simple, isn’t it possible that it could be occurring with other forms of data and information which are complex, since they are more difficult to interpret?
I don’t think that you are doing it on purpose, but the fact that you didn’t actually answer my question is conspicuous. If you are doing it on purpose, then what you stated is a strawman argument.
You have misunderstood my points many times and even have changed some of them to suit your points.
I am not sure of what is the contention above.
I believe you were the one who started the doubt on my point earlier.
You have to explain if you think I am not right on your point.
Whatever the misunderstanding, my position is this;
Factually, ‘pattern recognition’ is preceded by the subconscious fear of death.
The subconscious fear of death to avoid death so as to enable humans to live to reproduce and nurture, evolve the faculty of ‘pattern recognition’ and many other instincts in all human beings.
I am not focused on “pattern recognition” [you and KT’s point] specifically, but rather would lump it together with other instincts and mental function within ‘many other instincts’ to deal with the threat of death to alleviate the impact of the subconscious fear of death.
Prismatic,
So you are admitting to misunderstanding my initial claim?
You don’t understand what I’m asking you?
What is the point if you don’t understand what I’m saying? If you can’t grasp a simple contention like this, how will you understand more complex issues?
Prismatic,
So you think that the subconscious mind has pre-cognitive awareness of death and fears it?
Why I don’t understand you is from the basis you are ignorant of loads of things related to this topic.
If you review back it is because you do not understand my point from your own lack of knowledge. Then it spin out of control to this. Besides this contention whatever it is [I have not given it serious consideration], is not significant to my proposed argument at all.
If you think whatever this point is critical to the argument, let’s retrace to the original divergent. Show me why you think your point is critical to show my premise is false?
This is an ad hom argument. I was referring specifically to the claim I made.
It is not a question of cognition or the subconscious mind has some kind of agency.
So it is not the case of, the subconscious mind is aware then fears it.
As I had stated, DNA-RNA wise all humans are ‘programmed’ to avoid death so as to live.
To avoid death, DNA-RNA wise all humans are ‘programmed’ to with a fear-response that respond to any potential death via the threats of death spontaneously as programmed.
In the case of the fear response, there are two path-ways, i.e.
- The conscious pathway
- The automatic response - the short_cut
Take a look at this image.
alchemyformanagers.co.uk/top … ence-2.png
In the The conscious Pathway, the conscious brain process the information and response accordingly.
However there are emergency in case of real dangers, there is a short-cut [note the dotted path] where is brain response immediately even before the person is aware of the danger and threat.
Thus the subconscious fear of death will respond automatically and spontaneously without awareness and cognition.
Prismatic,
Have I stated something that is factually incorrect?
Prismatic,
How is the subconscious mind able to recognise death, if not through information relayed to it by the conscious mind?
Similarly, how is the subconscious mind able to do this, if it is not acting upon information relayed from the conscious mind? Do you believe that the subconscious mind is innately aware of death? If so, by what mechanism?
Are you claiming that there is no unconscious cognition?
It seems as though you’re describing the subconscious fear of death as an autonomic response?
Nope information [data] are received in the brain via the sense organs and internally generated.
Non-humans and animals do not have a conscious mind like humans but their brain/mind [equivalent to our subconscious mind] response to threats of death which trigger the fear of death response.
The conscious mind can generate information received from the sense organs or internally via thinking, reflection, etc.
I have already mentioned the subconscious mind is controlled by the DNA-RNA which is programmed to avoid death with fear of death from a 3 billion years of evolutionary history.
So the program that trigger the fear response [re death in this case] is innate.
But we cannot equate the subconscious mind with the term ‘aware of’ which meant ‘conscious’. How can the subconscious be conscious in this specific case?
The subconscious mind is simply instinctual and triggers upon the relevant stimuli.
Thus when the common and numerous data of death [corpse, etc.] or threat of death is received via the sense organs, the fear response is triggered immediately without the person being conscious of it.
Note the short-cut pathway to the triggering of fear in the above diagram.
What is critical to my point is the subconscious mind is triggered so constantly with the data of death so many times that there is turbulence and turmoil within the subconscious brain/mind that the conscious mind is not aware of.
Instead those turbulence and terrible turmoils exude indirectly as Angst, anxieties and existential pains that reverberate throughout the psyche of the person. To relieve these existential pains, theists jump to grab onto to theism which provide immediate relief. That is why the majority are theists.
Marx was to the point on his ‘religions are the opium of the masses.’
It is the opium to relief that ‘pains’ that are turbulent within their psyche.
Unfortunately many non-theists resort to the real ‘opium’ to relieve the same existential pains exuded indirectly from the subconscious fear of death.
When one is unconscious as during sleep and dream, one can still cognize [recognize] which is the work of the higher brain.
All humans has cognitive abilities in their ‘higher’ brain, but this cognitive abilities is not shut off when one is unconscious.
It is reported some of those who were in coma [extremely unconscious] did recognize their relatives and friends when they visit and speak to the person in coma.
Note the human brain is 90% an mammalian brain inherited from our animal-mammalian ancestors. This is the part that is the subconscious brain. This brain act more on instincts and auto-pilot rather than cognitively driven.
Whatever brain is specific to homo-sapiens or humans is merely added on while we are humans, which is 10% or less. This is the part of the brain that enable self-conscious and human cognition or recognition.
Nb: some mammal and animals [primates, dolphins, elephants, crows] are said to have basic cognitive abilities, but it is so basic thus not critical to the argument.
Re your point on ‘pattern recognition’ as related to agency I suggest you read these again.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia#Related_terms
The above is driven by the subconscious fear of death to avoid death.
It not precisely autonomic but a sub of it.
Note the term ‘subconscious’ which I had used from the start.
It is triggered spontaneously without the person being conscious of it or putting any conscious effort to it.
Note the diagram above which show the bypass [the short-cut to the amygdala] from the normal fear response.
Prismatic,
I don’t think that what you say above is correct, but I’m going to leave the discussion here.
To be honest, i did not read the whole thread so pardon me for if i missed anyting.
Juat as happened in the case of other religions, Budhism is also misunderstood by and large, even being the most popular eastern religion in the west. And, the reason is that very same; religions, especially like Budddhism, are more about in person practices instead of theorital discussion. When one starts practicing, concepts become clear automatically.
Just as one cannot learn any sport only by reading books, religions are also cannot be understod by only litrature. But yes, litrature with practice helps a lot.
All eastern religions, be it vedanta, jainism, all schools of Santmat or even Buddhism, are based on a same and very simple premise; There is something in each and every living being which is immotral and unchangeable and one has to reach to it, understand and unfold it. Some call it soul or spirit, some consciousneess but it is typically called Shurti( one that listens).
it is only that the ways to accomplish this very goal are somewhat different, that is why we have differnt relgions. Whenever a new explorer tries to reach at the goal, his journey and ecperiences are bound to be somewhat different from previous achievers, and with every successful attmept, we get a new religion.
Now coming to Buddhism, it is totally wrong to conclude that Buddism asks for suppress emotions. I do not know from where people get this impression. Prerhaps, form the life style of Monks, but that is not the whole story. Buddhism only asks not to be carried away foevever with the emotions. It says that always remember that whatever changes and their affects are happening around you are temorary so do not get too much involved with it and keep this back of your mind that all this will keep coming and goning but you(shurti) will last forever. So,be only a witness of all it instead of part. It does not expect that one will not be affected by the noise and become totaly immune to the changes. Contrary to the general perception, Buddhism does not ask to resist emotions but flow with those for the time being. The whole emphasis is on to not to make any effort in any direction but just witness all that from the sideline.
Let me take an example to clear my point. Think of a small piece of wood floating in ther ocean. It can never remain standstill in the water beacse the coming waves will keet it moving. Now, thing to understand here is that whether the wood is moving by itself of the waves making it move, cretainly the waves. On the other hand if the piece of wood wants to be absolutely stand still in the water it has to make an effort in order to do so. Buddhism asks not to do that effort But keep floting with the waves. That is precisely what the terms like emptiness and just be there stand for in Buddhism.
The second most misunderstood term is detachment. Detachment is not abondening anything by force. it is all about being immune to anything. Means, neither presene nor absense of anything particular thing should affect one. This is a bit subtle. i will again take an example to make it comprehensiable.
Think of a person who is very addicted to spicy food and caanot eat anything without spices. The common perception will say as he is very much addicted to spices thus to deatch himself from spices he shoold stop eating spices at and thus will became detached from spices. But, that is only half truth.
let us take another route to addresss this issue. Now, that person starts having double spicy food one time and totally bland food second tome. if he continues this practice for some time, the time will come when spices will lose relevance for him. he would not mind either spicy or bland food thus became detached from spices. Now, neither presence nor absense of spices matters to him.
That is precisely Buddhism asks to achieve in the case of emotions and feelings. it does not ask anyone to run away from anything but to be that peice of wood floating with the waves but to remember that you are wood not waves.
with love,
sanjay
Hello zinnat, you have been away for quite a while, good to hear from you.
I can agree with all your points above.
I presented similar points in the prior posts;
One of the main contention and the criticism of Buddhism by KT is Buddhism promotes the concept of no-self [anatta, anatman], thus shaking the foundation of the normal person to function properly, i.e. induce monks into asceticism and giving up ordinary life.
I disagree with KT on the above.
My point is Buddhism-proper leverage on the two-truths theory, i.e.
- ‘there is self - empirical’ and
- ‘there in no self - transcendent’
which is to be applied appropriately to the proper situations, and one is to be centered on the Middle-Path to optimize one’s well-being.
Do you have a view on the above?
One of Buddhism’s core principle is ‘anatman’ [non-self] which is a counter to the ‘atman’ of Vedanta in Hinduism. If I am not mistaken, you are more inclined towards Hinduism, thus you may not agree with the the principle of anatman?
well, certainly the personalitiies and cultures that develop in Buddhist communities East and West point towards a suppression of emotions and their expression. We are looking at the other end of the spectrum from an African American Baptist Church with gospel choirs and passionate sermons where the congregants openly and with sound and words express emotions. And expressing emotions with any passion in these communities nearly regardless of context will lead to various kinds of ostracism and social punishment. But if we look at both the practices and the core idea that attachment/desire are the cause of suffering, you see the goal as a disengagement from the emotions, a disidentification from the emotions, and a disconnect from emotional expression. You observe emotions, like passing clouds. You break the process of feeling to expression.
It actually goes beyond suppression and aims at total disidentification and a severing of feeling from expression.
It is not a coincidence that the communities reflect both the practices and the core disattachment from the emotions.
well, I do not think that Buddhism follows the docrine of anatman ( as we understand it), though it is also true that it is mentioned in their texts. if we look at the timeline and the circumstancial context of Buddhism, we will find that that was the time when Brahmans(priests) were in full control of the Indian society in the name of Vedas. As they were the only community which was allowed to learn and interpret Vedas, thus they were bending it as they wanted in the name of Vedas and mostly for personal gains. Both of Buddha and Mahavira realized that they need to free theIndian society from this trap of Brahams and the easiest way to do this was to eliminate the concept of eternal soul/self from the religion so that the brahmans cannot force the folks to do anything by fearing them from the suffering consequences of afterlife, Gods and hell and so on. Thus both of these religions stood up against the brahmans and castism.
The reason i think that this explanatiion is worth considering becuse Buddhiam do beleive in afterbirth, hell and heavens. Not only that, Buddhism has well defined vertical Cosmology of Spiritual Planes where one ascends step by step. All this makes no sense without accepting that something remains after death from the living beings. Thus, it is not only me who disagrees with the concept of anatman but Buddhism itself does so.
It looks to me that perhaps Buddhism initially denies the theory of atman to conter Brahamans but later it introduced its version.
Have a look at this-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology
lastly, as far as i am concerned, I learned the religions by unknowingly adopting their practices and read about those later. As i am more inclined towards emprical parts of the religions, so i am more into Santmat, rather than conventional Hinduisim. The other reason is that being very old religion, the origial litrature of Hinduisim is not available anymore. what we have now is merely commentries and commentries on commemtries and so on. On the other hand, Santmats are relatively new , merely one or two centuries old, thus they bound to have less impurities.
with love,
sanjay
Prismatic wrote:
This is a misrepresentation of me. I never said that it shakes the foundation of the person to functoin properly or had anything to do with asceticism. The concept of no-self is central to Buddhism, but it need not lead to these results AT ALL. If you engage in the practices the process of realization of anatman coincides with the effects of meditation and there is no reason to disrupt everyday living.
I am not criticizing Buddhism for having anatman, I am saying it is a facet. I said this in a context where it was relevent, but not as a problem with Buddhism, but rather a problem with Prismatic’s other ideas.
Prismatic,
I tried, but I cannot leave your points unanswered. I am learning from this debate, so let’s continue.
Do you have an evidential reference for this?
How do we know the degree to which the subconscious mind is, or is not involved in these mental processes?
In the way that you’ve described them, the summary of these elements/points is a pre-cognitive, autonomic response to fear. I just don’t believe that human-beings possess a feature like this. You’ll need to evidence this thoroughly.
It is not equating. I would argue that the subconscious mind is aware, necessarily… It may not have the same nature and degree of consciousness or awareness applied to the conscious mind, but cognition is certainly an aspect of how it operates. That’s why it is called the “sub” conscious mind, because it is a different, but active layer of the mind.
Claiming this is not enough. Because of the nature of the claim, it needs to be supported by evidence that covers the entire claim; not just parts or aspects of the claim. It needs to get to the point where we don’t have infer that you’re correct, what you say needs to be demonstrated almost unequivocally. Personally, I don’t believe you can do this, but I don’t mind being proven wrong.
Hm, did you read any of the article I linked re unconscious cognition? What you claim is not entirely concordant with what I’ve read or been taught about the subconscious mind. Its like you’re adapting the subconscious to suit what you’re claiming, rather than considering the holistic picture. Effectively, you’re reducing it. If you read the link I posted, you’ll see that the subconscious is much more expansive and relative to cognition than you’ve described it here.
I didn’t argue that the people who, through pattern recognition and agenticity, formulated ideas of supernatural beings, were right in doing so. My point is that they actually did this. Which I don’t really think you can dispute (re your previous points 7. and 8.). Due to the fundamental nature of the psychology (see here for a refresh) involved in this process, it is reasonable to posit that pattern recognition and agenticity are fundamental causes of religious belief. Your claim that subconscious fear is more essential than this is debatable, we need not necessarily agree, because fear precedes these functions in terms of biological series. We don’t know for certain that this is how the mind processes these thoughts/emotions.
As I’ve stated above, because of the nature and degree of the claim, you need to rigorously demonstrate this.
I don’t know what this means? It seems colloquial, reference please.
But believing in religions necessarily requires conscious cognition. Conceptualisations, idealisations and “experiences” of religion are formed through conscious knowledge pertaining to a particular religion (whichever the person is dedicated to). That undoubtedly requires the conscious mind. If this process soothes the subconscious fear of death, it does so because the information relating to the religion is being relayed to the subconscious mind, from the conscious mind. I don’t doubt that there are subconscious elements in religion, but we cannot claim that belief in religions has no features related to the conscious mind or stick an arbitrary “%” on the degree to which it does. And again, if you’re claiming that the subconscious mind is more dominant than the conscious mind in religious belief, you need to evidence that claim.
“Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?”
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.
I have my own rendition of this. It is embedded in the manner in which I intertwine “I” in my own understanding of the “self” as an existential contraption rooted in dasein. At least with respect to the world of value judgments. There is no solid Me here. Let alone a soul. “I” am far more elusive, illusory, ever situated.
In The Experience of Nothingness Michael Novak once speculated that…
I recognize that I put structure into my world…There is no ‘real’ world out there, given, intact, full of significance. Consciousness is constituted by random, virtually infinite barrages of experience; these experiences are indistinguishably ‘inner’ and ‘outer’…Structure is put into experience by culture and self, and may also be pulled out again…The experience of nothingness is an experience beyond the limits of reason…it is terrifying. It makes all attempts at speaking of purpose, goals, aims, meaning, importance, conformity, harmony, unity----it makes all such attempts seem doubtful and spurious.
I see religion in general and Buddhism in particular as an attempt to rein that in. An attempt to funnel this barrage of experience coming at us from all directions along a path that sustains at least some measure of equilibrium and equanimity. Both on this side of the grave and beyond.
But: my aim is always to bring abstract conjecture like this out into the world. For example almost a quarter of the population of Hong Kong are Buddhists. How then might they be inclined to respond to the political upheavals unfolding there: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests
How might they explain the manner in which they grapple with the “self” in contexts of this sort? And then the part where Buddhism ends and Taoism and Confucianism begin. Not to mention all of the “local” narratives.
The bottom line remains the same: that throughout human history there have been hundreds and hundreds of “spiritual” paths taken by men and women in which, one way or another ,“I” and “we” and “they” forge historical and cultural communities grappling with all of the vast and varied factors that go into the creation of any particular sense of identity.
What I tend to focus on is the tendency to believe rather than in what is believed itself. The wanting to anchor “I” to something more substantial than an essentially meaningless world ending in oblivion.
The Brahmins did exploit and abuse their position with exclusivity to the knowledge of the Vedas. However the principles of the atman is core to the Vedas of Hinduism.
It is reported Guatama tried the majority of the existing methods of spiritual practices from the existing Gurus of Hinduism but did not find ‘enlightenment’ in them until he discovered his enlightenment based on the core principles of 4NT, 8FP, annica [avidya], anatta [anatman], dependent origination, two-truths theory and others.
The principle of anatman or anatta is a core principle of Buddhism that pervades throughout all the core doctrines of Buddhism-proper. As such the core principle of anatta [non-self] has to be an imperative part of Buddhism-proper.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
However the two-truths theory do not deny the empirical-I-self [the living person] but it deny on the transcendent-I-self [atman].
I believe Buddhism-proper when introduced was too advance for the majority masses during Guatama’s time then and even now to a degree.
As such, Buddhism-proper then has to be compromised and diluted for the masses. This is why the masses of Buddhists prayed to idols and statutes of a Buddha and prayed with joss-sticks, make offerings in prayers and other superficial practices.
It is said, the dharma wheel of Buddhism made three turns, i.e. Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. In each turn the core principles of Buddhism-proper are dressed in various forms to suit the believers during those specific times.
This is where all the fanciful stuffs of rebirth, hell, heaven, cosmology, even a personal god like Christianity, from the Pure Land sects. The Mahayanas are the most fanciful.
But throughout the three turns of the Dharma Wheel, the core principles of Buddhism-proper remained intact.
With advancement in communication, translations, the internet, new technology, the more expert Buddhists are now clearing the cobwebs of old to reveal more of the core principles, the effective practices of Buddhism proper.
With the advancement of the internet and information technology, the concept of Sangha will be obsolete in the future.
The Dalai Lama has even conceded “Buddhist truths” to Science;
[code]“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality[/code]
But is it not likely Science will shake any of the core principles. Those which may be affected are the fringe fanciful stuffs which may be intended to be allegorical but some claim them to be real truths.
As I mentioned the fanciful stuffs were are compromised to suit the masses.
From your link above;
The picture of the world presented in Buddhist cosmological descriptions cannot be taken as a literal description of the shape of the universe. It is inconsistent, and cannot be made consistent, with astronomical data that were already known in ancient India.
The cosmology has also been interpreted in a symbolical or allegorical sense (for Mahayana teaching see Ten spiritual realms).
Noted ‘Santmat’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sant_Mat
Its root meaning is “one who knows(is) the truth” or “one who has experienced (merged into) Ultimate Reality.”
The above is very basic to Hinduism [general] i.e. where the atman merged into Brahman which the opposite of Buddhism-proper where there is no atman and no Brahman.
In principle, anatman [anicca, non-self] cannot be excluded from Buddhism-proper else the rest of its doctrines would not make sense.