The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Do others think their are connections between science (esp quatum) and the mind?  (Read 1949 times)

Offline Mayflow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
There seems certain similarties of certain internal belief systems between Einstein and The Buddha.

The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. Since, however, sense perception only gives information of this external world or of "physical reality" indirectly, we can only grasp the latter by speculative means. It follows from this that our notions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these notions—that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics—in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically.
-Einstein

While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas. They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the semblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment.
-Buddha

This is free online if anyone wants to read it. http://www.plouffe.fr/simon/math/The...%20Physics.pdf [nofollow]

Infinity can be infinitely interesting, but it is also possible it is just all in the mind and intentionally or not, all mind created.

From a personal perspective I like that the Tao of Physics started with a quote from Carlos Castaneda

Any path is only a path, and there is no affront, to oneself
or to others, in dropping it if that is what your heart tells
you . . . Look at every path closely and deliberately. Try it .
as many times as you think necessary. Then ask yourself,
and yourself alone, one question . . . Does this path have
a heart? If it does, the path is good; if it doesn’t it is of no
use.
Carlos Castaneda, The Teachings of Don juan

and this:

It is probably true quite generally that in the history of human
thinking the most fruitful developments frequently take place
at those points where two different lines of thought meet.
These lines may have their roots in quite different parts of
human culture, in different times or different cultural environments
or different religious traditions: hence if they actually
meet, that is, if they are at least so much related to each other
that a real interaction can take place, then one may hope that
new and interesting developments may follow.
Werner Heisenberg


 

Offline Mayflow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Gosh, no replies?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the semblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment.
-Buddha

One should not be so eager to abandon the raft, especially if they wish to cross back over the river.

The reasoning behind my answer to the forgoing logic should be plain for the scientist that needs to rethink his conclusions. Remember that the scientific method requires testing and retesting to gain repeatable results.

From my personal library of quotes: "If you can remember the path that lead you to your present location, you have the ability to find your way back."..............................Ethos
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Science is the recursive algorithm of "observe, hypothesise, test". Nothing more or less. We use it because it is useful. No "belief system": scientific knowledge is just a collection of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not yet been disproved.

One is (or should be) always aware of the potential influence of the observer on the observed, but it's usually less of a problem than the preconception of the observer affecting the interpretation of the observation. For this reason, good science keeps well away from philosophy of any sort. Zen seems to have the same aversion to preconception but it's quite irrelevant.
 

Offline Finding the Elephant

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Nobel Laureate the Dalai Lama regularly hosts discussions between western scientists and Buddhist monks. Scientists compete for these opportunities and scientific journalists write about how productive these meetings are, organised by academics from Harvard University, Stanford University, the University of Zurich and the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, just to name a few.
 

Offline Finding the Elephant

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Also - I am reading The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot and it is all over this stuff. Check it out, you will not be sorry.
 

Offline Mayflow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Science is the recursive algorithm of "observe, hypothesise, test". Nothing more or less. We use it because it is useful. No "belief system": scientific knowledge is just a collection of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not yet been disproved.

One is (or should be) always aware of the potential influence of the observer on the observed, but it's usually less of a problem than the preconception of the observer affecting the interpretation of the observation. For this reason, good science keeps well away from philosophy of any sort. Zen seems to have the same aversion to preconception but it's quite irrelevant.

Isn't saying it is irrelevant a preconception?
 

Offline Mayflow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Also - I am reading The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot and it is all over this stuff. Check it out, you will not be sorry.

I did check it out and you are correct. I am not sorry.  ;D
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Science is the recursive algorithm of "observe, hypothesise, test". Nothing more or less. We use it because it is useful. No "belief system": scientific knowledge is just a collection of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not yet been disproved.

One is (or should be) always aware of the potential influence of the observer on the observed, but it's usually less of a problem than the preconception of the observer affecting the interpretation of the observation. For this reason, good science keeps well away from philosophy of any sort. Zen seems to have the same aversion to preconception but it's quite irrelevant.

Isn't saying it is irrelevant a preconception?

No, it's a statement from observation. It seems to me that the essence of Zen is to see the world as it is, without preconception, but it lacks the analytic (hypothesis) and synthetic (prediction) steps of science. That said, I do wish more practitioners of science would adopt a Zen approach to data: look at what is, not what you think should be 
 

Offline Mayflow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
It is a statement you made up in your mind, Alan. That is all it is.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Yes, I do tend to think before writing. Must be the Zen training. Or possibly the science.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2015 11:26:16 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Hello Mayflow, from what I have read I assume you are saying that life could be an illusion and is created by our brains, a ''holographic universe''.   Science is about observation, we observe solidity, we feel solidity, we observe actions and consequences of actions.
If I can not see a tree , is the tree really there?
I can take a leaf from the tree and can always observe the leaf.  If I ask you what I have in my hand, you would agree a leaf without seeing the tree or me telling you it was a leaf.
Did we both really dream up a leaf?  That fact alone shows us reality is what reality is.
Science is about the mind, observation is of the mind, we actually ''see'' at the back of our brains, our eyes are like ''remote sensors'', if reality was of the mind, then there would be no need to have eyes.


added - a blind person could tell you it was a leaf..

« Last Edit: 04/06/2015 22:22:12 by Thebox »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length