Paradoxically far beyond.

Quote:Abracadabra wrote

Yet they expect me to believe that my truest essence is that I'm an abstract emergent property of a biological computer?

Yes, my friend, you are a fleeting digit in the MATRIX. lol Choose either the red pill or the blue one.

(February 4, 2012 at 4:57 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Buddhism and atheism do not "start off on the same launching pads." Jesus, do you love to paint with a broad brush.

Within the scope of the framework of the specific concept I was addressing they most certainly do.

Jesus, do you love to misrepresent other people's comment.

The framework that I was specifically addressing was the point that ReverendJeremiah pointed out concerning that we are this universe.

Atheism and Buddhism begin on that same launching pad. They both assume that we are indeed entirely a product of the constituent of this universe.

So my statement that in that context Buddhism and Secular Atheism start out on the very same launching pad is absolutely correct and true.

Neither Buddhism nor Secular Atheism appeal to anything beyond that.

The only difference between these two philosophies is that Buddhist suggest that there is a mysterious mind that lies beneath the substrate of our physical reality and it is this mind that is having this experience. And we are ultimately it. Whereas, the Secular Atheists are speculating that the universe is just some weird accident that has no explanation, and we are merely the result of an emergent property of a biological computer that is having an experience.

That's really the only difference between Secular Atheism and Buddhism.

One philosophy (Buddhism) looks to the foundation of everything and suggest that this is the source of reality and experience. Whilst the other philosophy (Secular Atheism) looks at the end result of evolution and points to that as the source of experience if not reality itself.

And neither of these philosophies have a leg up on the other.

Well, actually that's not exactly true. I personally suggest that from a purely scientific standpoint we have more reason to believe that there exists some form of intelligence (or at least organized information) beneath the substrate of what seems to be physical (i.e. in the ocean of the mystical quantum fields), than we have for speculating that we are some sort of abstract emergent property that is having an experience.

As far as I can see, Buddhism actually has a leg-up on Secular Atheism at the moment.

We have more scientific reasons to believe that quantum information exists and that it is highly "mystical" in the sense that it doesn't appear to even remotely obey any of the classical laws of physics that we so cherish. And we have absolutely no rational reason to believe that a hypothetical abstract notion of an emergent property of a biological computer could actually have an experience of any kind.

What sense does it even make to talk about an "emergent property" having an experience?

So as far as I can see the score right now is:

Buddhism = 1
Secular Atheism = 0

I mean, if anyone was interested in keeping score.

---

(February 4, 2012 at 5:15 pm)Bgood Wrote:

Quote:Abracadabra wrote

Yet they expect me to believe that my truest essence is that I'm an abstract emergent property of a biological computer?

Yes, my friend, you are a fleeting digit in the MATRIX. lol Choose either the red pill or the blue one.

Well, that may very well be the truth of reality. I don't deny that, nor do I claim to know otherwise.

In fact, in all fairness, some forms of Buddhism and some interpretations of the doctrine of emptiness, actually view this as being the case.

So in all fairness some forms of Buddhism actually do boil down to being the basically same thing as Secular Atheism.

Quote:The framework that I was specifically addressing was the point that ReverendJeremiah pointed out concerning that we are this universe.

I said no such thing. I said we are RELATED to this cosmos, and I KNEW you would take it out of context and that is why I ALL CAPS the word to make sure you didnt...


...but you did.

So much for "we are the universe". If we are the universe, you would have known what i meant.

(February 4, 2012 at 4:58 pm)Bgood Wrote: From the 'cosmic' perspective, you are just a miniscule speck of dust roaming around on a tiny spinning rock that only THINKS it is an independent individual, but in reality is completely dependent upon the entire galaxy. So when you step outside and see the sun shining in the sky, think to yourself, I am that sun, I am the sky, because in reality, in a deeper sense, your whole existence is dependent upon that open, blue sky and it's bright, warm sun! So it IS a mind trick, but a very good one!

It's far more than just a mind trick. It's the truth even in a philosophy of secular atheism truly.

As far as physics goes we are inseparable from the rest of the universe. If you want to talk about a 'mind trick' that would be the delusion that because we think we could somehow create an little capsule or spaceship to create the proper environment for us, that this somehow constitutes 'freedom and separation' from the rest of the universe. That would be a delusional mind trick.

No, we are completely dependent upon this universe even if only because we are ultimately made of star stuff that itself would not exist had it not been for supernova explosions eons ago. Not to mention having evolved under the nurturing care of our own planet and sun.

We are absolutely and totally inseparable from the universe even if we can delude ourselves into thinking that we could create an artificial capsule of comparable environment that appear to sustain us 'separately' from the rest of the universe.

So our inseparability from the universe as a whole is a hardcore undeniable given fact.

The only question that remains is whether any abstract 'emergent properties' that might arise from that process should in any way be consider to be any more 'separate' than anything else?

Also, if an emergent property arises and becomes 'me' then wouldn't all emergent properties in the universe also be 'me'.

Would you be the emergent property? Or would you be solely the experience of that particular emergent property?

But that then begs the question,.... what is actually having the "experience". The emergent property? Or the unique experience itself?

If it's the unique experience itself that is having the experience, then suddenly we find ourselves in one of those endless infinite paradoxes.

How can an experience have an experience?

Talk about metaphysical RIDDLES! This is worse than just assuming that there exist some sort of fundamental cosmic mind beneath all of creation if you ask me.

No one will ever convince me that this idea of emergent properties having experiences has a leg up on the idea of a deeper cosmic mind. Personally I find the idea of a deeper cosmic mind to be far more compelling even from a purely rational point of view.

So for me:

Spiritual Buddhism = 1
Secular Atheism or Secular Buddhism = 0

That's my personal tally of the score. Your mileage may vary.

---

(February 4, 2012 at 5:37 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

Quote:The framework that I was specifically addressing was the point that ReverendJeremiah pointed out concerning that we are this universe.

I said no such thing. I said we are RELATED to this cosmos, and I KNEW you would take it out of context and that is why I ALL CAPS the word to make sure you didnt...


...but you did.

So much for "we are the universe". If we are the universe, you would have known what i meant.

Well in that case, then I don't agree with your perspective. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

As far as I'm concerned we are far more than merely related to this universe. We are entirely made of it completely without exception.

There is nothing that is us, or a part of us, that is not also this universe. We are this universe. We are not merely "related to it".

So evidently we have some differences in our perspectives on this concept.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Quote:Excerpt from "Overview of Dependent Origination"

Those who have studied the life of the Buddha may recall his reflections shortly after the Enlightenment, when he had not yet begun to expound the teaching. At that time, the Buddha was reluctant to teach, as is related in the Scriptures:

"Monks, the thought arose in me thus: 'This truth which I have realized is profound, difficult to see, abstruse, calming, subtle, not attainable through mere sophisticated logic.

"'But beings revel in attachment, take pleasure in attachment and delight in attachment. For beings who thus revel, take pleasure and delight in attachment, this is an extremely difficult thing to see: that is, the law of conditionality, the principle of Dependent Origination. Moreover, this also is an extremely difficult thing to see: the calming of all conditioning, the casting off of all clinging, the abandoning of desire, dispassion, cessation, Nibbana. If I were to give this teaching and my words were not understood, that would simply make for weariness and difficulty.'" [Vin.I.4; M.I.167]

This passage mentions two teachings, the principle of Dependent Origination and Nibbana, stressing both their profundity and also their importance within the Buddha's enlightenment and teaching.

To believe we are separate entities is a conditioned belief. We continually feed the craving attachment of the false self, the ego, the individual personality which is inherently an illusory creation. Everyone on this green, watery planet exists WITHIN the gravitational grasp of our solar system. Just think of ourselves as tiny particles within that huge planetary system. What is in a human mind is dependent upon this entire cosmic mechanism to function properly. Therefore we are all just internal, interdependent parts of one BIG universe. To realize this is to see Buddha mind. The capacity of his wisdom is infinite and evolves higher every minute of every day.

Quote:Secular Atheism

Explain to me why you put those two words together.

(February 4, 2012 at 11:06 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

Quote:Secular Atheism

Explain to me why you put those two words together.

Because I'm trying to convey the idea of a particular type of atheist.

In other words, the type of atheist who doesn't believe in any form of spirituality whatsoever.

Some "atheists" simply don't believe in personified Gods, but they are open to a spiritual essence to reality.

An atheist who simply doesn't believe in personified gods yet is open to a spiritual essence of reality could basically become a Buddhist. Depending on which version of Buddhism we're talking about.

I've met a lot of people who call themselves "atheists" who actually become quite offended when I suggest that they don't believe in a spiritual essence of reality at all. They snap back at me and say, "Wtf are you talking about? Atheism simply means that I don't believe in a personified God, it doesn't mean that I can't have spiritual feelings about reality."

So I never know what to expect from people who call themselves "atheists".

I try my best to convey things as clearly as I can without offending anyone.

My only desire is to communicate as efficiently as possible.

And what do you mean by spirit?

And how does this work with a "no god, but spirits.."

I cant follow..

In other words, please explain WITHOUT a wall of text.

Good luck there, Rev: You'll get a double wall for that. Twice the text, one quarter the sense.