So was Einstein wrong then?

Love the John Gribben quote. A point that I think is too often overlooked.

"Consciousness as primary" - I really struggle with that. Probably betraying my roots as a Mechanical Engineer but I see consciousness as an effect rather than a cause.

Regards,

Willy.

PS Poetic licence - Am sure there are better words than "effect" to convey my intent, but where's the poetry.

Hi Willy,

I really struggled with consciousness as primary in the world too and yet it is one of the main interpretations of quantum theory and no less bizarre than some of the others such as the 'many worlds' theory. Unfortunately the consciousness view attracts a lot of New Age type weirdos who are less than scrupulous and they cheapen and undermine the efforts of serious advocates. It is easy to see consciousness as an effect rather than a cause but if you look closely into the subject you wont find any irrefutable evidence for this and the belief held by some that this is the case borders on the religious and suggesting otherwise is scientific heresy! For all that there are an increasing number of physicists (I mean Professors and the like) who support the consciousness theory.

Acad - my reading of the B. Alan Wallace link (and of Buddhism) is that neither matter nor mind is primary - but that both are aspects of an underlying substrate, yet to be understood.

Acad,

Can you recommend a good "engineering" read on the subject?

Regards,

Willy.

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
Acad - my reading of the B. Alan Wallace link (and of Buddhism) is that neither matter nor mind is primary - but that both are aspects of an underlying substrate, yet to be understood.

Hi Droo,

Can you give me a quote from Wallace? I can't imagine him saying the above.

Cheers

quote:

Originally posted by Willy:
Acad,

Can you recommend a good "engineering" read on the subject?

Regards,

Willy.

Hi Willy,

I can probably give you a long list of books -
Can you be more specific?

Hi Acad

Here's the quote I had in mind - it's on page 13 of the sample chapter:

quote:

Likewise, the first revolution in the cognitive sciences will relativize the human mind by displacing it from a physical function of the brain to an emergent process arising from a dimension of reality more fundamental than the duality of mind and matter. The implications for the rest of science are enormous.

Not a lot to go on, admittedly, but maybe the rest of the book goes into more detail?

Hi Droo,

This is not one of Wallace's better sentences methinks. Breaking it down he is saying mind is not an emergent property of matter - which is as per the Madhyamaka view - and that mind emerges from a more fundamental dimension than the duality of mind and matter i.e.Cartesian duality which is also as per the Madhyamaka view - the fundamental dimension being Emptiness. He says nothing about anything being 'not yet understood' and it is my view that this more fundamental dimension is understood to an exquisite degree by the great Madhyamaka teachers. Yes, he goes into more detail later and I certainly agree with his final point 'The implications for the rest of science are enormous'.

Acad - you're right, I (accidentally) added the "not yet understood". I guess this reflects my view that this is a promising line of inquiry, rather than a ready made solution to the "problem of consciosness". Maybe this is where you and I differ, in spite of our points of agreement? Even if Madhyamaka did provide a solution to problem, there would still be the task of building a bridge to the scientific worldview, via which the solution could be demonstrated - I take it that this is (part of) Wallace's project.

On the substantive issue, it still seems a little misleading to say that consciousness is primary - however emptiness may be related to mind, it is surely not the same as consciousness, as it is usually understood. I'm also not sure how much of a positive nature can be said about emptiness - the Nagarjuna I've read seems to approach the question along a via negativa. This is not to say that some combination of reflection, and direct contemplative experience, could not bring us to an understanding of emptiness. But it does suggest that *sharing* that understanding in any straightforward manner (as is typically required by science) will be no easy matter. Another random question - don't some Buddhist teachers warn against becoming fixating on emptiness - we need to transcend every duality, including that between empty and non-empty? At this point one's intellect blows a fuse, of course. Reminds me of a remark of Wittgenstein's (in Philosophical Investigations, I think) that there comes a point when he is doing philosophy where words fail him, and he just wants to make an inarticulate sound!

I guess my main concern is that, although I've experienced (to some degree) what Madhyamaka points at, I am not sure that it can ever be integrated with this thing we call science - doesn't make it any less real, of course. Maybe I need to read Wallace's book!

Now, now you two.

This is a thread about real science, not a place for onanistic philosophising.

quote:

This is a thread about real science, not a place for onanistic philosophising.

Fair enough, but attempts to understand Quantum Mechanics (or QED, QCD, etc) tend to push thought into philosophical waters (onanistic or otherwise) - especially when The Measurement Problem is appreciated. I may be wrong, but I believe that the measurement problem has to be an issue even for hardcore proponents of the Copenhagen Interpretation, since it effectively concerns the relationship between the micro and the macro level - it may be possible to consistently adopt an instrumental approach to theories at either level, but how does one reconcile them - as the measurent problem seems to require?

Anyway, to answer the original question - I do not believe it has (yet!) been demonstrated that Einstein was wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
... Me I'm going to Quarks for a drink,although on which plane of the multiverse I'll be on is anyones guess.....
howard

Las Vegas Hilton, when you come out of the Star Trek Experience

Originally posted by droodzilla:

Hi Droo,

Tough questions to answer without some effort and Im much to whacked having spent the day up a blooming ladder but here goes....

quote:

Even if Madhyamaka did provide a solution to problem, there would still be the task of building a bridge to the scientific worldview, via which the solution could be demonstrated - I take it that this is (part of) Wallace's project.

Wallace does bridge the gap somewhat but my friend's book builds a more substantial bridge I feel. We were quite nervous when we heard about Wallace's book as we thought he might cover the same detail but he does not (not all of it anyway) thankfully! We have a few things up our sleeve Wallace has not written about.

My friend's book is twice as long for one thing and whereas both write that the mind needs to be refined and conditioned by meditation to understand conventional/ultimate reality Wallace goes into detail of actual practices such as non-faith meditation techniques such as Vipassana) but my friend (put simplistically) goes into a lot of detail involving mapping the Madhymaka to what is right in the various interpretations of QT whilst using it to knock down what is wrong in the various interpretations of QT. This tweaking, if you like, of QT (or at least the interpretations thereof)results in new insights and a reconciliation between the two disciplines that is quite unlike the imprecise and impressionistic writings of (say) Fritjof Capra.

quote:

On the substantive issue, it still seems a little misleading to say that consciousness is primary - however emptiness may be related to mind, it is surely not the same as consciousness, as it is usually understood.

'As it is usually understood by whom'? It sounds absurd to suggest the mind is primary as this would mean that all 'physical objects' are objects of mind - and yet an increasing number of scientists are suggesting this may be the case and it is certainly the view of the Prasangikas - this view is massively counter-intuitive and yet this can can be shown to be the case and I believe the arguments are irrefutable!

quote:

I'm also not sure how much of a positive nature can be said about emptiness - the Nagarjuna I've read seems to approach the question along a via negativa. This is not to say that some combination of reflection, and direct contemplative experience, could not bring us to an understanding of emptiness.

I think that is a fair assessment - Nagarjuna relentlessly explores and demonstrates (to my mind) the absurdities of all the different rival 'schools' of thought by ruthlessly taking their views to their 'logical' conclusions showing relentlessly that all that is left is the 'lack of inherent existence (of any and all phenomena) which is the conventional face of emptiness (yes even emptiness has a conventional and ultimate face). BTW - what is the title of the Nagarjuna book you have read? There are good and not so good ones - translation is so important here - even the best translator can fail to get the true meaning if they have not actually studied/internalised/experienced the subject correctly. You may find the writings of Chandrakirti more illuminating - not because they are any easier (they aint imo)but just because they are different. You are absolutely correct imo to suggest that 'some combination of reflection, and direct contemplative experience, could bring us to an understanding of emptiness'. Its not a matter of mysticism or faith - its only the application of effort in the right direction that is wanting.

quote:

But it does suggest that *sharing* that understanding in any straightforward manner (as is typically required by science) will be no easy matter.

Ain't that the truth! As you suggested earlier even gaining a good intellectual understanding of emptiness is difficult enough and combining intellectual study with meditating on the subject is the best way to go about it. Actually experiencing emptiness directly is jolly difficult but not impossible. I have experienced it in the past in exactly the way described in the teachings(a series of different techni-colour/glorious/out of this world/experiences/signs each stage dissolving layers of conceptual minds (as they dissolve the world and self dissolves too)to reveal the root mind which is free from concept/duality and appears as blissful infinity - but is beyond words, thoughts and expression because it is free from conceptual minds! The only thing appearing to the mind is the lack of inherent existence - emptiness - and the mind itself is empty as is emptiness itself! Geddit? Without refining the mind to study the mind (a science in itself)and realise the nature of itself (ultimately lacking any self or indeed any characteristics )one is left bumbling around in the world of appearances (conventional reality)like so many scientists trying to work out what its all about but never straying out of the play school sand pit (even if they get a Nobel prize). Science is wrong to think that it alone is entirely 'objective' - as if a ruler that falls to the floor actually performs a measurement separate to human consciousness - and that meditative contemplation is entirely subjective when so many people get the same experience using the same technique - meditation is the experiment and when performed correctly according to the instructions then the subjective becomes objective (what is objectivity if not a consensus of subjectivities?) Anyway Im crap at explaining why Buddhist meditation is a science and Wallace is very good at it so I hope you do read his book.

quote:

Another random question - don't some Buddhist teachers warn against becoming fixating on emptiness - we need to transcend every duality, including that between empty and non-empty?

empty and non-empty are mere designations for concepts - the ultimate face of emptiness is beyond mere labels - yes, getting hung up on the intellectual understanding of emptiness is sometimes frowned upon mostly when the practitioner is neglecting other important parts of his or her practice. Any understanding of emptiness from a book aint real emptiness - its just something approaching it - not the real thing itself.

quote:

I guess my main concern is that, although I've experienced (to some degree) what Madhyamaka points at, I am not sure that it can ever be integrated with this thing we call science - doesn't make it any less real, of course. Maybe I need to read Wallace's book!

I think it can be integrated up to a point but it is science that has to fall down and give way as an ultimate explanation of reality - science - even the 'correct' (to my mind) tweaking of QT is only useful up to a point - it helps to bridge the gap between the world as it seems to exist (the world of classical physics and everyday experience) and the world as it truly exists (empty of (or lacking)any inherent existence whatsoever). The scientific view of reality is more like a Wittgenstinian (is that a word?) 'Notation' useful up to a point - for the purposes of examination only - but not as an ultimate description of ultimate reality.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
I really struggled with consciousness as primary in the world too and yet it is one of the main interpretations of quantum theory and no less bizarre than some of the others such as the 'many worlds' theory. Unfortunately the consciousness view attracts a lot of New Age type weirdos who are less than scrupulous and they cheapen and undermine the efforts of serious advocates. It is easy to see consciousness as an effect rather than a cause but if you look closely into the subject you wont find any irrefutable evidence for this and the belief held by some that this is the case borders on the religious and suggesting otherwise is scientific heresy! For all that there are an increasing number of physicists (I mean Professors and the like) who support the consciousness theory.

I'm impressed! Your grasp of physics is almost as extraordinary as your grasp of politics. You could certainly teach my old philosophy of science tutor a thing or two about quantum mechanics (for which, incidentally, he was awarded his Nobel Prize).

JeremyD

What is his name?

Hi Acad, thanks for the reply. I don't disagree (much!) with anything you say, but I'm less confident than you apear to be of having an answer to "the problem of consciousness". Having discussed the matter in this thread, I'm also pessimistic about the prospects for a scientific theory of consciousness that just happens to obtain its results using the tools and techniques of meditative practice. It seems to me that the very features of consciousness that make it amenable to investigation using those tools bar it from being the object of a traditional scientific theory. I guess that this is hardly surprising given that the goal of science is to develop *models* of reality, whereas meditation aims at a direct encounter with reality, ineffable and non-representational, as it may be. You're right that the results of meditation are replicable, but they are not replicable in the same way that the results of a scientific experiments, since one can only communicate them in riddles and metaphors. If this is accepted, the best we can hope for is a sort of dovetailing of the Buddhist approach with the point at which our best scientific theories give out.

Nagarjuna - I have this book:



Translation and commentary by Jay Garfield - quite ana cademic approach but it reads well, and the commentator appears to know his stuff. It would be an exaggeration to say I've read it, but I've browsed with interest, and some bemusement.

I have the feeling the topic article should really be about classical electromagnetism.
It has all the waviness of light and none of the chunkiness. Does the chunkiness come into it somewhere? No worries for Einstein in any case.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

quote:

Originally posted by Willy:
Acad,

Can you recommend a good "engineering" read on the subject?

Regards,

Willy.

Hi Willy,

I can probably give you a long list of books -
Can you be more specific?

Specificallydealing with the concept of conciousness as primary. My reading to date has dealt with it as an effect/product so I struggle to get a handle on this concept.

Regards,

Willy.

Hi Droo,

Well you can't get much better than Jay Garfield, although I think Ocean of reasoning by the same author is a better book (published last year). Reading either of these works if you are not already familiar with emptiness would be a real challenge for anyone I think. I would not have got far with either if I had not had some previous experience.

As you have experience of meditating I would recommend you actually meditate on emptiness. There is a dialogue/analytical contemplation in The New Meditation Handbookby Kelsang Gyatso. In this meditation (no need for any faith in Buddhas etc)you get to follow a precise dialogue you can have with your 'self' (its all written out for you)whereby you get to identify what appears to be an inherently existent 'I' and then you get to negate it. When the lack of an inherently existent 'I' appears to you through correct contemplation you are actually meditating on the emptiness of your 'I' but not before.

The first time I read this analytical meditation I thought it was just a very clever word game the sort of word game one could annoy dinner guests with rather than play blooming charades. However, there is no question about it, if you do the analysis properly and find the object of this meditation - 'the lack of an inherently existent self' it will make a very definite impact! No riddles or metaphors involved here.

The analysis is only a couple of pages long. I used to use a copy of the book on DVD and listen to the narrator over earphones, thus I could sit quietly with my eyes closed rather than having to try to meditate and read at the same time. It is quite easy to memorise the reasoning/analysis but not particularly easy to find the object (this meditation is the 21st of 21 and all the others are in some way preparation for the last). Once you have the terminology nailed down (stuff like 'identifying the object of negation') it is easy to play around with the analysis.

Its a bit like trying to find the image in one of those Magic Eye pictures. At first glance (or even careful study) there appears to be just a seemingly random collection of coloured dots but one can learn a technique whereby a previously hidden image manifests itself - as soon as it does we are tempted to alter our focus to grasp at the image as being 'real' and it disappears again - its like this when meditating on emptiness. If you were to show a magic eye picture to hundreds of people and tell them it was a picture of a horse they might laugh at you. You could say explain the whole thing and some might listen and some might still think you are nuts but you would know differently if you were skilled at seeing the horse. Thus it is with hard core materialists and those who really know. In the absence of an easy method that can be readily applied by anyone within minutes and subjected to so-called objective scientific measurement some scientists just assume that there is nothing beyond the realm of appearance and this assumption is held despite evidence to the contrary in a manner that smacks more of religious faith than pure science!

Heres to your 'dovetailing of the Buddhist approach with the point at which our best scientific theories give out'.

Hi Willy,

I will think of some books for you and post tomorrow.

Hi Acad - thanks for the recommendation. These days my practice of choice is "just sitting" (shikantaza), but no reason why I can't try something different.

Hi Droo,

Any good books on that practice?

Hi Acad - I'm no expert, but a couple of books I've read spring to mind:

Opening the Hand of Thought
A nice presentation of the fundamentals of Zen practice.

The Art of Just Sitting
A collection of essays on Zen practice - including a couple by Dogen, its most important philosopher.

After that, just look for similar works, or dive straight into Dogen's writings, if you're feeling brave!

Willy,

I have just been reminded that I have forgotten to answer you. There are a number of books that discuss consciousness as primary but not necessarily as the main thrust of the book - it is merely discussed and not necessarily in much detail but if you are looking for a book from the science side (as opposed to the Buddhist side) you could look at 'Quantum Enigma' in the first instance and then read The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World both books are written by physics professors - both books are controversial and I do not completely agree with either but I do think they get a lot right if not all.

Hi Droo,

Thanks for the pointers. I dont know much about Zen but I have heard of Dogen and I have read bits and I think I know where he is coming from but then again maybe I'm wrong. Once I have worked out that this piece of terminology is the same as some other I'm more familiar with things deem to fall into place but I would need to check rather than to assume but I see strong parallels nonetheless.