Og

I've commented on this before as the fundamental tenet of Buddhism, but I think it's worth throwing out there frequently for discussion. It really speaks to the true nature of the universe. It directly addresses souls and beings and identity.

Everything in the universe is entirely constructed by extrinsic factors. The table is made entirely of non-table parts. There is no component of the table that has any intrinsic identity. In the same manner, your brain is a constructed neural network that is guided by genetics and development from your parents and your chemical environment as you grew up. It is also constructed by your experiences over time. Eventually, you develop preferences based on your unique experience and you create what you consider to be an identity.

But this identity is not something that has a real meaning as an isolated thing. It is not intrinsic identity. It is entirely the product of your environment. There is no thing inside of you that is completely isolated from all effects for your life and from which your identity is informed.

This realization illustrates claims of "supreme being" and "soul" and "freedom of will" as illusions. The notion of a God as a being separate from you and me with some intrinsic identity is necessarily false. The notion of me separate from you is false. The fact that your skin doesn't wrap around my neurons does not mean that we are some kind of different process.

The notion of a God that is a being separate from creation is necessarily false. This does not represent an atheistic lifestyle any more than not believing in zeus or apollo makes you an atheist about the christian god. What is clear is that the universe is one massive singular process and that any thing you want to label "separate" only appears that way. All things lack intrinsic identity. Any sense of intrinsic identity is an illusion.

All this discussion of the literal validity of christ and of the bible or of the quran or of the book of mormons or whatever need go no further than this realization. Literal interpretations of these religions (religions that place a creator and creation as separate entities) are false.. It's just not the way the world works that we live in.

It seems like an empowering realization to me. That we are identical with whatever we consider divine. It's a mixture of rejection of what we hold dear (our ego/identity) and an inclusion of our selves into the cosmic order.

To me, this seems like the true message of christ's word (and the buddha's word). It seems like the elementary idea that informs all world religions in some form or another.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

marmalade

I've studied Buddhism a bit, and I find this view fascinating. The only difficulty with it is that extrinsic and intrinsic are relative terms... which is to say their isn't any intrinsic meaning even to this philosophy. Buddhism argues that, however, there is an intrinsic experience that will give direct insight of the reality of this philosophy. Buddhism doesn't simply deny reality nihilistically.

In this sense, there is a relative intrinsic nature that is continuous and fairly stable. According to some Buddhists, this intrinsic karma is continuously stable enough that it continues even beyond death. But all eventually ends.

A more simple and grounded way to say this is that everything is relationship, and nothing else can exist that isn't relationship. However, why should relationship be considered to have more intrinsic reality than individual identity?

This view only tells us what Buddhists deny and not what they affirm. Buddhists affirmatively believe in many things. Accordingly, some Buddhists do believe in something akin to a God or gods even if their existence is relative(ie all things including the gods must end). Using this criteria, there is no reason to assume that the identity of god(s) is more relative than anything else. Furthermore, there might even be relative degrees of relativity such as if a god's identity has a longer temporal continuity than a human's identity(which is an idea found in Buddhism and Taoism).

Some Buddhists do believe in realms that are separate from this one(ie hells and Buddha-worlds). But these could be considered as only relatively separate. As far as I know, they aren't eternal worlds like Christian heaven and hell.

Yep, it doesn't matter what one believes or perceives reality to be for reality itself transcends and includes all possible beliefs and perceptions.

I couldn't agree more. I'm glad you brought it up.

I don't know if its empowering, but it is one of the deepest realizations I've come to in my life. It can be quite a scary realization at times... when I'm identifying with my ego of course. That darn pesky ego.

Og

Thanks for sharing marmalade. I actively participate in neuroscience research on model systems (fruit fly, mouse, etc). We watch signals go from external things like smells and visual fields to internal things in their brains using electrical and optical techniques.

We make changes to their brains genetically and physically and then characterize the behavior of the animal and the network inside the animal. Seeing the signals that represent sensory input, thoughts, and memories in a living organism really bring this point home.

They are not some intrinsic thing. They are a conduit that modifies sensory signals and creates a physical representation of certain types of information contained within those signals. They are defined entirely by their neural networks.

Now the most complex network we deal with (the mouse) is still only 0.1% the size of the human brain. But all of the concepts scale, obviously. All "beings" are confluences of natural events. Just as a tornado (see my avatar) is a confluence of meteorological events, a human being, a mouse, a fruit fly, a round worm, etc, are confluences of biochemical events and transduced signals.

You can put your hands on it, see it with your eyes, hear it with your ears. Distinctions and boundaries are only "local variables" that describe how our systems behave, but don't have meaning outside of that.

I appreciate your comments on Buddhism. I have found that I like many of the tenets of Buddhism, but much of the mysticism that floats around about it doesn't really do much for me. When I say this notion is empowering, I am speaking to the world view it produces. I am speaking to how you can see your enemy as a part of the whole picture and you can see events that you would otherwise regret as a necessary path of your "soul" as part of the cosmos.

All of this other silly stuff like "supreme being" and "soul" and "free will" just fall off as inconsequential and part of some fantasy world illusion that we've had for so long as a race. This true nature of the human is slowly being revealed to us by the kind of work I'm involved in. I think it's extremely cool.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

AB517

[/quote]

These are at the core of what I believe.
Good show you two.

Og

*Hug*

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

AB517

“They are defined entirely by their neural networks.”

I totally agree with this, said it for the last 20 or more years. I am glad you guys are finding it.

I have a question.

Where is the knowledge of previously untaught information come from?
Like a radio tuned into a station, what it is playing is defined at that moment by its internal connections. Where do the “songs of knowledge”, if you will, come from?

I am a believer so I have slanted view. I know that.
What do you think?

AB517

I am sorry Og

Thank thank you
for the hug

In a macho kinda way this is.

Og

Cross correlations of old observations and new ones. Not that complex of a concept.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

AB517

Old observations of that animal or a stored observation from a previous generation?

Og

For example, an observation of light passing through water creating a skewed perspective leading to the adaption of water lenses (and then glass) to manipulate light to create a magnifying device that allows us to look into cells or into the cosmos.

That's an example of cross correlation of observations to produce new knowledge. Taking facts and comparing them and then using the results to observe something else and make new observations... That process feeding off of itself.

There's no such thing as an uncorrelated piece of knowledge.. That's an illogical statement. There's always a logical inspiration from an observation combined with another idea that allows for new knowledge to be obtained.

Perhaps you could elaborate on your notion of "songs of knowledge" that "come from" something different than cross correlated observations?

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are