Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on December 30, 2018, 12:47:45 PM
-
Hi everyone,
If someone talks of a 'soul' why is it treated as just a nonsensical religious belief?
Soul is just another word (albeit from religion) for Self, Subject and Consciousness. There is sufficient evidence for a Subject and Consciousness. I am sure no one doubts the presence of Consciousness or the Self.
Maybe there are many hypotheses doing the rounds as to what Consciousness is and how it is generated. But no one has yet proved with any certainty as to what it is.
There are in fact many recent philosophical ideas about Consciousness being external to the brain and even about it being something fundamental and universal (refer thread on Panpsychism). There are some recent scientific ideas (IIT, PAP) that also seem to corroborate this philosophical view.
Given this situation, why can't the idea of a soul (Consciousness) be taken as a valid hypothesis rather then be dismissed as a religious belief?!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
If someone talks of a 'soul' why is it treated as just a nonsensical religious belief?
The word can be used in several ways and it isn't always treated as a nonsensical religious belief. For example, Richard Dawkins published a book called Science in the Soul and Douglas Hofstadter uses the term extensively in I Am a Strange Loop.
Given this situation, why can't the idea of a soul (Consciousness) be taken as a valid hypothesis rather then be dismissed as a religious belief?!
Because it isn't a hypothesis, it's just a rather vague word that can refer to many different ideas.
-
Hi everyone,
If someone talks of a 'soul' why is it treated as just a nonsensical religious belief?
Soul is just another word (albeit from religion) for Self, Subject and Consciousness. There is sufficient evidence for a Subject and Consciousness. I am sure no one doubts the presence of Consciousness or the Self.
Maybe there are many hypotheses doing the rounds as to what Consciousness is and how it is generated. But no one has yet proved with any certainty as to what it is.
There are in fact many recent philosophical ideas about Consciousness being external to the brain and even about it being something fundamental and universal (refer thread on Panpsychism). There are some recent scientific ideas (IIT, PAP) that also seem to corroborate this philosophical view.
Given this situation, why can't the idea of a soul (Consciousness) be taken as a valid hypothesis rather then be dismissed as a religious belief?!
Cheers.
Sriram
Whilst I am of the opinion the term 'soul' is just another name for consciousness, which is a constituent of the brain, religious people like Alan Burns think it is an entity in its own right, which continues to exist after death.
-
Whilst I am of the opinion the term 'soul' is just another name for consciousness, which is a constituent of the brain, religious people like Alan Burns think it is an entity in its own right, which continues to exist after death.
The word soul is not a recognised term in science therefore we are entitled to ask why you are attempting to define it scientifically..
-
The word soul is not a recognised term in science therefore we are entitled to ask why you are attempting to define it scientifically..
Except that Sririam in his OP conflates consciousness with soul and then says this:
There are in fact many recent philosophical ideas about Consciousness being external to the brain and even about it being something fundamental and universal (refer thread on Panpsychism). There are some recent scientific ideas (IIT, PAP) that also seem to corroborate this philosophical view.
So the OP has framed the discussion with reference to scientific terms. I presume LR was responding to the definition in the initial proposition.
-
The word soul is not a recognised term in science therefore we are entitled to ask why you are attempting to define it scientifically..
Where does science fit into my post? ::)
-
I suspect that 'Soul' is another of those 'catch all' English words which has expanded beyond its origins. I believe it has a Germanic source and meant 'life' or perhaps 'life force' as opposed to 'life forms'. In the scriptures associated with the Abrahamic religions it is symbolised by 'air' (Hebrew... Ruwach, Greek... pneuma, Latin.. spiritus) or' breath' when inside the body (Hebrew.. neshama, Greek .. psyche, Latin ... anima). When the 'spirit' is invoked, the life form becomes in-spired, enlivened, enthusiastic, blissful, loving. When the 'spirit' leaves, the life form ex-spires. From the religious angle, the question then is, has your consciousness identified with the disintegrating mind and body 'life form' or the integrating 'life eternal'. Some believe that God is Life, and some God is Love. Strangely, 'lief' in the word 'belief' is cognate with the words 'life' and 'love', so 'Belief in God' could be 'Be life in Life' or 'Be love in Love'. I hope I haven't bored everybody.
-
The word soul is not a recognised term in science therefore we are entitled to ask why you are attempting to define it scientifically..
So you agree souls aren't real.
-
So you agree souls aren't real.
What an arseclenchingly scientistical question.
-
I suspect that 'Soul' is another of those 'catch all' English words which has expanded beyond its origins. I believe it has a Germanic source and meant 'life' or perhaps 'life force' as opposed to 'life forms'. In the scriptures associated with the Abrahamic religions it is symbolised by 'air' (Hebrew... Ruwach, Greek... pneuma, Latin.. spiritus) or' breath' when inside the body (Hebrew.. neshama, Greek .. psyche, Latin ... anima). When the 'spirit' is invoked, the life form becomes in-spired, enlivened, enthusiastic, blissful, loving. When the 'spirit' leaves, the life form ex-spires. From the religious angle, the question then is, has your consciousness identified with the disintegrating mind and body 'life form' or the integrating 'life eternal'. Some believe that God is Life, and some God is Love. Strangely, 'lief' in the word 'belief' is cognate with the words 'life' and 'love', so 'Belief in God' could be 'Be life in Life' or 'Be love in Love'. I hope I haven't bored everybody.
The etymology of words is a separate issue. Generally when we refer to a soul we mean the 'person' who is within the body,experiencing life and who leaves the body after death.
The word Consciousness is used to mean the Self or Subject who experiences things. Consciousness refers to subjectivity. Therefore the two concepts 'soul' and 'Consciousness' refer to the same subject who experiences things.
When Chalmers talks of Panpsychism he is referring to a universal Consciousness that he thinks is fundamental to the universe. IIT and PAP also refer to similar concepts.
Consciousness is real and therefore soul is also real. As to what this, is is a matter of conjecture currently....but science may get there sooner than later.
The point being that the idea of a soul (as identical to Consciousness) is not just a religious belief. It is a fact and its nature as independent of the brain is a valid hypothesis.
-
The etymology of words is a separate issue. Generally when we refer to a soul we mean the 'person' who is within the body,experiencing life and who leaves the body after death.
The word Consciousness is used to mean the Self or Subject who experiences things. Consciousness refers to subjectivity. Therefore the two concepts 'soul' and 'Consciousness' refer to the same subject who experiences things.
When Chalmers talks of Panpsychism he is referring to a universal Consciousness that he thinks is fundamental to the universe. IIT and PAP also refer to similar concepts.
Consciousness is real and therefore soul is also real. As to what this, is is a matter of conjecture currently....but science may get there sooner than later.
The point being that the idea of a soul (as identical to Consciousness) is not just a religious belief. It is a fact and its nature as independent of the brain is a valid hypothesis.
If consciousness, or sentience, were to be a fundamental property of matter, that doesn't justify the claim that consciousness 'leaves the body after death'. Leaving the body suggests that consciousness is a property of bodies, not a fundamental property of matter. To run with the panpsychist claim, what brains do (when operating optimally) is procure a highly enriched focal point of that otherwise diffuse consciousness. When the brain stops doing what brains do, that focal point of consciousness ceases, it dissipates, it doesn't go somewhere else and continue being a focal point somewhere else. When a tropical storm makes landfall, the energy of the storm dissipates into the trees and houses and land and so ceases to exist as a tropical storm.
-
If consciousness, or sentience, were to be a fundamental property of matter, that doesn't justify the claim that consciousness 'leaves the body after death'. Leaving the body suggests that consciousness is a property of bodies, not a fundamental property of matter. To run with the panpsychist claim, what brains do (when operating optimally) is procure a highly enriched focal point of that otherwise diffuse consciousness. When the brain stops doing what brains do, that focal point of consciousness ceases, it dissipates, it doesn't go somewhere else and continue being a focal point somewhere else. When a tropical storm makes landfall, the energy of the storm dissipates into the trees and houses and land and so ceases to exist as a tropical storm.
We are nowhere close to getting into the nitty gritty on Consciousness or soul at this point.
The point is that Consciousness is just another word for soul. Existence of Consciousness as the subject cannot be denied. Which means the soul cannot be denied.
As to what the Consciousness or soul is and how it is generated is a matter of conjecture and philosophy. You have your hypothesis that it is generated by the brain. The other hypothesis is that it is independent of the brain. This is also a valid hypothesis and not just a religious belief, which is my point.
As to how Consciousness can be universal is a philosophical question and the answer is that it has many layers. As Chalmers says, Consciousness is about subjectivity and whether we will ever be able to know what it is objectively....is open to question.
-
I've yet to see a good argument for "the illusion of self"
-
What an arseclenchingly scientistical question.
You really have been overdoing your liquid refreshment over the festive season! ::)
-
The etymology of words is a separate issue. Generally when we refer to a soul we mean the 'person' who is within the body,experiencing life and who leaves the body after death.
The word Consciousness is used to mean the Self or Subject who experiences things. Consciousness refers to subjectivity. Therefore the two concepts 'soul' and 'Consciousness' refer to the same subject who experiences things.
When Chalmers talks of Panpsychism he is referring to a universal Consciousness that he thinks is fundamental to the universe. IIT and PAP also refer to similar concepts.
Consciousness is real and therefore soul is also real. As to what this, is is a matter of conjecture currently....but science may get there sooner than later.
The point being that the idea of a soul (as identical to Consciousness) is not just a religious belief. It is a fact and its nature as independent of the brain is a valid hypothesis.
I think the etymology of the word 'soul' is relevant to the discussion particularly as the religions which use the associated words have their origins some two or three thousand years ago and language tends to become corrupted over time. Religious words are vague enough and lead to all sorts of meanderings unless there is at least some clarity. The 'Searching for God' topic is a good example. Judging by what you are saying above, it might have been better to call the topic 'Atman' rather than the Biblical word 'soul'. I'm not sure that 'soul' is meant to be 'person' but it sometimes seems to suggest that when people talk of 'lost souls', 'evil spirits' etc.
-
I think the etymology of the word 'soul' is relevant to the discussion
No, it isn't: etymological fallacy.
-
I've yet to see a good argument for "the illusion of self"
My guess is that you never will.
Probably because you are Illusion-of-self-dodging.
But you wont admit it.
-
My guess is that you never will.
Probably because you are Illusion-of-self-dodging.
But you wont admit it.
;D
-
We are nowhere close to getting into the nitty gritty on Consciousness or soul at this point.
The point is that Consciousness is just another word for soul. Existence of Consciousness as the subject cannot be denied. Which means the soul cannot be denied.
To equate 'soul' and 'consciousness' is somewhat sloppy reasoning given that 'soul' comes with lots of cultural baggage and therefore many shades of meaning. We can get closer to the truth by eliminating layers of confusion introduced by use of imprecise or controversial terminology. With 'consciousness', we have a concept that is fairly well defined, and being measurable by techniques such as those given by integrated information theory, we can do hard science with it, to help determine the boundaries of what it is and what it isn't. So, similarly we need to be careful not to conflate consciousness with any fundamental property of matter, such as Chalmers' proposal that all matter has a phenomenological aspect. The consciousness produced in a working active brain is a different category of phenomenon to any diffuse sentience we might imagine operating at the level of matter. To confuse the two would be lazy thinking, rather like not taking the care to differentiate between 'weather' and climate'. The concepts might have a relation, but we shouldn't lose sight of the distinction.
-
No, it isn't: etymological fallacy.
Yes, it is relevant and is not an etymological fallacy, as I was not insisting that a present day meaning of 'soul' should be the same as a past meaning, just that there should be clarity over what the user of the word means. If 'soul' = 'consciousness' then we can forget about the ancient religious connotations and discuss consciousness. If the intention is to include the religious aspect then I would say that it is valid to include possible meanings associated with that religion's inception. What often happens is that the definition is often fitted to a post physical death belief. Those who believe in a Heaven or Hell have their idea, those who believe in reincarnation have a different idea, and those who believe that death is the end, have no idea.
-
My guess is that you never will.
Probably because you are Illusion-of-self-dodging.
But you wont admit it.
Cack.
-
Cack.
Poop.
-
To equate 'soul' and 'consciousness' is somewhat sloppy reasoning given that 'soul' comes with lots of cultural baggage and therefore many shades of meaning. We can get closer to the truth by eliminating layers of confusion introduced by use of imprecise or controversial terminology. With 'consciousness', we have a concept that is fairly well defined, and being measurable by techniques such as those given by integrated information theory, we can do hard science with it, to help determine the boundaries of what it is and what it isn't. So, similarly we need to be careful not to conflate consciousness with any fundamental property of matter, such as Chalmers' proposal that all matter has a phenomenological aspect. The consciousness produced in a working active brain is a different category of phenomenon to any diffuse sentience we might imagine operating at the level of matter. To confuse the two would be lazy thinking, rather like not taking the care to differentiate between 'weather' and climate'. The concepts might have a relation, but we shouldn't lose sight of the distinction.
This is where the idea of Zoom-In and Zoom-out mind sets comes in handy. We have to make an attempt at integration not segregation.
Consciousness is just a new word we are using to represent the Self that is experiencing the world behind all processes and mechanisms. Soul also represents the Self.
Going into fine details doesn't make sense at this stage because there is a whole world behind all this. Like talking of an atom. It seems simple enough, but there is a whole universe within the atom, depending on how far you want to go.
Philosophers and scientists are now talking of Consciousness being universal and fundamental. That is a good beginning. All this if viewed correctly, could tie in very well with ancient spiritual philosophies.
The point being that, just because these new ideas could corroborate ancient spiritual philosophies, we should not develop a dismissive and negative attitude towards them. They should in fact be welcomed because they provide a means of integrating different view points around the world and could finally do away with the rather dated Science VS Religion/Spirituality arguments.
Everyone could then move in the same direction to understand the world and feel fulfilled.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I've yet to see a good argument for "the illusion of self"
Could you tell us where your self is located, exactly ?
-
Philosophers and scientists are now talking of Consciousness being universal and fundamental. That is a good beginning. All this if viewed correctly, could tie in very well with ancient spiritual philosophies.
The point being that, just because these new ideas could corroborate ancient spiritual philosophies, we should not develop a dismissive and negative attitude towards them. They should in fact be welcomed because they provide a means of integrating different view points around the world and could finally do away with the rather dated Science VS Religion/Spirituality arguments.
Your contributions here illustrate exactly why the two must remain forever separate.
What you've done here is typical. You've picked up on some bits of philosophy and scientific speculation, not bothered to think much about it or understand them properly but nevertheless concluded that if you don't pay much attention, then they look a bit like your own religious views. Not so much zoom-out as out-of-focus.
Integrated information, for example, wouldn't give you any significant consciousness that is separate from complex information processing systems like the brain. It's a calculable property of systems, that can easily be equal to zero.
In short you typify religious thought in doing the opposite of thinking outside the box; you try desperately to stuff everything into the box of your religious views. It would be fascinating if one of these ideas turned out to be correct but you will never accept it unless it fits with your faith. We can see this in the way you are forever trying to drag intelligence into evolution and your refusal to try to properly understand natural selection. It doesn't fit with your faith so it can't be right or complete until it does.
That's why religion and science are fundamentally different and you can't do science properly if you insist on dragging religion into it.
-
Could you tell us where your self is located, exactly ?
At the moment in the chair in front of the TV watching Ben Hur.
-
What an arseclenchingly scientistical question.
It wasn't a question.
What other way apart from science do we have for determining if anything is real?
-
It wasn't a question.
What other way apart from science do we have for determining if anything is real?
Science has trouble with the self which is the one thing we actually really know.
So firstly it is disabled in any suggestion that it can determine ontology.
Since science makes no final ontological declaration it is of no use in ontological argument.
Sorry.
-
Science has trouble with the self which is the one thing we actually really know.
Do we really know it?
So firstly it is disabled in any suggestion that it can determine ontology.
Why?
Since science makes no final ontological declaration it is of no use in ontological argument.
If you can't test your ideas, you can't tell if they are right or wrong. If you can test your ideas, you are doing science.
Sorry.
Why? What have you done?
-
Do we really know it? Why?If you can't test your ideas, you can't tell if they are right or wrong. If you can test your ideas, you are doing science.
I have nothing against that.
It seems to have its limitations though. It cannot seem to demonstrate one's self. A thing which is perhaps the most obvious real thing one can experience.
-
I have nothing against that.
It seems to have its limitations though. It cannot seem to demonstrate one's self. A thing which is perhaps the most obvious real thing one can experience.
And it is so real for everyone that we all have exactly the same explanation for it.........don't we?
-
And it is so real for everyone that we all have exactly the same explanation for it.........don't we?
If you are saying Toe, that you don't think you are for real...the whole world can agree on that.
Ha ha ha.
-
If you are saying Toe, that you don't think you are for real...the whole world can agree on that.
Ha ha ha.
Can you prove I'm not real?
Ho ho ho!
-
I have nothing against that.
It seems to have its limitations though. It cannot seem to demonstrate one's self. A thing which is perhaps the most obvious real thing one can experience.
Well, Hume and the Buddha didn't think so.
-
Well, Hume and the Buddha didn't think so.
in part because the idea that the self experiences itself as Vlad seems to suggest doesn't really make much sense.
-
Yes, I don't get how the self is obvious, really. Still, no doubt Vlad will elucidate.
-
in part because the idea that the self experiences itself as Vlad seems to suggest doesn't really make much sense.
So what is doing the experiencing and what is the experience? What is it that experiences the illusion?
-
So what is doing the experiencing and what is the experience? What is it that experiences the illusion?
I didn't use the word illusion but what you missed is that your first two questions highlight the problem I pointed out. If the self is some how experiencing the self then you have created a dualistic infinite regression.
That is of course added to your begging the question that other experiences all the same.
-
I didn't use the word illusion but what you missed is that your first two questions highlight the problem I pointed out. If the self is some how experiencing the self then you have created a dualistic infinite regression.
That is of course added to your begging the question that other experiences all the same.
Now you've got me searching the web for dualistic infinite regression (hey umtiddly umtiddle eye....).
Infinite regression? I can see a charge of circularity but infinite regression sounds utter wank.
-
Yes, I don't get how the self is obvious, really. Still, no doubt Vlad will elucidate.
Really? Who do you have your cheques made out to?
-
Now you've got me searching the web for dualistic infinite regression (hey umtiddly umtiddle eye....).
Infinite regression? I can see a charge of circularity but infinite regression sounds utter wank.
Your position works like this. You claim experience of the self as the basis of the claim, and yet you claim that it the self that is experiencing the self. This creates the duality. If the self is also a thing that is defined by being experienced then the dualustic self needs to be experienced etc etc
-
Your position works like this. You claim experience of the self as the basis of the claim, and yet you claim that it the self that is experiencing the self. This creates the duality. If the self is also a thing that is defined by being experienced then the dualustic self needs to be experienced etc etc
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." George Orwell.
-
Your position works like this. You claim experience of the self as the basis of the claim, and yet you claim that it the self that is experiencing the self. This creates the duality. If the self is also a thing that is defined by being experienced then the dualustic self needs to be experienced etc etc
Only the self needs to experience itself.
A duality is not an infinite regression is it.
-
Hi everyone,
Take the example of a String. It is supposed to be the smallest part of what we are and everything else is. If the atom is as big as the solar system, the String is said to be as big as a tree. It is so small that no one can hope to see or even know what it is. It is probably some form of energy wriggling around like a rubber band.
This String is believed to vibrate in 11 dimensions to generate various elementary particles which then form more complex particles like protons, particles then form atoms of elements, which form compounds, which then form cells and organisms, which then form humans and others. The String is the most fundamental aspect of Nature that we currently are able to theorize. The String is the only thing that really exists, everything else is only its transformation and an illusion. If it stops vibrating, the universe could simply disappear in a jiffy.
Imagine the String is conscious, what will it be aware of? Will it think of itself as a human or as a bacteria or as a hydrocarbon or as an atom or as an electron or quark? Or will it think of itself as a String?
We can imagine its Consciousness projecting itself into all its physical transformations. It will be conscious as a human, as a bacteria, as an atom, as an electron and also as itself. Its consciousness will be different at different levels.
The idea of the soul or Self is similar, philosophically.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Really? Who do you have your cheques made out to?
Agreed, a superficial schema would be sufficient for anyone looking to a career in banking. Or accountancy.
-
Hi everyone,
Take the example of a String. It is supposed to be the smallest part of what we are and everything else is. If the atom is as big as the solar system, the String is said to be as big as a tree. It is so small that no one can hope to see or even know what it is. It is probably some form of energy wriggling around like a rubber band.
This String is believed to vibrate in 11 dimensions to generate various elementary particles which then form more complex particles like protons, particles then form atoms of elements, which form compounds, which then form cells and organisms, which then form humans and others. The String is the most fundamental aspect of Nature that we currently are able to theorize. The String is the only thing that really exists, everything else is only its transformation and an illusion. If it stops vibrating, the universe could simply disappear in a jiffy.
Imagine the String is conscious, what will it be aware of? Will it think of itself as a human or as a bacteria or as a hydrocarbon or as an atom or as an electron or quark? Or will it think of itself as a String?
We can imagine its Consciousness projecting itself into all its physical transformations. It will be conscious as a human, as a bacteria, as an atom, as an electron and also as itself. Its consciousness will be different at different levels.
The idea of the soul or Self is similar, philosophically.
Cheers.
Sriram
I'm sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever.
-
Really? Who do you have your cheques made out to?
Argumentum ad pronouns, I suppose.
-
Only the self needs to experience itself.
A duality is not an infinite regression is it.
Your first sentence ignores the issue with what something experiencing itself means. It also appears to add into some claim that the logical issues with the idea are somehow dealt with by assertion of necessity.
Your second sentence then contradicts your first, though this is in part because you have no coherent position on this. It also appears to create a strawman since I wasn't saying a duality equals an infinite regress. And in doing so, ignores that the inifinite regress was caused by one of your contradictory positions you have taken in this discussion, i.e. the dualist one of a separate self somehow experiencing a different separate self.
This would necessitate the regression by your logic as that self would need another self etc etc and so on ad infinitum.
And all of that is ignoring your overall lack of definition and the basic problems with any of your contradictory positions have with science and others experiences
-
Your first sentence ignores the issue with what something experiencing itself means. It also appears to add into some claim that the logical issues with the idea are somehow dealt with by assertion of necessity.
Your second sentence then contradicts your first, though this is in part because you have no coherent position on this. It also appears to create a strawman since I wasn't saying a duality equals an infinite regress. And in doing so, ignores that the inifinite regress was caused by one of your contradictory positions you have taken in this discussion, i.e. the dualist one of a separate self somehow experiencing a different separate self.
This would necessitate the regression by your logic as that self would need another self etc etc and so on ad infinitum.
And all of that is ignoring your overall lack of definition and the basic problems with any of your contradictory positions have with science and others experiences
You need to layout how self awareness involves infinite regress. You make the mistake of positing a separate self experiencing a different self. No one else has done that and it isn't self awareness.
-
You need to layout how self awareness involves infinite regress. You make the mistake of positing a separate self experiencing a different self. No one else has done that and it isn't self awareness.
I've now 'laid it out; a couple of times that the infinite regress is based on one of you contradictory positions on this. Why are you ignoring that? Your dualist position of a one thing experiencing another leads to that.
Your non dualist position doesn't make sense in that a thing experiencing itself, and that thing being undefined and contradicted by current science in the extremely basic way you refer to it, contradicts the normal use of the word experience, and you haven't made any attempt to justify that other than a nonsensical assertion of necessity.
-
Well, Hume and the Buddha didn't think so.
Buddha didn't actually say that there is no Self.....unlike what many people seem to think.
-
Buddha didn't actually say that there is no Self.....unlike what many people seem to think.
True: he said "there is no spoon" - or am I confusing that with something else?
-
True: he said "there is no spoon" - or am I confusing that with something else?
?????
-
Your first sentence ignores the issue with what something experiencing itself means. It also appears to add into some claim that the logical issues with the idea are somehow dealt with by assertion of necessity.
Your second sentence then contradicts your first, though this is in part because you have no coherent position on this. It also appears to create a strawman since I wasn't saying a duality equals an infinite regress. And in doing so, ignores that the inifinite regress was caused by one of your contradictory positions you have taken in this discussion, i.e. the dualist one of a separate self somehow experiencing a different separate self.
This would necessitate the regression by your logic as that self would need another self etc etc and so on ad infinitum.
And all of that is ignoring your overall lack of definition and the basic problems with any of your contradictory positions have with science and others experiences
It seems to me that it s you who have introduced the duality.
In your scheme the observer is separate and other from the observed.
You think this then involves a third observer then a fourth ad infinitude
No one in this chain would be any the wiser vis a vis anything resembling self awareness.
The trouble is that your scheme is arbitrary and would not produce the experience.
Alternatives are the observed and observer are one or they are so intimate that they perfectly inform the other.....a binity
-
It seems to me that it s you who have introduced the duality.
In your scheme the observer is separate and other from the observed.
You think this then involves a third observer then a fourth ad infinitude
No one in this chain would be any the wiser vis a vis anything resembling self awareness.
The trouble is that your scheme is arbitrary and does not produce the experience.
Alternatives are the observed and observer are one or they are so intimate that they can perfectly inform the other.....a binity
No, you introduced it, I was simply pointing out some of the issues with that. That you then posited a different idea doesn't invalidate the criticism of the contradictory idea you started with.
So let's move on to your altwrnatives, which in the case of the experience being some how mystically the same thing as the observation, has already been questioned. So how does the experience of something become the same thing as the thing itself?
As to your 'binity', that's just the original duality.
As noted in my previous post, you don't define your terms clearly which means your posts become semi coherent ramblings and any ideas are buried in mush.
-
?????
Google is your friend
-
It seems to me that it s you who have introduced the duality.
In your scheme the observer is separate and other from the observed.
You think this then involves a third observer then a fourth ad infinitude
No one in this chain would be any the wiser vis a vis anything resembling self awareness.
The trouble is that your scheme is arbitrary and would not produce the experience.
Alternatives are the observed and observer are one or they are so intimate that they perfectly inform the other.....a binity
The idea of observer/observed being one is common in Eastern religions, (although the radicals say that neither exist), but surely it's a non-starter in Christianity, since salvation relies on a separate soul, which has become sullied. In fact, some Christian mystics got close to oneness, but it seems incoherent. If I am one with everything (hot dog style), why do I need anything? It's an old joke in Zen, that it's seeking that damns me.
-
Buddha didn't actually say that there is no Self.....unlike what many people seem to think.
This will come as a great surprise to many, since the doctrine of anatta (no-self) derives from the Sanskrit an-atman: i.e. there is no atman, self or soul, which Hinduism insists upon.
Of course, neither you nor I were witnesses to what the Buddha actually said, and the classic texts were written down hundreds of years after the historical Buddha was alive. However, the following classic text seems fairly unequivocal:
. In the Visuddhimagga it is therefore said:
Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there.
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it.
The path is, but no traveller on it is seen.
The Buddha was apparently wont to express things by negatives (It isn't this and it isn't that). The following from the Pali Anatta Sutra is typical:
Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'
However, once one has subtracted every kind of consciousness whatever
, one wonders what might be left to constitute any sort of self in a meaningful sense.
-
This will come as a great surprise to many, since the doctrine of anatta (no-self) derives from the Sanskrit an-atman: i.e. there is no atman, self or soul, which Hinduism insists upon.
Of course, neither you nor I were witnesses to what the Buddha actually said, and the classic texts were written down hundreds of years after the historical Buddha was alive. However, the following classic text seems fairly unequivocal:
. In the Visuddhimagga it is therefore said:
The Buddha was apparently wont to express things by negatives (It isn't this and it isn't that). The following from the Pali Anatta Sutra is typical:
However, once has subtracted every kind of consciousness whatever
, one wonders what might be left to constitute any sort of self in a meaningful sense.
Hi Dicky,
Yes...many people are surprised to learn that Buddha never actually taught the idea of Anatma (sanskrit) or Annata (Pali). He didn't write a single word and no one knows what he actually taught.
1. 'Buddha's teachings' were written down more than 400 years after his death. Emperor Ashoka's children Mahindra and Sangamitra are believed to have migrated to Sri Lanka where the Pali Canon (Tripitaka) was first written around 200 BCE. Some scholars believe that much of the Pali Canon is a later creation by several generations of followers, while only the Dhammapada probably represents the original teachings of the Buddha.
2. The concept of Anatma (no atma) is only taught in the Theravada school. Funnily, they also teach Karma and Rebirth with progression towards Nirvana. This obviously conflicts with the idea of anatma (who or what undergoes rebirth and karmic progression!?).
3. The other schools of Buddhism such as Mahayana and Vajrayana (Tibetan) do not teach the idea of anatma. The Mahayana teachings are similar to the Vedantic teachings (Dharmakaya...Brahman). The Tibetan teachings are derived from Hindu Tantra and the local Bon religion.
4. The idea of Sunyata (nothingness) is quite popular in Buddhism. But this is seen as just the experience of the state of no-mind in Hinduism. As a person practices mind control, at one stage the mind just stops. This gives rise to the experience of nothingness. Just like if the computer software suddenly fails, the screen will become blank. While some Buddhists think of this as representing no-atma, in Hinduism we believe that the experience of nothingness is itself evidence of an experiencer...namely the atma. It is a stage in knowing the true experiencer (Self) behind all experience.
5. The concept of 'not this'...'not this' (Neti Neti) is an Upanishadic (Brihadaranakya) way of eliminating everything that is an experience till we reach the experiencer (self).
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi Dicky,
Yes...many people are surprised to learn that Buddha never actually taught the idea of Anatma (sanskrit) or Annata (Pali). He didn't write a single word and no one knows what he actually taught.
Hi Sriram
At least we can agree that we cannot know what the Buddha actually taught, because of the long interval between his life and the recording of his purported sayings. It's a fine point, but the fact is, he may have taught it, and he may not have.
As regards the authenticity of the Theravada versus the Mahayana schools, we could argue till the cows come home (I parted company with Buddhist thought decades ago, except for a few practical ideas). As for what is supposed to be reborn on the path to Nirvana, according to the Theravada school, I always thought that this was considered to be the Skandhas (aggregates of personality), which have no permanent form, and thought only to perpetrate the sense of a self, if we persist in being attached to them. I thought this idea was taken over in Mahayana thought.
The main difference between the two branches of Buddhism, as far as I'm concerned, is that Theravada is dualistic and world-rejecting, whereas Mahayana is monistic and life-affirming (Nirvana - the formless - is Samsara - the world of change)*
I suppose this would accord with certain Hindu ideas of theological monism, which seem a kind of pantheism.
Then there is the teaching in the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism that Atman (the human soul) is Brahman (the divine soul). There doesn't seem to be much room for a real individual human soul in such a view. And indeed, I once heard an Indian Hindu pundit over here say "Brahman is the only reincarnator".
As for our own individual selves, I now take a purely materialist, evolutionary view: there is ultimately no such thing as a real self, but we have evolved with various appetites and ultimately self-consciousness which create the illusion of self. It does help everyday living if we treat this illusion as a practical reality, I find :)
*The Bodhissatva ideal is also important and attractive: the enlightened individual who gives up his ultimate salvation in order to help suffering humanity.
-
Hi Sriram
At least we can agree that we cannot know what the Buddha actually taught, because of the long interval between his life and the recording of his purported sayings. It's a fine point, but the fact is, he may have taught it, and he may not have.
As regards the authenticity of the Theravada versus the Mahayana schools, we could argue till the cows come home (I parted company with Buddhist thought decades ago, except for a few practical ideas). As for what is supposed to be reborn on the path to Nirvana, according to the Theravada school, I always thought that this was considered to be the Skandhas (aggregates of personality), which have no permanent form, and thought only to perpetrate the sense of a self, if we persist in being attached to them. I thought this idea was taken over in Mahayana thought.
The main difference between the two branches of Buddhism, as far as I'm concerned, is that Theravada is dualistic and world-rejecting, whereas Mahayana is monistic and life-affirming (Nirvana - the formless - is Samsara - the world of change)*
I suppose this would accord with certain Hindu ideas of theological monism, which seem a kind of pantheism.
Then there is the teaching in the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism that Atman (the human soul) is Brahman (the divine soul). There doesn't seem to be much room for a real individual human soul in such a view. And indeed, I once heard an Indian Hindu pundit over here say "Brahman is the only reincarnator".
As for our own individual selves, I now take a purely materialist, evolutionary view: there is ultimately no such thing as a real self, but we have evolved with various appetites and ultimately self-consciousness which create the illusion of self. It does help everyday living if we treat this illusion as a practical reality, I find :)
*The Bodhissatva ideal is also important and attractive: the enlightened individual who gives up his ultimate salvation in order to help suffering humanity.
Yeah...I am fine with that.
On the issue of what the self really is, I have written above about the String. Speaking only at the material level, are you really the body/mind or DNA or atoms or the String?
Life gets projected at many levels, like extrusions, such that we are different at each level but still retain the same essence. This is where the differences and the essential oneness come in.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Yeah...I am fine with that.
On the issue of what the self really is, I have written above about the String. Speaking only at the material level, are you really the body/mind or DNA or atoms or the String?
Life gets projected at many levels, like extrusions, such that we are different at each level but still retain the same essence. This is where the differences and the essential oneness come in.
Cheers.
Sriram
I think David Hume's analogy of a twisted rope is insightful.
At a glance, we are a single thing, like a rope. But if you examine in closer detail we find the rope is actually made up of a great many intertwined threads and there is no 'master' thread, no 'central' thread.
I think we are somewhat like that. The apparent oneness of the self emerges out of the intimate intertwining of a great many dispositions and characteristics. If you unwind that rope, we find there is nothing there in the middle.
-
I think David Hume's analogy of a twisted rope is insightful.
At a glance, we are a single thing, like a rope. But if you examine in closer detail we find the rope is actually made up of a great many intertwined threads and there is no 'master' thread, no 'central' thread.
I think we are somewhat like that. The apparent oneness of the self emerges out of the intimate intertwining of a great many dispositions and characteristics. If you unwind that rope, we find there is nothing there in the middle.
That is where we disagree. This is again the Zoom-In, Zoom-out problem. Its a matter of perception.
I believe that at the bottom of all apparent differences there is a oneness. All diverse phenomena are essentially part of one single phenomena. All attempts at a Unified Theory in science are meant to identify this simple oneness.
As I have said above, if the String theory is correct, (leaving spiritual aspects out for the moment), the String is the single entity that is responsible for all phenomena. Like hand puppets, the same entity plays divergent roles.
-
That is where we disagree. This is again the Zoom-In, Zoom-out problem. Its a matter of perception.
I believe that at the bottom of all apparent differences there is a oneness. All diverse phenomena are essentially part of one single phenomena. All attempts at a Unified Theory in science are meant to identify this simple oneness.
As I have said above, if the String theory is correct, (leaving spiritual aspects out for the moment), the String is the single entity that is responsible for all phenomena. Like hand puppets, the same entity plays divergent roles.
I don't think that constitutes a disagreement with Hume's analogy. The twisted rope is describing a phenomenon of selfhood at a much higher level of complexity. We're all accustomed to the notion that all the complex things at our level of perception are actually made from simpler homogenous underlying material. The preSocratic Greeks had the notion that all things were made from atoms thousands of years before Einstein demonstrated modern atomic theory to be correct. But on the hand we can't claim that 'self' is synonymous with 'String'. I might be made of atoms, in some sense, but that doesn't mean I am an atom.
-
I don't think that constitutes a disagreement with Hume's analogy. The twisted rope is describing a phenomenon of selfhood at a much higher level of complexity. We're all accustomed to the notion that all the complex things at our level of perception are actually made from simpler homogenous underlying material. The preSocratic Greeks had the notion that all things were made from atoms thousands of years before Einstein demonstrated modern atomic theory to be correct. But on the hand we can't claim that 'self' is synonymous with 'String'. I might be made of atoms, in some sense, but that doesn't mean I am an atom.
You may not claim to be a an atom....but you essentially are only that! You are driven by your DNA which governs all your genetic traits and instinctive impulses. DNA is atoms and atoms are EP's and finally Strings.
As you so often claim, its all predetermined. Your notion of yourself is just an illusion. Essentially it is all just the String doing whatever it does. That is the ultimate reality (as we understand it today, materially speaking).
-
Hi Sriram
At least we can agree that we cannot know what the Buddha actually taught, because of the long interval between his life and the recording of his purported sayings. It's a fine point, but the fact is, he may have taught it, and he may not have.
What is attributed to the Buddha was certainly taught by somebody or some group, so all that matters is whether it's true or helpful, not who originally taught it, surely.
-
What is attributed to the Buddha was certainly taught by somebody or some group, so all that matters is whether it's true or helpful, not who originally taught it, surely.
I agree, but the problem with many different people from different regions, time periods and backgrounds contributing under one name is that....Buddha will almost appear like a person with a serious Multiple Personality Disorder.
Buddhism is probably the only religion with one single individual as its fountainhead, with as many contradictions and internal conflicts. I agree that even Christianity and Islam have their denominations and sects. But their central philosophical base does not differ.
Buddhism on the other hand has at one end a nihilistic philosophy of nothingness...no Self or Atma. Then it has the philosophy of Dharmakaya (similar to the Hindu Brahman) as the ultimate universal Spirit. Then it has a very Yogic philosophy of self development and freedom from rebirth and suffering. Then it also has the tradition of the Buddha as a deity and godhead who is worshiped in temples.
Everyone has been shooting over the Buddha's shoulder and everyone has his own version of 'Buddhism'.
-
I think David Hume's analogy of a twisted rope is insightful.
At a glance, we are a single thing, like a rope. But if you examine in closer detail we find the rope is actually made up of a great many intertwined threads and there is no 'master' thread, no 'central' thread.
I think we are somewhat like that. The apparent oneness of the self emerges out of the intimate intertwining of a great many dispositions and characteristics. If you unwind that rope, we find there is nothing there in the middle.
I see the idea of anatta as quite an interesting concept. It seems to suggest that what we call 'self' is not an immutable, eternal single entity but a combination of things(the skandhas) such that together they make the functioning illusion of 'self'. As vajira, the Buddhist nun, wrote in her analogy with the chariot, which suggested that just as the chariot is no more than the sum of its parts, there is no self other than the sum of the self parts.
It seems to sit well with Hume's idea of self, when he said it is 'nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement'.
This attitude towards self seems to be reinforced by neuroscience in that there seems to be no single focus of consciousness within the brain, but rather it is the result of many seemingly disparate elements working together, or, as Al Khalili/ McFadden put it, 'synchronization of nerve firing by the brain's EM field is also very significant in the context of the puzzle of consciousness'.
-
One thing to highlight about the Hume quote is that it describes what I experience. The unity of self that Alan argues is everyone's experience is not what happens to us.
-
What is attributed to the Buddha was certainly taught by somebody or some group, so all that matters is whether it's true or helpful, not who originally taught it, surely.
Absolutely. It was only a small point, which arose because I originally written to the effect "The Buddha said..." and Sriram then wrote "The Buddha didn't say...". Then we both concurred that nobody could know for certain what the historical Buddha said or didn't say.
From what I understand of it, I'd say that your comment is especially relevant to Mahayana teaching, where the emphasis is distinctly away from personalities and towards what is helpful to you - though there are tried and tested methods which are supposed to help you on your way to satori. There is of course the notorious dictum "If you meet the Buddha, kill him" - which epitomises this anti-personality (and of course, anti cult figure worship) way of thinking. Odd though, that the Pure Land School is pretty much the antithesis of this, and is very much in line with Christian 'salvationism' (Sriram has alluded to this).
I don't agree with Sriram about the supposed greater diversity of Buddhism as opposed to the homogeneity of Christianity though. Buddhism certainly appears to be hugely diverse, but as a non-believing westerner, I'd say that Christianity is even more so. Ironically, much of this is down to sola scriptura , where the Biblical text is considered definitive - giving rise to the absurd claims that "Jesus said....." The doctrine of the Trinity would seem to be fundamental to many mainstream branches, but the Arian belief is still going strong among a number of influential sects. Then there are the multitude of apocalyptic sects, who are not too concerned about building a better society. And then there are the small but beautiful number of critically minded believers who are aware of the scholarship of the last two hundred years, but still manage to maintain some sort of belief* :) etc etc.
*No names, no pack-drill" (where on earth did that expression come from?)
Back to Soul....
-
Absolutely. It was only a small point, which arose because I originally written to the effect "The Buddha said..." and Sriram then wrote "The Buddha didn't say...". Then we both concurred that nobody could know for certain what the historical Buddha said or didn't say.
From what I understand of it, I'd say that your comment is especially relevant to Mahayana teaching, where the emphasis is distinctly away from personalities and towards what is helpful to you - though there are tried and tested methods which are supposed to help you on your way to satori. There is of course the notorious dictum "If you meet the Buddha, kill him" - which epitomises this anti-personality (and of course, anti cult figure worship) way of thinking. Odd though, that the Pure Land School is pretty much the antithesis of this, and is very much in line with Christian 'salvationism' (Sriram has alluded to this).
I don't agree with Sriram about the supposed greater diversity of Buddhism as opposed to the homogeneity of Christianity though. Buddhism certainly appears to be hugely diverse, but as a non-believing westerner, I'd say that Christianity is even more so. Ironically, much of this is down to sola scriptura , where the Biblical text is considered definitive - giving rise to the absurd claims that "Jesus said....." The doctrine of the Trinity would seem to be fundamental to many mainstream branches, but the Arian belief is still going strong among a number of influential sects. Then there are the multitude of apocalyptic sects, who are not too concerned about building a better society. And then there are the small but beautiful number of critically minded believers who are aware of the scholarship of the last two hundred years, but still manage to maintain some sort of belief* :) etc etc.
*No names, no pack-drill" (where on earth did that expression come from?)
Back to Soul....
Buddhism is not just diverse, it is self contradictory.....which was my point.
-
I think David Hume's analogy of a twisted rope is insightful.
At a glance, we are a single thing, like a rope. But if you examine in closer detail we find the rope is actually made up of a great many intertwined threads and there is no 'master' thread, no 'central' thread.
I think we are somewhat like that. The apparent oneness of the self emerges out of the intimate intertwining of a great many dispositions and characteristics. If you unwind that rope, we find there is nothing there in the middle.
Just to add to my above reply.....
The objective way of trying to identify the Self is neither here nor there. The conditioned world will disappear because that is its very nature. Ultimately nothing is anything. Its all just vibrations of the String. Like notes played on a guitar.
But subjectively, its a different matter. Try as you may, you cannot get rid of the observer or experiencer. Even with nothing at all in the external world, you still have an observer who experiences the nothingness.
-
Just to add to my above reply.....
The objective way of trying to identify the Self is neither here nor there. The conditioned world will disappear because that is its very nature. Ultimately nothing is anything. Its all just vibrations of the String. Like notes played on a guitar.
But subjectively, its a different matter. Try as you may, you cannot get rid of the observer or experiencer. Even with nothing at all in the external world, you still have an observer who experiences the nothingness.
Not sure how that makes any sense. In a null world there would be no subjectivity. Just as 'left' is defined by being not 'right', the idea of a subjective experiencer with nothing to experience makes no sense. Subjectivity implies a context within which it has meaning.
-
Siddhartha said, "There is no spoon". I read that years ago. I of course can prove him wrong! There are many spoons.
(He probably meant something quite different ;))
-
Siddhartha said, "There is no spoon". I read that years ago. I of course can prove him wrong! There are many spoons.
(He probably meant something quite different ;))
Hi Robbie,
If all the things attributed to the Buddha were actually said by him, the Buddha would have had to live for a 1000 years! :D
People are over mystifying and over complicating his teachings. Buddha was just a Sramana like so many others at that time. They were ascetics who believed in self development through rigorous self discipline. This is how he came up with the idea of the middle path.
We must remember that Buddha was not a Buddhist, just as Jesus was not a Christian. They both were products of the culture and religion that they were born into.....and they would have had no idea that separate religions would be created in their name. They would have probably been horrified at the idea.
-
Not sure how that makes any sense. In a null world there would be no subjectivity. Just as 'left' is defined by being not 'right', the idea of a subjective experiencer with nothing to experience makes no sense. Subjectivity implies a context within which it has meaning.
Well...the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggests that without an observer there can be no objective reality. The PAP also suggests the idea that Consciousness participates in the creation of the universe. The philosophy of Panpsychism also suggests likewise.
Most spiritual philosophies also suggest the same.
-
Well...the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggests that without an observer there can be no objective reality. The PAP also suggests the idea that Consciousness participates in the creation of the universe. The philosophy of Panpsychism also suggests likewise.
Most spiritual philosophies also suggest the same.
Also in certain mathematical explanations concerning ex nihilo creation it is postulated that maths can be performed on zero to generate more numbers. If this is indeed how the universe was started...who was performing the necessary maths?
-
Well...the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggests that without an observer there can be no objective reality.
No, it doesn't.
-
Also in certain mathematical explanations concerning ex nihilo creation it is postulated that maths can be performed on zero to generate more numbers. If this is indeed how the universe was started...who was performing the necessary maths?
What are you on (about)?
-
Well...the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggests that without an observer there can be no objective reality.
No, the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM(which, by the way, is one of many) suggests only that any observation has an effect on the wave function of the system observed, resulting in its collapse. This observation can be the product of any device. One of the accepted explanations for this wave function collapse is decoherence which is a result of a quantum system naturally decaying due to contact with its surroundings. This is a long way from your idea that there can be no objective reality without an observer(whatever you may mean by that).
-
Well...the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggests that without an observer there can be no objective reality. The PAP also suggests the idea that Consciousness participates in the creation of the universe. The philosophy of Panpsychism also suggests likewise.
Most spiritual philosophies also suggest the same.
You are contradicting your previous post here I think. Subjectivity without objectivity makes no sense; an experiencer with nothing to experience makes no sense. Experience is information transfer from object to subject.
-
Also in certain mathematical explanations concerning ex nihilo creation it is postulated that maths can be performed on zero to generate more numbers. If this is indeed how the universe was started...who was performing the necessary maths?
Mathematics is a necessary aid in describing how positive and negative energy are created to retain the zero equilibrium that is at the heart of our universe. Why on earth should that involve some sort of conscious entity?
-
You are contradicting your previous post here I think. Subjectivity without objectivity makes no sense; an experiencer with nothing to experience makes no sense. Experience is information transfer from object to subject.
That is because we are used to thinking of two different aspects of reality....the objective and the subjective.
Take the example of virtual reality. In the VR world everything would seem perfectly real even though none of it actually exists. The VR world....its cosmos, planets, stars etc..... that we see are just magnetic impulses on a CD. There is nothing really out there. The world gets created entirely in the mind. (Simulated universe is one of the recent theories).
What we experience as an objective reality is really a form of collective subjectivity. If we think of consciousness as just electrical impulses in the brain then we tend to think of it as an isolated phenomenon in every individual, separate from the external world.
If on the other hand, we think of consciousness as a universal and fundamental constituent of the universe (refer Panpsychism and IIT), subjectivity is all there is. The objective world is an illusion.
-
That is because we are used to thinking of two different aspects of reality....the objective and the subjective.
Take the example of virtual reality. In the VR world everything would seem perfectly real even though none of it actually exists. The VR world....its cosmos, planets, stars etc..... that we see are just magnetic impulses on a CD. There is nothing really out there. The world gets created entirely in the mind. (Simulated universe is one of the recent theories).
What we experience as an objective reality is really a form of collective subjectivity. If we think of consciousness as just electrical impulses in the brain then we tend to think of it as an isolated phenomenon in every individual, separate from the external world.
If on the other hand, we think of consciousness as a universal and fundamental constituent of the universe (refer Panpsychism and IIT), subjectivity is all there is. The objective world is an illusion.
1. If we suppose panspychism to be true it does not remove subject/object relationships. Even if atoms in a rock matrix were to be 'conscious' in some sense, that implies they would be 'conscious' of neighbouring particles; there is still a relationship there. You cannot be conscious without being conscious of something.
2. We might often say that the inner world created by mind is an illusion. That doesn't mean that the outer world does not exist, but rather that we commonly take what we experience as if it were some objective reality when in fact it is a subjective interpretation of what is 'out there'.
-
1. If we suppose panspychism to be true it does not remove subject/object relationships. Even if atoms in a rock matrix were to be 'conscious' in some sense, that implies they would be 'conscious' of neighbouring particles; there is still a relationship there. You cannot be conscious without being conscious of something.
2. We might often say that the inner world created by mind is an illusion. That doesn't mean that the outer world does not exist, but rather that we commonly take what we experience as if it were some objective reality when in fact it is a subjective interpretation of what is 'out there'.
This brings us back to the String. If the String were a fact....and it was conscious....doesn't the entire world born of its vibrations become an illusion? Which is the subject and which is the object?!
I am not suggesting that we understand or that we even can understand all this in simple intellectual terms. The world is possibly more complex than we CAN imagine (as Haldane has said). These are just sketchy ideas to illustrate various possibilities (not beliefs) that make the world so complex.
I am trying to bring up the idea of Consciousness, unconscious mind, Panpsychism, soul and consciousness, world is stranger than we can imagine, subjectivity vs objectivity, String theory etc. etc. only to highlight the complexity of the world and the futility of sticking to the old school ideas that we are so familiar with all these years.