Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

Cypress said:
Put another way, it is the process of thinking that creates the self, rather than there being a self having any independent existence separate from thought.
Click to expand...
Has there been no one who has called booooolsch't on this? Who, then, is doing the thinking that creates the ... one who is doing the thinking?

Which came first, the chicken or the thinking? If the thinking creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking ...

... so you are saying that eastern thought is based on infinite recursion?

I'm officially calling boooooolsch't.
 
Doc Dutch said:
No shit, Mode. That's why humans are both different and so dangerous to all other planetary lifeforms.

It's more than language, son, but you're free to believe that's the only difference.
Click to expand...

If only I was! On the other hand, I believe you're mine was made up before the conversation even started.
 
Doc Dutch said:
No shit, Mode. That's why humans are both different and so dangerous to all other planetary lifeforms.

It's more than language, son, but you're free to believe that's the only difference.
Click to expand...

If only I was! On the other hand, I believe you're mind was made up before the conversation even started and it was going to be nearly impossible to convince you on something other than what you want to believe.
 
ZenMode said:
If only I was! On the other hand, I believe you're mine was made up before the conversation even started.
Click to expand...

I've been around the world a couple times. It'd take more than a silly determinism argument to change my mind. :)
 
ZenMode said:
If only I was! On the other hand, I believe you're mind was made up before the conversation even started and it was going to be nearly impossible to convince you on something other than what you want to believe.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's free will; the choice to believe or not.

Dogs don't believe because they never look into the future. They are in the eternal now. They don't lay in their basket and think over an argument with a dog the day before or plan how they can get more food at dinner time. They just exist in the present. Human beings have the ability to reflect upon the past, think about plans in the future, and decide what they think is best for themselves and/or others. They can choose moment by moment including choosing to do nothing, blame others for the results and generally laying back and letting the Universe have their way with them.
 
IBDaMann said:
Has there been no one who has called booooolsch't on this? Who, then, is doing the thinking that creates the ... one who is doing the thinking?

Which came first, the chicken or the thinking? If the thinking creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking that creates the chicken that does the thinking ...

... so you are saying that eastern thought is based on infinite recursion?

I'm officially calling boooooolsch't.
Click to expand...
You're funnier when you're drunk. How much liquor does it take you to get to this stage, Sybil?
 
Cypress said:
Eastern philosophy says there is no “self.” Science agrees

Western view: The self is a pilot
This “I” is for most of us the first thing that pops into our minds when we think about who we are. The “I” represents the idea of our individual self, the one that sits between the ears and behind the eyes and is “piloting” the body. The “pilot” is in charge, it doesn’t change very much, and it feels to us like the thing that brings our thoughts and feelings to life. It observes, makes decisions, and carries out actions — just like the pilot of an airplane.

This I/ego is what we think of as our true selves, and this individual self is the experiencer and the controller of things like thoughts, feelings, and actions. The pilot self feels like it is running the show. It is stable and continuous. It is also in control of our physical body; for example, this self understands that it is “my body.” But unlike our physical body, it does not perceive itself as changing, ending (except, perhaps for atheists, in bodily death), or being influenced by anything other than itself.

Eastern view: The self is an illusion
Now let’s turn to the East. Buddhism, Taoism, the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism, and other schools of Eastern thought have quite a different take on the self, the ego, or “me.” They say that this idea of “me” is a fiction, although a very convincing one. Buddhism has a word for this concept — anatta, which is often translated as “no self” — which is one of the most fundamental tenets of Buddhism, if not the most important.

This idea sounds radical, even nonsensical, to those who are trained in Western traditions. It seems to contradict our everyday experience, indeed our whole sense of being. But in Buddhism and other schools of Eastern thought, the concept of the self is seen as the result of the thinking mind. The thinking mind reinvents the self from moment to moment such that it in no way resembles the stable coherent self most believe it to be.

Put another way, it is the process of thinking that creates the self, rather than there being a self having any independent existence separate from thought. The self is more like a verb than a noun. To take it a step further, the implication is that without thought, the self does not, in fact, exist. In the same way that walking only exists while one is walking, the self only exists while there are thoughts about it. As a neuropsychologist, I can say that in my view, science is just now catching up with what Buddhist, Taoist, and Advaita Vedanta Hinduism have been teaching for over 2,500 years.



https://bigthink.com/the-well/eastern-philosophy-neuroscience-no-self/
Click to expand...

Science agrees? Really? How so? Science shouldn't be able to agree on much at all. "The Science" however can agree on a lot. So are you talking about Science or "The Science.?"
 
Cypress said:
The last time you attempted to call BS on me, it blew up in your face and you ran away from the thread..

---> https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...y-of-you-are-Christians&p=5597945#post5597945

You might get access to my time someday if you begin to learn how to post in good faith
Click to expand...

TBH, I strongly doubt Sybil is capable of posting in good faith. Most people have Free Will and the ability to choose. Those that can't are either retarded or mentally ill. Sybil doesn't appear to be retarded.
 
Doc Dutch said:
TBH, I strongly doubt Sybil is capable of posting in good faith. Most people have Free Will and the ability to choose. Those that can't are either retarded or mentally ill. Sybil doesn't appear to be retarded.
Click to expand...

That one has the hallmarks of mental illness
 
On what scientific grounds does Oom opine that people have free will?
Free will, if it does exist, would by its very nature not be provable.
 
Doc Dutch said:
No shit, Mode. That's why humans are both different and so dangerous to all other planetary lifeforms.

It's more than language, son, but you're free to believe that's the only difference.
Click to expand...

The fact that humans have thoughts that occur with complex language does not change that we don't control our thoughts. The same is true for animals. They may not think in complex language, but the process is still identical to that of humans. Their thoughts, like ours, just appear in consciousness. We can't stop them and we can't determine what they are going to be.
 
ZenMode said:
The fact that humans have thoughts that occur with complex language does not change that we don't control our thoughts. The same is true for animals. They may not think in complex language, but the process is still identical to that of humans. Their thoughts, like ours, just appear in consciousness. We can't stop them and we can't determine what they are going to be.
Click to expand...

You really believe "complex language" is spontaneous in humans? That it didn't develop as a consequence of a reasoning mind?
 
ZenMode said:
The fact that humans have thoughts that occur with complex language does not change that we don't control our thoughts. The same is true for animals. They may not think in complex language, but the process is still identical to that of humans. Their thoughts, like ours, just appear in consciousness. We can't stop them and we can't determine what they are going to be.
Click to expand...

Amazing you believe something that is obviously false.
 
Doc Dutch said:
You really believe "complex language" is spontaneous in humans? That it didn't develop as a consequence of a reasoning mind?
Click to expand...

Of course complex language is not spontaneous. People learn language just as they learn anything else. Children who do not have the use of complex language, like a dog for example, are still able to learn and have their future behavior modified based on what they've learned.... Without the use of complex language.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top