[FutureBuddha (6)] Avoiding Scientism

[Seiko]

But I caution against blind faith and reliance on science and technology.

Science I feel is important when it helps us prevent illness or injury - when it alleviates suffering. I am not interested in the science that creates x-box soccer or "shoot-em-up" games.

Overly relying on technology and the artificial can blind us to nature ...

As a species I wish we humans could stop thinking we own the earth. We are one species. We would do better to try to live in harmony with THE REST of nature instead of believing we have the right to control nature.

But, as Zen tames our technological thirst, can technology enhance our Zen?

The increase of popularity of various types of meditation and retreat, seem to suggest that modern people still feel something is missing, or they are missing something.

In some case medication can limit the excesses in behaviour for someone with ADHD. It can't (yet) provide the recipient with a purpose in life.

Perhaps in the future. Perhaps.

Gasshō
Zeiko
stlah

[Shokai]

I personally prefer the distinction between mind and brain. As Mateus points out we can find a brain by means of dissection. Whereas, the mind is not a physical entity. The brain is the tool by which we interact with the mind. We store memory in our DNA which exists in every cell of the physical body. The coherent heart acts as an antenna for the brain which sends and receives packets of energy we call thoughts. Can anyone tell me where the mind can be found?

gassho, Shokai
stlah

p.s. We're not sure what or where the 'we' is either

[Tai Do]

Hi Spiritdoce!

Mind is in a brain , Numbers are in a brain, not sure what you mean by universals, Propositions thought in the brain.

Well, this is one view about numbers. If you are a realist about numbers, you defend that numbers are real, I.e., they exist in the real external world outside your mind, and we discover them and their relations in the same sense we discover a new phenomena.

Universals are qualities or characteristics that are shared by individuals, like being of the same species or being of a certain color. Again, if you are a realist about it, you accept that they exist in the real external world outside your mind and also that their existence is different from the existence of individuals that share them as a characteristic or quality.

The same goes with propositions.

We can say this things exist in our mind, but it is awkward to say that they exist in our brain (no matter how much we dissect it, we will never find a number there). The brain can be the origin of our mind, but it is not the mind, and the mind doesn’t exist in the brain (same dissection process cannot find any mind or mind object there). This is something some materialists can accept and is not problematic for materialism. I’m only trying to help clarifying the terms, not criticizing materialisms, which are perfectly valid philosophical traditions.

Morality is relative to a society created again in the brain.

Well, for what H.L.A. Hart called social morality it is relative to a society, but not to what he called critical morality, which, by the very definition, is not based on societal rules. As Buddhist ethics is critical (in the sense that are meant to be used to criticize social rules as well as individual behaviors), although it’s rules originated in particular historical and sociological contexts, they are not expressions of the status quo of these contexts.

Gassho,
Tai Do (Mateus)
Satlah

Yes but all you mentioned you do it in a material thing called a mind. I don't brush off anything because I am not combative on my thinking. I like to be challenged and see other perspective.If I am wrong I change. . I literally asked what you think it is if not material. Mind is in a brain , Numbers are in a brain, not sure what you mean by universals, Propositions thought in the brain. all mental constructions made from brain synapsis firing in our brains. Still material. Morality is relative to a society created again in the brain. Maybe explain it in another context because I'm not seeing it besides material. Its the affect of a brain hence it is material. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one's opinion is any more valid than anyone else's. Actions have a moral dimension only when they affect other humans (or other sentient beings). We know that moral standards change over time and we know that different societies have different moral standards. I just try to base my morality on empathy and for the well being of others not because I am told to but because I want to and it benefits myself and others. Your not going to allow me a break on this if I keep replying haha. Its very interesting and I appreciate the responses. I never graduated beyond high school so be kind Mine is just life learning and lots of googling. hehe.. 63 years old I hope I learned something and then I say ' I don't know " majority of the time. I shared my ideas if you like to continue and explain better go ahead if not that is fine. I will research it more on my own. thanks have a great week ahead everyone

Marj "Spiritdove"
Sat today.

[Jundo]

... However, I do know that science cannot bring us all the solutions, just a better understanding of the many challenges. I believe we do not even know what we don’t know and given the path of our species I am pessimistic we will be here long enough to know what questions we should be asking. ...

Fortunately, one does not need to understand everything about everything in order nonetheless to be effective. I need not know everything about how my car works, or all conditions of the road, in order to drive effectively to a desired destination. A surgeon need to know all about the human body, and all the latest discoveries and techniques, in order to work an effective cure.

My book is based on the premise that, soon, we will have the technology and medicine to work some amazing cures, and that other science "miracles" will happen, even if science will long remain a very imprecise and incomplete tool.

As well, I point to that other kind of "knowing everything" ... Zen Wisdom ... in which one can hear and experience the whole of reality in every inch and moment, much as a sailor can taste the whole ocean in every single drop of sea. That does not mean that the sailor knows every coastline, every fish, every wave, every other drop of water. Rather, each grain of sand on every coastline, all fish and waves, all the waters are somehow "in" every drop of sea, and in each other, and this is known wherever on looks and on the tip of the tongue.

Gassho, J

stlah

[Tai Do]

Thanks, Jundo, for another thought provoking text.

There can be a kind of confusion about materialism. Indeed, the very use of the term materialism have to be explained, because we have many different ideas and behaviors that we call materialism, especially in Philosophy (think about the difference between Atomism and Marxism, both self-proclaimed materialistic). To prove something you don’t have to be materialistic; you can have non materialistic proofs/validations; think about any mathematical theorem: they are not subjected to materialistic proofs in the sense of being proven by experimenting with physical matter, but no scientist, materialist or not, denies their status of proven theorems. We can be realists without being materialists, and we also can be anti-realists while also being materialists. Also, something can be real without being material or reduced to physical matter (again, Mathematics can provide many examples).

A somewhat different confusion is about the very nature of science. I tell my students in the beginning of Philosophy of Science course: “If you want certainty, than go to religion; science is not about certainty.” This is so because there is no absolute proof of any theory, hypothesis or even scientific law; no experimentation or observation is capable of definitely proving anything. That’s why we tend to say that a experiment validated a hypothesis instead of saying it proved it. It is not only because of the scientific method that science differs from religion; it’s because science is a human enterprise that is not about absolute certainty like, at least, some religions (although I don’t like to define religion by faith, as it is a view of religious practices based on the idea that Western Christianity is the paradigmatic example of religion). To think that science can bring us absolute certainty and absolute truth is just to treat science as if it were a religion; ultimately, it is to have faith and blind belief in science, or, better said, in a specific and historically bound scientific paradigm.

Science is an enterprise of going forward toward the truth about reality using a specific method based on problem acknowledging, hypothesizing and doing experimentation to test the hypothesis. But we have to be very conscious that it can bring us closer to the truth, but we can never be certain about it really achieving it.

As the point of Buddhism is to deal with dhukkha, though, all these debates are perhaps a way we use to try to discuss more about the nature of the arrow instead of removing it and treating the wound. In this defining mission, Buddhism can recruit the help of science, but we should know that science is not a substitute for real spiritual experience of sitting and acting morally (something compatible with both materialism and anti-materialism, with realism and anti-realism).

Gassho,
Tai Do (Mateus)
Satlah

[kanshiketsu]

If it is not material then what is it?

Well, to mention some examples that philosophers have pointed to: universals, mind, numbers, propositions, reasons, moral facts. You might brush those off but there have been and are present day philosophers who think that we need to accept the existence of one or more of those in order to make sense of the world, including the material world. And far from all of those are Christians. For example, Derek Parfit, whose works are chanted in Tibet alongside sutras (because of his views on personal identity) was a moral realist and a realist about reasons. To take that view is to say that those things are irreducibly part of the world -- they are not "made of" anything more fundamental.



Gassho!

If it is not material then what is it? Its either real or its not real? If you claim an experience of course I agree you had an experience. Could be anything however that will have no evidence to another of that experience that explains anything . Unless you have materialist proof of your claim its just your experience. Saying it has no evidence however does not mean its not true. Its up to the person making that claim to show good solid evidence in order to prove it to there peers and anyone else since no one else had that experience. I have seen the identical comments coming from Christians who make claims of a God because of personal experiences. Consciousness is because we have brains that process information in brain cells. Nothing outside our brains do anything else. Once the brain is dead no more consciousness. You can show things like gravity by its effect on the surroundings. Just because you don't see it with the naked eye we do have microscopes and other techniques to show how it works. You can look at a brain scan and see how the brain lights up in different areas as the person feels certain emotions or feelings. That is a map. Of course science is still young. Look at where we have come in 100 years from horse and buggy to flying to the moon. I have no doubts we will do way more if only we don't destroy ourselves first with climate change or wars. Materialist yes I am. Because I see no evidence in anything else but "belief without evidence. " Reality has to be real otherwise you can just do some drugs or have brain damage. Your entire personality can change and what is with that consciousness then? If just a physical change makes you a different person? Buddhism may say it knows the ultimate reality . I find that rather nonsense. As humans we do not know "everything" yet. That claim of ultimate reality just seems to comfort some people because the term "I don't know " is very scary. I don't like the term emptiness myself . I use the term openness instead that I can see in expression since everything you see is open to change.. Not such a nihilist term for myself. like an open lot is ready for anything you want to build there. Not like saying its empty seems so "empty" Of course again all I do is meditate not being a Buddhist but I am enjoying reading these to understand it more. I was not going to comment for while but just wanted to finish my thoughts on this thread.. I'm rather like the atheist you may have heard of Sam Harris. Not that I'm his clone on everything he says of course. My likes are also the Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta and Richard Dawkins. I take what works and toss the rest. and a youtube channel I follow called the Secular Buddhist. Zen is my favorite sect of buddhism but more I read the more I can tell I may question some of it. Might just be semantics though..


I come in peace I go in peace. My opinions are just my own and I'm open to all that is real and true.

Marj "Spiritdove"
sat today

[kanshiketsu]

This is an interesting discussion! I don't know if the discussion captures what scientific realists think: that all of reality will be explained by final science (without thinking that we have attained final science). The reason they think that is roughly: how would we get a better picture of what's real? Many scientific realists are some brand of materialist and think that final reality will dispense with things like consciousness. Some folks (e.g., philosopher Mark Siderits) think that Buddhist arguments point in that direction. He thinks consciousness is just a useful conventional theory for explaining the behavior of complex creatures like us. All that to say you could be skeptical that current science explains everything while holding that it's still the gold standard. Buddhism tells us about what is ultimately real (emptiness), but with what credentials? Mostly, in the history of its development: philosophical argument, sometimes direct experience. Along with science, those seem to be the three main options for forming a view of reality. We might hope that they would converge, but we might think that empirical science is methodologically incapable of capturing some aspects of reality, which would go beyond being skeptical that current science is capable of explaining everything or beyond being skeptical about our capacities for understanding (which is what I see in Jundo's opening remarks).

John

I love listening to podcasts. That looks interesting thanks for the the link

Marj "Spiritdove"
Sat today
Now aFk for a bit. namaste

Alright if I misunderstood I apologize. I come from that background where religion denies science at times I'm to 'testy" I just know religion failed me but science hasn't. I read up on meditation and its effects on a science paper and it does say the benefits are there. I like that. Something solid to hold on to than "oh I say it so just believe it" I know Buddhism is far better than that of course. I will work on my stuff. Like I said I may skip the forum for a bit as far as commenting and more on reading.. I enjoy the 2pm zoom with the chants. Very nice folks.

Marj "spiritdove"
Sat today early

[Doshin]

Well, this has been an interesting read. I have paused after digesting this discussion or debate or “argument” and asked myself do I belong to the OoS (Order of Scientism)? Maybe I am guilty of that but I do have caveats in my paradigm. I attempt to consider others ideas.

I spent over 10 years in Universities training in the sciences, hundreds (thousands?) of hours in workshops, conferences, and now webinars focused on science, worked in application of Science to environmental issues for almost 40 years, most of my recreational reading and many hobbies focus on an aspect of science, and just realized that the majority of my friends have multiple degrees in science (I need to be more inclusive). Maybe I should of diverged into the arts more but then being outside within nature is my appreciation of an art that took billions of years to establish.. However, I do know that science cannot bring us all the solutions, just a better understanding of the many challenges. I believe we do not even know what we don’t know and given the path of our species I am pessimistic we will be here long enough to know what questions we should be asking.

Jundo, I have known you for many years now and understand your appreciation and respect for science and your questions are appropriate and give us in the OoS something to ponder.

To paraphrase one of my Spiritual teachers The Dude

Yeah, well, like that’s just my opinion man

May we all keep open minds and learn from each other. The Scientific Method in enriched by Peer Review in whatever form it takes.

Doshin
st

[Nengei]

After a lifetime dedicated to science and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, my thoughts align with the perspective you have presented here, Jundo Roshi. My experience has been that in ongoing study, we see a great breadth of knowledge. The we begin to explore some of that knowledge in depth. Then we think we know everything. Then, as we really begin to drill down and explore, and to conduct experimental research, and finally to teach others, we come to understand that we know very little about anything. With all we have accomplished, all that we have learned, we are only beginning to break the surface in the teensiest corner of an unimaginably large universe. What we do know is always colored by the lens of our own schema and paradigm. And we come to see that there remain, and always will remain, parts of the human experience that lie outside the reach of our scientific process.

Gassho,
Nengei
Sat today. LAH.

Please forgive any indication I am trying to teach anything. I am a priest in training and have no depth of knowledge or qualifications for teaching Zen practice or the Dharma.

[Jundo]

... but I don’t think the general public feels this way.

Gassho,
Ryūmon (Kirk)
Sat

People, especially religious people (but really anybody), can fall into the even more pernicious tendency to doubt sound science, and to uphold pseudo-scientific beliefs, quack cure, conspiracy theories, old wives tales and the like.

There is a fine line to walk.

I just listened to an excellent podcast episode tonight on this very topic ... it was quite good ...

The Last Archive ...

A fake moon landing…

Astronauts carrying space pathogens back to earth. Michael Crichton’s Andromeda Strain. HIV manufactured in a government laboratory. COVID-19 vaccines killing millions. In this episode, Jill Lepore follows a trail of disease stories and conspiracies from Apollo 11 to COVID-19. In part two of our series about the moon landing: Apollo’s splashdown, and the tidal wave of doubt it set off.
https://www.thelastarchive.com/seaso...om-outer-space

Gassho, J

stlah

[Ryumon]

I think that you may have misunderstood what I wrote. Some people (usually not the scientists themselves, although they can sometimes be equally foolish) DO believe that science is the be all and end all of explanation. I merely point out that science is not, cannot and may never be.

I doubt that this belief is very common. It’s thrown around a lot in internet discussions about “spirituality,” and, sure, a lot of tech bros and perhaps many scientists believe it, but I don’t think the general public feels this way.

Gassho,
Ryūmon (Kirk)
Sat