Yes, it was one of my hobbies for a while.
I tend to agree, partly because these debates can get acrimonious, and partly because Buddhism has something different to offer.
I set up a local Buddhist group about 11 years ago, which is still going. Initially it was pan-Buddhist, it’s now mostly Theravada ( non-affiliated ). We haven’t advertised the group in recent years, though we have gained a couple of new members via word-of-mouth. Our group is currently quite small ( 5 regulars ) which means it’s practical for us to meet in each others’ houses. We could probably increase the numbers again by advertising, but that would mean hiring premises, which from previous experience is a pain in the bum!
In my part of the world Triratna ( ex-FWBO ) is by far the largest Buddhist group, they have their own centres and they are good at marketing. They get a lot of beginners in through the door, though I don’t know how many go to follow the Triratna “career path”, which is becoming a Mitra and then an Order Member. I nearly became an Order Member myself in the 1980s but in hindsight I’m glad I didn’t - another long story! 
Actually, I don’t believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but lean toward the “collapse” interpretations. However, it is an open question, and we should all be open to wherever future evidence might lead.
There are aspects of Buddhism that relate only to how we experience the world and how, through practice, we can change the way we experience the world. These are the parts of Buddhism that people can be rationally persuaded, by direct experience, to take seriously. But there are other aspects of traditional Buddhism that are faith-based, and can’t really be given a rational defense. So, if those are the parts of Buddhism you have in mind, I don’t really see how your program of proselytizing via debate will work. Nobody is in a strong position to give a rational argument showing that there is really such a thing as a once-returner or a seven-time returner, or even an arahant, if these categories are interpreted doctrinally and literally in terms of number of remaining rebirths.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to be involved in any project devoted to spreading unwarranted fear among people. There is already too much fear in this world. Terrorizing people into believing that, if they don’t shape up, they might get reborn as a bug or a demon or a hungry ghost is not something I will ever be part of. But I’m happy to try to persuade people that if they live a certain way, and pursue certain practices, they will suffer less - because that’s something I think I can back up from my own experience.
1 Like
Forget about future evidence, we have a ton of present evidence already. It’s not really an open question. To maintain a materialist position, you just have to believe in the Many Worlds theory. Thats why high caliber materialist, such as Stephen Hawkins, had to believe in this theory no matter how ridiculous it might be. And after this, you also have these problems:
- neuropasticity
- placebo effect
- some other things that I can’t remember at the moment
And, most importantly:
- at least attempting to come up with a theory about how such a thing as consciousness can originate from matter. It’s important to remember that, besides being refuted, there never really was a real theory out there in the first place. No attempt to at least try to explain the fundamental premise of materialism. How can one strongly believe in a theory that isn’t even really a theory ?
What I always suggest materialist to do is one simple experiment. Lay on the couch and contemplate for at least 10 minutes (I repeat, at least 10 minutes not 2 minutes) how could such a thing as matter originate from consciousness. How can a primitive organism such as an insect with 5 neurons posses consciousness, yet a computer that can beat you at chess can not. Only when one really contemplates this idea can he see how impossible it is.
There are aspects of Buddhism that relate only to how we experience the world and how, through practice, we can change the way we experience the world. These are the parts of Buddhism that people can be rationally persuaded, by direct experience, to take seriously. But there are other aspects of traditional Buddhism that are faith-based, and can’t really be given a rational defense. So, if those are the parts of Buddhism you have in mind, I don’t really see how your program of proselytizing via debate will work. Nobody is in a strong position to give a rational argument showing that there is really such a thing as a once-returner or a seven-time returner, or even an arahant, if these categories are interpreted doctrinally and literally in terms of number of remaining rebirths.
If I were to tell you that inlining a website CSS into it’s HTML will actually make it slower, not faster, if the html size gets over 50kb, what would you have to say about that? Is this correct? Is this false? Is this something that is impossible to prove using logic?
It may seem impossible to prove using logic at first, BUT, after learning about many other aspects, one will eventually understand why it does make a website slower and why this is actually very logical. Similarly, you can’t prove the things you listed there in 2 minutes and without having other information about how things work.
The starting point is understanding how the 5 aggregates technically work and eventually understanding no self. Same as any technical problem, it requires more than 2 minutes of discussion. There are 1500pag of “higher dhamma” dealing with these technical aspects. Without listening to that, it is impossible to understand other aspects such as those listed by you.
If the Buddha was correct, then one will remove all doubts afterwards. Same as there are no doubts in you right now that your car works because of the way it is built, because of the engine, etc. - and not because it’s a live animal or pushed by some spirit. Such ideas would seem ridiculous to you. You have supreme confidence regarding how the car works because you have been explained that in detail and have also checked it for yourself. If the Buddha was correct, then one will remove all doubts after listening and understanding the higher dhamma. His confidence regarding how things work will be identical to the confidence you have regarding how your car works - meaning supreme confidence.
And given that materialism has been refuted and was never a real theory to begin with, the only rational thing for a materialist to do is to at least be an agnostic. This means he should be searching and checking other options. So why not give Buddha a try and read the higher dhamma ? Read it as skeptical as you want, if it is indeed correct, then it will stand firm against any scrutiny. After all, the Buddha could be just another out of thousands of philosophers who got it wrong. Only by checking what he had to say and questioning it can one find out weather the higher dhamma is correct or wrong. Without checking it, without giving it a try, it is impossible to tell weather it’s correct or wrong.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to be involved in any project devoted to spreading unwarranted fear among people. There is already too much fear in this world. Terrorizing people into believing that, if they don’t shape up, they might get reborn as a bug or a demon or a hungry ghost is not something I will ever be part of. But I’m happy to try to persuade people that if they live a certain way, and pursue certain practices, they will suffer less - because that’s something I think I can back up from my own experience.
It’s certainly not something to bring up, marketing wise.
We had this discussion before, which convinced me the first time that you are not really up to date on the philosophical discussion of these topics. No need to go around the same circle again.
Good luck on your upcoming project to convert people to your religious dogmas.
Lol. You ran away then even faster than you are doing now. We barely spoke anything: You can't play chess with a pigeon - #19 by dxm_dxm
Many times I have claimed that materialist run away from debates faster than the most rigid religious extremist. You probably have a better chance discussing with an islamic terrorist about his beliefs then with a materialist. From my experience, all of them run away instanteniously when their beliefs are questioned. And this small exchange we just had is only confirming this long time claim of mine.
And despite all this, they are always the first to call you dogmatic…
I have had extremely long extended debates here with many people on almost all of the issues you just raised once again. You can look them up if you like. I have no wish to repeat myself, or to add further to people’s suffering. Critical thinking and faith don’t mix, and its pointless to push the matter.
I agree. People indeed tend to run away when you push the matter. 
The more their beliefs rely on faith and intuition, the faster they run.
The idea that consciousness originates from matter, besides being refuted, never even had an attempted explation to begin with and is entirely based on intuition. Maybe that’s why, from my experience with many materialist on buddhist forums, they simply run away instantaniously.
They love to question other beliefs, but out of all groups out there, they run away the fastest when their own beliefs are questioned.
??
??
What does neuroplasticity have to do with it? How does the placebo effect challenge the many worlds theory?
It doesn’t. What it does is refuting the relationship between consciousness and matter that materialism believes in. Any one of these other problems besides quantum physics, refute materialism even if taken alone.
Take the placebo effect alone. A simple belief changes the way matter behaves. It changes it so strongly that it makes it contradict the laws of physics. This simply should not happen according to materialism, this is something that should not exist. Every theory has implications - the implications materialism theory has are brutally refuted by these kind of things.
The answer materialist have to these problems is similar to what christians answer when they are refuted: “Yup, it’s a problem. We are refuted at the moment. But we certainly will find out in the future some way to make these problems not refute our theory”. This is a dogmatic attitude. When you are refuted by something, you adapt or, if that is not possible, you abandon the theory.
But… what theory to abandon ? There is no theory there to begin with. There was never even an attempt of explaining the fundamental thesis of materialism: the idea that consciousness comes from matter. The word “theory” suggests there is some form of explanation, ideally backed up with evidence, for a claim. But in the case of materialism you have just the claim, with no theory behind it, not even an attempt of a theory.
I There is little in the Pāli suttas to which one can appeal to defend the claim that the Buddha taught either a “materialist” or an “immaterialist” doctrine of consciousness. For example, we know that he taught that eye-consciousness occurs when the eye makes contact with visible forms. But what exactly the nature of these forms are, and what exactly that specific kind of contact consists in are not made obvious. There is a sixth kind of consciousness where mano makes contact with its own proper objects. But again, not much is said about what precisely either mano or it’s objects are in their fundamental nature.
Current debates about physicalism vs. non-physicalism are debates the Buddha would probably have trouble understanding, because they depend on the open-ended modern ontology of physics and the physical -concepts that don’t have any determinate place in his much more ancient world view.
It really seems to me that it is a mistake to let one’s pursuit of liberation get entangled in thickets of philosophical views about the nature of consciousness, the cosmos, or anything else of that sort. Our knowledge of these subjects evolves over time as new techniques for studying them are perfected. What seems like the best account at one time might change within a few short years. But the practice of spiritual liberation is more enduring and time-tested, and doesn’t depend on the vicissitudes of cosmic, metaphysical or natural philosophical theorizing.
1 Like
+1 @DKervick.
MN 72: “Then is this your view: ‘The soul and the body are the same thing. This is the only truth, other ideas are stupid’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Then is this your view: ‘The soul and the body are different things. This is the only truth, other ideas are stupid’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
2 Likes
I don’t understand why this constant tendency of people to mystify consciousness. It’s nothing mystic about it. It is what it is and all of us know what we are speaking about when we speak of consciousness.
Take for example a car parking sensor. There are 2 elements here: 1) the parking sensor and 2) things perceived by the parking sensor. In the case of humans there are 3 elements instead of 2: 1)the eye, 2)eye sights, 3)eye consciousness. The meeting of these 3 means contact. Because of contact, feelings, volitions and perceptions can arise. If there would be no contact, could such a thing as feeling ever arise ? Nope. Therefore feelings are dependent on contact.
What Buddha did was simply analyze the 5 aggregates and how they work just as one would analyze a car and how its pieces work. Mystifying the car or some part of the car will not help you. You need to simply analyze it in a technical way. Only then can you understand it.
As for Buddha opinion about relationship between consciousness and matter - it is an opinion that, unlinke materialism or solipsism, is in perfect harmony with current discoveries in quantum physics. If you claim Buddha view is outdated because he lived long ago - then provide one scientific discovery that refutes his view. Good luck finding one. It should be easy if he is such an outdated guy. Surely there must be at least one.
How exactly does the eye make contact with the things it sees? What happens after that contact occurs that enables conscious visual experiences to arise? What happens exactly upon the arising of those experiences that leads to the subsequent occurrence of related volitions and experiences. The kinds of answers people were inclined to give to these questions in the 5th century BCE are different than the ones they gave in the 14th century. And those were different than the ones that were developed in the 17th century. And those are different than the ones well-informed people have available today. No doubt our knowledge will continue to grow, and the best accounts will change again.
Let’s not put too much pressure on the Buddha to answer all of our questions. The man was a renunciate sage and spiritual teacher and guide, not a universal scientist who already knew everything.
I am not aware of any change in popular opinion about those questions. Can you show some answers that people gave in 14th century or 17th century regarding those questions ? And you show a couple of answers from modern-day people ?
What I would answer:
How exactly does the eye make contact with the things it sees?
In the same way a car parking sensor makes contact with the tree behind it. It is built in such a way that it can gather visual type of information.
What happens after that contact occurs that enables conscious visual experiences to arise?
Nothing. It happens because of the way the organism is built. It is built in such a way that consciousness has access to information gathered by the sense bases.
What happens exactly upon the arising of those experiences that leads to the subsequent occurrence of related volitions and experiences.
Mental tendencies developed in the past, information from past experience, etc. Due to the presence of these factors, the reaction to the new information will differ from subject to subject.
The world out there is not like we see it. There is no light inside your skull, the light you see is internally created by your mind. There is no color out there in the world, the colors you see are created by the way you are built as an organism.
Consider how this web page is actually just a bunch of 30 scripts of code that are only letters. It is only if put through a browser that these 30 files with code transform into a website with colors, buttons, etc. The mind transforms information it receives in the same way as a browser, and you end up with colors, light, etc.
The mind works like google chrome.
But there is a difference. If there would be no google chrome, the codes would still be there. Also google chrome can not modify the codes. In the case of the mind, there would be no codes if there would be no browser that has a possibility of ever reading those codes in the future (quantum physics). And the browser also has the ability to change these codes by itself, according to internal logic. (that’s why placebo works). It is only this internal logic that actually matters, and this is also how kamma works. And this internal logic, these internal rules of the browser through which it decides what will be displayed - these rules change depending on past experience, on things that were considered logical in the past + attachments that drag the browser into displaying certain things. (a lot more to talk here)
This topic was closed, due to flags, and to give moderators a chance to assess it. Thank-you to those who raised flags and to those who have edited their posts.
We work hard to keep this a polite and supportive community, and while it IS hard to keep emotions and desire to win an argument restrained, this online community is all the better for it.
4 Likes
On some forums chunks of off-topic discussion are split off to a new thread. Would that be possible here?
1 Like
What would the new thread be? What would the old thread be?
