What do you mean by “the vehicle”? Anyway, an assumption is exactly what this is. Buddhism is always about investigation. Definitions are therefore always just markers of a sort. They even formally change, depending on context. That’s why the definition posted is “a” definition, not “the” definition.
Nothing at all?
Well keep in mind that according to Buddist principles, the definition of mind given above leads necessarily to the conclusion that mind is fundamentally a misconception. In other words, Buddhism posits selflessness, which is the lack of fundamental difference between self and other, while the definition above says that mind is exactly this mistaken dualistic perspective.
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. What is this “vehicle”?
The text is a transcript of an actual talk he gave. He’s saying there is no need to get into all that during that talk. The whole point of the Buddhist path is to get into detail.
I’m not really sure where credit and responsibility come into this picture. Creationism posits a fundamental divorce between God and creation, between what is sacred and what is mundane, between mind and matter. Concerns over what is fundamentally real, what is substantial, etc. all follow in that same tradition. I think most schools of Buddhism really aren’t concerned with those matters. Or to put it differently, they are concerned with giving practitioners the tools that would most help them to sort out these matters themselves - conceptual tools, analytic tools, ritual forms (a kind of subjective experimentation, for lack of a better phrase), etc.
My experience is that some people do have access to other people’s memories. Direct access. The problem of other minds is just accepted as a metaphysical fact, when it seems to me a culturally enforced rule, not something ultimately true.
We do tend to think of other minds via their behavior, but our own experience of mind is not via behavior alone. We presume a facet therefore in all minds that is beyond behavior, that is experience. One can argue, as the behaviorists and materialists do, that this experiencing is also behavior, but I find that incomplete at best.
We are biased. We have a history, especially a Western history of granting consciousness only to things like ‘us’. Or really white men. The closer you are to being a white man, the more likely you will be granted to have consciousness or mind. So men of other races, white women, women, animals, all have begrudgingly been granted consciousness - though even a few decades ago a scientist talking about the intentions, emotions, cognition, etc. of animals would likely have met professional problems and not small ones.
We couple consciousness or mind with things that behave and behave like us. But we have no reason for assuming that consciousness must be coupled with behavior, let alone behavior like ours.
I’m not sure I understand your objections. In the linked article, HHDL states, “Thus it is important to understand that when we talk about mind, we are talking about a highly intricate network of different mental events and state.” In other words, mind is being defined as made up of mental events and mental states. I’m not aware of HHDL making metaphysical claims about mind, or pretending to be an accomplished neuroscientist.
Also, keep in mind James’s point that the Buddhist teachings are all related to the real issue of suffering in people’s lives. Buddhist definitions of mind, then, are related to how we perceive ourselves, and how we can begin a path of self exploration at that very point. Ultimately, the difference between mind and matter that many people think is truly fundamental, might be seen as delusion - the difference is practical, it makes sense at a certain scale so to speak.
Personally, I think the concept “mind” makes sense of a spectrum of experience and behavior. I think it’s interesting and not unreasonable to talk about the minds of plants, though I have a hard time thinking of plants as self-aware or experiencing moral dilemmas. I have no fixed opinion on this kind of thing though.
Sure. The path is important, not the answers. Because the answers don’t make sense in the same way to all people anyway - so answers are meaningless. Answers are worthless without understanding - and with understanding, multiple answers become possible, depending on the audience, the context, etc.
You’re frustrated by the expression “ineffable nature of mind”, yet you complain about teachings that treat mind conceptually? Take your pick, it’s all out there. Buddhists claim there are various categories of mind. It gets kind of involved. Psychologists do the same. They all have their categories, they all talk about the mind as a coherent “entity”, and it all makes sense because they have various goals and ask you to look at things in a certain way in order to achieve those goals.
If you think suffering can be eradicated and that life can flourish if we develop and take the right drugs at the right time, then you might think the Buddhist project is complete bunk. If not, then there are certain conceptions that are utilized. They are tools, not absolute truths, and they help the people who know how to use them, and actually do use them.
Some people blindly follow teachings, some don’t. That’s always the case.
I don’t mind if you journal here, by the way. Journal away!
I think I am disagreeing, so much I can say. You said your memories were not accessible to the other person and I took this as coming from the ‘law’ that in general this must be the case. That one as a rule does not have access to another person’s memories - directly that is, not through them telling you. I disagree with that idea.
I agree, James. But I wonder if there is a subtle mistake here, in substantializing individual minds. We don’t just arbitrarily create categories. We are in no position to do so. There are natural boundaries, limits, etc. which we perceive. They aren’t just visual boundaries, there are entities that function coherently. Reality isn’t a cloudy sky, there for us to pick out shapes and give them names. There are animals, planets, galaxies… all of which follow certain rules. We interact with this reality. We engage with it. But surely there are different scales at work, we can only perceive things in certain ways.
But in the post you quoted, I said “But keep in mind this isn’t about what is ultimately the case - it is about how we see the world, how we function.”
But yes, as a general rule you don’t have access to my memories. This is testable, of course…
Yeah, I couldn’t quite see how that was modifying what went before.
I don’t seem to have access to your memories, but if you want to test the general rule, I would go to shamans who are recommended by the shamans shamans recommend. At least, that’s where I have been blown away.
Well I don’t know much about shamans, or what that has to do with mindreading, but if shamans can read people’s minds while ordinary people can’t, it surely means that as a general rule we can’t read each others minds, while it’s not ultimately the case that other people’s minds can’t be read.
Sorry, I’m just confused as to what you’re getting at.
Perhaps V.S. Ramachandran is a shaman of sorts. He claims, for instance, that it is possible to know what it is like to be a bat, without in fact being a bat. “He says, This is what philosophers have assumed for centuries, that there is a barrier which you simply cannot get across. But is this really true? We think not…” (V. S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein, “Three Laws of Qualia”)
I really do keep getting the impression that when I disagreed with you it was from a correct understanding of your position. In post after post.
That said. Your original post made it sound like one could rule out reading another person’s memories without qualification. It can’t be done. Period. Since you wrote without qualification about what must be the case with ‘you’. So if there are exceptions, where one person, or many, can do this, then this is incorrect. It cannot be ruled out.
I do think that many more people DO get access to such things, to varying degrees of regularity, but my suggestion about shamans was for skeptics. I think the separation posited between minds is culturally determined and that there is a huge emotional charge around the ability.
I have also encountered a number of Buddhists, especially in the East, with whom I have had similar experiences and for whom these were taken as a given side effect of prolonged practice for at least some practitioners.
Great reference, thanks. This is in the ballpark of what I am saying, sure. The idea that other people’s subjective experiences cannot be accessed by another person - one subset would be memories. But thanks for the link. I very much like Nagel’s essay on knowing what it is like to be a bat - I disagree with it partially (around the issue we are discussing but not otherwise), but I think it is extremely well argued and clear and clever. It seems like the article you mention does not directly deal with bats or Nagel’s article - I just did a search in it for bat and Nagel - but it looks very interesting. Again thanks.
of granting consciousness only to things like ‘us’. Or really white men. The closer you are to being a white man, the more likely you will be granted to have consciousness or mind. So men of other races, white women, women, animals, all have begrudgingly been granted consciousness - though even a few decades ago a scientist talking about the intentions, emotions, cognition, etc. of animals would likely have met professional problems and not small ones.