Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

[bahman]

More than you it seems

You are evading my question. How?

Science knows plenty about how the brain works.
The problem with the thread is that you do not know that because you have not looked into it.
You are making an argument from ignorance.

Perhaps you would like to start here. None of this was know until relatively recently
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... -the-brain
When you have the basics, why not look at the history of the progress in brain studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ern_period
Then read the following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain
When you have aquainted yourself with the basics then come back and argue your point.

Come on. This is common knowledge. It does not answer how do we think.

[bahman]

Your problem [re bottom up] is you have already define the issue is such a way there is no way you will ever know the answer [have knowledge] that is certain.
In this case you are bankrupting your own thinking because there is no certainty in knowledge.

In the case of a top-down approach [mine is not materialism but rather empirical realism], we first recognize consciousness exists and define it based on whatever empirical evidences we have plus relying on rational philosophical inferences.
In a top-down approach, we are not interested in what is exactly or certainly at the bottom, i.e. from its origin to its manifestations.

From a top-down approach we can study and understand the relations easily between consciousness and its related variables. Since I am not a materialist, there is no question of any absolute 'matter' in this case.
Obviously consciousness is related to the brain, because if we remove the human brain, there would be no human consciousness.

Neuroscientists are well aware damage to specific parts of the human brain, the person will lose consciousness.
While asleep the person will lose wakeful consciousness, etc.
Performing certain actions and developing the brain will increase the degree of consciousness which is positive for humanity.
There is so much relations between human consciousness and within the person plus his environment, so how can you insists there are no 'relations' we can know of that would be of use to the person and humanity?

Do you believe that atoms exist in the brain? From the top-down approach, we know that the brain is conscious. What is the relation between the whole and parts? Are parts conscious or not?

Are there absolute parts in the first place.

Sure there are. You could not have a whole from the parts that are nothings.

Atoms are supposedly parts of molecules which are part of solid things we perceive.
Sub-atomic particles [quarks, Higgs Boson] are supposedly part of atoms.

But so far, Physicists has not been able to discover what is the final absolute part of things.
At some point what is part is relative, i.e. either it is a particle or wave depending on human interactions.
This is a refutation of your bottom-up approach because you essentially don't have an absolute 'bottom' to 'up' with.

This is why the most plausible understanding of what is consciousness is to start with what we can infer from the empirical evidences of consciousness as I had highlighted earlier.

We know a lot about elementary particles. Particle physics is a very precise branch of physics. What is missing is gravity that we do not know how to quantize it.

Btw, what is the purpose and reason of your quest [an impossibility] to find the relation of consciousness to its ultimate parts?

To show that strong emergence is magic/absurd.

My answer to the above is you are driven by a desperate psychology to find the ultimate answer [an impossibility]. Can you counter this?

So you and the scientific community do not know the properties of the parts from the properties of the whole. Why do you suggest a method that has not been clarified yet and instead attack particle physics which is the most precise knowledge available to us?

[owl of Minerva]

The sound heard in the ear is the hum of many atoms.

In relation to Zen or any practice whose aim is to lose the ego caution is advised. The average person needs a strong ego. A weak ego requires the intervention of a therapist. A person who does not have a sense of self is in danger of being overwhelmed by the contents of the subconscious mind which is a psychosis and the person is declared mad.

St.. Paul could say he rejoiced in dying daily. That is not for the average person without a special technique and training in concentration. Which the monastic system excels in.

The ability to lose and regain the personal self at will and merge with cosmic consciousness may be the end point of human evolution but it requires discipline, and training in the right methods.

[simplicity]

I am a reasonable expert in Buddhism-proper in totality.
Zen is merely a fringe sect of Buddhism-proper.

Btw, I am from the East.
There is theory everywhere, but as the Buddha stated, one must leave the raft when one has reached the shore.

• "The raft parable appears in the Alagaddupama (Water Snake Simile) Sutta of the Sutta-pitaka (Majjhima Nikaya 22). In this sutta, the Buddha discusses the importance of learning the dharma properly and the danger of clinging to views."

What is critical with Buddhism is always the practice, the Noble-8-Fold-Path where one of the path is meditation.

I am not with any specific beliefs but has my own electic theory and practice, filtered and gleaned from the wide range theories and practices.

I have been a serious Zen student for over three decades and understand the paradox of the intellectual in Zen. I am sure you are familiar with the famous parable of Hui Neng, the beloved Sixth Patriarch of Zen, and the story of his enlightenment. It is [by far] the most important story in Zen lore because it points The Way in the simplest terms.

The religion of Buddhism was created for those [the many] who would refuse to give up their intellectual grasp of reality. It is a very nice religion but has nothing to do with actual meditation practice [in any real sense]. It is the difference between having an enormous crush on the most beautiful girl in your school and actually being with her.

[Sculptor]

You are evading my question. How?

Science knows plenty about how the brain works.
The problem with the thread is that you do not know that because you have not looked into it.
You are making an argument from ignorance.

Perhaps you would like to start here. None of this was know until relatively recently
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... -the-brain
When you have the basics, why not look at the history of the progress in brain studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ern_period
Then read the following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain
When you have aquainted yourself with the basics then come back and argue your point.

Come on. This is common knowledge. It does not answer how do we think.

The thread title is "Almost nothing is know about the brain", this proves that you are dead wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you believe that atoms exist in the brain? From the top-down approach, we know that the brain is conscious. What is the relation between the whole and parts? Are parts conscious or not?

Are there absolute parts in the first place.

Sure there are. You could not have a whole from the parts that are nothings.

Are you absolutely sure, i.e. with certainty? 100% certainty?

What is 'whole' and 'parts' are merely defined by humans as a convenience for communication purpose to facilitate survival, etc.
There is no way one can establish what is the absolute whole or parts because they stretch to infinity and infinite regression.

Atoms are supposedly parts of molecules which are part of solid things we perceive.
Sub-atomic particles [quarks, Higgs Boson] are supposedly part of atoms.

But so far, Physicists has not been able to discover what is the final absolute part of things.
At some point what is part is relative, i.e. either it is a particle or wave depending on human interactions.
This is a refutation of your bottom-up approach because you essentially don't have an absolute 'bottom' to 'up' with.

This is why the most plausible understanding of what is consciousness is to start with what we can infer from the empirical evidences of consciousness as I had highlighted earlier.

We know a lot about elementary particles. Particle physics is a very precise branch of physics. What is missing is gravity that we do not know how to quantize it.

We only know relative to the models we created ourselves to know whatever of them, i.e. the particles.

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Btw, what is the purpose and reason of your quest [an impossibility] to find the relation of consciousness to its ultimate parts?

To show that strong emergence is magic/absurd.

I did not argue for 'strong' emergence, but merely emergence.
Note this 'Rejection of the Distinction,'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ... istinction

So what is your ultimate purpose and reason of your quest [an impossibility] to find the relation of consciousness to its ultimate parts?
What do you gain if you have found the ultimate relation of consciousness to its ultimate parts.

My answer to the above is you are driven by a desperate psychology to find the ultimate answer [an impossibility]. Can you counter this?

So you and the scientific community do not know the properties of the parts from the properties of the whole. Why do you suggest a method that has not been clarified yet and instead attack particle physics which is the most precise knowledge available to us?

As I had stated [note I am not arguing for the scientific community in this case] what is ultimately whole or parts face an infinite regression and an impossibility. To insist otherwise is delusional as driven by desperate psychology.

Note 'most precise' do not necessary represent the ultimate truth. Once upon a time the flat earthers agreed [by majority] their knowledge of a 'flat earth' was most precise then.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am a reasonable expert in Buddhism-proper in totality.
Zen is merely a fringe sect of Buddhism-proper.

Btw, I am from the East.
There is theory everywhere, but as the Buddha stated, one must leave the raft when one has reached the shore.

• "The raft parable appears in the Alagaddupama (Water Snake Simile) Sutta of the Sutta-pitaka (Majjhima Nikaya 22). In this sutta, the Buddha discusses the importance of learning the dharma properly and the danger of clinging to views."

What is critical with Buddhism is always the practice, the Noble-8-Fold-Path where one of the path is meditation.

I am not with any specific beliefs but has my own electic theory and practice, filtered and gleaned from the wide range theories and practices.

I have been a serious Zen student for over three decades and understand the paradox of the intellectual in Zen. I am sure you are familiar with the famous parable of Hui Neng, the beloved Sixth Patriarch of Zen, and the story of his enlightenment. It is [by far] the most important story in Zen lore because it points The Way in the simplest terms.

The religion of Buddhism was created for those [the many] who would refuse to give up their intellectual grasp of reality. It is a very nice religion but has nothing to do with actual meditation practice [in any real sense]. It is the difference between having an enormous crush on the most beautiful girl in your school and actually being with her.

If your focus is on Zen then you are likely to miss knowing whatever wisdom is available in the other schools of Buddhism and also other spiritual teachings. Perhaps that is your strong personal inclinations, but I believe the combination of theory and practice is most effective for the majority.

I remember reading Hui Neng is very accommodating of others' practices on wisdom, knowledge and theories.

• In Chapter Four [Platform Sutra], meditation and wisdom are said to be of the same essence:
  Meditation and wisdom are of one essence, not different. Meditation is the essence of wisdom, and wisdom is the function of meditation. At times of wisdom, meditation exists in that wisdom; at times of meditation, wisdom exists in that meditation.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_ ... _(Lecture)

How can you be so ignorant of Buddhism-proper that it is not focus on meditation? That is the problem and limitation when you are too focused on Zen only.
Buddhism-proper [understands human nature and its degrees] encompasses theories and practices that cater for followers ranging [analogically] from 'kindergarten' to 'Phd' levels.

Note the Noble Eightfold Path,

• 3.1 Right view
  3.2 Right Intention
  3.3 Right speech
  3.4 Right action
  3.5 Right livelihood
  3.6 Right effort
  3.7 Right mindfulness
  3.8 Right concentration
  • 3.8.1 Samadhi
    3.8.2 Practice
    3.8.3 Mindfulness

Path 7 and 8 are all about meditation and they are part of a System, i.e. they are not effective if not done within the interdependence of all the other paths iteratively. This meant that each of the paths must be subjected to the conditions of the 7 other paths.

Note this thread I raised;
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a [diagnostic] Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

[RCSaunders]

I am a reasonable expert in Buddhism-proper in totality.
Zen is merely a fringe sect of Buddhism-proper.

Btw, I am from the East.
There is theory everywhere, but as the Buddha stated, one must leave the raft when one has reached the shore.

• "The raft parable appears in the Alagaddupama (Water Snake Simile) Sutta of the Sutta-pitaka (Majjhima Nikaya 22). In this sutta, the Buddha discusses the importance of learning the dharma properly and the danger of clinging to views."

What is critical with Buddhism is always the practice, the Noble-8-Fold-Path where one of the path is meditation.

I am not with any specific beliefs but has my own electic theory and practice, filtered and gleaned from the wide range theories and practices.

I have been a serious Zen student for over three decades and understand the paradox of the intellectual in Zen. I am sure you are familiar with the famous parable of Hui Neng, the beloved Sixth Patriarch of Zen, and the story of his enlightenment. It is [by far] the most important story in Zen lore because it points The Way in the simplest terms.

The religion of Buddhism was created for those [the many] who would refuse to give up their intellectual grasp of reality. It is a very nice religion but has nothing to do with actual meditation practice [in any real sense]. It is the difference between having an enormous crush on the most beautiful girl in your school and actually being with her.

If your focus is on Zen then you are likely to miss knowing whatever wisdom is available in the other schools of Buddhism and also other spiritual teachings. Perhaps that is your strong personal inclinations, but I believe the combination of theory and practice is most effective for the majority.

I remember reading Hui Neng is very accommodating of others' practices on wisdom, knowledge and theories.

• In Chapter Four [Platform Sutra], meditation and wisdom are said to be of the same essence:
  Meditation and wisdom are of one essence, not different. Meditation is the essence of wisdom, and wisdom is the function of meditation. At times of wisdom, meditation exists in that wisdom; at times of meditation, wisdom exists in that meditation.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_ ... _(Lecture)

How can you be so ignorant of Buddhism-proper that it is not focus on meditation? That is the problem and limitation when you are too focused on Zen only.
Buddhism-proper [understands human nature and its degrees] encompasses theories and practices that cater for followers ranging [analogically] from 'kindergarten' to 'Phd' levels.

Note the Noble Eightfold Path,

• 3.1 Right view
  3.2 Right Intention
  3.3 Right speech
  3.4 Right action
  3.5 Right livelihood
  3.6 Right effort
  3.7 Right mindfulness
  3.8 Right concentration
  • 3.8.1 Samadhi
    3.8.2 Practice
    3.8.3 Mindfulness

Path 7 and 8 are all about meditation and they are part of a System, i.e. they are not effective if not done within the interdependence of all the other paths iteratively. This meant that each of the paths must be subjected to the conditions of the 7 other paths.

Note this thread I raised;
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a [diagnostic] Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Yep! Buddhism has the answers alright.

Some Buddhist Beliefs



Buddhism is another easy-going religion. Unlike Hinduism, Buddhists know exactly who the founder of their religion is, at least they think they do. It may have been Gautama Buddha (Buddha means enlightened one), but at least he was Buddha (the enlightened one). They even know how he became enlightened. He suffered, like everyone else. He was rich, unlike everyone else, but, because he was rich, he apparently suffered his suffering more than those not rich suffer theirs.

He suffered so much, he went on a hunger strike against suffering. In fact, he went on a total self-deprivation strike, but soon learned, far from alleviating suffering, he suffered more than ever.

So here is the great enlightenment. The rich, full of food and pleasures suffer, the poor, empty of food and pleasures suffer. Eureka, enlightenment is, the "middle way," which, possibly was discovered originally by Goldilocks: not too much, not too little, not to big, not too small, not too hot, not too cold, or as another has put it, "moderation in all things." This is simple, this is wonderful, this is earth-shaking, but, unfortunately, not true. Who wants a moderately honest banker, a moderately faithful wife, moderate health, or even moderate wealth, even with all of wealth's suffering.

The Buddha was not God. Buddha was merely a teacher (which should make you skeptical right away) and his teaching is called Dhamma. The core teaching of Dhamma is that human suffering can be completely overcome, because all suffering is caused by self-centered desires. One immediately sees this is the truth. All suffering is the result of getting what we don't want (like bad colds) and not getting what we do want (like the girl we love.) Now, one way to get rid of suffering, it seems, would be to not get any of the things you don't want and to get all the things you do want. Is this the Buddhist way? Definitely not!

The other way, and essentially the Buddhist way, though it is never stated explicitly, is to get rid of the desires. If you don't want anything, you'll never be disappointed and always have everything you want, that is, nothing. The easiest way to do this, of course, is to die, but this short-cut is not acceptable to Buddhism.

The next best thing to dying, as the means of getting rid of all desires, and therefore, all suffering, is to get as near death as possible without actually dying. The method of doing this is called the Eightfold Path.

The Eightfold Path is described as follows:

Right Understanding
Right Thoughts
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Meditation

There is no heaven in Buddhism, instead, there is Nirvana, and the Eightfold Path is the only path to Nirvana. Nirvana is not a place, but a state, the state of no-suffering. If we did not know better, we might say it was death, but we do know better because the Buddha Dhamma says so.

Since, at this time, we are only interested in how this works, and not actually experiencing Nirvana, we only need to examine two of the eight elements of the Eight-Fold Path, the first (Right Understanding) and the last (Right Meditation).

Right Understanding consists of the Four Noble Truths, which are:

Life is suffering. Birth, aging and dying are suffering. Everyone suffers.
Our desire to fulfill what cannot be fulfilled causes our suffering.
Our desires are illusions we must destroy to end our suffering.
The Eight-Fold Path cures our habits of suffering.

This is obviously going to take a lot of work for some people. Some people just don't know they are suffering. They are mistakenly convinced that life is meant to be enjoyed and that they are enjoying it. But of course, that is not right thinking. They probably think their desires are worth pursuing, so they pursue them, gaining and achieving the things they desire. Furthermore, they mistakenly think the resulting enjoyment of those things is happiness, when they are suffering all the time. But it is all an illusion caused by their desires, and as soon as they can get rid of their desires they will see how really miserable they are. The Eight-Fold Path will help them to achieve that miserableness so they can end their cycle of suffering, even though they are not aware they are suffering. That's what Right Understanding is all about.

The next six elements of the Eightfold Path are variations on a theme, but the last is the key, the secret to unlocking the door to that death which is not death, that is, Nirvana.

Right Meditation. Just the sound of it is uplifting. Quiet peaceful serenity, like a stagnate pond, not a ripple of thought, or life, or interest to disturb the placid pliability of a consciousness gone defunct. This is the transcendent state that smashes the illusion of desire and happiness, to learn to make the mind blank, zero, nothing—to become, for a while, a zombie by choice.

Do not suppose that you will be successful in reaching Nirvana just because your life has traveled the Eight-fold Path. When you finally break the cycle of suffering which is life, (die), you will probably have to start the cycle all over again. Unlike the Hindu, you have no say about how you will come back. It is all determined, according to Dhamma, to Kamma.

Kamma is not the same as Hindu Karma, although there are similarities. Both are the result of choices we make and things we do while incarnated, the consequences of which have their effect on future incarnations. For the Buddhist, it even determines how one is reincarnated. In Buddhism, individuals do not really have souls, and what is reincarnated is not the actual individual, but their "influence" or "essence."

Now in your ignorance, not having mastered "Right Understanding," you might think, "well who cares if they are reincarnated if they can't remember anything in their past life? What difference would there be if I had never lived before?" But, if you had "Right Understanding," you would know all those bad things in your life, like believing you ought to enjoy it, and hitting your thumb with a hammer, which you have attributed to Murphy all this time, were really because you were bad last time.

At this point you may have a question. If everyone has a former life, and everyone is reincarnated, where did everyone come from in the first place? This is the kind of question that also shows you have not yet mastered "Right Understanding."

If, on the other hand you have mastered, "Right Understanding," you may be ready to learn that in Buddhism, though no specific deity is worshiped, almost everything is a kind of demi-deity, and not only everything there is, but many things which are not, are demi-deities as well. Some Buddhists, of course, do not believe in any deities, but some Buddhists believe even the trees and insects are spirits which can influence their lives. So long as you have, "Right Understanding," it does not matter much what you believe.


You may also have noticed that belly buttons are a very important feature in Buddhism. At another time, this aspect will be addressed in detail. One thing is certain, however, Buddhism has never been plagued by the kind of theological problem that has been the bane of Christianity. While Christian theologians have wrestled with the yet unanswered question, "did Adam have a belly button?" Buddhism has no such question. In Buddhism, everyone has a belly button, prominent and praiseworthy.

From: Silly Religion

[owl of Minerva]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

3.8.1 Samadhi
3.8.2 Practice
3.8.3 Mindfulness

This order is different to Vedic philosophy where the last three steps are Interiorization, Concentration, and Meditation which leads to Samadhi. Samadhi is the last experience after practice not the first.

[simplicity]

How can you be so ignorant of Buddhism-proper that it is not focus on meditation? That is the problem and limitation when you are too focused on Zen only.

It must be a great burden being all-knowing.

Remember, all words in Buddhism point to meditation. Once you realize, the words are meaningless.

In that you do not understand the non-intellectual, there is no reason to continue speaking of Zen.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Some Buddhist Beliefs



Buddhism is another easy-going religion. Unlike Hinduism, Buddhists know exactly who the founder of their religion is, at least they think they do. It may have been Gautama Buddha (Buddha means enlightened one), but at least he was Buddha (the enlightened one). They even know how he became enlightened. He suffered, like everyone else. He was rich, unlike everyone else, but, because he was rich, he apparently suffered his suffering more than those not rich suffer theirs.

He suffered so much, he went on a hunger strike against suffering. In fact, he went on a total self-deprivation strike, but soon learned, far from alleviating suffering, he suffered more than ever.

So here is the great enlightenment. The rich, full of food and pleasures suffer, the poor, empty of food and pleasures suffer. Eureka, enlightenment is, the "middle way," which, possibly was discovered originally by Goldilocks: not too much, not too little, not to big, not too small, not too hot, not too cold, or as another has put it, "moderation in all things." This is simple, this is wonderful, this is earth-shaking, but, unfortunately, not true. Who wants a moderately honest banker, a moderately faithful wife, moderate health, or even moderate wealth, even with all of wealth's suffering.

The Buddha was not God. Buddha was merely a teacher (which should make you skeptical right away) and his teaching is called Dhamma. The core teaching of Dhamma is that human suffering can be completely overcome, because all suffering is caused by self-centered desires. One immediately sees this is the truth. All suffering is the result of getting what we don't want (like bad colds) and not getting what we do want (like the girl we love.) Now, one way to get rid of suffering, it seems, would be to not get any of the things you don't want and to get all the things you do want. Is this the Buddhist way? Definitely not!

The other way, and essentially the Buddhist way, though it is never stated explicitly, is to get rid of the desires. If you don't want anything, you'll never be disappointed and always have everything you want, that is, nothing. The easiest way to do this, of course, is to die, but this short-cut is not acceptable to Buddhism.

The next best thing to dying, as the means of getting rid of all desires, and therefore, all suffering, is to get as near death as possible without actually dying. The method of doing this is called the Eightfold Path.

The Eightfold Path is described as follows:

Right Understanding
Right Thoughts
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Meditation

There is no heaven in Buddhism, instead, there is Nirvana, and the Eightfold Path is the only path to Nirvana. Nirvana is not a place, but a state, the state of no-suffering. If we did not know better, we might say it was death, but we do know better because the Buddha Dhamma says so.

Since, at this time, we are only interested in how this works, and not actually experiencing Nirvana, we only need to examine two of the eight elements of the Eight-Fold Path, the first (Right Understanding) and the last (Right Meditation).

Right Understanding consists of the Four Noble Truths, which are:

Life is suffering. Birth, aging and dying are suffering. Everyone suffers.
Our desire to fulfill what cannot be fulfilled causes our suffering.
Our desires are illusions we must destroy to end our suffering.
The Eight-Fold Path cures our habits of suffering.

This is obviously going to take a lot of work for some people. Some people just don't know they are suffering. They are mistakenly convinced that life is meant to be enjoyed and that they are enjoying it. But of course, that is not right thinking. They probably think their desires are worth pursuing, so they pursue them, gaining and achieving the things they desire. Furthermore, they mistakenly think the resulting enjoyment of those things is happiness, when they are suffering all the time. But it is all an illusion caused by their desires, and as soon as they can get rid of their desires they will see how really miserable they are. The Eight-Fold Path will help them to achieve that miserableness so they can end their cycle of suffering, even though they are not aware they are suffering. That's what Right Understanding is all about.

The next six elements of the Eightfold Path are variations on a theme, but the last is the key, the secret to unlocking the door to that death which is not death, that is, Nirvana.

Right Meditation. Just the sound of it is uplifting. Quiet peaceful serenity, like a stagnate pond, not a ripple of thought, or life, or interest to disturb the placid pliability of a consciousness gone defunct. This is the transcendent state that smashes the illusion of desire and happiness, to learn to make the mind blank, zero, nothing—to become, for a while, a zombie by choice.

Do not suppose that you will be successful in reaching Nirvana just because your life has traveled the Eight-fold Path. When you finally break the cycle of suffering which is life, (die), you will probably have to start the cycle all over again. Unlike the Hindu, you have no say about how you will come back. It is all determined, according to Dhamma, to Kamma.

Kamma is not the same as Hindu Karma, although there are similarities. Both are the result of choices we make and things we do while incarnated, the consequences of which have their effect on future incarnations. For the Buddhist, it even determines how one is reincarnated. In Buddhism, individuals do not really have souls, and what is reincarnated is not the actual individual, but their "influence" or "essence."

Now in your ignorance, not having mastered "Right Understanding," you might think, "well who cares if they are reincarnated if they can't remember anything in their past life? What difference would there be if I had never lived before?" But, if you had "Right Understanding," you would know all those bad things in your life, like believing you ought to enjoy it, and hitting your thumb with a hammer, which you have attributed to Murphy all this time, were really because you were bad last time.

At this point you may have a question. If everyone has a former life, and everyone is reincarnated, where did everyone come from in the first place? This is the kind of question that also shows you have not yet mastered "Right Understanding."

If, on the other hand you have mastered, "Right Understanding," you may be ready to learn that in Buddhism, though no specific deity is worshiped, almost everything is a kind of demi-deity, and not only everything there is, but many things which are not, are demi-deities as well. Some Buddhists, of course, do not believe in any deities, but some Buddhists believe even the trees and insects are spirits which can influence their lives. So long as you have, "Right Understanding," it does not matter much what you believe.


You may also have noticed that belly buttons are a very important feature in Buddhism. At another time, this aspect will be addressed in detail. One thing is certain, however, Buddhism has never been plagued by the kind of theological problem that has been the bane of Christianity. While Christian theologians have wrestled with the yet unanswered question, "did Adam have a belly button?" Buddhism has no such question. In Buddhism, everyone has a belly button, prominent and praiseworthy.

From: Silly Religion

You are merely making noises, insulting your own intelligence and making yourself very silly.
In addition, you are plagiarizing if you do not provide the relevant links.

Just as you are the silly one but not everyone is silly, there are silly religions but not all religions are silly, especially Buddhism-proper.

Where are your arguments specifically to insist the above [other than the belly button thing - no justification given above] and Buddhism-proper is silly?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

3.8.1 Samadhi
3.8.2 Practice
3.8.3 Mindfulness

This order is different to Vedic philosophy where the last three steps are Interiorization, Concentration, and Meditation which leads to Samadhi. Samadhi is the last experience after practice not the first.

I picked the that from Wiki;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eig ... th#Samadhi

• Samadhi (samyak-samādhi / sammā-samādhi) is a common practice in Indian religions. The term samadhi derives from the root sam-a-dha, which means 'to collect' or 'bring together',[citation needed] and thus it is often translated as 'concentration' or 'unification of mind'. In the early Buddhist texts, samadhi is also associated with the term "samatha" (calm abiding).[citation needed] In the suttas, samadhi is defined as one-pointedness of mind (Cittass'ekaggatā).[92] Buddhagosa defines samadhi as "the centering of consciousness and consciousness concomitants evenly and rightly on a single object...the state in virtue of which consciousness and its concomitants remain evenly and rightly on a single object, undistracted and unscattered."[93]
  
  According to Bhikkhu Bodhi, the right concentration factor is reaching a one-pointedness of mind and unifying all mental factors, but it is not the same as "a gourmet sitting down to a meal, or a soldier on the battlefield" who also experience one-pointed concentration. The difference is that the latter have a one-pointed object in focus with complete awareness directed to that object – the meal or the target, respectively. In contrast, right concentration meditative factor in Buddhism is a state of awareness without any object or subject, and ultimately unto no-thingness and emptiness, as articulated in apophatic discourse.

Generally in Vedic, Samadhi is related to an altered state of consciousness, while in Buddhism as reference to the a practice which will also result in similar altered states of consciousness.

Nevertheless what is critical is the act of meditation not its fruits.

[bahman]

Science knows plenty about how the brain works.
The problem with the thread is that you do not know that because you have not looked into it.
You are making an argument from ignorance.

Perhaps you would like to start here. None of this was know until relatively recently
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... -the-brain
When you have the basics, why not look at the history of the progress in brain studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ern_period
Then read the following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain
When you have aquainted yourself with the basics then come back and argue your point.

Come on. This is common knowledge. It does not answer how do we think.

The thread title is "Almost nothing is know about the brain", this proves that you are dead wrong.

It says almost. We know about the correlation between mental phenomena and the matter processes in the brain but we don't know how a single experience is possible. Whether it is smell, thought, decision,...

[Sculptor]

Come on. This is common knowledge. It does not answer how do we think.

The thread title is "Almost nothing is know about the brain", this proves that you are dead wrong.

It says almost. We know about the correlation between mental phenomena and the matter processes in the brain but we don't know how a single experience is possible. Whether it is smell, thought, decision,...

What's you r point?

[bahman]

The thread title is "Almost nothing is know about the brain", this proves that you are dead wrong.

It says almost. We know about the correlation between mental phenomena and the matter processes in the brain but we don't know how a single experience is possible. Whether it is smell, thought, decision,...

What's you r point?

Is there a mechanism that tells you that consciousness arises from the matter process in the brain? If yes then it means that consciousness is a function of properties of parts of the brain. In another word, parts of the brain are conscious as well. If not, we are dealing with magic.