Really? Very interesting.bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:09 pmOkay. I remember that I asked this question in a Buddhist forum but they didn't have any answer for it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pmThat's a big question, and again, it's part of the "whole worldview" that is necessary to Hinduism and Buddhism. It has to do with the idea of a division between the spirtual and the material, and "the God," i.e. their ultimate cosmic "oneness" or "mind" reckoning things. But it's one heck of a big question to try to answer in full here.
I know how their "big thinkers" tend to think about it. But perhaps the "lay" Buddhists don't.
It has to do with the idea of cosmic oneness, and the necessity of the Great Unitary Being breaking itself into two entities in order to be able to exist and to be able to contemplate itself. But that's far too weird an explanation for most folks.
No, they wouldn't think that. They wouldn't say that the great Mind is contingent. They'd say it's eternal. Ironically, they also have to insist that the material world is also eternal; because without the two, nothing exists, in their theory.So if mind changes then it is contingent, and needs a sustainer.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pmSo the mind changes!
Sort of. In their view, it doesn't change positionally or materially. So there's no "movement" and no "distance" being involved.
I guess you could think of it this way: when you say, "My mind is rambling," your body may remain sitting. We might say that in your ideas, you "move," but not in any physical dimension.
So no, that doesn't let us get into "substances" and "causes" from there.
It depends what one means by "changes." It changes nothing in terms of essence or existence. And the things that appear to change in the physical world are just maya, and don't actually change.I think they are dealing with a paradox: a changeless thing that changes.
But you're right to say there's something deeply incoherent about their view. And worse still, for them, we now know for certain that the universe, the material world, is not eternal. So the problem of existence for the great Mind isn't solved by reference to it.
He can only think things at a relatively simple level.But the janitor has the capacity to think and understand certain things.
Not at all. I'm speaking of IQ. Do you know what IQ measures, and how it does? If you're not sure, you should check it out. It's not dependent on particular information, but on things like ability to abstract or skill at logical prediction, and so on. These are universal abilities, not mere experiential or informational ones. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-th ... calculatedYou are mixing the ability to think with intelligence.
Not all neurons are the same. And not all neural pathways are the same, nor are all neurochemicals. Brain physiology differs.And how IQ of different people is different? I mean they all have brains which are consist of neurons.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pmNot at all.Intelligence however is the result of many minds working with each other.
Einstein will still have an IQ of around 160, which is the maximum for a human being. The janitor's IQ is at the level of a little less than 10% of the world's population. No amount of anything will produce a 160 out of a 90 mind.
And even if he were alone all his life, Einstein's IQ would still be what it was, and so would the janitor's, even if he were surrounded by brilliant others.
IQ is not a function of experience, but of capacity.
I guess I'd need to know what you mean by "mind," before I could answer; because people use that word many ways. Sometimes, they mean "intelligence," but sometimes just "consciousness" or "self-awareness," or just general "thinking," or "problem-solving," or "soul," or "the locus of personal identity."So you know that intelligence, emotion, etc. could be impaired by stroke? Does your mind change when you have a stroke? How about when you are in a coma? Does your mind disappear when you die?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pmYes, I've seen a person who has had a stroke.I mean stroke.
Mind can be all of these things: and if somebody has a stroke, some will change more than others.
I didn't ask. I wasn't expressing doubt as to your own truthfulness.I am telling you the truth.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pmThen you can't, in consistency, believe in reincarnation, or that truth is relative, or that suffering is something you've chosen and isn't evil.I believe in absolute truth and suffering.And you say you remember this? And you have some reason to think this "voice" was telling you the truth?There was a voice that told me that I will find the Absolute Truth.
All I was asking is how YOU know this "voice" was telling YOU the truth. That's all.
No, evil is a state of mind.
Then imagine something different, and it goes away?
"Prohibited" by whom?Bad is an action/choice prohibited.
When you wish.How about opening another thread and discussing it there?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pmActually, there are very good explanations for the existence of evil, granted a good God. We were working on some of those earlier, but you moved to other topics. We can go back to that question when you wish.you recognize evil but you cannot justify it from a God who is Good.
I don't see how. The "voice" gave you a choice to go or not. You said, "Go."Accepting things unconditionally is different from choosing things.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 9:48 pmYou chose it, you say.I didn't ask for anything.
You got what you chose. It's hard to feel any sympathy for somebody who's chosen to cause his/her own suffering.
You got what you asked for. Why complain about "suffering" now? You weren't promised not to suffer, if your deal was "unconditional," as you say.