Войти в систему

Home
    - Создать дневник
    - Написать в дневник
       - Подробный режим

LJ.Rossia.org
    - Новости сайта
    - Общие настройки
    - Sitemap
    - Оплата
    - ljr-fif

Редактировать...
    - Настройки
    - Список друзей
    - Дневник
    - Картинки
    - Пароль
    - Вид дневника

Сообщества

Настроить S2

Помощь
    - Забыли пароль?
    - FAQ
    - Тех. поддержка



Пишет satanovsky ([info]satanovsky)
@ 2005-01-08 02:47:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Here we go: welcome to the interface theory of consciousness
(Didn't they call it Buddhism in the old days?)

I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. Space-time, matter and fields never were the fundamental denizens of the universe but have always been, from their beginning, among the humbler contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being.

The world of our daily experience - the world of tables, chairs, stars and people, with their attendant shapes, smells, feels and sounds - is a species-specific user interface to a realm far more complex, a realm whose essential character is conscious. It is unlikely that the contents of our interface in any way resemble that realm.

Indeed the usefulness of an interface requires, in general, that they do not. For the point of an interface, such as the Windows interface on a computer, is simplification and ease of use. We click icons because this is quicker and less prone to error than editing megabytes of software or toggling voltages in circuits...

Donald Hoffman
Cognitive scientist, University of California, Irvine; author, "Visual Intelligence"


(Читать комментарии) - (Добавить комментарий)

Regarding Buddhism
[info]satanovskiy@lj
2005-01-10 01:18 (ссылка)
>the above has hardly anything to do with Buddhism

Well, actually it does.
Two main forms of Buddhism are known today: the conservative branch, represented by the Theravada school, spread mainly in Sri Lanka and southeast Asia, and Mahayana, spread in China, Tibet, Korea and Japan. The Theravada school teaches that there is neither a personal god, nor a spiritual or material substance that exists by itself as Ultimate Reality. The world as we know it does not have its origin in a primordial being such as Brahman. It exists only as a mental construction shaped by the senses. There are some differences between the schools (Mahayana mimics some traditional Indian views, accepting celestial nature of Buddha, etc), but here is where they come together: precisely because most people don't see the reality for what it is, they go on producing karma, which leads to suffering. So, theoretically, the main purpose of Buddhist training & practice is to stop production of karma.

As for the idea of Mental nature of universe, it might be even older than Buddhism ( if we are to believe that The Kyberion roots really go back to ancient Egypt and Hermes Trismegistus legend):
http://www.geocities.com/collectumhermeticus/thekybalion.htm

Not that long ago I also saw some pop science article about a theory of universe being holographic in nature.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

Re: Regarding Buddhism
[info]bad_kissinger@lj
2005-01-10 20:57 (ссылка)
>It (the world) exists only as a mental construction shaped by the senses.

There's nothing specifically Buddhist about this notion. It a very popular starting point of idealist worldview. The way it is formulated in the original article is also not characteristically Buddhist, in that same fashion. Additionally, I would not believe anything published by "THE YOGI PUBLICATION SOCIETY, MASONIC TEMPLE, CHICAGO, ILL": Kyberionetics is a street floozy of the bourgeousie.

As far as the theory of holographic universe goes, it is an exellent metaphore for a mechanism connecting cohesive and logical illusion of the reality with the equally cohesive and logical (and yet totally obscure to us) "objective reality", in best Lenin's formulation.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


(Читать комментарии) -