Another way to speak to this is to refer to the course and subtle levels of "mind" as inseparable and interpenetrating with physical processes, while the most subtle and inner most subtle levels are not distinctly tethered/inseparable.
Another way to theorize about this in modern terms, would be to utilize the Orch-OR theory of consciousness, decoherence theory, quantum theory etc. The mind-stream would be a self-collapsing wave function, which on an information level interacts and is entangled with the wave-functions describing the physical processes. The wave-functions are "located" beyond space-time, at the order of quantum gravity. Again within the context of information monism/non-dualism.
When questions after his lecture come up, Jinpa-la tells suggests that there's an inseperability between physical and mental processes. As I understand it, that implies that when the physical processes fall away( after death), mental activity stops as well???
thx for both answers. I was wondering because when all mental activity would stop that would exclude any continuity of the mindstream. Didn't think Jinpa-la would mean that :-)
Yes the inseparability though points to a co-reduction to an information monism of sorts. Another way to answer this is to speak to the advanced schools such as dzogchen which make clear there is actually a difference between mind and awareness. Mental activity stops, but awareness doesn't, as this awareness is distinctly primal and non-human, it is not cognitive in any recognizably human sense.
Can someone clarify about experiment with the barn. From observer point of view if pole moves at 0.7c, than pole becomes shorter, if barn moves at 0.7c barn becomes shorter. Then what if we have one camera attached on pole and one camera attached on barn. During poles fly through barn first one cam should take picture of pole being much longer than barn(cause from this cam's pov barn is moving) , and second cam would take picture of pole fitting in the barn.???
If other religions r true then they must challenge these scientists. HH Dalai Lama though have not studied or gone to school or does not have science background still could justify some of the typical scientific theory. Which means whatever have been invented or discovered, Buddha has already said and written down by the followers. He is a living Buddha thus knows what scientist does not
Arthur Zajonc starts with some careful statements, but misrepresents relativity a bit. I like his comment that relativistic evidence only occurs between observers at high speeds. Although it's possible to test relativity with objects that have mass, this tests gravity's effect on spacetime. Otherwise we test massless particles. Speeds of planets going around the sun, or the sun around the galaxy, are not fast enough to make relativity significant. The speed of the Andromeda galaxy rushing towards our Milky Way, a big crash some billions of years hence, is not fast enough. The universe's expansion is, but oddly that's not velocity per se. The corollary of relativistic detection: if it needs such high speeds, than at almost every speed it's not a factor. Furthermore, for relativity to be detected, it requires all observers to experience time, or spacetime, in exactly the same way. Oddly, this aspect of relativity is often overlooked, but it means that our experiences of time may vary subjectively, but we all share the same objective experience. Time passes the same way here, there, and everywhere. So Einstein didn't say "it's all relative," but that in situations of very different velocity observations will be relative. In fact, it's not relative at all, when we consider that each observer sees the other guy changing, but his own reality stays the same. Since the other guy mirrors this, the other guy stays the same too. Our measurements of external reality may be relative, but our experience of it isn't.
Thank you people for sharing this. It is so well discussed.
Another way to speak to this is to refer to the course and subtle levels of "mind" as inseparable and interpenetrating with physical processes, while the most subtle and inner most subtle levels are not distinctly tethered/inseparable.
Another way to theorize about this in modern terms, would be to utilize the Orch-OR theory of consciousness, decoherence theory, quantum theory etc. The mind-stream would be a self-collapsing wave function, which on an information level interacts and is entangled with the wave-functions describing the physical processes. The wave-functions are "located" beyond space-time, at the order of quantum gravity. Again within the context of information monism/non-dualism.
🙏❤️🙏
thanks for sharing Dalai Lama
Amazing collaboration
I don't believe these scientists would abuse it, but some others will definitely do.
When questions after his lecture come up, Jinpa-la tells suggests that there's an inseperability between physical and mental processes. As I understand it, that implies that when the physical processes fall away( after death), mental activity stops as well???
thx for both answers. I was wondering because when all mental activity would stop that would exclude any continuity of the mindstream. Didn't think Jinpa-la would mean that :-)
Thank you for sharing these wonderful teachings. Does anybody know where I can find the 4pm question and answer session for all days? Thank you. 🙏🙏🙏
is there a transcript for this by chance?
Yes the inseparability though points to a co-reduction to an information monism of sorts. Another way to answer this is to speak to the advanced schools such as dzogchen which make clear there is actually a difference between mind and awareness. Mental activity stops, but awareness doesn't, as this awareness is distinctly primal and non-human, it is not cognitive in any recognizably human sense.
Can someone clarify about experiment with the barn. From observer point of view if pole moves at 0.7c, than pole becomes shorter, if barn moves at 0.7c barn becomes shorter. Then what if we have one camera attached on pole and one camera attached on barn. During poles fly through barn first one cam should take picture of pole being much longer than barn(cause from this cam's pov barn is moving) , and second cam would take picture of pole fitting in the barn.???
brill
count on it, and then be free ....
If other religions r true then they must challenge these scientists. HH Dalai Lama though have not studied or gone to school or does not have science background still could justify some of the typical scientific theory. Which means whatever have been invented or discovered, Buddha has already said and written down by the followers. He is a living Buddha thus knows what scientist does not
Arthur Zajonc starts with some careful statements, but misrepresents relativity a bit. I like his comment that relativistic evidence only occurs between observers at high speeds. Although it's possible to test relativity with objects that have mass, this tests gravity's effect on spacetime. Otherwise we test massless particles. Speeds of planets going around the sun, or the sun around the galaxy, are not fast enough to make relativity significant. The speed of the Andromeda galaxy rushing towards our Milky Way, a big crash some billions of years hence, is not fast enough. The universe's expansion is, but oddly that's not velocity per se. The corollary of relativistic detection: if it needs such high speeds, than at almost every speed it's not a factor. Furthermore, for relativity to be detected, it requires all observers to experience time, or spacetime, in exactly the same way. Oddly, this aspect of relativity is often overlooked, but it means that our experiences of time may vary subjectively, but we all share the same objective experience. Time passes the same way here, there, and everywhere.
So Einstein didn't say "it's all relative," but that in situations of very different velocity observations will be relative. In fact, it's not relative at all, when we consider that each observer sees the other guy changing, but his own reality stays the same. Since the other guy mirrors this, the other guy stays the same too. Our measurements of external reality may be relative, but our experience of it isn't.