I agree. This is the way research should continue. There is a strong bias toward trying to fit neurological research into Buddhist thinking. There are some points of convergence but to see the effort Dr. Thompson makes at remaining impartial and open-minded is great.
What is a hallucination, what is a dream, what is delusion? How do we know the brain is generating the dream? Say you talk to a friend in the dream. The body is there. Now you open the scull of your friend. You will see his brain and neurons. In the dream we will be conversing about dreams! Dreams are just as real as this world but more stretched and strange.
I find it hard to take that memory has anything to do with dreams. The ingredients of the dream is space-time and causation. In other words, a entire world. But memory can't conjure up space-time and causation. I can remember a tree but a tree won't appear before me and trick me like the dream does.
In his book mind in life he develops another term (although I find it similar to ontology) called autopoiesis. Where body and mind are constantly affected by the environment and viceversa in a non linear way with other autopoietic systems.
He says he is a Philosopher by training.. He goes quite close but wanders away i think because of his training i feel..A profound seeker philosophizes by process of seeking unhindered by thinking ( in fact, training, it limits ) Hindu vedantic Knowledge which is most profound makes it clear that its experiential ...Turia and Tapas is required... Meditation is a crude equivalent which the westerners understand...
B.G. Prasad B.G. Prasad all we have is our minds. You seem to find it necessary to comment here, that is an exercise of thought. Your comment being a vague dismissal invoking the ethnicity of the man your criticizing. Was his thought not more carefully designed for deepening experience than yours? What credibility can you invoke for yourself to be able to criticize someone else on grounds of their credibility? How long have you spent meditating and how much insight do you have in the subject? Could you really distinguish the terms “seeking” and “thinking” as you used them in your comment? The Buddha and those who surrounded him used a style of diction that was in many ways highly analytical. I have heard what you have said here a million times among semi-literate dogmatically religious hindus, it’s always used as if it’s the ultimate wise thing to say. You added a touch of racism too, fulfilling the true character of the dogma you were serving in your argument. I could respect that statement from whoever probably first said it, and quite probably had a right to the arrogance of it, otherwise no not at all.
![ILLSLICK X YOUNGOHM - We're The same [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yUJNkobYR0E/mqdefault.jpg)
Great talk. He talks about what he knows, and declines to make assertions or draw conclusions re what he doesn't. What a concept.
I agree. This is the way research should continue. There is a strong bias toward trying to fit neurological research into Buddhist thinking. There are some points of convergence but to see the effort Dr. Thompson makes at remaining impartial and open-minded is great.
Why the hell his book is sooo underrated ? Its a real masterpiece
I mean it makes me feel special but the world should know about his book much more
Many references are there in Upanishads about being and consciousness, metal state etc.
He did mention upanishad in his book so many times
Your answer to “how it has helped you personally “ is very tangential
it's his personal experience, so it should be tangential?
where you expecting like a profound answer of 20 minutes??
What is a hallucination, what is a dream, what is delusion? How do we know the brain is generating the dream? Say you talk to a friend in the dream. The body is there. Now you open the scull of your friend. You will see his brain and neurons. In the dream we will be conversing about dreams! Dreams are just as real as this world but more stretched and strange.
Loved this talk.
Hello Doc. I admire you
“Self is an Illusion of the brain “ , this is already evident in Adi Shankar’s Karika of Mandukya Upanishad , what is new in that
He doesn't claim to have invented a new concept. He is communicating some of the ancient wisdom in a way that westerners can understand
He is saying self is not an illusion, neither a thing, it's a process. This is the enactive approach to understand mind-body and world relation.
I find it hard to take that memory has anything to do with dreams. The ingredients of the dream is space-time and causation. In other words, a entire world. But memory can't conjure up space-time and causation. I can remember a tree but a tree won't appear before me and trick me like the dream does.
If you don't have a memory of a tree because you've never seen a tree before, it won't appear in your dreams
Great talk....
Does anyone know more on how he constructs his process ontology?
In his book mind in life he develops another term (although I find it similar to ontology) called autopoiesis. Where body and mind are constantly affected by the environment and viceversa in a non linear way with other autopoietic systems.
The big billiard table inference hypothesis. Nothing more or less.
I want to see you in person
this topic not understand through logic only.
so we need stories ....😂
turn on 2x speed and he becomes ben shapiro
realistically speaking is at 1.5
some people speaks like we don't want to listen more than 5 minutes
that's because you are not seeing the significance of what he's saying
@@conexionneuronal8820 like what?
{example?}
He says he is a Philosopher by training.. He goes quite close but wanders away i think because of his training i feel..A profound seeker philosophizes by process of seeking unhindered by thinking ( in fact, training, it limits ) Hindu vedantic Knowledge which is most profound makes it clear that its experiential ...Turia and Tapas is required... Meditation is a crude equivalent which the westerners understand...
B.G. Prasad B.G. Prasad all we have is our minds. You seem to find it necessary to comment here, that is an exercise of thought. Your comment being a vague dismissal invoking the ethnicity of the man your criticizing. Was his thought not more carefully designed for deepening experience than yours? What credibility can you invoke for yourself to be able to criticize someone else on grounds of their credibility? How long have you spent meditating and how much insight do you have in the subject? Could you really distinguish the terms “seeking” and “thinking” as you used them in your comment? The Buddha and those who surrounded him used a style of diction that was in many ways highly analytical. I have heard what you have said here a million times among semi-literate dogmatically religious hindus, it’s always used as if it’s the ultimate wise thing to say. You added a touch of racism too, fulfilling the true character of the dogma you were serving in your argument. I could respect that statement from whoever probably first said it, and quite probably had a right to the arrogance of it, otherwise no not at all.
Thinking scriptural knowledge as infallible is faith, not philosophy or science.