I recently finished reading Dan Brown's "Angels & Demons". In it, the female lead refers to an Eastern belief that we actually know everything (facts, solutions to problems, etc.) and that we just have to remember it. Can anyone elaborate on this belief? It sounds interesting.
Moo. Moo-moo. (MooMooMooMooMooMooMooMooMoo) I've heard it through a student of Tibetan Buddhism, but I'm not sure that's helpful. I'll see what I can dig up. In the meantime, I've wondered for a while about the notion that "there really is nothing to know." Holding a largely monistic outlook, I wonder if the brain isn't so much a generative device (e.g. generates thoughts) but rather a filter (e.g. reduces signal perception, prioritizes stimuli for response). It fits well with the notion that differentiation is an illusion, but I've not yet figured the practical boundaries of such a proposition. Just a couple of thoughts. Moo.
I never heard of that particular belief. However, the premise of Buddhism and Taoism is that man's natural state is good, and connecting with this state is a matter of removing learned obstacles. "Facts" are symbols of temporary relationships, so these are not true knowledge. Nirvana is simply remembering who you aren't. Tiassa, The brain surely generates thought and filters sensation. I like Aldous Huxleys analogy of the brain as the door of perception, which can be opened with psychedelics. Differentiation is an illusion, for something to exist as separate, it is only necessary to name it.
"Someone seeking learning knows more and more. Someone seeking Tao knows less and less - until things just are what they are." Lao Tzu
It stems from the personal knowledge (belief if you like) that consciousness is fundamental and that we are all part of one consciousness (this is an oversimplification but it'll do). It follows that to know untimate truths it is necessary to know oneself, and that all true knowledge is already inside us. (As Plato and, as far as I know, every philosopher since has argued). Eastern meditative practices are a method for discovering this. They work, according to people who do the practice. However that does not mean we already 'know' that F=MA or the like. The knowledge is of why things exist, who we are, the nature of reality, etc. Nothing that contradicts the findings of science, just its assumptions. Unfortunately there is no way of finding out whether this is true except doing your own research.
It is highly unlikely that the brain filters rather than generates. In fact, I've never seen anybody make this claim unless they had an idealist agenda--that alone, coupled with the fact that virtually any neuroscientist (i.e. those with much greater knowledge in this field than anybody here) would find the idea absurdly laughable, is enough to arouse suspicion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the brain appears to be structured in a way you'd expect for an information-processing machine, not a filtering-machine. You might make the filtering-proposition more clear and more testable if you gave some examples of brain mechanisms that it would predict! For example "If the filtering theory is true, then we can expect the eye to work like this...", etc. Eric
I do not think, we know everything, but Hindus believe that we have the ability to. We can access what is called Akasic records (Universal datawarehouse) through meditation. Very few people have done that namely Gautama Buddha and other Maharishis. Here is what I think (based on Hinduism) 1. Recently somewhere I read that our brain has the capacity to act like a quantum computer in solving highly complex multivariate problems in a matter of seconds (epiphany) that a super computer may take many years. 2. If that is true, and another if, we are somehow networked in a wireless level (we are yet to find out) - we may have mechanisms yet to discover. 3. If Akashic records are ture, we may be able to access them at a quantum level outside linear time dimension. 4. It is also possible, we de-evolved after the great war and forgot how to use some of the faculties such as our pineal gland actively while awake.
It does both, I quoted a neuroscientist in this thread. Aldus Huxley refered to the mind as the doors of perception, because they can be opened. Information-processing IS filtering. In order to process sensory information in a way that is relevent to you, your brain has to decide what is important and what is not. Are you aware of breathing? Most of the time, you are not, it happens so often that the brain considers it irrelevant. But you can be aware of breathing, now that I mention it. If the filtering theory is true, then we can predict states of mind where perception is not filtered normally. This is the case with hallucinogenic drugs, schizophrenics, some victims of brain injury, and possibly during yoga and meditation.
Huxley's opinions really have nothing to do with the discussion. The original claim was that 'we know everything' and the brain's function is to simply use incoming sensory information to 'unremember' most of those things--that is, 'forget the solution.' This is what I am referring to when I said that the filtering theory is not probably not true. Yes, of course the brain filters some of the incoming information, but this was obviously not what I was talking about, considering the discussion at hand. There is a huge difference between processing information and generating thoughts based on that information (which is probably how things really are) and processing information then forgetting everything except for the thoughts you would expect to arise from that information (the highly implausible 'we know everything' theory). This is no different than what you would expect from the information processing/generation model; therefore, it does not get us anywhere. Basically, you need to form a prediction like this: "If we really know everything, and incoming information makes us forget almost all of that, resulting in a small set of active thoughts, then we should expect ___________ to be true. But if the brain simply processes information and then generates thoughts based on that information, then we should not expect the (above blank) to hold." Can you formulate a testable hypothesis, or not?
My basic premise isn't that we know everything, but that our unconscious mind experiences the entire flood of sensory information, and only makes us aware of that part which we have prejudged to be useful. After this filtering, which has to do with the application of symbolic knowledge, we process the symbols, and respond. What is thinking but the manipulation of linear symbols applied to a non-linear continuum? In a disussion about the brain, in the eastern philosophy forum, I feel Aldous Huxley's insights are quite relevant. If we really can be aware of all incoming information, but most of the time we aren't, then we should expect that in some extreme circumstances, the flood gates are opened, and unflitered awareness becomes a reality, markedly different from normal reality. If the brain simply processes information, then under all circumstances, the flow of information should remain at more or less constant levels. I know through experience that the flood gates can be opened, but experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs is mostly forbidden in neuroscience, with the notable exception of recent DMT studies.
Sorry, I assumed that you were agreeing with the opening post, and also meant to imply that I was replying to it. Experimentation with drugs is not 'forbidden', it is illegal. Neuroscientists aren't afraid of studying mind altering drugs; rather, it is impossible to get a research grant involving something that is illegal.
Also, in some diseases, the sensory gates can open more widely than they usually are: in Addison disease (a kidney condition), the patient has a much more intense sense of smell, the concetration of molecules can be too low for a normal person to smell, but that patient can smell it. Or, in extreme emotional states, it seems like things are happening in slow motion; it's because the brain actually processes a lot more data than usually.
Speaking of diseases, I knew a severely retarded young woman, daughter of a preacher, who's entire volcabulary seemed to be, "Whoop her, Helen!" and "ant stung 'er." Yet, she would sometimes walk to the piano, before the service began and play that piano so fantastically, it was amazing. I have seen other such astounding talent from those we might call handicapped, as with the movie Rain Man. There is just so much we do not know about our brains! Even my brain amazes me at times. How about that? A PS to Rosa: They closed the other threads, but I did read your response. You are analytical; no doubt about it; whereas I embrace realizing that I know nothing. The key word is know, but be that as it may. It was fun hearing your points of view.
PMT, Yes, such people like that young woman are called savants; mentally challenged people, authists, who have one ability developed to extremes. But the problem with them is that they usually lack emotions. Even though such a piano player may be amazingly skilled, his play somehow lacks heart, it sounds cold, mechanical. Do you know anything about the researches done by Allan Snyder ("Centre for the Mind" in Sydney)? I only have an article in a magazine, but when I'll find a link, I'll let you know. It was *fun* hearing my POV's? How that? Please expand on the *fun.* EDIT: PMT, I think I may be on to something with your "to know" situation: I posted this thought on another thread ("4 AM rantings"), see what happens there. On the whole: We don't understand or know the world and ourselves in the strict sense of the words "know", "understand". We are only acquainted with them and are able to live with them. Does that work for you?
FIRST PART....."Fun," hey, ROSA, I am not sure that I have the same meaning for the word fun as most. To me, almost anything I do can be fun, and if this was not fun, at least for the most part, I would not do it. I have lightened up, and become more brief, because I have other things pulling on me, and I was spending way too much time on-line. SECOND PART....It do, it do... WORK FOR ME! Seriously, you caught my meaning. I am so glad. Goody, goody. Because, I know we are very different, different in more than language and age. You like formulas, boundries and what we call logic. Logic is good, sometimes; formulas are for making things known, boundaries require lines, and see, I am not there. I am someplace else, with no distinct lines, no recipes, and a very strong conviction that much lies outside of logic as we know it. Now, am I all wet about this preliminary deduction, or do you care? I just thought I would make a stab at it. I will try to find that other thread, right now. .......Cheers!
PMT, There is a new thread that's seems promising, "Philosophy is not a joke." Let's meet there, on topic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
