On Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 08:26 AM, Bill Bartlett wrote:
> At 2:24 AM -0700 23/6/04, Chris Doss wrote:
>
>> Your missing the point, Bill, I think. Consciousness may be a product
>> of neural pathways, but it is not the same thing as them any more
>> than the color red is the same thing as a particular wavelength of
>> light.
>
> Consciousness is no more than a network of neurons. That's all there
> is to it. Likewise a colour is a wavelength of light. Anything more
> you might believe there is to it, is merely down to the way your
> neural pathways are arranged.
>
> Likewise, my own, more rational understanding is down to the way my
> neural pathways are arranged.
so there is no "right" or "wrong", only arrangements of neural pathways? that seems to be where you're headed. and there may be something to that, whether you like it or not. and, btw, i would not argue that this would prevent us from coherently saying things like, "suffering is bad".
> Proof that our selves exist. Precariously to be sure, but we exist.
i'm not so sure. what does the word "self" mean, here? an arrangement of neural pathways in a particular brain? do you really find this compelling or even meaningful as a theory of the "self"? apparently you do, or you wouldn't articulate it so vehemently, but i can't see *why* you find it so compelling.
moreover (and this is a separate but related point), i would actually argue that the way you're approaching this fits quite nicely with buddhist theories of the self -- the self is an impermanent, perpetually changing epiphenomenon of material reality and not something to get hung up on *as such*.
i suspect your real problem with buddhist thought on no-self has more to do with a specific understanding of existence rather than your concept of self. but i'm just guessing.
j