TED Conversations

Nicholas Lukowiak

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Asian religions/philosophies better prepare an individual for pursuits of "divine reality" than that of Western traditions.

Cognitive scientist today (of Western Academics) are predominantly declaring the close association between Buddhist philosophies of "mind" and the today's advancements/discoveries in neurology/psychology. The interesting factors lay in how accurate these philosophers were hundreds of years prior to the precision of science that Academics prize so much today. How and why?

Not only has meditation been proven to achieve higher levels of cognitive awareness, but proven to essentially super activate the brain.

Also, the "second brain" - search engine phrase. Has been a philosophy involving "Chakra," again hundreds of years prior to the precision science of today.

A point of debate here should be: Why is science and philosophy divided when both of their foundations are one of another?

During my pursuits of Eastern Philosophy in comparison to Western Philosophies I found that the most general difference can be seen in metaphysics that is traditionalized in both cultures. In the East Qi is the driving force behind everything; everything is constantly changing. While in the West our idea of matter is static, traditionally. Again why and how?

__________

In brevity, I find the fact we championed Abrahamic religions in place of the naturalistic-atheistic religions of the east, in history, ultimately made the west divide science and philosophy. I will take from Iain McGilchrist here; the West championed the "servant" we elevated the individuals whom are responsible for great ideas instead of elevating the great ideas.

Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto and Confucianism - religions whom are more accurately "schools of philosophy" than "religions" because as the times changed they all adopted/adapted from one another. They correspond with science advancements with no confrontations because they prize ambiguities and openness. I see this most apparent in the number of citizens in each set of cultures.

Reality cannot be defined in precise terms today (atomism), but in holism.

+4
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 3 2011: I knew a guy who got a degree in philosophy having only read the cliff notes and none of the original texts. He had plenty of talking points, but he really didn't understand the material. In science, shorter does not mean better.

    If you had read the sources that you supposedly wanted (though I doubt you actually wanted them), you would have found these well respected scientists were using Buddhist philosophy to inform and guide their scientific inquiries. I referred to those articles because they demonstrate, CLEARLY, that some modern cutting edge researchers are using eastern philosophies because they have led and are leading to new discoveries about the mind/brain/behavior. Fransisco Varela in particular did amazing work founded on Buddhist philosophies BECAUSE he found that they were more scientific and testable than Western philosophies (e.g., dualism, materialism). Are there scientists who disagree? Of course, that's how science works. You asked for evidence of scientists who work with eastern philosophies because of their advantages over Western philosophies and I gave them to you.

    If you reject my premise in the face of evidence (and there is plenty more where that came from), then it is pointless for us to discuss further. It seems to me that you have a belief and you are unwilling to reexamine it. I give you evidence, and you quickly reject it. It seems like you know what is true, and you are going around finding evidence to confirm your belief. As a case in point, instead of reading the articles I cited that you disagree with, you go and read an article that you do agree with and say, "HA! You were wrong and I am right". That is exactly the kind of pseudo-scientific practice that Richard Dawkins propelled into legitimacy by writing a non-peer reviewed book outside his field on what he believes, and then went on a book tour to say as loudly as possible "I am right, you are wrong and stupid". He should know that is not how science works.
    • thumb
      Nov 3 2011: Reading this statement I think we actually are not as much in disagreement as you may think. I think there is a strong difference between the claim:

      "Cognitive scientist today are predominantly declaring the close association between Buddhist philosophies of "mind" and the today's advancements/discoveries in neurology/psychology. The interesting factors lay in how accurate these philosophers were hundreds of years prior to the precision of science that Academics prize so much today. How and why?" - Nicholas Lukowiak
      and
      "you would have found these well respected scientists were using Buddhist philosophy to inform and guide their scientific inquiries." -Spencer Fix

      It reminds me of the common confusion there was on my thread about science informing morality. Many people objected to it on the grounds that you couldn't scientifically derive morality, but of course that was entirely besides the point. Dictating morality and informing morality are two different things. The first leads to eugenics, the second leads to a more ethical way of thinking about animals (because of the undeniable evolutionary connection we have). My objection is not so much that philosophies could inform and guide science, especially cognitive science, but that it could somehow have some deep understanding of our cognition that somehow had a head-start on modern cognitive science. Mindfulness shows us the human psyche in a particular state and science now tries to find out why and that's fantastic, I'm all for that. Buddhist philosophy obviously touched upon something interesting there worth investigating.

      Your assessment of me is unfair. I didn't say your links were shit or something so dismissive, I merely pointed out that they looked at a Buddhist tradition and tried to get a deeper understanding of it. Is that not the case? Also I read the abstracts. I didn't just wave them off like that. I have read a little more since to see if I was really missing out on something. I wasn't.
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2011: I actually think (this is just my opinion) that the work of the Dalai Lama and others like him have gone a long way to throwing into question the whole Western philosophy of mind. (Just in case you do not know, he and others are working very hard to integrate Eastern Philosophy and Western Science (both are based on empiricism)).

        Furthermore, I think some scientists have taken up this position and are working hard to demonstrate not just that mindfulness is cool, but that their whole worldview is cool and that maybe if we thought about the self, the mind, the physical universe, and everything else from this perspective, we would be better off (and that maybe it is more "true"). I think this possibilities is implicitly all over the place in a lot work done in psychology and neuroscience. Mindfulness is just the start of this campaign.
    • thumb
      Nov 10 2011: are the two points, being suggested here, not, in fact opposite sides of the same coin? In other words, in the broadest sense, I believe science and religion are in fact, helpful in explaining and understanding the other. Their brothers from the same mother! I think they will help propel humanity forward, in a weird, I know shes my cousin, but dang she's hot! kinda way. Religion has had first at-bat and has struck out swinging. Now science, in all it's diverse branches, is getting a fair shake and doing well, Maybe I'm missing the point but the simplest explanition usually works for me.
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2011: You are probably right, that these arguments are not that different from each other. I just like arguing/debating/discussing such matters.

        To build on your analogy, my main point is that dang, she IS hot! So stop saying she isn't. The Dawkinists drive me crazy when they say religion = delusion. That is not scientific, nor is it very nice. I just wish they would tone down their language and leave some room for the hot cousin to hang around.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.