For the last year or so I've been into listening to formal debates. Typically my confirmation bias always leans heavy to one side. However, the following debate found me very interested in both sides. Consciousness seems to be one of the last frontiers (at least to westerners).
I found this excellent, what say ye?
The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist
Physics verses the Mind
Re: Physics verses the Mind
Loving this so far, thanks for sharing. Like you, I can see/appreciate both sides, although I love the spiritual depth evident in the buddhist’s remarks.
I probably missed his point, but the physicist says one thing we can’t observe and don’t know much about is consciousness. And then he strongly states his belief that there’s no life after death. But he doesn’t seem to address the possibility of our consciousness going on and being separate from the natural world that physicists examine. I’m sure I must’ve missed a point or two because the guy seems too smart to have such an obvious inconsistency or lack of completeness in his rationale.
I probably missed his point, but the physicist says one thing we can’t observe and don’t know much about is consciousness. And then he strongly states his belief that there’s no life after death. But he doesn’t seem to address the possibility of our consciousness going on and being separate from the natural world that physicists examine. I’m sure I must’ve missed a point or two because the guy seems too smart to have such an obvious inconsistency or lack of completeness in his rationale.
“How valuable is a faith that is dependent on the maintenance of ignorance? If faith can only thrive in the absence of the knowledge of its origins, history, and competing theological concepts, then what is it we really have to hold on to?”
D Brisbin
D Brisbin