What are feelings: Just a chemical reaction?

[pocebokli]

oh buddhism you say? can you give me any link that will give me some clues to the philosophy of buddhism? or some good book that i can fetch from amazon or something...

 

[Royce]

oh buddhism you say? can you give me any link that will give me some clues to the philosophy of buddhism? or some good book that i can fetch from amazon or something...

Sorry, I can't off hand. I'm sure other will be able to help you. Try a google search or check out a library.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Idealism

MATERIALISM AND/OR IDEALISM:

With regard to dualistic notions of materialism and idealism, even if an aspect of the universe were capable of recording or preserving categories of phenomenal data, in what way, if any, might it be able to record categories of epiphenomenal data? Can any kind of consistent metaphor even be imagined by which an aspect of the universe might be able to appreciate our epiphenomenal experiences?

Obviously, information can be stored or presented in a variety of phenomenal and/or epiphenomenal forms. Information comprising a hit song might be preserved in the imagination of a song writer, in a score and lyrics written on paper, in the contemporaneous hearing or memory of a comprehending listener, in the hearing of a listener of a different tongue, in the waves of percussion emitted upon playing a record, in the ridges and grooves of a vinyl record, in data bits stored in a computer. Regardless of form, would there not be a kind or degree of shared essence underlying aspects of the information?

Referring to a sort of string theory metaphor, might a sort of interconnected universal membrane record all categories of phenomenal vibrating of strings that might be supposed to constitute the most fundamental material that comprises our universe? Might strings sort of constitute both the wiring of Nature and the synapses of God? If ultimate strings constitute synapses of God, could the Mind of God have grasped from timeless experience of associative patterns how to appreciate not only a holistic perspective but also the very categories of both phenomenal and epiphenomenal perspectives of existence that are experienced by each of us? If our finite brains can pull together, associate, and interpret sensations of categories of phenomenal patterns as epiphenomenal experiences, why not the Mind of God?

AESTHETICS AND OCCAM’S RAZOR:

Was not Occam’s Razor originally applied by a monk while dealing with spiritual values? In terms of physical aesthetics, how is it any more difficult to believe that there is only one universal infinity of existence accompanied by an infinite, active, cohabiting, self aware mind, rather than that there is an infinity of separate universal infinities driven only by a united but unconscious survivalist function? Is either concept any more approachable by a human mind? Or, does adoption of one or the other of such perspectives simply signal an underlying, unspoken assumption, disposition, or faith?

Interpretations of Materialism that assume that God is irrelevant or unconscious in relation to aesthetics or Occam’s Razor seem to be based on nothing more than a bald assumption that God is unconscious or irrelevant. Such interpretations seem oblivious that it is not nearly as important that we really prove a basis for objective morality as that we keep faith that there is a spiritual justification or basis for value choices and purposes. After all, is it not self evident that every chosen act is accompanied by a rationalization of some sort of spiritual or value purpose, regardless of whether unspoken or unappreciated?