If mind = brain

[Grigoris]

Every one of us is thoroughly indoctrinated into one thing or another. This is my whole point. Mutation is the only possibility of being free of this.

Mutation? Given the infinite round of samsara I believe you will find that every single combination has been formed and dissolved an infinite number of times. Mutation is not necessary (or possible). What (for a Buddhist) is necessary, is to apply the Dhamma (which is, as far as I am concerned, is whatever conforms to the Dharma Seals or the logic behind the Three Marks of Existence)

[Bundokji]

I'm not sure how we talk about the brain from any other point of view except the experiential. If we are talking factually, there is no problem.
I do get what you are talking about when you describe your descriptions.

We don't experience our brain, hence any talking about it includes belief/speculation. From that point of view, it is dogmatic.

[Circle5]

I'm not sure how we talk about the brain from any other point of view except the experiential. If we are talking factually, there is no problem.
I do get what you are talking about when you describe your descriptions.

We don't experience our brain, hence any talking about it includes belief/speculation. From that point of view, it is dogmatic.

If one gets shot and loses half his brain, the experiences that will arise after that will be different.

[Bundokji]

If one gets shot and loses half his brain, the experiences that will arise after that will be different.

You cannot know this first hand. You might have seen people with brain injury and they reported or appeared to be experiencing the world differently, and out of this, it is concluded that experience is dependent on the brain.

Any conclusion is not original, it is the outcome of comparing two states.

[sentinel]

If one gets shot and loses half his brain, the experiences that will arise after that will be different.

You cannot know this first hand. You might have seen people with brain injury and they reported or appeared to be experiencing the world differently, and out of this, it is concluded that experience is dependent on the brain.

Any conclusion is not original, it is the outcome of comparing two states.

Can we take an example ,
Take a look at this , 经验 ,
can the brain know what is it ?
What is it that you experience ?
There is an image with strokes appear in your seeing , other than that probably "don't know" .
Even don't know doesn't occur to you because that is comparing to something you know , what if you don't have any kind of knowledge at all, would you still be able to come up with any conclusion ?

[Bundokji]

Can we take an example ,
Take a look at this , 经验 ,
can the brain know what is it ?
What is it that you experience ?
There is an image with strokes appear in your seeing , other than that probably "don't know" .
Even don't know doesn't occur to you because that is comparing to something you know , what if you don't have any kind of knowledge at all, would you still be able to come up with any conclusion ?

No, but i fail to understand what point you are trying to make.

[Circle5]

If one gets shot and loses half his brain, the experiences that will arise after that will be different.

You cannot know this first hand. You might have seen people with brain injury and they reported or appeared to be experiencing the world differently, and out of this, it is concluded that experience is dependent on the brain.

Any conclusion is not original, it is the outcome of comparing two states.

Yes exactly. You can observe a person losing half his brain and, through the way he is behaving (which can be radically different), one can conclude that experiences arising are different than before.

What is wrong with this ? Are you trying to argue that a person who can't even eat anymore by himself or maybe can't even move has the same experiences as before losing half his brain ?

[Saengnapha]

I'm not sure how we talk about the brain from any other point of view except the experiential. If we are talking factually, there is no problem.
I do get what you are talking about when you describe your descriptions.

We don't experience our brain, hence any talking about it includes belief/speculation. From that point of view, it is dogmatic.

What do you experience, then? You experience brain function. That is what we are. I've no idea what you are trying to say at this point.

[Saengnapha]

If one gets shot and loses half his brain, the experiences that will arise after that will be different.

You cannot know this first hand. You might have seen people with brain injury and they reported or appeared to be experiencing the world differently, and out of this, it is concluded that experience is dependent on the brain.

Any conclusion is not original, it is the outcome of comparing two states.

Do you have a way of 'not' comparing two states? This is all that is going on. This is what the brain is doing all the time. If the brain becomes quiet, what happens to the comparative mind?

[Bundokji]

Yes exactly. You can observe a person losing half his brain and, through the way he is behaving (which can be radically different), one can conclude that experiences arising are different than before.

What is wrong with this ? Are you trying to argue that a person who can't even eat anymore by himself or maybe can't even move has the same experiences as before losing half his brain ?

The idea of change is dependent on the idea of sameness (self). Experience itself tells us nothing about change. Experience is always what is taking place. The idea of change (which arises as an experience) is the outcome of comparing two states.

What is it that makes the two states related/connected/comparable? the idea of a self (the agent who experience and who witnessed/got affected by the change).

A thicket of views.

[Saengnapha]

Yes exactly. You can observe a person losing half his brain and, through the way he is behaving (which can be radically different), one can conclude that experiences arising are different than before.

What is wrong with this ? Are you trying to argue that a person who can't even eat anymore by himself or maybe can't even move has the same experiences as before losing half his brain ?

The idea of change is dependent on the idea of sameness (self). Experience itself tells us nothing about change. Experience is always what is taking place. The idea of change (which arises as an experience) is the outcome of comparing two states.

What is it that makes the two states related/connected/comparable? the idea of a self (the agent who experience and who witnessed/got affected by the change).

A thicket of views.

It can be said in many ways, but essentially I agree with you.

[Bundokji]

Then how can you read any Theravada teachings? This is exactly what is being put forth in any tradition or any teaching. Prevention of this should not be based on refusal to read or observe things. Isn't this what we are really talking about, how our brains work? There's no one inside it.

I do not read Theravada teachings in any systematic way. In my opinion, once the practitioner is familiar with the basics of the teachings, the rest of the practice should be reflecting on them.

Also avoiding harm and knowing ones limitations is not a bad thing.

[Spiny Norman]

It depends how we define "experience", but I think I see the distinction you're making. For me the point is about choosing to place attention on particular aspects of experience.

Experience is what is known (past tense). Even if you see a phenomena for the first time, you would declare that you don't know it (in relation to the known).

I think experience is just what we notice. We can choose to notice different aspects of experience.

[Spiny Norman]

What is it that makes the two states related/connected/comparable? the idea of a self (the agent who experience and who witnessed/got affected by the change).

Are you saying that with no self-view there is no experience of change?

[Bundokji]

I think experience is just what we notice. We can choose to notice different aspects of experience.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but the second part is hypothetical.

When i say hypothetical, i don't mean its right or wrong or whether it exists or does not exist. It has a function, it plays an important role in conventional reality.

The usual debate we encounter on whether free will (or choice) is real or delusion is missing the point in my opinion.