Buddhism, chaos and complexity theory
I’ve only just broached the topics of chaos and complexity theory, which we’re covering this week in CCK08, however in reading George Siemens thoughts as expressed in his Google Document, I’ve been brought to a train of thought I want to explore. This is in the form of an analogy.
At least according to my understanding of it, in Buddhism the concept of the individual and the soul do no exist; in fact they are refuted. Nor is there an inherent sense of me-ness that can be distinguished or segregated from the rest of the world. Everything, they say, is related and dependant. Nothing is independent.
The argument goes that each situation, each decision, each so-called “fact” was reached through a complex series of incidents, without which the uniqueness of its circumstances just wouldn’t exist. This applies to the argument against a notion of self as well.
What I consider to be “me” is in fact not one distinct unit. “Me” is comprised of hands, fingers, wrists, elbows and so-on; but even these are not distinct unto themselves either. Cells regularly die and are replaced by new ones. So literally speaking, the physical personal I call “me” right not is not going to be the same one getting on the bus tomorrow. Physcially the cells will be different.
Similarly, if a person is the sum of their experiences, this too is different from one moment to the next. Therefore I cannot say I am consistent and ever-present throughout my lifetime because of the circumstances and experiences I am a part of; because the aggregated pool of experience changes from one instance to the next.
Likewise is the concept of mind as distinct from brain. As with an inherent concept of “me”, what we consider the mind – at least in my understanding – is reliant on our comprehension of reality, information, and experience, both past and present. Given this changes constantly, the notion of one eternal mind cannot exist either.
Furthermore, as we’ve discussed throughout CCK08 so far, the brain is comprised of distinctly distributed activities. As such it is not a single entity. Physically it’s also composed of cells too, which as I said die and change from one day to the next.
I wonder if this is what we’re taking about when we say chaos and complexity theory?
[...] Very stimulating post: Buddhism, chaos and complexity theory [...]
Mike,
This is one of my favorite weeks in the course. I have been interested in chaos theory for quite a while, although I still can’t pretend to truly understand it. The Heylighen articles (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/Info-overload.pdf) were especially thought provoking and worth reading. William E. Doll (http://www.lsu.edu/faculty/wdoll/index.htm) is another author that I like who has written quite a bit about chaos theory and how it applies to curriculum. His book Post Modern Perspective on Curriculum (1993) is a little dated now but still a great read.
I like the idea of tying what we are learning to an ancient philosophy. It seems natural and it underlines two things. The first is that in most cases, nothing that we learn is really new. Second, an idea that became clear as I read your post and which has been slowly forming from my own introspective wanderings through this course is that we seem to be dealing with connectivism more as a philosophy of learning, rather than a scientific theory of learning.
I’ve also been intrigued about Buddhism. One of these days I’ll to make some time in my life to learn a little more about that as well.
Take care.
Nice post. There seem to be a lot of similarities between the underlying ideas of Complexity Theory and the Eastern Religions (Perhaps even more so with Hinduism). You say, at one point, “…the notion of one external mind cannot exist either.” Two thoughts. 1) If it’s all about connections then there is only an arbitrary sense of “external” and “internal”. 2) Perhaps there is “one eternal mind” but it’s the Universe. I’d point to some of Seth Lloyd’s work in this respect.
Thanks for the blog.
Mike,
This may be a stretch but your statement
“…what we consider the mind – at least in my understanding – is reliant on our comprehension of reality, information, and experience,…”
reminded me of the discussion about Popper’s three worlds in
Rethinking Learning
CARL BEREITER
MARLENE SCARDAMALIA
http://www.ikit.org/fulltext/1996rethinking.pdf
This was an alternative reading in week two of CCK08. I’ve gone on to read more of Popper’s writings. He divides the creation of knowledge (my word) into the combination of three worlds. His World 1 aligns with “reality” (empirical) World 2 with what goes on in the mind (information processing) and World 3 with the production of and critic of human knowledge (experience). My take on this is since all three of these worlds are in constant flux – the world is constantly being re-created not just re-run like an older film.
Going on with the film analogy, the beginning learner is going to take the general plot of a (1935) film and re-write, re-cast and most importantly re-style it to fit into their world vision. The basic “facts” of the film may still be the same but the message — well it will be at least be distorted perhaps even chaotic to the person trying to see it through the lense (their original experience) of the older film.
Ignoring Stephen’s suggestion of a story at the beginning, I’ll put mine at the end.
My daughter (22) insisted that we see the just released “Pulp Fiction” in the theatre. At the end of the film she shocked me. Her critic of the film was that it was “so real.” I realized that she no longer was experiencing a film but experiencing the art of the filmmaker as representative of how her world “worked.” Her vision of the world was much more chaotic than her graduate course of study (education) promoted. She was especially impressed by how the entwined stories could be told out of order and reassembled. She was thrilled by being mystified by the disorder. (BTW so was I and she has been teaching 6th graders for the last 11 years.
B-ob
Hi Mike,
The Mind & Life Institute (http://www.mindandlife.org/) has published a series of books, largely transcriptions of discussions between the Dalai Lama and western scientists and philosophers, on the philosophy and science of mind in the west and its relationship to Buddhist philosophy.
The Prasangika Madhyamika and Yogachara schools of Mahayana Buddhism differ in terms of their characterization of the relationship between self and the “external” world. The debate is extensive and complex, and I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject.
That said, here is the gross distinction, as quoted in “Gentle Bridges: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Sciences of MInd” (Hayward, Varela, Shambhala Publications, 1992):
“Within Mahayana there are two main approaches or avenues of philosophical investigation, with their corresponding schools. One of these, the Yogachara school, arrives at the conclusion that there is indeed no objective world out there. The other one, the Prasangika Madhyamika, asserts that there is an objective world, although not in the old Cartesian sense of being totally independent of consciousness (41).”
B. ALAN WALLACE [interpreter]: “For the Pasangika Madhyamika there are objective entities buty in a very special fashion that is non-Cartesian, non-Newtonian. For the Prasangika, if you investigate an object that seems to be out there, really seeking out its essential nature, asking what is the nature of this phenomenon from its own side exclusively, you don’t find something out there as an objective entity. It winds up to be something unfindable under analysis. Then the Prasangika says that although it is not findable under analysis, nevertheless it exists in a conventional fashion by the force of verbal and/or conceptual designation or imputation (41).”
“The Prasangika view…engages in an analysis of apparently objective phenomena and finds that under analysis they simply cannot be found…the Prasangika then does not conclude there is therefore no objective world but says there is an objective world—that verbal or conceptual designation is sufficient for an objective phenomenon to exist, but that this conventional nature is the only kind of existence it has as an object. So here is a school of Buddhism, the Prasangika, that says yes, there is an objective world, yes, there is a subjective world, a subjective mind. And in fact it says these are both equally weighty. It is not a view that says it is all purely a world of mind, nor is it a materialisitic view. Both mind and matter exist; they both have a conventional, conceptually designated existence (42).”
In contrast to the Prasangika view, which asserts the conventional existence of an external world or objective entities, there is another view among the Mahayana views, the Yogachara, which in its own fashion really investigates, really analyzes: Do these phenomena that appear to be objectively existent in fact have objective existence? The Yogacharins also say that objective existence is not findable under analysis, but they come to the conclusion that although these things appear to have objective existence out there, in fact this does not stand up to analysis, and therefore they are purely of the nature of mind. But there is another problem. As soon as you say that these phenomena that appear to be objective out there are of the nature of mind, then the question is: Is it possible for the mind that cognizes these phenomena to be in error? Is there realistic cognition as opposed to unrealistic cognition? The Yogacharins must say, Yes, there is. But how do they establish that one thing is realistic and another is unrealistic when everything is coming from the nature of mind anyway? This becomes problematic.
See also pages 157-158 on the three levels of consciousness and their relationship to distinctions between mind and brain in western science and philosophy.
Adrian
Buddhism that many practitioners say they bring to their business lives and although lot of people questioning Buddhism..I'm always believe in Buddhism spiritual practice added value to our life
Leave your response!
Additional comments powered by BackType
Subscription Options:
Recent Posts
Archives
Recent Comments
Categories
Me @ Other Sites
Tags
Most Commented
Meta
Shared under CC-BY
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Support Open Education
Switch to our mobile site
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia theme by Michael Hutagalung