Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The logic of Buddhist philosophy

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 210 posts

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#191

Post by tel »

e12e wrote: post #148
tel wrote: post #37

Central to his teachings is the view that things are ‘empty’ (sunya). This does not mean that they are non-existent; only that they are what they are because of how they relate to other things. Immediately I thought of Category Theory as this statement is a not terrible expression of what CT tries to teach. I'll immediately recommend the paper Numbers Can Be Just What They Have To ( http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/phil/Nu…

Having never really looked at Category Theory (having been convinced by a series of terrible writings by Haskell fanatics that nothing useful comes from studying it ;-) -- this is a beautiful teaser shining some light on why it might be useful for type theory in general (and as applied to computation in particular). So thank you for that! (And I do mean this comment, I'll be sure to look at the paper too -- but you m…

Category Theory and Type Theory end up feeling like the exact same subject viewed through different leneses. Bob Harper calls this concept Trinitarianism throwing Logic in as the third arm.

I highly recommend studying Category Theory if you're interested in those kinds of topics. I think it's wonderfully enlightening for programming (although standard disclaimed applies that it's not necessary for programming).

I recommend that paper, and I also recommend reading Conceptual Mathematics by Lawvere and Schanuel. It's easily my favorite book for getting into "how to think with CT".

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#192

Post by dllthomas »

shawndumas wrote: post #146
dllthomas wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being needlessly difficult to no good end. I am not dropping the law of non-contradiction in my comments here, where I speak about logics that drop non-contradiction. And the point you're trying to make here ignores what I said. It is certainly the case that if you permit every violation of non-contradiction, whether or not it violates any other rule, you wind up with nonsense. In no way does that establish th…

sorry if I came across as difficult; honestly not my intention.

You were perceived as difficult because rather than actually address the content of what I said, you tried to make the same point in the same way you had earlier - a way which was undermined by what I had said.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#193

Post by mcguire »

muhuk wrote: post #183
mcguire wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Moreover, to exist is to have a particular identity, to have a nature, to be something. " Tweet! Assuming the conclusion! 10 yard penalty, return the sliotar to first base.

Can something exist without identity? Can something exist yet have no nature? Can something exist without being (anything)?

Let me start by pointing to to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7715277.

How do you know something exists?

Because you can see it.

So you don't know that something exists, you only know that your sense impressions have been triggered. How do you know its nature?

Because of what you see.

So you don't know anything about its nature, only about its relationship with your sensory apparatus. (Hey, I may have just invented category theory!)

How can something exist...?

Don't look at me, man. It's all probability waves as far as I can tell.

Note: I don't really, actually, myself, buy into this form of epistemology and metaphysics, so I may have the arguments badly. On the other hand, those are major topics that have a lot of diverse implications. They cannot simply be dismissed by assertion.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#194

Post by tel »

tel wrote: post #188
michaelfeathers wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of Alan Kay's assertion that messaging is more important than objects in OO. I know that when I design, I see the interactions first - they define the objects. If names from the domain fit - fine. Otherwise, invent new names.

I like to notice it as well as being a concise statement of the heart of the relational model. Ultimately, the things stored in your database are evidence of connections between other things, not the things themselves. Which is a good hint at the weight of the Object-Relational impedance problem, too.

Oh, and generally, Rel, the category of relations is really interesting in its own right!

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#195

Post by orasis »

logicchains wrote: post #68
xmonkee wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a rather gross oversimplification. What you state is true, and is in fact the essence of the first 2 noble truths, but that's hardly the meat of "the logic of buddhism". The hardest attachment is that to the self, and the hardest realization is that the self itself is impermanent. To have the "right view" of the self, one has to understand the illusory nature of phenomena and the paradoxial nature of awarenes…

The illusory nature of the self can also be explained relatively simply to anyone who's familiar with the justification problem[1]. What 'is' the self and what 'is not' the self? That requires a metric for deciding. But that metric in turn requires another metric to determine its validity, and so on ad infinitum. The concept of self is thus arbitrary, and hence logically meaningless. Wittgenstein expresses this idea…

Explaining the illusory nature of the self isn't important. seeing, in real time, the illusory nature of the self is what brings liberation.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#196

Post by orasis »

EGreg wrote: post #78

Do you think the Buddha borrowed some of his philosophy from the Stoics?

Its very important to understand, that unlike most Western philosophers, the Buddha's philosophy came as a side effect of his meditation and realization.

When you realize the non-dual nature of reality, that the split between subject and object is an illusion, your entire conception of reality changes radically. This realization, which is beyond concepts, allows the generation of ideas that are completely outside "normal" frames of thinking.

This present moment is not conceptual, it is real.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#197

Post by tel »

tel wrote: post #187
Chattered wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recognise it as the type of continuation returning something of type a. Also, if you instantiate r to Void then ((a -> Void) -> Void) a is just double negation elimination. Am I getting sidetracked or does this line go somewhere, tel?

You're totally correct that double-negation elimination is a specialization of the CPS transform which is a specialized form of Yoneda. Yoneda is more general and exists more often than CPS transforms do, though. cps : a -> (forall r . (a -> r) -> r) cps a = \f -> a f cps' : (forall r . (a -> r) -> r) -> a cps' f = f id It's interesting to examine double negation elimination in constructivist logic since it doesn't h…

Typo: `bck` should obviously be

   bck = cps

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#198

Post by vram22 »

vram22 wrote: post #184
wfn wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. I don't think so, but, feel free to expand your opinion (why do you think it should be "I am, therefore I (can) think"? Maybe you have an interesting point to make?) Re: etymology, it's pretty much "think => exist." Re: conceptual level: well, one of the texts where this whole concept/causal-chain is introduced is in his "Meditations on First Philosophy"[1], in particular, in Meditation 2. Very (very) roughly (a…

>Hmm. I don't think so, but, feel free to expand your opinion (why do you think it should be "I am, therefore I (can) think"? Maybe you have an interesting point to make?) I did say "vaguely". Let me think about it a bit and then reply later tonight.

Ok, here's my attempt at an answer:

Take his statement: "I think, therefore I am."

My guess is that the way people interpret it is like this: Descartes is saying that he (notices that he) thinks, wbich (to him) implies that he must exist.

The statement can be broken down like this:

A, therefore B where A = "I think" and B = "I am".

But if you look at it like this: the "I am" part is asserting that he exists, which according to him is a logical implication of "I think". But his asserting "_I_ think" itself implies that his "I" exists (whether it thinks or not). So the "I think" is like saying "I exist" (and am also thinking - my emphasis is on the "I"). So it seems like he is already assuming something is true ("I" exist/am), on the left side of the sentence, what he is trying to prove ("I am"), on the right side of the sentence. Note the difference in the two uses of quotes in the last sentence. Hope I've made my thinking :) clear.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#199

Post by wfn »

vram22 wrote: post #198
vram22 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Hmm. I don't think so, but, feel free to expand your opinion (why do you think it should be "I am, therefore I (can) think"? Maybe you have an interesting point to make?) I did say "vaguely". Let me think about it a bit and then reply later tonight.

Ok, here's my attempt at an answer: Take his statement: "I think, therefore I am." My guess is that the way people interpret it is like this: Descartes is saying that he (notices that he) thinks, wbich (to him) implies that he must exist. The statement can be broken down like this: A, therefore B where A = "I think" and B = "I am". But if you look at it like this: the "I am" part is asserting that he exists, which ac…

Thanks for this. :)

Indeed, I think I actually mostly agree with you. See my longer comment / explication of Descartes' argument (if it's an argument) above: I personally (also) think that "I think" already presupposes too much. What one might be able to argue is a lesser version of the thing, though:

thinking, therefore, existing. ("thought exists" (whatever that actually means!))

> So it seems like he is already assuming something is true ("I" exist/am), on the left side of the sentence, what he is trying to prove ("I am"), on the right side of the sentence.

..so yeah, I think that the only safe thing for him to say at that point would have been "thoughts exist." Maybe this does sound lame, but in the context of Descartes' Meditations, it's about discovering that even though you can doubt everything, this does require (the process of ) doubting as such.

Or: I can be deceived about everything there is in the world (so e.g. in actuality, there is no world as such); but who is being deceived? At the very least, there is (some kind of) thought happening. One might say that doubting requires an agent, etc., but really, this is already debatable.

But in short: you're right, if one were to establish "I exist" (with an "I" having certain desirable properties), one could then say "I think", and that would have been less murky, indeed!

Problem is, poor Descartes is not sure that he "exists":

indeed, for him (and this is partly to do with the whole mentality present in Rationalism, and with the start of Modern philosophy (many people hold him to be the father of it)) thinking comes before existing. You will find many parallels of the latter around, scattered in various places; cf. "god thinks itself into being", etc.

He kind of articulates one of the foundations of Rationalism as in the epistemology: thought shall be the ultimate and primary criterion for truth.

But again, I agree, however, I would say that he could have stated a lesser version of his point (while not reversing the logical implication arrow): "thoughts exist."

However, to go from that to re-establishment of certainty about the whole wide world would have been even more tough (and he was already having a hard time!) In summary, I think I understand where he's coming from, but one could say that his project (a kind foundationalist epistemology) had been doomed from the very beginning!

> Hope I've made my thinking :) clear.

Yeah, I think that was clear! Forgive me for my verbosity, and thanks for the explanation. I think it makes sense, and fwiw, I agree with the general gist of it.

Re: The logic of Buddhist philosophy

#200

Post by dfc »

wpietri wrote: post #190
dfc wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fortune cookie buddhism from a place that you think has a statue of Buddha out front but it is actually a statue of Budai. Buddhists desire peace. Buddhists desire enlightenment. Desire in itself is not bad and withdrawal is definitely not the reaction to the recognition of impermanence. When you you get a new puppy everything is wonderful and playful and this lasts through puppyhood and changes into the love…

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted here. This is exactly in line with the teachings of Ajahn Chah, a noted Thai Buddhist. In Thoughts Without a Thinker , he is quoted as saying: “You see this goblet? For me, this glass is already broken. I enjoy it; I drink out of it. It holds my water admirably, sometimes even reflecting the sun in beautiful patterns. If I should tap it, it has a lovely ring to it. But when I…

I think a lot of people are not comfortable Buddhism with unless it smells like incense and has an exotic feeling distinguishing it from their everyday lives.
Post reply on HN