🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
*These words are not mine.* These are the words the Ruach HaKodesh (YAHUAH's Set-Apart Spirit) uttered through me when I prayed to YAHUAH; asking him what *he wants* me to say, knowing the truth. Blessed are they who keep YAHUAH's word: "Know that YAHUAH is the name of the Most High and YAHUsha is the name of The Son. Come out of her, my people, who have fallen into her deceit. Who know not my name and say they love me. I have made myself known. I have heard you and I am here. There are many who are yours to be saved. I am he who knows all that you are. Come to me, here are they who are mine. Make haste to come, here are we. Give in to them who speak of me, they are yours. I am here for you. Know that all is for them, here are we. Give not to them that are against me. I am he who sees all you do. Come to me out of her, all are here for me. Do what I say. Out of her, come. All are here." Exodus 3:13-15 KJV 13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. John 5:43 KJV 43 *I am come in my Father's name,* and ye receive me not: *if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.* 2 Corinthians 6:17 KJV 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and *touch not the unclean thing;* *and I will receive you.* Isaiah 52:6-7 KJV 6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I. 7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! 2 Corinthians 6:1-2 KJV 1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. 2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.) Romans 10:1-3 KJV 1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Romans 10:13-17 KJV 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 *How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?* 15 *And how shall they preach, except they be sent?* as it is written, *How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!* 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. *For Esaias saith,* Lord, *who hath believed our report?* 17 *So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.* Nahum 1:7 KJV 7 The Lord is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and *he knoweth them that trust in him.* Hebrews 3:15 KJV 15 *While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.* Isaiah 52:11 KJV 11 *Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing;* go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord. John 14:15 KJV 15 *If ye love me, keep my commandments.*
Thoroughly enjoyable video, thank you Doug. Takes me back to these enjoyable, all-night conversations and contemplations about these messy philosophical questions. I love these lectures because it's like getting to be back at that time in my life but approached from this Buddhist perspective. Thank you so much Doug.
Doug, I have, I'm 73 years old, experiential along with a deep passion for the spiritual path. I am profoundly impressed with your insightful look and presentation into this subject!😮😮❤❤🎉❤😊
Amazing and much appreciated video, Doug! Thanks a lot! ❤ I highly recommend Thomas Metzinger's works, especially _Being No One_ and _The Ego Tunnel._ Very thorough stuff with a lot of empirical studies and cases/examples. 🐱🙏
@@chriskaplan6109 I also recommend the paper _Empirical perspectives from the selfmodel theory of subjectivity: A brief summary with examples._ You'll find it online for free... 🐱🙏
A process of accumulation, a process of disintegration, a thought an idea a mental formation, due to a condition. Dukkha, anicca, anatta. Sabbe dhamma anatta. Thanks Doug. This conditioned existence, is certainly a sublime mystery
Great presentation, the visual aids are always helpful. Not being inclined to philosophy, (some of the questions I find hilarious) my take on the subject is simple minded and practical. I see the problem of the self precisely in its propensity towards confusion and unease. Picking and choosing the elements of mental constructs to be accepted as Me is exhausting. The upside of training is the ability to remain in equanimity and detachment from this whirlwind. Each moment creates a new utilitarian self. Finding out made me a lifelong practitioner.
The self is vague notion, because thoughts are like farts, they come up in a seemingly random, hard to control patterns in their natural state. By developing a new narrative, rebirth happens, by neuroplasticity the self is ever-dying like the other cells in the body, each day we die a little, each day we are born a little, like how when you step in the same stream, it's never the same water. Since the self is not very solid, even look at the Buddha's life and how much he changed, he was always shifting forms, only through preaching wisdom and doing good deeds can we make something that is lasting.
There were some episodes of Star Trek NG that dealt with a transporter accident that created two Commander Rikers. One returned to the Enterprise and the other was stranded at an outpost on Nervala IV. At the time of the accident both Rikers were identical but by the time the accident was discovered eight years later when the Enterprise returned to Nervala IV to retrieve some scientific research materials, their personalities had diverged considerably.
Interestingly, I feel that the points you raise negates the Buddhist idea of rebirth. From your discussion, I'm more inclined to consider mind/consciousness as an emergent property. If mind/consciousness is something that arises when the brain becomes sufficiently complex, then mind/consciousness will cease when the brain no longer functions. I have wrestled with the idea of rebirth for many years, and while a belief, or lack of, doesn't impinge upon the doctrine of no-self, it does raise some very important questions. It calls into question the Tulku system. Regardless, our focus should be on this life and how it can be used to benefit others. Thank you for your insightful talk. I will check out your video on 'Personal Continuity'.
Excellent! I remember a documentary on Vicky (or someone similar) showing her having difficulty choosing a dress from her wardrobe. Even with normal brains, it seems that parts of them perceive and act independently e.g. when we are surprised by something in a dream.
Came to the comments to mention Tom Riker! A cursory web search doesn't reveal whether the writers were influenced by Parfit for that episode, but it was produced almost a decade after his book, so it's possible.
Doug I really appreciate discussing vagueness of things including self. Though you have discussed this before, it is always good to remind that Buddha never accepted or rejected “a self”. I normally appreciate the list of relevant suttas that come with your videos. But I don’t see any this time.
Right, this video is more about recent discoveries and issues than about the ancient texts. I have a large number of videos about the ancient texts that talk about nonself in a Buddhist context, I have a long playlist on self and nonself for example.
Thanks for posting, it's a perplexing and paradoxical matter for many. I think part of the problem of understanding is that language is not precise (or cannot be used precisely in everyday usage) and unfortunately that carries over to the academic, at least to some degree. I think we create and reinforce for ourselves and society deeply rooted assumptions about reality. 1. The chariot existed before it was built of physical matter. The builder already defined it. The question doesn't exist without the definition. 2. Viki can't have a second self if there is no self. Science cant say she has a second consciousness if it doesn't know how to define it in the first place. 3. The brain is one of many different parts, with subdivisions that have different functions. Essentially, recieving and transmitting signals. My radio makes music until the circuit board goes bad then i think the music has died? 😂
Very thought provoking. Indeed suppose if a soul exists, then when a person dies at age 90, does the soul stay at age 90 too? Everything seems non-dual, and therefore are vague by nature
At the end of life, I want to be able to take as many of my memories and values as possible, and put them into a chatbot tasked with becoming a true AI. I claim this can be a way to eventually metamorphose ones consciousness out of the body.
Thank you very much for this excellent video! However, there is something I don't understand. Given that the two hemispheres of Vicky's brain are no longer linked, is it then as if there are two independently functioning brains in Vicky's head? And if so, are there 2 minds in the same head? In other words, I'm wondering if the fact that the brain is separated into two, means that in Vicky's head there are two consciousnesses/minds having a separate (phenomenological) experience (in the same way that you and I have two different brains and therefore two different consciousnesses/minds, with two different experiences). Thanks in advance, I'm extremely interested in this question.
Yes that’s what seems to be the case: two separate consciousnesses with separate phenomenological experiences, each one associated with a different hemisphere.
"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' "Feeling is not self... "Perception is not self... "[Mental] fabrications are not self... "Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' "What do you think, monks - Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "...Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "...Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "...Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "What do you think, monks - Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Any feeling whatsoever... "Any perception whatsoever... "Any fabrications whatsoever... "Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the group of five monks, through not clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentation/effluents. SN 22.59
@@DougsDharma Personally I find it helpful to keep away from the "thicket of views", in this case thicket of concepts... there's too many in the Buddhism tent already, no need to add more... But to each his own.
There’s a difference that I can think, from what I heard, between “Science” and “Buddhism”. A person is 5 skandhas. Science seems to think that brain = mind. But in Buddhism (at least from whom I’ve learned) brain is not equal to mind (citta) but brain falls under “Rupa”.
Hence the doctrine of non-self. Non-self is not only a moral teaching but also a literal truth. How can both rebirth and non-self be true at the same time? If rebirth is true then there must be a soul to connect the past life to the present. If the self is an illusion, then there is nothing to say about rebirth! It is because of the fact that we are conceptualizing the self as something that is 'real' that caused all these contradictions. Allow me to use an analogy from physics. The self is something like energy. Like consciousness, energy is also something that is transferred from one medium to another. For example if we lift an object from a table to mid air, there is work done; chemical energy is being used by our hand to lift the object and the object gains gravitational potential energy. Energy is being transferred from our hand to the object. But is energy really being transferred to the object? Do we see energy 'particles' traveling from our hand to the object? In a abstract sense yes; we do write our equations this way, but in an absolute sense no. We can't really see the process of chemical energy becoming gravitational potential energy can we? All that we know is that conservation of energy applies, so energy does not vanish into thin air. Similarly, it should not be difficult to conceive the notion of non-self as plausible despite being contradictory. Thus there is no "at what point does a being becomes conscious", it is a non question. On a side note, there are really 3 kinds of consciousness. One is the consciousness associated with the physical mind/body, second being the subconsciousness associated with the physical mind/body, and lastly YOU. The consciousness and subconsciousness can be observed from the 'outside'; from a third person's perspective, we recognize that humans have a brain and mental activities are happening in the brain, no doubt about that. But through the brain surgery example that Doug presented, when such a drastic procedure had been done on a person, we know that a significant change would have been occurred to the brain. The brain and hence the consciousness after the surgery is different from the one before the surgery. However, the person would recognize himself as the same self. The self, 'YOU' are consistent, localized, persistent and perpetuates.
Thank you for this video. I watch each one. I can't keep freeloading, I will have a look at your Patreon :-). I find secular Buddhism very appealing. I am not sure I follow this problem of vagueness completely. To me it seems like a simple matter of being specific enough. A chariot begins when the pile of wood can be used as a chariot. A chair begins when you can use it as a chair. Even regarding birth and the question of when does a person begin it seems that we need to define what is understood as a person. A person begins, for me, when a baby is born (which doesn't mean you shouldn't take care of an unborn). Conservative religious people would consider every fertilized egg a person. The problem of Star Trek with two identical people is not really a problem, I think, it is only weird. The original person is destroyed every time the beaming machine is used. And every copy of that person is identical at the moment of the copy and from than on starts to be their own slightly different, but mostly the same person.
Yes, the problem is that "when you can use it" is also a vague matter. It depends on an infinite number of things; a pile of wood can be used as a chariot in some instances and not others. Of course, one can always stipulate some time or condition, but the problem is such stipulations will always be ad hoc and therefore unsatisfying. They don't really capture the nuances.
"A chariot begins when the pile of wood can be used as a chariot" A chariot begins when an eye sense organ sees that pile of wood and mental activity recognizes it as "chariot" in consciousness. Obviously, the being encountering this"pile of wood" needs to have "the chariot" in its previous experience, if not, the pile can remain just an unrecognizable pile, or a pile of firewood, etc... Or if the being is a chicken we may be witnessing the beginning of a "chicken coop" :) Edit: Beginning of a person Some (Inuit) cultures (used to) hold the view that a person begins when it is named. It was a pragmatic approach, let's wait and see if the baby can 100% survive, that it is 100% healthy and capable, otherwise when it grows up it will not be able to pull its weight and will become a burden on the family, jeopardizing the survival of all... But in Buddhism, the person is acquired one turn of dependent origination at a time. A baby likes its mother's milk, so it clings to the milk and to the mother as me, mine. It hates being wet and hungry so it develops aversion to the wetness/cold and hunger. And so on it goes: it acquires things it likes and aversion towards the things it dislikes all through its life. All things that make a person are not that person, they are all acquired through ignorance, clinging, and craving. There is not one thing that we consider me, mine, that is actually me or mine. If we imagine each of these acquisitions as a dot, imagine how many different ways of connecting these dots there are? Each of these connections, when they happen and they do happen, is one person - one You. They keep popping up and disappearing all the time, driven by the actions you do - driven by your kamma...
Some Buddhists believe plants are sentient… they tend to associate the sense of touch to plants, and touch-consciousness. This does not lead to the complexity of more conscious beings, of beings with more senses having to 'integrate' the perceptions of these various senses into a coherent view of the world, but nonetheless plants would be seen as sentient, with rudimentary consciousness. And it would shock many if someone asserted that deaf or blind people were less "sentient beings" than more average humans, just due to a lack of some senses. So it's pretty "vague" how many senses are needed to qualify a being as 'sentient': one sense might well be plenty enough, and then plants might be sentient! There also exist scientific researches around the sentience of plants (cf. e.g. "What a Plant knows" by Daniel Chamovitz, and subsequent research). Some Jains too would consider plants as sentient (without projecting the richness of other forms of consciousness), and debates between Jains and Buddhists often ended with partial agreements…
The sentience quotient concept was introduced by Robert A. Freitas Jr. in the late 1970s. It defines sentience as the relationship between the information processing rate (bit/s) of each individual processing unit (neuron), the weight/size of a single unit and the total number of processing units (expressed as mass). According to this equation, humans have an SQ of +13. A human neuron has an average mass of about 10−10 kg and one neuron can process 1000-3000 bit/s[citation needed], giving us an SQ rating of +13. All other animals with a nervous system (or all "neuronal sentience") from insects to mammals, cluster within several points of the human value. Plants cluster around an SQ of −2. Carnivorous plants have an SQ of +1, while the Cray-1 had an SQ of +9. IBM Watson (computer), which achieves 80 TFLOPS has an SQ in the range of +11-+12. According to Freitas, an alien civilization having their consciousness running on non-biological hardware (such as quantum-mechanical circuits) could have an SQ of 23+, 10 orders of magnitude more than the human SQ.
@@Giantcrabz some people (not necessarily you) use the mention of "stimulus-response pattern" in order to reject the mention of "thinking"… even though the same people would usually also endorse a physicalism and thus suggest that human consciousness is merely a by-product of brain activity (and therefore also a "stimulus-response pattern", albeit a more complex pattern… and once 'everything' is "stimulus-response pattern" then such a description loses much of its explanatory power). I guess a critical point is about how much adaptative / adapted a "response" might be, thus showing signs of "learning" (i.e. somehow storing info about consequences of past responses). But a computer can easily do this, and few people would conclude that it's sentient. Usually there's also a question of goal-oriented behaviour (e.g. about food, territory, mating…), but the goal might be imposed by the environment, and/or instinctive, so it is inconclusive in and of itself. This is (once again) hot topic, given the recent developments in AI. We do not know how to define consciousness in a scientific manner ; some correlates seem clear enough for humans but that's about as far as our understanding goes. We do not know how to "measure" consciousness, nor to distinguish it from complex unconscious stimulus-response patterns. The theories of consciousness are still at odds, and not all of them are defined clearly enough to be falsifiable / testable. We do not know how to assess if an AI has become 'sentient', or 'intelligent', or 'creative'… Humanity has been so strongly convinced for so long of its superiority over the animal kingdom (let alone the vegetal) that it's very late in developing any useful theory w.r.t. other forms of sentience, intelligence, etc. Back to plants, hormones might certainly be a way, but since people seem OK with a material ground (the brain) for human consciousness, I don't see why other physical arrangements would automatically be ruled out. If one accepts electrical and chemical impulses as the basis for consciousness, when associated with a specific network, one doesn't "need" neurons (neurons just happen to be very efficient as processing units, but not necessarily the only unit possible). If a plant can store a memory by the physical shape it takes while growing, for example, how fundamentally is this different from a human storing a memory by the shape of synaptic connections created while growing (both shapes are 'just' physical structures)? If biases in temperament from one human to the next might be tied to epigenetics, or to their gut flora, or the impact of drugs (mushrooms or others), how would this fundamentally prove distinct from plants? The obsession with neurons makes sense as a starting point in the journey to understand the mind, by proximity with us, but asserting that 'only' neurons could ever provide the ground for a mind would appear pretty 'rushed', to say the least, given our current unknowns in this domain.
I kind of suspect that plants are sentient, but in a way that we just can't relate to very well. They respond to their environment, protect themselves, and even communicate with each other. I suppose it depends on how we define "sentient". A tree might be aware of itself. Or perhaps it might be aware of its nonself, its nonseparate, nonpermanent nature. Hmmm.... Interesting things to ponder!
Without a central nervous system, it's difficult to say how a plant could be sentient. Certainly they are complex organisms that respond to their environments.
This is what sometimes confuses me about buddhism? Does it deny an ego self or soul? Because if it denies an ego self then how is that not different from other religions as hinduism and even christianity would agree that the ego is an illusion.
Buddha (in any Sutta) denied or accepted ‘a self’. What he said was sabba dhamma anatta. The dhamma is the counter part of Mano Ayathana. Just like eye and sight or ear and hearing. These always appear together and disappear together. If soul or self true for you then it is a dhamma. It is true as long as this dhamma and Mano is coupled. Similarly if soul or self is an illusion for you, then it is a dhamma. It is true for you as long as this dhamma is present with your Mano Ayathana. Is the wall you see in front of you is there if your eye is not coupled with it? You will say, “of course, it will be there” just because you have seen it so many times. But if you think seriously you will realize there is no guarantee. Similarly your dhamma about soul or self is impermanence; hence, dukkha. Whether soul is real or not is not important.
I have done extensive playing with the new AI thingies. They are not as smart as many think, they frequently give false information, and are particularly fond of telling you what they think you want to hear. Which is awful if what you really want is truth.
@@DougsDharma My favorite ones were the one's that would go beyond spewing wikipedia summaries. I received some profound interpretations by asking them to give me their take on certain parables and proverbs from various spiritual traditions.
Sentience begins with contact (phassa). Chariot does too, and so does "Vicky". If the contact is ignorant (avidya), then this is also where "Self" begins. 3 of the 12 links of dependent origination are Afflictions (kilesa) 2 links are kamma Remaining 7 are all dukkha, starting with the arising ("birth" - jati). From which I deduce that dukkha is, actually, this mysterious "Self". When there is a self, there is dukkha: when there isn't a self, there isn't dukkha. So where/when does this Self end? It ends with the next contact. Which is where the next Self starts. -- Each of these momentary flashes of Self are like spinning a torch; cycle after cycle, and there appears the circle of light - that is exactly how our Self persists in the mind, like an imaginary trail, an echo, left behind by the spinning of Dependent Origination. -- Now, my problem with Doug's video is that it approaches the issue as an eternalist would approach it: Phenomena mentioned in here like self, sentience, Vicky, chariot.. seem to have a true, although vague existence, and the issue is to find their beginnings and ends. Well, they both begin and they end instantaneously, never gaining any real existence at all. ---- TL'DR: Although interesting, this video is not based in dhamma; it is based in a philosophy other than Buddha's dhamma.
Please read the following Sutta. “Sir, they speak of this thing called a ‘sentient being’. How do we define a sentient being or what is known as a sentient being?” “Samiddhi, where there is the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and phenomena to be known by eye consciousness, there is sentient being or what is known as sentient being. Where there is the ear, sounds, ear consciousness, and phenomena to be known by ear consciousness, there is sentient being or what is known as sentient being. Where there is the nose, smells, nose consciousness, and phenomena to be known by nose consciousness, there is sentient being or what is known as sentient being. Where there is the tongue, tastes, tongue consciousness, and phenomena to be known by tongue consciousness, there is sentient being or what is known as sentient being. Where there is the body, touches, body consciousness, and phenomena to be known by body consciousness, there is sentient being or what is known as sentient being. Where there is the mind, thoughts, mind consciousness, and phenomena to be known by mind consciousness, there is sentient being or what is known as sentient being. Where there is no eye, no sights, no eye consciousness, and no phenomena to be known by eye consciousness, there is no sentient being or what is known as sentient being. Where there is no ear … no nose … no tongue … no body … Where there is no mind, no thoughts, no mind consciousness, and no phenomena to be known by mind consciousness, there is no sentient being or what is known as sentient being.” SN 35.66 Sutta How do we define dukkha? It is given in the next Sutta (SN 35.67). Importantly if you just substitute the word sentient being with dukkha then these two suttas are exactly the same wording. Not sure that these suttas agree with what you wrote.
@@marka2188 : "Not sure that these suttas agree with what you wrote." They agree 100%. Edit: “Samiddhi, where there is the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and phenomena to be known by eye consciousness, there is sentient being or what is known as sentient being." A sense organ, any one of the six, plus a sense object, is Contact: Add the resultant Sense Consciousness and that's Sentience. Right there and then. And a contact is being made all the time... therefore Sentience arises & cease all the time.
@@marka2188 I am sorry if I was not clear enough... When we talk about person/self/sentient beings, it is always about Dependent Origination and its 12 links; Whatever happens is through this "mechanism". When we talk about things other than sentient beings, then Idappaccayata is the only universal law of nature needed to understand these processes...
you can watch an actual educated debate moderated by chalmers called "Do Split-Brain Patients Have Two Minds?" instead of spouting physicalism propaganda. also the buddha did not accept the existence of a self/atman. he only accepted anatman, dependently arisen persons. STOP equating persons with a self.
