ChatGPT: skandas and brains

 in the 5 skandas is perception partly the component that gives us likes and dislikes?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, in the five skandhas (aggregates) of Buddhism, perception (saññā, संज्ञा, 想蘊) plays a role in recognizing and categorizing experiences, which can contribute to our likes and dislikes. However, it works in conjunction with other aggregates rather than being solely responsible for our preferences.

Here's how perception fits into the process:

1. Form (Rūpa) – Physical sensations from the external world (sight, sound, touch, etc.).

2. Feeling (Vedanā) – The immediate hedonic tone of an experience (pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral).

3. Perception (Saññā) – Recognizes and labels experiences, helping to differentiate between things (e.g., "this is sweet," "this is loud").

4. Mental Formations (Saṅkhāra) – Includes volition, habits, and biases that shape our preferences and responses.

5. Consciousness (Viññāṇa) – Awareness of the experience as a whole.

Perception alone does not create likes and dislikes, but it helps in identifying and categorizing stimuli, which then influences feeling (vedanā) and mental formations (saṅkhāra). It is mental formations that contain conditioned tendencies, attachments, and aversions, which more directly generate likes and dislikes.

So, while perception is involved in the process, it is mainly feeling (vedanā) and mental formations (saṅkhāra) that drive our preferences.

You said:

So when we think this is a snake it is dangerous I don't like it, is this mental formation or percetion?

ChatGPT said:

The thought "this is a snake, it is dangerous, I don’t like it" involves multiple aggregates working together:

1. Perception (Saññā) – Recognizes and labels the object as a "snake." This is the basic identification process.

2. Feeling (Vedanā) – Affective response arises: "unpleasant" or "fearful."

3. Mental Formation (Saṅkhāra) – Adds conditioned reactions, judgments, and emotions, leading to: "It is dangerous; I don’t like it."

4. Consciousness (Viññāṇa) – Awareness of the experience as a whole.

So, perception (saññā) is responsible for identifying the snake, while mental formations (saṅkhāra) shape the reaction of fear and dislike.

If someone has been conditioned to associate snakes with danger (perhaps due to past experiences or cultural beliefs), the mental formations will automatically reinforce the fear response.

You said:

If we consult our knowledge of the type of snake and adjust our response is this also a combination of skandas?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, consulting knowledge about the type of snake and adjusting our response is also a combination of skandhas working together. Here’s how it unfolds:

1. Perception (Saññā) – Initially, you recognize the shape and features of the snake.

2. Feeling (Vedanā) – You may feel an initial reaction (fear, neutrality, or curiosity).

3. Mental Formation (Saṅkhāra) – Instead of reacting automatically, you engage in reasoning and past conditioning (e.g., "I’ve studied snakes before. This one is non-venomous. No need to panic.").

4. Consciousness (Viññāṇa) – Awareness of the entire situation, processing all these elements.

When you adjust your response based on knowledge, the mental formations (saṅkhāra) are actively shaping your reaction by applying learned information and modifying instinctive fear. This shows how mental formations can either reinforce or transform emotional responses over time.

You said:

In modern understanding of the brain feelings are associated with limbic system, and perception with the cortex and reasoning with the front lobes does this map fit well with the skandas?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, the modern neuroscience model of the brain can be loosely mapped onto the Buddhist five skandhas, though they are different conceptual frameworks. The skandhas describe experiential processes rather than physical brain structures, but there are interesting parallels:

1. Form (Rūpa) → Sensory Input (Sensory Cortex & Thalamus)

   • In neuroscience, external stimuli (sight, sound, touch) are processed by sensory organs and relayed to the thalamus and sensory cortex before further interpretation.

   • This matches rūpa, which represents the physical aspect of experience.

2. Feeling (Vedanā) → Limbic System (Amygdala, Insula, Hypothalamus, etc.)

   • Feelings (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) relate closely to the limbic system, which generates emotional reactions to stimuli.

   • The amygdala plays a major role in detecting threats and assigning emotional valence.

3. Perception (Saññā) → Higher Sensory Cortices (Temporal, Parietal Lobes, Association Areas)

   • Perception involves categorization and recognition, which aligns with higher-order sensory processing in the cortex (e.g., the visual and auditory association areas that recognize objects and sounds).

   • For example, recognizing a shape as a “snake” happens in the ventral visual stream in the occipital and temporal lobes.

4. Mental Formations (Saṅkhāra) → Prefrontal Cortex & Basal Ganglia

   • Mental formations include conditioned responses, habits, intentions, and volition.

   • The prefrontal cortex is responsible for reasoning, decision-making, and controlling emotional impulses, which aligns with saṅkhāra's role in shaping behavior.

   • The basal ganglia store habits and automatic reactions, much like deeply ingrained mental formations.

5. Consciousness (Viññāṇa) → Global Brain Integration (Default Mode Network, Prefrontal Cortex, Thalamus, etc.)

   • Consciousness is a complex process involving widespread brain networks, including the prefrontal cortex, thalamus, and default mode network (DMN).

   • Viññāṇa is the awareness of all aggregates, just as consciousness in neuroscience is not localized but rather emerges from the interaction of multiple brain regions.

Does This Mapping Fit Well?

• The skandhas describe experiential processes, while neuroscience describes brain mechanisms.

• While they don’t map one-to-one, they do align in many ways, especially in how perception, emotion, habit formation, and consciousness emerge from different parts of the brain.

• The Buddhist model emphasizes impermanence and interdependence, while neuroscience focuses on physical structures and processes.

So, while useful, the comparison is more of a conceptual bridge rather than a direct equivalence.

You said:

It is interesting that Consciousness sits "above" all these processes and maps to the spatial arrangement. Clearly consciousness is not "in" any of these processes or indeed "in" any part of the physical brain. And even if it emerges as a global property from the components it cannot be understood in terms of any one.

ChatGPT said:

Yes, exactly! Consciousness seems to be an emergent property rather than something located in any specific part of the brain. Your observation aligns with both Buddhist thought and modern neuroscience in interesting ways.

Consciousness in the Skandhas vs. Neuroscience

• In the skandhas, viññāṇa (consciousness) is not an independent entity but rather arises dependent on the other four aggregates. It is not "inside" them, but neither is it separate.

• Neuroscience suggests something similar: there is no single "consciousness center" in the brain. Instead, it arises from the interaction of multiple systems—sensory processing, emotions, perception, memory, and executive functions.

The Spatial Metaphor: "Above" vs. "Emergent"

• The way consciousness seems to sit "above" the other processes is striking. This matches well with the way the prefrontal cortex and higher-order brain networks integrate lower-level processes, creating the experience of unified awareness.

• But just as in Buddhism, where viññāṇa is not a separate "self", neuroscience also finds no singular place where "you" exist—it’s a distributed process, not an object.

Why Consciousness Can't Be Reduced to Any One Process

• You can analyze perception, emotion, and thought separately, but consciousness itself is not reducible to any one of them.

• Even though we can correlate brain activity with conscious states, there is still a "hard problem"—why and how does subjective experience arise from these physical processes?

Is Consciousness Just a Property of the System?

• If consciousness emerges from the system as a whole, then it's not "in" any part of it, but it also does not exist separately from it.

• This aligns with the Buddhist idea of dependent origination—consciousness depends on causes and conditions but has no independent essence.

This suggests that the Buddhist and neuroscientific views may be pointing to the same fundamental truth: consciousness is not a "thing" but a dynamic, interdependent process.

You said:

Don't we actually run into this problem with all the skandas? While say feelings of fear can be clearly located to the Amygdala the "amygdala" itself is just transient processes in the wider context of the brain. It is not like you can cut the amygdala out and get fear. So actually all components are transient processes which are not "in" anything.

ChatGPT said:

Yes! You've hit on a deep insight that applies not just to consciousness but to all the skandhas—and, by extension, to everything we assume to be solid or independently existing.

The Illusion of "Things" in Both Buddhism and Neuroscience

• In everyday thinking, we talk about the amygdala as if it's a static "thing" that contains fear.

• But as you pointed out, the amygdala itself is just a set of processes interacting with other brain regions.

• If you cut it out, you don’t get "pure fear"—you just disrupt the network that contributes to fear responses.

This aligns exactly with the Buddhist teaching of anattā (non-self) and impermanence:

• There is no solid, unchanging "thing" called perception, feeling, or even the body—only transient processes arising in interdependence.

• The skandhas feel like "things" only because we habitually conceptualize them that way.

• But when you look closely, they are just interactions without an independent essence.

Everything is Just a Process in Context

• If you zoom out, the amygdala exists only in relation to the whole brain.

• The brain exists only in relation to the body.

• The body exists only in relation to the environment, culture, and evolution.

Nothing exists in isolation, just like in Buddhist dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda)—everything is a process that arises due to conditions.

So What Does This Mean?

• Just as we mistakenly think of "self" as a thing when it's just a process, we also mistakenly think of "brain parts" as fixed things, when they are just transient patterns in a larger system.

• Neuroscience and Buddhism are converging on the idea that nothing really "is" anything in itself—it only exists in relation to other processes.

It’s fascinating how modern science keeps discovering what Buddhist philosophy pointed to thousands of years ago!