[Buddha-l] buddhism and brain studies

[Alberto Todeschini]

Richard Hayes wrote:

> Well, there are questions that are best to philosophers. Unanswerable
> and meaningless questions, for example. Questions that are well formed
> and answerable by data collection are best left to data collectors.
> Where confusion arises is when questions are so poorly formulated that
> data are meaningless. Questions about happiness fall into that category.

As for the last sentence: sure, that's your opinion. I happen to disagree.

> The book you mention on Satisfaction sounds like an excellent example of
> presenting meaningless data.

Actually, no, not really. Perhaps if you were to read it you would 
discard it as that. To others such as its author or myself the data is 
not only meaningful but also useful. Of course, you can argue that we 
are both deluded.

But we aren't really getting anywhere with this discussion.

> Contrary to popular belief, philosophers almost never discuss armchairs.

I kid you not, an acquaintance of mine here at UVA was put off 
philosophy because of a discussion he had about chairs with a philosophy 
professor during a dinner. I wasn't present so I don't know what they 
actually said but it was something to do with skeptical doubts about the 
existence of the chair they used as example.

Best,

Alberto Todeschini