HelloAlexCLThu, Jan 14, 2010 wow my comment was really vague...
Pre-conditioning (or conditioning in general) constitutes Buddhist causality, known as the chain of "dependent arising." The formula of dependent arising in its most succinct form is "this existing, that exists; this arising, that arises; this not existing, that does not exist, this ceasing, that ceases." Dependent arising conceives of causality as the conditioning of one moment on the next - an organic kind of structure, like the one that creates those beautiful Mandelbrot sets (in 3D!). In some of the most ancient Buddhist texts, it is said that he who sees dependent arising (the pattern of conditioning) sees Dharma itself. In traditional Buddhism, dependent arising is applied to the idea of self, revealing that "I" do not subsist as an entity that remains constant but as a chain/cluster of physical and mental events that are causally linked.
In accordance with this conception of causality, karma or "action" is considered a mental act or intention. The distinction between intention and action is thus deconstructed as they are subsumed under karma. Here is a really great explanation of dependent nature (a different term from dependent arising, but it might be fruitful to conflate the two momentarily) that I hope will bring this stuff together:
"The dependent nature is the causal flow of consciousness itself: it is the sequence of one moment of consciousness produced by it own previous moment and going on to produce its own subsequent moment. This ongoing stream of consciousness can appear in two different modes. For ordinary persons, it appears with a dizzying variety of sensory and mental objects, and each mental moment except for the deepest sleep is replete with such an object. Asanga's and Vasubandhu's analysis of mental and sensory objects, however, demonstrates that none of these objects is ultimately real. Nevertheless - and this is the key ontological claim - the conclusion that the objects are ultimately unreal does not adequately account for the fact that those objects are appaering. Instead, one must see that denying the ultimate, independent reality of those objects is the same as affirming their conventional, dpendent existence within the mind itself. To put it another way, when one sees the color blue, the apparent existence of the blue object as an external, independent object is false. But the fact that it is appearing to consciousness is undeniable, and since the Yogacara analysis shows that it could not be external and independent of the mind, it must be within the mind itself. Seeing that flow of mind in that way - namely, as devoid of the apparent subject-object duality - is to see the perfect nature. Thus all objects and all subjects are not distinct, but this is not to deny their reality altogether. Rather, the denial of subject-object duality still leaves intact the causal flow of mind in which all those apparently dualistic experiences are occurring." (subject-object duality is referred to as the "constructed nature" (making three natures in total)).
Being the causal flow of consciousness itself, the dependent nature should be placed ahead of the other two (constructed and perfect). These other two are just two different modes of the dependent nature. It should then be clear that this notion of causality is a central tenet of Buddhism. What all this suggests is that (pre-)conditioning is not some kind of aberration or deception that can be fully accounted for as psychosomatic, but is rather the underlying nature of consciousness itself. I think this is why it relates to "everyday experience." (I take consciousness and experience to be synonymous).
If they didn't use adrenaline in the experiment, only placebo, and it proved effective in sedating the subjects, then the placebo might even be considered a more effective medicine. It could produce the same result (mental image) whilst (initially) bypassing the physiological.
It's too bad the study was only single-blind (the experimenter was to privy to when he was administering the placebo). This accounts for the ineffectiveness of the placebo to do much of anything at all. It would be truly odd if the administration of the placebo yielded the same results in a double-blind study.
wow my comment was really vague...
Pre-conditioning (or conditioning in general) constitutes Buddhist causality, known as the chain of "dependent arising." The formula of dependent arising in its most succinct form is "this existing, that exists; this arising, that arises; this not existing, that does not exist, this ceasing, that ceases." Dependent arising conceives of causality as the conditioning of one moment on the next - an organic kind of structure, like the one that creates those beautiful Mandelbrot sets (in 3D!). In some of the most ancient Buddhist texts, it is said that he who sees dependent arising (the pattern of conditioning) sees Dharma itself. In traditional Buddhism, dependent arising is applied to the idea of self, revealing that "I" do not subsist as an entity that remains constant but as a chain/cluster of physical and mental events that are causally linked.
In accordance with this conception of causality, karma or "action" is considered a mental act or intention. The distinction between intention and action is thus deconstructed as they are subsumed under karma. Here is a really great explanation of dependent nature (a different term from dependent arising, but it might be fruitful to conflate the two momentarily) that I hope will bring this stuff together:
"The dependent nature is the causal flow of consciousness itself: it is the sequence of one moment of consciousness produced by it own previous moment and going on to produce its own subsequent moment. This ongoing stream of consciousness can appear in two different modes. For ordinary persons, it appears with a dizzying variety of sensory and mental objects, and each mental moment except for the deepest sleep is replete with such an object. Asanga's and Vasubandhu's analysis of mental and sensory objects, however, demonstrates that none of these objects is ultimately real. Nevertheless - and this is the key ontological claim - the conclusion that the objects are ultimately unreal does not adequately account for the fact that those objects are appaering. Instead, one must see that denying the ultimate, independent reality of those objects is the same as affirming their conventional, dpendent existence within the mind itself. To put it another way, when one sees the color blue, the apparent existence of the blue object as an external, independent object is false. But the fact that it is appearing to consciousness is undeniable, and since the Yogacara analysis shows that it could not be external and independent of the mind, it must be within the mind itself. Seeing that flow of mind in that way - namely, as devoid of the apparent subject-object duality - is to see the perfect nature. Thus all objects and all subjects are not distinct, but this is not to deny their reality altogether. Rather, the denial of subject-object duality still leaves intact the causal flow of mind in which all those apparently dualistic experiences are occurring." (subject-object duality is referred to as the "constructed nature" (making three natures in total)).
Being the causal flow of consciousness itself, the dependent nature should be placed ahead of the other two (constructed and perfect). These other two are just two different modes of the dependent nature. It should then be clear that this notion of causality is a central tenet of Buddhism. What all this suggests is that (pre-)conditioning is not some kind of aberration or deception that can be fully accounted for as psychosomatic, but is rather the underlying nature of consciousness itself. I think this is why it relates to "everyday experience." (I take consciousness and experience to be synonymous).
If they didn't use adrenaline in the experiment, only placebo, and it proved effective in sedating the subjects, then the placebo might even be considered a more effective medicine. It could produce the same result (mental image) whilst (initially) bypassing the physiological.
It's too bad the study was only single-blind (the experimenter was to privy to when he was administering the placebo). This accounts for the ineffectiveness of the placebo to do much of anything at all. It would be truly odd if the administration of the placebo yielded the same results in a double-blind study.