Reality is an Emergence

[tapaticmadness]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaofyuCXZ_0



The above video demo how an empty hollow mask of Einstein when turned slowly popped out as a 3D convex face.
So how does a hollow mask suddenly became 3D.
This appear to be some kind of deception going on, the brain/mind is being deceived to perceive a 3D [convex] when in reality is something concave [hollow].
Actually this is a demo of emergence.
The 3D [convex] emerges upon the existing conditions of the human person up to this phase of human evolution and this deception is effected on all normal human beings.

My proposition is this;
The mechanism of emergence as with the above is the same when a human being perceived a supposedly real 3D apple on the table. The person can pick such an emerged apple and eat it.
This is applicable to all of reality = all-there-is.
Whatever is all-there-is is an emergent reality like how the convex 3D mask emerged from a hollow concave mask relative to the human conception scheme.

I assert the mechanism of emergence in both cases are the same, it is only the property of the things emerged are different.
This is why it is easy to explain the emergence of the mask by investigating the physical mask to see the two sides, i.e. the convex and the concave side of the mask.

As with everything else of reality as an emergence upon human conditions, it is not that easy to explain but it is possible.
For example the reality of all ordinary "solid" objects are actually 99.99% empty space but within ordinary perception they are solid, i.e. which is merely an emergent thing.
From the quarks perspective what is solid [as emerged] is 99.99% space of particles and quarks.

Where we can feel the solidness of a hard piece of ice-cube within normal perception and experience, at another level of reality, that same ice-cube is 99.99% empty space with Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms interacting with each other. At the level of energy, the same ice-cube is merely a bundle of 'soft' energy.

Do you agree,
-reality as all-there-is is an emergent upon the current human conditions just like the emergent of how the emergent 3D concave Einstein mask from a hollow concave mask.

What you have given us is typical of the philosophy of Deconstruction. Why do you think or seem to think that the emergent property is less real than what it emerged from? Or stated differently, why is the physical under-reality more real than what emerges from it? Atoms and quarks are no more real than ice. And isn't emergence itself an emergent act and no more real than anything else?

[Veritas Aequitas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaofyuCXZ_0



The above video demo how an empty hollow mask of Einstein when turned slowly popped out as a 3D convex face.
So how does a hollow mask suddenly became 3D.
This appear to be some kind of deception going on, the brain/mind is being deceived to perceive a 3D [convex] when in reality is something concave [hollow].
Actually this is a demo of emergence.
The 3D [convex] emerges upon the existing conditions of the human person up to this phase of human evolution and this deception is effected on all normal human beings.

My proposition is this;
The mechanism of emergence as with the above is the same when a human being perceived a supposedly real 3D apple on the table. The person can pick such an emerged apple and eat it.
This is applicable to all of reality = all-there-is.
Whatever is all-there-is is an emergent reality like how the convex 3D mask emerged from a hollow concave mask relative to the human conception scheme.

I assert the mechanism of emergence in both cases are the same, it is only the property of the things emerged are different.
This is why it is easy to explain the emergence of the mask by investigating the physical mask to see the two sides, i.e. the convex and the concave side of the mask.

As with everything else of reality as an emergence upon human conditions, it is not that easy to explain but it is possible.
For example the reality of all ordinary "solid" objects are actually 99.99% empty space but within ordinary perception they are solid, i.e. which is merely an emergent thing.
From the quarks perspective what is solid [as emerged] is 99.99% space of particles and quarks.

Where we can feel the solidness of a hard piece of ice-cube within normal perception and experience, at another level of reality, that same ice-cube is 99.99% empty space with Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms interacting with each other. At the level of energy, the same ice-cube is merely a bundle of 'soft' energy.

Do you agree,
-reality as all-there-is is an emergent upon the current human conditions just like the emergent of how the emergent 3D concave Einstein mask from a hollow concave mask.

What you have given us is typical of the philosophy of Deconstruction.
Why do you think or seem to think that the emergent property is less real than what it emerged from?
Or stated differently, why is the physical under-reality more real than what emerges from it?
Atoms and quarks are no more real than ice.
And isn't emergence itself an emergent act and no more real than anything else?

No intention to go into the direction of Deconstruction.

Re the OP was merely trying to give an indication of the first phase of emergence with one example.
It is a good thing you get the point.

On the next phase, yes, the emergence is not less real than what is emerged from.
What the emergence-1 emerged from is emergence-2.
So emergence-2 emerged from emergence-3 and thus infinitely turtle-all-the-way.
There is no "first-emergence."
All of reality emerges from a soup-of-emergence which is also an emergence.

Note Indra's Net:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net

• "Imagine a multidimensional spider's web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image." –Alan Watts

Also the Concept of Maya..

In later Vedic texts and modern literature dedicated to Indian traditions, Māyā connotes a "magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem".[2][4]
Māyā is also a spiritual concept connoting "that which exists, but is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal", and the "power or the principle that conceals the true character of spiritual reality".
-wiki

What I had presented is factual, i.e. meta-fact.
The problem with the majority is they are so conditioned to the normal fact that when the meta-fact is presented, a cognitive dissonance and terrible anxiety is generated that they cannot accept the meta-fact.

[tapaticmadness]

What I had presented is factual, i.e. meta-fact.
The problem with the majority is they are so conditioned to the normal fact that when the meta-fact is presented, a cognitive dissonance and terrible anxiety is generated that they cannot accept the meta-fact.

On the sub-continent, the word "maya" is the most common word in popular music. It can probably be translated as "love". Love is illusory. He loves me; he loves me not.

[tapaticmadness]

Also the Concept of Maya..

In later Vedic texts and modern literature dedicated to Indian traditions, Māyā connotes a "magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem".[2][4]
Māyā is also a spiritual concept connoting "that which exists, but is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal", and the "power or the principle that conceals the true character of spiritual reality".
-wiki

One of my favorite Buddhist philosophers is Nagarjuna. He was an absolute nihilist He asserted that nothing, absolutely nothing, exists. One of his spiritual rivals were the mind-only school. They said that everything is just an image in the mind, an illusion. He shot back - NO! ILLUSIONS DON'T EXIST! THERE IS NO MIND. NOTHING EXISTS. PERIOD.

Not too far from me here in Nagarjun district of Kathmandu, there are Nagarjun Beauty Parlor and Nagarjun Motorcycle Repair. I love it. It's worthy of Andy Warhol. Buddhism is pop art and its monks are dandies of the street. Nothing, nothing at all. https://www.dropbox.com/s/j7wkfcvc382r1 ... o.pdf?dl=0

[Veritas Aequitas]

Also the Concept of Maya..

In later Vedic texts and modern literature dedicated to Indian traditions, Māyā connotes a "magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem".[2][4]
Māyā is also a spiritual concept connoting "that which exists, but is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal", and the "power or the principle that conceals the true character of spiritual reality".
-wiki

One of my favorite Buddhist philosophers is Nagarjuna. He was an absolute nihilist He asserted that nothing, absolutely nothing, exists. One of his spiritual rivals were the mind-only school. They said that everything is just an image in the mind, an illusion. He shot back - NO! ILLUSIONS DON'T EXIST! THERE IS NO MIND. NOTHING EXISTS. PERIOD.

Not too far from me here in Nagarjun district of Kathmandu, there are Nagarjun Beauty Parlor and Nagarjun Motorcycle Repair. I love it. It's worthy of Andy Warhol. Buddhism is pop art and its monks are dandies of the street. Nothing, nothing at all. https://www.dropbox.com/s/j7wkfcvc382r1 ... o.pdf?dl=0

Nagarjuna [Madhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism] is also one of my favorite Buddhist philosopher.

The term 'nihilist' is rather derogatory when used within Philosophy.

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; ) is the point of view, or philosophy, antithetical to the viewpoint that life or aspects of life are intrinsically meaningful or valuable.
-wiki

Nihilist -a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.
-Google Dictionary

Etymologically, Nihil = nothing.
In Buddhist philosophy, I don't agree the philosophy of 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' i.e. Sunyata need to be associate with nihilism.
However the concepts of 'sunyata' or 'dependent origination' [Pratītyasamutpāda ] should always be presented in its proper context to avoid it being veered into rhetorics.

The problem with the mind-only school [yogachara] is they are entangled in the ultimate drive of meta-attachment. This is purely psychological and they are not able to let go of this last bastion of psychological attachment to some-thing.

[tapaticmadness]

Also the Concept of Maya..

One of my favorite Buddhist philosophers is Nagarjuna. He was an absolute nihilist He asserted that nothing, absolutely nothing, exists. One of his spiritual rivals were the mind-only school. They said that everything is just an image in the mind, an illusion. He shot back - NO! ILLUSIONS DON'T EXIST! THERE IS NO MIND. NOTHING EXISTS. PERIOD.

Not too far from me here in Nagarjun district of Kathmandu, there are Nagarjun Beauty Parlor and Nagarjun Motorcycle Repair. I love it. It's worthy of Andy Warhol. Buddhism is pop art and its monks are dandies of the street. Nothing, nothing at all. https://www.dropbox.com/s/j7wkfcvc382r1 ... o.pdf?dl=0

Nagarjuna [Madhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism] is also one of my favorite Buddhist philosopher.

The term 'nihilist' is rather derogatory when used within Philosophy.

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; ) is the point of view, or philosophy, antithetical to the viewpoint that life or aspects of life are intrinsically meaningful or valuable.

Nihilist -a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.
-Google Dictionary

Etymologically, Nihil = nothing.
In Buddhist philosophy, I don't agree the philosophy of 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' i.e. Sunyata need to be associate with nihilism.
However the concepts of 'sunyata' or 'dependent origination' [Pratītyasamutpāda ] should always be presented in its proper context to avoid it being veered into rhetorics.

The problem with the mind-only school [yogachara] is they are entangled in the ultimate drive of meta-attachment. This is purely psychological and they are not able to let go of this last bastion of psychological attachment to some-thing.

I certainly don't mean nihilism in a derogatory way. I am an ontologist and questions of existence fascinate me. Yes, Nagarjuna, for me, is an absolute, total nihilist He was beautifully mad. That's a complement, not an insult. I am the absolute opposite of being a nihilist, but I do appreciate the logical arguments of Nagarjuna. Nothing half way. He did not believe in dependent arising. There is nothing to arise. That link I sent you speaks to all this. https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvdm9hprjxqe6 ... I.pdf?dl=0

[Veritas Aequitas]

I certainly don't mean nihilism in a derogatory way. I am an ontologist and questions of existence fascinate me. Yes, Nagarjuna, for me, is an absolute, total nihilist He was beautifully mad. That's a complement, not an insult. I am the absolute opposite of being a nihilist, but I do appreciate the logical arguments of Nagarjuna. Nothing half way. He did not believe in dependent arising. There is nothing to arise. That link I sent you speaks to all this. https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvdm9hprjxqe6 ... I.pdf?dl=0

I've had a glanced on the book and downloaded it. Has loads of book and articles on Nagarjuna.

Ontology refer to the study of existence.
Generally, ontology is commonly related to those who claim there is an ontological independent external world, i.e. as in Philosophical Realism.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

The philosophies of Nagarjuna and his likes [Philosophical anti-realists] are seldom related with the term 'ontology'.

I believe you misunderstood the concept of dependent origination [arising].

Nāgārjuna's major thematic focus is the concept of śūnyatā (translated into English as "emptiness") which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anātman "not-self" and pratītyasamutpāda "dependent origination", to refute the metaphysics of some of his contemporaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna#Sunyata

Nah, Nagarjuna was not beautifully-mad but beautifully-realistic and promote the idea that human beings should align and flow with life with no pause of attachment.

In positive psychology, a flow state, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by the complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting transformation in one's sense of time.

[tapaticmadness]

Nah, Nagarjuna was not beautifully-mad but beautifully-realistic and promote the idea that human beings should align and flow with life with no pause of attachment.

In positive psychology, a flow state, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by the complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting transformation in one's sense of time.

We obviously have a different view of what Buddhism and philosophy fundamentally are. I have no problem with that. We are both well-read on the topic, though you probably read different books than I, books that fit your personality. Our backgrounds are no doubt also different and that contributed to our divergence. You are trying to build a foolproof world that will be proof against theistic fools such as I. That’s OK. I wouldn’t want to be a citizen of such a world anyway. I’ll be off somewhere else. In the meantime, I and those like me will be disruptive and in the way. There will be no getting away from that. One piece of advice – Stay away from modern art.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nah, Nagarjuna was not beautifully-mad but beautifully-realistic and promote the idea that human beings should align and flow with life with no pause of attachment.

In positive psychology, a flow state, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by the complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting transformation in one's sense of time.

We obviously have a different view of what Buddhism and philosophy fundamentally are. I have no problem with that. We are both well-read on the topic, though you probably read different books than I, books that fit your personality. Our backgrounds are no doubt also different and that contributed to our divergence. You are trying to build a foolproof world that will be proof against theistic fools such as I. That’s OK. I wouldn’t want to be a citizen of such a world anyway. I’ll be off somewhere else. In the meantime, I and those like me will be disruptive and in the way. There will be no getting away from that. One piece of advice – Stay away from modern art.

As I stated most of the time, the only "currency" valid in this philosophical forum is sound arguments.
As long we have such currencies we can "trade" arguments, debates and discussion within this philosophical forum.

[tapaticmadness]

As I stated most of the time, the only "currency" valid in this philosophical forum is sound arguments.
As long we have such currencies we can "trade" arguments, debates and discussion within this philosophical forum.

Fair enough. I will lay out my arguments against your "flow". It will take some time, but I will come up with something. Thanks for asking.

[tapaticmadness]

As I stated most of the time, the only "currency" valid in this philosophical forum is sound arguments.
As long we have such currencies we can "trade" arguments, debates and discussion within this philosophical forum.

Fair enough. I will lay out my arguments against your "flow". It will take some time, but I will come up with something. Thanks for asking.

Philosophy begins with the phenomena that are directly present. It doesn’t speculate about things that cannot be seen. I see that there are individual things with properties. I see that different individuals often have the same property. I am able to name all that in symbols. Individuals a and b and c have the properties F and G and H. Each individual is tied to one or more property. I will call that tie exemplification, which is the name for “is”, as in a is F. I also see that individuals exemplify properties, while properties never exemplify individuals. Moreover, because the properties that different individuals exemplify are often the same, I will call them universals. I am aware, however, that others might say that the sameness of properties may also be accounted for by means of the relation of similarity. The yellow of the sun and the yellow of the book in front of me is thus either the universal yellow or it is two different yellows that are the same because of the relation of similarity that they together exemplify.

I think everything I have said so far is grounded in direct, “empirical” experience. I haven’t speculated about anything unseen. Of course one needn’t do such phenomenological describing of experience. One could simply say that one sees what one sees and that’s the end of the story. There is no need to “do” philosophy. One could simply go with the Flow and forget philosophical analysis. I personally do philosophy because what I see in that thrills me. I am a pleasure seeker. And if going with the Flow is your pleasure, go for it.

Analysis etymologically means loosening up. I shake the object until it comes apart. I basically kill it and, like a taxidermist, lay out the pieces, perhaps on a museum table, so I can examine them. There is obviously no Flow left in the thing when I am done with it. No life.

When I was a boy, I loved to collect rocks, bugs and discarded electrical equipment which I would take apart. Then I stared at it all. And I loved to go to a natural history museum where everything was cold and still.

As I see science, it is the same as my act of taking things apart, not your way of experiencing the Flow. I am an analyst, not someone who builds synthetic structures. I am off in a museum, not on an engineering site.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I stated most of the time, the only "currency" valid in this philosophical forum is sound arguments.
As long we have such currencies we can "trade" arguments, debates and discussion within this philosophical forum.

Fair enough. I will lay out my arguments against your "flow". It will take some time, but I will come up with something. Thanks for asking.

Philosophy begins with the phenomena that are directly present. It doesn’t speculate about things that cannot be seen. I see that there are individual things with properties. I see that different individuals often have the same property. I am able to name all that in symbols. Individuals a and b and c have the properties F and G and H. Each individual is tied to one or more property. I will call that tie exemplification, which is the name for “is”, as in a is F. I also see that individuals exemplify properties, while properties never exemplify individuals. Moreover, because the properties that different individuals exemplify are often the same, I will call them universals. I am aware, however, that others might say that the sameness of properties may also be accounted for by means of the relation of similarity. The yellow of the sun and the yellow of the book in front of me is thus either the universal yellow or it is two different yellows that are the same because of the relation of similarity that they together exemplify.

I think everything I have said so far is grounded in direct, “empirical” experience. I haven’t speculated about anything unseen. Of course one needn’t do such phenomenological describing of experience. One could simply say that one sees what one sees and that’s the end of the story. There is no need to “do” philosophy.
One could simply go with the Flow and forget philosophical analysis.
I personally do philosophy because what I see in that thrills me. I am a pleasure seeker. And if going with the Flow is your pleasure, go for it.

Analysis etymologically means loosening up. I shake the object until it comes apart. I basically kill it and, like a taxidermist, lay out the pieces, perhaps on a museum table, so I can examine them. There is obviously no Flow left in the thing when I am done with it. No life.

When I was a boy, I loved to collect rocks, bugs and discarded electrical equipment which I would take apart. Then I stared at it all. And I loved to go to a natural history museum where everything was cold and still.

As I see science, it is the same as my act of taking things apart, not your way of experiencing the Flow. I am an analyst, not someone who builds synthetic structures. I am off in a museum, not on an engineering site.

I agree with your points till this;
"One could simply go with the Flow and forget philosophical analysis."

Ok, I did not elaborate 'Flow' in greater perspective.
'Flow' is spontaneous but culminated from analysis, consolidation, intelligence hard work, practice to the nth-time, wisdom, and whatever that is necessary to enable 'flow'.

Great athletes like Roger Federer, Tiger Wood, Michael Jordan and the likes in their peak performed in a "Flow" state.
But such a state is only achieved upon prior analysis, consolidation, intelligence hard work, practice to the nth-time, wisdom, but these are left behind at the moments when they were performing in what they had achieved re to their specialty.

It is the same with the greats within "spirituality" where deep reflection, analysis, hard work, practice, wisdom, etc. are involved but not deliberated in their 'flow' state. Take Nagarjuna for example, he dug deep, read, discuss, debate, analyze and reasoned efficiently. I am sure he practiced meditation as it is customary for such people during his time and whatever that is necessary to make his a great spiritual teacher. I can see his spiritual thoughts 'flow' efficiently with sound arguments.

'Flow' is like "unconscious Competence" from the continuum of

• 1. 'Unconscious incompetence' to
  2. Conscious incompetence to
  3. Conscious competence
  4. Unconscious competence.

• The simple example is learning to ride a bicycle and 'flow' is when one ride the bicycle without even thinking about it [even without hands] as compared to the much thinking during the learning, practice to nth times, consolidation phase.

Generally, the 'Flow' state is achieved by peak performers from all aspects of life but only after the necessary prior hard work is done and maintained continuously.

Personally I am a very analytical person, i.e. analyze all things deeply and widely on what I am interested in. My personal directory contains 100,761 Files, in 4,214 Folders - mostly related to knowledge and philosophy - only a small % is trivial.
But the point is not be attached to them for their sake but hopefully they contribute as much knowledge and efficiency as possible [and as relevant] to whatever is performed.

If you are into analysis, have you ventured to research and analyze to understand how every neuron [as much as possible as known to date] in your brain work in relation to your manifested behavior or unconscious impulses?
I don't think you have dug deeply and widely re 'Know Thyself', yes/no?

[tapaticmadness]

If you are into analysis, have you ventured to research and analyze to understand how every neuron [as much as possible as known to date] in your brain work in relation to your manifested behavior or unconscious impulses?

Such materialism is a silly non-philosophy. Neural activity is totally irrelevant to philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you are into analysis, have you ventured to research and analyze to understand how every neuron [as much as possible as known to date] in your brain work in relation to your manifested behavior or unconscious impulses?

Such materialism is a silly non-philosophy. Neural activity is totally irrelevant to philosophy.

Again you are hasty on this.
Btw, the understanding of how the neurons work is not materialism, it is neuroscience which is useful to explain other fields of knowledge, including philosophy more effectively than without it.

For thousands of years, Buddhism has been promoting vispassana [mindful meditation] to improve impulse control over one primal instincts and extreme emotions.
However this is done from the "black box" approach via the brain.
This is the trial and error method with testing of certain strategies and practices with the hope of positive effects.

What is the recommended practices of vispassana and its positive effects at present is brought about from experiences and wisdom from thousand of years.
However the Buddha and the Buddhist monks do not go into depth on what is going on inside the brain that generate those impulse controls and positive results.

With the advent and research into the neurosciences, Buddhist monks and others are looking into the details of brain to understand how Vispassana meditation works on the neuronal basis to produce its positive results.
The most famous monk is the Dalai Lama promotion of research into neurosciences to understand how Buddhism and its doctrines and practices works in the brain.

Neuroscientists and the Dalai Lama Swap Insights on Meditation
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... editation/

His Holiness the Dalai Lama had invited the U.S.-based Mind and Life Institute to familiarize the Tibetan Buddhist monastic community living in exile in India with modern science. About a dozen of us—physicists, psychologists, brain scientists and clinicians, leavened by a French philosopher—introduced quantum mechanics, neuroscience, consciousness and various clinical aspects of meditative practices to a few thousand Buddhist monks and nuns.

At present not all those who ventured into meditation driven by its positive results end up being successful and the drop out rate is normally very high.
The point is when the mechanics of meditation and other spiritual practices are understood at the neural level, processes can be instituted to target the specific areas in the brain instead of the trial and error, hit and missed methods used at present.

As such, your point;
Such materialism is a silly non-philosophy. Neural activity is totally irrelevant to philosophy.

is not rational and wise.

[tapaticmadness]

If you are into analysis, have you ventured to research and analyze to understand how every neuron [as much as possible as known to date] in your brain work in relation to your manifested behavior or unconscious impulses?

Such materialism is a silly non-philosophy. Neural activity is totally irrelevant to philosophy.

Again you are hasty on this.
Btw, the understanding of how the neurons work is not materialism, it is neuroscience which is useful to explain other fields of knowledge, including philosophy more effectively than without it.

For thousands of years, Buddhism has been promoting vispassana [mindful meditation] to improve impulse control over one primal instincts and extreme emotions.
However this is done from the "black box" approach via the brain.
This is the trial and error method with testing of certain strategies and practices with the hope of positive effects.

What is the recommended practices of vispassana and its positive effects at present is brought about from experiences and wisdom from thousand of years.
However the Buddha and the Buddhist monks do not go into depth on what is going on inside the brain that generate those impulse controls and positive results.

With the advent and research into the neurosciences, Buddhist monks and others are looking into the details of brain to understand how Vispassana meditation works on the neuronal basis to produce its positive results.
The most famous monk is the Dalai Lama promotion of research into neurosciences to understand how Buddhism and its doctrines and practices works in the brain.

Neuroscientists and the Dalai Lama Swap Insights on Meditation
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... editation/

His Holiness the Dalai Lama had invited the U.S.-based Mind and Life Institute to familiarize the Tibetan Buddhist monastic community living in exile in India with modern science. About a dozen of us—physicists, psychologists, brain scientists and clinicians, leavened by a French philosopher—introduced quantum mechanics, neuroscience, consciousness and various clinical aspects of meditative practices to a few thousand Buddhist monks and nuns.

At present not all those who ventured into meditation driven by its positive results end up being successful and the drop out rate is normally very high.
The point is when the mechanics of meditation and other spiritual practices are understood at the neural level, processes can be instituted to target the specific areas in the brain instead of the trial and error, hit and missed methods used at present.

As such, your point;
Such materialism is a silly non-philosophy. Neural activity is totally irrelevant to philosophy.

is not rational and wise.

When I talk to the many meditators at the university where i supposedly belong, they talk just like you. "Scientific" yoga is now very very popular. I don't like it and I have said that to them many many times. I much prefer the magic of village shamanism. Or the practices of the ancient yogis, which is not today's yoga at all.