There is more to animals than just intelligence, there is the actual percieving of the world which comes before any opportunity to respond intelligently.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Demystifying Quantum Physics
- Thread starter Mr Spinkles
- Start date
There is more to animals than just intelligence, there is the actual percieving of the world which comes before any opportunity to respond intelligently.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Perception, prior to thought or response, is already a conscious, intelligent process. Seeing is intelligence itself.
When you see, without thought, there is no self or "I", that exists, since self is a product of thought. There is only seeing itself, and since there is no agent of seeing, the consciousness with which you see is not yours, but is a universal consciousness. It is the consciousness of the universe with which you see. That there is an agent of seeing called "I" or the self is an illusion of the mind.
Through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe is listening to its harmonies. We are the witnesses through which the universe becomes conscious of its glory, of its magnificence.
― Alan Watts
godnotgod
Thou art That
Excuse me. Photosynthesis, without a brain or nervous system, is a reflection of 'limited' intelligence? Here, take a look at a simplified visual of the process and then tell me it reflects 'limited' intelligence, especially in light of the fact that animals, with brains, cannot perform this process:
Sometimes, less is more. Plants don't need a brain.
And yet, ultimately, there is an intelligence to the process, as these rocks are part of a larger action of the universe, just as decay of organic material fulfills a function in the bigger picture.
But computers need to be designed and constructed. They are artifacts. Then they need an AC outlet or a battery to function, without which they are nothing more than doorstops. Nature does not need to 'make' anything to function smoothly or aid it's intelligence, as humans seem to want to do. A computer is not a necessity in nature. In fact, it is not a necessity in human culture either. In fact, it may actually be an obstacle to human happiness. Animals and humans can operate without a tether as a computer requires, and since they are outcomes of nature, that makes nature smarter than computers. Everything that a computer 'knows' is already contained in the universe. From the point of view of the universe, a computer is a crude, and perhaps even a laughable, toy, as the universe has a sense of humor, but you would not be aware of that, I am afraid.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Can you demonstrate, via argument, where mind leaves off and matter begins, since you seem to maintain that they are distinct from one another?
I am certain that Galileo seemed to spout 'meaningless babble' to his contemporaries, and it seems Einstein regarded entanglement in the same vein, as he referred to it as 'spooky action at a distance'. What goes on in nature appears as paradoxical to the rational mind in many instances, as the rational mind creates concepts about how nature operates, and then attempts to make nature fit into those concepts so as to appear to 'make sense'. When nature behaves in contradiction to those models created by the rational mind, such behavior is seen as 'meaningless' or 'nonsense' to such a mind conditioned by Reason. That is why, for example, Zen is paradoxical to many, as it is a perfect reflection of nature. Most people approach Zen with a rational mind in a futile attempt to 'figure it out', and become utterly frustrated, sometimes culminating in a complete breakdown of rational thought. That's when the fun begins. You see, Chopra and Goswami are trying to tell us something about QM from a position of higher consciousness, from the position of nature, and it appears as nonsensical because you are trying to understand what he says with your old mental paradigm, instead of putting it aside for a moment and really listen so that you can see, instead of just react.
I have always liked that Alan watts quote and agree with it. However the intelligence is due to us having the wonder and ability to percieve itself. Without us having the 'I' then the universe would be missing that experience that we give it.
Plants doing photosynthesis is not intelligence. A plant defending itself is.Excuse me. Photosynthesis, without a brain or nervous system, is a reflection of 'limited' intelligence? Here, take a look at a simplified visual of the process and then tell me it reflects 'limited' intelligence, especially in light of the fact that animals, with brains, cannot perform this process:
Sometimes, less is more. Plants don't need a brain.
And yet, ultimately, there is an intelligence to the process, as these rocks are part of a larger action of the universe, just as decay of organic material fulfills a function in the bigger picture.
But computers need to be designed and constructed. They are artifacts. Then they need an AC outlet or a battery to function, without which they are nothing more than doorstops. Nature does not need to 'make' anything to function smoothly or aid it's intelligence, as humans seem to want to do. A computer is not a necessity in nature. In fact, it is not a necessity in human culture either. In fact, it may actually be an obstacle to human happiness. Animals and humans can operate without a tether as a computer requires, and since they are outcomes of nature, that makes nature smarter than computers. Everything that a computer 'knows' is already contained in the universe. From the point of view of the universe, a computer is a crude, and perhaps even a laughable, toy, as the universe has a sense of humor, but you would not be aware of that, I am afraid.
Our natural unconscious processes don't count.
If a projectile knocks someone out cold that isn't intelligent. Now if that someone dodged it the the second time I came that demonstrates. No need to redefine intelligence or point to how a a rock rolling shows smarts.
Intelligence being emergent means it evolved out of simpler processes that had the potential for it. Which is how I see consciousness and intelligence become greater as we go up the evolutionary ladder. Just a simple process like when A then B doesn't count. A hit B isn't enough to say B was aware of it but it certainly is an important step as chemistry is to us.
To compare yourself with Galileo and Einstein might be a little bit of an esoteric overreach even for you. But you do help a reader who might still follow your gibberish to find the path of critical thinking and reason.
As mentioned before, todays pseudo scientists manage to downgrade reason and upgrade the supernatural, such as mental spoon bending, astrology, ghosts, the law of attraction, vampires, clairvoyance, telekinesis, astrology, Nostradamus and miracle cures, as well as beliefs in phenomena such as bigfoot, UFOs, extra-terrestrials, alien abduction etc.
Wasnt it you who promised to put me on your ignore list?
:4th:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Why is an experiencer of the experience necessary? You're adding things into the process that aren't needed for the process to occur. While you seem to accept Watts statement, you're somehow missing the point, which is that YOU are the universe itself; you are not a separate perceiver or experiencer of what is seen. That is only an illusion of your mind. Otherwise, if you insist, then please show me where this so-called 'experiencer' of the experience exists.
godnotgod
Thou art That
If you, as a human, had the capability to develop the process of photosynthesis, it would require your intelligence. Why do you deny that to what is behind the photosynthesis of a plant? Don't you see that?
When you say 'potential', that itself is intelligence.
The current idea of 'emergence' is only a hypothesis at the moment by those who push the notion of upward causation. What they cannot explain is how the jump occurs from the material state to the conscious state.
A rolling rock is an action of the universe, just as you are an action of the universe. The intelligence is the universe itself. The rock is just a manifestation of the conscious, intelligent universe. You seem to think intelligence requires deliberate intent. Why?
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Excuse me, but your logic is erroneous here: I never compared myself to Galileo or Einstein. You're making things up. What I said, and I repeat, is that Galileo's discovery and QM appeared nonsensical at the time to others. It has nothing to do with me. I point to the moon, but instead of looking at the moon, you attack my pointing finger without using the logic and reason you so stoutly defend.
Why do you continue to bring up occult and other paranormal ideas to contrast with science? You're confused in that you mix up beliefs about Reality, with direct experience of it. Chopra and Goswami are not speaking to you from their beliefs, but from their direct insight and inner experience. It all seems like gibberish to you because your mind is conditioned to think a certain way. You are indoctrinated and you don't know it. The mystical experience frees the mind of such indoctrination so that one sees things as they actually are, rather than how your mind, conditioned as it is by Reason, Logic, and Analysis, tells you it is. Those three create conceptual thought, and concepts are ideas and models about Reality; they are not Reality itself. Do you or do you not understand what I am saying to you?
You seem to be looking at this issue from the theist point of view, which places a divine being above nature; hence 'supernatural'. That is not what the mystical view is; it is one of divine union, wherein the universe is itself the Absolute. Theists separate them. Mystics see them as one, and that is why Chopra and Goswami have every right to make statements about QM. QM is not a separate experience apart from that of the mystic. Everything is interconnected as One.
Last edited:
Chopra, the woo woo master and prince of charlatanism, sure did a good job on you.
A charlatan is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretence or deception.
Deepak Chopra: I was not skirting the issue at all. My wife Rita and I have had several spoon bending experiences as have thousands of others. We have a collection of bent spoons as well!
:magic:
Are you saying Chopra doesn't really believe what he says?
He does believe in mumbo jumbo and quackery as shown by his spoon bending claim. As far as quantum theory goes, to Chopra it is just a metaphor, just like
But you be the judge:
[youtube]cdcB7FIrXXI[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins exposes charlatan Deepak Chopra - YouTube
godnotgod
Thou art That
Chopra has nothing to do with what I said, but if anything has done a good job on anyone, it is Reason, Logic, and Analysis that have so conditioned your mind that you are not even aware of it. Do you not realize that the rational mind is nothing more than a self-created principle?
I know what a charlatan is, but they usually fake their credentials. Chopra is a credentialed doctor of endocrinology. He has years of spiritual practice. Other mystics can easily pick apart a charlatan's erroneous arguments; either you know or you don't. Chopra knows what he is talking about. You don't, because you are on the outside looking in, and have no mystical practice or experience, and are grouping genuine experience with quackery. You want to base your conclusions on one minor issue, while ignoring the vast amount of genuine literature and teachings Mr. Chopra has generated. Have you read even one of his books? When you listen to one of his lectures, is your mind completely closed, having already decided, judging what he says through the filter of your prejudices and preconceived notions, having never bothered to have the testicular fortitude to put your baggage aside for a moment to go see for yourself, if what he is saying has merit? I think you rather enjoy your constant jeering and smug attitude, actually.
footnote: St. Paul, as a good example, was a charlatan, peddling his new religion, synthesized as it was from various elements prevalent in his time, ultmiately for the purpose of saving his own skin.
"Paul, as the personal begetter of the Christian myth, has never been given sufficient credit for his originality. The reverence paid through the centuries to the great Saint Paul has quite obscured the more colourful features of his personality. Like many evangelical leaders, he was a compound of sincerity and charlatanry. Evangelical leaders of his kind were common at this time in the Greco-Roman world (e.g. Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana)."
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm
Last edited:
So then you have to stop calling him a charlatan then (by the definition of charlatan you gave us above).
I watched the video. I've learned to be 'skeptical' of videos with an obvious agenda. Certainly such videos have no interest in giving the other side fair play.
Sorry, but I think Chopra is on the right side of the debate but he loses me sometimes with his rhetoric.
godnotgod
Thou art That
What? You're saying he's taken in by his own mumbo jumbo and quackery? A sincere charlatan, eh? Now that's funny!
godnotgod
Thou art That
Let me put it to you this way: what would it take, for example, for something as complex as photosynthesis to occur? Using your definition, the items in red would be included in the process. In addition, SEEING is perhaps the most fundamental ingredient of intelligence; actually, it is pure intelligence itself, without thought, and does not necessarily imply the presence of a brain. In fact, there are cases of people who have virtually no brain tissue and are functional, such as the case of the math student with an IQ of 126.
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf015/sf015p14.htm
Last edited:
Normally breathing can be done without thinking about it.
Only he knows.
He is capable of writing brilliantly and then lose it all in a short sentence:
In Peace Is The Way.
Toxic nationalism keeps Americans in the grip of unreality. A society dominated by the military, where arms outstrip culture, is "the opposite of freedom". (p 58) Chopra asks his fellow countrymen to sidestep rationalist hegemony and "realize who you really are" through technologies of peace such as spoon-bending, telekinesis, magic, healing and clairvoyance.
And this is the guy who wants to inform quantum physicists what QM is all about.
There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.
Carl Sagan
Have a good summer; I love the magic of the real world too much to stick around here. There is a good chance you will still be here in the fall, convincing your esoteric self that you must be right.
Cheers.
:canoe: