Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Are thoughts just images, like dreams are, and if so, are the mechanisms of formation thoughts and dreams the same except that dreams are more intense?

"Thoughts" isn't a very useful term here, because quite fundamentally disparate processes are involved in different cognitive (thought) processes. In fact a lot of cognitive neuroscience research is devoted to what kinds of processes are involved in what kinds of thoughts. I'm not sure what you mean by asking if they are images (do you mean to ask whether we experience all thoughts as images?), as from a neurophysiological perspective all thoughts are...well...the result of neurophysiological processes. As for dreaming, I've never worked on any studies involving dreams and while I've read much of the literature, I haven't read enough to be able to relate the diverse processes postulated to be involved in dreaming to the vastly more complicated and diverse processes involved in "thought". I can certainly answer some questions about specifics, but you'd have to know more about neuroscience in order to ask those questions (I think; maybe you can come up with them without the background because of your ability to carefully and intelligently analyze and reason).

 

[Shantanu]

"Thoughts" isn't a very useful term here, because quite fundamentally disparate processes are involved in different cognitive (thought) processes. In fact a lot of cognitive neuroscience research is devoted to what kinds of processes are involved in what kinds of thoughts. I'm not sure what you mean by asking if they are images (do you mean to ask whether we experience all thoughts as images?), as from a neurophysiological perspective all thoughts are...well...the result of neurophysiological processes. As for dreaming, I've never worked on any studies involving dreams and while I've read much of the literature, I haven't read enough to be able to relate the diverse processes postulated to be involved in dreaming to the vastly more complicated and diverse processes involved in "thought". I can certainly answer some questions about specifics, but you'd have to know more about neuroscience in order to ask those questions (I think; maybe you can come up with them without the background because of your ability to carefully and intelligently analyze and reason).

Yes, I am thinking that neural activity in the brain generates instant images that other nerves read rapidly and the response to these images are generated into actions through appropriate nerve channels.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, I am thinking that neural activity in the brain generates instant images that other nerves read rapidly and the response to these images are generated into actions through appropriate nerve channels.

For the sake of discussion, I will make a minor correction: there aren't really many nerves in the brain. Rather, there are neurons. Neurons are unique among cells in that they can receive input through dendritic "trees" and can generate action-potentials (signals) which propagate along their axons:

These cells can't recieve "images" nor can nerves.

 

[Shantanu]

For the sake of discussion, I will make a minor correction: there aren't really many nerves in the brain. Rather, there are neurons. Neurons are unique among cells in that they can receive input through dendritic "trees" and can generate action-potentials (signals) which propagate along their axons:

These cells can't recieve "images" nor can nerves.

How does the image of what the eyes see get registered as a replica of what exists if it is not detected by the neurones of the brain?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Don't make the mistake of thinking your right just becasue you don't understand

Sorry Robert but that line wasn't convincing before and still isn't.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

He is not honest at all, but he does have an agenda.

Well, let's have some specific examples of his dishonestly then.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How does the image of what the eyes see get registered as a replica of what exists if it is not detected by the neurones of the brain?

How does the visual system work? There's an open-access volume on this: Visual Cortex - Current Status and Perspectives and I've attached another volume. The answer is largely "we don't know", although we've made significant progress even since the other attachment I uploaded. You are asking how we are able to visualize things in our "mind's eye" (Hamlet), which is more or less equivalent to the question "how is the brain able to deal with concepts?" in that the answer is we are not much closer to knowing this than we were 50 years ago. What we've discovered is mostly how vastly more complicated the brain and conceptual processing are compared to what we thought (actually, visual processing presented one of the earliest wake-up calls when we first tried to program edge detection algorithms). We do know "neural correlates" of various components of the visual system, including which areas involve the "conscious" processing of visual information, and we know a lot about how information is transmitted through V1 & V2 to the occipital lobe and from there to various other cortical regions, but perhaps the major issue in neuroscience is understanding how what we know are the physical processes used to convey information among and to neural populations and how this form of information (the "neural code") enables us to understand concepts or visualize things. In other words, when it comes to higher-level cognitive processes like mental imagery we can identify areas of the brain involved and do other more intricate experiments, and when it comes to understanding the dynamics of neurons and neuronal networks we can do a lot, but what we can't do is connect the two.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We have evidence for God all around us, you just fail to see it.

No we don't. You're reading far too much into what you see. Belief colours perception.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

[QUOTE="Robert.Evans, post: 4149593, member: 53111"to you (or at least it appears that way), but don't expect to see something in the same way you would as a secularist for ex.[/QUOTE]
This is the core problem to the argument here. "Its true. Trust me."

And specifically on the subjective experiences we have there are currently new information being added every day on the way the brain works. What we thought was souls or whatever have been written out. We understand why we have experiences.

And to me I ask this. I can have an acid trip right now without god that could put any experience people have about god to shame. How can you rectify that?

 

[leibowde84]

I don't know much about him. But Dawkins is completely out of his league in the subject of mysticism and theology. He should just go home and collect stamps or something.

Dawkins just refuses to make huge assumptions. But, if mysticism and theological knowledge is all he is lacking, he's doing a prettty darn good job.

 

[YmirGF]

Dawkins just refuses to make huge assumptions. But, if mysticism and theological knowledge is all he is lacking, he's doing a prettty darn good job.

I agree. Many times I've said that I could go right off the deep end into the realm of unsubstantiated moon-battery, but RF has helped me to understand how shallow that approach really is. It's much more reasonable to appeal to people's intelligence than it is to appeal to their ignorance. Instead of telling people to trust them and their ideas, why not appeal to the perspective of the target audience and work them through difficult concepts on a "what if" basis, rather from the on high standpoint of "This is the way it is. Deal with it, Ignorant Poptart."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But, if mysticism and theological knowledge is all he is lacking, he's doing a prettty darn good job.

It isn't. He's also lacking knowledge of philosophy, history, epistemology, and most importantly the combination of these and other topics that make his work lesser than his forebears (like the rest of the "new atheists" who increasingly promote an intellectually sterile atheism). It's not just that his arguments are nothing new (the science aspect is, but as he is unable to adequately relate it to religious apologetics and arguments, the fact that he threw biology into a lesser challenge to religion than even Kant let alone Hume, Sartre, Freud, Marx, etc., makes the addition superfluous). It's the reduction of atheist argumentation to "well, science has shown stuff that challenges religious notions and even though the sciences aren't particularly designed to test religious questions and certainly incapable of proof...so there.". People who buy into YEC aren't going to be swayed by arguments about evolution, most Christians accept a form of evolution, and most people lack a sufficiently comprehensive understanding of evolutionary biology to spot the flaws in sophisticated arguments by the few truly knowledgeable proponents of ID/creationism (or even to identify key components of evolutionary biology). So showing that YEC views are untenable is tantamount to trying to convince Holocaust deniers using history books and his arguments aren't enough to educate those who can turn to Dembski, Swinburne, Behe, etc., for sophisticated arguments that can't be shown to be flawed without using a level of sophistication higher than is generally possible.

In essence, he's removed the real arguments, thrown science in (in a necessarily and therefore pointlessly simplified form), and is to real atheist literature what fox news is to news.

 

[Robert.Evans]

This is the core problem to the argument here. "Its true. Trust me."

And specifically on the subjective experiences we have there are currently new information being added every day on the way the brain works. What we thought was souls or whatever have been written out. We understand why we have experiences.

And to me I ask this. I can have an acid trip right now without god that could put any experience people have about god to shame. How can you rectify that?

You will never see proof of God, it doesn't work that way. You either accept it or you don't; that is it. But remember, without it, you have luck; and that my friend is absurd in the highest regard.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Dawkins just refuses to make huge assumptions. But, if mysticism and theological knowledge is all he is lacking, he's doing a prettty darn good job.

A makes a huge assumption in saying there is no God; he can't prove it for one, so why argue it? Sure it makes his bank balance bigger and his ego no doubt, but beyond that, his reward is death, not much of an argument is it really. He is well out of his depth.

 

[leibowde84]

A makes a huge assumption in saying there is no God; he can't prove it for one, so why argue it? Sure it makes his bank balance bigger and his ego no doubt, but beyond that, his reward is death, not much of an argument is it really. He is well out of his depth.

No one can prove a negative, so faulting anyone for not being able to prove that God doesn't exist is without merit. Further, anyone that claims to have a proof for the existence of God must be utilizing an argument from ignorance, as merely claiming that no other explanation exists only proves that we have not obtained this information YET. I think it is important for everyone to realize this fact when discussing religious beliefs. Too many forget that they are assumptions by definition.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No one can prove a negative

I assert that it is possible for someone to prove a negative. If I'm wrong, then the only way to establish this is to prove a negative. If I am right, you are wrong. Either way, you are wrong. Your argument is self-defeating. If it is impossible to prove a negative, then necessarily it cannot be that one can prove that no one can prove a negative (for, if someone could prove that it is not possible to prove a negative, they would be proving a negative).

Also, google "proof that the square root of 2 is irrational" and you will find a proof of a negative: there exists no number such that that number is rational and the square root of 2.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You will never see proof of God, it doesn't work that way. You either accept it or you don't; that is it. But remember, without it, you have luck; and that my friend is absurd in the highest regard.

What we have is statistical probability. Which is mathematical.

Though I find it strange that in order to know god I must first "accept" him. Once I subjugate myself to brainwashing it will all make sense.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

“Every time you are tempted to react in the same old way, ask if you want to be a prisoner of the past or a pioneer of the future.”

More here -

Deepak Chopra Quotes (Author of The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success)

All the best!

 

[leibowde84]

I assert that it is possible for someone to prove a negative. If I'm wrong, then the only way to establish this is to prove a negative. If I am right, you are wrong. Either way, you are wrong. Your argument is self-defeating. If it is impossible to prove a negative, then necessarily it cannot be that one can prove that no one can prove a negative (for, if someone could prove that it is not possible to prove a negative, they would be proving a negative).

Also, google "proof that the square root of 2 is irrational" and you will find a proof of a negative: there exists no number such that that number is rational and the square root of 2.

Proving that the square root of 2 is irrational is not proving a negative, . Proving that the square root of 2 doesn't exist would be though, which is not possible. Further, you state that "if [you] are wrong, the only way establish this is to prove a negative." This is certainly not the case, so let's dig into that example a bit with a hypothetical (any example can fit in here, though).

Let's say your position is that 1+1=3. I would prove you wrong, not by proving that 1+1 does not equal 3, I would merely need to prove that 1+1=2, precluding your argument from being correct. Thus, there would be no need to prove a negative in order to prove that you were wrong.

Here's a brief explanation about the logical falacy of a negative proof, fraudulently based on this concept:

A negative proof (classically knkown as appeal to ignorance) is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of: X is true because there is no proof that X is false. If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not redulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God''s existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

This is my argument here. It is ridiculous to even expect anyone to be able to prove that a supernatural entity doesn't exist. The burden is always on the one claiming existence. Don't you agree?

 

[ratikala]

namaskarm

Chopra regularly mentions quantum mechanics for example, and implies that this science supports his theory, which it certainly doesn't. As for western science "catching up" with ancient eastern wisdom, could you give some specific examples?

one simple example going beyond the self , ...eastern traditions have spoken about conventional and ultimate realities from time immemorial , therefore the idea of eternality is not alien to them , however western science seems only to concern it self with the study of conventional realities and remains oblivious to anything beyond