Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Monk Of Reason]

There is no "current model of explanation for 'consciousness'".

You are correct. There are several. Almost all fit into what I said earlier in one way or another. Here is a list.

Models of consciousness - Scholarpedia

Physicists indeed describe complex interactive systems, but they do not introduce a new entity into their list of primary entities when doing so. A complex interactive system can be given a label, but that doesn't mean a new entity has been added to the original list. A thermostat has a "response to surroundings," but that does not mean that it has acquired something that was not in existence before it was assembled. What is happening is that you wish to legitimate your belief in these supernatural entities by saying that they are understandable in scientific terms, but that remains only an assertion, and one that cannot be verified by evidence. Your position is not different than that of Dawkins or Chopra. The difference, it seems to me, has only to do with when you say conscious appears. You prefer later to earlier. At least that is the way it seems to me so far.

Complex interactive systems would be the end of the assumption. Conciousness doesn't have anything verifiable beyond that. Yet you seem to claim ti does. An "Entity" is simply a word we have used to describe something autonomous. You can have a business "entity" for example. Or we could consider ourselves an "entity". The "creation" of an entity isn't in any way special.

I admit we don't fully understand the processes but we have a general idea. This is better than assuming that consciousness is a substance of some kind.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

You are correct. There are several. Almost all fit into what I said earlier in one way or another. Here is a list.

Models of consciousness - Scholarpedia

From the above: [A model of consciousness is a theoretical description that relates brain properties of consciousness (e.g., fast irregular electrical activity, widespread brain activation) to phenomenal properties of consciousness (e.g., qualia, a first-person-perspective, the unity of a conscious scene).]

Note the key word, "relates". A relates to B. Yes, I agree that a person's reports of experience, which cause us to imagine that the person has this thing called "experience" or "consciousness" are correlated with observations that can be made in the brain, but that person's "experience" is nowhere observed, in the brain or anywhere else. To say that A relates to B in no way integrates it into the physical model of the universe.

Complex interactive systems would be the end of the assumption. Conciousness doesn't have anything verifiable beyond that. Yet you seem to claim ti does.

Where did I claim that?

An "Entity" is simply a word we have used to describe something autonomous. You can have a business "entity" for example. Or we could consider ourselves an "entity". The "creation" of an entity isn't in any way special.

I agree. "Entity" is just a label, and we can draw a line around in the sand and give the area a label, bringing no new primary entity into existence despite our now having a new word. So "consciousness" is a label, but that doesn't mean that something new in the world corresponding to that label has now come into existence.

I admit we don't fully understand the processes but we have a general idea. This is better than assuming that consciousness is a substance of some kind.

Yes, we have "general ideas," and that doesn't mean they are correct or valuable. I will continue to use the terms, because that is helpful socially, but I have a different set of ideas about the matter now that I have written that book while trying to solve this perplexing and extremely important problem (mind-body problem), that causes so much pain, suffering, disability, and early death. You are simply so used to using the terms that you assume that there is no significant problem, but I don't agree with that.
FOR EVERYONE: Mind-Body Problem (& Free Will vs. Determinism)

 

[Shantanu]

There is indeed a question in my mind as to what the motivation is for participation in these forums. We humans love to fight. We love to watch fighting. We do it at all levels, from global war to Super Bowl. Demonstration of prowess is a strong component of our basic animal nature. But there is also a weakly competing motivation to understand and to cooperate in the effort to make the world a better place for everyone. This is a coming together, not an effort to vanquish,

As some may know, I advocate for Humanianity, "the Religion for Everyone," which is only the commitment to live according to the rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle. This is related to my concept (that is different from most but I believe to be more accurate) that Religion has always been our way of studying as adults how to be better people, and that Religion is moving toward Humanianity as it increasingly comes into the modern world (modern because of science/technology). Thus, atheists can be religious, and Religion does not equal theism. But the emphasis here is the coming together as a species to do extremely important work in behalf of us all. It means agreement, but agreement with that which is increasingly accurate, with always the acceptability of questioning and the possibility of revision and improvement (the opposite of creed and "fundamentalism," with all the ensuing pain, suffering, disability, and early death).

Well, we see disagreement everywhere, with how much progress toward agreement? Threads like this go on and on and on. We certainly see demonstration of prowess, but do we see movement toward agreement? I would say not much. If that is so, why is that so?

I maintain that there is a philosophical problem that underlies much of our inability to agree on certain rather basic and important issues. That problem is the mind-body problem (and the related free will vs. determinism problem). And the debate between Chopra and Dawkins is an example. The problem they are dealing with, and can only make assertions about (with as much prowess as possible), is the belief that our physical universe, as described by the physicists, contains substance(s) and entities that are not listed by the physicists. The physicists have built a model of our universe consisting of a list of wave/particles and a list of forces, contained within a framework of space/time, that is verging upon, though hasn't quite reached, a complete model, satisfactory for explaining (at least in theory) everything that happens.

The problem is, however, that they have overlooked a substance that we all (or at least almost all) believe exists, "consciousness," that makes up entities called "minds." And even though the physicists' model is supposed to be explanatory of all the movements and interactions of the entities that they list (including the more complex ones such as atoms, molecules, etc.), these new entities ("minds") get in there and also move these atoms, molecules, etc. around. A mind causes a hand to move, we say. It has free will, and it wills the hand to move, whereupon it does. The freedom is freedom from the rules that the physicists have concluded are the rules according to which all the entities in their lists interact and determine what will happen.

So Chopra and Dawkins have different theories about when these supernatural phenomena entered our universe. Chopra says they have always been there, somehow attached to the physicists' entities (atoms and molecules), but have become more complex and impressive with time. Dawkins says that they have appeared more recently, being totally non-existent until certain complex arrangements of atoms and molecules, called brains, have occurred. But neither of them can do anything more than assert that they are correct and demonstrate prowess by appealing to an audience that is the collection of judges for the contest. There remains no answer to the question as to how this substance, consciousness, and these entities, minds, have gotten into the universe and have contaminated what would otherwise be an almost unified, perfect model of everything that exists (at least in our universe).

So the existence of these supernatural entities opens up the possibility of believing in any number of supernatural entities, ones that we communicate with and ones that we assume are watching us but that we can't be aware of, or that at least require certain complex procedures or difficult-to-acquire and risky substances to achieve that awareness.

At any rate, because I am Humanian (an advocate of Humanianity), I worked real hard on solving this so far unsolved problem and wrote the following book, in hopes of making a contribution to a far better life than we have known so far (by enabling a step forward in agreement):

MIND-BODY PROBLEM: Introduction

You need to begin by understanding humanity if you are going to be a humanianity-advocate. There are fundamental differences between people. If we had not all been appearing to be the same physically on the exterior and in terms of internal organs and tissues, based on how we humans behave we would have been sub-divided into different 'species' except that we can interbreed. The causes of the differences are highly unlikely to be entirely through the genes. This raises the question of what the other cause(s) might be. When science is unable to find the reason for the differences it is necessary to speculate on other possibilities. Whatever possibility one chooses, that has to have a real basis to it in the sense that it should be a rational and reasonable proposition for science to investigate if it can. If science cannot investigate it that is not the fault of the theory or hypothesis being subjected for consideration. Thus, the falsifiable condition does not apply on the grounds that the overriding objective is to obtain a satisfactory explanation of reality.

So if the differences between human beings cannot be entirely explained on the basis of genetic factors it has got to be due to something in the environment that we humans live in, that is external factors. That is how the train of thought should proceed and when taken to the ulitmate consideration we find that there is no other explanation for our differences as human beings other than what is going on in our minds. Hence the idea of consciousness being an external factor playing on the human mind is a logical train of thought. So the question arises as to what consciousness must consist of if it is going to explain the reality of the differences between human beings that cannot be attributed to genetic factors.

So your idea of a better world through humanianity has got hurdles to overcome in Consciousness. Have you considered what these might be?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

From the above: [A model of consciousness is a theoretical description that relates brain properties of consciousness (e.g., fast irregular electrical activity, widespread brain activation) to phenomenal properties of consciousness (e.g., qualia, a first-person-perspective, the unity of a conscious scene).]

Note the key word, "relates". A relates to B. Yes, I agree that a person's reports of experience, which cause us to imagine that the person has this thing called "experience" or "consciousness" are correlated with observations that can be made in the brain, but that person's "experience" is nowhere observed, in the brain or anywhere else. To say that A relates to B in no way integrates it into the physical model of the universe.

It does. A specific experience that is impossible to replicate or impossible to experience externally does not remove the possibility or reality of our ability to study it from a third person perspective.

The "brain properties of consciousness" and "phenomenal properties of consciousness" are the physical properties we can observe along with the experienced phenomenon that only the subjective indivdual can relay to us. Similarly we can observe a burn and the way that the tissue reacts but the phenomenal property would have been the pain of being burned that the individual experiences. They are the same but the difference is the subjective vs the objective view of the instance.

Where did I claim that?I agree.

when you began to call them supernatural.

"Entity" is just a label, and we can draw a line around in the sand and give the area a label, bringing no new primary entity into existence despite our now having a new word. So "consciousness" is a label, but that doesn't mean that something new in the world corresponding to that label has now come into existence. Yes, we have "general ideas," and that doesn't mean they are correct or valuable. I will continue to use the terms, because that is helpful socially, but I have a different set of ideas about the matter now that I have written that book while trying to solve this perplexing and extremely important problem (mind-body problem), that causes so much pain, suffering, disability, and early death. You are simply so used to using the terms that you assume that there is no significant problem, but I don't agree with that.
FOR EVERYONE: Mind-Body Problem (& Free Will vs. Determinism)

How is it helpful socially?


If you don't believe any of our current study is without value then I suppose you need to provide some evidence for that.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

2. Asking to prove a negative in this instance would force the argument into the classification of a "negative proof," as it would effectively be saying that a lack of proof against God somehow helps to prove that God does exist.

How is the bolded portion not obviously (and trivially) true? If it were proven that god doesn't exist, it would be impossible to prove god does. If no one has been able to prove god doesn't exist, it "helps" to prove god does because it allows for the possibility that god does exist (in the sense that something which isn't proven impossible is possible).

Also, while it is true that (like absence of evidence), a lack of proof of X doesn't prove Y, it can be evidence that Y is true/exists. Consider the weapons of mass destruction which were supposed to be in Iraq. Now, even though the fact that repeated attempts to prove there were WMDs failed, this doesn't technically prove that there weren't any. However, it provides strong evidence.

Personally, I think that it is mistaken to think anything can be proven outside of mathematics. However, granting that it is possible, the more failed attempts there are to prove something doesn't exist, the greater the probability that it does. Here, though, we're facing an issue even more problematic than trying to prove something outside of a formal system. Outside of real proofs, the most powerful evidence of the truth of some proposition (whether it is a theory, a statement of existence or non-existence, a description of some phenomenon, etc.) comes from the various methods used in the sciences. We cannot use empirical means to give evidence for or against that which isn't observable/measurable. Just as theists repeatedly rely on god-in-the-gaps types of evidence we are forced to rely on absence of evidence. I maintain that here the latter case has the stronger epistemic justification, because the reason for the absence is the inability to utilize standard methods of obtaining evidence. Meanwhile, god-in-the-gaps arguments (which are really a form of absence of evidence arguments) would be stronger were it not the case that it seems these gaps keep disappearing or shrinking.

 

[leibowde84]

How is the bolded portion not obviously (and trivially) true? If it were proven that god doesn't exist, it would be impossible to prove god does. If no one has been able to prove god doesn't exist, it "helps" to prove god does because it allows for the possibility that god does exist (in the sense that something which isn't proven impossible is possible).

Also, while it is true that (like absence of evidence), a lack of proof of X doesn't prove Y, it can be evidence that Y is true/exists. Consider the weapons of mass destruction which were supposed to be in Iraq. Now, even though the fact that repeated attempts to prove there were WMDs failed, this doesn't technically prove that there weren't any. However, it provides strong evidence.

Personally, I think that it is mistaken to think anything can be proven outside of mathematics. However, granting that it is possible, the more failed attempts there are to prove something doesn't exist, the greater the probability that it does. Here, though, we're facing an issue even more problematic than trying to prove something outside of a formal system. Outside of real proofs, the most powerful evidence of the truth of some proposition (whether it is a theory, a statement of existence or non-existence, a description of some phenomenon, etc.) comes from the various methods used in the sciences. We cannot use empirical means to give evidence for or against that which isn't observable/measurable. Just as theists repeatedly rely on god-in-the-gaps types of evidence we are forced to rely on absence of evidence. I maintain that here the latter case has the stronger epistemic justification, because the reason for the absence is the inability to utilize standard methods of obtaining evidence. Meanwhile, god-in-the-gaps arguments (which are really a form of absence of evidence arguments) would be stronger were it not the case that it seems these gaps keep disappearing or shrinking.

I agree in a way that it might help, but there has been evidence going both ways. Even according to your logic, it would only be fair to say that both sides must be proven beyond a doubt. It cannot be said that either side has done this positively or negatively, so again we are left with a lack of clarity for both arguments. Would you at least agree with this?

 

[leibowde84]

How is the bolded portion not obviously (and trivially) true? If it were proven that god doesn't exist, it would be impossible to prove god does. If no one has been able to prove god doesn't exist, it "helps" to prove god does because it allows for the possibility that god does exist (in the sense that something which isn't proven impossible is possible).

Also, while it is true that (like absence of evidence), a lack of proof of X doesn't prove Y, it can be evidence that Y is true/exists. Consider the weapons of mass destruction which were supposed to be in Iraq. Now, even though the fact that repeated attempts to prove there were WMDs failed, this doesn't technically prove that there weren't any. However, it provides strong evidence.

Personally, I think that it is mistaken to think anything can be proven outside of mathematics. However, granting that it is possible, the more failed attempts there are to prove something doesn't exist, the greater the probability that it does. Here, though, we're facing an issue even more problematic than trying to prove something outside of a formal system. Outside of real proofs, the most powerful evidence of the truth of some proposition (whether it is a theory, a statement of existence or non-existence, a description of some phenomenon, etc.) comes from the various methods used in the sciences. We cannot use empirical means to give evidence for or against that which isn't observable/measurable. Just as theists repeatedly rely on god-in-the-gaps types of evidence we are forced to rely on absence of evidence. I maintain that here the latter case has the stronger epistemic justification, because the reason for the absence is the inability to utilize standard methods of obtaining evidence. Meanwhile, god-in-the-gaps arguments (which are really a form of absence of evidence arguments) would be stronger were it not the case that it seems these gaps keep disappearing or shrinking.

If nothing outside of mathematics could be proven absolutely my claim would be correct ... we just can't say either way. There is certainly a possibility to tilt the argument, but only one side is making an assertion. There is not any kind of necessity for a reasonable position to pick either conclusion. We should keep looking for a naturalistic answer until we are sure ... that's all I'm saying.

 

[leibowde84]

How is the bolded portion not obviously (and trivially) true? If it were proven that god doesn't exist, it would be impossible to prove god does. If no one has been able to prove god doesn't exist, it "helps" to prove god does because it allows for the possibility that god does exist (in the sense that something which isn't proven impossible is possible).

Also, while it is true that (like absence of evidence), a lack of proof of X doesn't prove Y, it can be evidence that Y is true/exists. Consider the weapons of mass destruction which were supposed to be in Iraq. Now, even though the fact that repeated attempts to prove there were WMDs failed, this doesn't technically prove that there weren't any. However, it provides strong evidence.

Personally, I think that it is mistaken to think anything can be proven outside of mathematics. However, granting that it is possible, the more failed attempts there are to prove something doesn't exist, the greater the probability that it does. Here, though, we're facing an issue even more problematic than trying to prove something outside of a formal system. Outside of real proofs, the most powerful evidence of the truth of some proposition (whether it is a theory, a statement of existence or non-existence, a description of some phenomenon, etc.) comes from the various methods used in the sciences. We cannot use empirical means to give evidence for or against that which isn't observable/measurable. Just as theists repeatedly rely on god-in-the-gaps types of evidence we are forced to rely on absence of evidence. I maintain that here the latter case has the stronger epistemic justification, because the reason for the absence is the inability to utilize standard methods of obtaining evidence. Meanwhile, god-in-the-gaps arguments (which are really a form of absence of evidence arguments) would be stronger were it not the case that it seems these gaps keep disappearing or shrinking.

It seems like you are starting with your conclusion without proving it first. My contention is that we do not know if God exists or not. Your contention seems to be that, unless we can prove that God does not exist (which is, as far as we now know, impossible), we should ASSUME that he does. We can use the example of the Unicorn with this one.

The mere fact that we are unable to prove that unicorns do not exist (beyond being a mere idea) does not in any way help prove that they do exist. It would be irrational to assume that unicorns exist until we can prove that they don't. It would be far more rational to assume that unicorns do not exist until we prove that they actually do. The same, I think, can be said for the argument of God's existence. The burden should be on the side making an assertion of existence, not non-existence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It seems like you are starting with your conclusion without proving it first. My contention is that we do not know if God exists or not. Your contention seems to be that, unless we can prove that God does not exist (which is, as far as we now know, impossible), we should ASSUME that he does.

Were that my contention, I'd believe in god, and I wouldn't be agnostic.

As I mentioned, I believe along with most of the scientific and mathematical community that proofs belong to closed discourse realms/formal systems. Epistemology, whether as it relates to or is intended to be a model of a model of science or the philosophy of science is much more fruitful here and elsewhere. Theories of epistemic justification are, unlike proof-theoretic systems, designed to deal with non-axiomatic systems. Thus we have ways of approaching evidence that can't exist in proofs, such as propensities, chance-raising, etc. Some of these get very complicated, but we need not get into them.

The point I was trying to make was one similar to the true statement that correlations doesn't entail causation. However, while this mantra is repeated ad nauseum by the same social scientists and their like that repeatedly violate it, few seem to realize that correlation increases the causal probability. To get away from jargon and the abstract, consider smoking. The tobacco industry relied for years on the fact that it is technically true that smoking doesn't cause cancer. They'd show tough cowboy who, at age 65 had been smoking his whole life and was more healthy than a triathlete. But even though smoking doesn't cause cancer, the reason there is an extremely high correlation between smoking and cancer is because smoking tends to vastly increase your chances of developing cancer.

In the case of inability to prove god doesn't exist, the positive evidence is next to nil compared to the above example. However, it is still trivially true that the inability to prove non-existence necessarily increases the probability (and therefore is evidence for the position) that the entity in question exists. It's god-awful evidence (pun intended), but it's still evidence.

Are you familiar with Bayesian inference?

 

[leibowde84]

Were that my contention, I'd believe in god, and I wouldn't be agnostic.

As I mentioned, I believe along with most of the scientific and mathematical community that proofs belong to closed discourse realms/formal systems. Epistemology, whether as it relates to or is intended to be a model of a model of science or the philosophy of science is much more fruitful here and elsewhere. Theories of epistemic justification are, unlike proof-theoretic systems, designed to deal with non-axiomatic systems. Thus we have ways of approaching evidence that can't exist in proofs, such as propensities, chance-raising, etc. Some of these get very complicated, but we need not get into them.

The point I was trying to make was one similar to the true statement that correlations doesn't entail causation. However, while this mantra is repeated ad nauseum by the same social scientists and their like that repeatedly violate it, few seem to realize that correlation increases the causal probability. To get away from jargon and the abstract, consider smoking. The tobacco industry relied for years on the fact that it is technically true that smoking doesn't cause cancer. They'd show tough cowboy who, at age 65 had been smoking his whole life and was more healthy than a triathlete. But even though smoking doesn't cause cancer, the reason there is an extremely high correlation between smoking and cancer is because smoking tends to vastly increase your chances of developing cancer.

In the case of inability to prove god doesn't exist, the positive evidence is next to nil compared to the above example. However, it is still trivially true that the inability to prove non-existence necessarily increases the probability (and therefore is evidence for the position) that the entity in question exists. It's god-awful evidence (pun intended), but it's still evidence.

Are you familiar with Bayesian inference?

I am familiar with it, yes. It kind of proves my point. My problem is with those who claim that, without absolute proof that God doesn't exist, we should assume that he does. According to the Bayesian inference, there could be probability either way, but there is no difinitive answer, as, in this case, it would be a subjective measurement.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

It seems like you are starting with your conclusion without proving it first. My contention is that we do not know if God exists or not. Your contention seems to be that, unless we can prove that God does not exist (which is, as far as we now know, impossible), we should ASSUME that he does. We can use the example of the Unicorn with this one.

The mere fact that we are unable to prove that unicorns do not exist (beyond being a mere idea) does not in any way help prove that they do exist. It would be irrational to assume that unicorns exist until we can prove that they don't. It would be far more rational to assume that unicorns do not exist until we prove that they actually do. The same, I think, can be said for the argument of God's existence. The burden should be on the side making an assertion of existence, not non-existence.

I basically agree with what you are saying. The only problem I have with your terminology is the term "proof." This refers most appropriately to the use of the rules of logic to determine whether a proposition must be "true" if two other propositions are assumed to be "true." Proof occurs in a logical system, for instance, Euclidean geometry. However, the consistency of that set of propositions (true assuming the initial axioms are true) has nothing to do with whether that set of propositions is an accurate model of reality. Our reality does not appear, according to the results of our "rules of evidence" used in the sciences, to conform to Euclidean geometry. With regard to the existence in reality of unicorns or gods, we would need to use the rules of evidence (while also, of course, adhering to the rules of logic to maintain internal consistency). But the rules of evidence don't yield "proofs." They just increase the probability of accuracy of the propositions under consideration. So that means that we say that in the absence of any evidence of the existence of X, the probability of X existing is one over the total number of possibilities considered. Or something like that.

 

[godnotgod]

I can understand the idea of atoms having a very rudimentary form of (for lack of a better word) awareness...but it seems that Chopra was being a least a bit dishonest.

Here is the quote from Freeman Dyson that Chopra was referring to re: atoms and consciousness:

“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.”

Quote by Freeman Dyson: “It is remarkable that mind enters into our awar...”

....and here is Max Planck on the subject:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

— Max Planck

Max Planck Quotes - 54 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes

The correct mystical view is that the individual atom does not possess an individual consciousness, such as the idea of a separate ego called 'I' in human consciousness, but that a universal consciousness is simultaneously playing all the parts of the universe, including atoms, and yes, including man. The idea is that we are none other than that same universal consciousness acting in pretense of being the ego-character we associate with. This association is known as Identification.

Recent data from studies in Quantum mechanics has shown that all the mass of the atom is not real mass: it is virtual in nature, and is created by a combination of fluctuations in both the Quantum and Higgs fields. IOW, all physical reality is virtual.

The world, including us, is not what it seems.

 

[godnotgod]

The notion that all of existence self-created, self-governed, and self-organized is the height of magical thinking. You are ascribing to nature abilities that would make any alleged magician green with envy.

It's not existence manifested as forms perse that is self-created, self-governed, and self-organized: it's the underlying consciousness manifesting such forms that is responsible for the intelligence you see at work.

When the Buddha looked into the matter, he saw into the nature of things, realizing that all such forms are empty of an individual, inherent nature. Hence:

form is emptiness;
emptiness is form.

Only the consciousness manifesting form is real.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't think Dawkins acknowledges supernatural phenomena because he is a scientist and there is no evidence for them.
Basically Dawkins was saying that consciousness is an emergent property of brain matter, which is what the evidence suggests. Chopra was claiming that atoms and molecules are themselves conscious, but seems to have no basis for this claim - it all looks very speculative, and the pseudo-science he uses is far from convincing.

Chopra is not talking about something 'supernatural'; he is talking about consciousness beyond local human consciousness.

'Emergent theory' is not even a hypothesis. It's assumes consciousness 'emerges' from the brain, which is like saying that TV signals come from the TV set. Science still cannot tell us how non-physical consciousness emerges from the physical brain.

Chopra was referring to what the physicist Freeman Dyson said about atoms, here:

Quote by Freeman Dyson: “It is remarkable that mind enters into our awar...”

Show me how Chopra is using 'pseudo-science'.

 

[godnotgod]

namaskaram
no scientist can tell me that the sea does not lay over that hill when I have been there and he has not , it is as simple as that .

It really is.

Because people who have had bona fide mystical/spiritual experiences cannot explain them to those who have not, and who are sceptical of such experiences, certain ways of pointing to them becomes necessary, in the hopes that the uninitiated will pick up the queue via intuition. But this is the exception rather than the rule, because most people are indoctrinated into the world of logic and reason, and go about attempting to 'figure things out' intellectually, when nature itself is non-rational. Thus, there is 'paradox', which seems to drive men even further along the intellectual path, thinking that someday they will arrive at some epiphanic moment in which they can then say 'Ah HA! So THAT's it!'. Not gonna happen. Only nibbling around the edges of Reality with their math and science will continue. Not to say that math and science are not useful; they are, but they are out of context to Reality. Science has the cart ahead of the horse, when the emphasis should first be on attaining the spiritual experience, which will put the findings of science and math in the proper context, which is Reality itself. Attempting to put nature into a conceptual context will always result in beffudlement. We only THINK we 'know something', when all we really have is a skeletal model.

 

[godnotgod]

Chopra is completely out of his league when it comes to science, it's just a nonsensical stream of pseudo-science dressed up to sound clever. It's rubbish, and I'm amazed that anyone falls for it.

Sometimes truthful things sound like rubbish to those who lack understanding, preferring instead to 'play it safe' by attaching themselves to authority, such as science or religion, giving them a false sense of security because they 'know' they're on the 'right' side.

 

[godnotgod]

Are you aware of Chopra's academic and professional background? He is obviously top of the chart high intelligence. And maybe that's why I feel he doesn't relate well to the common person especially in conversational mode.

It is not surprising that you perceive his presentation that way as contrasted to 'conversational mode'. Conversational mode, as you call it, is a way of trying to understand things in a step by step fashion as the discussion develops, hopefully arriving at some agreeable conclusion. Chopra is an Eastern spiritualist. The general method here is to begin from the conclusion and then go from there, the conclusion being the queue to see what is true at once. It's all a way of pointing to reality, rather than dissecting it, that Chopra uses, in order to convince. But this requires a high degree of attention and a willingness to suspend one's own pet ideas about what is true and what is not. IOW, it involves seeing, rather than thinking about what the nature of things is.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Sometimes truthful things sound like rubbish to those who lack understanding, preferring instead to 'play it safe' by attaching themselves to authority, such as science or religion, giving them a false sense of security because they 'know' they're on the 'right' side.

I don't regard the woo-bandit Chopra as an authority on anything.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't regard the woo-bandit Chopra as an authority on anything.

Of course you don't. Both you fail to understand and you're stereotyping him, automatic knee jerk fashion. But it's easy to condemn others while hiding behind the color of scientific authority, isn't it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So that means that we say that in the absence of any evidence of the existence of X, the probability of X existing is one over the total number of possibilities considered. Or something like that.

That doesn't take into account the power of explanation of X, unless power of explanation is considered evidence in itself?

If we see the word 'HELP' spelled in rocks on a deserted island beach, we know it is possible that the waves did it, we have plenty evidence of this possibility, and none of human activity. Yet still we assume somebody somehow arranged them, unless we can utterly rule that possibility out. Can we be this sure God can't possibly exist?