Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[outhouse]

Can we be this sure God can't possibly exist?

In light of no evidence what so ever. Yes we can.


In light of knowing man has been creating deities for thousands of years seals the deal.


Knowing how man alone defined the monotheistic god by combining two Canaanite deities they plagiarized, yes we do.

Knowing how they added a "son" to the deity concept redefining it, that was a "son of god" the same way the Emperor was at that time, who the followers competed against by Proselytizing the Emperors followers. YES we do.

 

[Gambit]

That was just painful to watch. You could tell exactly how Dawkins felt from the facepalm he gave Chopra while the latter was speaking his nonsense.

Chopra was correct; Dawkins was wrong. Freeman Dyson has definitely ascribed a rudimentary form of consciousness to subatomic particles.

"It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron." (source: pg. 297 "Infinite in All Directions" by Freeman Dyson)

What's more ironic, Daniel Dennett (one of Dawkins' sidekicks) has ascribed a rudimentary consciousness to the first replicators in the so-called primordial soup.

"But, as we have seen, the point of view of a conscious observer is not identical to, but a sophisticated descendent of, the primordial points of view of the first replicators who divided their worlds into good and bad. (After all, even plants have points of view in this primordial sense.)" (source: pg. 176, "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett)

 

[viole]

Chopra was correct; Dawkins was wrong. Freeman Dyson has definitely ascribed a rudimentary form of consciousness to subatomic particles.



What's more ironic, Daniel Dennett (one of Dawkins' sidekicks) has ascribed a rudimentary consciousness to the first replicators in the so-called primordial soup.

What? Conscious subatomic particles? I can only imagine the drama of those virtual particles appearing and disappearing all the time into the vacuum.

Subatomic particle: I think therefore I am ... Boom... Gone

Are we committing murder by annihilating subatomic particles in experiments like we do at the CERN?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

What? Conscious subatomic particles? I can only imagine the drama of those virtual particles appearing and disappearing all the time into the vacuum.

Subparticle: I think therefore I am ... Boom... Gone

Are we committing murder by annihilating subatomic particles in experiments like we do at the CERN?

Christof Koch (chief scientist in charge of identifying the "neural correlates of consciousness"(NCC)) has also adopted a version of panpsychism.

What Koch proposes is a scientifically refined version of an ancient philosophical doctrine called panpsychism — and, coming from someone else, it might sound more like spirituality than science.
(source: "A Neuroscientist’s Radical Theory of How Networks Become Conscious" by Brandon Keim, "Wired (magazine)"

 

[viole]

Christof Koch (chief scientist in charge of identifying the "neural correlates of consciousness"(NCC)) has also adopted a version of panpsychism.

Yes, and sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, and Alan Turing to telepathy. So what?

Adding scientific titles to nonsensensical statements does not make them sensical.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

Yes, and air Isaac Newton believed in alchemy. So what?

Adding scientific titles to nonsensensical statements does not make them sensical.

Christof Koch is world's most prominent neuroscientist. IOW, Richard Dawkins (like yourself) is clueless.

 

[viole]

Christof Koch is world's most prominent neuroscientist. IOW, Richard Dawkins (like yourself) is clueless.

You seem to suffer from a severe form of "appeal to authority fallacy", I am afraid. I know prominents neurologists who believe to have met the angels in the thereafter when their brain was dead, so what?

Ever noticed how many tags (phd, professor, emeritus this and that) creationists use to make their ridiculous ideas more believable to the gullible? Same thing here.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

Chopra was correct; Dawkins was wrong

maybe in your mind.

not academia.

 

[Gambit]

You seem to suffer from a severe form of "appeal to authority fallacy", I am afraid.

Christof Koch is an authority on neuroscience; Richard Dawkins is not.

 

[Gambit]

maybe in your mind.

I cited Freeman Dyson; I'm afraid you don't have the luxury of simply ignoring that fact.

 

[viole]

Christof Koch is an authority on neuroscience; Richard Dawkins is not.

As I said. Appeal to authority. The question, of course, is how he moves from neurotransmitters to the whole Universe, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I cited Freeman Dyson; I'm afraid you don't have the luxury of simply ignoring that fact.

Yes, and I mentioned Isaac Newton.

Does that make alchemy more plausible?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

As I said. Appeal to authority. The question, of course, is how he moves from neurotransmitters to the whole Universe, lol.

No, the issue is to explain how consciousness spontaneously emerges to begin with. As I stated in a previous post, Daniel Dennett himself embraced a form of panpsychism in order to explain how consciousness evolved. (Most "materialists" actually believe that consciousness is a continuum. That belief is the basis for panpsychism.)

 

[viole]

No, the issue is to explain how consciousness spontaneously emerges to begin with. As I stated in a previous post, Daniel Dennett himself embraced a form of panpsychism in order to explain how consciousness evolved. (Most "materialists" actually believe that consciousness is a continuum. That belief is the basis for panpsychism.)

How can something beeing a continuum (whatever that means) be the basis of panpsychism?

The path of a stone in space is a continuum (probably), that does not entail that the whole Universe follows a path in space, or is a stone, obviously.

Can you be more specific by illustrating your inference?

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

Freeman Dyson;

Freeman Dyson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In The God Delusion (2006), biologist Richard Dawkins criticized Dyson for accepting the religious Templeton Prize in 2000; "It would be taken as an endorsement of religion by one of the world's most distinguished physicists."[33] However, Dyson declared in 2000 that he is a (non-denominational) Christian,[34] and he has disagreed with Dawkins on several occasions, as when he criticized Dawkins' understanding of evolution.[35]


Was mistaken in many of his claims.

 

[outhouse]

panpsychism

One criticism of panpsychism is the simple lack of evidence that the physical entities have any mental attributes.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

One criticism of panpsychism is the simple lack of evidence that the physical entities have any mental attributes.

Part of the problem with this whole concept is that there is a strong need by some to have this "consciousness" be something totally separate and that the experience itself be different than our cognitive awareness of the experience. However there isn't any evidence of that being the case. A rock can't have an experience other than the physical because it doesn't have a cognitive ability to 'know" anything. There is no secret unseen non-physical cognitive awareness that could somehow provide knowledge to a rock. The "experience" or consciousness of a rock would best be described much in the same way the term "observe" is defined within QM.

 

[Gambit]

One criticism of panpsychism is the simple lack of evidence that the physical entities have any mental attributes.

We have evidence to infer that subatomic particles have some form of mentality. (Freeman Dyson is hardly the only distinguished physicist to make this ascription.)

"Even an electron has at least a rudimentary mental pole, respresented mathematically by the quantum potential." (source: pg. 387 "The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory" by David Bohm and B.J. Hiley)

 

[Gambit]

How can something beeing a continuum (whatever that means) be the basis of panpsychism?

I suggest you look up the term in the dictionary.

 

[outhouse]

Part of the problem with this whole concept is that there is a strong need by some to have this "consciousness" be something totally separate and that the experience itself be different than our cognitive awareness of the experience. However there isn't any evidence of that being the case.

Agreed.

Its all wish and want.