Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Monk Of Reason]

As I said, it's not the individual rock or any other form that has consciousness; consciousness is manifesting itself as all forms.

Universal Consciousness cannot be 'separate' from you and I any more than we can be separated from the Universe.

The mystical experience is outside of cognition. In Zen, for example, the rational mind is short-circuited, as when sudden realization occurs when the solution to a koan is spontaneously seen and understood. Here, there is no time for the thinking mind to operate.

The reason mystical experiences cannot be proven is simply because they are outside of the sphere of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. For you to have even a glimpse of this 'other' reality of which you haven't even a clue, the constant machinations of your thinking mind (ie; 'monkey mind') must be suspended, even if for a brief moment, or otherwise tricked into self-implosion, as via koan or other device. People who have experienced such glimpses behind the facade of everyday 'reality', will never be the same afterwards.

Even within Zen there is cognition. There is an illusion that it is not but even the crappiest of CT scans or better yet an MRI can show you that there is brain activity during meditation. Zen or otherwise.
You keep claiming that there are mystical experiences but all of the evidence keeps suggesting its in your head. All of the subjective experience of it is a very convincing subjective delusion.

 

[godnotgod]

What I'm trying to reach here is, why does he hide?

Why do you?

 

[Nietzsche]

By whose definition?

"Biology is the study of larger organisms, whereas physics is the study of smaller organisms." - Alfred North Whitehead

Whitehead is an interesting figure, but he's a single opinion. And more so, he's from quite a long time ago, when physics(quantum and otherwise) as we understand it today was literally in its infancy.

 

[Nietzsche]

Why do you?

I do not hide, I am simply not omnipresent, omniscient or omnipotent.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I've never quite understood this analogy. Language is a construct, by humans. It's something we agree on, more or less. Why would your "HELP" thing be in English? That sounds pedantic, but follow me on this;

If we assume that a God will indeed speak to us, why would he communicate through such esoteric means? This analogy rests on the idea that both the creator of the "HELP" message and the person who views it understands English. Obviously, God(I hope) would not be so limited. So the question remains, why make it so convoluted and reliant on such precise parameters? What I'm trying to reach here is, why does he hide? It would be extremely simple for God to alert everyone to his presence. There are people who have and will go their entire lives, through no fault of their own, without ever even hearing about *insert deity of choice here*. It's not a question of numbers & chance, or at least, it's not entirely a question of numbers & chance. It's a question of why make it so Byzantine.

Help, SOS maybe, the point is that they are relatively simple shapes to be formed accidentally, and we are given an accidental mechanism that is perfectly capable of it, yet we still suspect agency, because of the relevance of the pattern. i.e. it's not that HELP is any more improbable than any particular random collection of rocks, but that where creative intelligence is even remotely permitted, it provides a better explanation.

Because of motive, in this case life, in the casino analogy it's money- but what is the one thing greater than wealth or even life to a conscious mind? the ultimate motive for anything? Love

If you could plant a chip in somebody's head that made them love you no matter what, would you do it? tempting, but you would soon realize that this is not love at all, in fact you have just destroyed any possibility of it right?

It must be freely and personally discovered, cherished, mutual. So to with God, I'm sure he could alert everyone to his presence, he certainly reaches a pretty good number right? But there can be no guarantee, belief, faith, love cannot be mandated or they disappear.

 

[Gambit]

On what grounds do you claim them to be life as the definition of life does not apply to molecules much less atoms or even smaller particles. Though after re-reading some of your comments do you feel there is some kind of evidence that points to there being some underlain communication or knowledge with these particles?

What constitutes life is ambiguous at best.

It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[37][38][39][40]
(source: Wikipedia: Life)

Going back to the video presented in the OP in this thead. Chopra claimed that the distinguished physicist Freeman Dyson ascribed some form of rudimentary mentality to electrons. Dawkins denied this. Chopra was right; Dawkins was wrong.

Matter in quantum mechanics is not an inert substance but an active agent, constantly making alternative choices between alternative possibilities according to probabilistic laws. Every quantum experiment forces nature to make a choices. 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)

 

[godnotgod]

Even within Zen there is cognition. There is an illusion that it is not but even the crappiest of CT scans or better yet an MRI can show you that there is brain activity during meditation. Zen or otherwise.
You keep claiming that there are mystical experiences but all of the evidence keeps suggesting its in your head. All of the subjective experience of it is a very convincing subjective delusion.

It's exactly the opposite: that it's all in my head is because it's all in YOUR head! YOU'RE the one making the rational argument.

Just because there is brain activity during meditation does not mean cognition is an emergent factor of the brain. The focused attention of consciousness is creating brain activity, primarily in the form of alpha waves.

Let's be clear here: I am using 'cognition' to equate with rational thought. Is that correct? Thought takes time. The brain exists in space. The mystical experience is outside of Time, Space, Reasoning, Logic, and Analysis. It cannot be delusion, because delusion is a product of thought. The mystical experience is not about thought, but about seeing, without thought. You fail to understand how this is possible because you haven't yet had the preliminary experience of suspending thought. Meditators call the state of the thinking mind 'small mind', or 'monkey mind'. Once this is subdued, the intuitive mind comes into play of its own accord. This is called 'Big Mind' in Zen circles. It's presence is undetected due to the constant chattering of the thinking mind. Hence, the reason to subdue 'monkey mind'.

You're still seeking a rational argument, aren't you?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What constitutes life is ambiguous at best.

The times where it is ambiguous is rare. Viruses, moment of abiogensis, ect. But between electrons and animals...we have a distinctive difference.

Going back to the video presented in the OP in this thead. Chopra claimed that the distinguished physicist Freeman Dyson ascribed some form of rudimentary mentality to electrons. Dawkins denied this. Chopra was right; Dawkins was wrong.

Rudimentary mentality? I would not agree that it has any meaningful cognition. It has random possibilities and probabilities that it may or may not act under but there doesn't seem to be any sort of direction or thought behind it. Quantum Uncertainty does not equal quantum mentality.

 

[Gambit]

Whitehead is an interesting figure, but he's a single opinion. And more so, he's from quite a long time ago, when physics(quantum and otherwise) as we understand it today was literally in its infancy.

Freeman Dyson is a contemporary physicist who ascribed some rudimentary mind to an electron.

“The laws [of physics] leave a place for mind in the description of every molecule… In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree and not in kind from the processes of choice betweem quantum states we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.” (source: p. 249, "Distrubing the Universe" by Freeman Dyson)

Also, Daniel Dennett (Dawkins' right hand man) ascribed some kind of rudimentary experience to the first-replicators.

"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)

 

[godnotgod]

Chopra claimed that the distinguished physicist Freeman Dyson ascribed some form of rudimentary mentality to electrons. Dawkins denied this. Chopra was right; Dawkins was wrong.

Dawkins also unwittingly made the argument that:

"The universe is not conscious. Things IN the universe are conscious, but the universe itself is not."

not realizing that 'things in the universe' are what constitutes the universe itself!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's exactly the opposite: that it's all in my head is because it's all in YOUR head! YOU'RE the one making the rational argument.

Yes. I am the one making the rational argument. Thank you.

Just because there is brain activity during meditation does not mean cognition is an emergent factor of the brain. The focused attention of consciousness is creating brain activity, primarily in the form of alpha waves.

Not necessarily true. Any brain activity can make alpha waves. Why would you assume it is consciousness specifically making brain waves? Actually no I take that back even further. What creates brain waves is the electrical activity during the cognitive processes of our brain.

Let's be clear here: I am using 'cognition' to equate with rational thought. Is that correct? Thought takes time. The brain exists in space. The mystical experience is outside of Time, Space, Reasoning, Logic, and Analysis. It cannot be delusion, because delusion is a product of thought. The mystical experience is not about thought, but about seeing, without thought. You fail to understand how this is possible because you haven't yet had the preliminary experience of suspending thought. Meditators call the state of the thinking mind 'small mind', or 'monkey mind'. Once this is subdued, the intuitive mind comes into play of its own accord. This is called 'Big Mind' in Zen circles. It's presence is undetected due to the constant chattering of the thinking mind. Hence, the reason to subdue 'monkey mind'.

Cognition doesn't have to be rational. Cognition simply means that there is information being processed. It doesn't have to make sense. Delusion is simply when what is believed or experienced isn't what "is". When the subjective and the objective do not match. You assume that there is a mind beyond your regular mind but there is no evidence of it and all of the evidence states that this is yet another sub-category of your brain. Nothing more and nothing less.

You're still seeking a rational argument, aren't you?

Typically they are the only ones that matter.

 

[Gambit]

The times where it is ambiguous is rare. Viruses, moment of abiogensis, ect. But between electrons and animals...we have a distinctive difference.

Abiogenesis is what is at issue here!

Those who do not accept panpsychism (e.g. Richard Dawkins) cannot explain "Why consciousness was naturally selected?"(as made evident by my thread on the subject matter).

Rudimentary mentality? I would not agree that it has any meaningful cognition. It has random possibilities and probabilities that it may or may not act under but there doesn't seem to be any sort of direction or thought behind it. Quantum Uncertainty does not equal quantum mentality.

Albert Einstein most certainly thought so....

"The idea that an electron...by its own free decision chooses the moment and direction in which it wants to eject is intolerable to me. If that is so, I'd rather be a cobbler or a clerk in a gambling casino than a physicist." - Albert Einstein (source: pg. 574, "Albert Einstein" by Albrecht Fölsing, translated by Ewald Osers)

 

[Nietzsche]

Help, SOS maybe, the point is that they are relatively simple shapes to be formed accidentally, and we are given an accidental mechanism that is perfectly capable of it, yet we still suspect agency, because of the relevance of the pattern. i.e. it's not that HELP is any more improbable than any particular random collection of rocks, but that where creative intelligence is even remotely permitted, it provides a better explanation.

Because of motive, in this case life, in the casino analogy it's money- but what is the one thing greater than wealth or even life to a conscious mind? the ultimate motive for anything? Love

If you could plant a chip in somebody's head that made them love you no matter what, would you do it? tempting, but you would soon realize that this is not love at all, in fact you have just destroyed any possibility of it right?

It must be freely and personally discovered, cherished, mutual. So to with God, I'm sure he could alert everyone to his presence, he certainly reaches a pretty good number right? But there can be no guarantee, belief, faith, love cannot be mandated or they disappear.

But this isn't forcing someone to love anything, this is spreading awareness and knowledge. If I were to discover or create some manner of cure for cancer I would be asked to demonstrate it, repeatedly, on demand, in order to prove it's legit and not either me abusing the desperate or a series of extremely lucky coincidences.

We're not asking God for anything beyond that which we would expect of ourselves.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. I am the one making the rational argument. Thank you.

You're missing the point. Because you're limited to the machinations of Reason, you don't see what lies beyond it. For the mind of Reason, it is the ONLY valid method, validated by itself, however.

Not necessarily true. Any brain activity can make alpha waves. Why would you assume it is consciousness specifically making brain waves? Actually no I take that back even further. What creates brain waves is the electrical activity during the cognitive processes of our brain.

However, meditation produces unusually large amounts of alpha waves, over and above ordinary brain activity. This ONLY occurs when focused consciousness in the form of meditation is applied.

Cognition doesn't have to be rational. Cognition simply means that there is information being processed. It doesn't have to make sense. Delusion is simply when what is believed or experienced isn't what "is". When the subjective and the objective do not match.

Right, but that is my point exactly: because cognition is short-circuited in the mystical experience, the mystical experience cannot be delusional. It's beyond cognition, whether delusional or not.

You assume that there is a mind beyond your regular mind but there is no evidence of it and all of the evidence states that this is yet another sub-category of your brain. Nothing more and nothing less.

Completely wrong! The mind of Higher Consciousness is none other than your regular mind. Paradoxical? That's because you're still in thinking mode. Once thought is suspended, it is SEEN that your ordinary mind is none other than the mind of Higher Consciousness.

Typically they are the only ones that matter.

...as dictated by the rational mind, of course. A view outside of that of Reason may demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Nietzsche]

Freeman Dyson is a contemporary physicist who ascribed some rudimentary mind to an electron.



Also, Daniel Dennett (Dawkins' right hand man) ascribed some kind of rudimentary experience to the first-replicators.

But none of them are claiming they have evidence for it, they are simply stating opinions/beliefs on things we don't fully understand yet.

 

[godnotgod]

I do not hide, I am simply not omnipresent, omniscient or omnipotent.

Your hiding is so thoroughly and perfectly executed that you are unaware of it and in total denial of it in the most serious way possible. Excellent facade!

 

[Gambit]

But none of them are claiming they have evidence for it, they are simply stating opinions/beliefs on things we don't fully understand yet.

We can only infer consciousness. And they are inferring consciousness based on some kind of evidence. More to the point, they are expressing a belief that is in tune with Chopra's views on the subject.

 

[godnotgod]

We can only infer consciousness. And they are inferring consciousness based on some kind of evidence.

Yes, that consciousness is being utilized to infer consciousness, which is self-evident!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But this isn't forcing someone to love anything, this is spreading awareness and knowledge. If I were to discover or create some manner of cure for cancer I would be asked to demonstrate it, repeatedly, on demand, in order to prove it's legit and not either me abusing the desperate or a series of extremely lucky coincidences.

We're not asking God for anything beyond that which we would expect of ourselves.

As I said it's about something greater than mere awareness and knowledge, why create sentient beings simply to prove to them that you did?

Aside from the fact that again you'd destroy personal faith, belief, these things only have value where they are discovered personally. No different than a beloved trusted friend, you didn't demand love and trust on first meeting, you learned it, grew it, that's the only way to achieve it. Similarly with God, for many he does repeatedly demonstrate it on demand, like a good friend you can rely this experience to others, but you cannot provide the proof, love, trust for them can you?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Abiogenesis is what is at issue here!

Those who do not accept panpsychism (e.g. Richard Dawkins) cannot explain "Why consciousness was naturally selected?"(as made evident by my thread on the subject matter).

Actually we can. Cognition leads to better survival and the basis in which we have brought life about through what we presume to have been the track of abiogensis doesn't require thought or anything of the like.

Albert Einstein most certainly thought so....

Unfortunately Einstein had next to no knowledge of what we know now a bout QM. His opinion on this really is meaningless as he still believed we were in a static universe and felt that there was no "chance" in the universe. However there is chance in the quantum world. He was wrong.