Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

It has withstood the test of time while all others failed yes.

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.

I don't know if this is true or not. If it is I would like to see evidence of it. However even if it is true so what?

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.

This is unsubstantiated. You believe it to be so. That doesn't make it true.

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.

Once you stop thinking you become prone to making up bull**** that sounds great because you don't question it rationally.

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

And any view outside reason cannot withstand rational questioning. Why? Because its usually bull****.

 

[outhouse]

with Chopra's views on the subject.

Has no credibility at all.

 

[Nietzsche]

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?

Then why do other faiths even exist? Why do I feel nothing from the God of Abraham and his myriad interpretations, but instead feel strongly the presence of the Aesir & Vanir? A sense of family & closeness I never felt towards the desert-God?

 

[Gambit]

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.

There is no materialistic explanation for why consciousness was natural selected. Why? Because on the materialist view consciousness is causally inert and therefore cannot confer any survival benefit whatsoever.

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.

Yes, Einstein was wrong about quantum indeterminacy. But he was right about what it implied, namely, that it implied that an electron makes a free choice.

"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)

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)

"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)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There is no materialistic explanation for why consciousness was natural selected. Why? Because on the materialist view consciousness is causally inert and therefore cannot confer any survival benefit whatsoever.

I disagree with this. We do have naturalistic explanations as to why it happened. But cognition provides incredible survival benefit. I don't know why you don't think it does.

Yes, Einstein was wrong about quantum indeterminacy. But he was right about what it implied, namely, that it implied that an electron makes a free choice.

Not by any known science he isn't. There is no cognition within the randomness that happens with a particle. Do you feel there is? If so why? What evidences do you have that it is anything but random? Does it have a purpose? Is there some obscene odds that it does something that would have required intelligence?

Einstine was wrong on both occasions because sometimes things happen in the quantum world that doesn't follow perfect action reaction causality.

 

[Gambit]

I disagree with this. We do have naturalistic explanations as to why it happened. But cognition provides incredible survival benefit. I don't know why you don't think it does.

I have already explained to you why. Consciousness, on the materialist view, is causally-inert. As such, it cannot confer any survival benefit. (Free will is the only possible cause that consciousness can exert. And materialism specifically precludes the possibility of free will. I have discussed this thoroughly in my thread entitled "Why was consciousness naturally selected?")

Not by any known science he isn't. There is no cognition within the randomness that happens with a particle. Do you feel there is? If so why? What evidences do you have that it is anything but random? Does it have a purpose? Is there some obscene odds that it does something that would have required intelligence?

To begin with, something that is random does not have any physical cause by definition. In fact, a truly random event is completely mysterious. It defies any naturalistic explanation. All we can say is that a choice from a realm of possibilities was made (which is exactly what Einstein, Bohm, and Dyson have all articulated). Also, we know the consciousness is implicated in the collapse of the wave function due to the observer effect.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I have already explained to you why. Consciousness, on the materialist view, is causally-inert. As such, it cannot confer any survival benefit. (Free will is the only possible cause that consciousness can exert. And materialism specifically precludes the possibility of free will. I have discussed this thoroughly in my thread entitled "Why was consciousness naturally selected?")

Your first mistake is assuming that because something is materialistic it is "anything" in terms of free will. There may not be free will but there also may be free will. Materialistic views, especially pragmatically materialistic views that science holds, doesn't preclude it from any kind of free will.

But cognition most definitely does net advantage. And I would argue that consciousness is a byproduct of cognition. Not the other way around.

To begin with, something that is random does not have any physical cause by definition. In fact, a truly random event is completely mysterious. It defies any naturalistic explanation. All we can say is that a choice from a realm of possibilities was made (which is exactly what Einstein, Bohm, and Dyson have all articulated). Also, we know the consciousness is implicated in the collapse of the wave function due to the observer effect.

You can have random events with finite possibilities. In fact that is what QM mechanics and almost all study of subatomic particles are about. For example when we calculate the orbit shape of an electron we look at a vague shape that it may be at any given point in time. Or that it may be at all times. Where it is at any given moment is generally random. It doesn't mean that it doesn't follow suit to the laws of nature such as the balance of electrons and bonding but there is a degree of randomness.

The observer effect mixed with cognition that is able to record information creates consciousness.

Also randomness does not defy naturalistic explanations. You would need to make a few leaps to jump to that conclusion as well.

 

[godnotgod]

But cognition most definitely does net advantage. And I would argue that consciousness is a byproduct of cognition. Not the other way around.

That's totally ridiculous! For cognition to occur, consciousness must already be in place. We don't 'think' ourselves into consciousness, and even if we could, we would be utilizing consciousness to do so.

Reason errs!

 

[Gambit]

Your first mistake is assuming that because something is materialistic it is "anything" in terms of free will. There may not be free will but there also may be free will. Materialistic views, especially pragmatically materialistic views that science holds, doesn't preclude it from any kind of free will.

On the materialistic and mechanistic view, awareness, in and of itself, exerts no causal influence. There is nothing a "robot with consciousness" can do that a "robot without consciousness" cannot do in theory.

You can have random events with finite possibilities.

So? I don't care if there are only two possibilities. A random event is a spontaneous that has no physical cause.

Merriam-Webster defines "indeterminism" as "a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes" and "a theory that holds that not every event has a cause."

The observer effect mixed with cognition that is able to record information creates consciousness.

We can say that consciousness collapses the wave function due to the observer effect.

 

[Bunyip]

On the materialistic and mechanistic view, awareness, in and of itself, exerts no causal influence. There is nothing a "robot with consciousness" can do that a "robot without consciousness" cannot do in theory.

But that is patently untrue. Awareness of something changes how we interact with it. There is nothing in either materialism or a mechanistic view that supports your argument. It is simply a non-sequitur.

So? I don't care if there are only two possibilities. A random event is a spontaneous that has no physical cause.

Merriam-Webster defines "indeterminism" as "a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes" and "a theory that holds that not every event has a cause."



We can say that consciousness collapses the wave function due to the observer effect.

Sure, but that would be a misapplication of consciousness, collapses, wave function and observer effect. Those words all have meanings.

 

[godnotgod]

Why do I... feel strongly the presence of the Aesir & Vanir? A sense of family & closeness I never felt towards the desert-God?

Jungian archtypes?

 

[godnotgod]

Once you stop thinking you become prone to making up bull**** that sounds great because you don't question it rationally.

Not thinking cannot create bull****. BS comes from thinking.

Not thinking is seeing things as they actually are, rather than how the rational mind conceptualizes them to be. IOW, seeing is a direct wire to Reality; thinking is a roundabout loop which distorts on the way to its conclusions.

 

[Unification]

Not thinking cannot create bull****. BS comes from thinking.

Not thinking is seeing things as they actually are, rather than how the rational mind conceptualizes them to be. IOW, seeing is a direct wire to Reality; thinking is a roundabout loop which distorts on the way to its conclusions.

Love how you said that.

When we stop thinking a moment, do not judge or label anything and just observe. . It switches from being the thinker to the observer. There is no conscious thought taking place. It is just an emptiness that is full of potential. It can never diminish, or ever burn out like thoughts and the body can. It is ever there, in the background of what you call you.

If we succeed in becoming one with this observer, even only for a second, we get a taste of peace. It is peace that surpasses understanding because it cannot be understood, it can only be experienced.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

When we stop thinking a moment, do not judge or label anything and just observe. . It switches from being the thinker to the observer. There is no conscious thought taking place. It is just an emptiness that is full of potential. It can never diminish, or ever burn out like thoughts and the body can. It is ever there, in the background of what you call you.

True, and there is great benefit from completely calming the mind, a more intuitive understanding. But Chopra's ideas are still poppy-cock.

 

[godnotgod]

Love how you said that.

When we stop thinking a moment, do not judge or label anything and just observe. . It switches from being the thinker to the observer. There is no conscious thought taking place. It is just an emptiness that is full of potential. It can never diminish, or ever burn out like thoughts and the body can. It is ever there, in the background of what you call you.

If we succeed in becoming one with this observer, even only for a second, we get a taste of peace. It is peace that surpasses understanding because it cannot be understood, it can only be experienced.

Ultimately, even the 'observer' is merely a temporary tool that Higher Consciousness uses. In reality, as Chopra once said:

"...in the bigger picture, the observer, the observed, and the process of observation, is a single reality."

IOW, self is completely transcended, as represented by:

This is Sunyata, or Emptiness.

 

[godnotgod]

True, and there is great benefit from completely calming the mind, a more intuitive understanding. But Chopra's ideas are still poppy-cock.

What mind is there to calm? You're just creating a concept that doesn't actually exist.

You keep calling Chopra's ideas 'poppycock', but you have nothing to back up your empty claims. Let's see some meaningful argumentation from you instead of rocks tossed from the peanut gallery. The reality is that Chopra is a spiritual giant compared to your puny knee jerk perturbations.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The reality is that Chopra is a spiritual giant compared to your puny knee jerk perturbations.

No, he's a charlatan full of BS. I'm surprised you've been taken in by his nonsense.

 

[godnotgod]

It [reason] has withstood the test of time while all others failed yes.

Is that so? Well let's take a closer look, shall we?

Science, using Reason, used to state that the material world was real solid stuff. Now, Quantum physics has overturned that apple cart, the latest being that the mass of the atom is now understood to be totally virtual mass.

Eastern wisdom, OTOH, has been consistent in its one time conclusion that the material world is both illusory and empty.

So I would say that, on its surface, mysticism is far more reliable and stable than the likes of Reason, Logic, and Analysis.

 

[godnotgod]

No, he's a charlatan full of BS. I'm surprised you've been taken in by his nonsense.

Put your money where your mouth is. Say something meaningful with substance, instead of just bad mouthing someone you have made a target using science as your authority. You're saying nothing here, Spiny. So crap or get off the pot.

Can you produce this so called 'mind' you claim you are calming? Or are you just a charlatan full of BS?

 

[godnotgod]

True, and there is great benefit from completely calming the mind, a more intuitive understanding.

ha ha ha...what in the world do you know about 'intuitive understanding'? That's a joke, yes?

Calming the mind via meditation does not necessarily lead to intuitive understanding.