Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

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

heh..heh...and THAT, folks, coming from Reason itself....

'I am Reason, thy Lord and God. Thou shalt have no other kind of knowledge before Me, for all other views are Bull****!' Thus spraketh The Lord.

"Just a hundred and fifty years ago Immanuel Kant... said that reason is very limited; it sees only a certain part of reality and starts believing ‘that this is the whole. This has been the trouble. Sooner or later we discover further realities and the old whole is in conflict with the new vision. Immanuel Kant attempted to show that there were ineluctable limits to reason, that reason is very limited. But nobody seems to have heard, nobody has cared about Immanuel Kant. Nobody cares much about philosophers.

But science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason. They open up to us a glimpse of a nature which is irrational and paradoxical to the very core. Whatsoever we have been saying about nature has all gone wrong. All principles go wrong because nature is not synonymous with reason, nature is bigger than reason. And Zen is not a philosophy; Zen is a mirror, it is a reflection of that which is. As it is, Zen says the same. It does not bring any man-made philosophy into it, it has no choice, it does not add, it does not delete. That’s why Zen is paradoxical — because life is paradoxical. You just see and you will understand."

Osho - Zen is paradoxical because Zen is not a philosophy - CaptiZen.COM

'NATURE IS SMARTER THAN WE ARE'
Michio Kaku

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason.

How?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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?

Same again, we have to have the free will to be wrong, or being right means nothing

 

[Nietzsche]

Same again, we have to have the free will to be wrong, or being right means nothing

So why're you right and I wrong?

 

[godnotgod]

How?

On the sub-atomic level, there is 'the measurement problem', and the limits of the Planck Scale, for example;
on the macro scale, the math and physics fail. (See Kaku video above).

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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!

Not so. I believe it is the opposite. Unless you want to re-define "consciousness" and have evidence for this new definition.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Unless consciousness is an inevitable byproduct of high functioning cognition. In which case yes it would be highly beneficial.

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."

Random can also mean that there are a number of possibilities in which one of them WILL happen and what path is taken doesn't necessarily have to be caused rather than any other path. And this isn't beyond the realm of pragmatic materialism or philosophical materialism.

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

Lets say for the sake of argument I agreed. What implications would this have in you mind?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

To understand anything requires some cognition. cognition requires thinking. Therefore you are still thinking, just less. And without proper reflection on your thoughts you get a lot of ideas and beliefs that aren't actually factual or even plausable.

To give you a good example, think about people that get really high. People that are so high get really really really really good ideas....they think. Its revolutionary. But then someone who isn't totally stoned is like...."dude...your stoned. go to bed"

Same thing here.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Mysticism has never provided any scientific understanding the universe that has provided us with any real or beneficial knowledge. Even its claims that the material world is illusory and empty end up failing to actually describe our universe. The context of those claims are both counter to what we have actually discovered through reason logic and analysis. Its like saying the bible is more scientifically accurate than science because it stated that god hung the earth on nothing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

heh..heh...and THAT, folks, coming from Reason itself....

'I am Reason, thy Lord and God. Thou shalt have no other kind of knowledge before Me, for all other views are Bull****!' Thus spraketh The Lord.

"Just a hundred and fifty years ago Immanuel Kant... said that reason is very limited; it sees only a certain part of reality and starts believing ‘that this is the whole. This has been the trouble. Sooner or later we discover further realities and the old whole is in conflict with the new vision. Immanuel Kant attempted to show that there were ineluctable limits to reason, that reason is very limited. But nobody seems to have heard, nobody has cared about Immanuel Kant. Nobody cares much about philosophers.

But science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason. They open up to us a glimpse of a nature which is irrational and paradoxical to the very core. Whatsoever we have been saying about nature has all gone wrong. All principles go wrong because nature is not synonymous with reason, nature is bigger than reason. And Zen is not a philosophy; Zen is a mirror, it is a reflection of that which is. As it is, Zen says the same. It does not bring any man-made philosophy into it, it has no choice, it does not add, it does not delete. That’s why Zen is paradoxical — because life is paradoxical. You just see and you will understand."

Osho - Zen is paradoxical because Zen is not a philosophy - CaptiZen.COM

'NATURE IS SMARTER THAN WE ARE'
Michio Kaku

Yep. Coming from reason and still true. I should never have to suspend my logic and reason to believe something. Usually if that is the case it is bull****.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

On the sub-atomic level, there is 'the measurement problem', and the limits of the Planck Scale, for example;
on the macro scale, the math and physics fail. (See Kaku video above).

But does that mean that science can never truly get to grips with these things? Does that mean that these things can never be understood, on some level?

 

[godnotgod]

Not so. I believe it is the opposite. Unless you want to re-define "consciousness" and have evidence for this new definition.

You previously stated that consciousness is self-evident. It is the default state. Cognition is a function of consciousness.

You seem to have been using the word to equate with simple awareness, but consciousness has higher states transcendent of ordinary awareness (and of Reason). Enlightenment is one of them, which the ordinary man usually does not remember due to his immersion into his current state of Identification.

Cognition must be seen against some background, or field, by which it is identified as cognition. That background is undifferentiated consciousness.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You previously stated that consciousness is self-evident. It is the default state. Cognition is a function of consciousness.

You seem to have been using the word to equate with simple awareness, but consciousness has higher states transcendent of ordinary awareness (and of Reason). Enlightenment is one of them, which the ordinary man usually does not remember due to his immersion into his current state of Identification.

Cognition must be seen against some background, or field, by which it is identified as cognition. That background is undifferentiated consciousness.

I didn't say it was a default state. I said it was self evidence because without consciousness or cognition we wouldn't be able to have this conversation.

 

[godnotgod]

I didn't say it was a default state. I said it was self evidence because without consciousness or cognition we wouldn't be able to have this conversation.

No, I am the one saying it is the default state out of which comes cognition.

What is the background against which cognition functions?

 

[godnotgod]

To understand anything requires some cognition. cognition requires thinking. Therefore you are still thinking, just less. And without proper reflection on your thoughts you get a lot of ideas and beliefs that aren't actually factual or even plausable.

...because of faulty reasoning, via thought.

To give you a good example, think about people that get really high. People that are so high get really really really really good ideas....they think.

...really good ideas come spontaneously, without thinking, because of higher states of consciousness, induced by the high. IOW, such ideas are seen instantly and intuitively in a flash.

 

[godnotgod]

But does that mean that science can never truly get to grips with these things? Does that mean that these things can never be understood, on some level?

Knowledge about the mechanisms of a piano and their functions does not yield understanding of the music.

Factual knowledge about the behavior of the universe does not yield an understanding of the nature of Reality.

I am not saying that scientific knowldedge is not useful or beneficial; I am saying it is out of context to Reality itself. Understanding the true nature of things first will put scientific knowledge into the correct context of Reality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Knowledge about the mechanisms of a piano and their functions does not yield understanding of the music.

But does that mean we cannot possibly develop an understanding of music?

Factual knowledge about the behavior of the universe does not yield an understanding of the nature of Reality.

Why not? Does this mean science cannot develop some means with which to understand the nature of reality?

I am not saying that scientific knowldedge is not useful or beneficial; I am saying it is out of context to Reality itself. Understanding the true nature of things first will put scientific knowledge into the correct context of Reality.

I have literally no idea what that even means, I'm afraid...

 

[godnotgod]

Mysticism has never provided any scientific understanding the universe that has provided us with any real or beneficial knowledge. Even its claims that the material world is illusory and empty end up failing to actually describe our universe. The context of those claims are both counter to what we have actually discovered through reason logic and analysis. Its like saying the bible is more scientifically accurate than science because it stated that god hung the earth on nothing.

The goal of mysticism is not scientifc knowledge, but awakening into perfect union with THAT consciousness which manifests the universe so that subject and object no longer exist.

Mysticism is not concerned so much with the mechanisms of the universe as it is with the underlying nature of Reality; the 'ground of being' from which the endless variety of the manifested universe emerges. The facts about the universe can only truly be understood correctly when seen in the light of the true nature of Reality. Without this context, we have only a skeleton.

 

[godnotgod]

But does that mean we cannot possibly develop an understanding of music?

Of course not! You understand music via listening, not analysis. The moment analysis begins, you have lost touch with the music.

Why not? Does this mean science cannot develop some means with which to understand the nature of reality?

No, it cannot, because the nature of Reality must be experienced directly, with no added baggage in the way.

I have literally no idea what that even means, I'm afraid...

You can accumulate vast amounts of factual knowledge about strawberries, but until you actually eat one, you won't understand what 'strawberry' actually is. Your 'understanding' will be purely intellectual.

A bird born and raised in captivity has no understanding of what freedom means until it is set free to fly into the unknown.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course not! You understand music via listening, not analysis. The moment analysis begins, you have lost touch with the music.

In what sense? If science is capable of using careful analysis to produce sound (by, say, playing its part in the invention of new instruments or new methods of recording music), can you really say that analysis causes you to "lose touch" with the music? I'm not talking about enjoying music on a personal level, I'm talking about understanding how and why music has the effect that it does. I see no reason to assume science isn't capable of that.

No, it cannot, because the nature of Reality must be experienced directly, with no added baggage in the way.

Does science play no role in experiencing reality directly? Surely the "added baggage" can only be subjectivity, ignorance and delusion if we're talking about direct experience of objective reality, so surely science is the best means to experience reality directly since it is expressly designed as a method to eliminate this baggage.

You can accumulate vast amounts of factual knowledge about strawberries, but until you actually eat one, you won't understand what 'strawberry' actually is. Your 'understanding' will be purely intellectual.

But cannot taste also be quantified by science? Can science not improve our understanding of the causes and functions of taste, or why strawberries taste the way they do?

A bird born and raised in captivity has no understanding of what freedom means until it is set free to fly into the unknown.

How does that indicate that there are limits to human reason?