Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

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.

Well it can, but that does not yield an understanding of the music itself. You understand music by listening to it. Listening to and directly experiencing music is why it was written. The moment you stop to analyze what you're hearing, the music has gone on, and you are in the past.

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.

Methodology itself becomes baggage.

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?

Certainly, but let's not confuse the description and facts about taste with the experience of tasting itself.

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

It was intended to illustrate the fact that reality must be experienced directly in order to be understood. But your question is related, in that such experience is beyond reason, which is what Osho was trying to say: that nature is bigger than reason, and that Zen mind is a perfect reflection of nature, without being contaminated with conceptual thought about nature.

Paradox exists because rational concepts do not match nature.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well it can, but that does not yield an understanding of the music itself. You understand music by listening to it. Listening to and directly experiencing music is why it was written. The moment you stop to analyze what you're hearing, the music has gone on, and you are in the past.

Perhaps I'm not quite understanding what you mean by "understand" in this context. Could you elaborate on what you mean?

Methodology itself becomes baggage.

But surely no attempt to understand or experience reality is free of baggage, and if a particular methodology is designed specifically to eliminate as much baggage as possible, surely that methodology is preferable to a subjective experience?

Certainly, but let's not confuse the description and facts about taste with the experience of tasting itself.

Agreed, but I think there's a difference between talking about the experience of something and understanding something. I see no reason to assume humans are necessarily incapable of ever understanding anything to any extent. Of course, that may be true, but I see no reason to assume it as yet.

It was intended to illustrate the fact that reality must be experienced directly in order to be understood. But your question is related, in that such experience is beyond reason, which is what Osho was trying to say: that nature is bigger than reason, and that Zen mind is a perfect reflection of nature, without being contaminated with conceptual thought about nature.

Paradox exists because rational concepts do not match nature.

I have to admit I still have yet to watch the video. I'll have to do so as soon as I get home.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But surely no attempt to understand or experience reality is free of baggage, and if a particular methodology is designed specifically to eliminate as much baggage as possible, surely that methodology is preferable to a subjective experience?

Good point, and of course "spiritual" methodology has a lot of of it's own baggage.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Check this out a deepak chopra quote generator.

Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator - Wisdom of Chopra

Each "quote" is generated from a list of words that can be found in Deepak Chopra's Twitter stream randomly stuck together in a sentence.

Here are a couple of profundities from the site:

"The human nervous system is the womb of visible human observation"

"The unpredictable is the path to an expression of mortality"

"Eternal stillness heals a symbolic representation of knowledge"

A random phrase generator makes us much sense as he does.

 

[godnotgod]

Good point, and of course "spiritual" methodology has a lot of of it's own baggage.

What do you mean 'of course'? Where is the baggage in the authentic spiritual experience?

'Spiritual methodology' is an oxymoron. You must still be attached to doctrine and technique.

Belief clings;
Faith lets go.

 

[godnotgod]

Check this out a deepak chopra quote generator.

Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator - Wisdom of Chopra

Each "quote" is generated from a list of words that can be found in Deepak Chopra's Twitter stream randomly stuck together in a sentence.

Here are a couple of profundities from the site:

"The human nervous system is the womb of visible human observation"

"The unpredictable is the path to an expression of mortality"

"Eternal stillness heals a symbolic representation of knowledge"

A random phrase generator makes us much sense as he does.

Perhaps someone here can help you understand. What is it you need assistance with regarding Dr. Chopra's statements?

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps I'm not quite understanding what you mean by "understand" in this context. Could you elaborate on what you mean?

Do you actually listen to music, or do you just hear the sound?

 

[godnotgod]

But surely no attempt to understand or experience reality is free of baggage, and if a particular methodology is designed specifically to eliminate as much baggage as possible, surely that methodology is preferable to a subjective experience?

There is the attempt, then there is the experience itself.

The scientific method is a highly controlled, but still conditioned view. It yields factual knowledge, which is still not yet true understanding. It will never provide a true understanding of the nature of Reality simply because it's methodology stands in the way.

Direct experience of Reality is not a subjective opinion, idea, theory, or concept of Reality; it is the merging of subject and object as a singular experience, without an experiencer. That such an 'experiencer of the experience' exists is only an idea, just as there is no such thing as a 'whirlpool'; there is only whirling water.

 

[godnotgod]

Agreed, but I think there's a difference between talking about the experience of something and understanding something. I see no reason to assume humans are necessarily incapable of ever understanding anything to any extent. Of course, that may be true, but I see no reason to assume it as yet.

How can you understand, via Reason, something that lies beyond Reason?

 

[outhouse]

A random phrase generator makes us much sense as he does.

More LOL

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

What is the background against which cognition functions?

Reality is the background. Consciousness is not required in the background of cognition. I would argue it is the other way around that consciousness can only arise through cognition.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

...because of faulty reasoning, via thought.



...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.

I don't believe in higher states of consciousness or that any of your claims have any substance. Even if people don't think they are thinking...they are. If we were to stop thinking we would literally die. Its called being brain dead.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

And they didn't see diddly squat. They came up with some philosophical stuff and some of it can be rationalized in hind sight after reason and empiricism did all of the heavy lifting and real work.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Where is the baggage in the authentic spiritual experience?

Chopra has so much baggage the plane is too heavy to take off.

 

[godnotgod]

Chopra has so much baggage the plane is too heavy to take off.

You're evading the question: where is the baggage in the authentic spiritual experience?

You just want a scapegoat to toss rocks at to make yourself appear larger than you really are.

 

[godnotgod]

Reality is the background. Consciousness is not required in the background of cognition. I would argue it is the other way around that consciousness can only arise through cognition.

Reality cannot exist without consciousness.

How can you possibly have cognition without first having consciousness? It's not possible. Cognition is a mode of consciousness.

What is the background against which cognition is understood as cognition? Can you answer that?

 

[godnotgod]

And they didn't see diddly squat. They came up with some philosophical stuff and some of it can be rationalized in hind sight after reason and empiricism did all of the heavy lifting and real work.

You're not getting that the mystical experience has nothing to do with philosophy and is beyond reason and empiricism. The problem with your assessment of the mystic is that you're on the outside looking in, seeing it through the distorted filters of concept and idea rather than via direct experience.

The mystical literature is filled with insights derived via the mystic's inner experience and vision. How can you state that they saw nothing, when there are countless silent fingers pointing to Reality?

 

[godnotgod]

I don't believe in higher states of consciousness or that any of your claims have any substance. Even if people don't think they are thinking...they are. If we were to stop thinking we would literally die. Its called being brain dead.

Higher Consciousness is not dependent upon belief, but upon direct experience.

You have things quite twisted to fit your teeth. Fact is, that the meditative state in which thought has been subdued is heightened awareness, exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. This is evident from scientific studies in which the measurable result is a greater output of alpha brain waves.

Descartes has stated the following:

'I think, therefore I exist'

Do you subscribe to this as being fact?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You're evading the question: where is the baggage in the authentic spiritual experience?

I don't regard Chopra's psuedo-science word-salad as even remotely authentic. It's nonsense. I think he tries to come across as clever but ends up looking foolish.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Reality cannot exist without consciousness.

How can you possibly have cognition without first having consciousness? It's not possible. Cognition is a mode of consciousness.

What is the background against which cognition is understood as cognition? Can you answer that?

Reality can exist without consciousness. It happens all the time. Rocks exist without consciousness.

Cognition predates self awareness.

We understand it as reality. There is no required mystical "consciousness" only the natural forces at work. Forces we already know exist.

You're not getting that the mystical experience has nothing to do with philosophy and is beyond reason and empiricism. The problem with your assessment of the mystic is that you're on the outside looking in, seeing it through the distorted filters of concept and idea rather than via direct experience.

The mystical literature is filled with insights derived via the mystic's inner experience and vision. How can you state that they saw nothing, when there are countless silent fingers pointing to Reality?

The mystical experience is created by the background noise of our cognitive mind and is a trip. Much like an acid trip but without the drugs. Inner experience and vision are both products of the cognitive functions of our brain.

Higher Consciousness is not dependent upon belief, but upon direct experience.

You have things quite twisted to fit your teeth. Fact is, that the meditative state in which thought has been subdued is heightened awareness, exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. This is evident from scientific studies in which the measurable result is a greater output of alpha brain waves.

Descartes has stated the following:

'I think, therefore I exist'

Do you subscribe to this as being fact?

I haven' twisted anything. You have beyond recognition of what the original evidence states.
There is no evidence from scientific studies that there is a heightened awareness or higher consciousness. Alpha waves are a direct result of brain activity. Physical brain activity. Not consciousness but cognition and the relays firing of different electrical impulses in the brain. If there is any sort of amplified alpha waves then it means there is an increase in cognition and physical brain activity. Not a void of it.

I think that you exist as a self evident thought because you are capable of producing thought. You know subjectively that there is thought. Therefore there is evidence to suggest that you exist. However this only extends to oneself. It was a profound answer to a meaningless question. It also has nothing to do with your argument. At least nothing that supports it.