Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[YmirGF]

Inner experience and vision are both products of the cognitive functions of our brain.

And will largely conform to the belief systems in place prior to the experience so as to not upset psychological equilibrium.

 

[godnotgod]

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

Except that, according to Quantum physics, rocks don't really exist at all. All of the atomic structure of what Reason would refer to as 'physical reality' is not physical at all; it is totally virtual. Fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields create all of the virtual mass of the 'physical' world. What you are responding to as 'real' is an illusion, and illusions require consciousness on both the side of that which is manifesting it, and on the side of perception. In the enlightened state, both sides are a singularity. IOW, there is no subject and object; no observer and observed; these are merely concepts. The two merge as one in the spiritual experience.

It is now obvious that illusions of the physical reality of forms emerges out of consciousness, both at the sub-atomic level, and at the gross level.

Mysticism has been pointing to the emptiness of forms on the gross level for centuries. The source for this realization comes not from knowing about the sub-atomic world, but seeing into the nature of Reality that is present prior to the formation of sub-atomic particles.

Rocks themselves are not conscious in the sense of individual consciousness; it is consciousness which lies beneath the rock-form on the macro and micro scales.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

And those forces are all inter-related as a single reality we call 'the uni-verse'. We are all having a mystical experience, but most are simply unaware of it, just as a fish is always in the sea, but is unaware of it. It is not that 'mystical consciousness', as you put it, is required; but is more that we are already at one with the universe. The realization of this condition is called Enlightenment. This oneness is not a matter of choice.

I did not say that self-awareness predates cognition; I said that consciousness predates cognition. Cognition cannot exist without consciousness already being present. If you think it does, show me how.

 

[psychoslice]

I think Deepak Chopra has a lot of good to say, well he must, he has helped many people, he may not be quite right with his science. but its what he says beyond science, maybe someone like Richard Dawkins just isn't ready to receive such knowledge ?.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

What are you actually saying? That the mystical experience is a delusion? That the same brain which is creating Reason, Logic, and Analysis is also creating delusion? And if the mystical experience is merely an echo of mental background noise, then how is it that mystics' conclusions are consistent while occurring independently of one another at different times in history?

 

[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.

Monks stop the thinking mind all the time and are more alive than the ordinary man.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

No. Alpha brain wave activity is a direct result of focusing one's consciousness in a way that relaxes brain activity, usually by focusing such attention, not on the brain, but on the breath or the hara, that point just below the navel, which has a reciprocating effect on the brain. The brain wave activity of ordinary people is usually in beta state, which is more active than when in alpha state:

"Think about complex problem-solving, for example. Most of the time, your waking hours are predominantly spent in the beta state. Beta is characteristic of alertness, concentration, focus and a logical and rational way of thinking. That’s the good news. The bad news is, beta is also associated with stress. Can you “think straight” when you’re stressed out? No. Can you think out-of-the-box creatively when you’re stressed… or when your mind is in logical/rational mode that automatically dismisses seemingly illogical solutions? No.


Alpha brain waves are associated with relaxed alertness, enhanced learning, creativity, peak performance, imagination/visualization and intuition.


That’s why, if you spend more time in alpha during the day, your problem-solving skills will improve."

» How to Generate More Alpha Brain Waves

So, you see, problem solving skills are better when there is LESS brain activity, not more. This is due to being able to see the solution to a problem directly and intuitively rather than forcing the mind to grapple with it.

Alpha waves are produced, not by thinking, but by meditating. Meditation is not thinking!

 

[godnotgod]

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.

You are assuming from the get go that there is such a pre-existing 'I' that produces thought. Kierkegaard nailed this flaw beautifully:

Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

"x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.

Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.

Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At any rate, the 'I' being illusory means that consciousness is universal, masquerading itself as local consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Your comments continue to be shallow in character. What exactly are you referring to as 'nonsense'? You are trying to come off as clever but end up looking foolish as there is virtually zero substance to your protests.

 

[atanu]

I tried watching a little of the video. Chopra is now my least favorite comedian.

And The glib talking Dawkins has always been so.

 

[Revoltingest]

And The glib talking Dawkins has always been so.

Neither was in Woody Allen's league.
Now there was a great stand up comedian!

 

[atanu]

Da

Chopra is completely out of his league when it comes to science, it's just a nonsensical stream of pseudo-science dressed up to sound clever. It's rubbish, and I'm amazed that anyone falls for it.

Dawkins is no scientist either. He is an entertainer and he has thrived only on controversy

 

[atanu]

Neither was in Woody Allen's league.
Now there was a great stand up comedian!

Agree.

 

[atanu]

Deepak Chopra, I think, is naive that he engages in arguments on a subject like awareness/consciousness and that too with likes of Dawkins.

A realised teacher would not do that.

The main point about consciousness is: Whatever there is in consciousness, is true, since the consciousness is true. A monk will never try to argue about sunyata and unreality of objects with one for whom the objects of the sensed world are objective truths (independent of the senses that perceive them).

The Bible has a very apt teaching about this. "Do not cast pearls before swine ......". It is futile and self defeating. A true sage will never engage in arguments.

 

[outhouse]

Dawkins is no scientist either.

Do you even have the credibility to make such a claim?

 

[outhouse]

The main point about consciousness is:

Is that it is solely in the brain, and to date there is no credible evidence for duality.

 

[godnotgod]

The main point about consciousness is: Whatever there is in consciousness, is true, since the consciousness is true.

That does not follow since maya is also in consciousness. But the problem with your statement is that already it has entered into the duality of 'true/not-true'. Pure consciousness is neither true nor not-true.

Mind is in consciousness, but mind can and does perceive and interpret what it sees incorrectly due to conditioning. The scientific and religious minds are highly conditioned views, science being a conditioned view designed to extract factual knowledge from the physical world, but even science is many times proven incorrect when new facts overturn old ones. Such is the case with Newtonian physics in light of Quantum physics.

 

[godnotgod]

Is that it is solely in the brain, and to date there is no credible evidence for duality.

There is no evidence that it is solely in the brain. A Neanderthal might say that there are little men inside the TV set because he knows nothing of the invisible world.

For all you know, the brain is swimming in a sea of pure consciousness, and that brains emerged from consciousness, and not the other way around. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Big Bang was purely an event in consciousness. Both occur outside of Time and Space.

 

[godnotgod]

Deepak Chopra, I think, is naive that he engages in arguments on a subject like awareness/consciousness and that too with likes of Dawkins.

A realised teacher would not do that.

Depends on the context. But for one thing, Chopra is also a medical doctor, which bridges to the sciences. In today's world, spirituality is under vicious attack more than ever from the materialists and atheists who have armed themselves with logic, reason, and science, to create a narrow and mechanical view of reality, and from theists who continue their condemnations with their dogma and threats of hellfire.

I say: 'thank you, Dr. Chopra', for confronting the onslaught, with wit, wisdom, and humor.

The truth of the matter is that science and theology feel threatened with the re-emergence and popularity of feminine-based mystical teachings such as Zen, Yoga, Sufism, Wicca, Taoism, etc., because science and theology do not provide spiritual nourishment for people, while these teachings do.

 

[godnotgod]

And will largely conform to the belief systems in place prior to the experience so as to not upset psychological equilibrium.

That is true only at certain stages of spiritual development. Zen, for example, specifically targets beliefs to deliberately upset the equilibrium so established. It does this by leading the rational mind on to self-implosion. Koans are just such a device designed to do just that. The view so produced is no longer based on old conditioning. In fact, it is a totally unconditioned view that sees things just as they are, rather than how the conditioned mind imagines them to be. Then, a new equilibrium based on Reality itself, comes into play, in which the old equilibrium is now seen as artificial and contrived, an 'imitation of life', if you will.