Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[YmirGF]

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.

I have no doubt you think that is meaningful.

 

[godnotgod]

I have no doubt you think that is meaningful.

I'm so glad you think so as well!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

False. Rocks do exist. Everything exists just as we understood it before. We just understand it better. They still exist. Just as people didn't cease to exist when we found out we were made of molecules. No difference. Nothing in mysticism actually pointed to this. They thought of it all as a grand illusion like a dream. This isn't a dream. Its just that the fundamental particles of nature aren't at all what we thought they would be 100 years ago.

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.

Define "consciousness" and we might be able to get a better and clearer understanding of why you think it predates cognition. Also there is no evidence there is a higher consciousness or alternative reality other than your internal subjective experience that is dictated by your physical 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?

They aren't. They have been rationalized later after the knowledge was obtained via logical and empirical methods. They had no profound knowledge. They had random guesses about the universe and some of them could be rationalized later. Many mystical teachings were found out to be totally wrong. I should look some up to show you.

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

Monks literally can't stop thinking. If you think they do you are simply wrong. If they think they do they are deluded or don't understand the fundamentals of "thought".

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!

Meditation is a form of mental process so yes it is "thinking". Focus is directing the brain's energy towards a specific task. Narrowing that focus helps improve results. Nothing about that is wrong or off.

Also I don't trust your source of Alpha Brain waves. I don't consider it fact so it isn't a supporting point for your argument.

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.

Nothing in that argument precludes "I" or that "I" being "illusionary" actually extends meaning beyond that "I". Your argument doesn't follow and is actually rather self conflicting.

 

[Marisa]

I came across this excerpt from a debate between Richard Dawkins and Deepak Chopra:

That was just painful to watch. You could tell exactly how Dawkins felt from the facepalm he gave Chopra while the latter was speaking his nonsense.

What do you personally think of Deepak Chopra's views in general? Do you believe that he has anything worthwhile to say, or do you share Dawkins's view that Chopra uses scientific jargon to make unscientific and baseless claims about consciousness and mystical experiences?

Same variety of peddler, different kind of woo.

 

[atanu]

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.

That was the point. mAyA objects are true for Dawkin's et al and most of us, till there is abidance in pure consciousness wherein objects come and go. Empirically, for most, the sensual objects are practically true, because the Consciousness is truly true.

 

[godnotgod]

False. Rocks do exist. Everything exists just as we understood it before. We just understand it better. They still exist. Just as people didn't cease to exist when we found out we were made of molecules. No difference. Nothing in mysticism actually pointed to this. They thought of it all as a grand illusion like a dream. This isn't a dream. Its just that the fundamental particles of nature aren't at all what we thought they would be 100 years ago.

Except that there are no 'fundamental particles', and therefore, no 'rocks'. Once again, all mass is being created by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields. All mass is virtual. IOW, 'physical' reality, contrary to your objection, is a total illusion:

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations - physics-math - 20 November 2008 - New Scientist

What mystics pointed to was not to the sub-atomic world, but to that which creates it. The Hindus call it 'Brahman', or the ground of being. The Buddhists call it 'Sunyata', or 'emptiness'. The short of it is that Everything comes out of Nothing, and that the only true reality is The Absolute, which is manifesting what most people, including you, think is real as the 'physical' world. Just as we think the objects in a dream are real during the dream, so too do we think the objects in the waking world to be real, not realizing that we are just experiencing another level of dreaming, and that the 'real' world is also an illusion, but one of a higher order than that of dream-sleep. The mystics who have realized this have awakened onto a higher level of awareness than that of everyday existence to see clearly it's illusory nature, just as you see the illusory nature of the dream-sleep world upon awakening into the next higher level of consciousness, that of Waking Sleep. You don't detect the illusory nature of the everyday world because your mind is highly conditioned to think it real, reinforced as it is via powerful ideas, such as Logic, Reason, and Analysis, which, for you, confirm its 'reality'. But now, Quantum physics is at last overturning those paradigms to show us a world that doesn't conform to them. That all physical reality is actually virtual, and therefore illusory, points to a consciousness behind it all. The Buddhist physicist John Hagelin is saying that this consciousness is actually the unified field:

 

[godnotgod]

That was the point. mAyA objects are true for Dawkin's et al and most of us, till there is abidance in pure consciousness wherein objects come and go. Empirically, for most, the sensual objects are practically true, because the Consciousness is truly true.

OK. So from the POV of conditioned awareness, objects are true, but from the POV of awakened consciousness, they are not.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

Dawkins is a scientist, Chopra is a new-age preacher pretending to be a scientist.

 

[atanu]

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

Evidently it is true for some and for you.

Let me ask you. Do you know the exact functioning of brain that supposedly controls your consciousness, intelligence, and emotions?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The mystics who have realized this have awakened onto a higher level of awareness than that of everyday existence to see clearly it's illusory nature, just as you see the illusory nature of the dream-sleep world upon awakening into the next higher level of consciousness, that of Waking Sleep.

If a mystic drops a brick on his foot it will still hurt. A mystic is still subject to gravity and Newtonian mechanics, a mystic doesn't see atoms and quarks. A mystic has a radical change of perception but this is nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics, and suggesting a connection is nothing more than pseudo-science woo.

 

[godnotgod]

If a mystic drops a brick on his foot it will still hurt. A mystic is still subject to gravity and Newtonian mechanics, a mystic doesn't see atoms and quarks. A mystic has a radical change of perception but this is nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics, and suggesting a connection is nothing more than pseudo-science woo.

Bricks are made of atoms made of virtual particles. Pain and pleasure are responses to perceptual reality. Mystics still live in this world, but have a view beyond perceptual reality, which is temporal. They are primarily concerned with intemporal Ultimate Reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Dawkins is a scientist, Chopra is a new-age preacher pretending to be a scientist.

And you don't know what you're talking about. You're not saying anything at all. Just so much hot air and poppycock.

Give us something of substance.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Bricks are made of atoms made of virtual particles. Pain and pleasure are responses to perceptual reality. Mystics still live in this world, but have a view beyond perceptual reality, which is temporal. They are primarily concerned with intemporal Ultimate Reality.

So are you claiming that if a mystic dropped a brick on their foot it wouldn't hurt? Are you claiming a mystic doesn't feel anything because they see the atoms and virtual particles?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Just so much hot air and poppycock.

That's how Chopra comes across to me.

 

[godnotgod]

Define "consciousness" and we might be able to get a better and clearer understanding of why you think it predates cognition. Also there is no evidence there is a higher consciousness or alternative reality other than your internal subjective experience that is dictated by your physical brain.

I will refer to John Hagelin's definition from the yoga sutras:

'non-dual consciousness is the complete settling of the activity of the mind'

What you are calling the 'internal subjective experience' is still conditioned awareness. Higher consciousness is transcendent of conditioned awareness; it is unconditioned awareness. IOW, it is consciousness as it was prior to the very first impression you received from the world. Taoists refer to this state as 'the uncarved block', and Buddhists call it 'original mind'. It is who you really are before your indoctrination by society.

 

[godnotgod]

That's how Chopra comes across to me.

Tell us WHY he comes across to you that way.

 

[godnotgod]

So are you claiming that if a mystic dropped a brick on their foot it wouldn't hurt? Are you claiming a mystic doesn't feel anything because they see the atoms and virtual particles?

I never said anything of the sort. Mystics feel pain and pleasure every bit as much as anyone else. But so what?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Except that there are no 'fundamental particles', and therefore, no 'rocks'. Once again, all mass is being created by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields. All mass is virtual. IOW, 'physical' reality, contrary to your objection, is a total illusion:

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations - physics-math - 20 November 2008 - New Scientist

What mystics pointed to was not to the sub-atomic world, but to that which creates it. The Hindus call it 'Brahman', or the ground of being. The Buddhists call it 'Sunyata', or 'emptiness'. The short of it is that Everything comes out of Nothing, and that the only true reality is The Absolute, which is manifesting what most people, including you, think is real as the 'physical' world. Just as we think the objects in a dream are real during the dream, so too do we think the objects in the waking world to be real, not realizing that we are just experiencing another level of dreaming, and that the 'real' world is also an illusion, but one of a higher order than that of dream-sleep. The mystics who have realized this have awakened onto a higher level of awareness than that of everyday existence to see clearly it's illusory nature, just as you see the illusory nature of the dream-sleep world upon awakening into the next higher level of consciousness, that of Waking Sleep. You don't detect the illusory nature of the everyday world because your mind is highly conditioned to think it real, reinforced as it is via powerful ideas, such as Logic, Reason, and Analysis, which, for you, confirm its 'reality'. But now, Quantum physics is at last overturning those paradigms to show us a world that doesn't conform to them. That all physical reality is actually virtual, and therefore illusory, points to a consciousness behind it all. The Buddhist physicist John Hagelin is saying that this consciousness is actually the unified field:

What you don't seem to have ever grasped is that just because it is different than we thought on the very very small scale it doesn't take away anything from what we have already known it to be.

I will refer to John Hagelin's definition from the yoga sutras:

'non-dual consciousness is the complete settling of the activity of the mind'

What you are calling the 'internal subjective experience' is still conditioned awareness. Higher consciousness is transcendent of conditioned awareness; it is unconditioned awareness. IOW, it is consciousness as it was prior to the very first impression you received from the world. Taoists refer to this state as 'the uncarved block', and Buddhists call it 'original mind'. It is who you really are before your indoctrination by society.

That is a meaningless definition that attempts to assert a lot of unsubstantiated things about consciousness rather than actually answering the question. I do not accept that this is a valid definition.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What you don't seem to have ever grasped is that just because it is different than we thought on the very very small scale it doesn't take away anything from what we have already known it to be.

Exactly so, it's all a question of scale. Quantum mechanics applies at the sub-atomic level and Newtonian mechanics applies at our everyday level, and trying to conflate these two levels is completely misunderstanding the science. That's why it's nonsensical to suggest that "mystics" have a direct insight into the quantum world.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I never said anything of the sort. Mystics feel pain and pleasure every bit as much as anyone else. But so what?

So you do accept that if a mystic drops a brick on their foot it will hurt? And if you do accept this then why do you keep saying things like: "Bricks are made of atoms made of virtual particles"? ( post #391 ). Do you accept that in fact quantum mechanics is irrelevant to the experience of a mystic?