Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

Both are a toolsets we developed by us, nature does not follow logic nor reason. Reason and logic follow nature. Hence why apparent logical and reasonable views become outdated in when new information is provided. There are far more people that do not use logic nor reason for a lot of their views thus fail to use the toolset properly since as with any toolset one must be educated in it's use.

I agree. However, much of the problem in approaching nature is that Logic and Reason are seen as the ONLY tools available. The results of these methods are then seen out of context to Reality itself. That is when paradox arises, because what the conceptual mind comes up with does not match Reality. We go about seeking factual knowledge first, and ignore essential knowledge, thereby putting the cart ahead of the horse, and resulting in a reductionist/mechanistic view of nature, completely missing what is at its very heart. Worse, we also see ourselves in those terms, not much different than that of the theistic view, which is that man, and the universe, are merely artefacts, ie; 'made things'. The rationale is that, via dissection and analysis, we will at some point develop a view of the whole. But data and facts are dead things, products of the past, held in memory, and the skeletal composite thus developed is a mechanistic and dead universe, without consciousness, and where consciousness is manifested, is only a product of the material brain.

 

[Shad]

I agree. However, much of the problem in approaching nature is that Logic and Reason are seen as the ONLY tools available. The results of these methods are then seen out of context to Reality itself. That is when paradox arises, because what the conceptual mind comes up with does not match Reality. We go about seeking factual knowledge first, and ignore essential knowledge, thereby putting the cart ahead of the horse, and resulting in a reductionist/mechanistic view of nature, completely missing what is at its very heart. Worse, we also see ourselves in those terms, not much different than that of the theistic view, which is that man, and the universe, are merely artefacts, ie; 'made things'. The rationale is that, via dissection and analysis, we will at some point develop a view of the whole. But data and facts are dead things, products of the past, held in memory, and the skeletal composite thus developed is a mechanistic and dead universe, without consciousness, and where consciousness is manifested, is only a product of the material brain.

This is only a problem when people forget that much of what we claim to know is only a representation of reality and/or axioms or based on axioms. Science is a representation that can not be 100% certain thus align with nature perfectly. That science is inductive reasoning not deductive. However I would counter that those on the opposite side make the same mistake in assuming their inductive views are absolute as well. We all take perception far to seriously forgetting what it is, how we can augment it with tools as improvements but also that perceptions can be wrong and fooled. We all have a set of axioms we accept but forget that these axioms can be specific to a group or ideology only. At times we accept axioms otherwise we have no position for anything we claim. Like the axiom of self or any anti-solipsism axioms.

 

[godnotgod]

This is only a problem when people forget that much of what we claim to know is only a representation of reality and/or axioms or based on axioms. Science is a representation that can not be 100% certain thus align with nature perfectly. That science is inductive reasoning not deductive. However I would counter that those on the opposite side make the same mistake in assuming their inductive views are absolute as well. We all take perception far to seriously forgetting what it is, how we can augment it with tools as improvements but also that perceptions can be wrong and fooled. We all have a set of axioms we accept but forget that these axioms can be specific to a group or ideology only. At times we accept axioms otherwise we have no position for anything we claim. Like the axiom of self or any anti-solipsism axioms.

No doubt, and exactly the reason the mystic decides to bypass perceptual reality in favor of Ultimate Reality, going directly to the heart of the matter. This is the difference between conceptual thought about nature, and direct seeing into its very nature itself, where 'observer, observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single reality.', as Deepak Chopra tells us.

 

[Shad]

No doubt, and exactly the reason the mystic decides to bypass perceptual reality in favor of Ultimate Reality, going directly to the heart of the matter. This is the difference between conceptual thought about nature, and direct seeing into its very nature itself, where 'observer, observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single reality.', as Deepak Chopra tells us.

Bypassing it is a mistake as is taking anything Chopra says seriously. If you want to entertain sophistry be my guest. Chopra does not bypass science, he attempts to merge it with mysticism into some "New Age" wooo. He routinely has proven he knows nothing regarding the science side of his views thus is spouting pure sophistry.

 

[godnotgod]

Bypassing it is a mistake as is taking anything Chopra says seriously. If you want to entertain sophistry be my guest. Chopra does not bypass science, he attempts to merge it with mysticism into some "New Age" wooo. He routinely has proven he knows nothing regarding the science side of his views thus is spouting pure sophistry.

There are two sides to what the meditative process allows you to see: one is seeing itself into the true nature of Reality, the other an intellectual discussion of it as it compares to the rational view. It is the latter to which you are responding negatively. Yes, the mystic bypasses Reason, Logic, and Analysis because their results do not mirror nature; only the mystical view mirrors nature perfectly. IOW, it sees things as they are, rather than how the conceptual mind says they are.

But I would like you to show me where Chopra is in error on the scientific side of his argument.

I think your use of the word 'sophistry' is inappropriate:

sophistry:
the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

 

[Shad]

There are two sides to what the meditative process allows you to see: one is seeing itself into the true nature of Reality, the other an intellectual discussion of it as it compares to the rational view. It is the latter to which you are responding negatively. Yes, the mystic bypasses Reason, Logic, and Analysis because their results do not mirror nature; only the mystical view mirrors nature perfectly. IOW, it sees things as they are, rather than how the conceptual mind says they are.

I disagree as mysticism uses the same tool set. That their views are based on reason, if not then the views are irrational and can be dismissed. The dismissal of such tools is just sophistry covering the fact, nothing more. It is no more a representative view point than academia, science, etc.

But I would like you to show me where Chopra is in error on the scientific side of his argument.

Go look up his exchange with Brian Cox. Go look up his ideas on quantum consciousness and his attempted links of the observer effect. He thinks consciousness effects observations of QM. However the observer does not have to be conscious, it could be a mechanical tool, thus he views are nonsenical pseudoscience mixed with mysticism.

I think your use of the word 'sophistry' is inappropriate:

sophistry:
the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
[/QUOTE]

It is fitting since he has nothing from science backing his arguments nor attempts to argue within academy. He only sells books for the masses thus is interested in money more than credibility. Although I am willing to suspend the deceptive part. Sophistry still applies to fallacious argument with no attempt as deception hence the key word "especially". It can be simply a fallacious argument people take seriously since they are ignorance of the fallacies involved.

 

[godnotgod]

I disagree as mysticism uses the same tool set. That their views are based on reason, if not then the views are irrational and can be dismissed. The dismissal of such tools is just sophistry covering the fact, nothing more. It is no more a representative view point than academia, science, etc.

mmmm...no. the mystical experience is one beyond reason. otherwise, it could be proven and explained via reason and logic. It cannot be so proven. the mystical experience is simply the merging of the observer with the observed, what is called within the trade as 'divine union'. yoga is such a mystical practice, and the word means just that. your logic errs in calling the mystical view 'irrational'; it is not within the realm of reason, so therefore is not irrational, but non-rational. iow, it is another kind of knowledge. get it?

Go look up his exchange with Brian Cox. Go look up his ideas on quantum consciousness and his attempted links of the observer effect. He thinks consciousness effects observations of QM. However the observer does not have to be conscious, it could be a mechanical tool, thus he views are nonsenical pseudoscience mixed with mysticism.

The decision is not in yet in regards to the observer effect. Other prominent physicists also see it as valid. Distinguished physicists and neurologists Hameroff, Goswami, Penrose, et al, are also onboard re: Quantum Consciousness. These ar not quacks or sophists.

It is fitting since he has nothing from science backing his arguments nor attempts to argue within academy. He only sells books for the masses thus is interested in money more than credibility. Although I am willing to suspend the deceptive part. Sophistry still applies to fallacious argument with no attempt as deception hence the key word "especially". It can be simply a fallacious argument people take seriously since they are ignorance of the fallacies involved.

Well I totally disagree that his interest is money. He sells books because people see that he has something valid to say. He is a bona fide medical doctor with western credentials and a practiced ayurvedist. Many people who have attended his healing center tell us how their lives have improved because of his programs.

Show me the fallacious argument that qualifies as sophistry.

BTW, the video you posted re: the physicist from the audience? Chopra and he, Leonard Mlodinow, later co-authored a book together called 'War of the Worldviews'. Chopra actively has sought out his worst critics to confront them directly, even inviting Michael Shermer, his worst sceptic, to his home for dinner and discussion.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The idea of quantum consciousness to me is pseudoscience since there is nothing conscious about any of it. That which they refer to as "consciousness" is no more than interactions at the quantum level.




---

 

[Shad]

mmmm...no. the mystical experience is one beyond reason. otherwise, it could be proven and explained via reason and logic. It cannot be so proven. the mystical experience is simply the merging of the observer with the observed, what is called within the trade as 'divine union'. yoga is such a mystical practice, and the word means just that. your logic errs in calling the mystical view 'irrational'; it is not within the realm of reason, so therefore is not irrational, but non-rational. iow, it is another kind of knowledge. get it?

Yes. However I am under no obligation to entertain illogical and irrational ideas. If a view is not based on reason and logical then I made no error. Non-rational is synonymous with irrational, it is the same thing. Knownledge must be true, if you can not prove mysticism then it is not knowledge, it is a belief

The decision is not in yet in regards to the observer effect. Other prominent physicists also see it as valid. Distinguished physicists and neurologists Hameroff, Goswami, Penrose, et al, are also onboard re: Quantum Consciousness. These ar not quacks or sophists.

Actually Deepaks views are in the minority thus there is a decision against his view. Goswami present no formal evidence of his view thus his opinion is irrelevant. Penrose's data is not what Deepak claims, read his work as well as Hameroff. Neither are supporters of what Deepak claims. Hameroff and Penrose experiments failed to prove their claims

Well I totally disagree that his interest is money. He sells books because people see that he has something valid to say. He is a bona fide medical doctor with western credentials and a practiced ayurvedist. Many people who have attended his healing center tell us how their lives have improved because of his programs.

Preaching to the masses does not prove anything nor does their view of a subject they have no education in matter. Ad populum fallacy. Deepak is a medical doctor not a physicist, argument from authority.

Show me the fallacious argument that qualifies as sophistry.

One is in the very video I linked. His point was self-refuting which is a failure in logic. To entertain the idea after such exposure is sophistry. Also none of his work has evidence thus is sophistry.

BTW, the video you posted re: the physicist from the audience? Chopra and he, Leonard Mlodinow, later co-authored a book together called 'War of the Worldviews'. Chopra actively has sought out his worst critics to confront them directly, even inviting Michael Shermer, his worst sceptic, to his home for dinner and discussion.

Leonard Mlodinow still opposed Deepak's views in the book, so you have no real point. Shermer is not a physicist so I do not care what he has to say. Also the video does nothing to resolve his criticism.

 

[godnotgod]

The idea of quantum consciousness to me is pseudoscience since there is nothing conscious about any of it. That which they refer to as "consciousness" is no more than interactions at the quantum level.
---

Oh. 'no more than'?...this 'no more than' scenario, currently called 'Quantum Field fluctuations', is what is 'creating' the universe. You, who cannot create a piece of dirt, require a brain, but these fluctuations create universes without one. In fact, they are responsible for having created beings with brains.

Do you suppose that your so-called 'interactions' are merely dead mechanical goings-on, out of which emerged brains and consciousness? You have yet to explain how the material brain creates non-material consciousness. A leap of faith, perhaps, on the part of the brain. How novel.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. However I am under no obligation to entertain illogical and irrational ideas. If a view is not based on reason and logical then I made no error. Non-rational is synonymous with irrational, it is the same thing. Knownledge must be true, if you can not prove mysticism then it is not knowledge, it is a belief

Well, if you really did get it, you would understand the difference between irrational and non-rational.

Reason and Logic are systems of thought. Within those systems, what is not rational or logical is irrational and illogical. But Higher Consciousness is beyond these systems because it is not a system of thought. It is another kind of knowledge entirely, beyond all dualities. Reason and Logic produce factual, provable knowledge, based on data and evidence; HC is knowing itself, via seeing, rather than thought, and is already in place prior to thought. As it neither conforms to being rational or irrational, it is non-rational in nature. 'Irrational' is defined by what is rational. HC is not.

A belief is also based upon thought and can be shown to be false. HC cannot be shown to be true or false as it is not within the sphere of provable fact.

Reason and Logic are not the only kinds of knowledge, but you have been indoctrinated to believe that they are. So, via of these systems, you dismiss anything that does not conform to their dictates.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Oh. 'no more than'?...this 'no more than' scenario, currently called 'Quantum Field fluctuations', is what is 'creating' the universe. You, who cannot create a piece of dirt, require a brain, but these fluctuations create universes without one. In fact, they are responsible for having created beings with brains.

Without those Fundamental Interactions there would be no fluctuations. The ability to interact is crucial to creation. Consciousness is not.

 

[godnotgod]

Preaching to the masses does not prove anything nor does their view of a subject they have no education in matter. Ad populum fallacy. Deepak is a medical doctor not a physicist, argument from authority.

No, argument from evidence: I said that those who have attended his seminars tell us how their lives have improved because of them.

 

[godnotgod]

Without those Fundamental Interactions there would be no fluctuations. The ability to interact is crucial to creation. Consciousness is not.

We've already been over this; you are being fooled by maya. From the very beginning, nothing exists, therefore there is nothing to interact. We now know that what we call 'something' (ie; the material world), is comprised of virtual mass. IOW, all of material reality is virtual in nature.

The activity in the dream state seems perfectly real to the dreamer, but is revealed to be completely illusory upon awakening. Likewise, an awakening to an even higher level reveals this lower level of consciousness to be illusory. This 'material' world is an illusion of a higher order than the illusion of the dream world.

'Ability' implies consciousness. Physicist Freeman Dyson tells us that the atom is conscious:

“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.”

― Freeman Dyson

 

[Runewolf1973]

We've already been over this; you are being fooled by maya. From the very beginning, nothing exists, therefore there is nothing to interact. We now know that what we call 'something' (ie; the material world), is comprised of virtual mass. IOW, all of material reality is virtual in nature.

The activity in the dream state seems perfectly real to the dreamer, but is revealed to be completely illusory upon awakening. Likewise, an awakening to an even higher level reveals this lower level of consciousness to be illusory. This 'material' world is an illusion of a higher order than the illusion of the dream world.

'Ability' implies consciousness. Physicist Freeman Dyson tells us that the atom is conscious:

“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.”

― Freeman Dyson

Go run as fast as you can into a brick wall and tell me that it was just an illusion. Like it or not, we are all subject to these forces and interactions whether you call them illusions or not. We would not even be having this conversation right now if it were not for those forces and interactions. Ultimate Reality or Pure Consciousness is not accepted in the mainstream scientific community. There may well be a Unified Field, but that is exactly what it will be...a unified field logically describing the interrelationship of all the known Fundamental Forces and particles. You are negating all of this great universe we have in exchange for your personal belief....

So everything is "Pure Consciousness"...great, now what? If everything which is truly beautiful, powerful and inspiring in the physical world is just an illusion like you say, then what is the point of even living or experiencing any of it? If that is the ultimate goal...to attain oneness with nothing, then that is a pretty bland goal and I hope I never make that "realization". I would rather live in a beautiful "illusion" than in a boring "nothingness" devoid of anything. That seems far from blissful.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I agree. However, much of the problem in approaching nature is that Logic and Reason are seen as the ONLY tools available. The results of these methods are then seen out of context to Reality itself. That is when paradox arises, because what the conceptual mind comes up with does not match Reality. We go about seeking factual knowledge first, and ignore essential knowledge, thereby putting the cart ahead of the horse, and resulting in a reductionist/mechanistic view of nature, completely missing what is at its very heart. Worse, we also see ourselves in those terms, not much different than that of the theistic view, which is that man, and the universe, are merely artefacts, ie; 'made things'. The rationale is that, via dissection and analysis, we will at some point develop a view of the whole. But data and facts are dead things, products of the past, held in memory, and the skeletal composite thus developed is a mechanistic and dead universe, without consciousness, and where consciousness is manifested, is only a product of the material brain.

Similar to what Eddington likened to a scientific fishing net, designed to catch a particular fish, anything it doesn't catch doesn't exist

 

[Shad]

Well, if you really did get it, you would understand the difference between irrational and non-rational.

The words are synonymous. If you are using a non-logic and non-reason form of thought then you are irrational by definition. Non-rational does not trigger an emotion response but it is the same.

Reason and Logic are systems of thought. Within those systems, what is not rational or logical is irrational and illogical. But Higher Consciousness is beyond these systems because it is not a system of thought.

It is another kind of knowledge entirely, beyond all dualities. Reason and Logic produce factual, provable knowledge, based on data and evidence; HC is knowing itself, via seeing, rather than thought, and is already in place prior to thought. As it neither conforms to being rational or irrational, it is non-rational in nature. 'Irrational' is defined by what is rational. HC is not. [/quote]

Pure sophistry. Knowledge must be true but since you acknowledge you can not show this to be true I am not inclined in accepting it as any form of knowledge. You must also concede this point. See above as well. Besides this is still a belief you have this a thought thus subject to scrutiny by logic thus reason.

A belief is also based upon thought and can be shown to be false. HC cannot be shown to be true or false as it is not within the sphere of provable fact.

It is still a belief you hold, see above.

Reason and Logic are not the only kinds of knowledge, but you have been indoctrinated to believe that they are. So, via of these systems, you dismiss anything that does not conform to their dictates.

Reason and logic are tools not knowledge.

Making grand claims which you admit can not proven or provide evidence for only has merit for one that already believes in it. You hold an ideology of far great magnitude than I do by your own words. It is a religious ideology.

 

[Shad]

No, argument from evidence: I said that those who have attended his seminars tell us how their lives have improved because of them.

The placebo effect is well documented. Let see these results conducted in a research study. You should also take note of the other religions that make the same claims of bettering their believers lives, and the believers claiming it worked as well. Go watch a few televangelists on TV. I am sure you will find the placebo effect and confirmation bias as much in those groups as Deepaks. Both will lack studies documenting their claims.

 

[godnotgod]

The placebo effect is well documented. Let see these results conducted in a research study. You should also take note of the other religions that make the same claims of bettering their believers lives, and the believers claiming it worked as well. Go watch a few televangelists on TV. I am sure you will find the placebo effect and confirmation bias as much in those groups as Deepaks. Both will lack studies documenting their claims.

Except that what happens to people at the Chopra Center is not the placebo effect.

Personally, I have attended many sessions at the SF Zen Center and know beyond any doubt the benefits of Zen meditation. This experience is not a belief that creates the placebo effect; it is a real, inner, powerfully transformative spiritual experience. No, it is not imagination, wishful thinking, sophistry, giddiness, etc. The TV evangelist placebo effect is a far cry from Zen meditation and what Chopra practices. Meditation is not a religion or a doctrine as there is nothing to believe in.

 

[godnotgod]

The words are synonymous. If you are using a non-logic and non-reason form of thought then you are irrational by definition. Non-rational does not trigger an emotion response but it is the same.

No. You're incorrect. Irrational is the opposite of rational; non-rational is not. Irrational carries with it the implication of not making any kind of sense at all; non-rational simply means outside of the system of reason, but not necessarily irrational.

The Free Dictionary defines nonrational as follows:

nonrational

1.not in accordance with the principles of logic or reason

Adj. 1. nonrational-not based on reason;

irrational-not consistent with or using reason;"irrational fears";"irrational animals"

2. nonrational-obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation.

Irrational falls within the confines of Reason, as it is defined by what is rational; the non-rational is not defined by Reason; it is a way to knowledge outside of the method of Reason.

The pathway to what is rational is that of Reason. It involves the thinking mind; the pathway to what is non-rational is via the intuitive mind, which is without thought. It is about seeing, not thinking.

Pure sophistry. Knowledge must be true but since you acknowledge you can not show this to be true I am not inclined in accepting it as any form of knowledge. You must also concede this point. See above as well. Besides this is still a belief you have this a thought thus subject to scrutiny by logic thus reason.

Factual knowledge is true but so is that of higher consciousness. Factual knowledge is about the details of the phenomenal world; ie; how it behaves and how its behavior can be predicted for replication. Higher consciousness is about the direct experience of Reality itself. It cannot be proven via Reason, Logic, or Analysis, but it can be experienced directly by anyone. It's experience is not a belief as in belief in some religious doctrine. In HC, there is no such doctrine because Reality itself is without doctrine. Understand that it is a mirror reflection of Reality, with nothing that stands between observer and observed. I do not concede to your demand because your demand is based on what you think is the case, without knowing what the experience of HC is. You must concede this point.

[/QUOTE]It is still a belief you hold, see above.[/QUOTE]

Since there is no doctrine attached to HC, how can it be a belief? Belief in what? You are sadly mistaken here.

Reason and logic are tools not knowledge.

OK, what I meant to say is that Reason and Logic are not the only tools leading to knowledge, but Reason and Logic lead only to factual knowledge, not to knowing.

In Plato's Cave Allegory, the prisoners use Reason and Logic to determine that the cave wall shadows represent Reality. In this allegory, the Sun represents true Reality. The prisoners cannot see this true Reality unless they go topside to see for themselves. They cannot use their current tools to determine the existence of true Reality, because these tools are useless to that goal. But true Reality is easily seen and understood for what it is simply via seeing things as they are.

Making grand claims which you admit can not proven or provide evidence for only has merit for one that already believes in it. You hold an ideology of far great magnitude than I do by your own words. It is a religious ideology.

Show me the ideology you are referring to. I am telling you that HC carries no such ideology. HC is not a belief, doctrine, or idiology: it is simply the seeing into the true nature of Reality, without thought.

I am not admitting to anything; I am simply telling you that the experience of HC cannot be proven via Reason, Logic, or Analysis. That does not make it false. HC is neither true nor not-true: it is simply to see things as they are, rather than how the conditioned mind of Reason, Logic, and Analysis says they are. IOW, HC is free from all methodologies and is a return to what the Buddha called 'Original Mind'. It is non-discriminatory in nature, unborn, ungrown, and non-dual.