Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

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

Very good.

 

[Shad]

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.

Your own source, as I said, shows irrational is synonymous. Your own sources refutes your claim.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonrational
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/irrational

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.

Reason still applies to it. You just have no reason backing your views thus it is a faith position.

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.

Sophistry. Intuition is flawed and has been proven to be more often than not.. More so you can not claim, as Deepak does, to teach anyone this method as by definition intuition is arrived at without the subject's aware of the process. However since Deepak knows of and teaching these processes it is no longer nonrational.

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.

I have to do no such thing as you have provided no reasons for me to accept HC. HC is a belief which is part of Hinduism mixed with Deepak's QM blather. You can call it whatever you want, it is still a belief not a fact or self-evident.

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

HC claiming to be a direct experience of reality is doctrine as it is supported by a groups of people, which you cited yourself. Something which is different than my current experience of reality, in my chair typing to you on a forum. Pure sophistry

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.

You admit you have no reasons thus justification. Then you expect me to accept your claims without argument. Pure sophistry again

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.

Yet in when the subject leaves the cave it can see the sun thus reason about it. Which is part of the allegory. You missed the whole point about the allegory. It is about using the mind to reason thus your quote supports my view not your view. It is about how intuition and perceptions are flawed, your stand point, which must be checked by reason, my stand point. You would know this if you just didn't quote-mine instead of reading the complete allegory and that of the Sun which follows it. You assume you are outside of the cave but in fact are still chained to the wall calling shadows HC and agreeing with your fellow prison Deepak. More so Plato is a key figure in western philosophy, logic and reason. You could not be more wrong if you tried.

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.

You presented the ideology views within this and previous thread already. My refutation of your sophistry shows this. Thus to hold this view is an ideology since your reasoning is incorrect. After all you are attempting to reason right now while claiming HC is not based on reason

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.

Thus you refute your quotation from Plato, see above. Argument from ignorance since you basis the true or false parameters on the inability to prove HC has truth value. Again you are reasoning right now and doing it poorly.

 

[Shad]

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

So say all the evangelicals and televangelists. Yet neither have any published credible research showing this.

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.

Meditation does not infer any truth value of HC thus is irrelevant. More so there are many forms of meditation from prayer in Abrahamic religions to purely secular/atheistic views.

The similarity between Deepak and the televangelists is that both are selling a "product" for consumption by the masses which in no way infers any truth value of their claims behind their ideologies. Just being convinces it has an effect is enough to trigger a placebo effect.

 

[Runewolf1973]

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.

Yes, they are dead mechanical goings on from which emerged brains and consciousness. The material brain creates consciousness via a series of complex, highly evolved interactions. It does this with the help of various organs which are evolved in such a way to pick up on external stimuli such as light, sound, touch, taste, smell, etc...all of which involve/require interaction and interactive forces. How could there even be such a thing as consciousness or awareness without some form of interaction? Those interactions are fundamental and I would say consciouness cannot exist independently of those interactions.

 

[godnotgod]

Sophistry. Intuition is flawed and has been proven to be more often than not.. More so you can not claim, as Deepak does, to teach anyone this method as by definition intuition is arrived at without the subject's aware of the process. However since Deepak knows of and teaching these processes it is no longer nonrational.

Did you read what I actually said? I said that the PATHWAY is the intuitive mind, not the outcome, which is the experience of Higher Consciousness, and is not based on Reason. IOW, one does not Reason or think one's way to Enlightenment. This is especially true with the Zen koan, which is a little riddle designed to cause the rational mind to self implode.

I have to do no such thing as you have provided no reasons for me to accept HC. HC is a belief which is part of Hinduism mixed with Deepak's QM blather. You can call it whatever you want, it is still a belief not a fact or self-evident.

STOP! You clearly don't know what you're saying: HC has nothing to do with any teaching in essence. It is beyond all teachings. It is a state of consciousness, not a doctrine.

What I am saying you must concede to is the fact that you are looking at something through the bias of your rational mind, an experience you have not yet tasted. It's like someone trying to figure out the taste of lemons who has never eaten one.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, they are dead mechanical goings on from which emerged brains and consciousness. The material brain creates consciousness via a series of complex, highly evolved interactions. It does this with the help of various organs which are evolved in such a way to pick up on external stimuli such as light, sound, touch, taste, smell, etc...all of which involve/require interaction and interactive forces. How could there even be such a thing as consciousness or awareness without some form of interaction? Those interactions are fundamental and I would say consciouness cannot exist independently of those interactions.

What you fail to address is exactly how those 'material interactions' jump to non-material consciousness. This is the hard question in science which 'emergent theory' cannot yet provide a satisfactory answer to.

 

[Runewolf1973]

What you fail to address is exactly how those 'material interactions' jump to non-material consciousness. This is the hard question in science which 'emergent theory' cannot yet provide a satisfactory answer to.

There is no jump because it remains physical in nature. Complex physical/material interactions and changes in the brain, that is all.

 

[godnotgod]

So say all the evangelicals and televangelists. Yet neither have any published credible research showing this.



Meditation does not infer any truth value of HC thus is irrelevant. More so there are many forms of meditation from prayer in Abrahamic religions to purely secular/atheistic views.

The similarity between Deepak and the televangelists is that both are selling a "product" for consumption by the masses which in no way infers any truth value of their claims behind their ideologies. Just being convinces it has an effect is enough to trigger a placebo effect.

But the fact that it actually works means it's valid. People actually get well and become happy. Are you going to tell me their physical wellness and spiritual happiness are delusions of the mind because there is no published blah blah blah?

Meditation is a pathway to HC, not the goal itself, and so, relevant.

The goal of prayer meditation is not to experience HC.

Do you require published credible research to tell you that you exist, or that the water in a mountain lake is cold?

 

[godnotgod]

There is no jump because it remains physical in nature. Complex physical/material interactions and changes in the brain, that is all.

So consciousness, according to you, is a material thing?

 

[Runewolf1973]

So consciousness, according to you, is a material thing?

Complex interactions, which is what consciousness is, are physical in nature.

 

[godnotgod]

Complex interactions, which is what consciousness is, are physical in nature.

Really? So which physical materials is consciousness made of?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Really? So which physical materials is consciousness made of?

The combination of various Fundamental Interactions working together in unison. Given enough time and the right conditions those simple interactions may become more and more complex, eventually leading up to that very complex and highly interactive state we know as human consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

The combination of various Fundamental Interactions working together in unison. Given enough time and the right conditions those simple interactions may become more and more complex, eventually leading up to that very complex and highly interactive state we know as human consciousness.

OK, but you said the nature of consciousness is material-based; interactions themselves are not material. Now you are saying that consciousness is a state. So my question remains: how do material-based 'interactions' lead up to and become the state we know as human consciousness?

 

[Runewolf1973]

OK, but you said the nature of consciousness is material-based; interactions themselves are not material. Now you are saying that consciousness is a state. So my question remains: how do material-based 'interactions' lead up to and become the state we know as human consciousness?

Admittedly, I think "material" is the wrong word for those interactions. Those fields or forces (interactions) are not really "material", but they are physical however. Every one of our senses are the result of various interactions...sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, fear, pain, joy, love, even our thoughts. All are the result of interactions. Humans evolved from lower forms with less interactive capabilities. Even something as simple as a rock is an interactive form, but a rock may only interact on a molecular level. A tree or plant interacts more than a rock with its environment...it grows and interacts with the energy of the Sun. An insect interacts in a more complex manner than a tree. An animal interacts in a more complex manner than an insect. A human interacts in perhaps the most complex manner of all. We are evolved that way. Through the process of evolution those interactive abilities grew in complexity and broadened our "awareness" of the world around us. I don't really look at it as becoming "conscious" however, I look at it as humans became more interactive. Everything interacts in some way, we are simply more interactive due to those evolutionary changes. I'm not partial to the word "consciousness". I don't even consider myself to be "conscious". I interact with my environment in a complex manner, that is all. Be like the grass and just grow without thinking or even being conscious of what you are doing. That to me is truly "doing without doing". That to me is pure interaction and Oneness with everything.

 

[godnotgod]

Admittedly, I think "material" is the wrong word for those interactions. Those fields or forces (interactions) are not really "material", but they are physical however.

material

1. the matter from which a thing is or can be made.

denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.
"the material world"
synonyms: physical, corporeal, tangible, nonspiritual, mundane, worldly, earthly, secular, temporal, concrete, real, solid, substantial
"the material world"

What is 'physical' is composed of that which is material.

So now you say there is no such thing as consciousness?

 

[godnotgod]

I interact with my environment in a complex manner, that is all.

Where does your consciousness leave off and the universe begin?

 

[godnotgod]

 

[Runewolf1973]

material

1. the matter from which a thing is or can be made.

denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.
"the material world"
synonyms: physical, corporeal, tangible, nonspiritual, mundane, worldly, earthly, secular, temporal, concrete, real, solid, substantial
"the material world"

What is 'physical' is composed of that which is material.

So now you say there is no such thing as consciousness?

I meant "material" as in a solid substance. Matter is not really solid as you already know. Interactive "fields" (Fundamental Forces) are not really solid either, but they exist and can be measured so I would consider them to be physical. The way I see it, to be conscious is more clearly defined as the ability to interact in a complex manner with one's environment, so I think the term "consciousness" as it stands is rather vague. It is defined as the ability to be aware or have senses or perceptions...something to that regard... It is very vague I think. I prefer not to view it as "consciousness" at all, rather it is a form of interaction.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Where does your consciousness leave off and the universe begin?

Those interactions do not leave off. Everything is One and interactive.

 

[godnotgod]

Those interactions do not leave off. Everything is One and interactive.

I'm just referring to the static state of consciousness, before any 'interaction' occurs. Where does this static state of your consciousness leave off and the dead, unconscious universe begin?