Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

You do realize that Western Philosophy also is based on mysticism? I guess you must of missed that class. More so the development of logic and reasoning in both become separate from the religious driven mysticism. Even modern and post-modern Western philosophers still talk about mysticism. Mysticism and Logic by Russel, Shape of Ancient Thought by McEvilley, Panini's work on the axiom system The issue is your confuse religious mysticism with all mysticism. You also assume all forms of mysticism are equal or even worth taking note of. You also support the caricature of Eastern thought is solely based on mysticism thus contains no reason nor logic. It is a common mistake with students at horrible schools or *cough* people that have not taken a philo 101 course.

All I am saying as regards the topic, is that philosophy is based on the intellect, whereas the mystical experience is not. I don't wish to pursue this further, as it is subject for another discussion.

Yes, I have taken Phisophosy 101

 

[godnotgod]

I would like to know specifically how the Absolute "dreams" this world. How does that dreaming occur or come about? BTW, dream is another verb and that is an action word. There are chemical and electrical interactions and changes in the brain which generate the lower level illusions in our dreams, but if according to Higher Reality there is non-action, what is resulting in those higher level illusions? How can there be play/Maya if there is nothing or no action creating the play/Maya?

In the rope/snake analogy, was there ever a snake?

 

[Shad]

You stated earlier that they were words spoken originally by Chopra, out of which were generated randomly by a computer. So they were spoken by him. The computer did not create those words.

No I didn't. You didn't read the link. Words are not quotes nor phrases. Read the link like you should have the first time.

Words: green, big, tall, tough, etc

Phrase/sentence: It is a tall tree with green leaves.

There is a difference.

 

[Shad]

All I am saying as regards the topic, is that philosophy is based on the intellect, whereas the mystical experience is not. I don't wish to pursue this further, as it is subject for another discussion.

Yes, I have taken Phisophosy 101

Then you wouldn't make basic mistake a first year student that has not taken Philo 101 makes. So either you have not finished the classes, even been in the class or your Philo 101 prof supports the typical caricature of West and East which is a leftover of thought from centuries ago.

 

[Runewolf1973]

In the rope/snake analogy, was there ever a snake?

No, but as per the analogy there was still a rope and that is something, not nothing. I can see how an illusion could be generated by a misrepresentation of something, but how are those higher caliber illusions (which can be measured and observed scientifically) generated out of nothing? The rope in this case would represent the higher illusion, but what generated that illusion?

 

[godnotgod]

No, but as per the analogy there was still a rope and that is something, not nothing. I can see how an illusion could be generated by a misrepresentation of something, but how are those higher caliber illusions (which can be measured and observed scientifically) generated out of nothing? The rope in this case would represent the higher illusion, but what generated that illusion?

No, the rope is not the illusion. It is the metaphor for The Absolute. It is the snake that is the illusion. It's only a metaphor, so 'rope', which is a temporal object, does not exactly equate with The Absolute, which is intemporal. The point of the metaphor is to show that the relationship of rope to snake is like that of Absolute to Universe.

 

[godnotgod]

No I didn't. You didn't read the link. Words are not quotes nor phrases. Read the link like you should have the first time.

Words: green, big, tall, tough, etc

Phrase/sentence: It is a tall tree with green leaves.

There is a difference.

This is what you quoted from your reference site (post #1093):

"It has been said by some that the thoughts and tweets of Deepak Chopra are indistinguishable from a set of profound sounding words put together in a random order, particularly the tweets tagged with "#cosmisconciousness". This site aims to test that claim! 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."

So the source of the words which the computer processed are from Chopra, all of which is totally irrelevant to the phrase in question, which is a true statement.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No, the rope is not the illusion. It is the metaphor for The Absolute. It is the snake that is the illusion. It's only a metaphor, so 'rope', which is a temporal object, does not exactly equate with The Absolute, which is intemporal. The point of the metaphor is to show that the relationship of rope to snake is like that of Absolute to Universe.

Ok. That still doesn't explain where the illusion (maya) comes from.

 

[godnotgod]

Ok. That still doesn't explain where the illusion (maya) comes from.

Maya, the world, is none other than The Absolute itself, masquerading as the world. It does not 'come from' something else; it IS that something else, just as the gold chain does not come from gold; it IS gold. Likewise, the Universe is none other than the Absolute, but we fail to see it that way because our awareness is conditioned via Time, Space, and Causation, superimposed over Reality. And so, instead of seeing that which is changeless, undivided, and infinite, we see it as changing, divided, and finite. We see the rope as a snake.

"There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."
http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

 

[Runewolf1973]

Maya, the world, is none other than The Absolute itself, masquerading as the world. It does not 'come from' something else; it IS that something else, just as the gold chain does not come from gold; it IS gold. Likewise, the Universe is none other than the Absolute, but we fail to see it that way because our awareness is conditioned via Time, Space, and Causation, superimposed over Reality. And so, instead of seeing that which is changeless, undivided, and infinite, we see it as changing, divided, and finite. We see the rope as a snake.

"There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."
http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

I know it is all that Absolute, but "masquerading" still indicates something is happening to bring those illusions into view. The universe disguises itself, but how?

 

[godnotgod]

I know it is all that Absolute, but "masquerading" still indicates something is happening to bring those illusions into view. The universe disguises itself, but how?

How are you doing it?

 

[Shad]

This is what you quoted from your reference site (post #1093):

"It has been said by some that the thoughts and tweets of Deepak Chopra are indistinguishable from a set of profound sounding words put together in a random order, particularly the tweets tagged with "#cosmisconciousness". This site aims to test that claim! 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."

So the source of the words which the computer processed are from Chopra, all of which is totally irrelevant to the phrase in question, which is a true statement.

List of words are not a list of quotes.The site proved it's point that software can sting together words to form a phrase which has as much meaning as construct phrases of Deepak. It also shows confirmation bias in which you read meaning in the software quote rather than treating it as a quote from software. Deepak never said anything about tea but had used the words contained within the phrase in different sentences at different times. Reading deep meaning into this quote is not irrelvent as the very purpose of the site is to demonstrated the sophistry Deepak spouts and how his sheep eat it up.

 

[godnotgod]

List of words are not a list of quotes.The site proved it's point that software can sting together words to form a phrase which has as much meaning as construct phrases of Deepak. It also shows confirmation bias in which you read meaning in the software quote rather than treating it as a quote from software. Deepak never said anything about tea but had used the words contained within the phrase in different sentences at different times. Reading deep meaning into this quote is not irrelvent as the very purpose of the site is to demonstrated the sophistry.

I understand the site's intent, but in the specific example we are talking about, it does not achieve that goal. There is no 'deep meaning' here. It's quite simple, and just happens to make perfect sense, as I have repeatedly shown. The fact that Chopra said nothing about tea is irrelevant to the actual phrase you showed me up front. That phrase, in and of itself, regardless of source, actually is true. I was responding to its factual nature. You are adding psycho-babble baggage to this, thinking yourself clever. Let's just look at the phrase you posted without any connection to the referenced site or to Chopra, which is all I saw initially. The only real question here is: 'is the statement re: tea in relation to spiritual belonging true?'

The only bias here is your knee jerk bias to Deepak Chopra, like that of so many others who automatically react to his non-standard descriptions of Reality, because his do not conform to their expected response patterns. His insight comes from a source outside the box of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. Chopra continues to prompt us to stop and see, rather than think, as he plays the part of a finger pointing to the moon. So the question is: are you looking to see what is being pointed to, or are you just attacking the pointing finger?

edit: because you don't understand what Chopra is saying in the first place, due to your biases, you think they are alike in character to what a computer comes up with, because they appear similar on the surface. While the computer has no intent behind its results, Chopra definitely does. So we should be focusing on his meaning, and trying to understand what he is actually saying. Personally, I don't see any problem with his content.

 

[Runewolf1973]

How are you doing it?

By interacting just like the rest of the universe. I do in a way agree with your notion of nothingness however that nothingness is not emptiness. I envision the universe as a great, limitless ocean of nothingness filled with waves of potential...the potential to be something.

 

[godnotgod]

By interacting just like the rest of the universe. I do in a way agree with your notion of nothingness however that nothingness is not emptiness. I envision the universe as a great, limitless ocean of nothingness filled with waves of potential...the potential to be something.

Any 'something' that is actualized eventually dies away. And so we say that everything comes and goes, but That which is Unborn, which which does not change, does not come and go. Through all the comings and goings, it remains unchanged. What is that something? And who is it that is interacting? What is the case when all of the interacting is finished; when all of the comings and goings come to an end?
*****

The Human Route

Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed — that is human.
When you are born, where do you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like that.
But there is one thing which always remains clear.
It is pure and clear, not depending on life and death.

Then what is the one pure and clear thing?

Zen Master Seung Sahnon

http://www.kwanumzen.org/?teaching=the-human-route

 

[godnotgod]

States of Consciousness from the POV of Vedanta:

 

[Shad]

I understand the site's intent, but in the specific example we are talking about, it does not achieve that goal. There is no 'deep meaning' here. It's quite simple, and just happens to make perfect sense, as I have repeatedly shown. The fact that Chopra said nothing about tea is irrelevant to the actual phrase you showed me up front. That phrase, in and of itself, regardless of source, actually is true. I was responding to its factual nature. You are adding psycho-babble baggage to this, thinking yourself clever. Let's just look at the phrase you posted without any connection to the referenced site or to Chopra, which is all I saw initially. The only real question here is: 'is the statement re: tea in relation to spiritual belonging true?'

Which is just repeating confirmation bias. Software quotes have no innate purpose, no goal, no point of communication. The software is not trying to make a point about anything. It is software. My link should how and why people fall into confirmation bias. What is also amusing is your dismissal of a study paper. I assume it is due to hitting home and supporting my point.

You read meaning into it as you thought 1. It was from Deepak, 2. He was making a point. Well neither 1 nor 2 are true but you are still reading meaning into a phrase which has zero intended meaning as software has no intent

The only bias here is your knee jerk bias to Deepak Chopra, like that of so many others who automatically react to his non-standard descriptions of Reality, because his do not conform to their expected response patterns. His insight comes from a source outside the box of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. Chopra continues to prompt us to stop and see, rather than think, as he plays the part of a finger pointing to the moon. So the question is: are you looking to see what is being pointed to, or are you just attacking the pointing finger?

Not knee-jerk as I have known about him for years and the sophistry he sells to the masses. I reject his mixing of science and religion while presenting it as anything but religion. He uses confusing ideas in science mixed with mysticism to trick people that do not know better. He has been doing this since the 70s

edit: because you don't understand what Chopra is saying in the first place, due to your biases, you think they are alike in character to what a computer comes up with, because they appear similar on the surface. While the computer has no intent behind its results, Chopra definitely does. So we should be focusing on his meaning, and trying to understand what he is actually saying. Personally, I don't see any problem with his content.

No he has proven his own sophistry is empty everytime he faces people that know more then he does.

 

[godnotgod]

Which is just repeating confirmation bias. Software quotes have no innate purpose, no goal, no point of communication. The software is not trying to make a point about anything. It is software. My link should how and why people fall into confirmation bias. What is also amusing is your dismissal of a study paper. I assume it is due to hitting home and supporting my point.

You read meaning into it as you thought 1. It was from Deepak, 2. He was making a point. Well neither 1 nor 2 are true but you are still reading meaning into a phrase which has zero intended meaning as software has no intent

Exactly what I said, even though the creators of the site have a positive intent, but totally irrelevant to the actual statement you posted. The study paper has nothing to do with my response to the statement; it is only your assumption that I have a bias in favor of Chopra. While I do respect his input, I also have to retain a critical attitude to whatever I read. What I read about the statement was what it said: that making tea is related to spiritual belonging. Doesn't matter it was from Chopra or not, or that a point was being made. I could care less. What I responded to was the content of the statement at face value. The rest of what you're saying is based wholly on your assumptions, and YOUR bias against Chopra. And you're just making up crap about 'deep meaning'; there is no such thing in the example you provided.

Not knee-jerk as I have known about him for years and the sophistry he sells to the masses. I reject his mixing of science and religion while presenting it as anything but religion. He uses confusing ideas in science mixed with mysticism to trick people that do not know better. He has been doing this since the 70s

No he has proven his own sophistry is empty everytime he faces people that know more then he does.

He doesn't mix science with religion. He is simply seeing that Reality is one. His view is mystical, not religious, and the mystic's view includes science, but science does not include the mystic's view. The evidence for what I'm saying is that he uses scientific evidence to support his view, wherever possible.

Suggestion: what you should do is to post a statement by Chopra you consider to be woo, and let me respond to it. Let's forget the study because it is just so much crap.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Any 'something' that is actualized eventually dies away. And so we say that everything comes and goes, but That which is Unborn, which which does not change, does not come and go. Through all the comings and goings, it remains unchanged. What is that something? And who is it that is interacting? What is the case when all of the interacting is finished; when all of the comings and goings come to an end?
*****

The Human Route

Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed — that is human.
When you are born, where do you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like that.
But there is one thing which always remains clear.
It is pure and clear, not depending on life and death.

Then what is the one pure and clear thing?

Zen Master Seung Sahnon

http://www.kwanumzen.org/?teaching=the-human-route

I believe that what is generally referred to as consciousness is a form of interaction. However, there may very well be an essence or nature to the universe that is beyond all physical functions and beyond those interactions. I am curious about this and I think my views might be changing yet again thanks to you. Haha. I often hear physicists refer to virtual particles (field disturbances) as "blipping" into and out of existence, so there obviously must be a sort of non-existence or other reality they are "blipping" out of. Metaphorically, I still envision the universe as a great limitless ocean with waves on it. Those waves to me represent those field disturbances and, just as waves do, they rise up out of nowhere and settle back down as though they were never there to begin with...they come and go as you said. The waves are on the surface and the ocean depths represent that deeper unchanging reality you refer to, but that ocean just wouldn't be an ocean without those waves. And so, the ocean and its waves are in fact One inseparable unit. Those waves (illusions/forms/maya) may come and go, but they are not empty, nor meaningless, nor are they to be ignored because they are in fact full of that Ocean and part of that same reality which is the ALL. You cannot separate the waves from the ocean. The waves Are the ocean, the ocean is Waving.

“The Ocean cannot stay alone, and so the notion of the wave is created. When waves rise Ocean loses nothing and when waves fall Ocean gains nothing. Samsara, the illusion, Maya, the play, is the wave on the Ocean of Nirvana. Waves are not separate from the Ocean, rays are not separate from the Sun, You are not separate from Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. This is a reflection of That.”

~ Papaji

“Enlightenment for a wave in the ocean is the moment the wave realizes that it is water.”

~ Thich Nhat Hanh

 

[godnotgod]

'Consciousness does not exist in Space-Time; Space-Time exists in consciousness'
Deepak Chopra