Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Rick O'Shez]

The consciousness you are calling 'mine' is not yours. It is the consciousness of the Universe, looking at itself through your eyes. That it is 'my' consciousness is purely illusory.

Actually it's just consciousness. Ascribing it to the universe is an example of the reification I was referring to earlier.
Consciousness is a fascinating and strange phenomenon, but surrounding it with a load of new-age mumbo-jumbo will only take you further away from understanding what it really is.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I am not the one making the claim for the universe as something existing. What evidence is there to that effect? That you can measure it, feel it, taste it, hear it, smell it, see it? All of that is the result of perceptual reality, which cannot be depended upon. Perceptual reality is to see the outcome; the surface. The realization of Ultimate Reality is to get to the very heart of the matter.

Modern science presents us with a great deal of reliable, repeatable and observable evidence. If anything is unreliable or flaky, it is the realization of this so-called "Ultimate Reality" which cannot be demonstrated or verified as being any sort of reality whatsoever. You have presented no evidence, therefore I dismiss your claims.

“...how could it ever grasp and explain the phenomenon of consciousness which is evident in living beings?” – Paramahamsa Tewari

Like it is oh so difficult to explain. I already explained what consciousness is... It is the ability to interact with our environment in a complex manner. Everything interacts. Some things are just evolved to interact in more complex, peculiar ways than others. It is that simple.

BTW, there is in actuality no such thing as "living beings" because matter/energy neither lives nor dies, it changes form. The fact is, we are interactive beings. What we refer to as the characteristics of "life" are merely different interactive states. Metabolism, reproduction, etc...are none other than complex interactions.

 

[godnotgod]

Can't you see that most of your assertions in this thread are none other than "cocksure pronouncements"? You take yourself much too seriously, and are you clearly much more interesting in preaching than having a genuine discussion.
It's the same old stuff, hollow spiritual cliches, new-age jargon, pseudo-science and point scoring, all a big ego-trip. Well, good luck with that!

I'll tell you one thing: I was cocksure certain your response was going to be the typical predictable knee-jerk variety that always comes from you.

Perhaps the problem is that the Buddhish mind is not real Buddhism, but merely a mechanically-oriented artefact, which sees the universe in the same terms.

 

[godnotgod]

Actually it's just consciousness. Ascribing it to the universe is an example of the reification I was referring to earlier.

If it's just consciousness, then it is not a personal view. Not being a personal view, it is necessarily a universal one.

 

[godnotgod]

Modern science presents us with a great deal of reliable, repeatable and observable evidence. If anything is unreliable or flaky, it is the realization of this so-called "Ultimate Reality" which cannot be demonstrated or verified as being any sort of reality whatsoever. You have presented no evidence, therefore I dismiss your claims.





Like it is oh so difficult to explain. I already explained what consciousness is... It is the ability to interact with our environment in a complex manner. Everything interacts. Some things are just evolved to interact in more complex, peculiar ways than others. It is that simple.

BTW, there is in actuality no such thing as "living beings" because matter/energy neither lives nor dies, it changes form. The fact is, we are interactive beings. What we refer to as the characteristics of "life" are merely different interactive states. Metabolism, reproduction, etc...are none other than complex interactions.

You're ruled by the dictates of the Doctrine of Interaction to the point of being hypnotized by it, aren't you? What you are failing to see is the source of what you see as interaction. IOW, you are focusing on appearances, believing them to be real, especially because Holy Science, which is also under the spell of maya, shows them to be factual. Facts are not reality. They are just repeatable patterns of behavior. That doesn't necessarily make them real. It just means the universe exhibits certain predictable patterns or cycles. Prediction is what science is really all about. What science doesn't tell you is what the Universe actually IS.

In order for you to know that 'everything is interaction' there must necessarily be a reference against which interaction occurs, allowing you to detect change, and the only possible reference must be not-interaction, or that which is changeless. Therefore, 'change' is always occurring against a background of 'no-change', and if that is the case, then this background of The Changeless must be the fundamental reality, or, IOW, the Ultimate Reality. We call that background The Absolute.

This so called 'material' world, is, as Neil Bohr so insightfully pointed out, is not so 'real' after all.

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real”

Here, a distinguished scientist, from the discipline you tout so highly, is himself trying to tell you what I have been telling you all along. Are you going to dismiss his insight as well? I have said as much by pointing to the fact that the mass of the atom is virtual in nature, being created by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields.

And so, I repeat:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

Interaction is not consciousness, but is only possible because of consciousness. The Universe is not a mechanical billiard-ball affair. You think that because your mind is conditioned by a view that arbitrarily sets up a system of thought in which there is a conscious observer of a universe made up of separate unconscious 'things' that are 'out there'.

Interaction is an appearance of change, where no such change is actually occurring. This appearance of change comes directly from consciousness, which does not change. Only mind changes, but mind is a self-created principle, and is, therefore, a complete illusion.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

And so anything born dies...Christ died. And so Christ must not be the son, but the father as whatever truly exists is not born from anything, but just Is

 

[Runewolf1973]

You're ruled by the dictates of the Doctrine of Interaction to the point of being hypnotized by it, aren't you? What you are failing to see is the source of what you see as interaction. IOW, you are focusing on appearances, believing them to be real, especially because Holy Science, which is also under the spell of maya, shows them to be factual. Facts are not reality. They are just repeatable patterns of behavior. That doesn't necessarily make them real. It just means the universe exhibits certain predictable patterns or cycles. Prediction is what science is really all about. What science doesn't tell you is what the Universe actually IS.

In order for you to know that 'everything is interaction' there must necessarily be a reference against which allows you to know that, and the only possible reference must be not-interaction, or that which is changeless. Therefore, 'change' is always occurring against a background of 'no-change', and if that is the case, then this background of The Changeless must be the fundamental reality, or, IOW, the Ultimate Reality. We call that background The Absolute.

This so called 'material' world, is, as Neil Bohr so insightfully pointed out, is not so 'real' after all.

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real”

Here, a distinguished scientist, from the discipline you tout so highly, is himself trying to tell you what I have been telling you all along. Are you going to dismiss his insight as well? I have said as much by pointing to the fact that the mass of the atom is virtual in nature, being created by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields.

And so, I repeat:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

I dismiss your claims based on a lack of evidence. That doesn't mean that your claims aren't a possibility. Is it possible that all change/interaction is viewed against a backdrop of changeless or non-interaction? Sure, it is a possibility, but there is no evidence with which to claim it as a matter of fact. It is also possible that all there is, is change and interaction. Seen against what?...a background of even more change and more interaction. I tend to view change and interaction as something which in a way creates its own "background". It is something which can only be seen against itself.

 

[godnotgod]

Like it is oh so difficult to explain. I already explained what consciousness is... It is the ability to interact with our environment in a complex manner. Everything interacts. Some things are just evolved to interact in more complex, peculiar ways than others. It is that simple.

Ha ha ha ha....or perhaps the conclusion from the mind of a simpleton.

You need to be awarded the Noble Prize, because both distinguished scientists and mystics alike have been busily working on this question of consciousness which both refer to as 'the hard problem'. But you've figured it all out, haven't you? Not!

BTW, you contradict yourself: you previously stated that consciousness is the same as interaction, but now you state that it is the ability for interaction. But I agree with you: it IS the ability to interact, for without it, interaction is not possible. Interaction requires consciousness.

You remind me of a story of a Zen student and his teacher, who lived on opposite sides of Chicago. One day the student, rocking in his chair and staring at the ceiling, suddenly comes to a great realization. He jumps in his car, races across town, and furiously pounds on the Zen master's door. 'Everything is Mind!', the student exclaims, to which the teacher replies: 'Yes! That's it! You've got it!'. Several years later, the same thing happens, but this time the student tells his master: 'Everything is No-Mind!', to which the master replies: 'Yes! That's it! You've got it!'

 

[godnotgod]

And so anything born dies...Christ died. And so Christ must not be the son, but the father as whatever truly exists is not born from anything, but just Is

But Jesus had a dual nature in hypostatic union. So while his human nature was subject to mortality, his divine nature was not:

'Before Abraham was, I Am'

 

[Runewolf1973]

Ha ha ha ha....or perhaps the conclusion from the mind of a simpleton.

You need to be awarded the Noble Prize, because both distinguished scientists and mystics alike have been busily working on this question of consciousness which both refer to as 'the hard problem'. But you've figured it all out, haven't you? Not!

BTW, you contradict yourself: you previously stated that consciousness is the same as interaction, but now you state that it is the ability for interaction. But I agree with you: it IS the ability to interact, for without it, interaction is not possible. Interaction requires consciousness.

You remind me of a story of a Zen student and his teacher, who lived on opposite sides of Chicago. One day the student, rocking in his chair and staring at the ceiling, suddenly comes to a great realization. He jumps in his car, races across town, and furiously pounds on the Zen master's door. 'Everything is Mind!', the student exclaims, to which the teacher replies: 'Yes! That's it! You've got it!'. Several years later, the same thing happens, but this time the student tells his master: 'Everything is No-Mind!', to which the master replies: 'Yes! That's it! You've got it!'

Yes, admittedly I have figured it out. Of course I would never expect someone such as yourself to figure out something so simple. You must think that just because someone says there is a "hard problem", there must also be a hard solution. That is false and the solution is actually quite simple...it is all interaction. That which we call "life" or "death" is no different...it is all interaction. The evidence is quite literally all around us and inside of us. However, this all requires a certain amount of logic and reason to draw upon such conclusions. Abandonment of reason does not solve the problem of consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, admittedly I have figured it out. Of course I would never expect someone such as yourself to figure out something so simple. You must think that just because someone says there is a "hard problem", there must also be a hard solution. That is false and the solution is actually quite simple...it is all interaction. That which we call "life" or "death" is no different...it is all interaction. The evidence is quite literally all around us and inside of us. However, this all requires a certain amount of logic and reason to draw upon such conclusions. Abandonment of reason does not solve the problem of consciousness.

ha ha ha ha.....You have got to be the funniest person on the forums. I am amazed that you actually believe you have figured something out when there is nothing to figure out. You take the cake, and my hat is off to you.

You'll have to invite me to your laboratory someday so I can have a first hand view of your maniacal machinations, all interacting with each other, with no rhyme or reason.

To say that it is all about interaction tells us NOTHING!

You haven't learned a thing.

Now go to your room.

No cigar....das boot

 

[Runewolf1973]

ha ha ha ha.....You have got to be the funniest person on the forums. I am amazed that you actually believe you have figured something out when there is nothing to figure out. You take the cake, and my hat is off to you.

You'll have to invite me to your laboratory someday so I can have a first hand view of your maniacal machinations, all interacting with each other, with no rhyme or reason.

To say that it is all about interaction tells us NOTHING!

You haven't learned a thing.

Now go to your room.

No cigar....das boot

Judging by your snarky response I would say that you have nothing with which to disprove my conclusions, therefore you have no other option but to resort to childish attacks. Shame on you. Time to grow up shall we? At least if you disagree, tell me exactly WHY you think my position is wrong. I will admit that my conclusions are rather simplistic, but science can work out the more complex mechanisms/details later. For my part and to simply get my message across, it is sufficient to conclude that consciousness is a complex form of interaction.

You wish to see my laboratory? Step outside.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If it's just consciousness, then it is not a personal view. Not being a personal view, it is necessarily a universal one.

It's quite likely that life and consciousness are ubiquitous across the universe, in some shape or form. But so what?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You wish to see my laboratory? Step outside.

The natural world is a great teacher and much more enlightening than outlandish religious theories.

 

[YmirGF]

The natural world is a great teacher and much more enlightening than outlandish religious theories.

Indeed. I had a taste of it yesterday when a wee 18" tall fawn came by and patiently waited for me to come over and say "Hi"... then his 8 other friends appeared out of nowhere and I had to go get an apple... What I've learned from "my" deer population is that they are slow to trust but have pretty good memories and can't see very well close up. They are a delight that never gets "old".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Indeed. I had a taste of it yesterday when a wee 18" tall fawn came by and patiently waited for me to come over and say "Hi"... then his 8 other friends appeared out of nowhere and I had to go get an apple... What I've learned from "my" deer population is that they are slow to trust but have pretty good memories and can't see very well close up. They are a delight that never gets "old".

Aw, how sweet! I wonder if your fawns have the same kind of consciousness that we do? I wonder if beings in distant galaxies and universes have the same kind of consciousness that we do?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The background that is The Universe (meaning Everything, including all multi-verses) is precisely Ultimate Reality.

Call it what you like, we still know next to nothing about it. For example we know that human consciousness has a certain quality, but we have no idea what consciousness might look like in other galaxies, universes or dimensions, so talking about "universal" consciousness is pretty meaningless.

 

[godnotgod]

Judging by your snarky response I would say that you have nothing with which to disprove my conclusions, therefore you have no other option but to resort to childish attacks. Shame on you. Time to grow up shall we? At least if you disagree, tell me exactly WHY you think my position is wrong. I will admit that my conclusions are rather simplistic, but science can work out the more complex mechanisms/details later. For my part and to simply get my message across, it is sufficient to conclude that consciousness is a complex form of interaction.

You wish to see my laboratory? Step outside.

heh heh heh...no, I wish to see your peer reviewed paper.

Science, of course, will be waiting with bated breath.

(Hint: the reality is even simpler than what you suggest.)

 

[godnotgod]

The natural world is a great teacher and much more enlightening than outlandish religious theories.

Well, I'm certainly glad I propose neither a religious view, nor that of the Fully Automatic Universe.

The Buddha would have considered both as extreme views and rejected them.

 

[godnotgod]

Call it what you like, we still know next to nothing about it. For example we know that human consciousness has a certain quality, but we have no idea what consciousness might look like in other galaxies, universes or dimensions, so talking about "universal" consciousness is pretty meaningless.

If it's universal, it is the same everywhere.

But the issue between Chopra and Dawkins is not what we know about it, but whether it is universal or not. That you have stated it to be 'just consciousness' rather than a personal view can only mean it is universal in nature.