Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Runewolf1973]

Yes, although perhaps the notion of 'interaction' doesn't quite go far enough. It still implies that thing A is subtly separate from thing B that it is interacting with. Maybe the next level of understanding is 'just acting'.

IDK... Just spouting words now.

I see no problem with that perseprctive. Sometimes I break it up a little bit and say inter-acting. "Inter" representing the connectivity of those actions.

 

[Runewolf1973]

There are scientists who say all there is is consciousness.

I think they are crazy. What evidence is there for that? All there is is interaction. Fundamental Interaction.... Everything that we can think of as existing can be boiled down to those Fundamental Interactions. That is why they are called "fundamental". There may be a Unified Field of sorts, but it would necessarily be an interactive field.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think they are crazy. What evidence is there for that? All there is is interaction. Fundamental Interaction.... Everything that we can think of as existing can be boiled down to those Fundamental Interactions. That is why they are called "fundamental".

Because when you go down to the smallest of the small, everything is information. Another word for that might well be consciousness. It works for me as it works scripturally also.
We also have intelligence involved in the creation of all realms, the many worlds, our own universe. Without consciousness, you have luck. There is little sense in that, and if anything is "crazy" I would say it would be that.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Because when you go down to the smallest of the small, everything is information. Another word for that might well be consciousness. It works for me as it works scripturally also.
We also have intelligence involved in the creation of all realms, the many worlds, our own universe. Without consciousness, you have luck. There is little sense in that, and if anything is "crazy" I would say it would be that.

When you go down to the smallest of the small there is interaction. Even the smallest particles are interactive fields.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Even for such thing as a "God" to create the universe would necessarily require some form of interaction.

 

[Robert.Evans]

When you go down to the smallest of the small there is interaction. Even the smallest particles are interactive fields.

My signature says it all for me. That is regarded as consciousness to those who believe it

 

[Runewolf1973]

My signature says it all for me. That is regarded as consciousness to those who believe it

It is kinda true in a way. We will all be assimilated into different interactive states. It is the way the universe works. I just don't see any conscious, omnipotent beings involved. I see the Fundamental Forces being involved.

 

[YmirGF]

My signature says it all for me. That is regarded as consciousness to those who believe it

Physicist John Hagelin

As a researcher at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) (1981–1982) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) (1982–1983), Hagelin made contributions to the development of unified field theory. He is now Professor of Physics at Maharishi University of Management (MUM). Hagelin believes that his extended version of unified field theory is identified with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's "unified field of consciousness", a view that is rejected by "virtually every theoretical physicist in the world".[3]

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I disagree there is such thing as "living" matter versus "dead" matter. There is only matter. Some forms of matter are simply evolved to interact in more complex, peculiar ways than others.

So how does this work practically? If for example I pick up a rock on the beach, is the rock aware of me, and if so how? Does it respond to being picked up, and if so how?
Does it interact with me, and if so how?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The notion of downward causation strikes me as being terribly redundant. If consciousness is universally fundamental, then why even bother with brains?

I would say that consciousness is an emergent property of biological life.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

All there is is interaction. Fundamental Interaction....

That sounds like a fundamentalist view.

I'm still not clear what you mean by "interaction" in a practical everyday sense, or why you think that consciousness doesn't exist. The concept of consciousness does seem to match closely with the way we experience things.

I can see that all organisms interact with their environment, what I can't see is how they could do that without being aware of their environment.

 

[Runewolf1973]

So how does this work practically? If for example I pick up a rock on the beach, is the rock aware of me, and if so how? Does it respond to being picked up, and if so how?
Does it interact with me, and if so how?

A rock will interact and it will respond to external forces applied to it. A rock will interact by picking up the heat from your hand. A rock will respond by making a loud craaack if tossed against another hard object. However, a rock is not complex enough to have awareness. It interacts on a much more rudimentary level.

 

[Straw Dog]

I would say that consciousness is an emergent property of biological life.

Yes, dynamic emergence makes sense. It's fascinating regardless of how it came about. Emergence doesn't negate the beauty and wonder of conscious systems.

 

[Straw Dog]

Physicist John Hagelin

I remember seeing that guy on "What the Bleep do we Know?" I've met so many people that like to quote that movie as if its entirely factual.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Physicist John Hagelin

I think it just shows that some scientists have religious beliefs.

 

[Runewolf1973]

That sounds like a fundamentalist view.

I'm still not clear what you mean by "interaction" in a practical everyday sense, or why you think that consciousness doesn't exist. The concept of consciousness does seem to match closely with the way we experience things.

I can see that all organisms interact with their environment, what I can't see is how they could do that without being aware of their environment.

From Wikipedia: "Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon one another." What we call consciousness is the cumulative effect of many different interactions occurring simultaneously. If organisms are able to interact with their environment in a complex manner, that interactive ability already is a form of awareness.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

From Wikipedia: "Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon one another." What we call consciousness is the cumulative effect of many different interactions occurring simultaneously. If organisms are able to interact with their environment in a complex manner, that interactive ability already is a form of awareness.

Could you provide the link for that reference?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Could you provide the link for that reference?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction

 

[godnotgod]

It's still a poor analogy.

So I'm still waiting for a straightforward answer to the question: "How can we be conscious of stuff we can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch?"

The question is in response to your assertion that consciousness is "not limited by the senses". ( post #1533 ).

Consciousness comes before sight, sound smell, taste or touch, all of which are dependent upon consciousness. But I can be eating an orange on the other side of the world while describing it to you, and you would be conscious of it's taste, touch, sight, smell, as potential, via MY consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

Just answer the question!

.

The primary issue here is that of Universal Consciousness, which is the friction between Chopra and Dawkins. By answering the question: "who is it that is watching", one is led to the reality and experience of UC.