Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

I was tempted to answer your wonderful question, but thought I'd like our resident lecturer respond in his own words without robbing the thinking of others.

If you like, we can arrange to have your lips surgically attached to Spiny's rear end.

( looked but nothing worth stealing...same old safe stagnant paradigm
)

 

[godnotgod]

It should be a piece of cake for someone in tune with the "the changeless universal consciousness".

How the hell would YOU know? Your in the same league with Spiny, both of you thrashing about in that stagnant philosophical backwater.

 

[godnotgod]

Dreaming still requires a physical brain and complex interactions. Those complex interactions are our senses.

That dreaming requires a brain is only your assumption. I say that the brain requires dreaming, and therefore, consciousness.

THE WORLD, INCLUDING BRAINS, COME OUT OF PURE CONSCIOUSNESS. HOW COULD IT BE ANY OTHER WAY?

 

[godnotgod]

I'm looking forward to a succinct and lucid explanation.

TRANSLATION: "I'm looking for a way to drive a black square peg into a white round hole"
(that way, the universe and reality will make perfect simpletonian sense to my pointed little head)

 

[Runewolf1973]

That dreaming requires a brain is only your assumption. I say that the brain requires dreaming, and therefore, consciousness.

THE WORLD, INCLUDING BRAINS, COME OUT OF PURE CONSCIOUSNESS. HOW COULD IT BE ANY OTHER WAY?

That is your opinion and it is not supported by any evidence. Pure Consciousness is not a "something" from which anything can come out of, not even would-be illusions.

 

[YmirGF]

If you like, we can arrange to have your lips surgically attached to Spiny's rear end.

( looked but nothing worth stealing...same old safe stagnant paradigm)

So... this is the best you can do? That is a first though, I don't think I have ever been told that my thinking is in the "same old stagnant paradigm". Has anyone told you how thin skinned you are?

How the hell would YOU know? Your in the same league with Spiny, both of you thrashing about in that stagnant philosophical backwater.

Better in some stagnant philosophical backwater than in the smelly effluent of Deepak Chopra and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh 2.0

 

[YmirGF]

That is your opinion and it is not supported by any evidence. Pure Consciousness is not a "something" from which anything can come out of, not even would-be illusions.

One wonders how many joints of medical marijuana one has to imbibe before his thinking actually makes any sense.

 

[godnotgod]

Whether it be consciousness, subconsciousness (dreams) or unconsciousness, all 3 are tied to activities of the physical brains.

The whole idea that there are consciousness outside of the physical brain, is nothing more than wishful thinking, delusion or a myth.

And there are no more evidences to support an universal consciousness than those out-of-body or near-death experiences. The whole "transcendence" thing seemed more hallucinatory than anything else.

They make good paranormal stories, I do enjoy good ones, but that's all their worth.

Do you think the brain is capable of non-local communication with other brains, or no?

 

[godnotgod]

I don't think I have ever been told that my thinking is in the "same old stagnant paradigm".

Well, surprise!

Better in some stagnant philosophical backwater than in the smelly effluent of Deepak Chopra and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh 2.0

Because you ARE in a stagnant backwater, you fail to see that Chopra and Osho are on the cutting edge, always fresh and alive, with that glint of wonderfulness in their eyes. Both are mavericks. No wonder people hate them. They challenge the stagnant status quo of the current entrenched paradigm.

 

[godnotgod]

One wonders how many joints of medical marijuana one has to imbibe before his thinking actually makes any sense.

One wonders how long it will be before it is realized that one is always mistakenly trying to make reality fit one's conceptual framework, instead of just seeing things as they actually are.

You reference to medical mj is telltale of your entrenched paradigm and stagnant backwater.

 

[godnotgod]

Dreaming still requires a physical brain and complex interactions. Those complex interactions are our senses.

Maybe something is dreaming you, when you think it is you that is dreaming. There is no 'dreamer of the dream'. There is only dreaming itself, without an agent of dreaming. If you think there is such an agent, can you point him out?

 

[godnotgod]

In my case, it is me who is doing the watching, as it were.

Is there a river that flows, or just flowing water?

Is there a whirlpool that whirls, or just whirling water?

Is there an 'It' that is raining, or just raining itself?

Is there an 'I' that watches, or just watching itself?

 

[godnotgod]

They might make more sense that way. It's scary that people look to this guy for inspiration, their lives must be very sad.

Actually, there are many very happy, stable, and sane people who attend his seminars and programs at the Chopra Center. He has helped thousands to better health and happiness.

 

[godnotgod]

Whether we understand all of it or not, it all boils down to complex interactions.

Which tells us absolutely NOTHING about the true nature of Reality. Again, you are being taken in by mere outward appearances you believe represent reality. You've got to pierce the facade before you can reach any real kind of understanding.

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness is the result of complex interactions. Sight, hearing, taste, smell and other bodily sensations are part of the many complex interactions which combine to give us this feeling of consciousness. Consciousness is not fundamental, interaction is fundamental.

Whatever is the basis for interaction is fundamental to interaction. What is that basis? C'mon now. Use your head!

 

[godnotgod]

Does a tree have to think about it before it interacts with the Sun? Or does it just interact? Do we have to think about it for our heart to pump blood? Or does it just do it? Interaction does not require thought or consciousness. Thought and consciousness are the result of interaction.

You're confusing thinking with consciousness. No, thought is not involved with those processess, but consciousness is absolutely intrinsic to them.
IT IS CONSCIOUSNESS THAT RELEGATES AUTONOMIC FUNCTIONS OF THE BODY TO THE BACKGROUND SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE THEM UP FRONT ALL THE TIME, THEREBY ALLOWING IT TO FOCUS ON WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE PRESENT MOMENT.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You're confusing thinking with consciousness. No, thought is not involved with those processess, but consciousness is absolutely intrinsic to them.
IT IS CONSCIOUSNESS THAT RELEGATES AUTONOMIC FUNCTIONS OF THE BODY TO THE BACKGROUND SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE THEM UP FRONT ALL THE TIME, THEREBY ALLOWING IT TO FOCUS ON WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE PRESENT MOMENT.

Where is the evidence for your claims?

 

[godnotgod]

Physicist John Hagelin

Of course they reject it! They aren't enlightened yet as the Maharishi and Hagelin are, who are giants amongst those mental dwarfs, still clinging to the old stagnant paradigm of materialism.

MATERIALISM IS DEAD!

 

[godnotgod]

Where is the evidence for your claims?

You just provided it. Do you have to constantly think about beating your heart, pumping your blood, regulating your breath, digesting your food, etc? No! You want to focus on what is up front, right now, and have those processes work in the background. Consciousness has taken care of all that for you. It's just that you have lost touch with the background of existence, and are focusing on what attracts your attention, like things interacting in the foreground. You're hypnotized.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Emergent Theory is not actually a true scientfic theory, but merely a poor hypothesis at best, or more likely just an assumption. No one to date can explain how non-material consciousness can 'emerge' from a material brain. Can you?