Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Runewolf1973]

Again 'Emergent Theory' emerges, which is merely an assumption, with no real basis. You are a materialist. Show me how the material brain creates non-material consciousness.* At what point does the magic occur, and how?

If not for consciousness, there would be no electromagnetic interactions.

Some materialist scientists even claim that there is only the material world, and consciousness does not even exist; IOW, it is an illusion, but an illusion created by what? the material brain? Illusions require consciousness.

You don't pay attention, do you? Anyways, I already explained this... The material brain creates the effect or feeling of "consciousness" through a series of complex interactions. I am one of those who claims consciousness does not exist. It is an illusion or an effect created by complex interactions. There is no "magic".

 

[godnotgod]

Nostalgia, compassion and empathy are quite different things you realize. I feel so sad for you.

Aw, shucks. Don't dwell too long on it, or I will have to feel sad for you. Then we'll both be sad, sopping wet, and supremely stupid.

 

[godnotgod]

You don't pay attention, do you? Anyways, I already explained this... The material brain creates the effect or feeling of "consciousness" through a series of complex interactions. I am one of those who claims consciousness does not exist. It is an illusion or an effect created by complex interactions. There is no "magic".

At least not in your case, as you are just sterile, mechanical, and reductionist. You don't understand a thing, do you? Reality for you is just so many billiard balls mindlessly striking one another ad nauseum. Is this what science has done to your brain? pity.

But I am certain of one thing, as you are: that in the final analysis, everything will be explained in clear, concise terms, and we will all sit on grampa's lap, and ask:

"Grampa, why is the sky blue?"

And good old gramps will say:

"Why, because of the oxygen, of course!"

"Oh"

 

[godnotgod]

Nostalgia, compassion and empathy are quite different things you realize. I feel so sad for you.

Aw, shucks. Don't dwell too long on it, or I will have to feel sad for you. Then we'll both be sad, sopping wet, and supremely stupid.

I was referring to the dissolution of the ego, as it is part and parcel of Samsara. Why would you have nostalgia for the dropping away of ego?

Mooji likens the ego to a beggar, who, when you come home one evening, is patiently waiting for you at your front door, and begs for a sandwich. You tell him to wait, and when you return with his sandwich, find that he has found a place on your living room sofa. He eats his sandwich, but when the time comes for him to leave, he begs you to stay for just one night, and the next thing you know, he is in your bed. Soon, he becomes the master of the house, and you are his servant. Realization that the ego is an illusion reverses this scenario.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The retinas in our eyes are reacting to the light rays and that is an interaction. That "sensing" is a form of interaction. We are interacting with a visible object...IOW responding to stimuli.

Yes, you could say our retinas are reacting to the light. It seems like different language for the same process really.

 

[Runewolf1973]

At least not in your case, as you are just sterile, mechanical, and reductionist. You don't understand a thing, do you? Reality for you is just so many billiard balls mindlessly striking one another ad nauseum. Is this what science has done to your brain? pity.

But I am certain of one thing, as you are: that in the final analysis, everything will be explained in clear, concise terms, and we will all sit on grampa's lap, and ask:

"Grampa, why is the sky blue?"

And good old gramps will say:

"Why, because of the oxygen, of course!"

"Oh"

You greatly underestimate what I understand.

 

[godnotgod]

Then stop using misleading terminology!

 

[godnotgod]

You greatly underestimate what I understand.

I doubt it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I am one of those who claims consciousness does not exist.

I think there is certainly a case for saying that it doesn't exist as a discreet quality or function, which makes notions like "Pure Consciousness" rather silly.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes, you could say our retinas are reacting to the light. It seems like different language for the same process really.

Yes, I agree with you. It is just different language for the same thing. I just prefer to use the term "interact" instead of "consciousness" because interaction better describes what is actually going on. Consciousness has such a vague definition which all too easily allows people to wrongly associate it with "mystical" events.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Then stop using misleading terminology!

That is why I dislike the term "consciousness"...because it is so vaguely defined that people like you can interpret it however whimsically you want. You have a hard time doing that if I replace the term consciousness with "interaction".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That is why I dislike the term "consciousness"...because it is so vaguely defined that people like you can interpret it however whimsically you want. You have a hard time doing that if I replace the term consciousness with "interaction".

Yes, "Pure Interaction" doesn't work too well.
"Cosmic Interaction"?

 

[Runewolf1973]

I think there is certainly a case for saying that it doesn't exist as a discreet quality or function, which makes notions like "Pure Consciousness" rather silly.

Yes, I would say consciousness is not a discreet, stand-alone quality or function. It is the cumulative effect of many complex interactions. I would consider myself to be an unusually extreme materialist. I don't believe in such things as consciousness or even "life", or "death" for that matter. Everything in the universe is composed of matter/energy which neither lives, nor dies, nor is it conscious. Everything...all matter/energy does share one distinct quality however...it is all interactive. Some forms by their very nature or structure interact in more complex ways than other forms. It is those forms which are structured to interact in the most complex manner we label "conscious".

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes, "Pure Interaction" doesn't work too well.
"Cosmic Interaction"?

Perhaps this...Unified Interactive Field?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Perhaps this...Unified Interactive Field?

It would make more sense without trying to squeeze "consciousness" into it.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It would make more sense without trying to squeeze "consciousness" into it.

Indeed. I would take consciousness out of the equation altogether. I just wish I had the scientific background to take this whole "interaction" idea a step further...to make an actual working theory out of it. I think it has potential to work as an actual theory because it does not seem to violate any known scientific facts or laws of physics, rather it seems to support them, or they support it. It is rather simplistic at this stage, but it does seem to work.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I feel quite confident and more accurate in saying that I am not "conscious", I am highly interactive.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think it has potential to work as an actual theory because it does not seem to violate any known scientific facts or laws of physics, rather it seems to support them, or they support it. It is rather simplistic at this stage, but it does seem to work.

Interaction theory does seem to work at all scales, quantum through to cosmological.

I think that Chopra and co. are trying to do the same thing with "consciousness", claiming it applies at all scales. I don't think it's a credible theory because it involves perverting the science and relying on pre-existing religious beliefs which cannot be verified.

 

[godnotgod]

I think there is certainly a case for saying that it doesn't exist as a discreet quality or function, which makes notions like "Pure Consciousness" rather silly.

Ah, the ultimate poker faced denial of who and what you really are, in playng the cosmic game of Hide and Seek with yourself. Excellent acting job! Cigar!

Do you enjoy foot in mouth?

Pure Consciousness, simply means 'clear'. Is that so difficult for you?

 

[godnotgod]

I feel quite confident and more accurate in saying that I am not "conscious", I am highly interactive.

Who is it that is not conscious while being highly interactive? So you're highly interactive but not aware of it.

(here we have yet another poker faced player of The Game, folks, all the while pretending NOT to be IT...clever...very clever...ha ha ha...they think they've got us fooled!)