Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/18/2014 1:47 PM, salyavin808 wrote: According to Harris , there is no evidence that consciousness exists in the physical world. I'm part of the physical world and it exists in me. Let's put it this way - the existence of consciousness can't been demonstrated by physical ontology because consciousness is a spiritual ontology. Which is another way of saying you'd just rather not think about it. Or at least will refuse to be happy with the answer. I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible—rather like a naive conception of the big bang. The idea that everything (matter, space-time, their antecedent causes, and the very laws that govern their emergence) simply sprang into being out of nothing seems worse than a paradox. Sam Harris on the Mystery of Consciousness: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness We are eagerly awaiting an alternative.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
I agree, Steve, it's a pleasure simply to read such writing. I also enjoyed what you shared about the MIU math course, which I had totally forgotten! On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:15 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Shit! It's nice to see a well reasoned argument. I mean I don't know if it's the final word, or even accurate, but is sure sounds well thought out! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : salyavin, why do we have to start with simplicity? It's an assumption that everyone seems to have. But those are often the best ones to question, aren't they? I don't think it's just an assumption, more an argument with weight behind it. The universe started with the simplest element, hydrogen, and via stellar processes gradually created elements capable of forming more complex entities. This much we know. If something had started off as complex then what would have been the decision maker in what complexity it was going to have? Take all the stuff that makes up you - mostly water and a handful of stuff but arranged in such a complex way there is probably only one or two ways of arranging it that makes something living let alone something we'd recognise as you. A great many slightly simpler version of you (and all people) were required as a base for the next stage, all the way back to plankton and beyond to carbon molecules etc. To have Share suddenly appear fully formed would be too huge a step for it to have happened on its own without arousing serious suspicion. And it's the same with the universe, if it had gone straight from the big bang to anything other than subatomic particles (which really aren't anything much but have great potential) a casual observer later on (like us) might get suspicious. It's either a step by step process or there has to be something involved in design and planning and that kind of negates the idea of creation because if it needs intelligence to do it then the intelligence must have come first. Intelligence by it's nature is complex. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:55 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self creating. It didn't create itself in any sort of this bit goes here sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation because they would have to be around before. You have to start with simplicity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
On 6/19/2014 1:18 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Let's put it this way - the existence of consciousness can't been demonstrated by physical ontology because consciousness is a spiritual ontology. Which is another way of saying you'd just rather not think about it. Or at least will refuse to be happy with the answer. Neuroscience doesn't have much to say about spiritual cosmology. Renes Descarte believed the physical body was separate from the mind, thus creating a mind-body dualism. In contrast, the ancient Indians had a lot to say about spiritual cosmology. They postulated that /consciousness is a process of self-awareness/. And, consciousness is also a way of knowing and being intentional. According to the early Buddhists (before the schism) adherents of the so-called Consciousness Only school believed that consciousness was the only reality - everything else was just an appearance, not real, yet not unreal either. The authors of the Upanishads worked out a philosophical system that was light-years ahead of Western speculation about the mystery of consciousness. And, the yogins of ancient India supplemented the philosophy with yoga - a method to experience pure consciousness. According to Eliade, yoga is native to India and appears nowhere else in world civilizations. The idea of a transcendental field that can be known through free will is apparently unique to South Asia.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/19/2014 1:18 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Let's put it this way - the existence of consciousness can't been demonstrated by physical ontology because consciousness is a spiritual ontology. Which is another way of saying you'd just rather not think about it. Or at least will refuse to be happy with the answer. Neuroscience doesn't have much to say about spiritual cosmology. It doesn't need to have. All it needs to do is show how a system can create explanatory metaphors, it doesn't matter what the metaphors are, they could be spiritual or mechanistic or a mixture. The proof will come in the testing to see which is the best explanation for our experience. And the human awareness of experience has changed a lot recently. It used to be limited to what we saw and heard, thus the old explanations could be spiritual as there wasn't any way of gainsaying it. For instance: believing that the world is fundamentally human consciousness. With greater tools for exploration than our senses we know that the universe is much older than humans, so the Asian spiritual cosmology is dead in the water. It's either that or everything we think we know is wrong. You can't have both. According to the early Buddhists (before the schism) adherents of the so-called Consciousness Only school believed that consciousness was the only reality - everything else was just an appearance, not real, yet not unreal either. The authors of the Upanishads worked out a philosophical system that was light-years ahead of Western speculation about the mystery of consciousness. Light years ahead in accuracy or complexity? You can have the fanciest theory about how the mind works but it's pointless if it isn't correct. are these the guys who said we could fly and become invisible? I'm not impressed. And, the yogins of ancient India supplemented the philosophy with yoga - a method to experience pure consciousness. According to Eliade, yoga is native to India and appears nowhere else in world civilizations. The idea of a transcendental field that can be known through free will is apparently unique to South Asia. All of which is explicable with neurophysiology as it is now. Ask Lawson about EEG's and defocused attention. Everyone reading this has had the experience of infinity, do you really think you are experiencing something outside of your head, some sort of timeless, edge of the universe thing? Or are you seeing an altered state of the part of the mind - as dependent on brain functioning as the rest of it - that gives us the inner picture of depth and space that we have? I think the writers of the Upanishads had the same meditational experiences we do and, lacking decent models of brain functioning, gave them these literal interpretations which formed the base of their cosmology.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
Kudos to Sal for a clear, cogent and intelligent description of how we fool ourselves into thinking and believing we are more than we actually are. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/19/2014 1:18 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Let's put it this way - the existence of consciousness can't been demonstrated by physical ontology because consciousness is a spiritual ontology. Which is another way of saying you'd just rather not think about it. Or at least will refuse to be happy with the answer. Neuroscience doesn't have much to say about spiritual cosmology. It doesn't need to have. All it needs to do is show how a system can create explanatory metaphors, it doesn't matter what the metaphors are, they could be spiritual or mechanistic or a mixture. The proof will come in the testing to see which is the best explanation for our experience. And the human awareness of experience has changed a lot recently. It used to be limited to what we saw and heard, thus the old explanations could be spiritual as there wasn't any way of gainsaying it. For instance: believing that the world is fundamentally human consciousness. With greater tools for exploration than our senses we know that the universe is much older than humans, so the Asian spiritual cosmology is dead in the water. It's either that or everything we think we know is wrong. You can't have both. According to the early Buddhists (before the schism) adherents of the so-called Consciousness Only school believed that consciousness was the only reality - everything else was just an appearance, not real, yet not unreal either. The authors of the Upanishads worked out a philosophical system that was light-years ahead of Western speculation about the mystery of consciousness. Light years ahead in accuracy or complexity? You can have the fanciest theory about how the mind works but it's pointless if it isn't correct. are these the guys who said we could fly and become invisible? I'm not impressed. And, the yogins of ancient India supplemented the philosophy with yoga - a method to experience pure consciousness. According to Eliade, yoga is native to India and appears nowhere else in world civilizations. The idea of a transcendental field that can be known through free will is apparently unique to South Asia. All of which is explicable with neurophysiology as it is now. Ask Lawson about EEG's and defocused attention. Everyone reading this has had the experience of infinity, do you really think you are experiencing something outside of your head, some sort of timeless, edge of the universe thing? Or are you seeing an altered state of the part of the mind - as dependent on brain functioning as the rest of it - that gives us the inner picture of depth and space that we have? I think the writers of the Upanishads had the same meditational experiences we do and, lacking decent models of brain functioning, gave them these literal interpretations which formed the base of their cosmology.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
On 6/19/2014 9:33 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Kudos to Sal for a clear, cogent and intelligent description of how we fool ourselves into thinking and believing we are more than we actually are. The only way you can think is by being conscious. You got fooled into believing that consciousness is a by-product of physics - however, there is no physics without intelligent self-consciousness. Unless you want to deny that you are self-conscious. Go figure. *From:* salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:23 AM *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/19/2014 1:18 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Let's put it this way - the existence of consciousness can't been demonstrated by physical ontology because consciousness is a spiritual ontology. Which is another way of saying you'd just rather not think about it. Or at least will refuse to be happy with the answer. Neuroscience doesn't have much to say about spiritual cosmology. It doesn't need to have. All it needs to do is show how a system can create explanatory metaphors, it doesn't matter what the metaphors are, they could be spiritual or mechanistic or a mixture. The proof will come in the testing to see which is the best explanation for our experience. And the human awareness of experience has changed a lot recently. It used to be limited to what we saw and heard, thus the old explanations could be spiritual as there wasn't any way of gainsaying it. For instance: believing that the world is fundamentally human consciousness. With greater tools for exploration than our senses we know that the universe is much older than humans, so the Asian spiritual cosmology is dead in the water. It's either that or everything we think we know is wrong. You can't have both. According to the early Buddhists (before the schism) adherents of the so-called Consciousness Only school believed that consciousness was the only reality - everything else was just an appearance, not real, yet not unreal either. The authors of the Upanishads worked out a philosophical system that was light-years ahead of Western speculation about the mystery of consciousness. Light years ahead in accuracy or complexity? You can have the fanciest theory about how the mind works but it's pointless if it isn't correct. are these the guys who said we could fly and become invisible? I'm not impressed. And, the yogins of ancient India supplemented the philosophy with yoga - a method to experience pure consciousness. According to Eliade, yoga is native to India and appears nowhere else in world civilizations. The idea of a transcendental field that can be known through free will is apparently unique to South Asia. All of which is explicable with neurophysiology as it is now. Ask Lawson about EEG's and defocused attention. Everyone reading this has had the experience of infinity, do you really think you are experiencing something outside of your head, some sort of timeless, edge of the universe thing? Or are you seeing an altered state of the part of the mind - as dependent on brain functioning as the rest of it - that gives us the inner picture of depth and space that we have? I think the writers of the Upanishads had the same meditational experiences we do and, lacking decent models of brain functioning, gave them these literal interpretations which formed the base of their cosmology.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self creating. It didn't create itself in any sort of this bit goes here sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation because they would have to be around before. You have to start with simplicity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
salyavin, why do we have to start with simplicity? It's an assumption that everyone seems to have. But those are often the best ones to question, aren't they? On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:55 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self creating. It didn't create itself in any sort of this bit goes here sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation because they would have to be around before. You have to start with simplicity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : salyavin, why do we have to start with simplicity? It's an assumption that everyone seems to have. But those are often the best ones to question, aren't they? I don't think it's just an assumption, more an argument with weight behind it. The universe started with the simplest element, hydrogen, and via stellar processes gradually created elements capable of forming more complex entities. This much we know. If something had started off as complex then what would have been the decision maker in what complexity it was going to have? Take all the stuff that makes up you - mostly water and a handful of stuff but arranged in such a complex way there is probably only one or two ways of arranging it that makes something living let alone something we'd recognise as you. A great many slightly simpler version of you (and all people) were required as a base for the next stage, all the way back to plankton and beyond to carbon molecules etc. To have Share suddenly appear fully formed would be too huge a step for it to have happened on its own without arousing serious suspicion. And it's the same with the universe, if it had gone straight from the big bang to anything other than subatomic particles (which really aren't anything much but have great potential) a casual observer later on (like us) might get suspicious. It's either a step by step process or there has to be something involved in design and planning and that kind of negates the idea of creation because if it needs intelligence to do it then the intelligence must have come first. Intelligence by it's nature is complex. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:55 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self creating. It didn't create itself in any sort of this bit goes here sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation because they would have to be around before. You have to start with simplicity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
Just for da record, the nature of the God of classical theism is said to be absolutely simple: The doctrine of divine simplicity says that God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the 'attributes' of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. [also intelligence] are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity No, I don't understand what that means either! It's either a step by step process or there has to be something involved in design and planning and that kind of negates the idea of creation because if it needs intelligence to do it then the intelligence must have come first. Intelligence by it's nature is complex. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:55 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self creating. It didn't create itself in any sort of this bit goes here sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation because they would have to be around before. You have to start with simplicity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
On 6/18/2014 12:54 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Um, why? Apples and oranges. Why would they include consciousness in cosmological theories and why would it be illogical? Because scientists like Hawking and Krauss study physical cosmology. Consciousness is a theory found in religious or spiritual cosmology. Physical cosmology has to do with the dynamics of large scale structures, such as the origin of the universe. Most scientist believe the universe started according to the big bang theory, which doesn't take into account human consciousness. Or are you saying it's impossible for Deepak's money to be claimed for some spiritual reason? There is no evidence in physical cosmology that would indicate human consciousness as more than a theory. In South Asian spiritual cosmology, human consciousness is postulated to be the only reality, the origin of the universe - the physical universe is just a mental appearance. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ image http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Just for da record, the nature of the God of classical theism is said to be absolutely simple: The doctrine of divine simplicity says that God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the 'attributes' of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. [also intelligence] are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity No, I don't understand what that means either! Sound like anthropomorphism to me, goodness and truth sure don't sound like qualities of the infinitely dense plasma at the start of the universe. Unless he's changed over the years to become... just like us. Which doesn't sound like very godlike behaviour to me. It's either a step by step process or there has to be something involved in design and planning and that kind of negates the idea of creation because if it needs intelligence to do it then the intelligence must have come first. Intelligence by it's nature is complex. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:55 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self creating. It didn't create itself in any sort of this bit goes here sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation because they would have to be around before. You have to start with simplicity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
Judy, if the nature of God of classical theism is absolutely simple, then how can one speak about the nature of God, which implies 2 parts, God and His nature? Which actually is how Maharishi talks about it: Purusha and Prakriti, Shiva and Shakti, silence and dynamism, etc. If the quote of classical theism refers to the impersonal God, then I agree with it. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:35 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Just for da record, the nature of the God of classical theism is said to be absolutely simple: The doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the 'attributes' of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. [also intelligence] are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity No, I don't understand what that means either! It's either a step by step process or there has to be something involved in design and planning and that kind of negates the idea of creation because if it needs intelligence to do it then the intelligence must have come first. Intelligence by it's nature is complex. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:55 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self creating. It didn't create itself in any sort of this bit goes here sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation because they would have to be around before. You have to start with simplicity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/18/2014 12:54 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... wrote : Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Um, why? Apples and oranges. Both fruits. Both grow on trees. Both evolved just like conciousness did. Why would they include consciousness in cosmological theories and why would it be illogical? Because scientists like Hawking and Krauss study physical cosmology. Consciousness is a theory found in religious or spiritual cosmology. Consciousness is the means by which we experience the world. Consciousness evolved. Look back through time and you'll see simpler and simpler things with consciousness of an obviously simpler type. Physical cosmology has to do with the dynamics of large scale structures, such as the origin of the universe. Most scientist believe the universe started according to the big bang theory, which doesn't take into account human consciousness. The big bang theory doesn't need to. All it needs to do is provide the raw material for more complex things to evolve later. Or are you saying it's impossible for Deepak's money to be claimed for some spiritual reason? There is no evidence in physical cosmology that would indicate human consciousness as more than a theory. You think the fact you can see and hear the world is only a theory? It's the only thing I'm certain of. In South Asian spiritual cosmology, human consciousness is postulated to be the only reality, the origin of the universe - the physical universe is just a mental appearance. Yes, I know. Bizarre isn't it? I can see why people like it though. I always found it rather depressing myself as it answers nothing and it obviates the need to learn anything, except south asian spiritual texts ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
salyavin, I think your last sentence is also anthropomorphic, when you say that intelligence is complex. Aren't you saying that because human intelligence is complex? Do we know for sure that human intelligence is the only kind there is? And what is it about potentiality? From my human perspective I think that that which appears most simple actually contains the greatest complexity, even if only in potentiality. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:18 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : salyavin, why do we have to start with simplicity? It's an assumption that everyone seems to have. But those are often the best ones to question, aren't they? I don't think it's just an assumption, more an argument with weight behind it. The universe started with the simplest element, hydrogen, and via stellar processes gradually created elements capable of forming more complex entities. This much we know. If something had started off as complex then what would have been the decision maker in what complexity it was going to have? Take all the stuff that makes up you - mostly water and a handful of stuff but arranged in such a complex way there is probably only one or two ways of arranging it that makes something living let alone something we'd recognise as you. A great many slightly simpler version of you (and all people) were required as a base for the next stage, all the way back to plankton and beyond to carbon molecules etc. To have Share suddenly appear fully formed would be too huge a step for it to have happened on its own without arousing serious suspicion. And it's the same with the universe, if it had gone straight from the big bang to anything other than subatomic particles (which really aren't anything much but have great potential) a casual observer later on (like us) might get suspicious. It's either a step by step process or there has to be something involved in design and planning and that kind of negates the idea of creation because if it needs intelligence to do it then the intelligence must have come first. Intelligence by it's nature is complex. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:55 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self creating. It didn't create itself in any sort of this bit goes here sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation because they would have to be around before. You have to start with simplicity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
So the question is, in terms of classical theism: 1. (assuming people believe in a personal god) How does the ultimate simpleton create complexity? 2. (assuming people believe in an impersonal god) How does ultimate simplicity create complexity? 3. (assuming people do not believe in a god or God) Not necessary to ask this particular question. But it could be rephrased to something like, how does complexity arise from the conditions that preceded it? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, if the nature of God of classical theism is absolutely simple, then how can one speak about the nature of God, which implies 2 parts, God and His nature? Which actually is how Maharishi talks about it: Purusha and Prakriti, Shiva and Shakti, silence and dynamism, etc. If the quote of classical theism refers to the impersonal God, then I agree with it. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:35 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Just for da record, the nature of the God of classical theism is said to be absolutely simple: The doctrine of divine simplicity says that God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the 'attributes' of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. [also intelligence] are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity No, I don't understand what that means either!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
Xeno, I think the conundrum is that as soon as we use human language, such as ultimate simpleton, simplicity and complexity, we are anthropomorphizing whatever we are talking about. The scientists say that matter is mostly empty space. But what's in that empty space? Simplicity? Complexity? Both? On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:10 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: So the question is, in terms of classical theism: 1. (assuming people believe in a personal god) How does the ultimate simpleton create complexity? 2. (assuming people believe in an impersonal god) How does ultimate simplicity create complexity? 3. (assuming people do not believe in a god or God) Not necessary to ask this particular question. But it could be rephrased to something like, how does complexity arise from the conditions that preceded it? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, if the nature of God of classical theism is absolutely simple, then how can one speak about the nature of God, which implies 2 parts, God and His nature? Which actually is how Maharishi talks about it: Purusha and Prakriti, Shiva and Shakti, silence and dynamism, etc. If the quote of classical theism refers to the impersonal God, then I agree with it. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:35 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Just for da record, the nature of the God of classical theism is said to be absolutely simple: The doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the 'attributes' of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. [also intelligence] are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity No, I don't understand what that means either!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
Share, anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object. So the world 'simpleton' is anthropomorphic, but the terms 'simplicity' and 'complexity' would not seem to be, even though these words are from human minds. The term 'creator' might be considered anthropomorphic in that it mirrors our own creativity. It is only in the environment of our human complexity that we come up with these terms, that is, the idea of simplicity is almost as if we reduced the perception of the complexity of our lives by concatenating the details in more inclusive general categories based on similarities. For example the word bird covers both pigeons and seagulls etc., but that does not mean the word 'bird' anthropomorphic, it is just a category name. If we call a pigeon 'Sam' and say it experiences love and hate, then we are anthropomorphising, projecting our experienced characteristics onto it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Xeno, I think the conundrum is that as soon as we use human language, such as ultimate simpleton, simplicity and complexity, we are anthropomorphizing whatever we are talking about. The scientists say that matter is mostly empty space. But what's in that empty space? Simplicity? Complexity? Both? On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:10 AM, anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: So the question is, in terms of classical theism: 1. (assuming people believe in a personal god) How does the ultimate simpleton create complexity? 2. (assuming people believe in an impersonal god) How does ultimate simplicity create complexity? 3. (assuming people do not believe in a god or God) Not necessary to ask this particular question. But it could be rephrased to something like, how does complexity arise from the conditions that preceded it? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, if the nature of God of classical theism is absolutely simple, then how can one speak about the nature of God, which implies 2 parts, God and His nature? Which actually is how Maharishi talks about it: Purusha and Prakriti, Shiva and Shakti, silence and dynamism, etc. If the quote of classical theism refers to the impersonal God, then I agree with it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
Thanks, Xeno, the bird example is helpful and percolating just below the threshold of my conscious awareness. Will share if anything seemingly worthwhile arises... On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:47 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Share, anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object. So the world 'simpleton' is anthropomorphic, but the terms 'simplicity' and 'complexity' would not seem to be, even though these words are from human minds. The term 'creator' might be considered anthropomorphic in that it mirrors our own creativity. It is only in the environment of our human complexity that we come up with these terms, that is, the idea of simplicity is almost as if we reduced the perception of the complexity of our lives by concatenating the details in more inclusive general categories based on similarities. For example the word bird covers both pigeons and seagulls etc., but that does not mean the word 'bird' anthropomorphic, it is just a category name. If we call a pigeon 'Sam' and say it experiences love and hate, then we are anthropomorphising, projecting our experienced characteristics onto it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Xeno, I think the conundrum is that as soon as we use human language, such as ultimate simpleton, simplicity and complexity, we are anthropomorphizing whatever we are talking about. The scientists say that matter is mostly empty space. But what's in that empty space? Simplicity? Complexity? Both? On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:10 AM, anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: So the question is, in terms of classical theism: 1. (assuming people believe in a personal god) How does the ultimate simpleton create complexity? 2. (assuming people believe in an impersonal god) How does ultimate simplicity create complexity? 3. (assuming people do not believe in a god or God) Not necessary to ask this particular question. But it could be rephrased to something like, how does complexity arise from the conditions that preceded it? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, if the nature of God of classical theism is absolutely simple, then how can one speak about the nature of God, which implies 2 parts, God and His nature? Which actually is how Maharishi talks about it: Purusha and Prakriti, Shiva and Shakti, silence and dynamism, etc. If the quote of classical theism refers to the impersonal God, then I agree with it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
On 6/18/2014 1:44 AM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? Most scientist accept the big bang theory, but it seems like there must have been a spark of some kind to trigger the big bang. It's difficult to think of something coming out of nothing. According to Indian spiritual cosmological theories, the trigger for creation was an /impulse/ which was caused by Vac, the god of speech, who uttered the first sound. The idea being that every thing, substance or entity that exists has a vibration of some kind; from this vibration come consciousness, mind, ideas, and then name and form. So, /everything is sound vibration/ - no matter how gross or fine. In this philosophy of sound the supreme (spanda) subtle vibration is the first cause, which set in motion the myriad other sounds and hence other forms - the whole phenomenological universe is sound vibration starting with a single primordial vibration which set the cosmos in motion. That's the spiritual cosmological theory. Read more: 'The Doctrine of Vibration: An Analysis of Doctrines and Practices of Kashmir Shaivism' by Mark S. G. Dyczkowski State University of New York Press, 1987 p. 44 'A Brief History of Everything' by Ken Wilber Shambhala, 2001 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ image http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
On 6/18/2014 6:53 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: salyavin, why do we have to start with simplicity? It's an assumption that everyone seems to have. But those are often the best ones to question, aren't they? Most scientists are naive realists, Share. According to my philosophy professor, ...the last resort of the naive realist is an appeal to instruments. Because this appeal to instruments, like the appeal to other senses, to past experiences and to other persons, is a confession of failure. It is a confession that /apparently obvious objects are NOT simple or self-evident./ Western scientific ontology is complicated, while Eastern spiritual ontological notions are simple in comparison. Objects which are known do NOT exist independently of their being known. Consciousness changes everything - /we don't see or know things as they really are./ On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:55 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self creating. It didn't create itself in any sort of this bit goes here sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation because they would have to be around before. You have to start with simplicity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ image http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
On 6/18/2014 9:55 AM, salyavin808 wrote: There is no evidence in physical cosmology that would indicate human consciousness as more than a theory. You think the fact you can see and hear the world is only a theory? It's the only thing I'm certain of. Your sense perceptions could be in error, but anything that only exists in the mind is a theory, since there are no physical objects inside our minds, we can only say that /we are conscious of something/, but we can never know the thing /as it really is, /since consciousness changes the very thing being perceived. Objects do not exist separate from their being know, according to the /Consciousness Only/ theory. According to Harris , there is no evidence that consciousness exists in the physical world. I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible—rather like a naive conception of the big bang. The idea that /everything /(matter, space-time, their antecedent causes, and the very laws that govern their emergence) simply sprang into being out of /nothing/ seems worse than a paradox. Sam Harris on the Mystery of Consciousness: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
Judy, Maharishi also talks about warmed up absolute. That's where I would put classical theism's attributes of God. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:40 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: P.S.: It might help you to reread the Wikipedia quote, particularly the being of God is identical to the 'attributes' of God. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, if the nature of God of classical theism is absolutely simple, then how can one speak about the nature of God, which implies 2 parts, God and His nature? Which actually is how Maharishi talks about it: Purusha and Prakriti, Shiva and Shakti, silence and dynamism, etc. If the quote of classical theism refers to the impersonal God, then I agree with it. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:35 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Just for da record, the nature of the God of classical theism is said to be absolutely simple: The doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the 'attributes' of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. [also intelligence] are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity No, I don't understand what that means either! It's either a step by step process or there has to be something involved in design and planning and that kind of negates the idea of creation because if it needs intelligence to do it then the intelligence must have come first. Intelligence by it's nature is complex. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:55 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self creating. It didn't create itself in any sort of this bit goes here sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation because they would have to be around before. You have to start with simplicity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/18/2014 9:55 AM, salyavin808 wrote: There is no evidence in physical cosmology that would indicate human consciousness as more than a theory. You think the fact you can see and hear the world is only a theory? It's the only thing I'm certain of. Your sense perceptions could be in error, but anything that only exists in the mind is a theory, since there are no physical objects inside our minds, we can only say that we are conscious of something, That's what I mean by the only thing I'm sure of; that I'm conscious of something. but we can never know the thing as it really is, since consciousness changes the very thing being perceived. Objects do not exist separate from their being known, according to the Consciousness Only theory. Bit of a silly theory then. It looks like consciousness wasn't around before life on this planet* so what was the universe doing before that? The consciousness first idea was formulated long before modern cosmology got its shit together, so maybe it shouldn't be relied upon? It isn't like it can incorporate new ideas like evolution and remain credible. Unless it's true and everyone else is wrong *Or for at least 5 billion years after the big bang for the stellar processes to create enough complex matter to make conscious things elsewhere. According to Harris , there is no evidence that consciousness exists in the physical world. I'm part of the physical world and it exists in me. I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible—rather like a naive conception of the big bang. The idea that everything (matter, space-time, their antecedent causes, and the very laws that govern their emergence) simply sprang into being out of nothing seems worse than a paradox. Sam Harris on the Mystery of Consciousness: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
Shit! It's nice to see a well reasoned argument. I mean I don't know if it's the final word, or even accurate, but is sure sounds well thought out! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : salyavin, why do we have to start with simplicity? It's an assumption that everyone seems to have. But those are often the best ones to question, aren't they? I don't think it's just an assumption, more an argument with weight behind it. The universe started with the simplest element, hydrogen, and via stellar processes gradually created elements capable of forming more complex entities. This much we know. If something had started off as complex then what would have been the decision maker in what complexity it was going to have? Take all the stuff that makes up you - mostly water and a handful of stuff but arranged in such a complex way there is probably only one or two ways of arranging it that makes something living let alone something we'd recognise as you. A great many slightly simpler version of you (and all people) were required as a base for the next stage, all the way back to plankton and beyond to carbon molecules etc. To have Share suddenly appear fully formed would be too huge a step for it to have happened on its own without arousing serious suspicion. And it's the same with the universe, if it had gone straight from the big bang to anything other than subatomic particles (which really aren't anything much but have great potential) a casual observer later on (like us) might get suspicious. It's either a step by step process or there has to be something involved in design and planning and that kind of negates the idea of creation because if it needs intelligence to do it then the intelligence must have come first. Intelligence by it's nature is complex. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:55 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self creating. It didn't create itself in any sort of this bit goes here sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation because they would have to be around before. You have to start with simplicity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
On 6/18/2014 1:47 PM, salyavin808 wrote: According to Harris , there is no evidence that consciousness exists in the physical world. I'm part of the physical world and it exists in me. Let's put it this way - the existence of consciousness can't been demonstrated by physical ontology because consciousness is a spiritual ontology. I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible—rather like a naive conception of the big bang. The idea that /everything /(matter, space-time, their antecedent causes, and the very laws that govern their emergence) simply sprang into being out of /nothing/ seems worse than a paradox. Sam Harris on the Mystery of Consciousness: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra's Consciousness Challenge....
On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg. Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ image http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as When I see a box, I cannot help but enter—is ... View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/ Preview by Yahoo
