Raising Consciousness (1/2) - Richard Dawkins @ UC Berkeley

[potatoehead64]

Welllll. Its all about love really. So why get so angry at those that don't get it. If we all respect each others beliefs and continue to care about humanity (which is the central remit of most "religions") then there is not really any need to be angry and fight.

[anaemiabag]

this guys a dooche

[MissMischiv]

@anaemiabag learn to spell, you dont have the intellect to call this man a douche.

[StephenRoddy]

I think people are missing the point here. Whether he's right or wrong isn't what he is ultimately communicating here. It doesn't really matter either.

The real issue us that this is a man who has dedicated his life's work to bettering the world around him. Whether you agree or disagree with his theories doesn't matter.

He sets a great example for how any person theist, religious, atheist, anyone should live their lives.

[noddyguitar]

join the Atheist revolution well make everything alright yeah yeah well set things right we have all the answers yeah yeah trust in us we care yeah yeah

[noddyguitar]

incidentally freewill is a fact and even if you are dumb enough to believe in this cretins ideas you still have a choice as to whether you accept them or not

[andy2asde]

@noddyguitar "if you are dumb enough to believe in this cretins ideas". Great... you just insulted every person who watched this video and found his arguments persuasive... Not that great of an idea when your trying to persuade others that your argument is correct.

[noddyguitar]

I appologise if i insulted anyone it just frustrates me the way He poses as a man in knowledge and misleads so many innocent people Thats my imperfection all over I get mad at peolpe like Dawkins for misleading people.He doesnt know the first thing about REAL religion and he is on a crusade to destroy what little we have.

[noddyguitar]

To be honest I am just a struggling soul working on my own spiritual life.But when I hear this man it sometimes is just too much.

[noddyguitar]

the fact of the matter is people like Dawkins are not qualified to speak on issues such as consciousness he doesnt know what consciousness is and he doesnt know how to raise it all the best

[andy2asde]

@noddyguitar And what is it that makes him "not qualified" to speak on issues such as consciousness? There are many things that people do not understand yet engage in discussions about it (take the LHC for example). Does that mean these people have no right to speak as well? It doesn't matter if he doesn't know how to "raise it all the best" (w/e you mean by that). The thing is that he is able to do it and has been successful to getting his points across to many people.

[noddyguitar]

There Are qualifications for leading people into higher awareness.And one is that you dont try to be Guru unless you have accepted a guru yourself.You shouldnt try to tell the truth to people as though you know it unless you yourself have heard the truth humbly from a bonafied source.

[StephenRoddy]

@noddyguitar Couldn't Science be considered a bonafied source? I mean if God Does exist that means he created Science, so in studying science you are studying Gods creation to further your understanding of what is.

And if he doesn't exist you are still furthering your understanding of what is.

It's a win win situation?

[noddyguitar]

these are just a few ideas no space to write properly here dont be fooled by this guys fake piety he doesnt actually believe you have freewill to choose anyhow .his idea is that if you just instill more of the correct information then your Brain will have no choice but to accept his conclusions

[noddyguitar]

because if were the brain like you say the IN FACT i have NO CHOICE it is simply a matter of programming.I mean according to him thats not you making a decision your brain already has and you are in the illusion that you exist and are making responsible decisions.

[noddyguitar]

any intelligent person will see through the false humility of these no self philosophers who dont want to free you but enslave you.i mean come on Richard do i exist therefore do i have a choice or not its pretty simple

[andy2asde]

@noddyguitar Enslave us? Where did you even get this? And what are you trying to get at by including existentialism into this argument? To me, it sounds like you are including it to sound very educated, yet, the nature of your responses prove otherwise.

[noddyguitar]

Dawkins and his like are wolves in sheeps clothing they pose as spiritual and "good" but in fact they have their own agenda.They are not really interested in your well being.I appologise for the existentialism it always bums me how he appears to be trying to liberate people from their ignorance but he himself doesnt even respect your spiritual existence .WHO is he tring to liberate

[UninstallingWindows]

@noddyguitar

religious nuts of course. those who where mentally molested as a child and cannot separate facts from fiction by themselves.

[noddyguitar]

I mean if my brain is programmed to believe in God then what are you trying to do unprogramme it so it believes in richard dawkins is this the idea?Its kind of like instilling information into a fucking robot.Yet he poses as a freethinker whilst denying your freewill

[andy2asde]

@noddyguitar So what does it mean when someone tries to convert me. If what you say is true then this can be applied to any religious preacher or person who tries to convert another person to his or her religion.

[noddyguitar]

I am not trying to convert anyone just humbly pass on what was passed to me.Even if say for example I have a higher argument then yours i still accept your freewill to not accept that .I also accept the fact that a person can have insight from God yes this is true and I accept that the soul is a sentient being.Dawkins let me assure you does not believe in freewill.

[noddyguitar]

his idea is that if we are exposed to various information inputs then we have no choice but to follow that " moral Zeitgeist"Like as i said a computer sort of if you hear the argument then you have to accept the new programme.I totally accept insight and freewill and that a person can choose whether or not he accepts something.And its my right to say that youre wrong its a free market place

[noddyguitar]

i also accept your right to tell me I,m crazy Dawkins believes we a re robots nothing more

[noddyguitar]

you see what this fool is trying to do is to "raise the consciousness" of a self whom he denies the existence of.I suppose our brains are supposed to be thankful to this false messiah and make believe we can make decisions whether or not to follow his advice.Of course to be consistent with his world view there is no free will anyhow so its impossible to do that.

[andy2asde]

@noddyguitar Assuming I translated your argument correctly: This has just basically turned into an all out attack with little basis what so ever. Where did you get the assumption that there is no free will in his world view? If you watch his videos, you can see that he does not want people to follow religion so blindly.

[noddyguitar]

Not following " religion" blindly is one thing as I said if Dawkins knew what religion really was then his intelligence may be of some help.He is a matter only theorist who believes your awareness of your own existence is caused by some random firing of neurons in the brain.Free will is a contradiction to his philosophy as to have freewill there mus be a person in the body who has a will let alone freewill

[noddyguitar]

i am not a robot

[noddyguitar]

by the way any of you guys who think they are the brain or an illusion created by the brains complex activity can please not get upset by my questions after all i dont exist either.

[noddyguitar]

i mean if youre going to raise it then presumably you know what it is you are going to raise?Who is conscious?the brain?if there is no self then is an illusion conscious how do you exactly raise the consciousness of an illusion?This opens up many questions of which i,m sure you are not qualified to answer

[andy2asde]

@noddyguitar @noddyguitar Um, I think you are over critical of Dawkins argument here. He is just trying to raise awareness of certain oddities in religion.

[noddyguitar]

many people dont understand what real religion is.This is unfortunate as they think it is like joining a particular team.Actually we are ALL spirit souls and not even these bodies so we cant be labelled Christian ,Muslim etc.

Dawkins mission is to try to break the faith of many of these people he does it in the name of raising consciousness but he should use his intelligence to help peolpe understand what real religion is.

[noddyguitar]

ok Richard what is consciousness?

[Schragmeister]

Kind of. His bite dispels denial and inflicts us with the Common Sense Virus, of which I am happy to report there's no cure in sight, although the superstitious are pulling out all the stops.

[jamesdaubek]

dwakins has no consciousness, he has no soul, he's a zombie.

[angryafghan]

Would the American audience really understand the references to Scousers and Ant & Dec? You can clearly hear everyone laughing but I don't see how they would be so aware of British society and pop culture

[DarkMalibu]

I'd like to start with a request. And this goes out to the persistent punch-ups around here. When you'r done smashing each other up, do you think, the rest of us could sort of have our Comments back?

You see, i wouldn't ask, but none of you even mentions the name of that brilliant comedian, picturing that sad and funny caricature!

;)

[faoulin]

Yes to raising conciousness

[RochesterFICS]

OUTSTANDING!!! I LOVE IT!!!

[kriscool001]

karma, sorry to give you a late reply. kind of caught up in the job to much. I appreciate your hope for the scientific community. I too have hope for those experiments that have newer base which could evolve quicker and give us good results in decades. What worries me is, the theories that run on the older base those that need to be reviewed/changed or questioned of.

[kriscool001]

Can the formulae of speed, velocity and acceleration that are used on earth be used in space as well? No! in space we have to consider the strong, weak, gravitation and electromagnetic forces. Ok! first-of-all, gravitation is not a force by itself, it is only a resultant force of earth's acceleration(by Einstien). I would also include the magentic nature of earth responsible for it.

[kriscool001]

Now, If gravitation affects us so much, the force which keeps on to the ground, why living things trees, humans, animals are growing taller in height. Why hasn't gravity affected our growth.

[kriscool001]

E=mc2.

Energy is equivalent to mass times squared of speed of light according to Einstein. By saying c squared, are we only considering the two dimensional speed of light. Why is in not cubed of 'c'?

[karmapolice220]

lol man i fear you are speaking on a level that is way past me im sadly only 16 years old and will not be learning this stuff till late college :S if you can add more explanation i would be happy to comment lol :) oh and gravity has affected our height if we were any taller than 3 meters i think its safe to say gracvity has made it so we could get quite hurt any shorter and our bodies couldnt hold our heads you seem to be skilled at physics but not evolution

[kriscool001]

Karma, This is much better than I thought. Your age is right enough to hold the seed of thought that I drop in you now. May be you can question your teachers/lecturers as you grow up. Understand scientists are people like who use a little more of their brain than others. All you need to have is some thought and question anything that defies the logics.

[karmapolice220]

quite hurt falling over i mean and if shorter would have many more disadvantages tal humans survived because of better ability to run and to climb trees

[kriscool001]

Well! there are already scientists who are saying that evolution is a falsified theory.

You have to watch this video in youtube called 'Richard Dawkins stumped'.

[karmapolice220]

I do question my teachers lol they seem to have a leser understanding of biology than me sometimes (i fear for the education system) i am inquisitive and have alot of thought about me but i have seen no immediate flaws in evolution but as im still learning if you point out some usefull material to study ad i stress the word useful i dont want conspiracy theores its just evolution is quite an amazing theory it unifies many kinds of scince. and my last point what is your alternative to evo?

[kriscool001]

Its been three day since I had the last discussion with you. Sorry! man. Hierarchy of animal life evolution fails when you consider the number of chrosome pairs in the animals in the hierarchy. I'll find some evidence for you on that.

[BloodyMarverous]

Lol, that video is a lie in itself. They were creationists, and dawkins being "stumped" was simply his thinking "oh god, have I let nutters into my house?". He has actually recorded a video on it.

Evolution is a fact accepted amount the intellent and educated. Sorry, but that's the truth.

[kriscool001]

Go on google and search 'list of number of chromosomes of various organisms' and pick wikipedia from there. If you look at that list with an understanding that chromosomes carry our genetic material and consider evolution at the same time, Darwin's evolution proves to be a bogus theory. With the number of chromosomal pairs we should have evolved from rabbits/hares and potatoes should be related to Gorillas/monkeys. Try applying Darwin's evolution yourself and see if it makes any sense.

[BloodyMarverous]

Ignore that kris dude, that psuedo-intellect clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Everything he has said has been lies and/or bollocks.

[karmapolice220]

eerm thanks i guess man i actually forgot about talking with this guy i got sick and havent been well for a few weeks just out of interest can you recommend any books for a starters guide to quantum mechanics and relativity?

[BloodyMarverous]

Sorry to hear it dude, but yeah I know a load of good books. I would firstly recommend a book called "The Universe In A Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking, its an excellent guide to the big bang, relativity and quantum theory, it will give you a very advanced knowledge of physics, whilst aso being very easy to understand for someone with no prior experience in those sciences. Then the world will be your oyster, let me know when you finish and I can recommend other books/papers.

[kriscool001]

BloodyMar,

Even space missions are very limited in research. They can't perform some simple experiments in space like lighting a match. In space will the match's fire glow upwards or downwards, whether it will have a big flame or go off immediately, what kind of elements/compounds are in space and how would they react to lighted match? How many of you ask these sort of small but intuitive questions to your lecturers?

[BloodyMarverous]

This comment actually made me laugh. Brilliant. Are you sure you're not a troll?

[BloodyMarverous]

Gravity has affected our growth.

[kriscool001]

Planets are revolving by the push/repulsive force of the stars and not because of gravity. No one has every showed the origination of gravity or gravitons itself. Gravity is still an assumption. Even if it exists it could be only the resultant energies of some other transformed energy and not a pure energy by itself.

[BloodyMarverous]

"Planets are revolving by the push/repulsive force of the stars and not because of gravity." Sorry, but why do you think that?

I never said Gravity can be proven, and Gravitons are an unproved theory but we do know for sure that each mass has a gravitational field, and that force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses. And that understanding is almost 100% accurate.

[kriscool001]

If gravity is so true, then this Universe should have become one single entity by now and not expanding! I would like to ask one more question, assume a rocket take off from (very near to ) the north pole and another rocket taking off from south pole, which rocket do you think needs more thrust and which direction will their projection be?

[BloodyMarverous]

The universe is expanding, and one day, because of gravity, it will collapse in on itself. All of this is explained by the Big Bang model. Oh, and as for a match lighting in space, are you really that dumb? it's a VACCUM! A match can't light without oxygen! so it wont react with anthing in space combustible or otherwise.

[wiez5]

i think a match would light in space, well, ignite, but not burn. just like flint would still spark.

[BloodyMarverous]

No, there would be no ignition of any kind. What is wrong with you people? Ignition/Combustion requires oxygen!

[wiez5]

im pretty sure its a chemical process, something with sulfur causes the release of energy. oxygen is not required until the tip burns off.

[BloodyMarverous]

The red phospherus and sulfur need an oxidizing agent to ignite. Now I wonder what would be a good oxidizing agent... Oh yeah, OXYGEN!

[wiez5]

haha im interested now... im assuming they do need the oxidizing agent to react(ive never cared for chem), but most matches DO have the agent inside the head. so theoretically a match would light in space, or smolder, until the reaction runs out. the temperature might screw things up though.

[BloodyMarverous]

Actually after doing a bit of research on t'web it turns out I may have been a bit harsh on you before, it turns out that expensive matches do contain their own oxidising agent to aid combustion, however once the reducing agent runs (the match tip head) then yes the rest of the match won't burn. Sorry about the confusion.

[kriscool001]

Are you 10 years old? Space is not a vacuum. Do you think vacuum will support life on planets that are suspended in that vacuum space? 'Lighting a match in space' was one of the questions asked to an astronaut. Yes! it is true that a match would support combustion only with oxygen but the astronauts are not ready to do it as they are not sure what chemical reaction would end-up with the elements in space.They are not allowed to conduct such experiments neither inside nor outside the craft.

[BloodyMarverous]

You fucking idiot, our atmosphere is held in by the gravitational force of our planet. Outer space, apart from the odd hydrogen molecule, is a total vaccum. If you light a match in a controlled oxygenated environment in zero gravity then it will just fire ball up equidirectionally, as there is no preferable direction for the heat to rise to. Now answer my question, what books have you read, and how old are you?

[kriscool001]

Have you ever been in a physics forum before? For being this abusive, the moderator would have cut your comments by now! I've wasted my time chatting with somebody who doesn't have any self respect for himself. If you have any, you would know to respect others!!!

[BloodyMarverous]

"self respect for himself".

And with that statement, you should want to leave, before I give you another ass whooping for having a poor IQ for a glass of water.

[BloodyMarverous]

Seriously what physics forum do you use? One that thinks outerspace isn't a vacuum?

[wiez5]

what? there would be no reaction in space with any combustion, inside a spacecraft on the other hand might be dangerous. it only takes a little logic to show that space will not react with a flame.... and its sad that you don't realize that.

[BloodyMarverous]

As for this infantile question, each rocket will take off at their respective velocities. neither rocket will require any more thrust than the other. Now answer me this question, just how old are you? I'm guessing around 13/14? Your question lack any understanding of physics and you reach child like conclusions. Exactly what books have you read on relativity and its related subjects?

[kriscool001]

Don't under estimate any question. Gravity varies from equator to the poles. At equator you weigh less than at the poles. And is no known data on whether gravity is equal in north and south pole or do they vary between the poles.

[BloodyMarverous]

Due to the spinning heliocentric nature of our planet the world is actually wider at the equator than at the poles, so your comment actually makes no sense. Where do you get all this information from? Do you make it up?

[wiez5]

gravity ALWAYS varies on earth, when you walk into a building, the gravitational force on you varies, when dog runs by, it changes, when you take a step.... you don't even need to move. if your talking significant variations, yes those are recorded too, and im sure the N&S poles have readings.

[BloodyMarverous]

I'm not talking about subjective local variations in Gravity depending on the distanct from the body, i'm talking about the Gravitational field of the Earth.

[wiez5]

i meant to reply to kris, sorry if i tagged you.

[BloodyMarverous]

Oh sorry, I should have figured. You shouldn't bother though, I have met traffic cones with a greater understanding of science than him.

[wiez5]

hahahahaa, so true. i find it funny that he says to keep questioning your professors... if he ever had one, i could understand why they should be questioned.

[BloodyMarverous]

lol, yeah my professor at my uni called roger davies is actually a leading theoretical scientist in astrophysics in this country, but according to kriscool he is wrong about everything! I wonder who to believe...

[kriscool001]

What we were thought in our physics classes needs to be questioned back. They said planets revolve around the sun because of the gravitational forces. If so, earth/planets would have aready ended its journey into the sun. Like each object has its own properties/attributes planets, stars and other objects all have different characteristics of their own.

[kriscool001]

Remember the zodiac stars/constellations, did you know why they were considered significant in ancient astronomy because we are affected by their energies. The Sun in the centre and the 27 stars that are found in the zodiacal constellation exerts pushing force on the planets an enabling their revolution. The ancient astronomers never considered pluto to be a planet though they knew about that object. It was only recently we concluded that pluto is not a planet.

[BloodyMarverous]

"gravitation is not a force by itself, it is only a resultant force of earth's acceleration(by Einstien)"

What?! Do you know anything about science at all? Classical mechanics (newton's laws such as 'speed, velocity, et al.)apply just as much in space as they do on earth, and your definition of gravity seems to be (if anything) a definition of centri-fugal motion. No wonder you believe in a 5000 year old earth. You're a moron.

[kriscool001]

I recommand you read some books on general relativity as well as the information on Albert Einstein where Einstein was concerned with his own theory/ constant in a formula and called it as his 'biggest blunders'. For your info Space crafts use only a few of Newton's formulae. Einstein's formulae are not used in space missions.

[BloodyMarverous]

Read some books? Yeah about that, i'm currently at one of the best universitys in Britain studying physics and minoring in applied mathematics, trust me, I have read far more than you have. As it is clear to me you have read nothing, and don't try to hide the fact you are a moron, to me it's obvious. Even though Newtonian mechanics doesn't take into account general relativity, his equations are still what we use in 'rocket science'.

[kriscool001]

If Dawkins is really courageous enough, he should encounter an enlightened yogi/guru or an enlightened buddhist monk! He is a number one coward because if he meets a real enlightened person he would have to resign being a scientist and become a number one theist!!

[ananiasacts]

Maybe you should read the Dali Lama's book where he points out that where buddhism and science disagree, it is buddhism that needs to change.

[kriscool001]

ananiasacts

When I mentioned yogis/gurus/buddhist monks, I referred to those who are enlightened. There is a big difference between yogis/monks and enlightened yogis/monks. If scientists, experiment with enlightened people they would have to give-up so many of their theories (which they wouldn't like to). I don't know if you were aware of the group meditation in Washington DC which brought down the percentage of Crime rate on a single day. This is only one example.

[ananiasacts]

"I don't know if you were aware of the group meditation in Washington DC which brought down the percentage of Crime rate on a single day. This is only one example."

I don't need another. This one also presents me with a choice: Would I prefer to live in a universe controlled by psychotic people with good intentions or simple mathematical laws with cold and meaningless consequences?

I'll take the later. I just don't want to be a part of some transcendental creature's terrarium.

[kriscool001]

ananiasacts

You seem to be an inllectual person. Can I get a scientific differentiation of a person in a dead body and a person in a body (not dead)? I mean, why one's organs are inactive and the other's active?

[ananiasacts]

Sure, if there's any possible way to get you going again, you're not dead. Otherwise you're as good as dead even if only comatose.

It amazes me that, given creatures as simple as fruit flies can do so many things with just a few thousand neurons, people find it hard to believe we do so much more with 100 billion. Reductionism is only a few hundred years old and you're already giving up when it alone has led to every bit of progress? You should read 'A Brief History of Nearly Everything.'

[kriscool001]

Well! this is how far science can anwser the simplest question that I've put forth.

How is it possible for the neurons to trasmit and recieve impulses in a person and not possible in a dead body?

[ananiasacts]

Oxygen is needed by the mitochondria in cells to turn ADP into ATP. It's sort of like a one shot battery that powers practically every chemical reaction in the cell. Neurons use a lot of it to reset themselves after firing.  That's why they're so easily damaged when you're starved of oxygen for too long. The details of the way mitochondria work produces a big mess if there isn't a high enough concentration of oxygen to keep the Krebs cycle going. If enough die, then you do too.

[kriscool001]

Again thank you for explaining the process of how living is made possible. I'm still waiting for a reply to my first question. The question is deeper than you think.

Why do we call something dead and something alive? What is the reason for the former to be considered dead?

[karmapolice220]

I think i can basicaly answer this since my understanding of this is basic but cells only recreate themselves a crtain ammount of times in a life time its written in the DNA so when we run out of brain cells were dead when tissue is so spent it cant repair the problem of age your going to die.

This is pretty much true i might hav worded it wrong biology isnt my strongest subject but this leads to new possibilities of etrnal life like nano bots and genetic modification science is enllightenment

[kriscool001]

karma sounds spiritual,

Give me a scientific definition using biological terms of the process called 'death' that happens to every living organism. What is dying?

Ok! Let me consider your reply. Assume a person#1 had died because of high level of cholestrol in the heart and we were fotunate enough to replace the dead person's heart with another healthy heart of an young person#2 who just passed away because of an head injury, Is it possible for the dead person to become alive?

[karmapolice220]

It depends how long the dead person has been dead for in heart transplants the person is dead for a bvout 3 minutes but if your saying it could ressurect a corpse then that is impossible because oxygen would have been starved from the brain and would have killed all brain cells even if you classify living as having a heart beat the rest of the body would work from starvation as oxygen aswell. Oh and karmapolice is my favourite radiohead song :)

[kriscool001]

karmacop220,

do you really know how heart transplants are done? Some doctors find it to be a miracle when they see a patient undergoing the heart transplant still alive whilst they remove the heart totally from the patient's body and then transplant another heart.

OK! coming to the point once again, try asking a biologist the definition of a 'dead organism'. No circular reasoning like "termination of functions of a living organism" is allowed.

[karmapolice220]

The heart transplant thing my understading at the moment is quite limited but machines are used to pump oxygen and blood arround the body and circular reasoning how is that circualr reasoning its a completely fair assesment to say that you cant bring back a person who has been dead for an extended ammount of time causing cells to decay by saying you could we could claim oil is living ancient plants and trees sadly energy is not life

[karmapolice220]

I might wanna rethink the reply before this one lol. Life culd be a bi product of certain energies doing certain things like the electrcal impulses travelling up and down your nervs from the brain which is nothing mor than an incredily complex organic computr that is paticularly good at identifying patterns we are about as truely alive as a computer but just a hell of alot more complex because we are self substaining and self aware but that brings us to the distinction from thought and mirroring

[kriscool001]

karma, you said energy is not life. So, what is life? If you keep a living cell in a cabin which is constantly filled with oxygen, will that cell live forever?

Still I haven't got the definition of the term 'dead organism'.

[karmapolice220]

Sorry i took so long to get back to you i have just got back from a weekend in Amsterdam :) life I guess could be defined as chemicals working together to create a self substaining creature or anyhting that basically can move lol.... Im a little confused there as i said back from amsterdam death would be the complete stop of oxygenation of blood and cell recreation I am looking forward to your response this is turning iout to be quite interesting

[kriscool001]

Hope you had a dam- good weekend in Amsterdam.

Sorry! I'm not regular with replying either. If we say this cosmos is a diverse combination of organic and inorganic compounds then we should accept that we are nothing more than a mere percentage of chemicals (atoms) and reactions between them. Well! if we go a step further and see ourselves as a biological machines then we have to accept the fact that we would be organisms which live as long as there is enough energy supplied to the machines.

[kriscool001]

But the truth is, scientists are deliberately

ignoring the driving factor of the entire cosmos, the consciousness. Besides being just mechanical, the Universe

realizes/understands its own nature from its experiences through the subtle entities called senses/feelings. We are

a part of it (consciousness) and one with it.

[karmapolice220]

Lol thanks. I think your trying to say when we die we become part of the universe our organic material becomes our planet lke plants and animals of old becoming oil that would be an interesting point but if you trying to claim the human mind as a great thing yes it is from all weve seen it is incredibly unique but our counciosnes compared to the greatness of the universe is tiny. Life doesnt seem important to the universe just a bi product a nice bi product for us but we tend to destroy ourselvs

[kriscool001]

We were never separate from the whole! Human persceptions are limited to the extend that we project our senses only to the external entities (thinking that we are separate from them) and fail to identify the immense inner potential which is imbibed and is dormant in every human being. The real world can be understood only by awakening our own SELF which is inturn the Universal consciousness.

[karmapolice220]

Our senses can detect many things but tehre is more that we cant see your right there science helps us see the ultraviolet radiowaves and many other things outside our visible part of the spectrum but understanding of self cant let us see the patterns on plants only insects can see but it can help us be at peace as a species

[karmapolice220]

We are not seperate from the universe but are in a position where we can observe it and see the beauty in its laws and the advantages to understanding them tehre may be many things that we cannot understand fully in the universe such as why the human mind can work as it does but we can try and learn since we cant prove we cant understand anythign but with the anti-intelligence and anti questioning society we live in today we may sadly never learn

[karmapolice220]

So it would be good if people would essentialy soul search and find an ability to be at peace with each other in the universe before we move onto the next great scientific leap otherwise we may destroy ourselves before we get tehre and the sollution would be better education

[kriscool001]

karma, scientists are researching for 'God Particle' and trying to explore more on quantum mechanics, in a hope to find the miniscule quantum particle. Soul is the subtlest of all existence, it is non material in nature, so how are the scientists going to capture such a particle. We should appreciate their efforts, but they also need to understand that finding the subtlest particle, as we are in the material realm, it is going to disguish itself as something different from its original nature.

[karmapolice220]

I would try and not call the The Higgs boson the "God Particle" for it is part of one of the many theorys about the mass of the universe and many more will come in the future every great theory has great competitors like natural selection lol.... but anyway the soul alltho may seem great and possibly one day explainable by science may come to the conclusion that on a cosmic scale this is not an important thing in a universe where as a black hole is life alltho improbable may not be important

[BloodyMarverous]

I have read all your posts with this karma guy and you clearly have no grasp about quantum mechanics (or science in general) whatsoever. Capturing the higgs boson? You should talk to my physics lecturers, they could use a genius like you to consult with!

[kriscool001]

First-of-all, scientist have not given enough thought or question on gravity. They are still letting go the assumption of 'gravity'. They haven't provided the evidence of gravitons yet (300 years of physics gone waste...). Why are they still having it in the science books? Do they let free thinking by children who are learning science? Never! Students are only prepared for exams, no questioning back is encouraged.

In reality, repulsive forces from the stars are driving the planets!

[karmapolice220]

kriscool001 are you a student or were you a student? science has not slowed down it has if anyhting excellerated in the last 300 years and everyone question its just there are so many incredibly plausable answers like evolution for example the opposition to it is incredibly weak its teh same of all sciences but relativity and quantum mechanics are especially hard because it relies on the assumption that the rules that govern our part in the universe govern the rest these laws are not a god

[kriscool001]

Ok! karma, tell me why the existing laws of physics cannot be applied to quantum mechanics. Is our understanding of the quantum field incorrect or the existing laws of physics unreliable? Are we sure about our answers?

If you say that physics has gone too far why haven't we replaced propulsion mechanics (in rockets) yet?

[karmapolice220]

I never said the laws of physics are unreliable we are not sure about answers i never said physics has gone to far i mearly exclaimed that people need a better understanding of it but that falls to the education system and im assuming we havent changed propulsion physics in rockets is because a light sail would be to damn hard to make and why are you coming off angry?

[kriscool001]

Sorry! I'm not angry at all. Please don't get me wrong. With the physics that we have today, it is going take another 300 years to make another step forward. Physicists have not understood enough. If they spoke against 'gravity' then they will end-up losing jobs, rewriting the entire science text-books and rejecting some thousands of theories that were based on the assumption called 'gravity'.

[karmapolice220]

lol I think i can see where your coming from but what they would rewrite and already do a lot is the idea of what caused it we cant deny the gravity we experience and be taken seriously but we can disagree with what could cause it but what you said "The real world can be understood only by awakening our own SELF which is inturn the Universal consciousness."

I could not disagre more with it thre is some things that humans cant understand like quantum mechanics our bodies seemnlgly werent built to

[karmapolice220]

by "cant understand" i mean cant yet understand but will hopefully one day be able to put it in a one word explanation a bit like evolution that Richard Dawkins put in one word "Hereditary". And what i ssaid about the human brain we may have to accept the fact that some things arent natural deep inside our selves to be found but have to be understood and studied.

[kriscool001]

It will be a turning point in your own life to read the books on RAMANA Maharishi.

[kriscool001]

why does he in the first place use the term "consciousness"? Instead of talking and thinking tooooo much, it will be better if he keeps silence to raise his own consciousness. Is he courageous enough to experiment on his own being? He can never raise or help raise other people's consciousness unless he raises his own. Dawkins enjoy his own praise and fame rather than really being helpful to the society.

[kaichi23]

That monolog is what got me into this fight

I may be agnostic but I seem to be more athiestic every day :P

[fuckgodfuckyou]

Ha....this is the part of his book that ive just started reading (The God Delusion).

[StigmataBOB1]

For the Scholars: I agree with Richard on this labeling of children. I am one of about 12 people in 6 and a half billion that was born stigmata. Was I born a Christen? I have no answer so if anyone does, Please let me know. Remember that Jesus was not a christen. I have a lifetime searching for the answer to that question.

[StigmataBOB1]

When I first knew the Fatima message, I wondered, Could this be true? Videos like this are proof that the message is the real thing. What do you think? Study the Fatima message and study this video, and see if you see what I see. Click on StigmataBOB1 and study Fatima message. Could this be true?

[babri62]

Christian believe is very strange to me, I have this question always from myself, do they believe laser penis? In order Mary becomes pregnant by god it is necessary for god has a giant laser penis , that only way from sky he could transform his sperm and impregnate Mary, that is odd enough, Mary was changing god diaper for at least 2 years and breasts feeding the god!! ! Oh my god. That is really strange believe, same time I blame why some Indian believes cow shit or rat.

[WTFDauntless]

Excelent point! Children are not anything untill they grow up and choose to be.

[mrlurp]

I must see Richard Dawkins On Raising Consciousness (2/2)!