I think it's interesting because the hard problem of consciousness is one of the things people use against atheism but admits great interest in one of the most important aspects of it. It does go to show that the important feature of science vs. religion is that science can at least admit it doesn't know everything and there are mysteries still to be solved.
I'm not sure if Dawkins identify his doubts with the hp: technically, the hp is the claim that we lack some "piece" to explain conscious experience; maybe he thinks we already have all the rules we need and we just have to use them correctly. Still, sadly, Dawkins is the exception. I'm an atheist myself and the way many other atheists react to this question is either ignoring them or mounting a strawman.
@ThisOneIsTaken It's difficult and it implies something non-mechanical. If anything more fundamental is found about the human consciousness, it'll be lapped up by the terminally religious so I can understand why it's a difficult subject.
@camraid9 Because if it's mechanical it would have a traditionally predictable cause and effect, a process that reaches that through obvious physical means, etc. You can't trace the physical process that makes purple purple.
If it's not mechanical it means there's something else going on, such as some kind of quantum activity in the brain, which would greatly reshape how we think about consciousness. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem also presents a problem.
theres a bob dylan clip from the 60s in which he's debating this journalist that goes "thinks the same way? you mean you both look at a green door and feel the same thing?"
I am in a debate with a spiritual person who say that everybody perceives reality differently so one can only say something about ones own. Thereby someone might have evidence from his own perception
He says that the only reality that matters is the personal, internal reality since this would be the only one that one could say anything about
How can I argue. I am a materialist/naturalist and believe that that is nonsense, both can't express why. THANKS!
@alberstube If you are still interested, try this: Ask him if personal experience is all that matters, why does science work? Quantum electrodynamics can make accurate predictions of experimental results accurate to one part in billions - if we can't say anything about reality outside ourselves, why are we so good at doing so? And if personal experience is all we can be sure of, so what? You still behave as if there is a larger reality beyond yourself, as though you are subject to it.
@EVLWNS Hi thank you so much, I am very interested but still don't quite understand. The point is that how can we know that science says things about the actual reality as it is and not of our perceived subjective reality (our illusion) I have heard this argument before that basically science i exactly what we use to differ the mistakes made by our senses between the actual real existing objective reality.
I hope you understand what I mean! Thanks very much elaborating!
@alberstube How can we tell that what we perceive is more than mere illusion? In truth: we can't. Not in total certainty. Nothing is absolutely certain. But what we can do is take stock of what we perceive regardless - and what we find through scientific inquiry is that our world highly predictable, never veering far from mathematical laws, but rarely adhering to our desires or notions of how things "should" be. It also appears to be Universal: other people around us experience the same reality.
@alberstube By which I mean that the Laws of Nature have never been seen to be violated by anyone. Physics, the behaviour of this world we perceive, is the same for everyone.
Taking this into account, it is far more reasonable to act and believe as if the world has an indepedent, non-illusiory existence outside of our minds. It is simply a better assumption or estimate, based on how the world looks and behaves.
@EVLWNS Here this is something I just found..." "The first and last paragraph basically state my problem.
It says that science is also subject to our perception.So my debater would say that it is obvious that everyone perceives reality different e.g..Taste/preferences/values and therefore the is just subjectivity and thereby nothing can really be known objectively. It would be a question of consciousness he says
@alberstube I couldn't read the blog. It didn't seem to exist. But that's irrelevent. Science does not rely on people's perceptions: it tries to remove them as much as possible. What does the speed of a falling object have to do with tastes? What does the charge in a capacitor have to do with preferences? How could multiple independent repititions not get rid of personal bias in a result? If your friend claims otherwise, he is a fool who knows nothing of the scientific method.
@EVLWNS Hi my friend, if you are interested I had a discussion with Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience on this subject. The episode number is #735. Perhaps you would like to respond to things that were said. Kind regards
Charlie Rose does great interviews with so many of my heroes, I love it. Dawkins being foremost among them. If you haven't read the Ancestor's Tale, I STRONGLY recommend it. It will give you a good vision of the scale of geological time as well as a grasp upon the fact that we are descended from an unbroken line of successful ancestors, etc.
I clicked on this post hoping Dawkins had something some profound opinion on this topic, turns out, he just says "I don't know, and I would like to know."
@STASMloss lol, philosophers and scientists have been trying to answer his question for thousands of years to no satisfactory conclusion. Hence why it is called "the hard problem." i suspect no one will ever figure it out, it's like trying to see what's behind your eyes. i.e. Aiming to make the source of consciousness an object of itself is a futile exercise towards paradox. Something to do the first two laws of logic perhaps.
@k1llk1ngph30n1x Well thats a pretty defeating view to hold, I have a little faith in my species. Things that have been thought impossible have been achieved time and time again, take the breaking of the light barrier for instance. I dont see any reason to think that there are unknowable truths, our species just needs to survive long enough.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
i think every great thinker, scientist, philosopher, and artist throughout history...if this question was put to them...would have the same answer. it's the #1 mystery of all. the answer is bound to be more bizarre, obvious, and beautiful than we can probably imagine.
@itsabomberscope i think theres a point to be made there that doesnt rely on any sort of romanticized language. when a musically literate person hears the frequency which produces an A# being played they can say, "that is an A# tone". if a person who has never heard music before hears it as well they will still hear that tone in the same way that the musician does, rather than a C# or a Gb or any other tone, and we have yet to provide a scientific account for this sort of subjective phenomena
Very interesting. Its the same with music - finding a melody with resonates with you, but to someone else they could hate it. Now in both cases the subjective experience is "true" in a sense. I couldnt say that someones internal experience of music i like, is wrong because they dont like it. But to find the thing that is moved in a person, the part that is touched - which moves you to tears, thats a hard thing to pin down. In the end I guess you could just say its human.
Interesting point. I think equally remarkable is the fact that a particular piece of music can produce the same (or at least similar) response in very different people.
@itsabomberscope: Its called "qualia" or "quale" in the singular. It is that qualitative feel of our experiences, that are visceral and cannot be expressed through language. Sadly, I believe that Dawkins' question will never be answered. I myself (science student and amateur philosopher) am working on a paper in which I argue that precisely the question Dawkins poses cannot be answered. The main line of reasoning, way over-simplified is this: consciousness is that quality of the mind which views
@itsabomberscope: outwards, our "window to the world". In order to know anything, we must at least initially become conscious of that thing, whatever it may be. Therefore, to know what the subjective quality of experience IS, we must experience it consciously. But that would require that we experience an experience. But we cannot experience an experience. We can experience the world, but that experience of the world itself cannot be experienced. So we cannot know what consciousness is, and
@itsabomberscope: therefore cannot know what qualia is. We may feel it, but in order to know what it actually is (ie. physical, non-physical, what have you), we have to have a sort of second-order experience, which is something we are not capable of.
interesting. the man who is so hung-up to completely evaporize all religion and spirituality doesn't know the answer to what consciousness actually is.
there's not only the outside to manifestation. there's also the inside.
and empiric science can't tell us anything about it. nothing.
@ORAKAR If I hit you in the head with a baseball bat, I will cause you physical damage, which will in turn cause brain trauma, affecting your mind. The separatist philosophy you have set fourth here fails in that the mind has been shown to work with physical, electrical impulses. In fact, this is how doctors can measure brain usage patterns. Think of your mind less as a nonphysical entity and more to something along the lines of a solid state computer running at around 74 MHz.
@LohksGuild I'm sorry to sound aggressive, but you sound exactly like you've never read a single argument against your own position, nor anything in the philosophy of mind. There's nothing in my position to deny that the physical brain causes the non-physical mind to do things; it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. I recommend a brief survey of the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's section on mind to gain a fair view of the opposition to your opinion!
@ORAKAR I appologize, I commented on one of your comments from the wrong youtube account. What's more, I seemingly posted late at night, grumpy, the night before a midterm, and seemed to have made a fool out of myself. While I personally disagree with Descartes's Separatism, and I still think the expanse of our mind is limited to the physical size and amount of energy we supply it with, I humbly respect your opinion. Any retorts can be directed to this youtube account, not 'LohksGuild'.
@Exallium My friend, you have demonstrated such a personal merit in your honesty that I would forgive you a thousand times :) We all get a little tetchy sometimes - I know I certainly do a LOT, to my later embarrassment. I really respect your reply!
@ORAKAR "Science will never answer the hard problem of consciousness, because mind is a non-physical entity."
I disagree, the frames of reference will have to change, thats all. As long as we adhere rigourously to method we will eventually narrow the phenomenon of existence down to what must be the case. At that point we may be able to move forward in a meaningful and effective way. Its about finding the link between energy and perception.
I agree, it is entirely reasonable to disagree with an emphatic statement of what science will or will not answer that is based on what is at best a personal assumption or metaphor.
It seems like a lot of materialists think that if you accept the reality of the hard problem rather than Dennett's view of consciousness as an illusion, then you're some kind of mystic or dualist. I'm glad to see scientists like Dawkins and Stephen Pinker accept that it is a serious problem that needs to be addressed rather than just called an illusion.
@qrqrqrqr1 I was wondering what it is about "the problem" that is "so serious" that it "needs to be addressed". That's a bit of a value judgement, yes? Are you also interested in the problem of why you express and likely have that value judgement?
I find the matter of "the subjectivity of consciouness" rather trivial, except with regards business, where it is invaluable for guestimating what goods and services can be used to part people with their money.
@rh001YT Of course its a value judgment. Am I supposed to keep my values to myself? I think the question of how information processing can produce conscious sensations is one of the most intriguing questions we can ask.
@qrqrqrqr1 Hi! What you do with your "values" is your business. But may I point out that you have backed off "the problem" being "so serious" and now think it "intriguing" that "info processing can produce sensations of consciousness" and that it is something we (should?) ask. Someone else may find another question far more intriguing. And, BTW, I am not part of your "we". Who is this "we" to which you refer? If you think your language gaming is clever, let me assure you it is not.
@rh001YT Language gaming? Fuck you, prick. There is no contradiction between something being intriguing and serious (and I'm using the Merriam-Webster definition of serious, "not easily answered or solved", as opposed to thinkers like Dennett who think it's not a legitimate problem at all). The "we" is humans, or at least the ones capable of asking philosophical questions. Of the questions that humans can ask, I find this one of the most intriguing. What the fuck is so unclear about this?
y know i thought that this man didnt agree with deepak chopra on any level, yet here he is asking the very same question that he has asked, where are our thoughts and feelings coming from?? It seems to me that Richard Dawkins knows as much as anyone else as to our origin and can merely second guess it, i cant really see the point in making a stab in the dark when we dont know for sure, this is all speculation and these are all assumptions, bit stupid for a scientist wouldnt you think.
They may ask the same questions, but their methods differ greatly when attempting to answer them. Chopra uses silly mysticism, while Dawkins uses science.
hello egatch, my point is there is no point, end of. Why do you say that Chopra uses Silly Mysticism, Isnt nature enough proof that amazing and unexplainable things happen every minute of every day. I wont side with either Chopra or Dawkin but being certain of anything at all limits ones own viewpoint and leads to controversy and arguments.... i find it hard to believe that this is the point of life? Being certain illustrates ignorance at the very least, how can we be so self assuming? Peace.
It's not about being certain. No, in fact it's the opposite. It's constantly asking questions, and abandoning any conclusions or approaches that do not have a solid foundation that one can explore and test.
I dislike Chopra, because a lot of his ideas are glittering pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, and so is a lot of the New Age "spiritual" philosophy.
I tend to learn towards Dawkins, because he is championing a logical, scientific approach to how he explores the world.
hey there egatch, fair point and i agree with you about Chopra, Dispite this science hasnt always got the answers though, and i guess this is where im coming from about the certainty thing, good to study and explore and thats what good science is but i still truely believe that being dismisive of another view point is wrong and Dawkin and Chopra dont see eye to eye. thanks for your comments.
@egatch "No, in fact it's the opposite. It's constantly asking questions, and abandoning any conclusions or approaches that do not have a solid foundation that one can explore and test." this is parroted a lot, but I don't see how science isn't about being certain. Thanks to science, we're certain about gravity and newton's laws of motion. Those who like to parrot this line are definitley certain about many things.
@lookatmepleasesir Hi! You really put your finger on how science workd, however I also think it's important to specify that in science one can never be certain of the solidity of ones foundation. An example of this is how Newton's Laws of Motion were proven incomplete when Einstein developed the theory of relativity and Newton's laws had to be modified according to the new foundation they were based on. English isn't my first language so please excuse me if I am unclear.
@musicequalstruth Hagelin's work on consciousness amounts to nothing more than new-age feel-good fluff. We have made absolutely no progress in the field of subjective consciousness. I suspect it is possible that we never will.
@CambridgeHeights If it's fluff, it shouldn't work in practice, but it does. And if you watched the video he produced, he explains that they have a single equation, describing the superstring, from which all equations in all areas of science can be derived. The ironic aspect of the discovery is that for each person, whatever they believe to be real, the universe works to produce that effect for that person. So if you think everything is bullshit, then in your world, it will be.
@CambridgeHeights Exactly, that's what the Law of Attraction tell us. Be happy, and good things come to you, be mad and upset and ungrateful, and you'll get in more accidents and more people will piss you off and more problems will spring up. I used to allow negative thoughts to saturate my thinking. When I changed that, over several years of practice, everything in my life changed for the better. Much, much better. It really works, you should try it. But like music, it takes lots of practice
@musicequalstruth It's probably be a good idea to limit one's negative thoughts, but there is nothing magical, transcendent, or supernatural about it, and it's definitely not a "Law."
@CambridgeHeights You're right, it's not magic or supernatural. It can be transcendent b/c it will change your life if you can succeed at becoming good at controlling your emotions. It's the emotions that matter. Your thoughts only cause the emotions. The better you feel, the more life will present you with situations that perpetuate those good feelings. The same happens if your unhappy or mad. Pay attention, when your happy, good things happen more often, when your pissed, bad things.
@CambridgeHeights You're right, it's not magic or supernatural. It can be transcendent b/c it will change your life if you can succeed at becoming good at controlling your emotions. It's the emotions that matter. Your thoughts will guide your emotions. You have to practice, everyday, all the time, to get really good at it. But once you do that, the power can't be denied. The most important aspect is being grateful for what you already have. And then be very clear to yourself on what you want.
@methinxaweezil "I think you just said it's stupid for a scientist to have questions they'd like to see answered" -
to be fair I don't think that is what he is saying I think what he is trying to say is despite in light of these unanswered questions he is stil persuming atheisim, but then if he tihnks that by the same line Chopra also "takes a stab in the dark".
@joinery11 this is because you're unable to see beyond the straw man argument you've personally constructed to stand in place of the people you disagree with. You think materialists and atheists do not believe in the things you do or "consider" them with your open mind because you mistakenly believe it's done so out of arrogance and thinking we know everything or being self certain. The irony is, this the foundation of faith and Chopra's mistake, arrogantly elevating humanity outside the natural
@evilyig sorry, this is a post on another vid on utube to do with chopra and dawkins, christ knows how i posted it on this one. wasnt aware i had hadnt even seen this vid till just now.
No, I was talking about jewish mythology being a typical human response to answer questions they didn't have answers to, not fear of your invible friend.
God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.God sent his Son into the world, not to? condemn the world, but to save the worldThose who believe in him won't be condemned. But those who don't believe are already condemned because they don't believe in God's only son.This is why people are condemned: The light came into the world. Yet people loved the dark rather than the light because their actions were evil
valu777, your trolling posts and stupid game of bible verse cut and paste has earned you a place in the hall of blocked trolls. Which is just as well for you, since your relentlessly insipid and annoying proselytizing has probably driven more people away from your religion than not.
Why the hell do you have to leave a comment about god in every video involving atheism? Get a life. People are going to disagree with you, learn to deal with it.
@5eizur3 I agree that trolls and idiots are everywhere on youtube, but why is this video related to atheism? Has Dawkins become such a standard bearer for that cause that he can not have thoughts and ideas apart from his last book? If I were a theist, would that therefor invalidate his work on memes? I highly doubt the man would be thrilled with this pigeon-holing.
@5eizur3 becuase it's part of religion, spread the word is the first major duty of all christians. You have to know that, so why don't you "get a life" and ignore them?
It's not a sacrifice when his son rose from the dead after 3 days, was sent to heaven, and then became god. A sacrifice would be god sending his son to hell. Religion misleads people big time.
it is kind of obvious how being able to steal and immediately forget all responsibility for doing it can be extremely useful for an individual or family. There is often huge selective advantage to being a thicky too i'm afraid :)
socrates believed in the virtue of true truth :) but he said it was worth dying for. And actually did die for it. So philosophy is not necessarily biologically adaptive by any means! ( group selection theories are outlawed by darwinism .. so no postulated biological mechanism by which an enlightened being saving his tribe could be selected for..)
It is not the death that is important here, it is the bravery, the confidence etc that goes with the conviction the man had that makes for a good mate.
The idea that philosophy had anything to do with it is missing the point entirely.
well, basically it is a robust finding that self delusion is very adaptive in many areas. To lie without knowing you are lying, to cheat without being aware of it,.. the selective pressure is often theoretically and demonstrably against true insight. The oddity of true philosophy is perhaps not encompassed by this type of research.
Yes, I've heard of that research, thanks for reminding me. I remember how depressing, and interesting I found it. I have seen how true it is in life over and over as well. Alan Watts said that to realise you can't do anything to change your motives is key to realising that the "I" doesn't exist. He said that we don't think things through enough, and when you come across a logical dead-end it should tell you something. What should realising that we can't un-know our motives tell us?
That might have looked like a rhetorical question. It wasn't. I haven't a clue what the answer is at the moment. Don't feel I'm badgering you for an answer. I just think it might be a good question. Thanks for your thoughts again. I think there must be a way out of this fiendish maze! I'm going to have to sleep on it though :0)
there is good research in sociobiology to indicate that knowing 'the truth' is not adaptive in many situations. My 'high as a kite' hippy friends have more success, health and progeny than my cynical sociobiologist friends .. hands down !!! overall the 'truth' might be good for humanity .. but i'm not sure that our concept of truth is the true spirit of evolution.
Could you give more info on the research you mention please? I've always felt that too much "knowledge" leads to excessive self-consciousness and indecision. I'm sure that was a major concern of Dostoevsky's and, I gather, the existentialists. Some of us bring it on ourselves being smart-arses wanting to be "in the know"! It seems more intellectually honest to know the "truth" but happier and more likable not to know. It seems a dilemma - I want to find out it isn't. I want enlightenment!
i think the dividing lines between biology, psychology, religion, philosophy, spirituality etc are important. What is useful and makes sense on one level can be worse than useless on another. I think it's really worth working out what level/context one is referring to. for example religions often praise honesty.. because it works to cultivate a strong group bond .. honesty is often a handicap in the 'outside world' though.. plus there are appropriate levels of honesty in all situations.
I don't really see the need to discuss why burping loudly at a funeral is not as acceptable as burping loudly say, at a friend's place. For me, that does not bear discussing. I consider it simple common sense.
ok thats a tough example to follow .. but in more subtle areas it can be far beyond 'common sense'. Philosophy is really potent on the dividing line between medicine and psychology. Sharp philosophy can prevent or cure illness.
The translation between different levels is very important..and often benefits from a bit of 'thinking through' that's all i can say!
a very gifted healer friend of mine used to ask her clients "would you like to know why you are ill? or would you like to be well?" This highlights something for me. Many brainy people seemed more focused on knowing than with growing or recovering.
philosophically, no .. a great overall stance to take. But there seems to be this 'single pointed' state of mind in which it is more real and more powerful to 'be oneself' and from that state of mind to desire/choose health.
it is the direct connection to the pure self which is the difference . not a social or political explanation of ones condition .. but a state that puts pure self awareness in the driving seat. hard to explain!
many different viewpoints are useful, valuable, necessary .. some people should adopt fundamentalist stances i think .. and society as a whole has to be wise enough to balance these things. Richard Dawkins worries me because i expect him to be more wise and balanced given his chosen role. He should know the limitations of his craft.
i interviewed him once .. he was sharp and cutting .. didn't seem to have access to a balanced perspective.. although that might well be his career persona.
suspect we would have compatibility problems with that :)
Hey i always bemoaned how someone so enlightened as Alan Watts could have such poor human relationships and effectively drink himself to death, whilst Dawkins, i note, makes rather good marital decisions and has little chance of a death hastened by alcohol. Then it occured to me that Watts' progeny = 7 and Dawkins = 1 . Survival of the cynical, fecundity of the lyrical? :)
Eastern religion likes to expand the mind to encompass reality .. western mind likes to fit reality into its own narrow mind. i fear that we will come to understand consciousness in a western way.. by messing with it, pulling it to pieces and controlling it (in other people that is). :(
" i fear that we will come to understand consciousness in a western way"
Personally, I think understanding, from whatever perspective it can be achieved, is not something to fear. I also think there are valuable things that can be learned in the pursuit of understanding, regardless of whether some deem it unnecessary or impossible, or not.
i think the issue is bandwidth. Most folk can only focus on a small number of things at any one time. If your mind is filled with one or two narrow and partial perspectives .. it can be worse than no knowledge. I agree it is great for there to be lots of information out there gleaned from lots of different perspectives .. but many scientists are dreadful for portraying theirs as the only truth.
I know I've had my time on the soap-box here, but.... I think a narrow focus IS a bad thing when it is dishonestly or mistakenly presented as something that it is not. Dawkins presents a 19th century reductionist view as the only honest and intelligent view. So does Dennett, though he, at least, gets more metaphysical. I have thought about this as much as most, and see no reason to believe that they are right. Just because a view's grim doesn't make it true. That's another kind of romanticism.
subjective consciousness in its pure form can be experienced and understood with perfect lucidity and clarity only through MEDITATION. I highly doubt whether science can answer this timeless philosophical problem b/c subjective experience is an experience, not a physical or material substance.
Absolutely !! you have to conceive of the perceiver too in order to ask the question. the truth requires immersion .. it's not a thought experiment !! I could shake him!!
There is a vedic parable:- A little sparrow buids a nest by the sea, and a freak wave captures it, and washes it out to sea. The little sparrow in desperation tries to rescue it's young, but fearful they would drown, decides to empty the ocean, back and forth, this little sparrow sips a little water and spits it on land, to the amusement of the demigods. Lord Garuda hears of this, and offers to help, the ocean in terror returns the nest to shore. (Little brains can't fathom ocean deep problems!)
It's a fable, and also a sacred one. Lord Garuda is the Bird Carrier of Visnu. The Vedic Civilization, by reports, was far more advanced than ours. They describe our planet being formed 4,320,000,000 years ago by Lord Brahma. Described as constructed by Celestial Architect Vishvakarma. These were bedtime stories for their kids. The Scriptures get more advanced later on. Interplanetary travel was the norm. They speak of "Time Dilation" effects, etc. Sadly this treasure of knowledge is ignored.
Little brains might want to realise when they are trying to do something unnecessary and impossible like, as Alan Watts put it "trying to bite your own teeth". I couldn't put it better than you did: "science is a working model that describes the real thing, there is probably always going to be an elusive, illusory aspect to it."
My interpretation of what Alan Watts leads me to believe that he wouldn't believe it possible or necessary to know objectively what it is that is knowing. I don't say it is impossible or unnecessary to say more and more about the way our minds work. That is probably enlightening. In my opinion, it is wrong-headed, and needlessly depressing, to feel that the objective description of the subject actually is the subject. I think it encourages fundamentalism to do so as well.
Of course there are different reasons to be depressed about the content of our minds. I'm sure I would be depressed about a lot of excuses for myself if I faced them, but if I faced them they would no longer be me, and so they never really were. Looking at it that way, a lot of religionists probably do want to cling to their own little views. That's a different matter. Maybe the idea that description is reality has to be held until it's obvious that it isn't. It doesn't seem to be helpful to me.
"to feel that the objective description of the subject actually is the subject. "
I've read enough Dawkins to say I'm pretty sure he doesn'[t hold this view at all. His interest as a scientist is from a biological / evolutionary point of view, and I'm pretty sure he understands that represents only one small aspect of what we we are able to understand about consciousness.
I am sure he does hold the view that consciousness can be objectively understood and that, in principle, we could be able to say "that's it". It's true that, unlike Atkins or Dennett, he doesn't address the question. I think he considers the answer so obvious that the question doesn't occur to him. In this video he says he wants to know what makes redness red. We must already have a fairly good description of what happens in our brain when we see red. He isn't just asking for a better one.
I don't think Dawkins has any illusions about what a difficult question this is, and I don't have any worries that he or anyone else plans to stick consciousness into an objective bottle and say "that's it".
ok then, maybe you're right, but I don't feel that way. He himself said, in The God Delusion, that he doesn't care what sort of god someone says they believe in, he thinks it's all crap (or words to that effect). If he really felt that the world was inherently mysterious, he wouldn't be so scathing about religion. As I say, you might see this clearer than me, he is true humanist. I think he's also a complete reductionist and reductionism makes me feel fake. Dostoevsky put it better than I could.
I got interested in his popular science writing a long time ago and I much prefer that to his recent opinion based writing. i fully understand that he is not everyone's cup of tea.
I think I meant that the idea that motives ultimately have mechanistic explanations, as are given in evolutionary psychology, for example, *can* lead to excessive self-consciousness, and a feeling of lack of authenticity. I think that for me, it can become hard to discern real motives from theoretical ones-- and I think an over- 'reductionist' approach to psychology is a factor in that.
I know 'reductionism' is ambiguous-- many people aren't 'reductionist', in that they don't think that reality is necessarily linear and composed of discrete parts-- they might still say that it's ultimately sayable, tho, and I think that the idea that reality is ultimately unsayable, is another kind of 'non-reductionism''
@JinxOz haha i can explain nihilistic feelings under reductionism, your motives are totally superficial, your a disposable thing, like a slowly rotting fruit. nobody truly gives a damn about you including yourself TO AN EXTENT, Your love is just a chemical feedback mechanism to get you closer to getting laid before you turn to wormfood,
erm .. have you seen the latest research into synaesthesia from cambridge .. ? claiming it to be 'god's gift' to the advertising industry ?? !! talk about selling your soul! or other people's souls rather...
I won't ask why, I don't want to know (though I sort of do). Fair enough anyway.
I haven't seen that research, it does seem a bit lacking in taste if advertising was the first thing they thought of - or if it had to have any use at all for that matter.
There's something in your theory, Watts had more of a live for today attitude, which went with his philosophy. Dawkins takes life more seriously, and so is more sensible. It sort of falls down with Krishnamurti, but there's something in it.
Thanks Fraterculae, Scripture allows poetic licence. It makes the content 'memorable'.
The hymns forming the basis of the Sama Veda were vibrated by the flapping wings of the Lord's carrier, Garuda. In the Vedic literature it is stated that the two wings of the transcendental bird Garuda, who carries the Lord everywhere, are two divisions of the Sama Veda known as brhat and rathantara. Garuda works as the carrier of the Lord;
Garuda eats elephants, as woodpeckers eat tiny grubs...LICENCE!
How do hard line atheists explain infinity? It can't be measured by science, you can't say 10/3=3.333 recurring is a fact because its unmeasurable. But science relies on the acceptance of infinity as a basis to test other things. Its a belief, how do you justify one belief and not another?
Infinity relates to subjective consciousness, it can't be proven but is widely accepted though belief hence it is subjective and exists in the consciousness. How do I explain infinity? I don't have to because I'm not a hard line scientist who believes only measurable phenomena exists. Don't you see the hypocrisy of atheism? BTW i'm not religious, I'm just asking a question.
Why do atheists in particular have to explain infinity? And surely you must concede that in order to explain the term you've thrown out at a particular group to explain, the term must first be defined. And that is *your* task. [waiting...]
Your first sentence could be rewritten so that it is comprehensible. Also, I do not see "the hypocrisy of atheism." Could you elucidate it for me? First, you should be made aware that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God/gods. Now, proceed...
Also if you bothered to read my question it was "how do you justify one belief and not another" not "how do you explain infinity?" completely different.
Lol, my apologies, ok I did ask that to begin with (I can't read my own questions this morning) but my real question is "how do you justify one belief and not another?"
Perhaps as you attempt that you will ask yourself what if nothing had a boundary. What if we were made of 99% nothing and the universe too.After you have considered these things truly, then consider a human like entity( in the image of )bearded man from a religion based on an egyptian set of rules being the definition of LOGOS which the bible even faled to name simply saying 'inthe beginning was the, unable to translate (word)and the word was..
I just read the chapter in "The Comprehensible Cosmos" that you referenced. That's really clearly written stuff even a caveman could understand. Thanks, I will definitely be picking up some Stenger.
Somehow there seems to be a direct connection between Stenger's characterization of the act of observation as a process of kicking and measuring what is kicked back, Dawkin's questions about subjective consciousness, and Paula Deen's creamy mushroom bacon peppercorn 'taters. Must look into that.
Answer- When you realize we are all connected on a meta-physical (spiritual) level, the idea of the separation of consciousness on the physical plane shows itself for the utter joke it is.
I would agree. I'm not knocking science, it's certainly preferable to have an established system of the like in which the validity of claims are questioned and tested as opposed to the failings organized faith for example. I just find that most f the questions that Richard Dawkin's has have been addressed by other meta-sciences (aincient vedic science for example)
i think you are on to something also when you say that your realisations are illusiory. The aincient texts of India talk about the physical plane of reality as 'Maya' which translates as illusion, but now i probably sound no better than a bible thumper quoting my beloved texts! oh the endless paradox's! =P
Personally I can appreciate the idea of Maya more clearly when i
I think it's interesting because the hard problem of consciousness is one of the things people use against atheism but admits great interest in one of the most important aspects of it. It does go to show that the important feature of science vs. religion is that science can at least admit it doesn't know everything and there are mysteries still to be solved.
TakeshiAndTheKid 1 month ago
@TakeshiAndTheKid
I'm not sure if Dawkins identify his doubts with the hp: technically, the hp is the claim that we lack some "piece" to explain conscious experience; maybe he thinks we already have all the rules we need and we just have to use them correctly. Still, sadly, Dawkins is the exception. I'm an atheist myself and the way many other atheists react to this question is either ignoring them or mounting a strawman.
ThisOneIsTaken 1 month ago
@ThisOneIsTaken It's difficult and it implies something non-mechanical. If anything more fundamental is found about the human consciousness, it'll be lapped up by the terminally religious so I can understand why it's a difficult subject.
TakeshiAndTheKid 1 month ago
@TakeshiAndTheKid Does it imply something non mechanical ???? I ask in sincerity, why?..... I would like to know.
camraid9 2 weeks ago
@camraid9 Because if it's mechanical it would have a traditionally predictable cause and effect, a process that reaches that through obvious physical means, etc. You can't trace the physical process that makes purple purple.
If it's not mechanical it means there's something else going on, such as some kind of quantum activity in the brain, which would greatly reshape how we think about consciousness. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem also presents a problem.
TakeshiAndTheKid 2 weeks ago
theres a bob dylan clip from the 60s in which he's debating this journalist that goes "thinks the same way? you mean you both look at a green door and feel the same thing?"
RedChilliGod 2 months ago
Dear Atheists,
Please help me on this one.
I am in a debate with a spiritual person who say that everybody perceives reality differently so one can only say something about ones own. Thereby someone might have evidence from his own perception
He says that the only reality that matters is the personal, internal reality since this would be the only one that one could say anything about
How can I argue. I am a materialist/naturalist and believe that that is nonsense, both can't express why. THANKS!
alberstube 3 months ago
@alberstube If you are still interested, try this: Ask him if personal experience is all that matters, why does science work? Quantum electrodynamics can make accurate predictions of experimental results accurate to one part in billions - if we can't say anything about reality outside ourselves, why are we so good at doing so? And if personal experience is all we can be sure of, so what? You still behave as if there is a larger reality beyond yourself, as though you are subject to it.
EVLWNS 3 months ago
@EVLWNS Hi thank you so much, I am very interested but still don't quite understand. The point is that how can we know that science says things about the actual reality as it is and not of our perceived subjective reality (our illusion) I have heard this argument before that basically science i exactly what we use to differ the mistakes made by our senses between the actual real existing objective reality.
I hope you understand what I mean! Thanks very much elaborating!
alberstube 3 months ago
@alberstube How can we tell that what we perceive is more than mere illusion? In truth: we can't. Not in total certainty. Nothing is absolutely certain. But what we can do is take stock of what we perceive regardless - and what we find through scientific inquiry is that our world highly predictable, never veering far from mathematical laws, but rarely adhering to our desires or notions of how things "should" be. It also appears to be Universal: other people around us experience the same reality.
EVLWNS 3 months ago
@alberstube By which I mean that the Laws of Nature have never been seen to be violated by anyone. Physics, the behaviour of this world we perceive, is the same for everyone.
Taking this into account, it is far more reasonable to act and believe as if the world has an indepedent, non-illusiory existence outside of our minds. It is simply a better assumption or estimate, based on how the world looks and behaves.
EVLWNS 3 months ago
@alberstube Keep thinking, keep learning. Peace out.
EVLWNS 3 months ago
@EVLWNS Thats what I am trying to do and I was asking you to demonstrate the truth of your statement.
Why not answer my question?
Peace to you too
alberstube 2 months ago
@alberstube Uh, I thought I did. Could you rephrase your question?
EVLWNS 2 months ago
@EVLWNS Here this is something I just found..." "The first and last paragraph basically state my problem.
It says that science is also subject to our perception.So my debater would say that it is obvious that everyone perceives reality different e.g..Taste/preferences/values and therefore the is just subjectivity and thereby nothing can really be known objectively. It would be a question of consciousness he says
alberstube 2 months ago
@alberstube I couldn't read the blog. It didn't seem to exist. But that's irrelevent. Science does not rely on people's perceptions: it tries to remove them as much as possible. What does the speed of a falling object have to do with tastes? What does the charge in a capacitor have to do with preferences? How could multiple independent repititions not get rid of personal bias in a result? If your friend claims otherwise, he is a fool who knows nothing of the scientific method.
EVLWNS 2 months ago
@EVLWNS Hi my friend, if you are interested I had a discussion with Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience on this subject. The episode number is #735. Perhaps you would like to respond to things that were said. Kind regards
alberstube 2 months ago
@alberstube I'll look at it as soon as I can.
EVLWNS 2 months ago 2
@alberstube skepticalsayhow.blogspot.com/2010/08/science-subjective-or-objective.html
alberstube 2 months ago
When I saw the title I suspected it was gonna be a comment about how consciousness it not really real, a la dan dennett.
hasenj 3 months ago
Charlie Rose does great interviews with so many of my heroes, I love it. Dawkins being foremost among them. If you haven't read the Ancestor's Tale, I STRONGLY recommend it. It will give you a good vision of the scale of geological time as well as a grasp upon the fact that we are descended from an unbroken line of successful ancestors, etc.
ZachRose88 4 months ago
The nature of consciousness I don't think will ever be fully understood.
ClamCrunchy 5 months ago
I clicked on this post hoping Dawkins had something some profound opinion on this topic, turns out, he just says "I don't know, and I would like to know."
STASMloss 5 months ago
@STASMloss lol, philosophers and scientists have been trying to answer his question for thousands of years to no satisfactory conclusion. Hence why it is called "the hard problem." i suspect no one will ever figure it out, it's like trying to see what's behind your eyes. i.e. Aiming to make the source of consciousness an object of itself is a futile exercise towards paradox. Something to do the first two laws of logic perhaps.
k1llk1ngph30n1x 4 months ago
@k1llk1ngph30n1x Well thats a pretty defeating view to hold, I have a little faith in my species. Things that have been thought impossible have been achieved time and time again, take the breaking of the light barrier for instance. I dont see any reason to think that there are unknowable truths, our species just needs to survive long enough.
mehico33 4 months ago
@STASMloss I would think that is profound.
blackpanther6389 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
i think every great thinker, scientist, philosopher, and artist throughout history...if this question was put to them...would have the same answer. it's the #1 mystery of all. the answer is bound to be more bizarre, obvious, and beautiful than we can probably imagine.
avedic 5 months ago
Matter is transmiter and another "thing" exist which acts like a reciever, that 'thing' has property to 'recieve'.
raviJadhav250 7 months ago
"Just give me some Peyote and a Hang-glider goddammit." - Albert D. Xavier
MrBeautifulba1 7 months ago
Dawkins has just discovered Post-modernism! Congrats Dawkins!
Mythik88 9 months ago
@itsabomberscope i think theres a point to be made there that doesnt rely on any sort of romanticized language. when a musically literate person hears the frequency which produces an A# being played they can say, "that is an A# tone". if a person who has never heard music before hears it as well they will still hear that tone in the same way that the musician does, rather than a C# or a Gb or any other tone, and we have yet to provide a scientific account for this sort of subjective phenomena
ceoddyn 9 months ago
Very interesting. Its the same with music - finding a melody with resonates with you, but to someone else they could hate it. Now in both cases the subjective experience is "true" in a sense. I couldnt say that someones internal experience of music i like, is wrong because they dont like it. But to find the thing that is moved in a person, the part that is touched - which moves you to tears, thats a hard thing to pin down. In the end I guess you could just say its human.
itsabomberscope 10 months ago 2
@itsabomberscope
Interesting point. I think equally remarkable is the fact that a particular piece of music can produce the same (or at least similar) response in very different people.
methinxaweezil 10 months ago 4
@methinxaweezil I wonder if the timeless zen experience is the same for each who experience it.
BrainInSkull 9 months ago
@itsabomberscope thats exactly right.
im in a band that plays fairly heave stuff, and i have a mate who loves heave music, so i played it to him and he didnt like it.
i took that same song to another mates house who rarely listens to heave music (more dance and pop) and he loved it!! go figure?
bovineuniversity1290 6 months ago
@bovineuniversity1290 Yeah, its strange. Play your mate some Tuvan Throat Singing, see what he makes of that! ;o)
itsabomberscope 6 months ago
@itsabomberscope: Its called "qualia" or "quale" in the singular. It is that qualitative feel of our experiences, that are visceral and cannot be expressed through language. Sadly, I believe that Dawkins' question will never be answered. I myself (science student and amateur philosopher) am working on a paper in which I argue that precisely the question Dawkins poses cannot be answered. The main line of reasoning, way over-simplified is this: consciousness is that quality of the mind which views
McTaggStar 6 months ago
@itsabomberscope: outwards, our "window to the world". In order to know anything, we must at least initially become conscious of that thing, whatever it may be. Therefore, to know what the subjective quality of experience IS, we must experience it consciously. But that would require that we experience an experience. But we cannot experience an experience. We can experience the world, but that experience of the world itself cannot be experienced. So we cannot know what consciousness is, and
McTaggStar 6 months ago
@itsabomberscope: therefore cannot know what qualia is. We may feel it, but in order to know what it actually is (ie. physical, non-physical, what have you), we have to have a sort of second-order experience, which is something we are not capable of.
McTaggStar 6 months ago
@McTaggStar Very interesting. Good luck with your paper!
itsabomberscope 6 months ago
Dawkins needs to read Plantinga
dfpolis 10 months ago
interesting. the man who is so hung-up to completely evaporize all religion and spirituality doesn't know the answer to what consciousness actually is.
there's not only the outside to manifestation. there's also the inside.
and empiric science can't tell us anything about it. nothing.
trappedsoul7 1 year ago
Science will never answer the hard problem of consciousness, because mind is a non-physical entity.
ORAKAR 1 year ago
@ORAKAR If I hit you in the head with a baseball bat, I will cause you physical damage, which will in turn cause brain trauma, affecting your mind. The separatist philosophy you have set fourth here fails in that the mind has been shown to work with physical, electrical impulses. In fact, this is how doctors can measure brain usage patterns. Think of your mind less as a nonphysical entity and more to something along the lines of a solid state computer running at around 74 MHz.
LohksGuild 11 months ago
@LohksGuild I'm sorry to sound aggressive, but you sound exactly like you've never read a single argument against your own position, nor anything in the philosophy of mind. There's nothing in my position to deny that the physical brain causes the non-physical mind to do things; it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. I recommend a brief survey of the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's section on mind to gain a fair view of the opposition to your opinion!
ORAKAR 11 months ago
@ORAKAR I appologize, I commented on one of your comments from the wrong youtube account. What's more, I seemingly posted late at night, grumpy, the night before a midterm, and seemed to have made a fool out of myself. While I personally disagree with Descartes's Separatism, and I still think the expanse of our mind is limited to the physical size and amount of energy we supply it with, I humbly respect your opinion. Any retorts can be directed to this youtube account, not 'LohksGuild'.
Exallium 11 months ago
@Exallium My friend, you have demonstrated such a personal merit in your honesty that I would forgive you a thousand times :) We all get a little tetchy sometimes - I know I certainly do a LOT, to my later embarrassment. I really respect your reply!
ORAKAR 11 months ago
@ORAKAR "Science will never answer the hard problem of consciousness, because mind is a non-physical entity."
I disagree, the frames of reference will have to change, thats all. As long as we adhere rigourously to method we will eventually narrow the phenomenon of existence down to what must be the case. At that point we may be able to move forward in a meaningful and effective way. Its about finding the link between energy and perception.
fishybishbash 9 months ago
@fishybishbash
I agree, it is entirely reasonable to disagree with an emphatic statement of what science will or will not answer that is based on what is at best a personal assumption or metaphor.
methinxaweezil 9 months ago
I love how philosophy asks questions and science tries to answer them! (Or at least, how I think that's what's going on using my left brain)
spartacandream 1 year ago
It seems like a lot of materialists think that if you accept the reality of the hard problem rather than Dennett's view of consciousness as an illusion, then you're some kind of mystic or dualist. I'm glad to see scientists like Dawkins and Stephen Pinker accept that it is a serious problem that needs to be addressed rather than just called an illusion.
qrqrqrqr1 1 year ago
@qrqrqrqr1 I was wondering what it is about "the problem" that is "so serious" that it "needs to be addressed". That's a bit of a value judgement, yes? Are you also interested in the problem of why you express and likely have that value judgement?
I find the matter of "the subjectivity of consciouness" rather trivial, except with regards business, where it is invaluable for guestimating what goods and services can be used to part people with their money.
rh001YT 1 year ago
@rh001YT Of course its a value judgment. Am I supposed to keep my values to myself? I think the question of how information processing can produce conscious sensations is one of the most intriguing questions we can ask.
qrqrqrqr1 1 year ago
@qrqrqrqr1 Hi! What you do with your "values" is your business. But may I point out that you have backed off "the problem" being "so serious" and now think it "intriguing" that "info processing can produce sensations of consciousness" and that it is something we (should?) ask. Someone else may find another question far more intriguing. And, BTW, I am not part of your "we". Who is this "we" to which you refer? If you think your language gaming is clever, let me assure you it is not.
rh001YT 1 year ago
@rh001YT Language gaming? Fuck you, prick. There is no contradiction between something being intriguing and serious (and I'm using the Merriam-Webster definition of serious, "not easily answered or solved", as opposed to thinkers like Dennett who think it's not a legitimate problem at all). The "we" is humans, or at least the ones capable of asking philosophical questions. Of the questions that humans can ask, I find this one of the most intriguing. What the fuck is so unclear about this?
qrqrqrqr1 1 year ago 2
I like how you put the red box that said "blue"
nickringer 1 year ago 7
@nickringer ha
ws18002 1 year ago
Comment removed
slowmonkey156 2 years ago
If anyone knows Mr. Richard Dawkins, have him talk to Dr. John Hagelin in order to answer his question.
Please, everyone should watch:
the Discovery of the Unified Field
Then check out Spontaneous DNA and get ready to readjust you're views of reality.
musicequalstruth 2 years ago
y know i thought that this man didnt agree with deepak chopra on any level, yet here he is asking the very same question that he has asked, where are our thoughts and feelings coming from?? It seems to me that Richard Dawkins knows as much as anyone else as to our origin and can merely second guess it, i cant really see the point in making a stab in the dark when we dont know for sure, this is all speculation and these are all assumptions, bit stupid for a scientist wouldnt you think.
joinery11 2 years ago
I think you just said it's stupid for a scientist to have questions they'd like to see answered.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago 11
no not really, i dont have a problem with any approach to this subject but i just cant see their point in being so certain thats all.
joinery11 2 years ago
@joinery11
They may ask the same questions, but their methods differ greatly when attempting to answer them. Chopra uses silly mysticism, while Dawkins uses science.
egatch 2 years ago
hello egatch, my point is there is no point, end of. Why do you say that Chopra uses Silly Mysticism, Isnt nature enough proof that amazing and unexplainable things happen every minute of every day. I wont side with either Chopra or Dawkin but being certain of anything at all limits ones own viewpoint and leads to controversy and arguments.... i find it hard to believe that this is the point of life? Being certain illustrates ignorance at the very least, how can we be so self assuming? Peace.
joinery11 2 years ago
@joinery11
It's not about being certain. No, in fact it's the opposite. It's constantly asking questions, and abandoning any conclusions or approaches that do not have a solid foundation that one can explore and test.
I dislike Chopra, because a lot of his ideas are glittering pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, and so is a lot of the New Age "spiritual" philosophy.
I tend to learn towards Dawkins, because he is championing a logical, scientific approach to how he explores the world.
egatch 2 years ago
hey there egatch, fair point and i agree with you about Chopra, Dispite this science hasnt always got the answers though, and i guess this is where im coming from about the certainty thing, good to study and explore and thats what good science is but i still truely believe that being dismisive of another view point is wrong and Dawkin and Chopra dont see eye to eye. thanks for your comments.
joinery11 2 years ago
@egatch "No, in fact it's the opposite. It's constantly asking questions, and abandoning any conclusions or approaches that do not have a solid foundation that one can explore and test." this is parroted a lot, but I don't see how science isn't about being certain. Thanks to science, we're certain about gravity and newton's laws of motion. Those who like to parrot this line are definitley certain about many things.
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago
@lookatmepleasesir Hi! You really put your finger on how science workd, however I also think it's important to specify that in science one can never be certain of the solidity of ones foundation. An example of this is how Newton's Laws of Motion were proven incomplete when Einstein developed the theory of relativity and Newton's laws had to be modified according to the new foundation they were based on. English isn't my first language so please excuse me if I am unclear.
teatime90 1 year ago
You're just a little behind in the latest research. Please look up John Hagelin to get a better understanding behind the science of consciousness.
musicequalstruth 2 years ago
@musicequalstruth Hagelin's work on consciousness amounts to nothing more than new-age feel-good fluff. We have made absolutely no progress in the field of subjective consciousness. I suspect it is possible that we never will.
CambridgeHeights 1 year ago
@CambridgeHeights If it's fluff, it shouldn't work in practice, but it does. And if you watched the video he produced, he explains that they have a single equation, describing the superstring, from which all equations in all areas of science can be derived. The ironic aspect of the discovery is that for each person, whatever they believe to be real, the universe works to produce that effect for that person. So if you think everything is bullshit, then in your world, it will be.
musicequalstruth 11 months ago
@musicequalstruth Ok, whatever makes you happy.
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
@CambridgeHeights Exactly, that's what the Law of Attraction tell us. Be happy, and good things come to you, be mad and upset and ungrateful, and you'll get in more accidents and more people will piss you off and more problems will spring up. I used to allow negative thoughts to saturate my thinking. When I changed that, over several years of practice, everything in my life changed for the better. Much, much better. It really works, you should try it. But like music, it takes lots of practice
musicequalstruth 11 months ago
@musicequalstruth It's probably be a good idea to limit one's negative thoughts, but there is nothing magical, transcendent, or supernatural about it, and it's definitely not a "Law."
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
@CambridgeHeights You're right, it's not magic or supernatural. It can be transcendent b/c it will change your life if you can succeed at becoming good at controlling your emotions. It's the emotions that matter. Your thoughts only cause the emotions. The better you feel, the more life will present you with situations that perpetuate those good feelings. The same happens if your unhappy or mad. Pay attention, when your happy, good things happen more often, when your pissed, bad things.
musicequalstruth 11 months ago
@CambridgeHeights You're right, it's not magic or supernatural. It can be transcendent b/c it will change your life if you can succeed at becoming good at controlling your emotions. It's the emotions that matter. Your thoughts will guide your emotions. You have to practice, everyday, all the time, to get really good at it. But once you do that, the power can't be denied. The most important aspect is being grateful for what you already have. And then be very clear to yourself on what you want.
musicequalstruth 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@methinxaweezil "I think you just said it's stupid for a scientist to have questions they'd like to see answered" -
to be fair I don't think that is what he is saying I think what he is trying to say is despite in light of these unanswered questions he is stil persuming atheisim, but then if he tihnks that by the same line Chopra also "takes a stab in the dark".
greenelf12 1 year ago
thats not what hes asking. hes asking how subjective consciousness works.
Pelonetillo 1 year ago
@joinery11 this is because you're unable to see beyond the straw man argument you've personally constructed to stand in place of the people you disagree with. You think materialists and atheists do not believe in the things you do or "consider" them with your open mind because you mistakenly believe it's done so out of arrogance and thinking we know everything or being self certain. The irony is, this the foundation of faith and Chopra's mistake, arrogantly elevating humanity outside the natural
evilyig 5 months ago
@evilyig sorry, this is a post on another vid on utube to do with chopra and dawkins, christ knows how i posted it on this one. wasnt aware i had hadnt even seen this vid till just now.
joinery11 5 months ago
the conscious is the soul. ahaha lets see the insults begin!
dementiadeath 2 years ago
@dementiadeath
Retard alert people! Retard alert!
weepaul666 2 years ago
this coming from a fat fag living in his parents basement.
dementiadeath 2 years ago
@dementiadeath
Yeah, y'know, you're right! Oh boy, you sure showed me. Haha
weepaul666 2 years ago
No, I was talking about jewish mythology being a typical human response to answer questions they didn't have answers to, not fear of your invible friend.
BloodyMarverous 2 years ago
Thanks, more rhetorical bollocks. Am I supposed to be afraid by that lovely piece of ancient jewish mythology?
BloodyMarverous 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.God sent his Son into the world, not to? condemn the world, but to save the worldThose who believe in him won't be condemned. But those who don't believe are already condemned because they don't believe in God's only son.This is why people are condemned: The light came into the world. Yet people loved the dark rather than the light because their actions were evil
valu777 2 years ago
Rhetorical nonsense from an anachronous superstition built into the human condition to deal with fear.
BloodyMarverous 2 years ago 2
valu777, your trolling posts and stupid game of bible verse cut and paste has earned you a place in the hall of blocked trolls. Which is just as well for you, since your relentlessly insipid and annoying proselytizing has probably driven more people away from your religion than not.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
Ha ha! Well put!
ashburnhouse 2 years ago
Why the hell do you have to leave a comment about god in every video involving atheism? Get a life. People are going to disagree with you, learn to deal with it.
5eizur3 2 years ago 16
@5eizur3 I agree that trolls and idiots are everywhere on youtube, but why is this video related to atheism? Has Dawkins become such a standard bearer for that cause that he can not have thoughts and ideas apart from his last book? If I were a theist, would that therefor invalidate his work on memes? I highly doubt the man would be thrilled with this pigeon-holing.
bmbenblog 11 months ago
@5eizur3 becuase it's part of religion, spread the word is the first major duty of all christians. You have to know that, so why don't you "get a life" and ignore them?
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@5eizur3 For the same reason all the music videos have comments comparing them to Justin Bieber - people want to raise trouble.
ChrisMP1 4 months ago
It's not a sacrifice when his son rose from the dead after 3 days, was sent to heaven, and then became god. A sacrifice would be god sending his son to hell. Religion misleads people big time.
controllerbrain 2 years ago
@controllerbrain Hahahahaha that is awesome.
321lawc 2 years ago
it is kind of obvious how being able to steal and immediately forget all responsibility for doing it can be extremely useful for an individual or family. There is often huge selective advantage to being a thicky too i'm afraid :)
Fraterculae 2 years ago
socrates believed in the virtue of true truth :) but he said it was worth dying for. And actually did die for it. So philosophy is not necessarily biologically adaptive by any means! ( group selection theories are outlawed by darwinism .. so no postulated biological mechanism by which an enlightened being saving his tribe could be selected for..)
Fraterculae 2 years ago
It is not the death that is important here, it is the bravery, the confidence etc that goes with the conviction the man had that makes for a good mate.
The idea that philosophy had anything to do with it is missing the point entirely.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago
well, basically it is a robust finding that self delusion is very adaptive in many areas. To lie without knowing you are lying, to cheat without being aware of it,.. the selective pressure is often theoretically and demonstrably against true insight. The oddity of true philosophy is perhaps not encompassed by this type of research.
Fraterculae 2 years ago
Yes, I've heard of that research, thanks for reminding me. I remember how depressing, and interesting I found it. I have seen how true it is in life over and over as well. Alan Watts said that to realise you can't do anything to change your motives is key to realising that the "I" doesn't exist. He said that we don't think things through enough, and when you come across a logical dead-end it should tell you something. What should realising that we can't un-know our motives tell us?
gerontodon 2 years ago
That might have looked like a rhetorical question. It wasn't. I haven't a clue what the answer is at the moment. Don't feel I'm badgering you for an answer. I just think it might be a good question. Thanks for your thoughts again. I think there must be a way out of this fiendish maze! I'm going to have to sleep on it though :0)
gerontodon 2 years ago
there is good research in sociobiology to indicate that knowing 'the truth' is not adaptive in many situations. My 'high as a kite' hippy friends have more success, health and progeny than my cynical sociobiologist friends .. hands down !!! overall the 'truth' might be good for humanity .. but i'm not sure that our concept of truth is the true spirit of evolution.
Fraterculae 2 years ago
Could you give more info on the research you mention please? I've always felt that too much "knowledge" leads to excessive self-consciousness and indecision. I'm sure that was a major concern of Dostoevsky's and, I gather, the existentialists. Some of us bring it on ourselves being smart-arses wanting to be "in the know"! It seems more intellectually honest to know the "truth" but happier and more likable not to know. It seems a dilemma - I want to find out it isn't. I want enlightenment!
gerontodon 2 years ago
This is all a whole lot simpler than you're trying to make it.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago
yep, agreed. devil's often in the detail though.
Fraterculae 2 years ago
I'm not sure I see much point into going into excessive detail about something we already know the answer to.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago
i think the dividing lines between biology, psychology, religion, philosophy, spirituality etc are important. What is useful and makes sense on one level can be worse than useless on another. I think it's really worth working out what level/context one is referring to. for example religions often praise honesty.. because it works to cultivate a strong group bond .. honesty is often a handicap in the 'outside world' though.. plus there are appropriate levels of honesty in all situations.
Fraterculae 2 years ago
I don't really see the need to discuss why burping loudly at a funeral is not as acceptable as burping loudly say, at a friend's place. For me, that does not bear discussing. I consider it simple common sense.
Each to their own though.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago
ok thats a tough example to follow .. but in more subtle areas it can be far beyond 'common sense'. Philosophy is really potent on the dividing line between medicine and psychology. Sharp philosophy can prevent or cure illness.
The translation between different levels is very important..and often benefits from a bit of 'thinking through' that's all i can say!
Fraterculae 2 years ago
Yeah.
Meetings all day doesn't get the work done though, that's all I'm saying :p
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago
totally agreed . try watching scottish late evening tv discussions .. angels on the head of pins!!
but a good succinct bit of philosophy can cut through the crap.. and there is a lot of crap around today :)
plus its often good to know not just what you do but why you do it .. nuff said eh?
Fraterculae 2 years ago
these text replies get posted all out of order so no-one knows who i'm replying to %(
compatibility was re-seeing my old interview with RD .. old film fornats etc.
:)
Fraterculae 2 years ago
a very gifted healer friend of mine used to ask her clients "would you like to know why you are ill? or would you like to be well?" This highlights something for me. Many brainy people seemed more focused on knowing than with growing or recovering.
Fraterculae 2 years ago
" "would you like to know why you are ill? or would you like to be well?" "
I get your point, but would it be wrong to ask for both?
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
philosophically, no .. a great overall stance to take. But there seems to be this 'single pointed' state of mind in which it is more real and more powerful to 'be oneself' and from that state of mind to desire/choose health.
it is the direct connection to the pure self which is the difference . not a social or political explanation of ones condition .. but a state that puts pure self awareness in the driving seat. hard to explain!
Fraterculae 2 years ago
many different viewpoints are useful, valuable, necessary .. some people should adopt fundamentalist stances i think .. and society as a whole has to be wise enough to balance these things. Richard Dawkins worries me because i expect him to be more wise and balanced given his chosen role. He should know the limitations of his craft.
Fraterculae 2 years ago
" i expect him to be more wise and balanced"
I wouldn't exactly call him an unstable fool, but It's true, we could all use a little wisdom and balance.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
i interviewed him once .. he was sharp and cutting .. didn't seem to have access to a balanced perspective.. although that might well be his career persona.
Fraterculae 2 years ago
We could all use better manners, too. I'd like to see that interview.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
suspect we would have compatibility problems with that :)
Hey i always bemoaned how someone so enlightened as Alan Watts could have such poor human relationships and effectively drink himself to death, whilst Dawkins, i note, makes rather good marital decisions and has little chance of a death hastened by alcohol. Then it occured to me that Watts' progeny = 7 and Dawkins = 1 . Survival of the cynical, fecundity of the lyrical? :)
Fraterculae 2 years ago
Eastern religion likes to expand the mind to encompass reality .. western mind likes to fit reality into its own narrow mind. i fear that we will come to understand consciousness in a western way.. by messing with it, pulling it to pieces and controlling it (in other people that is). :(
Fraterculae 3 years ago 2
Thanks.
gerontodon 2 years ago
An infinite number of thumbs up to Fraterculae and no returns.
gerontodon 2 years ago
" i fear that we will come to understand consciousness in a western way"
Personally, I think understanding, from whatever perspective it can be achieved, is not something to fear. I also think there are valuable things that can be learned in the pursuit of understanding, regardless of whether some deem it unnecessary or impossible, or not.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
i think the issue is bandwidth. Most folk can only focus on a small number of things at any one time. If your mind is filled with one or two narrow and partial perspectives .. it can be worse than no knowledge. I agree it is great for there to be lots of information out there gleaned from lots of different perspectives .. but many scientists are dreadful for portraying theirs as the only truth.
Fraterculae 2 years ago
" Most folk can only focus on a small number of things at any one time"
That may be true, but a narrow focus isn't always a bad thing. At the very least it's another point of view we open-minded foldks can celebrate.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
I know I've had my time on the soap-box here, but.... I think a narrow focus IS a bad thing when it is dishonestly or mistakenly presented as something that it is not. Dawkins presents a 19th century reductionist view as the only honest and intelligent view. So does Dennett, though he, at least, gets more metaphysical. I have thought about this as much as most, and see no reason to believe that they are right. Just because a view's grim doesn't make it true. That's another kind of romanticism.
gerontodon 2 years ago
subjective consciousness in its pure form can be experienced and understood with perfect lucidity and clarity only through MEDITATION. I highly doubt whether science can answer this timeless philosophical problem b/c subjective experience is an experience, not a physical or material substance.
satchitananda24 3 years ago
Absolutely !! you have to conceive of the perceiver too in order to ask the question. the truth requires immersion .. it's not a thought experiment !! I could shake him!!
Fraterculae 3 years ago
I know the answer!
God has created a soul for every human being, making us able to feel and think
superkimmathisen 3 years ago
There is a vedic parable:- A little sparrow buids a nest by the sea, and a freak wave captures it, and washes it out to sea. The little sparrow in desperation tries to rescue it's young, but fearful they would drown, decides to empty the ocean, back and forth, this little sparrow sips a little water and spits it on land, to the amusement of the demigods. Lord Garuda hears of this, and offers to help, the ocean in terror returns the nest to shore. (Little brains can't fathom ocean deep problems!)
WarzSchoolchild 3 years ago
>"Little brains can't fathom ocean deep problems"
Little brains have little choice but to try, as there will be little help from Lord Garuda.
methinxaweezil 3 years ago
It's a fable, and also a sacred one. Lord Garuda is the Bird Carrier of Visnu. The Vedic Civilization, by reports, was far more advanced than ours. They describe our planet being formed 4,320,000,000 years ago by Lord Brahma. Described as constructed by Celestial Architect Vishvakarma. These were bedtime stories for their kids. The Scriptures get more advanced later on. Interplanetary travel was the norm. They speak of "Time Dilation" effects, etc. Sadly this treasure of knowledge is ignored.
WarzSchoolchild 3 years ago
Little brains might want to realise when they are trying to do something unnecessary and impossible like, as Alan Watts put it "trying to bite your own teeth". I couldn't put it better than you did: "science is a working model that describes the real thing, there is probably always going to be an elusive, illusory aspect to it."
gerontodon 2 years ago
Alan Watts... now there was a guy who knew a thing or two about consciousness.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
My interpretation of what Alan Watts leads me to believe that he wouldn't believe it possible or necessary to know objectively what it is that is knowing. I don't say it is impossible or unnecessary to say more and more about the way our minds work. That is probably enlightening. In my opinion, it is wrong-headed, and needlessly depressing, to feel that the objective description of the subject actually is the subject. I think it encourages fundamentalism to do so as well.
gerontodon 2 years ago
Of course there are different reasons to be depressed about the content of our minds. I'm sure I would be depressed about a lot of excuses for myself if I faced them, but if I faced them they would no longer be me, and so they never really were. Looking at it that way, a lot of religionists probably do want to cling to their own little views. That's a different matter. Maybe the idea that description is reality has to be held until it's obvious that it isn't. It doesn't seem to be helpful to me.
gerontodon 2 years ago
"to feel that the objective description of the subject actually is the subject. "
I've read enough Dawkins to say I'm pretty sure he doesn'[t hold this view at all. His interest as a scientist is from a biological / evolutionary point of view, and I'm pretty sure he understands that represents only one small aspect of what we we are able to understand about consciousness.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
I am sure he does hold the view that consciousness can be objectively understood and that, in principle, we could be able to say "that's it". It's true that, unlike Atkins or Dennett, he doesn't address the question. I think he considers the answer so obvious that the question doesn't occur to him. In this video he says he wants to know what makes redness red. We must already have a fairly good description of what happens in our brain when we see red. He isn't just asking for a better one.
gerontodon 2 years ago
I don't think Dawkins has any illusions about what a difficult question this is, and I don't have any worries that he or anyone else plans to stick consciousness into an objective bottle and say "that's it".
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
ok then, maybe you're right, but I don't feel that way. He himself said, in The God Delusion, that he doesn't care what sort of god someone says they believe in, he thinks it's all crap (or words to that effect). If he really felt that the world was inherently mysterious, he wouldn't be so scathing about religion. As I say, you might see this clearer than me, he is true humanist. I think he's also a complete reductionist and reductionism makes me feel fake. Dostoevsky put it better than I could.
gerontodon 2 years ago
"he thinks it's all crap"
I got interested in his popular science writing a long time ago and I much prefer that to his recent opinion based writing. i fully understand that he is not everyone's cup of tea.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
"reductionism makes me feel fake"
That would make a nice bumper sticker.
Thanks for your great comments. Great user name too, BTW.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
Thanks, I've run out of steam now though.
I agree - Dawkins' popular science writing is good. You can take the selfish gene metaphor with a pinch of salt and still think it's a good metaphor.
My user name is growing on me. Yours is really good.
gerontodon 2 years ago
@gerontodon can you explain what you mean by "reductionism makes me feel fake"?
JinxOz 1 year ago
@JinxOz
I think I meant that the idea that motives ultimately have mechanistic explanations, as are given in evolutionary psychology, for example, *can* lead to excessive self-consciousness, and a feeling of lack of authenticity. I think that for me, it can become hard to discern real motives from theoretical ones-- and I think an over- 'reductionist' approach to psychology is a factor in that.
.
gerontodon 1 year ago
@JinxOz
I know 'reductionism' is ambiguous-- many people aren't 'reductionist', in that they don't think that reality is necessarily linear and composed of discrete parts-- they might still say that it's ultimately sayable, tho, and I think that the idea that reality is ultimately unsayable, is another kind of 'non-reductionism''
gerontodon 1 year ago
@JinxOz haha i can explain nihilistic feelings under reductionism, your motives are totally superficial, your a disposable thing, like a slowly rotting fruit. nobody truly gives a damn about you including yourself TO AN EXTENT, Your love is just a chemical feedback mechanism to get you closer to getting laid before you turn to wormfood,
JustinParizisViary 1 year ago
erm .. have you seen the latest research into synaesthesia from cambridge .. ? claiming it to be 'god's gift' to the advertising industry ?? !! talk about selling your soul! or other people's souls rather...
Fraterculae 2 years ago
I won't ask why, I don't want to know (though I sort of do). Fair enough anyway.
I haven't seen that research, it does seem a bit lacking in taste if advertising was the first thing they thought of - or if it had to have any use at all for that matter.
There's something in your theory, Watts had more of a live for today attitude, which went with his philosophy. Dawkins takes life more seriously, and so is more sensible. It sort of falls down with Krishnamurti, but there's something in it.
gerontodon 2 years ago
Such a beautiful story! It implies that the bird is rewarded for trying .. even though it couldnt achieve the result alone.
Fraterculae 3 years ago
Thanks Fraterculae, Scripture allows poetic licence. It makes the content 'memorable'.
The hymns forming the basis of the Sama Veda were vibrated by the flapping wings of the Lord's carrier, Garuda. In the Vedic literature it is stated that the two wings of the transcendental bird Garuda, who carries the Lord everywhere, are two divisions of the Sama Veda known as brhat and rathantara. Garuda works as the carrier of the Lord;
Garuda eats elephants, as woodpeckers eat tiny grubs...LICENCE!
WarzSchoolchild 3 years ago
How do hard line atheists explain infinity? It can't be measured by science, you can't say 10/3=3.333 recurring is a fact because its unmeasurable. But science relies on the acceptance of infinity as a basis to test other things. Its a belief, how do you justify one belief and not another?
ENABLERart 3 years ago
>"How do hard line atheists explain infinity?"
How does anyone explain it? And how does that relate to this video?
methinxaweezil 3 years ago
Infinity relates to subjective consciousness, it can't be proven but is widely accepted though belief hence it is subjective and exists in the consciousness. How do I explain infinity? I don't have to because I'm not a hard line scientist who believes only measurable phenomena exists. Don't you see the hypocrisy of atheism? BTW i'm not religious, I'm just asking a question.
ENABLERart 3 years ago
Why do atheists in particular have to explain infinity? And surely you must concede that in order to explain the term you've thrown out at a particular group to explain, the term must first be defined. And that is *your* task. [waiting...]
kingthamus 3 years ago
Your first sentence could be rewritten so that it is comprehensible. Also, I do not see "the hypocrisy of atheism." Could you elucidate it for me? First, you should be made aware that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God/gods. Now, proceed...
kingthamus 3 years ago
Also if you bothered to read my question it was "how do you justify one belief and not another" not "how do you explain infinity?" completely different.
ENABLERart 3 years ago
Lol, my apologies, ok I did ask that to begin with (I can't read my own questions this morning) but my real question is "how do you justify one belief and not another?"
ENABLERart 3 years ago
explain to me how nothing could go on forever.
Perhaps as you attempt that you will ask yourself what if nothing had a boundary. What if we were made of 99% nothing and the universe too.After you have considered these things truly, then consider a human like entity( in the image of )bearded man from a religion based on an egyptian set of rules being the definition of LOGOS which the bible even faled to name simply saying 'inthe beginning was the, unable to translate (word)and the word was..
thomasbryn1 3 years ago
have you read any Victor Stenger books? The Unconscious Quantum is next on my list to read.
howLowTheMoon 3 years ago 2
I just read the chapter in "The Comprehensible Cosmos" that you referenced. That's really clearly written stuff even a caveman could understand. Thanks, I will definitely be picking up some Stenger.
Somehow there seems to be a direct connection between Stenger's characterization of the act of observation as a process of kicking and measuring what is kicked back, Dawkin's questions about subjective consciousness, and Paula Deen's creamy mushroom bacon peppercorn 'taters. Must look into that.
methinxaweezil 3 years ago
Thanks methinx, don't people just love to take science out of context to justify their own wild beliefs?
howLowTheMoon 3 years ago
Answer- When you realize we are all connected on a meta-physical (spiritual) level, the idea of the separation of consciousness on the physical plane shows itself for the utter joke it is.
goatyboy2007 3 years ago
I realized that once, then realized later that my former realization was an illusion. So which realization would be the correct one?
The process of testing the validity of your realizations is basically what we call science. If you know a better way I'd like to hear it.
methinxaweezil 3 years ago
I would agree. I'm not knocking science, it's certainly preferable to have an established system of the like in which the validity of claims are questioned and tested as opposed to the failings organized faith for example. I just find that most f the questions that Richard Dawkin's has have been addressed by other meta-sciences (aincient vedic science for example)
goatyboy2007 3 years ago
i think you are on to something also when you say that your realisations are illusiory. The aincient texts of India talk about the physical plane of reality as 'Maya' which translates as illusion, but now i probably sound no better than a bible thumper quoting my beloved texts! oh the endless paradox's! =P
Personally I can appreciate the idea of Maya more clearly when i
goatyboy2007 3 years ago
consider the 'observer effect' phenomenon of Quantum Physics whereby the very act of observing alters what is being viewed....
The question therefore (to me anyway) becomes less What is the nature of reality? and more How do i want to percieve reality? if that makes sense?
goatyboy2007 3 years ago