Problems understanding Brains do not exist video

[beastmode]

On 11/28/2017 at 1:29 PM, Leo Gura said:

Take a close look at people like Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carol, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris. << These people claim to represent science but they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to understanding the ultimate nature of reality

Sadly, I think Michio Kaku may also belong to this list?

 

[beastmode]

@Socrates @SOUL @MM1988 @Serotoninluv @Leo Gura Great conversation guys, but let's not forget (even you Leo!) that we must be responsible Pyrrhonists here...

Let's not hold any beliefs and use the power of BOTH Philosophy AND Science to further enrich our experience of life!

Some scientists place insufficient focus on the connection or lack thereof between neural activity and consciousness/experience. Deepak reveals this in the video post by Socrates.

But let's not forget that it was good old mathematics [ancient Mesopotamian farmers' discovery of geometry] that really jumpstarted our investigation into the meaning of the Universe's mystical order, the self, cognition. 

Heyyy this is Leo-Leo is much less critical of science than Blog-Leo. Hey Blog-Leo, keep that mind open man! Wouldn't Phyrrho mark us down for closing our minds off to the possibility that science, proceeding as it is, could actually help humanity acheive planetary enlightenment?

 

[Leo Gura]

@beastmode I'm not anti-science. I am merely pointing out its limits and blindspots.

The meaning of the universe's mystical order was realized thousands of years before the invention of mathematics.

[Edvard]

@Leo Gura Several scientists don't dismiss many of the things on your list above. Many scientists are still closeminded thinking they're openminded, but many are also not. I think you are generalizing the vast differences you find out there. It's true that Bill Nye, Neil dTyson, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins don't know everything, and sometimes think they can define what there is reason to think is true. That's true, but they're certainly far more evolved than religious people, because they have moved away from fundamentalism (meaning that they are not closed 100% to new ideas). When asked what happens when you die, they don't answer with certainty other than that the brain will rot. Apart from that they may say what they believe and what there is good reason to think. I do think they're wrong in that, but when it comes to Sam Harris, he has openly said; «I'm not saying you just get a dial tone after death.  I simply DON'T KNOW what to think about death. I think we should be doubtful to the notion that the mind can just migrate to a better place». He has also said many many times: «counsciousness is the only thing we can be certain is not an illusion». He may be wrong on many things, but he does not belong in the company of Dawkins, Krauss and Nye. The right answer when you don't know is: I don't know, which many scientists follow, so please don't generalize. And I think you're misrepresenting, be more accurate when representing other people, address what they have actually said. And not long ago, you yourself thought we were mortal. 

I agree a lot about flaws in science, but I also think that you are totally overexaggerating here, and talking about it as if it universally by default says this and that, when that's not true at all. And the other thing about science is that it works, that's why it was invented. It creates planes, and this is universal. You aren't bound to believe anything just because you created a plane or an iphone, or figured out evolution or the Big Bang through the methods of science. Another point is that science can make predictions. One can predict chemical reactions, that something's gonna fall because of gravity, asteroids approaching earth, etc. Given the consistent world we live in it's only reasonable to make the assumption that it's material, like it's just a tool. Science sometimes has to make assumptions, and a good scientist admit those assumptions. Because IT WORKS, it creates things and predicts things. And what scientists believe about the metaphysics vary a lot, and I think that science in the future will get rid of the materialist paradigm, and people already have. And yes, it has it's flaws and is often arrogant.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Edvard

[Faceless]

As long as scientists know that knowledge is limited there is no problem. Knowledge is always partial, limited, and can only capture a fragment of the whole. It’s the narrowing down from the whole and the process of classification. The whole can not be captured by that which is a part. 

This is a fact that few great scientist understand. 

[Edvard]

19 minutes ago, Faceless said:

This is a fact that few great scientist understand. 

What other field is filled with people who understand that?

[Faceless]

This is something that one can see by inquiry into thought which is knowledge. 

Its obvious to anyone who understands the limitations of themselves. 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Faceless

[Faceless]

A capacity to see beyond ones conditioning.

[Faceless]

A great scientist needs to see and understand the nature and structure of thought itself. Which means they are also aware of there conditioning and the various dispositions that they hold. Conciousness should be understood when it comes to having a solid foundation for a scientist to keep a line of rationality going without any kind of distortion to what is being observed. A good scientist not only needs to have great capacity to accumulate various forms of knowledge, but also needs to understand the substance and limits of knowledge/thought.

Science is important for the obvious reasons and thought has it’s place. In this art/form of discipline, objective observation can be  applied with great care. However thought not applied with care is very dangerous and creates such insecurity in the world. Both in our views and dispositions of our place in the universe which effect relationships with one another “division”, but also the obvious technological advancements that can wipe the planet out.

If we are going to use thought to our advantage we should know it’s limits. 

 

[Leo Gura]

@Edvard No... actually the situation with science is much worse than I have yet described. I have only pointed out the tip of the iceberg.

The fact that people defend science so readily, just goes to show the depth of the problem.

People defend science in precisely the same way that Republicans defend Trump or Roy Moore, or Catholics defend pedophile priests. It's not an issue of truth, it's an issue of self-bias and partisanship.

Science is incredibly difficult to criticize and reform precisely because it is held by our culture as the one standard of truth that all sane, intelligent people agree on. But the fact is, 99.99% of all the science you know is purely hearsay, purely belief-based for you. It only feels truer than religion because it's YOUR particular brand of religion. And as you know, people defend their religions to the death. Well.... surprise, surprise! That's precisely what you and folks like Sam Harris are doing. You just aren't aware you're doing it, because you've set a double-standard for yourself which excuses all your unjustified, faith-based beliefs as "but that's science!"

Science is an ever-evolving cultural norm despite it being highly useful for manipulating reality. Precisely because it is so useful, you are willing to defend it to the death.

[Edvard]

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Edvard No... actually the situation with science is much worse than I have yet described. I have only pointed out the tip of the iceberg.

The fact that people defend science so readily, just goes to show the depth of the problem.

People defend science in precisely the same way that Republicans defend Trump or Roy Moore, or Catholics defend pedophile priests. It's not an issue of truth, it's an issue of self-bias and partisanship.

Science is incredibly difficult to criticize and reform precisely because it is held by our culture as the one standard of truth that all sane, intelligent people agree on. But the fact is, 99.99% of all the science you know is purely hearsay, purely belief-based for you. It only feels truer than religion because it's YOUR particular brand of religion. And as you know, people defend their religions to the death. Well.... surprise, surprise! That's precisely what you and folks like Sam Harris are doing. You just aren't aware you're doing it, because you've set a double-standard for yourself which excuses all your unjustified, faith-based beliefs as "but that's science!"

Science is an ever-evolving cultural norm despite it being highly useful for manipulating reality. Precisely because it is so useful, you are willing to defend it to the death.

Well, I did say I agree with you a lot, and it wasn't as much a defence of how science is practiced today as it was pointing out you generalizing and painting everybody with a broad brush.  I said, if you wanna criticize people, I suggest you address things they have actually said, instead of effectively saying Krauss, Dawkins, Nye, Tyson and Harris are all the same. What's wrong about saying, "I don't know"? I think there is a spectrum here. Some are more materialistic and dogmatic than others, and of these people I would probably put Dennett as most materialistic, and Harris in the other end. Again, what has Harris said that is dogmatic? I'm curious. He has admitted that consciousness is subjective. He doesn't believe in free will, while Dennett's a compatibalist. It seems Harris probably would be careful talking about claims of paranormal activities and witchcraft and all that, but he certainly seems to not be as arrogant, and even contemplates whether Buddhism is actually true, on his podcast. And, unless you are conscious of what you Leo, are saying, you can't exactly say that it's true either. Well, maybe psychedelics... But Harris has taken that too, i.e. LSD. And he does think it could be a useful tool for investigating the mind. And comparing it with religious fundamentalism is kind of silly, when this seem to come down to spiral dynamics a lot.

And it could also be useful to distinguish between scientists to understand who that is going in the right direction, who's leading the evolution.

Who of Dennett, Krauss, Dawkins, Tyson, Nye and Harris do you think is the most and the least dogmatic. Or are they all the same? 

 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Edvard

[Faceless]

Scientific dogmas like religious dogmas are similar in that an idividual tends to develop a vested interst in a presupposition, premis, or belief. Part of the reason why thought tends to be limited is the non awareness of this bias position that is held in a theory, concept, and idea. There is a need to self sustain and validate onesself in order to maintain a sense of security and so on. Thought without perception of this actuality in movement will inevitably deceive itself in what it stands by as fact. 

Now it’s seems rather obvious that the dogmas of science are much more subtle than those of organized religion. Organized religion has no sense of subtlety. 

Never the less the dogmas of scientific theory were born in the death of the dogmas of organized religion. Same pattern different convictions. 

I don’t know much of these scientific characters listed above but anyone who sees the actuality of the process of the self would tend to be less dogmatic. 

At least I would think so. 

 

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, Edvard said:

Well, I did say I agree with you a lot, and it wasn't as much a defence of how science is practiced today as it was pointing out you generalizing and painting everybody with a broad brush.  I said, if you wanna criticize people, I suggest you address things they have actually said, instead of effectively saying Krauss, Dawkins, Nye, Tyson and Harris are all the same. What's wrong about saying, "I don't know"? I think there is a spectrum here. Some are more materialistic and dogmatic than others, and of these people I would probably put Dennett as most materialistic, and Harris in the other end. Again, what has Harris said that is dogmatic? I'm curious. He has admitted that consciousness is subjective. He doesn't believe in free will, while Dennett's a compatibalist. It seems Harris probably would be careful talking about claims of paranormal activities and witchcraft and all that, but he certainly seems to not be as arrogant, and even contemplates whether Buddhism is actually true, on his podcast. And, unless you are conscious of what you Leo, are saying, you can't exactly say that it's true either. Well, maybe psychedelics... But Harris has taken that too, i.e. LSD. And he does think it could be a useful tool for investigating the mind. And comparing it with religious fundamentalism is kind of silly, when this seem to come down to spiral dynamics a lot.

And it could also be useful to distinguish between scientists to understand who that is going in the right direction, who's leading the evolution.

Who of Dennett, Krauss, Dawkins, Tyson, Nye and Harris do you think is the most and the least dogmatic. Or are they all the same?

I'm not really interested in criticizing individual people or scientists. I'm more interested in science as a whole, as a culture, as an epistemic framework. My critiques are aimed at the epistemic framework which is governing all those people you talk about: Dennett, Krauss, Harris, etc.

That said, all of them are dogmatic and wrong in various ways. I find it rather pointless to get into who is more wrong, or who is more dogmatic. That's rather irrelevant. What matters is that they have very obvious bindspots in their worldviews which could easily be corrected if they were more openminded and more willing to investigate the limitations of the scientific/rationalist epistemic framework.

Dawkins & Dennett seem the most closedminded of the bunch. Dakwins especially is a crusader for materialism, without being conscious of just how mistaken his entire worldview is. I understand why he does it, but that does not save him.

Harris has his own unique flavors of dogma. He's very wrapped up in rationalism, to a fault. His understanding of psychedelics is very limited. If he believes that consciousness takes place in a brain, well, he's very wrong about that. I'm not exactly sure what he believes, but a grasp of the Absolute nature of reality, and the inner workings of epistemology, he does not have. He's also very moralistic, which shows me that he is not conscious that all of morality and ethics is a human invention.

Once you reach certain high levels of consciousness, it becomes extremely clear who gets it, and who doesn't. There are subtle but clear cues you can read off people. People who have never experienced such levels of consciousness cannot even imagine what they don't know and the cue they're giving of. A highly conscious person can read two paragraphs of any book written by a man and accurately gauge that author's level of delusion, consciousness, and grasp of reality. You can literally go down a bookshelf throwing 95% of the books into the trashcan after reading a page or two. This includes most science books and most of the works written by the people above. Sam Harris' book might be one exception which has some redeeming value because he's actually done some consciousness work. Although it only scratches the surface of consciousness.

Saying "I don't know" is not enough. Beyond that there is actual consciousness of extraordinary existential truths.

As far as I can see, none of these people has ever experienced Absolute Infinity. Which basically means that everything they think they know about reality is just a story. It works well for their audience who isn't very conscious. But it does not pass muster AT ALL with me, or anyone who's done serious consciousness work. A real yogi would just laugh at their ideas. The extent of their misunderstanding of reality is so massive, it would take a hundred hours to explicate it all. The mind is ingenious at self-justifying its worldviews and spinning air-tight-looking paradigms. It would take me a few years to write a book explaining all the ways in which such people are mistaken. And even so, such a book would just end up getting demonized by them. Don't expect such people to admit that they are wrong, no matter how much evidence you present or how well you reason with them. It's not a matter of reason. It's matter of self-preservation. Their entire lives and careers are at stake here. Their children's ability to eat is at stake. They would rather die than let that go.

It's not their fault. They are not bad people. They are just not very conscious. As 99.999% of all humans aren't.

Again, don't believe me. You must investigate the truth of things for yourself. I am just sharing my observations. If these people were really openminded, and we had like 10 hours, I could sit down with each of them and show them exactly where their metaphysics and epistemology is mistaken, and all the real-world consequences this has in their personal lives, professional lives, and their ability to understand mankind, history, science, evolution, medicine, religion, philosophy, mathematics, etc.

[MM1988]

@Leo Gura I would love to see you debate a scientist at one point. Do you think that would be possible in the future?
 

[beastmode]

3 hours ago, MM1988 said:

@Leo Gura I would love to see you debate a scientist at one point. Do you think that would be possible in the future?
 

@Leo Gura I second this! You would go beast mode on these people!!! Again though, not worth your time probably. They aren't open minded like us ?

[Nahm]

 

 

[Faceless]

If consciousness which is thought is a material process doesn’t it take place in the brain? 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Faceless

[Faceless]

7 minutes ago, Faceless said:

If consciousness which is thought is a material process doesn’t it take place in the brain? 

 I mean we don’t “know” otherwise do we?

Edited December 11, 2017 by Faceless

[Nahm]

That video can’t really be ‘understood’ so to speak. It requires transcendence of thinking.

[Faceless]

@Nahm ...what video?