We are talking about information and in the case of humans we usually talk about God in this context.
You must be careful how you use that term 'God'. If used in the Christian sense, that there was this grampa-like figure that created man, then you should be aware that this is not the sense in which it is used by Alan Watts or Buddhism. Again, I strongly recommend you read those two chapters.
So you finally concede this world is not purely a material one? Then your arguments against consciousness slowly disintegrate as you provide no other explanation for it....
Oh, also, you should first familiarize yourself with what those eastern ideas actually are, and the best way to do that would be to start by reading those first two chapters by Alan Watts that I linked to in my original post.
Thanks for taking interest. Check out my replies to Illserve, towards the end I give a few examples. Also, if you're really interested, there's a book on the subject called "The Self-Aware Universe" by Amit Goswami, Ph.D. in physics at the University of Oregon.
Heh, here's a fun quote for you. Niels Bohr, who had the materialistic mindset of yours, was visited by Schrodinger. While Schrodinger explained to him the idea of the quantum jump (the idea that small particles vanish from the material world and instantaneously appear in another location), Bohr protested for days. Finally he gave in and said: "If I had known that one has to accept this damned quantum jump, I'd never have gotten involved with quantum mechanics!":-D
Neither Alan Watts, nor the Dali Lama, nor myself, would disagree with you when you say "stick to science". Never have I said you should not, in fact I'm a great proponent of it. As I have shown, it is the other way around, "western" scientists are the ones who do not stick to science. They scoff at their own results, and say things like "God does not play dice".
Self awareness has a clear evolutionary advantage in allowing us to evaluate our own actions before we take them, and to evaluate their consequences after we have taken them.
Sure, it may have an evolutionary advantage, but so would the ability to shoot laser beams out of our eyes. That's hardly a sufficient explanation of why we are self-aware. In the biological and your "empirical" mindset (which I wouldn't call very empirical at all because you refuse to even try and experience any of these higher levels of thought; i.e. meditation, LSD, etc), it would make much more sense for evolution to continue without the introduction of self-awareness. *You* are here. You experience the world from your eyes while you could have been just like some common animal. Why is that so? Can you explain that? Sure it's because our mind is "better", but what makes it better? The fact that there is this ability in this world, to become self-conscious, is incredible. DId you know that most humans don't have a self, meaning they are not self-conscious until they are *taught* how to be aware of themselves (at around the age of 3 btw). It's a fact, ask your local sociologist about it.
You misunderstand the utility of a simple theoretical framework if you claim it must explain everything before it can explain anything. We are limited in our ability to understand complex theories because our brains are only the science of a small cantelope.
Where did I misunderstand its utility?? I told you I know full well the usefulness of Newtonian mechanics. And then you go on to suggest that we might not even be able to understand "it"? Oh yeah, that's real empirical of you.
You have no data to support your assertion that self-awareness is a special quality that can only be explained with QM.
Here's a simple example: An electron does not have a definite position until someone or something observes it. Here's another: If you repeat a quantum experiment and perfectly duplicate the environment, you will still get different results based on probabilities (i.e. the electron showed up there this time, and there that time). This suggests that the act of conscious observation affects the environment. I'll have to get back to you later with even more examples if you want, I'm still not done reading this book.
Absolutely incorrect. I can tell you for a fact that explaining consciousness is a priority of biological science.
Well, I'll give you that, it's not really a major point anyway. I was just trying to point out that the way biology views it, there's no reason for us to be aware of our surroundings and ourselves. You've yet to give a response to that point.
Not flawed, incomplete. Just because a theoretical framework cannot explain everything does not make it wrong, it's just too simplistic to accomodate all of the data.
Believe me, as I have a background in physics I know very well that Newtonian mechanics works very well for explaining everyday, ordinary observations. However, it is indeed flawed when it comes to answer the question of: what is the true reality of the universe? It fails miserably at answering that, in fact it is downright wrong. QM seems to provide the answer to that, however, with the mindset like yours, most scientists simply disregard it. Their disbelief goes so far that it caused Einstein to say: "God does not play dice". Well since then he's been proven wrong. God does play with dice, and there are no hidden variables. Check out the EPR paradox for more details.
You're so stubborn in your classical mindset that you refuse to acknowledge the facts right in front of you and dismiss them as bullshit "mysticism". Sure, no one's arguing that your mind doesn't occur because of your brain, that's not what they're saying. Again, I can repeat myself for you as many times as you like, but it is truly confounding that we are self-aware at all. In the classical mindset, there is no reason whatsoever for us to be self-aware, and classical physics fails horribly at explaining the quantum world, which is really the world we live in.
Well, it seems like the only hope for this cancer is to be able to escape the host that it has destroyed then? It seems to me like you'd better start investing in NASA then, because according to the vast majority of scientists, we don't have much time if we continue this cancerous behavior.
They do indeed say that classical physics cannot explain it. That's because classical physics is flawed--that's a scientific fact. As for biology, its purpose does not involve answering that question. It will never answer it because that's not its area. If you object to this, then acknowledge this fact that I have been trying to tell you several times already:
According to your own beliefs, there should be no reason that we are conscious at all, it would be just as likely that life continued in the way it has, television and all, without our being aware of it.
I suggest you seriously consider reading the first chapter from that link so that we can stop all these misunderstandings.
Then you completely and utterly misunderstand me. Alan Watts, Hinduism, and Buddhism do not treat consciousness as a deep, mysterious "secret". No, they attempt to provide an answer to it. And if we take your view of it, then it truly is mysterious! Science has failed to identify it. Once again:
According to your own beliefs, there should be no reason that we are conscious at all, it would be just as likely that life continued in the way it has, television and all, without our being aware of it.
The "secret" of consciousness is that there is no secret. Just because people are fascinated by a problem doesn't make it profound. I myself enjoy picking my nose too, and likely will for the remainder of my days, but that doesn't mean my nose is deeply mysterious.
So... you first say it's not a secret, then you admit it's a problem. Then you equate picking your nose to consciousness.
I'm aware that animals display varying degrees of consciousness, but unlike you, I think it's fascinating, not boring. According to your own beliefs, there should be no reason that we are conscious at all, it would be just as likely that life continued in the way it has, television and all, without our being aware of it.
BTW, Alan Watts does not talk much about QM, however he uses more obvious scientific observations to dispel the notion of an isolated ego in a bag of skin (do you subscribe to this viewpoint btw?). Amit Goswami is a physicist who believes in what you're talking about. Slightly off-topic, but do you know why we're self-aware as opposed to other animals? (and don't just say our brain is more advanced, that's like saying a car works because it has fuel inside of it; obvious). Finally, what do you think is the "secret" of consciousness? (this probably will overlap with the previous question)
Why do I suspect that this boils down to "mystical things are mysterious and so is Quantum physics, therefore the two are related"?
Because you don't understand.
Q physics gets related to everything that people don't understand. It's often a substitute for the unknowable divine for people who find the concepts of God and the supernatural distasteful but yet want to believe in something beyond the ordinary.
Are you sure that isn't the case for you?
Fairly sure. I really didn't say much in my post other than the fact that certain eastern ideas have very strong backing in QM. Now, how is it that from that statement you're able to extract any sort of conclusion on what I mean by it? You can't, you can only assume you know, obviously.:-)
So my advice to you, is to not jump to these assumptions, because for all you know I could hold a Ph.D. Quantum Mechanics (Actually I don't, but Amit Goswami does). A better question you could have asked would be: "Oh really? And just what are those correlations?"
One more thing: you're right that nobody in western science truly understands QM. Could this be because the actual explanation flies directly in the face of their metaphysical assumptions about life and so they refuse to even consider it as a possibility?
Ah, thanks for that post. You are right, my post could have definitely stood to be clearer and therefore I made this clarification.
To answer your question: No, Watts does not say that you should disown technology and live among the untouchables. The man was born in the west and taught at Harvard. He was a very intelligent person and so you should at the very least try and hear him out. I'm a programmer and am agnostic, although I also believe in certain eastern ideas that you may consider "mystical", however, if you really study up on it, you will see that they are not, and in fact have a very strong backing in Quantum Physics (the Self-Aware Universe by Amit Goswami, Ph.D comes to mind).
Furthermore, it is possible to induce "mystical experiences" without practicing meditation for years (it's called LSD, DMT, etc). Either way, I sincerely appreciate your post, and I hope you give this guy a chance, I'm sure that if you do you'll see that he's not some wacko "mystic" but one of the most intelligent human beings to have ever lived.:-)
You're not being very open minded are you? Watts certainly did not starve himself as "cows strolled by". He was not advocating all aspects of Hinduism, and in fact he preferred Buddhism. Watts was a scholar and interpreter of Eastern philosophy. He picked out the philosophical ideas that made the most sense to him and explain them to westerners. The man taught at Harvard for crying out loud! Thanks for attempting to read it, but you won't get very far if you refuse to hear him out. At the very least you have to admit that you can't critique that which you refuse to attempt to understand.
Too many people seem to be completely misinterpreting what I have said. Please understand that when I say "Western Society" and "Western Culture", I'm not referring to a geographical location, or an ethnic group, but rather a cultural mindset that anybody on any part of the globe can have (including those living in the East). I'm a big supporter of technology (programmer by profession), and so support many of the advances in technology that many of you enjoy as well. I'm simply critiquing a certain mindset, and had I been more careful in my word choice I think there would have been less of an uproar over that post. Unfortunately I don't plan on writing another essay on the subject, so if you're confused and interested in understanding what it was exactly that I said, please check out the links to Alan Watts in my original post, he's a much better writer and speaker than I am.
No "days of yore", sorry, and you can go ahead and drive your car. I'm just talking about a different mindset, that's all. I should have mentioned that I'm a big supporter of technology in my post, perhaps it would have trimmed down the confusion.
I'm sorry. Your "words of wisdom" became cliches about thirty years ago. The rest of the world has moved on.
The world has moved on? Really? I'd have to strongly disagree there.
Yeah, plenty of people still worship at the altar of consumerism but as wealth has spread people have learned that being wealthy isn't the only thing they need to be happy.
Skimming over the replies to my post seems to indicate otherwise.
It seems your study of eastern philosophy hasn't done much for your egoism. You are negatively defining your self against the other, "I'm not that." Guess what? You are that. Until you deal with it you'll be trapped in that little ego you hate so much.
I'm not sure if you're actually being intelligent here or not. I know that I am "that", but perhaps we mean different things. What I don't approve of is a certain mindset.
You completely misinterpreted what I said. I never claimed that the progress achieved by western culture was a negative thing, in fact I'm a great supporter of it. It's the mindset that's lacking and it's what has lead to the destruction of this planet. Perhaps you don't "believe" in global warming or pollution and its consequences? These have been brought on by western culture's flawed mindset and estrangement from its environment.
Your views of life correlate to those of some culture, and again, living in the west does not mean that they necessarily correlate with that one. I have a feeling you'd be surprised with how much you'd agree with what Watts says.
Not to my knowledge, and he's certainly not a supporter of it. He breaks down the mythology of Hinduism and picks the philosophical ideas that he likes.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be careful how you use that term 'God'. If used in the Christian sense, that there was this grampa-like figure that created man, then you should be aware that this is not the sense in which it is used by Alan Watts or Buddhism. Again, I strongly recommend you read those two chapters.
So you finally concede this world is not purely a material one? Then your arguments against consciousness slowly disintegrate as you provide no other explanation for it....
No shit? I don't disagree with a single thing you said. Oh, and I made no "error".
You're a far way from understanding what I mean, and your presumptuous attitude makes me less inclined to help you.
Oh, also, you should first familiarize yourself with what those eastern ideas actually are, and the best way to do that would be to start by reading those first two chapters by Alan Watts that I linked to in my original post.
Thanks for taking interest. Check out my replies to Illserve, towards the end I give a few examples. Also, if you're really interested, there's a book on the subject called "The Self-Aware Universe" by Amit Goswami, Ph.D. in physics at the University of Oregon.
Heh, here's a fun quote for you. Niels Bohr, who had the materialistic mindset of yours, was visited by Schrodinger. While Schrodinger explained to him the idea of the quantum jump (the idea that small particles vanish from the material world and instantaneously appear in another location), Bohr protested for days. Finally he gave in and said: "If I had known that one has to accept this damned quantum jump, I'd never have gotten involved with quantum mechanics!" :-D
Neither Alan Watts, nor the Dali Lama, nor myself, would disagree with you when you say "stick to science". Never have I said you should not, in fact I'm a great proponent of it. As I have shown, it is the other way around, "western" scientists are the ones who do not stick to science. They scoff at their own results, and say things like "God does not play dice".
Sure, it may have an evolutionary advantage, but so would the ability to shoot laser beams out of our eyes. That's hardly a sufficient explanation of why we are self-aware. In the biological and your "empirical" mindset (which I wouldn't call very empirical at all because you refuse to even try and experience any of these higher levels of thought; i.e. meditation, LSD, etc), it would make much more sense for evolution to continue without the introduction of self-awareness. *You* are here. You experience the world from your eyes while you could have been just like some common animal. Why is that so? Can you explain that? Sure it's because our mind is "better", but what makes it better? The fact that there is this ability in this world, to become self-conscious, is incredible. DId you know that most humans don't have a self, meaning they are not self-conscious until they are *taught* how to be aware of themselves (at around the age of 3 btw). It's a fact, ask your local sociologist about it.
Where did I misunderstand its utility?? I told you I know full well the usefulness of Newtonian mechanics. And then you go on to suggest that we might not even be able to understand "it"? Oh yeah, that's real empirical of you.
Here's a simple example: An electron does not have a definite position until someone or something observes it. Here's another: If you repeat a quantum experiment and perfectly duplicate the environment, you will still get different results based on probabilities (i.e. the electron showed up there this time, and there that time). This suggests that the act of conscious observation affects the environment. I'll have to get back to you later with even more examples if you want, I'm still not done reading this book.
Well, I'll give you that, it's not really a major point anyway. I was just trying to point out that the way biology views it, there's no reason for us to be aware of our surroundings and ourselves. You've yet to give a response to that point.
Believe me, as I have a background in physics I know very well that Newtonian mechanics works very well for explaining everyday, ordinary observations. However, it is indeed flawed when it comes to answer the question of: what is the true reality of the universe? It fails miserably at answering that, in fact it is downright wrong. QM seems to provide the answer to that, however, with the mindset like yours, most scientists simply disregard it. Their disbelief goes so far that it caused Einstein to say: "God does not play dice". Well since then he's been proven wrong. God does play with dice, and there are no hidden variables. Check out the EPR paradox for more details.
You're so stubborn in your classical mindset that you refuse to acknowledge the facts right in front of you and dismiss them as bullshit "mysticism". Sure, no one's arguing that your mind doesn't occur because of your brain, that's not what they're saying. Again, I can repeat myself for you as many times as you like, but it is truly confounding that we are self-aware at all. In the classical mindset, there is no reason whatsoever for us to be self-aware, and classical physics fails horribly at explaining the quantum world, which is really the world we live in.
Well, it seems like the only hope for this cancer is to be able to escape the host that it has destroyed then? It seems to me like you'd better start investing in NASA then, because according to the vast majority of scientists, we don't have much time if we continue this cancerous behavior.
I suggest you seriously consider reading the first chapter from that link so that we can stop all these misunderstandings.
Sounds like you're not a fan of humanity then. I'm only trying to help it. Your "way" is to destroy yourself, now that's a bleak outlook.
So... you first say it's not a secret, then you admit it's a problem. Then you equate picking your nose to consciousness.
I'm aware that animals display varying degrees of consciousness, but unlike you, I think it's fascinating, not boring. According to your own beliefs, there should be no reason that we are conscious at all, it would be just as likely that life continued in the way it has, television and all, without our being aware of it.
BTW, Alan Watts does not talk much about QM, however he uses more obvious scientific observations to dispel the notion of an isolated ego in a bag of skin (do you subscribe to this viewpoint btw?). Amit Goswami is a physicist who believes in what you're talking about. Slightly off-topic, but do you know why we're self-aware as opposed to other animals? (and don't just say our brain is more advanced, that's like saying a car works because it has fuel inside of it; obvious). Finally, what do you think is the "secret" of consciousness? (this probably will overlap with the previous question)
Because you don't understand.
Fairly sure. I really didn't say much in my post other than the fact that certain eastern ideas have very strong backing in QM. Now, how is it that from that statement you're able to extract any sort of conclusion on what I mean by it? You can't, you can only assume you know, obviously.
So my advice to you, is to not jump to these assumptions, because for all you know I could hold a Ph.D. Quantum Mechanics (Actually I don't, but Amit Goswami does). A better question you could have asked would be: "Oh really? And just what are those correlations?"
One more thing: you're right that nobody in western science truly understands QM. Could this be because the actual explanation flies directly in the face of their metaphysical assumptions about life and so they refuse to even consider it as a possibility?
Ah, thanks for that post. You are right, my post could have definitely stood to be clearer and therefore I made this clarification.
:-)
To answer your question: No, Watts does not say that you should disown technology and live among the untouchables. The man was born in the west and taught at Harvard. He was a very intelligent person and so you should at the very least try and hear him out. I'm a programmer and am agnostic, although I also believe in certain eastern ideas that you may consider "mystical", however, if you really study up on it, you will see that they are not, and in fact have a very strong backing in Quantum Physics (the Self-Aware Universe by Amit Goswami, Ph.D comes to mind).
Furthermore, it is possible to induce "mystical experiences" without practicing meditation for years (it's called LSD, DMT, etc). Either way, I sincerely appreciate your post, and I hope you give this guy a chance, I'm sure that if you do you'll see that he's not some wacko "mystic" but one of the most intelligent human beings to have ever lived.
You're not being very open minded are you? Watts certainly did not starve himself as "cows strolled by". He was not advocating all aspects of Hinduism, and in fact he preferred Buddhism. Watts was a scholar and interpreter of Eastern philosophy. He picked out the philosophical ideas that made the most sense to him and explain them to westerners. The man taught at Harvard for crying out loud! Thanks for attempting to read it, but you won't get very far if you refuse to hear him out. At the very least you have to admit that you can't critique that which you refuse to attempt to understand.
Too many people seem to be completely misinterpreting what I have said. Please understand that when I say "Western Society" and "Western Culture", I'm not referring to a geographical location, or an ethnic group, but rather a cultural mindset that anybody on any part of the globe can have (including those living in the East). I'm a big supporter of technology (programmer by profession), and so support many of the advances in technology that many of you enjoy as well. I'm simply critiquing a certain mindset, and had I been more careful in my word choice I think there would have been less of an uproar over that post. Unfortunately I don't plan on writing another essay on the subject, so if you're confused and interested in understanding what it was exactly that I said, please check out the links to Alan Watts in my original post, he's a much better writer and speaker than I am.
No "days of yore", sorry, and you can go ahead and drive your car. I'm just talking about a different mindset, that's all. I should have mentioned that I'm a big supporter of technology in my post, perhaps it would have trimmed down the confusion.
The world has moved on? Really? I'd have to strongly disagree there.
Skimming over the replies to my post seems to indicate otherwise.
I'm not sure if you're actually being intelligent here or not. I know that I am "that", but perhaps we mean different things. What I don't approve of is a certain mindset.
Nope. :-)
2 &cid=15526969
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=188342 &cid=15526860
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=18834
Your views of life correlate to those of some culture, and again, living in the west does not mean that they necessarily correlate with that one. I have a feeling you'd be surprised with how much you'd agree with what Watts says.
Not to my knowledge, and he's certainly not a supporter of it. He breaks down the mythology of Hinduism and picks the philosophical ideas that he likes.