Interesting challenge by Dr. Deepak Chopra to Richard Dawkins

[Starboard Tack]

Chopra challenges Dawkins to explain the biological origin of ideas. Offers him a million dollars if he can come up with a biological explanation. An entertaining chap, perhaps a little off the wall, which makes him an interesting adversary for Dawkins.


http://m.global.christianpost.com/news/deepak-chopra-issues-1-million-prize-challenge-to-richard-dawkins-new-atheists-to-explain-biological-basis-for-ideas--123368/

[beam me up scottie]

1. "an interesting adversary for Dawkins."

[Starboard Tack]

2. I thought it pretty funny too

What do you think? Will Dawkins try to claim the million bucks?

[beam me up scottie]

4. From the Louie Gohmert of Woo?

Dawkins could not possibly dumb himself down enough to speak Chopra's language.

[TygrBright]

3. ::snork:: A metaphysical steel cage match. n/t

[plcdude]

5. I believe

Sam Harris is the correct person to address this question to rather than Dawkins.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. I would ask Dennett, or, preferably, Antonio Damasio.

[skepticscott]

6. And if no one can explain it, so what?

What has Chopra proven, other than that he needs attention?

Why not send back a challenge to Chopra, asking him to offer up a non-biological basis for ideas that passes the woo-woo test? And let the two be compared to reality. On top of that, force Chopra to provide objective criteria for whether an explanation for ideas is satisfactory or not. See if he can offer something other than his usual quantum word salad.

[Starboard Tack]

7. But, as a scientist are you not curious at least?

Isn't science about searching and finding explanations for everything, and as a biologist, wouldn't this be right up Dawkins' alley?

Doesn't sound like you to say "If no one can explain it, so what?"

[Warren Stupidity]

10. There is a shitload of research being conducting at the intersection of

neurology and philosophy of mind, and at the same time machine intelligence development is making rapid progress. I rather doubt Deepak is going to be happy with his challenge, unless he enjoys backpedaling. But I suppose there could be a quantum synergistic envelopment of intersectional harmonic energy somewhere.

[Lordquinton]

12. I'm sure his goal posts are on roller skates

just like every other challenge put up by his type.

[skepticscott]

11. Um, no…science is not about

find explanations for "everything". Thought you knew that, dude. And no, Just because Dawkins is a "biologist" doesn't mean that every possible question about biology falls within his special expertise. 0 for 2.

Here's what Chopra should be challenged back:

1. Based on your review of the scientific literature and current research on this topic, tell us specifically what you feel has been explained adequately, and what has not, with appropriate citations.

2. What was your specific purpose in: A. Issuing a challenge; B. On this particular topic; C. To this particular person; D. For this amount of money? If Chopra were deeply curious about this issue and wanted to spend his money to spur the scientific community on to new discoveries, good for him, but if that were really his motivation (as opposed to just puffing up and looking for attention), he would have offered a prize to the relevant scientific community as a whole.

3. Provide specific, objective criteria by which it can be judged whether your challenge has been satisfied. I'm betting he'll fail miserably at that, so why would Dawkins or anyone else want to play some idiot game of whack-a-mole with Dr. Woo?

And my saying "so what" obviously didn't mean I don't care if this issue is understood or not. Only that there would be no significance if this particular question was unanswered at this particular point in the history of science. Sorry, dude…you're 0 for 3.

Why this is even relevant to the Religion group is yet another question, but I won't set you back to 0 for 4 just for that, buddy.

[AlbertCat]

14. Perhaps the Deepster thinks....

..... if these guys can't answer it.... then nobody can!


How nice to put them on a pedestal like that. Fan-boy worship?



Either that or he's just a self serving woo guru.


I wonder which it is????


I'll award to whomever can answer THAT the worth of Deepak's entire oeuvre ....

[Starboard Tack]

24. Oh dude, thanks for the science lesson

It is always refreshing to hear a scientist say that science is not about explaining everything and that a biologist should not be expected to have all the answers about humans and where ideas come from. Of course not. Thankfully, we have scientists who can declare deists delusional, even though their specialty may not be psychiatry.

I'm not really familiar with Chopra, but you seem to be. It was the challenge that I found amusing. Seems like a lot of folk got their knickers in a twist over it.

Anyway, thanks for the insight on the sciency stuff, dude! Off to catch a wave now

[Lordquinton]

9. Not just Dawkins, he includes Randi as well

which just makes me think "You first Chopra"

[skepticscott]

13. Attention whoring of the first order

Apparently not enough people are fawning over him these days.

[edhopper]

15. First Chopra

need to explain quantum mechanics (which he constantly refers to in his writings) and not get everything about it wrong.

Other than that, there are a few theories about the neurological origin of ideas, and I would assume Dawkins could conjecture with some authority about the evolutionary development of the brains capacity for ideas.

But is Chopra is just throwing out a "God of the gaps" argument here because we don't have a definitive answer, he is indeed, an ass.

[MellowDem]

16. Chopra is not interesting...

This link provides a good overview of why his offer is non-sensical:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/07/15/deepak-chopra-ill-give-atheists-1000000-if-they-can-prove-how-consciousness-works/

I don't think Dawkins has claimed to know the biological origin of ideas. Meanwhile, Chopra has made all sorts of extraordinary claims. It always seems that those who make the most extraordinary claims never understand the burden of proof.

[Jim__]

17. I doubt anyone will try to collect the million dollars.

I don't believe anybody claims to know how we get from electrochemical processes to subjective experience.

[edhopper]

18. I don't know if anybody has claimed too

but there is no evidence it is something other than neurological.

There are fairly concrete explanations for things like sight and hearing, so we know how we get to some "subjective experiences" from "electromechanical processes".

[Jim__]

19. There are explanations for sensory reception and transmission of that reception.

For instance, the responses of retinal cones to different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation is fairly well understood. The electrochemical transmission of the response of the cones through various neural networks to the visual cortex is fairly well understood. If you have an explanation for how those electrochemical processes become the subjective experience of color, I'd love to hear it.

[edhopper]

20. Is this a pantheism thing?

[Jim__]

21. It's a request that you supply one of those concrete explanations that you alluded to in post #18.

[edhopper]

22. The basis

is that subjective experiences are something other than neurological events in the brain. That they are a separate form of reality or something like that.
I have seen that kind of comment from people who ascribe to pantheism.
So I am asking what you mean by subjective experience.

[Jim__]

25. An example of a subjective experience is seeing color.

That's also one you alluded to in post #18, so we should be able to focus on that.

[edhopper]

26. Do you think seeing a color

is something other than photons coming through the eye, hitting the retina and then the optic nerve sending signals to the visual cortex, which then gives us the sense of what color we see.
Yes that is subjective, because brains aren't calibrated like spectrometers, but we can also measure the wavelength of light for an objective color.

I am just not sure where you are coming from here. You seem to want to make a point about subjective experiences, but I am not sure what it is.

[Jim__]

27. Spectrometers can measure electromagnetic wavelength.

A spectrometer might give a measurement like 550 nm wavelength. Conceptually, it's not too difficult to understand how the electrochemical processes of our visual system can compute a wavelength for the light that is stimulating an area of our visual field and give us a measurement like 550 nm wavelength. However, that is not what we get from our visual system. We see, say, green. How are the electrochemical signals that pass through our visual system converted to an experience of color?

The external world is bathed in electromagnetic radiation. Is it bathed in color? Or, does color exist in our visual system, but not in the external world? How do you know?

[edhopper]

28. Oh

this is a "what is reality" thing?

That there is no objective reality? Or are you making a Depak kind of statement about a reality beyond the physical Universe?

And green is the name of the color that our brain shows us from a certain wavelength that comes through our eyes. Most people see the same way, so it is an agreed upon definition. What is a mile, what is a g chord, what is the air speed velocity of a sparrow. Concepts we name by agreement.

Again, are you saying consciousness is separate from the brain? Or are you just asking if i have a definitive neurological answer for how the entire brain works?

I don't but i don't see any reason to go being biology for the answer.

Daniel Dennet has written some very good things on this subject if you are interested.

[Jim__]

30. Asking whether color exists in the external world is not a denial of objective reality.

It's a question about objective reality.

In this thread, I have not said anything about religion. I also haven't said anything about other than neurological processes, pantheism, a separate form of reality, that there is no objective reality, that consciousness is separate from the brain, nor that there's any reason to go beyond biology for the answer (assuming being was supposed to be beyond). You really have to get past your little set of cliches. I am merely pointing out that there is an issue with respect to understanding how we get from biochemical processes, specifically, transmission across neural networks, to subjective experience.

And green is the name of the color that our brain shows us from a certain wavelength that comes through our eyes. Most people see the same way, so it is an agreed upon definition. What is a mile, what is a g chord, what is the air
speed velocity of a sparrow. Concepts we name by agreement.

Where to begin? When talking about subjective experience, what is a mile and what is the air speed velocity of a sparrow are different types of questions from what is a g chord. And green is more than the label of a color. Green is a color that we experience. We don't experience a mile and we don't experience the air speed velocity of a sparrow. A mile and air speed velocity are things we compute through measurement. Yes, we can also measure an electromagnetic wavelength of 550 nm or the frequency of a g chord, but that is not how we experience them. The measurement is different from the experience. It is more complex than just concepts we name by agreement.

Again, are you saying consciousness is separate from the brain? Or are you just asking if i have a definitive neurological answer for how the entire brain works?

In post #18, you claimed:

There are fairly concrete explanations for things like sight and hearing, so we know how we get to some "subjective experiences" from "electromechanical processes".

I'm still waiting for some type of concrete explanation beyond photons coming through the eye, hitting the retina and then the optic nerve sending signals to the visual cortex, which then gives us the sense of what color we see which is not an explanation. Did you actually know what you were talking about?

[edhopper]

32. First

Last edited Fri Jul 18, 2014, 10:21 AM - Edit history (1)

I wasn't accusing you of taking any of those positions, I was asking about them because i wasn't sure where you were coming from.
Either consciousness is how we experience our brain activity or it is something else. If you agree that it is the former, why do you need something beyond a color being how we experience the light wavelengths that come through our eyes and are processed through the brain. Why, because what would be the function of the brain if the organism was not aware of the results of the activity. Our brain is very complex and we have evolved to this.
Is consciousness completely explained, no. But if it is all neurological, then the eventual answer will be found there. (or not)

Do you have a different theory for subjective experience?

You are going through this q & a without stating your position, so it becomes difficult to answer without know what the objective is, and I am answering at times what I think you are asking, erroneously at times I am sure.

[Jim__]

33. I stated my position quite clearly in post #17.

From post #17:

I doubt anyone will try to collect the million dollars.

I don't believe anybody claims to know how we get from electrochemical processes to subjective experience.

You responded, in part:

There are fairly concrete explanations for things like sight and hearing ...

I asked you to provide such an explanation. I'm still waiting.

[edhopper]

36. That is only if you

Last edited Fri Jul 18, 2014, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

disagree that our experience is something other than how our brain interprets these signals. Is pain something other than the neurological response to something inflicted on the body?

As I said, if we consciously did not perceive what was going on in the brain, what would be the point of all they neurological activity?

You obviously thing the perception of color is some other phenomena and don't accept the pure neurological explanation (or you do, I'm not sure) either way I would be interested in hearing it.

As I said, Dennet has written books about this and that would be good source.

BTW, when you said "subjective experience", I was thinking you meant some pantheistic thingie, so my response was more about that. You say it wasn't, so I probably would have worded it differently.

If you want to start over and explain what you mean by subjective experience, I will respond in a more precise way. If you desperately need me to admit error, tell me exactly what my mistake was and I will recant.

[Jim__]

43. I couldn't care less whether or not you "admit error."

You obviously thing the perception of color is some other phenomena and don't accept the pure neurological explanation (or you do, I'm not sure) either way I would be interested in hearing it.

There is no pure neural explanation for how we see color. How does the transmission of electrochemical signals become the experience of color?

[edhopper]

44. So you are

suggestion something beyond the physical Universe, something other than a material explanation?

[Jim__]

46. Where did I say that?

My answer:

There is no pure neural explanation for how we see color. How does the transmission of electrochemical signals become the experience of color?

is just a repetition of what I said in post #17:

I don't believe anybody claims to know how we get from electrochemical processes to subjective experience.

I've said it enough times. We don't know how it happens. You're back to reciting the same old cliches. I haven't suggested anything about needing something from beyond the physical universe. No one completely understands the whole of reality. Pointing that out is not a claim of anything non-physical. If you have an explanation for how color arises out of the visual system, an explanation that you claimed exists in post #18, then go ahead and give it.

[edhopper]

47. Okay

I badly phrased my initial response based on what I erroneously thought you were saying. (which you state you weren't)
We have not yet discovered the way the brain works in it's entirety, nor all the intricacies of consciousness. That said there is nothing to point to anything other than functions of a biological/neurological organism for that explanation.

What are your thoughts about subjective experiences? Whose writings or theories most appeal to you?

[Jim__]

48. I don't think anyone has a particularly viable theory right now.

Most of the people I read would agree.

Some people I've read with respect to the visual system, neural processing and consciousness are: Nigel Daw, Peter Ulrich Tse, David Papineau, Jaegwon Kim, and Sven Walter.

[edhopper]

49. I'll look at those

I would again encourage you to look at Daniel Denney (if you haven't yet)

[Warren Stupidity]

31. "seeing color" is not the experience of color.

A machine can see and identify colors. Besides Deepak reduced his challenge here: "And I'll even make it more simple. Can you offer a scientific understanding for the biological basis of an idea, a thought."

Had he left it at a biological explanation of subjective experience, that would be the "hard problem" in philosophy of mind, as it is he reduced it, because he is a bit of an idiot, to the "easy problem" in philosophy of mind, one that neurology is pretty close to having a complete biological explanation for, and that machines will soon enough be obviously capable of, if they aren't already.

[Jim__]

34. Machines can identify em wavelength. They don't "see" color - discussed in post #27.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. No they see color. Currently they can't express a subjective experience of seeing color.

You seem to be conflating "seeing" with "subjective experience of something seen". Machine vision is quite real.

[Jim__]

41. I'll accept the dictionary definition as valid.

From merriam-webster:

see
verb \ˈsē\

: to notice or become aware of (someone or something) by using your eyes

: to have the ability to see : to have the power of sight

: to be or become aware of (something)

You may disagree; but it's the way I used and it is an acceptable use according to the dictionary.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. well at least you didn't cite urban dictionary :-)

your dictionary doesn't help my position or yours. A machine sees colors pretty much the same way we do, but as far as we know machines doesn't have a subjective experience of color. Your dictionary is using "aware" but that will again have the same problem. A machine can be aware that it has seen a "red" object, and can act on that awareness. For example an autonomous car can see a red light and having seen it, stop the car at the appropriate place. The car continues to not have a subjective experience of "red".

[Jim__]

57. "to notice or become aware of (someone or something) by using your eyes"

That covers my usage quite nicely.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Dennet on "qualia" and color.

Dennett also has a response to the "Mary the color scientist" thought experiment. He argues that Mary would not, in fact, learn something new if she stepped out of her black and white room to see the color red. Dennett asserts that if she already truly knew "everything about color", that knowledge would include a deep understanding of why and how human neurology causes us to sense the "quale" of color. Mary would therefore already know exactly what to expect of seeing red, before ever leaving the room. Dennett argues that the misleading aspect of the story is that Mary is supposed to not merely be knowledgeable about color but to actually know all the physical facts about it, which would be a knowledge so deep that it exceeds what can be imagined, and twists our intuitions.

If Mary really does know everything physical there is to know about the experience of color, then this effectively grants her almost omniscient powers of knowledge. Using this, she will be able to deduce her own reaction, and figure out exactly what the experience of seeing red will feel like.

Dennett finds that many people find it difficult to see this, so he uses the case of RoboMary to further illustrate what it would be like for Mary to possess such a vast knowledge of the physical workings of the human brain and color vision. RoboMary is an intelligent robot who, instead of the ordinary color camera-eyes, has a software lock such that she is only able to perceive black and white and shades in-between.

RoboMary can examine the computer brain of similar non-color-locked robots when they look at a red tomato, and see exactly how they react and what kinds of impulses occur. RoboMary can also construct a simulation of her own brain, unlock the simulation's color-lock and, with reference to the other robots, simulate exactly how this simulation of herself reacts to seeing a red tomato. RoboMary naturally has control over all of her internal states except for the color-lock. With the knowledge of her simulation's internal states upon seeing a red tomato, RoboMary can put her own internal states directly into the states they would be in upon seeing a red tomato. In this way, without ever seeing a red tomato through her cameras, she will know exactly what it is like to see a red tomato.

Dennett uses this example to show us that Mary's all-encompassing physical knowledge makes her own internal states as transparent as those of a robot or computer, and it is almost straightforward for her to figure out exactly how it feels to see red.

Perhaps Mary's failure to learn exactly what seeing red feels like is simply a failure of language, or a failure of our ability to describe experiences. An alien race with a different method of communication or description might be perfectly able to teach their version of Mary exactly how seeing the color red would feel. Perhaps it is simply a uniquely human failing to communicate first-person experiences from a third-person perspective. Dennett suggests that the description might even be possible using English. He uses a simpler version of the Mary thought experiment to show how this might work. What if Mary was in a room without triangles and was prevented from seeing or making any triangles? An English-language description of just a few words would be sufficient for her to imagine what it is like to see a triangle—she can simply and directly visualize a triangle in her mind. Similarly, Dennett proposes, it is perfectly, logically possible that the quale of what it is like to see red could eventually be described in an English-language description of millions or billions of words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

The point being that there is nothing magical or non deterministic in subjective experience, in "qualia". Machines right now can "see" very well, whether or not they have a subjective experience of what they are seeing. To insist that their processing of visual information is not "seeing" because they don't have subjective experience 'qualia' of their visual information processing is somewhat silly. Shall we walk down the animals with visual processing: do dogs see? fish? insects? How about planarians?

If you are going to insist that there is some ineffable additional processing that is needed to qualify for "seeing" to occur you need to explain what it is that a bug does when it avoids my swat that doesn't qualify, and if you insist that this ineffableness exists in a housefly you have a problem explaining how it doesn't exist in an xbox.

[Jim__]

111. Dennett is not claiming to know how we see color.

Last edited Mon Jul 21, 2014, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)

He's making an assertion:

... He argues that Mary would not, in fact, learn something new if she stepped out of her black and white
room to see the color red. Dennett asserts that if she already truly knew "everything about color", that knowledge would
include a deep understanding of why and how human neurology causes us to sense the "quale" of color. ...

Well, yes, if if she already truly knew "everything about color" she would know about the experience of color. But, of
course, no one already truly knows "everything about color", so Dennett's assertion doesn't really tell us anything. Note also that Dennett refers to seeing color as a first-person experience which is precisely what Chopra's challenge is about.

From your citation of about Dennett:

... An alien race with a different method of communication or description might be perfectly able to teach their version of Mary exactly how seeing the color red would feel. Perhaps it is simply a uniquely human failing to communicate first-person experiences from a third-person perspective. Dennett suggests that the description might even be possible using English. He uses a simpler version of the Mary thought experiment to show how this might work. What if Mary was in a room without triangles and was prevented from seeing or making any triangles? An English-language description of just a few words would be sufficient for her to imagine what it is like to see a triangle—she can simply and directly visualize a triangle in her mind. Similarly, Dennett proposes, it is perfectly, logically possible that the quale of what it is like to see red could eventually be described in an English-language description of millions or billions of words.

From the article on Chopra's request:

"Can you please offer a scientific understanding for the biological basis of a first-person experience? Any experience – mental experience, or perceptual experience. So for cognition, or for perception. And I'll even make it more simple. Can you offer a scientific understanding for the biological basis of an idea, a thought?" Chopra asks in the video.

Back to your post:

The point being that there is nothing magical or non deterministic in subjective experience, in "qualia".
Machines right now can "see" very well, whether or not they have a subjective experience of what they are seeing. To insist
that their processing of visual information is not "seeing" because they don't have subjective experience 'qualia' of their
visual information processing is somewhat silly. Shall we walk down the animals with visual processing: do dogs see? fish?
insects? How about planarians?

If you're claiming that I said there was anything magical or non-deterministic in subjective experience, please point to that
claim.

What's actually silly is your continuing to harp about about my use of see. I explained in post #27 what I meant when I
used the term. I cited a dictionary definition that supports that use of it. It is valid to use the word see to refer to a subjective experience. Your claim that it isn't valid is based on an equivocation.

[Warren Stupidity]

113. "as a first-person experience " well, no as I noted elsewhere, Deepak undid that

"Can you offer a scientific understanding for the biological basis of an idea". oops.

Your dictionary definition punted to "aware".

[Jim__]

117. From your citation: "... the quale of what it is like to see red ..."

More fully (my bolding):

Similarly, Dennett proposes, it is perfectly, logically possible that the quale of what it is like to see red could eventually be described in an English-language description of millions or billions of words.

Quale is the singular of qualia (my bolding):

Qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) is a term used in philosophy to refer to individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. The term derives from the Latin adverb quālis (Latin pronunciation: [ˈkwaːlis]) meaning "what sort" or "what kind". Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the perceived redness of an evening sky.

And, your original quibble:

"seeing color" is not the experience of color.

Your cited article uses see the same way I used the term - i.e. the article you cited explicitly disagrees with your quibble.

And, of course, as cited previously, Chopra's challenge - the full paragraph:

"Can you please offer a scientific understanding for the biological basis of a first-person experience? Any experience – mental experience, or perceptual experience. So for cognition, or for perception. And I'll even make it more simple. Can you offer a scientific understanding for the biological basis of an idea, a thought?" Chopra asks in the video.

He never takes back his original challenge.

[Warren Stupidity]

134. I give up. Your own excerpts make clear my point that "seeing" and "the qualia of seeing" are

discrete. One is the act, the other the subjective experience of the act. Machines see. As far as I know they do not have a subjective experience of seeing. In fact as far as I know you don't have a subjective experience of seeing. The only thing I know about subjective experience is that I have it.

[Starboard Tack]

64. Do you really believe that machines can see?

Do you also believe they can think?
I suggest you read Jim's posts more carefully. He explains it in the simplest of terms, so that even those of us without sciency backgrounds can get it.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Of course they can see.

My xbox sees me and logs me in when I sit in front of it. A freaking bug can see. Seeing is pretty simple stuff.

Yes machines also think. Their ability to do so surpassed ours in many areas, although they are not, as far as we know, having a subjective experience of those activities. Yet.

Jim is having problems with words and meanings, you just have a problem with not tossing insults at every opportunity.

Seeing and subjective experience of an object seen, as I have now repeated ad nauseum are different.

[Starboard Tack]

68. OK, that explains so much.

Enjoy!

[Warren Stupidity]

69. You've added so much to this discussion

please don't stop now.

[Starboard Tack]

72. I'm here to be educated, which is working fine thanks.

Sometimes, it's best to shut up and let others do the talking. Jim and Ed are very interesting and enlightening.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. No you are here to toss insults, which must somehow cause you a pleasurable experience.

[Starboard Tack]

75. And what is your post, if not an insult, Warren?

I do, at times, give back in kind what the disruptors dish out. I wouldn't call it "tossing insults", but rather chiding those who have little tolerance of believers and even less sense of decorum. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but nobody is forcing you to participate.
You might take my advice and learn something from people like Ed and Jim, who are both highly intelligent and articulate individuals. Yes, they may get a little testy with each other, but they serve as role models to those who only come here to disrupt.

Now, do you have anything constructive that you would like to contribute to the conversation?

[Starboard Tack]

55. I agree.

I doubt we will ever be able to answer that question. Excellent sub-thread with EH btw. Your explanations were right on the money.

[Jim__]

56. Thanks. I think Chopra is being fairly careful with that money.

[Lordquinton]

59. No, they really weren't

There was a whole lot of dodging while refusing to answer any question, followed by demands for exact explanations, and insults when they weren't immediately provided. Also no solid position other than "You can't prooooove it, therefor you are dumb"

So quite standard for this room.

[intaglio]

23. It might have some relevance if this woo-meister could say what he means

by the term "ideas"

[WovenGems]

29. Poor Chopra

He failed to specify a species. Humans aren't alone in ideas. Nor were we the first. Haven't you ever said to the dog "No, we aren't going to the store just because I said we were out of milk."

[Humanist_Activist]

37. I don't understand how anyone can take Chopra seriously, first off...

the onus is on him to prove that there is a non-biological basis for ideas. He is either a fraudster or fool who misuses theories of science that he does not even have a remedial understanding of to advance his nutty ideas.

[edhopper]

38. Talk to

Oprah and the millions who worship her.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. "You could watch Oprah interview Deepak Chopra"

[edhopper]

51. Not if I want to keep my food down.

[gcomeau]

39. Captain Quantum is not an "interesting adversary".

He's a charlatan peddling snakeoil to the gullible masses.


As for his challenge, ideas are a product of the mind which is an emergent property of the function of the brain which is biological. Done. Where's my million dollars?

[edhopper]

40. But we know from quantum mechanics

that matter can exist in two states simultaneously. So it follows we can see ideas as both material and spiritual in their manifestation.

This Deepak shit is so easy.

[gcomeau]

42. When I clicked on that reply title...

...I was already gearing up to tear my hair out while launching into a rant about the abuse of QM.

[edhopper]

45. Namaste.

[WovenGems]

53. But...

An idea requires grey matter. QM is irrelevant to the brain. Even if we're discussing MPD(Multiple Personality Disorder).

[edhopper]

54. Poe's law

read my last line.

[Humanist_Activist]

58. May I point out one big flaw in Deepak Chopra's challenge? Dawkins is NOT a neuroscientist...

indeed, he would be the first to tell you that he doesn't know, he has opinions, but no evidence, and he will refer you to neuroscientists and neurologists who, you know, actually study this stuff.

[Htom Sirveaux]

60. Dawkins isn't a theologian or a philosopher of religion, either.

But that didn't stop him from writing The God Delusion. So if he has pronounced on a field that he isn't a specialist in before, unfamiliarity isn't a barrier to asking him about this one. Especially since neuroscience can be understood as a sub-discipline of biology, which Dawkins is an authority on.

[Humanist_Activist]

61. Dawkins treats specialties in science different than theology and philosophy...

Those "specialities" are great at creating questions, many times nonsensical ones, not so great at answering them.

[Starboard Tack]

63. Touche!

Dawkins opened the door.

[edhopper]

70. No

the analogy would be if Dawkins challenged a architect to debate him about religion. Dawkins does discuss his ideas about religion with theologians and philosophers.

[skepticscott]

65. Dawkins (or anyone else) is free to present facts and express his opinions

on those subjects, and so-called "experts" in the subjects you named are free to dispute them, if they can. Not sure what problem you have with that.

But the situation here is completely different, and your analogy is basically useless. Chopra could have issued this challenge to anyone, or to the relevant scientific community as a whole. Choosing an evolutionary biologist as his main focus for a question about neuroscience and cognitive science makes about as much sense as consulting a cardiologist about a skin rash, or a gynecologist about the best options for joint replacement. Would you do that? Sure you would. You probably think those make sense, don't you? Just like others here. Hey, they're all doctors, right? So they should all have the same level of expertise in everything that has to do with medicine, just like all biologists should be equally well versed on every sub-specialty and sub-sub-specialty within biology. Heck, it's not like they have to work and study for years to gain that knowledge and experience. They can just Google it, right?

That Chopra chose Dawkins and the others he did makes it far more likely that he's just attention whoring, and wanting to play games of intellectual oneupmanship, rather than being interested in actually enlightening himself or advancing the cause of science. A very old creationist tactic that I hope Dawkins treats as it deserves.

[edhopper]

71. Your statement is about Chopra

who made the challenge and claims expertise in the field. Then challenged someone outside of it. Dawkins has debated theologians and philosophers, so at least he knows who to talk to. Unlike Chopra, obviously.

[Htom Sirveaux]

80. It's a million dollar challenge regarding biology and ideas.

Chopra has a challenged a group representing each part: Randi for his previous million dollar challenge, Dawkins for the biology, and Dennett for the philosophy of mind. The group makes sense, looked at that way.

[skepticscott]

82. No, it doesn't make sense looked at that way. Not remotely.

as I pointed out in post 65. Which you conspicuously failed to respond to.

It makes sense if Chopra is an attention whore who doesn't give a fuck about actually answering scientific questions.

[edhopper]

84. Dennettcould probably speak well about consciousness

Since that is one of his areas of philosophy. But he is asking about neurology, not evolutionary biology, so Dawkins is just an attention grabber.
And as much as I adore Randi, what the fuck does he have to do with any of this?

[Htom Sirveaux]

86. Maybe he thinks Dawkins would address

subjective consciousness in the context of evolution. And as I said, Randi was probably included because Chopra's referencing Randi's previous million dollar challenge. Maybe a "How do you like being subject to a challenge?" thing.

[edhopper]

87. So it's bullshit

I don't remember Randi sayin he has any answers about where ideas come from. He's a trained magician. His challenges are based on what people claim the can do.
So this is one more thing Chopra has no idea what he is talking about. What an ass.

[Htom Sirveaux]

91. I watched the video, and he does come off as pompous.

But the underlying philosophical issue (origin and nature of subjective experience) is real, and has been extensively discussed in the literature. Chopra is popularizing it. I have no idea how much of the literature Chopra is familiar with.

And his challenge appears to be to all the "new atheists", not just limited to the named parties. So Sam Harris could chime in, if he wanted to. He's a philosopher of mind. So is Dennett. The Churchlands are a husband/wife team of neurophilosophers who could probably address the issue quite competently.

Any of them could explain why his challenge is crap and makes itself unanswerable (if it does).

[edhopper]

94. The philosophical is real

And that Chopra choose to address it this way just shows how idiotic and unkowledgable he is.

And in the end if the answer is, "We don't exactly know", doesn't mean any of his bullshit ideas about quantum spiritual states is any less ridiculous.

[skepticscott]

93. Apparently you had no rational response

to my post 65, but won't own up and acknowledge that your own fundamental argument was deeply flawed.

This is why you have trouble being taken seriously here. If you're really interested in getting at the truth, and not just scoring debate points, you might consider a different course.

[Starboard Tack]

62. How can a challenge have a flaw?

It's a challenge, not a statement of supposed fact. It's a fun thing that a lot of people here seem to be taking very seriously. I doubt Mr Dawkins is as concerned as many of his acolytes appear to be.

[skepticscott]

66. You're the one who stated that the whole thing was "interesting"

Unless you were simply being disingenuous and stirring shit, why would you be surprised that people would actually want to discuss it? Especially to point out what a publicity hungry twit Chopra is and how vapid and laughable his challenge is.

[Humanist_Activist]

78. If I offered a neurosurgeon 1 million dollars to successfully rebuild the transmission on a car...

knowing they don't have the expertise, would that challenge be fair?

Or how about 1 million dollars to prove that unicorns don't exist, does that seem like a realistic challenge?

[Starboard Tack]

83. Why not? A million dollars can be quite an incentive.

How much incentive did it take for a biologist to write a book about God and delusion?

[edhopper]

88. Just the understanding

That theologians were mostly full of shit.

[Starboard Tack]

89. So, the delusion refers to all theologians and not all believers?

And when you say "mostly", when are they not "full of shit"?

[edhopper]

90. The Delusion is that God exists

That is why it's called The God Delusion. You see billions of people believe in God, and he presents an very good case as to why that's not true. He also spends time on other fallacies within religion.
It's a very good book, you should read it.

[Starboard Tack]

95. Ýeah, I'll put it on my list, right next to the book of Revelations. LOL

Seriously, though, why would I want to read a book about God not existing. Nothing could interest me less than what someone else thinks about the existence or non-existence of a god. I've read parts of the book and get the drift. I went through a similar journey to Dawkins. We are close in age, grew up in the same society, similar schooling and church experience. Pretty boring stuff, for the most part. Can't imagine why he got so caught up in it all, apart from the money and groupie aspect of it.

[edhopper]

96. Yeah

Why would anyone want to question impact of religion on the world. Why would anyone see the need to write about what belief in God has brought. Boring meaningless stuff, must be the money.

[Starboard Tack]

97. I don't need to read this book to know those things.

I'm sure it was very enlightening for those who were unaware of the impact of religion on the world. Fortunately, like Mr Dawkins, I benefited from an excellent education and learned these things at an early age. I also learned that belief in God, or gods, is not responsible for the evils of this world, but rather the teachings of those in power, who would manipulate their flocks to turn against each other. The irony, of course, is that Dawkins has now become a self styled leader of the unbelievers, some of whom have begun to form their own groups, like the New Atheists; and these groups now turn on each other. So, not much has changed, god or no god. Fascism is always fascism, regardless of any religious context.
And I'm not blaming Dawkins for this. I don't think he set out to be some kind of prophet or messiah, any more than Mohammed or Jesus did. I think they are/were both decent guys. It's the zeal of some of their followers that give me the creeps.

[edhopper]

98. Let me know when the "new atheist"

start beheading and burning people alive.

[Starboard Tack]

100. Really? That's your defense of the New Atheists?

Wait till they start beheading and burning people alive. Hopefully, they will never reach that level of extremism, but you never know.
What you are basically saying is "Our bigots are not as bad as their bigots".

Wow, I thought you had more going for you than that.

[edhopper]

101. I am saying i don't see the extremism in the New Atheist that you do.

I don't think they are bigots because they find fault with religious beliefs and ideas.

Perhaps i haven't been paying attention.
Could you show an example of one of these large groups of New Atheists that have behaved in a similar way to the extremist religions.

And "someone somewhere on the internet said", doesn't count.

[Starboard Tack]

110. Let's start with the leaders of the so-called "New Atheist" movement.

Here is an excellent link from Glenn Greenwald's column in the Guardian, discussing the anti-muslim animus shown by Sam Harris and the New Atheists.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus

Owen Jones pretty much nails it in his criticism of Dawkins' bigotry towards muslims in this piece from The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/not-in-our-name-dawkins-dresses-up-bigotry-as-nonbelief--he-cannot-be-left-to-represent-atheists-8754183.html

Both Dawkins and Harris have exposed themselves as bigots, not by "finding fault with religious beliefs and ideas", but by broad brushing in an attempt to demonize billions of people.

I agree 100% with Owen Jones. These men do not represent me in any way, nor do they represent the majority of decent people who happen to be non-believers.

[skepticscott]

109. No, that's what you had to pretend

that he said, because what he actually said didn't serve your agenda.

If you were being more honest, it would have been something like "The worst that atheist groups do to religious groups or to each other isn't even in the same universe of bad as the worst that religious groups do to other religious groups."

You're the one with the obsession with calling other atheists bigots, and thanking god that you're not like them. Of course, when asked to provide actual evidence than any of the atheists here that you've accused of being bigots actually are, you fall silent.

[skepticscott]

92. So what kind of idiot

would think that offering a million dollars to a neurosurgeon to rebuild his transmission would be the best way to get the job done? What kind of idiot would think that even a huge "incentive" would somehow miraculously make a neurosurgeon do a better job than someone who has spent years learning how to repair transmissions and who does it every day?

The kind of idiot Chopra is, apparently. Since he could have chosen anybody or everybody to offer his challenge to.

[Starboard Tack]

77. Excellent point. He's a writer and a biologist.

Not a theologian, not a philosopher, not a psychiatrist, nor a psychologist, yet he wrote a book about "God" and "Delusion". Interesting guy. Heck, he should be up to this challenge. Should be a piece of cake.
Or maybe it's just one clown challenging another clown. But it looks like these two clowns have lots of disciples. I find it fascinating how history repeats itself, over and over. Only the flavors change, but the rabble are always hungry for a messiah.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. What is your purpose on this board? All you do is insult and belittle atheists.

Why even bother?

[Starboard Tack]

85. What is my purpose on this board?

My purpose is to make it clear that atheists are not all intolerant of believers. Many of us are not antitheists, but are decent, tolerant people, who do not judge others because of their religious beliefs. My purpose is to insult or belittle nobody, but to call out those who insult others in the name of atheism.
I stand up against those whose only purpose is to give atheists a bad reputation.

It amazes me that you can ask such a question. Feel free to point out when I have ever insulted or belittled anyone for their atheism. There are many atheists, including a couple of the hosts, who post on this board, that I have the highest respect for. There are other atheists who post here that I have the lowest respect for. I judge people based on their actions and how they treat others, not on their religious beliefs. YMMV.

[Humanist_Activist]

112. Oh FFS, don't be so disingenuous, you don't even judge people by their actions, if they are....

religious, you give them a pass, if they are atheists, you give them much stricter scrutiny.

Oh, and please enlighten me on this so called bigotry of believers rather than of beliefs.

[Starboard Tack]

114. Well,why don't you point out who I gave a free pass to and for what?

Funny, I expected some of the religious types to be bigots, but I haven't encountered any around here. They all seem like decent people. OTOH, I expected my fellow atheists to be decent, open, liberal progressives and many are, but a handful are total jerks who spend most of their time insulting believers and atheists who show tolerance. The personal attacks are truly unbelievable. The bigotry is toward anyone who calls for tolerance.

Why don't you guys find some RW fundie board to dump on people, instead of dumping on your own? It really is disgusting.
Do you not find it rather odd that our most obnoxious members accuse those who espouse tolerance of making DU suck? Now how bizarre is that?

[skepticscott]

116. Oh yes...the "we atheists" crap

If those are the atheists who say "I fail to see how it affects the rest of us, especially the non-religious." with regard to the RCC's bigoted opposition to same-sex marriage, I'm going to make it "you atheists". And on a progressive web site, to boot.

Decency? People shouldn't discuss concepts foreign to them.

[skepticscott]

81. Show me one theologian who has more knowledge about Jehovah or Allah

Last edited Sun Jul 20, 2014, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)

than Richard Dawkins. Or anybody else, for that matter. Show me one theologian who has spent their whole life studying and gathering objective information about the "god" they write about (as opposed to studying what other people think and say about that god). Or who can even prove that the "god" they write about exists outside of people's imagination.

[Starboard Tack]

118. Hero worship much?

Why do you always support this Islamophobic bigot?

[skepticscott]

119. No, that's why I put the "or anybody else" part in there

Or did you not get the significance of that, dude? There's nothing special about Dawkins here...it's theology that's intellectually bankrupt at its foundation.

And I don't make heroes out of people. I don't worship people. I don't fawn over guys like the wonderpope. I know you'd like to pretend otherwise, and fling accusations of bigotry at every opportunity, but all you can do is make things up to hate.

[Starboard Tack]

120. Love you dude!

Time to catch a wave now, dude!

[skepticscott]

121. Still waiting for the names

of those "expert" theologians. I'm sure you'll be Googling those up for us any time now.

[Salviati]

76. Seems like a bit more advanced case of O'Reillys challenge to explain the tides

If Chopra is reaching for the god of the gaps argument, then he must be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[Brettongarcia]

123. Clearly Chopra has a "God of the Gaps" argument; he's hinting that ideas or "spirit" are immaterial

That they cannot have a materialistic/scientific explanation.

But of course, there are countless problems with 1) God of the Gaps arguments. And 2) specifically with mind vs. matter dualism. For that matter, science has long been convinced - and has even demonstrated - that our allegedly non-material ideas, are the product of a physical, material brain. It is only a matter of time before we detail exactly how that happens.

Chopra is therefore in fact, very, very close to the bottom of the barrel. Even as he poses as the spokesman of the very, very highest spirituality.

Pride comes before a fall.

[edhopper]

99. I am still trying to find out what is "Interesting" about this?

Absurd, idiotic, ridiculous yes, but interesting?

[Starboard Tack]

103. Looks like a bunch of folk found it interesting enough to chime in on

You seem to have found it more interesting than most, judging by your participation in the thread. So, I guess I was right. Myself, I only found it mildly interesting, but as it seemed to be gathering some traction in the basement, I thought it deserved airing up here, so you could all share your thoughts with the world.
I've found the whole thread very entertaining and quite informative. Thanks for your input.

[edhopper]

105. I found some of the conversations it generated

interesting. The challenge itself is mildly amusing, in a circus clown sort of way.

[Starboard Tack]

107. I agree. The conversations are everything.

I especially enjoyed your conversation with Jim. Very lively and very enlightening.

[edhopper]

108. Thanks

I had difficult time with that, because I was not sure what he was asking.

In the end I would agree it is an unanswered question, but i wouldn't say it is unanswerable.

Which seems what it was more about.

[Starboard Tack]

122. I don't know. Ask trotsky. I just cross posted it.

But, apparently some find it interesting enough to comment.

[edhopper]

124. didn't we already talk

about this?

[Starboard Tack]

125. We did indeed. Must've gotten distracted there for a moment.

It's a little weird dealing with all these time zones. I'm usually operating on either Central US or Pacific time, but for the past month I've been on Central European and will be for another couple of months. Bear with me, I'm aging 9 hours faster than normal.

[edhopper]

128. Okay

hard to keep track of all post.

[phil89]

102. Chopra loves the argument from ignorance fallacy

He couldn't get by without it.

[Starboard Tack]

106. Of course it is ridiculous. That's what makes it so interesting.

Look how many people got bent out of shape over it. The challenge is absurd, but the discussion is priceless.

[TlalocW]

126. And if that fails

Deepak can sucker another talk show host (like he did Oprah) into believing he or she has the power to mentally make a watch on a chain swinging back and forth start circling instead of it being an automated phenomenon related to the Coriolis Effect.

TlalocW

[Starboard Tack]

127. I had a friend who used really strong magnets to do tricks like that

Lots of fun.

[TlalocW]

129. Don't even need magnets

Just get a pendulum of any kind - ring on the end of a string and let it start going back and forth. It will eventually start spinning. Deepak had Oprah all excited about the power of the mind with that trick.

TlalocW

[Starboard Tack]

130. Memories of Uri Geller on Carson, with the spoon bending.

I had a friend once who spent 3 months meditating in an attempt to levitate a Xmas tree. The 60's were a lot of fun and some of us survived to tell the tale.

[TlalocW]

131. I've seen that in James Randi videos

I'm a semi-professional magician (more kids than anything but every now and then close-up). I'm very argumentative when it comes to "magical" thinking and have had my share of fun flummoxing psychics and palm-readers.

TlalocW

[Starboard Tack]

132. Cool! I love tricksters, as long as the are not mean.

I saw Doug Henning perform in Toronto in 1977 or 1978. He was still in the early days of TM. A truly amazing performer. He was working on levitation at the time. Claimed he had managed an inch or so, briefly. Who knows.

[TlalocW]

133. Yeah, Randi was a good friend with Henning

Until Henning ended their friendship over Randi not liking Henning being involved with that Mahareshi guy who was bilking people out of money to teach them to levitate in the lotus position, and Randi blames his association with them for Henning not seeking out regular treatment for the liver cancer that eventually killed him.

TlalocW

[Starboard Tack]

135. Yeah, that was really fucked up.

I have nothing against alternative medicine, but ignoring western medicine, instead of combining the two, is beyond foolish. Steve Jobs went the same way. Sad.