Religion

edhopper

(33,635 posts)

36. That is only if you

Fri Jul 18, 2014, 03:22 PM

Jul 2014

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

135 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Interesting challenge by Dr. Deepak Chopra to Richard Dawkins [View all] Starboard Tack Jul 2014 OP

"an interesting adversary for Dawkins." beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #1

I thought it pretty funny too Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #2

From the Louie Gohmert of Woo? beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #4

::snork:: A metaphysical steel cage match. n/t TygrBright Jul 2014 #3

I believe plcdude Jul 2014 #5

I would ask Dennett, or, preferably, Antonio Damasio. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #8

And if no one can explain it, so what? skepticscott Jul 2014 #6

But, as a scientist are you not curious at least? Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #7

There is a shitload of research being conducting at the intersection of Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #10

I'm sure his goal posts are on roller skates Lordquinton Jul 2014 #12

Um, no…science is not about skepticscott Jul 2014 #11

Perhaps the Deepster thinks.... AlbertCat Jul 2014 #14

Oh dude, thanks for the science lesson Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #24

Not just Dawkins, he includes Randi as well Lordquinton Jul 2014 #9

Attention whoring of the first order skepticscott Jul 2014 #13

First Chopra edhopper Jul 2014 #15

Chopra is not interesting... MellowDem Jul 2014 #16

I doubt anyone will try to collect the million dollars. Jim__ Jul 2014 #17

I don't know if anybody has claimed too edhopper Jul 2014 #18

There are explanations for sensory reception and transmission of that reception. Jim__ Jul 2014 #19

Is this a pantheism thing? edhopper Jul 2014 #20

It's a request that you supply one of those concrete explanations that you alluded to in post #18. Jim__ Jul 2014 #21

The basis edhopper Jul 2014 #22

An example of a subjective experience is seeing color. Jim__ Jul 2014 #25

Do you think seeing a color edhopper Jul 2014 #26

Spectrometers can measure electromagnetic wavelength. Jim__ Jul 2014 #27

Oh edhopper Jul 2014 #28

Asking whether color exists in the external world is not a denial of objective reality. Jim__ Jul 2014 #30

First edhopper Jul 2014 #32

I stated my position quite clearly in post #17. Jim__ Jul 2014 #33

That is only if you edhopper Jul 2014 #36

I couldn't care less whether or not you "admit error." Jim__ Jul 2014 #43

So you are edhopper Jul 2014 #44

Where did I say that? Jim__ Jul 2014 #46

Okay edhopper Jul 2014 #47

I don't think anyone has a particularly viable theory right now. Jim__ Jul 2014 #48

I'll look at those edhopper Jul 2014 #49

"seeing color" is not the experience of color. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #31

Machines can identify em wavelength. They don't "see" color - discussed in post #27. Jim__ Jul 2014 #34

No they see color. Currently they can't express a subjective experience of seeing color. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #35

I'll accept the dictionary definition as valid. Jim__ Jul 2014 #41

well at least you didn't cite urban dictionary :-) Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #52

"to notice or become aware of (someone or something) by using your eyes" Jim__ Jul 2014 #57

Dennet on "qualia" and color. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #74

Dennett is not claiming to know how we see color. Jim__ Jul 2014 #111

"as a first-person experience " well, no as I noted elsewhere, Deepak undid that Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #113

From your citation: "... the quale of what it is like to see red ..." Jim__ Jul 2014 #117

I give up. Your own excerpts make clear my point that "seeing" and "the qualia of seeing" are Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #134

Do you really believe that machines can see? Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #64

Of course they can see. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #67

OK, that explains so much. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #68

You've added so much to this discussion Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #69

I'm here to be educated, which is working fine thanks. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #72

No you are here to toss insults, which must somehow cause you a pleasurable experience. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #73

And what is your post, if not an insult, Warren? Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #75

I agree. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #55

Thanks. I think Chopra is being fairly careful with that money. Jim__ Jul 2014 #56

No, they really weren't Lordquinton Jul 2014 #59

It might have some relevance if this woo-meister could say what he means intaglio Jul 2014 #23

Poor Chopra WovenGems Jul 2014 #29

I don't understand how anyone can take Chopra seriously, first off... Humanist_Activist Jul 2014 #37

Talk to edhopper Jul 2014 #38

"You could watch Oprah interview Deepak Chopra" AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #50

Not if I want to keep my food down. edhopper Jul 2014 #51

Captain Quantum is not an "interesting adversary". gcomeau Jul 2014 #39

But we know from quantum mechanics edhopper Jul 2014 #40

When I clicked on that reply title... gcomeau Jul 2014 #42

Namaste. edhopper Jul 2014 #45

But... WovenGems Jul 2014 #53

Poe's law edhopper Jul 2014 #54

May I point out one big flaw in Deepak Chopra's challenge? Dawkins is NOT a neuroscientist... Humanist_Activist Jul 2014 #58

Dawkins isn't a theologian or a philosopher of religion, either. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #60

Dawkins treats specialties in science different than theology and philosophy... Humanist_Activist Jul 2014 #61

Touche! Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #63

No edhopper Jul 2014 #70

Dawkins (or anyone else) is free to present facts and express his opinions skepticscott Jul 2014 #65

Your statement is about Chopra edhopper Jul 2014 #71

It's a million dollar challenge regarding biology and ideas. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #80

No, it doesn't make sense looked at that way. Not remotely. skepticscott Jul 2014 #82

Dennettcould probably speak well about consciousness edhopper Jul 2014 #84

Maybe he thinks Dawkins would address Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #86

So it's bullshit edhopper Jul 2014 #87

I watched the video, and he does come off as pompous. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #91

The philosophical is real edhopper Jul 2014 #94

Apparently you had no rational response skepticscott Jul 2014 #93

How can a challenge have a flaw? Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #62

You're the one who stated that the whole thing was "interesting" skepticscott Jul 2014 #66

If I offered a neurosurgeon 1 million dollars to successfully rebuild the transmission on a car... Humanist_Activist Jul 2014 #78

Why not? A million dollars can be quite an incentive. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #83

Just the understanding edhopper Jul 2014 #88

So, the delusion refers to all theologians and not all believers? Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #89

The Delusion is that God exists edhopper Jul 2014 #90

Ýeah, I'll put it on my list, right next to the book of Revelations. LOL Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #95

Yeah edhopper Jul 2014 #96

I don't need to read this book to know those things. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #97

Let me know when the "new atheist" edhopper Jul 2014 #98

Really? That's your defense of the New Atheists? Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #100

I am saying i don't see the extremism in the New Atheist that you do. edhopper Jul 2014 #101

Let's start with the leaders of the so-called "New Atheist" movement. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #110

No, that's what you had to pretend skepticscott Jul 2014 #109

So what kind of idiot skepticscott Jul 2014 #92

Excellent point. He's a writer and a biologist. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #77

What is your purpose on this board? All you do is insult and belittle atheists. Humanist_Activist Jul 2014 #79

What is my purpose on this board? Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #85

Oh FFS, don't be so disingenuous, you don't even judge people by their actions, if they are.... Humanist_Activist Jul 2014 #112

Well,why don't you point out who I gave a free pass to and for what? Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #114

Post removed Post removed Jul 2014 #115

Oh yes...the "we atheists" crap skepticscott Jul 2014 #116

Show me one theologian who has more knowledge about Jehovah or Allah skepticscott Jul 2014 #81

Hero worship much? Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #118

No, that's why I put the "or anybody else" part in there skepticscott Jul 2014 #119

Love you dude! Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #120

Still waiting for the names skepticscott Jul 2014 #121

Seems like a bit more advanced case of O'Reillys challenge to explain the tides Salviati Jul 2014 #76

Clearly Chopra has a "God of the Gaps" argument; he's hinting that ideas or "spirit" are immaterial Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #123

I am still trying to find out what is "Interesting" about this? edhopper Jul 2014 #99

Looks like a bunch of folk found it interesting enough to chime in on Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #103

I found some of the conversations it generated edhopper Jul 2014 #105

I agree. The conversations are everything. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #107

Thanks edhopper Jul 2014 #108

I don't know. Ask trotsky. I just cross posted it. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #122

didn't we already talk edhopper Jul 2014 #124

We did indeed. Must've gotten distracted there for a moment. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #125

Okay edhopper Jul 2014 #128

Chopra loves the argument from ignorance fallacy phil89 Jul 2014 #102

This message was self-deleted by its author lostincalifornia Jul 2014 #104

Of course it is ridiculous. That's what makes it so interesting. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #106

And if that fails TlalocW Jul 2014 #126

I had a friend who used really strong magnets to do tricks like that Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #127

Don't even need magnets TlalocW Jul 2014 #129

Memories of Uri Geller on Carson, with the spoon bending. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #130

I've seen that in James Randi videos TlalocW Jul 2014 #131

Cool! I love tricksters, as long as the are not mean. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #132

Yeah, Randi was a good friend with Henning TlalocW Jul 2014 #133

Yeah, that was really fucked up. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #135