Deepak Chopra and Intent

Deepak Chopra and Intent


Getting Zombies Excited (It Takes a Million-Dollar Challenge)

posted by Admin

In science, problems get solved faster when the pot begins to boil. Dormant questions need motivation, which is why I posed a million-dollar challenge to anyone in the materialist camp who could demonstrate how matter turns into mind. (Please see the two preceding posts, which set up this provocative issue.) In the wake of the challenge, a stir was indeed created. The general public isn’t aware that 99% of neuroscientists, biologists, and physicists interested in the mind-brain problem assume without question that the brain creates the mind. This is one of those assumptions that, once exploded, seems ridiculous in hindsight.

 

It’s not exploded yet, but we’re getting closer. Consider what it means to say that your brain creates your mind. Somewhere in the fabric of time, floating molecules of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon, the basic elements in organic chemistry, organized a complex clump of molecules that learned to think, to take in the three-dimensional world, and finally to become aware of what they were doing. This seems like a totally untenable position to me, and to a growing body of scientists who are adopting a far different view, that mind came first, bringing with it the organizing power to evolve the structure of the human brain.

 

At first blush the two possibilities seem equal and perhaps equally improbable. If the materialists are correct, there has to be a way for matter to learn to think, which has never been proven. If the consciousness camp is right, mind has to find a way to create molecules. The reason that the second position makes sense is that our thoughts are creating molecules all the time–the chemical makeup of the brain is altered with every thought, feeling, and sensation. That is indisputable. But the bias in favor of materialism is strong, upheld mainly by inertia. Why bother to re-examine the entire creation when it’s obvious, we are told, that we live in a physical universe?

 

The answer is this: We don’t live in a physical universe as defined by rocks, trees, mountains, and Chinese porcelain. The quantum revolution long ago unmasked the illusion of physicality, proving with exact mathematical certainty that matter consists of waves in an infinite quantum field. How these waves transform into material objects remains one of the two greatest questions facing physics (the math is there but not the actual process). The other great unsolved mystery is to find the biological basis of mind.

 

My million-dollar challenge encompasses both issues. Until we know how matter relates to consciousness, there is nothing definitive to be said about the brain, normal experience, and the origin of thought. No one knows where their next thought is coming from. Thoughts emerge from a field of infinite possibilities, and the same is true of atoms and the subatomic particles that they are made of. My challenge isn’t frivolous, but I firmly believe no solution exists as long as anyone, however brilliant, adopts the physicalist position that everything about the mind, our inspiration, reasoning, love and joy, can be derived from physical properties. It’s like someone claiming that Picasso’s genius comes down to analyzing the paint he used.

 

Which brings us to the zombies. The relation between mind and matter has vexed philosophers for centuries.  In the twentieth century the problem landed in the lap of science, which began to search for hard data and provable facts. These would prove superior to woolly-minded speculation. But the only result anyone could obtain was in the area of brain activity. So the conclusion was drawn that if mind and brain are the same, there’s no need to go beyond super sophisticated fMRIs, and in short order the mind would have no more mysteries to yield. No serious thinker with a philosophy background can actually agree to this conclusion: it’s like saying that since Mozart’s music is played on the piano, all we need to know is how a piano works.

 

Science needed an ally from the philosophers’ camp, which it found in Daniel Dennett, who seemingly erased the whole dilemma by saying that the most mysterious products of the mind — a person’s sense of self, free will, and even self-awareness — are total illusions produced by brain chemistry. Since our every thought and action is actually the product of neuronal activity and nothing else, we are like zombies, showing all the signs of autonomous awareness while in fact existing on the level of biological machinery. (Zombie has become part of the terminology, synonymous with biological robot. I hope Dennett includes himself.) Dennett became notorious for his zombie metaphor, since he meant it literally. Only extreme materialists feel comfortable adopting such a theory, since it’s evident on the face of it that we do in fact have self-awareness, free will, creativity, choice, and all the other advantages of mind that are not enjoyed by a computer.

 

But Dennett was clever enough to take the materialist assumption to its logical conclusion. This leaves everyone with only two choices. Either the human mind is only an artifact of neuronal activity, including the minds of Shakespeare, Bach, and Einstein, or carrying the materialist assumption to its logical conclusion reveals its absurdity to begin with. Both alternatives are hotly argued, so the game is afoot. Apparently money can even motivate a zombie.

Deepak Chopra, MD is the author of more than 80 books with twenty-two New York Times bestsellers including Super Brain, co-authored with Rudi Tanzi, PhD. He serves as the founder of The Chopra Foundation and co-founder of The Chopra Center for Wellbeing. Join him at The Chopra Foundation Sages and Scientists Symposium 2014. www.choprafoundation.org



Advertisement
Comments read comments(1)
post a comment
Bea

posted July 17, 2014 at 5:38 pm


This “challenge” is being discussed on the whyevolutionistrue.wordpress blog of Jerry Coyne. Misleadingly, he talks there about a lot of stuff that actually has far too little to do with “why evolution is true”… but that’s his prerogative (and his personal pulpit).

I’ve never been religious and I’m quite liberal… but because I politely argued there against dogmatic physicalist beliefs, it seems I’m no longer permitted to post on JC’s blog (and I don’t mean Jesus Christ). ;) First time ever… and I’ve been on many such sites. Very interesting observation.

It’s referred to as a blog over on the left side bar, but for some reason JC doesn’t like it being called a blog. And I’ve noted that there is a lot of extreme nastiness that is permitted (even encouraged) as long as it’s directed against persons who are not anti-theistic physicalists.

It doesn’t matter how measured and logical one’s points are. I suppose the most rational disagreements pose the greatest irritant of all. Then again, some of these big ideas require abstract thinking abilities, and there are people who become quite uncomfortable beyond the concrete, whenever things get a bit “woolier.” ;)

Anyway… the following is what I would have posted today on his blog, regarding Chopra’s new “challenge”…

The problem is that our current conception of “physical” (~mass/charge/spin/space/time) is an inadequate descriptor of many features of existence.

The question is [first whether, and then] why/when/how certain physical/neural events somehow become “more than physical/neural” events… without becoming anything “more” than “physical” events. Indeed.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

How Richard Dawkins Lost His Battle with God
When he wrote his 2006 best-seller, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins expected to accomplish two aims that have proved to be remarkable failures. The first aim was social. He wanted to attract a horde of doubters, fence-sitters, and agnostics to gather their courage and join the atheist ranks. This

posted 11:50:49am Nov. 17, 2014 | read full post »

How to Make God Love You
Although the modern controversy over God centers on the famous headline from Time magazine, "Is God Dead?" this isn’t really the key question. By definition, God can't be dead, because "dead" implies that God was alive, and once alive, an immortal being can't die. Yet defining God as immortal or l

posted 11:05:23am Nov. 10, 2014 | read full post »

Why God Doesn't Care What You Do
In every religion that believes in a personal God, there's a connection between the divine and the human. A personal God created life, and he (or she) cherishes his creation. No love is more intense than divine love. No anger is more intense than divine wrath. As relationships go, the one with God p

posted 11:15:46am Nov. 03, 2014 | read full post »

"I am the master of my fate": A New Take on Free Will
Back when schoolchildren regularly read uplifting poetry, there was a famous Victorian poem that affirmed the human birthright of free will. It was "Invictus," by W. E. Henley and began: Out of the night that covers me, Black as the pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For

posted 11:27:37am Oct. 27, 2014 | read full post »

Memo to Neuroscience: “We Are Not Brain Puppets”
The notion that human beings walk, talk, think, and do things because our brains control us is a fringe idea, easily refuted with a few moment’s thought and rarely taken seriously. But it got a boost from an Op-ed piece in the New York Times last week under the title, “Are We Really Conscious?

posted 2:29:43pm Oct. 20, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.