Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[George-ananda]

To be completely honest, I had to read the rest of the sentence to make sure you weren't making use of sarcasm. But that's it.

Are you aware of Chopra's academic and professional background? He is obviously top of the chart high intelligence. And maybe that's why I feel he doesn't relate well to the common person especially in conversational mode.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think Deepak is extremely intelligent but doesn't relate well with the mainstream or non-believers; particularly in conversation. I think there are many, many that can present the worldview of Chopra in a much better way to the layman.

I wonder if Dawkins realizes this and seems to choose to publicly interact with Chopra because Chopra helps Dawkins show what he wants to show. There are others who Dawkins would be more challenged by, but he prefers Chopra.

I don't know about Chopra's being intelligent, but even if we assume he is for the sake of argument, that doesn't really mean much. A person's being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean his or her beliefs are rational or scientific.

Do you think there is any validity to Chopra's belief that cells are aware? In what way do you think such a belief could be expressed so as not to sound completely unfounded and unscientific?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I came across this excerpt from a debate between Richard Dawkins and Deepak Chopra:

That was just painful to watch. You could tell exactly how Dawkins felt from the facepalm he gave Chopra while the latter was speaking his nonsense.

What do you personally think of Deepak Chopra's views in general? Do you believe that he has anything worthwhile to say, or do you share Dawkins's view that Chopra uses scientific jargon to make unscientific and baseless claims about consciousness and mystical experiences?

Honestly thought a vein was going to burst in Dawkins' head at one point, he couldn't take it anymore haha.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

 

[Koldo]

Are you aware of Chopra's academic and professional background? He is obviously top of the chart high intelligence. And maybe that's why I feel he doesn't relate well to the common person especially in conversational mode.

I don't know about his academic and professional background, but it matters not when so much balderdash comes out of his mouth.

 

[George-ananda]

Do you think there is any validity to Chopra's belief that cells are aware?

Actually that question is over my head but I think we have to slow way down to understand what Chopra is really saying. I definitely do not dismiss this when someone like Chopra says this and I suspect there is something to it. I wonder how Rupert Sheldrake would chime in.

In what way do you think such a belief could be expressed so as not to sound completely unfounded and unscientific?

As I said, by slowing the discussion way down.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Actually that question is over my head but I think we have to slow way down to understand what Chopra is really saying.

If you slow down and listen carefully to the word salad, it becomes obvious that he is spouting nonsense. He reminds me of a used-car salesman, constantly twisting and turning and distracting attention so you don't notice he's really selling a heap of rust.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Actually that question is over my head but I think we have to slow way down to understand what Chopra is really saying. I definitely do not dismiss this when someone like Chopra says this and I suspect there is something to it. I wonder how Rupert Sheldrake would chime in.

As I said, by slowing the discussion way down.

How would slowing down the discussion help to make the belief in awareness of cells appear to have a scientific basis? A lot of scientists disagree with Chopra's views because they see them as baseless from a scientific perspective.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't know about his academic and professional background, but it matters not when so much balderdash comes out of his mouth.

I don't think many people understand what he's trying to say before rushing to call it balderdash. He goes over my head often in conversation and I think he may have an inflated ego.

 

[Sees]

I don't know about Chopra's being intelligent, but even if we assume he is for the sake of argument, that doesn't really mean much. A person's being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean his or her beliefs are rational or scientific.

Do you think there is any validity to Chopra's belief that cells are aware? In what way do you think such a belief could be expressed so as not to sound completely unfounded and unscientific?

The idea cells may be aware has been popping up in a lot of places. Don't know the results of any studies though.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't think many people understand what he's trying to say before rushing to call it balderdash.

It's actually quite difficult to understand him because it's a random emission of made-up words.

 

[George-ananda]

How would slowing down the discussion help to make the belief in awareness of cells appear to have a scientific basis? A lot of scientists disagree with Chopra's views because they see them as baseless from a scientific perspective.

I don't think this is Chopra alone on an island. What would someone like Rupert Sheldrake say. Many in science recognize a hard problem of consciousness. Why not other hard problems for science to consider?

 

[Sees]

It's actually quite difficult to understand him because he emits a random emission of made-up words.

That's called trailblazing!

 

[Nietzsche]

I don't think many people understand what he's trying to say before rushing to call it balderdash. He goes over my head often in conversation and I think he may have an inflated ego.

He deliberately quote-mines brilliant minds like Freeman Dyson to support his New-Age, quasi-mystical bull****. That is the sign of someone who both A) does not even begin to understand what he's talking about and B) what he does understand he intentionally dresses up as more intelligent than it really is by using esoteric and quasi-scientific words.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Many in science recognize a hard problem of consciousness.

Yes, it is a hard problem, but I don't think a quack like Chopra has anything intelligent to contribute. He plays a new-age version of the God-of-the-gaps game, "Look, here's something science hasn't yet worked out, so I'll just make something up and squeeze it in while they're not looking."

 

[Revoltingest]

This physicist is now one of my favorite comedians. I think he might be the one pulling Chopra's strings in a brilliant ventriloquist act.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think this is Chopra alone on an island. What would someone like Rupert Sheldrake say. Many in science recognize a hard problem of consciousness. Why not other hard problems for science to consider?

Dawkins did acknowledge that consciousness is a complicated issue and that scientists are working on figuring it out. Chopra, on the other hand, asserts that cells are aware and that he has the absolute answer to the question of how consciousness occurs without any objective evidence to back up his claims. I think he is way too sure of his beliefs given the paucity of the evidence in favor of them.

 

[George-ananda]

Dawkins did acknowledge that consciousness is a complicated issue and that scientists are working on figuring it out. Chopra, on the other hand, asserts that cells are aware and that he has the absolute answer to the question of how consciousness occurs without any objective evidence to back up his claims. I think he is way too sure of his beliefs given the paucity of the evidence in favor of them.

I say 'great', let's let the proponents and detractors debate those issues. I was just saying Chopra doesn't present his side well in conversation and others could do better.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dawkins did acknowledge that consciousness is a complicated issue and that scientists are working on figuring it out. Chopra, on the other hand, asserts that cells are aware and that he has the absolute answer to the question of how consciousness occurs without any objective evidence to back up his claims. I think he is way too sure of his beliefs given the paucity of the evidence in favor of them.

I have evidence that Chopra is wrong....my redwood trees told me he is.

 

[gsa]

I have evidence that Chopra is wrong....my redwood trees told me he is.

Perhaps Deepak would label the single cell deniers heretics in this new cosmic consciousness tradition...