Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[George-ananda]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Or apparently meaningless, unfounded claims are just what they appear to be.

I agree with what you say but I don't think so in this case. I see a new science emerging where consciousness becomes fundamental. It flips a lot of thinking. Just my intuition and I'm in no position to debate the details with materialist biologists.

 

[allfoak]

I'd say that reason and intuition are complementary, but leaving that aside I don't believe that Chopras strange theories are based on experience at all, it's really just speculation fuelled by an over-active imagination.
I don't believe for a second that he has experienced the consciousness of atoms, or extended his consciousness billions of light years to the far reaches of the universe, or whatever.

You may be correct but he is not the only one who has made the claim.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You may be correct but he is not the only one who has made the claim.

But it looks like a baseless claim.

 

[allfoak]

But it looks like a baseless claim.

yes it does.
Primarily because it is based in experience.
Those that make the claim say this:
"Do what i have done and you will know what i know".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Primarily because it is based in experience.

So do you believe he has experienced atoms being conscious, and experienced the Andromeda galaxy directly with some super-expanded consciousness? I don't.
Maybe he's had some experience of altered consciousness but so have a lot of other people, and they don't make up these fantastical theories.

 

[allfoak]

i have no idea what he has experienced.
i have read maybe a few pages of his material years ago.
What i told you is what i know.
He is one of many over many thousands of years who have made these claims.

Maybe he is drawing on that material or maybe he has experienced it.
I am sure he has had some sort of expanded consciousness experience.
To what extent would be difficult to know since the only way to verify it is to do what he has done.
Which is how he sells his books i would imagine.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

He is one of many over many thousands of years who have made these claims.

I don't find these vague references to ancient sages at all convincing, particularly when we don't know which hallucinogen there were using.

 

[Sapiens]

Chopra is used to mouthing complex and ill defined inanities in front of noncritical audiences. His ability to debate within a universe of words that have actual clear definitions borders on the infantile.

 

[Skwim]

Chopra is used to mouthing complex and ill defined inanities in front of noncritical audiences. His ability to debate within a universe of words that have actual clear definitions borders on the infantile.

And this is his strength. His feigned understanding of the gibberish he spouts imparts an almost transcendent wisdom that crushes any questions that might arise among the befuddled sitting in the front row. He's a charlatan who's found that sincerely presented mumbo jumbo and obfuscation are just the tools to burrow into the minds of the spiritual needy. And, his clap-trap doesn't have to make sense because Chopra-on-high understands it all.

Oh yes, please make your check out to the Sonima Foundation.

For your records, our Tax ID number is 45-3182571.
Thank you for supporting the Sonima Foundation.​

 

[allfoak]

I don't find these vague references to ancient sages at all convincing, particularly when we don't know which hallucinogen there were using.

Not sure how to respond to that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not sure how to respond to that.

People will sometimes refer to rediscovering the wisdom of the ancients and talk about ancient sages, but it's invariably very vague and nobody can ever say exactly who these people were and what they are supposed to have discovered.

 

[allfoak]

People will sometimes refer to rediscovering the wisdom of the ancients and talk about ancient sages, but it's invariably very vague and nobody can ever say exactly who these people were and what they are supposed to have discovered.

Okay,
What would you like to know about what they have discovered?
I know a little.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

Seeing as so many of you are championing Dawkins ...?

I will take Chopras deffence , ....

Personaly I am not a great lover of Chopra (I will explain later)

But I dont know how anyone can defend Dawkins when at one monent he says he dosent know , ..but continues to dismiss the opositions theory in principle without giving it a hearing , ...then having said he ''dosent know'' he says he can explain Mystical experience ? .....How ? what he means is he will blatently dismiss it because he dosent beleive in it .

Chopra on the otherhand draws heavily from the vedic tradition , some times he says things which astound me as being absolutely spot on then another time he fails to fully explain a point eloquently enough to make me think that he realy has it 100% , but he is very close , ...My feeling is with Chopra is that when he stops playing to the audience he comes across a lot better , ....the fame and popularity has not done him any favours but he can put vedic perspective and modern medicinal science together in a more profound way than I heve heard many do ....

I would have to listen to the entire conversation to make any worthwhile coment , But frankly Chopra has a vaild point it is just that he is not in the right situation to explain it adequately .....

could atoms have consciousness , and does water have memory ?
personaly I would say yes , ..but is it worth discussing it ? ..or was this thread just posted to fuel a little controvercy ???

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, people are being quite shy on supporting Dawkins, particularly given this specific situation.

I feel bad for Chopra even. But it is a shame of his own doing.

 

[Sapiens]

namaskaram

Seeing as so many of you are championing Dawkins ...?

I will take Chopras deffence , ....

Personaly I am not a great lover of Chopra (I will explain later)

But I dont know how anyone can defend Dawkins when at one monent he says he dosent know , ..but continues to dismiss the opositions theory in principle without giving it a hearing , ...then having said he ''dosent know'' he says he can explain Mystical experience ? .....How ? what he means is he will blatently dismiss it because he dosent beleive in it .

It is rather simple, one does not need to know the correct answer to be able to falsify an incorrect one.

Chopra on the otherhand draws heavily from the vedic tradition , some times he says things which astound me as being absolutely spot on then another time he fails to fully explain a point eloquently enough to make me think that he really has it 100% , but he is very close , ...My feeling is with Chopra is that when he stops playing to the audience he comes across a lot better , ....the fame and popularity has not done him any favours but he can put vedic perspective and modern medicinal science together in a more profound way than I heve heard many do ....

I don't know what the reason is, and I really don't care since I am not being paid as his shrink. His ego is clearly bigger than his leaning (not unusual for physicians) and his mouth is making appointments his brain can't keep.

I would have to listen to the entire conversation to make any worthwhile coment , But frankly Chopra has a vaild point it is just that he is not in the right situation to explain it adequately .....

could atoms have consciousness , and does water have memory ?
personaly I would say yes , ..but is it worth discussing it ? ..or was this thread just posted to fuel a little controvercy ???

That's simply not true, Dawkins had it spot on, something about how individual atoms and molecules do not have consciousness until they assemble into a brain.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

It is rather simple, one does not need to know the correct answer to be able to falsify an incorrect one.

I am sorry if this sounds obtuse , ..But if one does not know the answer , it might be prudent to listen to the hypothesis of another , ...it is not only polite but it may just be benificial .

I don't know what the reason is, and I really don't care since I am not being paid as his shrink. His ego is clearly bigger than his leaning (not unusual for physicians) and his mouth is making appointments his brain can't keep.

isnt it amazing how people love to shoot down anyone who has won public aclaim , prehaps it would be better to look at the subject in question rather than the personalities involved .

That's simply not true, Dawkins had it spot on, something about how individual atoms and molecules do not have consciousness until they assemble into a brain.

But Sir , ...how do you know ?
from what I see the brain suffers more from confusion than it does Consciousness , ...in truth the brain is not the seat of consciousness .......now ask Dawkins to work that one out .

 

[Rick O'Shez]

in truth the brain is not the seat of consciousness .......

There is no evidence to support that idea though, so I don't see how you can state it as a "truth".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

isnt it amazing how people love to shoot down anyone who has won public aclaim , prehaps it would be better to look at the subject in question rather than the personalities involved .

I don't object to Chopra because he has popularity, I object to him because I think the way he uses pseudo-science to support his theories is dishonest and misleading.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

There is no evidence to support that idea though, so I don't see how you can state it as a "truth".

you consider your self Buddhist ..ish ? ...

please prehaps you recal the difference between the gross mind and the subtle mind ?

 

[ratikala]

I don't object to Chopra because he has popularity, I object to him because I think the way he uses pseudo-science to support his theories is dishonest and misleading.

in all fairness my reply was to the man wirh an eyepatch , however if you do not object to Chopra in person then please do not take this comment as aimed directly at you .
If you object to his hypothesis's than that is fine by me I am no material scientist , .....each is entitled to their own perspective .