Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

“Enlightenment for a wave in the ocean is the moment the wave realizes that it is water.”

~ Thich Nhat Hanh

And it is in this realization that its true nature is water, and not the wave-form. In the same way, our own realization is that there is no individual self called 'I' that is conscious; there is only pure consciousness itself. Pure Consciousness is our true nature. The 'I' is pure fiction.

 

[Runewolf1973]

And it is in this realization that its true nature is water, and not the wave-form. In the same way, our own realization is that there is no individual self called 'I' that is conscious; there is only pure consciousness itself. Pure Consciousness is our true nature. The 'I' is pure fiction.

Indeed. Although I am not partial to the term "Pure Consciousness", I do understand what you are saying.

 

[Shad]

Exactly what I said, even though the creators of the site have a positive intent, but totally irrelevant to the actual statement you posted.

Nope as the intent of the site proved that people will read what they want into any statement which you did.

The study paper has nothing to do with my response to the statement; it is only your assumption that I have a bias in favor of Chopra.

You have demonstrated your bias is infavour of Deepak especially when making statements such as "Deepak knows more about QM then you do!" Yet he doesn't understand the double-slit experiment or observer effect while I do..

While I do respect his input, I also have to retain a critical attitude to whatever I read. What I read about the statement was what it said: that making tea is related to spiritual belonging. Doesn't matter it was from Chopra or not, or that a point was being made. I could care less. What I responded to was the content of the statement at face value. The rest of what you're saying is based wholly on your assumptions, and YOUR bias against Chopr

a. And you're just making up crap about 'deep meaning'; there is no such thing in the example you provided.

Which is confirmation bias. The quote is produced by software with no intent, it has no purpose for the words it strings together. You read intent/purpose into the quote and still do. Which is exactly what the site proves

He doesn't mix science with religion. He is simply seeing that Reality is one. His view is mystical, not religious, and the mystic's view includes science, but science does not include the mystic's view. The evidence for what I'm saying is that he uses scientific evidence to support his view, wherever possible.

Hilarious. He sure uses the word quantum enough, he attempt to use quantum mechanic mixed with mysticism.

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Healing-Exploring-Frontiers-Medicine/dp/0739343963
https://books.google.ca/books?id=CMea5boaOH4C&dq=deepak+chopra+quantum&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.ca/books?id=CYU3AAAACAAJ&dq=deepak+chopra+quantum&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.ca/books?id=2KHUb3iEkzEC&dq=deepak+chopra+quantum&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

Then he goes on to demand peer-reviewed source from James Randi while he has zero publication doing the very thing he just demanded. Moving the goal post and double-standards

Suggestion: what you should do is to post a statement by Chopra you consider to be woo, and let me respond to it. Let's forget the study because it is just so much crap.

I already did.

 

[godnotgod]

Nope as the intent of the site proved that people will read what they want into any statement which you did.

Can you demonstrate that I did?

You have demonstrated your bias is infavour of Deepak especially when making statements such as "Deepak knows more about QM then you do!" Yet he doesn't understand the double-slit experiment or observer effect while I do..

What I meant is that Chopra understands what the nature of the phenomena of QM actually is, while you don't. IOW, you don't have a clue as to the nature of QM, an neither does Science. John Hagelin is one of the few scientists who do, along with Amit Goswami, and, of course, our fearless leader, Deepak Chopra.

Which is confirmation bias. The quote is produced by software with no intent, it has no purpose for the words it strings together. You read intent/purpose into the quote and still do. Which is exactly what the site proves

Is the quote you provided true or not?

Hilarious. He sure uses the word quantum enough, he attempt to use quantum mechanic mixed with mysticism.

The mystic's view includes the Quantum view, and all other views. It is the view of The Big Picture; science is a view of higher magnification, and as such, is only a limited view.

I already did.

I must have been referred to this video a million times in attempts to make a fool of Chopra. This is a good example of erroneous logic, by which some of the audience also responded. Can you detect the error in thinking here?

 

[godnotgod]

Indeed. Although I am not partial to the term "Pure Consciousness", I do understand what you are saying.

'Pure' as used here simply means 'clear', and that implies seeing, rather than thinking.

 

[Shad]

Can you demonstrate that I did?

It's all in this read and easy to read. First you assumed it was from Deepak and reading a meaning you believed Deepak was attempting to communicate. When you learned the quote was a product of software you still reading meaning into although software has no purpose or meaning for the quote as it is just a collection of words strung together. So in the end you reading meaning from your perspective, confirmation bias, from a source that had no intention of saying anything of meaning. It would be like reading meaning into "Dog bark tree chocolate bar bingo."

What I meant is that Chopra understands what the nature of the phenomena of QM actually is, while you don't. IOW, you don't have a clue as to the nature of QM, an neither does Science. John Hagelin is one of the few scientists who do, along with Amit Goswami, and, of course, our fearless leader, Deepak Chopra.

No he doesn't has he has no published a single piece of work which was peer-reviewed by physicists. He makes this claim but has nothing to back it thus his claims are worthless. I can make the exact same claims as Deepak. "I understand the nature of QM" Useless sophistry. John Hagelin ideas have been rejected by his peers. His ideas and support have no merit. He has no published one paper in which his ideas have been accepted. Amit Goswami has not published a single pieces of work accepted by his peers on this topic. All 3 figures published books outside of the peer-review process for consumption by the masses since the masses are ignorant of QM

The fact that I under the double-slit and observer effect is not a product of consciousness but of the tool of measurement, which has no consciousness, is proof I understand QM better than Deepak

Is the quote is true or not?

Irrelevant. the first question you should ask is this. "Is software putting words together to form a sentence has any intended meaning or purpose of the quote" The answer is no software did not create this quote in order to communicate any idea other than what it's designer stated it's purpose was. You are reading what you want into software which against is confirmation bias.

The mystic's view includes the Quantum view, and all other views. It is the view of The Big Picture; science is a view of higher magnification, and as such, is only a limited view.

No it attempted to use QM as a source of authority. However it says nothing about the Quantum since Quantum with in physics is a set of new ideas and observations of the modern ages not of the bronze or iron age. It is an argument from authority, fallacy of equivocation, etymological fallacy, false attribution, false equivalency, cherry picking. I will stop there. So in the end you make a number of mistakes, noted and or not, in order to even state this nonsense.

I must have been referred to this video a million times in attempts to make a fool of Chopra. This is a good example of erroneous logic, by which some of the audience also responded. Can you detect the error in thinking here?

He made a self-refuting statement and proved it as much by his answer. There is no question Deepak made a fool of himself since he rarely considered what he spouts.

I am all ear to see what failures in logic you use to get around a basic mistake in composition Deepak made.

 

[Runewolf1973]

'Pure' as used here simply means 'clear', and that implies seeing, rather than thinking.

I understand, but both thinking and seeing indicate a form of interaction. What you are referring to goes beyond seeing...beyond interaction. It is just Being. I can do without the Pure Consciousness or Bliss part as well... Being works just fine on its own. Absolute or Source works good too. I even like the term Brahman, but I don't like the term Pure Consciousness. Unified Field is probably my favorite as far as sounding non-mystical. The Unified Field is that limitless ocean filled with waves of potential.

 

[godnotgod]

I understand, but both thinking and seeing indicate a form of interaction. What you are referring to goes beyond seeing...beyond interaction. It is just Being. I can do without the Pure Consciousness or Bliss part as well... Being works just fine on its own. Absolute or Source works good too. I even like the term Brahman, but I don't like the term Pure Consciousness. Unified Field is probably my favorite as far as sounding non-mystical. The Unified Field is that limitless ocean filled with waves of potential.

heh..heh...unified field is more 'mystical' than pure consciousness, as 'mystical' simply means the merging of observer and observed. Pure Consciousness is none other than Being. Being is before existence. Being is Changeless and does not appear to interact as that dwelling in existence does. That is why Yeshua said:

'Before Abraham was, I Am'

Abraham was a creature born into existence; Yeshua's true nature of Being comes out of the eternal Present Moment, even though he had a dual nature which included that of a human nature. In reality, we all have the potential for awakening into Being as Yeshua and the Buddha did, but most of mankind dwells in existence in the state of Identification.

 

[Runewolf1973]

heh..heh...unified field is more 'mystical' than pure consciousness, as 'mystical' simply means the merging of observer and observed. Pure Consciousness is none other than Being. Being is before existence. Being is Changeless and does not appear to interact as that dwelling in existence does. That is why Yeshua said:

'Before Abraham was, I Am'

Abraham was a creature born into existence; Yeshua's true nature of Being comes out of the eternal Present Moment, even though he had a dual nature which included that of a human nature. In reality, we all have the potential for awakening into Being as Yeshua and the Buddha did, but most of mankind dwells in existence in the state of Identification.

I don't like the term consciousness in the everyday sense let alone Pure Consciousness. There is only "Ocean Waving" and that is the Unified Field.

 

[godnotgod]

It's all in this read and easy to read. First you assumed it was from Deepak and reading a meaning you believed Deepak was attempting to communicate.

None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the FACT that I found the statement to be true, which it is.

When you learned the quote was a product of software you still reading meaning into although software has no purpose or meaning for the quote as it is just a collection of words strung together. So in the end you reading meaning from your perspective, confirmation bias, from a source that had no intention of saying anything of meaning. It would be like reading meaning into "Dog bark tree chocolate bar bingo."

No, it would NOT be the same. "Dog bark tree chocolate bar bingo." is not a complete coherent sentence, which might be something like: 'Bingo! The dog barks at finding a chocolate bar under the tree'. I was responding to a complete coherent sentence that a computer generated from Chopra's words. The sentence was: "Making tea is the continuity of spiritual belonging". The FACT is that the statement in question DOES have meaning, which I demonstrated via explanation. If I were influenced by confirmation bias, I would not be able to explain the meaning of the statement; I would only say that it was true because I automatically favor everything Chopra says, regardless of its veracity.

So you have not shown that I have read into the statement in question something that is not there due to confirmation bias. You only assume that I did, based on YOUR confirmation bias against everything Chopra says.

The point of the experiment was to show that Chopra's statements are as meaningless as computer generated statements, but the experimenters fail to understand that Chopra's statements are completely meaningful from a mystic's POV, an understanding the experimenters obviously lack. To them, Chopra's statements seem nonsensical, just as, for example, Zen koans seem nonsensical to those who are oriented toward logic and reason, and who have not nurtured an intuitive understanding of Reality.

No he doesn't has he has no published a single piece of work which was peer-reviewed by physicists. He makes this claim but has nothing to back it thus his claims are worthless. I can make the exact same claims as Deepak. "I understand the nature of QM" Useless sophistry. John Hagelin ideas have been rejected by his peers. His ideas and support have no merit. He has no published one paper in which his ideas have been accepted. Amit Goswami has not published a single pieces of work accepted by his peers on this topic. All 3 figures published books outside of the peer-review process for consumption by the masses since the masses are ignorant of QM

Did you miss the point about HC not being subject to proof via Reason, Logic, and Analysis? Facts describing how the Quanum world behaves do not tell us what the nature of the Quantum world is. Chopra is telling us what the true nature of Reality actually is, which Quantum behavior is an aspect of. Scientific peer reviewers are limited to the use of the scientific method, which does not apply to insights into Reality via HC.

The fact that I under the double-slit and observer effect is not a product of consciousness but of the tool of measurement, which has no consciousness, is proof I understand QM better than Deepak

The tools of measurement are created via consciousness, are extensions of consciousness, and the results are interpreted by it as well. All you can show is that you understand the results that the tools provide, but you do not understand the nature of that which the tools are looking at. You have zero clue as to exactly what QM actually IS. The mystic knows what the nature of QM is, though he may not know the about the specific math or the physics. Chopra is speaking to us about the nature of Reality, not about its behavioral characteristics. As Alan Watts has said, 'the dead man gives us all the facts, but tells us nothing'.

Irrelevant. the first question you should ask is this. "Is software putting words together to form a sentence has any intended meaning or purpose of the quote" The answer is no software did not create this quote in order to communicate any idea other than what it's designer stated it's purpose was. You are reading what you want into software which against is confirmation bias.

...which is totally your assumption, one which you have yet to prove.

I asked you if the statement was true or not. I responded to the fact that it was true, which I then verified with facts. So that it is true is totally relevant to my response. You continue to assume that my response was dependent upon favoritism, rather than upon whether the actual statement was true or not. What is irrelevant is how the statement came to be, whether it was from a computer or from Chopra. It does not matter at all.

If you make a true statement, and a computer randomly makes a true statement, is there a difference in the fact of their veracity?

No it attempted to use QM as a source of authority. However it says nothing about the Quantum since Quantum with in physics is a set of new ideas and observations of the modern ages not of the bronze or iron age. It is an argument from authority, fallacy of equivocation, etymological fallacy, false attribution, false equivalency, cherry picking. I will stop there. So in the end you make a number of mistakes, noted and or not, in order to even state this nonsense.

This is where your assumptions are completely incorrect. There is no reason to use science as any kind of authority to validate the mystical view. The mystic has nothing to prove, nor any ego to stroke by having scientific 'authority' on his side. All Chopra is doing is coming in at the point where science thinks it has discovered something 'new' and putting that knowledge into the correct context of Reality itself. So if anything, he is lending the authority of Reality, of which the mystical view is a perfect reflection, to what science has 'discovered', and thinks to be in the exclusive domain of science, which is hogwash. Chopra, as well as other mystics, are simply and correctly placing the horse ahead of the cart, which science has backwards. Thank you, Deepak Chopra!

Your problem is that you cling to scientific 'authority' as a child clings to his security blanket. You're forgetting that Reason, Logic, and Analysis, the very tools of science, are possible because of consciousness, which is not dependent upon those tools.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't like the term consciousness in the everyday sense let alone Pure Consciousness. There is only "Ocean Waving" and that is the Unified Field.

No, 'ocean waving' is the illusion that the unified field creates, and the unified field is pure consciousness itself. There is no difference between the two. Your mind is still attached to the illusion of change, when the reality is The Changeless. As Hagelin has referenced from the yoga sutras: 'Yoga (ie; union with That') is the cessation of all mental activity'. Stop the workings of monkey mind and then everything will be transformed for you.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No, 'ocean waving' is theillusionthat the unified field creates, and the unified field is pure consciousness itself. There is no difference between the two. Your mind is still attached to the illusion of change, when the reality is The Changeless. As Hagelin has referenced from the yoga sutras: 'Yoga (ie; union with That') is the cessation of all mental activity'. Stop the workings of monkey mind and then everything will be transformed for you.

You are right, I should not have used the term "Ocean Waving" because it is about as improper and inaccurate as your term "Pure Consciousness" as much as you might think otherwise. Consciousness...awareness, perception, or the ability to sense things indicates/requires brain activity or some form of interaction. It is really no different than me referring to those waves in action. It is the same error. Consciousness (illusion) comes out of that "Pureness" just the way Waves (illusion) come out of that "Ocean". There is only Ocean. There is only Pureness.

 

[godnotgod]

You are right, I should not have used the term "Ocean Waving" because it is about as improper and inaccurate as your term "Pure Consciousness" as much as you might think otherwise. Consciousness...awareness, perception, or the ability to sense things indicates/requires brain activity or some form of interaction. It is really no different than me referring to those waves in action. It is the same error. Consciousness (illusion) comes out of that "Pureness" just the way Waves (illusion) come out of that "Ocean". There is only Ocean. There is only Pureness.

We say 'pure consciousness' to differentiate between consciousness as it exists fundamentally prior to mind and its thoughts, and altered consciousness, because obviously, we think of the mind as being conscious as well. Therefore, an 'impure' (ie; unclear, altered) state of consciousness is a deliberately sculpted, or conditioned awareness, whereas pure consciousness is consciousness in an unconditioned state.

Consciousness is not illusion. Illusion is based on thought, idea, and/or concept, whereas consciousness is not. It is seeing without thought. You are thinking of 'mind', which does come out of consciousness. Therefore it is said that 'mind is a self-created principle', and it is this mind which is subject to illusion. Pure Consciousness is the perfect reflection of Ultimate Reality. It, like the perfect mirror, reflects perfectly what it sees, but does not retain anything, while the mind always attempts to grasp at what it sees, to encapsulate it.

It is a basic assumption/premise in science (ie; 'Emergent Theory') that consciousness indicates/requires brain activity.

 

[godnotgod]

 

[Runewolf1973]

We say 'pure consciousness' to differentiate between consciousness as it exists fundamentally prior to mind and its thoughts, because obviously, we think of the mind as being conscious as well. Therefore, an 'impure' (ie; unclear) state of consciousness is a deliberately sculpted, or conditioned awareness, whereas pure consciousness is consciousness in an unconditioned state.

Consciousness is not illusion. Illusion is based on thought, idea, and/or concept, whereas consciousness is not. It is seeing without thought. You are thinking of 'mind', which does come out of consciousness. Therefore it is said that 'mind is a self-created principle'.

It is a basic assumption/premise in science (ie; 'Emergent Theory') that consciousness indicates/requires brain activity.

Well I have a suggestion for you guys that might help attract more followers and less skeptics...Stop using the word consciousness to describe something which clearly it is not.

Consciousness already has an established definition...

con·scious·ness
ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
noun

1. the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
   "she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
   • the awareness or perception of something by a person.
     plural noun: consciousnesses
     "her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
   • the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
     "consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

 

[godnotgod]

Well I have a suggestion for you guys that might help attract more followers and less skeptics...Stop using the word consciousness to describe something which clearly it is not.

Consciousness already has an established definition...

con·scious·ness
ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
noun

1. the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
   "she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
   • the awareness or perception of something by a person.
     plural noun: consciousnesses
     "her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
   • the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
     "consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

heh...heh...a definition 'established' via conditioned consciousness!

Awareness and perception are basic kinds of consciousness. Then there is mindfulness, a more focused awareness about how one is being aware. Higher Consciousness is transcendent of the phenomenal world.

 

[Runewolf1973]

heh...heh...a definition 'established' via conditioned consciousness!

Awareness and perception are basic kinds of consciousness. Then there is mindfulness, a more focused awareness about how one is being aware. Higher Consciousness is transcendent of the phenomenal world.

There is no one true word that can define that which is ultimately beyond definition or beyond words.

 

[godnotgod]

There is no one true word that can define that which is ultimately beyond definition or beyond words.

True. However, consciousness is immediately present and self-evident as direct experience of That which is ultimately beyond definition. This direct experience and realization of That is what is called Enlightenment. This is why I keep asking you: who, or what, is it that knows it is interacting? IOW, you say there is only interaction, but there is an awareness of that interaction. Who, or what, is it that is aware? When you can answer that, you will realize your own Enlightenment.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Who, or what, is it that is aware?

Awareness Itself, and that is Pure Consciousness.

BTW... I did just type that out using Deepak Chopra's voice.

 

[godnotgod]

Awareness Itself, and that is Pure Consciousness.

BTW... I did just type that out using Deepak Chopra's voice.

So you yourself are none other than Pure Consciousness.