Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[George-ananda]

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

But does Chopra say things that can be falsified? It seems he says things learned from experiences but they can not be proved or falsified by materialist science.

Also, new thinking is usually laughed at, criticized and rejected initially. History has shown that.

 

[Sapiens]

But does Chopra say things that can be falsified? It seems he says things learned from experiences but they can not be proved or falsified by materialist science.

Also, new thinking is usually laughed at, criticized and rejected initially. History has shown that.

Chopra is big on "new" and rather short on "thinking." I reject him not because he is "new" but rather because his thinking, as demonstrated by the imprecision of his language, is muddled.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

I don't know about anyone else but I enjoy his books - foor example -

The third component of the Law of Least Effort is defenselessness, which means that your awareness is established in defenselessness, and you have relinquished the need to convince or persuade others of your point of view. If you observe people around you, you'll see that they spend ninety-nine percent of their time defending their points of view. If you just relinquish the need to defend your point of view, you will in that relinquishment, gain access to enormous amounts of energy that have been previously wasted.

Have a good one!

 

[Sapiens]

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 .

That is foolish on the face of it. On stage were several people who sought and achieved popularity and I am clearly not criticizing any of them solely on that basis, if that was my issue, then clearly I would be damning them all.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

Much of modern Eastern thought is based upon interactions with and incorporation of Western via colonialism:

here you are sadly missnformed , ..the eastern religious traditions have remained very much intact and in the most unafected by the years of colonial rule in just the same way that many traditions have remained unbroken even under the longer periods of Muslim influence and opression , .....I can understand the missconceptions that much of the west hold when it comes to vedic Knowledge , as in the west we were reliant on the earlier sanskritologists who without doubt were responcible for many misstranslations , however we are now fortunate to have access to many much more faithfull translations , ...it should now be apparent by the translations now coming from the traditions them selves that there has been no loss of knowledge or understanding and that the translations of western indologists have left little or no mark in India , why would it ??? after all it is an oral tradition handed from guru to deciple , ....

"The notion of ‘Hinduism’ is itself a Western-inspired abstraction, which until the nineteenth century bore little or no resemblance to the diversity of Indian religious belief and practice. .........

please note that I refered to vedic sciences , ....... and also please note that I personaly use the title Sanatana Dharma , as I am not in the least attatched to the term Hindu as it has little relevance to me personaly however out of respect for those that do use the term I dont object when others use it , ...however I was completely specific in that I refered to Vedic Knowledge which stands on its own with or without the use of the title Hindu .

Regardless of how thorough Western influence was in the creation of modern Eastern traditions, I'm not concerned with his account of consciousness per se (in fact, there are many Western views of consciousness I find equally poorly founded). Had he presented his view and his rationale for it (as many philsophers, theologians, mystics, and more do) I wouldn't have a problem. It is the deliberate distortion of scientific research that he abuses and the fact that such abuses are used to mislead others that I find abhorrent.

I think if one is to study vedic traditions one needs to devote ones life to not just study , but also to practice and personal introspection , ...quoting me vast tracts of quotations proves absolutely nothing other than that prehaps you feel the need to prove a point , ....

this is boring , ....no where does it question the topic under discussion
Consciousness ? surely this is more interesting ?

 

[Sapiens]

namaskaram



here you are sadly missnformed , ..the eastern religious traditions have remained very much intact and in the most unafected by the years of colonial rule in just the same way that many traditions have remained unbroken even under the longer periods of Muslim influence and opression , .....I can understand the missconceptions that much of the west hold when it comes to vedic Knowledge , as in the west we were reliant on the earlier sanskritologists who without doubt were responcible for many misstranslations , however we are now fortunate to have access to many much more faithfull translations , ...it should now be apparent by the translations now coming from the traditions them selves that there has been no loss of knowledge or understanding and that the translations of western indologists have left little or no mark in India , why would it ??? after all it is an oral tradition handed from guru to deciple , ....



please note that I refered to vedic sciences , ....... and also please note that I personaly use the title Sanatana Dharma , as I am not in the least attatched to the term Hindu as it has little relevance to me personaly however out of respect for those that do use the term I dont object when others use it , ...however I was completely specific in that I refered to Vedic Knowledge which stands on its own with or without the use of the title Hindu .



I think if one is to study vedic traditions one needs to devote ones life to not just study , but also to practice and personal introspection , ...quoting me vast tracts of quotations proves absolutely nothing other than that prehaps you feel the need to prove a point , ....

this is boring , ....no where does it question the topic under discussion
Consciousness ? surely this is more interesting ?

Err ... please look back to the OP, the topic is Chopra making a fool of himself.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

here you are sadly missnformed

Perhaps. But I've read Vedic literature and in general the texts written in Sanskrit as well several dozen studies (many book-length) on the modern construction of Eastern traditions out of Western. Tell me, what have you to offer when it comes to historical analysis of Eastern though an what languages can you read of primary sources here?

, ..the eastern religious traditions have remained very much intact and in the most unafected by the years of colonial rule

Again, what is your basis for your claims:

please note that I refered to vedic sciences

You mean you don't understand what the sciences consist of? Because there exists no such thing.

Consciousness ? surely this is more interesting ?

Very true. But when your approach is a simple failure to evaluate evidence or even apply logic, the it makes discussions difficult or impossible.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

Err ... please look back to the OP, the topic is Chopra making a fool of himself.

so you are saying that this entire post exists just for tha sake of laughing at someone because you cant understand what they are refering to , ...

personaly I think Dawkins looks petty stupid too ,

as I have just said are you not interested in the actual topic ?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

Perhaps. But I've read Vedic literature and in general the texts written in Sanskrit as well several dozen studies (many book-length) on the modern construction of Eastern traditions out of Western.

I am sorry but i do not understand what you mean by ''modern construction of Eastern traditions out of Western.''please give me an example of a modern eatern Hindu or vedic tradition that is constructed from western thought , or from a western tradition ???

Tell me, what have you to offer when it comes to historical analysis of Eastern though an what languages can you read of primary sources here?

I will not dissagree that the study history and language can be very usefull as it gives some perspective to the traditions in question , ...but if you want my accademic CV you will be sorely dissapointed ...all I can only offer you is the last thirty years worth of experience as a practicioner , ....this does not mean to say that I have not read a considerable amount and reaserched extensively into cultural and religious history , ...but what it does mean is that in the true sence of the word Upanisaid I place far more value upon sittting at the feet of the Guru and listening , ....not theorising or colecting data , just listening and of course putting the philosopy into practice , ..but to do that one has to give up all atatchment to material concerns , ..yes this knowledge of a language is a usefull tool but it pales into insignificance next to understanding .

Again, what is your basis for your claims:

prehaps it is best understood by explaining deciplic sucession , ...Guru parampara , ...for instance my Guru was taught to recite scripture word perfect at a very young age , along with learning to recite one learns the accompanying philosophy , this is the tradition it has been handed down in this manner for countless melenia , there was little or no reliance upon Books or translations and absolutely no influence from colonials or any other ruling faction these traditions have gone on unchanged for thousands and thousands of years each tradition or Sampradaya traces its origins back for more years than many historians can even begin to fathom and becaus these traditions are so highly respected they are free from the speculation and introduction of personal opinion which is so common in the west .

You mean you don't understand what the sciences consist of? Because there exists no such thing.

विज्ञान; ...vijJAna, .....knowledge which is contained in शास्त्र; sAstra ....

Very true. But when your approach is a simple failure to evaluate evidence or even apply logic, the it makes discussions difficult or impossible.

forget needing eveidence for everything , this is where reflection and submisive enquiry comes to be very nececary if one wishes to learn .

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

The new entity, as I understand it to be, is "consciousness."

This is something that evolved, required to survive. It started out very basic, and increased with brain size.

"Evolved"? I understand evolution to be the gradual assembly of atoms and molecules over time into greater and greater levels of complexity, or at least into different patterns of assembly. Nothing new is appearing, other than new arrangements of materials that had been there before. So when did consciousness "start out"? Did it start out when atoms and molecules started, as Chopra believes? Does the chair you are sitting in have consciousness? Why has not modern physics included this in its list of entities in the universe?

and it makes some of the atoms and molecules in our universe move around

Not good enough. To vague and misleading.

I don't understand what is vague and misleading. Does your mind not make your hands and feet move around? Are your hands and feet not atoms and molecules in our universe? Please clarify what is vague and misleading.

The conscious mind, free will, is a product within the brain, and factually does not exist outside the mind at this time.

The mind does not exist outside the mind? Did you mean outside the brain? I don't understand.

When you say "is a product," what does that mean? To say that A is a product of B means what? Does it mean that B produces A? If so, are we talking about the rearrangement of matter, as when I produce an object using various pre-existing materials, or are we talking about the bringing into existence of a new substance or entity (not yet listed by or even mentioned in physics and chemistry)?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

namaskaram



here you are sadly missnformed , ..the eastern religious traditions have remained very much intact and in the most unafected by the years of colonial rule in just the same way that many traditions have remained unbroken even under the longer periods of Muslim influence and opression

What is your basis for this? Take the example I gave:
"The notion of ‘Hinduism’ is itself a Western-inspired abstraction, which until the nineteenth century bore little or no resemblance to the diversity of Indian religious belief and practice. The term ‘Hindoo’ is the Persian variant of the Sanskrit sindhu , referring to the Indus river, and as such was used by the Persians to denote the people of that region...Although indigenous use of the term by Hindus themselves can be found as early as the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, its usage was derivative of Persian Muslim influences and did not represent anything more than a distinction between ‘indigenous’ or ‘native’ and foreign (mleccha). For instance, when Belgian Thierry Verhelst interviewed an Indian intellectual from Tamil Nadu he recorded the following interchange:
Q: Are you a Hindu?
A: No, I grew critical of it because of casteism ... Actually, you should not ask people
if they are Hindu. This does not mean much. If you ask them what their religion is, they
will say, ‘I belong to this caste.’
Indeed, it is clear that the term ‘Hindu’, even when used by the indigenous Indian, did not have the specifically religious connotations that it subsequently developed under Orientalist influences until the nineteenth century. Thus eighteenth-century references to ‘Hindoo’ Christians or ‘Hindoo’ Muslims were not uncommon"
King, R. (1999). Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and the 'Mystic East'. Routledge.

Here is "an Indian Inellectual" trying to correct the Western misconception that Hinduism is a religion. This is in part because religion as it is understood today (in terms of doctrine, beliefs, and a phenomenon separate enough from socioeconomic & cultural phenomena to warrant a separate category) is new.

, .....I can understand the missconceptions that much of the west hold when it comes to vedic Knowledge

Can you understand how Eastern commentators bear such little resemblance to modern interpreters until the East-West exchange reflected in translations, writings, and interpretations since well before Swami Vivekananda (who, by the way, was not only an ardent reader of Western philosophers but a freemason)?

as in the west we were reliant on the earlier sanskritologists

There are no such individuals. As for the translations, they were made by native Indians who were highly influenced by Western thinkers and we have their own texts as well as many other sources to show this. Before dismissing what you don't understand, try learning a bit first.

please note that I refered to vedic sciences

There exists no such thing. I am the first to recognize that "science" is a plurality, not singular, and that different sciences are indeed different. However, they are different because of what is studied, not because one is Vedic and another is Gothic, Celtic, Arabic, etc. Terms like "Greek science" or "Arabic science" are both inaccurate and intended to as comparative terms such that the state of natural philosophy, technological developments, and/or similar components of the sciences existed in past cultures. One of the foremost experts of Eastern traditions I ever studied under (Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming) studied what he called "Western science" (obtaining his doctorate) believing that traditional Eastern beliefs would eventually be reconcilable with Eastern, but he never spoke of "Eastern science" or e.g., the circulation of Qi/Ki as an Eastern scientific notion (rather, he tried to explain it using Western terms, theory, and notions). As a previous member noted, this "Eastern science" vs. "Western" is a false dichotomy, The sciences are the sciences. I not only work as one, but have studied the development of the sciences as they have developed out of philosophies and more for the past ~3,000 years. I know how superior Chinese engineering was to anything before early modern science, how long it took for Western intellectuals after Christianity to reach the level of sophistication in proto-science obtained by the Greeks, the considerable contributions of Arabic knowledge, etc. This still means only that components of what we know identify with the sciences existed in other cultures, not that "science" did.

, ....... and also please note that I personaly use the title Sanatana Dharma , as I am not in the least attatched to the term Hindu as it has little relevance to me personaly however out of respect for those that do use the term I dont object when others use it , ...however I was completely specific in that I refered to Vedic Knowledge which stands on its own with or without the use of the title Hindu .

So you are aware of the influence of the processes studied by textual critics on the Vedas (and even more so orality) and the ways in which the modern tradition was shaped by interpretations that began in the 17th century (and by whom)?

 

[George-ananda]

Chopra is big on "new" and rather short on "thinking." I reject him not because he is "new" but rather because his thinking, as demonstrated by the imprecision of his language, is muddled.

Translating experiences and abstract thinking into words can be imprecise. I wouldn't hold that against him.

 

[Sapiens]

Translating experiences and abstract thinking into words can be imprecise. I wouldn't hold that against him.

I would and I do because, as a result, he spews nonsense but cashes the checks anyway ... I see that the same as a butcher with his thumb on the scale.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

What is your basis for this?

I have already given an answer ,

Take the example I gave:

that too I have allreay answerd

"The notion of ‘Hinduism’ is itself a Western-inspired abstraction, which until the nineteenth century bore little or no resemblance to the diversity of Indian religious belief and practice. The term ‘Hindoo’ is the Persian variant of the Sanskrit sindhu , referring to the Indus river, and as such was used by the Persians to denote the people of that region...Although indigenous use of the term by Hindus themselves can be found as early as the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, its usage was derivative of Persian Muslim influences and did not represent anything more than a distinction between ‘indigenous’ or ‘native’ and foreign (mleccha).

why on earth are you dwelling so heavily upon the history behind the usage if a trem , when I have allready pointed out to you thay I am not talking about Hinduism or Hindus I am talking about Vedic culture ....?
prehaps it might also be worth your knowing that whilst mleccha does refer to a barbaric forigner its true meaning is ....UN VEDIC .

For instance, when Belgian Thierry Verhelst interviewed an Indian intellectual from Tamil Nadu he recorded the following interchange:
Q: Are you a Hindu?
A: No, I grew critical of it because of casteism ... Actually, you should not ask people
if they are Hindu. This does not mean much. If you ask them what their religion is, they
will say, ‘I belong to this caste.’
Indeed, it is clear that the term ‘Hindu’, even when used by the indigenous Indian, did not have the specifically religious connotations that it subsequently developed under Orientalist influences until the nineteenth century. Thus eighteenth-century references to ‘Hindoo’ Christians or ‘Hindoo’ Muslims were not uncommon"
King, R. (1999). Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and the 'Mystic East'. Routledge.

the term Hindu has both religious , cultural and national conotations ,
and even though one can agre with some of this mans argument , it has no bearing what so ever on the vedic culture that I was refering to .
However for an interlectual he makes some very one sided and sweeping generalisations ....

Here is "an Indian Inellectual" trying to correct the Western misconception that Hinduism is a religion. This is in part because religion as it is understood today (in terms of doctrine, beliefs, and a phenomenon separate enough from socioeconomic & cultural phenomena to warrant a separate category) is new.

Hinduism denotes Nationality Culture and Religion , you may wish to ascribe to a ''new''understanding of religion that seperates it from culture , but those actualy practicing it might not welcome this outside interferance , .....furthermore you are quoting one mans thoughts on the subject this is hardly representative of an entire nation or body of people, ...

Can you understand how Eastern commentators bear such little resemblance to modern interpreters until the East-West exchange reflected in translations, writings, and interpretations since well before Swami Vivekananda (who, by the way, was not only an ardent reader of Western philosophers but a freemason)?

I understand full well I simply do not agree I find it to be the other way around , ...western commentators bear little resemblance to the original traditions because all to often they are puffed up with their own worth and importance and impute their own opinions into their comentaries , ..and as far as Swami Vivekananda goes , he is one man , ...he does not represent all the all of Vedic or Hindu Religious culture , ..he merely responded with interest to the prevailing situation of his day , ..whether he was or was not a freemason does not change otr invalidate Vedic culture .

There are no such individuals. As for the translations, they were made by native Indians who were highly influenced by Western thinkers and we have their own texts as well as many other sources to show this. Before dismissing what you don't understand, try learning a bit first.

there is every possibility that I understand better than you , .... however It dosent sound as if you wish to listen to anyone elses understanding other than your own , ....
we should prehaps discuss the missinturpretations of western sanskritologists in Hinduism DIR, I think you will find that there are many differnt oppinions upon this subject from which you might learn .

There exists no such thing.

unfortunatly you sound just like dawkins . ..... inflexible ans opinionated .

So you are aware of the influence of the processes studied by textual critics on the Vedas (and even more so orality) and the ways in which the modern tradition was shaped by interpretations that began in the 17th century (and by whom)?

prehaps it might also be worth considering that these so called modern traditions are not representative of the entire of Hindu or Vedic thought or cullture .

 

[Rick O'Shez]

so you are saying that this entire post exists just for tha sake of laughing at someone because you cant understand what they are refering to , ...

I don't think anyone really understands what Chopra is going on about. When you look closely it's just word salad, a vague blur of pseudo-science and psycho-babble. Lots of jargony buzz-words which he never clearly explains. All very shifty.

 

[Shantanu]

I think Deepak Chopra is full of new-age nonsense, and that Dawkins' points were spot on. I found Chopra's cheap point-scoring dishonest and distasteful.

Since you appear to have studied Deepak Chopra's pronouncements very closely and consider Dawkins points spot on, I would like to know what precisely you consider Chopra to be saying that is nonsense and whether Dawkins has any scientific credibility in talking about the issue of human awareness.

So would you begin by saying why science should be able to detect consciousness as an 'energy field' that is either
(a) external to the human body or
(b) totally internal to it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

personaly I think Dawkins looks petty stupid too ,

Dawkins does at least understand the science. Chopra claims to understand but clearly doesn't, he uses pseudo-science in an attempt to make his outlandish ideas sound more credible. I think that's misleading and dishonest, he seems to take advantage of the fact that a large chunk of his audience isn't science-savvy enough to realise he is spouting nonsense.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I would like to know what precisely you consider Chopra to be saying that is nonsense and whether Dawkins has any scientific credibility in talking about the issue of human awareness.

Chopra is claiming that science backs up his theories and it clearly doesn't. But let's forget the science for a moment and just talk about personal experience. Do you believe that Chopra has directly experienced the consciousness of atoms or directly experienced the consciousness of the Andromeda galaxy? I don't.

 

[Shantanu]

Dawkins does at least understand the science. Chopra claims to understand but clearly doesn't, he uses pseudo-science in an attempt to make his outlandish ideas sound more credible. I think that's misleading and dishonest, he seems to take advantage of the fact that a large chunk of his audience isn't science-savvy enough to realise he is spouting nonsense.

To me it appears as though neither Dawkins nor Chopra make themselves amenable to interrogation except by the media to serve their own publicity machines and thereby their financial and other interests. But essentially I believe that Chopra is on to something and struggles to find scientific data to justify his idea on Consciousness, which is his own and not the version that might be indicated by the Brahmanism of Hinduism. Have you studied either?

 

[Shantanu]

Chopra is claiming that science backs up his theories and it clearly doesn't. But let's forget the science for a moment and just talk about personal experience. Do you believe that Chopra has directly experienced the consciousness of atoms or directly experienced the consciousness of the Andromeda galaxy? I don't.

Do not atoms have electrons moving round the nucleus in different orbitals?