Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[Rick O'Shez]

How else can you understand Nature without postulating the idea of a consciousness energy stream to describe life and all movement?

Quite easily. Why do you need a "consciousness energy stream" to explain things? Isn't this essentially a matter of religious belief anyway?

 

[Shantanu]

Quite easily. Why do you need a "consciousness energy stream" to explain things? Isn't this essentially a matter of religious belief anyway?

What else is life other than consciousness of various descriptions, some physical, some chemical and some biological?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What else is life other than consciousness of various descriptions, some physical, some chemical and some biological?

You could say that biological organisms generally have a degree of awareness of their environment, though it's very rudimentary until you get to the higher animals. So a plant for example might respond to sunlight or water, but calling a plant "conscious" would be a real stretch.

But Chopra claims that the atoms and cells making up these organisms are themselves conscious or aware. Based on what though? There is simply no way of knowing and he's just making it up!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In what way has Deepak Chopra misused physics with regard to the consciousness of atoms?

By referring to the consciousness of atoms, for starters. However, I don't recall ever limiting myself to a specific way in which he misused physics. For example, we can look to his Quantum Healing starting at the opening of the chapter "The quantum mechanical human body", in which he states:
"We need to consult the quantum to really understand how the mind pivots on the turning point of a molecule. A neuropeptide springs into existence at the touch of a thought, but where does it spring from? A thought of fear and the neurochemical that it turns into are somehow connected in a hidden process, a transformation of non-matter into matter.
The same thing happens everywhere in nature, except that we do not call it thinking. When you get to the level of atoms, the landscape is not one of solid objects moving around each other like partners in a dance, following predictable steps."
Where to begin? First, even physicists like Stapp and Penrose who propose that QM is needed to understand consciousness would never say we need it to understand how the "mind pivots on the turning point of a molecule", first because the difference between classical and quantum physics when it comes to molecules is usually so minute we can't measure it, and second because it is precisely opposite of the way the brain works.

Nor do neuropeptides spring into existence- ever. There is no "neurochemical" that could be "a thought of fear" and the idea of a neurochemical is both wrong and misleading. But the biggest and most important problem in the first paragraph is the idiocy concerning the "transformation of non-matter into matter". First because quantum physics can't possibly do this with "neurochemicals", neuropeptides, neurons, or anything else relevant here and in fact this description is misleading in its entirety. It is true that fields in QFTs are described allowing for the ephemeral existence of particles. However, he's not talking about particles but things that are so much bigger its like comparing the size of the moon to that of the Sun.

Onto the next paragraph, where we find that this fake process happens everywhere in nature "except that we do not call it thinking." Why don't we do that? Because nothing described so far relates to thinking and nothing from what was said could (plus the little fact that we don't tend to find thinking in nature, only in living systems). Then there the "level of atoms", which somehow follows "predictable steps" despite the fact that most systems described in quantum physics are continuous (minor point) and they absolutely do not follow predictable steps. I am not even sure how to relate this to some quantum or particle theory.

And as this is my field "proper" I can't resist pointing out this passage:
"When you think the word rose, a large number of brain cells have to fire (no one knows how many, but let us say 1 million, which is probably absurdly small), but these cells don't get in touch with one another by passing a message from A to B to e, and so on, until all 1 million get the message. The thought just appears, suddenly localized in time and space, and with it, the brain's cells all change in sync. The perfect coordination of this thought-event and 1 million brain cells making neurotransmitters must have happened below the line." (the "line" being a reference to Newtonian mechanics, which was nonlinear and most complex, nonlinear systems are described using classical physics).

He's supposed to have a medical degree, and while that doesn't mean he's an expert in neuroscience an undergrad textbook would reveal how wrong this is. First because thoughts and cognitive processes in general don't arise from neural firing (that, actually, is the kind of misinformation you'd get from an undergrad textbook). Rather, information is conveyed through the rate and timing of spike trains that are constantly active, constantly changing, and which allow the formation of thoughts through inter- and intra-neural activity in already synchronized neuronal networks. Also, a key component of higher level cognition (from a neurobiological perspective) is the fact that sensorimotor regions encode modality specific information about concepts (even abstract concepts) and it is through the representation of such concepts/memories/etc. in modal-specific cortical regions as well as their connections with the PFC and frontal cortext that allow representations of some "thought" to exist and to be processed (the representation and processing are not really two different things, as there is much overlap). Nor are there any specific representations that correspond to any particular thought, concept, or feeling. Overlap here is absolutely essential, so there is no sudden "burst" of activity that constitutes some "thought-event" with "the brain's cells all chang[ing] in sync." This is just sensationalist crap.

Chopra goes on to describe this nonlinear nature of quantum mechanics, and indeed states that the "change from straight-line causes to U-shaped detours occurred when quantum physics was born." This isn't just wrong or misleading, but characterized the entirety of both classical and quantum mechanics incorrectly in a quite fundamental way. First, while such a simplified account of causation in classical physics might have been sufficient ~150 years ago, a major discovery in physics (and well beyond) to quantum mechanics was what is commonly referred to as "chaos theory". Classical physics permits circular causation, living systems appear to be closed to efficient causation in ways that have nothing to do with QM but do make Chopra's attempts to compare all of nature as one complete bunk in a rather elegant way, and finally quantum mechanics is linear.

That doesn't stop Chopra from going on with his U-shape diagram to represent the "basic quantum event", and then bringing this back to the brain:
"Like the thought and the neuropeptide, light cannot be a wave and a photon at the same time; it is either one or the other. Yet it is obvious that a tungsten light bulb doesn't enter another reality when you turn it down. Somehow, nature sets up its laws so that light can be either A or B, and both are kept inside the boundaries of the same reality by building in a transformation point."

Had he simply described light as somehow both a wave and a particle, he would be as bad as many science popularizers. In fact, wave-particle duality is a notion that textbooks refer to. The truth is that nothing is a particle but everything is wave-like yet becomes approximately particle like at even very, very small scales (and by "approximately", again I mean you can't actually measure the difference between a classical vs. quantum treatment). That would be bad enough, but he relates this nonsense back to the brain, and "the thought and the neuropeptide". This is why he doesn't use the standard simplification of wave-particle duality, because he can't pretend that a neuropeptide is a thought, so he deliberately inaccurately describes even the already simplistic version of QM in order to talk about "thought" and the "neuropeptide" as somehow capable of being one or the other thanks to quantum physics.

I can tear apart this book and others as well as his talks by writing post after post after post because I constantly reach the limit, but I don't see why this doesn't suffice as it is an example of some of the better lies and distortions that he sells and packages in his commercialized "spirituality". It's somewhat funny and more than a little ridiculous when a company like Verizon introduces Quantum TV/Internet. But everybody knows they are a business and they're using buzzwords to sell their products. He does the same thing with Quantum Healing, but in the guise of a scientists and guru and so that people can not receive the help they might need, learn lies, and pour money into his coffer.

 

[Sunstone]

Is Deepak Chopra not pointing to the inter-ralationships between all atom-based particles of Nature within this galaxy and outside it through the science of Consciousness?

I like your sense of humor.

 

[Shantanu]

You could say that biological organisms generally have a degree of awareness of their environment, though it's very rudimentary until you get to the higher animals. So a plant for example might respond to sunlight or water, but calling a plant "conscious" would be a real stretch.

But Chopra claims that the atoms and cells making up these organisms are themselves conscious or aware. Based on what though? There is simply no way of knowing and he's just making it up!

Does not Deepak Chopra view his idea of Consciousness to be manifested in Nature by something that can only be described as the consciousness energy stream of the universe with its two components: life force and soul force?

 

[Shantanu]

By referring to the consciousness of atoms, for starters. However, I don't recall ever limiting myself to a specific way in which he misused physics. For example, we can look to his Quantum Healing starting at the opening of the chapter "The quantum mechanical human body", in which he states:
"We need to consult the quantum to really understand how the mind pivots on the turning point of a molecule. A neuropeptide springs into existence at the touch of a thought, but where does it spring from? A thought of fear and the neurochemical that it turns into are somehow connected in a hidden process, a transformation of non-matter into matter.
The same thing happens everywhere in nature, except that we do not call it thinking. When you get to the level of atoms, the landscape is not one of solid objects moving around each other like partners in a dance, following predictable steps."
Where to begin? First, even physicists like Stapp and Penrose who propose that QM is needed to understand consciousness would never say we need it to understand how the "mind pivots on the turning point of a molecule", first because the difference between classical and quantum physics when it comes to molecules is usually so minute we can't measure it, and second because it is precisely opposite of the way the brain works.

Nor do neuropeptides spring into existence- ever. There is no "neurochemical" that could be "a thought of fear" and the idea of a neurochemical is both wrong and misleading. But the biggest and most important problem in the first paragraph is the idiocy concerning the "transformation of non-matter into matter". First because quantum physics can't possibly do this with "neurochemicals", neuropeptides, neurons, or anything else relevant here and in fact this description is misleading in its entirety. It is true that fields in QFTs are described allowing for the ephemeral existence of particles. However, he's not talking about particles but things that are so much bigger its like comparing the size of the moon to that of the Sun.

Onto the next paragraph, where we find that this fake process happens everywhere in nature "except that we do not call it thinking." Why don't we do that? Because nothing described so far relates to thinking and nothing from what was said could (plus the little fact that we don't tend to find thinking in nature, only in living systems). Then there the "level of atoms", which somehow follows "predictable steps" despite the fact that most systems described in quantum physics are continuous (minor point) and they absolutely do not follow predictable steps. I am not even sure how to relate this to some quantum or particle theory.

And as this is my field "proper" I can't resist pointing out this passage:
"When you think the word rose, a large number of brain cells have to fire (no one knows how many, but let us say 1 million, which is probably absurdly small), but these cells don't get in touch with one another by passing a message from A to B to e, and so on, until all 1 million get the message. The thought just appears, suddenly localized in time and space, and with it, the brain's cells all change in sync. The perfect coordination of this thought-event and 1 million brain cells making neurotransmitters must have happened below the line." (the "line" being a reference to Newtonian mechanics, which was nonlinear and most complex, nonlinear systems are described using classical physics).

He's supposed to have a medical degree, and while that doesn't mean he's an expert in neuroscience an undergrad textbook would reveal how wrong this is. First because thoughts and cognitive processes in general don't arise from neural firing (that, actually, is the kind of misinformation you'd get from an undergrad textbook). Rather, information is conveyed through the rate and timing of spike trains that are constantly active, constantly changing, and which allow the formation of thoughts through inter- and intra-neural activity in already synchronized neuronal networks. Also, a key component of higher level cognition (from a neurobiological perspective) is the fact that sensorimotor regions encode modality specific information about concepts (even abstract concepts) and it is through the representation of such concepts/memories/etc. in modal-specific cortical regions as well as their connections with the PFC and frontal cortext that allow representations of some "thought" to exist and to be processed (the representation and processing are not really two different things, as there is much overlap). Nor are there any specific representations that correspond to any particular thought, concept, or feeling. Overlap here is absolutely essential, so there is no sudden "burst" of activity that constitutes some "thought-event" with "the brain's cells all chang[ing] in sync." This is just sensationalist crap.

Chopra goes on to describe this nonlinear nature of quantum mechanics, and indeed states that the "change from straight-line causes to U-shaped detours occurred when quantum physics was born." This isn't just wrong or misleading, but characterized the entirety of both classical and quantum mechanics incorrectly in a quite fundamental way. First, while such a simplified account of causation in classical physics might have been sufficient ~150 years ago, a major discovery in physics (and well beyond) to quantum mechanics was what is commonly referred to as "chaos theory". Classical physics permits circular causation, living systems appear to be closed to efficient causation in ways that have nothing to do with QM but do make Chopra's attempts to compare all of nature as one complete bunk in a rather elegant way, and finally quantum mechanics is linear.

That doesn't stop Chopra from going on with his U-shape diagram to represent the "basic quantum event", and then bringing this back to the brain:
"Like the thought and the neuropeptide, light cannot be a wave and a photon at the same time; it is either one or the other. Yet it is obvious that a tungsten light bulb doesn't enter another reality when you turn it down. Somehow, nature sets up its laws so that light can be either A or B, and both are kept inside the boundaries of the same reality by building in a transformation point."

Had he simply described light as somehow both a wave and a particle, he would be as bad as many science popularizers. In fact, wave-particle duality is a notion that textbooks refer to. The truth is that nothing is a particle but everything is wave-like yet becomes approximately particle like at even very, very small scales (and by "approximately", again I mean you can't actually measure the difference between a classical vs. quantum treatment). That would be bad enough, but he relates this nonsense back to the brain, and "the thought and the neuropeptide". This is why he doesn't use the standard simplification of wave-particle duality, because he can't pretend that a neuropeptide is a thought, so he deliberately inaccurately describes even the already simplistic version of QM in order to talk about "thought" and the "neuropeptide" as somehow capable of being one or the other thanks to quantum physics.

I can tear apart this book and others as well as his talks by writing post after post after post because I constantly reach the limit, but I don't see why this doesn't suffice as it is an example of some of the better lies and distortions that he sells and packages in his commercialized "spirituality". It's somewhat funny and more than a little ridiculous when a company like Verizon introduces Quantum TV/Internet. But everybody knows they are a business and they're using buzzwords to sell their products. He does the same thing with Quantum Healing, but in the guise of a scientists and guru and so that people can not receive the help they might need, learn lies, and pour money into his coffer.

What are thoughts in your view, matter or non-matter?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What are thoughts in your view, matter or non-matter?

Neither. I get into some of that in the following:

This is an excellent and subtle question which requires a nuanced answer regardless of whether one if a physicalist, non-reductive physicalist (which, at least in the philosophical literature is often the same or pretty close to what scientists mean by "physicalist"), duelist, etc.

First nuance: let's grant that (and not just because I think it to be true). The physical processes that create them are in constant flux and there is no one-to-one correspondence between any concept and any physical process (that is, imagine that all concepts are the result of neural activity, as I believe. In order to refer to the activity that represents the concept "car", one has to involve so many networks and the intra- & inter-network activity that in doing so one is also referring to large parts of thousands of concepts, memories of different types, and more). In fact, essential to conceptual processing is the ways in which related concepts overlap in how neural activity is able to represent them.

Thus there is never any actual physical representation of a concept, even though all concepts are represented physically. It is a small (albeit dangerous, epistemically radical, and ontologically questionable) step to say that even though concepts do not exist apart from the physical processes that create them, all concepts exist apart from physical processes. One way to think about this (it's not the best analogy but it's 2 in the morning and I've been sick) is to think about the number two. Is it identical to 2? How about II? 8/4? Here, different representations correspond to the same entity. In the brain, we have the reverse in some sense. The same concept is represented in no small part in how it relates to related concepts, memories we have, sensorimotor experiences, and so forth. We can't identify any physical processes that represent any concepts, but we can understand concepts abstractly as well as the result of physical processes.




Second nuance: some of those physical processes involve light, barns you've seen (in images, in real life, both, in movies, etc.), the conceptual network you rely on to create the image which itself relies on passed experiences an related concepts, and the representation via neural activity of this network. Most importantly, the representation cannot exist apart from the perceptual experiences you've had, and these require physical processes that are not in the brain (like those that have allowed you to see, hear, smell, read, and/or touch some external example of a barn).


Most of the physical processes that allow your mental image do not cease when your mental image does.




Third nuance: although many concepts have no basis in the external world the way barns and cars do, they are often still based on sensorimotor experience and made abstract via metaphor (in the scientific, not literary, sense). Additionally, none exist in isolation and I doubt any exist that are not in some way connected to bodily experience. However, how we categorize perceptual stimuli (such as calling something a barn instead of a house, a building, wooden blanks and a roof, etc.) is itself a conceptual process almost as much as it is a perceptual process. But there is no universal way that humans categorize perceptual experiences such that given any two people exposed to the same stimuli, they would conceptualize it the same way. Put simply, someone who has never heard of computers, TV, or similar devices would, having seen my laptop, perceive it in terms of parts in a way that I do not, and subsequently form concepts I don't have. Basically, just as we develop concepts based upon perceptual experiences, so to do concepts exist in many ways as perceptual experience. As perceptual experiences require physical processes outside the brain, the concepts we have exist as they do because of other concepts we have formed from prior perceptual experiences in a sort of loop that always involves processes outside the brain.

Hence the nuanced nature of the question. At least for me, it comes down to how (if possible) can something that is entirely the product of physical processes not reducible to these. Interestingly, the most serious challenges (providing that one is more inclined towards empirical results and deems less concinving philosophical arguments on e.g., the nature of consciousness and so forth) comes from particle physics. This is where many a devout proponent of physicalism who rejections supernatural/spiritual/religious explanations can still assert reductionism fails. Not that the fall of reductionism means that concepts can't be reduced to physical neuronal processes or that there aren't many cases in which reductionist approaches are extremely successful.

However, if I want to assert that there is a physical "definition" for some phenomenon, which is in this case concepts (e.g., the concept "barn" corresponds to a set of physical processes), then I would like to be able to claim two things:
1) I can identify all processes that I can equate to (i.e., that produce or represent) that concept
&
2) What I identify corresponds to that concept only.

This is impossible. So what is my basis for asserting that any concept is the sum of physical processes? Only that the sum of all concepts is the result of physical processes, but if I can't define this set processes such that there exists an element that I can define as a concept and as unique within the set, can I say that concepts belong in the set?


Try crystal meth! It's everything your body needs and is food for thought! (Sponsored by the Society for Severely Sever Cerebral Connections)

Not really. It's functional. That is, the assertion that concepts don't exist apart from the brain requires a basis for concepts in terms of neural activity. However, for all concepts, there is no neural activity that corresponds or will ever correspond to any concept. Moreover, every single representation of a concept (which is necessarily mostly represented in relation to other concepts, memory, etc.) is not static. It is active and continuously mutable. Thus to say that physical processes correspond to a concept is to equate processes which don't correspond to the concept and which are continuously
y changing with that concept.It's a bit like saying the Ace of Spades is the definition of a playing card because decks of cards contain these.





Rather, it is that representations of concepts depend upon physical processes that cannot and do not exist in the brain yet are vital for the development of concepts.


It is not circular reasoning but circular causality. There is a vast and vital distinction between the two.

 

[Shantanu]

Neither. I get into some of that in the following:

Are thoughts not generated by the release of neurochemicals when nerves fire?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Are thoughts not generated by the release of neurochemicals when nerves fire?

Neurochemicals? Do you know how infrequently that term is used in fields relating to neurobiology? In any event, the answer is no.

 

[Shantanu]

Neurochemicals? Do you know how infrequently that term is used in fields relating to neurobiology? In any event, the answer is no.

Let us say someone says something to you. The noise goes into your body through your ears and gets transmitted to the brain where your reply is formulated. For this the mind detects and deciphers these nerve signals from different types of nerves depending on the sound that was received by your ears to form your awareness of the message heard which then forms an image in your mind of your reality based on what is contained in the memory banks which then triggers your mouth to reply accordingly to express your understanding of what is being talked about?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Let us say someone says something to you. The noise goes into your body through your ears and gets transmitted to the brain where your reply is formulated. For this the mind detects and deciphers these nerve signals from different types of nerves depending on the sound that was received by your ears to form your awareness of the message heard which then forms an image in your mind of your reality based on what is contained in the memory banks which then triggers your mouth to reply accordingly to express your understanding of what is being talked about?

I'm not going to pick apart the errors above because you aren't (like Chopra) presenting yourself as an expert and the only thing that really needs correcting is "big picture" issues. One of these concerns memory. It is a common mistake (and one that "experts" helped to start and continue) to talk about human (or animal) memory as if it is stored like it is in a computer, or that we have "memory banks". No information is stored in the brain. It is represented by constant (and constantly changing) patterns of neural activity. When "memories" are processed/accessed, there is no "processor" that reaches into some memory bank and does something with the information. That's because there is no distinction in the brain between "memory" and "processor". So when you recall a memory or think of a concept that you weren't a moment ago, your brain relies on active representations of various different patterns corresponding to different "components" of the memory/concept and what is changed is primarily increases in activity in the relevant areas as well as some topological changes to the network structure (and again, the "network" here doesn't correspond to your memory or the concept but to lots of memories and concepts in part, the whole of which includes this particular memory or concept).

If you want to more detail, I recommend reading the quotes I provided you. Alternatively, you could just use the search engine RF provides and search through my posts for terms like conceptual representation, neuronal, neural, concepts, etc., as I have explained and expounded upon such notions over and over and over again, and while normally I am happy to share information I have (because I feel it necessary to at least try to give back to this community from which I have received so much), I have in the past few days or so repeatedly gone over this too many times to do so again after however long I've gone without sleep.

 

[Shantanu]

I'm not going to pick apart the errors above because you aren't (like Chopra) presenting yourself as an expert and the only thing that really needs correcting is "big picture" issues. One of these concerns memory. It is a common mistake (and one that "experts" helped to start and continue) to talk about human (or animal) memory as if it is stored like it is in a computer, or that we have "memory banks". No information is stored in the brain. It is represented by constant (and constantly changing) patterns of neural activity. When "memories" are processed/accessed, there is no "processor" that reaches into some memory bank and does something with the information. That's because there is no distinction in the brain between "memory" and "processor". So when you recall a memory or think of a concept that you weren't a moment ago, your brain relies on active representations of various different patterns corresponding to different "components" of the memory/concept and what is changed is primarily increases in activity in the relevant areas as well as some topological changes to the network structure (and again, the "network" here doesn't correspond to your memory or the concept but to lots of memories and concepts in part, the whole of which includes this particular memory or concept).

If you want to more detail, I recommend reading the quotes I provided you. Alternatively, you could just use the search engine RF provides and search through my posts for terms like conceptual representation, neuronal, neural, concepts, etc., as I have explained and expounded upon such notions over and over and over again, and while normally I am happy to share information I have (because I feel it necessary to at least try to give back to this community from which I have received so much), I have in the past few days or so repeatedly gone over this too many times to do so again after however long I've gone without sleep.

Does memory reside in neural activity in all parts of the brain within your skull or only in certain parts? Similarly is there any particular area of the brain that is known as the mind?

 

[Robert.Evans]

No. People have come to the personal conclusion that they believe in deity. They have NEVER produced a working argument in favor of god. If they have I would like to see it.

Can two contradicting all powerful beings exist at the same time?

I am speaking from knowledge and the basis of your knowledge.

Explain it then. And how is it that you are right and why is it that you believe you are right? I haven't really claimed much in this debate that I could be wrong about.

You get in trouble is an expression that if you wish to state you have truth or facts on your side when you clearly don't then I shan't simply accept it.

But humor me for a moment. You believe the bible and that is the basis of your "knowledge". Correct/ Why do you believe the bible? Dont' say "because its the word of god" but really answer what was it that convinced you that the bible was real?

I am little behind on this thread so I am not quite up to date.

The main question you have there I think is how do I know, whether it be the Divine or Scripture. The answer is it is intuitive. Simple as that. I'm not saying that some might not experience more than that, but that is a long story.
Now you will say it is just my opinion then, and I will say it is not. I could give many reasons in my personal life, (but I'm not going to), which would back up what I am saying. It amounts to nothing to someone who does believe though, for that same simple reason: they don't believe. These things are spiritually discerned, and no amount of thinking from a secular atheist perspective is going to convince you of anything. We all are deluded about something, for no one knows it all. It's just that some delusions are easier to see.... you no doubt will say the same

I can only say I cannot deny my own Self.

We all are on a long journey, and we are all at different stages. You will get your time. Who knows what it was like before this existence, and who knows what it will b e like after.

So I can only tell you it is true. Accept it or not, that is up to you (or at least it appears that way), but don't expect to see something in the same way you would as a secularist for ex.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Does memory reside in neural activity in all parts of the brain within your skull or only in certain parts? Similarly is there any particular area of the brain that is known as the mind?

The answer to the first part is that memory isn't very well defined thanks to the carry-over from behaviorism into cognitive science into neuroscience, such that various authors have taken the time to point out that the literature seems to reflect that we have hundreds of different kinds of memory even though nobody believes we do (disparate psychologists, neuroscientists, neurologists, etc., either recycle old terms, coin new ones, or both; however, many of these memory systems have no empirical basis and there is significant overlap).
That said, while a large majority of the brain is involved in memory, not all of it is.

The answer to the second question is "no".

 

[Robert.Evans]

No it doesn't, because theology is all speculative make-believe and wishful thinking. Science will carry on making discoveries and the gaps for God will get progressively smaller.

That's your opinion. Don't make the mistake of thinking your right just becasue you don't understand

 

[Robert.Evans]

You have no proof for God whatsoever, therefore it is just a belief you have. It's very straightforward.

We have evidence for God all around us, you just fail to see it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Dawkins is at least honest and straightforward. Chopra I think is either dishonest or delusional.

Oh boy.... I had to answer this one: ''honest'' and ''straight forward''!? You ought to look at some of his videos on Youtube. He is not honest at all, but he does have an agenda.
Your atheist roots are showing through Spiny

Dawkins claims he is agnostic and then says there is no God when in India! Perhaps that answer was good enough for the Indians!

 

[Shantanu]

The answer to the first part is that memory isn't very well defined thanks to the carry-over from behaviorism into cognitive science into neuroscience, such that various authors have taken the time to point out that the literature seems to reflect that we have hundreds of different kinds of memory even though nobody believes we do (disparate psychologists, neuroscientists, neurologists, etc., either recycle old terms, coin new ones, or both; however, many of these memory systems have no empirical basis and there is significant overlap).
That said, while a large majority of the brain is involved in memory, not all of it is.

The answer to the second question is "no".

Are thoughts just images, like dreams are, and if so, are the mechanisms of formation thoughts and dreams the same except that dreams are more intense?

 

[Robert.Evans]

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 ???

You said it all there fellow