Deepak is really quick to point out all of the things we don't know, but he seems to interpret this as licence to assert whatever he wants. Him pointing out that we have no idea how to solve the hard problem of consciousness somehow allows HIM to assert that consciousness is the ground of reality? If he is saying that it is open to speculation because science hasn't solved it yet, then it's a pretty weak claim. If he is saying that when something is indeterminate we can say anything we want about it, then it is also a pretty weak claim.
This is one of the best panels I have ever seen. Absolutely riveting discussion. I truly appreciate this presentation. Thank you Chapman University for this gift.
Great thinking by Michael Shermer. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey, Joseph Wheless, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens
I'm not much into Chopra but it was interesting, the moment he got the audience to become aware of their own consciousness, it was only a couple of seconds, but there was a loud sigh from someone (Shermer?) as if this was a bad joke or a waste of time. They just don't get it do they? They don't understand that this vessel that you can only see when it is empty is running the show. Instead they are forever identifying with whatever passes through it. And we're all similarly conditioned to keep it busy, so we don't see any blue sky in there, or the illusion that consciousness is irrelevant would soon fall apart. The points by Henry Stapp, though he seemed to be struggling, were also interesting. Consciousness and quantum theory are connected by quantum theory, not simply by woo.
its important to invite chopra because the science skeptics would be debating themselves otherwise. In the pursuit and expansion of the knowledge of truth its important to have debates like this.
I think Deepak was trying to explain ADVAITHA ( the non-duality )... And then Carmichael Peters puts it in a different perspective..! And then Stuart Hameroff affirms..!
Weird how the Chopra devotees cheer him on. It's as if they are invested in his mythology and when he sufficiently bolsters their religion they feel re-assured and cheer.
I am surprised that you would say that, as Chopra is a medical doctor... I would think that would make him sufficiently educated in some branch of the sciences. If you don't agree with him or whatever, that's one thing, but to say that someone who is a doctor does not belong in scientific discussion is another.
i watched the whole thing ..... more people on the pannel seem to diverge away from conventional sceince .... with new studies like backword time affect and othe new physics advancement ,... people will know that ultimate reality is far beyond our reach .... deepak chopras ideology is a very good one in my opinion ...
The highest level of knowledge is often neglected . The highest knowledege "Vedanta" says- Things you can taste , feel , conceptualise , visualise , imagine , hear , see are impermanent projection of your conciousness . And that one thing which you cannot taste , feel , conceptualise , visualise , imagine , hear or see is real (Conciousness) . Inshort it means , Nothing is possible without conciousness . If these are possible to you , then it means you are concious . Can you deny it ?
Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot be discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each part by itself, since such a method often implies the loss of important properties of the system. We must keep out attention fixed on the whole and on the inter-connection between the parts. The same is true of our intellectual life. It is impossible to make a clear cut between science, religion, and art. The whole is never equal simply to the sum of its various parts. -- Max Planck (1858-1947)
@Denshuu I think what alot of people are talking about when they say "spiritual science" is the study of the subjective via meditation and introspection. The problem is, like Sam Harris mentions alot, is people tend to take these remarkable subjective experiences and make claims about physical reality. Which is definitely not science. However, this does not make all spiritual practices worthless (I use the word 'spiritual' very loosely.)
Shermer is so simplistically brilliant at making his point... there isn't really that much to say as an answer to such question. there's reality (and it's pretty fucking interesting and complex). i wonder how come it seems not to be enough for some people, could it be that they can't cope with the idea of not having the main role in this play?...
I love how Mike feels happy at the end to reconsile and give Deepak a hug. His consciuosness of reconsiliation has changed his biological reponse and has released dopemine. That same body denies all of this coming down to his consciuosness (his deep essence). Ah the ironies of life :)
I found the time limits, ironically limiting. Could we see if there is any possiblity that the individual speakers could expand their speeches into longer videos? Or if there are already some out there could you email me with links to their books or videos, please?
Ha... was just reading Shermer's column in the most recent Scientific American on the can yesterday and then just stumbled on this clip this afternoon...
No matter how strong a filter our senses, and intellect are we are observing a useful aspect of reality. No matter how small or large that is, it is all we have, and is useful. Any other view is a road to nowhere, and leaving doors open for the fantastic and irrationality.
1:34:36 - 1:36:52 Stuart Hameroff, I loved you as Scuttle (the seagull in The Little Mermaid). I agree with the lady in the audience who said twice at 1:35:44 and 1:35:46, "What does that explain?" to Stuart's invocation of the "self collapse of the wave function" within the context of consciousness. Notice how Deepak Chopra appear to appeal for the whole exchange to be derailed in between transitions.
to all those that say Deepak's view point is nonsense there are many sceintists who share views very similiar to him.....if it was just nonsense, there wouldn't be serious conferences like this, put on by universities with people who have science credentials. This conference was sponsered by the schmid college of science.
Interesting exchange of info b/w individual body-minds. Can empirical approach lead to "ultimate reality"? And what if the entity to whom this approach (empirical or otherwise) appears to happen itself doesn't exist? Then who's there to understand and what's there to be understood? Isn't any answer, again, an appearance on the screen of the mind? Who is witnessing all of it? Isn't any word arising in mind again a barrier? Thank you ChapmanUniversity.
I love how Mike feels happy at the end to reconcile and give Deepak a hug. His consciousness of reconciliation has changed his biological response and has released dopamine. That same body denies all of this coming down to his consciousness (his deep essence). Ah the ironies of life :)
"Poetically saying: Material reality is a SUPERSTITION because at its core all material - is MOSTLY SPACE" What do you mean by "SPACE" you have to be specific here.
Description of a skeptic/atheist mindset: I think/exist, but I don't know why I think/exist, and your explanation of why I think/exist lacks the kind of evidence I like, therefore I don't think/exist.
If you listen to Lawrence Krausses understanding you see that even empty space is filled with "sparticles" that cancel eachother out, and when they do not, they sputter in and out of space meaning that it's not empty.
We don't have to address Michael we can just address his brain. Or something like that. So if Shermer could send his brain to this discussion it would be more interesting. Everytime his brain is caught thinking, he then shows up and gets in the way.
I think Deepak and Shermer are right. Deepak is talking about the quantum aspect of reality, Shermer is talking about the reality that we can see with the naked eye. Yes, if you look through a powerful microscope you will see that nothing is solid, but if you look with the naked eye at stuff you will see many things are solid. So, do you say something is solid or not? Yes, it depends on context. What are you talking about? Quantum or not? Both reality though.
Two points: 1. The materialist on this panel asked "What happens when Aunt Milly dies, and what does quantum consciousness and nonlocality have to do it it?" A more elegant and simpler explanation without getting off the beaten path into complex and incomplete quantum terminology would be this analogy. If you broke your television set you would not jump to the conclusion that the satellite signal that gave you reception disappeared and didn't exist anymore. You would know that the problem was the TV was broken, not the originating signal. Our physical bodies maybe more like television sets than like cars... our consciousness streams into them. 2. The materialist pointed out that an "observer" need only be a "tool of measurement"... well, who devised the tool that measured what was being observed? A conscious being devised that tool of measurement. It seemed so fundamental a point I was very surprised no one on the panel challenged this notion. The fact is we really do not understand the nature of reality, or where it stems from. I am an agnostic person and I find most religion laughable, but I find materialism even more laughable. The arrogance with which they deliver their barbs, the teleological thinking they engage in, I find it all very dubious
Denying that material exists is absurd. Just because it changes at the quantum level doesn't mean that it does not exist. Just as ice exists and water also exists. You wo woos seem to think that since ice (or matter) is made of water (or space and energy) therefore the ice (matter) no longer exists... I dare say you are wrong about that... heh...
springhead21 It is really hard to have a conversation about these sorts of topics with someone that conflates a critique of materialism as a guiding philosophy and jumps to the conclusion that I must not believe in the material world at all. That is completely nonsensical.
Agnostic of what? There may not be a spirit, the physical body might actually hold all the mysteries of consciousness, it might not. But let's say for the sake of argument that consciousness was a nonlocal quantum field effect or something, like you suggest with your television analogy. That still doesn't mean we have a soul OR that any wisdom traditions are correct either. What are you agnostic of? If the answer is 'everything', than that is no different from being an atheist. If you suspect there is 'something greater' or 'a higher power', that's just speculation. If we do not know, then why is it 'dubious' promoting the hypothesis that we might live in a soulless, godless, cold, material universe. It seems likely to most scientists. 85% of people with college degrees in science are atheists. What do you find dubious about scientific consensus?
tom riddle Pew Research poll about atheism www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/ Scientists and belief in God poll www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ It is easy to throw out some lumped in number. Most scientists are either in the "I do not believe or disbelieve" column, or they they actually believe in a universal spirit.... which I am towards that side of things, although academically I neither believe nor disbelieve. I am not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination. And promoting a hypothesis is much different than touring a theory. Those who ridicule others who have a different hypothesis should first establish a scientifically supportable theory.
Juliaoceania "Universal spirit" is not god, and is ususally (for scientists) connected to collective consciousness biology (a la bees), or neurobiology research into quantum consciousness. That isn't god. And even with your study, 41% of scientists, who believe in neither gods or universal spirit, is still the largest group in terms of your data. But in the "how did the universe get here?" question... we don't know, and god is only one possibility, and an unlikely one at that. And since we can't prove or disprove it, it's useless to guess anyway. And BTW, a universe without god is already a working theory, and it should be toured, because it works, and is currently the closest thing to the truth we have.
The thing that makes me laugh about the people who believe in Chopra's 'spiritualism' - this 'higher power' this 'interconnectedness of everything' that binds us all together, that is the key to achieving true 'enlightenment' and being 'at peace with one's self'............is that you read their comments on places like here, and the _hatred_, the _vitriol_ they have for people who don't share their beliefs, is staggering! Their belief in the 'spiritual' doesn't appear to be doing anything for their anger! In fact, they seem to be just as angry, hate-filled, neurotic and intolerant as the rest of us! :D I can't be the only one who's noticed this.
Your observation is valid. Kudos for keeping it real and including yourself in the group of haters. Chopra has publicly fallen into the ego trap, and publicly apologized for it, which takes a lot of humility but in the end I think serves to show that nobody is perfect. Now, in my admittedly limited understanding of M Theory, it was derived as an amalgamation or reconciliation of two different versions of String Theory by allowing for "the 11th Dimension", which is described as a very thin membrane running through and connecting everything in the universe. According to this theory, which is finding consensus among the guys on Discovery Channel (Tyson, Kaku, et al), everything IS interconnected and bound together, then. But who knows?
Gary Davidson Yes, but not connected in this bizarre 'supernatural' sense that Chopra is selling. There's no _emotional_ attachment to this 'connectness' of M Theory. It's like saying because all phones are 'connected' that all the phones _care_ about each other.... He's just deliberately conflating the 'inter-connectedness' of M Theory with the supernatural 'we're all connected' emotional sentiment of his 'spiritualism' to confuse his audience and his fans that they're the same thing, and that the existence of one backs the other up.
E101ification Oh, really? I wasn't aware that he was actually trying to sell that connection. The truth is that I saw a few of Chopra's programs long ago, before I had ever heard about String Theory or M Theory... and I liked what he was saying, but I had heard it all before. His message wasn't really all that radical, at least not back then... but you guys are pretty much saying that Deepak is basically a televangelist now, except he's hawking new age spirituality instead of Jesus? And he's in it for the money? Well, that's certainly a shocker to hear... but he's apologizing to Michael Shermer, and Shermer is a shill who I have witnessed lying on C-Span ... He got caught in a lie and backpedaled.
Gary Davidson Even if Shermer has lied doesn't mean Chopra's is any less full of shit. Chopra's theories are all diarrhea, he just sprinkles them with little bits of truth so that to people who don't actually analyze them think they are drinking a chocolate shake.
Manuel Gutierrez Nice analogy, except I think you've just ruined chocolate shakes for me, lol. I'm kind of surprised to find out that there's so many people hating on Deepak, but as I said, I haven't seen any of his programs in a long time, probably 15 or 20 years at least. In fact, I was kind of shocked to see the gray hair and the added weight, it's been that long. I guess his message must have changed since then, because it used to be purely one of personal empowerment.
One thing we need to understand from this conference is that science and spirituality can never go together and never will. Science is relative truth and Spirituality is absolute truth. Scientists will and never understand the absolute truth because they are limited or relative which means that science always change whereas absolute truth never changes. If you fully study Buddhism, you will fully able to understand the reality that goes beyond the science.
The essential nature of the material world is that it's not material. The essential nature of the physical world is that it's not physical. The essential stuff of the universe is nonstuff. The essential nature of Deepak's argument is that it's not an argument.
They almost got somewhere at 1:36:00. Honestly, if just Stuart Hammeroff and the guy on the right (stage left) of Michael Shermer discussed (not debated), I'm pretty sure we could gain some ground here
I'm reminded of what Alan Watts said about the mechanistic materialist paradigm as a 'put down view of the universe' created by people needing this perspective to feel powerful~ wow the universe is just a machine or just matter or just mindless chemistry.
yeah but fact is, you can explain consciousness with scientific words and meanings, with your schooling, or you can explain consciousness by trying to be aware of yourself. the first method only points to the second method.
Being dismissive of Chopra is like being dismissive of a charlatan. Now Einstein was no charlatan, he worked out a theory that could make testable predictions. And in my opinion it wasn't like they were being dismissive of Einstein, there were some theories and only testable predictions could determine which was the right one. Although towards the end of his life, people were indeed dismissive of his later work.
If reality is science and science can be tested then what is the explanation for quantum physics which says reality depends on who is looking at the experiment?
I truly believe that nobody understood Shermer's arguments. Everybody interpreted them as reductionistic or materialistic. For example, Deepak at some point addressed Michael saying that he is not really speaking to him but rather to network of synapses. And that is true. It is truly language that is inhibiting and not reality. Michael is his synapses and nothing more. Nothing more. It just happens though that these synapses create an emergent consciousness.
As dreams in a box We live out our lives - Aware of ourselves - Our worlds distance derived - Though horizons may come And horizons may go In boxes we stay - Trapped by Time In it’s flow - Our decisions decide Where that box with our name May travel the system Will move or Remain - Escape is uncertain - We have to be blind - To the world, as we know it For it’s all in the mind - Egal Bohen March 2008
@unimind24 I think you're misunderstanding the point of being a skeptic. It's not about 'looking at the other side', it's about asking for evidence and only giving time to things that provide it. He dismisses the 'other side' because it provides none. Just anecdote.
perhaps cholwell is saying that in order for science to be truly valid, other realities, for lack of a better term, realities that have not been traditionally thought of as part of specific branches of sciences perhaps, need to be considered, such as consciousness & it's "source" perhaps... or perhaps another branch of science that is based on a wholistic lens could be established/recognized/validated... just throwin' out my 1st thought of a possible answer to your question
Once we begin to "wake up," it is astounding how our priorities change. What used to be so important to us - like getting more "stuff" in this material world, or trying to feed our egos by winning an argument, etc. - slowly loses it's pull until we barely notice them any more. And the main thing we now “see” is the fundamental, invaluable consciousness within each of us that permanently connects us to one another. We need to take care of each other; we’re all we’ve got.
I liked all of their descriptions. But, for me, we are never satisfied about the answers because Nature of Reality cannot stay presented as an static subject or object, everything are at a continuous development not static, by observationof uninterrupted mind concepts. So Reality is just momentum at everything.
@Denshuu Ultimate science,maths, biology all converges to spirituality.According to the present evolution level of humans we are able to comprehend &prove things which are up to the frequency levels of particle waves.The laws of quantum physics opened up new possibilities which could not be explained by Newtonian science.In more subtle frequency levels more things exist which is beyond our comprehension. Spirituality help us explore on this based on observation &experience from different people
The Universe is mostly empty space, but we as humans have evolved at a scale in which the fluctuations of quantum particles sum to what we call the material world. Both Newtonian and Quantum physics are correct, they deal with the same reality at different scale. If you try to study a particle you will find that it is possible for such quark to be in two places at the same time (there have actually been experiments) But no one in their right mind would propose the same for a cannon ball.
I don't think he plays with words to be "poetic." But because you can only use metaphors for something that is greater than the mind itself and can only be known through direct experience. You can't use the mind for something that is above the mind. Words are only signposts at best. You can't think about the state of "no thought" which gives you direct experience. If you think about "no thought" you are still thinking.
Time for Clarity: Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Like it or not - Deepak IS a scientist. Next, Deepak doesn't "strive for obscurity" - he plays with words to be poetic, but if you study them, (rather than label them "woo woo" ala M.Shermer ) it's easy to understand. Example: Deepak often says: "I hope we will see the dramatic overthrow of the superstition of material reality." Poetically saying: Material reality is a SUPERSTITION because at its core all material - is MOSTLY SPACE
I have not heard a single word of dogma from him in his talk above. He makes a powerful argument and I think he is being judged here. The cultural dogmas of the other academics and skeptics are veiled and masked by their respective language,cultural and racial tribes they come from and is no different than the era of copernicus that throws up judgments and resistance to orientalism or alternate definition of existence from non-western sources. Its a occidental ego thing.
Everything is energy. Einstein’s law E=mc2, suggest that at least there should be two parallel space-time realities from which these energy particles originates to form the matter [atom] we observe. The matter we see is juxtaposed between theses parallel worlds. This invariably means we need to visualize universe as living being as the east thought and taught the world. The inner space of life is the conscious and intelligent space-time reality that creates and sustains the universe from collapsing to singularity. Universe need to be understood as conscious and intelligence of a single SUPREME being unfolding and enfolding transforming and initializing everything into new time cycle rest are details
The thing about claiming that you're talking about color, when hardly anyone can see it, the history of the world dictates that you're more likely to be deluding yourself about nonsense than genuinely seeing color. Skepticism is definitely needed.
I was thinking about experiment for actualy test human, our power of percieveing things, this is important to know much we are, are we? this will give us a more strenght to believe in own teories.
Thank God for Deepak. Thank God he's giving a voice which answers most of people questions of happiness and reality :D Many speakers give us understanding of observations, but not many give us understanding of intuitive insight.
@vibhutesagar Of course that's not what open mindedness is. Accepting a claim without evidence is indeed irrational and unhealthy behavior. Shermer however exhibits narrow mindedness in that he often dismisses certain ideas without ever examining the evidence thoroughly simply because they contradict his idea of, in his words, 'how the world works.' The scientific paradigm is not stagnant and inflexible, or else it would be religion. It should progress and develop as new evidence is introduced.
