You are the universe | Robert Wright, Deepak Chopra, & Michael Shermer [The Wright Show]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2025
- 07:50 Is consciousness everything…
22:21 …and is it the only thing?
27:30 Can you find truth by looking inwards?
34:50 Debating whether physics supports Deepak’s views
43:53 The weirdness of quantum entanglement
48:03 Why skeptics are skeptical of Deepak’s work
Watch this conversation on MeaningofLife.tv: meaningoflife.t...
Robert Wright (Bloggingheads.tv, The Evolution of God, Nonzero), Deepak Chopra (deepakchopra.com, You Are the Universe), Michael Shermer (Skeptic, Scientific American)
Recorded on January 10, 2017
![Our weird universe | Robert Wright & Brian Greene [The Wright Show]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/h2RPYw4nqBE/mqdefault.jpg)
![Our weird universe | Robert Wright & Brian Greene [The Wright Show]](/img/tr.png)
I think Deepak is very brave to face his critics and never shy away... Most critics are so narrow minded that will not be able to expand their world view since they are so proud of their own thinking. They believe they are superior... It is their lost.
Deepak impacts positively so many people. Who has the others impacted in a positive way?? Voilà, at the end of the day that is what really matters not how intelligent you appear to be.
It's great to see 2 such different people be close friends!
Yes, they both understand what is really important in life.
Great discussion. So happy we reached this point guys! It snubbed out a few candles in my consciousness when I saw the attack on u Deepak,a year or so ago. U were my introduction to the bigger picture at a time I most needed it.I played your tapes "the conscious universe "and "Quantum physics" at least 365 times, probably more. And still t they don't bore me. I just want it to be known that u are a blessing to me, and others I have shared you with. Namaste
Is it strange that I like all three talkers?
No. They all seem like decent people who simply hold different worldviews. What a surprise, three people who don't agree on things.
Old account. New Josh.
I shouldn't start my day off with a philosophical and scientific debate without coffee.
If Deepak and Michael can be friends, I can be friends with anyone 😂😂🤣
Bob, You should have put a live cam on George Johnson to watch him groan at every syllable Deepak said.
Michaele has very conservative point of view. Mostly, I do understand Deepak although he is talking in more casual way. +meaningofLife.tv Can we have an episode on multiverses?
everything happens not in consiousness but in the mind of the subject. Consiousness is always pure..but i applaude his effort to explain to an atheist crowd..
Consciousness co-arises with every single sense impression and experience then passes away and gives rise to the next. It is as impermanent as everything else.
@@user-fg3fv9hl3b What is raising and disappearing is Thought. Consciousness is constant and never part of thought.
“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.” Carl Sagan
“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.” Neil deGrasse Tyson
This should be obvious to us all:
Chopra: "... everything is happening all at once in the universe, cause-effects are human constructs and that's something that everybody's now talking about; non-locality. What we are saying from Zen [?] perspective, if consciousness is without form - it has no form - then it can't occupy space and it can't be in time, so it's non-local. Non-local is simply a word which says simply non-local in space-time. So, in our paradigm, consciousness is non-local, correlates all the activities in the universe all at once. The correlation is unmediated, there is no medium of exchange; it's unmitigated. The robustness of the correlation does not diminish with distance from space-time and it's instantaneous".
I don't get why there is any confusion about this!
I love the Indian philosophy of existence... and Deepak nails it.
I think Robert says a lot of smart things about consciousness in his book NonZero, including that the very existence of consciousness could reveal something profound about the essential nature of reality. A kind of natural telos might be required to explain how conscious beings emerged. I think a plausible metaphysical reason that consciousness might be found at the fundamental nature of things is that existence seems to require the property of being self-realizing - a thing in itself. This may entail subjective or interior attributes, that when organized in complicated ways, amounts to the rich consciousness we experience.
metaRising That is awesome.
Physicists always revert to the language of mathematics as the 'ultimate proof' of their theories of the material world. But my issue with that is not that there's anything wrong with that but rather man didn't invent mathematics...it was discovered. It's information. And the entire universe including all living things is based on information. There can be no better example than DNA.
Deepak, new age guru mesmerizing minds with salads drowning in fifty different dressings. Mathematical explanations, rye toast and honey. Unappealing among masses searching for high calorie explanations.
All 3 of these authors have a book that has changed my life, even though this video wasn't interesting to me. I recommend 3 books. Skepticism 101 by Michael Shermer. The Evolution of God by Michael Wright. The Shadow Effect by Deepak Chopra.
As above,so belove,there is no top down or bottom up approach,it is all one field
No , Deepak - the moon was here way before humanity and will be here after humanity - it doesn't need your subjectivity to be here .Your so self important .
the early mystics (especially in the east) were incredibly refined, poetic and prolific in their introspective observations about first person experience. as such they had many remarkable psychological and philosophical insights, which nonetheless were hampered both by a complete lack of knowledge of the kind of scientific understanding high school kids today have access to, as well as the unquestioned superstitions and religious assumptions of their time. deepak invokes patanjali, who in addition to having some interesting ideas, also claims that yoga will enable levitation, having a body made of diamonds and controlling the minds of other people...
central to eastern mysticism is an amplification and fetishizing of the subjective fact that the brain is simply not able to know itself as a brain -so the central feature of conscious awareness appears to be an invisible and unknowable knower without whom experience would not be possible..... likewise, practices that amplify and stabilize contemplative brain states in which such "witnessing awareness" becomes incredibly lucid and focused, can perpetuate a quite solipsistic illusion that the material world arises within consciousness. this can also be evoked via psychedelic substances, which are often associated as sacraments in mystical traditions. in both deep meditation and powerful psychedelic states the accompanying sense of certainty, euphoria and revelatory insight makes it seem (probably via a big rush of dopamine) that this subjective flipping of perspective simply must be a kind of absolute truth..... this "enlightenment" is at the center of what draws many people to practices like yoga and meditation -but after 25 years of being involved in those practices, i think that it is actually a red herring, and that the benefits of contemplative practices are actually much more down to earth, and can eventually support seeing through these kinds of delusions of grandiosity!
Good comment.
Nicely put. Please forward to Sam Harris.
I don't doubt that some aspects of eastern spirituality do fall mainly into categories of superstition and unsubstantiated beliefs, which should be scrutinised, just as the dogmatic aspects of other religions are.
What generally follows from this is the argument that people who draw philosophical ideas from ancient belief systems which inevitably contain elements of superstition, myth etc should be excluded from all serious discussions on the nature of consciousness and existence.
I believe this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps sceptics (or so called 'sceptics') should focus instead on the fact that the central claim of materialist science today regarding the nature of consciousness is deeply flawed and doesn't stand up to rigorous philosophical ,or indeed, ultimately even scientific scrutiny. It isn't even possible in theory to propose a mechanism for how the brain, a physical system, can create the experience of consciousness. The question of consciousness is therefore qualitatively different from any other question posed in the history of science. Any hypothesis put forward in the realm of science must necessarily conform to a certain set of parameters (ie the physical universe and its underlying laws) otherwise it ceases to be a coherent hypothesis. The denial of this problem within the scientific community is the ultimate red herring.
In other words, no matter how far down you go in terms of explaining consciousness within those parameters, there will always be an explanatory gap. The idea of consciousness as an emergent property doesn't solve this problem; often the analogy of the 'wetness' of water is given, but this merely brings the problem into sharper relief. The argument is that it takes a certain number of H2O molecules to become perceivable as water. However, This is a perfectly reasonable question within the framework of normal scientific inquiry, as the question naturally assumes that the physical properties of H2O already exist. We are simply using the same exisiting framework to examine how the properties of matter behave. The emergent property of wetness from water (in the physical sense) doesn't require a new ontological category or paradigm shift to be comprehensible within the framework of science. The same cannot be said for consciousness.
As for reaching 'enlightenment' through focussed meditation or the use of psychedelics, I think to simply dismiss that as 'a flipping of perspective' might be a bit shallow although perhaps not entirely untrue. Bernardo Kastrup argues that normal everyday consciousness is like ' a whirlpool within a body of water' a localisation of consciousness within a larger, unbound, irreducible consciousness. So, following this line of thinking, the use of psychedelics or deep meditative practices actually dissipate the 'whirlpool' temporarily, so the localised experience of consciousness dissolves into a more universal state, not so much the creation of an illusion, but a broadening of perspective. The everyday reality we experience is therefore not more or less real than seeing things from a more expansive viewpoint. It is only a different perspective.
Your translation of Patanjalis Yoga Sutras from Sanskrit to English is deeply flawed. Vajra body is not Diamond body but adamantine (as in very strong -- nearly indestructible/invulnerable to diseases). There was no quote on controlling other peoples mind but controlling Bhutas through Dharana (if you had a traditional yoga guru, you wouldnt be so wrong). Levitation techniques discussed requires years of secluded single pointed work/asceticism under supervision as per tradition, and is hardly done by common folks like you. You can atleast admit it is subject to verification instead of pompous dismissal. What you are doing here is making claims about Patanjali, both falsely and callously. This is to paint and discredit him while stealing his insights. This is classic neo-colonialism of knowledge from an ancient sources/native peoples. Btw your 25yrs of spurious non-traditional practise is not even a drop in the ocean of experience collected in the traditions. The only person here with the grandiosity of ego-inflation and self-delusion to judge against Patanajlis greatness is you.
@@anonymous2076 let me know when you have video evidence of a single human being levitating without stage craft and I will gladly follow you as my guru.
Chopra (who represents the spiritual worldview) believes that experiences are the only thing that exist. Shermer (who represents the materialist worldview) believes that it is theoretically possible for a world to exist independently without any conscious observers whatsoever. That's what separates the two.
That and their hairline. The spiritualist is clearly winning when it comes to hairline. ^^
In the event that you are able to experience something TRULY AMAZING...be ready to fight the world. [Minus the men here, which we will more than likely never meet].
I love a challenge, but the debate itself is where the "meat" of what we are talking about, truly exists.
Harder to be this person today maybe then centuries ago.
Has anyone spent anytime in Behaviorismcli clinics and spoke with M.D.'s or Physicists? Lol...
Upon the ocean of consciousness the waves of I AM exists. Meditation is about how to collapse the I AM wave function.
first time i listened to deepak chobra in person after hearing so many negative, slanderous things about him. dont understand what all the fuss is about, makes perfect sense to me. doesnt of course mean hes necessarily right.
make sense? you cant be serious
A belief-trapped mind simply cannot see beyond it's own limitations.
It's interesting that physicists agree with him on many points. It's much easier to be dismissive and insulting than to actually find areas of agreement.
Janeen Clark, Can you give an example of something he says that you find offensive?
Philosophical Mind It only makes sense if you have seen the world from that point of view. You cant see the world from that point of view purely based on an intellectual understanding - you need to have actually experienced states such as unity consciousness, ego transcendance, awakening etc to truly understand. One of the things deepak does is that he puts a language to explain how all of these states feel and wht they reveal about the reality of our world.
I doubt very much we will be reading the 'thoughts of Deepak" 100 years from now. 2500 years later we still study Socrates, Aristotle, Plato....
Deepak's worldview seems lucid and comprehensive whereas Robert's and Michael's seemed relatively befuddled by comparison. Deepak also showed the patience and good humor with them such as one might expect of an enlightened being. 🤔
Deepak is in line with Kant, Schopenhauer and Berkeley. If I said the sun bends time, you will think I am crazy. Only if you have a grasp of Einstein it won't seem crazy. This is the problem with Deepak. He sound nutts because we live in a culture of what the philosophers used to call naïve realism. Sometimes Deepak makes bloopers in debates, but so what. He's a smart business man like Sam Harris and Dawkins. Right, rant over!
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" Carl Sagan.
I appreciate Deepak's sentiment, but the supernatural aspect of it just doesn't demonstrate itself as necessary in the context of everything we know about the cosmos.
Materialistic model of consciousness is that it emerges from matter, Eastern philosophy teachers that matter emerges from consciousness that's what all the discussion is about, for materialists an idea of consciousness as a source of matter implies God that's why they don't like the idea, I like what Krishnamurti said when asked if he is an atheist, he responded, I was an atheist until I realized I am God:-))) I think there is a big difference between thinking of oneself us a biological machine predetermined without Freewheel and thinking of oneself as a God creating its own reality
that con man got smashed by u.g. krishnamurti so hard.. jiddu k. nothing but another chopra ;)
It's all bullshit. With the materialistic model we can atleast sort a fraction of the world around us. The eastern philosophy is just an empty wank. What we can measure and experience is just a cartoon compared to a holistic whole.
@@null.och.nix7743 u. g. krishnamurti was a foul mouthed copycat.
Consciousness is more than experience. It’s the awareness of experience. Right? I mean, is my dog conscious? He has experiences and he thinks and understands. When I tell him”let’s go for a walk” he knows what I said and he knows what to do and he feels happy. So he’s conscious that way. But he’s not aware of his “doggie thoughts”, he just is.
I like Deepak as a being but/and I agree to disagree with these points of views.
Which ones?
Maybe Robert and Michael stumble over the sense of a radical (root) interconnectivity of the Universe? A simple example would be are we connected to our Sun? Yes of course theres nothing which happens without the Sun. Next notion is so then are we the Sun? and to this Id say logically Yes! If this is true then we are a continuum of activity related to the whole universe.
Yes it feels like to all meditators that we are the universe. So I concluded maybe it is entanglement that makes us feel that way.
We see a tree for example why do we get entangled with the tree. Why is the universe entangled? When I meditate it feels like
I have gone somewhere in space and I am right there. Feels like entanglement to me. Not sure this entanglement is awareness
itself or a soul really exists in addition to entanglement-----------------------this is really a hard one.
So I begin to think. Maybe in the singularity it was very perfectly entangled. Now i will reveal a secret to you all what has really
got me thinking and i want you in very heavy physics take this very seriously.
That is Gravity really entanglement?--------------If this is true develop your technology should an alien race come to exterminate you all. I would be dead by then.
Also how you can prepare almost a free energy device with a many entangled system of particles---- i think i have a clue here but there are so many educated people that can figure this out much faster than me.
I don't think Deapak is wrong, but I also don't think what he is saying is terribly profound. Basically, the world is metered by our perception of it. We like to think that our words for things are the things themselves, but really, that is our consciousness's way of interpreting them. Jordan Peterson talks about something similar; but he goes on to make the claim that without taking our subjective experiences into account when calculating the contents of reality, we will ultimately create a hell on earth because our happiness is rooted in our way of perceiving the world which is not rational in any way (therefor a rational worldview is ultimately harmful).
Deepak seems to stop at the first part though. He makes the assertion that consciousness is not only the basis for our understanding of the world, but more than that; it is our understanding of the world. All this serves to do in my eyes is make it impossible to talk about anything because ultimately it's all just consciousness and a sentence just becomes 'consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness etc.,'. Admittedly, all I have heard from him is from debates on youtube. Anyway, I find myself agreeing with what he says, but every once in a while, he says something that just seems a bit dishonest.
Yet, there is a period in the life of a human (as a young child) that consciousness does not play the role we give to it. So consciousness as is understood by grown-ups is an emergent property that arises during growing up. Maybe that is why scientists explain it as an emergent property arising in the brain. It does not mean that consciousness as such may be separated from the brain and is non-local. I guess we just do not know when object/subject split arises in human experience. Certainly not in the brain of a young child. To me thinking about it is mind-boggling. Meditating brings me into that state of a child again but then thinking has totally disappeared :)
Shermer and Wright could make more of an effort to look less bored. Chopra could pause the gibberish long enough to answer Wright's question @ about 25mins : What makes you so sure (unlike Descartes) that you are right? How could your claims be falsifiable? or words to that effect
He was very direct and clear multiple times. It is the definite and repeated experiences (of himself and millions of others throughout time in East) in deep meditation where you come to the ground of your real self.
in the biblical version - god is Logos. ie word. ie story. in the biblical version god says I AM. Moses says who shall i say is telling me to free the people and "god" reolies."tell them I AM sent you" . so just try saying I AM and experience your own consciousness as a tiny part of the total consciousness. All wisdom that has endured has a modicum of the truth. All people carry a portion of the light , or of consciousness. the whole is boundless, and not material therefore not in time or space. the self of the universe is the self of my universe. when i die , ego me dies . my consciousness is that which is happening now on and on and on and on and on... sometimes every day concerns obscure this awareness.
If there were no humans around, I'm pretty sure the universe would exist as it physically exists today.
21st century physics disagrees with ur 19th century physics.
Just wish Deepak could speak a bit less. Silence is more close to awareness than speech. Nevertheless, has high respect for me and Michael.
Deepak makes the tastiest word salads..then shames you for not regarding everything else that you know to be reasonably true as "word salad'..
we don't buy it.. Yes there's a problem of epistemology within every domain of knowledge.. does this mean that we intentionally subvert the meanings we have ascribed to the things we know so we can see it as we wish? By no means!! the inevitable paradigm shift via the *facts* are sufficient..
Any rational pragmatist will remain amenable to the evidence, insofar as the context of their rationality allows them to do so (this is to make the exception that a person may reasonably deny aspects of reality for language games, whereby people can entertain fantasy)..However, thus far there's no reason to assume, to make the leap of abstraction, that our words as they attempt to describe the environment we are in.. are so false we can feel free to believe what we wish...
Contrariwise, the more we understand the constraints that allow us to see objects/subjects for their optimal utility.. the less we try to "transcend" the language about them, and instead, speak more succinctly..
Lastly, isn't his view self refuting? if all we have are descriptions that grant us "models" of reality for our "awareness" to "perceive," isn't the very act of being "aware" also a model, which is not the thing in and of itself that we are perceiving? He's admitting his view is baseless!! but because of his word-sorcery, misappropriating scientific terms in a realistic way.. we sit and listen to appear "open minded"..
Daft!!
Watch this afterwards: ruclips.net/video/hU6TkfCGlX8/видео.html
People right about bullshitter, they only talk but empty and will go empty. Can never attain what they profess, shows frustration on their faces. To attain conscienceness of higher regions i.e. grand divisions of creation, their ego can not think of that missing ingredient only that can help them atttain it. By ego i mean comprehension.
Ha, Michael has a way of provoking Deepak to be overly defensive!
It seems to me that if Deepak were right it might mean that there couldn't ever be a unified theory...
On the pragmatic side of the street: should we govern ourselves via theocracy based on these ideas? Should I be put in jail for my misfortunes because it's my karma? It's my LOA? Can we pollute, coerce, exploit, and destroy because....well, that's just the way it is in the kaliyuga!
And just for fun: which school is correct? I align, as a gnostic, with Dvaita Vedanta, and argue against the non-dual schools and that God is something completely distinct and separate from this toilet bowl!
going back in time, both eastern and western philosophers have held the idealist stance (consciousness is primary to matter) but they were wrong, and the numbers of educated people who hold onto their line of thought have decreased dramatically as science has progressed. with the advent of evolution and eventually neuroscience, the understanding that what is called "consciousness" is an umbrella term for various brain functions (memory, sensory awareness, cognition, proprioception, sense of self etc) that become more complex and self-reflective as brains get more developed, and which become damaged or non-functional in response to disease or injury to specific brain regions.
in some ways the term "consciousness" creates problems because it reifies a substance or entity as if it is something that stands apart, not dissimilar from a a word like "life" -so no matter how much we understand about biology, it still seems natural to say "but that doesn't explain life itself", and in the same way, no matter how much we understand the brain, it still seems intuitively natural to perceive that this thing called "consciousness" has not been adequately explained.
consciousness is an emergent property of biology that becomes more complex and self-reflective as biology evolves. before biology emerged out of physics and chemistry, there simply was no consciousness, in the same way that before mammals with limbic systems arrived on the scene there was no such thing as love. we had a universe for several billion years in which consciousness was absolutely absent, just as we had reptilian life (dinosaurs) for a long time before the kinds of warm blooded, emotionally bonded, adorably cuddly mammals could begin expressing and valuing the quality of experience we now call love -and that existed for a long time before human being could come along and self-importantly proclaim that consciousness, love, or jesus are somehow the central meaning and purpose of the universe!
one of the central features of being human is that the brain does not experience itself as a brain -and so innate mind body dualism seems intuitively accurate and underlies all religious beliefs, all supernaturalism, notions of souls, gods, life after death, ghosts etc.... because the brain evolved to be aware of everything but its own functioning, we experience consciousness as an open space into which phenomena magically arise, and imagine that this domain of mind must somehow be distinct from the body and can't "just" be material and neurobiological. but it is.
the overwhelming amount of evidence we have for a neurobiological understanding of consciousness stands in stark contrast to the absolute 100% absence of any evidence for any proposed outdated notions of immaterial consciousness independent of biological organisms. people who insist on claiming this is an unresolved question have simply not learned yet to see through the same kind of mistaken intuitions (in this case mind-body dualism) as affects the uneducated when perceiving a flat earth with a sun moving around it.
my theory is that one day we will also understand a spectrum of innate temperaments or brain typologies, one end of which is more predisposed to find the cognitive errors, confirmation bias and superstitious logic more compelling and profound than those at the other end..... at the heart of this temperament is always an unshakable sense that there just "must" be a soul, a god, life after death, etc and along with that the "god of the gaps" style arguments that find statements along the lines of: consciousness is (supposedly) a mystery that science cannot solve, ipso facto marco polo, we live in a magical universe of psychic phenomena and metaphysical divinity, and of course "the ancients" knew this all along!
Julian Walker brilliantly said.. unfortunately, Deepak's argument is more convoluted than you describe.. he invokes the "problem of epistemology" as permission to "interpret" things beyond what we can observe as a "matter of fact" (pun intended).. he stresses that qualia, (which one can presume to mean the units of subjective experience for which there is no objective correlate) are a part of the same spontaneity that we witness when we describe the "mutation of a gene".. my only guess at why he does this is to maintain some theistic worldview, where God doesn't necessarily have to act "out there" but can act "within the field of a subjective experience", by whichever mechanism, biological or not, and "cause things to be".. which in his interpretation, is a mere correlation between actual and potential states of awareness..
blech..
" going back in time, both eastern and western philosophers have held the idealist stance (consciousness is primary to matter) but they were wrong, and the numbers of educated people who hold onto their line of thought have decreased dramatically as science has progressed. " Only western educated people without an eastern education believe this. Currently western culture is erasing native cultures across the world through media power, domination of educational sector and propaganda and narrative dominance. The numbers have reduced due to an indoctrination from birth into a materialist worldview, rather than any inherent superiority of it.
""consciousness" is an umbrella term for various brain functions (memory, sensory awareness, cognition, proprioception, sense of self etc)" -- It is not. There are seperate words for each of these brain functions in Eastern philosophy. It just shows how shallow and uneducated your understanding of Eastern worldview is.
@@anonymous2076 you’re blending politics, philosophy and science here in ways that does a dis service to all three.
@@JAYDUBYAH29 Misapplication of western categories (eg philosophy vs science) to Indic ideas wrongly, and then calling my statement about differences in worldviews/epistemology/ontology as politics, is a disservice to any meaningful dialog and a missed growth opportunity for you. A proper education under a traditional acharya can easily fix this, but persisting in your very western view as an "universal view" is a disservice that fractures the world further.
@@anonymous2076 maybe when i reach the level of someone wise and humble enough to bow down to you you will be beneficient enough to become my teacher.
Unpack Chopra
OMG - why are Chopra's views taken so seriously? Why has David Chalmers' views been taken seriously?
Oh Jeeze, can these people please be clearly instantiated as 'WOO' traders? It's utter nonsensical rubbish & messing up the aims of all those involved in real, evidence based, scientific pursuits & study.
tupac oprah
Quantum math re physics isn't a metaphor - it's a real math based model.
Math is calculations of metaphorical models of reality. So math is also metaphors.
keep feeding Dupak's dilution -- his bank account keeps growing.
"if i was afraid of embarrassing myself, i would not be able to influence the people i am influencing..." precisely. which is why a little more healthy shame and self-critique and taking seriously the responsibility of being someone people who don't know better pay attention to would go a long way, instead of narcissistically spouting absolute untruths, word salad and misleading nonsense in pseudoscientific language. in that exact debate at cal tech theoretical physicist leonard mlodinow pricelessly took deepak to task from the audience for lacking basic understanding of the physics he claims supports his claptrap, charlatanry and selling people delusional, superficial fallacies as if they are profound alternative facts .
Hi Julian, I am interested in what you think of out of body experiences, for example when someone is aware of themselves, perceiving their own body as if their body is sitting or lying down next to them, and how this applies to consciousness being just a result of biological evolution?
And in later discussions, Leonard Mlodinow found many points of agreement with Chopra. They have since collaborated and written a book together.
A man like Deepak who was able to care for and befriend a bitter critic like Michael, bridge differences in ideas and develop a common understanding together, has a far better moral compass, than some hate-spewing half-ignorant accusatory troll who apparently has failed after 25yrs of yoga practise and cannot stomach it and hence should go on a shooting spree on all Eastern traditional thought. Its a shame that you dont call for self-critique on your behaviour due to psychological transference.
It is painful to listen to the nonsense that comes out of Deepak's mouth.
That's because your mind is too narrow. Expand it a bit, it will be a benefit for all of us.
Oh Jeeze, Robert Wright is only embarrassing himself as a public intellectual by allowing the plausibility of views by people like Chopra's or Chalmers' as relative or important. They're 'WOO' merchants. Come on Robert, you surely know better than this.
Why would anyone take this fake guru seriously? Would Wright bother talking to Ken Ham or Kent Hovind?
The Subject: “I am and besides me there is nothing. For this world, with all its suns and stars and people is my representation, my idea”.
Matter: “Presumptuous folly! I am, and besides me there is nothing. For the world is my fleeting form. You are mere result of part of this form, and quite accidental”.
The Subject: “What silly conceit! Neither you nor your form would exist without me. Whoever thinks me away, and then believes he can still think of you, is involved in a gross delusion; for your existence outside my idea is a direct contradiction, a wet-fire. You are, simply means you are an idea, or a representation by me. My representation is the locality of you existence; I am therefore its first condition”.
Matter: “Fortunately the boldness of your assertion will soon be refuted in a real way, and not by mere words. A few more moments, and you -actually are no more; and all your boasting and bragging, you have sunk into nothing, floated past like a shadow, and suffered the fate of every one of my fleeting forms. But I, I remain intact and undiminished from millennium to millennium, throughout endless time, and behold the unmoved play of my changing forms”.
The Subject: “This endless time, to live through which is you boast is, like the endless space you fill, present merely in my representation, or my idea, which I carry already prepared within me, and in which you manifest yourself. It receives you, and in this way do you first of all exist. But the annihilation with which you threaten me does not touch me, otherwise you also would be annihilated. On the contrary, it concerns merely the individual which for a short time is my bearer, and which, like everything else, in my representation, my idea, a representation on subjectivity”.
Matter: “Even if I grant you this, and so far as regard your existence, which is inseparably linked to that of these fleeting individuals, as something existing by itself, it nevertheless remains dependent on mine. For you are subject only in so far as you have an object; and that object is I. I am its kernel and content, that which is permanent in it, that which holds it together, without which it would be as incoherent and as wavering and insubstantial as the dreams and fancies as your individuals, which have borrowed even their fictitious contend from me”.
The Subject: “You may do well to refrain from disputing my existence on account of its being linked to individuals; for which as inseparably as I am tied to these, so are you tied to form, your sister, and you have never yet appeared without her. No eye has yet seen either you or me naked and isolated; for we are both only abstractions. At bottom it is one entity that perceives itself and is perceived by itself, but its being-in-itself cannot consist either in perceiving or in being perceived, as these are divided between us”.
Matter: “So we are inseparability connected as necessary parts of one whole, which includes us both and exists through us both. Only a misunderstanding can set up the two of us as enemies in opposite to each other, and lead to a false conclusion that the one contests the existence of the other, which its own existence stands and falls”
Arthur Schopenhauer: “After they, subject and matter, are taken away, there remains the purely metaphysical, the Ding an Sich, or Brahman”.
Shermer OWNED Chopra.
how and when? he said good things about him and cleared him of fraud in the end of the video.
I guess I usually think that real and true and authentic spiritual teachers thinkers and authors are not commercial like Deepak is, so I don't trust him or read him.
Should they be beggars in rags?
Deepak Chopra? Fuck sake. Really?
Absolutely terrible
#triggered
Chopra is awful.
I understand Deepak Chopras mistake, what Michael Shermer is saying to Deepak, is all beings like a bat that experience an object that to humans is a cup, has to interact with this object irrespective the species's specific experience.