I'm studying physics and I've been developing my own interpretation of quantum mechanics and I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is fundamental to the substratum of reality. In fact, I'm making a video series on my channel which shows why materialism is almost certainly false.
I have been studying physics very diligently as well.. so want to say to you that I think the use of the words "I'm convinced" should be uttered when the data shows irrevocable evidence that the claim has been proven mathematically and or in some matter of testable and verifiable experimentation. I don't disagree with you.. but ignorance comes from the assumption that one is correct without evidence. You might as well say you believe in God as our source of conciousness. Let's be good scientists.
I loved the scene from the movie Short Circuit where the Robot Number 5 announced "I am alive!" Who told you that, someone asked. "I told me!" said the robot!
its funny, for me anyway, I was a really big fan of the "new atheists" back in 2014-15 and I watched Sam Harris debate Deepak and I was fooled into believing Sam Harris's bullshit. so I couldn't agree with you more. Rupert Spira Deepak Chopra Chris Fields Francis Lucille Alan Ross Bruce Grayson they are all on the right side of reality.
50:42 - That I am wants to know, and is that from which what I am and who I am arises and that to which they return. Core Self = That I am Essential Self = what I am Social Self = who I am
Very interesting. We are trying so hard to find the truth and what consciousness is. It is so complex but so simple. I did enjoy the talk and the panel had some interesting views.
If you experience consciousness, you do need these scientists, if I am happy, I am happy and do not need a confirmation of that by scientists. There was consciousness first from which all has been created.
Start with neti neti. Start with what conciousness is not that way you can discard most of the theories out there. Scope will be narrowed down and conciousness can be well within grasp.
For me: "Space" is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. "Time" is the flow of that energy. "Time" (flow of energy) cannot exist unless "space" (energy itself) exists. "Space" (energy itself) which does not flow (no flow of energy/time) is basically useless. An entity cannot even think a thought without a flow of energy. But hence also, "space" and "time" are linked in what we call "space time". Everything in this universe is energy and energy frequencies interacting with other energy and energy frequencies, even "consciousness".
Consciousness is an abstract concept is just an abstract concept of the ability this mind property allow us to have.. Its our ability to be aware of things that exist. Our conscious states allow us to be aware of environmental and organic stimuli. How it is achieved is explained, to a degree' by Cognitive science.
what an interesting group of people this was trying to have an intelligent conversation on a topic with no permission granted for an answer whatsoever. strange species we are trying to understand what we actually are. when we came here we were taught to understand how to survive and after we have lived for some time we wonder why and how.it is bothersome not knowing but at the same time thats what always inspires happiness like as a child on christmas eve,,,,not knowing what sex your unborn child will be or if you may win the lotto one day. im glad we have a gift of a construct of inspired anticipation to enable ourselves to stay curious about our mysterious lives.knowing everything would take the fun out of it.i personally wish people would release the need to know what they dont have the privilege of understanding and embrace the gift of not knowing .because not knowing to some makes them annoying and unbearable but not knowing to others leaves them with the beautiful gift of an open mind.
If consciousness constructs our perception of reality and that what we perceive is only a representation of reality, what does true reality consist of? Is true reality a field of electrical impulses which when arranged in a particular pattern become that which we can then perceive?
It is a great video, but the truth is that in the end, I only ended up being confused about the question. Again and again, I realise that the more you try to use your intellect to understand consciousness the less it makes sense. Consciousness is "I". What we are looking for are "we". So it is pretty much like and eyeball trying to look at itself, and whatever it sees, it tries to interpret and find the answer to the question: " What is the eyeball? It is impossible to the eyeball to know itself as an object or as an explanation. Therefore it is also impossible for the eyeball to find a meaning for its own eyeballness. Instead of knowing ourselves as an object by our mind, or knowing ourselves as an explanation by our intellect, we can just be "we" or "I" and feel what "I" is like by simply being fully myself.
Buddy the guy in the right corner said it right what you're doing is making a description, model of reality in yourself you can't expect to be a thing right? its description only.
awesome content ! as per usual..........imho model(s) such as Tom Campbell's MBT are thE closest thing we have as far as a "solid"(as in simple & sensible & wide scoped) science RE: consciousness....... in addition to being a basis/framework/kernel/shell for an actual TOE, with many of the pieces already in place.......thats not to minimize the credentials of the panel in any way.......in fact most of them said some clever stuff.....& it was among the best talk of its kind I've seen so far !..........great post
Great effort by Deepak to bridge science & spirituality. This unity is the death knell to the science's investment on discovery to enhance destruction, greed, global warming, etc. Quantum Physics double slit theory (refer RUclips) explains clearly Non-duality. Meditation helps to get an insight. Swami Vivehanandha's speeches on Non-duality are very powerful.
Yeah, sure, Deepak Chopra is not greedy at all. Rubbish. The experiences he's alluding to should be equally interesting to seekers and scientists, but it's obvious that he's just parroting spiritual ideas he's read in books and then rearranging words around the little science he knows. Don't be fooled, sir. And it's clear that he's only interested in what the others are saying to the extent that it solidifies his worldview; he's already made up his mind about consciousness and how others should agree with him, and then his confirmation bias kicks in to pick apart the useful things in what the others are saying. He's just another man who's promoting the culture he was raised in-- a man with an agenda. I come from the same culture (as I can see you do too), I live in India, not the comfort of the first world, but I can see that his pride and ego cloud his judgement, and that humble body language he's adopted does not mask his humongous ego, as is the case with someone like Sadhguru. Ironically, there's a lot more humility in those who remain healthily skeptical (without falling into cynicism) of everything, spirituality included.
Don mentioned the Bat interface. This reminded me of the boy born blind who taught himself to "see" the world by clicking with his mouth and hearing the echo.
37:09 - I don't think that theories are ALL conscious, meaning explicit (conscious effort). I think lots of theory is deeply implicit, and I'm not sure if they come from conscious effort. That said, I think it pops into our heads from consciousness, but not sure if it IS conscious. Science surely is done with conscious effort, and is an explicit conscious function.
in dons theory, he seems to have come up with what look like binary forms to describe the interactions of conscious agents.. and was if someone would be able to explain how he came about that?
Here is my latest theoretical idea concerning the Theory Of Everything (TOE). It recognizes gravity as being a part of the photon and the pulsating photon as being the energy unit of this universe. "IF" true, (and I fully acknowledge the "if"), then the three components of the photon would have a maximum in one direction, neutral, and a maximum in the other direction. Gravity (direction): maximum in one direction, neutral, maximum in the other direction; Electrical: maximum in one direction, neutral, maximum in the other direction; Magnetic: maximum in one direction, neutral, maximum in the other direction. 1 photon, with 3 components, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence, 1, 3, 6, 9 are fundamental numbers of this universe. Revised TOE: 3/25/2017. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating singularity (which is basically a pulsating photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.
Consciousness not being a thing can not be characterized, since language of all kinds must have some object or thing to work with. So we can say perfectly accurately that consciousness is nothing but not our usual idea of nothing like the inside of an empty box. And we are that Nothing. That Nothing is always aware of Itself; or consciousness is always self-consciousness.
Intellect I think cannot understand Awareness, simply because it's within the Awareness or in another words it's within the creative process. Much like it's hard to understand the orchestra by simply listening to it from the outside perspective, it's a veil of separation between the listener and the producer of music. I think the reason we cannot understand who we are and what the mind is, because we are everything. If the world is our own observation stripping it away will inevitably lead us back to the mind, which exactly the direction QM have been pointing to.
Consciousness is a slightly clunky word, especially for Deepak and his piercing S's, we could use another word sentience, experience or awareness. But we have gone with consciousness, occasionally shortened to "Conchness" by theorists that say it about 75 times in a day
From my prespective, Consciousness definition itself is not clear. From Buddhist perspective, it can be classified into different dimensions. The most subtle's one cannot be described constructively because it has to be experienced by the observer (who is enlighted) - for more go through Buddhist phylosophy of 4 kayas of Buddha.
As a person without college degree I agree. I feel strongly that the stories of NDEers and those with reincarnation and pre-birth memories are worth as much or more consideration of evidence as they've been outside the bubble of our reality. Many are proven by their awareness of happenings while they were dead or unconscious.
I would have thought u would ask this to figure it out. To finally "know". The lifting of the veil. The apocolypse could not tht mean to "know". To have the veil lifted and understand the one.
This panel is seeking the right answers to the wrong questions - Matter does exist at the time the question is asked, “what is matter” - No matter if matter can be backed up or broken down into light - (What came 1st the chicken or the egg - the egg is the chicken at different stages of manifestation/development) - CONSCIOUSNESS IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN; WHY
Science doesn't get the whole picture, and I need to listen to this again because they make it so complicated, when it doesn't need to be. Conciousness is a non material thought process.
Consciousness needs a Physical Body to Experience Time YOU Come before Consciousness Consciousness is what happens when Energy from the External World interacts with the 5 senses of the body that you are placed in.
@@tommyheron464 What do mean "we have many more?" Exactly how many more do we have? Could you name a few? Balance for 1? What does that mean? The Human Body has 5 Senses You are the one talking Nonsense
@@umunhum3 proprioception. It means sense of spaces. Look it up. So that's 2 extra. Shall I continue or will you accept there are more than 5. Or do you have no 'I'm wrong' sense?
@@umunhum3 also interoception. That's the body's internal physical feelings and the sense of pain which is recognised as separate from touch. Each of the senses is further split into sub categories of which there is 22 in total apparently. All very interesting stuff really.
I saw few times that Deepak Chopra advocates the view that the whole reality is just an outcome of the mind. For example, he says in this discussion that the moon does not exist outside of our minds. I completely disagree with this view. If the moon is just our mindset, then how & why we see it ONLY in a very specific direction and location ?? Why don't we see it anywhere we would choose to see it ?? This wrong view like Deepak Chopra presents hereby, is an outcome of the confusion people make between Universe/Nature and Reality. They do not make the proper conceptual distinction between Universe and Reality. They speak & think about Universe and Reality as synonymous and that's a fundamental mistake which misleads to such misjudgments like above. The proper conceptual distinction between Universe and Reality is as following: The universe/nature is out there as it is. We see, know and understand it partially. But what we see, know, etc, is really out there, independent of our mind's existence. Perhaps the universe has more in it than we see, know, understand, but what we do see, know, etc., is really out there. It's not just our mindset. On the other hand, the reality we see, experience, know, understand, is the interaction between the universe/nature and our minds. Obviously this reality is dependent both on the universe as-it-is and its interaction with our minds (meaning the reality is also dependent on our minds). For a dead person (mind) there's assumingly no reality as there's no interaction occurring between the universe and that specific (dead) mind. But this does not mean the universe stops to exist because of that. The moon would remain there even if all of its interactions with living minds would halt completely. Because the moon is not an outcome of our mindset.
The moon and all creation was manifested by Consciousness Source. Therefore it exists until Source integrates it back to itself and moves on. We are all units of Consciousness bringing experience to be integrated back to Source. I dream up settings where I exist as one viewpoint. How did I dream up the other parts and not understand it/them? I think we are being reminded in a fractal way of how Source manifested universe. Easter eggs everywhere, but Source's objective is for us to not know why... just experience life within confines of human form. Actors do their part really well when immersed in character, remembering afterwards. Source experiences all of Everything in the universe 360° thru each of us individuated pieces of itself. We will be able to do same when our character is off stage. Non-duality Fascinating theory!
So, You are the Eternal Here and Now, You always had your Consciousness, this is the most intime connection in existence, the *I* and the Consciousness. If man make devices as can do mental functions, man must copy the way Life does, We recognize four of these Eternal Abilities, Automatic, Power, Logic/Order, Memory, Instinct, Gravity, Intelligence, Memory. If We take one of these abilities away, your computer wont work. Well, the Eternal Consciousness-structure, (is mirrored in the rainbow) expose a circuit, (structure) -Memory-Instinct-Gravity-Feeling-Intelligence-Intuition-Memory- So, our Eternal Consciousness consist of the Over-Consciousness, which consist of the Under-Consciousness, as consist of the Day-consciousness and the Night-consciousness. Our physical Body is a Gravity-body, when We fall at sleep, then We do move our Day-consciousness to the 'Night-bodies' one by one during the night, (Deep-sleep-periods). The Life-Desire is the Motor of the Eternal Life, in direct extension We have the Will, (Life-side) and Gravity, (Stuff-side) with the Will, We do balance Gravity of Earth, with our own, when We lift the cup. We see that these eternal abilities is not just specific but also very dynamic in nature. So, this is the naked basic picture of our consciousness nature in a eternal perspective, which also mirror the eternal mathematic. (short told)
What Don said About cutting the Brain in 2 made 2 i's well saw a guy Once who lost half his Brain in an accident he was normal, he Should have been Walking around looking for colas all the time
All the great teachers like Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, have clearly stated that the intellect cannot understand awareness, for It lies beyond the mind constructs. Same in Buddhism. Physics and Mathematics are constructs of the mind that try to intellectually organize and understand the multitude of perceived phenomena. So by definition, the answer is NO and the discussion is rendered redundant (PS. I am a Physicist). Nevertheless, I watched it all, despite the fact that Chopra is a charlatan and has no clue about anything. I liked what everyone had to say except Mossbridge, she was all over the place. Federico Faggin was very eloquent and to the point, and I liked the fact that when Chopra wrongly interpreted his ideas , he kind of reprimanded him not to take his views as Solipsism. Chopra is a naive solipsist, trying to impress the listener with his random pseudoscience vocabulary.
No, what you describe is consciousness. In non duality there's a distinction between consciousness, the accumulation of information through the body mind, and awareness, the timeless background which is the basis of (and includes) consciousness. There's often confusion about the terms and they are used interchangeably. On the contrary, awareness has nothing to do with knowing, but it makes knowing (and a matter of fact anything we perceive ) possible. These are not my theories, this is Advaita or (even Buddhism) 101. To make it more clear, all non duality teachers agree that awareness is also present in deep sleep (well to be more accurate there's NEVER a time where it's not present), and in deep sleep(no dreams) you are experiencing/processing zero information.
Spiros Kabasakalis why are you so judgemental aboutanything or anybody yeah we know we are lost. .everyone is suffering the known. who knows the unknown
Friendofall , I am just commenting. We are having a discussion, how is this judgemental? Except to when it comes to Chopra. This guy is a charlatan, he has made a fortune out of selling pseudo non duality. By definition nobody can know the unknown, it lies beyond the mind. You have to abandon mental elaborations and you will merge with the unknown. No need to 'know' anything. But who's willing to do that? These discussions are ok as long as they trigger non intellectual insights, but if they just feed your mind with more intellectual speculations, then they are dragging you more and more into the bottomless pit of ignorance - disguised as 'spititual intellectual information'
Ah what this panel needs is a Krishnamurti (K) wisdom to bring fundamental sense to all the content of the words put forward by this expert group of speakers who are obviously making suggestions/speculations/opinions according to their own particular backgrounds and studies. Forget the word ‘consciousness’ and start looking from the perspective of the known versus the unknown positions of fact ascertained by human beings. The known is the content of past memory which is also projected into the present and the future according to the conditioning that underlies our understanding of psychological experience/knowledge. Memory is constructed from a basic duality: “me” and “not me” which may also be described as self and other, and this memory is selective due to it’s division of ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ references to the central controller again’me’. Now this is not a holistic model of consciousness because any notion of holistic must actually be undivided. So equating an awareness of undivided consciousness to a dualistic consciousness doesn’t fit. Therefore one needs to re-examine the dualistic conditioning due to the dysfunction in it’s fundamental structure, meaning that any attempt from the divided aspect to interact with the undivided whole consciousness is bound to be problematical, although the holistic remains open to a relationship with the man-made mind after it has realised that the duality is in fact disorder per se. K puts it plainly - ‘where you are the other is not’ which points to the question of what can be done about the ‘me’ component of individual consciousness if one’s serious about relating to the holistic consciousness? Organised religions and all the educational institutions are structures along dualistic concepts and principles so if one see that the dualistic models are perpetuating disorder, then one is really faced with the difficulty of either remaining with the status quo in spite of the disorder factor or standing alone apart from the traditional society’s viewpoint. Krishnamurti stood by the fact that the ego or ‘me’ in its various forms is the cause of the disorder and therefore it has to be dissolved completely in the psychological world, although it has a correct function in other aspects of life where comparison and measurement are necessary for everything of a technology or machinery nature working according to the binary/linear methodology. It seems that few intellectuals are interested in K’s teachings on the subject of consciousness, probably because it validates ‘nothingness’ as the true ground of human consciousness and no power accretion or profiting comes from nothing. And the society wants competition between everyone as the fundamental principle for establishing hierarchical levels of human achievement. Is this comment true or false?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Ok Nickolas, forget my comments if you think they are vague and go back to the panel’s presentation and ask yourself if you received any clear message indicating that they are reaching anything that vaguely resembles consensus on the topic?
Everyone on this panel is trying to impanel and limit knowing truth via the mind, and requiring reality to meet the various tests, standards and rigor of things on the mental plane in order for the whole of experience and reality to be understood and/or understandable, similar to a mathematical equation. The mental is only one way of knowing and explaining reality, especially the subject of consciousness, and is a very limited and flawed instrument for doing so at that. Such is like trying to explain the totality of a mechanic's chest of tools, how they are applied, and what each is used for as a means to accomplish something, by doing so in terms of a single tool. That individual tool, which by definition is useful in a particular place and circumstance, has limitations by its very nature and design, and is certainly not qualified to speak on behalf of the other tools, certainly not to define any one or another of them, and to explain what they do as differentiated from itself. Only the manufacturer of those tools can do that, or master mechanic can do that. Why? Because they know, or should know them all, and are not apt to define the whole in terms of any one part (tool). In consciousness, such a holistic task falls to the highest form of consciousness, known as unitive or spiritual consciousness, an acquired capacity that is the property of and owes its origins to the Manufacturer of all things. The soul has many tools at its disposal, the mind is but one of them. And like the variety of tools contained therein, there are a variety of levels of consciousness. Only one of them can get the big picture. And that one is IN space and time, but not OF it.
I lost respect for Deepak when I found out that he lives in a very big mansion. An would bet he has one more that I have not seen. There is nothing spiritual about that. It is materialism instead of being disconnected from materialism. Pope Francis understands this principle and why he moved out of the lavish quarters used by previous Popes.
You lost respect for a person because they prefer to live in a nice and big house? Really? You shouldn't speculate and assume so much about a person who clearly has done no wrong. To lose respect to anyone for such rash reasons is just inhibiting yourself to bad judgement.
Ayn Rand and Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out that our definitions need to be precise ...like when we define the concept of a chair. If they aren't then we don't know what we are talking about....
I'd just call this talk like all the others: "speculations on science and on consciousness @ once". Just dedicate 4-5 hours exploring KABBALA and get answers on your very based questions. MaYbe You can even prove it wrong in 4-5 hours... You can't have a"FACT" if you have loose ends on the subject. Just intend to Learn prior of your exploration. Break the word Con sci o u s ness and get: CONS the SCIence On U! shadai, will make the ness (SHADAI~god, NESS~mirical). Prove it wrong I'll bet that It'll make a nice topic. Haha look at how many 'll. Sorry for the grammar mistakes but sometimes it was on deliberate. It's A Wonderful and kind creations, You deserve to K now (know now) your creator! It's Simple too. Everything is a live but basically, it's a Frequency! Check me and prove me wrong. Good bye and sorry if I sounded arrogant.
maybe you have dreamed that. Anything you could affirm could be totally wrong. In fact, try to prove me wrong without assuming true nothing at all. And leaving KABBALA apart. finally, please forgive my poor english. peace
Deepak Chopra seems to be very stubborn with his beliefs and doesnt listen to the speakers properly. He is only picking a part of what they are saying to support his conformational bias. Though I agree with speakers as well as Deepak but he is far from being a good host. I hope he reads my message caz I really want him to look at his flaws objectively. It is very cringy to watch when Deepak doesnt understand the person and even not response to it, like when the guy from the audience asked the question.
Chopra is a con BS artist......the lady is just "does not know anything" not sure why she's there. the rest are good in a way. that's my 2 cents. the older guy all the way to the left of con BS Chopra is the best. at the end of the day "NO ONE KNOWS".
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm studying physics and I've been developing my own interpretation of quantum mechanics and I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is fundamental to the substratum of reality. In fact, I'm making a video series on my channel which shows why materialism is almost certainly false.
huh yeh thats interesting.. wat area of physics you studying.. ?
and wat is your interpretation based on/about. ?
Where are those videos? I found only a few there and no one of them are related to the question.
I have been studying physics very diligently as well.. so want to say to you that I think the use of the words "I'm convinced" should be uttered when the data shows irrevocable evidence that the claim has been proven mathematically and or in some matter of testable and verifiable experimentation. I don't disagree with you.. but ignorance comes from the assumption that one is correct without evidence. You might as well say you believe in God as our source of conciousness. Let's be good scientists.
Please share
I loved the scene from the movie Short Circuit where the Robot Number 5 announced "I am alive!" Who told you that, someone asked. "I told me!" said the robot!
Deepak's brilliance is way beyond Dawkins mumboo jumboo reasoning.
its funny, for me anyway, I was a really big fan of the "new atheists" back in 2014-15 and I watched Sam Harris debate Deepak and I was fooled into believing Sam Harris's bullshit. so I couldn't agree with you more. Rupert Spira Deepak Chopra Chris Fields Francis Lucille Alan Ross Bruce Grayson they are all on the right side of reality.
50:42 - That I am wants to know, and is that from which what I am and who I am arises and that to which they return.
Core Self = That I am
Essential Self = what I am
Social Self = who I am
Very interesting. We are trying so hard to find the truth and what consciousness is. It is so complex but so simple. I did enjoy the talk and the panel had some interesting views.
If you experience consciousness, you do need these scientists, if I am happy, I am happy and do not need a confirmation of that by scientists.
There was consciousness first from which all has been created.
Are you Kidding me ??? Federico Faggin, the creator of the intel 4004 is there ? Oh my god !!! Fascinating. Love you Fed.
Start with neti neti. Start with what conciousness is not that way you can discard most of the theories out there. Scope will be narrowed down and conciousness can be well within grasp.
Great data but the technical difficulties as "scratchy white noise" is VERY annoying. Can something be done technically to filter this out? Thanks
how close are the mystics in understanding consciousness?
Zatoichiable The mystics stand under the consciousness. They are the support, Krishnamurti used to call it the ground.
For me:
"Space" is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing.
"Time" is the flow of that energy.
"Time" (flow of energy) cannot exist unless "space" (energy itself) exists. "Space" (energy itself) which does not flow (no flow of energy/time) is basically useless. An entity cannot even think a thought without a flow of energy. But hence also, "space" and "time" are linked in what we call "space time".
Everything in this universe is energy and energy frequencies interacting with other energy and energy frequencies, even "consciousness".
In my opinion, consciousness is the point from which everything is experienced.
Consciousness is an abstract concept is just an abstract concept of the ability this mind property allow us to have.. Its our ability to be aware of things that exist. Our conscious states allow us to be aware of environmental and organic stimuli. How it is achieved is explained, to a degree' by Cognitive science.
I love what she says at 35:00 mins
what an interesting group of people this was trying to have an intelligent conversation on a topic with no permission granted for an answer whatsoever. strange species we are trying to understand what we actually are. when we came here we were taught to understand how to survive and after we have lived for some time we wonder why and how.it is bothersome not knowing but at the same time thats what always inspires happiness like as a child on christmas eve,,,,not knowing what sex your unborn child will be or if you may win the lotto one day. im glad we have a gift of a construct of inspired anticipation to enable ourselves to stay curious about our mysterious lives.knowing everything would take the fun out of it.i personally wish people would release the need to know what they dont have the privilege of understanding and embrace the gift of not knowing .because not knowing to some makes them annoying and unbearable but not knowing to others leaves them with the beautiful gift of an open mind.
If consciousness constructs our perception of reality and that what we perceive is only a representation of reality, what does true reality consist of? Is true reality a field of electrical impulses which when arranged in a particular pattern become that which we can then perceive?
It is a great video, but the truth is that in the end, I only ended up being confused about the question. Again and again, I realise that the more you try to use your intellect to understand consciousness the less it makes sense.
Consciousness is "I". What we are looking for are "we". So it is pretty much like and eyeball trying to look at itself, and whatever it sees, it tries to interpret and find the answer to the question: " What is the eyeball?
It is impossible to the eyeball to know itself as an object or as an explanation. Therefore it is also impossible for the eyeball to find a meaning for its own eyeballness.
Instead of knowing ourselves as an object by our mind, or knowing ourselves as an explanation by our intellect, we can just be "we" or "I" and feel what "I" is like by simply being fully myself.
Buddy the guy in the right corner said it right what you're doing is making a description, model of reality in yourself you can't expect to be a thing right? its description only.
Need CC (Closed Captioning)
awesome content ! as per usual..........imho model(s) such as Tom Campbell's MBT are thE closest thing we have as far as a "solid"(as in simple & sensible & wide scoped) science RE: consciousness....... in addition to being a basis/framework/kernel/shell for an actual TOE, with many of the pieces already in place.......thats not to minimize the credentials of the panel in any way.......in fact most of them said some clever stuff.....& it was among the best talk of its kind I've seen so far !..........great post
Drop the idea of understanding consciousness, Consciousnesses is understanding the universe through mind.
intellectual laziness ....
thank you Deepak!!!
Great effort by Deepak to bridge science & spirituality. This unity is the death knell to the science's investment on discovery to enhance destruction, greed, global warming, etc. Quantum Physics double slit theory (refer RUclips) explains clearly Non-duality. Meditation helps to get an insight. Swami Vivehanandha's speeches on Non-duality are very powerful.
Yeah, sure, Deepak Chopra is not greedy at all.
Rubbish. The experiences he's alluding to should be equally interesting to seekers and scientists, but it's obvious that he's just parroting spiritual ideas he's read in books and then rearranging words around the little science he knows. Don't be fooled, sir.
And it's clear that he's only interested in what the others are saying to the extent that it solidifies his worldview; he's already made up his mind about consciousness and how others should agree with him, and then his confirmation bias kicks in to pick apart the useful things in what the others are saying. He's just another man who's promoting the culture he was raised in-- a man with an agenda. I come from the same culture (as I can see you do too), I live in India, not the comfort of the first world, but I can see that his pride and ego cloud his judgement, and that humble body language he's adopted does not mask his humongous ego, as is the case with someone like Sadhguru.
Ironically, there's a lot more humility in those who remain healthily skeptical (without falling into cynicism) of everything, spirituality included.
Don mentioned the Bat interface. This reminded me of the boy born blind who taught himself to "see" the world by clicking with his mouth and hearing the echo.
37:09 - I don't think that theories are ALL conscious, meaning explicit (conscious effort). I think lots of theory is deeply implicit, and I'm not sure if they come from conscious effort. That said, I think it pops into our heads from consciousness, but not sure if it IS conscious.
Science surely is done with conscious effort, and is an explicit conscious function.
in dons theory, he seems to have come up with what look like binary forms to describe the interactions of conscious agents.. and was if someone would be able to explain how he came about that?
A statement it resonates to me..
Francis Lucille.
Here is my latest theoretical idea concerning the Theory Of Everything (TOE). It recognizes gravity as being a part of the photon and the pulsating photon as being the energy unit of this universe. "IF" true, (and I fully acknowledge the "if"), then the three components of the photon would have a maximum in one direction, neutral, and a maximum in the other direction.
Gravity (direction): maximum in one direction, neutral, maximum in the other direction;
Electrical: maximum in one direction, neutral, maximum in the other direction;
Magnetic: maximum in one direction, neutral, maximum in the other direction.
1 photon, with 3 components, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence, 1, 3, 6, 9 are fundamental numbers of this universe.
Revised TOE: 3/25/2017.
My Current TOE:
THE SETUP:
1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism.
2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too).
3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them.
4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them.
5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them.
FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO:
6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field.
7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field.
8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality.
9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons.
10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary.
11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks.
12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do.
THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA:
13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc.
14. I also believe that a pulsating singularity (which is basically a pulsating photon) is the energy unit in this universe.
15. When these pulsating energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe.
16. When the energy units unite together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate.
17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure.
18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons).
THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY:
19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up.
20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency.
21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies.
NOTES:
22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well.
25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true.
26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught?
DISCLAIMER:
27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.
Consciousness not being a thing can not be characterized, since language of all kinds must have some object or thing to work with. So we can say perfectly accurately that consciousness is nothing but not our usual idea of nothing like the inside of an empty box. And we are that Nothing. That Nothing is always aware of Itself; or consciousness is always self-consciousness.
The DJ scratching their coat or that record. Stop!
22:42 I answer that in we go to sleep... where did we go when the experience was big!
50:10 again love her response to the question.. she's killin it :::)
Intellect I think cannot understand Awareness, simply because it's within the Awareness or in another words it's within the creative process. Much like it's hard to understand the orchestra by simply listening to it from the outside perspective, it's a veil of separation between the listener and the producer of music.
I think the reason we cannot understand who we are and what the mind is, because we are everything. If the world is our own observation stripping it away will inevitably lead us back to the mind, which exactly the direction QM have been pointing to.
Consciousness is a slightly clunky word, especially for Deepak and his piercing S's, we could use another word sentience, experience or awareness. But we have gone with consciousness, occasionally shortened to "Conchness" by theorists that say it about 75 times in a day
Correct, consciousness is just an abstract concept of the ability this mind property allow us to have.
Number 5 is ALIVE!!!
From my prespective, Consciousness definition itself is not clear.
From Buddhist perspective, it can be classified into different dimensions.
The most subtle's one cannot be described constructively because it has to be experienced by the observer (who is enlighted) - for more go through Buddhist phylosophy of 4 kayas of Buddha.
This is very esoteric but very interesting!
As a person without college degree I agree.
I feel strongly that the stories of NDEers and those with reincarnation and pre-birth memories are worth as much or more consideration of evidence as they've been outside the bubble of our reality. Many are proven by their awareness of happenings while they were dead or unconscious.
I would have thought u would ask this to figure it out. To finally "know". The lifting of the veil. The apocolypse could not tht mean to "know". To have the veil lifted and understand the one.
The glasses speak louder than words.
This panel is seeking the right answers to the wrong questions - Matter does exist at the time the question is asked, “what is matter” - No matter if matter can be backed up or broken down into light - (What came 1st the chicken or the egg - the egg is the chicken at different stages of manifestation/development) - CONSCIOUSNESS IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN; WHY
Science doesn't get the whole picture, and I need to listen to this again because they make it so complicated, when it doesn't need to be. Conciousness is a non material thought process.
Consciousness needs a Physical Body to Experience Time
YOU Come before Consciousness
Consciousness is what happens when Energy from the External World interacts with the 5 senses of the body that you are placed in.
@@umunhum3 the 5 senses thing is nonsense. We have many more. Balance for 1.
@@tommyheron464
What do mean "we have many more?"
Exactly how many more do we have?
Could you name a few?
Balance for 1?
What does that mean?
The Human Body has 5 Senses
You are the one talking Nonsense
@@umunhum3 proprioception. It means sense of spaces. Look it up. So that's 2 extra. Shall I continue or will you accept there are more than 5. Or do you have no 'I'm wrong' sense?
@@umunhum3 also interoception. That's the body's internal physical feelings and the sense of pain which is recognised as separate from touch. Each of the senses is further split into sub categories of which there is 22 in total apparently. All very interesting stuff really.
Love Donald… he:s the best
not much time given for the topic...speakers are rushing through the subject...
Time to invest in better sound equipment
Federico is a boss.
I saw few times that Deepak Chopra advocates the view that the whole reality is just an outcome of the mind. For example, he says in this discussion that the moon does not exist outside of our minds.
I completely disagree with this view. If the moon is just our mindset, then how & why we see it ONLY in a very specific direction and location ?? Why don't we see it anywhere we would choose to see it ??
This wrong view like Deepak Chopra presents hereby, is an outcome of the confusion people make between Universe/Nature and Reality. They do not make the proper conceptual distinction between Universe and Reality. They speak & think about Universe and Reality as synonymous and that's a fundamental mistake which misleads to such misjudgments like above.
The proper conceptual distinction between Universe and Reality is as following:
The universe/nature is out there as it is. We see, know and understand it partially. But what we see, know, etc, is really out there, independent of our mind's existence. Perhaps the universe has more in it than we see, know, understand, but what we do see, know, etc., is really out there. It's not just our mindset.
On the other hand, the reality we see, experience, know, understand, is the interaction between the universe/nature and our minds. Obviously this reality is dependent both on the universe as-it-is and its interaction with our minds (meaning the reality is also dependent on our minds). For a dead person (mind) there's assumingly no reality as there's no interaction occurring between the universe and that specific (dead) mind. But this does not mean the universe stops to exist because of that. The moon would remain there even if all of its interactions with living minds would halt completely. Because the moon is not an outcome of our mindset.
are you sure?
The moon and all creation was manifested by Consciousness Source. Therefore it exists until Source integrates it back to itself and moves on. We are all units of Consciousness bringing experience to be integrated back to Source.
I dream up settings where I exist as one viewpoint. How did I dream up the other parts and not understand it/them?
I think we are being reminded in a fractal way of how Source manifested universe. Easter eggs everywhere, but Source's objective is for us to not know why... just experience life within confines of human form. Actors do their part really well when immersed in character, remembering afterwards. Source experiences all of Everything in the universe 360° thru each of us individuated pieces of itself. We will be able to do same when our character is off stage.
Non-duality
Fascinating theory!
matter is a myth - Deepak Chopra
Damn volunteer audio people! Pay someone to do it correctly!!!
Don't need audio, just channel Deepak's mind...he only charges $1.50 per minute.
7:35 lmaooo deepaks' face when Julia admits she has no idea what the hell shes talking about
So, You are the Eternal Here and Now,
You always had your Consciousness,
this is the most intime connection in existence,
the *I* and the Consciousness.
If man make devices as can do mental functions,
man must copy the way Life does,
We recognize four of these Eternal Abilities,
Automatic, Power, Logic/Order, Memory,
Instinct, Gravity, Intelligence, Memory.
If We take one of these abilities away,
your computer wont work.
Well, the Eternal Consciousness-structure, (is mirrored in the rainbow)
expose a circuit, (structure)
-Memory-Instinct-Gravity-Feeling-Intelligence-Intuition-Memory-
So, our Eternal Consciousness consist of the Over-Consciousness, which consist of the Under-Consciousness, as consist of the Day-consciousness and the Night-consciousness.
Our physical Body is a Gravity-body, when We fall at sleep, then We do move our Day-consciousness to the 'Night-bodies' one by one during the night, (Deep-sleep-periods).
The Life-Desire is the Motor of the Eternal Life,
in direct extension We have the Will, (Life-side) and Gravity, (Stuff-side)
with the Will, We do balance Gravity of Earth, with our own, when We lift the cup.
We see that these eternal abilities is not just specific but also very dynamic in nature.
So, this is the naked basic picture of our consciousness nature in a eternal perspective,
which also mirror the eternal mathematic. (short told)
Man is so infinitely small
In all these stars, determinate.
Maker and moulder of them all,
Man is so infinitely great!
Aleister Crowley
still....
"Man likes to pretend to know things that they don't"
Peter Boghossian
The moon is there because Source manifested it.... no?
~ 55 minutes: These are not lies or self-deceptions, they are hypotheses.
Asking what is consciousness is an attempt to fear death less
What if Helen Keller was paralyzed? What is her consciousness like?
colin schabel did you know Helen Keller had a horse? Neither did she
This video has the primary purpose of increasing unconsciousness...
What Don said About cutting the Brain in 2 made 2 i's well saw a guy Once who lost half his Brain in an accident he was normal, he Should have been Walking around looking for colas all the time
All the great teachers like Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, have clearly stated that the intellect cannot understand awareness, for It lies beyond the mind constructs. Same in Buddhism. Physics and Mathematics are constructs of the mind that try to intellectually organize and understand the multitude of perceived phenomena. So by definition, the answer is NO and the discussion is rendered redundant (PS. I am a Physicist). Nevertheless, I watched it all, despite the fact that Chopra is a charlatan and has no clue about anything. I liked what everyone had to say except Mossbridge, she was all over the place. Federico Faggin was very eloquent and to the point, and I liked the fact that when Chopra wrongly interpreted his ideas , he kind of reprimanded him not to take his views as Solipsism. Chopra is a naive solipsist, trying to impress the listener with his random pseudoscience vocabulary.
Spiros Kabasakalis Awareness simply means being aware, getting information, paying attention.
Being aware is a passive expression of knowing.
No, what you describe is consciousness. In non duality there's a distinction between consciousness, the accumulation of information through the body mind, and awareness, the timeless background which is the basis of (and includes) consciousness. There's often confusion about the terms and they are used interchangeably. On the contrary, awareness has nothing to do with knowing, but it makes knowing (and a matter of fact anything we perceive ) possible. These are not my theories, this is Advaita or (even Buddhism) 101. To make it more clear, all non duality teachers agree that awareness is also present in deep sleep (well to be more accurate there's NEVER a time where it's not present), and in deep sleep(no dreams) you are experiencing/processing zero information.
Spiros Kabasakalis why are you so judgemental aboutanything or anybody yeah we know we are lost. .everyone is suffering the known. who knows the unknown
Friendofall , I am just commenting. We are having a discussion, how is this judgemental? Except to when it comes to Chopra. This guy is a charlatan, he has made a fortune out of selling pseudo non duality. By definition nobody can know the unknown, it lies beyond the mind. You have to abandon mental elaborations and you will merge with the unknown. No need to 'know' anything. But who's willing to do that? These discussions are ok as long as they trigger non intellectual insights, but if they just feed your mind with more intellectual speculations, then they are dragging you more and more into the bottomless pit of ignorance - disguised as 'spititual intellectual information'
Spiros Kabasakalis OK I Will take care of that.
Ah what this panel needs is a Krishnamurti (K) wisdom to bring fundamental sense to all the content of the words put forward by this expert group of speakers who are obviously making suggestions/speculations/opinions according to their own particular backgrounds and studies.
Forget the word ‘consciousness’ and start looking from the perspective of the known versus the unknown positions of fact ascertained by human beings. The known is the content of past memory which is also projected into the present and the future according to the conditioning that underlies our understanding of psychological experience/knowledge. Memory is constructed from a basic duality: “me” and “not me” which may also be described as self and other, and this memory is selective due to it’s division of ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ references to the central controller again’me’. Now this is not a holistic model of consciousness because any notion of holistic must actually be undivided. So equating an awareness of undivided consciousness to a dualistic consciousness doesn’t fit. Therefore one needs to re-examine the dualistic conditioning due to the dysfunction in it’s fundamental structure, meaning that any attempt from the divided aspect to interact with the undivided whole consciousness is bound to be problematical, although the holistic remains open to a relationship with the man-made mind after it has realised that the duality is in fact disorder per se.
K puts it plainly - ‘where you are the other is not’ which points to the question of what can be done about the ‘me’ component of individual consciousness if one’s serious about relating to the holistic consciousness? Organised religions and all the educational institutions are structures along dualistic concepts and principles so if one see that the dualistic models are perpetuating disorder, then one is really faced with the difficulty of either remaining with the status quo in spite of the disorder factor or standing alone apart from the traditional society’s viewpoint. Krishnamurti stood by the fact that the ego or ‘me’ in its various forms is the cause of the disorder and therefore it has to be dissolved completely in the psychological world, although it has a correct function in other aspects of life where comparison and measurement are necessary for everything of a technology or machinery nature working according to the binary/linear methodology.
It seems that few intellectuals are interested in K’s teachings on the subject of consciousness, probably because it validates ‘nothingness’ as the true ground of human consciousness and no power accretion or profiting comes from nothing. And the society wants competition between everyone as the fundamental principle for establishing hierarchical levels of human achievement.
Is this comment true or false?
so just forget the vague ideas of this panel and introduce far vaguer ideas...cool...
@@nickolasgaspar9660
Ok Nickolas, forget my comments if you think they are vague and go back to the panel’s presentation and ask yourself if you received any clear message indicating that they are reaching anything that vaguely resembles consensus on the topic?
@@grahaminglis4242 they didn't even bother to define the term and agree on the phenomenon they talk about.
Everyone on this panel is trying to impanel and limit knowing truth via the mind, and requiring reality to meet the various tests, standards and rigor of things on the mental plane in order for the whole of experience and reality to be understood and/or understandable, similar to a mathematical equation. The mental is only one way of knowing and explaining reality, especially the subject of consciousness, and is a very limited and flawed instrument for doing so at that. Such is like trying to explain the totality of a mechanic's chest of tools, how they are applied, and what each is used for as a means to accomplish something, by doing so in terms of a single tool. That individual tool, which by definition is useful in a particular place and circumstance, has limitations by its very nature and design, and is certainly not qualified to speak on behalf of the other tools, certainly not to define any one or another of them, and to explain what they do as differentiated from itself. Only the manufacturer of those tools can do that, or master mechanic can do that. Why? Because they know, or should know them all, and are not apt to define the whole in terms of any one part (tool). In consciousness, such a holistic task falls to the highest form of consciousness, known as unitive or spiritual consciousness, an acquired capacity that is the property of and owes its origins to the Manufacturer of all things. The soul has many tools at its disposal, the mind is but one of them. And like the variety of tools contained therein, there are a variety of levels of consciousness. Only one of them can get the big picture. And that one is IN space and time, but not OF it.
No Deep aka Chopra!
I lost respect for Deepak when I found out that he lives in a very big mansion. An would bet he has one more that I have not seen. There is nothing spiritual about that. It is materialism instead of being disconnected from materialism.
Pope Francis understands this principle and why he moved out of the lavish quarters used by previous Popes.
You lost respect for a person because they prefer to live in a nice and big house? Really? You shouldn't speculate and assume so much about a person who clearly has done no wrong. To lose respect to anyone for such rash reasons is just inhibiting yourself to bad judgement.
For goodness sake; it's Big League, not Bigly!!! Trump says Big League. How is it that Americans don't get this?
Please keep politics out of spirituality. You'll drive people away.
I don't like politics but if it's a good way to drive people away from all this woo...pls keep them!
We are it's space and time silly
Hey ! The mutting is burning in the ovening !
this guy on the left is so cute
Wot n ternation
The more precisely you can talk the more quickly you can see where you're deluded.
Ayn Rand and Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out that our definitions need to be precise ...like when we define the concept of a chair.
If they aren't then we don't know what we are talking about....
I'd just call this talk like all the others: "speculations on science and on consciousness @ once". Just dedicate 4-5 hours exploring KABBALA and get answers on your very based questions. MaYbe You can even prove it wrong in 4-5 hours... You can't have a"FACT" if you have loose ends on the subject.
Just intend to Learn prior of your exploration.
Break the word Con sci o u s ness and get: CONS the SCIence On U! shadai, will make the ness (SHADAI~god, NESS~mirical). Prove it wrong I'll bet that It'll make a nice topic. Haha look at how many 'll. Sorry for the grammar mistakes but sometimes it was on deliberate. It's A Wonderful and kind creations, You deserve to K now (know now) your creator! It's Simple too. Everything is a live but basically, it's a Frequency! Check me and prove me wrong. Good bye and sorry if I sounded arrogant.
maybe you have dreamed that. Anything you could affirm could be totally wrong. In fact, try to prove me wrong without assuming true nothing at all. And leaving KABBALA apart. finally, please forgive my poor english. peace
Deepak Chopra seems to be very stubborn with his beliefs and doesnt listen to the speakers properly. He is only picking a part of what they are saying to support his conformational bias. Though I agree with speakers as well as Deepak but he is far from being a good host. I hope he reads my message caz I really want him to look at his flaws objectively.
It is very cringy to watch when Deepak doesnt understand the person and even not response to it, like when the guy from the audience asked the question.
This is a group of punk students.
Chopra is a con BS artist......the lady is just "does not know anything" not sure why she's there. the rest are good in a way. that's my 2 cents. the older guy all the way to the left of con BS Chopra is the best. at the end of the day "NO ONE KNOWS".
I think "no one knows" is the most intellectually honest answer I've come across to date.
MC I think you don't know the definition of "know"
Deepak's brilliance is way beyond Dawkins mumboo jumboo reasoning.