If Deepak Chopra is full of baloney, he's really good at it

9 years ago

Originally Posted by joe golfer

Whether you believe in Deepak Chopra's world view or not, you have to admit he's good at selling it.

Can you make a copywriting course and sell it in the wso section?

Make the title, "Deepak Chopra's secret to killer profit sucking copy".

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

'I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion'
-Muhammad Ali

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221257].message }}

lanfear63 9 years ago

I will watch this when I get a chance because Chopra represents something other than someone just pushing dieties/creators which is easy fodder for the likes of Dawkin. Hope I'm not disappointed.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221316].message }}
- BigFrank Banned 9 years ago
  
  A very convincing huckster, but a huckster all the same.
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221363].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by joe golfer

Whether you believe in Deepak Chopra's world view or not, you have to admit he's good at selling it.

His delivery is convincing. But his explanations are well rehearsed, and well delivered nonsense.

The reason they convince people is;
They sound like they "should make sense".
The people that accept his explanations have a limited knowledge of physics.

For example, there are no neurosurgeons that are saying, "Oh yes, that's how the mind works. Chopra has a real handle on it" No astrophysicists are saying, "That Chopra...he really tells it like it is".

The problem with Dawkins debating Chopra, is that...no matter how brilliant Dawkins is, he can't penetrate the bubble of Chopra's arguments. Not because the arguments are solid, but because they are fantasy. You can't argue against fantasy.

They have "debated" many times. When they debate in front of an audience of medical students, or secular college students, Chopra looks like a fool. If they debate in a church, or in a mixed public forum (open to the public)...Dawkins comes off as intolerant.

Dawkins is a brilliant educator and a great evolutionary biologist. Why he keeps trying to convert the masses, is beyond me.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221421].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

I listened to the first 5 minutes.

The fundamental needs of a living organism is it's sustenance, survival and the ability to propagate. If it has higher brain functions and physical ability it may find ways to make this process easier and then have time to contemplate it's existence.

The issue of whether it's consciousness survives it's physical death is a separate one.

Despite the fact that the universe has suitable component parts and gravity that allowed itself to organize into fairly uniform structures, it is only it's enormous size that allowed the occasional conditions for biology to occur. The universe is however like a bowling alley, it's still chaotic. A random collision or release of a harmful solar flare for example can wipe things out in a heartbeat.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221503].message }}

BigFrank Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

I listened to the first 5 minutes.

You have a very strong stomach. Kudos!

Cheers. - Frank
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221512].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

I listened to the first 5 minutes.
.

I think I made it a few minutes. It's truly painful...both listening to Chopra, and watching Dawkins temple vein throb....is just too much to stand.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221528].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I think I made it a few minutes. It's truly painful...both listening to Chopra, and watching Dawkins temple vein throb....is just too much to stand.

Dawkin's tried in vein to refute Chopra's musings.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221533].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Hmmm, watched 15 minutes, and skipped some, interesting!

The basic argument was does an atom have awareness, against only atoms that make brains in animals, etc have it!

Which of course means that dogs, are incapable of doing anything smarter than a fully grown human, since their brains are much smaller than ours.

But l think that we know by now, thanks to the postings of others that dogs, can do remarkably clever things, certainly at our level, if the opportunity arises.

Eventhough it should be impossible.

I used to live on a farm, and once watched a group of finches fly at high speed in PERFECT formation, together.

Impossible for stupid birds, with tiny brains compared to ours, easy if they shared a group consciousness that was energy based and was shared as a group.

Ok, l have shared thought provoking insights, now it is back to mindless fear based ravings!

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221621].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Ok, l have shared thought provoking insights, now it is back to mindless fear based ravings!

Yes...yes.....Thought provoking insights.

And, even if...by some miracle.... they really were thought provoking insights.....calling your own thoughts "thought provoking insights" ......is beyond even my self absorbed BS.

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Dawkin's tried in vein to refute Chopra's musings.

It will always be in vain. It's an unwinnable battle. Dawkins, is one of the few rationalist educators that hasn't given up.

It doesn't help that Chopra clearly has the more socially acceptable demeanor.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221672].message }}

Dan Riffle

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

And, even if...my some miracle.... they really were thought provoking insights.....calling your own thoughts "thought provoking insights" ......is beyond even my self absorbed BS.

Sadly and to the misfortune of others, no, no, it's not.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221686].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Yes...yes.....Thought provoking insights.

And, even if...my some miracle.... they really were thought provoking insights.....calling your own thoughts "thought provoking insights" ......is beyond even my self absorbed BS.

It will always be in vain. It's an unwinnable battle. Dawkins, is one of the few rationalist educators that hasn't given up.

It doesn't help that Chopra clearly has the more socially acceptable demeanor.

Missed the pun eh?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221696].message }}

Claude Whitacre 9 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Missed the pun eh?

I did. And I thought, "He spelled vain wrong".

Mark; 1

Claude; 0

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

Sadly and to the misfortune of others, no, no, it's not.

I'll have you know, my furry little friend, that my BS has been ranked "Best BS in Ohio" three years in a row.

Of course, that's also complete BS...which is like extra credit.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221704].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Yes...yes.....Thought provoking insights.

And, even if...by some miracle.... they really were thought provoking insights.....calling your own thoughts "thought provoking insights" ......is beyond even my self absorbed BS.

ROFL.....good one.........It doesn't read like a joke but that must be one. One thing I have always admired you for is how you manage to fuel the fire of Claude jokes.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221785].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Hmmm, watched 15 minutes, and skipped some, interesting!

The basic argument was does an atom have awareness, against only atoms that make brains in animals, etc have it!

I got to about the seven minute mark. Chopra was on point and Dawkins tried to deflect back to organisms to limit it to what he is able to debate. I assumed by past experience Chopra let him off the hook but if he didn't I'll find the time to watch more. Maybe this was one of his better debates why the OP singled it out

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221775].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by joe golfer

Whether you believe in Deepak Chopra's world view or not, you have to admit he's good at selling it.

Everyone's different and it shows here. I have never found Chopra that engaging and he tends to go off the deep end in a couple places which gives most atheists he debates a window off opportunity. Besides a couple debates those with Dawkins usually are lightwieght. Dawkins is well known for avoiding debates he doesn't think he can handle. Krauss is more intellectually honest in that regard.

Chopra does meander into issues he could destroy Dawkins on but his lack of focus and tendency to go off the deep end is probably why Dawkins loves repeat debates with him while he cowers from ever debating some people.

Dawkins is a brilliant educator and a great evolutionary biologist.

Dawkins has relatively little to show in scientific work to be considered great. He is mostly known for his work in atheism evangelism. Unfortunately whatever shine he did have has been overshadowed by nitwitted comments that have landed him in controversy after controversy of recent - to the point even his own peers have distanced themselves from him.

He definitely should stay off line and in particular twitter and his shrill one tone level approach to issues has landed him the scorn of even those who normally align with his world view

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221670].message }}

Sumit Menon

9 years ago

Ad Bullshitem shouldn't be a logical fallacy.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221731].message }}

Zodiax

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Sumit Menon

Ad Bullshitem shouldn't be a logical fallacy.

Dude that makes no sense.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

'I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion'
-Muhammad Ali

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221735].message }}

TimPhelan

9 years ago

Chopra: A single cell has a form of awareness.

Dawkins: Do you think an atom has that?

Chopra: According to Freeman Dyson yes.

Dawkins: Freeman Dyson says an atom has awareness?

Chopra: Yes sir! Check it out.

So, I did check it out. Seems Dyson did say something pretty close:

It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221781].message }}

Mike Anthony 9 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

So, I did check it out. Seems Dyson did say something pretty close:

I stand corrected sounds like this debate was better than other Chopra debates I have heard. will dig in over the weekend.

I really don't even know why theres a debate on awareness

Quantum entanglement and Double slit experiments confirm that some kind of what could be called awareness is taking place in reality outside of biological organisms. I have only seen semantics to deny it. Dawkins is totally out of his depth on anything but neo-darwinism
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221819].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

So, I did check it out. Seems Dyson did say something pretty close:

Interesting but flawed. If you wish to move your arm your mind sends out a burst of weak electrical biochemical signals to do so, which by default must affect all aspects of the makeup of the arm, right down to the quantum level. So, while the end result is the arm moving, it does not denote that the components of the arm has any sentience, only that they react to outside stimulation and can be directed.

Bio-mechanical.

Speculation: The human body has a very weak electrical field and the mind may be able to focus it to affect quantum events. However that would just mean our very physical presence can interfere with an outcome that would otherwise be predictable or random.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221946].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Interesting but flawed. If you wish to move your arm your mind sends out a burst of weak electrical biochemical signals to do so, which by default must affect all aspects of the makeup of the arm, right down to the quantum level. So, while the end result is the arm moving, it does not denote that the components of the arm has any sentience, only that they react to outside stimulation and can be directed.

Where does either the video or the quote Tim put up mention anything about arms? An electrical signal leaves the brain where what Dyson is talking about is within the brain something entirely different that creates consciousness. Has nothing to do with limb movement

Anyway having now watched the video in its entirety its one of Chopra's better ones. Still he goes off the rails a bit in semantics and gives Dawkins something to latch onto.

Chopra should skip the word sentient all together. If you have to go to awareness after using sentient then you should just start with that. This is why half that exchange was all about semantics.

There is now little doubt that awareness is part of the universe. both the first and the delayed quantum slit experiments indicate light will operate as a wave or a particle dependent on whether it is measured or observed. the delayed slit experiment are particularly interesting because the measurement apparatus interfering with the "choice" is taken out of the equation

The nature of light will change based on whether it is going to be measured even in the future. Copra keeps going to consciousness where he should stick to whats proven - some kind of awareness. Dawkins can't refute Chopra because the facts are with Chopra if not his choice of words

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10222205].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Where does either the video or the quote Tim put up mention anything about arms? An electrical signal leaves the brain where what Dyson is talking about is within the brain something entirely different that creates consciousness. Has nothing to do with limb movement

Anyway having now watched the video in its entirety its one of Chopra's better ones. Still he goes off the rails a bit in semantics and gives Dawkins something to latch onto.

Chopra should skip the word sentient all together. If you have to go to awareness after using sentient then you should just start with that. This is why half that exchange was all about semantics.

There is now little doubt that awareness is part of the universe. both the first and the delayed quantum slit experiments indicate light will operate as a wave or a particle dependent on whether it is measured or observed. the delayed slit experiment are particularly interesting because the measurement apparatus interfering with the "choice" is taken out of the equation

The nature of light will change based on whether it is going to be measured even in the future. Copra keeps going to consciousness where he should stick to whats proven - some kind of awareness. Dawkins can't refute Chopra because the facts are with Chopra if not his choice of words

For illustrative purposes only. The consciousness/mind, whatever you want to call it sends electrical/biochemical messengers to make your arm move. Nothing magical or mysterious about that. Nothing sentient or aware in what receives it. Just a bio-electric reaction to stimulation.

Then you take it further...

I'm postulating that perhaps the concentrated or even an unconcentrated mind can in a similar way affect the outcome of an experiment of that nature, (the sort of thing you are talking about) either controlled or uncontrolled, by projecting electrical impulses outwards from the body and affect the outcome. This, if true just expands the capabilities of a conscious mind and what it can do.

Now some would call that mind over matter but I'm trying to keep it vaguely within the realm of scientific possibility. It certainly does not show that the fabric of everything is aware in any way, only that it reacts to outside stimulation and can possibly be manipulated and at least affected.

When I talk about the possibility of survival of consciousness after bodily death for example I generally only look at it from the perspective that if it is so, then it is only some obscure as yet undetected state or super-fine material existence (some would call other dimensions) that the consciousness occupies. And, that it has it's own limitations and principals. IE, that it is part of nature. Not magical or supernatural in any way.

In that state though, the thoughts becoming things possibilities are probably magnified many times in what a consciousness can do with them by manipulation.

.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10222240].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

For illustrative purposes only. The consciousness/mind, whatever you want to call it sends electrical/biochemical messengers to make your arm move. Nothing magical or mysterious about that. Nothing sentient or aware in what receives it. Just a bio-electric reaction to stimulation.

Then you take it further...

I'm postulating that perhaps the concentrated or even an unconcentrated mind can in a similar way affect the outcome of an experiment of that nature, (the sort of thing you are talking about)

Nope......the delayed slit experiment shows that the path is affected by measurement AFTERWARDS not before or at the juncture of the slit. Like I said that takes off the table that the act of measurement is in some way affecting the outcome and it would take your imagination there is a mental mind over matter field affecting it as well. Another example of some kind of awareness is quantum entanglement. two elements become entangled and you separate them then you do certain things and change physical properties of one and the other will changeeven if its far away and do so faster than the speed of light.

Theres no doubt people , some like chopra, take QM and try to infer things we really don't know yet but there also really is little doubt - reality is not quite what the materialist thought it was a few decades ago.

Whether information is being shared, or theres an awareness, reality at the smallest realms is not strictly affected by other local physically present forces. Thats why QM is considered "weird".

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10222421].message }}

Joe Mobley

9 years ago

If Deepak Chopra is full of baloney, he's really good at it

Let me respectfully disagree with your definition of "good at it".

Joe Mobley

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10222242].message }}

Joe Mobley

9 years ago

Perhaps a couple of quotes are in order:

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." ― W.C. Fields

"Bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are." --Harry Frankfurt

""What work do you do?"
"I'm a standup philosopher."
"Oh. A bullshit artist."
"*Grumble*"
"Did you bullshit anyone this week?"
"No."
"Did you try to bullshit anyone this week?"
"Yes."
--Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part I, at a Roman unemployment office

Joe Mobley

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10222245].message }}

Mike Anthony 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Perhaps a couple of quotes are in order:

Quote:
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” ― W.C. Fields

As an American I nevertheless observe that its a distinctly American trait that several of us think we have said something profound simply by including an expletive (if we spit some chewing tobacco or are holding a beer in one hand then the IQ is even higher). In many other cultures and in reality its just a sign of a limited vocabulary.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10222429].message }}

joe golfer

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

If Deepak Chopra is full of baloney, he's really good at it

Let me respectfully disagree with your definition of "good at it".

Joe Mobley

Point taken. That headline is flawed, my bad. I was trying to say he is very good at making something sound profound. When I hear him speak, I'm not sure if I'm listening to an SNL character or a deep thinker.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Marketing is not a battle of products. It is a battle of perceptions.
- Jack Trout

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10222295].message }}

Joe Mobley 9 years ago

Now I kind-of feel bad. I was trying to take a back-handed shot at Chopra.

If there is an apology due, it's from me to you.

Originally Posted by joe golfer

When I hear him speak, I'm not sure if I'm listening to an SNL character or a deep thinker.

Exactly.

Tragically, I think Deepak believes his own BS.

Joe Mobley
- Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10222332].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Yes...yes.....Thought provoking insights.

And, even if...by some miracle.... they really were thought provoking insights.....calling your own thoughts "thought provoking insights" ......is beyond even my self absorbed BS.

Ok, then give us a good answer as to how a flock, (6) small birds can fly at high speed together, doing sharp turns in Perfect unison, and l will retract my BS statement!

Odd's on l will either get silence or a whitty comeback, since this is virtually impossible to answer without accepting that Deepak's main argument is valid!

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Interesting but flawed. If you wish to move your arm your mind sends out a burst of weak electrical biochemical signals to do so, which by default must affect all aspects of the makeup of the arm, right down to the quantum level. So, while the end result is the arm moving, it does not denote that the components of the arm has any sentience, only that they react to outside stimulation and can be directed.

Bio-mechanical.

Speculation: The human body has a very weak electrical field and the mind may be able to focus it to affect quantum events. However that would just mean our very physical presence can interfere with an outcome that would otherwise be predictable or random.

Well, Deepak, was getting into consciousness or energy permeating everything, the other, was arguing that unless the atoms make up a brain then it isn't conscious!

Or in other words, when we die, does part of us continue or is that it!

Deepak did have 300 scientists, biologists and physicists, behind him, so l doubt that he is full of it, just that there are few that are ahead of their time!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10222337].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Ok, then give us a good answer as to how a flock, (6) small birds can fly at high speed together, doing sharp turns in Perfect unison, and l will retract my BS statement

I actually thought he might have been joking since he added the self absorbed part.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10222432].message }}

Sumit Menon

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Where does either the video or the quote Tim put up mention anything about arms? An electrical signal leaves the brain where what Dyson is talking about is within the brain something entirely different that creates consciousness. Has nothing to do with limb movement

Anyway having now watched the video in its entirety its one of Chopra's better ones. Still he goes off the rails a bit in semantics and gives Dawkins something to latch onto.

Chopra should skip the word sentient all together. If you have to go to awareness after using sentient then you should just start with that. This is why half that exchange was all about semantics.

There is now little doubt that awareness is part of the universe. both the first and the delayed quantum slit experiments indicate light will operate as a wave or a particle dependent on whether it is measured or observed. the delayed slit experiment are particularly interesting because the measurement apparatus interfering with the "choice" is taken out of the equation

The nature of light will change based on whether it is going to be measured even in the future. Copra keeps going to consciousness where he should stick to whats proven - some kind of awareness. Dawkins can't refute Chopra because the facts are with Chopra if not his choice of words

Freeman Dyson only CLAIMED that he thought electrons had a mind. He didn't go on to prove it. Are we supposed to take anything Dyson says as gospel? It's merely a hypothesis with ZERO evidence behind it.

There's a long road between the statements 'light has dual nature' and 'universe is conscious'. That would be saying 'I have a headache, it must be brain tumor' and then to go on and add 'The pharmaceutical companies must have caused it'.

Dawkins could not refute Chopra because because there is nothing to refute. You cannot disprove something that doesn't exist. First, let Chopra provide solid evidence for whatever he is saying. Then let's talk about refutation. And no - claiming that Aldous Huxley, Emerson, Freeman Dyson, or Max Planck also said something along the same lines is not evidence. That's a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority. Science 101.

To paraquote Wolfgang Pauli, 'He's not only not right. He's not even wrong.'

Sumit.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10222544].message }}

tagiscom 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I actually thought he might have been joking since he added the self absorbed part.

I doubt that Claude was joking with his first statement about Deepak spouting crap, (or something along those lines).

I am sure that there is a rational explanation for 6 or 8, (it happened a long time ago) small birds with brains at least ten times smaller than ours looking straight ahead, flying and turning at great speeds together and looking like their wings are glued together, (it was that perfect)?

The only explanation apart from me making it up, (which l am not) is that part of our minds are energy based and consciousness is shared by some animal species, or conscious energy is outside as well as inside!
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10222594].message }}
- Mike Anthony 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by tagiscom
  
  I doubt that Claude was joking with his first statement about Deepak spouting crap, (or something along those lines).
  
  No I was referring to the post where he accused you of self absorption. I took it a s a joke because someone orchestrating/fueling so many jokes around himself I felt would never make such a silly charge.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10223381].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Sumit Menon

Freeman Dyson only CLAIMED that he thought electrons had a mind. He didn't go on to prove it. Are we supposed to take anything Dyson says as gospel? It's merely a hypothesis with ZERO evidence behind it.

If you can point out where you think I stated Dyson said electrons had minds or he had proven it I will be better able to assist you in reading English

There's a long road between the statements 'light has dual nature' and 'universe is conscious'. That would be saying 'I have a headache, it must be brain tumor' and then to go on and add 'The pharmaceutical companies must have caused it'.

Thats just utterly silly besides the fact that the issue is not the duality of light but the measurement conditions of when light is a particle rather than a wave. So your whole analogy is malformed and off point. It s just a now proven fact that observation is what causes the change

Dawkins could not refute Chopra because because there is nothing to refute. .

As I have already stated Chopra tends to go off the deep end and uses the wrong words but sorry at the heart of the science that Chopra is referring (without his using the wrong words and taking it too far to sentient) Dawkins cannot rebut because the facts are not with him and he is generally incompetent outside anything but neo-darwinism which itself is falling on hard times

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10223373].message }}

TimPhelan 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Zodiax

Dude that makes no sense.

It does if you watched the video all the way to the end. Dawkins used the term "ad bullshitem" and Chopra smiled and said "You are violating all the rules of logic". lol
- Thanks
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221873].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

CliffsNotes: They're both guessing because they don't know.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10221883].message }}

If Deepak Chopra is full of baloney, he's really good at it

Trending Topics

Google Ads, landing pages, and Clickbank links

Carry out better target audience research

YouTube gets shopping display tools and affiliate partnership updates

A Very Strange Internet Problem

Membership area with multiple income streams