Nature of Reality: Deepak Chopra, Michael Shermer at Chapman University

[TzuSun11]

Never mind, my apology. Shouldn't have made such sweeping statements, I will reserve them for particular people on each side. I really like what Jim Walsh and Henry had to say.

[shandcunt]

Woo-woo as, this was such a bad idea for a debate. Its much easier to ramble off a bunch of nonsense for a few minutes and then act confident than it is for someone to refute you.

Knowledge is such that if you cannot exlpain it you do not have it

[MrDosulli33]

The debate within the debate i.e shermer vs deepak was silly. Shermer says things such as consciousness can not exist without quantifiable experiments and Depak says consciousness exists but isn't quantifiable, its a catch 22. I think Shermer is wrong. Science can not answer everything, and it's continually changing so to base your beliefs solely on or current knowledge is a flawed philosophy. In 100 years they might laugh and compare him to someone who though the earth was flat.

[sullivanseven]

Morality > Science

[ThisOneIsTaken]

This debate would be much more productive without both Chopra and Shermer.

[Luxmans]

On the side of Chopra, we have two medical doctors, a theologian, a marine biologist, and a doctor of physics. On Shermer's; we have two quantum physicists, lets discount both Shermer and Walsh as they lack formal scientific training. The underlying topic here is quantum mechanics, as most of us viewing this are grossly unprepared to really understand the debate, I will make an argument from authority (sorry) - look which side the expertise is on and it'll help tell you where the "woo-woo" is.

[1empathy]

it's uncomfortable for me to hear a scientist like shermer be so definite, but the nonsense that "team chopra" spout needs to be ridiculed.

[Blulumin]

Stuart Hameroff, M.D. (the bald guy with the cool beard) is worth really focusing on. He presented really cool interesting theories about consciousness.

[MrDp297]

I truly believe that nobody understood Shermer's arguments. Everybody interpreted them as reductionistic or materialistic. For example, Deepak at some point addressed Michael saying that he is not really speaking to him but rather to network of synapses. And that is true. It is truly language that is inhibiting and not reality. Michael is his synapses and nothing more. Nothing more. It just happens though that these synapses create an emergent consciousness. 

[JarethGT]

I like shermer, and I'm not a fan of Deepak, but Michael has a really materialistic view and I think that reality is indeed much stranger than he likes to put on.

[reckonaut]

This was fascinating.

Look, I like Shermer. He knows his science. However, I think he lacks a foundation in philosophy. He assumes that the very question leading this discussion is absurd, and that the answer to it is obvious. If he knew a bit more philosophy he would see why this can be legitimately questioned!

I just wish that his opponents wouldn't conglomerate the legitimate metaphysical problems posed here with spiritual and pseudoscientific bunk. I wish I had more room to explain.

[MandarinTALK]

I liked the guy at the end (the biologist). Also, Shermer seems frustrated (rightfully so in my opinion).

[MandarinTALK]

I liked the guy at the end (the biologist).

[MandarinTALK]

I liked the guy at the end. 

[MandarinTALK]

Michael Shermer was most definitely the most aggressive at the beginning. As much as I like him, I have to agree that he was a little dismissive and condescending. Also, I think that Chopra and Shermer were still pissed at each other over the Nightline debate. That's why Shermer was a little "mean".

[stuccomann1]

This video is like one of those childrens books. Where you need to find what dosen't belong,or out of place.It is clear to me who does not belong on this panel,except to use him as a stark contrast to wisdom.

[LarrenceUmpersalt]

i think this is the only time ive heard michael shermer and i dont completely agree with him. the brain and connsciousness might be two seperate things. a lot of data points to this. near death experiences while the patient is clinically dead might suggest this. maybe there is a completely naturalistic explanation within the bounds of conventional science, but maybe there are other levels of conciousness. dissmissing these theories and asserting that it is all bogus is rather ignorant

[summondadrummin]

I'm reminded of what Alan Watts said about the mechanistic materialist paradigm as a 'put down view of the universe' created by people needing this perspective to feel powerful~ wow the universe is just a machine or just matter or just mindless chemistry.

[JarethGT]

@summondadrummin Yeah, I remember that. Watts was a genius, I wish he could be here and set these materialists straight. Not that I agree with the spooky magic talk that Deepak offers but if guys Michael Shermer think that jumping off a bridge and dying answers the question of "Ultimate reality" then he's not even in the same league as people who take the question seriously.

[alwinder60]

......and such a shallow and,IMHO,stupid comments,Mr. Shermer makes about "throwing people down from the roof and see if they get hurt",for starters,we know from atomic physics that the so called "matter" is in fact 99% empty space,and furthermore,nobody presently knows what exactly matter is,besides a perception of our senses,.......and then Shermer argues we have no mind,it is for him an illusion,and he "knows" this "truth" by using his.......mind???.........I give up!!!

[alwinder60]

It seems to me a real shame to have Mr. Shermer together with all those brilliant scientists,the so called Skeptics could have sent a more respectful and more intelligent person to represent them........ sad ...... :-(

[sonykroket]

Leonard and Mike, we love you guys!

[klindred]

The guy Leonard described entanglement but didn't call it that. I wonder why nobody picked up on that. Non-locality is not just entanglement, or i wonder why the guy from the audience took so long to try to explain what it was. These guys are physicists and they don't seem to know what they are talking about. Shermer didn't define consciousness, he just said the mind is the brain. Awareness doesn't need memory to function so it can't just be mind. Sleep is where all mysteries converge.

[PhoneExpert27]

@klindred Your statement has so much wrong with it that I don't know where to start. Mlodinow was NOT explaining entanglement and the physicists in fact do know what they are talking about. Awareness does need memory to function.

[BachTantra]

thankyou for posting this

[souledheart]

Understanding spirituality is beyond science ... mainly because of ego and non understanding of the need for humility. Science just pontificates; humans just measure, observe and move things around ... only God creates.

[hossamgebeily]

Shermer may be too dismisive, but i think id rather be shermer than deepak or stewart!!

[Nakkikassi]

To quote Bill O´Reilly: Tides come in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication.

[GermanOperaSinger]

Shermer is a textbook example of pseudoskepitic. Arrogant, condescending, close minded, dogmatic. Whereas real skeptics consider all possibilities, for him there can only be one, whatever conforms to his belief system. His cult of followers on youtube seem to mirror his personality. While they claim to be proponents of reason, they are in reality obstinate believers in their own worldview. To be fair though, I think Chopra's views are mostly quantum mysticism and can't be taken too seriously.

[unimind24]

@GermanOper

Eloquently stated regarding atheists and Michael Shermer. I used to think he was a genunie skeptic, but if he already labeled himself as a materialist, he is no longer looking at the other side. With regards to Deepak, I agree. He thinks the "object" can only exist when the "subject" perceives it, and many people don't agree with that. But his view of the interrelation btwn consciousness and physical world is not too far fetched, and most of the discussion was about this topic

[GodTheHypothesis]

@unimind24

I think you're misunderstanding the point of being a skeptic. It's not about 'looking at the other side', it's about asking for evidence and only giving time to things that provide it. He dismisses the 'other side' because it provides none. Just anecdote.

[vibhutesagar]

@GodTheHypothesis Seconded! It astounds me when people equate open-mindedness with simply accepting whatever anyone says with or without evidence/proof. IMO it takes an open-mind to think critically and Shermer even though a little militaristic at times does do that ...

[GermanOperaSinger]

@vibhutesagar Of course that's not what open mindedness is. Accepting a claim without evidence is indeed irrational and unhealthy behavior. Shermer however exhibits narrow mindedness in that he often dismisses certain ideas without ever examining the evidence thoroughly simply because they contradict his idea of, in his words, 'how the world works.' The scientific paradigm is not stagnant and inflexible, or else it would be religion. It should progress and develop as new evidence is introduced.

[i9lilcarebear88]

@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL

I see "spiritual" as experience... I take a bite out of an apple. Fact is I just took a bite out of this apple. If you were to ask me "how does it taste?" That would be difficult for me to answer. There's something "spiritual" about taking a bite of an apple. I can try to say "well, it tastes sweet"...but I can never get to the bottom of it because it is unexplainable. We TRY to use words to describe experience, but WORDS are meaningless compared to the actual experience.

[soifrane]

@i9lilcarebear88 "We TRY to use words to describe experience, but WORDS are meaningless compared to the actual experience." Krishnamurti gave this example: explain the taste of banana.

[sullivanseven]

Stuart Hameroff was the strongest in amongst them... Also, I like Shermer's ideas but he has to learn to sit still and behave well

[perfecto25]

good thing Shermer, Mlodinow and the scientist from Chapman were there to debunk this sorry line of woo-woo charlatans. Its 2 sets of people talking in 2 different languages, 1 group uses words and concepts that are TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE with scientific method, the other lays out philosophical and metaphysical concepts as if it were facts and something tangible.

Chopra is the worst, using physics terms in completely inappropriate manner to give his BS an air of scientific credibility.

[i9lilcarebear88]

@perfecto25

that's the beauty of life though (speaking on human beings). there are things that are tangible, for example a person chewing on food. If I were to explain to you how it tastes I can never give you a factual answer. My words can never describe my experience. How would you test that?? We got science (facts) and experience (spiritual) happening at the same time. Separating SCIENCE from "experience" is INAPPROPRIATE. I believe that's what Chopra's point is.

[proofandevidence]

subtitles in african click lauguage, be appreciated. Thanks

[MegaNexus777]

subtitles in spanish , be appreciated. Thanks

[LambadLambadLambda]

They should have had Dean Radin on this panel. He could have destroyed Michael Shermer's points. The fact is, several experients have been conducted in multiple labrotories which show all kinds of PSI effects. Their methods have been refined over the years and they still get the effect. Then we have untrained, Michael Shermer, who is not even a scientists, asserting that their experiments "must be flawed" because it does not fit into his view of reality. THAT is "bologna".

[LambadLambadLambda]

Great job by Deepak!

[kelbykross1]

Didn't we discover that the 'observer effect' is actually from the measurement devices we used to observe the individual particles interfering with the results due to the photons emitted from the observing equipment?

We cannot see at a quantum level with the naked eye and need technology to 'observe' the process (in the dual split experiment) which emits light (photons) which disrupted the wave description and collapsed from a wave to a particle

[zytigon]

Great thinking by Michael Shermer. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey, Joseph Wheless, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens

[aparthia]

Science can't fully explain anything.

Even if we were to reach consensus within a scientific branch we could never know if we obtained any truths because science merely works with theories.

[tatsumakisempyukaku]

Great discussion. It could have done without the dismissive and condescending attitudes of that guy mike. He's like a guy who is blind and everyone is talking about color, and because it's beyond him it can't be true. Which by the way is y language is useless.

[WickedJargon]

@tatsumakisempyukaku are u talking about michael shermer?

[AORNOfficial]

at 27:40 that's win for Michael haha

[steampunk18]

The essential nature of the material world is that it's not material. The essential nature of the physical world is that it's not physical. The essential stuff of the universe is nonstuff.

The essential nature of Deepak's argument is that it's not an argument.

[RedlineMMA]

@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL

You are talking pure nonsense.  There is what an individual mind thinks reality is & there is a real reality were something is either true or its is not. You are fooled by Chopra completely made up scientific sounding explanations.

Science eliminates bias & is indeed the only tool we have for determining the nature of reality. Chopra knows nothing about quantum physics He has admitted to using it as a METAPHOR to make his points.

[kjrandom]

Facepalm at 00:40:09. Right there with ya Michael.

[gsalemi1954]

If reality is science and science can be tested then what is the explanation for quantum physics which says reality depends on who is looking at the experiment?

[talibanchristian]

@gsalemi1954 the rules change at a quantum level.

[EgalBohen]

As dreams in a box We live out our lives - Aware of ourselves - Our worlds distance derived - Though horizons may come And horizons may go In boxes we stay - Trapped by Time In it’s flow - Our decisions decide Where that box with our name May travel the system Will move or Remain - Escape is uncertain - We have to be blind - To the world, as we know it For it’s all in the mind - Egal Bohen March 2008

[johnalton22]

Deepak is just there for comic relief

[magicalray93]

"Wierd" is a culturally defined term Michael, whats wierd to you is only wierd to you, jeez i cant beleive someone so small minded is on the panel.

[magnusjsolberg]

Someone who is honest and interested in communicating information does *not* talk like Stuart Hameroff. Stu throws out shotgun blasts of scientific/quasi-scientific terms, communicating nothing of value to anyone. Shermer and Mlodinow are clear and actually seem interested in communicating something to the people who are listening. I love seing guys like Hameroff and Chopra getting called out for the bullshit they're spouting.

[jl4e23]

@magnusjsolberg

Ditto can also be said for Mlodinow and Shermer. Both sides of this arguement are confrontational. I would not go so far to say someone is spouting bullshit because you do not agree with them.

[shivz789]

i watched the whole thing ..... more people on the pannel seem to diverge away from conventional sceince .... with new studies like backword time affect and othe new physics advancement ,... people will know that ultimate reality is far beyond our reach .... deepak chopras ideology is a very good one in my opinion ...

[ClaireSapphyck]

Stuart Hameroff seems to have done his homework...

[MrRobotoToo]

@ClaireSapphyck Not really. His ideas are just a mish-mash of unrelated concepts taken from speculative high-energy physics, neuroscience, and platonic philosophy. There's very little of value to be found in the resulting hodgepodge.

[magnusjsolberg]

@ClaireSapphyck Don't be fooled. He's talking nonsense.

[BloodyInsane]

Shermer is so simplistically brilliant at making his point... there isn't really that much to say as an answer to such question. there's reality (and it's pretty fucking interesting and complex). i wonder how come it seems not to be enough for some people, could it be that they can't cope with the idea of not having the main role in this play?...

[RealProperT]

Interesting exchange of info b/w individual body-minds. Can empirical approach lead to "ultimate reality"? And what if the entity to whom this approach (empirical or otherwise) appears to happen itself doesn't exist? Then who's there to understand and what's there to be understood? Isn't any answer, again, an appearance on the screen of the mind? Who is witnessing all of it? Isn't any word arising in mind again a barrier? Thank you ChapmanUniversity.

[MrTuohy16g]

excellent !

[MrTuohy16g]

excellent !

[TheLetsbegin]

The reality is we try 2 please naturaly; yet life is Ego led at present!

The observer is experiencing emotional content, our true natural nature!

Life is proceeding the only way it know`s? Naturaly!

[turxon]

yes we can know the "ultimate" reality by science, but it is the Spiritual Science, not the science of material. and as i see it it will be a very good while before they get there at least hundres of yrs ... 2012 is the beginning!

[Denshuu]

@turxon There is no such thing as "spiritual science." Science requires testing, experimentation, and repetition. Anything people claim to be "spiritual" or non-corporal is outside that domain. When we start talking about things for which there is no evidence, or things that cannot be studied in any scientific sense, we are no longer talking about science.

[turxon]

@Denshuu that is because they still haven't crossed into that territory yet. it is beyond physical ( water,earth,fire,air) lol

[Denshuu]

@turxon The word you're looking for is "imaginary." It's not real. If it was, it would be under the domain of testability and repetition, which is all science is.

[Anoop20111]

@Denshuu Ultimate science,maths, biology all converges to spirituality.According to the present evolution level of humans we are able to comprehend &prove things which are up to the frequency levels of particle waves.The laws of quantum physics opened up new possibilities which could not be explained by Newtonian science.In more subtle frequency levels more things exist which is beyond our comprehension. Spirituality help us explore on this based on observation &experience from different people

[part44]

@Denshuu What about "Social Science", does that fall within the realm of Science? Because as you may know, studies done in That domain have special dispensation from the exact repetition and classical science experimentation. At one time Psychiatry was laughed at when it claimed to be a "Science", now that is no longer the case. Perhaps we are on the threshold of a new Science, Spiritual Science and these people are the explorers of this realm. "These times they are a changing."

[DemonHermit]

@Denshuu I think what alot of people are talking about when they say "spiritual science" is the study of the subjective via meditation and introspection. The problem is, like Sam Harris mentions alot, is people tend to take these remarkable subjective experiences and make claims about physical reality. Which is definitely not science. However, this does not make all spiritual practices worthless (I use the word 'spiritual' very loosely.)

[itsmedontusee]

@Denshuu Mayby the whole foundation on which science is build on is wrong

[qcon81]

Is Michael Shermer really a Scientist?? I am speechless.

[leosurge]

@Denshuu So what about the things science aknowledges but cannot explain?

[myfriend280]

@Denshuu You sound like such an ideologue. A kind of scientific bigot. A kid in a boys club who doesn't wish to let in the girls.

[Sloth7d]

@myfriend280 Sorry if that offends you, but that's just how it is. If it can't be tested, it isn't science. It's THE defining feature of science.

[d3st88]

@turxon

Spiritual science?

OLOLOLOLOLO

Speak on, Ms. Rowling, continue.

[Laura85109]

"Yes" and "Not yet."

[rikunjkumar]

Thank Champan University to provide this.

[jasondsimpson]

Great Lecture!