Actually Harris did not do anything and so did Chopra, one cannot prove he did have an epiphany or a miraculous wish fulfilled, how can a person prove that?
I had it but i still would support Hitchens that religion poisons everything! God or the Matrix of all matter does not hide in a Church let alone old text written and modified by people who did not witness the events... if you have never been in deep trouble you do not know what it means to pray and not to gods of scripture!
all sam would have to say to disprove the idea of consciousness being metaphysical rather than organic is - brain injury. changes in personality, intellect and memories that result from brain unjury or stroke prove that the mind is organic.
@maggiepriceless He could have said that...but that wouldn't make a dent in deepak's argument. If you paid attention he said "consciousness likes brains to express itself".
This dude is one slick con-artist. Spiritual gurus like these differ from religious leaders in the sense that they dwell in the concepts that science hasn't touched yet, to con the gullible people and make money in the process. He is just an intellectually dishonest person, hard to argue against.
@maggiepriceless Exactly. I was thinking the same thing. Chopra's argument completely falls apart if that was brought up. Personality is dependent upon the brain, but you worded it so well, I have nothing to add.
Both are theories and both are untested by science. Unfortunately science has dogmatically assumed and accepted that consciousness if a product of the mind.
Chopra on the other hand clouds the issue with some half baked mumbo jumbo about quantum theories, etc
What Chopra is trying - so inelegantly - to say, is that there is no proof that the mind gives rise to consciousness. He says, the mind is like a conductor or receiver of Consciousness. A simple, not perfect, analogy is like a radio/ TV (mind) receives signals (Consciousness).
You can make all the fun of Deepak you want, but let's face the fact that he has made millions off the stupidity of others and their desperate search for answers. I know he's full of crap and you know he's full of crap, but every day people go to fortune tellers and spiritual guides in order to be fooled. That's what happens when you don't use your brain.
I think the body language says it all here, Deepdik has this arrogant posture that shows he is talking out of his ass whereas Sam is very clear about where he is coming from and very grounded in his statements
@suhaas080309 The thing you have to hand it to Harris for is that when the mystics run down deep into their rabbit holes of nonsense to try and escape having to justify their horseshit, Harris chases down there and doesn't let them off the hook.
@AJatheistgod I can explain many things he's said because I'm capable, understanding and willing to consider new evidence and new arguments. Perhaps you aren't educated broadly enough, your IQ is too low, and/or you're passionately unwilling "to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments." The fact is the false title you put on this clip shows bias and it suggests your passionate unwillingness.
Dr. Chopra defeated Dr. Harris and Dr. Harris reluctantly agreed/conceded.
im gonna answer all the questions and replies here and shut the hell up too all of you retards.. just quote me for the notification and come here answer to your questions and arguments.. where did deepak get defeated you think?
defeated where??? lmfao .. you guys are fu king retarded, harris lost all the arguments and shot the hepl up.. deepak didnt say one thing wrong and answered all his questions correctly. you are the consciousness you are not the body or the brains.. where thr hell did he get defeated??? just tell me..lol
@ikevcolt In his evasiveness. He uses terms and ideas completely unjustifiable, unrepeatable, unreproducible, and inarguable by objective means. Ok, you posit the hypothesis, "Consciousness gives rise to the universe." Now prove it, show me the mechanism of conversion from consciousness to existence.
That dude who called TKO saved Chopras career. Chopra was getting disected in front of a live studio audience. I hate to see anyone cornered and panicked when their intentions are good but at the same time reason must triumph over pseudoscience and emotion based reasoning for the species to survive.
@KurtG85 It was kind of embarrassing really. I used to like Chopra. Really I used to be all behind quantum mysticism. Until I started reading about quantum mechanics and real science. It's funny, but quantum mysticism turned me into the rational individual I am today. Only by revealing it's absurdity in the end.
Deepak must know the meanings of those words, to able to string them together in such a confusing fashion that makes what he's trying to say impenetrable. Like all New Age mystics, his followers are certainly morons, but make no mistake, Chopra is brilliant in his ability to talk for hours and say nothing that he can't deny or modify or change even minutes later because what he is saying, no matter how long he says it, is entirely without value and can therefore mean whatever he needs it to mean
all the creationists keep doing( chopra, wlc and others) is attributing the unknown and fringe knowledge to "god must have done it" how is this proof of god?!?!?! its an old horse just trying to sound new and smart. its bs . these same people believe in talking snakes, invisible sky daddies and virgin births. they need to just say "its faith, we dont need evidence" i guess theyre just desperate to validate their belief in a realm of reason and logic. funny
Chopra presents himself as some sort of guru. All he ever does is make vague metaphysical claims and as soon as he's challenged on them he switches to something else so you can't nail him down on anything. If he's called on that he claims persecution. He likes to couch his statements in pseudoscientific jargon and if you tell him he's misrepresenting science, he claims that he's a scientist and knows more about science than you. He is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
@Archronis Well, you did say he represents himself as some sort of guru....Sounds like you just described a guru. HE'S A GURU! (aka the epitome of intellectual dishonesty)
@Archronis Yep. I can't stand the smug look on his face either. Chopra is nothing but a scam artist, and people are dumb enough to fall for it. Probably the same people that think their horoscope means anything.
@Archronis Why you feel the need to libel Dr. Chopra is a mystery to me. What you said is false and malicious and you can allow yourself to erase your comment immediately.
@tubebooboob Oh, sure thing, because I always do what angry, ignorant internet trolls tell me to do, right? You're certainly free to believe Chopra's malarkey, but that doesn't mean everyone else is willing to excuse his gross intellectual dishonesty. Also, maybe you ought to censor yourself (lest your stupidity reveal itself) instead of trying to censor others.
@Archronis There was nothing angry or ignorant about what I said. I'm not that angry atheist, that seems more like your thing buddy. Also, I dont care what your intellectually dishonest attempt at gainsaying consists of because it is just that. Lastly, it is not censorship to point out what you can do. Furthermore, free speech has legal limits, if you don't like American law, maybe you should go somewhere else.
@tubebooboob I called you angry and ignorant for the purposes of giving you the benefit of the doubt. Considering the profound stupidity of your post, it was either that or you (the author of it) are yourself profoundly stupid. I stand corrected, as it is clearly the latter case.
Further, you might want to look up the definition and laws concerning libel, because nothing I said qualifies as such--your hurt feelings at mean words and inability to understand what's being discussed notwithstanding.
@Archronis Keep trying, you don't know the law. I was just giving you a friendly warning so that you don't end up being sued. Feel free to fill someone elses pockets. Anyway, I personally think it is scummy and cowardly the way you make false accusations, especially because I know you wouldn't say to a persons face. So keep your self professed "mean words" to yourself, because unlike all of the angry atheists and wannabe intellectuals, I know that I know and I know and I know you don't.
@tubebooboob Keep backpedaling, 'cause that's worked out so well for you thus far, huh? Libel is defined as a false, written accusation of criminal behavior. I've made no such accusations and EVEN IF I HAD, Chopra, as a public figure, can't sue me. All I've done is make observations about Chopra's demeanor and character that you don't like. Tough, go cry about it some more.
And, yes, I WOULD say all of it to Chopra's face if I ever met him. He is a charlatan and needs to be called out on it.
@Archronis What "backpedaling"? I know what libel is defined as. Do you feel special after you googled it? As I said, you don't know the law, and denial doesn't change facts. Keep telling yourself that you can't be sued. I think just because someone is currently gracious enough not to sue a person like you, one should have the civility to retract any false and defamatory comments.
Saying you would insult a guy to his face especially for your false reasons is shameful. SHAME ON YOU!
@tubebooboob At this point, you're just demonstrating how butt-hurt (and ignorant) you are. If you don't believe me, try suing me for calling you that. I happen to know what libel is because I have some measure of education, which it is becoming painfully obvious you do not. You have respect for this useless snake oil salesman and that's fine (idiots need heroes too, I guess). I have a different opinion of him and because I think he does people harm I would tell him so. How is that shameful?
@Archronis That's retarded and you're the one who is backpedaling. You can come up with all the snide bs that you want, but I know what I am talking about and I can tell that you're ungentlemanly. Therefore, I would rather you stop with your snakey smear campaign comments completely. Lastly, you wouldn't say all of that to Mr. Chopra, and even if you did, that would make you an obnoxious uncivilized lowlife of a person. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't understand that.
@tubebooboob LOL! For me to explicate everything that is hilariously wrong with that post would take more than my allotted 500 characters. Nevertheless, it does you little good to know what you're talking about when you don't know what anyone else is talking about. As for me being an "ungentlemanly" "lowlife" and my "sneaky smear campaign comments," you're just going to have to live that. Since all you're doing now is throwing out insults, I assume you have nothing more substantive to say?
@Archronis You're comments you give are the equivalent of taking a steaming pile of dog crap and wrapping it up in some nice shiny wrapping paper. You wrap your crap comments in snide bs, but the amount of substance they contain is zero, much like your personality. Stop wasting our time with your verbal defecation.
@tubebooboob I hope you're proud of that contentless litany of insults, considering it took you two weeks to compose it. I'd assumed you had finally acknowledged your errors, but apparently you were just parsing derisive YouTube comments with the purpose of plagiarizing the most banal and insipid among them. If you feel your time is being wasted, you have nobody to blame but yourself, especially since you've deliberately renewed this exchange.
After untangling their arguments, I think that Sam was trying to get Chopra to admit that there is no evidence to suggest that mind is separate from the brain and that there is no evidence to suggest that the physical universe is the product of subjective conscious experience.
Chopra didn't provide justification for his unproven claims and instead relied on emotional support from the audience by claiming Harris was being dismissive of the beauty of creative thinking.
"Religious science" is always stupid. Christians believed rings around saturn was jesus foreskin (its true google it)
Also google "flat earth map", christian idiots were still trying to prove earth was flat in the beginning of the 1900´s. WHy would they do such a stupid thing u ask? Cause its in the bible... How can u believe a book that says the earth is flat`? Wish all the christian morons would sail over the edge of the world and just f*cking disappear.
Unfortunately, as highlighted by Dan Harris' bit at the end, the majority of Christians/religious watching this will not follow the arguments well enough to see Sam has Deepak checkmated, and instead will perceive their arguments as being on level ground. Deepak basically can't lose as long as he keeps saying words.
Its totally valid and logical conclusion based on deductive logic, but no relation to reality.
Damn, i can roll this way. I will publish a bestseller "Infinite possibility of your credit rating". Ma, look i am rich and gave lectures to masses of buffoons.
Deepak present phenomenology, but he doesn't explain it well. And Deepak think, like Husserl, that the conscience create the objet that he see. I suggest everyone interested a knowing what phenomenology his to read Husserl or books on the subjet. But , i would say that i disagree with Deepak when he say what he say. What phenomenology show is something different that science and it goes very well together. I suggest you the read the "Crisis" of Husserl. I dont have enough space to speak about it
Metaphysics is in many ways even more objective than science since anything about metaphysics (not involving science) is by definition logically consistent. When people are using the word "metaphysics" to describe something subjective, then they are using the word "hot" to describe a blizzard. Deepak Chopra needs more people in his life that care about him enough to challenge him on his pretensions.
@blapgatify claiming that something is logical is not meaning its true.
A: There is a dragon called Danny.
B. All dragons are green.
Conclusion: Danny is a green dragon.
Although the conclusion is logical, its not description of reality. Deepak can present a framework of mysticism that will have a logical inner workings but totally unrelated to real world. We enjoy fictional stories and their logic but that's a fiction after all.
@Mishkafofer It's certainly true that something can be internally consistent and yet not be supported by the evidence. I would never argue against that. The point I was trying to make is that it's incorrect for people to describe their subjectivist delusions as "metaphysics" since metaphysics must necessarily describe logically consistent proposition. So Deepak (who does not believe in objectivity in any real sense) cannot use the word "metaphysics" to describe his mysticism.
@blapgatify Not mysticism, phenomenology (The late Husserl interpretation of intentionnalité et consciousness to be more exactly). But their is other interpretation and i suggest reading Sartre, Derrida or Merleau-Ponty to understand Deepak proposition and how to correctly counter his argument and understand phenomenology that is compatible with science.
@HansBohr I could be wrong but, phenomenology (according to an article I just read) claims that it's specific to subjective experiences. Deepak is making claims about how the universe operates (not just the mind). This requires necessarily an appeal to an objective standard of reason and evidence which is why phenomenology (which is subjective) cannot justify his conclusions.
@blapgatify No, because (simply put) consciouness is what see the world for the first time (if i can say like it like that) You see the world, (you also look the brain) subjectivly. Even Scientist must see the world with their "eyes" of their consciousness (subjective) to see the world around them. THe mind would be the thing that put objectivity. It's just a starting point, i don't have time (and space) to all explain phenomenology and show you how to refute correctly Deepak. You must read more
@HansBohr Well, maybe I will have to read more, but it's incorrect to say that the mind makes things objective, because an appeal to objectivity is by definition an appeal to standards irrespective of people's subjective experiences.
If I ever saw a floating elephant ghost I would be asking you if you see it because we all accept (necessarily by responding) that there is an appeal to reality and the truth of it irrespective of my subjective experience.
@blapgatify I agree, but i present a simpler solution to Deepak mambo jambo. He can use deductive logic until we all get nauseous and rightly claim its logical because conclusion is derived from the proposition but he will import the biggest problem of deductive logic: you can have a valid conclusion that is totally unrelated to reality. Call it metaphysics or mysticism, its plain and basic deductive logic that goes nowhere.
@Mishkafofer But if you present this argument to Deepak (or his supporters) they will correctly point out that it doesn't actually invalidate any of his arguments. All it does is show that they could be wrong in some vague way. I don't think this approach is simple or productive.
All that you need to do is demonstrate that Deepak's arguments refute themselves (and they do). This shows that both Deepak's methodology AND conclusions are unjustified.
@Mishkafofer *clears throat* "Deepak, you say that it is the mind that creates reality as it actually exists, but you are appealing to a standard of truth (believe my arguments because they are true) that must necessarily describe something beyond or irrespective to our subjective experiences, or else why should anyone listen to you? Do you see the contradiction?"
You could repent. Moreover, you could ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
Deepak is just spouting his Transcendance and Consciousness drivel again and again with very little argumentative ammunition. He's like a parrot that's misinterpreting Wikipedia articles.
It's astonishing that Deepak will still debate far more honest and intelligent people than himself. He nearly always gets humiliated, proven wrong and exposed for the huckster he is. Yet somehow he always makes the bestseller list, garners more admiring followers of his pseudo-intellectual bullshit, and gets richer every moment. Apparently there is no such thing as negative publicity.
@bddc201 It's because most people cannot follow his arguments and when you bullshit words into a circle it can be a very hypnotic "experience." Well at least that's why Oprah loves Deepak anyway! LOL!
@satiDSproject If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out. I am in no way closed minded. If you can't make me believe something, then it's because you haven't given me a good enough reason to do so.
'Metaphysic statements come from 'subjective experiences.'
That subjective experience doesn't tell you anything concrete about absolute truth or the existence of a consciousness outside of the brain. Because it is subjective, just like a hallucination, your mind makes it real to you & you alone. It is not transcendent due to it's subjective nature. There is no reason to believe that consciousness exists outside of the brain. Consciousness is just a word we use to describe subjective awareness.
Metaphysics may reference reality, but the conclusion is always intangible and thus, not subject to what it claims to purport is evidence. The argument is circular and therefore unverifiable. Science can not verify that consciousness creates objects, and this frustrates people who want to believe our tangible universe has an intangible birth so they claim it has a creator or that every person subjectively creates their own universe. In fact experience is subjective; the material universe is not.
Harris is no friend to my faith, but Chopra is even worse. Harris and the horsemen mount direct assaults on Christianity, but Chopra distorts and seduces. It's good to see Harris using his powers for good.
Oh! Deepak! Deepak! Please know when to shut up in the presence of real experts. Sometimes you should just give up when you know your stupidity is being exposed. Talking more causes more of your stupidity to come out.
Like this if you think everyone is obsessed with these out-of-context "battles" and just loves to indulge his or her egocentric personality by rooting for the "right" person.
Can you imagine Deepak Chopra ever being in a lab with serious scientists trying to discover anything? And the fact that people clap for his nonsense makes me ever more proud to not believe in reincarnation or other such nonsense. One time around with this level of nonsense is plenty. I don't think and would not want to do it again.
@godfreewoman I totally agree with you. Have you noticed how much we suck, as species? We just fucking suck, dude. I mean, I'm a positive guy and I want to be happy and shit, I hope for the best for the humanity, I cheer people around me up all the time; but fucking hell... when I just sit down by myself and think about people... we just fucking suck, dude, we fucking suck at this. We are good at fucking and killing each other, but at being reasonable, as species, we are not even close.
@Valholm Yes, I have noticed. And I'm not happy about it because I am part of it and I don't want to be part of the problem. Or maybe I just want better for the world and I don't want people like Chopra fucking with that progress. Regardless, I am a one-way ticket and grateful for it! 24 years and counting! Then I am out of this bitch! :-)
@Valholm - I understand bouts of despondence, but be wary of caving in to misanthropy. When you operate from the position that humanity is fundamentally bad, you end up an unwitting contributor to self-fulfilling prophecy. Besides, there's enough evidence for hope; our species has come a long way in a short time. Think about the sheer genius that led to the computer you're using, for example. Think about astronomy, art and selfless acts... ( cont.)
@Valholm (cont) - Think about the fact that love is one of our favorite things. Remember our achievements and revolutions in thought, such as gender equality and the abolition of slavery. We've got a lot going for us, but if we let our flaws get us down and self-destruct, then we're never going to to find out how good we might've been.
As a philosophy student I'd like to point out that not only did these idiots hijack the word 'quantum', as if often pointed out, but also 'metaphysics'. Metaphysics has nothing to do with this Deepak Chopra nonsense; it refers to the a priori examination of the physical world. It is just applied logic like everything in philosophy. Nothing religious or spiritual about it.
Its obvious that Sam Harris is struggling to find the right words to explain to Deepak Chopra that his reasoning is completely flawed. You have got to give Harris credit for having the patience to converse with such stubborn people.
@damres I pick that rock up and throw it at your nose, I don't think there will be any arguing about that rocks existence. and yes it was that easy to destroy your argument.
I was want to reiterate my point to put it in the clearest terms possible. You state that since I can respond to an object, in this case being hit with a rock, that it can be accepted as "really there". My point is that just because one can seeminly interact with an object it in noway concludes that that object exists externally of ones mind. This is very simple stuff, most children will realise this for themselves by considering the apparent reality of dreams.
"metaphysics" is just that, i.e. beyond the physical, which is 'nothing', 'space', . . . 'emtpiness'. In other words, bullshit. Deepak just makes up stuff as he goes along. He creates words that sound like they have a real substance, but turn out upon closer examination to be 'metaphysical'. Hahahahahahahahaha. Keep him away from young boys and girls.
I picked Deepak as a fake years ago when I first listened to him. He just plays with words without ever saying anything concrete and measurable. Deepak has made a fortune talking total gibberish, or simply put CRAP! Notice how he can never be pinned down to stick to talking about one idea in detail. The ground keeps shifting. "I believe in a core consciousness that is recycled and has core relationships, core thoughts, core blah blah blah" What is that? The dude is a dud.
Why do these retards keep interrupting Harris? They should listen and perhaps learn a few things.
I always find it very hard to understand why religious people believe that consciousness could not arise from our material brain. The mere fact that we can use chemicals to influence our consciousness indicates that it does. What's wrong with those people?
You misunderstand why they are there. They are not there to learn anything. They are there to cheer for people who will try to justify their intellectual laziness and stupidity. They don't even have to understand what those people say, and for the most part they don't.
It is interesting that when the Harris-Ditchens ilk of Anti-theist/Atheists debate the demerits of religion, they rarely address anything other than Christian concepts of God. This short clip is interesting as a standoff. I have great sympathies with Chopra's position
"they rarely address anything other than Christian concepts of God."
Nonsense. They address ALL concepts of god-belief and metaphysics.
"I have great sympathies with Chopra's position"
I don't. I find his position extremely loathsome. He simply thinks that everyone should go along with his unfounded assertions, because it makes people feel good. Alas, that is not the proper way to go about finding out how reality works.
One only need listen to a few sentences from Deepak to know he is the worst kind of con man. He babbles like a politician to avoid reasonable criticism.
Why do people clap for Deepak. Nothing he says makes any sense. But then, people are stupid and easily impressed by big words. He's a charlatan in the age of information.
@supowit because he has a point about metaphysical, subjective experience. I think the problem here, is that Chopra and Sam Harris are talking in different languages and in different domains.
If you don't understand the big words (on either side) look them up! Ignorance shouldn't be a barrier to understanding.
@supowit haha - that's one way of defining it. The world of the mind is the other - so if you define imagination, emotion and subjective experience as "made up shit" then yes, quite.
He is on a stage, and the foolishness he is saying supports the foolishness they believe. They don't have to understand it to like it. Indeed, what he says doesn't even have to be coherent or intelligent, and that's a good thing for them, because it is neither coherent nor intelligent. He might as well be someone barking before an audience of hounds, who will obviously bark their canine approval.
@hempartist420 It could actually change a lot. Without free will, you cannot have responsibility. You cannot hold someone accountable for that which they cannot control. Which means neither no reward nor punishment for anything. Given the staggering amount of sources of stimuli that we are exposed to in the modern world, it would be hard to pinpoint cause and effect for every thought and action, but not impossible, as it is the basis for all action.
@lord666christoph That depends on how you define "free will". If you mean the ability to do whatever you please, even if it contradicts reality, then no, you can't do that. If you mean the ability to make a choice, say you're out for ice cream and you have 31 flavors to choose from, then it is free within a limited range of possibility. However, that wasn't an option 3,000 years ago. Absent 31 flavors that choice disappears.
i love watching a video where smart people discuss insteresting things. im not sure why i then scroll down and read what a bunch of no so smart people have to say on the matter, its almost always an argument about total drivle
@hempartist420 I watched the videos, thanks. Very interesting. All the same, if your brain is generating these thoughts, I don't see how you can say that it is not you authoring them. To say that you have to be separating the "conscious agent" part of yourself from your brain. Don't see why it makes sense to do that. I agree that free will isn't an absolutely clear concept.
@hempartist420 But how can it be that we aren't the author of our own actions, when it is our brain which is authoring them? I'm just flummoxed why people find this idea of "no free will" on a molecular level disconcerting.
@BigCarso I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Isaac newton asked why the apple fell from the tree. he couldn't answer the how it fell but he worked out why it fell
"Da subjective metaphysical synapsis is bery interesting wecause you need to give me money for my antidisestablishmentarianism." - famous deepak chopra quote
The mind is the subjectivity of the energy of the consciousness of the soul of the art of the spirit of the nature of the brain of the feeling of love of the universe of karma of poetry of music
There are some things which are valid which can't be tested by science. When discussing in that area, we need to be very careful with our terminology. And we need to make distinctions between beliefs and facts. Some things can only be experienced but even here, what you say about that experience may have no validity, but is simply your subjective interpretation of the experience.
@BKKaye Well, I know someone who experienced discrimination at work and yes it would've had no validity but, the courts interpretation of that law was totally objective and that person won a judgement. No science needed here to test it.
Deepak makes one good point. It's the old chicken and the egg dilemma. The feeling produces the neurotransmitter and the neurotransmitter produces the feeling.
This shouldn't be a theist vs atheist issue (which is an f'in dumb thing to argue in the first place), it's a question of origin. Where does our consciousness, even our freewill come from? If it's all reactions, as the current neurology would indicate, then there is no actual freewill, just a machine acting out its parameters.
@songyongdao There's no point. The neurotransmiter produces the feeling. We have no free will in on a neurological level. However on a "which side of the bed should I get out of" level we do. Simple.
Deepak Chopra is a simpleton. It's like trying to explain colors to a blind person, or calculus to a kitten, or neuroscience to an idiot, oh, wait...
urcritic 4 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
Chopra is a joke
lafontaine13 1 month ago
Typical third-world born idiot.
sugreev2001 1 month ago
Calm down, Deepak. Stop being so aggressive.
antistar1000 1 month ago
did chopra say metaphysics doesn't have to be justified?
mandrillx 1 month ago
Actually Harris did not do anything and so did Chopra, one cannot prove he did have an epiphany or a miraculous wish fulfilled, how can a person prove that?
I had it but i still would support Hitchens that religion poisons everything! God or the Matrix of all matter does not hide in a Church let alone old text written and modified by people who did not witness the events... if you have never been in deep trouble you do not know what it means to pray and not to gods of scripture!
celpabedn 1 month ago
all sam would have to say to disprove the idea of consciousness being metaphysical rather than organic is - brain injury. changes in personality, intellect and memories that result from brain unjury or stroke prove that the mind is organic.
maggiepriceless 1 month ago
@maggiepriceless He could have said that...but that wouldn't make a dent in deepak's argument. If you paid attention he said "consciousness likes brains to express itself".
This dude is one slick con-artist. Spiritual gurus like these differ from religious leaders in the sense that they dwell in the concepts that science hasn't touched yet, to con the gullible people and make money in the process. He is just an intellectually dishonest person, hard to argue against.
batshitcrazy007 1 month ago
@maggiepriceless Exactly. I was thinking the same thing. Chopra's argument completely falls apart if that was brought up. Personality is dependent upon the brain, but you worded it so well, I have nothing to add.
Trillidotia 1 month ago
Both are theories and both are untested by science. Unfortunately science has dogmatically assumed and accepted that consciousness if a product of the mind.
Chopra on the other hand clouds the issue with some half baked mumbo jumbo about quantum theories, etc
humanist500 1 month ago
What Chopra is trying - so inelegantly - to say, is that there is no proof that the mind gives rise to consciousness. He says, the mind is like a conductor or receiver of Consciousness. A simple, not perfect, analogy is like a radio/ TV (mind) receives signals (Consciousness).
humanist500 1 month ago
You can make all the fun of Deepak you want, but let's face the fact that he has made millions off the stupidity of others and their desperate search for answers. I know he's full of crap and you know he's full of crap, but every day people go to fortune tellers and spiritual guides in order to be fooled. That's what happens when you don't use your brain.
ghostframer 1 month ago
I think the body language says it all here, Deepdik has this arrogant posture that shows he is talking out of his ass whereas Sam is very clear about where he is coming from and very grounded in his statements
oneirishpoet 1 month ago
To put it bluntly, Chopra sucks his own dick.
hznfrst 1 month ago
shit goes in Deepak, shit goes out
lycantico 1 month ago
TooPock ChopNoggin just wants to sell books.
And in conversation, does not listen. but is only waiting to talk.
artwdog 1 month ago 2
charlatan noun: a flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with tricks or jokes. One who makes unwarrantable pretensions.
Example: "Deepak Chopra is a charlatan."
pedazodeboludo 1 month ago 2
@Archronis you're completely right.Deepak just keeps switching his main basis point so he is able to cut against sam.
suhaas080309 1 month ago
@suhaas080309 he has no clue what he is talking about, let alone trying to explain it to others
AJatheistgod 1 month ago 6
@suhaas080309 The thing you have to hand it to Harris for is that when the mystics run down deep into their rabbit holes of nonsense to try and escape having to justify their horseshit, Harris chases down there and doesn't let them off the hook.
dontcallmejesus 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
deepak crushed harris not the other way lol
ikevcolt 1 month ago
@ikevcolt so can you explain a single thing he said make sense of it?
AJatheistgod 1 month ago 7
@AJatheistgod I can explain many things he's said because I'm capable, understanding and willing to consider new evidence and new arguments. Perhaps you aren't educated broadly enough, your IQ is too low, and/or you're passionately unwilling "to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments." The fact is the false title you put on this clip shows bias and it suggests your passionate unwillingness.
Dr. Chopra defeated Dr. Harris and Dr. Harris reluctantly agreed/conceded.
tubebooboob 1 month ago 2
deacon you are doing that exactly thing right now with that stayement of nothingness.. its hilarious.. say something concrete id like to see..
ikevcolt 1 month ago
im gonna answer all the questions and replies here and shut the hell up too all of you retards.. just quote me for the notification and come here answer to your questions and arguments.. where did deepak get defeated you think?
ikevcolt 1 month ago
defeated where??? lmfao .. you guys are fu king retarded, harris lost all the arguments and shot the hepl up.. deepak didnt say one thing wrong and answered all his questions correctly. you are the consciousness you are not the body or the brains.. where thr hell did he get defeated??? just tell me..lol
ikevcolt 1 month ago
@ikevcolt In his evasiveness. He uses terms and ideas completely unjustifiable, unrepeatable, unreproducible, and inarguable by objective means. Ok, you posit the hypothesis, "Consciousness gives rise to the universe." Now prove it, show me the mechanism of conversion from consciousness to existence.
metalElvalover 1 month ago
That dude who called TKO saved Chopras career. Chopra was getting disected in front of a live studio audience. I hate to see anyone cornered and panicked when their intentions are good but at the same time reason must triumph over pseudoscience and emotion based reasoning for the species to survive.
Chopra clearly had no answer to Harris's logic.
KurtG85 1 month ago
@KurtG85 It was kind of embarrassing really. I used to like Chopra. Really I used to be all behind quantum mysticism. Until I started reading about quantum mechanics and real science. It's funny, but quantum mysticism turned me into the rational individual I am today. Only by revealing it's absurdity in the end.
metalElvalover 1 month ago
.......what the fuck are they talking about...???..ENGLISH PLEASE....
MrSachinmisra 1 month ago
Deepak's voice sends me to sleep better than well, anything else. ZZZZZZZZ.
jones6119 1 month ago
It's like Sam Harris is talking to a stubborn ignorant kid
FFreeLevant 1 month ago 22
@FFreeLevant OR and im just speculating on the evidence presented. A retard.
Dgoosh1000 1 month ago
Deepak must know the meanings of those words, to able to string them together in such a confusing fashion that makes what he's trying to say impenetrable. Like all New Age mystics, his followers are certainly morons, but make no mistake, Chopra is brilliant in his ability to talk for hours and say nothing that he can't deny or modify or change even minutes later because what he is saying, no matter how long he says it, is entirely without value and can therefore mean whatever he needs it to mean
DeaconShadow 1 month ago
lets just throw science in the bin for religious woo woo, makes sense[wink]
kram83au 1 month ago
Deepak is a lying SOB.
b14blah 1 month ago
Who are the sheep in the audience? They applaud any shite that comes out of Chopra's mouth.
ThePezter 1 month ago
all the creationists keep doing( chopra, wlc and others) is attributing the unknown and fringe knowledge to "god must have done it" how is this proof of god?!?!?! its an old horse just trying to sound new and smart. its bs . these same people believe in talking snakes, invisible sky daddies and virgin births. they need to just say "its faith, we dont need evidence" i guess theyre just desperate to validate their belief in a realm of reason and logic. funny
xamot27 1 month ago
fuck deepak is an annoying cunt
Maccaism 1 month ago 2
Chopra presents himself as some sort of guru. All he ever does is make vague metaphysical claims and as soon as he's challenged on them he switches to something else so you can't nail him down on anything. If he's called on that he claims persecution. He likes to couch his statements in pseudoscientific jargon and if you tell him he's misrepresenting science, he claims that he's a scientist and knows more about science than you. He is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
Archronis 1 month ago 32
@Archronis exactly!!
Maccaism 1 month ago
@Archronis Well, you did say he represents himself as some sort of guru....Sounds like you just described a guru. HE'S A GURU! (aka the epitome of intellectual dishonesty)
metalElvalover 1 month ago
@Archronis Yep. I can't stand the smug look on his face either. Chopra is nothing but a scam artist, and people are dumb enough to fall for it. Probably the same people that think their horoscope means anything.
HairMetalKing 1 month ago
@Archronis Why you feel the need to libel Dr. Chopra is a mystery to me. What you said is false and malicious and you can allow yourself to erase your comment immediately.
tubebooboob 1 month ago
@tubebooboob Oh, sure thing, because I always do what angry, ignorant internet trolls tell me to do, right? You're certainly free to believe Chopra's malarkey, but that doesn't mean everyone else is willing to excuse his gross intellectual dishonesty. Also, maybe you ought to censor yourself (lest your stupidity reveal itself) instead of trying to censor others.
Archronis 1 month ago
@Archronis There was nothing angry or ignorant about what I said. I'm not that angry atheist, that seems more like your thing buddy. Also, I dont care what your intellectually dishonest attempt at gainsaying consists of because it is just that. Lastly, it is not censorship to point out what you can do. Furthermore, free speech has legal limits, if you don't like American law, maybe you should go somewhere else.
tubebooboob 1 month ago
@tubebooboob I called you angry and ignorant for the purposes of giving you the benefit of the doubt. Considering the profound stupidity of your post, it was either that or you (the author of it) are yourself profoundly stupid. I stand corrected, as it is clearly the latter case.
Further, you might want to look up the definition and laws concerning libel, because nothing I said qualifies as such--your hurt feelings at mean words and inability to understand what's being discussed notwithstanding.
Archronis 1 month ago
@Archronis Keep trying, you don't know the law. I was just giving you a friendly warning so that you don't end up being sued. Feel free to fill someone elses pockets. Anyway, I personally think it is scummy and cowardly the way you make false accusations, especially because I know you wouldn't say to a persons face. So keep your self professed "mean words" to yourself, because unlike all of the angry atheists and wannabe intellectuals, I know that I know and I know and I know you don't.
tubebooboob 1 month ago
@tubebooboob Keep backpedaling, 'cause that's worked out so well for you thus far, huh? Libel is defined as a false, written accusation of criminal behavior. I've made no such accusations and EVEN IF I HAD, Chopra, as a public figure, can't sue me. All I've done is make observations about Chopra's demeanor and character that you don't like. Tough, go cry about it some more.
And, yes, I WOULD say all of it to Chopra's face if I ever met him. He is a charlatan and needs to be called out on it.
Archronis 1 month ago
@Archronis What "backpedaling"? I know what libel is defined as. Do you feel special after you googled it? As I said, you don't know the law, and denial doesn't change facts. Keep telling yourself that you can't be sued. I think just because someone is currently gracious enough not to sue a person like you, one should have the civility to retract any false and defamatory comments.
Saying you would insult a guy to his face especially for your false reasons is shameful. SHAME ON YOU!
tubebooboob 1 month ago
@tubebooboob At this point, you're just demonstrating how butt-hurt (and ignorant) you are. If you don't believe me, try suing me for calling you that. I happen to know what libel is because I have some measure of education, which it is becoming painfully obvious you do not. You have respect for this useless snake oil salesman and that's fine (idiots need heroes too, I guess). I have a different opinion of him and because I think he does people harm I would tell him so. How is that shameful?
Archronis 1 month ago
@Archronis That's retarded and you're the one who is backpedaling. You can come up with all the snide bs that you want, but I know what I am talking about and I can tell that you're ungentlemanly. Therefore, I would rather you stop with your snakey smear campaign comments completely. Lastly, you wouldn't say all of that to Mr. Chopra, and even if you did, that would make you an obnoxious uncivilized lowlife of a person. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't understand that.
tubebooboob 1 month ago
@tubebooboob LOL! For me to explicate everything that is hilariously wrong with that post would take more than my allotted 500 characters. Nevertheless, it does you little good to know what you're talking about when you don't know what anyone else is talking about. As for me being an "ungentlemanly" "lowlife" and my "sneaky smear campaign comments," you're just going to have to live that. Since all you're doing now is throwing out insults, I assume you have nothing more substantive to say?
Archronis 1 month ago
@Archronis You're comments you give are the equivalent of taking a steaming pile of dog crap and wrapping it up in some nice shiny wrapping paper. You wrap your crap comments in snide bs, but the amount of substance they contain is zero, much like your personality. Stop wasting our time with your verbal defecation.
tubebooboob 2 weeks ago
@tubebooboob I hope you're proud of that contentless litany of insults, considering it took you two weeks to compose it. I'd assumed you had finally acknowledged your errors, but apparently you were just parsing derisive YouTube comments with the purpose of plagiarizing the most banal and insipid among them. If you feel your time is being wasted, you have nobody to blame but yourself, especially since you've deliberately renewed this exchange.
Archronis 2 weeks ago
Harris won the debate.
After untangling their arguments, I think that Sam was trying to get Chopra to admit that there is no evidence to suggest that mind is separate from the brain and that there is no evidence to suggest that the physical universe is the product of subjective conscious experience.
Chopra didn't provide justification for his unproven claims and instead relied on emotional support from the audience by claiming Harris was being dismissive of the beauty of creative thinking.
someonetoogoodforyou 1 month ago 2
@someonetoogoodforyou There is a difference between what you wish were true and what is actually true.
tubebooboob 1 month ago
"Religious science" is always stupid. Christians believed rings around saturn was jesus foreskin (its true google it)
Also google "flat earth map", christian idiots were still trying to prove earth was flat in the beginning of the 1900´s. WHy would they do such a stupid thing u ask? Cause its in the bible... How can u believe a book that says the earth is flat`? Wish all the christian morons would sail over the edge of the world and just f*cking disappear.
The1VoiceOfReason 2 months ago 2
deepak chopra, stop licking frogs. if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough
WeGameAlotSir 2 months ago
I have heard him called Deepockets Chopra. I like that one.
surfricy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unfortunately, as highlighted by Dan Harris' bit at the end, the majority of Christians/religious watching this will not follow the arguments well enough to see Sam has Deepak checkmated, and instead will perceive their arguments as being on level ground. Deepak basically can't lose as long as he keeps saying words.
high4concept 2 months ago
Comment removed
high4concept 2 months ago
A: We all part of the universe.
B: Universe got infinite possibilities
Conclusion: We all got infinite possibilities.
Its totally valid and logical conclusion based on deductive logic, but no relation to reality.
Damn, i can roll this way. I will publish a bestseller "Infinite possibility of your credit rating". Ma, look i am rich and gave lectures to masses of buffoons.
Mishkafofer 2 months ago
Deepak present phenomenology, but he doesn't explain it well. And Deepak think, like Husserl, that the conscience create the objet that he see. I suggest everyone interested a knowing what phenomenology his to read Husserl or books on the subjet. But , i would say that i disagree with Deepak when he say what he say. What phenomenology show is something different that science and it goes very well together. I suggest you the read the "Crisis" of Husserl. I dont have enough space to speak about it
HansBohr 2 months ago
Metaphysics is in many ways even more objective than science since anything about metaphysics (not involving science) is by definition logically consistent. When people are using the word "metaphysics" to describe something subjective, then they are using the word "hot" to describe a blizzard. Deepak Chopra needs more people in his life that care about him enough to challenge him on his pretensions.
blapgatify 2 months ago
@blapgatify claiming that something is logical is not meaning its true.
A: There is a dragon called Danny.
B. All dragons are green.
Conclusion: Danny is a green dragon.
Although the conclusion is logical, its not description of reality. Deepak can present a framework of mysticism that will have a logical inner workings but totally unrelated to real world. We enjoy fictional stories and their logic but that's a fiction after all.
Mishkafofer 2 months ago
@Mishkafofer It's certainly true that something can be internally consistent and yet not be supported by the evidence. I would never argue against that. The point I was trying to make is that it's incorrect for people to describe their subjectivist delusions as "metaphysics" since metaphysics must necessarily describe logically consistent proposition. So Deepak (who does not believe in objectivity in any real sense) cannot use the word "metaphysics" to describe his mysticism.
blapgatify 2 months ago
@blapgatify Not mysticism, phenomenology (The late Husserl interpretation of intentionnalité et consciousness to be more exactly). But their is other interpretation and i suggest reading Sartre, Derrida or Merleau-Ponty to understand Deepak proposition and how to correctly counter his argument and understand phenomenology that is compatible with science.
HansBohr 2 months ago
@HansBohr I could be wrong but, phenomenology (according to an article I just read) claims that it's specific to subjective experiences. Deepak is making claims about how the universe operates (not just the mind). This requires necessarily an appeal to an objective standard of reason and evidence which is why phenomenology (which is subjective) cannot justify his conclusions.
Does that make sense?
blapgatify 2 months ago
@blapgatify No, because (simply put) consciouness is what see the world for the first time (if i can say like it like that) You see the world, (you also look the brain) subjectivly. Even Scientist must see the world with their "eyes" of their consciousness (subjective) to see the world around them. THe mind would be the thing that put objectivity. It's just a starting point, i don't have time (and space) to all explain phenomenology and show you how to refute correctly Deepak. You must read more
HansBohr 2 months ago
@HansBohr Well, maybe I will have to read more, but it's incorrect to say that the mind makes things objective, because an appeal to objectivity is by definition an appeal to standards irrespective of people's subjective experiences.
If I ever saw a floating elephant ghost I would be asking you if you see it because we all accept (necessarily by responding) that there is an appeal to reality and the truth of it irrespective of my subjective experience.
How do we avoid this?
blapgatify 2 months ago
@blapgatify I agree, but i present a simpler solution to Deepak mambo jambo. He can use deductive logic until we all get nauseous and rightly claim its logical because conclusion is derived from the proposition but he will import the biggest problem of deductive logic: you can have a valid conclusion that is totally unrelated to reality. Call it metaphysics or mysticism, its plain and basic deductive logic that goes nowhere.
Mishkafofer 2 months ago
@Mishkafofer But if you present this argument to Deepak (or his supporters) they will correctly point out that it doesn't actually invalidate any of his arguments. All it does is show that they could be wrong in some vague way. I don't think this approach is simple or productive.
All that you need to do is demonstrate that Deepak's arguments refute themselves (and they do). This shows that both Deepak's methodology AND conclusions are unjustified.
That's my amateur opinion anyway.
blapgatify 2 months ago
@blapgatify Whats your proposed way to refute Deepak?
Mishkafofer 2 months ago
@Mishkafofer *clears throat* "Deepak, you say that it is the mind that creates reality as it actually exists, but you are appealing to a standard of truth (believe my arguments because they are true) that must necessarily describe something beyond or irrespective to our subjective experiences, or else why should anyone listen to you? Do you see the contradiction?"
That is what I would say. What do you think?
blapgatify 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let’s put an end to all religion.
Cut and paste URL into browser address bar:
endallreligions.blogspot.com
paularenas26 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You could repent. Moreover, you could ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
paularenas26 2 months ago
2:05 TOTAL PWNAGE
outlaw87100 2 months ago
owned
aguteempasil 2 months ago
Good god, the man just will not let people explain themselves. He has to interrupt everything Sam Harris says.
GmanNetworks 2 months ago
@GmanNetworks It's an instrument in the tool bag of every huckster. Chopra knows he's a fraud, but he wants to sell his bullshit books
lumpheadthump 2 months ago
Deepak Chopra is such an elementary school philosopher.
PapaMagnum 2 months ago
Deepak is just spouting his Transcendance and Consciousness drivel again and again with very little argumentative ammunition. He's like a parrot that's misinterpreting Wikipedia articles.
MuonRay 2 months ago
It's astonishing that Deepak will still debate far more honest and intelligent people than himself. He nearly always gets humiliated, proven wrong and exposed for the huckster he is. Yet somehow he always makes the bestseller list, garners more admiring followers of his pseudo-intellectual bullshit, and gets richer every moment. Apparently there is no such thing as negative publicity.
bddc201 2 months ago
@bddc201 It's because most people cannot follow his arguments and when you bullshit words into a circle it can be a very hypnotic "experience." Well at least that's why Oprah loves Deepak anyway! LOL!
godfreewoman 2 months ago
sam i think chris handed you the tourch keep up the good work
roy3951 2 months ago
Deepak is a shit volcano...incessently erupting, and spewing molten b.s.
Put a cork in it, Deepak. Let smarter men speak.
Gr8Layks 2 months ago
no here has an open mind....there is no real difference between you and a religious drone
satiDSproject 2 months ago
@satiDSproject If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out. I am in no way closed minded. If you can't make me believe something, then it's because you haven't given me a good enough reason to do so.
Darkeons 2 months ago
'Metaphysic statements come from 'subjective experiences.'
That subjective experience doesn't tell you anything concrete about absolute truth or the existence of a consciousness outside of the brain. Because it is subjective, just like a hallucination, your mind makes it real to you & you alone. It is not transcendent due to it's subjective nature. There is no reason to believe that consciousness exists outside of the brain. Consciousness is just a word we use to describe subjective awareness.
allfitch84 2 months ago
Deepak was handed his ass ,who would have thunk it?
FrankaDith 2 months ago
@FrankaDith It just goes to show how important hygiene ends up being in your life! LOL! :-)
godfreewoman 2 months ago
Metaphysics may reference reality, but the conclusion is always intangible and thus, not subject to what it claims to purport is evidence. The argument is circular and therefore unverifiable. Science can not verify that consciousness creates objects, and this frustrates people who want to believe our tangible universe has an intangible birth so they claim it has a creator or that every person subjectively creates their own universe. In fact experience is subjective; the material universe is not.
MetalNick 2 months ago
and again, rule nr one: if you don't know or if you're not shure you know what you are talking about: just shut up and learn!
there will be less problems and people could actually like you!
why do 21 people dislike this? what is to dislike about this?
undee01 2 months ago
@undee01 That fat woman interrupting Dr. Harris at 01:56
Valholm 2 months ago
Harris is no friend to my faith, but Chopra is even worse. Harris and the horsemen mount direct assaults on Christianity, but Chopra distorts and seduces. It's good to see Harris using his powers for good.
JWHurwitz 2 months ago
@JWHurwitz Fuck your faith. My brother is a Christian and he is the worst fucking prick in our family.
Valholm 2 months ago
@Valholm
lol, awesome
papermermaid 2 months ago
Oh! Deepak! Deepak! Please know when to shut up in the presence of real experts. Sometimes you should just give up when you know your stupidity is being exposed. Talking more causes more of your stupidity to come out.
fanirama 2 months ago
I understood everything Chopra said. If you didn't, you probably shouldn't dismiss him.
weddingvideosyt 2 months ago
@weddingvideosyt That's absurd.
Stringprodigy 2 months ago
Sam Harris hischalap Deepak Chopra..
templario9001 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
atheist debate will not change the fact that men who controls galaxies are men who have a belief and they believe in Force
Sidious and Vader!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:p
:p
:p
and atheist like Han Solo can only watch his gun taken by the power of the force and turned to stone.......
dfdtdfdx 2 months ago
Like this if you think everyone is obsessed with these out-of-context "battles" and just loves to indulge his or her egocentric personality by rooting for the "right" person.
avion106 2 months ago
Comment removed
avion106 2 months ago
deepak is such a douche bag
jdc4 2 months ago
Can you imagine Deepak Chopra ever being in a lab with serious scientists trying to discover anything? And the fact that people clap for his nonsense makes me ever more proud to not believe in reincarnation or other such nonsense. One time around with this level of nonsense is plenty. I don't think and would not want to do it again.
godfreewoman 2 months ago
@godfreewoman I totally agree with you. Have you noticed how much we suck, as species? We just fucking suck, dude. I mean, I'm a positive guy and I want to be happy and shit, I hope for the best for the humanity, I cheer people around me up all the time; but fucking hell... when I just sit down by myself and think about people... we just fucking suck, dude, we fucking suck at this. We are good at fucking and killing each other, but at being reasonable, as species, we are not even close.
Valholm 2 months ago
@Valholm Yes, I have noticed. And I'm not happy about it because I am part of it and I don't want to be part of the problem. Or maybe I just want better for the world and I don't want people like Chopra fucking with that progress. Regardless, I am a one-way ticket and grateful for it! 24 years and counting! Then I am out of this bitch! :-)
godfreewoman 2 months ago
@Valholm - I understand bouts of despondence, but be wary of caving in to misanthropy. When you operate from the position that humanity is fundamentally bad, you end up an unwitting contributor to self-fulfilling prophecy. Besides, there's enough evidence for hope; our species has come a long way in a short time. Think about the sheer genius that led to the computer you're using, for example. Think about astronomy, art and selfless acts... ( cont.)
MissAPierce 2 months ago
@Valholm (cont) - Think about the fact that love is one of our favorite things. Remember our achievements and revolutions in thought, such as gender equality and the abolition of slavery. We've got a lot going for us, but if we let our flaws get us down and self-destruct, then we're never going to to find out how good we might've been.
MissAPierce 2 months ago
@MissAPierce ok
Valholm 2 months ago
@godfreewoman sorry, you are not a "dude", my bad
Valholm 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
Chopra is a charlatan.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago 3
He was got to feel bad after owning him like that...
KrazyKKid 2 months ago
As a philosophy student I'd like to point out that not only did these idiots hijack the word 'quantum', as if often pointed out, but also 'metaphysics'. Metaphysics has nothing to do with this Deepak Chopra nonsense; it refers to the a priori examination of the physical world. It is just applied logic like everything in philosophy. Nothing religious or spiritual about it.
TheIllestVillain 2 months ago
Frustrating to watch. Chopra doesn't seem fully capable of reasonable debate.
AlexNiedt 2 months ago 16
Ya for neurosurgeons!
Vise555 2 months ago 2
Its obvious that Sam Harris is struggling to find the right words to explain to Deepak Chopra that his reasoning is completely flawed. You have got to give Harris credit for having the patience to converse with such stubborn people.
shkafster 2 months ago 2
Deepak is one of those people that would argue whether the rock in front of you is really there.
Vulcangrip87 2 months ago 26
@Vulcangrip87 Deepak makes creationists look intelligent and thats very hard to do.
movcrit 2 months ago 27
@Vulcangrip87 almost, he's the type of person who argues that a rock is in front of you when there's nothing there.
thepigofhappiness 2 months ago
@Vulcangrip87
Actually I think so would Sam Harris. Its perfectly reasonable to argue wether the rock infront of you is really there.
damres 2 months ago
@damres I pick that rock up and throw it at your nose, I don't think there will be any arguing about that rocks existence. and yes it was that easy to destroy your argument.
karnzkeltic 2 months ago
@karnzkeltic
So any hallucination that causes a sensory reaction must therefore be real? Try to argue your way around that one.
damres 2 months ago
@damres your question is just a useless word game.
karnzkeltic 2 months ago
@karnzkeltic
i dont see that it is. explain.
damres 2 months ago
@damres
continued...
I was want to reiterate my point to put it in the clearest terms possible. You state that since I can respond to an object, in this case being hit with a rock, that it can be accepted as "really there". My point is that just because one can seeminly interact with an object it in noway concludes that that object exists externally of ones mind. This is very simple stuff, most children will realise this for themselves by considering the apparent reality of dreams.
damres 2 months ago
"metaphysics" is just that, i.e. beyond the physical, which is 'nothing', 'space', . . . 'emtpiness'. In other words, bullshit. Deepak just makes up stuff as he goes along. He creates words that sound like they have a real substance, but turn out upon closer examination to be 'metaphysical'. Hahahahahahahahaha. Keep him away from young boys and girls.
rosemaya48 2 months ago 3
I picked Deepak as a fake years ago when I first listened to him. He just plays with words without ever saying anything concrete and measurable. Deepak has made a fortune talking total gibberish, or simply put CRAP! Notice how he can never be pinned down to stick to talking about one idea in detail. The ground keeps shifting. "I believe in a core consciousness that is recycled and has core relationships, core thoughts, core blah blah blah" What is that? The dude is a dud.
rosemaya48 2 months ago 3
Why do these retards keep interrupting Harris? They should listen and perhaps learn a few things.
I always find it very hard to understand why religious people believe that consciousness could not arise from our material brain. The mere fact that we can use chemicals to influence our consciousness indicates that it does. What's wrong with those people?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
You misunderstand why they are there. They are not there to learn anything. They are there to cheer for people who will try to justify their intellectual laziness and stupidity. They don't even have to understand what those people say, and for the most part they don't.
Pizuzuzimmer 2 months ago
I want Sam Harris to call me a dirty little Christian while he makes sweet love to me.
DreamWeaver1988 2 months ago
It is interesting that when the Harris-Ditchens ilk of Anti-theist/Atheists debate the demerits of religion, they rarely address anything other than Christian concepts of God. This short clip is interesting as a standoff. I have great sympathies with Chopra's position
SaulBlue 2 months ago
@SaulBlue
"they rarely address anything other than Christian concepts of God."
Nonsense. They address ALL concepts of god-belief and metaphysics.
"I have great sympathies with Chopra's position"
I don't. I find his position extremely loathsome. He simply thinks that everyone should go along with his unfounded assertions, because it makes people feel good. Alas, that is not the proper way to go about finding out how reality works.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago 5
One only need listen to a few sentences from Deepak to know he is the worst kind of con man. He babbles like a politician to avoid reasonable criticism.
ArcanePath360 2 months ago 2
2:36 Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.
spook79 2 months ago
@Frab2001 Because other people's beliefs affect me in many ways, mostly negative.
superduperjew 2 months ago
@Frab2001 I know right? It's not like what someone else believes has ever affected anyone else.
Fangtorn 2 months ago
can't listen to Deepak Chopra for more than a few seconds.
SheStillRuns 2 months ago
Why do people clap for Deepak. Nothing he says makes any sense. But then, people are stupid and easily impressed by big words. He's a charlatan in the age of information.
supowit 2 months ago 59
@supowit because he has a point about metaphysical, subjective experience. I think the problem here, is that Chopra and Sam Harris are talking in different languages and in different domains.
If you don't understand the big words (on either side) look them up! Ignorance shouldn't be a barrier to understanding.
celebritymurderparty 2 months ago
@celebritymurderparty
the word "metaphysical" is just a euphemism for "made-up shit."
supowit 2 months ago
@supowit haha - that's one way of defining it. The world of the mind is the other - so if you define imagination, emotion and subjective experience as "made up shit" then yes, quite.
celebritymurderparty 2 months ago
@supowit
He is on a stage, and the foolishness he is saying supports the foolishness they believe. They don't have to understand it to like it. Indeed, what he says doesn't even have to be coherent or intelligent, and that's a good thing for them, because it is neither coherent nor intelligent. He might as well be someone barking before an audience of hounds, who will obviously bark their canine approval.
Pizuzuzimmer 2 months ago
Deepak knows he is wrong. Look at how he reacts
frostedpornflakes 2 months ago
@hempartist420 Exactly.
BigCarso 2 months ago
@hempartist420 It could actually change a lot. Without free will, you cannot have responsibility. You cannot hold someone accountable for that which they cannot control. Which means neither no reward nor punishment for anything. Given the staggering amount of sources of stimuli that we are exposed to in the modern world, it would be hard to pinpoint cause and effect for every thought and action, but not impossible, as it is the basis for all action.
lord666christoph 2 months ago
@lord666christoph That depends on how you define "free will". If you mean the ability to do whatever you please, even if it contradicts reality, then no, you can't do that. If you mean the ability to make a choice, say you're out for ice cream and you have 31 flavors to choose from, then it is free within a limited range of possibility. However, that wasn't an option 3,000 years ago. Absent 31 flavors that choice disappears.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
i love watching a video where smart people discuss insteresting things. im not sure why i then scroll down and read what a bunch of no so smart people have to say on the matter, its almost always an argument about total drivle
patchyoyo 2 months ago 5
Bloody hell, Chopra spouts some seriously batshit waffle. Why do people listen to idiots like this?
"We don't have bodies, we ARE bodies"
- Christopher Hitchens
JoeLaTurkeyIII 3 months ago 2
@hempartist420 I watched the videos, thanks. Very interesting. All the same, if your brain is generating these thoughts, I don't see how you can say that it is not you authoring them. To say that you have to be separating the "conscious agent" part of yourself from your brain. Don't see why it makes sense to do that. I agree that free will isn't an absolutely clear concept.
BigCarso 3 months ago
@hempartist420 But how can it be that we aren't the author of our own actions, when it is our brain which is authoring them? I'm just flummoxed why people find this idea of "no free will" on a molecular level disconcerting.
BigCarso 3 months ago
Why people choose religious / spiritual philosophy to answer Physics questions ?
SushantBhargav 3 months ago
@SushantBhargav I know one is asking how and the other is asking why
KaylinJH 3 months ago
@KaylinJH And why is a stupid question to ask.
BigCarso 3 months ago
@BigCarso I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Isaac newton asked why the apple fell from the tree. he couldn't answer the how it fell but he worked out why it fell
KaylinJH 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KaylinJH
"I know one is asking how and the other is asking why"
rocking statement , my sentiments exactly.
chimemonster 2 months ago
"Da subjective metaphysical synapsis is bery interesting wecause you need to give me money for my antidisestablishmentarianism." - famous deepak chopra quote
maciverandy 3 months ago
The mind is the subjectivity of the energy of the consciousness of the soul of the art of the spirit of the nature of the brain of the feeling of love of the universe of karma of poetry of music
llamzrt 3 months ago
Chopra is so arrogant it hurts.
TomasMikaX 3 months ago
There are some things which are valid which can't be tested by science. When discussing in that area, we need to be very careful with our terminology. And we need to make distinctions between beliefs and facts. Some things can only be experienced but even here, what you say about that experience may have no validity, but is simply your subjective interpretation of the experience.
BKKaye 3 months ago
@BKKaye Well, I know someone who experienced discrimination at work and yes it would've had no validity but, the courts interpretation of that law was totally objective and that person won a judgement. No science needed here to test it.
spareaxe 3 months ago
Deepak makes one good point. It's the old chicken and the egg dilemma. The feeling produces the neurotransmitter and the neurotransmitter produces the feeling.
This shouldn't be a theist vs atheist issue (which is an f'in dumb thing to argue in the first place), it's a question of origin. Where does our consciousness, even our freewill come from? If it's all reactions, as the current neurology would indicate, then there is no actual freewill, just a machine acting out its parameters.
songyongdao 3 months ago
@songyongdao There's no point. The neurotransmiter produces the feeling. We have no free will in on a neurological level. However on a "which side of the bed should I get out of" level we do. Simple.
BigCarso 3 months ago