Notice both Depak and whoever this woman is continually refer to "famous clever sayings" of other famous people to uphold their beliefs and faiths without proofs. This is similar to how politics works, revering past cleverness in words and metaphor to support current dogmas, whever they now pertain and apply or not.
Artificial intelligence can be programmed to "feel" as well as "process" emotion. To see how defensive Depak has been in these debates and how he is failing in his lack of current facts and knowledge is an expose' to even the so called "highest" religious attainments. What is with the defensiveness??????
Interesting, as crazy as Deepak is, that he's correct at 1:09 onward, when he's talking about the impossibility of natural matter to process concepts like meaning and purpose. The funny part is the Sam Harris, the scientific bullshitter, says in reply - with no evidence - "that's simply not true". Wow, Sam ... how persuasive. That statement in no way can be backed up by his next statement that "we don't understand" . The reality is that "meaning and purpose" are spiritual concepts.
Deepak basically uses a spiritual type of philosophy to figure out how nature works. Philosophy, imagination, etc., tell us nothing about how the real world works. Only testing the real world tells us how it truly works..Hence, science. These people just don't get it. Especially William Lane Craig. They think philosophy extracts knowledge about how nature functions. They're fundamentally clueless slick talkers.
We have to see the big differences between salvation accomplished by Jesus And application Of this salvation. Jesus saved all people but only those will be saved who live according to the moral Law. You do not to have to be Christian And you may be saved if you live according to your counscience.
If you had a privlidge to be Christian, you will be judged by Christian standards. If not-then by natural Law. All good people will be saved. All evil will be damned, even Christians.
The belief alone provides one's basis of perception. I would say that is true certainly of religion, but also, in many cases, in science too. Just look at all the theories archaeologically speaking that have been later proven to be false because the bias of the theorist blinded them. This is true in other areas of science too. One assumes that our knowledge of ancient history is quite solid, but in many cases, once you look closer you find many holes in the theories presented to us as fact.
@DTK5689 True, but at least science tries, and continually improves and gets closer to the truth. We may never get there, in fact I'm sure we won't ever know everything, but progress continues. Religion, on the other hand, arrogantly assumes to already know, even though some stories and explanations presented then as true are being shown to be false, eg The flood. Religion cannot change, as it is based on scripture, but it does change as society changes, Gay priests, women priests, to survive.
@sids500 Are you saying that there is no arrogance and assumptions made in the scientific community? How many theories are quashed due to the established status quo and their protectors. All it takes is for prominent scientists or group of them to discount another's theory whether there is proof or not to the contrary. We put these scientists on a pedestal much like the religious do their dieties. We think of "peer reviewed" publications as being tools to find the truth, but are they?
@DTK5689 I would not profess there is no arrogance in the scientific community, but that the intentions are wholesome, but politics and money can sometimes overwhelm that. It's totally different from religion, however, which is arrogant throughout. It claims to "know" things it cannot, and preaches intolerance of any other views, to the point of conflict with non-believers or other "faiths". They cannot "know" as there simply is no evidence. It is therefore arrogant to assume they are right.
@sids500 Yes, there are those in the scientific community with wholesome intentions as there are those in the religious realm who have wholesome intentions. The same can be said for those who are malevolent. Archaeology is one example of a science that most definitely claims to 'know" things it cannot. Many of these theories are accepted throughout their own communities without question. Those who question the status quo are labeled "heretics". Egyptology is a blaring example of this.
@DTK5689 I agree, except you missed my other point. All people in all walks of life can have good intentions and be misled, biased or influenced by money or power, I accept that. It affects some scientists and some religious people. However, the difference is scientists have no other influences, whereas religion by its very nature, needs to manipulate followers into accepting things as true with zero evidence. That's why it's "faith". All religions suffer bias, but only some scientists do.
@sids500 I think you underestimate the level of bias any person takes with them in any belief system (sciences included). As for zero proof, just look at how it is common knowledge that the Pyramids of Giza and most pyramids throughout Egypt and the world are accepted as tombs for pharaohs/rulers when there is little or no proof supporting this theory. Those archaeologists not blindly accepting this on faith are ridiculed.
@DTK5689 The clue is in your answer. There is a little proof that the dead were buried in the pyramids. That "little" is more than there is for any of the bible. Science and discoveries are not neccessarily correct first time, in fact many are wrong, but science is open to this and can eviolve on new evidence. Religion, however, is static, accepting these stories as true with no evidence, and that situation is not changing. It seems clear to me they were written by men, to control others.
@sids500 Actually, I was being liberal with my assessment of the theory that the pyramids were tombs. The only information supporting this is some bone fragments found in one pyramid. There has never been a mummy found in a pyramid. There are no hieroglyphs or monuments within pyramids which is odd since tombs where mummies are found are loaded with information. The mainstream believes this to be gospel without supporting evidence while denying all evidence to the contrary. That's religion.
People are being way too hard on Chopra here. He is representing mysticism, based on Vedanta and the perennial philosophy. That is the third kind of knowing that he is speaking of: gnosis, moksha, enlightenment, theosis, etc. You simply can't "know" somethings with discursive thinking alone. That is why the materialists often seem to come out on top of these rational debates. If you want to have this kind of gnosis, you have to commit to a rigorous spiritual practice or set of practices.
But more to the point, if introspection was a path to knowledge then it would be philosophers that were building airplanes and psychoanalysists who were unraveling the workings of the mind, not scientists.
They were the genuine humane souls who invented The Concept God , probably when they observed intelligent man step up to cleverness , inherent conceit enabling oneself ( intelligent ) amass whatever ; so them humane souls made an attempt to check it and they introduced Concept God !
However they may have realized that there is a Supreme Force in Nature that acts continuously consistently so to result Peace at end of every mishap no matter what way!
The ladys' observation of child at large is very true so is her opine one may not call cautiousness as God but it is expansion of human spirit ! Touch every culture and known education you may observe truth within !
contd...2 ...say if Heart is replaced ( may be some day you will see cases of brain replaced ) yet the soul remains intact and same soul shall use a new Heart or Brain within same humans' body .....the qualities ....Intuitive kind and those thought of as a Cautiousness remain intact even while Heart and Brain is not same as before !
All of Body_Mind_Heart call them a bunch of molecules any , Mind ...Heart etc in various proportions are subject to use by Soul ( some of participants referring to same as a Cautiousness ) under discussion here and they are subject to use of Soul as are most vital parts of a Motor vehicle put together ...and as similar as one vital part of a motor vehicle say Engine or gear box becomes obsolete yet is replaceable and the vehicle is again usable ...so is the human body ..contd..1
Although Deepak and Jean are great in their respective fields,they are a bit out of their element here.They lack some of the necessary philosophical skills needed in a debate of this magnitude.If Ken Wilber and Alan Watts were in their place,Harris and Shermer would be having their empirical asses royally kicked
@Donal277 This exchange would have been more direct (and easy to understand) if she just said something simple and clear such as "there are experiences/aspects of mind that cannot be measured or detected by physical instruments, but I still are real, or an aspect of reality." Or even "subjectivity is just not misperception about the physical world, but part of reality itself." Then Shermer/Harris could state their disagreements (ala philosophy of mind). She wasn't really debating, just sharing.
@dino59mob I understand EXACTLY what Mr.Harris is saying.I'm not the village idiot. What I suggest you do,is read up and do as much research as you can on this subject,that includes ALL point of views, from scientists,philosophers,etc..perhaps take a course on inductive and deductive reasoning,weigh the evidence,get familiar with the evidence that is out there regarding this phenomena,circumstial,substantial and experimental..In other words,get a second opinion after seeing your doctor.
The point is that sometimes metaphors are the only suitable alternative to explaining phenomena that cannot be empirically demonstrated,as is the case for soul,consciousness,thought etc..In order to arrive at a more complete an un-bias view of understanding,it is important [in my opinion],to employ all means and modes of reasoning.That means proper integration of scientific,psychological,philosophic,artistic,etc..To do otherwise,is not only intellectual suicide,it is the height of stupidity
By the way- that crazy old stupid woman is Jean Houston.She happens to hold a phd in both psychology and religion,has done extensive work in the area of mind/brain creativity,has approached consciousness from biological,psychological,artistic and spiritual angles[while most of you were still in your cribs],has written and co-written close to 100 books on the subject,is almost 70 years old,and has more life experience on this subject than most of you un-informed jack asses combined.
Here are a couple of questions for all you geniuses out there.Does thought occupy space?Can something be said to exist,yet not occupy space?How can we be absolutely sure of its nature and origin if there are no empirical means of ascertaining or verifying its existence?Yet we KNOW it exists.But why can't we find it and measure it empirically? Yet our own subjective mind and awareness know otherwise,right?Wait a minute; Mind? Awareness? Subjective? Not very scientific terms,eh? See the dilemma?
@millerbiz The woman indeed gets so wrapped around her tangential comments, in an effort to evade with metaphor the direct questions about her assertions, that she rarely recovers. The great irony that both her and Chopra resist the notion that belief is neurologically based is palpable. Her own mind gets in the way of even coherently describing her beliefs.
this deepak guy is a retard, i dont think humans are the only creatures on this planet that have a sense of purpose or feeling and yet heaven is supposedly meant only for us. not for gay people either, do gay people not feel? do they not love? deepak you are so stupid. yes a molecule may not be able to feel but we are made up of so many molecules that enable us to do so. we are so complex. SAM HARRIS IS AWESOME!
@CaneFu Chopra is after money. Do you realize how many books this man has written? He is a hustler. He couldn't care less about humanity. He's just like your garden variety preacher. Full of humbug.
@lookatmepleasesir I like Micheal Shermer also.I would certainly challenge his premise,and I don't subscribe to his conclusions.However, he seems like a pretty cool as easy going guy,with a certain degree of open-mindedness.Certainly not a dickhead.
@ai1888 Contextual lingo,or language,is a pedagogical term usually used in referencing the parameters of usage of conventional language.Our descriptions of reality, no matter how elaborate and precise,usually leave out an important fraction when attempting to convey data to another party.The relativity of that experience.Analogy,metaphor,and symbolism is a potential means of arriving at that missing fraction,by either inducing creative thought or else through a deduced rationalism.
@ai1888 Great intellectual response! Sounds like I struck a chord within you.You've just solidified my point about the dickheads who are out there.Bravo! Congratulations!
No dis-respect,but you are still a kid and you should not be on a forum like this if you have nothing intelligent and/or productive to say.
I wish all you critical dickheads would stop picking on the lady. If any of you would bother researching her,you would find that she holds a ph.d in both psychology and religion,has done extensive work over the years regarding the integration of mythological and psychological archetypes,and their relation to brain chemistry and human creativity.She is over 70 years old,older than most of you idiots,and if you don't understand her contextual lingo,i suggest you begin learning how to learn
Although i think that Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston presented a reasonably strong philoshopical defence to their position,I feel that the wrong people are up there.If Ken Wilber and the late Alan Watts were in their place,harris and shermer would be having their intellectual asses kicked in the most hilarious way.
Deepak is a complete fool -- it's no surprise he sells millions of books. He uses the word "quantum" like it's a magical spell. I'm sure Roger Penrose and John Searle are embarrassed to be cited by this New Age looney. I sure wish Deepak would go back to school and get a basic physics education from a real university....He's SO embarrassing to even listen to...
I think that what Deepak's side is trying to say is that the universe goes incredibly deeper than what you can see, and what you can scientifically prove, and that we are all connected to this deepness, and that we all have the potential within us to feel it, and to express it creatively through art, poetry, music, etc, etc, and that Harris' side is basically saying "Well, prove it." Both sides should be embraced I guess. Hahahaha.
Good Lord, listening to that woman all I could think was that I have never heard a person take so many syllables to say absolutely freaking nothing.
I don't agree with Chopra but at least he can advance an argument of some kind -- but every time that woman opened her mouth you could just about hear all three of the others thinking - "Oh, just shut up -- please, just shut up and go away."
"not to pretend to know things you don't know" I love how harris is critical of new age people, religious extremists, and hyper-dogmatic atheists, who seem to have forgotten that our understanding of the universe is emergent. it's not that there is no god, it's just that there is no logical reason to believe in one. If you choose to illogically believe in god, that that's all well and good, but keep your hands off my weed. I hear it lights the same neurons.
Aethiest argue against an anthropomorphic concept of god which in its self is incorrect or at the least incomplete. Its like saying times square is the center of the world and then some one wants to argue against this statement not understanding it's symbolic and its foolish to argue against symbolism when the symbols are not understood.
wtf is that woman talking about?!! its like playing chess with a monkey and the monkey thinks its winning by swallowing the queen and shoving the king up his ass. why is she on this show?!
The education system dumbs down your thesis of "grace and transcendence" by not engaging children in the discussion of evidence VS bullshit. You're immune to the criticism you deserve when you invoke "god" or invisible superheros as something that shares the same attributes as leprechauns. One is worthy of discussion, the other,... total fiction.
Wow, can I say I'm amazed at how religion perpetually steps in at the forefront of certain scientifically fascinating points of inquiry and says 'stop, we don't get it, it's God'. They did it with just about everything, and now Deepak Chopra is doing it quite clearly with neurological aspects of cognition. t's a very retarded way to do science is it not?! The more I see him talk, the more I like Sam Harris.
treat science like a religion. Seriously, you are just like fundamentalist extremists. I'm sure that thousands of years of Eastern theology and philosophy about transcendent consciousness is just psychobabble, you ignorant fucks.
You're all close-minded as fuck. you interpret chopra's statements as silly and incoherent because he speaks in figurative and poetic language to express his concepts instead of the rationalist, scientific language like Sam Harris and his secular-humanist-atheist buddies Richard Dawkins and company. Maybe one day you'll realize that you have blind faith for an ontology of empiricism and evidentialism that is at is base just as unprovable as religion or new age mysticism. Hilariously, you all
Give me a break!! You can invoke all kinds of metaphor for an idea, but when does evidence and human discovery overturn your conclusion? Maybe it's your feelings/egotism getting in the way of empirical observation and measurement. You just want a license to obscure the facts to get your views credibility. Not on my watch. Chopra does speak in silly language, he is selling the transcendence that people want, but refuses to play by the rules of defined language. It's bogus!
@dwolfcoach Empirical observation and measurements are just that: empirical. They function within the discursive practices of the contemporary scientific community. If you science dickriders were educated in philosophy you would realize that there are TONS of very smart religious people out there who have some VERY good arguments for the existence of god, transcendence, etc. Maybe YOU just want to remain within the confines of scientific materialism because you are more comfortable with cold
@dwolfcoach cold hard facts that are easy to verify. Guess what, not all religious people are dumb. They've come up with responses to your whole "DUDE THEYRZ LIKE NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS SO HES JSUT IMAGINARY". Seriously, go fuck yourself. Atheism is a shocking thought when you're like twelve. Militant atheism is fucking annoying and pretentious as shit. Eat a fat cock. This is coming from an atheist.
@36stylesofdanger Wow, "Go fuck yourself", is level of discourse you want to use to advance culture in the 21st century? You're not an example of the "tons of smart religious people" are you. HAhaha, "eat a fat cock"? In other words you have no substantive reply, just more ad hominem and fear. That IS all you've got?
Philosophy is concerned w/ reason, existence, logic and morality. Leprechauns, unicorns and invisible sky tyrants don't qualify as serious "philosophies".
@dwolfcoach My demeanor would be more civil if I was talking to someone who could open their mind wide enough take their opponents seriously (whether or not they agree with said arguments). I think that treating religious people as delusional idiots is more insulting than me telling you to eat a fat cock. I guess that allows you to render my comments not credible. I don't care, you're an idiot anyways. Go jerk off to Richard Dawkins.
@36stylesofdanger OK, not being a christian, I'll try to set the christian example. As for "credible" comments, you're a typical angry theist. You hold an untenable position, watch your fairy-tale books lose on every scientific point, and you can't find a justifiable reason to burn a bad witch, so you take it out on me. It's not my fault that the fraud under which you have organized your life turns out to be a house of cards. Sorry about hurting your feelings, but I suggest professional help.
@36stylesofdanger Right, you're angry because I'm supposed to be "open" to the veracity of the textual claims of holy books? That's free-minded? You' want tell me about evidence for god or "arguments"? Pointless!!!
1. "the textual claims of holy books"? doesn't that seem a bit redundant? like if I know the claim is in a book wouldn't I assume it was textual?
2. yes, being free minded means that you are willing to accept the possibility of ideas that might seem counter intuitive to you and make an effort to understand the beliefs of other people. minimally, you shouldn't sit on some intellectual high-ground by dismissing theists as delusional or stupid.
1.No, many people try to redefine words to fit their own purposes or agendas. If the veracity of these claims are to be discussed with any degree of logic then the textual claims need to be defined. (Literalism) IE - talking snakes
2. Logic, reason and evidence belongs in the center of the public square, not on the margins. I certainly DON'T dismiss theists, the threats they pose to human well-being are real and they deserve to called out on them.
The possibility of ideas is not my concern. Certainty of ideas, especially ones that are unknowable, are of great concern to me. You can pretend that these theocracies are innocuous, but history is not on your side. Go ahead and give lunacy a free pass, just don't expect me to follow blindly.
i dont think theese scientists knows what a skeptic is, they should read pyrrho the greek philosopher which was the first person credited as a skeptic after i guess buddha and that one then can reach the state of ataraxia as pyhrro called it which is enlightenment !
Deepak owns people like Sam Harris and Hitchens, total slap down.
Deepaks hypothesis about the eyes of the mind and the eyes of the soul are supported by the smartest scientists like Newton and Einstein. WE NEED A SYNTHESIS OF KNOWING
Don't be so sure that computers won't be able to process meaning, emotions, etc
Klash92 1 month ago
Notice both Depak and whoever this woman is continually refer to "famous clever sayings" of other famous people to uphold their beliefs and faiths without proofs. This is similar to how politics works, revering past cleverness in words and metaphor to support current dogmas, whever they now pertain and apply or not.
SuperSwanDive 1 month ago
Shoot, Sam blows them both away.
SuperSwanDive 1 month ago
Artificial intelligence can be programmed to "feel" as well as "process" emotion. To see how defensive Depak has been in these debates and how he is failing in his lack of current facts and knowledge is an expose' to even the so called "highest" religious attainments. What is with the defensiveness??????
SuperSwanDive 1 month ago
Interesting, as crazy as Deepak is, that he's correct at 1:09 onward, when he's talking about the impossibility of natural matter to process concepts like meaning and purpose. The funny part is the Sam Harris, the scientific bullshitter, says in reply - with no evidence - "that's simply not true". Wow, Sam ... how persuasive. That statement in no way can be backed up by his next statement that "we don't understand" . The reality is that "meaning and purpose" are spiritual concepts.
patientthomist 1 month ago
Deepak basically uses a spiritual type of philosophy to figure out how nature works. Philosophy, imagination, etc., tell us nothing about how the real world works. Only testing the real world tells us how it truly works..Hence, science. These people just don't get it. Especially William Lane Craig. They think philosophy extracts knowledge about how nature functions. They're fundamentally clueless slick talkers.
itzahazylife 2 months ago
Hands in the air. They are raising their radars to god. ET phone home.
vanRijn64 3 months ago
We have to see the big differences between salvation accomplished by Jesus And application Of this salvation. Jesus saved all people but only those will be saved who live according to the moral Law. You do not to have to be Christian And you may be saved if you live according to your counscience.
If you had a privlidge to be Christian, you will be judged by Christian standards. If not-then by natural Law. All good people will be saved. All evil will be damned, even Christians.
franciszek8D 4 months ago
Same's face at 3:28 = priceless
Joeofiowa 5 months ago
@Joeofiowa
*Sam's
Joeofiowa 5 months ago
Hello. Who here believes that the full truth of reality is explainable by science? Can you please tell me why?
lajungesombre 6 months ago
if you haven't watched this video yet, just press "mute" when jean starts to speak. you will miss absolutely nothing
sleeplessmind 7 months ago
The belief alone provides one's basis of perception. I would say that is true certainly of religion, but also, in many cases, in science too. Just look at all the theories archaeologically speaking that have been later proven to be false because the bias of the theorist blinded them. This is true in other areas of science too. One assumes that our knowledge of ancient history is quite solid, but in many cases, once you look closer you find many holes in the theories presented to us as fact.
DTK5689 7 months ago
@DTK5689 True, but at least science tries, and continually improves and gets closer to the truth. We may never get there, in fact I'm sure we won't ever know everything, but progress continues. Religion, on the other hand, arrogantly assumes to already know, even though some stories and explanations presented then as true are being shown to be false, eg The flood. Religion cannot change, as it is based on scripture, but it does change as society changes, Gay priests, women priests, to survive.
sids500 6 months ago
@sids500 Are you saying that there is no arrogance and assumptions made in the scientific community? How many theories are quashed due to the established status quo and their protectors. All it takes is for prominent scientists or group of them to discount another's theory whether there is proof or not to the contrary. We put these scientists on a pedestal much like the religious do their dieties. We think of "peer reviewed" publications as being tools to find the truth, but are they?
DTK5689 6 months ago
@DTK5689 I would not profess there is no arrogance in the scientific community, but that the intentions are wholesome, but politics and money can sometimes overwhelm that. It's totally different from religion, however, which is arrogant throughout. It claims to "know" things it cannot, and preaches intolerance of any other views, to the point of conflict with non-believers or other "faiths". They cannot "know" as there simply is no evidence. It is therefore arrogant to assume they are right.
sids500 6 months ago
@sids500 Yes, there are those in the scientific community with wholesome intentions as there are those in the religious realm who have wholesome intentions. The same can be said for those who are malevolent. Archaeology is one example of a science that most definitely claims to 'know" things it cannot. Many of these theories are accepted throughout their own communities without question. Those who question the status quo are labeled "heretics". Egyptology is a blaring example of this.
DTK5689 6 months ago
@DTK5689 I agree, except you missed my other point. All people in all walks of life can have good intentions and be misled, biased or influenced by money or power, I accept that. It affects some scientists and some religious people. However, the difference is scientists have no other influences, whereas religion by its very nature, needs to manipulate followers into accepting things as true with zero evidence. That's why it's "faith". All religions suffer bias, but only some scientists do.
sids500 6 months ago
@sids500 I think you underestimate the level of bias any person takes with them in any belief system (sciences included). As for zero proof, just look at how it is common knowledge that the Pyramids of Giza and most pyramids throughout Egypt and the world are accepted as tombs for pharaohs/rulers when there is little or no proof supporting this theory. Those archaeologists not blindly accepting this on faith are ridiculed.
DTK5689 6 months ago
@DTK5689 The clue is in your answer. There is a little proof that the dead were buried in the pyramids. That "little" is more than there is for any of the bible. Science and discoveries are not neccessarily correct first time, in fact many are wrong, but science is open to this and can eviolve on new evidence. Religion, however, is static, accepting these stories as true with no evidence, and that situation is not changing. It seems clear to me they were written by men, to control others.
sids500 6 months ago
@sids500 Actually, I was being liberal with my assessment of the theory that the pyramids were tombs. The only information supporting this is some bone fragments found in one pyramid. There has never been a mummy found in a pyramid. There are no hieroglyphs or monuments within pyramids which is odd since tombs where mummies are found are loaded with information. The mainstream believes this to be gospel without supporting evidence while denying all evidence to the contrary. That's religion.
DTK5689 6 months ago
No one seems to have the nerve to shut that babbling woman up.
jazz4 7 months ago
Harris just owned him
zellfalcon31 7 months ago
What the hell is the woman talking about??? She makes no sense!
wingedhussar1 7 months ago 3
3:09 "...anthromoporphic..."
enRAGEd91 7 months ago
"It is impossible because I say so, therefore God did it"
Heheh
rock solid logic right from the start
faarsight 7 months ago
@BlckSbthMan Simply false. When people are getting surgery, does their "social being" still feel the pain signals? NO!
PtAltmVansanTarr 8 months ago
0:08 "Clappy the Clown."
capoman1 8 months ago
@capoman1 3 words and it cracked the hell outta me.. lolz!!
Biktuh 7 months ago
People are being way too hard on Chopra here. He is representing mysticism, based on Vedanta and the perennial philosophy. That is the third kind of knowing that he is speaking of: gnosis, moksha, enlightenment, theosis, etc. You simply can't "know" somethings with discursive thinking alone. That is why the materialists often seem to come out on top of these rational debates. If you want to have this kind of gnosis, you have to commit to a rigorous spiritual practice or set of practices.
stevenhorr 8 months ago
@stevenhorr: in other words it is bullshit
But more to the point, if introspection was a path to knowledge then it would be philosophers that were building airplanes and psychoanalysists who were unraveling the workings of the mind, not scientists.
faarsight 7 months ago
Chopra is a non starter
naybobdenod 8 months ago
0:10
Spiritual Walrus prayer-ritual.
BlckSbthMan 9 months ago
@BlckSbthMan lmao
buktomsin 8 months ago
They're just applauding anything now.
Rocky183 9 months ago
As an Indian, and on behalf of the rest of my country: I would like to personally apologize for Deepak Chopra.
ba3cool 9 months ago 25
@ba3cool haha I was going to say the same thing!
llkdll 9 months ago
@ba3cool Hahahahahah. He's not "Indian", he's a "Tool". His main indentifier is not his nationality, don't worry. We just see him as a dirtbag.
BlckSbthMan 9 months ago
@ba3cool ..It's o.k. , there are plenty of wankers outside of the subcontinent too.
breaneainn 9 months ago
@ba3cool
Hahahaha
thetwentyteens 3 months ago
I misspell the word consciousness .....lol
charanjitsinghc 9 months ago
Go to the origin of invention ...Concept God !
They were the genuine humane souls who invented The Concept God , probably when they observed intelligent man step up to cleverness , inherent conceit enabling oneself ( intelligent ) amass whatever ; so them humane souls made an attempt to check it and they introduced Concept God !
However they may have realized that there is a Supreme Force in Nature that acts continuously consistently so to result Peace at end of every mishap no matter what way!
charanjitsinghc 9 months ago
The ladys' observation of child at large is very true so is her opine one may not call cautiousness as God but it is expansion of human spirit ! Touch every culture and known education you may observe truth within !
charanjitsinghc 9 months ago
As most listeners observed Deepak Chopra is not only fumbling , he looks so nervous I dont know why but he does have a point !
Harry seems sound in considered logical rationale and reflects confidence !
charanjitsinghc 9 months ago
contd...2 ...say if Heart is replaced ( may be some day you will see cases of brain replaced ) yet the soul remains intact and same soul shall use a new Heart or Brain within same humans' body .....the qualities ....Intuitive kind and those thought of as a Cautiousness remain intact even while Heart and Brain is not same as before !
charanjitsinghc 9 months ago
All of Body_Mind_Heart call them a bunch of molecules any , Mind ...Heart etc in various proportions are subject to use by Soul ( some of participants referring to same as a Cautiousness ) under discussion here and they are subject to use of Soul as are most vital parts of a Motor vehicle put together ...and as similar as one vital part of a motor vehicle say Engine or gear box becomes obsolete yet is replaceable and the vehicle is again usable ...so is the human body ..contd..1
charanjitsinghc 9 months ago
@charanjitsinghc But you cannot replace the brain.
sids500 6 months ago
Chopra sucks.
RiseMyChildren 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Although Deepak and Jean are great in their respective fields,they are a bit out of their element here.They lack some of the necessary philosophical skills needed in a debate of this magnitude.If Ken Wilber and Alan Watts were in their place,Harris and Shermer would be having their empirical asses royally kicked
loksinsan 9 months ago
She really made some ramblings at the end. Spheres and such stuff. Talk about it all you like doesnt mean anything if it doesnt exist.
Donal277 10 months ago
@Donal277 This exchange would have been more direct (and easy to understand) if she just said something simple and clear such as "there are experiences/aspects of mind that cannot be measured or detected by physical instruments, but I still are real, or an aspect of reality." Or even "subjectivity is just not misperception about the physical world, but part of reality itself." Then Shermer/Harris could state their disagreements (ala philosophy of mind). She wasn't really debating, just sharing.
gyniest 9 months ago
Shermer makes some great points in this debate
Donal277 10 months ago
SHE TOOK UP LIKE HALF THE CLIP
ADDodger 10 months ago
Chemicals don't feel compassion. Social beings do.
Done.
BlckSbthMan 10 months ago
@dino59mob I understand EXACTLY what Mr.Harris is saying.I'm not the village idiot. What I suggest you do,is read up and do as much research as you can on this subject,that includes ALL point of views, from scientists,philosophers,etc..perhaps take a course on inductive and deductive reasoning,weigh the evidence,get familiar with the evidence that is out there regarding this phenomena,circumstial,substantial and experimental..In other words,get a second opinion after seeing your doctor.
loksinsan 10 months ago
The point is that sometimes metaphors are the only suitable alternative to explaining phenomena that cannot be empirically demonstrated,as is the case for soul,consciousness,thought etc..In order to arrive at a more complete an un-bias view of understanding,it is important [in my opinion],to employ all means and modes of reasoning.That means proper integration of scientific,psychological,philosophic,artistic,etc..To do otherwise,is not only intellectual suicide,it is the height of stupidity
loksinsan 10 months ago
By the way- that crazy old stupid woman is Jean Houston.She happens to hold a phd in both psychology and religion,has done extensive work in the area of mind/brain creativity,has approached consciousness from biological,psychological,artistic and spiritual angles[while most of you were still in your cribs],has written and co-written close to 100 books on the subject,is almost 70 years old,and has more life experience on this subject than most of you un-informed jack asses combined.
loksinsan 10 months ago
Here are a couple of questions for all you geniuses out there.Does thought occupy space?Can something be said to exist,yet not occupy space?How can we be absolutely sure of its nature and origin if there are no empirical means of ascertaining or verifying its existence?Yet we KNOW it exists.But why can't we find it and measure it empirically? Yet our own subjective mind and awareness know otherwise,right?Wait a minute; Mind? Awareness? Subjective? Not very scientific terms,eh? See the dilemma?
loksinsan 10 months ago
@loksinsan you really just dont understand what mr harris is trying to say . . .
dino59mob 10 months ago
GET. THAT. WOMAN. OFF. THE. MOTHER. FUCKING. STAAAAAGE.
kthnx
Shmiwi 11 months ago 3
Harris just lays out Chopra's verbal flamboyance with a sober, white-knuckle fist.
TheGoldenChile 11 months ago
who is this crazy bitch?
robertogj 11 months ago
anthromoporphic
caffeininja 1 year ago
The raping of the word "hypothesis" is sickening. Words have meaning, Dupac.
Bukharin0224 1 year ago
this woman is a moron
millerbiz 1 year ago 3
@millerbiz The woman indeed gets so wrapped around her tangential comments, in an effort to evade with metaphor the direct questions about her assertions, that she rarely recovers. The great irony that both her and Chopra resist the notion that belief is neurologically based is palpable. Her own mind gets in the way of even coherently describing her beliefs.
ManifestMiasma 11 months ago
Chopra=OWNED.
tim4720 1 year ago 3
this deepak guy is a retard, i dont think humans are the only creatures on this planet that have a sense of purpose or feeling and yet heaven is supposedly meant only for us. not for gay people either, do gay people not feel? do they not love? deepak you are so stupid. yes a molecule may not be able to feel but we are made up of so many molecules that enable us to do so. we are so complex. SAM HARRIS IS AWESOME!
CloverCATOREE 1 year ago
haahahahahahahah omg my brain
DirrrtyDutchMTRFCKR 1 year ago
This woman may mean it but she retreats into romance the entire debate.
jaggerlags 1 year ago 4
Chopra is the king of bullshit: Sam Harris deals in reality.
CaneFu 1 year ago 39
@CaneFu Chopra is after money. Do you realize how many books this man has written? He is a hustler. He couldn't care less about humanity. He's just like your garden variety preacher. Full of humbug.
buddybleau 7 months ago
wtf is this woman talking about?
skaloon 1 year ago
WTF is the woman saying? Always jibber jabbering. She shouldnt even be on the show...
conradlamyuen 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
That lady should shut her pie hole. Who put her up there?
cyasi 1 year ago
@lookatmepleasesir I like Micheal Shermer also.I would certainly challenge his premise,and I don't subscribe to his conclusions.However, he seems like a pretty cool as easy going guy,with a certain degree of open-mindedness.Certainly not a dickhead.
loksinsan 1 year ago
@ai1888 Contextual lingo,or language,is a pedagogical term usually used in referencing the parameters of usage of conventional language.Our descriptions of reality, no matter how elaborate and precise,usually leave out an important fraction when attempting to convey data to another party.The relativity of that experience.Analogy,metaphor,and symbolism is a potential means of arriving at that missing fraction,by either inducing creative thought or else through a deduced rationalism.
loksinsan 1 year ago
I like micheal shermer, he shows you can be a hard skeptic without being a total dick about it
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago
This woman needs to get to her point faster...
BrentonSteinhilber 1 year ago
@ai1888 Great intellectual response! Sounds like I struck a chord within you.You've just solidified my point about the dickheads who are out there.Bravo! Congratulations!
No dis-respect,but you are still a kid and you should not be on a forum like this if you have nothing intelligent and/or productive to say.
loksinsan 1 year ago
@loksinsan Really? Would you care to explain what the "contextual lingo" of hers actually means for ignorant "dickheads" like us?
ai1888 1 year ago
I wish all you critical dickheads would stop picking on the lady. If any of you would bother researching her,you would find that she holds a ph.d in both psychology and religion,has done extensive work over the years regarding the integration of mythological and psychological archetypes,and their relation to brain chemistry and human creativity.She is over 70 years old,older than most of you idiots,and if you don't understand her contextual lingo,i suggest you begin learning how to learn
loksinsan 1 year ago 2
@loksinsan Do me a favor, and Shut the FUCK UP
ai1888 1 year ago
i love how the atheists are clear concise and to the point. The rest dwell on poetic nonsense and romanticize their statements into utter garbage
Vildasnaga 1 year ago
Deepak is sooooo funny, just look at his face. lol
natsidrukdruk 1 year ago
The lady don't seems to understand what the big boys are talking about!
groundzerobuild 1 year ago
So far, this is the best confersation ive listened to on the net, we need more of this all of us.
roninface 1 year ago
SAM HARRIS <3
RakyunKim 1 year ago
Although i think that Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston presented a reasonably strong philoshopical defence to their position,I feel that the wrong people are up there.If Ken Wilber and the late Alan Watts were in their place,harris and shermer would be having their intellectual asses kicked in the most hilarious way.
loksinsan 1 year ago
this women is full shit, where do u go too learn how to talk like this please make it stop
concisefitness 1 year ago
"And deeper knowing that comes from the mind and comes from the soul"
Waffle Sir, pure and utter waffle.
TomFynn 1 year ago
the only people who should be allowed to debate with Sam Harris are super advanced robot geniuses wearing brain forcefields.
peazythatsmeazy 1 year ago 3
Deepak is a complete fool -- it's no surprise he sells millions of books. He uses the word "quantum" like it's a magical spell. I'm sure Roger Penrose and John Searle are embarrassed to be cited by this New Age looney. I sure wish Deepak would go back to school and get a basic physics education from a real university....He's SO embarrassing to even listen to...
sleepcity 1 year ago 5
Stop her.
Bunny456 1 year ago
Jean was useless in this entire debate, and Deepak was nearly so. It was like one-man think tanks debating two drool monkeys.
tipoomaster 1 year ago 25
Comment removed
tipoomaster 1 year ago
I think that what Deepak's side is trying to say is that the universe goes incredibly deeper than what you can see, and what you can scientifically prove, and that we are all connected to this deepness, and that we all have the potential within us to feel it, and to express it creatively through art, poetry, music, etc, etc, and that Harris' side is basically saying "Well, prove it." Both sides should be embraced I guess. Hahahaha.
calumtonner 1 year ago
wish the camera would have stayed on Sam just a few more seconds at 3:30.. lol the beginning of a serious eye rolling.
mwmatter 1 year ago 2
Wow, that woman is a nut-job. She made no sense and seemed to be talking about something totally unrelated.
SactoBrett 1 year ago
"If it's irrelevant to our senses, then for all practical purposes, it does not exist."
planetdarwin 1 year ago
Good Lord, listening to that woman all I could think was that I have never heard a person take so many syllables to say absolutely freaking nothing.
I don't agree with Chopra but at least he can advance an argument of some kind -- but every time that woman opened her mouth you could just about hear all three of the others thinking - "Oh, just shut up -- please, just shut up and go away."
prodprod 1 year ago
wtf is she talking about
329ghr 1 year ago
I love how Sam Harris rolls his eyes when Chopra starts blubbering about metaphysics
hiroismyhomeboy 1 year ago
Who clapped for that woman? WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?!?
bigjstokes 1 year ago 4
What??? She's NUTS
BriHi66 1 year ago
"not to pretend to know things you don't know" I love how harris is critical of new age people, religious extremists, and hyper-dogmatic atheists, who seem to have forgotten that our understanding of the universe is emergent. it's not that there is no god, it's just that there is no logical reason to believe in one. If you choose to illogically believe in god, that that's all well and good, but keep your hands off my weed. I hear it lights the same neurons.
kzymeth 1 year ago 3
Aethiest argue against an anthropomorphic concept of god which in its self is incorrect or at the least incomplete. Its like saying times square is the center of the world and then some one wants to argue against this statement not understanding it's symbolic and its foolish to argue against symbolism when the symbols are not understood.
HughEMC 1 year ago
wtf is that woman talking about?!! its like playing chess with a monkey and the monkey thinks its winning by swallowing the queen and shoving the king up his ass. why is she on this show?!
khazal12 1 year ago 6
@khazal12 That made me LOL.
DarthKrattus 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sam Harris is a moron!
ButtomFACE 1 year ago
@ButtomFACE
Thats such a deep remark by you.
Can you maybe explain that further or else fuck of to a Justin Bieber video you troll.
OriginalMindTrick 1 year ago
@ButtomFACE please to go troll a Justin Bieber video
FatalAnimal 1 year ago
Like i said,noone wants to say politics is evil(for lack of a better word).
gary7999 1 year ago
The education system dumbs down your thesis of "grace and transcendence" by not engaging children in the discussion of evidence VS bullshit. You're immune to the criticism you deserve when you invoke "god" or invisible superheros as something that shares the same attributes as leprechauns. One is worthy of discussion, the other,... total fiction.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
That bitch is full of shit.
anandamide199 1 year ago
Wow, can I say I'm amazed at how religion perpetually steps in at the forefront of certain scientifically fascinating points of inquiry and says 'stop, we don't get it, it's God'. They did it with just about everything, and now Deepak Chopra is doing it quite clearly with neurological aspects of cognition. t's a very retarded way to do science is it not?! The more I see him talk, the more I like Sam Harris.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
treat science like a religion. Seriously, you are just like fundamentalist extremists. I'm sure that thousands of years of Eastern theology and philosophy about transcendent consciousness is just psychobabble, you ignorant fucks.
36stylesofdanger 1 year ago
You're all close-minded as fuck. you interpret chopra's statements as silly and incoherent because he speaks in figurative and poetic language to express his concepts instead of the rationalist, scientific language like Sam Harris and his secular-humanist-atheist buddies Richard Dawkins and company. Maybe one day you'll realize that you have blind faith for an ontology of empiricism and evidentialism that is at is base just as unprovable as religion or new age mysticism. Hilariously, you all
36stylesofdanger 1 year ago
@36stylesofdanger
Give me a break!! You can invoke all kinds of metaphor for an idea, but when does evidence and human discovery overturn your conclusion? Maybe it's your feelings/egotism getting in the way of empirical observation and measurement. You just want a license to obscure the facts to get your views credibility. Not on my watch. Chopra does speak in silly language, he is selling the transcendence that people want, but refuses to play by the rules of defined language. It's bogus!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach Empirical observation and measurements are just that: empirical. They function within the discursive practices of the contemporary scientific community. If you science dickriders were educated in philosophy you would realize that there are TONS of very smart religious people out there who have some VERY good arguments for the existence of god, transcendence, etc. Maybe YOU just want to remain within the confines of scientific materialism because you are more comfortable with cold
36stylesofdanger 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach cold hard facts that are easy to verify. Guess what, not all religious people are dumb. They've come up with responses to your whole "DUDE THEYRZ LIKE NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS SO HES JSUT IMAGINARY". Seriously, go fuck yourself. Atheism is a shocking thought when you're like twelve. Militant atheism is fucking annoying and pretentious as shit. Eat a fat cock. This is coming from an atheist.
36stylesofdanger 1 year ago
@36stylesofdanger Wow, "Go fuck yourself", is level of discourse you want to use to advance culture in the 21st century? You're not an example of the "tons of smart religious people" are you. HAhaha, "eat a fat cock"? In other words you have no substantive reply, just more ad hominem and fear. That IS all you've got?
Philosophy is concerned w/ reason, existence, logic and morality. Leprechauns, unicorns and invisible sky tyrants don't qualify as serious "philosophies".
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach My demeanor would be more civil if I was talking to someone who could open their mind wide enough take their opponents seriously (whether or not they agree with said arguments). I think that treating religious people as delusional idiots is more insulting than me telling you to eat a fat cock. I guess that allows you to render my comments not credible. I don't care, you're an idiot anyways. Go jerk off to Richard Dawkins.
36stylesofdanger 1 year ago
@36stylesofdanger OK, not being a christian, I'll try to set the christian example. As for "credible" comments, you're a typical angry theist. You hold an untenable position, watch your fairy-tale books lose on every scientific point, and you can't find a justifiable reason to burn a bad witch, so you take it out on me. It's not my fault that the fraud under which you have organized your life turns out to be a house of cards. Sorry about hurting your feelings, but I suggest professional help.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach Nice try but I already said I was an atheist. I am just actually, you know, free minded.
36stylesofdanger 1 year ago
@36stylesofdanger Right, you're angry because I'm supposed to be "open" to the veracity of the textual claims of holy books? That's free-minded? You' want tell me about evidence for god or "arguments"? Pointless!!!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach This is the last post I will make.
1. "the textual claims of holy books"? doesn't that seem a bit redundant? like if I know the claim is in a book wouldn't I assume it was textual?
2. yes, being free minded means that you are willing to accept the possibility of ideas that might seem counter intuitive to you and make an effort to understand the beliefs of other people. minimally, you shouldn't sit on some intellectual high-ground by dismissing theists as delusional or stupid.
36stylesofdanger 1 year ago
@36stylesofdanger
1.No, many people try to redefine words to fit their own purposes or agendas. If the veracity of these claims are to be discussed with any degree of logic then the textual claims need to be defined. (Literalism) IE - talking snakes
2. Logic, reason and evidence belongs in the center of the public square, not on the margins. I certainly DON'T dismiss theists, the threats they pose to human well-being are real and they deserve to called out on them.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@36stylesofdanger
The possibility of ideas is not my concern. Certainty of ideas, especially ones that are unknowable, are of great concern to me. You can pretend that these theocracies are innocuous, but history is not on your side. Go ahead and give lunacy a free pass, just don't expect me to follow blindly.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
How can this lady be so full of shit and keep talking? She is literally speaking and not saying anything.
funknotik 1 year ago 6
@funknotik Exactly what I was thinking!!! She said absolutely nothing :P Sam kicked all of their asses :D
kevneese 1 year ago 3
@funknotik
Agreed. Utterly vacuous drivel. And, damn, that bitch is self-absorbed!
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
03:09 Anthromoporphic !!! LISTEN!!
funknotik 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow! Chopra really revealed himself as a psuedo-intellectual snake oil salesman!
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
i dont think theese scientists knows what a skeptic is, they should read pyrrho the greek philosopher which was the first person credited as a skeptic after i guess buddha and that one then can reach the state of ataraxia as pyhrro called it which is enlightenment !
magiccarpetride231 1 year ago
Sam is at least coherent here. Chopra looks shaken (to the point of rudeness) - he's out of his league.
laffallott 1 year ago 33
@laffallott I was hoping they could relate this to political ethics(if there is such a thing)
gary7999 1 year ago
Deepak owns people like Sam Harris and Hitchens, total slap down.
Deepaks hypothesis about the eyes of the mind and the eyes of the soul are supported by the smartest scientists like Newton and Einstein. WE NEED A SYNTHESIS OF KNOWING
TheRepublicX 1 year ago
What the heck are you talking about? That Caltech professor basically said that Deepak was misusing the term "nonlocal."
alexckfang 1 year ago
@TheRepublicX Deepak owns Harris? Are we watching the same debate?
vp1981ad 1 year ago
Wow, Deepak is sputtering and stammering uncontrollably....I think Sam had him on the ropes.
jscott1966 1 year ago 30
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Four idiots. Especially Sam
TodaysThought 1 year ago