If all the blog membership would honor the presence and opinions of Deepak and others then I'm sure he would spend more time and effort responding to comments. It is the responsibility of even the skeptics to raise the consciousness of the blog. After all (no Deepak-no blog).
Todd

Dear Deepak,

Thank you for your patience and also for the kindness of explaining again and again, searching for simple, obvious pointers that help us see beyond the limits of our minds. I think you are right, science- like everything else- can be used in the direction of progress or of entropy.

What I find most compassionate in your blog above is that you try to make the entropy obvious to the minds containing it, thus giving them a chance to see through it. An ignorant person who realizes "I'm ignorant" is suddenly free of the ignorance, a bad-mannered person who realizes "I behave badly" has a chance to change behaviour ... this is true of any tamasic quality we become aware of, and I've noticed this whole process many times in my own mind.

So thank you for your perseverance, it has helped me many times to identify entropy in my own thinking. I do hope that responders here don't stop sharing and discussing open-mindedly and respectfully just because a few among us respond with loud and bad-mannered fear to the threat of crossing mind-barriers. And I do hope that none of it affects you personally. There is no way that your strong light can be diminished.

with love,
Aurora

Deepak

Thank you. I have learned here to have a thicker skin and more supple heart.

peace and love

derek

An example of Woo

Chopra Woo Versus Irresposible Astrologer
Written by Ron Chusid

Posted at:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1724

"Well, Deepak sure put that charlatan in his place, or some place, but clearly not a place which makes much sense."

Dear Deepak.

Thank you for this post. While I am certain that the nasty comments and name calling do not affect you personally, they have disturbed me some in the past. Now I simply skip over the commentors who can't seem to control themselves. (And am reminded that there have been times I have not been able to control myself...still working on embracing that side:)) I read the posts and comments nearly every day and have for a long time. I have chosen not to comment very often because I feel that things get taken out of context on blogs and emails quite a bit, and I do not wish to engage in arguments over semantics and meaning. Over the past several months I have met a number of people who also read but do not comment. So know that we are here and grateful to have you here as well.

With Peace and Love to you Deepak!! Melissa

PS Could you invite Aurora to be a regular contributor? She has so much wisdom to share! Aurora...what do you say dear Friend?

"I don't exist" -- Deepak

Wonder why he is blogging...and responding to strawmen that he pulled out of his magic hat.

From the February edition of Swift from JREF:

PRIME GOBBLEDYGOOK FROM DEEPAK

Reader Larry Thornton has sent us a transcript of a CBC/Canada interview with the well-known quack Deepak Chopra. One sequence rather caught my amused attention:

Q: What happens when you die, Deepak?

Chopra: What happens when you die, is you return to where you always are. If you realize right now that there's no such thing as a person, you'll be all set.

Q: What do you mean, I'll be all set?

Chopra: Then if you shift your identity to that consciousness that is differentiating as observer and observant, you'll know there's nothing to fear.

Q: You have no fear of death.

Chopra: No Sir! Why? Because I don't exist in the first place!

Q: Can you get reincarnated as a soul?

Chopra: [Sighs] Wisps of memory and threads of desire, which are specks of information, latch onto specks of consciousness and show up as recycled human beings. But in the bigger picture, the observer, the observed, the process of observation, is a single reality.

Q: So... Deepak Chopra, as I know him [questioner taps the sitting Chopra solidly on the knee for effect] my friend Chopra... doesn't exist?

Chopra: A transient behavior of... the total universe.

I hope that’s all clear now…?

Dear Dr. Chopra,

Bravo! I love the comment about skeptics being the self-appointed vigilantes for the suppression of curiosity (Lyall Watson).

I am so happy to have the opportunity of being "a companion in a hidden journey" of those seeking a higher level of understanding of the Divine Order of Creation. For me it is a privilege and I highly respect those who have a better comprehension of the Order than I do. It is difficult to fathom why anyone would want to attack the efforts of those who wish only to help them advance on their journey.

I'm happy to be an advocate of the so-called "woo woo" camp.

Best Regards,

Betsy

"There's a raffish lack of respectability to blogs, however, that drive away good people and good minds. Insulting boors abound here, and it's easy enough to go elsewhere and enjoy a civilized debate."

Think why at Huffingtonpost your latest series attracted very little number of comments. It just shows the quality of blog entries, not that the commenters are driving away others. It is your blog posts which drive away people including the best critics.

****

For those who are interested in criticism of the posts in this series read these at normdoering.blogspot.com :

Weird Science: More Chopra woo-woo (The Mind Outside the Body (Part 1).

"Chopra found an article in London's Daily Mail that reported on a psychologist, Dr. Dick Bierman, using brain scans to see if people sense things before they happen."

normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/06/weird-science-more-chopra-woo-woo.html

***

More Chopra woo-woo

"Deepak Chopra's next entry, "The Mind Outside The Brain (Part 2)," is up. This time his evidence for his "mind field" is Helmut Schmidt."

normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-chopra-woo-woo.html

***

Yet more of Chopra's woo-woo

"Deepak Chopra's The Mind Outside the Body (Part 3) is up.

This time Deepak stars off complaining about the highly skeptical responses he got to his first two posts saying:

"Skeptics are people who demand that you believe them when they don't believe in anything."

Actually, skeptics believe a lot of different things. For example, Martin Gardner was a Christian and Dr. Bierman, who debunked some of Rupert Sheldrake's claims, is a parapsychologist that Deepak noted in the first part to his series. It's just that those beliefs usually don't matter when acting as a skeptic....."

***

Deepak Chopra stops to complain about me!

"Deepak Chopra almost acknowledged I exist, but I'm still just "one of those skeptics."

In a post called "The Common-Sense World" Deepak Chopra put aside his mind-out-of-body series to attempt a complaint about me, or so it seems. Also, when I tried to comment on his blog it never showed up. It seems I'm censored now. (Perhaps some reader out there will try linking this post on the comments section of Deepak's blog? You'd have my thanks.)

Here's some of what Deepak wrote:

"I've been offering evidence of the possibility that the mind exists outside the brain. This isn't a concept that pleases materialists and skeptics of various stripes. The cruder ones complain that this is all "woo woo." The ad hominem ones deride my inability to understand basic science...

Hey, I'm one of the people calling Chopra's views woo-woo and I've also been saying he doesn't understand some basic science, like what a field is. This is not entirely an "ad hominem" attack because science is what Chopra is writing about and I offer evidence that he doesn't understand some very basic concepts...."

normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/06/deepak-chopra-stops-to-complain-about.html

By the way, Deepak, people who praise you do that for the emotional appeal in your posts rather than the content. Your latest series on "mind-fields" had little substance in it. The same misrepresentation of science and skepticism and labeling. The experiments by a few parapsychologists which were far from being scientific. And a twist to mirror-neurons. And all twists don't turn out to be insightful but more into bullshit. No depth and very little creativity even in presentation. You are at your creative best when complaining and attacking skeptics and deriding your detractors though. As can be seen from the "Common Sense World" post and this one.
Imagination and wishful thinking can only satisfy the ego.

Scott

Just courios, does anything mysterious or unexplainable happen in your day to day life? Is everything in your life expainable through scientific facts?
Do you have any woo?

derek

I do not put my faith in science, spirituality or Chopraism. I do have mysterious unexplainable experinces that do not fit into scientific or religious boxes.

Science and reason doesn't decrease the beauty in the world. For example the feelings of "love" is not "woo". The feelings of awe at seeing the night sky is not "woo". The beauty in the nature I see in my daily walk is not "woo".

but making untestable claims and meaningless arguments and statements which turn out to be upon close scrutiny is "woo".

The mystery and awe I have for my existence and the nature is not "woo". Science is the best tool to investigate the nature. Whatever explanations it gives are the best explanations and estimation of truth. Claiming to know the unknown with "woo" explanations is plain stupidity.

Read te second para in #13 as "but making untestable claims and meaningless arguments and statements which turn out to be nonsensical and gobbledygook upon close scrutiny is "woo".

Throughout my life these experiences have been called many things
Delusions
Overly creative imagination
Crazy
Spiritual
Satanic possession
wishful thinking
just being an artist
psychoid experiences
and things of the sort.

Now it's woo woo.

Theses lables haven't diminished or stopped these experiences.
I am here to share my understanding of my human experience wether it be delusional or real. Wether it can be proven by science or validated by spiritual masters.
I am niether a skeptic or a believer. I am both a skeptic and a believer.

I respect Deepak and his understanding of our universe just as I respect everyone who takes the time to share thier experiences here.

peace

derek

Deepak vs Reality

Deepak says:
“But science has given us diabolical means of destruction and mechanized death.”
Reality says:
Which is now used by the faith-heads in Iran to threaten and terrorize the world.

Deepak says:
“Science is the religion of our time, and deviation from its dogma, even in the name of science, brings too much stress to true believers”.
Reality asks:
Did you not say you are rather stress free?

Deepak says:
“I am happy to be associated with "woo woo" because I haven't the slightest doubt that reality is much more ambiguous than materialists believe.”
Reality says:
Materialists, also called scientists, are investigating reality continuously.

Deepak says:
“The irony about "woo woo" is that the real mysteries that still need to be solved aren't in the realm of talking to the dead or bending spoons.”
Reality says:
That’s good to hear. It would still be nice to know how you bend that spoon

Deepak says:
“The best thing that can happen to anyone, skeptic or not, is to learn science properly…
Reality says:
Is this the best thing that could happen to you too, Deepak?

Deepak Says:
”I would much rather talk to ten people who believe that they have heard from their dead Aunt Minnie than a hundred who shout in my ear that only idiots believe in the afterlife”.
Reality says:
Who buys your books?

Deepak says:
“At any given moment, however, respectable thinking is usually the dullest and the least likely to open new doors.”
Reality says:
New doors, or should it read gullible minds?

Scott
"Science and reason doesn't decrease the beauty in the world. For example the feelings of "love" is not "woo". The feelings of awe at seeing the night sky is not "woo". The beauty in the nature I see in my daily walk is not "woo".

but making untestable claims and meaningless arguments and statements which turn out to be upon close scrutiny is "woo".

I totally agree. I see the difference. You are not a science robot. It is the mysteries and beauty of nature that inspire scientists as well as artists.

derek

I think I was mistaking woo for that mysterious thing that draws us to want to understand our universe.

Derek, every scientist is drawn to “that mysterious thing that draws us to want to understand our universe”.

There are many artists who also scientists or visa versa.

Sorry, it should read, “There are many artists who are also scientists or visa versa”.

Yes there are some things where science is better for explaining and somethings only experience can explain.

I do not believe all things need to be explained or proven.

derek

Indeed Derek and Sekptisch...scientists are driven by a passion to understand reality.

Richard Feynman is probably the most creative physicist who had artistic traits in him.

Skeptisch

It is this mysterious thing that inspires us both. I see this when I watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos. His was the heart of an artist and the heart of the scientist. Truly insprational to me.

Thank you Scott for #13. I see you a little better.

derek

"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made".
Richard Feynman

I watched a show about time last night on TV. It was hosted by a theoretical physicist, an asian man, I can't recall his name.
Anyway one statement he said that resonated with me was about the existance of god.

" For remarkable claims you must have remarkable proof."

I really related to this statement. I also have very remarkable "spiritual", for lack of a better word, experiences. I do not need proof or validation for these. They are just my experiences. I will share them but do not believe they prove or disprove anything.
Just mysterious experiences that make me courius.

derek

Thanks Derek...

"Yes there are some things where science is better for explaining and somethings only experience can explain."

....and Reason. But you cannot explain the "experience" itself. subjective experiences fall into the mental realm or the mental reality which is not the same as physical reality which science tries to explain. In the mental realm hallucinations and delusions can also be real.

Then there is the ideal world of platonic solids. But the platonic world is not the physical world we observe. Platonic world can be investigated by mathematics and philosophy but cannot be tested objectively with science. What science tries to explain is the physical reality.

"I do not believe all things need to be explained or proven. "

Anything that has a physical effect in the world we live in can be tested. If someone claims that something like the mind-field and paranormal phenomena have observable effects and physical implications in the world, then they fall into the realm of science. And if you see Deepak's arguments you will notice that science becomes his friend when he tell us about the parapsychology expreimnets but it becomes his enemy if someone uses the same science to disprove the claims of the experiment.

mental reality: In this all subjective experiences are real. We create our own reality.

platonic reality: in this all mathematical truths and number series etc have their objective existence.

physical reality: The things that can be investigated by science.

Reality seems to overlap in these three world.
We have access to physical and the platonic through the mental. physical and the platonic seem to overlap too as can be understood from mathematics being the language to describe the physical reality.

Materialism says that physical reality creates the mental and the platonic. While non-materialists say that it is the interface between the mental and the platonic which creates the physical.

This then becomes a philosophical debate. But, if some mindfields are part of physical reality, then they are testable by science within the overlap of the mental realm. So far Deepak Chopra claims to have found evidence in the physical realm but fails to validate it. If something is found it will still be part of science and the physical reality. Materialism or positivism is all inclusive in his regard. And most scientists are positivists as against idealists.

Scott, you went right to the core of Deepak’s problem. To pretend to prove the unknowable through scientific means is pretension. If he would stay in his ballpark no problem, he can play under his own rules whatever they may be.

But if he wants to play in our ballpark, which is science, he should have to the courtesy to play under our rules, our method, which is the scientific method.

I agree these experiences can not be explained through physical science. I don't think they need to be. That is what I mean by some things don't need to be explained or proven. They should just be experienced.

I think paranormal experiences are personal and to try to use science to prove them is not nesseccary. I think science has far better things to do than chase ghosts. And I think spirituality has better things to do than seek after science for validation.

derek

I often though get a bit woosy. I do lean towards the spiritual because my path tends to bend in that direction.
But I am not so bent that the voice of reason can not speak to me.

derek

Well .... I am reading Proverbs now and it talks about the wise becoming wiser when reprimanded and the fool that might become wise, as it also warns one of speaking to scorners. I think Proverbs is a very wise piece of writing, even though some of it, I do not get such as that 'strange woman' warning stuff. :-)

Love, Char

Deepak,

I think there is protest when one threatens a fantasy or illusion / belief of another.

Some people spend their lives engaging and chasing a fantasy, when something real and even more valuable is right at their feet.

This is perhaps why so many marriages fail, because one marries a fantasy in their mind, with time reality protrudes destroying or terminating the marriage. Had they only married something real, perhaps the real might not be the ideal fantasy, but at least it is "what is" and not something created in one's mind. If we marry reality perhaps it would last at least a good while.

So they never get to experience what is real, but live in a fantasy in their mind.

Those that would challenge the fantasy in their minds give rise to fear and that is what feeds their response and taints their comments.

Events or truths that would destroy the illusions are avoided.

So if we live a fantasy in our minds do we really live?

People that don't want to live the truth, are opposed to it and any messenger that carries it is often attacked. We know this is the ego, which consisting of fiction knows that the truth is lethal. I have yet to meet a soul that has reached that point that they live the truth, which is the hardest yet most effortless thing to do. I have suspected that some might but when one comes to know them.

I am diligent in my living the truth and slip here and there, picking myself free much faster. I suppose there are degrees to which some will live the truth, but who has the guts to live absolute truth without the exceptions that so many that espouse love make?

Dr. Chopra:

The science jehadis reveal their own nature.

What Peter says about Paul, says more about Peter than Paul!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Why You Woos Got to be Such a Downer, Maaaaan? by Bronze Dog

Heads up: This post is going to be on the foamy side.

One of the things that always irritates me about woos is their rampant hypocrisy: They're usually the ones accusing us skeptics of being limited, small-minded, and so forth. What's really annoying is that they've usually got Hollywood on their side, spouting unrealistic propaganda about skeptics, logic, intellectuals, and science.

First, what I find most annoying is that they've done everything they can to associate skepticism, materialism, science, and even knowledge intimately associated with 'depression'.

(snip)

And I have an entire universe of these surprises awaiting me! Instead, however, the woos would prefer that we discuss the same failed, unsurprising, uninspired, perfectly mundane, and, in short, boring canards for eternity while they scream and moan at us daring to even possess curiosity and a penchant for suggesting experiments.

Next on this list is the crazy idea that skeptics are limited. The only limits we have are those reality itself puts on us. Science works through methodological materialism. You can dispute the various definitions, but the way I see it: Anything that has an effect is by definition material. If telekinesis can bend a spoon, telekinesis would be included in materialism. If souls exist, and can communicate from wherever, or affect all those electrochemical signals bouncing around in our heads, souls would be included in materialism. In short, anything that can do stuff is included. How is such an inclusive philosophy limiting? Woos, on the other hand, are often astoundingly quick to say what known material stuff can and can't do, and then they'll refuse to discuss the evidence when we show clever things the universe can do. In the words of that great skeptic with the (material) soul of a poet:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths." -Carl Sagan

(snip)

Still another annoyance that spills over into rage is that woos seem to think that the whole skepticism thing is like prudishness: That we're all just wet blankets, raining on their parade because we've got nothing better to do. The big problem with that: Woo is harmful. Woo can even kill. Worse, woo can even sometimes drive people to kill. Some of the more 'innocent' woo out there risks closing people's minds: If you didn't get into your belief through reasoning, it's often astoundingly hard to get yourself out of a wrong belief. Skepticism and science demand that there's always an escape from wrong ideas: All hypotheses and theories must be falsifiable. Woo has no such demand. Next up, are the various forms of fraud, where woo frauds demand money for their nonexistent services: They lie to people in order to make money. And the unconscious frauds who authentically believe in their power set up the atmosphere for their customers to fall for more fraud. How can we not feel anger, rage, and disgust? Lying to people for personal gain is wrong. The woos who leap to the defense of these frauds always, always avoid that issue, and act as if our disgust for immorality is a failing on our part. "Why are you so angry? Why are you so obsessed?" Should we just cease caring about people? Are we supposed to just wall off our sympathy and compassion? I refuse to. Thinking is a part of caring, and I will continue to do both.

Another horrid lie is that skeptics are dispassionate, uncaring, and without emotion. The above section should have blown that one out of the water. We seek the truth because we care about people: The first thing you need to improve reality is to know something about it. Pretending to possess knowledge while handwaving away epistemology is the best way to get stuck in a rut with your closed mind.

By fighting for truth, knowledge, and open-mindedness, we're arming ourselves with the best tools for making the world a better place, and encouraging others to do the same. Reality can be harsh, but that's why we need to put aside our biases, authorities, and egoism: We can make the world a better place. Why dream of what might be, when we can cherish what is as well as work towards finding out if those dreams are possible? A dream is only a dream until you make it happen. Woos would have us return to the unexamined slumber of the Dark Ages. If we don't return to enlightenment values, we'll be creating a Dim Age.

Reposted from the Bronze Blog
http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-you-woos-got-to-be-such-downer.html

" Despite what woos try to imply, it's quite easy to prove photography to a blind man. Science is in the business of doing that sort of thing: Making the invisible visible. " Bronze Dog

SEE:

How do you prove photography to a blind man?

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/how_do_you_prov.html

We hear so often, “but Deepak is not doing any harm to anybody”. But look at what his teachings appear to be doing to this student? Is this delusional or already borderline insanity?

“Could you (Deepak Chopra) invite A… to be a regular contributor? She has so much wisdom to share!”

Here is part of A…’s wisdom to share:
“Any person can find his or her capacity to do remote viewing, levitate, bend spoons and materialize things out of thin air. It is no more peculiar than learning to whistle.”

Is this part of your wisdom too Deepak?

Well, I, personally, like to be wooed. It means the wooer would dare to come closer.
Two woos together, and we're well on the road to become one.
Will your body stand up to it?

Dear Melissa,
I'd absolutely love that, but I think such things are up to our hosts.

Dear Derek,
I admire the way you continue to keep your heart and mind open.

Dear Skeptisch,
I would love to find a way to connect with you. We once had a discussion, you found my reality to be different than yours, and so you have closed the door to communication, labelling everything I say as "woo woo" (this is a new term for me :))

It would be great if you could notice that the door is closed by you, not by me. It would be fantastic if you could see that you have defined a world you call "science" or "your ballpark"... a world where you keep yourself safe from new discoveries by creating a sense of "us" with other people who share your views.

However, if you would have the courage to open that door and sincerely allow curiosity to enter your world, you would notice that what you call reality, if it is to stay alive and not just reflect a mumified point of view... has to change.

For that you would need to recognize that you don't know it all, that your point of view, like everyone else's, is relative. And that would challenge your ego enormously. But it would set you free, it would allow you to connect to more people than the "selected few", to more reality than the one you now know, and, most of all, to connect with the longing in your own heart.

I wish you good luck, dear Skeptisch. I understand you much better than you might think, because the spiritual journey asks of us all to do this very thing, to step into the unknown in every moment. I know how hard it is, and how blind one can be before one summons the courage to look again.

I would have one request, though, from a human being to another. I would like to ask you to have the courtesy to show respect to the people whose cyber-home you are a guest of right now. We don't need to agree with each other, but we can allow someone else's point of view instead of degrading ourselves with disrespectful comments. This is no contest where we need to fight with teeth and claws for who is right. Everyone is right. We all have our unique path to walk, so let's just change notes, like friends do.

"would have one request, though, from a human being to another. I would like to ask you to have the courtesy to show respect to the people whose cyber-home you are a guest of right now. We don't need to agree with each other, but we can allow someone else's point of view instead of degrading ourselves with disrespectful comments."

Skeptisch comments are not direspectful. They are civil.

“Could you (Deepak Chopra) invite Aurora to be a regular contributor? She has so much wisdom to share!”melissa

I don't see any reason why Deepak shouldn't especially given the interest shown by the person recommended. Deepak can invite anyone who doesn't necessarily disagree with him in his world view. Why not a practicing Astrologer, Reike healer or a Shaman who shows keen interest. Everyone has some wisdom to share.

Skeptisch:

Some people have opinions something like this: you create your reality. If you imagine and believe that you can bend spoons well of course you can bend spoons. Anyone's point of view is as relevant as any others as all views are relative and keep changing. Point of views are temporal. Science is but one point of view (which is rigid) and doesn't acknowledge other points views like magic and bending spoons. In short: truth is relative. If science claims to be objective, your subjective experiences are also objective, there is no way anyone can dare dispute that as they don't have access to your inner realms of your mind. You are the master of your truth. You cannot judge a persons views as they keep changing and reality cannot be objectively assessed like scientific investigations of nature attempts to do. If you contest any views and find them to be flawed and not consistent with the reality as you know it(from your POV!), you are close minded and disrespectful.

So, never doubt anyone if they say they can bend spoons and that they can also teach this 'skill' to you if only you are genuinely interested with an open heart and open mind.

There is no point in arguing such people. At least Deepak talks about science and evidence and provides his rational arguments and appeals to logic(and emotion as well) which can be debated. No point in wasting energies in the woo woo lands of vivid skies where everyone's right, no one's wrong, everyone acknowledges the self-righteousness and opinions of everyone else's.

Dear Hypocrite,

I don't mean disrespectful in form, but in intention.

In my world, every person deserves respect, meaning that we can look at each other and see the being beyond our personal points of view, see the brother on a journey as worthy as our own. I don't feel that talking with someone who's holding another point of view would be "wasting my energy"... how can one waste something one gives out of love? How can one waste energy when one is not trying to convince or impose? And most of all, how can energy ever be wasted in this one universe? I'm no scientist, but I know that energy can never be wasted. I also know that it is not something we need to guard, portion out or fight over- there is enough for everyone, more than enough. Be right, my brother... That doesn't make anyone else wrong.

"And most of all, how can energy ever be wasted in this one universe? "

That's funny, real funny. You made my day!

You are taking my words "wasting energies" out of context. Especially after you claim to know intentions. This is a classic woo woo logic. It's good to see some science in all this though -- the law of conservations of energy being put forth.

"Be right, my brother... That doesn't make anyone else wrong."

"It's all good" got it! That's the woo woo mantra!!

Thank you

respectfully, (in form and in intention)

Hypocrite

PS: Have a pleasant day observing your mind and healing others minds in the process as well.

PSS: Please forgive any intended/unintended sarcasm

There are things in this universe no human mind has ever comprehended. Those like Deepak who do not play it safe, who reach the limits of "respectable" thinking and somehow find the courage to take one more step, you I salute - you are the true inheiritors of all wisdom traditions, including science. In your hearts and mind you carry the future of humankind forward.
This future stands now in grave peril. The intelligent response to the challenges at hand is not fruitless argumentation with people who are afraid to be criticized for having a new idea, those who cling to the old, or those who are emotionally incapable of recognizing peril. "Skepticism" in this context is a ratwheel that goes nowhere and ultimately means nothing. On the journey, these are those who carry with them heavy stones, and this in a land where stones be ubiquitous.
It is not my task to tarry and "help" them with their awkward cargo. Everyone is free, however, to do what they feel must be done. My time grows shorter. I must walk now the last bloody mile to Beulah Land. If we lose sight of one another, let us leave then signs along the way for whomever may come later, that one has been this way before.

Dear Hypocrite,

I think I put your words in another context, but that's the nature of perception - to each, his/her context :)

Thank you, I will indeed continue to observe the mind. I hope your day is pleasant, too.
And don't worry, there is nothing to forgive.

"The Waa Waa Factor"

(Posted by Dr. PZ Myers
at Pharyngula
scienceblogs.com)

Poor Deepak Chopra is crying again at the nastiness of the blogosphere's reaction to his idiocy:

“I'm pausing at the end of a long series of posts on the mind outside the brain to reflect on science, bad manners and objectivity. Bad manners are the norm in the blogosphere, and no one who dips into that world should bring along a thin skin. Salt air stings but it's refreshing at the same time. There's a raffish lack of respectability to blogs, however, that drive away good people and good minds. Insulting boors abound here, and it's easy enough to go elsewhere and enjoy a civilized debate.”

We ‘should’ make Chopra feel rejected and unloved; we ‘should’ hope to drive him away … because he is not good people and he does not have a good mind. He is a con artist, a fraud, a huckster. He's a credulous kook who ‘endorses astrology’(liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1724), doesn't even ‘understand science’(scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/its_never_going_to_end.php), peddles ‘worthless magical nutritional "supplements"( www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/chopra.html), and makes a living lying to people. What he means by "civilized debate" is engaging with sycophants who will not call him on his phoniness. I am pleased to hear that at least some people have made this charlatan uncomfortable on the web.
This does reveal a real problem by comparison, though: he can always return to the Big Media where the big bucks are and discover a whole mob of friends who will not question him. There is almost ‘nothing’ on television or in the newspapers where journalists or 'media personalities' exercise critical thinking and actually make quacks like Chopra squirm a bit on air — there's nothing but a constant buzz of unquestioning acceptance of any claim, no matter how absurd. In a just world, mindless media shills like Oprah Winfrey would be struggling to make ends meet selling Amway, and the demanding skeptics like James Randi would have the media empire and the big money rolling in.
At least some elements in the blogging world still maintain a true and worthwhile attitude of skepticism — that "raffish lack of respectability" Chopra complains about, by which he means "lack of ‘respect’" for his brand of charlatanry. Although it is troubling that an uncritical site for suck-ups like the Huffington Post can get so much traffic.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/the_waa_waa_factor.php

Chopra: "There's a raffish lack of respectability to blogs, however, that drive away good people and good minds."

Is just another way for him to say 'People don't take me as seriously as I think they should.'

Chopra: "The invective rises higher and higher the more you prick the rigid mind-set that most skeptics cling to."

That's funny because you could say exactly the same thing but swap 'skeptic' for 'woos' and the sentence would make even more sense. I have never been the target of as many insults and ad-hominems as when I question religion, astrology, the secret and all the other ridiculous beliefs these people cling to.

Chopra: "Sometimes they are about fairly radical ideas, like the mind outside the brain."

Now you see 'radical' was Einstein's theory of relativity or Darwin's theory of evolution. I think the word Chopra was looking for was ridiculous.

Chopra: "I am happy to be associated with "woo woo" because I haven't the slightest doubt that reality is much more ambiguous than materialists believe."

Wouldn't you say that is a little, well, absolute, for someone who doesn't believe things are, absolute. No scientist or skeptic would or should ever consider that something they think does not have the slightest doubt attached.

Chopra: "Science is the religion of our time, and deviation from its dogma, even in the name of science, brings too much stress to true believers."

Boring, this is a woos favourite accusation. Please show how science is dogmatic. Science is the very opposite of dogmatic, every conclusion or theory is open to question and open to revision upon the production of new and reliable evidence. Just because you cannot provide that evidence, and just because your ideas are ridiculed does not mean science is dogmatic.

Chopra: "Leave aside the fact that skeptics are self-appointed vigilantes for the suppression of curiosity (a delightful coinage from the English writer Lyall Watson)."

This is quite simply laughable. Every skeptic I know is driven by curiosity. Most of them are scientists, which is a field whose existence depends on curiosity. Without curiosity there would be no science. On the other hand just recently I was told by a woo online that something was too hard to know so we shouldn't bother. Now who wants to suppress curiosity?

Chopra: "None of these are supernatural speculations"

Maybe not, but they are silly.

Chopra: "In these posts I don't look for anyone to be for or against the opinions I offer. I'm looking for companions in a hidden journey."

That must be why he ignores all criticisms of his argument and posts what amounts to :

'Skeptics are so rude, why don't they take my seriously. And science is dogmatic. (Except of course when I use it to support my silly arguments).'

Chopra: "The best thing that can happen to anyone, skeptic or not, is to learn science properly, then look beyond its basic assumptions, making room in your mind for the unknown."

What is science if it is not making room in your mind for the unknown and then trying to make it known? The difference between science and woo is of course that woo wants you to stop with the unknown, let it remain unknowable (because then it is so much more mysterious and wonderous and exciting) and stand in awe, before eventually worshipping it.

Chopra: "For some this was a mild inoculation, for others the beginning of a lifelong habit of investigation."

At least he got that right, scientists dedicate their lives to investigation of the unknown and skeptics can't wait for the answers. For them science unlocks all frontiers and demolishes all barriers to knowledge so that they may understand the biological, the chemical, the physical and, in the end, the universe. Damn those dogmatic scientists. I certainly wouldn't want to have anything to do with that.

Chopra: "But science has given us diabolical means of destruction and mechanized death. It has foisted an arid skepticism in matters of spirituality and all experiences outside the materialistic worldview."

Oh, so it must be bad then. Now of course religion gave us the Crusades, the Inquisition, Jihad, suicide bombings, genital mutilation, sexual oppression and the suppression of learning. Woo gives us people who give up medical treatments known to work for woo that doesn't and they die. Woo has given us people who make decisions on an international level based on what someone using an indeterminable set of rules says the stars tell them to do. It has foisted an uncritical mindset and the unquestioning obedience to fuedal laws in matters of spirituality, reality and life.

Chopra: "To presume that conventional science is a benign, objective, morally neutral force in the world is hopelessly naive."

Science is, the people who use it aren't always. If you can't tell the difference there is very little point in carrying on the discussion. To presume that woo is harmless, useful, benign and effective on the other hand is in fact hopelessly naive. To believe that Chopra is in fact a highly intelligent person with deep and meaningful insight is likewise, hopelessly naive.

Chopra: "I would much rather talk to ten people who believe that they have heard from their dead Aunt Minnie than a hundred who shout in my ear that only idiots believe in the afterlife."

That explains a lot.

Chopra: "But even among the well-mannered there is an enormous tendency to conform."

Oh you're right. Hitchens, Dawkins, Sagan, Einstein, Randi, Douglas Adams, Gould, Hawking. Such conformists. Never had an original idea. Oh but wait, hang on just one second. Since the majority of people in the world are open to woo of some form or other then being a skeptic would actually make you a, wait for it, non-conformist. Wouldn't it? Genius. Try actually for once doing some research that doesn't involve Wikipedia and finding some statistics on what the population is willing to believe, and how many of them take a skeptical position. Then tell me skeptics are the conformists.

Chopra: "However, what is intellectually respectable changes from age to age."

Ah the old 'science has been wrong before ploy.' Of course, I would think that this is what woos have most to fear, since history prior to now is filled with superstition, illogic and the 'woo'.

Now, note that I had predicted elsewhere that Chopra would not deal with any of the criticisms directed at his theory and would simply concentrate on the fact that he was called names. I rest my case. Maybe I'm psychic.

Now go on, call me names, say I must be bitter and miserable and soulless, make up some stuff about skeptics that isn't true. Call me dogmatic. Pretend Chopra is a beautiful person with a beautiful mind and beautiful ideas. Pretend that woos have the answer to the universe, life and everything. Pretend that only woos are human. Do anything but actually look at the criticisms of Chopra's theories/arguments/ideas and understand them before making reasoned responses that actually attempt to deal with them.

Go on.

Yo!

I just read all the comments, as I did find all of them interesting too, until I got to the end and found it all just too much of the same. Anyway, I looked up 'woo woo' since I have never heard of the term and this is what I found ...

woo-woo
adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.

http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary
/woo_woo/

Love, Char

Here's a very good website about the necessary steps to take to be a 'woo woo!' So I learned something today :-) I did not read them all, but it sounds a lot like what we all do.

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

Love, Char

After reading comments No. 52 and 53 I felt compelled to add my "2 cents worth" of opinion. Fortunately, all of our mentors on Intent Blog have great senses of humor. I can also laugh and enjoy the various ideas expressed here.

When the Ego is dismissed as of little importance then there is such a wonderful opportunity to grow and to experience new levels of realization.

"Right On"

Betsy

For anyone who needs a laugh:

The chickens in a large hen house started to quarrel, wounded each other and many of them died every day. The upset farmer hurried to a consultant, and asked for a solution to his problem.
"Add baking-powder to the chickens' food," said the consultant, "it will calm them down."

After a week the farmer came back to the consultant and said: "My chickens continue to die. What shall I do?"
"Add strawberry juice to their drinking water, that will help for sure".

A week passed, and again the farmer came to the consultant: "My chickens are still quarrelling. Do you have some more advice?"
"I can give you more and more advice," answered the consultant. "The real question is whether you have more chickens."

------------
I think the farmer should tell them to be nice to each other... anyone a better idea? :P :D

I can see why some people, including Deepak, seem to think that this thread is turning into a farce.

I almost found it comical to read post #51 by Jimmy Blue, where he criticizes almost every single word in Deepak Chopra’s latest post! He’s claiming that there is no substance to what Deepak Chopra is saying but Jimmy is failing to see that there’s no substance to what he’s saying himself. He’s chosen to interpret what Deepak is saying in his own way to suit his beliefs… I guess it’s all a question of perspective, isn’t it?

The skeptics want to question the validity of the studies that Deepak talks about, but isn’t the validity of practically all scientific studies questioned by at least some people? Haven’t many scientists been sceptical, throughout history, of pioneering scientific discoveries?

There will always be skeptics for anything and they fulfill an important role, only time will tell who was right. In the meantime, it’s good to laugh a bit at how comical all this bickering really is in the grand scheme of things.

Cheers!

Lars

Jimmy_Blue writes.." Do anything but actually look at the criticisms of Chopra's theories/arguments/ideas and understand them before making reasoned responses that actually attempt to deal with them.

Go on."

Excelent post! #51. I am sure Deepak has a solid thick hide and no amount of criticism seeps into his head although he claims that his mind exists outside of it. Indeed he will "Go on". You can see that with the comical responses for example from him, Keith and Lars and his other sycophants...who indeed think that whatever he says about science, about skeptics and speculative rubbish must be insightful and wise.

For one whose mind is outside of his brain he has a very self-centered view of respectability though.

The responses get even more wishful..."There will always be skeptics for anything and they fulfill an important role, only time will tell who was right. In the meantime, it’s good to laugh a bit at how comical all this bickering really is in the grand scheme of things."

wishful thinking and the last response to any criticism....a good laugh indeed. And yes the 'woos' could not prove themselves to be right in their claims not becuase there is 'no evidence' yet..but becuase they tend to ignore the evidence refuting their claims! Now.. who can refute my claims if I say that fairies reside under my garden...If woos can bend spoons and need no evidence...and no proof they can keep hoping that "only time will tell who is right". This is denial mentality and true believer syndrome. good luck and have good laughs like mad people in loony center.

On the other hand, Skepticism and Science work as one unit. Any new development in any theory uses skeptical analysis to improve it. While the Woos see all skepticism as an hindrance. For them it is "either you are with us woos or against us with skepticism."

In Post 57 makes some good observations....I hope Deepak responds to criticism than whine about bad manners. And hope that once in a while like any good scientist he accepts he was wrong or he could be wrong.

If Deepak continues to display a denial mentality of Bush and self-righteousness of Blair, in the wake of Iraq war..we can have a good laugh though.

I think that by definition if you have this much time to post endlessly on a comment thread, you have nothing worthwhile to day other than to fluff your own ego.

I think that by definition if you have this much time to post endlessly on a comment thread, you have nothing worthwhile to day other than to fluff your own ego.

I think that if you have all the time in the world to post on a comment thread (repeatedly in some cases), then by definition you have little that's worthwhile to say, other than browbeating and fluffing up your own sense of importance.

Yo indeed
Pride and ego
Each side convinced
Niether side will budge

Yo, Keith top of the rainbow to you.

derek

Very sorry about the multiple posts. I'm getting an error message on this end, so I didn't even know they'd gone up.

If only I had an iPhone, everything would be all right!

pacificwhim

If that comment(#61, 62) is addressed to scott's post I must say that his previous post in this thread was more than a day ago.

The subtle changes you made in your post 62, and 63(considering you did not know that 62 was already posted)...tells a lot about your indecisive and confused mind and is comment on the nature of your own ego.

Given that this is your first post at IB you have nothing to say about Deepak's original post but to enact in your own ego drama.

Pacificwhim,

You need not be "very sorry for the multiple posts" but you should be sorry for the nature of your post(s).

Like I said, the woo response was to ignore criticism and just repeat the same things again or pretend there was no criticism.

Now who is being dogmatic?

#59: "He’s claiming that there is no substance to what Deepak Chopra is saying "

Where do I say that, please be specific. I mean, you wouldn't be constructing a straw man to knock down, would you?

My point, which you appear to have missed, was that what substance there is to Chopra's ramblings is wrong, and I state why. But you just bury your head in the sand if it makes you feel better. Continue to behave as I predicted you would.

#59: "He’s chosen to interpret what Deepak is saying in his own way to suit his beliefs"

That being the case it won't be hard for you or Chopra to set me right, will it?

#59: "The skeptics want to question the validity of the studies that Deepak talks about, but isn’t the validity of practically all scientific studies questioned by at least some people?"

Yep, and that is science's greatest strength. However, it flies in the face of what Chopra said about science being dogmatic. Do you disagree with Chopra now as well?

#59: "Haven’t many scientists been sceptical, throughout history, of pioneering scientific discoveries? "

Again, yes. Again that is one of science's strengths. You miss the important point that this is how science works, it is not evidence that there is something wrong. Failure to understand this demonstrates failure to understand the nature of science.

Of course, these scientists nearly always had scientific reason to be skeptical, whether they were right or wrong, and the end result was that the discovery or theory with the most evidential support won through and old theories were revised or rejected. Can you say the same of your average piece of woo?

Now please feel free to follow the script, and you might want to throw in some 'But what is the harm', science is dogmatic, 'you just don't get him because you're closeminded'. I'm sure I've missed some of the usual woo responses but I doubt I'll be surprised.

If Chopra himself won't respond to questions or criticism, what does that say about his suppression of curiosity?

I heard a theoretical physicist on TV the other night say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I agree. While I do believe that there is some kind of spiritual energy, so far no concrete evidence has proven the existance of any kind of god or supernatural beings. Not even ET. I leave room for God to show up and say here I am, but he/she/it has not.

The spirituality that I have experienced in my life, to me, is from our collective humaness. The "mind field" maybe just electrical fields carrying our very human energy and desires. No supernatural intellegence required. Why do we need something bigger and more intellegent than us to feel secure? Just that we are here is miracle enough for me.

The scientific evidence presented by Deepak is not extraordinary. It does not prove anything.

I believe in spiritualality but I see no evidence to prove that it comes from anywhere other than our collective human experience.

derek

Deepak
I appreciate your vision and passion and your contributions. I thank you for providing this place to discuss. I'm sure you are a busy person as we all are, but the people are here to talk to you. Making themselves available.

The elite speak at the people, leaders speak with the people.

namaste

derek

Oh my, Scott!

In my last past life, I worshiped a man who looks and talks
just like Deepak. That man left me high and dry,
and now I am here to give his soul another chance to redeem itself.

He has..at last...finally made a start of it.
I've waited 200 years. Give me a break!

.

derek: Rainbow and I go way back.

I have a picture of It's foot planted in a soybean field.

Very green! And It's socks?
I think you already know.

They're worth their weight in gold.

Yo Keith
In one of my past lives I was watching, from the sidelines of coarse, this person standing perplexed stroking thier chin and wearily pionting a well worn finger at a teacher. Could this have been you?

Well in this life you have feet of gold. You are a tree outside the blindness of the forest.

I think Deepak has much to teach along with the the rest of the teachers here. The skeptics the woos and Jimmie_Blue.

sweet peace

derek

That would be Jimmy_Blue.

Humm....that was very interesting Keith. I've created something, but I think most would think it is lame and superficial. But regardless, it was what I wanted.

I was told today that I looked like Britney Spears (my picture showed up on the company web)! Can you believe that? She is half my age, but I have been working on it like Deepak says in his "Grow Younger, Live Longer" book. I am sorry, but I am just so thrilled, even though others may not think I look like her. It was just nice to hear.

For example, you have to think the age you want to be and then do all the things that that age does (well almost :-). Plus, I had pictures of younger women who I modeled myself after to give me encouragement (mostly on the treadmill - yuck!), so I worked out (a little each day), did my hair (not the shaving part!), and wallah, I became young again! But I don't know if one can hold it together for very long. Like ... how can one control the body at the 1/2 century mark and make it all work right? My mom said that they had these 90 year old women doing a Vegas number on the ships in Miss. and they were perfect and gorgeous, except their faces looked old.

Maybe most of it is magic such as the hair dye, etc? But I do get carded and many people think I am a kid and are shocked when they see my ID. The only problem is, I do not feel like 24, nor really desire what I did at that age, but I do like the youthful appearance and all the attention (some of it), even though it is a little strange.

So this is one example of what I think Deepak is talking about. Look at how young Deepak appears. Who would believe that he is 60! ... when he looks like 40! And a handful of stars in H. look young. Deeapk said we can take 20 years at most off our age and in the book, he said 15, but I read somewhere that he added another 5 - maybe that was based on his experience. So if Deepak could add another 5, then the rest of us could. It only takes one to do it, so the others can access the energy required to change. Or maybe the sages from our ancient past have done it and that's the energy we access as Deepak has said they look very young! BTW: I haven't had surgery ... not yet!

Love, Char

Love, Char

So... I think I am a Woo Woo....

Anyway, in Deepak's defense ... I think, but I am not too sure what he was saying in his post above.

But regardless, I have had many experiences that were physical, so I know that Deepak knows what he is talking about. It is true and one can only experience it to know it.

Yes, the mind is pretty wild and un-tamed, so that's the part I don't understand. Such as what the mind is really creating vs. what is only an illusion and will not be created, i.e., what we call not real since it is not physical, even though I think all of this is not real, including the physical dream. Adam still sleeps... But that's another story.

Here's a few of my own personal experiences, as it relates to physical stuff:

1) At 22, I became so angry at my 2nd ex-husband for beating me, I changed somewhat and he saw it, as I felt it and saw one part of it. No one was hurt and I will not share the experience here because it could upset most, but it stopped me from becoming that angry ... ever again.

2) My plants move and dance around me when I am deep into my heart, which is not much any more. Others have seen this happen at work, which frightened them and made the jump.

3) When I first started hearing, I regained my hearing, as I was coming close to getting a hearing-aid. I cannot prove this one and even my mother does not believe me. But they did a hearing test on my 1st or 2nd grade class and I was held after testing as there were problems with my hearing then. I was so afraid, so I had really focused on listening to pass.

4) All the spoons in my house bent slightly when some of the chopra.com folks were going to do a spoon bending exercise.

And lots of other little things, as I feel like a fool again for even sharing this...like, what's new?

It's time to home! Yeah! No more internet!!!

Love, Char

3)

I've just seen two blackbirds quarrelling on the ground. They went twisting and twirling, flapping and squawking vertically to nowhere and then, gravity-ruled, plummetted right back to earth, skidding away like like quicksilver, bright eyes glinting.

I'd love you to finish this story, Keith. It's about flight.

Ed.

derek, interesting to know your views.

In #69 you said...."I believe in spirituality but I see no evidence to prove that it comes from anywhere other than our collective human experience."

I see similarity in your opinion with those like Yogi-one, Keith, Ruth, Kate & Paramjit Singh to name a few in this community.

I have been in *many* spiritual circles of varied tastes and found similar opinions about Deepak's brand of quantum spirituality. He is true neither to science(as has been the major criticism of skeptics) nor to self-realization, while the opportunity is for both.

Deepak tends to exaggerate the conflict between science and spirituality(not the religions), where there is none. The real problem is when pseudo-science and fake-spirituality fit hand in glove with Deepak's world-view.

Brother Ed,

My over-active imagination has stalled
due to the fact that birds of the same feather
only appear as such and are not at all alike.

If you are thinking about running away,
or you wish to fly to the dark side of the moon,
remember this...
there is only here
with a cross to follow.

Don't attempt to fly with One on your back.

Jimmy Blue,

I said in my last post that your post (#51) had no real substance and you’re asking me now, in your latest post, to be specific about my accusation.

It would take me a long time to scrutinize everything you wrote in post #51 (it was very long!) but let me just give a couple of examples to explain what it is I object to. You write:

“Chopra: "There's a raffish lack of respectability to blogs, however, that drive away good people and good minds."
YOU: It's just another way for him to say 'People don't take me as seriously as I think they should.”

Another example of what you wrote:

“Chopra: "Sometimes they are about fairly radical ideas, like the mind outside the brain."
YOU: "Now you see 'radical' was Einstein's theory of relativity or Darwin's theory of evolution. I think the word Chopra was looking for was ridiculous. “

You’re twisting around what Deepak Chopra wrote and it's a very un-substantiated attempt at ridiculing him and it goes on and on. If you want to share with us, intelligent and well-researched attempts to debunk the studies that Deepak has mentioned, that would be interesting for all of us to read about. It’s always healthy to get a different point of view. But this way of ridiculing like you’ve done in post #51 – is simply childish and doesn’t help anyone.

Take care,

Lars

This is getting more hilarious!

Lars in #80 writes.."if you want to share with us, intelligent and well-researched attempts to debunk the studies that Deepak has mentioned, that would be interesting for all of us to read about."

If Deepak writes intelligent and well researched articles, it would be interesting for all of us to read about too! But if he ridicules the skeptics , scientists and makes statements like.."science is the religion of our times"..umm then I have to think about well researched articles to discredit this statement then!

Deepak Chopra has mentioned parapsychology studies which have been debunked already. The rest are his speculations and opinions. Common sense and critical skepticism is enough to debunk his unsubstantiated claims, fallacious arguments and misrepresentation of skepticism and science.

cheers!

Lars:

Again your post amounts to nothing more than I predicted:

'Skeptics are mean and call us names, so let's ignore what they actually said and focus on that instead'.

If you actually read my post, and my rebuttal of the 'mirror neurons' post that Chopra made (posted by Trv elsewhere I think) you would see I made detailed responses to Chopra, and I made a detailed response here to Chopra's nonsense about skepticism and science. Just because Chopra and his followers ignore them or get their knickers in a twist over the tone doesn't change that.

So, you object to what I say but you make no attempt to say why or correct where you claim I am mistaken. You make a strawman about my debunking the studies he cites (I don't want to debunk them, I debunk the conclusions Chopra draws from them, there is a world of difference). Now whose post lacks substance?

You: "It’s always healthy to get a different point of view"

Is that why Chopra ignores them or tries to dismiss them as dogmatic, unimaginative, uninspired etc etc? That is exactly what he is doing here, and it is exactly what I predicted Chopra and his followers would do.

I would like to remind you that Chopra started calling skeptics names a long time before I ever decided to reply to him, and it was in fact one of the reasons I decided to reply to him. If you don't like what you get, don't dish it out in the first place.

Now you've made me cross over....Keith!

Hi there, everyone!

Came to this site after a long time and this is the blog which caught my eye. Took time to read the entire thread, and here is my verdict. In the fight between Deepak and his critics like Scott, Hypocrite, Jimmy_Blue & more, the critics win with a KO. The biggest chink in Deepak's armor is that he fails to respond to specific points of criticism and either ignores them or dismisses them collectively. If he is truly looking for *companions* in his journey seeking the truth, then he should behave like a real companion and not like a herd leader who expects everyone to follow him blindly. He is not "elite" and we are not "commoners", contrary to what he likes to believe.

However, I do believe that there is some truth in Astrology, Rhonda Byrne's The Secret, The Law of Attraction and the power of Belief (though not to the extent of bending objects or humans being able to fly like birds). Sceptics should not be dismissive of these subjects/theories and should have the open-mindedness/patience to test these things themselves. As far as I am concerned, I have experienced some of these things working. I would like to put myself in the category of people like Yogi-One, Derek etc. of this community who think: "I believe in spirituality but I see no evidence to prove that it comes from anywhere other than our collective human experience."

Dear Deepak,

If you and Shekhar truly believe that "you do not exist", then why do you invest all your time in propagating yourself? After all, isn't your whole life effort centered on having more money, more fame, more respect, more reach......in nutshell, do everything possible to build the brand names "Deepak Chopra" or "Shekhar Kapur" bigger?

Isn't it what everybody else here is also trying to do(including me)? Irrespective of whether we believe we exist or we do not, we are all essentially doing the same thing. So how does it make you any different from any of the others here? How has the fact of your knowing that you do not exist differentiated you from the people who believe that they do exist? What difference has it made to your life? Absolutely none.

I do understand what you and Shekhar are saying when you say "I do not exist". My understanding of this theory is that it's like we are only playing characters called "Deepak Chopra" and "Navin Bajaj" in a movie which we are directing ourselves. I have no quarrel with this theory, and in fact, I subscribe to it myself. But then, my question is, who exactly are we in reality if not the characters "Deepak" and "Navin" which we ordinarily believe we are? What exactly is the purpose of playing these *imaginative* characters and who is the one who imagines these characters? Do you have any idea about who we really are?

I have no clue.

Cheers!
Navin

Jimmy Blue,

I don’t think I’ve read your rebuttal of the ‘mirror neuron’ post by Deepak Chopra – and if it was a detailed, technical and fair rebuttal, then I have no problems with that.

You’re still claiming that I still haven’t corrected you and showed you where I think you’re mistaken – I’m sorry but I think I have. In post #80, I explained what I object to and I gave you examples from your post to illustrate it. Some of your responses are speculative, provocative and unhelpful. It seems you think you can read Deepak Chopra’s mind when you say for example: “It's just another way for him to say 'People don't take me as seriously as I think they should.”

There are many occasions where you and other skeptics have provided us with thought-provoking and interesting arguments but I think there are many occasions where you and others like ‘Trv’ have misinterpreted Deepak.

For example, when Deepak Chopra wrote that “Science is the religion of our time”, I didn’t interpret that as a negative statement about science. I don’t think Deepak meant to say that science is dogmatic – what he was saying was that science has the same authority and respect in our society that religion used to have. I think it’s a very positive statement about science. And if you’re familiar with Deepak Chopra’s writings you will know that he has repeatedly said that he thinks it’s important to keep searching for scientific proof and that he loves to study the latest scientific studies about things that he’s interested in because he has a scientific background.

So Deepak Chopra has a lot of respect for science, but at the same time he’s not shy about discussing the limitations of science and the importance of not being close-minded about something just because it hasn’t been scientifically validated to everyone’s satisfaction, yet. That’s where you differ and choose to view things differently it seems. Deepak calls an idea ‘fairly radical’ and you call it ‘ridiculous’. As I’ve said before, there have been skeptics throughout time that thought certain pioneering hypotheses were ‘ridiculous’. So whether it’s ridiculous or not is a question of perspective and only time will tell who was right.

Regards,

Lars

Hello Navin

From somewhere in the middle.

derek

Yo
Being comfortable with not having a clue is very often the best place to be. Not denial, just not presuming to have the answers.

peace comes from peace

derek

Lars hopes..." So whether it’s ridiculous or not is a question of perspective and only time will tell who was right."

You can keep believing that some new evidence might prove a mind-field phenomena in the future. No problem with wishful tinking but the fact remains that what all conclusions are drawn based on the mentioned studies and concepts like "mirror neurons" shown as evidence by Deepak Chopra is fallacious and his writings in this series are nothing more than pseudo-scientific drivel.

I have a concept that there is a flying spaghetti monster in the sky and time will tell if I am right!

cheers!

PS: If anyone is interested in the not-yet-resolved mind-body philosophy problem read the works of greats in that field including Patrica Churchland, David Chalmer, Daniel Dennet, V.S. Ramanujan and Nagel to name a few. (I have followed their work and none of them accept the parapsychology experiments quoted by Dr. Chopra as a scientific evidence or agree with misrepresentation of mirror neuron concept.)

Deepak Chopra's woo-ful whine
by Orac at
Respectful Insolence
scienceblogs.com

..Of course, he richly deserves the abuse heaped upon him, given his idiotic meanderings in which he misrepresents evolution and neuroscience willy-nilly in his attempt to argue that we are infused by the "consciousness of the universe." He's a credulous woo-meister who sells 'non-evidence-based supplements'(www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/chopra.html) and defends 'astrology'(liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1724).

Now, for once, he seems to have addressed the 'issue of woo head on'--sort of:

"Bad manners are the norm in the blogosphere, and no one who dips into that world should bring along a thin skin. Salt air stings but it's refreshing at the same time. There's a raffish lack of respectability to blogs, however, that drive away good people and good minds. Insulting boors abound here, and it's easy enough to go elsewhere and enjoy a civilized debate.

The invective rises higher and higher the more you prick the rigid mind-set that most skeptics cling to. As a small experiment I vary my posts. Sometimes they are about fairly radical ideas, like the mind outside the brain. Sometimes they are about conventional ideas with a new twist, like the recent post on mirror neurons. In both cases the howls of protest reach the same level of raucousness. When commenters who claim to be scientific address you as brain dead, idiotic, unversed in science, and worse, their spleen is evidence of the exact opposite of the cause they espouse, which is objectivity."

Give me a break. Commenters address Chopra as brain-dead, idiotic, and unversed in science because he keeps saying things that are idiotic and reveal him to be unversed in science over and over and over again. After a while, as with creationists or die-hard alt-med aficionados who are immune to evidence, the scientifically-inclined sometimes lose their patients responding to Chopra. Deepak Chopra may think he understands science and the scientific method, but he demonstrates every time that he discusses biology and neuroscience that he does not. He knows how to speculate based on 'pseudoscientific crap'(scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/10/the_trouble_with_deepak_chopra_part_2.php) like the late, unlamented Princeton group that claimed that human thoughts could alter random number generators or exceedingly dubious "evidence" for past lives from Ian Stevenson. Worse, in the process of lamenting just how terribly, terribly mean and nasty bloggers like me have been to him, he can't resist throwing in the old "science is a religion"(rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/07/doggerel-25-science-is-just-another.html) canard.

If you want to see why Chopra inspires such richly deserved attacks, look no further than this sentence in his lament:

"Matter is inert and lifeless, apparently devoid of intelligence, and prone to random action that somehow turns into exquisite orderliness. If you take a single molecule of sugar and follow it from its source in a glass of orange juice, for example, to the moment the juice is drunk one morning at the breakfast table, the final destination of that molecule could be the cerebral cortex. Therefore, the sugar in your brain is what enables you to read this sentence. Yet it is absurd to say that the sugar itself is reading or understanding or in the case of skeptics, trying to shut down the whole investigation of what's actually happening.

Leave aside the fact that skeptics are self-appointed vigilantes for the suppression of curiosity (a delightful coinage from the English writer Lyall Watson)."

And Deepak is a self-appointed vigilante for the suppression of good critical thinking skills in favor of woo.

No scientists say that the sugar is reading or understanding. It's the combination of the cells for which the sugar provides the fuel or the basis for the biosynthesis of other macromolecules linked together with each other that is reading or understanding. Skeptics aren't trying to "shut down" anything. They're just criticizing the very obvious holes in Chopra's discussions of evolution, neuroscience, and consciousness. You know when you're dealing with a crank when he starts claiming that criticism is an attempt to "shut him up."

Not surprisingly, he finishes with a comparison of how "human" the woo-meisters are compared to those soul-less scientists, who, as he points out, brought us "diabolical means of destruction and mechanized death":

"What I like most about the 'woo woo" camp, on the other hand, is its desire to remain human. I would much rather talk to ten people who believe that they have heard from their dead Aunt Minnie than a hundred who shout in my ear that only idiots believe in the afterlife. Skeptics include many well-mannered, intelligent, open-minded people and not just the yahoos one must plug one's ears against. But even among the well-mannered there is an enormous tendency to conform. However, what is intellectually respectable changes from age to age."

Boo hoo.

Of course, the reason that what is intellectually respectable in science changes from age to age is usually due to new evidence and new experimentation. Sometimes science goes down blind alleys and wrong paths, but its self-correcting nature usually eventually asserts itself to weed out useless or incorrect ideas. All this whining about "civility" and appeal to the "human-ness" of woo is nothing more than a transparent attempt to distract attention from the simple fact that Deepak Chopra is totally unable to support his woo with anything resembling science.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/06/deepak_chopras_wooful_whine.php#more

I also have to give this one to the skeptics.

While I have had many "spiritual" "unexplainable" experiences, they were just experiences experienced by a human. I use to try and validate them, but realized that they were personal and really only I could fully understand them.

Deepak I am a fellow traveler in this hidden jounery, I would love to hear you share your experiences and leave them at that. No need for proof. Just sharing our spiritual humaness.

peace

derek

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

I was reading through Navin's post#84 and found it to be quite good, with very interesting questions..this caught my eye...his asking Deepak,"Do you have any idea about who we really are?"

I suspect Deepak knows who we really are. I have read lots of Deepak's "stuff" and I would have to say...he is a man who has "remembered," who has "recognized," who knows from what he speaks...

It is not so much a knowing with your intellect, who you really are, it is more a matter of remembering and a full recognization of who you really are...like meeting youSELF for the first time, AH, yes...how could I have ever forgotten? How could have I ever thought I was Ruth? Ruth suddenly becomes insignificant...her story, just that, a story....but who I really am...well...it fills everything...my breath becomes small in comparison...I am being breathed...instead of doing the breathing...and that is a lovely letting go..feeling....Who we really are is not a question for the mind or from the mind it is a question born of your soul....when your soul longs to know the answer..it will be answered.

now, back to being Ruth...time for dinner...have a great evening...everyone

Imagine the lost of life-power, when we negate ourselves... The formula to slavery.

In relation with the comment of Navin, I would add my own experience-knowledge:

The personality we have of ourself, in any single present moment, is never "complete". From the infinite, we are expressing a finite and limited part of our being.

Like the body-atoms streaming in and out constantly, we are streaming our being in a chained inner-outer life-action.

Now imagine from a inner movement, your getting in touch with your self-tree-of-life, to spread out by an expulsive-force, a fruit-manifestation.

Reaching the full maturation of your manifestation, a lovely-impulsive-force bring you back in the center-essence of your being.

What is the different between you and a wise-men? The wise-men make this movement in total consciousness. From there, there is no subconsciousness. They got full knowledge of life.

So, who are we? This answer cannot be done by a mind walled and trapped by subconsciousness.

Just maybe Deepak is trying to prove these types of experiences, because of people's reactions, i.e., such as what is happening on this thread.

There is so much, much more, but if people cannot accept these simple things, then we will never reach the higher states of consciousness.

Jesus said the same thing as documented in the Bible when people continually attacked his teachings, i.e., something to the effect of, "If you cannot accept and understand the wisdom of earth, then how can you ever accept or understand my teachings of heaven?" Jesus never really taught man about heaven, but he did say that, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within." Jesus also said at the time, that man was not ready, nor could bear the rest of his teachings.

I was reading in Ecclesiastes last night and this morning I was surprised to find much of what Deepak talks about in that book, i.e., the sinner and saint stuff. This is my fourth reading and I just now caught that. I think Solomon wrote this book, but I don't remember and I don't have my study Bible with me and do feel like searching the web further to find out. Deepak is like a modern day Solomon, as well as Jesus. Well, we are Jesus, but Deepak has a great amount of wisdom.

Growth is painful and we all fight it.

My 2 cents and maybe it's not worth even a penny!

Love, Char

Ecclesiastes 3 (Young's Literal Translation)

1Words of a preacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem: (Solomon)

11There is not a remembrance of former [generations]; and also of the latter that are, there is no remembrance of them with those that are at the last.

16That there is no remembrance to the wise -- with the fool -- to the age, for that which [is] already, [in] the days that are coming is all forgotten, and how dieth the wise? with the fool!

11The whole He hath made beautiful in its season; also, that knowledge He hath put in their heart without which man findeth not out the work that God hath done from the beginning even unto the end.

12I have known that there is no good for them except to rejoice and to do good during their life,

16And again, I have seen under the sun the place of judgment -- there [is] the wicked; and the place of righteousness -- there [is] the wicked.

17I said in my heart, `The righteous and the wicked doth God judge, for a time [is] to every matter and for every work there.'

18I said in my heart concerning the matter of the sons of man that God might cleanse them, so as to see that they themselves [are] beasts.

19For an event [is to] the sons of man, and an event [is to] the beasts, even one event [is] to them; as the death of this, so [is] the death of that; and one spirit [is] to all, and the advantage of man above the beast is nothing, for the whole [is] vanity.

20The whole are going unto one place, the whole have been from the dust, and the whole are turning back unto the dust.

21Who knoweth the spirit of the sons of man that is going up on high, and the spirit of the beast that is going down below to the earth?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%201%20;&version=15;

"Right On" Char

I truly appreciate your commentary. There will always be scoffers. Jesus spoke in parables which were understood by those who had "ears to hear".

The days we are living in are troubled times. We are engulfed in materialism and are far away from the days when noble thoughts ruled the times.

Like you, I am so appreciative of being able to learn from those who have traveled a different road to a better realization of what the teachers of higher thoughts had to share with the world.

Love/Peace

Betsy

Deepak
There seems to be a deep vein here. More comments here by far than any other post.

98. Yo's Deep and packed tight!

As someone who has met you on a number of occassions and enjoyed your lectures, I have a question.

So what is science? Is it not the reasonable inquiry into the unknown? Can not spirituality be eplored with scientific methods? If there is no reasonable method to measure or explore, does that make the phenomenon automatically "spiritual"?

Skeptics do not suppress curiosity. They merely demand more accountability than simple faith. There is a place for faith in the absence of evidence.

Would we not be better served by working to bridge the gap between science and the "unexplained"? There is value in inquiry. Much of what we know today was "unexplainable" a few decades ago. I urge you to consider your own scientific roots and consider the possibility of error.

Lars:

So it seems what you are saying is that if I make an entire post detailing why Chopra is wrong and what my opinion of his comments are, it counts as unsubstantiated, in your opinion?

Has Chopra denied what I said and corrected me? Why would Chopra complain about a lack of respectability unless he felt he deserved it but wasn't getting it? What has he done to earn that respect, or does he feel that it should just be given?

Do you see now why I said what I said? I believe that Chopra's words themselves support my interpretation since the rest of the post is simply him complaining that either he or his ideas aren't treated respectfully enough by science or skeptics.

Can you refute my position that the statements I describe as ridiculous actually aren't, or is that again your unsubstantiated opinion?

You said: "For example, when Deepak Chopra wrote that “Science is the religion of our time”, I didn’t interpret that as a negative statement about science. I don’t think Deepak meant to say that science is dogmatic "

Perhaps you missed when Chopra says:

"Science is the religion of our time, and deviation from its dogma, even in the name of science, brings too much stress to true believers."

Although, that would be strange since it is in the same sentence. Why would you cherry pick like that?

If science has a dogma, then it is by definition dogmatic is it not? If 'true believers' were to be stressed by 'deviation from its dogma', wouldn't that suggest that Chopra thinks science is dogmatic?

You said: "I think it’s a very positive statement about science."

Can you substantiate this? In my opinion it is a very negative statement about science, and that is clear from the context it is written in. You seem to be misinterpreting Chopra now wouldn't you say?

Char4 and anyone else who wants to use the Bible to prove/assert/claim something.

I suggest you do some research into textual criticism of the bible, a book like 'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Ehrman would be a good start.

The bible is a fallible book that has been written by humans for humans, it has been mistranslated. It has had text added to new testament texts long after their original authors were dead. Hell, there have been mistranslations because ink bled through from one side of the page to the other. The last 12 verses of Mark's gospel were almost certainly not part of the original text.

The bible proves nothing other than people will believe anything.

'Even More Drivel from Deepak Chopra'
skeptico.blogs.com

Via Pharyngula I learn of some more drivel from Deepak Chopra. He’s whining about skeptics and materialists again. It’s the same old rubbish:

"Skeptics have a rigid mind-set, skeptics suppress new ideas, science is a religion, materialism is false, science isn’t the only way of knowing, science can’t understand spiritualism, yadda yadda…"

I was going to deconstruct it paragraph by paragraph, but it all started to look a little familiar, and then I remembered how I wrote *Is Deepak Chopra a negative or a positive for science and humanity?* in Sept 2005, and responded to *More Chopra drivel* in January 2006. Click the links – I think I covered his lame arguments then, so I think I’ll save my time now.

Well, if Chopra can recycle his drivel I don’t see why I can’t recycle my debunking of it.

skeptico
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/06/even-more-drive.html

Is Deepak Chopra a negative or a positive for science and humanity?
skeptico.blogs.com

Skeptic Magazine reports on a debate between Deepak Chopra and Michael Shermer(see link) entitled “The Value of Skepticism: Is Skepticism a Negative or a Positive for Science and Humanity?” Actually it’s not strictly a debate: Chopra has written a piece and Shermer answers it. Shermer responds pretty well, actually, so I won’t bother to deconstruct Chopra’s entire piece line by line, but I wanted to comment on some of it.

Just about all of Chopra’s criticisms are of a straw man skeptic he has built – the “skeptic” who just says no to everything. He buttresses this with false analogies and appeals to authority. Here he goes:

Deepak Chopra: Worst of all, skeptics take pride in defending the status quo and condemn the kind of open-minded inquiry that peers into the unknown.

Nonsense! Most skeptics would be happy to accept changing the status quo if there was any evidence to support changing the status quo. Open minded inquiry is fine. But considering all ideas with an open mind is not the same as accepting those ideas when there is no evidence they are real, or sometimes evidence they are false. The closed minded ones are the believers who won’t accept that their particular fantasy is nonsense despite the evidence. Or as Shermer states in his response:

"Skepticism has become a legitimate form of inquiry that Deepak parenthetically acknowledges (in a left-handed sort of way) as occasionally laudable, another refrain we often hear in the form of “I’m a skeptic too, but…,” where skepticism is fine as long as it is someone else’s codswallop under the microscope."

A refrain I have heard many a time.

Chopra continues:

"Skepticism is the attitude of doubt, or to dress it up for the dictionary, “the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics.” But in my experience skeptics are overreachers. They equate doubt with logical thinking, so that to be unskeptical makes one irrational."

Again, a straw man definition – Chopra defines skepticism as having “doubt”, so that he can point out that “doubt” is not necessarily logical. It’s not. What makes skeptics logical and rational is that they don’t make up stories to fill the gaps in their knowledge. That is, they don’t make up stories the way Chopra does.

Deepak Chopra: But Keats, Beethoven, and Van Gogh all worked in irrational fields. And the line between religion and science, which skeptics defend like armed guards, isn’t so definite as they suppose, given the religious bent of Kepler, Newton, Einstein, and other scientific minds great and small.

First, false analogy. Beethoven etc may not have worked in a “rational” field, but so what? He wasn’t trying to tell us how the universe worked. Second, Chopra fallaciously appeals to the authority of Newton etc, because they were (supposedly all), religious. Again, so what? Because Newton was right about one thing doesn’t mean he was also right about religion. These are arguments any skeptic has heard and debunked ad nauseam. Isn’t it pathetic that this is the best Chopra can do?

Deepak Chopra: In and of itself, skepticism has made no actual contribution to science, just as music reviews in the newspaper make no contribution to the art of composition and book reviewing falls far short of writing books.

Nonsense! The scientific method – examining evidence, testing hypotheses against external reality, not inventing explanations – are all tools of skepticism. It’s just another false analogy.

Deepak Chopra: …the chief victory of skepticism — to discredit religious thinking as opposed to scientific thinking — is a battle long ago won.

If only that were true. Religious and magical thinking are as strong as ever, and are encouraged by the antics of Chopra.

Deepak Chopra: But skeptics can’t wait to fight the battle again, and people like me, who discuss spirituality and science in the same breath, are vehemently accused of the same ignorant tendencies as fundamentalists waiting for Jesus to return tomorrow.

Because there is just as little evidence – ie no evidence – for Chopra’s claims as there is for those of the religious fundamentalist. The difference is that the fundamentalist doesn’t (for the most part) distort science to try to convince the scientifically illiterate that his fairy stories are true. Unlike Chopra: that is his modus operandi.

Deepak Chopra: To disdainfully dismiss any immaterial phenomenon, as skeptics do, actually betrays the scientific method, which allows any hypothesis into argument in an open-minded tolerance for the next ridiculous speculation that may turn out to be true.

Yes, but then science examines this new hypothesis to see if it is true. If it isn’t, science abandons it. Or as Michael Shermer said:

"By weeding out bad ideas, negative skepticism enables the good to flourish."

How many bad ideas did Chopra or any other non-skeptic “weed out”? And more importantly, how did they weed them out? What technique did they use if it was not to examine evidence skeptically?

Chopra continues.

Deeapk Chopra: But science is wrong if it believes it is the last paradigm or the only one that deserves credence. The nature of new paradigms, as Kuhn wrote, is that they explain more than the previous paradigm.

Fine then show us this new paradigm. And make sure it explains more than science – I mean really explain it with evidence it is real, not a fairy tale explanation such as we get from Chopra. He won’t do that though: all we get from Chopra is made-up feel good drivel.

I’ll leave the final words on what skeptics really are, to Michael Shermer (and Stephen Jay Gould), because I really can’t improve on this:

We are thoughtful, inquiring, and reflective, and we are the watchmen who guard against bad ideas in order to discover good ideas, consumer advocates of critical thinking who, through the guidelines of science, establish a mark at which to aim. “Proper debunking is done in the interest of an alternate model of explanation, not as a nihilistic exercise,” Gould concludes. “The alternate model is rationality itself, tied to moral decency — the most powerful joint instrument for good that our planet has ever known.”

September 30, 2005
Skeptico
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/09/is_deepak_chopr.html

How We Are Connected

by Deepak Chopra

www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/how-we-are-connected_b_14309.html

www.intentblog.com/archives/2006/01/how_we_are_conn.html

****

More Chopra drivel

Where does he get it from? It seems Deepak Chopra has an endless supply of meaningless drivel ... Let’s dip in and see what gems he has to share with the unwashed:

"Some concept of a "subtle body" is accepted widely throughout the East, but it hasn't made major headway in the West for one obvious reason: Whatever is invisible has little standing in a materialistic culture where reality is defined by science."

Yes, science has no time for invisible things like radio waves, atoms, MRIs etc. – all things discovered by science incidentally, not by drips like Chopra. Of course, what he means is that science is only interested in things that have a measurable effect – things that can be tested. If something has no measurable effect (for example, this "subtle body" he’s talking about), then it might just as well not exist. So does his "subtle body" have a measurable effect or is it just too damn subtle to measure?

This is really a fallacious appeal to other ways of knowing. Other ways than science, that is. But science has proven to be the most (only?) reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. If Chopra is claiming that there is a better method, it is up to him to explain what that method would be: something he hasn’t done.

Deepak Chopra: "On the periphery of official wisdom, if we can use that term to describe orthodox ways of thinking, millions of people have experienced and believe in the following propositions:

(Snipped list of woo beliefs)

What these diverse things have in common -- besides being excluded from official wisdom -- is that they imply an invisible connection."

No, what most of them have in common is that there is no evidence that they are real.

Deepak Chopra: By which I don't mean a mystical one. Just as the material world is connected invisibly at the quantum level, the subtle world is connected by a field of consciousness. A prayer, a desire to be healed, a wish for peace, hope for reassurance about the dead -- each impulse enters the field of consciousness and is responded to, just as every material event enters the quantum field and is responded to, down to the least quark and photon.

Meaningless gibberish with the word “quantum” thrown in (twice), as well as a quark and a photon for good measure. This is standard Chopra: he quotes quantum mechanics safe in the knowledge that that few people will know he’s talking garbage. In reality, he just wants to hijack the mantle of science to give this gibberish some respectability. It’s sold a lot of books.

Deepak Chopra: So much evidence exists already about everything on the list

Yes, evidence that they are nonsense, don’t exist or don’t work.

Deepak Chopra: that there is no longer a need to try and adapt to the scientific world view as if it were the only valid one.

Another appeal to other ways of knowing. He still hasn’t explained his better way though. Wonder why not?

Deepak Chopra: Consciousness is still a cottage industry. As such, there is a wild mixture of truth and speculation, projection and verification. Anyone's experience could be real or imaginary. Anyone's explanation could be valid or eccentric.

I suppose that paragraph is technically correct. Meaningless though.

This is the best one of the lot:

"For a new world view to emerge it must be coherent. It cannot be built up from entirely personal experiences, because sometimes these experiences are so intense that we can't see beyond them."

You know, he’s right. We need a method to evaluate the claims of this “new world view”, a way to objectively test these “experiences” so that we don’t fool ourselves into thinking something is true when it is not. A method where others replicate and confirm our results before they are accepted. A reliable method with a proven track record of success. If only we had such a method.

Deepak Chopra: Imagine being in a room where a clairvoyant medium, a channeler, a faith healer, and an acupuncturist are trying to reach agreement while all around them radios blare messages about UFOs, alien abductions, reincarnation, near-death experiences, etc. The Babel of voices is so intense as to be unintelligible.

Yes, I imagine that a room with a clairvoyant medium, a channeler, a faith healer, and an acupuncturist all babbling together would be pretty unintelligible. Rather an obvious statement to make though.

Deepak Chopra: The first steps have to be taken, however, despite this welter of confusion. A culture of consciousness is possible. In fact, present-day science is such a culture, although it is based, ironically enough, on the premise that consciousness has no validity except as an emergent property of matter. One can foresee the next culture of consciousness based on connections, which would overturn the whole scientific prejudice against the subtle body, invisible realities, and the primacy of consciousness in general.

Maybe. But I don’t foresee Chopra leading us there with this load of waffle.

January 27, 2006, Skeptico
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/01/more_chopra_dri.html

This goes out to the protectors of the publics best interests: )

Thank you for trying to make this world a more reasonable farce.

I appreciate the work you do as a group.

On the whole(meaning all of your activities taken together),
I see you as the preservers of truth(verifiable causes/predictable effects).

The only way to obtain the results you wish to see
pertaining to personal experiences, would be to follow
and study a large group of fairly normal people
over a long period of time.

Of course, a psychological evaluation of each participant
would be necessary, but only to establish a base,
not to make a judgment as to their current state of sanity.

Blood tests and a thorough investigation of what's what
in their biological make-up, covering all the bases
is also a must, in order to see exactly where one
is in relation to contemporary standards.

Then we will need certified and licensed, non-partial biographers
to follow their subjects daily, 24/7,
so that we might be sure we don't ever miss anything.

Emergency services must always be available, so that after an 'episode'
we can rush said subject to the nearest testing facility.
Then we check them out thoroughly from head to toe.

Will anything in their constitution change due to the
activity of and in the world surrounding them?

Perhaps we may then say, "A genuine spiritual experience is completely measurable."

Here you have a voluntary subject in the wait.

I am ready and willing.

Now what?

Forget it, Keith. There must be an easier way.
Of course, being ready and willing is a good start......gave me a start, anyway, after you know what.

Are you sure about the birds and the bees?

Bruv

Hello Everyone,

going back to Navin's #84 comment he asks Deepak,"But then, my question is, who exactly are we in reality if not the characters "Deepak" and "Navin" which we ordinarily believe we are? What exactly is the purpose of playing these *imaginative* characters and who is the one who imagines these characters? Do you have any idea about who we really are?

I have no clue."

and in that "remembering," and in that "recognition," of "who you really are," is found the purpose, simple, as it is...the purpose is the remembering, the recognition,.. you realize there could be no other purpose...this is all there is, and ever will be...a purpose so subtle, yet so immence...

have a great day everyone, ruth

Scott,

In response to my last post you write:

“I have a concept that there is a flying spaghetti monster in the sky and time will tell if I am right!”

Don’t you think your comparison is a bit unfair? I was talking about the idea of a mind-field existing outside of the brain, and that we should be open to such an idea instead of dismissing it as ridiculous. After all, there are many pioneering scientific discoveries that have shattered common “wisdom” in the past. Furthermore, millions of people have had experiences that suggest to them that there is mind-field outside of the brain.

On the other hand, to my knowledge (please correct me if I’m wrong!), I have never heard of anyone seeing or experiencing in any way the phenomena of “flying spaghetti monsters in the sky” – so I think you’re making an absurd comparison.

I know you think the millions of people that believe a mind-field exists outside of the brain must be deluded, but the fact is it is something that many people seem to have experienced so shouldn’t we keep open-mind and keep researching it? You and other skeptics, keep saying that scientists are not dogmatic and are curious and open-minded but you don’t seem to be that open-minded. Isn’t it enough for you to say that there is no evidence yet for me to believe in such things but I respect your beliefs instead of just dismissing it as ridiculous?

Take care,

Lars

Jimmy Blue,

Please read my latest post addressed to Scott if you want to know why I think you’re close-minded when you call Deepak’s ‘fairly radical ideas’ ridiculous. Instead of calling them ridiculous why not just say you find them “intriguing but unproven in my view” for example. That sort of language would make you come across as a more open-minded and curious person, the very type of person you think a good scientist should be like.

Furthermore, I'm surprised you’re accusing me of cherry picking when you don’t know if I had read the full article where Deepak called science the religion of our time. I had only seen many of the skeptics here quoting Deepak as having simply said that “science is the religion of our time” and I interpreted that quote differently than you in light of the various readings I have read by Dr Chopra.

But thanks for providing me with the full quote, it’s interesting to read because, to my surprise, he does say that science is a dogma which I find strange because in his books and on Intentblog, he's always been keen to talk about scientific research. Maybe he’s changed his mind or maybe he didn’t express himself well.

In my view, and I would like to think that Deepak Chopra holds the same view, science in itself isn’t necessarily dogmatic. But there are dogmatic scientists and skeptics who refuse to be open to ideas that do not conform to the status quo and have not been proven scientifically to a satisfactory level. On the other hand, an open-minded scientist, would be reluctant to dismiss new ideas because he or she would admit that science has its limitations and may not always be able to prove something and that paradigms have been shattered in the past.

Take care,

Lars

"Don’t you think your comparison is a bit unfair?"

There is no unfairness.

Replace "flying spaghetti monster" with a Christian God or fairies, mindfield or whatever for which there is no evidence yet. The point remains however ridiculous the idea of flying spaghetti monster might seem to you.

"After all, there are many pioneering scientific discoveries that have shattered common “wisdom” in the past."

The same straw man argument regurgitated again and again by the woos. Science and skepticism have worked together to put forth new theories that challenged the common sense wisdom like with Relativity theory or Quantum Mechanics or Heliocentric theory but his doesn't mean that any beleif that isn't common wisdom and that has no scientific evidence is equally probable to be true.(see the criticism in Deepak Chopra's "common sense world of skeptics" thread)

"Furthermore, millions of people have had experiences that suggest to them that there is mind-field outside of the brain."

Subjective feelings are not reliable assessments of truth. No evidence. Just because you "feel" that there has to be something doesn't mean that it has to be real.
(There are several people who had visions of Virgin Mary, Jesus etc, doesn't mean that they are true. Millions believe in ESP doesn't mean that it is true.)

"Isn’t it enough for you to say that there is no evidence yet for me to believe in such things but I respect your beliefs instead of just dismissing it as ridiculous?"

You imply that the beliefs of the church of the flying spaghetti monster are *ridiculous*. I hold all woo beliefs with equal respect.

I will keep my mouth shut. Lest I may be cooked in space or thrown into the mind field of woo mines.

PS: keep beleiving whatever you want I respect your beliefs but don't fool yourself and fool others that there are scientific studies which proved your paranormal beliefs, or misrepresent science (and skepticism)and claim scientific evidence where there is none.

"Deepak’s ‘fairly radical ideas’ ridiculous."

"unsupported ideas", "ideas misinterpreting evidence", "ideas misrepresenting science" , "ideas uncritically embracing pseudo-science".....if that sinks into the closed-logic-woo-believing-mind.

The appeal to be open-minded

All skeptics have heard this from someone at some point in a debate: “You need to be more open-minded” or “You’re too closed-minded”. This is presented as though it is actually a valid argument. In reality it just shows they have run out of arguments. They hide behind it to disguise the complete lack of any rational reason for you to accept what they are telling you. It's the last resort of someone who has nothing – if they had evidence they would obviously present it.

Even so, it can seem compelling, since calling someone closed-minded is pejorative. But it’s fallacious rhetoric: doubting something is not necessarily closed minded. In fact, the closed minded ones are the believers who insist some fantastic story is true despite a complete lack of evidence to support it. They are too closed minded to accept that their fantasy might be false.

An open mind is…

Here’s the thing. An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false. It is not closed-minded to reject claims that make no sense. If you can’t accept the possibility that an idea might be false, then you are the closed minded one. An open minded person will critically examine all claims but will not accept them if there is no reason to believe they are true or if there is reason to believe they are false. To do so would be fallacious. And credulous.

The real problem

The “have an open mind” crowd are more than just logically wrong. Their way of thinking is actually destructive to good ideas. Bad ideas should be discarded - by weeding out bad ideas the good can flourish. An earlier version of this argument would have gone, “You’re closed-minded in saying that humors don’t exist” to justify bloodletting. But by focusing uncritically on bloodletting, germ theory would never have been discovered. Germ theory was discovered by skeptical scientists who insisted on evidence, not by new-agers with open minds.

If you accept something when there is no reason to believe it is true you are just credulous. And if you will not reject something when there is no reason to believe in it then you are in freefall – you will believe in anything. This way of thinking is a complete dead end. Or to put it another way, don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out.

Skeptico
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_b.html

Lars wrote:"I know you think the millions of people that believe a mind-field exists outside of the brain must be deluded, but the fact is it is something that many people seem to have experienced so shouldn’t we keep open-mind and keep researching it?"

Open-mind also mean that the woos have to be open to the possibility that there is no such thing as woo. Deepak Chopra argues from default that his theories 'must' be right. That sure is not an open-mind. Scientists and skeptics are open-minded because all new theories of science are falsifiable and is inherently self-correcting upon new evidence. The same cannot be said about woo believers. They never acknowledge that they are/were wrong or that they could be wrong. This is due to the nature of their beliefs which are dogmatic and close-minded which they then start projecting over to the skeptics and science.

Lars wrote"You and other skeptics, keep saying that scientists are not dogmatic and are curious and open-minded but you don’t seem to be that open-minded."

See #112

Lars writes..."it’s interesting to read because, to my surprise, he does say that science is a dogma which I find strange because in his books and on Intentblog, he's always been keen to talk about scientific research. Maybe he’s changed his mind or maybe he didn’t express himself well."

People who think that Deepak is learned and knowledgeable in science, that he is a bestselling author, he has charisma, he sounds intelligent and spiritual, therefore whatever he writes and speculates about evolution, genetics, skepticism, parapsychology and anything science must be true and should have a strong basis.

The fact is that his scientific articles and arguments are debunked over and over again that his critics have now lost patience and have to repeat themselves over and over again for the same charges leveled against them while he couldn't provide further evidence and further arguments, which aren't already debunked, that could in theory possibly substantiate his claims.

Chopra Zombies need not have to read what he even writes..whatever flows out of his pen must be cutting edge science, fairly radical and woo fully right.

Hey! I generally read what Deepak writes and know his position on science and skepticism fair bit better than the Zombies who have no clue when they see words like 'quantum' thrown in for good measure.

"We do not ask for what useful purpose the birds sing, for song is their pleasure since they were created for singing. Similarly, we ought not to ask why the human mind troubles to fathom the secrets of the heavens ... The diversity of the phenomena of Nature is so great, and the treasures hidden in the heavens so rich, precisely in order that the human mind shall never be lacking in fresh nourishment." - Johannes Kepler, Mysterium Cosmographicum. Quoted by Carl Sagan in Cosmos.

I want to thank Betsy S for bringing this topic to my attention. By the time I finished reading all the comments, I had forgotten nearly the original statement by Deepak. Wow! I must admit that I like Derek's comments very much, and am attracted to those who are in the spiritual realm.

There is no doubt that science and spirituality are like oil and water. Neither truly interact well.

This has been an enlightening reading, and again, some posts tend towards monologues. Let everyone get a word in once in awhile, as I understand getting carried away with one's thoughts, but too often it becomes an "in love with your own voice" presentation.

Aunt Minnie really made an impact. Took me back to my childhood. I appreciate Deepak for his liking those who are in a state of true conviction and are probably more sincere than any of the skeptics. Thanks, Deepak.

"Let everyone get a word in once in awhile, as I understand getting carried away with one's thoughts, but too often it becomes an "in love with your own voice" presentation."~arizonasunset

The attempt to get other people to see your point of view is like untangling ripples on a pond.

"We do miss Carl, don’t we?

We do. The world would have been a richer and saner place with his voice.

Nice weekend to you too. Are you planning to educate children this summer?

Keep visiting... people appreciate a Saganesque voice of reason.

The Ig Nobel Deepak Chopra

My readers have been reminding me about Deepak's newest blog post, The Woo Woo Factor, and Anders Rasmussen reminds how Deepak Chopra won the Ig Nobel prize a few years back.
rasmussenanders.blogspot.com/2007/06/deepak-chopra-quantum-and-ig-nobel.html
Sorry about not keeping up, but keeping up with Deepak gets dull and repetitive. Luckily PZ Myers and Orac have picked up the slack for all you readers who want your regular dose of Chopra bashing. www.skepdic.com/chopra.html

Here, thanks to Anders Rasmussen, are a few old Chopra quotations that illustrate Deepak's abuse of quantum physics:

(1) "The most important routine to follow is transcending: the act of getting in touch with the quantum level of yourself"

(2) "Quantum health is based on the idea that we are always, forever, in transition."

(3) "The universe consists of a "field of all possibilities" called the "field of pure potentiality", and also the "quantum soup"

It's the old quantum mysticism and quantum quackery that's been with us since Fritjof Capra wrote the "The Tao of Physics" back in the 1970s.

Deepak writes:

"I would much rather talk to ten people who believe that they have heard from their dead Aunt Minnie than a hundred who shout in my ear that only idiots believe in the afterlife."

Of course Deepak would prefer those who hear the voices of the dead, they're more likely to buy his "quantum nutrition" advice from his American academy of quantum medicine.

Posted by normdoering
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/06/ig-nobel-deepak-chopra.html

Many years ago I watched a series of talks by Chopra on the local PBS tv station. The only thing I remember is him writing a series of vertical chlk marks on a board. He stated the marks were the thoughts our mind generated. He then pointed to the empty places between the marks and stated "this is who we really are." This backed up my burgeoning understanding of emptiness. Since then, my own practice has brought about the direct perception and experience of his words. I know he has understanding of reality. I don't know enough about science to even begin to question him or anyone elses knowledge but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to listen, nonjudgementally, and either accept or reject his statements. I don't really feel the need to be right, much less appear to be right. Those who feel differently are certainly welcome to their opinions. Peace

Hello Ruth, Derek, Jean-Francois & everyone,

"Who we really are is not a question for the mind or from the mind it is a question born of your soul....when your soul longs to know the answer..it will be answered.".......Ruth

"So, who are we? This answer cannot be done by a mind walled and trapped by subconsciousness.".......Jean-Francois

Both of you are basically saying that the answer comes to you when you are ready. I have heard these sort of statements from other people also before this, including the self-proclaimed *realized* persons/teachers. These statements make you sound as if you know the answer, and I don't know it because I am not ready yet. These are typical, egoistical, holier than thou statements. There is a lot of ambiguity in your statements, so let's be clear first. Do both of you claim to know the answer?

"and in that "remembering," and in that "recognition," of "who you really are," is found the purpose, simple, as it is...the purpose is the remembering, the recognition,.. you realize there could be no other purpose...this is all there is, and ever will be...a purpose so subtle, yet so immence...".............Ruth

Dear Ruth, do you really think this is the purpose of our lives? Just to *remember* who we are? If that is all there is to it, then why forget it in the first place? It is like a child throwing away his/her toy in the bushes and then spending the whole day trying to find it! LOL. What a waste of time!

I am more comfortable being with the likes of Derek who feel no shame in Not Knowing, rather than pretend to have all the answers.

I personally do not think that any living person (who comes on TV and is famous) has the answers. All of them are pretenders. Ultimately, whether someone is realized or not, only they themselves will know. So I let them be their own judge. If they know the answer......good for them. I'm happy in my not knowing.

Cheers!
Navin

DEar Navin,

I really loved reading your #84 and I thought I would take a stab at it, for my own benefit, and trying to see if I could articulate an answer for myself...my answers, like your questions... came straight from the "heart." For me, yes, I know who I am and what my purpose is, really, it is no big deal..to anyone, but me..

you ask,"Dear Ruth, do you really think this is the purpose of our lives? Just to *remember* who we are?

just to remember? really, and believe me when I say this...there is absolutely no..just to..when it comes to the remembering..to remember is to actually see without using you eyes, to remember is to feel without using your sense of touch..to remember is to recognize without a shadow of a doubt your true face...

and, yes, whether it sounds self-rightous or not the answer can only come to you when you are ready...not unlike any other answer to any other question one may have...

There was a time when it was only the "GURU" who could know the answer..but that time has come and gone...people awakening and remembering their true natute is much more commonplace today, and will be even more commonplace in the future..there is as much baggage around the whole Master-Student-Guru idea of SELF realization as there is around the Christian God religions...

hey, there was a time I was not ready crawl, walk, talk, write, drive a car, or know who I was other than the person who answers to the name of Ruth and looks back at me in the mirror...everything in it's own time..Now that is "just" the way it is...

have a great evening Navin...feel free to toss this response to the garbage bin...

Navin, we don't intentionally forget who we are. When we're young there's a direct perception of reality. The observer and the observed are the same. As we get older we start interacting with the world and the people in it. We start picking up beliefs from our parents, friends, church, etc. These beliefs don't always describe reality. On the on the hand we stick our hands into a fire and get burned fingers. We come close to getting run over by a vehicle and get spanked all the way back home, an unfortunate memory of mine, but decidely better than getting run over. This is why a strong ego is necessary. Unfortunately, the more beliefs we accrue the harder it is to see the truth. Our beliefs start cutting grooves and reality tunnels into our consciousness. I think what Ruth is describing by using the word 'remembering' is what I call the intentional removing of these beliefs that can't hold up under rational scrutiny. Respectfully. Peace

Dear Navin,

just re-read this of yours,"It is like a child throwing away his/her toy in the bushes and then spending the whole day trying to find it! LOL. What a waste of time!

that is exactly what it is!

here is something from a "brief tour of consciousness" by Itzhak Bentov

The home of the supreme SELF is the Absolute, the void. Then after a long time this SELF, sitting in the cold dark void, gets bored and wants to do something. Being creative, He/She wants to play, since there is no work to be done out there. He/She finds no company and therefore, starts playing with Him/HER SELF. He/She decides to play hide and seek(throw the toy away in the bushes only to have to find it), because it's an easy game to play. He/She manifests a blanket(toy) made of ego stuff(in the Absolute everything is possible) Then separates a part of him/her self and covers it with this blanket of ego stuff and goes BOO!. Well this is a very interesting and delightful game. So, he/she gets a blanket of ignorance of Self and wraps it around the previous blanket. This looks like fun, he/she thinks, and adds a blanket of intellect and of emotion, more ignorance and a thick physical blanket..Soon the part that is all wrapped up in ignorance and ego stops recognizing the original SELF. HE/She is so involved in the goings-on inside the cocoon of blankets that he/she completely ignores and forgets His/her playful part...

yes, I would have to agree with you it is a complete waste of time...LOL!

have a great evening Navin, ruth

Dear Ruth,

Ofcourse, I know that your responses to me were straight from your heart. I know heart-felt writings when I see them. No doubts on that count. I merely wanted you to make sure whether you are actually satisfied yourself with your answer that the purpose of our lives is merely to *remember* who we are. So you think you know who you are. So who are you really? What exactly does your true face look like if the real you even has a face? Do you have a form like we have as humans or are you formless? I am actually asking you to describe what the real you looks/feels like, if you can.

"There was a time when it was only the "GURU" who could know the answer..but that time has come and gone...people awakening and remembering their true natute is much more commonplace today, and will be even more commonplace in the future"

People remembering their *true nature* is not what I am talking about if you mean people remembering their true nature as a human being, by your above statement, because I already know my true nature as a human and am true to it.

What I'm interested in knowing is that if the theory that you and I are just characters out of a self-directed movie is correct, then who is the one who is directing that movie? What is the true nature of that entity? That is what I'm asking you to describe.

And you didn't answer my question that if remembering oneself was the only purpose of our lives, then why did we forget our true selves in the first place?

And I would never toss a heart-felt response to me in the garbage bin. That's not why I'm here. :) At least you and I have the decency to answer questions, unlike some others.

Cheers!
Navin

Dear Ruth,

Ok, so I got your answer in your #130 in the form of the excerpt from Itzhak Bentov. But this theory that The One got bored with himself/herself/itself and created this whole world as Play (Leela) is quite an old one in Hindu philosophy and I was aware of it. Though the explanation sounds believable and logical, but still there is no evidence to prove it. So, I was never really convinced with this explanation. I still am not.

Dear Commoner51,

Thank you for your response. What you are talking about is removal of conditioning, I don't think Ruth is talking about the same thing when she talks about *remembering* who we are. If it was just about the removal of conditioning, I would have already reached there. As I have pretty much cut off all my childhood conditioning by now. I don't believe in any of the organized religions or any of the things spoon-fed to us at school. I have an absolutely open/free mind. But getting rid of your conditioning and understanding the true nature of reality are not exactly the same thing, according to me.

Cheers!
Navin

Dear Navin,,

you write,"merely to *remember*, it is the merely I have a problem with...merely, your judgement around the remembering is huge...remembering is everthing for your soul...when you remember..simply, to say to merely remember, it is not like finding your mis-paced keys, or your lost automobile...this remembering has no comparison at all to anything you have ever remembered in your life, through your mind and intellect...

you ask,.. so who are you really? no one in particular, or you and I are one in the same, or I am no-body at all...or...etc.

Navin, you ask.. do you have form as we humans?humans are both form and formless at the same time, the Ruth that is writing to you is my form and that form is not separated from the formless or unmanifested aspect of my being....

how do I feel...full, a vibrating fullness, a joyous vibration within peaceful stillness when I am able to turn my attention into my inner being...and rest there...

this is taking much too long and my computer is going to kick me out soon..

it has been a pleasure chatting with you Navin, have a wonder-full weekend ....ruth

Dear Ruth,

Thank you so much for your time and chatting with me. It's nearly 2:30 AM here in Bombay, and I better get some sleep! Have a great weekend.

Cheers!
Navin

Dear Navin

you say,"Though the explanation sounds believable and logical, but still there is no evidence to prove it."

I think the nature of the game demands individual direct experience, only...you can't get by on some one else's experiment...or by copying their notes...you gots to do it yourself...meaning my evidence is not or ever going to be your evidence..

now I am done for the evening...bye ruth

Hey Ed!

How brave and courageous I believe you to be
just for seeing and responding to #104.

Actually, I cast a spell upon it to make it
invisible to those who roll their eyes
to see the skies when the goin' gets tough.

Who's afraid of a big and reasonable but fairly impossible experiment?

The bees are in one now and the doves say,

Coo-coo...coo...coo...woo-woo...woo...coo woo, dew-duh!

I finally came to a place where I just thru up my hands "I give up." As long as there is duality; 'this is this/not this' we get stuck. Everything is the same. The path is the destination. My post is a declaration posed in duality. Words fail. Thanks for the civility. Say goodnight, Gracie. Good night, Gracie. Respectfully, Mike

Kieth, that's "doo-dah", son.

Sorry, Mike. It's 'dude' elongated.

Hey Navin!

If I know you, you'll be able to look back
without turning into a pillar...

"Ye are(already) the salt of the earth."

Just thought you might like to hear that.
Sounds better than 'dust' to Me2.
But it's all about having 'good taste', isn't it?

Always good to see ya! Keith~

(P.S. Dave Hall swore he'd be back soon.)
(P.S.2: We won't let you forget your record intent.)

I would recommend to those who are hopelessly mired in cynicism and acerbic judgement, fetch yourself a copy of Pronoia is the Antidote to Paranoia.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583941231/qid=1117646708/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8504044-3522341?v=glance&s=books

Youll save yourself from beginning to look like a stiff nay-sayer, and allow yourself the glee of exploring possibility.

That is, unless you never believed the world was out to get you in the first place...

Because I think it was (out to get you).

Lars:

You said: "Instead of calling them ridiculous why not just say you find them “intriguing but unproven in my view” for example. That sort of language would make you come across as a more open-minded and curious person, the very type of person you think a good scientist should be like."

Which, combined with your answer with Scott amounts to, YOU think we are close minded and YOU don't think it is fair of us to call Chopra's ideas ridiculous or compare them to the ridiculous. So you are making an unsubstantiated claim.

You said: "I had only seen many of the skeptics here quoting Deepak as having simply said that “science is the religion of our time” and I interpreted that quote differently than you in light of the various readings I have read by Dr Chopra."

So just so I am clear. You have accused me of not making substantive claims about Chopra's arguments, you claimed that I was wrong to say that Chopra said science was dogmatic, you think I am wrong to dismiss some of his specific ideas as ridiculous, and yet you haven't actually read the article that I was criticising? That is even worse than you having cherry picked his argument. I made the mistake of assuming that you would actually have read that which you are defending. I guess I won't do that again. Quite frankly, your credibility is completely undermined by this.

You are willing to defend Chopra from criticism when you haven't even read what is being criticised, your default position being that Chopra is right and skeptics wrong. That would demonstrate that you are closeminded, biased, and even, dare I say, dogmatic. What is worse, you don't seem to think there is anything wrong with this!

You said: "But there are dogmatic scientists and skeptics who refuse to be open to ideas that do not conform to the status quo and have not been proven scientifically to a satisfactory level."

There is no status quo in science. Science is constantly revising, updating and experimenting. What you and Chopra both mean is that you consider a dogmatic scientist to be anyone who doesn't accept the supernatural, paranormal or pseudoscientific. You express it in different terms, but that is what you mean because those are the ideas you believe science should look at.

You said: "On the other hand, an open-minded scientist, would be reluctant to dismiss new ideas because he or she would admit that science has its limitations and may not always be able to prove something and that paradigms have been shattered in the past. "

An open minded scientist is someone who accepts new ideas that have some basis in science and current understanding, or that explain an observation of the natural universe better than current explanations without uneccesary assumption (i.e. that apply Occams Razor). Are you saying that scientists should be open to the idea that unicorns exist for example? Science hasn't disproven their existence after all, so does that mean scientists should try to prove their existence? If my new idea is that internal combustion in car engines is the result of microscopic elves lighting their own farts, do you think scientists should start investigating?

The reason that scientists dismiss Chopra's ideas is because they are at the same level as Unicorns, farting elves and the flying spaghetti monster. You and Chopra just don't want that to be the case (and you say as much to Scott), you think that any new idea that seems a bit 'sciencey' should be looked at by scientists because that is how you define being 'open minded'.

Where paradigms have been shattered, they have been by scientists using the scientific method. Not by non-scientists simply asserting something they believe as a fact no matter how contrary to current knowledge and understanding. Even Newton said:

"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

The point being that 'paradigm shifts' in science are never quite as radical as people outside science think.

As Trv points out in post 113, Chopra most definitely is not open minded because he asserts that what he claims must be right, see in particular his stuff on the mind/brain, it is riddled with assertions of the type "This can only be.." (part 5 of the mind outside brain nonsense contains one that immediately springs to mind) Science is always open to the possibility that a conclusion may be wrong and can be revised upon more evidence becoming available. How can you describe an assertion like that above as anything but close minded dogma when it is given with no supporting evidence?

arizonasunset said:
"but too often it becomes an "in love with your own voice" presentation."

Since Chopra's posts are all as long or longer than any I have made, do you apply that to him as well?

arizonasunset also said:
"I appreciate Deepak for his liking those who are in a state of true conviction and are probably more sincere than any of the skeptics. "

Yes that's right. I've taken the time to come here and try and persuade people that Chopra is wrong when I have nothing to gain from doing so because I lack sincerity.

On the other hand, Chopra, who was educated as a doctor and should understand how science works continues to misrepresent it. He insults science and skeptics whilst in the same breath complaining about being insulted by them. He promotes completely discredited ideas and beliefs and makes a lot of money for doing so. Yes, he must be entirely sincere.

You're right, I can't possibly imagine how anyone whose livelihood is based on promoting nonsense to the credulous could be anything but genuinely sincere, can you?

Tonight, I was full of anger.

I got out of the house, picked up by a friend, on an after rain, smoky road.

I was talking about the last mail I got from a friend from South America. An horrible email. Photos of a car crash with a truck and the horrible death of the person inside. Horrible photos.

I was mad about my dad behaviors. A selfish and full ego-centered. Inside I exploded in a way... with my words, in the car. She was listening, all hears. A pure beauty.

And suddenly... bbbaaannngggg! A rabbit was on the road. No time to react. She said... no... it was a rabbit and I hit it... poor rabbit... I did not want to. But there was no time reaction possible and she calms down... left with a sad feeling.

After 5 minutes of shock. We came back by the same road. Where is it? I want to say sorry to him. It was lying there... we stopped the car to take a look. Look, its eyes are still opened, she said... The hit was fatal. Blood and its beautiful body... broken.

Back on the road with this new feeling, we came to the conclusion that this event was not for nothing. We have met a lot of animal, in the last month. It's unusual for both of us. We have never met so many animals in all our life... and the most strange, it all happens in very short period of time. (Ex: imagine, we have seen a fish jumping out of water 3 times in a row, in front of us).

She told me... did you saved the message you got today? Yes, I said. Delete it from your computer, she said. Delete it from your memory... and for your dad... stop to bring to the surface the sufferance that you have from him.

I said... If we are One with all, so it could be very true... we influence our surrounding with our dualistic-projections. I will add... it's seems that we do not need 10 years of therapy to get out of a negative situations... life seems to be able to give us support... big support, even in front of situations where we are left with nothing, facing the unknown. How little, this insecurity-knowledge is. How far am I able to swallow this lesson?

So even if I am not a master... at less, I know that from my ignorance, I am called to open myself with this new lesson. How far are we interacting with the others, even without knowing it?

This is my understanding of the event. I was in the experiment. An moment personally build for both of us, at this exact moment. You, not really... so think what you want and see if I care.

You, little rabbit you have being a great master tonight and you deserve peace for what happened. Here is little cartoon for your glory and to say we are deeply sorry...

Oh, and in regards to the whole 'millions have experienced the mind/brian field.'

Well, 100,000 people all at the same time thought they experienced the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima on the 13th October 1917.

Only the rest of the world didn't notice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun

Personal experience does not make for reliable scientific evidence.

Jimmy, it's a little known fact that the 1917 event was caused by someone dumping a large quantity of mushrooms into the local well. I keep hoping for a similar ocurence in present time.

Hi Keith,

Thanks for your message. Always good to see you too. :) It's raining cats & dogs here in Mumbai (Bombay)......guess will have to stay indoors. Sigh!

Cheers!
Navin

Excerpts from "Island", by Aldous Huxley--1962

.

"Murugan was telling me about the fungi that are used here as a source of dope."

"What's in a name?" said Dr. Robert, with a laugh.
"Answer, practically everything.
Having had the misfortune of being brought up in Europe,
Murugan calls it dope and feels about it all the disapproval that,
by conditioned reflex, the dirty word evokes. We,
on the contrary, give the stuff good names--the 'moksha-medicine', the reality revealer, the truth-and-beauty pill.
And we know, by direct experience, that the good names are deserved.
Whereas our young friend here has no firsthand knowledge
of the stuff and can't be persuaded even to give it a try.
For him, it's dope and dope is something that, by definition,
no decent person ever indulges in."

"What does His Highness say to that?" Will asked.

Murugan shook his head. "All it gives you is a lot of illusions,"
he muttered. "Why should I go out of my way to be made a fool of?
All I mean is that I don't want any of your false samadhi."

"How do you know it's false?" Dr. Robert inquired.

"Because the real thing only comes to people after years and years
of meditation and tapas and...well, you know--not going with women."

"Murugan," Vijaya explained to Wii, "is one of the Puritans.
He's outraged by the fact that, with four hundred milligrams
of moksha-medicine in their blood streams, even beginners--
yes, and even boys and girls who make love together--
can catch a glimpse of the world as it looks to someone
who has been liberated from the bondage to the ego."

"Another thing we're just beginning to understand," said Vijaya,
is the neurological correlate of these experiences.
What's happening in the brain when you're having a vision?
And what's happening when you pass from a premystical state
to a genuinely mystical state of mind?"

"Do you know?" Will asked.

" 'Know' is a big word. Let's say we're in a position to make
some plausible guesses. Angels and New Jerusalems
and Madonnas and Future Buddhas--they're all related
to some kind of unusual stimulation to the brain areas
of primary projection--the visual cortex, for example.
Just how the moksha-medicine produces those unusual stimuli
we haven't found out yet. The important fact is that,
somehow or other, it does produce them. And somehow or other,
it also does something unusual to the silent areas of the brain,
the areas not specifically concerned with
perceiving, or moving, or feeling."

"And how do the silent areas respond?" Will inquired.

"Let's start with what they don't respond with.
They don't respond with visions or auditions, they don't respond
with telepathy or clairvoyance or any other kind
of parapsychological performance. None of that amusing
premystical stuff.
Their response is the full-blown mystical experience.
You know--One in all and All in one. The basic experience
and its corollaries--boundless compassion,
fathomless mystery and meaning."

"Not to mention joy," said Dr. Robert, "inexpressible joy."

"And the whole caboodle is inside your skull," said Will.
"Strictly private. No reference to any external fact except a toadstool."

"Not real," Murugan chimed in. "That's exactly what I was trying to say."

"You're assuming," said Dr. Robert, "that the brain
produces consciousness. I'm assuming that it transmits consciousness.
And my explanation is no more farfetched than yours.
How on earth can a set of events belonging to one order
be experienced as a set of events belonging to an entirely different and incommensurable order? Nobody
has the faintest idea. All one can do is accept the facts
and concoct hypothesis. And one hypothesis is just about as good, philosophically speaking, as another.
You say that the moksha-medicine does something to the silent areas
of the brain which causes them to produce a set of subjective
events to which people have given the name 'mystical experience'.
I say that the moksha-medicine does something to the silent areas
of the brain which opens some kind of neurological sluice
and so allows a larger volume of MInd with a large 'M'
to flow into your mind with a small 'm'. You can't
demonstrate the truth of your hypothesis, and I can't
demonstrate the truth of mine. And even if you
could prove that I'm wrong, would it make any practical difference?"

"I'd have thought it would make all the difference," said Will.

"Do you like music?" DR Robert asked.

"More than most things."

"And what, may I ask, does Mozart's G-minor Quintet
refer to? Does it refer to Allah? Or Tao? Or the second person
of the Trinity? Or the Atman-Brahman?"

"Will laughed. "Let's hope not."

"But that doesn't make the experience of the G-minor Quintet
any less rewarding. Well, it's the same with the kind
of experience that you get with the
moksha-medicine, or through prayer and fasting and spiritual exercises.
Even if it doesn't refer to anything outside itself,
it's still the most important thing that ever happened to you.
Like music, only incomparably more so. And if you give the
experience a chance, if you're prepared to go along with it,
the results are incomparably more therapeutic and transforming.
So maybe the whole thing does happen inside one's skull.
Maybe it is private and there's no unitive knowledge
of anything but one's own physiology. Who cares?
The fact remains that the experience can open one's eyes
and make one blessed and transform one's whole life."

(To Murugan) "You're like that mynah," said Dr Robert at last.
Trained to repeat words you don't understand or know the reason for,
'It isn't real. It isn't real.' But if you experienced
what Lakshmi and I went through yesterday you'd know better.
You'd know it was much more real than what you call reality. More real
than what you're thinking and feeling at this moment.
More real than the world before your eyes.
But 'not real' is what you've been taught to say.
Not real. Not real." Dr, Robert laid a hand affectionately
on the boy's shoulder. "You've been told that we're just a set of self-indulgent dope takers,
wallowing in illusions and false samadhis. Listen Murugan--
forget all the bad language that's been pumped into you.
Forget it it at least to the point of making a single experiment.
Take four hundred milligrams of moksha-medicine and find out
for yourself what it does, what it can tell you about your own nature,
about this strange world you've got to live in,
learn in, suffer in, and finally die in. Yes,
even you will have to die one day-- maybe fifty years from now,
maybe tomorrow. Who knows? But it's going to happen,
and one's a fool if one doesn't prepare for it."

.

I'm no fool.

All hinges around that, Keith. Our old friend Death is on our tail all the time.

Could it be he's no fool, either?

The Irony and the Ecstasy
All clumped up into One
The Blessed Experience of Not-Two

All else is echo and reflection.

Ed...ed.....

All the holy ones have turned within and sought the self, and by this went beyond all doubt. To turn within means all the 24 hours and in every situation, to pierce one by one through the layers covering the self, deeper and deeper, to a place that cannot be described. It is when thinking comes to an end and making distinctions ceases, when wrong views and ideas disappear of themselves without having to be driven forth, when without being sought the true action and the true impulse appear of themselves. It is when one can know the truth of the heart.

- Daikaku (1213-1279) todays "Daily Zen" peace

Amen

Jimmy Blue,

I think we could have an endless debate about all the things that you and I have discussed, so let me just focus on the thing that I object to the most.

I don’t have a problem if you don’t want to accept something because you don’t think there’s enough evidence to support it. What I find a narrow-minded is when someone is not open to new ideas and will just dismiss them as ridiculous. And that’s what you’ve done - you don’t just dismiss the evidence, you also dismiss the very idea that a mind-field could exist.

I know that if millions of people have experienced something it doesn’t make it scientifically proven but I think it makes it an interesting phenomenon and makes it qualify for serious open-minded scientific enquiry. On the other hand, few people could claim to have seen a ‘flying spaghetti monster’ or an Acorn. So I think the comparison is absurd, and it is a sly attempt to undermine and ridicule a fascinating area of research that could have huge benefits for mankind.

Just because you don’t believe that there’s no evidence to scientifically prove something yet, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it doesn’t exist. If you don’t think the evidence is there yet – fine, don’t accept it - but I would like to suggest that you stay open to the possibility that it could be true.

In history, there have been a lot of skeptics that have thought that flying an airplane, talking through a telephone, listening to a radio or the idea that one day a human being would walk on the moon were all ridiculous ideas. How is the idea that there could be a mind-field outside of the brain more ridiculous than the idea that I can listen to someone through a wireless radio? Stay open to new ideas!

Have a nice day,

Lars

Lars:

You said: "What I find a narrow-minded is when someone is not open to new ideas and will just dismiss them as ridiculous. And that’s what you’ve done - you don’t just dismiss the evidence, you also dismiss the very idea that a mind-field could exist. "

This is in fact not a representation of my position at all. How do you know I am not open to new ideas? How do you know that I haven't examined this idea very deeply? I actually have a degree in philosophy and I have studied the idea of the mind not being within the body but connected to it in some way. However, your prejudice and bias leads you to assume that if I dismiss an idea it is because I am narrow minded. So, in fact I would ask, who is actually being narrow minded here? What I dismiss is not necessarily the scientific evidence that Chopra likes to pretend supports his ideas, but the claim that it does support his ideas. There is a world of difference.

You said: "I know that if millions of people have experienced something it doesn’t make it scientifically proven but I think it makes it an interesting phenomenon and makes it qualify for serious open-minded scientific enquiry."

Since the field or neuro-science has been with us some time, what makes you think this hasn't been studied? Why do you think serious scientists in the field might not take this seriously then? Millions of people throughout history and around the world from many different cultures and backgrounds have claimed to see fairies, do you think this means it should qualify for serious open-minded scientific enquiry?

You said: "On the other hand, few people could claim to have seen a ‘flying spaghetti monster’ "

The point being that this is a made up theory as well.

You said: "So I think the comparison is absurd, and it is a sly attempt to undermine and ridicule a fascinating area of research that could have huge benefits for mankind."

Again, you think it is absurd, but that is because you're prejudiced to believe this. I don't think the comparison is absurd, and actually, scientifically speaking, both have about the same amount of proof for existence.
There is nothing sly about the ridicule though.

You said: "Just because you don’t believe that there’s no evidence to scientifically prove something yet, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it doesn’t exist."

It has nothing to do with what I believe, but a lot to do with the entire scientific field and what they have found when studying this. Just because you believe that it might exist, doesn't mean it does, so why do you and Chopra reject criticism of it so completely and unreasonably?

You said: "If you don’t think the evidence is there yet – fine, don’t accept it - but I would like to suggest that you stay open to the possibility that it could be true."

I am open to the possibility, every scientist would be. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence however. You should be open to the possibility that it is not true though. Can you honestly say that you are?

You said: "In history, there have been a lot of skeptics that have thought that flying an airplane, talking through a telephone, listening to a radio or the idea that one day a human being would walk on the moon were all ridiculous ideas. "

Why do woos always bring this up? This is of course the literal sense of the term skeptic (and quite often the resistance to scientific advances comes from the 'woo sector' because it undermines some privelege, livelhood or authority they hold), not the term as it is applied today to people who believe in the scientific method, evidence and rationality. It also ignores the point that all of these advances were made by scientists using the scientific method, not people like Chopra, or astrologers or any of the innumerable other types of woo and that they did so following conventional methods of science, not making massive assumptions that are unwarranted and unfounded.

You said: "How is the idea that there could be a mind-field outside of the brain more ridiculous than the idea that I can listen to someone through a wireless radio? "

Do you really need this explaining? First, applying Occam's Razor means we can dismiss the mind field. Second, the wireless radio came about from understood scientific principles, not wishful guess work intended to keep interest in your next book. Third, everything we know about sound waves and radio waves makes the wireless radio unremarkable, however, with everything we know about biology, neurology, physiology the mind field would be extraordinarily remarkable.

You said: "Stay open to new ideas!"

To use a cliche, don't be so open your brains fall out.

Jimmy Blue,

I’m glad to see that in regard to the possibility of a mind-field existing outside of the brain, you are saying in your latest post:

“I am open to the possibility, every scientist would be.”

This goes against the impression you’ve given earlier in this thread where you said the idea of the mind existing outside of the brain shouldn’t be considered ‘fairly radical’ like Dr Chopra says but ‘ridiculous’.

At least we can agree on something - that it’s important to stay open to new ideas.

Regards,

Lars

P.S. I didn’t give the example of a radio to get a technical explanation but to give a historical perspective. Throughout history there have been skeptics, including scientifically trained skeptics, who have thought that certain ideas or inventions were ridiculous or impossible and were later proved wrong.

The philosophical idea of mind-body problem is not ridiculous but the evidence shown and arguments made by Dr. Chopra for his speculative claims of mindfeild are RIDICULOUS.

Is it CLEAR now?

"Throughout history there have been skeptics, including scientifically trained skeptics, who have thought that certain ideas or inventions were ridiculous or impossible and were later proved wrong."

That doesn't mean that all ridiculous ideas turn out to be right. It is through science and skepticism that you weed out bad ideas and incorporate new.

Don't the woominds understand this simple logic?

Skeptics who objected to Dr. Chopra misrepresented science and skepticism in his supporting evidence and arguments. It isn't because he made some philosophical speculations on mind-body problem.

To add to the cliche by Jinmmy_Blue, "don't be so open your brains fall out."...

Intelligence is limited while stupidity is unlimited. Why be limited when you can be unlimited.

PS: And yes people who think that since Deepak is a successful author, spiritual and learned in sciences therefore he must be right in what he says about science, in their ignorance of the the subject, miss the point that much of his science and his arguments , conclusions are flawed and idotic. In essence gobbledygook pseudoscientific drivel.

What Hypocrite said.

Lars, I was open to the possibility, I looked into it both philosophically and scientifically. Chopra's ideas are ridiculous, but the philosophical idea of the mind/brain being seperate is genuinely interesting. It is just philosophy in the end though.

You do seem to continually miss the point about unicorns and fairies though. Yes they could be true, but the idea that they are is ridiculous. It is ok to dismiss an idea as ridiculous.

I’m going to stop participating in this debate because it could go on forever otherwise! Clearly we’re not debating whether the evidence is scientifically valid since the skeptics are categorically against such a claim and it is really Deepak’s responsibility to defend his claims. I’m more interested in the philosophical technicalities in this debate but I realise that such a debate could be endless.

Hypocrite,

In response to my post, you’re saying:

“That doesn't mean that all ridiculous ideas turn out to be right. It is through science and skepticism that you weed out bad ideas and incorporate new. Don't the woominds understand this simple logic?”

I find it funny that you’re referring to me as a woomind - it made me laugh - just the sound of the word is funny but at the same time I have to say that because it is onomatopoeic in such a funny way it also sounds kind of pejorative so using this word is really a sly (or should I say childish?) way of trying to undermine someone.

I do understand the logic you’re talking about and I hope that you understand the logic that many so called ridiculous ideas that were ‘weeded out’ by scientists have turned out at times to be ground-breaking.

Also, I hope you understand Deepak admits that the idea of a mind-field existing outside of the brain is pretty radical and Jimmy Blue responded by saying he thinks it shouldn’t be called radical but ridiculous – Jimmy didn’t make it clear whether it was the idea itself he found ridiculous or the belief that there is enough scientific evidence to support such a theory. I think that’s a crucial difference to make and I hope you appreciate that I made him clarify this point.

Jimmy Blue,

I think that in the future it would be nice if you made it clearer that it’s the claim that there’s enough evidence which you find ‘ridiculous’ and that you don’t necessarily find the theory itself to be ridiculous. Doing this would instantly make you come across as more open-minded.

There is so much that is unknown to us particularly when it comes to the mind… Of course we should dismiss evidence if we think it can’t be scientifically validated. But whether a theory or an idea in itself is ridiculous or not is a subjective thing. I’m sure you believe in certain things that you can’t prove scientifically but that are part of your belief system because of past experiences. I am fascinated by the idea of a mind-field outside existing outside of the brain because it would help to explain some of the experiences I and millions of other people have had. If you’d had similar experiences, maybe you'd think differently.

So I think it would be enough for you to say that you don’t believe in it because you don’t think the evidence is there, there’s no need to go as far as saying an idea is ridiculous. I don't think you can claim yet that we know enough, scientifically, about the mind to know if the idea of a mind-field existing outside of the brain really is ridiculous or not.

Regards,

Lars

Lars wrote..."I’m going to stop participating in this debate because it could go on forever otherwise!"

I hope you did..but didn't.

you go on..."Clearly we’re not debating whether the evidence is scientifically valid since the skeptics are categorically against such a claim and it is really Deepak’s responsibility to defend his claims. I’m more interested in the philosophical technicalities in this debate but I realise that such a debate could be endless."

(and still goes on......)

No, skeptics considered all evidence by Chopra through out the series...you should start reading what they say (and Deepak says) before you start assuming their respective perspectives.

Deepak's mind-field can be seen as his interpretation of 'mind-body problem' which has no supporting scientific evidence and his arguments are ridiculous as has been pointed out. Similar to his Quantum Mysticism interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

If any one wants a philosophical grasp of mind-body problem read Nagel, David Chalmer, Daniel Dennet and Partricia Churchland to begin with. In those works you won't find pseudoscience and ridiculous claims and misrepresentation of science. But you will see both sides of mind-body problem.

And yes people lose patience when they speak to people who cherry pick, and misresprent the views of science and skepticism.

I guess fake and put on spirituality also corrupts science and reason much like religious dogma does.

True spirituality is rare and I don't see it in people who argue with their Ego(including me). I do appreciate the views of people like yogi-one, derek, Navin, Sachin, Kate, Ruth, Dr. Paramjit Singh to name a few.

In my experience Atheists are among the most spiritual people I have met.

Has anyone else noticed the tendency of the pseudo-science, spoon-bending new-age clowns to whine about insults? They can call all scientists frauds and bigots who cling to 19th century superstition, but if anyone ‘dares’ to point out that they are full of crap, they recoil in indignant horror and get all prissy.

Look, Lars et al, when New Age Quacks make up shit, we're going to call it shit. You may wish you could make up shit and we'd call it key lime pie, but that isn't going to happen.

Lars

I am still not sure you get me. I said the philosophical idea was interesting. Chopra's idea is not philosophical, he is making a scientific claim he thinks is backed by scientific evidence. I think this idea is ridiculous, and I think the claim that the science supports it is ridiculous.

If an idea is ridiculous, it is ridiculous. I wish people would stop pretending that opinions and ideas all have to be considered and are not wrong but different. That is in itself ridiculous.

You said: "But whether a theory or an idea in itself is ridiculous or not is a subjective thing. "

No, it isn't. Some ideas and theories are just flat out wrong. Others are stupid.

You said: "I’m sure you believe in certain things that you can’t prove scientifically but that are part of your belief system because of past experiences"

Well you'd be wrong in being sure about that. Must be hard for a woo too accept.

You said: "If you’d had similar experiences, maybe you'd think differently. "

And if you used critical thinking about those experiences, maybe you'd think differently.

You said: "So I think it would be enough for you to say that you don’t believe in it because you don’t think the evidence is there, there’s no need to go as far as saying an idea is ridiculous. "

You still don't get the point of my comments about unicorns and fairies do you?

You said: "I don't think you can claim yet that we know enough, scientifically, about the mind to know if the idea of a mind-field existing outside of the brain really is ridiculous or not."

Well, we know that all cognitive function and brain activity stops at death. We know that damage to the brain results in damage to the mind. In fact, we can map areas of the brain corresponding to thought processes and actions. Expressive aphasia and Wernicke’s aphasia for instance suggest that the facility for language is directly connected to the brain, and not an ethereal outside entity. Why would damage to the brain affect the mind's ability to do anything if the two were seperate?

Yes, I'm afraid, we do know enough about the mind to dismiss Chopra's stupid idea. We have come a long way since the seventeenth century ideas Chopra regurgitates were first expressed. So please, don't tell me that Chopra and his followers are radical progressives and skeptics narrow minded dogmatists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

jimmy, jimmy, jimmy.

must you be so serious all of the time. what do you say we explore deepak's question a bit further together?? i haven't seen your answer posted yet...

Jimmy Blue,

I haven’t said, and I don’t think Deepak Chopra has claimed it either, that the mind is completely separate from the brain. That would be ludicrous! Furthermore, you say “we can map areas of the brain corresponding to thought processes and actions”. That’s true, but does it mean that we know everything we need to know about the mind?

We can, for instance, see which part of the brain becomes more active if we decide to lift our arms. Penfield’s pioneering experiments in the 1950s even showed us that if we stimulate (using micro electrodes) the part of the brain that controls arm movement on a human subject it will make the subject’s arm move without the subject having intended this to happen.

In everyday life of course we don’t get external stimulation like in a Penfield experiment to make our arms move, so how do we make them move? Where does the original command, stimulation or intent to move our arms come from? That’s a very important question and as far as I know, no-one has been able to locate it. To use an analogy, we know quite a lot about how the car works (which 'buttons' that need to be pressed to recall memories or make our bodies move), but we haven’t found where the driver is located. Since we haven’t solved this big mystery, I don’t think we can claim that we know enough about the mind. Maybe you think there is no ‘driver’ but how can one be sure about that?

It seems you don’t want to broaden your perspective and admit that there’s still some very important questions that haven’t been answered and that we therefore do not know enough yet about the mind - so I think that we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Take care,

Lars

you are back?..with the same nonsense.

"I don’t think we can claim that we know enough about the mind. "

You miss the point again. Chopra claims to know that, and his arguments(mirror neuron and Quantum mechanics abuse) and scientific evidence(parapsychology experiments that were mentioned) to that end are ridiculous. As has been debunked . And so is your blindness and denial of this simple fact. GO check all the comments instead of cherry picking abuses and making charges of close mindedness. If science doesn't explain human consciousness fully yet..the woos are ready to fill it with their shit with zero scientific evidence of the paranormal and ESP.

Let's agree to disagree that woos like you prefer unlimited stupidity.

Trv,

I felt obliged to reply to Jimmy Blue’s post because I think it's limiting to think that we know enough about the mind and now I feel obliged to reply to you since you’re completely misrepresenting my views.

If you read through my previous posts you’ll see that I have repeatedly said that I don’t have a problem with it if you and other skeptics can show us how some of the evidence Deepak Chopra is using can be debunked. I’m all for it, I like to get different perspectives on a topic so that I can make a more informed judgment.

I don’t blindly accept everything I read by Deepak Chopra. I understand that some of the things he mentions may be speculative. In my mind, there are probably a lot of scientists that would like to believe that their studies are completely sound when they may not be. I believe we should always be cautious whenever any scientist makes big claims. I wouldn’t say I like unlimited stupidity but I like new ideas.

All I’ve been saying is that we have to keep in mind that just because the evidence may not be there yet it doesn’t necessarily mean that the idea or hypothesis is ridiculous.

As far as I know, the idea of scientific enquiry is to prove a hypothesis. If you can’t prove a hypothesis, it remains unproven until someone can manage to prove it. Evidence can be deemed ridiculous, but if an unproven hypothesis in itself is deemed ridiculous it’s a subjective thing since we can’t possibly know if something unknown to us is ridiculous. And there’s still a lot that is unknown to us scientifically when it comes to the mind.

I’m sure that if an intuitive person had claimed that time is an illusion before Einstein came up with the theory of relativity – a lot of scientists would have laughed at that and called it ridiculous... Only time will tell if an unproven hypothesis is ridiculous or not.

Take care,

Lars

But you don't get the point. deepak has no scientific hypothesis!

He claims a simple fact that mind has ESP(meaning mind out side brain) and that there is scientific evidence already in parapsychology experiments that he mentions from time to time, although these have been debunked again and again.

Einstein didn't just say that "time is illusion" that isn't his theory and hypothesis! he came up with his General and Special Relativity as a scientific theory, with clear formulations, based on the many scientific works previous to him.
And scientists did not dismiss it because it wasn't a ridiculous theory as it is backed by firm math and equations and because it makes predictions which can be tested!. Any hypothesis and the theory is falsifiable in science. That is one example of science being open to theories that aren't of common sense. It was proved right with experiments during a solar eclipse a few years later and many other experiments in later years.

Einstein's special relativity says that space and time are not independent entities but spacetime is. In that sense time is an illusion and string theory suggests that every moment in time has independent existence , ie. time doesn't flow from past to future via Now as our common sense tells us. What gives us the sense of time is real world is entropy. Like you see a Egg break but never see a broken egg coalesce back...There could be some clues in bigbang when the arrow of time is set such that things unfold only in one temporal order . ie. we see hot coffee cools down at Room temp. We grow from a child to adult but not in reverse etc...

Anyway such time related and quantum measurement problems are of theoretical physics which will bear fruit some day when a unified theory is developed further with further evidence, observations and experiments.

As per Deepak, he has no theory, no hypothesis that makes predictions that can be tested.

Oh wait! he actually claims that certain paranormal phenomena were tested and validated by PEAR experiments, Shrerlock (pet parasychology) experiments, Dean Ramdin experiments etc...

These have been thoroughly debunked. If there is an iota of scientific truth to them, these paranormal phenomena can be tested using science experiments.

but lo! they continue to fail! But they continue to use flawed methodology and claims statistical significance as proof...nothing more than pseudoscience in the end.

So until there is no evidence there is no reason believe in the paranormal. But the woos need no proof! they know it! Deepk Chopra pushes it in the name of science. And when the same science is shown as an evidence against his claims , he attacks the skeptics for being unfair or whatever...

"It seems you don’t want to broaden your perspective"

If you rally want to broaden your perspectives. as has been suggested before, read Chalmer, Nagel, Dennet, Patrica Churchland, V.S. Ramanujan on philosophy and science of mind-body problems and problems of consciousness. Amd educte yourself in the field of quantum mechanics, Evolutionary biology and scientific methodology. And improve your critical thinking skills when it comes to paranormal claims.

"Trv, should we not remove “to disagree” from your closing sentence?"

I think we should. I agree to remove 'disagree'.

Depak Chopra has NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY. So there is no point of his theory being validated or proved wrong.

He claims parapsychology experiments which have been thoroughly debunked by the skeptics though.

Captured live:

Ufo fleet seen over Lima - Peru 05/11/07

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3sXDkaE7E9Y

How does this fit into the mindfield scheme of woo expanations...must be Martians right?

Aloha

If you can bend a spoon with your mind. I don't think you need a million dollars. love patty

Trv,

As I’ve said I understand your frustration if you think that the evidence Deepak comes up with isn’t validated. I hope you understand my post #168 where I clearly explain why I think there’s still a lot to learn about the mind, which is why we should stay open to new ideas. If certain ideas about consciousness remain unproven scientifically today it doesn’t necessarily imply they will never be proven. So I think it would be more open-minded to just say they’re unproven if that’s what you believe, no need to call them ridiculous since we’re dealing with a territory which is still largely unknown.

But I sense that Jimmy Blue is going to respond to this by saying we might as well believe in fairies! And you’re going to tell me people who are open to new unproven ideas must have unlimited stupidity. This debate is becoming so predictable and it's not going anywhere so I think I'll just have to agree to disagree with you. Btw, I don’t think there’s much point in you trying to ridicule me any more than you have!

Take care,

Lars

Lars:

Chopra said: "In a series of recent posts I've been offering evidence of the possibility that the mind exists outside the brain."

How does that not mean the two are seperate. If I am outside my car, does that not mean I am completely seperate to it?

Chopra said: "The brain is a receiver for the mind field. "

What need for a reciever if the two are not completely seperate?

Chopra said: "Yet I would argue that most of the things we most cherish about the mind, including empathy, language, and learning, depend on mind coming first"

How could mind come first if the two are not completely seperate? How could either of them be said to come first if they were not completely seperate?

You said: "That would be ludicrous!"

Finally we agree on something. Maybe you should try reading what Chopra says before trying to defend it.

You said: "That’s true, but does it mean that we know everything we need to know about the mind?"

No. So that has nipped that strawman in the bud.

You said: "In everyday life of course we don’t get external stimulation like in a Penfield experiment to make our arms move, so how do we make them move?"

Try doing some research on neurones, synapses, action potential in cells, the nervous system, neural impulses. You are aware we can now link human and animal brains to some basic prosthetic machinery and make them move aren't you?

You said: "Where does the original command, stimulation or intent to move our arms come from?"

The brain.

You said: "To use an analogy, we know quite a lot about how the car works (which 'buttons' that need to be pressed to recall memories or make our bodies move), but we haven’t found where the driver is located."

Actually, we know everything about how a car works, so your analogy is flawed. But let's run with it.

We do know that the driver is almost certainly going to be found in the driving seat (the brain), not externally. We know that if the driver were to be found outside of the driving seat, then this would be extraordinary and go against everything we do know about the operation of the car, but we have no current reason to believe either philosophically or scientifically that the driver will be found anywhere but in the car when the car is moving, and all the evidence we have about car operation says that the driver must be in the driving seat when the car is moving. We know that it is almost certain that if the car is not moving, the driver will not be present. We know that if the car and driver are seperated, the car doesn't do anything.

Maybe you need a better analogy.

You said: "Maybe you think there is no ‘driver’ but how can one be sure about that?"

Nope. Strawman.

You said: "It seems you don’t want to broaden your perspective"

That's rich coming from a woo. I have comprehensicely demonstrated that both you and Chopra are the narrow minded ones, but you keep insisting its the skeptics.

You said: "and admit that there’s still some very important questions that haven’t been answered "

I do admit there is a lot still to know about the mind. But what we do know rules out the mind field/mind outside brain. You just ignore that.

You said: "and that we therefore do not know enough yet about the mind "

We don't know enough about the mind yet. Again though, we do know enough to rule out Chopra's silly idea.

You said: "I think that we’ll just have to agree to disagree."

I'll do nothing of the sort.

You said to Trv: "I don’t blindly accept everything I read by Deepak Chopra."

That would be because it appears you don't read it. And even when you don't, you assume he is right and skeptics wrong. So tell me, how is that not blind acceptance?

You said: "But I sense that Jimmy Blue is going to respond to this by saying we might as well believe in fairies! "

Well, if you keep ignoring the point I'll keep bringing it up.

You said: "This debate is becoming so predictable"

I agree, but it is because the woos keep saying the same things or making the same mistakes so we have to keep repeating ourselves.

So, should we be researching fairies and unicorns or not?

Jimmy Blue,

I think you’re making several false assumptions and misinterpretations about Deepak Chopra’s ideas.

I feel I need to clarify some very important points so that we can understand each other better.

In response to my post (#168), you claim that we know where the ‘driver’(the entity that has the intentions to do what we do) is and that it's located in the brain. That’s an assumption you make which is completely unsubstantiated and is pure speculation – if you really knew where the ultimate driver is located I think you would win the Nobel Prize. We don’t know where the ‘driver’ is located, so theoretically speaking it could be anywhere. You’ve even admitted it yourself in post #158 that as a scientist you have to be open to the possibility that there could be a mind-field that’s separate from the brain. But it seems you’re not prepared to really accept that possibility because it is too mind-boggling for you, it makes much more sense for you to say that it’s all in the brain. But I think that the idea that there could be a mind-field existing outside of the brain is no-more mind-boggling than it would be for a pre-historic man to consider the idea that the earth isn’t flat or to accept some of the discoveries made in quantum physics.

To be fair, if we would look at this objectively and if it is really accurate that the evidence Deepak Chopra has brought up is un-validated – then we have to admit that we’re dealing with the unknown and we can therefore both accuse each other of speculation forever or until enough proof has been found to know who is right.

And speaking of proof, you claim that “we do know enough to rule out Chopra's silly idea”. This goes back to post #166 where you say:

“Well, we know that all cognitive function and brain activity stops at death. We know that damage to the brain results in damage to the mind. In fact, we can map areas of the brain corresponding to thought processes and actions. Expressive aphasia and Wernicke’s aphasia for instance suggest that the facility for language is directly connected to the brain, and not an ethereal outside entity. Why would damage to the brain affect the mind's ability to do anything if the two were seperate?”

The mind could be separate from the brain just like a radio is separate from a radio station’s studio. If my radio gets physically damaged, I may start to hear what the person in the radio station’s studio is saying as muffled sounds - does that necessarily mean that the person that speaks in the studio has been physically damaged? Of course not.

You’re working under the assumption that the mind must be in the brain. What I am suggesting to you is that the mind could extend from the brain or be located outside of the brain but it communicates through the brain (and if the brain gets damaged it could obviously restrict the mind’s ability to communicate normally through the brain). So your examples really don’t negate the possibility that the mind could be located outside of the brain.

Lastly, you ask me “should we be researching fairies and unicorns or not?”. As I've said before in this thread, I have never seen a fairy or a unicorn, and I think a relatively small number of people would claim to have seen such things so I think it is highly unlikely that they exist - so in my mind it is not really worth researching. On the other hand, millions of people have had experiences that suggest to them that the mind could be located outside of the brain or extend from the brain, so I do think it is an area which is definitely worth researching.

Take care,

Lars

Still going...........

Anyway a twist on the car analogy thing. I saw this race, I forget the name, where vehicles traveled a coarse without drivers or remote control. These cars where completely autonomous, I think that's the right word. Somebody programed them and then just let them go. The intellegence to complete the coarse came from outside and is seperate from the vehicle. They are robots functioning without human intervention.

derek

Why does either side try to convince the other?

I see both sides doing the same thing. Each believes in what they are saying. Wether it is the material evidence of science or experiential evidence of the spiritual. Apples and oranges.

“Trying to be reasonable”,

If it’s really the case that there’s no validated evidence to prove the idea that the mind could be extending from the brain or be located outside of the brain, then I am prepared to accept that it qualifies as speculation and a belief at this point in time.

But can’t you see that Jimmy Blue’s claim that the mind must be confined to the brain is also a belief? There’s not enough evidence to prove such a claim with 100% certainty. The mind (or the ‘driver’ if we take the analogy we used earlier) could theoretically be anywhere. So if Jimmy Blue was truly objective about this, he would admit that scientfically speaking, we simply don’t know yet if the mind is really just confined to the brain or not.

Yes doodleman. Both "sides" do the same thing. And when people can let go of thinking of it as taking sides, we may actually get somewhere. And so in the mean time we'll continue going round and round defending and attacking.

I was wondering...what good does all this "evidence" do us. It seems that we will never have enough and will always be searching for more. Don't get me wrong, I am fascinated by it all...I just wonder when enough is enough and we can simply sit back and enjoy. Just my rambling thought for the day. Perhaps tomorrow I will feel differently. Perhaps not. I suppose that it is in our nature to want to know the why. My two year old has already begun to say, "why?" over and over. No matter what my answer it is not enough. Maybe I'll just hand her the physics books and some of my spiritual books and let her have a crack at it. Maybe she'll be able to make some sense of it all. Who knows...:)

Love, Melissa

Lars:

So, you want to drop the claim that Chopra doesn't say the mind and brain are seperate now? Apparently not, as we'll see later.

Care to at least admit you were wrong about what he says?

Have you actually started to read the articles yet?

You said: "I think you’re making several false assumptions and misinterpretations about Deepak Chopra’s ideas."

Bloody cheek, you haven't even read his ideas (as you have admitted), you defend them and claim he doesn't say things he clearly has and then you accuse me of making assumptions and false interpretations. How the hell do you know? Your hypocrisy is quite simply astounding.

You haven't even read what he has said and you say I am wrong about it. It's no wonder you believe things for which there is no proof if that is your usual approach to a subject. Assume Chopra is right no matter what he says and whether you have read it or not. There is a word for people who take this approach. Fanatics.

You said: "That’s an assumption you make which is completely unsubstantiated and is pure speculation – if you really knew where the ultimate driver is located I think you would win the Nobel Prize. "

With all due respect, that is total rubbish. I've asked you to do research (and given topics to look at) on this but it appears that like Chopra's work you haven't bothered to read into any of this either. Prove that my statement that the mind resides in the brain is unsubstantiated and an assumption, or withdraw the claim.

If Chopra could prove his claims he would be eligible for a Nobel Prize, strange that he doesn't try to do so isn't it? I merely state what is generally accepted within the field of neuroscience and research into cognition and consciousness. The mind and the brain are inseperable. Without a brain, there is no mind.

You said: "You’ve even admitted it yourself in post #158 that as a scientist you have to be open to the possibility that there could be a mind-field that’s separate from the brain. "

I am open to the possibility, but no more open than I am to the idea of fairies and unicorns and that has been my point throughout. Science works by assuming the null hypothesis for an idea, and then testing.

So, until Chopra comes up with some convincing evidence, rather than assumption, speculation, bad science and a good dose of woo, the mind field is not a valid scientific theory or a plausible idea. It is pseudoscience at worst and philosophy at best.

Everything we currently know points to the complete opposite of the claims for the mind field. What is obvious to me is that you are not open to the possiblity that Chopra's idea is nonsense because even when you have not read his claims you still support them and assume any criticism is either wrong, unfair, or based on a misinterpretation.

You said: " But it seems you’re not prepared to really accept that possibility because it is too mind-boggling for you, it makes much more sense for you to say that it’s all in the brain. "

Well it seems at least you know how Chopra argues even if you don't read his work. This is an assumption on your part, it's a veiled ad hominem attack and it is wrong. What you are saying is that because I don't accept the idea it must be because I can't grasp/understand/accept it. Again you assume that the only way anyone could be opposed to this idea is because they are narrow minded, or dogmatic, or stupid, or unimaginative, or all of the above. It does not occur to you that the evidence against it is overwhelming, that someone could have genuinely considered both sides of the argument and then rationally concluded that the mind field side of it is wrong, unproven and pure psuedoscientific re-hashed philosophy presented badly and by way of untrue and unsubstantiated attacks against its nay-sayers.

It makes much more sense to say it is in the brain because that is what all the scientific evidence points to. Anything else is, in this case very poorly done, philosophical speculation.

You said: "The mind could be separate from the brain just like a radio is separate from a radio station’s studio. If my radio gets physically damaged, I may start to hear what the person in the radio station’s studio is saying as muffled sounds - does that necessarily mean that the person that speaks in the studio has been physically damaged? Of course not. "

And in your analogy there is no way of ever knowing either. So what use is it?

How would your radio analogy explain signal interruption, death of the signal but not the radio, and interference from other signals, when it is converted back to the mind field idea?

How does your radio analogy explain chemical addiction?

How does your radio analogy explain a persistent vegetative state (PVS)?

How does the radio analogy explain alterations of cognitive function and brain activity via drugs?

How does it explain that removal of the centromedian nucleus causes coma, PVS and other features that mimic brain death and loss of consciousness?

How does it explain how severing the corpus callosum gives rise to what some have described as there appearing to be two minds in one brain that still represent themselves as a single mind?

How would your radio being damaged explain you suddenly not understanding what is said by others even though the words come through uninterrupted, intelligible and clear and not via the radio signal but via the microphone? (Aphasia).

How does the radio analogy explain dementia?

But here's the interesting bit. You said that the idea that the mind and brain were completely seperate was ludicrous. And yet, if the brain was the radio and the mind the person in the radio station, then the two are completely seperate and communicate via a radio signal. So which is it to be? Which claim do you want to drop and admit is wrong?

The mind field simply raises more questions than it answers, and as always when confronted with opposing theories we need to apply Occam's Razor to the question of consciousness.

Which needs more assumptions; that the mind resides in the brain and therefore damage to the brain can result in damage to the mind, or that the mind and brain are two seperate entities that happen to exist completely in sync with each other but that the brain is only a reciever and damage to the physical brain does not actually damage the mind and so problems result simply because the reciever is not working correctly?

You are of course also making a claim that is unfalsifiable, which by definition makes it unscientific and unacceptable to science. There is no way to prove the mind is not damaged when the brain is, if all you have to say is, 'well the mind is fine it just isn't getting through'. There is no ethical way to prove that the mind and brain are seperate (and you don't seem able to decide if they are or are not anyway), so the claim is to all intents and purposes unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific.

We can however prove that if we alter the brain phsyically or chemically, we alter the mind.

You said: "You’re working under the assumption that the mind must be in the brain. "

You are assuming it isn't, in the face of all the scientific evidence. Whose is the more unfounded, unreasonable and irrational assumption?

You said: "So your examples really don’t negate the possibility that the mind could be located outside of the brain. "

And nothing you have stated in any way proves that the idea is worthy of anymore scientific consideration than unicorns and fairies. My examples do negate the possibility of the mind outside the brain unless you have already concluded that there is a mind outside brain and continue to ignore or ad-hoc your way around them.

There is no way of proving that the mind is undamaged when the brain is, so you are forced to make an assumption that is not necessary (i.e. that the mind is fine but is not getting through clearly), you violate the principle of Occam's Razor. However, we can see clearly that damage to the brain does affect the mind and need to make no unnecessary assumption to conclude the mind resides in the brain.

You said: " I have never seen a fairy or a unicorn, and I think a relatively small number of people would claim to have seen such things so I think it is highly unlikely that they exist"

On what basis do you claim that not many have seen at least fairies? Because you haven't? I submit to you that throughout history there have been many many more people who claim to have seen fairies, demons and angels than there have been people who claim an experience that proves their mind exists outside their brain.

You said: "On the other hand, millions of people have had experiences that suggest to them that the mind could be located outside of the brain or extend from the brain"

And billions more have not. An idea is investigated on its merit alone, not how many people believe it. Again we fall back on Occam's Razor, there are many other explanations for seemingly strange experiences to do with the mind and brain which require no unwarranted assumptions and which have valid scientifc explanations.

You said: "But can’t you see that Jimmy Blue’s claim that the mind must be confined to the brain is also a belief? "

Prove it.

You said: "There’s not enough evidence to prove such a claim with 100% certainty."

There is not enough evidence to prove anything with 100% certainty. Does that mean gravity is not a certainty in the only sense that means anything?

As Stephen Jay Gould explained:
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. "

You demonstrate a limited understanding of how science is conducted and what scientific theory and evidence constitute, and that lies at the heart of your continued assertions that we don't have enough evidence to say the mind resides in the brain.

You said: "The mind (or the ‘driver’ if we take the analogy we used earlier) could theoretically be anywhere."

You mean the analogy that was flawed from the start? The analogy that I demonstrated can be used to much more strongly argue that the mind resides in the brain?

The driver cannot theoretically be anywhere if the car is to function as intended. If you want the car to move he or she must be in the car, unless you want to argue that we are now remote controlled? Oh no you can't, because you said that idea was ludicrous. Either the driver is in the car, or the car does not do anything.

Doodleman's continuation of this analogy simply weakens the argument further. Those autonomous cars are programmed by humans to react in certain ways (so yes they do function with human intervention, they cannot do anything they haven't been programmed by a human to do), the CPU resides in the cars. The intelligence to complete the course comes in a pre-programmed set of instructions, rules and decisions that reside in the computer hardware inside the car. Check the DARPA rules, during the test all direction must come from systems ONBOARD the car.

Maybe you should drop the car analogy, it really isn't working for you.

You said: "So if Jimmy Blue was truly objective about this, he would admit that scientfically speaking, we simply don’t know yet if the mind is really just confined to the brain or not."

You really do have blinkers on don't you? If you were being objective I could say you would admit that scientifically speaking the only conclusion is that the mind is confined to the brain. At the very extreme of theory on consciousness it resides in the electromagnetic field generated by the brain.

Why do you assume that you are objective and I am not I wonder?

Someone here seems to have been given orders.

"I command you to enlighten the ignorant!"
"I demand that you continue to do this until I give further orders to stop."

The Blues Brothers also claimed to be "...on a mission from God".

But they were funny while doing so.

Jimmy Blue,

You seem to have mixed up a lot of the things I've said!

But I am impressed by your passion and the amount of time and effort you’re prepared to spend on trying to convince me, and I suppose everyone that reads this thread, that the mind must be located in the brain. It seems to be very important to you to believe this to be true. Personally, I don’t really mind if the mind is located inside or outside of the brain, I just wanted to put things into perspective and encourage open-mindedness about this topic since there is still a lot that we don’t know, scientifically speaking, in this area.

You don’t seem to understand the analogy of the radio which I think is similar to the analogy that Deepak is using (and you know this since you’ve quoted Deepak as having said that “the brain is the receiver”). This analogy is used to illustrate how the mind could be separate from the brain in the sense that it’s located outside of the brain just like a radio or a TV is located in a different place than where the original information is broadcasted from. To me, it’s pretty clear that the analogy illustrates how the mind could be separate from the brain and located in a different place but still be connected to the brain (just like a radio station’s studio is not inside the radio but connected to it via a radio signal). So it depends on how you want to look at it - in a way a radio is physically separate from the radio station’s studio, but in another way the two are actually connected (through a radio signal).

The idea is that the mind communicates through the brain so that if the brain gets damaged or modified in some way like in the examples you mentioned like dementia, drugs etc – it could obviously make it more difficult for the mind to use the brain in the way that it would normally – but it wouldn’t necessarily imply that the mind has been damaged.

Furthermore, you are twisting what I’ve said around quite dramatically. You claim that I haven’t read Deepak Chopra’s writings. You’re wrong about that - I have read a lot of his writings and other writings about this field of research. I’m sorry I missed a point Deepak Chopra made in this thread but it happens even to the best of us to make mistakes and I was humble enough to admit my mistake (and I have re-read Deepak Chopra’s post to ensure that I wouldn’t make the same mistake again). If you ever make a mistake and admit it - I don’t think that I would continuously use it against you. Maybe you should focus more everything else I've written instead of making generalizations from one incident and claim that I haven’t read what Deepak has written.

Moreover, you keep saying that I blindly accept what Deepak Chopra writes. Again, you’re sorely mistaken. I have repeatedly said that I’m all for it if skeptics can successfully show that they can debunk the evidence Deepak is using. I love to get different perspectives on an issue. If you read my last post I also admit that it’s possible that I, and possibly Deepak, are just speculating here if it’s really the case that the evidence isn’t sound. And if we can’t call it science yet and just call it a philosophy at the moment like you’re suggesting, I am fine with that.

Also, I’d like to comment on this that you wrote:

“There is no way to prove the mind is not damaged when the brain is, if all you have to say is, 'well the mind is fine it just isn't getting through'. There is no ethical way to prove that the mind and brain are separate… so the claim is to all intents and purposes unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific.”

Isn’t the fact that there’s no ethical way to prove that the mind and brain are separate a problem for you? I think it leaves a pretty big ‘grey’ area that makes it impossible for you to prove that the mind and the brain must be located in the same place.

You also say that:

“We can however prove that if we alter the brain physically or chemically, we alter the mind.”

I don’t understand how you can know that with full certainty. You can know that the brain will be altered physically (we can map out the brain and see its activities on a scan) but can you really claim that we’ve mapped out the mind and that we can see how it’s affected? We cannot know with certainty that we’ve located the mind or the ultimate mind, the entity that has the original intentions, because theoretically speaking there could always be something that precedes even the intentions of the mind if we think we’ve found it! There could always be something that precedes it but that we can’t measure yet because we don’t have the technology for that. Just like we didn’t discover that matter is made up of atoms until we had the technology to do so.

I think many crucial questions have yet to be answered… Like I said earlier what I wanted was to encourage an open-minded perspective on this subject, and for you to clarify that one cannot claim conclusively that the mind is confined to the brain and that it is still theoretically speaking a possibility that the mind could be located outside of the brain.

I think that you have been open-minded at times and admitted that we can’t prove conclusively that the mind is confined to the brain. So I’m happy with the discussion we’ve had and I’d like to thank you for all the time and effort you’ve put into this - I’m sure that everyone here appreciates it. I’ve learned a lot more, through this discussion, about your grievances and beliefs and those of other skeptics that come to Intent and it’s been a fascinating experience.

Take care,

Lars

"Trying to be reasonable",

Please try to be reasonable!

If you're going to make accusations of close-mindedness, why can't you give examples of it and show us what you mean exactly?

I think it's devious and unhelpful to make accusations without backing them up in any way.

Keith:

Yes, what a mature response. Well done. I at least appear to have made a new scientific discovery since I came here. A substance that thought won't penetrate.

Lars:

You still haven't proven that my statement that the mind resides in the brain is unsubstantiated and an assumption, so either do so or withdraw the claim please.

You said: "You seem to have mixed up a lot of the things I've said!"

I feel exactly the same about you, don't worry.

You said: "It seems to be very important to you to believe this to be true. "

This is a perfect example of the difference between a woo and a skeptic/scientist. It is of no emotional value to me whether this is true or not, what is important is that we establish the way things are via the most trustworthy and reliable methods. I do not 'believe' this to be true, and it is not 'important' emotionally for this to be true. What is important to me is that people get some real information on the subject and not the drivel that Chopra writes and his supporters believe.

You said: "I just wanted to put things into perspective and encourage open-mindedness about this topic"

Thus once again implying the discredited idea that us narrowminded skeptics are the closeminded ones.

You said: "To me, it’s pretty clear that the analogy illustrates how the mind could be separate from the brain and located in a different place but still be connected to the brain "

This then suggests that the analogy is a very poor one, since there is no sense in which saying a radio is connected to a radio station by a radio signal is correct. A radio is completely seperate to a radio station, and it recieves a signal that is broadcast globally. Nothing connects the two.

Which raises a further problem with your radio analogy. Since a radio signal is broadcast globally we know other radios pick up the signal if on the same frequency. How do you explain that brains don't pick up other minds? Or do they? And if your answer is to say that each brain is only tuned to the frequency of its mind then how do we prove this? How do we account for the fact that atmospheric conditions still interfere and cause radios tuned to one frequency to pick up ghost signals or cause signals to become interrupted?

You said: "in a way a radio is physically separate from the radio station’s studio, but in another way the two are actually connected (through a radio signal)."

They are not connected. One transmits, one recieves. They are completely seperate. A radio signal is not a piece of string or a fiber optic cable.

It's like trying to argue the USA is connected to Europe by the waves in the Atlantic.

You said: "The idea is that the mind communicates through the brain so that if the brain gets damaged or modified in some way like in the examples you mentioned like dementia, drugs etc – it could obviously make it more difficult for the mind to use the brain in the way that it would normally – but it wouldn’t necessarily imply that the mind has been damaged."

And thus you make an unfalsifiable claim along the lines of me saying I have an invisible friend. You can't prove I don't, because he only lets me see him. That is the logic you are using. I say that all of these things demonstrate that the brain and mind are one, you simply say well you can't see it, but the mind is fine it is only the brain that is damaged.

Your radio analogy still does not explain most if not all of the examples I have given. For instance, if you damage a connection in a radio, it stops working. But in the brain, if we damage one part the rest can still work, or it works in ways we didn't expect, or the brain compensates, or it shuts down.

You said: " You’re wrong about that - I have read a lot of his writings and other writings about this field of research. "

You admitted you hadn't read the article you were first defending, and you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of Chopra's actual arguments on the mind field, which suggested you at the very least had not read closely or understood what he has written. You said after all that Chopra was not saying the brain and mind were completely seperate, yet I quoted from three seperate articles he has written on the subject, and in each one he clearly states that position. And you said it would be ludicrous for him to state that. What other conclusion was I expected to draw? If you have read them, then I apologise. I suggest you read them again though.

Bearing the accusations of 'closemindedness' that have been repeatedly directed at myself and other skeptics in mind though, have you read up on any of the subjects I suggested? I have read both sides, have you? Who is being closeminded?

You said: "I have repeatedly said that I’m all for it if skeptics can successfully show that they can debunk the evidence Deepak is using. "

You are moving the goalposts. I have already said that we are not disproving the evidence he is using. We are debunking the way in which he uses the evidence and the conclusions he draws from it. There is a vast difference. You however have set a target for us that we are not aiming for, and have never aimed for, so you can continue to claim that we have said nothing to sway you.

You said: "And if we can’t call it science yet and just call it a philosophy at the moment like you’re suggesting, I am fine with that."

If you want to call it philosophy I have no problem with that. However, neither you nor Chopra are.

You said: "Isn’t the fact that there’s no ethical way to prove that the mind and brain are separate a problem for you? I think it leaves a pretty big ‘grey’ area that makes it impossible for you to prove that the mind and the brain must be located in the same place."

No. When people die from natural causes, when people can be studied when they develop dementia, when they experiment with drugs etc. There would be no way to test your theory without removing, damaging or killing the brain of a live subject and trying to test for consciousness still. We can perform a large number of consciousness tests (and how it is altered) now and draw the conclusion that the mind and brain are inseperable because the tests act directly on the brain in predictable and predicted ways. Can you think of a single experiment that proves the mind and brain are seperate? If not, then as a scientific theory it is utterly worthless. If you can, that Nobel Prize is waiting.

You said: "You can know that the brain will be altered physically (we can map out the brain and see its activities on a scan) but can you really claim that we’ve mapped out the mind and that we can see how it’s affected? "

Possibly not map out the mind, but you have seen drunk people haven't you? People, when intoxicated, do things they wouldn't normally do. They say things they wouldn't normally say. Their motor and cognitive functions are impaired. In fact, everything associated with the function of the mind (not just the physical brain) is altered in some way when a person is intoxicated by a substance such as alcohol. How could this be the case if only the physical brain was affected? How does this explain that you say the mind is not affected when the brain is?

The mind is demonstrably altered, consciousness is demonstrably altered, by certain chemical and physical effects which occur in the brain. It has been a staple of woo for thousands of years that consciousness is altered by certain physical or chemical actions or substances (meditation, drug induced dreams, trances and spirit walks etc), do you deny this? Do you claim that this is only the brain and not the mind being affected?

How does the mind outside brain or radio analogy explain memory loss, both short and long term?

You said: "We cannot know with certainty that we’ve located the mind or the ultimate mind, the entity that has the original intentions, because theoretically speaking there could always be something that precedes even the intentions of the mind if we think we’ve found it!"

This is more unprovable philosophy, now you want to presuppose intention even before the mind is aware of it. I remind you that Chopra says:
"Yet I would argue that most of the things we most cherish about the mind, including empathy, language, and learning, depend on mind coming first"

How does this tie with your statement that there may be something before the mind?

You said: "Just like we didn’t discover that matter is made up of atoms until we had the technology to do so. "

And do you know what the woos will be asserting ad infinitum with every new advance in understanding and technology related to the study of consciousness? "We just don't yet have the knowledge/technology to prove what we claim, so you can't dismiss it."

Incidentally, the idea that matter is made up of atoms has been around since the ancient Indians and Greeks.

You said: "and for you to clarify that one cannot claim conclusively that the mind is confined to the brain and that it is still theoretically speaking a possibility that the mind could be located outside of the brain. "

You still seem to miss the point. We can, in the scientific sense, claim conclusively (remember the quote about provisional assent) that the mind and brain are inseperable and that the mind is confined to the brain. Arguing otherwise is a philosophical position. Every scientific conclusion and theory is open to revision on new evidence. I am open to the theory of mind outside brain only in the sense that I am open to the existence of fairies and unicorns.

You said: "I think that you have been open-minded at times and admitted that we can’t prove conclusively that the mind is confined to the brain. "

Only if you misunderstand what it means to say conclusively in terms of scientific theory and hypothesis, as I pointed out. Who is twisting whose words now? And again, another veiled accusation that I have been narrow minded, simply because I don't agree that your idea has any scientific merit. It is not being narrow minded to disagree with a ridiculous idea, that is just what its supporters call it.

You said: "I’d like to thank you for all the time and effort you’ve put into this - I’m sure that everyone here appreciates it."

And I'd like to thank you. However, since this article by Chopra clearly shows he doesn't appreciate the efforts of skeptics and scientists, and since repeated comments like those of Keith's above have appeared, I'm afraid you are wrong that people appreciate a carefully considered alternative view point. Again I have to ask, who is really being open and narrow minded here?

For instance, I carefully consider each of your claims and respond. You dress up most of mine in dismissive responses like "All you examples are explained by this", "none of your examples prove this" but you never once say why. Can you really say you gave them careful consideration? You have not attempted to explain any of the examples I have given in terms of your theory, but you assert that they are explained by it, one and all, even though they cover a widely differing range.

Until you do, you can't claim you are open minded or that you have given this careful consideration.

You said: "If you're going to make accusations of close-mindedness, why can't you give examples of it and show us what you mean exactly? "

It is interesting that you never had this requirement of yourself or Chopra, don't you think? Very telling I would say. Perhaps you might want to sit back and honestly take some time to consider why this is.

Re-read the Chopra article above, and keep count of how many claims he makes about skeptics and scientists, then go back and count how many he makes with supporting evidence and examples. Then come back and honestly tell us you have read critically what Chopra says. Then do the same with your own posts.

I have repeatedly shown why both yourself and Chopra have been closeminded.

You said: "I think it's devious and unhelpful to make accusations without backing them up in any way."

Astonishing.

Chopra does exactly that, repeatedly, and you have never once brought him to task over it in this thread, yet one skeptic makes an off hand comment and you accuse them of being devious and unhelpful. Do you see why I found it hard to believe you have read the articles in question? You even specifically state you re-read it so you wouldn't make any more mistakes.

You have said it is wrong to do exactly what Chopra does, and yet you continue to defend him. Just like fanatics defend the worst excesses of their leaders and gods.

Even worse though is that you repeatedly imply that I and others have not always been openminded, and yet you have provided no evidence for it. So, do you admit to being devious and unhelpful? Or is this more hypocrisy?

Tryingtobereasonable:

Thanks! It has at times felt like I was talking to myself.

There is a distinct impression given that alternative viewpoints to Chopra's are not carefully considered, especailly when they involve big words or ideas that take longer than the length of a toothpaste commercial to express.

It is this fact that helps explain why so many people believe woo ideas. Today we want things to be simple and quick to digest, so a woo saying "The mind is outside the brain, only the close minded don't think so." Is more acceptable to people than lengthy and detailed explanations that point out why that is total crap.

Jimmy Blue,

I’m still not convinced that one can prove with full certainty that the mind is solely confined to the brain. As you’ve said yourself we haven’t mapped out the mind. Furthermore, you admit that for ethical reasons there are many experiments that cannot be performed in this area - and this obviously limits our abilities to conduct crucial research.

Moreover, it seems you still don’t understand what Deepak Chopra means when he suggests that the mind and the brain could be separate. He suggests that they’re separate physically but in cognitive terms the mind communicates through the brain so they share a cognitive connection. That’s why I said that it would be ludicrous to think that Deepak Chopra means that they’re completely separate, because if they didn’t share a cognitive connection the mind wouldn’t be able to communicate with the brain. It’s like when you have a conversation with someone, you’re not physically connected and there's a small distance between you - but there is a cognitive connection between you and the other person through speech.

I hope that this will make you understand the radio analogy better now, and that you’ll see that I haven’t misinterpreted what Deepak has said about this idea.

As for responding to all the other points you’ve made, I think that I’ll just be repeating what I’ve said in my previous posts and the debate would go on endlessly. It seems you still haven’t understood everything I’ve said and it seems you feel the same way about me. So I suggest we stop this debate now.

Again, I’d like to thank you for your time and effort – I think this has been a very interesting discussion.

Take care,

Lars

Lars wrote...
"So I think it would be more open-minded to just say they’re unproven if that’s what you believe, no need to call them ridiculous since we’re dealing with a territory which is still largely unknown."

If some recipe is untested, you can make up shit and say it tastes like pie? while all the evidence says your recipe is smells like dog stool?

As Jimmy says you still don't get the fairies and unicorn example. And skeptics and science being open-minded while the woos are close mined to to educate themselves about their position.

"But I sense that Jimmy Blue is going to respond to this by saying we might as well believe in fairies! And you’re going to tell me people who are open to new unproven ideas must have unlimited stupidity. "

That is a straw man!
Either you realize this or you are plain stupid!
If so you deserve no respect for being hypocritical throughout.

You wrote..."This debate is becoming so predictable and it's not going anywhere so I think I'll just have to agree to disagree with you. Btw, I don’t think there’s much point in you trying to ridicule me any more than you have!"

Yes this is predictable and your ignorance is astounding. You have little idea of philosophy of mind-body problem or sconce behind chopra's evidence.

And again you deserve to be ridiculed. I have been more than fair and patient with your nonsense; strawman arguments, ignorance of the subject at hand, cherry picking, denial mentality and hypocrisy.

Lars wrote.."It seems you still haven’t understood everything I’ve said and it seems you feel the same way about me. So I suggest we stop this debate now."

I see that the spiritual people here understand the criticism of Deepak Chopra, but here we have a kind of a fanatic filled with woo so thick that the rain of common sense or lightning of critical thinking doesn't penetrate the thick hide of denailism and truthiness.

Also wrote.."Again, I’d like to thank you(Jimmy) for your time and effort – I think this has been a very interesting discussion."

The good manners yeah?. I will make veiled(or not) ad hominems and say "it's a pleaure interacting with you".

It isn't.

I would prefer debating with a 100 who have read Chopra's Buddha than those who think they understand, or rather 'know' what he wrote in the book from their limited knowledge of Buddhism from having watched the Matrix..

I guess these fools can sense the minds of Chopra and the skeptics by just tapping into the mindfield. That is proof enough for them ciruclar and fallacious tough much like the arguments of the Intellgient Design proponents.

Jimmy_Blue

Here's a good analogy, ID Proponents talk the same nonsense about their theory being science and is not disproved; Evolution theory doesn't explain some things yet, or so they claim, therefore their alternative hypothesis must be true. They argue from default and their choice is a false dilemma while there is tonnes of evidence for Evolution while there is none for ID. They don't even want to believe that Evolution theory can in fact explain their objections. This is what we get when woos pretend to do know science.

tyringtobereasonable.."They want to make their points with woo woo and a closed mind!"

Indeed! Even dogs take a hint..and orangutans can self-reflect...but some woos are lower down the evolutionarily ladder to ostriches on the beach..or even a mushroom growing on under the Buddha tree. And the mushroom thinks; my mind must be a plant. Is that enough woo?

have a nice weekend.

woo...many errors in language above. heck! you get the message...

Lars:

I happen to agree that there is little point carrying on this debate.

You have repeated the same statements over and over even when they are discredited. You have made claims without any supporting evidence and refused to withdraw them or back them up (just as Chopra has), and yet you criticised skeptics for doing this. You admitted to not reading the post that originated this debate, after you had attempted to defend it. You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what Chopra himself has written and claim I have misrepresented him. You don't seem to have read up on any of the topics I suggested and yet accuse skeptics of being close/narrow minded. You have made strawman and ad hominem arguments. You cling to analogies that have been shown to work against you. You refuse to directly address questions put to you and either ignore them altogether or dismiss them in one generalised statement without even showing why this generalisation works to dismiss the questions. You require standards of evidence for skeptics that you do not require of Chopra. You have provided no evidence for your position.

You're right, there is little point in carrying on.

Just think on this. You admitted above that at the least you have learnt the actual grievances and positions of skeptics. If no skeptic had participated in this debate, would you have continued to accept what Chopra said was the skeptical position/response? If so, who is narrowminded here? Do you even accept that Chopra has grossly misrepresented the positions and attitudes of skeptics?

You said: "I’m still not convinced that one can prove with full certainty that the mind is solely confined to the brain."

And yet you have not said why, and don't appear to have read much on the few topics I suggested. So, I can't say that I am surprised. But if you don't research a topic, how can you expect to be convinced one way or the other? If you don't try to understand, how can you?

You said: "As you’ve said yourself we haven’t mapped out the mind."

This misrepresents my position and you know it. I have said we cannot map the mind (meaning we cannot map thoughts and thought processes), but my entire argument is about how we know the mind resides (for the record I don't like this term) within the brain and that we can map brain activity that corresponds to certain mental activities, illnesses and defects.

You said: "Furthermore, you admit that for ethical reasons there are many experiments that cannot be performed in this area - and this obviously limits our abilities to conduct crucial research. "

I said we cannot do ethical research to support your position, not mine. The research we can do demonstrates clearly that the mind resides in the brain and not outside it. You still have not answered how you would design an experiment to test the mind outside brain idea. If you can't even think of an experiment that could prove it, then it is not worthy of being called science.

You said: "He suggests that they’re separate physically but in cognitive terms the mind communicates through the brain so they share a cognitive connection. "

Then you will have no problem giving a citation for this.

On the other hand, Chopra did say:
"The brain is a receiver for the mind field. "

There is no connection between a radio reciever and a radio transmitter.

Now you appear to be misrepresenting Chopra.

What exactly do you consider to be a cognitive connection? please define your terms.

Please define how the mind communicates through the brain. How are they connected?

You said: "because if they didn’t share a cognitive connection the mind wouldn’t be able to communicate with the brain. "

But that is not what Chopra himself says. He says the brain acts as a reciever for the mind field, that the mind is outside the brain, and that the mind exists before the brain, which suggests the mind simply transmits and can not be connected to the brain since it exists outside it and before the brain does (and presumably exists after the brain has gone as well). To back this up he uses the analogy of a radio signal. If this is Chopra's own analogy, why do you change it to mean something he clearly doesn't? You are putting words in his mouth and then claiming I don't understand him.

You said: "It’s like when you have a conversation with someone, you’re not physically connected and there's a small distance between you - but there is a cognitive connection between you and the other person through speech."

Yes, that is exactly like your mind existing outside your brain and communicating with it in some uninterruptable ethereal way isn't it? Analogies really aren't working for you Lars.

You said: "I hope that this will make you understand the radio analogy better now, and that you’ll see that I haven’t misinterpreted what Deepak has said about this idea"

No, and yes you have. The radio analogy is a very bad one. There is no connection between a radio and a transmitter or a radio station.

You said: "As for responding to all the other points you’ve made, I think that I’ll just be repeating what I’ve said in my previous posts and the debate would go on endlessly. It seems you still haven’t understood everything I’ve said and it seems you feel the same way about me. So I suggest we stop this debate now."

In other words, I only have the same things to say that you've criticised before and which I didn't respond too or dismissed without good reason or evidence, and I have no evidence to support my arguments when challenged, so I'd like to stop now because repeating things over and over again doesn't seem to convince skeptics like it does woos.

It has been illuminating, but my time and effort definitely appears to have been wasted.

Your default position from the start has been that Chopra is right, no matter what evidence exists to show he isn't. Nothing appears to have changed.

Now, who wants to take bets on how long it is before Chopra repeats this article in a slightly different form?

Jimmy Blue,

Thanks for your long reply and for attempting to explain how you’ve interpreted what I’ve said and for stating once more what your views are. Unfortunately, you’re still misinterpreting what I’ve said and you think the same about me.

So thank goodness you’ve finally agreed to end this debate!

Take care,

Lars