Deepak Chopra & Michael Shermer - In Conversation

Deepak Chopra, MD, FACP, Founder of The Chopra Foundation and the Chopra Center for Wellbeing, is a world-renowned pioneer in mind-body medicine and personal transformation, and is Board Certified in Internal Medicine, Endocrinology and Metabolism. He is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians and a member of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
Chopra has authored more than 80 books, published in more than 43 languages, including 22 New York Times best sellers.
Michael Shermer, PhD -- American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic.

[@tweekyseagull]

Chopra's main shtick is to confuse the map with the place.

[@lievenyperman9363]

This is beautiful! After all these years they finally had a nice conversation. 👌🙏❤

[@andrewtigani1851]

Kudos to Shermer for not losing his shit.

[@alejandrozunigaarteaga6633]

Could not finish watching the video, Mr. Deepak gives me headaches.

[@tippiersky4534]

What a lame comment. Deepak gives a modern version of some of the most profound philosophical thoughts such as Kant and Hegel's. You sir are a biased ignorant.

[@lizardas]

Then Schopenhauer must also give you a headache. Maybe you're allergic to philosophy.

[@junio5456]

hahahah I like Deepak's hair style hahah

[@spridle]

His hair is as comical as when he talks about constructs and consciousness.

[@k-3402]

The hair is low key dope lmao

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

@@spridle the ultimate racist is here. Shame on you 😕

[@akshaypillai2504]

For those who dont understand deepak... We are humans...we have experience of this world..animals have experience of the same world differently, Insects have different idea of world In the level of understanding this world, humans are at the top My question is... Just consider a being whose level of intelligience is higher than humans...what would be the concept of world to them, the experience of the world of that being is different so it will have a different interpretation of the same world which we humans may not understand So my question is what is the reality of the world or simply what is the reality of my experience....?

[@fattyjaybird7505]

One good question he asked, why does the universe fit together so well? Because the fundamental structure of the universe IS consciousness... and for some reason ( the other question) it wanted to be something, other than everything, .....or nothing, if we are the only beings to reflect on our situation as much as we do, we are the furthest away from identifying with this consciousness, while at the same time, able to hold an electron microscope, or hubble telescope up to it and look at it.... because ....its something to do :D

[@kunalk1234]

Loads of bullshitt. Nature is very neutral perhaps to the extent that it doesn't even differentiate between living and dead. Your consciousness is your brain working just like any other body organ. If your body is unhealthy this level of consciousness comes down. So obviously consciousness can't be confused with some supernatural force. It's just your body organs working well

[@Lotsofimages]

i think the one who is the closest to the truth is the silent statue in the back.

[@jackharrison6860]

Really enjoyed this, thanks for uploading.. 💟🙏

[@TheHeartphone]

not for nothing there is this wise quote: "speaking is silver, silence is gold". Happy to have found the gold :)

[@MMA4ALL7]

very enlightening conversation, deepak isnt trying to make anyone believe in his concept of reality, hes simply saying that because we are made to believe certain truths (or human constructs) since birth we arent able to experience reality at a fundamental level. And he is simply saying that getting back to a perception of reality without human constructs can make us compassionate towards each other and the world, and also remove any possible anxieties or pressures we have in life. Deepak is a good person idk why so many people think he is trying to lie to people and gain something from it

[@usbsol]

Alma Sol because its bullshit and he gets rich by doing it 😊

[@melancocky7273]

thank you for being one of the only commenters to understand Chopra's point here. the arrogance in this comment section is astonishing.

[@jeffreysiroonian2349]

Awesome...thank you both

[@CONRADOSALASCANO]

I think it is helpful that Shermer and Chopra are now a reconciled duo. Having met Shermer personally (albeit in unhappy circumstances), I find a bit of healing in watching this encounter.

[@akshaypillai2504]

Consciousness is an experience.... language is limited to express this experience

[@Dhruv-uj2zo]

Love this talk man, probably watched this 10 times, I have the same question.

[@goodgremlinmedia2757]

Chopra is a fraud

[@thesage90]

Agree

[@Lalaldd]

People seem to forget that listening is more powerful than thinking of what you are going to say next.

[@Lalaldd]

How do you mean vamped by leeches? You mean people take advantage of you?

[@josephgoodrich]

Deepak says he enjoyed having this "conversation". He might want to look up the meaning of the word.

[@donaldanderson6578]

More of this please.

[@ofrabjousday1]

If you set your Smartphone to Record, leave it in the forest, walk away, and a tree falls, I'm pretty sure it will pick up the sound, regardless whether a human listens to that recording or not. And assuming of course, that the tree didn't fall on your Smartphone.

[@natanaellizama6559]

That is the thing. Why is it 'sound'? There's some phenomena happening, but nowhere does it have 'sound' as 'sound' does not refer to the phenomena itself but the experience of the phenomena. For example, does 'sight' happen if the wood falls? Also, the register is not of the tree falling, but it is a representation of the event that is then decoded and parsed by the brain which gives rise to the experiencing of the experience of sound.

[@erichwlim]

When Deepak needs to explain something, he uses vague words like "experience" or "consciousness" because that's the area he can't lose. He can get away with everything by putting himself into areas that don't require logic or we don't yet to understand. He goes further than that by saying we can never understand it. I would call him a bottleneck of the progress of humanity. I wish he doesn't take advantage of people in need because when people are desperate, they want to believe in anything and his theory sounds really really good.

[@joramponi249]

Well put. I finally understood what HE means by consciousness: a big bag of stuff in which you put whatever pleases you, and then stuff you can manipulate at will" Tell that to the kids dying of hunger as we speak.

[@blzaster]

@@joramponi249 LOL

[@alexisjuillard4816]

Well said. I would give a hundred bucks to be able to magically intervene in ANY debate where he dares to (fail to) use quantum physics to argue whatever bullshit he had to offer. It would be so clear to everyone if someone with enough knowlege on the basics of quantum physics to know exactly what terms meant and what concepts comz into play. He cannot use the word quantum and follow it by anything else then a quantum system ... and continje to form a coverent statement let alne argument. Quantum physics works miracles... on uantum stuff. If your stuff isn't quantum all the power of science you're trying to bring forth dissappears. And trust me the group of what passes as quantum stuff is very exclusive for one forget anything that interacts with other stuff or even itself, you're brain can either be quantum or a brain, if it's quantum... it's probably a weird arrangement of its atoms in the dark at absolute zero and the atoms don't interact with one another. Not very useful

[@thesage90]

What he's saying is actually common sense if you think about it and it's all true everything is made up

[@fentonmulley5895]

Its called a Motte and Bailey

[@keithjohnsen8353]

What Deepak is saying here is quite true and accurate, and Shermer acknowledges that, at least conceptually without the benefit of experiencing this "nothingness" when you've stripped away all constructs of mind. Where the confusion comes in I feel which Deepak could do better to explain to his mind is that while science and all other pursuits of knowledge such as art and philosophy and religion, is that these all relative truths. As powerful and "true" as these models or "constructs" of reality may be in what they offer us, they are ultimately relative truths, and will remain relative truths so long as we hold them in our minds. They can never be "ultimate truth", as all perceptual truths are relative to the context of the perceiver. "Absolute Truth", if you will, that "fundamental" as he speaks of it is no individual truth, it is no propositional truth itself, but the base or Ground of all relative truths which arise out of all relative experience. Awareness of this does not rid these relative truths of the power and value of things like scientific truth, but rather allows us to understand that in the end, these do not end with us finding what is absolute Reality at the end of these. The value of this, in the words I would choose to use, is that it creates an openness for us in our relative realities to see that "absolute" reflected, or at the foundation of all our relative truths we have held in our approach to translating our experience of reality. The error of our minds to think that we can find "God", as it were, through these constructs is what the is referred to as the "illusion". It's not a matter of, "If it's not true, then it's false". That's the sort of thinking that blocks us from realizing that all of it, all of these models of reality we construct in the mind, are simply and ultimately a reflection of ourselves at the end of it as humans, staring back simply at ourselves.

[@majmage]

It's like the other poster succinctly said: _"Chopra's main shtick is to confuse the map with the place."_ (credit: tweekyseagull) We can record things objectively and independently to know objective truth (to the extent it's knowable). Claims to knowledge which cannot be verified in this way can be dismissed as irrelevant (if not outright false). _"The value of this, in the words I would choose to use, is that it creates an openness for us in our relative realities to see that "absolute" reflected"_ With rational/scientifically-minded people, this already happens. Objective evidence converges to reveal an objective truth. The value of this is in clearly distinguishing truth from nonsense/delusion. There's no need to be open beyond this, because that means being open to things which are likely false, or which are at best irrelevant (because if something has no perceivable influence over our reality, it's irrelevant). So if people claim god exists and cannot provide empirical evidence of it, then their claims should be dismissed as irrelevant at best.

[@keithjohnsen8353]

What we view as objective truth changes as our perceptions change. Arguing one's current perception of truth is absolutely objective, is a form of delusion. The goal is to ultimately let go of thinking we can know anything absolutely, or the claim we can truly know objective reality. To dismiss knowledge of the subjective, as subjective is foolish. The set of eyes we look at truth with colorizes that objective reality with the subjective. It's inescapable. And that's the whole point of this.

[@GrubKiller436]

Michael Shermer is a true skeptic. He listens and tries to understand, but he won't just take any bullshit.

[@joanneclark3986]

Glad to see they are getting along... ;)

[@c4CHIN]

The ultimate question is who or what is experiencing, through bodily perceptions, whatever that is perceived or known as existence or reality.

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

Love both of you ❤️

[@ElanSunStarPhotographyHawaii]

Excellent ...very well done....very good discussion. Bravo! I have read some of Deepak's initial books over 50 times (Ageless body Timeless mind etc.every video brings out points not in the books.I have listened to Metahuman 5 times...And..with that said. The haircut does not personally subjectively work for me

[@manyfeather2knives423]

If rape is nothing more than a construct , and we should avoid man made constructs, than is rape ok? If you say no, rape is immoral, than is that (morality ) just not another construct? What is truth??

[@thesage90]

@@manyfeather2knives423 rape is an experience a experience we labeled rape is it okay of course not but it is another construct, what would this action be without a labels

[@VIsTheMusic]

If you want to understand - you must dig really deep into the history of each thinker’s origin, their cultural heritages in which they grew up with, are they deeply connected to spirituality of those places where they were born, raised, studied? You have to understand the way the Eastern Mind works, you must comprehend all the ways in which the Eastern Pilosopies and mystism works, how it is tightly woven into every Eastern / Asian person. Deepak represents a sort of thinker who uses words in a creative and playful way to explain very simple ideas, gift wrapped in many sentimental contexts. These thinkers are much the same as an entertainer you know? The masses love to be intrigued and entertained, spooked and constantly given new stimuli to justify more of their lazy consumption of anything to fill that void inside, which we ALL feel often.

[@Jkief123]

This conversation is how I imagine a conversation with the sophists of ancient Greece. Chopra knows that he is using words and terminology that has completely different meanings to different areas of science or even areas of the world, but continues using those words with his own interpretation to prove his own hypothesis.

[@fentonmulley5895]

He is stuck in a motte and bailey addiction

[@Testing-fw1hn]

what sophists of ancient greece are you refering to, and where can i learn more about this?

[@viorelagocs]

Shermer is the perfect mirror image of Chopra and vice versa... This is not a dialogue, it's two monologues. I wish to see Shermer face to face with Rupert Spira. Chopra isn't wrong, but he's a preacher... I wish "Closer to Truth" channel would chose Spira too. But at the end of the day, I think they all just want to confirm their own biases, so they chose Chopra, because they feel he's an easy case to dismiss... Too bad they don't want to hear the really well articulated and precise arguments...

[@Rotceev]

It was really nice to read your comment,and Im going to look up Spira. thx

[@viorelagocs]

@@Rotceev Look for Rupert Spira's Channel here on KZbin. He also has a website where you can buy his books and download audios.

[@hiji]

A conversation ended up with Deepak saying, Empiricism is the only key to reality. haha. He even disregards Rationalism.. He basically wanted to base everything on subjective reality. This is a perilous thought process because an individual who has more persuasive empirical knowledge will lead followers who have weaker empirical knowledge. I advise people who follow him to create a balanced way of seeing the truth.

[@RichardOhlrogge]

Chopra no longer feels an adversarial connection to Shermer since he never allowed Shermer to express his ideas and instead constantly talked over his attempts to counter Chopra's thoughts. It is obvious that Chopra is so possessed by his "constructs" that there is no room in his non-existent consciousness for alternative understandings!! I'm sad that this did not turn out to be what it should have been!!

[@AuroraCarlson]

You know, Richard, this discussion between materialists and idealists, and specifically between Michael and Deepak, has been going on for a very long time. The views held by materialists like Michael are VERY well known by everyone today, including Deepak. It is the mainstream view :) This was not a debate, this was a dialogue that started with Michael saying that he is doing his best to understand the language and also the thoughts expressed by Deepak and others like him. I agree with you that Deepak took over, but I think it is because he wanted a chance to explain, thoroughly, for all those like Michael who had some sincere interest. Again, this was not about debating, and Deepak said repeatedly that he does not contest the surface level, but about a *deeper* understanding of a *deeper* level of existence. Most materialists react with a knee-jerk recoiling from deeper perspectives and cling to the truths valid at the surface. But a part of Michael was actually listening, and it will give a chance to all the others who want to understand.

[@RichardOhlrogge]

Hi Aurora - thx for your thoughtful reply!! I am very aware of Chopra's work but I don't agree with this premise that consciousness is fundamental. I have watched endless interviews that he has conducted and is available on Curiosity Stream (he is an excellent interviewer) and observed how awkward many of his interviewees become when he inserts his beliefs into the conversation. I give him credit for his persistence and I recognize there are many in his camp. I struggle with his arguments that at times appear to be a form of circular reasoning. In his dialog with Shermer he never acknowledges the role memory plays in let's say the growth of a child as its brain develops and through the learning process develops the constructs Chopra proposes - it's a natural evolutionary process, it is not a fundamental nature of reality. Here is a brief conversation between Chopra and Robert Kuhn, a neeuroscientist, in which Chopra is somewhat stumped by questions posed by Kuhn which is a rare occurrence!! www.closertotruth.com/series/why-the-cosmos#video-49815

[@AuroraCarlson]

Richard, I do agree with Deepak that consciousness is fundamental, but in my case, it's because I am a long time meditator and have experienced it as the actual truth. Beyond all thoughts, feelings, sense perceptions- there is what some call Being, existence itself, unconditioned and awake. So from my point of view, it is not certain that someone could sincerely and with clarity come to the same conclusion by purely intellectual means. I see discussions as the one in this video or the ones you speak of as an incentive for people to look more closely into their own consciousness and no longer take the "objective outside world" for granted. But I for one don't expect anyone to suddenly have a realization this way. If you feel that the reasoning of those like me sometimes feels circular it's because they come from another experience. To be honest, it is true because... it is true :) The rest is words, concepts, systems of thought ... woven with more or less skill in the ocean of... consciousness. The ocean itself is obvious to anyone who has discovered it. It is nonexistent or unlikely to anyone who hasn't discovered it yet. But even in this discovery, there are levels of depth. To truly know answers to such questions as the one Kuhn asked you need to be very free of intellectual complications aka concepts :) To me, the answer is that consciousness is as free of the need to play "world manifestation" as a child. It doesn't *have to* play... but... why wouldn't it? It's fun :) It's in the nature of consciousness to play, that is why it is in the nature of all its creation to play. To me, the same applies to memory and evolution- consciousness grows and evolves in its conscious self-awareness through all forms (=experiences) it differentiates into. It finds out about itself by interacting with itself and it creates patterns upon patterns in the soup of information it arises as and contains. The secret to finding out all you want about your own real identity (consciousness) is to be able to bypass the human intellect (I sometimes call it the babble machine) and go right to the experience of Being, and observe that. Everything becomes obvious if you do, and then good luck trying to put it all into human concepts and words, especially for those who haven't been there yet :) I do wish you luck in figuring things out, but my sincere tip is that you start a meditation practice if you haven't already. It does make things clear in a whole other way.

[@RichardOhlrogge]

Thank you Aurora for that elaboration of your thinking. To be honest I relate to your explanation much more than I do Chopra’s. I have had minimal exposure to meditation - longest session for me was 4 hours - probably not enough nor with enough frequency to induce the ‘experience of Being’ you refer to. I do practice meditation on an as needed basis and primarily to manage my overworked intellectual persona and to manage stress when I become conscious of its presence!! I think in this conversation we are dealing with, not a war of words, but a ‘babble’ of understandings that are based on a diverse array of definitions of words and conceptual perceptions. For example - when you indicate you “…agree with Deepak that consciousness is fundamental…” I have to ask you to expand somewhat on what this ‘fundamental’ nature of consciousness is?? For me what is fundamental in our reality is that fact that empty space is filled with energy within which virtual particles are constantly bubbling, not babbling, into and out of existence which is a fundamental force that has served to create all that exists and which is why we are here having this conversation - please accept my insertion of a piece of my intellectual understanding at this point. This is an area of intense scrutiny by scientists today. When Chopra alludes to the idea that consciousness is fundamental and pervades empty space I cringe. I have heard him insert this sense into many of his interviews when attempting to get consensus from his guests - forgive me if I am misrepresenting his ideas. One of the debates that is also very active today is whether we are living in a simulation which seems to always pop into my consciousness when listening to Chopra. I do relate to the idea that experiencing a ‘sense of Being’ while under deep meditation can be a unique and exceptional experience - which I admit I have not achieved - I am not clear as to how that would change me other than knowing that it is something I can choose to do just as I can choose to go out in nature and be quiet and experience the beauty of all that is around me and how intimately connected I am to all that exists. This sense has taken the pursuit of a lot of intellectual awareness which I find to be deeply satisfying. Neuroscience is pursuing close examination of how meditation manifests in the brain by monitoring monks and nuns when they are experiencing the deepest experiences of meditation and centering praying. Do you feel this is a worthwhile endeavor?? Once again thank you for your considerate thoughts and the sharing of what is meaningful to you!!

[@AuroraCarlson]

You make such a good point Jason and you expand the dialogue, so thank you. I guess I was referring to the situation in natural sciences, where materialism, physicalism, reductionism, have been so dominant at least in the last century or so. But you are very right when you talk about certain parts of the world and religion. To me, science and religion are partners in a dance of evolution. They are two separate sides of the one wholeness and provoke each other's growth by challenging each other. People have split reality in two, the material and the transcendent, and are having a hard time reuniting them now that they have wandered separate paths. But it shouldn't be so difficult, I think. A modern scientist, if honest and thorough, will go all the way to the limits of matter and realize there is more. That's where physicists have arrived, actually. A religious person (I mean people who follow a specific doctrine) will have to go all the way to the limits of that doctrine and realize that there is more. Any system of thought, science and religion included, are, after all... constructs. So when that realization dawns, when we leave behind the concepts, then we all meet in the same "place". The problem is, I think, when science or religion *don't* evolve. I mean... take obsolete science, or obsolete religious myths, and ... what are you going to do with them in today's world? They are completely out of relevance and do nothing but stop the collective flow. When human consciousness has advanced about some issue, say women's equality, or the nonexistence of biological race, there will be friction if either science or religion try to impose some old story on that. I used to think like that before, that science can't be about anything other than the material, but then thanks to Deepak's work I got to know about scientists who very well marry science and spirituality. I say spirituality and not religion because to me they are different. Scientists who are capable of researching the immanent while aware of the transcendent are to me truly advanced. Have you read any book by Freeman Dyson for example? Maybe you know about the first quantum physicists like Max Planck who felt no obligation to pretend that the transcendent isn't the obivous elephant in the room of science? And then the scientists you see collaborating with Deepak, they are all people aware of the beyond. I have met some of them, that's why I know they are the real deal. I guess science is fighting uphill to free people of obsolete religious myths, but also to free itself of its own unevolved concepts, and of the illusion of separateness from other systems of thought. That's why we need a science of consciousness, and the good news is that it's already here :)

[@guidovoable]

Nice haircut, I am impressed!!

[@ephantuskariuki]

Even when "I transcend all to become pure consciousness" as Deepak keeps saying, there still remains a body that eats and does all things that other bodies do. Shermer's points- or attempts therepf are more enquiring what this body experiences-the practical reality. This point wasn't discussed at all and everything was reduced to the experience of pure consciousness after all constructs cease to exist....hardly worth dwelling upon so endlessly by Deepak whilst still proclaiming he has to take a plane to india after the discussion.Kinda of confirms that the "practical matters" still matter.

[@elliotpolanco159]

Deepak Chopra took us on a deep profound journey.

[@MrStalkerhunter]

Prof Leonard Mlodinow really did tutored Deepak Chopra to an extent..cheers to both for this amazing conversation although with the exception of the others who are language sensitive to things, maybe they couldn't get the difference between eastern and western ways of thinking. and another point is that what's after the "nothing"? surely You can't just stop all of the things that we are doing?some people will just akin to continue doing the same worldly thing?It's to personal with the conversation.You can't turn all terrorists into peaceloving humans with just one Deepak Chopra gotta be a million of em.

[@mayukhpurkayastha2649]

Sir i m invent tree sensorable Ai algorithm or power acceptor large machine. This power acceptor help update new type quantum computer India

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

💓💓💓😊💪I do love both of them 💙❤️

[@alanappel4604]

Of course, debating in hindsight is always easier, but there are a couple of questions that I wish had been pursued. Deepak agreed that bats have experiences, ergo they must have some relationship to consciousness. So consciousness is not strictly a human phenomena. Did consciousness exist before the initial development of life on earth? Did consciousness exist in the moments after the big bang? Or is consciousness another of those human constructs? Just as "nothing" is a human construct.

[@amylee9]

Alan Appel yes, by Deepak’s definition of consciousness, a bat, a frog or any live form has consciousness. They experience their environment as defined by their genes. So that makes plants and bacteria also conscious. Or, is consciousness the awareness of our sensations? If so, then maybe only humans are conscious and other live forms are just alive and living on auto-pilot.

[@responsibleparty]

Now invite Sam Harris over for a similar discussion.

[@thetruthoutside8423]

Experience of sound is different than sound just like in seeing, the wave length is itself different than when we as species seen a specific wave length. Shumer was clearly clear. What's left is the thing inwardly who see or hears, what we call the self that has the experience. Just like the UNDERSTANDING itself when you say 2+2=4 . The hard problem is what does mean to say that there self that understands this relationship and in relation to what?

[@mars_12345]

Is a water falling down in a waterfall creating a hard problem? Or does it just fall, following some rules (forces), nothing more? The same in a brain - the electrical impulses over biological tissue lead to what we name cosciousness. It's a system obeying some rules just like a waterfall system. The brain is just a bit ;) more complex.

[@whittfamily1]

This was more of a monologue by Chopra than a discussion between the two men. I am a little disappointed with it.

[@joaquindelarosa1215]

I agree, but then again it is Shermer who claims chopra is talking nonsense, so Chopra is obligated to explain himself to shermer, and since it is a deep subject Chopra cannot limit his words. If he does, they will continue walking in circles as they always have done. I think Chopra decided to talk a lot for this very reason. Not an easy concept to try and convey, for Chopra.

[@responsibleparty]

The guy loves "experiencing" the sound of his own voice. And I was disappointed by Shermer's comebacks.

[@mosab643]

I think Michael left his nuts at home for this one.

[@briansmith3791]

it's my belief that consciousness is fundamental, and also many of the other things Deepak talked about, but i was totally lost at times listening to him. It may be the Eastern way of thinking which we in the West have trouble with. I have the same problem with Tibetan Buddhists. I think i have some grasp of a few buddhist principles, but when i hear a monk talking on them, i'm often baffled. I much prefer scientists discussing these matters.

[@vishwasvishu6946]

What's the difference between experience, consciesness, sense and sound?

[@derhafi]

Deepak Chopra, a man who enjoys the smell of his own farts. To anyone with empathy and a basic knowledge of physics, listening to Deepak Chopra, while he is kicking four centuries of enlightenment in the balls, is causing not only revulsion and outrage, there is also shame. The way Michael Shermer handles this is impressive.

[@natanaellizama6559]

How so? It is mostly a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. Deepak is not parting from non-science or pseudo-science but is parting from a different philosophical perspective on those facts, something which is shared by many scientists as well. I am not sure how he kicks centuries of enlightenment in the balls. Can you explain where he contradicts centuries of science?

[@derhafi]

@@natanaellizama6559 one example is his "liberate" use the word quantum, energy and so forth. Particularly "Quantum" is used by him in a way that makes every scientific literate person grunge... As one can witness in a video here on KZbin when he gets schooled by a physicist. All this is just the tip of the iceberg of his woo word salad that his fans love to interpret however they like.

[@natanaellizama6559]

@@derhafi Well, I don't know whether his use of the term 'quantum' is incorrect. I am not a physicist, and I suppose some physicist would agree with him. At least, from the debate, it's clear he's using the term in a metaphorical sense which is valid. If his use of the term 'quantum' would make every scientific literate person grunge, why do physicists agree with his view? From what I've seen(and I'm not Deepak expert), it is a matter of philosophical perspective between realism and idealism because of Hinduism. However, it is very different to treat him as a charlatan who misuses language to confuse people. There are hinduist physicists who do physicist with a hindu understanding, and there's nothing wrong with that. What else is your reservation? Is he misusing language or using language from a different frame? Those aren't the same. I just watched the video with Dawkins where Dawkins accused him rather rudely about him using 'word salad' to confuse, except I understood what Deepak said, which means it WASN'T word salad, he just used language within certain connotation and with a given frame. Dawkins frame of language is not the only valid frame of language, but maybe that's why he couldn't understand him. The issue then is not 'word salad' but comprehension between different frames.

[@derhafi]

@@natanaellizama6559 No physicist agrees with him, regarding his use of the word quantum, as well as anything else he is claiming about the natural world. He is a professional bullshitter aiming for the gullibility new age audience. I just hope you'll be able to see him for what he really is. Good luck.

[@natanaellizama6559]

@@derhafi I personally know three physicists who agree with his view. Maybe not on the 'quantum' because I don't know how he uses it, I know he uses it metaphorically to mean a discontinuity, which is a valid use of the term 'quantum leap'. Beyond that, is there anything else? I haven't read his books, so I'm speaking only of his debates that part from his Hinduistic tradition.

[@mikegrecamusic5917]

What a beautiful friendship

[@iquelanga1524]

i feel like their business partners at this point... they both debate and make bank

[@yahyasibtain3067]

For the first time I understood what Deepak Chopra is saying!! Thank God😓 Now, my stance on Deepak Chopra is this:- 1) It's possible what he's saying i.e., Conciousness is fundamental and everything is happening in it. In the same way the claim that God made everything in the last 5 minutes without us knowing it is also possible. But since there's no good evidence of what any of that is true so there's no reason to believe in it.

[@Weightingtablesafter]

He just makes a series of unsubstantiated claims. Consciousness is his god of the gaps. His conviction in his statements is bizarre

[@Weightingtablesafter]

Now that i think about, isnt that what most philosophers do? Especially those concerned with metaphysics. Saying shit that they have no way of knowing or showing adequately. I just dont think you can deduce this kind of information using reason or common sense. Physics doesnt care about any of that.

[@G_Demolished]

@@Weightingtablesafter I don’t remember who said it but metaphysics is the art of befuddling oneself methodically.

[@phild249]

@@G_Demolished “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” Nikola Tesla

[@elliotpolanco159]

This is profound, there was a scary realization & implication of what Deepak Chopra explained.

[@AdkinsRachel]

I love the contrast of the conversation against the backdrop of someone cutting down a tree. I do enjoy these debates, but in the end I gotta go get some shit done. lol

[@k-3402]

Consciousness must be the most elastic word in the dictionary, lol

[@kobayashidragor4564]

Why it literally just means what u see n feel lol

[@goodgremlinmedia2757]

But it has nothing to do with quantum physics

[@JimmyLee27]

I take it everyone here who is 'criticizing' Deepak Chopra has already solved the Hard Problem of science.

[@carolwells9907]

Interesting…what is experience?

[@t.hamiltonian7651]

Chopra May have his own language but he is on to something in the sense that he is not blinded by science. I have a tremendous respect for science, but it will never be able to explain consciousness

[@ashokvijay1144]

Because it is a linguistic construct . There maybe people who didn’t have that word also experienced things 😊

[@kirkrussell9130]

I'm happy to hear that, happy to see...that you two are coming together. Deepak, how can you give Mr. Sherman an evidence-based experience? I personally know where you are coming from, but it would only be understood through experience. If i asked you, "what is enlightenment? "... you wouldn't be able to explain it in terms verbally. Its an atomical experience, from atoms that are entangled with a past state of conciousness. Do atoms carry conciousness? Yes, through transcendence. It is "Lucy", the movie experience expressing an atomically experienced moment of spontaneous processes. Take the movie, "Creeds Assasin".... no different. The main actor transcends time to become what he was in the past. Atomically, he can tap into that state of conciousness (role + character) , atomically. Another story line, in the bible talks about Adam and Eve. Are we not considering a metaphorical representation of Atom & Electron? The tree in the bible, being the tree of plenty...the brain. Of course, the serpent... the limbic part of the brain. The fruit being, our thoughts... We are coming in full circle. We are the creators, we are in science, science is in us and better yet the fullness of the two combined is known as string's that construct the whole. It is the entanglement.

[@kirkrussell9130]

I speak with complete respect to Mr. Chopras thoughts. I am an aspiring spiritual/ motivational speaker...i believe Chopra to be evolutionary in his thoughts. I thank him for his potentiality. :)

[@jlovell93]

Kirk Russell how much weed have you smoked, mate?

[@AuroraCarlson]

Such a wonderful discussion! This is so rare and admirable. Two people do not have to have the same perspective to be able to have a fruitful dialogue. Michael, I am grateful for the attention you give to the ideas described by Deepak and for the great questions you ask. You actually want to understand this other perspective, and Deepak obviously understands the materialist point of view you hold. When two people understand each other's perspective, they have both grown. Your discussion will hopefully help many people expand beyond knee-jerk criticism of a perspective they don't even understand. After understanding... they are welcome to agree or not. Ideally they will be inspired to put some attention on pure experience beyond the conditioning of constructs. If they do... they will know reality :)

[@frankwhelan1715]

Aurora,I think many (or most) of the people on here who answered your posts understand very well,it was far from knee jerk criticism, but if you believe the mind exists independent of the brain ect ect ,,and your "evidence"regarding believing you and your family are healthier because one of these alternative regimes you are on,correlation doesn't imply causation. although most type of meditation/relaxation techniques are benificial for obvious reasons.

[@AuroraCarlson]

Frank, what do you mean when you say that meditation/relaxation techniques are beneficial for obvious reasons? Would it be as obvious to you that drinking an appropriate amount of water is beneficial to a human body? Or that getting an appropriate amount of quality sleep, or having emotional balance is beneficial? The funny thing about the evidence one gets through practice and experience is that it's so obvious. But of course, there surely are people who will ask for Western scientific evidence for the beneficial effect of breathing before believing in breathing :) Joke aside, there are so many things that I have taught in my Ayurvedic classes about how to live in harmony with our very own nature that are now incorporated in allopathic medicine and so many spices and herbs which nowadays can be found at the regular pharmacy at least in my country that if we just wait a little bit longer no one in the West will "believe" in Ayurveda, but most will be practicing it :) And that's OK with me. It's called alternative only until it's mainstream. What we call it is not important, the important thing is to return to balance and health as one humanity.

[@AH-hp5si]

Let me fix that for you: It's called alternative until it is supported by evidence, then it is just medicine.

[@supermaple1919]

I don't think u know what the heck Deep non local Pak is talking about.

[@AuroraCarlson]

@@ralphczukay1390 Hi Ralph, thank you for a civil and thoughtful comment. I would like to respond to the different things you say, so I will quote you one paragraph at a time. You say: "Hello. I am from India, and my formative years were spent around people who speak the same language that you do, and who impart the same kind of wisdom. There is immense value in many of the practices and disciplines that have come about through eastern traditions, I would never deny that. However, the discussion Shermer and Chopra were having was about the nature of reality, and what Deepak was asserting to be true is something I've heard a hundred times from people I know, love and respect. But I have to admit that a lot of is just mumbo-jumbo. Woo woo. Whatever you wanna call it. Dark and mysterious, but bunkum. " My response: It is mumbo-jumbo to you right now, and I am glad that you admit it so openly. Anyone who wants to truly know reality can't rely on beliefs, even those one has aquired in one's childhood. One has to find out for oneself, and then it won't be belief but thorough realization. You say: "It's as simple as this: Is there any such thing as an objective reality that isn't a mere "human construct"? That is beyond the material world? It simply cannot be known (since knowledge is illusory; I am willing to entertain the idea that it can be "realized"), unless you are ready to believe that a human being can transcend his senses and his material self, as Buddha or Krishna supposedly did. If you are ready to believe that Deepak Chopra has done that, then you must also be ready to question why formless Deepak is continuing to assume a human form and proselytizing about the true nature of consciousness within the confines of language which in itself is just a human construct. The idea that what we call reality is a construct, is itself a construct, as Shermer pointed out-- which, to me, is a polite way of saying "why are you having a conversation with me if conversation is just a method of perpetuating the illusion?" " My response: I do not believe that a human being can transcend senses and material self- I know it! :) I know it because the transcendent state is available to me and I have shown others how to access it, and it's not such a big deal. I do know that the "feat of realization" is presented as a very big deal in your culture, but that might contribute to scaring people away from the needed process. Why continue to participate in the construct? Because that's what the formless transcendent does- it plays with and as formed constructs. You say: "I'm not claiming that what you or Mr Chopra are talking about is a farce, but how do you know it isn't? And don't you think it's rather patronizing to say "Deepak understands the materialist point of view Shermer holds"; why not "Shermer understands the spiritual point of view Chopra holds"? Because that certainly is true. Spirituality is beneficial, sure, but that word is just a conglomeration of world-views that do not accept that reality is only material. And what is a 'worldview' (or perspective) if not a mere human construct?" My response: As I said, I know the transcendent isn't a farce because I know it as myself- and as your self, and everyone else's. It is as if a ceiling has opened, showing me what was beyond the limitation I was conditioned to perceive. The ceiling is an illusion and everyone's self is in reality the metaphorical sky. But as long as the conditioning of the ceiling is there, we will sit and guess, suppose, argue and have opinions about the eventuality of a sky, and it's not strange that people can get frustrated enough to call the sky a myth and mumbo-jumbo. It is simply because they haven't understood how to see/realize the sky through the constructed ceiling. The remark I made about Deepak understanding Michael, but not vice-versa, was not meant to be patronizing. It is simply about the fact that when you have realized the sky, you can still very well understand the perspective of a room encapsulated under a conceptual ceiling. The perspective of the sky includes (and creates) all possible shapes and sizes of rooms. The transcendent is an absolute, not relative perspective. But when you have never transcended conceptual rooms, you can't really understand the sky perspective, even if you might be able to discuss it as a theoretial, vague, possibility. You say: "Look, I've practiced meditation for over 10 years and I cannot even put down in words how beneficial it has been. However, I've got to admit with humility that it is simply impossible to know if "awareness" is anything more than a highly alert, calm, focused state of mind. And "state of mind" is simply a fancy way of describing everything that goes on with the body and the brain. That there is no "I" or "self" is hardly impossible to realize, but how do you know that the realization of that implies that consciousness subsumes material reality? It is simply a linguistic game, and Mr Chopra is just a good player." My response: Congrats for your practice, truly, I'm so glad for anyone who has found meditation. I'm sure it has been as beneficial for you as it has for me. About the "impossibility" you mention: it seems to me that it's more about the image you have, of what you're looking for. You seem to believe that you are looking for an intellectual realization. Your intellect is looking for that, yes. But the realization of the transcendent self is not an intellectual one. When you sit in meditation, in a state of altertness and calmness, with no focus (meaning that the object or vehicle of meditation has dissolved), then you ARE awareness itself, awareness with no object of awareness. The more you practice accessing that state, the more a non-intellectual realization dawns, that you are pure existence, that your own self is not any of the constructs, neither mental nor perceptual. That your own self, right this moment, is transcendent. And yes, within that self, mental and perceptual activity happens. It is truly just a matter of practicing the process of letting go of one's own mental constructs and looking from beyond them. You say: "I note how you said "understanding this perspective", and therein lies your answer: it is a perspective, that is all. All the teachings that have come out of eastern traditions are just perspectives. Definitely deeper and better perspectives, there's no denying that. Different lenses, but lenses nonetheless. There is no ultimate "realization" if one remains in the material world. A realized soul would simply exist as spirit or pure consciousness; if he returns as a guru, there is an ego that gives him direction just like for the rest of us. And whatever language he uses to illustrate the experience of formlessness negates the very experience itself." My answer: I have already written about the difference between the absolute perspective and relative ones. When you transcend, you have left behind all lenses. But Ralph, you are holding a story that tells you that when someone has transcended, the ego still directs that person. That is only true as long as we transcend a little and then return to the ego state we are used to. It's a common and necessary process, like when a bird who grew up in a cage returns again and again even if the door is suddenly opened. But eventually, the more we realize how real, safe, bright and complete our limitless transcendent self is, the less we need to constrict back into the ego construct. Yes, I agree with you that words can't ever describe the experience, but they can point to it. We can talk about our experiences as a way to help and encourage each other to keep exploring. Or we can use words to fortify the constructs that keep us in imagined smallness. All is OK, it's still just the formless playing "being caught in smallness". Thank you for the question Ralph, I hope my answers can be of some kind of help. Have a nice day!

[@Truthbewithyou]

Too much logic will keep you from the experience of consciousness. Its not something that can be explained, it has to be felt or experienced, and the best people can do is point towards it. Depak always does an amazing job of trying to explain it to those who are trying to work it out.... the thing is, there is nothing to work out, and the stopping of trying to work it out is where you will find it, its already in you, its just covered by conditioning 🙏🏼

[@georgehahn9836]

What Chopra calls "constructs" I would call "labels." I agree with Shermer that the table is there, although our perception is colored by the equipment we use to experience it. Still, this is a very interesting video for me, as my novels involve the idea of machine consciousness to a great degree.

[@AuroraCarlson]

You should check out constructionism, social constructionism and constructivism. What Chopra describes is very well known in philosophy, psychology and sociology.

[@georgehahn9836]

Yes, it is, including articles I have read by Chopra. I am also quite familiar with the work of Roger Penrose. Calling something a "construct" and saying that something is therefore proven is not something I can accept without a lot more than the arguments given here. The "Hard Problem" will continue to be hard, and maybe there is more than just the brain involved, but mostly, all I heard was speculation, not evidence.

[@AuroraCarlson]

George Hahn I understand you, but...you know, the evidence is the realization itself. When you realize that every thought, idea, system and object are constructs in consciousness, and when you realize that all these constructs continuously shift and change, but that consciousness itself is the unchanging ground of it all... then it is all self-evident. It all falls into place and all you can do is tilt your head and laugh. But of course, until the realization comes, one needs to keep researching thoroughly and honestly. I'm wishing you the best of luck!

[@alanappel4604]

Much of what Deepak said here experienced through meditation would be helpful psychologically to many people. But given the goal of removing or ignoring all constructs, consciousness itself is just another construct. Language is the biggest construct of all, so at some point we just need to stop talking; we should simply decline to attempt to identify or define consciousness as "the unchanging ground of it all" or any other description. Just acknowledge that it cannot be described and stop talking! This, of course, we humans are generally unable to do!

[@damansbedi]

@@georgehahn9836 I feel like Chopra takes everything to nothingness and calls it consciousness in which you experience anything and everything. He claims because of this way of thinking (instead of thinking he uses the word experiencing) you can improve life health and suffering. He calls it consciousness.... Which he cannot explain to be true.... Are we experiencing everything through consciousness? You say yes but how do you prove that? And the benefits you claim it brings are also not clear and not proven to be brought about by that very same thing especially when you apply other factors in that experiment which might impact the results. But when you look at things through the lens of science.... It promes much more with much more benefit and none of it is hogwash. None of it is made up to be believed without a reasoning unlike "awareness". Science, a much more credible way of answering things and explaining reality even though it cannot explain everything. At least it can prove somethings unlike "awareness" which might not even exist especially if it's just a brain activity which we cannot explain so far..

[@stephenarmiger8343]

Enjoying reading the comments.

[@estrellaexpancion7803]

Potencial infinito, somos conciencia pura en la humanidad.

[@pvvb9]

I think what is too surprising may not be understood by many people because it is spirituality and beyond human intelligence so only the people from India I mean a set of people from India can understand what Chopra saying

[@pvvb9]

Mr Chopra is rocking and if one can understand the science and the spirituality then that's all you don't need to confuse it all

[@goodgremlinmedia2757]

He doesn’t understand science.

[@shrinivasjambaldare7162]

Whether Deepak understand science or not leave it ,r u sure that u understand enough science to say that he doesn't understand science

[@Kyrani99]

Chopra doesn't make enough distinction in talking about consciousness. The Universe and everything in it exists because the information that is needed is upheld in The Mind by the Divine Consciousness of the Supreme Being so there is non-local consciousness. And it is fundamental. However each conscious being also has consciousness, which is local.

[@JorgeLopez-up9zf]

Chpra explains with apples but good for me it is extraordinary .

[@edzardpiltz6348]

I do not understand all the sceptical comments here. I mean does anyone here has ever experienced anything outside of conciousness, including the stuff we call matter? I would think not. So all we can say is, that matter is then made out of conciousness. We can well assume that our experience is refering to something that does exist outside of conciousness, that is completly legit. But when doing so we should be very clear that whatever be come up with, will always be a concept, because it is all based on the assumption of an outside world existing outside and independently of the experience in concsiousness and is in need of verification 😉.

[@Joshua-dc1bs]

Idealism is the most true sceptical position.

[@damansbedi]

I feel like Chopra takes everything to nothingness and calls it consciousness in which you experience anything and everything. He claims because of this way of thinking (instead of thinking he uses the word experiencing) you can improve life health and suffering. He calls it consciousness.... Which he cannot explain to be true.... Are we experiencing everything through consciousness? You say yes but how do you prove that? And the benefits you claim it brings are also not clear and not proven to be brought about by that very same thing especially when you apply other factors in that experiment which might impact the results. But when you look at things through the lens of science.... It promes much more with much more benefit and none of it is hogwash. None of it is made up to be believed without a reasoning unlike "awareness". Science, a much more credible way of answering things and explaining reality even though it cannot explain everything. At least it can prove somethings unlike "awareness" which might not even exist especially if it's just a brain activity which we cannot explain so far..

[@bakarenibsheut12]

There is, and can be, no higher available standard of verification than the collective evidence of the senses of biological creatures (or their conscious experience, if you will). It's true that that's an unavoidable limitation of being an earthly organism. However, all that leaves you with is a useless solipsistic view with no explanatory power. It certainly doesn't give you the right to claim anything Chopra does about discontinuity and other such bullshit.

[@edzardpiltz6348]

@@bakarenibsheut12 you forget intuition. If it would be only for the combination of senseimpressions arising in conciseness a dream for instance could never turn lucid (to be known as such within the dream). These glimpses can and do occur not only in the dream state but also in the waking state and that more frequently that convantionally believed. But generally they are eagerly, and more often than not, quite aggressively dismissed as nonsense because they are intuitively sensed to pose a fundamental thread to the root concept of a separate self. And rightfully so! 😘

[@alejandropflucker4857]

THE FUN QUESTION IS THAT CHOPRA IS GLAD ABOUT THE CONVERSATION WITH THE OTHER GUY....?WHAT CONVERSATION?....IT HAS BEEN A MONOLOGUE....ANYWAY IT IS THE MOST LOGIC PROCESS OF REDUCTION OF REALITY TO THE ULTIMATE MENING OF IT....VERY INTERESTING.

[@have2behere477]

So many commenters can not seem to grasp deepak's language here with the whole "everything's a human construct" lingo. It is a very basic child level way of presenting it. Why it's so difficult for some on here to grasp idk.

[@kenos20]

55 minutes of woo woo as a construct

[@quotego]

Finally they had some good conversation 😃😃.. Without pulling each other legs.. Send Michael to India specially in Himalayan .. Let him experience something.. Out of mind.. They may be he can come up with some understanding...

[@joramponi249]

Everytime I hear the chainsaw, it gives me a relief from the drivel oozing from Chopra's mouth. I resent him, because this is what he is feeding ailing, suffering clients of his. They are not armed like some others are.

[@YOSUP315]

Even assuming it's all a construct and reduces to 0 upon inspection, things particles and and rocks and plants and brains are still more fundamental than consciousness.

[@Thefunkeemonkee]

Xander P They opened the conversation by explaining what consciousness is in their interpretation. That can be arguable, and that is what they mean when referring to the hard problem. That being said, what is consciousness for you And why is that less fundamental than a rock?

[@vishwasvishu6946]

Does my consiousness is different than your consciousness?

[@tweekyseagull]

Chopra's insistence that solipsism is a personal experience is ruled out by his insistence of a collective (unified) consciousness. Why can't a collective consciousness's experience be artificial?

[@narendrahumne4140]

Even if we agree to Deepak ,this is just information..what are we going to do with it .just believe ?

[@sageofsixpaths98]

All im seeing here is Right brain and the Left brain interacting each other and trying to achieve harmony.

[@mixonforfriends9086]

Well Michael is wrong. The Table is not a solid object. The molecules in the table vibrate to the same speed as his hand that is why they can collide in order to perceive it as touch. However the table is not an solid object. In more than 99 percent its made out of vacuum. So is the 3 dimensional infinity. And for me the infinity is the ultimate realty that is there clear in front of us but because we cant really grasp it we avoid researching it.Thank you.

[@joaquindelarosa1215]

@@usbsol Read his post more carefully, and get back to me. He did not say he could not get hurt by the table.

[@usbsol]

Its solid enough to hurt.

[@joaquindelarosa1215]

@@usbsol You still do not understand. Read the post again. Of course the table will hurt.

[@usbsol]

@@joaquindelarosa1215 "Well Michael is wrong. The Table is not a solid object." the table is solid enough to hurt, thus making it plenty solid.

[@joaquindelarosa1215]

@@usbsol He is explaining to you what science has discovered: simply that that table is not really solid, and that the vibration of it combined with your own vibration is what makes it seem solid. That is what will cause pain if you bang your head hard against it. That is science, dude. So Michael is technically wrong.

[@hushartproductions]

The problem with what Deepak is saying is that it somewhat disorganizes or dilutes the mechanisms for our innate want and need to identify and organize things for the better use, sustainability, functionality and benefits if our experiences. Some constructs are precise, some are vague and more open ended. But i don’t think it’s productive to break down too much of our innate organizational labeling/identifying system as the means to explain one particularly unexplained construct, like consciousness. It’s sort of an over-intellectualized approach to the hard problem. I know that is my subjective opinion. However, we know when someone dies, and their experiences end as we perceive it, we are still here able to experience. So by some of these axioms, matter exists regardless if there is conscious sentience experiencing it. A person’s body temporarily continues to exist even after their experiential life does not. Matter seems to always be pre and post- consciousness. Consciousness and experience seem to simply be byproducts of gradually evolving complexity of matter and its changes.

[@nikhilharidas87]

Man Deepak found his consciousness from a company of material intellectuals.....it must have been difficult for him to believe in his consciousness....I hope Shermer at somepoint in his life understands his own consciousness....it will be so difficult for him to understand it....such is the material conditioning.....it's amazing how Shermer automatically gravitated to 'truth'.....so his mind traveled....I think Deepak should tell him that Michael can exist without body, mind, the earth, planets or galaxies......Oh my God Michael you are there....u got it.....u got a slight taste....I am writing my comment at different points of the video.....Michael you got it.....the body is not you.....the table interacts with your body......you or'nothing' or awareness is trapped inside the illusion.....which your body and table are all part of

[@JardineKarate1]

Let’s say that what DC says is true. So what? If everything is ‘nothing but pure potential’ I’m guessing (actually I know, I’ve read a lot of his work) that he’s saying that ‘all things are possible’ by thought, We all know, by experience, that this is simply not true.

[@tashilhamu4510]

classic

[@ashyboy1324]

Shermer needs to speak to the other DC - David Chalmers before Deepak Chopra.

[@RAkers-tu1ey]

Nice patient attempt to bring Chopra into some semblance of rationality. I fear the gap is too wide. Rationality may be a construct, but it is the one we must work with to have any chance or final enlightenment.

[@crowesarethebest]

Turned out to be a lot better discussion that I thought in the beginning. Glad I took the time to watch the whole thing.

[@Dinglezz]

Language and mind conceps is the barrier.

[@moesypittounikos]

Chopra is a charlatan elevated to a spokesman on all things Indian! Having said that, Chopra is an A plus charlatan and so is excellent entertainment. Shermer is a middle rung intellectual elevated to a spokesman on ontology, epistemology and all things we consider true.

[@alainmaitre2069]

Both parties say many true words . I keep an open mind .

[@alainmaitre2069]

You write that he is a charlatan , but you do not write why , what is your intelligent argument ?

[@joeschwarcz5343]

The only question is whether Chopra is a conscious charlatan or a total fool

[@AmreshTripathi]

Joe Schwarcz pretty sure it’s on purpose

[@afen5252]

that's exactly the question im asking to myself since months

[@vince7349]

Conscious charlatan

[@NavidonYoutube]

A conscious charlatan hiding his foolness

[@nicolasyacar7181]

So if a deaf human being farts in the middle of the desert alone, and nobody hears it, it doesn’t make sound? Deepak go do standup comedy.

[@Saitama408]

😂😂😂

[@Rigvedification]

You have to give up your faulty foundational idea that matter has no existence and appeal to mysticism to prove it. All our sense perceptions are due to our nervous system and matter will exist even if there is no one to perceive it.

[@corydude2008]

35:24 Lmaaaaooooo Deepak said not as a “Dead white male in the sky” …. Wow lmaooo

[@willhall8141]

Michael Shermer and Gennaro Savastano

[@frodoggbooboo]

Amazing dialogue. Gives me hope. Know that you don’t know. Everything is nothing. Experience. Illusion. Constructs. Gotta love this. Humility sacredness etc.

[@Shibileeee]

8:30 " That tree , that airplane , how does all those fit in our brain ? " Do you even science , bro ?

[@ArabianWrath]

Is it me or is it true that Michael seems intimadated by deepak for some reason?

[@nikolakolchakov5691]

Could you really stand so much mumbo jumbo for 55 minutes ?

[@MikkoRantalainen]

Props for Michael Shermer trying to make sense of the language use of Deepak Chopra. I originally thought that Deepak Chopra was just a hack using fancy word salad to make appearance of a human that understands about science, without actually having true understanding. Now I'm thinking that Chopra is trying to make philosophical statements without direct relation to measureable reality and for some reason (that I've yet to understand) he decides to use terms typically used for quantum physics for these philosophical statements. And as a result of (in my opinion) misusing the existing terms he creates a lot of misunderstandings and you see hard scientists getting visibly confused with his statements such as "the planet exists is in the shared consciousness / perceptual awareness of all human brains". Like, no, the planet (big collection of atoms) does exist in reality and can be measured by mechanical machines without any human brain needed. Humans do need to create some kind of mental image *to represent the idea of planet in their thoughts* but that doesn't "create planet" any more than representing this text in RAM of a computer in UTF-8 encoded bitstream "creates my brain". Based on current reality based scientific research without any philosophical twists it seems that human mind is a result of electrochemical data processing in human brain. We don't yet understand all the details but it seems that human brain works as a huge network of neurons and synapses and memory and learning skills works by making existing synapses weaker or stronger (ability to pass current worse or better). The thing we still don't understand is exactly how the learning mechanism chooses which synapses to make weaker or stronger. The closest analog we have is deep neutral networks used in computer AI systems and for those we use algorithm called back propagation. However, from inspecting individual neurons we can know that human brain cannot use the same logic for learning. And there's no need to imagine that this neural network running inside your brain "experience creates planets in mind body universe".

[@Darko.Damjanovic]

The example with planet is good.Chopra and all those woo woo prophets try to appear deep with nonsense, Earth exists with humans on it, it existed without humans in the past and probably will exist at some point without humans.Earth and everything in space exists independently of our minds.He is just a pretty smart weasel in terms of selling nonsense.

[@G_Demolished]

There’s no such thing as humans, except when they briefly pop up to form constructs.

[@Mistrix6]

I like Depak and what he has to say but I do wish he would have let the other person speak too. :(

[@damansbedi]

I feel like Chopra takes everything to nothingness and calls it consciousness in which you experience anything and everything. He claims because of this way of thinking (instead of thinking he uses the word experiencing) you can improve life health and suffering. He calls it consciousness.... Which he cannot explain to be true.... Are we experiencing everything through consciousness? You say yes but how do you prove that? And the benefits you claim it brings are also not clear and not proven to be brought about by that very same thing especially when you apply other factors in that experiment which might impact the results. But when you look at things through the lens of science.... It promes much more with much more benefit and none of it is hogwash. None of it is made up to be believed without a reasoning unlike "awareness". Science, a much more credible way of answering things and explaining reality even though it cannot explain everything. At least it can prove somethings unlike "awareness" which might not even exist especially if it's just a brain activity which we cannot explain so far..

[@zakirakhand562]

Deepak is an Indian sai baba (guru) with American outfit.

[@annavasquez9406]

Deepak excellent point of view!

[@goofverdinus165]

are you being serious?

[@williamburts3114]

Physicalist like Shermer identify themselves as the brain, but NDE's and OBEs seem to suggest that the mind is something different from the brain.

[@kishoremannam5963]

Deepak Chopra could not give reason why consciousness is existing in nothing. If consciousness s (plural) come into existence from nothing , then what was it's purpose? If conspicuousness is from nothing then why each person with his individual consciousness? If Depak says all is consciousness construct by humans then why did he say that matter and atoms are sentient? If the experience and consciousness is human construct then why humans construct painful experiences because of illnesses, ( may be emotionally also) happening to them without actually having physical existence, and constructing those illnesses consciously, since, consciously all consciousnesses desire pleasurable experiences (since no one desires so as per their conscious expressions) ?

[@mosab643]

I wish Michael Shermermer had kept insisting that even concepts like nothingness, transcendence and the object subject split, which Deepak was talking about as if they were somehow absolute and beyond human construct, were in fact human constructs as well. I did see Chopra fumble a little bit when Michael asserted that point a few times but then he just let him off.

[@natanaellizama6559]

I think that a Hinduist would state that such things are referred to as concepts but they are experienced as such by meditation. In meditation, you turn off your intellectual conceptualizations and you experience thing as it is, not as a defined concept. So, those are not concepts formed by the intellect but they are known experiences through intuitive meditation.

[@chrishorv7099]

Looks like last of the Mohicans!!

[@elliotpolanco159]

Deepak Chopra is extremely clear what Michael Shermer is pretending to not understand? I don't think he's being honest.

[@williamburts3114]

Yes, he concisely defined the hard problem, but Shermer is a physicalist thus he's always in denial.

[@klartext2225]

There is no sound in the absence of hearing... not so deep, Deepak! There is no rain when there is no open umbrella? Put up a microphone in an empty forest, it will RECORD THE SOUND OF THE FALLING TREE. Because it is there as long as air is there. No human presence needed.