Deepak Chopra Spiritualist Defeated By Sam Harris

Sam Harris defeats Deepak Chopra.
The problem I have with Deepak is that he tries to logically argue for something that by definition is beyond logic.
Does "God" have to be restricted within ("chained up") inside of logic and reason?

[@StefanMischook]

The classic tactic of the fraudster, is to mask their fraud in confusing speak.

[@varun009]

No, Deepak just has a very limited vocabulary.

[@Zorriet]

You and I are messengers of the solar system. We exist as supercharged waveforms. This life is nothing short of a redefining flow of non-local inseparability.

[@songsabai3794]

oh, that's why I don't understand them,I don't speak fluent bullshit!! - thank you

[@loboris1995]

@Haley Sabai , I will steal your phrase occasionally , is just so funny .

[@AmerikanGrizzly]

Enai-i better check your chakras dude, sounds like they are off

[@josephbestallin626]

deepak chopra defeated by sam harris? more like deepak chopra defeated by deepak chopra

[@gauda78]

Joseph be stallin' Your consciousness allows you to comprehend that what Harris is saying defeats what Deepok is saying. Another persons' consciousness allows that person to comprehend that what Deepok is saying defeats what Harris is saying. My consciousness states that both are correct but are missing key elements in their arguments. Harris is stating HOW the brain works and which areas are firing to imbue a person with a conscious reality, Deepok is saying that consciousness in reality is subjective, I agree with both, but the big question isn't HOW this happens, but WHY this happens. This is the essence of life and consciousness. Consciousness is not JUST a product of the brain, it is the product of all of the senses creating the awareness of your physical reality and relaying it to the brain, sometimes through the heart first. Consciousness is subjective and Harris can try to explain it as a neuroscience, but he cannot as consciousness is an experience of the entire nervous system, not just the brain. Consiousness allows us to take our entire experience through our entire nervous system and base our reality on what we perceive. The main factor in subjective conscious perception of reality is the problem of individual Ego. Individuals have a problem altering their perception of reality based on evidence to the contrary of what they have already come to develop as their own real conclusion. It's called cognitive dissonance. People, the majority of the time, only believe what they want to believe, despite evidence to the contrary. The stronger the Ego, the more difficult to alter a persons conscious understanding of reality. In order to study consciousness, we need to combine psychology, neurology, pulmonolgy and cardiology and quite possibly quantum physics to understand the electrical and magnetic currents of the human nervous system on a molecular level.

[@henrychinaski5938]

gauda78 The "why" is irrelevant .

[@amitpatel3071]

lol

[@rickr1858]

Lol it's a victory His objective was to descive naive Americans middle aged women , and potray him self as being attracted by arrogant atheists

[@barofsoap7542]

@@gauda78 nice chopra imitation

[@sithispadomay492]

Deepak's thought process: "Oh no, Harris is about to make a point. Quick, I must spout out some more woo with fancy words to confuse everyone!"

[@sithispadomay492]

Harris is not talking about any gods, he's talking about the relation between the material world and consciousness, just like Chopra. But he's also pointing out that Chopra's assertions are unsupported assertions, at which point Chopra just goes ahead and asserts more things without justifying them.

[@Zorriet]

We exist as bio-electricity.Reality has always been beaming with beings whose lives are engulfed in non-locality. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the infinite

[@sithispadomay492]

Enai-i Well that's word salad if ever I tasted any. 

[@Zorriet]

Sithis Padomay :) It can be difficult to know where to begin. Child, look within and change yourself. If you have never experienced this uprising inherent in nature, it can be difficult to self-actualize.

[@sithispadomay492]

Enai-i Haha, you're such a troll. xD Did you see skeptic magazine's video on woo?

[@wpkg]

Is it ironic to suggest that Sam Harris has the patience of a saint?

[@frankdouglas8146]

no

[@monicaquinn8973]

Paul Grossmann what is so hard to understand about what Chopra says? It's so obvious.

[@monicaquinn8973]

Paul Grossmann true...but what he needs is learning, not patience

[@wpkg]

+Monica Quinn he is speaking gibberish and is absolutely 100% incapable of understanding or accepting a single point that Sam is trying to make in order to get Deepak to see Sams point of view. what is so hard to understand about that? and Sam is not the one who needs learning in my opinion.

[@frankdouglas8146]

Paul Grossmann yea he uses word salads combining words from multiple fields of thought to sound profound. It's nonsense. He is just using deepitys. There are no text books containing his nonsense about consciousness. He's making money though.

[@ShadowZZZ]

Deepak Chopra: *farts* Audience: *claps*

[@DillaryHuff]

Hey, at least the fart was subjective!

[@jcadwell1172]

it is both subjective and objective

[@nefaristo]

You need to go in a cave meditating for years to build up Sam Harris' patience.

[@lapelcelery42]

He did.

[@jalalasif3898]

Elusive Anomaly Apparently so. He talks about it in detail in his podcast, Waking Up with Sam Harris.

[@Phoenix-King-ozai]

Ikr The way he can argue calmly with such irrational morons is surely the proof

[@Dead-cg1yy]

@@jalalasif3898 can you direct me to that podcast episode? Would be extremely interested in hearing him talk about that. I tried looking for it on the web but couldn't find it.

[@mega4171]

@@lapelcelery42 And still he didnt have the patience

[@L_J_G]

If I make this as incoherent and contrived as possible, no one will be able to argue with me because I can then just throw words like metaphysics and quantum at them.

[@L_J_G]

***** Theyre incoherent to anyone who actually knows the definitions/meaing of the words he is using . He is full of shit; he plays on the fact that certain sciences are hard to grasp, i.e. Quantum physics, and turns them into metaphors. He deals in poetry, not philosophy or science.

[@L_J_G]

***** You like to think you know some absolute truth that people you disagree with are incapable of, don't you?

[@MrUdayakiran]

***** Deepak's words are incoherent to people who actually have an idea of what those words mean.. They are bunched together in a sequence that make no meaning even in the most abstract way..

[@peteconrad2077]

@Jack Clare my son has a masters in philosophy from Balliol and reckons Chopra talks utter crap that has no basis in any branch of any science.

[@peteconrad2077]

@Jack Clare that was a quick change.

[@MrLiamHenderson]

Deepak's smugness is undoubtedly related to the amount of money he has made from his new-age intuitions. That said, I personally doubt his sincerity. I think the man is a conscious charlatan.

[@ashwinramaswamy4059]

Nope, I think he's deluded. It seems like classic dunning Kruger effect. I don't see him signing up for a serious debate otherwise, that too in front of an audience that definitely sees him as a fraud.

[@neo-filthyfrank1347]

@@ashwinramaswamy4059 I wish I could make millions writing 400 pages of circular gibberish

[@ashwinramaswamy4059]

@@neo-filthyfrank1347 Doesn't sound that hard really. I think if you started in earnest and produced regular nonsense that serves to reinforce dumb ideas, it's a matter of time that you get somewhat rich and famous.

[@neo-filthyfrank1347]

@@ashwinramaswamy4059 the "producing nonsense on a regular basis" part is key

[@melcatley3437]

The sad thing is his followers are just like him. I know because my ex was one. Stupid, arrogant, quack and a fraud.

[@paulmitchum8658]

Deepak states his thesis early in this clip. He posits that there is a consciousness which exists independent of our physical reality, which is different from our mundane experience of self in the world. So you say: What evidence is there for this? And then he complains that you hate poetry.

[@TheNoraa890]

Yeah It's funny how he the one who says we hate poetry when he is just jargon word salad prick.

[@akshaythakkar9127]

Best explanation

[@anonkni8]

My deep condolences to the family members of the audience who clapped for Deepak Chopra. A moment of silence...

[@SanSha2100]

my condolences to your severe hatred.

[@DillaryHuff]

@@SanSha2100 SanSha... Chopra? 🤔

[@SHARON.I]

@@SanSha2100 there no hatred in that comment geezus

[@mariogagliardi8491]

That's sad indeed.

[@NLspartan117]

@@SHARON.I There is hypocrisy in it however. Deep down you know you’re not just the body…

[@StooneL]

It's amazing how Deepak can say things that sound so deep and complicated but litteraly mean nothing

[@SHARON.I]

It's crazy how many believe his word salad

[@AlbertTheTiger]

So what’s the answer to his question then??

[@SHARON.I]

@@AlbertTheTiger it means nothing

[@AlbertTheTiger]

@@SHARON.I because you don’t understand his words like 99% of people 😂

[@SHARON.I]

@@AlbertTheTiger useless to engage with you about that snake oil salesman good bye

[@matwatson7947]

Whenever my Depression takes a turn for the worst I simply listen to Deepak Chopra... He never fails to amuse me

[@BelloBudo007]

Is there an English version of this?

[@gildazbog7419]

😂😂😂😂😃

[@jadencm4862]

Bill Blinky sadly no

[@davidtaylor2098]

Chopra only speaks in gibberish.

[@imserdar]

Turn on subtitles)

[@BelloBudo007]

Er......I probably needed to be more obvious in my subtle dig that this man just talks crap. Sure it's 'English' crap but it's still 100% pure BS.

[@JimBCameron]

Harris doesn't defeat Chopra, Chopra simply talks the same psychobabble bollocks he has for 20 years or whatever to the applause of some clapping seals in the audience. There's nothing to defeat.

[@JimBCameron]

So do you assume the use of the term 'psychobabble bollocks' or my sense of Chopra as a huckster as proof of a materialist view? And associate any deviation from your own model of reality as 'stupid', way to make me re-assess my position! ;S

[@JimBCameron]

***** Ooh! A flippant remark to feel like you're saving face!, keep it up, you'll probably want/need the last word? ;)

[@Coyotecyb]

Jimbo Jones that is pretty much the last bastion of people who cannot grasp the idea that the physical universe is enough and that fear of death is the only reason any of the belief systems exist.

[@Coyotecyb]

Jimbo Jones and i am not referring to you, i am referring to People like FractalEffect777

[@KillgoreTrout43]

***** We are all materialists. What, you have no possessions? You don't eat? You don't have a home? Just throwing out the word materialist as some sort of insult just makes you look foolish.

[@darkmater4tm]

Harris did not defeat Chopra. He didn't even begin to answer, because all the time was spent trying agree on definitions, with Chopra obscuring things every step of the way, as if he can be precise on something nobody, including himself, has properly studied. At the point where he accused Harris of being "dismissive" of random things (a complete non sequitur), he revealed that he was purposefully trying to prevent whatever point Harris was preparing to make. It was a smart debating decision, although transparently dishonest. Harris is no stranger to the topic. He has talked to great extent about the issues of subjective experience, including compiling very strong evidence that the properties attributed to consiousness are an illusion. Had he made a point on that, Chopra's strictly philisophical vaguities on plausibilities would have lost their plausibility.

[@MauroEnfermoDeLepra]

Conciousnes is a subjective trancendence that trancendes the subjetivity of conciousness it self, while being concious is a subjective experience of energy being pulled of the core of the existence of the universe, wich is the source of all matter an energy. Did you see what I just did? I Chopred

[@sithlordpalpatine8486]

Goooood!

[@MauroEnfermoDeLepra]

I perfectioning an invention, is called "The Book Machine" You have to put fancy deep words with no meaning in it, then the machine put random conections among these words and wala: You have a fresh new book.

[@blimsum]

Why did you say 'wala'? Did you mean to say 'voila', the French word? I've seen americans do this and it's weird.

[@yungthug2403]

Just copy an paste this and win every argument about science

[@tigressnsnow]

Mauro Daniel D'Ambrosio .....and it made sense too

[@spaveevo]

I just wasted 5 minutes of my life. Mr. 2pac Okra is making no sense.

[@spinytextbook9405]

Okra lmao

[@jadencm4862]

Chopra has a word bank from which he randomly draws from after repeating some words from his opponents. Harris was trying to make the point that subjectivity is unhelpful in discovering truth or whatever bullshit Chopra is peddling, but the point was interrupted by Chopra's lack of comprehension.

[@ArcViper]

As open-minded as I'm trying to be, I can't really see anything that Deepak Chopra says here as anything more than fluffy, feel-good nonsense and non sequiturs. I'm noticing in the comments too that when someone 'sides' with Deepak they just speak about higher consciousness or deeper meanings and experiences but there's really no solid definitions or ideas; it's just everyone's subjective phantoms. And I'm sorry to say but I hardly find that useful for debate or discussion. Also I noticed in this clip that Deepak seems very dismissive of Sam Harris and unrelenting in his views, but then accuses Sam of dismissing subjectivity (and art?) just out of nowhere, when that isn't even remotely what he was getting at. I don't know much about Dr. Chopra but he really does seems like a snake oil salesman who is holding firm to his non-demonstrable, unfalsifiable claims about the nature of reality and subjective experience. It's easy to buy into and identify with, but it doesn't seem to have any solid foundation.

[@sonyabadass]

i'm no way in support of Deepak, but can somebody explain in what argument Deepak lose and Sam wins?

[@SantiagosCurse]

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” - Niklo Tesla

[@KillgoreTrout43]

"It is dangerous to peer too closely over the precipice of metaphysics."--Victor Hugo

[@mindfulmoments4956]

I agree with Deepak that _“it is consciousness that looks at synaptic firings in the brain.”_ The brain is just another organ in the body that cannot talk for itself. It is the mind that observes and contemplates the external world (such as tress outside, clouds, stars, etc.), and also observes and contemplates the internal world (structures such as the digestive system, nervous system and even the organ brain). When arguing these issues (relating to spirituality), it is difficult to express using conventional words and that is the reason why Deepak may appear ‘unwise’ to some people.

[@avataranjit]

True

[@skrao565]

As much as I am not any fan of Deepak, I did not see him losing as the header made it to be. On the other hand, this debate seemed more progressive than Sam's debates with other (Abrahamic) religions which typically revolve around rules, judgement day, punishment, terrorism, fundamentalism, etc.

[@jraybozy]

Deepak Chopra is really rude. It hasnt even been 2 minutes into the video and he as interrupted and gave the face of "you idiot im right" WAAAY to many times

[@biswaspratyush]

Chopra came here to propagate his ideas. Wrong place. People are here to thrash anything spiritual.

[@hikeheaven1]

no. we just want evidence for it

[@woodins2008]

So is Chopra basically saying that no matter what discoveries we make as a species in neurological science (with regards to recording and ascertaining the human minds functions and capabilities) we will never be able to understand or identify consciousness with said field of science? Well, thank god he's here to do it for us. Lucky for him. I mean, no matter what exponential breakthroughs we are going to make in this new century, someone like him will always have a job.

[@Hoi4o]

"Your conciousness likes brains to express itself''... How can you argue with a point like that?! What does it even mean?? This guy just throws on the table provocative statements like that without explaining or clarifying them at all, and considers them as arguments. It's impossible to lead a sensible discussion with someone like that.

[@bearmouse1000]

Okay, he was unable to vocalize his thoughts properly. But at the same time it can be said that these militant athiests are at the ready with a bunch of words that do nothing but mask their fraud. I invite you to read Deepak Chopra's The Future of God. He has a better opportunity to express his thoughts through written tounge.

[@nishu33389]

Derik von Soltanjan correctly said that thoughts is difficult to vocalize properly and if we come to experience than its can never ever be vocalize

[@heru-tehutire1329]

In the human species, consciousness uses the brain as a prime vehicle...

[@Rapture77]

Watching this clip I actually thought Deepak wins hands down , while the others are grappling with concepts , not just words, and these concepts are rooted in schemas which in turn are stuck in their paradigm-prisons so that they cannot transcend, as they are lost in the material bio-jungle without even knowing themselves as seers. using their hardware, mistaking the brain instrument for objectivity ~ kudos to Deepak, from Malaysia

[@paxwallacejazz]

I am not familiar with Deepak Chopra but he is being aggressive and argumentative in other words a temporary slave of his ego . It is Chopra who is acting out here . Not so Zen . Completely conceptual defending a citadel that requires no defense .

[@quintonmendoza8137]

how can i watch the full thing? very very interesting!

[@RedKingdom9]

If consciousness is separate from the brain, then how can someone be "Knocked" unconscious for example? And if the mind is separate from the brain than how can someone be completely mentally changed from a TBI, for example.

[@RedKingdom9]

***** Is your brain and my brain the same?? I think not. That's why you and I are different...It seems obvious don't you think?

[@domzbu]

Only YOU are knocked unconscious. Consciousness is not eliminated. You tune into consciousness much like a radio tunes into radio waves

[@RedKingdom9]

hold the chicken do you have ANY evidence for that claim

[@domzbu]

Wandenreich Atheist no but nor do Harris or you have any evidence to the contrary.

[@RedKingdom9]

hold the chicken please reread my first comment....The fact that people can suffer from very bad TBIs is good evidence that the mind is directly affected by trauma to the brain which shows good evidence that the mind is not separate from the brain ALSO, you can do some research on how alzheimer's disease affects people

[@UnoMeeh]

This reminds me of a quote by Mark Twain: "Do not argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." I see a lot of video where Deepak "defeats" his opponents in debates simply because the things he says are so irrational, it is nearly impossible to dispute. It is like trying to explain why "hope smells like purple" Where do you start? Hope is created by the brain, purple isnt a scent, hope technically is just a feeling it is physical, purple is different for everybody. Where the hell do you start with explaining something so irrational. One main thing I believe that Deepak is trying to convey (sorry it is hard to complete access everything he put onto the table because he just uses large words and contradicts himself to confuse his victim) is that he believes (in very unscientific terms) that atom, or whatever our brain/world/universe is made of, not only gives us consciousness, but holds consciousness itself. if you can wrap your head around that you understand why it is simply not true, if you cant wrap your head around that its not because he is super smart and figured everything out, its because he is using fancy words to make his incredibly ignorant claim seem correct.

[@BillyStewartGuitar]

The one thing I know about debating principles is that the winner of the argument will be the one who frames the question. I saw neither gentleman convincing the other to acquiesce to their their point of view. How can someone 'defeat' another point of view? The two combatants do not understand each other and do not want to understand each other. Scientists 'discovering a theory' is NOT the same thing as having an answer. Theories evolve constantly and often [historically] give way to radical change. Spiritualists positioning themselves as having an answer are [at best] merely finding a comfortable place to stop seeking and place faith in what they believe. This was NOT a debate. This was proselytizing. Very unsatisfying to me.

[@garysanders6091]

I agree, this specific debate was proselytizing.. But I don't agree that 'the winner of the argument will be the one who frames the question' and saying that neither one knows each others view.... I strongly disagree, debaters (with exception to willam lane criag and this guy) often times research the opposition to 'understand the enemy' or else they would be DEMOLISHED.. There are 5 healthy debates for every unhealthy one.. So generally speaking I don't agree, however, in this scenario I do.

[@the-chillian]

I disagree. They understood each other perfectly. The difference between them is that Deepak's was spouting bullshit, and Harris wasn't. Deepak's bullshit is very important to him. It's made him wealthy; it sells his books; it justifies the price for his speaking engagements which is over $40,000 according to www.bigspeak.com/deepak-chopra.html Bullshit is his only intellectual tool.

[@CurtisMCurtisM]

I like the way you phrased that. Science and spiritualism are two different logic systems and thus they can never be made to agree by appealing to logical arguments because each side has a different definition of what it "logical". That being said I still strongly believe that science is the superior logic system :p

[@rankter5175]

You were on track until the last sentence. Harris made a lot of effort to find out what Chopra meant by what he said, but Chopra consistently avoided clarifying any of his statements, moving the goalposts with every sentence and even interrupting Harris to move the goalposts while Harris was asking a question.

[@BillyStewartGuitar]

Ƒȓǟǹǩ Ɫⱥțȇȓ My last sentence was "Very unsatisfying to me". I stand by that.

[@LL-sz9nx]

I love how the largest portion of the time elapsed in this debate is attributed to making sense of what Deepak is saying

[@jayyaj2524]

If we can understand unconditional love for everyone and everything then religion,race and hate etc will slowly fall away,keep your faith if u need it but learn to love first.we are all one big family i love you all,peace

[@jacobearnold]

Believe in my thoughts. I want to control people with BS. Stop making me look silly. - Deepak Chopra. ^_^

[@critikasalihmeylani]

That kind of attitude will eventually make him get punched in the face.

[@Keith.Harvey]

Thank you to Sam's parents! We need this man in our culture at this time!

[@adrianagropo561]

Amo as palestras do médico Deepack Chopra. Vocês deveriam traduzi las...

[@elladreames6958]

I feel like the worst segment of this conversation is what got selected for this video.

[@ashling18]

I don't know much about Deepak and his ideas but I don't see how Sam Harris defeats him in this clip. Neither really get the opportunity to defeat the other.

[@SuckMyKiss420]

I know! I would have liked to see the conversation get somewhere but apparently not enough people (including the moderator) seemed to be able to follow it. Disappointing.

[@lapelcelery42]

Sam made the point that Deepak is making an assertion which is by definition unproveable, and unable to be substantiated by evidence, so it shouldn't be taken seriously. Deepak's position is like the teapot in orbit around jupiter claim. Why on earth would you believe ANY claim which not only hasn't been demonstrated, but which CANNOT EVER be demonstrated?

[@SamIAm-kz4hg]

I think that is the point here. Why would anyone take him seriously? There are MANY other people making similarly bizarre claims with the same lack of reason or evidence.

[@Buttnut105]

"Go beyond that personal consciousness, that ego-consciousness, so we can identify with that transcedant reality, which is the source of space, time, and energy and everything else that exists" (Deepak Chopra on "Spiritual Discipline). "There is subjectivity which is subjectivity of itself" (another Deepak quote). This is just nonsense what he's saying. He's literally making meaningless statement after meaningless statement. It's just one giant word salad.

[@Buttnut105]

Yeah well, I don't need to make up terms or define a term by simply reiterating that term: "There is subjectivity which is subjectivity of itself". Hey, why don't you take a crack at that one then and educate me? Or is that not worth your time (aka something you can't do)?

[@audunhp]

Alec D. Hey Alec D. :) I don't want to fight with you nor suggest that you have too small a mind to grasp your own consciousness, or anything like that. I just want to take a crack at explaining subjectivity of subjectivity, and maybe also what is meant by going beyond ego-consciousness and identifying with something greater and more fundamental to reality... Before I do that, let me say that in this clip I don't hear strong enough arguments being made either way for me to conclude who defeats who. Deepak seems really agitated, and that seems to make him postulate more than explain his ideas. Anyway. Subjectivity and objectivity both function very well as terms to distinguish what is a matter of personal taste and opinion from what can, and maybe should, be agreed upon. However there is somewhat of a false dichotomy: Certainty is a personal experience, and cannot be validated any further by anything exterior to the consciousness experiencing the certainty. You know, if you are really certain that you've got five fingers on one hand, you're not going to feel that this is any truer when scientists make it official that Alec D. does in fact have five fingers on one hand. You know that feeling when some scientist goes "We now know this for a fact", and you go "I knew that!". So an objective agreement is had when a subjective opinion which is experienced by many individuals with a high degree of certainty is formulated in syntax which is satisfactory to these individuals. But, you know... no one really knows anything. Unless... Remember Descartes who felt he could be really 100% certain about one fundamental fact of reality, which was that if he could experience that he himself was thinking, then he had to exist as well, cos nothing that can think can at the same time not exist, right? It seems fairly obvious to us now. What we consciousness-advocates pedal a lot is a very similar kind of certainty, except we tend to limit the degree of certainty that a theory should be validated by, to match Wittgenstein's expression: True enough. True enough to make sense of, I take it to mean. Or in terms of scientific method: true enough to be both adequate and applicable. (Terence McKenna talked about the value of having working theories in stead of dogmas, beliefs and ideologies.) Ok, so is it true enough that I think therefore consciousness is real? John Searle, who to some extent reduces consciousness to a product of the brain supports the notion at least, that consciousness is a real phenomenon. If I really meditate I can find myself to be simply aware of the fact that anything actually exists at all. This awareness of existence is experienced as observing existence from its center. If you were to seriously doubt the existence of everything you believe to be real around you, but still be there to observe what is left, the inner most irreducible phenomenon you are left with is the observing entity which is doubting everything around it, and maybe even itself (much like how Descartes set out before he reached his fundamental first insight). Now if this entity (which is you conducting this thought experiment) thinks about it, it has to admit that, whatever reality really is, it (i.e. this observer which is you at the center of your awareness) is, at least for now, there with reality, whatever it is, and so consciousness and reality do in fact both exist, or at least we can say this with the same kind of smug certainty that Descartes put forward his cogito-argument with. So, being aware of your own consciousness, you can't help but realize that by virtue of being conscious you will eventually make use of your own ability to be conscious to be conscious about your own ability to be conscious. When you do this (like seriously, meditating, no grudge-factor, no attitude of "this is bull crap") cool things start happening with consciousness. At least to most of us it does. Anyway, this is what is meant by "There is subjectivity which is subjectivity of itself". At least it's what I understand by it. Ok, so something is conscious, but does that mean that my consciousness has got anything to do with your consciousness, or worse, that everything is connected through consciousness and that reality springs out of consciousness? Well, yes, maybe it does, but there is no way to convince you or anyone who doesn't feel this way, that this is highly probable theory, if all we do is engage in word duels. Although dueling can be cool too, cos people who try to figure out how reality might have been ignited by imagination, or how "somethingness" may only be able to distill itself out of nothingness if it has conscious intention at the root of its nature, or anything like that, rely on other people not taking their words for it, and debating them, in order to move away from a loose and abstract wording of their theories toward a more adequate and applicable model. I don't expect my explanation to have been satisfactory in any way. I just don't want you to give up on these questions. Keep digging and find your own theories. Just don't stop inquiring into the nature of your own self and the reality which you experience. Don't take other people's word for it. Don't believe that oh, it's all basically like this, and it all reduces down to wild chance, and there is really nothing to it etc. etc. Cos fundamentalist reductionism sucks asshole, man, and it's nothing more than a dead end of boredom and dogmatism in my subjective opinion, lol XD

[@Buttnut105]

"So, being aware of your own consciousness, you can't help but realize that by virtue of being conscious you will eventually make use of your own ability to be conscious to be conscious about your own ability to be conscious". Sorry I don't mean to be rude here, because I don't think you are, but this is white noise what you're writing. It really does not help to explain yourself in this way. If anything, you're making the complicated that much more confusing. Even after reading the entire reply you made, which was rather long, I still have no idea what you're talking about, including the point of this theory. Does this all boil down to you believing there's something more to human thought and character than the laws of biology? Is what you're telling me some kind of religious theory, but muted in a deep bath of scientific sounding words?

[@audunhp]

Alec D. "Does this all boil down to you believing there's something more to human thought and character than the laws of biology?" Well, I really don't think there are any laws, my bet is that they are ingrained habits, but I am really just trying to educate myself, and I know very little about biology. (My "fields" are linguistics and philosophy, and I'm pretty fresh there as well). I am just trying to take in the knowledge that I take in, in a way that makes sense to me. If the laws of biology fail to describe an appetite for purpose at the basis of creation, something that I experience when I observe life (i.e. biology) is not addressed or explained by those laws. But that is probably just because I don't understand them. However, I guess the point I'm trying to drive home is to not believe that someone knows something that you are unable to validate in your own understanding and through your own experience. If something doesn't make sense (in that it doesn't adequately describe or apply to the reality I experience) the way they explain it, I don't believe what they say, even if they are the scientists who are supposed to know it. Haha, I can see your point about the white noise. It's a good example of what I mean. You'd have to look at that phrase, maybe experiment with putting a comma here or there, changing some words and so on, until you could make enough sense of it to try and see if there is any way you can check it with the reality you experience. If it fails to make sense, discard it. I sincerely promise that I mean to make sense, and that I am talking about something I myself experience. In as much as that it is an experience, it is a real phenomenon. Even such things as dreams, illusions, hallucinations, imagination and creativity are real phenomena, and should be accounted for in some corner or another of human investigative thought. Sorry for the long answer! You kind of asked for it when you dared the other commenter to take a crack at explaining what was meant. I don't think it will make sense to any one who hasn't had the experience. That doesn't mean it's impossible for you to have it. It's really not such a big deal, but the fact that many people seem to agree that they have personally experienced something which is best described as awareness of awareness (the short version), makes attempts at describing such experiences less devoid of meaning. It's not "a word salad, end of discussion", but more like "a word salad for you yes, but a really valid description of a real phenomenon to me". I don't think we'll agree on anything other than on disagreeing. But it was nice of you to answer so quickly and succinctly. And politely :)

[@Buttnut105]

" But that is probably just because I don't understand them". I'd say that's most likely. You're not alone when you say you're just trying to learn. That's all I'm doing to. But I believe throwing your hat in with some idea that there is more to thought than biology, that our minds are disconnected from our brains (which is what Chopra says rather assuringly in the video), is quite a leap of faith. "Even such things as dreams, illusions, hallucinations, imagination and creativity are real phenomena, and should be accounted for in some corner or another of human investigative thought". I believe all of those can or will be accounted for by science, reason, and evidence. Science has already accounted for so much of our knowledge in just the last few hundred years, I think it's incredibly hard to believe a case can be made, against science, in a near as makes no difference religious fashion.

[@NaomeK40]

and once again, the cc are golds XD

[@sisque16]

Metaphysics also have subjective experience according to deepak, however if I were terminally I'll would I pray and attempt to take advantage of the 20% of the placebo effect or try medicine? If I were unconscious and had a subjective experience would it more likely that my brain was firing neurons or did I meet god?

[@MasterHypnose]

I love how everyone is holding back laughter while Deepak is talking XD

[@anarchistponcho8689]

Deepak Chopra: asks a question. Literally anybody: tried to answer question. Also Deepak Chopra: proceeds to interrupt and talk, while refusing to listen.

[@ivorysand]

A simple exchange of information like an interview can be called a conservation, but so can a debate about differences of opinion, conflicting interpretations and other disagreements. This was a conversation of the second kind.

[@brunofeitosafl]

Please put some subtitles! I'm not a native English speaker and can't understand well what D. C. is saying because of his accent! Thanks!

[@paulkraehenbuhl8189]

Deepak Chopra has to be right...because Oprah likes him and he's on her bookclub list..hehe

[@HorstGLudwig]

I give it a like because it proves that love and evolution is living in rational questioning and not in a narzistic Chop yelling in motion like all the other owners of spiritual / religiouse truth from whatever corner of this world.

[@KillgoreTrout43]

Say what?

[@DoctorMaxMoebius]

I think Deepak is 100% right, and he's arguing spiritual metaphysics with materialists.

[@timothywait9457]

your right but he is a ego centerd man but he is talking truth

[@MUSICOBLISS]

Does any peace and tranquillity come out of these never ending debates? I focus on the gaps.

[@adrianmercado3092]

The problem with Deepak and other like-minded people is that when they experience something spectacular in their minds, they automatically conclude that it is beyond the bounds of their skull. I imagine someone tripping on acid and thinking that because of his artificially stimulated mental state, believe that his mind can plug in with the universe, when in fact, he's just high.

[@Antonio-uc7vn]

Mind is the receiver between emptiness and everything

[@jellewierda3828]

I would like you to invite you to try it for yourself.❤

[@christiaandemarezoyens4720]

It's just a subjective argument between two people, nobody was defeated here.

[@frankdouglas8146]

deepak speaks in nonsensical deepities. he was far outclassed.

[@DoctorMaxMoebius]

No, he wasn't at all. You can't understand him, because you have a reptile brain.

[@frankdouglas8146]

DoctorMaxMoebius you provided no reason for why he was right. And you made a silly claim about my brain. Where in your statement did you demonstrate he was correct?

[@DoctorMaxMoebius]

Frank Douglas We don't have the tools to measure the small intensities of metaphysical phenomenon. But it IS there. Our senses only see a TINY portion of the EM spectrum, and we can only feel a limited range of frequencies. We have a LONG way to go until our technology develops to a point where we can detect these things. But we ARE making progress. If we evolved fro a common ancestor (and I'm not buying Darwin's premise on evolution, although Natural Selection/ Survival of the Fittest DOES seem to be accurate - although I do find Rupert Sheldrake's biomorphic fields theory quite interesting), anyway, we allegedly evolved from reptiles. So we all have a reptile brain. I believe the spirit evolves buy "wearing" a brain (I don't have the language to express what I'm thinking), but when the brain dies, I am convinced the spirit leaves the body, to re-join the cosmic consciousness. I believe we reincarnate (and there is a lot of evidence to support this). I don't care about Deepak - he's just another TV personality/ big ego, getting rich portraying a guru, like Rama in Beverly Hills, or Bhagwan (deceased), and plenty of others. So let's not argue about him. But he's trying to express an idea that we have no common language for, really. He adopts words from physics to express metaphysics, and he's obviously no physicist. But that physicist is no meta-physicist, either. Until we can sense and measure the subtle energies, we're just spitting in the wind.

[@frankdouglas8146]

And you are also spewing out woo woo and word salads. Your sentences are nothing more than deepities. There is no meaning to anything about spirits until you can give evidence that a spirit exists. You are no different than deepak.

[@skytte71]

+Lytrigian About placebo having an organic effect or not, other then giving a nice feeling, please check out: The relaxation response, by Herbert Benson. A placebo effect giving a nice feeling, does infact has an effect on the CNS. That means, that if a person has ill/negative thoughts about a condition, they trigger the sympathetic nervous system, which then tells the amygdala to send out stress-hormones. And contrary when thinking the opposite, the parasympathetic nervous system is triggered, thereby telling the amygdala not to send out stress-hormones and instead send out beneficial hormones. It has been shown that if a person, visualize eating something, it triggers the reward center, and cheats the body/mind into thinking it has actually eating something. About 20 years ago, i read that, there was a person who had 7 personalities, wherein one of them was allergic to citrus fruits, and would therefore have an allergic reaction when eating citrus fruits, but when being any of the other 6 personalities, there was no allergic reaction. It has also been shown in recent studies, that when cancer patients visualize their immune system attacking the cancer, that T-cells become active, and another study showing that if a person visualize one of their arms with ice on it, and the other arm having something warm on it, that there is a difference in the arms temperature, furthermore they also sat with their arms under UV-radiation, visualizing the same with the ice and warm substance, that there was a difference in the degree of suntan. So please, dont tell us that the mind has no power over, or has no effect on the physical body, because it clearly does.

[@bessamidani9463]

In my experience of being, I witnessed an empiricist and an idealist presenting two sides of an extremely ancient and fundamental philosophical question. In your experience of being, you witnessed the former "defeating" the latter. This is an example of subjectivity.

[@twinboost]

You cannot understand consciousness , for it is you, society wants you to believe the ego is you,, this is incorrect , we are tuners of the intelligent universe, Do you tune with a narrow minded ego? If so, you are indeed lying to yourself...

[@therealzilch]

Deepak Chopra was not talking about anything that can be demonstrated to exist in the real world, so his opinions can be rejected out of hand.

[@critikasalihmeylani]

Well duh. The dude is talking about consciousness and is trying to associate it with weird spiritual thrash that I'm fairly sure even he doesn't know what is.

[@djvelocity]

I watched the live talk of Dr. Chopra on The Big Think today (first time hearing him talk) and somebody on the live chat recommended this video. Amazing recommendation! I wish that I could thank that person for exposing me to this! 🤩😳📚🔥💡🎇🎆

[@mistyflips]

When I watch debates like this, I gain such a greater appreciation for people like Harris and Shermer. How do their brains not explode when they talk to people like this?

[@fevkin]

I want to marry Sam Harris. It was interesting to see how rattled the oh so spiritual Deepak Chopra seemed to get in response to Sam Harris' argument. Twisting, gesturing, playing to the audience and plain defensive. A far less credible witness

[@maxorbit357]

Deepak the straw man virtuoso. Subtle, sublime, and fluid use of. Turd.

[@monicaquinn8973]

Max Orbit go learn some more English words and try to understand more

[@maxorbit357]

Monica Quinn Let me be more clear for your dumb ass. Deepak Chopra is a fraud and a liar.

[@conradgarcia-hauzer4630]

I believe that even though one person might be seen as correct and the other may be difficult to understand, it is kinda sad to see how some people get so aggravated with how Deepak Chopra gets so much money and how he is "wrong". Listen to who you want to for inspiration whether it be Deepak or Harris but above all, listen to yourself.

[@nestabus]

Deepak "moves the goalposts" every time his debating counterpart is about to kick a field goal. He switches from physics to metaphysics, or from subjective experiences to a dissociated mind/spirit. Of course Sam Harris understands "binding"; he's a fellow neuroscientist & neuroscientists coined the term. However, binding is a subjective conscious illusion, likely associated with specific wave-like patterns of electrical activity within the brain, not without the brain.

[@33heis]

Here is proof CHRIST said "I am SON of GOD." John 10:33-38 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be broken- 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, "I AM THE SON OF GOD ?" 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

[@qingshanwong]

this is what bothers me, if i were a sikh or muslim and i use my holy book quran to present you with a justified argument that you must knee down to the true god Allah, would you drop your logic or faith in Christianity? i guess the answer is an obvious no. and why do you think your argument would convince any non believer that has a brain in her head?

[@oomphale]

Bryant Wang Thanks Bryant for your response! I totally agree with you.

[@qingshanwong]

Christina Jordan thank you for the upvote :) ure my friend now :D

[@33heis]

Bryant Wang this bothers you because it not my argument. It is from the good book. Not fake like yours. your so called and self claimed prophet has even instructed you to acknowledge Ahlal (people) AL INJIL (of BIBLE) in this sura: 10:94 Sahih International So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters. if you are a true muslim you have to follow this instruction of your so called holy kuran which is from the spirit that said is from your alah. that said. Now you know when I had given you was straight from the BIBLE which is the same one your prophet said the spirit told him to follow if he was ever in doubt. After all this and you dont believe. It means you are condemning your self claimed prophet to be your prophet of alah. Now, if you believe what was revealed to you from the BIBLE. Which means you believe in our LORD GOD JESUS CHRIST to the True GOD and SON of GOD. Come to the TRUTH and have Salvation after death.

[@qingshanwong]

hallelujah! AMEN! AMEN, FORGIVE ME LORD! I AM INNOCENT, OH NO, I AM SIN

[@sriramprasath4397]

I don't see how SH defeated DC here. What DC says is totally true here. Sam harris's uses the fact that subjective experiences have neural correlations to conclude that causation (here) is only a one way thing, that is, brain chemistry causes subjective experiences. The truth however is that it goes both ways, your subjective needs and preferences also affect your brain chemistry, that's what chopra said which harris plainly ignored. The truth is that both subjectivity and objectivity causes events and affects each other. Given enough thought, the Materialistic view proposed by SH just isn't enough to explain things the way they are.

[@Punditube]

+Sriram Prasath Deepak's point was that our subjective experience creates the objective world. This is just a snippet but in this same debate he even goes as far as to say that the moon is there because of us looking at it.

[@sriramprasath4397]

Punditube I know. My point is that both these people have the wrong idea of it. Let's leave out the new age quantum stuff people talk here. Even still, I would say that the moon doesn't exist the way you think it does. Our idea of the moon or earth exists only inside our heads.

[@Punditube]

Sriram Prasath We all have different senses and brains to perceive the moon. To make sense of it all we agree on terminology like moon, earth etc. but these things exist completely independent of us. Perception is only in your head, reality is everything.

[@sriramprasath4397]

Punditube The problem is when we start to think that the terminology per se, has a qualitative capability to objectively define a state of experience. Its a fallacy. What you call objectivity is nothing more than information. Information connecting our heads together, like the cracks on a spectacle, distortions in the absolute nothingness. Distortions common in all our experiences, there's nothing real about it. If you think about it, it may not seem logical, but I just know that this is how it is, its my experience of existence. ;)

[@Punditube]

Sriram Prasath Your experience (based on information your senses are feeding your brain) is not reality. It's a mere perception. But reality is very real and not nothing at all. You either accept this or stay in your illusion.

[@jerindevassy100]

What is Rober De Niro doing with Sam Harris and Deepak Chopra??

[@mr.v8467]

This is a good conversation but when confronted with the mind/brain conundrum I wish someone would have mentioned that the radio or tv analogy can logically satisfy both science and the claim that the mind is not the brain. This position argues that the brain is the receiver for the signals of the mind, which explains why you can change the output by messing with the receiver (the oxytocin study they referenced). I'd be curious what Sam Harris would have to say about that

[@domzbu]

The double slit experiment somewhat suggests consciousness may be fundamental

[@shankoff1]

Yeah! At least someone understands that consciousness cannot be a product of a brain that is part of a REALITY that does not exist unless it is being consciously observed!

[@AlexKrentsel]

how so

[@pubudusenanayake6724]

hold the chicken - I fail to see how that's true.

[@domzbu]

Pubudu Senanayake learn about the experiment then, and apply some logic.

[@pubudusenanayake6724]

hold the chicken I know the experiment, that's why I'm asking, how does that experiment imply anything about consciousness?

[@geneba712]

Stupid title! When will end with this idiotic kind of titles? Just upload the video and live the viewers to decide! ”Deepak Chopra Spiritualist Defeated By Sam Harris”. Wishful thinking! Chopra is speaking a language, Harris an other one. An english can't understand a japaneze and vice verse. They both think that the other one is blind and has a meaningless language. The physics and the metaphysics are two different realities. The physical reality knows about its own and don't have a clue what's beyond it, but is sure it's an illusion! It doesn't have the competence in that balcony and must stick to what it knows. It's not about Chopra or Harris, but about two different worlds. Does Santa Claus exists? If not, why can I ask about him? No, Santa Claus doesn't exist, nobody saw him! It's an illusion! We have no scientific evidence that Santa Claus exists! The debate is a nonsense in the first place.

[@missionpupa]

Where was this debate held? The audience seems like they would clap at anything.

[@downloadstuffgames]

the molecule creates the thought to recognize itself.

[@kbforme]

lol this whole time sam is like "oh btw bro i have a phd in neuroscience".

[@chrisc990]

How is Deepak "defeated" here by Harris? - and how typical of one who follows Harris to put things in those reductionist and anti-intellectual terms and may I remind those on here whom see him as some hocus pocus spiritualist that he is a qualified medical physician. I think what is not comprehended by most Dawkins, Harris groupies is holding more than one thought of a subject at the same time and only understanding things in terms of "mechanism" and "material" Just because you can observe the interactions that conjure consciousness (electrical pulses, chemical changes, synapse connections, etc) does not mean you are observing or much less understanding "consciousness". The same can be said for numerous other "phenomena" of experience. This is not "super natural" at all it is just an added dimension of science that requires investigation so we can better understand and articulate it.

[@Eylandos]

Harris owned Deegay Chockdick. The dude got owned deal with it assclown.

[@sayur54321]

But making irrational assumptions and asserting indemonstrable concepts is completely valid? So what if he's a doctor? Can he not be irrational? The last time I checked, medicine was based of biological mechanisms, not "consciousness"(as he puts it).

[@chrisc990]

sayur54321 Indemonstrable in what sense? because his results in helping patients "feel" better certainly are demonstrable. Your call if you judge how you feel by your quantitative biological data (not that it is not useful) but your subjective experience is equally if not much much more valid - doesnt make it "snake oil" if there is not a fully formed path mapped out in journals - just that we do not understand fully what the "mechanisms" in play are and if you want to discount consciousness in that - go for your life but I for one see that as distinctly anti-scientific and limiting in your exploration of holistic methods that make much more sense that popping pills and subscribing to a specific biological mechanism that with a full understanding my be having the counter effect you really want......happens every day!

[@alfredostewart6299]

Conciousness is not in the study of physical science, because it can not alterate the outcome of physical experiments or any other happening. Conciousness just as sadness, happines and other emotions and sates of mind are studies for psychology, and psychology can not predict anything outside of the animal thinking. So of course deepak chopra is a charlatan that does not know anything about quantum physics. particles can come and go out of existance and so can thoughts nut that does not mean they are somewhat conjoined.

[@chrisstone6078]

Eylandos NO, he didn't! you could clearly see Harris has no idea what he is talking about, Deepak is on a complete different level to Harris when it comes to consciousness, Harris has never transcended , never meditated and has no idea of india, thai, buddhism philopshy or mediation! he has no idea how the brain works! because he has not tried it! he hasn't bothered to put in years of dedication learn from the ancient teachers and really give it a fair go, then come to the conclusion, NO, Harris like Dawkins see it as MUMBOJUMBO and BULLSHIT! and it doesn't work at all. fact is every practitioner will tell you different. this is why Harris should not even try to attempt to answer these questions because he has no idea what he is talking about, and he just comes across a fucking tool!

[@bane2520]

Deepak chopra is one of the biggest Con man i've ever seen, he'll just use big confusing words to confuse the audience. Beauty of debate is in simplicity.

[@mh8894]

I don’t understand how so many of these topics being debated between the physical reality of the universe vs the ethereal non reality based view of the universe are put on equal footing with each other. I see this with hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and more. These are genius minds being put up against people essentially making an argument that by definition CANNOT be backed up by reality.

[@matheusadornidardenne8684]

You guys have a strange definition of "defeated"... Chopra's arguments were precise, and the only argument from Sam Harris was "we can't conclude that, because it is metaphysics", and even in that he is wrong.. o.o I'm not a fan of Deepak, nor am religious, but Sam Harris could have done so much better than this... this was embarrassing to say the least.

[@JimLeyshonSon]

Great exchange. Is the brain an antenna for consciousness or is consciousness the by-product of the brain?

[@matheusadornidardenne8684]

I really can see the brain as an antenna for consciousness... it is really unlikely that consciousness is the byproduct of a brain, because even bacteria is conscious and has no brain-like activity.

[@JimLeyshonSon]

Excellent point. So we could agree that the brain is a by product of consciousness like eyes are a by product of light. Consciousness simply is and life is a film that acts as the medium and lense to sense the great Is. And as close as we can get to the Is is to be conscious on the ever present moment. The Ohm. Here and now boys!

[@Zorriet]

You may be ruled by bondage without realizing it.Dogma is born in the gap where sharing has been excluded. Do not let it eradicate the knowledge of your vision quest.Consciousness is the driver of conscious living. By perceiving,we vibrate.

[@JimLeyshonSon]

Very interesting. Dogma is born is the gaps. I like that.

[@OfftoShambala]

I like your ending point. It is a fact that there is so much more that humans cannot percieve through senses, logic & reason. Sure we can use scientific tools to detect many things that we would otherwise have no other way to know that they even exist, but how much more is there to discover? How many biological processes do we know little about? Almost every time I read about what science has found out about many topics, I find that even the scientists agree that they don't really know much.

[@jbo5o643]

I thought they were arguing over a price of an item at a gas station for the first few minutes

[@paulizdahbomb]

Harris adopts property dualism in a video somewhere. The question seems to be which aspect of the dualism is more fundamental--but asking that is really to reject the dualism and end up collapsing on one side (materialism or idealism). Neither position is coherent, hence no progress is possible.

[@x1plus1x]

There is a problem of language and definitions that I feel inhibits our ability to discuss these ideas properly. What person A means when they say consciousness, might be totally different to what person B means when they say consciousness. The same goes for god, the mind, and many other words. Before we can debate these things intelligently, we need to all agree what we mean by these terms. I pains me to see people arguing over the meanings of words, and not the actual ideas themselves. Arguing over definitions is a waste of time and energy.

[@rajeshkrishna1169]

a flower is an example of objective reality & it's smell is an example of subjective reality.

[@steveymoon]

How Deepak keeps being invited to debates and events is the real mystery of the universe!

[@eddieconroy212]

As far as I can make out Chopra is saying there is a lot more than just electric impulses in our brains to give us thoughts, feelings and emotions etc. Some sort of divine interaction with a higher being. If that is the case then what happens to someone after they have an accident that fundamentally alters their personality?

[@mahavira108]

waited for the defeated part...still waiting...

[@tyz228]

the problem I've seen with anyone, harris, dawkins, anyone, tryng to debate chopra is that chopra is the master of the bait and switch. as soon as someone tries to get chopra to settle on and clarify a particular statement, chopra launches an avalanche of other claims. In this clip, the root issue, which I though Harris tried to bring out, was this: you can value the qualities of subjective experience, the appreciation of music, art, literature, wonder of life, etc., all you want. Those experiences can be vivid and imbued with transcendent qualities. None of that shows that those very experiences aren't neural phenomena. That's what Harris was trying to focus on when Chopra then launched into "subconsciousness creates physical reality". There are at least 2 senses of the word "metaphysics". In the West, metaphysics has been a philosophical discipline concerned to justify an overall view of the nature of reality. Note the word "justify". The methods used, since the 17th century, have been logic, analysis of concepts, general reflection on what science tells us about the world. The other sense of "metaphysics", which Chopra practices, is what you find in bookstores in sections labeled "Metaphysics", a mishmash of mysticism, astrology, and subjectivism. It's a sign of the decline of serious thought that people like Chopra aren't just laughed at when they open their mouths.

[@BoredErica]

tyz, it's not a decline of thought if you consider how superstitious people have always been, moreso in the past. I'd say we are getting better, ever-so-slowly. Shame, I wished Harris/Shermer would completely shut him down by stopping that bait and switch.

[@sarahsyed]

he is amazing and his intelligence far exceeds mere intellects who can not understand... I am grateful that he exists.

[@jandeenphoto]

Can we start with the idea that we have devolved, suffered a psychosis, and are caught in a materialist perception and interpretation of being and see where that takes us?

[@jmikkonen3805]

What is that which can observe the movements of the mind, like thinking? An eye cannot see itself.

[@kimpirihi]

Deepak was looking pretty smug there for about 60 seconds

[@trom2004]

I remember either Dawkins or Harris mentioned the concept of debate forest fires. When a religious person can setup fires faster than the other person can put it out. So the debate ends with many unanswered but easily answerable questions due to the fact that answering those questions takes longer than asking them. This unfortunately is why debates sort of suck now, it's a primary tactic (from what i've seen) used by the religious.

[@Rubiksking10000]

"metaphysic statement come from subjective experiences." (the last statement deepak chopra says). With that statement, Deepak is practicly saying "All these metaphysical statement that i make up are based on my experience, and have nothing to do with actual reality. With that statement, he's pretty much making it so no matter what someone tried to argue against him, it wouldn't matter because Deepak's beliefs are only based on his own experience, nothing to do with actual truth/facts

[@76spinoza]

It's refreshing to see someone admit in a KZbin comment, that they don't understand what is being discussed. Good for you.

[@Tiswas2010]

I don't understand the science behind it, but through Deepak's meditation techniques I have had the most wonderful experiences. I can't explain it but all I can say is that since undertaking meditation I finally feel as if I am on the road to recovery, after being bedridden for the last 6 months caused by a MS Relapse. My road to spirituality has come about because of the experience of my relapse and this has done more for me than the Consultants, who basically abandoned me because they didn't

[@gheetuio8640]

Huh

[@critikasalihmeylani]

That's literally the placebo effect. You can't prove that it has anything to do with spiritual stuff when you can't prove it isn't placebo.

[@Tiswas2010]

@critikasalihmeylani7970 Did I say I had proof of its effect? I started by saying I don't understand the science and can't explain why it has a positive effect on me....let's not be negative just for the sake of it

[@critikasalihmeylani]

@@Tiswas2010 the negative thing is that this guy said it himself, that the patients feel better eventhough they die from diseases. You can have the impression that you're getting better, but you've been only given false light when humanity needs bioengineering to actually cure diseases like MS or cancer

[@Tiswas2010]

@critikasalihmeylani7970 I agree that more needs to be done to resolve MS etc, but in the meantime it's nice for the patient to feel some relief eh?

[@bodhifyer]

I came to see a defeat, I saw no defeat.

[@AnjaKnockKnock]

Funnily enough though, Sam Harris, after this debate, started his spiritual journey and agreed upon the concept of ego even making it a part of his book. Buyaka.

[@akshaynanthur]

*In a Top Scientific conference:-* Scientists: What's your Name Son? Deepak: *DEE... CEE...(D.C)* Scientists: Dee Cee Wha..?.. Deepak: *🎵DEE CEE MEE ROLLING, THEY HATE IT....🎵* Scientists of the World: *😐😓???*

[@pratikrane17]

religion was created to explain things that we dont understand. Deepak does the same. God has been replaced by Consciousness. He argues about unjustifiable points giving reference to science and its limitations. If u follow him long enough u'll understand. Same thing again and again.

[@moodyplus]

Does consciousness precedes the brain or does the brain precedes the consciousness?

[@Porus25]

Have you properly understood Deepak's spiritual concept? Please post here your understanding of his 'spiritual' concept.