Science Beyond the Superstitions of Materialism - Deepak Chopra

[@Dani68ABminus]

There is something so, so soothing about listening to Rupert Sheldrake. He embodies what intelligence is all about.

[@ElanSunStarPhotographyHawaii]

So well stated thank you...classic reason and dialog...

[@jezza10181]

+Dani68ABminus Only if you are deeply unintelligent yourself

[@lapisredux]

+Jeremy Watts but wait...if they,re deeply unintelligent why are they watching this flapdoodle when they could be watching videos of cats doing stuff?

[@jezza10181]

lapisredux Read what I said properly. I didn't call Sheldrake & Chopra unintelligent, but the people who can't see this pair for what they are, ie. peddlars of pseudoscientific bullcrap.

[@lapisredux]

Jeremy Watts au contraire,but you see i did read what you said "properly" and i certainly wasn,t refering to shelduck and chopper...why i doubt if they,re even aware that you can see cats in bomber jackets online on account of them,shelduck and chopper that is, being so far up their own arseholes.

[@LifeForceConnect]

So glad to see my 2 favorite Scientists converse, both men don’t need to depend on Gov. grants,so they have no reason to mislead the public. GR8 ! Love you guys.

[@jou3883]

I’d like to echo this! Yes, and the public should really ponder why his morphic resonance theory is ridiculed by the mainstream scientific communities. Isn’t it obvious? That the majority has been programmed in a certain way to the point the moment their worldview or belief clashes with new information, they’d instantly disregard and categorise it as pseudoscience or “metaphysical”. Nothing metaphysical really because what he says about resonating memories truly makes sense

[@a.hardin620]

Deepak is a serial bull shit artist. He is no more a scientist than Oprah Winfrey.

[@LKWPETER]

Actually I'm reading the book "Why Materialism is Baloney" by Bernardo Kastrup, for which Deepak Chopra has written a interesting comment. I would love to see a interview with Kastrup, Deepak, Sheldrake and Luc Antoine Montagnier, talking about the DNA and why memory is not inside the brain, like the internet is not inside the computer. And most important how Idealism relates to morphic resonance.

[@ElanSunStarPhotographyHawaii]

You wrote " And most important how Idealism relates to morphic resonance.".... can yo elborate on that? Intention idealism?

[@LKWPETER]

Elan Star Sure. Idealism in science states that the Mind is fundamental and everything else is an abstraction of the mind. In Wikipedia it says: "... reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial ..." You see, nobody would contradict the theories of morphic resonance if they would change their world view from a materialistic one to an idealistic immaterial one. Everything then change. The perspective is corrected and you see clearly how things are connected. So morphic resonance is normal in idealism, like quantum entanglement and nonlocality. But for materialists who are bound to the particle world view, locality as fundamental reality, they just cannot imagine that this could be true. Also materialism embed isolation, idealism embed the collective and the sharing of a more deeper connection on a fundamental level.

[@soldatheero]

Where can I see the comment by Dawkins on Kastrup's work ?

[@LKWPETER]

soldatheero Forget Dawkin.

[@soldatheero]

Peter Well in particular I don't really care about Dawkins to begin with. Still I would like to see if he acknowledged Kastrup's theories and ideas. Although I find it quite doubtful that he has.. so is that what you say?

[@lrdvd]

Fascinating. I want to watch it over and over. So refreshing to hear two great minds in conversation about something that actually matters.

[@catherinemartin1984]

This reminds me of a teaching in Oneness that refers to a "thought sphere" which is similar to the atmosphere from which we all get the air we breath.... we all share the thought sphere as well, however we don't each carry around all thoughts, anymore than we each carry with us all the air we will need... we have access to the thought sphere and thoughts continuously come and go through it.

[@deuphoria2587]

Have watched this more than once. Interesting the perspective of the camera's view causes one to think of new perspectives.

[@KevinRutkowski]

I appreciate this insightful dialogue and the difference between Deepak's and Sheldrake's relationship to space-time. Sheldrake has an expansive materialistic view that is inclusive of phenomenon that we cannot explain at this time.

[@miekevanderpoll]

Dear dr. Sheldrake, could it be that morphic resonance IS the memory of the subconscious mind, or at least the conductor? That there is a field within you that carries everything you experience and you tap into it every now and then, sometimes to remember something, sometimes to create something and even sometimes to make a creative leap? Does this not perfectly explain why every person is unique? The person is the product of his/her experience. You cannot consciously remember everything you experience. When you watch a baby you see it curiously consumes everything around it, but expresses what it consumes during the course of its lifetime while it simultaneously grows from baby into all the other stages in life and not all at once. The subconscious mind works together with the conscious mind. The morphic resonance is the memory or the conductor (some call it the Soul) making this possible...... On the physical level isn't this the way our body works? The sympathetic autonomous nerve system etc.?

[@rexedwardfairy2197]

I love Rupert. But I've just never really been convinced that these morphic fields are necessary. This is because I 'believe' (due to my direct experience - via meditation, sychronicities, conversations with rocks, birds, trees, the wind etc that return a reply of validation) that everything, physical and nonphysical carries consciousness/intelligence/akashic-style-memory-and-future-probability-leaning in it. Why would a rabbit then need a morphic field, and a human another separate morphic field? Surely the intelligence of consciousness can simply carry intention. "I'm gathering cells etc bc here i wanna be a rabbit, there i wanna be a human... " To me this is a much more simple (and to my way of thinking, more intuitive) version of events than everything having to have its own morphic field to remember what it thought it might become. We know from quantum mechanics that intention plays a pretty big role in outcomes...

[@alexbormanbou]

This was also a great example of quantic video editing. The frame is and is not, at the same time.

[@onunomachado]

Only to contribute to this wonderful content here. Frank Wilczek was laureated in Nobel Prize in 2004 and his work is not about because he discovered a particle. It's because his work about Asymptotic Freedom (the closer are quarks are to each other the less the strong interaction).

[@boxant]

Great upload, thank you.

[@thomasvieth578]

I’m a German and in my language we don’t talk of Platonic Forms, of which I was baffled and couldn’t relate to, but of Platonic Ideas, which I find much more supple and sophisticated as a concept. Sometimes, a little word makes the difference, and I think from looking at the Greek, idea is the more appropriate term

[@11thstory]

This is an intriguing dialogue to follow up Toward A Science of Consciousness conference. Is there a relationship between string theory and morphic resonance or Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay's frequency fractal model? It seems frequency field theory would give us the habit of notes but creative a different song.

[@thefoolangel]

Great to see Deepak chatting with Rupert and to hear him explain Morphic Resonance in a simple to understand way. Always interesting and enjoyable. THIS VIDEO however, is an example of why when you edit a clip you should always watch it before publishing.. WTF was with that edit?? Were those overly long dissolves and supers that cut out suddenly a render problem or are the editors just muppets?

[@BryonLape]

The universe is an expression of energy.

[@lapisredux]

huh...they almost had me fooled until i noticed a copy of "fifty shades of grey" on the bookshelf.

[@lucaspierce3328]

All fields are at their core the same immaterial and nonphysical, they only branch off through asymmetry, or the act of creativity, well some fields through continuous feedback action or repetitive habit. Causation itself implies a aspect of animation to these fields that is intelligent and pure proto consciousness even of normal inanimate matter, making sense of the difficulty of the distinction between living and non-living. There's a galaxies worth of potential in every atom. Quantum biology will be the field that discovers these morphic resonance fields.

[@tomfreemanorourke1519]

The mechanistic view is the 'one size fits all' / the 'average' dogma that has lead to the ignorance of authorities...... Not all 'habits' are the same, there is the habit of initiating change as in progress, creativity, and inducement of chance for change to be exploited and adopted or the habit of adaptation, the habit of review, re-examination. The nature of the perpetual flux of entropy and logic which I have named 'entropological' is a kind of creativeness of "good-chaos" or chance in the chaos (entropy) this I would say is the conduit of morphic resonance Dr Sheldrake speaks off. I would like to add my though. I say that morphic resonance is the eternal returnity, perpetual indeterminacy, perpetual incompleteness, unbeginning unending beginnings and endings. Perpetual motion. Love always O'Rourke...1953 ..?

[@Bill0102]

Your exposition is brilliant; similar to a book that was brilliant in its subject. "The Joy of Less: A Minimalist Living Guide" by Matthew Cove

[@zoharflax6363]

On the origins of creativity coming from the bottom up (subconscious) or the top down (from some level above and beyond oneself, from outside oneself), I think on the appearance of dew on the ground, which apparently appears on the ground simoultaneously from the air above and also from with in the ground going up, further implying the divine oneness of all things. One Love, the spoken can be a sign, a label, an aspect of describing concepts, and possibly precious and so called sacred in itself as a helping hand or voice, yet the fullness of conclusion of the mystery will not be grasped by an isolated sence of self, and isn't it better this way, lest we think we know better how to handle the matters of things outside oneself.

[@mallikap9017]

FOR EVERY ACTION IN OUR LIFE THEIR IS ROOT CAUSE IN EVERY BODY'S LIFE. WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT WHAT IT AND HOW IT HAPPENS IN OUR LIFE. THEN OUR MATERIAL LIFE IS GOING TO BE WE ARE MASTER OF OUR LIFE.

[@jackchorn]

In DaVinci's notes he scribbled- ask a mathematician how to get the volume of a circle-Our culture creates a reality- step outside of your culture for a month and you will see this.

[@equalat]

There is only One field, I'll meet you there. =

[@vilramdran]

Deepak Chopra can be a great philosopher, if he uses the words a little bit more correctly.

[@klbgay9161]

@10:15 Witchcraft

[@rondcus]

Why the weird camera games?

[@Gnomefro]

Oh dear... that we have other kinds of fields in physics is no argument for morphic resonance being a useful concept. What worries me the most about this talk is that Sheldrake claimed that he could test his hypothesis, but then he just stopped. Frankly, his entire approach sounds very much like proposing "ice cream fields" to explain ice cream. It doesn't really explain anything and seems to be redundant in light of the power of normal physics to explain natural phenomena. Sheldrake's assertion that it would be impossible to explain the formation of plants chemically really is an assertion that it's possible to measure violations of physics in growing plants all the time. I find this to be highly implausible compared to the alternative hypothesis that Sheldrake simply is ignorant of the chemical mechanism by which plants in fact grow. This is one of the big dangers of trying to move away from the reductionistic thinking of the natural sciences - you'll be manufacturing useless woo very quickly when you can't be assed to check the simplest explanations thoroughly first.

[@peterhooper3391]

Gnomefro Bit like String Theory, that, eh what?

[@waleshkamelendezmelendez9632]

Espanol seria mejor,y. Es tremendo me dedico a esto,ciencias ocultas,profetizar ayudar al projimo me ayuda, a elevarme espiritualmente yo soy

[@klbgay9161]

One missed call from God @4:20 ("Death makes life possible.")

[@MyContext]

***** I haven't found anything that he or anyone else has done that supports the existence of a "morphic field", lots of attribution in his claims, but no cause/effect linkages shown - this is pseudoscience.

[@johnnyblaze9158]

The camera person on this video deserves to be fired. Hard to watch.

[@a.hardin620]

Deepak Chopra has made money abusing basically three concepts: consciousness, infinite/infinity, and quantum/quantum mechanics. He understands very little and his ignorance and success has made the world dumber for it.

[@NamelessAwarenessG]

You understand nothing of Consciousness. You are literally following religious dogma which is materialism. Materialism is extremely limiting and ignorant way of seeing world. Materialism allows individual to experience Metaphysical Phenomenon and then discard it as hallucinations and all of that. Example being, NDE, SDE, OBE. These phenomenon are disregarded as hallucinations even when these three phenomenon include Veridical perceptions that individuals experiencing should have no way or form being able to have it yet during these three phenomenon, They have. Yet, Materialism just discards these three as hallucinations. There is no proof that these three are hallucinations as materialism propose. Even if there are brain Activities going on, It still is NOT evidence or proof that these three are hallucinations especially with veridical perceptions.

[@NamelessAwarenessG]

If you bring Brain activity argument, Then that's your confirmation biases kicking in because you cannot accept these phenomenon as genuine. No matter how much evidence or proof is thrown at you, You are biases and so you will choose whatever suits your world view.

[@Sqoou_Too]

Rupert looks burnt out.

[@Sqoou_Too]

dazzerstar and tired ? I completed the sentence. Notice the "." at the end.

[@awsomeadi]

Norman Mann great observation! thanks for sharing :)

[@Incinerate1212]

more pseudoscientific non sense