What is Experience? - part 1 with Deepak Chopra

In this clip Deepak Chopra analyzes the nature of experience and perception from neuroscience to the mystics. For more informations visit: www.scienceandn... and/or www.deepakchop...

[@dankcolugo3902]

Remember, things lie outside of our perspective

[@ToddSloanIAAN]

He gets me out and in front of those who I knew not how they would push my buttons!

[@simpleidea2825]

This is the hardest question to find the answer. We know that sound is just a vibration in air! But how we feel it as sound !

[@nothinginteresting1662]

It's not just the sound itself. But the various phonemes put together to create meaning through a language.

[@sketchup73]

As long as you don't question HOW you think, it doesn't matter what you think, because if the process of thinking is flawed, you are always going to come to conclusions that don't work,so it doesn't really matter if a person is thinking about nonduality or smallpox or Michael jackson. Everybody has an option of choosing the format of their thoughts. If you need help with that you may read books by authors DAN ROAM and DANIEL KAHNEMAN.

[@fuldagermany]

Love Mr. Chopra ...

[@spacesciencelab]

underrated and shoved under the carpet as pseudo which is sad

[@toneclassics]

I think Deepak left the house with his wife's glasses.

[@aksharma4304]

HappyThoughts

[@usbsol]

No matter how you perceive the table, the table is still there. A table is made by craftsmen not by your brain. I often wonder why people feel the urge to deny an mind-independent world. And why an attack on the concepts of 'truth' and 'objectivity' almost always follows. My best guesstimate is that it is in order to save religion and the ideas of a higher meaning of life as well as a kind of immortality.

[@friedrichschopenhauer2900]

usbsol If we should like to get to the kernel of reality, then this whole ridiculous dichotomy of theism/materialism needs to be got rid of. Guru goofballs like Deepak Chopra are very obviously just trying to "spiritualize" recent implications about the apparent world as such. They should be ignored completely so people will be able to talk freely without all the weight of bias and ego. Epistemology relates closely with our sense of identity, so people tend to react strongly (or in this guy's case, silly) to the anything to do with it. There are no static substances over which changes glide, instead everything is given to dynamic flux, where only the change itself has primacy. There are no tables which exist otherwise than their relation to dynamic process. It is only a word; we have evolved for practicality and not direct understanding, and it is a schema which we cannot shake off, like Nietzsche said. There are no such "things" as discrete objects like tables or carpenters. Our faculty of logic permits us to make words which deceive us so; words cut out 'things' from the fluidity of reality. People like Deepak are always talking about consciousness, but really they ought to be saying interaction, or "experience" shouldn't nessecarily mean sentience. Proto-sentience perhaps, but sentience would thus be novel. Not panpsychism then but panexperientialism.

[@usbsol]

André Linoge I think that objects are indeed and often the object-level should be our primary focus. I humbly suggest that you find Graham Harman here on KZbin and take a listen to his object-oriented ontology. And thank you for taking the time to write long response to my post :-)

[@Joshua-dc1bs]

Without fingers and a somatosensory cortex, a table doesn't feel rough. Without eyes and a visual cortex, a table doesn't look like anything. A table outside of consciousness in inconceivable. Proposing the existence of a world without colours, shapes or textures Is pure speculation.

[@mrbwatson8081]

When you look 👀 at a chair 🪑 you do not perceive the chair for what it is. You perceive a representation or an image of the chair not the chair in itself. We do not have a window 🪟 onto reality perception doesn’t work like that, in fact if your bounded inner states mirrored the unbounded states of reality you would no longer be able to maintain any structural integrity. You would die basically. So evolution has equipped us to perceive accurate measurements as representations of reality(the world out there) not reality itself. So what is the chair 🪑 what lies behind the image I perceive… under materialism your experience of 🪑 exists only in your head. There is something out there that corresponds to 🪑 and modullates you experience of 🪑 . Under materialism the chair in itself you can not even imagine what it actually looks like because the moment you do you will endow it with qualities such as colour and concreteness. Under materialism you can only exhaustedly describe the chair by a long list of numbers spin charge mass momentum height. Then somehow under materialism these long long long list of numbers when complexly arranged give rise to 🪑. :)

[@mrbwatson8081]

Is a thought an experience…? Is the taste of an 🍏 an experience? Is a sunset 🌅 an experience? Sit on a chair 🪑 is the feeling of the chair on your ass a feeling or the chair? In your experience does anything else but experience exist..? Honestly 😊