Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Deepak Chopra and Michael Shermer: Ultimate Reality
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 тра 2011
- "Is there an Ultimate Reality?" and if yes, "Can it be accounted for by science such as mathematics, biology and physics?" Hear from Deepak Chopra, Michael Shermer and a panel of scientists address these questions during a recent special event at Chapman University, in the Folino Theater. Available at iTunes U itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/t...
![You are the universe | Robert Wright, Deepak Chopra, & Michael Shermer [The Wright Show]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ChXSdqFhQ-A/mqdefault.jpg)
Quote Deepak Chopra 39:33, "... the atoms are sub-atomic particles ...."
Deepak is really quick to point out all of the things we don't know, but he seems to interpret this as licence to assert whatever he wants. Him pointing out that we have no idea how to solve the hard problem of consciousness somehow allows HIM to assert that consciousness is the ground of reality?
If he is saying that it is open to speculation because science hasn't solved it yet, then it's a pretty weak claim. If he is saying that when something is indeterminate we can say anything we want about it, then it is also a pretty weak claim.
Chopra: "... your nervous system is not a material object"??? Really?
Ina Deva
Composed of matter. Composed of molecules.
Deepak: 'I'm not arguing with Michael I'm arguing with synaptic networks' lmfao
Great thinking by Michael Shermer. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey, Joseph Wheless, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens
its important to invite chopra because the science skeptics would be debating themselves otherwise. In the pursuit and expansion of the knowledge of truth its important to have debates like this.
This is one of the best panels I have ever seen. Absolutely riveting discussion. I truly appreciate this presentation. Thank you Chapman University for this gift.
Deepak: "I've had this argument with [Shermer] in previous lifetimes"
Shermer: "& I won those too"
Bahaha
All that exists only in your mind.
Oh wait, you're one of those who doesn't have a mind, but just a brain.
Bahaha nice one
I think Deepak was trying to explain ADVAITHA ( the non-duality )...
And then Carmichael Peters puts it in a different perspective..!
And then Stuart Hameroff affirms..!
Thank Champan University to provide this.
This is a perfect example of the evolution of spirituality. Science that has become more palatable to the spiritualist.
Weird how the Chopra devotees cheer him on. It's as if they are invested in his mythology and when he sufficiently bolsters their religion they feel re-assured and cheer.
Great upload!
great video! I would've love to have been there
I am surprised that you would say that, as Chopra is a medical doctor... I would think that would make him sufficiently educated in some branch of the sciences. If you don't agree with him or whatever, that's one thing, but to say that someone who is a doctor does not belong in scientific discussion is another.
"Limits of our perception, limits the extent of our reality."
Great Lecture!
Leonard and Mike, we love you guys!
Very well put.
You reflect western ways of thinking because this is where you have been raised and educated. This society shaped your mind and soul.
Great host.
I'm not much into Chopra but it was interesting, the moment he got the audience to become aware of their own consciousness, it was only a couple of seconds, but there was a loud sigh from someone (Shermer?) as if this was a bad joke or a waste of time. They just don't get it do they? They don't understand that this vessel that you can only see when it is empty is running the show. Instead they are forever identifying with whatever passes through it. And we're all similarly conditioned to keep it busy, so we don't see any blue sky in there, or the illusion that consciousness is irrelevant would soon fall apart. The points by Henry Stapp, though he seemed to be struggling, were also interesting. Consciousness and quantum theory are connected by quantum theory, not simply by woo.
thanks for sharing ChapmanUniversity
Genius!
depak makes some good points mixed in with crazy
Haha Michael Shermer is the man, his first 5 mins is gold =)
I found the time limits, ironically limiting. Could we see if there is any possiblity that the individual speakers could expand their speeches into longer videos? Or if there are already some out there could you email me with links to their books or videos, please?
@Denshuu I think what alot of people are talking about when they say "spiritual science" is the study of the subjective via meditation and introspection. The problem is, like Sam Harris mentions alot, is people tend to take these remarkable subjective experiences and make claims about physical reality. Which is definitely not science. However, this does not make all spiritual practices worthless (I use the word 'spiritual' very loosely.)
Deepak grows on you.
Your link does not work... can you try posting it again?
whoo whoo - deepak
True that!
The highest level of knowledge is often neglected . The highest knowledege "Vedanta" says- Things you can taste , feel , conceptualise , visualise , imagine , hear , see are impermanent projection of your conciousness . And that one thing which you cannot taste , feel , conceptualise , visualise , imagine , hear or see is real (Conciousness) . Inshort it means , Nothing is possible without conciousness . If these are possible to you , then it means you are concious . Can you deny it ?
Ooh, I did not know that, you have any source for that statement or is that just your opinion?
Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot be discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each part by itself, since such a method often implies the loss of important properties of the system. We must keep out attention fixed on the whole and on the inter-connection between the parts. The same is true of our intellectual life. It is impossible to make a clear cut between science, religion, and art. The whole is never equal simply to the sum of its various parts.
-- Max Planck (1858-1947)
1:34:36 - 1:36:52 Stuart Hameroff, I loved you as Scuttle (the seagull in The Little Mermaid). I agree with the lady in the audience who said twice at 1:35:44 and 1:35:46, "What does that explain?" to Stuart's invocation of the "self collapse of the wave function" within the context of consciousness. Notice how Deepak Chopra appear to appeal for the whole exchange to be derailed in between transitions.
A human emotion experienced is all the proof the individual needs
I was thinking about experiment for actualy test human, our power of percieveing things, this is important to know much we are, are we? this will give us a more strenght to believe in own teories.
Interesting exchange of info b/w individual body-minds. Can empirical approach lead to "ultimate reality"? And what if the entity to whom this approach (empirical or otherwise) appears to happen itself doesn't exist? Then who's there to understand and what's there to be understood? Isn't any answer, again, an appearance on the screen of the mind? Who is witnessing all of it? Isn't any word arising in mind again a barrier? Thank you ChapmanUniversity.
Chopra has tightened his argument a bit, at least in the opening. ~40:00
Ha... was just reading Shermer's column in the most recent Scientific American on the can yesterday and then just stumbled on this clip this afternoon...
I graduated from this school. This had to be before 2010 because it is now Brandman University.
To quote Bill O´Reilly: Tides come in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication.
Shermer is so simplistically brilliant at making his point... there isn't really that much to say as an answer to such question. there's reality (and it's pretty fucking interesting and complex). i wonder how come it seems not to be enough for some people, could it be that they can't cope with the idea of not having the main role in this play?...
That is true.
No matter how strong a filter our senses, and intellect are we are observing a useful aspect of reality. No matter how small or large that is, it is all we have, and is useful. Any other view is a road to nowhere, and leaving doors open for the fantastic and irrationality.
i watched the whole thing ..... more people on the pannel seem to diverge away from conventional sceince .... with new studies like backword time affect and othe new physics advancement ,... people will know that ultimate reality is far beyond our reach .... deepak chopras ideology is a very good one in my opinion ...
subtitles in spanish , be appreciated. Thanks
"Wholeness projects onto the barrier of space time events"
Great job by Deepak!
"Poetically saying: Material reality is a SUPERSTITION because at its core all material - is MOSTLY SPACE"
What do you mean by "SPACE" you have to be specific here.
god is u as u
@myfriend280 Sorry if that offends you, but that's just how it is. If it can't be tested, it isn't science. It's THE defining feature of science.
i agree, it's just a matter of definition, call things with the right word, there's NO "spiritual science"
I think I have experienced an ultimate reality until i experience another higher reality and measure one against the other :)
What does that even mean?
perhaps cholwell is saying that in order for science to be truly valid, other realities, for lack of a better term, realities that have not been traditionally thought of as part of specific branches of sciences perhaps, need to be considered, such as consciousness & it's "source" perhaps... or perhaps another branch of science that is based on a wholistic lens could be established/recognized/validated... just throwin' out my 1st thought of a possible answer to your question
If you listen to Lawrence Krausses understanding you see that even empty space is filled with "sparticles" that cancel eachother out, and when they do not, they sputter in and out of space meaning that it's not empty.
They almost got somewhere at 1:36:00. Honestly, if just Stuart Hammeroff and the guy on the right (stage left) of Michael Shermer discussed (not debated), I'm pretty sure we could gain some ground here
@unimind24
I think you're misunderstanding the point of being a skeptic. It's not about 'looking at the other side', it's about asking for evidence and only giving time to things that provide it. He dismisses the 'other side' because it provides none. Just anecdote.
Stuart Hameroff seems to have done his homework...
thankyou for posting this
time 1:35:20 Stuart Hameroff "self-collapsing" under Leonard Mlodinow's simple cross-examination :)
I'm reminded of what Alan Watts said about the mechanistic materialist paradigm as a 'put down view of the universe' created by people needing this perspective to feel powerful~ wow the universe is just a machine or just matter or just mindless chemistry.
Because you've see him do that where ???
If reality is science and science can be tested then what is the explanation for quantum physics which says reality depends on who is looking at the experiment?
Everything is energy. Einstein’s law E=mc2, suggest that at least there should be two parallel space-time realities from which these energy particles originates to form the matter [atom] we observe. The matter we see is juxtaposed between theses parallel worlds. This invariably means we need to visualize universe as living being as the east thought and taught the world. The inner space of life is the conscious and intelligent space-time reality that creates and sustains the universe from collapsing to singularity. Universe need to be understood as conscious and intelligence of a single SUPREME being unfolding and enfolding transforming and initializing everything into new time cycle rest are details
We don't have to address Michael we can just address his brain. Or something like that. So if Shermer could send his brain to this discussion it would be more interesting. Everytime his brain is caught thinking, he then shows up and gets in the way.
The question is what do we do about it?
yeah but fact is, you can explain consciousness with scientific words and meanings, with your schooling, or you can explain consciousness by trying to be aware of yourself. the first method only points to the second method.
Michael Shermer is not a scientist, he's a historian.
I love how Mike feels happy at the end to reconsile and give Deepak a hug. His consciuosness of reconsiliation has changed his biological reponse and has released dopemine.
That same body denies all of this coming down to his consciuosness (his deep essence). Ah the ironies of life :)
lmao at Stuart Hameroff "self-collapsing" under Leonard Mlodinow's simple cross-examination
What a "response"...
@GodTheHypothesis Seconded! It astounds me when people equate open-mindedness with simply accepting whatever anyone says with or without evidence/proof. IMO it takes an open-mind to think critically and Shermer even though a little militaristic at times does do that ...
I have not heard a single word of dogma from him in his talk above. He makes a powerful argument and I think he is being judged here. The cultural dogmas of the other academics and skeptics are veiled and masked by their respective language,cultural and racial tribes they come from and is no different than the era of copernicus that throws up judgments and resistance to orientalism or alternate definition of existence from non-western sources. Its a occidental ego thing.
I think Deepak and Shermer are right. Deepak is talking about the quantum aspect of reality, Shermer is talking about the reality that we can see with the naked eye. Yes, if you look through a powerful microscope you will see that nothing is solid, but if you look with the naked eye at stuff you will see many things are solid. So, do you say something is solid or not? Yes, it depends on context. What are you talking about? Quantum or not? Both reality though.
@Denshuu Ultimate science,maths, biology all converges to spirituality.According to the present evolution level of humans we are able to comprehend &prove things which are up to the frequency levels of particle waves.The laws of quantum physics opened up new possibilities which could not be explained by Newtonian science.In more subtle frequency levels more things exist which is beyond our comprehension. Spirituality help us explore on this based on observation &experience from different people
deepak is a thinker for those who want comfort
to all those that say Deepak's view point is nonsense there are many sceintists who share views very similiar to him.....if it was just nonsense, there wouldn't be serious conferences like this, put on by universities with people who have science credentials. This conference was sponsered by the schmid college of science.
The essential nature of the material world is that it's not material. The essential nature of the physical world is that it's not physical. The essential stuff of the universe is nonstuff.
The essential nature of Deepak's argument is that it's not an argument.
Two points:
1. The materialist on this panel asked "What happens when Aunt Milly dies, and what does quantum consciousness and nonlocality have to do it it?" A more elegant and simpler explanation without getting off the beaten path into complex and incomplete quantum terminology would be this analogy. If you broke your television set you would not jump to the conclusion that the satellite signal that gave you reception disappeared and didn't exist anymore. You would know that the problem was the TV was broken, not the originating signal. Our physical bodies maybe more like television sets than like cars... our consciousness streams into them.
2. The materialist pointed out that an "observer" need only be a "tool of measurement"... well, who devised the tool that measured what was being observed? A conscious being devised that tool of measurement. It seemed so fundamental a point I was very surprised no one on the panel challenged this notion.
The fact is we really do not understand the nature of reality, or where it stems from. I am an agnostic person and I find most religion laughable, but I find materialism even more laughable. The arrogance with which they deliver their barbs, the teleological thinking they engage in, I find it all very dubious
Denying that material exists is absurd. Just because it changes at the quantum level doesn't mean that it does not exist. Just as ice exists and water also exists. You wo woos seem to think that since ice (or matter) is made of water (or space and energy) therefore the ice (matter) no longer exists... I dare say you are wrong about that... heh...
springhead21 It is really hard to have a conversation about these sorts of topics with someone that conflates a critique of materialism as a guiding philosophy and jumps to the conclusion that I must not believe in the material world at all. That is completely nonsensical.
Agnostic of what? There may not be a spirit, the physical body might actually hold all the mysteries of consciousness, it might not.
But let's say for the sake of argument that consciousness was a nonlocal quantum field effect or something, like you suggest with your television analogy.
That still doesn't mean we have a soul OR that any wisdom traditions are correct either.
What are you agnostic of? If the answer is 'everything', than that is no different from being an atheist. If you suspect there is 'something greater' or 'a higher power', that's just speculation. If we do not know, then why is it 'dubious' promoting the hypothesis that we might live in a soulless, godless, cold, material universe. It seems likely to most scientists. 85% of people with college degrees in science are atheists. What do you find dubious about scientific consensus?
tom riddle
Pew Research poll about atheism
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/
Scientists and belief in God poll
www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
It is easy to throw out some lumped in number. Most scientists are either in the "I do not believe or disbelieve" column, or they they actually believe in a universal spirit.... which I am towards that side of things, although academically I neither believe nor disbelieve. I am not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination.
And promoting a hypothesis is much different than touring a theory. Those who ridicule others who have a different hypothesis should first establish a scientifically supportable theory.
Juliaoceania "Universal spirit" is not god, and is ususally (for scientists) connected to collective consciousness biology (a la bees), or neurobiology research into quantum consciousness. That isn't god.
And even with your study, 41% of scientists, who believe in neither gods or universal spirit, is still the largest group in terms of your data.
But in the "how did the universe get here?" question... we don't know, and god is only one possibility, and an unlikely one at that. And since we can't prove or disprove it, it's useless to guess anyway.
And BTW, a universe without god is already a working theory, and it should be toured, because it works, and is currently the closest thing to the truth we have.
i read your comment before watching this vid & was waiting to hear any dogmatic claims by Chopra & i'm not sure i understand what you mean... perhaps you could enlighten me to which statements it is that he made that you deem to be dogmatic... i have an idea, but i'm not sure it is in line with the message you mean to convey... in my mind, i think his assessments are the basis for hypothesis that can be tested for new sci understandings & i don't see that he is resistant to such sci inquiry
but can the energy used to make the hard drive be no more that's the question
@Denshuu Mayby the whole foundation on which science is build on is wrong
@gsalemi1954 the rules change at a quantum level.
Chopra, a profit driven professional guru-for-hire. Get the real thing from Beheading Buddha.
@perfecto25
that's the beauty of life though (speaking on human beings). there are things that are tangible, for example a person chewing on food. If I were to explain to you how it tastes I can never give you a factual answer. My words can never describe my experience. How would you test that?? We got science (facts) and experience (spiritual) happening at the same time. Separating SCIENCE from "experience" is INAPPROPRIATE. I believe that's what Chopra's point is.
What dogma are you referring to? What scientific inquiry?
It's like betting at the races. If one was, for instance, a psych postdoc looking for a research topic, would one choose the parapsychology horse? Given all the problems in its methodology and lack of solid evidence so far--not to mention a lack of a plausible mechanism or explanation, what person with a PhD in psychology would want to spend time and energy and money on research that would likely produce no results? So which research horse would one put their money on?
@vibhutesagar Of course that's not what open mindedness is. Accepting a claim without evidence is indeed irrational and unhealthy behavior. Shermer however exhibits narrow mindedness in that he often dismisses certain ideas without ever examining the evidence thoroughly simply because they contradict his idea of, in his words, 'how the world works.' The scientific paradigm is not stagnant and inflexible, or else it would be religion. It should progress and develop as new evidence is introduced.
I like your comments and I demand you be my friend! What are you doing Monday?
Hameroff @ 56:30
@Denshuu What about "Social Science", does that fall within the realm of Science? Because as you may know, studies done in That domain have special dispensation from the exact repetition and classical science experimentation. At one time Psychiatry was laughed at when it claimed to be a "Science", now that is no longer the case. Perhaps we are on the threshold of a new Science, Spiritual Science and these people are the explorers of this realm. "These times they are a changing."
Being dismissive of Chopra is like being dismissive of a charlatan. Now Einstein was no charlatan, he worked out a theory that could make testable predictions. And in my opinion it wasn't like they were being dismissive of Einstein, there were some theories and only testable predictions could determine which was the right one.
Although towards the end of his life, people were indeed dismissive of his later work.
I'm on Shermer's side, but I enjoy the rantings of Deepak.
Bill Right is so cute!!! I feel bad for him:< poor thing!
The Universe is mostly empty space, but we as humans have evolved at a scale in which the fluctuations of quantum particles sum to what we call the material world. Both Newtonian and Quantum physics are correct, they deal with the same reality at different scale. If you try to study a particle you will find that it is possible for such quark to be in two places at the same time (there have actually been experiments) But no one in their right mind would propose the same for a cannon ball.
deepak apparently seems to say the truth sometimes which obviously does and must capture attention of people . but what will he do to man like shermer which most of us are now ,with a man who resists, is unwilling ,and so on?
I liked all of their descriptions. But, for me, we are never satisfied about the answers because Nature of Reality cannot stay presented as an static subject or object, everything are at a continuous development not static, by observationof uninterrupted mind concepts. So Reality is just momentum at everything.