Comment by Dustin on December 2, 2013 at 12:19am

Deepak started off great but then fell into his usual ways...hurting my head...with nonsense...

Deep respect for Dawkins for being able to put up with him.  

Comment by Ed on December 2, 2013 at 10:04am

Chopra defined spirituality as self-awareness. I suppose I am more spiritual than I ever imagined. He did lose me on the proposal that atoms/matter retain consciousness. The brain is a marvelously complex arrangement of cells that collectively produce a consciousness for the being it resides in.

Comment by Simon Paynton on December 2, 2013 at 12:30pm

I'd say that spirituality is about the things of the ego dropping away to reveal the core of compassion and reality underneath.  The ego contains the conscious mind and self-identity, among other things.  It's still needed, except now it doesn't rule the show. 

I don't believe that Deepak Chopra has had a spiritual awakening.  According to Wikipedia, all he has done is study.  Awakening has to be pummeled into you by life experiences, you can't learn it from books.  That said, spiritual theory and knowledge is very important as guidance.  As well, some people naturally have the gift.  People who have the gift don't come out with all that twaddle that Deepak spouts.  They speak plain English. 

Comment by Simon Paynton on December 2, 2013 at 1:31pm

I think it's also about the dropping away of attachments:  attachment to self-interest, attachment to desire, attachment to emotions, to mental constructs; to a lot of things.  It doesn't mean not having love and affection for another person.  It means if you love someone, set them free. 

Comment by Logicallunatic on December 2, 2013 at 7:16pm

Chopra is such a willfull obscurantist. The only reason he survives is because he thrives on the general public's ignorance of science. 

Comment by Pope Beanie on December 3, 2013 at 2:04am

For several thousand years, humans have assumed that the characters of intention, purpose, design, agency, and so forth exist outside themselves. This might be the only significant assumption Chopra snd Dawkins share. The differences lie in how each of them endeavors to explain those characters.

I think Chopra claims that these characters have always existed, and no other explanation is necessary, except to find various ways to demonstrate their eternal existence. I may be wrong about that, because I have no idea where that's supposed to take us. Others besides Chopra speak similarly but in different languages and periods of history, and it seems to me that they'll never be able to come together to agree on more than just a few feelings, some basic concepts of consciousness, and perhaps a persecution complex that science is out to defeat them all.

Dawkins represents more of a standard, unified way of discovering and describing universal laws that can be repeatedly demonstrated in any language or circumstance. Science is the universal method and language, always humble enough to admit and document what it doesn't know, intentionally leaving itself open to scrutiny and correction. Science is poor at explaining feelings, emotions, consiousness and so on, just as it used to be poor at explaining cancer, gravity, chemistry, physics, biological processes, and so forth.

Our Chopras et al may feel they have some kind of over-arching explanation for what science has explained and for what science is not yet able to explain, but the Chopras et al of the world cannot ever catch up to the millions of books and other sources of accumulated, scientific knowledge. Diffferent sciences have to come to closer and closer agreement because they all recognize each other's differences, correct each other, and they all endeavor to explain the same, physical reality.

Now, back to my opening paragraph. We humans need to perceive reality and conceive thought metaphorically. It's ok to say a ball "wants" to roll downhill, or a mountain is "designed" with a slope, and that's why the ball rolls. The purpose of chlorophyl is to convert light into chemical energy. I can even guess what Chopra might mean when he says an atom can be "aware". Fine, let's say that electrons can be aware of each other in the sense that they affect each other's position or behavior. But in science, that's where the metaphor ends, and the questions begin. Like what is the nature and mathematics of the electrons' interactive forces? Chopra means to take that word "aware" and connect it with some kind of quantum jump to a universal form of consciousness!? Wtf good does it do to extend metaphors that far? Maybe it helps some people feel some kind of mystical connection, but it does nothing for science. (While we're at it, the "we're all star stuff" doesn't give me goose bumps, either, but I won't put down anyone who gets all goose bumpy over it.)

Let Chopra et al have their goose bumpy metaphors. Science should care less about proving or disproving the meta-physical metaphors, and just keep moving on to deeper discoveries, descriptions, predictions, and vocabulary.

Comment by Simon Paynton on December 3, 2013 at 5:10am

"Biological organisms are purpose driven."  - Deepak Chopra (quoting from above)

"All beings everywhere desire to be happy."  - Buddha.  We could add, "well" and "healthy" too. 

As for the other stuff - oh my God Deepak, just shut the fuck up.  You don't understand it and it doesn't make sense. 

Comment by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on December 3, 2013 at 9:47pm

So much for Deepak's understanding of Love and consciousness, by not having a chat with Richard again even when not on air or on show... anyway did not like the time limitations as it was an interesting debate, but Richard Dawkins actually seems to have more points and I agree with his views on consciousness, under the limitations on what the universe is. Say the universe had consciousness and if identified as an organism, it would not be aware of the thoughts, actions and motions of people on the planets it may contain within its structure.

Comment