Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Came across this and it was pretty interesting.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Q2xx7BTc

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2vhCPBjqcA&feature=related

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMlisMg4VPo&feature=related
Thought i'd show this for anyone whos interested.

Pretty cool. A little too biased, though they do a good job of hiding it until half way through the third one.

My general thought is that the thesis this guy is pumping would be the same as me saying that the Qu'ran is scientifically valid because a) it describes real battles that took place between muslims and other middle eastern communities and b) the muslims won.

Yeah, its does seem abit biased in places, especially in the last bit of the 3rs bit when they go into sound and mantra, where i just sitched off, but the actuall science stuff before was cool. I knew about the indus civilisation, but didnt I'm sure the text from the indus valley havent been translated

I've seen things similar to this both in video and in books. Basically, because they have less outlandish premises to begin with (usually, not always), Eastern religious beliefs are easier to parade around as "in conjunction with science."

My thought on the matter is twofold.

One, given the context and time period that many texts were written in, it becomes a stretch to see them as "science" at all. They are religious works that we look at with a current eye, and some simply have more flaws than others. Take enough religions and some will be in accord with science. The relative "rightness" of some doesn't make them more scientific, however. For example, science leads us to a (provisional) belief in a deterministic universe. So, for example, should that elevate something like Buddhist natural law teachings ahead of free will-based teachings? Perhaps, but in this case, and many others, it's a coin flip scenario. One side had to be right.

Second, a popular way to interpret Eastern thought is through quantum physics, or modern cosmology. At worst, this is used to attempt to validate paranormal beliefs. For most, this is a matter of limited knowledge that is far from adequate. Quantum physics, as with eastern thought, is esoteric and seems inherently philosophical. Therefore, they MUST be in accord, right? Well, not really. Usually this is due to either shoddy interpretation of science (Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, etc....take your pick) or loose interpretation of vague scriptural passages. And the leap from one realm to the other is so huge that it defies description, but many are willing to overlook such concerns for the sake of a pleasing analogy that seems to unify the two schools.


...

As for the videos, the first two are largely just an affirmation of the culture and knowledge of the people who wrote and believed in the Vedas. The achievements of the Vedic culture are impressive but were matched in many cases by the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. They don't validate the beliefs, but merely speak to the culture's knowledge. Civilization possessed considerable knowledge even in its earlier stages. It is impressive, just like Asia's culture during the comparatively backward European Middle Ages, but neither one is particularly surprising. And this, in and of itself, does nothing to validate the beliefs themselves.

It also enjoys talking about English perversion of Vedic knowledge, and/or validation of them from English intellectuals. Again, fascinating as historical information, but it doesn't really deal with religious belief.

So they're a decent, though heavily biased, view of Vedic history. Only a few times to they stray from proven historical data into the purely speculative (possible atomic bombs in the 3rd millenia BC, for example).

I'd take issue with the idea that Eastern religions conform more to science (although I am aware thats not your position Digi ).

I'd say eastern philosophy has yet to really face true opposition from science, and thus, it is easy to pick and choose which facts from either field to highlight. I think the author of the video is also taking advantage of the fact that most people (ie, non-hindus who the video seems to be aimed at) will be unfamiliar with the scripts or any real controversy about them. (very little religious material is presented, aside from a couple choice quotes).

I asked my India prof about this briefly this morning, she said that this kind of thing is attached to the post-colonial, reactionary, Hindu nationalism that has emerged in India (and is HIGHLY comparable to the rise of Christianity in America and the rise of Islam-'ism' in the middle east as political entities). Looking to the Vedas to talk about modern issues (nukes in 3rd millennia BCE) is a trend in Hindu politics.

The American scientists are interesting, though my assumption is some degree of selective quotations.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd take issue with the idea that Eastern religions conform more to science (although I am aware thats not your position Digi ).

I'd say eastern philosophy has yet to really face true opposition from science, and thus, it is easy to pick and choose which facts from either field to highlight. I think the author of the video is also taking advantage of the fact that most people (ie, non-hindus who the video seems to be aimed at) will be unfamiliar with the scripts or any real controversy about them. (very little religious material is presented, aside from a couple choice quotes).

I asked my India prof about this briefly this morning, she said that this kind of thing is attached to the post-colonial, reactionary, Hindu nationalism that has emerged in India (and is HIGHLY comparable to the rise of Christianity in America and the rise of Islam-'ism' in the middle east as political entities). Looking to the Vedas to talk about modern issues (nukes in 3rd millennia BCE) is a trend in Hindu politics.

The American scientists are interesting, though my assumption is some degree of selective quotations.

As it pertains to the videos (and the cultural trend in the mideast) you're quite right.

Some Eastern sects simply aren't as intrusive into the realm of science. Christian dogma and science, for example, clash repeatedly. But something as scientifically null as, say, Taoism, can't really take a huge hit from science. The philosophy is about action and thoughts, spiritual and otherwise, but has very little (if anything) definitive to say about matters that would either agree or disagree with science. As it pertains to the Tao, the Tao is what is and what isn't. It's very solipsist, and not really an easily refutable stance.

Paranormal claims such as reincarnation, karma, chi, feng shui (sic?), etc. come into stark contrast with science. But those are (I think) more associated with Buddhism. Though I could be wrong. Still, even Buddhism has less unscientific claims than most Western schools. And more niche markets like Jainism, Confucianism, etc. aren't any worse. Hinduism straddles the fence, imo, because it is theistic but in a nearly pan-theistic sense, that it almost becomes closer to "enlightenment" religions rather than "deliverance" religions (my own labels).

That's why I think for many who become informed but can't give up the religious zeitgeist, so to speak, they drift East-ward, spiritually speaking. It's a little easier to stomach from a logical perspective, though like you said, still not immune to scientific debunking.

I really don't see anything scientific about a four-armed man with an elephant's head...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I really don't see anything scientific about a four-armed man with an elephant's head...



You have any idea what that actually symbolizes? Or are you just assuming it's a literal interpretation of their deity? Or that somehow it makes a testable statement about the world that would be subject to science, rather than being a spiritual symbol?

Originally posted by DigiMark007


You have any idea what that actually symbolizes? Or are you just assuming it's a literal interpretation of their deity? Or that somehow it makes a testable statement about the world that would be subject to science, rather than being a spiritual symbol?

I know who Ganesh is. I'm not assuming anything; just saying that the idea of him doesn't fit in with modern science. Or the giant mouse that he rides around.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
As it pertains to the videos (and the cultural trend in the mideast) you're quite right.

Some Eastern sects simply aren't as intrusive into the realm of science. Christian dogma and science, for example, clash repeatedly. But something as scientifically null as, say, Taoism, can't really take a huge hit from science. The philosophy is about action and thoughts, spiritual and otherwise, but has very little (if anything) definitive to say about matters that would either agree or disagree with science. As it pertains to the Tao, the Tao is what is and what isn't. It's very solipsist, and not really an easily refutable stance.

Paranormal claims such as reincarnation, karma, chi, feng shui (sic?), etc. come into stark contrast with science. But those are (I think) more associated with Buddhism. Though I could be wrong. Still, even Buddhism has less unscientific claims than most Western schools. And more niche markets like Jainism, Confucianism, etc. aren't any worse. Hinduism straddles the fence, imo, because it is theistic but in a nearly pan-theistic sense, that it almost becomes closer to "enlightenment" religions rather than "deliverance" religions (my own labels).

That's why I think for many who become informed but can't give up the religious zeitgeist, so to speak, they drift East-ward, spiritually speaking. It's a little easier to stomach from a logical perspective, though like you said, still not immune to scientific debunking.

ouch...

digi 1, me 0

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I know who Ganesh is. I'm not assuming anything; just saying that the idea of him doesn't fit in with modern science. Or the giant mouse that he rides around.

It fits in with psychology.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I know who Ganesh is. I'm not assuming anything; just saying that the idea of him doesn't fit in with modern science. Or the giant mouse that he rides around.

Hinduism has innumerable forms of Brahman, their god-figure. Saying that a symbol doesn't jive scientifically would instantly invalidate about 90% of religious symbology in any religion that is a part of the belief system, but not a literal statement of fact. No one thinks, for example, that giant mice carry gods around the earth.

In any case, selective interpretation to make your point doesn't really validate your conclusions. It just shows that you're willing to pick and choose from other religions (and misinterpret them, to boot) to make your own seem preferable. I read a wonderful quote once from a scholar of religion who warned against mistaking the symbol itself for its "tenor" (i.e. meaning). As metaphor, symbols work fine that fall apart utterly when seen as literal truth. The same can be said of nearly any religion (Christianity included), and isn't such a bad religion in allegorical state, but only gets into trouble when people turn it into literal dogma.

Originally posted by inimalist
ouch...

digi 1, me 0

Thanks, I guess, though I didn't know we were in disagreement.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hinduism has innumerable forms of Brahman, their god-figure. Saying that a symbol doesn't jive scientifically would instantly invalidate about 90% of religious symbology in any religion that is a part of the belief system, but not a literal statement of fact. No one thinks, for example, that giant mice carry gods around the earth.

In any case, selective interpretation to make your point doesn't really validate your conclusions. It just shows that you're willing to pick and choose from other religions (and misinterpret them, to boot) to make your own seem preferable. I read a wonderful quote once from a scholar of religion who warned against mistaking the symbol itself for its "tenor" (i.e. meaning). As metaphor, symbols work fine that fall apart utterly when seen as literal truth. The same can be said of nearly any religion (Christianity included), and isn't such a bad religion in allegorical state, but only gets into trouble when people turn it into literal dogma.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Thanks, I guess, though I didn't know we were in disagreement.

not really, I was more conceding the point about Eastern religions and science.

You are totally correct, imho, Eastern religion is not, per se, more scientific, just the focus is less on claims dealing with the material universe, and more on subjective spiritual stuff.

My point was more that science in those parts of the world had yet to develop into an institution capable of challenging religious dogma, which I don't necessarily reject now, however I think you are more correct.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hinduism has innumerable forms of Brahman, their god-figure. Saying that a symbol doesn't jive scientifically would instantly invalidate about 90% of religious symbology in any religion that is a part of the belief system, but not a literal statement of fact. No one thinks, for example, that giant mice carry gods around the earth.

In any case, selective interpretation to make your point doesn't really validate your conclusions. It just shows that you're willing to pick and choose from other religions (and misinterpret them, to boot) to make your own seem preferable. I read a wonderful quote once from a scholar of religion who warned against mistaking the symbol itself for its "tenor" (i.e. meaning). As metaphor, symbols work fine that fall apart utterly when seen as literal truth. The same can be said of nearly any religion (Christianity included), and isn't such a bad religion in allegorical state, but only gets into trouble when people turn it into literal dogma.


I know the concept of the different avatars of Lord Brahma. You're not telling me anything new. About Hindus taking it literally; it depends who you ask. Hinduism has no strict defining guidelines, that's why there are Atheistic Hindus, Monotheistic Hindus, and Hindus who believe that there's a blue-skinned four-armed guy that flies around on the back of a giant swan.

You see, the reason Hinduism has hundreds of gods with flashy skin colors, animal bodyparts and pets/mounts is because it rose around the same time as the Egyptian religion. So by the time religions like Buddhism, Christianity and Islam were forming, Hinduism was a living fossil that should've died out along with Zeus and Horus.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I know the concept of the different avatars of Lord Brahma. You're not telling me anything new. About Hindus taking it literally; it depends who you ask. Hinduism has no strict defining guidelines, that's why there are Atheistic Hindus, Monotheistic Hindus, and Hindus who believe that there's a blue-skinned four-armed guy that flies around on the back of a giant swan.

You see, the reason Hinduism has hundreds of gods with flashy skin colors, animal bodyparts and pets/mounts is because it rose around the same time as the Egyptian religion. So by the time religions like Buddhism, Christianity and Islam were forming, Hinduism was a living fossil that should've died out along with Zeus and Horus.

Much the same could be said of Christianity, friend. Though I doubt you'd concur, so I won't bother discussing the issue.

Though I am concerned at the seeming hatred you have for it, and the flippancy with which you dismiss it as something that should be gone. Something tells me that any answers to be found within religions, and the interplay between them, will only come through acceptance, not callous dismissal.

But your comments just go to show the point that there are as many gods as their are people who believe in them. The same is true of all religions. It's just more pronounced in Hinduism.

Personally, I'd value a religion that promotes personal freedom over one that claims to be a purveyor of universal truth.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Much the same could be said of Christianity, friend. Though I doubt you'd concur, so I won't bother discussing the issue.

Though I am concerned at the seeming hatred you have for it, and the flippancy with which you dismiss it as something that should be gone. Something tells me that any answers to be found within religions, and the interplay between them, will only come through acceptance, not callous dismissal.

But your comments just go to show the point that there are as many gods as their are people who believe in them. The same is true of all religions. It's just more pronounced in Hinduism.

Personally, I'd value a religion that promotes personal freedom over one that claims to be a purveyor of universal truth.

I have no hatred or callous towards Hinduism. Are you denying that Hinduism is over 4,000 years old?

Horus and Ganesh are both animal heads on a man's body that came into being around the same time, the only difference is that one is 'extinct' and the other has a billion worshippers.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I have no hatred or callous towards Hinduism.

Horus and Ganesh are both animal heads on a man's body that came into being around the same time, the only difference is that one is 'extinct' and the other has a billion worshippers.

Mithra and Jesus were savior figures that cropped up around the same time. Only one is extinct and the other has a billion worshippers. Thus my earlier point.

As before, Ganesh is symbolic. You're mistaking the tenor for its literal form. Same with Jesus, I might add, but that's a different can of worms.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Are you denying that Hinduism is over 4,000 years old?

The hell? When did I say anything even remotely resembling this?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Mithra and Jesus were savior figures that cropped up around the same time. Only one is extinct and the other has a billion worshippers. Thus my earlier point.


Because people saw Mithra for what he was.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
As before, Ganesh is symbolic. You're mistaking the tenor for its literal form. Same with Jesus, I might add, but that's a different can of worms.


As before, it depends who you ask. Some Hindus view Ganesh as a personality of Bramha (a metaphor) and other sects view him as his own entity and existence.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

The hell? When did I say anything even remotely resembling this?

You said I "dismiss it as something that should be gone". I didn't say that as in "I say so!", I said that because among religions, it's a living fossil that saw its day. Buddhism came about 2,500 years ago, Christianity 2,000 and Islam 1,400. By the time Islam was gaining members, Zeus and Horus were cast aside, and Hinduism which was already thousands of years old should have joined them (not because I say so, but because of era and style; ie: many gods with animal associations). Hinduism has no known founder, wanna venture a guess why?

The reason Hinduism has outlived religions that it coincided with is because of India's location, the Indians' prolific reproduction/population, and it's pantheistic and adoptive nature.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because people saw Mithra for what he was.

Yet they can't do the same for Jesus yet. A shame.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
As before, it depends who you ask. Some Hindus view Ganesh as a personality of Bramha (a metaphor) and other sects view him as his own entity and existence.

K then. Just like various factions of any religion, with some more reasonable than others.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You said I "dismiss it as something that should be gone". I didn't say that as in "I say so!", I said that because among religions, it's a living fossil that saw its day. Buddhism came about 2,500 years ago, Christianity 2,000 and Islam 1,400. By the time Islam was gaining members, Zeus and Horus were cast aside, and Hinduism which was already thousands of years old should have joined them (not because I say so, but because of era and style; ie: many gods with animal associations). Hinduism has no known founder, wanna venture a guess why?

The reason Hinduism has outlived religions that it coincided with is because of India's location, the Indians' prolific reproduction/population, and it's pantheistic and adoptive nature.

Still failing to see what age of the religion has to do with anything. If it survived, it survived. All major religions are "dinosaurs" compared to our current understanding of the universe. That alone does nothing to invalidate them, though reasoned objections usually do, for this or any religion.

Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
Came across this and it was pretty interesting.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Q2xx7BTc

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2vhCPBjqcA&feature=related

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMlisMg4VPo&feature=related
Thought i'd show this for anyone whos interested.


Have you ever read any works by Deepak Chopra ? He's a fkn genius !

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Have you ever read any works by Deepak Chopra ? He's a fkn genius !

Deepak's nothing of the sort. He's just operating with concepts and fields that most people can't intelligently refute, and he also has the ability to make his position sound logical, intuitive, and soothingly comforting, all without having to resort to outlandish claims of ancient holy texts.

He's one of the targets of my initial post in this thread, that dealt with how flawed attempts at reconciling science with religion can be harmful to both fields of study.

He's eloquent, and has a knack for uncovering notable studies that seem to support his claims (usually they don't...only a few that I have encountered remain un-debunked credibly). But he uses quantum physics as a cure-all for (supposedly) proving himself and his mystic theories, and also assumes a a priori dualistic view of consciousness, which must exist or his entire premise falls apart. Of course, he consistently fails to assert his position logically. It's a refined version of the God of the Gaps, where he retreats to his ivory tower of intellectual impregnability (consciousness, in this case) and makes whatever claims he deems fit. And his quantum argument usually rely on analogies that fail to account for the nigh-insurmountable gap between quantum theory and spirituality that must be bridged before any of it is analogous enough to make sense.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
he uses quantum physics as a cure-all

I hate him already.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Deepak's nothing of the sort. He's just operating with concepts and fields that most people can't intelligently refute, and he also has the ability to make his position sound logical, intuitive, and soothingly comforting, all without having to resort to outlandish claims of ancient holy texts.

He's one of the targets of my initial post in this thread, that dealt with how flawed attempts at reconciling science with religion can be harmful to both fields of study.

He's eloquent, and has a knack for uncovering notable studies that seem to support his claims (usually they don't...only a few that I have encountered remain un-debunked credibly). But he uses quantum physics as a cure-all for (supposedly) proving himself and his mystic theories, and also assumes a a priori dualistic view of consciousness, which must exist or his entire premise falls apart. Of course, he consistently fails to assert his position logically. It's a refined version of the God of the Gaps, where he retreats to his ivory tower of intellectual impregnability (consciousness, in this case) and makes whatever claims he deems fit. And his quantum argument usually rely on analogies that fail to account for the nigh-insurmountable gap between quantum theory and spirituality that must be bridged before any of it is analogous enough to make sense.



What have you read that he has published ?

Just curious...before I answer you.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
What have you read that he has published ?

Just curious...before I answer you.

I'll have to get back to you once I figure out the titles and such. I've never sat down and read a book of his cover to cover, but I've read numerous articles by him on various topics (he's an occasional contributor to Skeptic magazine, to which I have a subscription), book reviews (both written by him and by others about his books), debates, and chapters of books here and there (I don't have enough money to buy things most often but read them occasionally in my local bookstore).

Enough that I'm familiar with the points that he likes to parade around regularly, and to know that I disagree with him on most matters. Like I said, I'll try to find links to some articles or names of books, but it's really amorphic stuff, so it may not happen.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Yet they can't do the same for Jesus yet. A shame.


Not comparable.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Still failing to see what age of the religion has to do with anything.

How is it so hard to see? Even when Christianity was founded, it was a dinosaur. Especially so in 2008.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Have you ever read any works by Deepak Chopra ? He's a fkn genius !

I've seen him on Conan O'Brian and Letterman, and all he really does is talk about space and his wierd books. Other than being Indian, what does he have to do with the topic?

Originally posted by DigiMark007


Still failing to see what age of the religion has to do with anything.

Me too actually. What Hinduism has loads of gods because its really old?

Isn't that somewhat true though? I thought more ancient faiths were more likely to be polytheistic and vice versa?

Originally posted by inimalist
Isn't that somewhat true though? I thought more ancient faiths were more likely to be polytheistic and vice versa?

In terms of general trends, yes. Some would even see the Trinity as one of the early reconciliations between polytheism and the monotheism that dominates today's culture.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I've seen him on Conan O'Brian and Letterman, and all he really does is talk about space and his wierd books. Other than being Indian, what does he have to do with the topic?

He annotates much of his work with Vedic scriptures and other ancient writings, some of which are Hindu. So, much as I disagree with him on most things, he's more on-topic than most of what we've been talking about to this point.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Me too actually. What Hinduism has loads of gods because its really old?

And it doesn't, really, which is the kicker. They are aspects of Brahman, but Brahman encompasses all things, so they are just metaphors for the god, not literal depictions.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
He annotates much of his work with Vedic scriptures and other ancient writings, some of which are Hindu. So, much as I disagree with him on most things, he's more on-topic than most of what we've been talking about to this point.

How popular do you think he is in India?

It might be something like the Vedic nuclear bomb and Hindu nationalism... But I've only ever seen him advertised more in relation to Western ideas, like the "secret" or other "new age" stuff... I guess there are Vedic clinics that operate parallel to the modern medical system in India, so maybe there is a market...

LOL, have you seen any of Chopra's comics that Virgin published?

Originally posted by inimalist
How popular do you think he is in India?

It might be something like the Vedic nuclear bomb and Hindu nationalism... But I've only ever seen him advertised more in relation to Western ideas, like the "secret" or other "new age" stuff... I guess there are Vedic clinics that operate parallel to the modern medical system in India, so maybe there is a market...

LOL, have you seen any of Chopra's comics that Virgin published?

He's very New Age. Almost a spokesperson for it. And he caters more to an American audience, if I'm not mistaken. Indians don't need (sketchy) correlates between quantum physics and their beliefs in order to endorse them.

He likes the daytime talkshow circuit too. I think he was on Oprah once, and he's made multiple appearences on shows like The View.

His topics run the gamut. Everything from age-defying meditation and power of positive thoughts, to justifications for an afterlife and how "quantum consciousness" permeates the universe. He also does weight loss books....which is a handy microcosm for the schlock he writes. Selective Vedic texts give him religious legitimacy, and quantum hocus-pocus gives him a modern touch that impresses New Age audiences. He also throws "studies" around like 1's at a strip joint. Most are never fully explained, other than that they "prove" his point(s). Like I said earlier, all but a few that I have encountered have been debunked at some point, or at least had their methods and conclusions questioned.

And no, never seen the comics. I'm sure they'd be amusingly bad. I'll keep an eye out for them...I wouldn't mind having them just for comedic value.

Originally posted by inimalist
Isn't that somewhat true though? I thought more ancient faiths were more likely to be polytheistic and vice versa?

Yeah but im thinking how is this relevant to the thread.




Originally posted by DigiMark007


And it doesn't, really, which is the kicker. They are aspects of Brahman, but Brahman encompasses all things, so they are just metaphors for the god, not literal depictions.

Yeah I know....I think I mentioned this in another thread. shifty

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'll have to get back to you once I figure out the titles and such. I've never sat down and read a book of his cover to cover, but I've read numerous articles by him on various topics (he's an occasional contributor to Skeptic magazine, to which I have a subscription), book reviews (both written by him and by others about his books), debates, and chapters of books here and there (I don't have enough money to buy things most often but read them occasionally in my local bookstore).

Enough that I'm familiar with the points that he likes to parade around regularly, and to know that I disagree with him on most matters. Like I said, I'll try to find links to some articles or names of books, but it's really amorphic stuff, so it may not happen.



That's okay. I agree, he is very New Age.


I find him very creative and a brilliant minded person, but that doesn't mean I think he is 100% correct on everything he claims. For example, we know Einstein is a genius, but many of his theories and discoveries are constantly challenged, even until today.


Deepak gets much of his ideas from one idea, that claims to derive from Quantum Physics studies: That observation of any environment/phenomena determines its structure: to take it a step even further, that material existance cannot be, unless there was a mind/eye to percieve it...

...which is the complete opposite of traditional science claiming that the mind and observation are results of material phenomena.


If you can prove that claim false, or not a valid study of Quantum Mechanics, then by all means do so.


But when it comes to a man who is a doctor/philosopher/writer/theologan/scientist

VS a guy who moderates an internet forum...


Well no offense, but so far the prior is taking my conviction

Observation in quantum physics can be something like the interaction between 2 electrons. It is not related to the physical processes of observation as referred to in the philosophy of science.

EDIT: There is no transfer of energy from eye to object during vision.

EDIT 2: As terrible as Wikipedia is as a source:

"A common lay misuse of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed — until that time, the cat is both alive and dead (technically half-alive and half-dead in probability terms). However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system. A significant minority still find the equations point to an observer; Wheeler, who probably worked more deeply on this subject than any physicist thus far, devised a graphic in which the universe was represented by a "U" with an eye on one end, turned around and viewing itself, to describe his understanding."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Deepak gets much of his ideas from one idea, that claims to derive from Quantum Physics studies: That observation of any environment/phenomena determines its structure: to take it a step even further, that material existance cannot be, unless there was a mind/eye to percieve it...

...which is the complete opposite of traditional science claiming that the mind and observation are results of material phenomena.

If you can prove that claim false, or not a valid study of Quantum Mechanics, then by all means do so.

Inamilist handled the quantum stuff well, but I'll try to "nutshell" it: Basically, "observing" something in quantum physics can be all kinds of microscopic changes...it has nothing to do with a person actually observing something. It just happens that when a person "observes" a quantum state, it break down because there needs to be light shed on it (or something similarly mundane) to physically observe it, thus compromising the system.

So yeah, it's false, and just a perversion of science taken up by New Age advocates who want to believe they control their destiny at all times, or use it toward all sorts of unjustified claims.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
But when it comes to a man who is a doctor/philosopher/writer/theologan/scientist

VS a guy who moderates an internet forum...


Well no offense, but so far the prior is taking my conviction

That's completely faulty logic. First, you're asserting preference for a position based on a title, not their logical defense (or lack thereof) of one side or the other.

Second, there are doctor, philosophers, theologians, etc. who vehemently disagree with Chopra. So it's a false distinction to make it Digi vs. Deepak. In reality, you're talking about a large contingent of the scientific community, as well as differing philosophies and dogmas, vs. Deepak.

Beyond that, I find it arrogant and insulting to simply be dismissed because I don't have letters of distinction after my name or publishing credit, or something similarly arbitrary that actually has no influence whatsoever on the validity of my argument. So maybe you didn't intend offense, but the intellectual dismissal of a human being based on title rather than merit reeks of nothing but offensive assumption.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Inamilist handled the quantum stuff well, but I'll try to "nutshell" it: Basically, "observing" something in quantum physics can be all kinds of microscopic changes...it has nothing to do with a person actually observing something. It just happens that when a person "observes" a quantum state, it break down because there needs to be light shed on it (or something similarly mundane) to physically observe it, thus compromising the system.


Well then I have to look further into that. I don't quite remember what articles I've read (was a while ago), but I'll find them and see what we can conclude from there.





Originally posted by DigiMark007
So yeah, it's false, and just a perversion of science taken up by New Age advocates who want to believe they control their destiny at all times, or use it toward all sorts of unjustified claims.


So I take it that you are in a position where we shouldn't adhere to something unless it's 100% proven without a doubt..right ?




Originally posted by DigiMark007
That's completely faulty logic. First, you're asserting preference for a position based on a title, not their logical defense (or lack thereof) of one side or the other.


I've read some of his work, and his articles, and so far to me they make sense...VS a man online who is simply telling me that what the guy says is false, without explaining how and why.

All I am saying is that so far I am convinced by him. I didn't say that you can't change my mind on the matter. Just that you haven't.




Originally posted by DigiMark007
Second, there are doctor, philosophers, theologians, etc. who vehemently disagree with Chopra. So it's a false distinction to make it Digi vs. Deepak. In reality, you're talking about a large contingent of the scientific community, as well as differing philosophies and dogmas, vs. Deepak.


I understand that there are many doctors/philosophers/theologans/scientists/etc. who will and do disagree with him.


But then again, there are many scientists, doctors, etc. who also disagree with those who fear Global Warming, disagree with the exact characteristics of HIV/AIDS, and so on and so on.

So just because the entire world doesn't agree with him, doesn't negate his claims that easily...If I am to also disagree with him, I need to know why for myself.




Originally posted by DigiMark007
Beyond that, I find it arrogant and insulting to simply be dismissed because I don't have letters of distinction after my name or publishing credit, or something similarly arbitrary that actually has no influence whatsoever on the validity of my argument. So maybe you didn't intend offense, but the intellectual dismissal of a human being based on title rather than merit reeks of nothing but offensive assumption.




First of all I didn't dismiss anything.

All you have done was say what a "fake" Deepak Chopra is, how unfounded his claims are, etc. But you haven't disproved his claims, nor have you proved anything you claim.

Then when I ask you what works have you read of his, you tell me you can't recall. But that you disagree with what he teaches.


Sorry bro, but that's nothing to take into serious consideration. I could tell you that I disagree with Christianity or whatever, but unless I can somehow prove that this system is false, my words are simply my opinion.

Same applies here.

Normally, I would apologize for an insult, but there was none here, only the intepretation of one. So no apologies here.


You can't expect me to take your word over his, when I have already read many of his works, he's made arguments which appear sound and logical (atleast in this point), and all you have to offer is mere criticism.

Inimalist gave me something to consider. You haven't.



So although I read your argument, you haven't convinced me of anything. Just remember: I am not telling you to beleive him, but you are telling me that there is no reason to. So it's not in my interest to convince you of anything...it's the other way around.

There was no offense intended, though it clearly happened anyway, so you don't feel obligated to say anything? I guess if I'm shadow-boxing and give someone a black eye, I don't need to apologize.

Way to take the high road there, SoD ( )

As for this:
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
So I take it that you are in a position where we shouldn't adhere to something unless it's 100% proven without a doubt..right ?

It's convenient (and generally false) to characterize skeptics as dogmatic cynics. Nothing is proven 100% beyond a doubt, first off, so there's an inherent fallacy in your absolutism. Second, I deal with reason and logic, and believable conclusions based upon evidence.

So a burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of the man claiming that life after death exists because we can't predict the position of subatomic particles, which of course is a simplified version of it, but his justifications aren't much different....just worded more flowery. It's not on the shoulders of quantum theorists who report the findings but don't try to draw irrational conclusions from them.

So, ill and I explained why one of his central tenets is false. The onus is upon you to explain why we should even take him seriously at this point, let alone assume his right-ness until proven otherwise. Because for all your accusations of "you haven't provided anything" what exactly have you provided yourself beyond "well, I've read him a lot and generally agree with him." Nice support.

It's actually little more than a more refined version of creationist tactics....."you have to show me this, this, this, this, and this before I'll give up my belief." No theory of their own (or a false one, in this case). Of course, any number of "this's" isn't enough to sway anyone away from creationism. So embrace your confirmation bias all you want, but don't try to pretend like it's something resembling evidence for your beliefs.

And since you're so intent on seeing something to counter all this, I can provide it, and it does exist in spades, but haven't felt the need simply because nothing has been brought to my attention in this thread that seems to have anything requiring formal debunking (besides the quantum nonsense, dealt with earlier). But I'll type something out so you can't wrongly accuse me of ivory tower prosthelytizing any longer.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
There was no offense intended, though it clearly happened anyway, so you don't feel obligated to say anything? I guess if I'm shadow-boxing and give someone a black eye, I don't need to apologize.


Then you my freind take the internet, as well as words of people you don't know, too seriously. I don't expect you to take anything I say at face value, so why would you expect me to just agree with something you claim, just because you..claim it ?

Like I said before with the Christianity example...

I could critisize Christianity and its validity all I want..I can say: "The Bible is a book of history and mythology, and nothing more" or "God isn't real", etc. To a person with an opinion similiar to my own, they would be like "Yeah that guy brings up good points".

But to a person with either a nuetral or religious perspective, my arguments wouldn't hold any water.

Just saying the Bible isn't valid, or whatever, doesn't make my points valid.


It's the same thing here. I read articles and texts from Deepak Chopra, some of his stuff which I question, others which I accept and intend to investigate. I make a comment on him, and then moderator Digimark comes along and say "He's fake, his claims are false, invalid, etc."

Then I ask you...what have you read of his ?

You can't answer because you can't recall.

Then I say, "well so far, he takes my conviction because of his credentials, vs a person who just says "he's a fake"

And then instead of telling me where and how exactly he is wrong, you simply comment on how offensive you think my post is....and then you want me to apologize ?







Originally posted by DigiMark007
Way to take the high road there, SoD ( )


I try...I try



Originally posted by DigiMark007
It's convenient (and generally false) to characterize skeptics as dogmatic cynics. Nothing is proven 100% beyond a doubt, first off, so there's an inherent fallacy in your absolutism. Second, I deal with reason and logic, and believable conclusions based upon evidence.



Ofcourse it's not logical to take an absolute stance on anything. That was my point.

What I wanted to know was whether or not you take this position...you tend to come off as this person who will not accept anything unless its proven to the fullest it can be proven to.

You claim that is not how you are, so I'll drop it.





Originally posted by DigiMark007
So a burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of the man claiming that life after death exists because we can't predict the position of subatomic particles, which of course is a simplified version of it, but his justifications aren't much different....just worded more flowery. It's not on the shoulders of quantum theorists who report the findings but don't try to draw irrational conclusions from them.

Woah...who is claiming life after death exists? If you speak of Deepak Chopra, then yes...if he presents this idea as fact, he needs to prove it. If he presents this as a belief, then he needs to support it.








Originally posted by DigiMark007
So, ill and I explained why one of his central tenets is false. The onus is upon you to explain why we should even take him seriously at this point, let alone assume his right-ness until proven otherwise. Because for all your accusations of "you haven't provided anything" what exactly have you provided yourself beyond "well, I've read him a lot and generally agree with him." Nice support.



I never said you should take him serious or not. I never told you what to beleive, or what not to beleive. I have nothing I need to support. I already told you that I agree with a lot of what he teaches, but question some of the other things. That is my choice, and I don't have to justify anything to you.


You are the one trying to debunk or argue against him. So if there is any "burden of proof" to be had, it's on you, not me.







Originally posted by DigiMark007
It's actually little more than a more refined version of creationist tactics....."you have to show me this, this, this, this, and this before I'll give up my belief." No theory of their own (or a false one, in this case). Of course, any number of "this's" isn't enough to sway anyone away from creationism. So embrace your confirmation bias all you want, but don't try to pretend like it's something resembling evidence for your beliefs.


What are you talking about ?


I stated that I am open to what you have to say, and that my mind can change based on what I am presented. I wasn't challenging you to prove me wrong, only explaining why he has my conviction and you don't.

You aren't arguing anything now...


You are just offended that I'm not taking your word for something, and that's pathetic. Come on man, you're better than that.










Originally posted by DigiMark007
And since you're so intent on seeing something to counter all this, I can provide it, and it does exist in spades, but haven't felt the need simply because nothing has been brought to my attention in this thread that seems to have anything requiring formal debunking (besides the quantum nonsense, dealt with earlier). But I'll type something out so you can't wrongly accuse me of ivory tower prosthelytizing any longer.



Oh thank you Great One for your consideration. I await the argument you could have just provided me with longer, instead of wasting time with this "why don't you beleive what I say" nonsense.

Your arrogance and condescension is insulting. You tell me "not to take your words at face value" but words are all we have on the internet. If you mean something else, say it. As it is, that entire post was nothing but one long sarcastic eye-roll at me, even after I made the attempt to work toward an actual discussion of his philosophies. So I really don't feel like responding to you anymore.

Also, lulz at telling me I take this too seriously. As if I'd ever let the internet bother me. But if I'm insulted or see faulty logic, I call people out on it. Simple as that.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Your arrogance and condescension is insulting. You tell me "not to take your words at face value" but words are all we have on the internet. If you mean something else, say it. As it is, that entire post was nothing but one long eye-roll at me, so I really don't feel like responding to you anymore.

Also, lulz at telling me I take this too seriously. As if I'd ever let the internet bother me. But if I'm insulted or see faulty logic, I call people out on it. Simple as that.


You sound angry

lol

so, any other points about Chopra that aren't tied into a martyr complex?

like, do you want to actually discuss the stuff he talks about, relate it to the Vedas, and discuss it scientifically? or is holding the scientific claims of an individual whose work you brought up to scientific scrutiny too aggressive for this discussion?

love Chopra? read how he hoodwinked a major medical journal for personal profits:

http://www.aaskolnick.com/naswmav.htm

SoD's insults aside, I'm still planning on offering a formal rebuttal at some point, only because Chopra's generally not easy to refute at surface level unless you're familiar with his tactics and scientific flaws. And for anyone else interested in him (he can be charismatic) it's good to have some reasoning on both sides.

Quantum weight loss ftw!


And nice link.

Most of my personal qualms with Chopra stem from philosophical and spiritual disagreements. Inimilist's link covers how he has been duplicitous in order to spread his message and increase his wealth. The following link is concerned mainly with how his messages intercede with the medical community:

http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/chopra.html

This is a small sample of scientific protestations, indicative of a much larger field of pseudo-scientific debunking. For those more interested in such materials I'd recommend John Diamond's Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations, which goes into far more detail about a variety of alternative medicine techniques.

In a nutshell, there's a reason "alternative" medicine isn't mainstream: it lacks testability, or the repeated results that legitimize mainstream medicine. Protests occur in the form of anecdotal stories, which is just that...anecdotal, not statistical. Very few will deny the occasional benefit of relaxation techniques to aid in healing, which would seem to endorse practices such as meditation or acupuncture. But these consistently show no benefits beyond more traditional stress-reducing techniques such as massages or simple rest. A placebo. Not harmful, but nothing special either.

The danger comes with more invasion forms of alternative medicine. Various ointments, pills, supplements, cure-alls, and diets. Chopra's personal snake oil goes into this realm by possibly being dangerous in sufficient quantities.

The dissenting opinion at the bottom of the link is fairly standard. Some appeals to the evil of organized business and/or medicine (almosy unanimously unsupported), followed by an anecdote that they use as definitive proof to the contrary.