Science and the Vedas

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 [b]Deepak Chopra ? He's a fkn genius ! [/B]

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 [b]Deepak Chopra ? He's a fkn genius ! [/B]

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. 😏

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