Deepakities: Chopra gets into the box with Brian Cox

Here’s a question: If Chopra were put in a box, could he pass the Turing test? After all, we do know he love boxes!

At any rate, he’s supposed to be on a safari in Africa but he’s tw**ting as furiously as ever. The first tw**ts below weren’t generated by the automatic Deepak Quote Generator, but they could have been.  If I had a million bucks, I’d offer it to anyone who could explain them to me. At any rate, it shows how you can’t distinguish between Chopra and the computer.

Screen shot 2014-06-20 at 11.51.24 AM Screen shot 2014-06-20 at 11.52.03 AM

 

This morning, though, Matthew Cobb (who sometimes works with physicist Brian Cox on his broadcasts), emailed me that Chopra had a flare-up of Maru’s Syndrome, and got into a box with Cox. I love the fifth tw**t below, by Cox.

Chopra:cox

That’s gotta sting! Poor Chopra—he just can’t win. But he tried:

Screen shot 2014-06-21 at 11.52.13 AMThere’s that passive-aggressive behavior again: stroke with one hand and slap with the other. I’m not quite sure what a “naive realist” is, but I suspect, from Chopra’s history of deepities that it’s someone who’s simply too wedded to the naturalistic worldview of science to realize that there is no reality independent of consciousness. Chopra is, after all, a man who said that the Moon simply isn’t there unless we look at it. It would help Deepak a great deal if he could tell us what he means by claiming that the Universe is conscious, and that consciousness and that, “top down” gave rise to all reality.  For surely Chopra’s definition of a conscious Universe is not a universe that experiences “qualia,” or subjective sensations. Yet that is what he means by consciousness when applied to humans.

I’m torn between advising Brian Cox to not to catch his own case of Maru’s Syndrome, for there is no way that Chopra will ever change his mind. So what’s the point, except to either engage in Chopra-baiting (which has its own small joys), or to hope that the people on the sidelines see what a charlatan the man is?

Nevertheless, after the fifth tw**t in the second conversation above, I score Chopra 0, Cox 1.

UPDATE: (h/t to reader Alex): This is like a soap opera. After having insulted Cox, Chopra goes into Groveling Mode and begs Cox to come to his “Sages and Scientists” meeting—the same one I refused to attend.  Notice his prominent mention of “honorarium”!

Deepak grovels

 

 

 

118 Comments

  1. Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    “Objectifying the universe is a mistake of the intellect…”

    No, trying to cash in on an inflation if the fact that we must know the universe via our senses, a process which involves interpretation and possible fallibility to some extent, is the mistake.

    This is just a brand of solipsism. It’s the same non-starter postmodernists try to hawk as profound philosophical insight.

    The age-old refutation is: then you’re invited to step off a tall building.

    • Doug Scown
      Posted June 24, 2014 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

      The lack of thought from Chopra is extraordinary. Naive Realism is the idea that a person only believes what’s seen with the senses which ironically is precisely what he does ie refutes the explanatory power of science or suggests it can’t match his faultless subjective experience – very sciency. It appears that most scientists are not naive realists ie they suspect the explanatory power of pure imagination which Mr C is blissfully not bound to. Its an extraordinary hubris and such a wonderful example of the Dunning Kreuger effect.

  2. wtf1962
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Isn’t a Naive Realist just the opposite to an Experienced Bullshitter?

    • Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:30 am | Permalink

      Also, Chopra respects Cox, yet thinks Cox is naïve?

      The only context I can think of in which that would make sense would be one in which you’d expect someone to be naïve, like a young person. I don’t know how I’d simultaneously respect an established scientist but also think s/he’s naïve and getting things all wrong.

      Just more evidence that Chopra only says things that seem to sound good, but don’t actually make any sense.

      • Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

        A naïve realist isn’t a realist who’s naïve!

        Naïve realism, also known as direct realism or common sense realism, is a philosophy of mind rooted in a theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world.

        — from the Wikipedia article Chopra links to.

        /@

        • Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

          Huh. It would be interesting and possibly enlightening to identify who refers to it as “Naïve Realism” and who refers to it as “Direct Realism”.

          I would assume there’s a reason some people choose to use “naïve” as the qualifier.

          • Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

            I wouldn’t read too much into it. It’s not disparaging in any way. Compare naïve art.

            /@

            • Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

              I don’t know. The wiki on NA says that people who want to convey a pejorative connotation avoid the term.

              Even if the accumulation of context has taken some of the teeth out of the term, I don’t think you can get away from the fact that the term must’ve originally been coined to cast the art as simplistic or unsophisticated, even if you then turn around and say “not that there’s anything wrong with that!”

              • Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

                Next you’ll be arguing that vulgar fractions shouldn’t be discussed in polite company… ;-)

                /@

              • Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

                Of course I meant “people who *don’t* want to convey…”

                And I can’t bring myself to address the other topic you’ve raised here on this public forum. Have you no decency?!

        • Posted June 23, 2014 at 9:31 am | Permalink

          Actually, yes, they are, at least if they are a contemporary, since we have known for quite a long time that the thesis is false. (See, e.g., Churchland et al, “A Critique of Pure Vision”.)

  3. ladyatheist
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    Twitstorm!

  4. Heather Hastie
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    #CosmicConsciousnessMyArse – I love it!

    Chopra makes his millions by preying on vulnerable people. He deserves the contempt he receives from the intellectually honest.

  5. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Wendy Kaminer has noted the similarity of many of Chopra’s ideas to Western pre-New-Age movements like New Thought and Christian Science (and perhaps Theosophy)

    I find this ironic as these movements are largely Western in origin and rather haphazardly borrow ideas from Eastern religions to suit their own purposes, in ways that are not historically sound. This makes Chopra an Asian who is complicit in the Western New Age appropriation of Eastern ideas. (And he wouldn’t be the first.)

    • Posted June 23, 2014 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      Seems correct to me: the line “You are that” is from the Eastern traditions.

      On the other hand, all subjective idealism sounds the same after a while.

  6. wtf1962
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    I don’t know if this link has already been posted, but here it is again, it’s fun. http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

  7. Diana MacPherson
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    A good Brian Cox slam is always fun to watch. I remember I first learned of these strange folk who hate “materialists” after Brian Cox and Robin Ince wrote a great article in the New Statesman. People were all over Cox and naive was used a lot. I like it when Cox just calls the, twats or threatens to hit them with a big book.

    • Alex Shuffell
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:50 am | Permalink

      It is fun to see someone I respect acting so immature. Brian Cox is taking Deepak as seriously as he takes creationists, moon land conspiracy people and those people who thought that the LHC would destroy Earth. Only Brian Cox hasn’t called Deepak a nobber yet.

      • merilee
        Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

        You GO, Brian, for as long as you can stomach it…Cox looks so sweetly and naively young until he comes out with his zingers…

    • Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

      Calling them naïve or naïve realists?

      /@

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

        Brian Cox’s twitter tag line came out of those twitter fights I believe in December 2012. Tag line: Ultra-naïve positivist-ish, although science can’t explain the existence of antipositivists

  8. Toni
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    I can’t wait for him to get “Oz’d” by Congress!

  9. Vaal
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    Astonishing. And I foolishly thought that in his debate with Sam Harris and Shermer that Harris had brow-beaten at least some
    humility into Deepak. But no, he’s right back to his extravagant claims.

    “Real scientists have epistemic humility…..”

    That’s sweet, coming right after 5 tweets where you claim to explain to us the nature of reality.

    “…..have healthy skepticism….”

    Except, apparently, when an actual scientist aims his skepticism at your own extravagant claims huh Deepak? Then come the charges of militant, blinded materialism, etc.

    Nice racket you’ve got going there.

  10. bembol
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    Deepak, Doctor Oz and Eben Alexander are a blight to the medical profession.

    • Moarscienceplz
      Posted June 22, 2014 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

      Don’t forget Andrew Wakefield.

  11. GBJames
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    Sub

  12. MR
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    The only argument that I am aware of which doesn’t assert that consciousness is a product of natural processes is panpsychism, the notion that consciousness is inherent in matter. But I don’t know if that can ever be demonstrated or refuted anymore that the notion that we are a higher order simulation from aliens. Since there is no cause to assert it, and no evidence that consciousness occurs in anything other that certain creatures with a sufficiently complex nervous system or equivalent, there is no reason not to posit that consciousness is a naturally evolved process, even if the “hard problem of consciousness” remains elusive.

    But Chopra’s ideas aren’t even as clever as this, they are pure mystical rubbish disguised as science.

  13. Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    🙏

  14. Mark Joseph
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    The universe is a subjective experience in the field of awareness”.

    Dear Mr. Chopra:

    Please explain what evidence supports this assertion. Also, how is the field of awareness measured?

    Sincerely,

    Mark Joseph

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

      Materialist!

      • Mark Joseph
        Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

        And proud of it!

    • Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

      I thought We Are the World
      –Michael Jackson
      or…
      We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself
      — Carl Sagan

  15. Mark Joseph
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    “You are the Many in the One”

    Why am I thinking of Buddhists? And hot dog vendors?

    • Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

      Ah, but there’s very little meat in Chopra’s sausage …

      /@

    • Linda Grilli Calhoun
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

      Spores in a mushroom? L

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

      I’m thinking of The Matrix.

      • Mark Joseph
        Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

        Now I’m thinking of Quantum consciousness!™

      • Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

        Beat me to it

    • Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      Maybe he was looking at the back of a dollar bill (US).

  16. Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    His tweets all sound like the mindless drivel of someone who’s high. I predict his next tweet will be “The walls are fucking BROWN.”

    • Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

      Good one!

      • Jesper Both Pedersen
        Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

        Provided the walls aren’t actually brown.

        If they are, it’s a perfectly legitimate statement of fact.

        Just saying.

        *puff puff*

        • Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

          If the walls are actually brown then he’ll simply tweet “The walls are fucking QUANTUM brown.” Yeah, he knows how to sidestep like a pro.

          • Jesper Both Pedersen
            Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

            Good point.

            The devil is in the detail.

            • Merilee
              Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

              My HS art teacher spoke of ” horse what- not” brown, which would be the perfect shade for Deepfried’s quantum messes.

              • Jesper Both Pedersen
                Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

                I can dig it.

                It’s a close cousin to “lorte brunt”.
                ;-)

              • Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

                Male bovine, surely?

                /@

              • Jesper Both Pedersen
                Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

                Strictly speking it’s a broad statement covering all species, but the gist of it is the same.

              • Merilee
                Posted June 21, 2014 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

                But of course

          • Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

            Ah! Composed of only red and green quarks!

            /@

  17. MR
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Consciousness is the new quantum mechanics.

    • Mark Joseph
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

      Quantum consciousness! Quantum consciousness! Quantum consciousness!

      Do I get a prize?

      • John Scanlon, FCD
        Posted June 21, 2014 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

        If you think you understand consciousness… you don’t understand consciousness!

  18. Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    “Chopra is, after all, a man who said that the Moon simply isn’t there unless we look at it.”

    The human race really needs to address this issue. We need to overcome our differences, come together and develop some kind of rota to ensure that at least one of us is looking at the moon at all times. If not, the pesky little critter is gonna disappear and the tides’ll go apeshit.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      We need a petition for “protectors of the moon”.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

        It could be like The Knight’s Watch for Game if Thrones.

        • MR
          Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

          That could be a new argument for god. He’s there to observe things to keep them from disappearing. But who watches god. It’s gods all the way down.

          • Posted June 23, 2014 at 9:35 am | Permalink

            It isn’t new, it is more or less in Berkeley. (Not California, but the subjectvist philosopher/theologian for which the town is semi-misnamed for.)

        • Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

          Where’s Jon Snow when you need him, eh?

    • Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

      That is going to be an extremely handy accident avoidance measure.

      Is a car about to hit you as you cross the street? Just look the other way!

      • Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

        And there’s me thinking that looking the other way was the reason it hit me in the first place! This changes everything.

        • Jesper Both Pedersen
          Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

          AHA!

      • Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

        Don’t blink!

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

          I was too slow! I see you’re thinking of The Weeping Angels too!

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

        I’m reminded of The Simpson’s episode where a bunch of giant “monsters” came to life and the way they went away was to not looks at them. There was a song, “just don’t look”.

        I’m also reminded of Doctor Who’s Weeping Angels.

  19. Draken
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    So that means Cox goes on to the round of 16? Who is he going to meet there?

  20. bric
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Be sweet to see Chopra take on Dara Ó Briain . . . Get in the sack!

  21. ascanius
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    80 million dollars made from fleecing the gullible means never having to say you’re sorry!

  22. docbill1351
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    Deepak is really missing his calling.

    He needs to sit on a nice rug, surrounded by flowers and project deep-packed thoughts:

    Consciousness is the fruit of the mango and reality is the pits.

    You are not One with the Universe, rather the Universe is One with you.

    As you Breath in the Universe Exhales.

    There is no inside a box; the box is unaware of the outside.

    (This is EASY! I could sell these for a dollar each. I take MC and Visa.)

    • merilee
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      +1

  23. Jesper Both Pedersen
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Y’all are just jealous of Mr. Chopra’s deep insights into Quantum Consciousness and his well earned success.

    History will prove him right and show that atoms and particles are just tiny instruments that can be utilized by the Conscious Mind.

    It’s all about self-control and keeping an honest open mind.

    Yay Chopra!

    • Raphael
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

      Not sure if srs…

      • Raphael
        Posted June 21, 2014 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

        The scary thing is while that comment is probably incredibly tongue in cheek, Xenu knows how many hundreds of thousands of people would really say such a thing!

        • Jesper Both Pedersen
          Posted June 21, 2014 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

          I take that as a compliment. ;-)

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 21, 2014 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

        It’s for the LOLz. Jesper is a regular here. :)

        • Jesper Both Pedersen
          Posted June 21, 2014 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

          My bad, Raphael.

          Diana is of course spot on. :-)

          • Merilee
            Posted June 21, 2014 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

            It’s Jesper’s Danish ( or are you Swedish?) y’alls that confuse people:-)

            • Posted June 21, 2014 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

              ’cept other Scandinavians!

              /@

            • Jesper Both Pedersen
              Posted June 22, 2014 at 12:47 am | Permalink

              It’s Danish. Torbjörn and Hempenstein got the Swedes covered, but I wonder if there’s any Norwegian’s or Finns on here?

              Anyway, despite the Y’all i was certain the final “yay Chopra” was a dead giveaway. :-)

              • Merilee
                Posted June 22, 2014 at 6:51 am | Permalink

                :-))

                I’m 1/4 Norwegian ( Olson)

              • Jesper Both Pedersen
                Posted June 23, 2014 at 1:48 am | Permalink

                Close enough. You’re now considered a fully functional Scandinavian. :-D

              • Merilee
                Posted June 23, 2014 at 7:04 am | Permalink

                Yumpin’ Yimenee!

  24. Chris
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    My favourite from Prof Cox was the one preceding his last tweet mentioned above:

    “Just landed from US to a timeline full of drivel from Deadbat Chopstick’s army of crazies tweeting meaningless ‘spiritual’ yodaspeak.”

    I have a massive man-crush on Prof Cox. He’s a laid-back take-no-crap Mancunian joker (and ex pop star) who goes out of his way to troll creationists, moon hoaxers, astrologers, and pseudo-scientists of all stripes whenever he’s on national TV.

    The astronomy live shows that he’s presented with Dara O’Briein for the past couple of years on the BBC have been hilarious. With Robin Ince he’s also good fun.

    • Jesper Both Pedersen
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

      I’ll second that one.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

      Ha ha! Yeah that’s a good one. I love how he tells off the wooish with such panache.

    • HaggisForBrains
      Posted June 22, 2014 at 2:17 am | Permalink

      The Infinite Monkey Cage is well worth listening to.

      • Jesper Both Pedersen
        Posted June 22, 2014 at 2:29 am | Permalink

        Thanks a bunch, Haggis, now I know what to do on this lazy sunday. :-)

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 22, 2014 at 6:18 am | Permalink

        I love the Infinite Monkey Cage!!

  25. Timothy Hughbanks
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Oh man, I’m having a party tonight. Who can help me score some of that consciousness modality shit – then we can get seriously wasted.

  26. Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    The Deepak quote generator has passed the Turing test! At least for being indistinguishable from one particular human being. Time to break out the champagne.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

      Next my ipad is going to become self aware and kill me. It is starting by autocorrecting in a passive way that gets me socially ostracized.

      • Posted June 21, 2014 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

        How do I know this is not just Dianas’ ipad in the bl*gosphere?

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted June 21, 2014 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

          Maybe we are all just iPads talking to each other! Existential crisis!

    • Torbjörn Larsson, OM
      Posted June 22, 2014 at 8:23 am | Permalink

      [Beat me to it!

      Here's my original comment, now partly mooted:]

      Let me see. The Deep Pockets machine gave me the following fortune cookie:

      “Knowledge relies on essential mortality”.

      Rounds of variation and selection gives me no change in meaninglessness:

      1. “Perception relies on essential mortality”.

      2. “Perception relies on universal mortality”.

      2. “Perception relies on universal awareness”.

      Yup, the japanese boxed Deep Pockets has a deepakities distance to the Deep Pockets machine of 0. They share their universal awareness of their zero perception.

      [Since Deep Pockets is on vacation, one may suspect that he uses the very same machine to make his economical backers, aka suckers, aware of his awareness for the time being.]

      By the way:

      Deep Pockets, Small Change “respect” Cox, but he doesn’t respect the response showing him ignorant on the science he makes anti-science claims on!? And once again the irrelevancies of philosophy is used to push anti-science. :-/

  27. gravityfly
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    This really is like a soap opera.

  28. Pliny the in Between
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Late to the party but here’s what he always makes me think of:

    http://pictoraltheology.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-hard-problem.html

  29. Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    “Nature is a self regulating ecosystem of awareness.”
    _

    Chopra, since I prefer my word salad dressed, I suggest:

    Sublime nature is a patient, self regulating, but trembling (think of the earthquakes!) ecosystem of diamond-studded eyeglasses through which you count your quivering Jello mountains of liberated-from-others’ cash .

    I am still not giving you any of my money though. :-)

    • lisa parker
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

      Gosh…that sounded like it was from “Corinthians” or something.

  30. cremnomaniac
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    I was looking for something to poke at Deepcrak Chokera, but instead I visited his website on the SAGES & SCIENTISTS thing he’s sponsoring.

    What strikes me is the number of speakers he apparently has scheduled to appear. Among them are some individuals with, what I would characterize as, well credentialed in science, medicine, and biology. Therein lies what I consider to be a big hurdle for the skeptic/rationalists movement. Average persons will look at that the credentials and immediately assign credibility to anything the say.

    If we have a goal, it should be to discourage rational thinkers from inadvertently lending credibility to such promotions of nonsense by way of participation in events like this.

    • Jesper Both Pedersen
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

      If we have a goal, it should be to discourage rational thinkers from inadvertently lending credibility to such promotions of nonsense by way of participation in events like this.

      As noble as this goal sounds I’m reminded of the old saying about herding cats…

  31. Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    “If we have a goal, it should be to discourage rational thinkers from inadvertently lending credibility to such promotions of nonsense by way of participation in events like this.”

    Pointing and laughing is good, too.

  32. MR
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Deepak: “Real scientists have epistemic humility” bla bla bla. Deepak is the epitome of humility, isn’t he. And also making a career out of being a professional scam artist like Dr Oz. All his quantum medicine has lead to epic fits of twittering scientists like a teenager to show off how little he knows about actual science.

  33. Raphael
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    I often notice that Chopra’s followers, like that Kimberly C in the exchange shot above, always are harping on about “mutual respect” being needed and how we can all learn from each other, etc.

    What that’s really saying is, everyone else can learn from *them* and we all need to stop dismissing their ideas as new agey woo because they hold the truth

    There are many things in life where the answer is far from black and white. And indeed, scientists and critical thinkers on the whole believe in keeping an open mind (doxastic openness, to borrow a term I enjoyed from Peter Boghossian)

    But that doesn’t mean that truth is relative and we should have to respect charlatans that are making millions off of preaching absolute garbage. I don’t have to respect someone’s belief that unicorns exist or that the earth is flat. I can respect their humanity and other qualities but I certainly am not going to encourage this idea that any idea is as valid as another

    And for all their relativist BS, they don’t believe that either. They believe they’re correct and their way of looking at things is the right way. Relativism always works great when you’re trying to convert others over to your minority cult

    • lisa parker
      Posted June 21, 2014 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

      “A fool never learns from a wise man, but a wise man can always learn from a fool”
      Or vice versa, or something like that, I don’t remember who said it, or who said it first, anyway, ’cause I just said it, but you know…

      • Posted June 22, 2014 at 12:51 am | Permalink

        “your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick as a brick.”

        /@

        • lisa parker
          Posted June 22, 2014 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

          I do; I just went to my favorite Italian place and I was a bad girl. Maybe thick as several bricks.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 22, 2014 at 6:13 am | Permalink

        In Shakespeare, the fool is the guy that actually knows the truth of things. So, you can totally learn from a fool.

        • lisa parker
          Posted June 22, 2014 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

          So Chopra is good for something. Other than an occasional chuckle.

        • Posted June 23, 2014 at 9:37 am | Permalink

          Alternatively, the character who can state the unconfortable truths without flinching. Like a scientist. :)

  34. Posted June 21, 2014 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Dumbpak is unfurling his world salad sprinkled with quantum turds. The turds are the many in the one mouth of a self-righteous ego system.

  35. lisa parker
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    For surely Chopra’s definition of a conscious Universe is not a universe that experiences “qualia,” or subjective sensations. Yet that is what he means by consciousness when applied to humans…

    Actually, though I don’t know the man personally, I think that is exactly his definition.

  36. abeardeddragon
    Posted June 21, 2014 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    A tweet from one of Deepak’s minions (Ikjyot Singh Kohli) to Prof. Cox regarding Lawrence Krauss’s book references an article Kohli recently published in a journal on the history and philosophy of physics. I decided to check the wiki page on Krauss’s book and noticed that it included a sentence that referenced this article. I did a quick IP look-up of the editor and, surprise surprise, the IP is from the same city (Toronto) Deepak’s minion is from. Nothing like trying argue against two physicists by promoting your own work published in a journal of history and philosophy and not an actual physics journal. Of course Deepak and his other minions latched onto this one and retweeted.

    Many of Kohli’s tweets just spam his own article over and over.

    • Posted June 24, 2014 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

      Doesn’t surprise me at all. I called Kohli out on my blog yesterday (kind of by accident) and he’s been tweeting about it all day. And Brian Cox actually responded to him recently on Twitter, but the ratio of his tweets to Kohli’s is like 1:9,000.

    • Brendan
      Posted July 9, 2014 at 1:00 am | Permalink

      Eh, Toronto is the 4th largest city in North America, that’s flimsy evidence.

  37. Paul Britton
    Posted June 22, 2014 at 3:59 am | Permalink

    If as Deepak claims, things (like the moon) don’t exist until you perceive them, could he do the following experiment for me?

    Close his eyes, and walk across a motorway (freeway) in rush hour, according to his philosophy, he should arrive at the other side unscathed…. I, and many others expect the reality to be slightly different….


3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] Jerry Coyne’s website brought the most recent Twitter semi-feud to my attention yesterday, this time between Deepak and rock-star English physicist Brian Cox. I’m a big fan of Brian Cox – he’s almost a perfect meld between Dawkins and Sagan in that he’s especially adept at expounding the wonders of science (ala Sagan) and equally intolerant of nonsense, woo, and superstitious thinking (ala Dawkins…also, Cox is British). Anyway, Cox ends the feud with a knock-out blow, what I believe the internet calls a “pwn”. Here’s the summarized feud (though you should check out some of the responses from followers of each): […]

  2. […] If you do decide to track the littler of the little feuds, keep in mind that the second commenter – that’d be the physics student from Canada – seems to have retired his internet presence. As of today I can’t find his blog response to me anymore, and his Twitter account has been deactivated. I hope he comes back – I offered to let him write a blog post on why he thinks a singularity is essential, as opposed to some physicists who argue that it’s probably not necessary. And I meant it too – I’d be happy to let him post. Though I did make the offer before seeing this over at Why Evolution is True: […]

  3. […] Deepakities: Chopra gets into the box with Brian Cox […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27,221 other followers

%d bloggers like this: