[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 215 KB, 1536x1178, deepak.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6609067 No.6609067 [Reply] [Original]

Gentlemen, how do we kill Deepak Chopra?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up6GqgBK5Qo

>> No.6609099

>>6609067
Did this dude pay one million dollars to the dude for publishing a peer reviewable journal about percepting the senses?
Why is this dude so fixated on "there's something specuuul about seeing and touching shit"?
Does he not realise that we percieve things because we are hardwired to do so?

>> No.6609101

>>6609099
Offer to pay*

>> No.6609106

>>6609099
He basically said "if you solve the hard problem of consciousness and get peer reviewed, I'll pay you that"

Heh.

>> No.6609126

>>6609106
It's already been published, many things related to it.
Does this person not know about neurology?

>> No.6609133

>>6609067
But he's right you shmuck.

>> No.6609135

>>6609133
muh philosophy

>> No.6609140

>>6609126
>It's already been published, many things related to it. Does this person not know about neurology?

Well I know, tons of theories have been published, but we're still far from one "definitive" solution.

>> No.6609143

>In a hundred years the scientific explanation consciousness will be common knowledge
>The Future Police will force the Chopra estate to pay up
>The award would have inflated to 83 trillion intergalactic neo-shekels
>That won't be enough to buy a pack of space-tobacco cigarettes

>> No.6609154

>>6609135
>oh no, he's opening our minds to new ideas

>> No.6609197

The best part is he thinks he'll live past 100

When he dies at 82 from cancer, we'll rest easy.

>> No.6609243
File: 103 KB, 700x700, 1363641198976.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6609243

>>6609067
I hate this mentality. He claims Randi and Dawkins are close minded, but Deepak is way way more closed minded than either of them. Randi is open to the idea that the paranormal exists, he's also open to the idea that it doesn't exist. There is no scientific evidence that supports the existence of the paranormal, so Randi doesn't believe it exists. Randi wants people to try and show him evidence of the paranormal so he review it like YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. Deepak on the other hand is completely close minded to the idea that the paranormal doesn't exist. He just blindly believes that it exists with out any real scientific evidence. He projects his own close mindedness on to other people. What an asshole.

>> No.6609253

>>6609154
No he isn't. He's full of shit.

>> No.6609272
File: 275 KB, 501x550, be7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6609272

>>6609099
>we are hardwired
Trashed your post. Anyone who says "we are hardwired" is retarded.

>> No.6609274

>>6609067
More like DeepThroat Choker

>> No.6609280
File: 11 KB, 493x142, flawless logic.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6609280

>> No.6609289
File: 190 KB, 300x400, 4fe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6609289

>>6609272
I can tell you're hardwired to shit post.

>> No.6609300

>>6609253
Snore.

>> No.6609322

>>6609280

Do you deny his claim?

>> No.6609325

>>6609322
It compresses so much nonsense and gibberish buzzwords in such a little quantity of words that frankly I'm amazed.

>> No.6609333

>>6609280
>if consciousness is fundamental
what the fuck is he even trying to say

>> No.6609334

>>6609280
>consciousness is fundamental
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

>> No.6609337

>>6609333
>>6609334
what the fuck mivehind.

>> No.6609338

>>6609334
ha, beat you to it

>> No.6609341

>>6609338
1 second... Let's just call it a tie.

>> No.6609343

>>6609067
>Deepak

what a fucking cunt

>> No.6609882

>>6609272
We're "hardwired" for lots of interesting, fascinating things. Some of them are completely essential to how we experience the world. For instance, Seccades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking

>> No.6609901

So he's basically saying:

>Prove you exist by replicating the mechanical process necessary to generate autonomous consciousness.

>> No.6609914

>>6609067
>Because you can't create artificial intelligence.
>God did it.

no

>> No.6609950

>>6609882
This isn't really "hardwiring" though. I'm not that guy but there's a lot of research on culturing and stimulating neurons to "train" them (not unlike machine learning).

http://www.jove.com/video/2056/how-to-culture-record-stimulate-neuronal-networks-on-micro-electrode

http://neural.bme.ufl.edu/page13/assets/NeuroFlght2.pdf

>> No.6609952

>>6609067
This guy has a fucking PhD? I'm not sure whether I should be emboldened because apparently any idiot can get one, or whether I should be depressed because this idiot got one.

>> No.6609954

Honestly, I don't get the meaning or purpose of this thread. The amount of racism and sterotypes that are in this entire thread just makes me sick. The amount of things and people some of you generalize is just sad. Some of you have been on the internet far too long or haven't been to many diverse places to truthfully believe some of the things you guys say. Or you guys are hanging around truly vain, vapid, people for any of these racial boundaries to truly exist. To start off, whether you believe it or not, every racial combination exists and will countinue to exist. There are many many woman attracted to Asian men regardless of race and that goes the same for any race. Their are attractive people in every race and for someone to be unattracted to an ENTIRE race without even seeing 1% of the people classified under that race is just sad and closed minded. Another thing, no race has it easier than others when it comes to reproduction. What may be desired where you live may not be where someone else lives and to say the say the whole city, country, or world is the same is absurd. On top of that, to say that no one of one race dislikes or finds unattractive everyone of another race is a generalization that is just fueled by pure ignorance. I truthfully hope you guys out there are not spreading and agreeing with some of these ignorant things. I can't even start with race fetishes; I'm just going to stop that one right there.


Sum it up- Races are diverse and extensive and will have people attracted to any other race. To say that no one likes someone else is being just plain stupid and you need to highly rethink how you see people and relationships.

>> No.6609957

>>6609954
Is this pasta or something?

>> No.6609958

>>6609957
Looks like it.

>> No.6609970

>>6609243
>He claims Randi and Dawkins are close minded, but Deepak is way way more closed minded than either of them.
not a valid argument, he doesn't claim he's open-minded

>> No.6610076

So Randi says "give me a paranormal claim that's repeatable and testable". The very definition of PARA fucking normal is that these things AREN'T testable and they DON'T repeat. But you idiots find this just fine, perfectly rational and whatever.

But what you fucking morons fail to realize is that Deepak is playing Randi's own game. Just like Randi posed an impossible task, so did Deepak. If Randi wants repeatable and testable paranormal events, then Deepak wants the explanation for the hard problem of consciousness.

I fail to realize how any of you retards calling yourself scientists are stupid enough not to realize that Deepak is the one that's actually fucking thinking on this one. Randi is just a brainwashed fundamental realist, and it's only natural that it gets on Deepak's nerves when they keep picking on him for everything.

But now he's doing the same thing as Randi has been doing for years and all you faggots can think of are comments like the ones in this thread. Totally ignoring the fact that you're the one who isn't thinking. You people are such fucking idiots. You're nothing but conformists. If the culture would tell you to eat shit every day, you'd probably do it, because you have no fucking capacity to think on your own.

I'm a fucking scientists, and you know what? I think Randi is retarded, I think Dawkins may be smart but he's just deluded beyond comprehension (just think, he's going around PREACHING atheism - he's practically religious without him even noticing), and Deepak is actually the smartest of the bunch here. He may have a few problems with his pride and whatever, but at least he's fucking thinking, and what he does is he actually makes people's lives better. That's his profession. He doesn't just go around claiming things, he fucking helps people. Can you say the same for the morons you're so eager to defend? Because, you know, Newtonian science is the only way you can look at the world?

Rationalists are the true enemies of progress.

>> No.6610087

>>6610076

>I'm a fucking scientists

How many scientists are you?

>> No.6610088

>>6610087
It's a typo and fuck off.

>> No.6610092

>>6610087
Childish post. Why not try axually RESPONDING to the contents of the post in >>6610076

>> No.6610099
File: 118 KB, 800x549, maxplanck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6610099

>>6610076
Also I have one more thing to say. How is it that more or less all pioneers of quantum physics discovered at some point and then talked about the idea that the mind supersedes our notion of quanta, but nearly everyone that's BUILT upon their fundamental research is claiming otherwise? Could it be that the pioneers of quantum physics were actually WISER than those that build upon their research?

Look at the fucking quote in the picture. Yes, it's a real quote. Then look at who made it. Now pretend you're talking to him. It's easy to be dismissive of Chopra, but what happens when one of the pioneers of quantum physics seems to share some of his views?

Oh, I know what happens. You people ignore it, just like you ignore basic common sense. Enjoy your meaningless, naive theory universe that philosophically manages to explains nothing.

>> No.6610102

>>6610076
Name these so called PARA fucking normal things that isn't repeatable.

You seem to be the one who's deluding yourself about what Randi's aim is.
There's plenty of bullshit that people peddle about being able to talk to the dead or being able to levitate, but as soon as some rational thinker comes along saying "prove it", it suddenly becomes impossible.
John Edwards claims he can talk to the dead on a nightly basis.

also not /sci/
fuck off back to your board /x/ or /lit/

>>6610092
also fuck off. you don't know shit about science

>> No.6610103

>>6610099
>We are the universe experiencing itself.

Well he got that part right.

>> No.6610104

>>6610076
> The very definition of PARA fucking normal is that these things AREN'T testable and they DON'T repeat.

This is the crux of the problem. If you're into paranormal you have to assume it can't be analyzed by scientists because it is somehow beyond their (current) comprehension which is kind of silly. It's very simple : claim + proof = fact.

>> No.6610106
File: 22 KB, 504x467, education vs belief in god.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6610106

>>6610099
And Kepler made similar quotes about the motion of the solar system.

still not /sci/
gb2/x/

>> No.6610122

>>6610102
>not /sci/
Who made you the authority on what is and what isn't science? Fuck off and keep your notions to yourself. I happen to be a real scientist and not a fucking troll. You don't like my ideas you can just say so, don't fucking treat me like someone who doesn't know what fucking board he's on. I know it's /sci/ and consider this science, because the natural world isn't just physical world and it doesn't matter if you believe so.

The primary notion of the world is perception and awareness, and only secondary is the perceived. Because everything you know about the world, you got to know through your senses. You're a very poor scientist if you dismiss this based on "it's paranormal, I don't have to talk about it". It's paranormal only we define it's fucking paranormal. You what a plane looks like to a primitive African tribe? That's right, fucking paranormal. Everything we don't understand is paranormal so if things you don't understand frighten you and make you go to /x/, then you're a fucking retard.

Now all that said, I don't have to name shit. I generalized it so you can make your own fucking examples if you wish. All you're trying to do is lure me into your hit and run debate tactics. It doesn't work because I'm not fucking 5 years old.

I realize this post is all about ad hominem but that's just how pissed off I am right now at you and your retarded post.

>> No.6610126
File: 58 KB, 500x501, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6610126

>>6609143
Lel

>> No.6610132

>>6610122
you clearly don't know what science is dumbass.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3]

Keyword there is systematic. How is just spouting whatever shit you claim to be true science?
If you claim to be a scientist, you must be one of the shittiest scientists out there.

Because, throughout history, every mystery ever solved, Has turned out to be - Not Magic!

>> No.6610134

>>6610122
>Now all that said, I don't have to name shit.

I want to root for you here, but you are making it hard to do so. If you are trying to rationally debate, you should really put forward some examples defending your argument.

>> No.6610137

>>6610132
Science is observation and systematic study of the natural world. The natural world is everything there is. Including consciousness.

It'll be a long time until you understand what I'm talking about, grasshopper.

>>6610134
No because that will just lead to more and more complicated questions. I already said everything I wanted to say.

>> No.6610139

>>6610132
Define what "magic" would be then. All magic is is sufficiently advanced tech.

>> No.6610140

>>6610137
>No because that will just lead to more and more complicated questions.

Is this not the point of science? Posing and attempting to answer complex questions?

>> No.6610141

>>6610140
No, the point of science is to satisfy human curiosity.

>> No.6610142

>>6610137
> The natural world is everything there is. Including consciousness.
Why are you claiming that the explanation for consciousness is going to be "paranormal"?

paranormal things shouldn't be talked about on /sci/.
We have a dedicated board just for that kind of stuff.

>> No.6610144

>>6610139
Something that "can't" be explained.
It's a quote from Storm.

>> No.6610145

>>6609067

>muh hard problem

I'm a philosophy minor and even I find this shit execrable.

>> No.6610147

>>6610142
I'm not. I'm claiming some of you have DEFINED consciousness to be paranormal. It's perfectly normal. It's more than normal, it's axiomatic.

>> No.6610153

>>6610147
Why'd you drag Randi's name through the mud then?
I'm only responding to this disgusting monster of a post >>6610076.

We've moved away from accepting things as fact just because some person created a good argument for it.
That was Aristolean science. It was proven to be wrong on many occasions.

>> No.6610156

>>6610153
Because Randi is either a fucking moron for not realizing the impossibility of his challenge, or more likely he has a giant ego and enjoys the popularity he gets through it.

The reason I got so mad is because I was reading through Youtube's comments and I decided to vent here a bit. I don't understand how people can be so blindly accepting of something so moronic as the fundamental materialist claim, not realizing the paradoxical implications this claims makes.

>> No.6610160

>>6610156

Here's a question: what is consciousness?

>> No.6610161 [DELETED] 

>>6610160
You can't put it in symbols but consciousness itself it producing those symbols. So no matter how eloquent your description might be, it's always going to be wrong.

>> No.6610162

>>6610156
> Because Randi is either a fucking moron for not realizing the impossibility of his challenge
Again. People claim to have super-powers.
They're completely repeatable.
He asks that they repeat it with proper controls.
Give examples of something that isn't repeatable.

> The reason I got so mad is because I was reading through Youtube's comments
Don't. Ever. Read. Youtube. Comments.
> I don't understand how people can be so blindly accepting of something so moronic as the fundamental materialist claim
really? well I feel the same way about anyone who follows the Bible tooth and nail.

>> No.6610164

>>6610160
You can't put it in symbols because consciousness itself it producing those symbols. So no matter how eloquent your description might be, it's always going to be wrong.

>> No.6610165

>>6610099
It's simple.

QM pioneers didn't know what they were dealing with philosophically.

There are formulations of QM that make the consciousness parts completely irrelevant while still being consistent and predictive.

>> No.6610167

>>6610164
You can't write code on a computer because the computer itself is producing those symbols.

>> No.6610168

>>6610164

When you typed 'consciousness' you already entered the game of putting things into symbols. You can't tacitly admit that there is no well-defined 'problem' of consciousness and simultaneously demand that others solve that 'problem'. It's pure obfuscation on a French postmodernist level.

>>6610167

Also this. My room knows Chinese, does yours?

>> No.6610170

>>6610162
>Again. People claim to have super-powers.
And I'm all for exposing those. I'm not even arguing in the same sphere here. I don't care if Randi debunks a bunch of cheap trick artists. I care when it starts bordering on philosophy and when he starts making ridiculous claims.

>They're completely repeatable.
None of the so-called "paranormal" events are ever repeatable. Just to name a few, and just to clarify I think that these are just examples of psychological impressions, combined with a little bit of superstition - UFOs, ghosts, cryptozoology, "divine interventions", miracles, precognition, telepathy and so forth and so on. If there's ANYTHING all of these have in common it's that they don't repeat, and they're usually subjective. These things seem to happen once and then remain a mystery forever after. And by very fact that these events don't repeat, they can't possibly be testable, unless you happen to have a time machine handy.

>He asks that they repeat it with proper controls.
Precisely, he's a fucking dumbass. Sorry, but he really is.

>Give examples of something that isn't repeatable.
See above.

>really? well I feel the same way about anyone who follows the Bible tooth and nail.
So do I. It's a sliding scale.

>> No.6610173

>>6610167
Computers aren't aware of themselves.

A good analogy is that you can't bite your own teeth. You can't lick your own tongue, and you can't touch your finger with your finger. In the same way, you can't be conscious of your own consciousness. So how can you make logic out of that? You can't. Hence the mystery.

>> No.6610174

>>6610170

If they don't repeat, then how can you group them within the same category and give them a common name e.g. 'telepathy'?

>> No.6610175

>>6610174
Oh, god. They're not repeatable. Is that better?

>> No.6610178

>>6610170
Why do you keep assuming he's refering to "UFOs, ghosts, cryptozoology, "divine interventions", miracles"
Telepathy is kinda on the line.
Most instances it's a claimed power of a single person. Totally repeatable. Totally testable.

I can do 2/3 of those just sitting here.
If I had the reason I could pull out a tooth and bite it too. Depending on how you define "biting", I could be now when I'm gritting or grinding my teeth.

Also if you are claiming that science can't touch consciousness YOU are making it paranormal and YOU are making it not worthy to be on /sci/.
There isn't anything in science that is "unknowable".

>> No.6610183

>>6610178
>There isn't anything in science that is "unknowable".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

At this point I'm leaving this discussion because apparently you're all a bunch of teenagers here. I have just one advice for you, and that is, start developing your intuition. It's worth more than your knowledge.

I will kindly fuck now. Bye

>> No.6610184

>>6610183
That should be "I will kindly fuck off now". A misfortunate typo.

>> No.6610188

>>6610183
> you're all a bunch of teenagers here
> strawmening AGAIN
I'm probably old enough to be your father.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

how do you figure this is "unknowable" and will never be solved?

>> No.6610198

>>6610188
Sorry for the strawman then, it just seemed that if you couldn't think of ONE example of something unknowable in science, you probably haven't done enough of it. But I'm leaving anyway because this debate is pointless.

There are many, many, many things in science that are predictably unknowable. Go and do real science and I'm sure you'll bump into few eventually.

Gravitational singularity is impossible to solve because it breaks the laws of physics. Can you comprehend this? It breaks the very foundation of the entity describing them.

>> No.6610864

>>6610076
>Rationalists are the true enemies of progress.
Are you for real or are you actually that retarded?

>> No.6611506

>>6609300
Koco, you are very dumb.

>> No.6611509

>>6610076
>Rationalists are the true enemies of progress.
Dumb as shit.