3 ms·

A short transcript from the video: Chopra says 'all beliefs are a cover up for insecurity' An academic asks him "Do you believe that"? This shows the entire

by s_dev 3y ago

A short transcript from the video: Chopra says 'all beliefs are a cover up for insecurity' An academic asks him "Do you believe that"? This shows the entire premise of whatever argument he's trying to make is completely unfounded, deeply flawed and kinda stupid. That's Deepak's career in a nutshell. Nothing he says stands up to the most basic scrutiny.

mistermann 3y ago
> This shows the entire premise of whatever argument he's trying to make is completely unfounded, deeply flawed and kinda stupid. Can you explain how this short excerpt "shows"[1] that it is a fact that "the entire premise of whatever argument he's trying to make is completely unfounded, deeply flawed and kinda stupid"? > That's Deepak's career in a nutshell. Nothing he says stands up to the most basic scrutiny. I do not believe that you have actually reviewed all of Chopra's work. I think you are quite literally making things up, or hallucinating. [1] What forces/processes are involved in this "showing"? Do you play any role?
- s_dev 3y ago
  This is exactly the reason he uses big words and conflates scientific terms with his own ideas -- to sow confusion and hopefully be passed off on the benefit of the doubt. It's all just "chicken feed" and you've fallen hook line and sinker for it. There is zero academic or scientific value to what he says. Can you name one decent contribution this guy has made to any field?
  - mistermann 3y ago
    >This is exactly the reason he uses big words and conflates scientific terms with his own ideas -- to sow confusion and hopefully be passed off on the benefit of the doubt. It's all just "chicken feed" and you've fallen hook line and sinker for it. Adding some mind reading in (Chopra's, and mine) for some bonus points now? Will you be demonstrating more of your supernatural abilities? > There is zero academic or scientific value to what he says. I continue to stand on: I do not believe that you have actually reviewed all of Chopra's work. I think you are quite literally making things up, or hallucinating. > Can you name one decent contribution this guy has made to any field? I don't really know much about him, and I suspect you do not either, though you may not have a sound understanding of your level of understanding due to the misleading nature of human consciousness combined with the norms of the culture you were raised in...which somewhat ironically, is the domain that Chopra's alleged expertise is in.
    - DonHopkins 3y ago
      >I do not believe that you have actually reviewed all of Chopra's work. >I don't really know much about him, That you can write those two completely contradictory statements in the same post shows that you're just as full of it as Deepak. And that's really saying something, although you admittedly don't know enough about Deepak yourself to fully grasp what that means. But I do know something about him.
      - mistermann 3y ago
        > That you can write those two completely contradictory statements in the same post shows that you're just as full of it as Deepak. a) Can you explain how it is a fact that these two statements are completely contradictory? b) For the sake of argument, if we assume that you are correct, can you explain how it follows that I am just as full of it as Deepak? > And that's really saying something, although you admittedly don't know enough about Deepak yourself to fully grasp what that means. Do you believe yourself to be fully informed on Deepak? It seems quite unlikely, so how would you be able to fully grasp what your claim means? One interesting trick I recommend in these sorts of situations: consider whether you have ever gotten an answer wrong on a test in the past.
avgcorrection 3y ago
I don’t know if that is a good example. I could say that “everything is relative”, but that’s an absolute statement so it’s contradictory. However, whole philosophies—coherent ones—have been built on this premise. Or at least I am aware of one. You basically have to bootstrap it with a segmentation of “truth” into “absolute” and “relative”. But as you develop it you need the “absolute” part less and less, like scaffolding for a finished building.
qumpis 3y ago
I understand the joke, and am only saying that context wasn't there. Maybe Chopra proceeded to clarify his argument after the question asker had left, but the clip doesn't show that. It also doesn't show that Chopra ignored the point afterwards too. It's unknown to me.

by s_dev 3y ago

mistermann 3y ago

> This shows the entire premise of whatever argument he's trying to make is completely unfounded, deeply flawed and kinda stupid. Can you explain how this short excerpt "shows"[1] that it is a fact that "the entire premise of whatever argument he's trying to make is completely unfounded, deeply flawed and kinda stupid"? > That's Deepak's career in a nutshell. Nothing he says stands up to the most basic scrutiny. I do not believe that you have actually reviewed all of Chopra's work. I think you are quite literally making things up, or hallucinating. [1] What forces/processes are involved in this "showing"? Do you play any role?

s_dev 3y ago
This is exactly the reason he uses big words and conflates scientific terms with his own ideas -- to sow confusion and hopefully be passed off on the benefit of the doubt. It's all just "chicken feed" and you've fallen hook line and sinker for it. There is zero academic or scientific value to what he says. Can you name one decent contribution this guy has made to any field?
- mistermann 3y ago
  >This is exactly the reason he uses big words and conflates scientific terms with his own ideas -- to sow confusion and hopefully be passed off on the benefit of the doubt. It's all just "chicken feed" and you've fallen hook line and sinker for it. Adding some mind reading in (Chopra's, and mine) for some bonus points now? Will you be demonstrating more of your supernatural abilities? > There is zero academic or scientific value to what he says. I continue to stand on: I do not believe that you have actually reviewed all of Chopra's work. I think you are quite literally making things up, or hallucinating. > Can you name one decent contribution this guy has made to any field? I don't really know much about him, and I suspect you do not either, though you may not have a sound understanding of your level of understanding due to the misleading nature of human consciousness combined with the norms of the culture you were raised in...which somewhat ironically, is the domain that Chopra's alleged expertise is in.
  - DonHopkins 3y ago
    >I do not believe that you have actually reviewed all of Chopra's work. >I don't really know much about him, That you can write those two completely contradictory statements in the same post shows that you're just as full of it as Deepak. And that's really saying something, although you admittedly don't know enough about Deepak yourself to fully grasp what that means. But I do know something about him.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > That you can write those two completely contradictory statements in the same post shows that you're just as full of it as Deepak. a) Can you explain how it is a fact that these two statements are completely contradictory? b) For the sake of argument, if we assume that you are correct, can you explain how it follows that I am just as full of it as Deepak? > And that's really saying something, although you admittedly don't know enough about Deepak yourself to fully grasp what that means. Do you believe yourself to be fully informed on Deepak? It seems quite unlikely, so how would you be able to fully grasp what your claim means? One interesting trick I recommend in these sorts of situations: consider whether you have ever gotten an answer wrong on a test in the past.

avgcorrection 3y ago

I don’t know if that is a good example. I could say that “everything is relative”, but that’s an absolute statement so it’s contradictory. However, whole philosophies—coherent ones—have been built on this premise. Or at least I am aware of one. You basically have to bootstrap it with a segmentation of “truth” into “absolute” and “relative”. But as you develop it you need the “absolute” part less and less, like scaffolding for a finished building.

qumpis 3y ago

I understand the joke, and am only saying that context wasn't there. Maybe Chopra proceeded to clarify his argument after the question asker had left, but the clip doesn't show that. It also doesn't show that Chopra ignored the point afterwards too. It's unknown to me.