Apologies if this has been posted before. If your brain starts to cease up from Deepak's vapid nonsense you can fast forward to 2:50, where Harris and Shermer respond (or try to, when Deepak isn't interrupting).



Later, in the Q&A, physicist Leonard Mlodinow takes a few whacks at the pinata, as well:



I have to say, Chopra comes across as quite a rude and unpleasant man, doesn't he?

The whole debate can be viewed here:

And here's something that surprised me: As a result of this encounter, Chopra and Mlodinow collaborated on a book!

The book gets some decent reviews too

"My neurons.

"Well, then you're a zombie!!!"

I didn't know if I should make a new thread, but decided he doesn't deserve it so... here's another debate between Deepak Chopra and Richard Dawkins from this week. He still continues his babbling about 'quantum leaps', 'sentient atoms' and other woowoo:

Has he ever gone up against someone who really understands quantum physics, like Lawrence Krauss? I'd pay to see that. (Though I suspect Krauss wouldn't agree to it. Actually, I don't know. Maybe he would. He himself said he's gotten more confrontational lately, and thinks it's important.)

If atoms are sentient, does that mean nuclear fission is murder?

Arcanyn wrote:If atoms are sentient, does that mean nuclear fission is murder?

Nah, mutual suicide.

throwawayaccount wrote:I didn't know if I should make a new thread, but decided he doesn't deserve it so... here's another debate between Deepak Chopra and Richard Dawkins from this week. He still continues his babbling about 'quantum leaps', 'sentient atoms' and other woowoo:

What strange kind of circus show debate was that?

I wish they wouldn't do this, debating the wooheads only gives them a veneer of respectability. Just ignore them. The drooling masses aren't capable of understanding the "debate" anyway, so what's the point? I'm reminded of Shaw's comment about wrestling a pig.

Arcanyn wrote:If atoms are sentient, does that mean nuclear fission is murder?

Yes... and nuclear fusion is just plain rude.

Just watching - about half way through.

Deepak is a bit of a dick isn't he?

It's a shame that the woman (sorry don't know her name) hasn't contributed as much (in the first half at least), It'd probably be a much more interesting debate had they ditched Deepak.

I quite like the term used by Murray Gell-Mann...

Quantum flapdoodle
Quantum flapdoodle is a term reportedly coined by Murray Gell-Mann to describe: "..stringing together a series of terms and phrases from quantum physics and asserting that they explain something in our daily experience.."; the term has been used by skeptics to describe quantum mysticism as espoused by the likes of Deepak Chopra.

From the Wikipedia entry on quantum mysticism

orpheus wrote:Has he ever gone up against someone who really understands quantum physics, like Lawrence Krauss?

I imagine that happens in the book I mentioned above.

Chopra makes money selling pseudoscientific quasi-religious claptrap

Shrunk wrote:

orpheus wrote:Has he ever gone up against someone who really understands quantum physics, like Lawrence Krauss?

I imagine that happens in the book I mentioned above.

Ah yes, sorry I didn't catch that. Must take a look.

Isophocles wrote:Chopra makes money selling pseudoscientific quasi-religious claptrap

Indeed!

Welcome to the forum!

Arcanyn wrote:If atoms are sentient, does that mean nuclear fission is murder?

Blinky says yes.

throwawayaccount wrote:I didn't know if I should make a new thread, but decided he doesn't deserve it so... here's another debate between Deepak Chopra and Richard Dawkins from this week. He still continues his babbling about 'quantum leaps', 'sentient atoms' and other woowoo:

I'm confused. I didn't think Dawkins wanted to debate idiots because he doesn't believe in giving them publicity. Did he do this because Dipshit Chopra is more well known than he is, so it doesn't really matter?