During the recent Caltech debate with Michael Shermer on March 14th, we engaged in a spirited discussion on whether an object of perception such as the moon exists when no one is looking. Here is Michael's account of that exchange. Needless to say, I disagree with his conclusions and even with his representation of my premises and position on the subject. I will clarify this and continue this dialogue in a blog on March 23, when the debate is televised.
Read the article here
Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra
Think about it. Set up any situation that you feel destroys his position, such as a remote camera to record some phenomenon. All he has to say is that the image captured by the camera, not to mention the camera as well, did not exist until he observed the photograph. Neat trick, though entirely specious.
The line of attack that may work against this crazy circular pseudo-logic, is to raise the problem of other consciousnesses. How can other consciousnesses penetrate such an insular, personal world? Either each consciousness (i.e., you and me) is a lesser manifestation of the uber-mind, or the other consciousnesses you observe are figments that arise much like everything else - at the behest of the observer.
Some of you may already see the problem with each possibility. Most crushing, the observer can never be sure that the second case (i.e., other consciousnesses as figments who cease to exist when not observed) is not the truth.
.
Unless you are advocating Intelligent Design.
God help us.
That's exactly what he's doing. He just replaces the word "god" with the word "consciousness".
Trying to talk to committed atheists about spirituality is like trying to talk about color to someone who is completely color blind. They have closed themselves off to mystical experience and can't -- won't -- get it.
Both sides are right, but both sides are describing a different universe. To those of us who have had a taste of the mystical Deepak speaks the truth. For those who have not had a taste, Shermer speaks the truth.
Even if I were color-blind, I would still want to know if you were lying about the color of my shirt.
But "awareness" does not necessarily mean living beings, much less human consciousness. Awareness must be a type of energy at large in the universe; an energy that is temporarily loaned out to living beings so that we can enrich it in some way with our life experiences.
Mystics take it a step further and say it's possible for living beings to retain their awareness even after the body dies. The whole of mysticism boils down to pursuing that tantalizing possibility.
I'm not saying mystics don't speculate about life after death, but it's very far from the essence of mysticism
Did energy need to be transformed in order to create an observer? If so, who observed the observer who observes everything, being created? Was it an observer outside of the intrinsic "energetic possibility/observer" relationship?
How do you know that, to witness the universe collapsing into a theoretical human construct known as a singularity, awareness must not occur?
... as the Buddha said concerning questions such as, "Why is there not nothing?" ...