Monday, June 11, 2007

Deepak Chopra stops to complain about me!

Deepak Chopra almost acknowledged I exist, but I'm still just "one of those skeptics."

In a post called "The Common-Sense World" Deepak Chopra put aside his mind-out-of-body series to attempt a complaint about me, or so it seems. Also, when I tried to comment on his blog it never showed up. It seems I'm censored now. (Perhaps some reader out there will try linking this post on the comments section of Deepak's blog? You'd have my thanks.)

Here's some of what Deepak wrote:

I've been offering evidence of the possibility that the mind exists outside the brain. This isn't a concept that pleases materialists and skeptics of various stripes. The cruder ones complain that this is all "woo woo." The ad hominem ones deride my inability to understand basic science...

Hey, I'm one of the people calling Chopra's views woo-woo and I've also been saying he doesn't understand some basic science, like what a field is. This is not entirely an "ad hominem" attack because science is what Chopra is writing about and I offer evidence that he doesn't understand some very basic concepts. This time around he botches it on describing neurons.

(this isn't to be taken personally--I assume anyone who thinks outside their rigid parameters would be equally scorned).

Rigid parameters? Are logic, reason and common sense rigid parameters? Apparently, yes, that common sense thing is bothering Deepak, so are logic and reason.

The sophisticated ones invoke statistical errors and dubious research methods.

That's me too -- I am legion! Or at least a member of three of the groups that Deepak tries to criticize here.

But in essence the basis of skepticism comes down to a single claim that must be true and can never be violated. This is the claim that we live in a common-sense world.

Now take that statement and sip it slowly, savor it and roll it around your tongue and palate for a while until you've grasped its full flavor. I told you he had a problem with common sense. Now, lets parse and ponder the claim that lies underneath, which is: "we don't live in the common sense world those skeptics think we do."

It's not entirely wrong to say that we don't live in a "common sense" world, but the essence of Deepak's complaint is his attempt to read the minds of the skeptics who find fault with his solipsist views. Common sense is more of a tool than a description of the world. It's less about what the world is than how we should approach it.

Common sense if viewed as a description of the world is a moving target. In past ages it was common sense to think the sun moved around the Earth because that's what our senses told us. Today common sense has the Earth orbiting the sun because science has proved this.

The rules of the common-sense world are reassuring, and if skeptics are right, it is the role of science not to overturn such a world but to reinforce it.

Wrong! Science has overturned the common-sense world of our ancestors several times. Anyone aware of science's history expects more such revolutions. This is not why we dump on Deepak.

In the common-sense world things have to make sense, obviously. So what makes sense? If you can see something, it makes sense. If you can touch, smell, taste, or hear it, it makes sense. Time runs by the clock, not in some corkscrew Alice-in-Wonderland fashion. Space is mere emptiness, like the space inside the walls of a pickle jar.

Chopra is claiming that the skeptics who argue against him live with some 18th century view of the world. It's a straw-man. None of his critics I've seen has argued for that. I admit that the universe described by modern physics is weird and complex.

Modern science and skepticism are not trying to reinforce some old and dated notion of "common sense." It's more a case of Chopra attempting to confirm his own pre-conceived notions of Hindu mysticism and this can be demonstrated by taking Chopra's writings apart.

Deepak then goes on and on about the weirdest elements of quantum physics saying things like:

In the quantum domain the entire universe winks in and out of existence thousands of times per second.

Well, I guess Deepak read some sort of book on Quantum theory.

But Deepak plunges into the weirdness of quantum physics not to explain or add clarity to it but to intimidate and bullshit you. He's not trying to explain quantum theory. He's trying to use it as an excuse for believing what it is he wants to believe. In essence he's saying "see how weird this stuff is, you shouldn't poo-poo my ideas because they're weird." It's not the weirdness Deepak, it's the ignorance of your subject: what is intelligence and consciousness.

Quantum physics and Einstein's relativity would have never come into existence without the approaches Deepak dismisses, including skepticism, argument, observations and experiments which were all employed before these theories were accepted. Add to that also mathematical models, because that's what quantum mechanics is, a detailed mathematical model and description of what appears to be happening in the subatomic realm. And that's what Deepak's ideas are not, for there is no real math, no model and no sensible explanation.

None of this matters to the common-sense skeptic, who is blindly certain that an iron wall separates the quantum domain form ordinary existence.

No. Not exactly an iron wall, but there is something called "levels of explanation" that separates different fields of science. Quantum mechanics is the appropriate level of explanation for the behavior of subatomic particles and radiation but it is not the appropriate level of explanation for explaining intelligence or consciousness.

Consider what it is we're talking about when we talk of intelligence and consciousness. To be intelligent means you have knowledge, memory, and certain mental abilities that allow you to use this information to solve problems. To be conscious means to be aware, to understand yourself to some extent, to know you know -- or think you know something about yourself, which would be self-awareness.

We do not create systems that have such intelligence capabilities with explanations designed to handle subatomic particles. Subatomic particles, however weird, exhibit no signs of the problem solving or self awareness we see in people and animals.

The abilities we want are information processing abilities and that's what computers do, not what subatomic particles do.

There is a sense in which the different levels of explanation can be in conflict. For example, Brian Greene in his book, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory described the conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity saying, "as they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right." Each is accurate in its own domain. General relativity described the universe at very large scales, while quantum mechanics describes the behavior of subatomic particles. But the theories came into conflict in extreme conditions, such as with black holes or at the big bang. To reconcile the theories a new theory, superstring theory, then later M theory, was needed.

Different levels of explanation do not always imply conflict though. Consider how differently neurophysiologists and neuropharmachologists would think about neural nets when compared to a programmer working on artificial intelligence. A neuropharmachologists is going to deal with chemicals like norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin when describing how human neural nets work, but an AI programmer working on arificial neural nets doesn't need that level of explanation. The programmer can say what French physicist Pierre Simon de Laplace said to Napoleon, after Napoleon asked, "Where does God fit into your theory?" to which Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

"Where does serotonin fit into your theory, programmer?"

"I have no need of that hypothesis. My theory is a functionalist theory. The computer takes care of those details and I am free to work with a much simpler model."

And such functionalist theories will also free the programmer from quantum mechanics probably even after we have quantum computers.

Over the years it has shocked me how many renowned skeptics, up to and including the highly publicized Richard Dawkins, evince a complete lack of interest in science post Einstein.

Science post Einstein still isn't Chopra woo-woo. In spite of Deepak's attempt to equate his views with those of Einstein and quantum mechanics, Deepak's position is distinctly different, it's not a mathematical model like Einstein's theory or quantum mechanics and it's not science. It is religion and mysticism decked out in pseudo-scientific terminology.

... the brain is made of atoms, atoms are quantum mechanisms, and therefore the existence of any thought--even a skeptical one--is a quantum operation planted firmly in quantum spacetime.

Yes, but let's get back to the concept of levels of explanation to see why this is both an irrelevant and invalid criticism. As I stated above, when it comes to AI the level of explanation is functional. Computers and brains are two very different systems, the brain is made of cells and proteins and works through a flow of complex chemicals, the computer is made of silicon chips and magnetic memories, and yet computers are learning to do what humans do. We don't have to model every aspect of how the brain works to get a functional equivalent.

Neuroscientists and neuropharmacologists might eventually model the quantum mechanical aspect of drug interactions but it need not bother the AI programmer unless some new ability of brains is discovered.

Now we come to the point where Deepak reveals he knows nothing of neurons, for he says:

The ability of two brain cells to "talk" to each other from opposite sides of the cortex involves the same enigma as two electrons talking at opposite sides of the cosmos.

This statement is where Deepak reveals his ignorance most profoundly. Neurons are connected by dendrites. Dendritic connections are the basic receiving stations by which neurons form the signaling networks that constitute the brain's circuitry. There is no enigma or mystery here. Our neurons are as connected as we are through our social net works, that's why Marvin Minsky calls the brain a society of mind. While the dendrite of one neuron may not connect directly to a dendrite on a neuron on the other side of the cortex it will connect to neurons that do ultimately reach it. It's much like the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon trivia game.

This isn't some counter theory to Chopra, it's an established fact that Chopra knows nothing about. We know how to store information in live neurons.

Deepak simply isn't scientifically literate in the field he needs to know in order to speculate on such things. He has only an illusion of understanding.

This irrefutable fact gets ignored by skeptics all the way up the ladder.

That "fact" above is not only quite refutable, Deepak is just dead wrong. Just look at a neuron and its intricate tracery of branches called dendrites. Read up on how neurons connect and communicate with other neurons. You don't need the spooky quantum connection.

It seems to me that skepticism isn't a viable response to quantum reality.

But it is a viable response to Chopra's woo-woo. What you're getting from Deepak isn't really quantum mechanics, it's his Hindu religious mysticism dressed up in pseudo-scientific terms that he looted from some pop science book on quantum physics.

Ultimately Deepak's is a kind of "god of the gaps" argument. But in this case the gap is more in Deepak's knowledge of what is already known than in science's current understanding.

There is merit in attacking bogus science and holding researchers to high standards of truth. (Thanks to the common practice of peer review, we don't really need professional skeptics for this purpose, but let that pass.)

Peer review journals do not protect the public from charlatans like Deepak. Deepak isn't here to solve scientific problems, he's here to sell his books and lectures.

Neuropharmachologists do things like design drugs to manage schizophrenia, depression and other mental illnesses. Computer programmers are creating AI systems that can drive cars and learn to recognize human faces. Deepak wants to sell you bogus miraculous promises in books like "Creating Affluence: Wealth Consciousness in the Field of All Possibilities" and "The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success."

His goal appears to be to create the illusion in the minds of Huffpo readers that he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, so maybe he's right. But he doesn't know. Think about what he is saying -- there is a mind outside the body, or at least part of one. What exactly does this "mind outside the body" do? What does it explain? Does it contain your memories? Does it know your name? Does it want to have sex? Does it have the ability to solve problems? If these things are explained by something outside the brain then why do people with brain damage lose some of these functions?

14 comments:

The Barefoot Bum said...

They laughed at Galileo, and he was right. They laugh at me, therefore I must be right.

The human appetite for egregious bullshit is still as great as ever.

apostate said...

There's a neighbor of mine -- good person, smart enough, aware enough, worldly enough, well-employed and full of common sense -- who is a HUGE Chopra fan. I badly want to share your posts with her, but...how do you do that?

I'll be horrid and admit that I think the women who fall for Chopra's crap are simply crushing on his suave exoticity (is that a word?) and it won't matter to them that he's full of shit.

I wonder how many male 'fans' he's got.

normdoering said...

apostate asked:
"I badly want to share your posts with her, but...how do you do that?"

Can you email her?

If you can, then copy and reconstruct the following links and send them in an email:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com
/2007/02/
deepak-chopra-gets-stupid-again.html

http://normdoering.blogspot.com
/2007/02/
what-makes-deepak-chopra-so-stupid.html

http://normdoering.blogspot.com
/2007/06/
weird-science-more-chopra-woo-woo.html

http://normdoering.blogspot.com
/2007/06/more-chopra-woo-woo.html

http://normdoering.blogspot.com
/2007/06/
yet-more-of-chopras-woo-woo.html

http://normdoering.blogspot.com
/2007/06/deepak-chopra-stops-to-complain-about.html

from:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com

You could also right click and open in new window on these links and find the same http addresses, or URLs, in your browser's head:

chopra_1
chopra_2
chopra_3
chopra_4
chopra_5
chopra_6

If you have a blog and your friend reads it, you can link the posts there.

apostate said...

Norm -- sorry, I meant the question more rhetorically, in the sense, it might come across as rude.

Although I'm extremely outspoken on my blog, I usually find it difficult to directly challenge people's dearly held beliefs, especially if said beliefs are particularly stupid.

The Barefoot Bum said...

You've been tagged!

Onkel Bob said...

Hey Norm have you checked out the new format on Huff Po yet? Your post appears immediately but disappears if the grand pooh bah doesn't like it. Case in point, this morning I posted that I love Deepak's posts because my next career will be to corrupt the youth of Oakland (school teacher) and I intend on running biweekly classes on malarkey detection. I then thanked him for such a rich vein to mine. The post is gone.

normdoering said...

Yes, Bob, I have checked out the new forum on Huffpo. You have to allow javascripts and with me, they don't post my stuff immediately. Sometimes it just never appears.

By the way -- you'll soon be tagged. (See the Barefoot Bum post to understand.)

Devon said...

Great blog and thoughts, very good defense of reason and critique of Deepak. I wonder though, is Deepak's monism really that different from the monism of materialists like Daniel Dennett and Douglas Hofstadter? They don't believe consciousness is tied to a single brain either. Of course they wouldn't believe this consciousness is one and connected in a giant God field but rather overlapping areas of shared consciousness in social networks. So I'd say consciousness existing outside of the brain isn't Deepak's problem (if computer simulations ever become conscious then this is self evident) it's that there is no evidence that it exists in a giant field or maybe that it exists at all.

rasmussenanders said...

Very nice post. I am also very critical of Deepak Chopra to say the least. I recently wrote a post about him winning the Ig Nobel prize a few years back.

Anonymous said...

Did you check Chopra's latest blog entry at HuffPo and at his personal site intentblog, "The Woo Woo Factor"?

http://tinyurl.com/2z2bav

http://tinyurl.com/33um6a

PZ Myers, Orac at scienceblogs.com and Skeptico.blogs.com

have good materials on this post. You can find relevant links in the first link above.

Anonymous said...

Hello friends. I have been into meditation for a quiet a long time now..10 years or so. I have myself experienced a 100 things that go beyond the common sense and needed explanations. I been reading deepak chopra, a lot of new physics book like(GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS, The Dancing wu li masters..) All the science is now coming to the same conclusion, what the spiritualism had been try to convey for years.. But since Science provides proof for all the explanation, there is considerable proof in the new science experiments that point out to a domain or space that is beyond our common sense. Deepak Chopra's book are a bit tough to understand, but what he is pointing to is nothing other than what science is pointing to. I also recommend a book "anything can be healed by Martin Brofman". If some wants to know and discuss with me something about the same...please free to email me at jhumroo77@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

I am a cater waiter and I just worked this job tonight where I had the great misfortune of seeing Deepak Chopra speak. What a jack-ass is all I can say. He seems to believe that he has the real handle on the Evolution "debate" and that both the Christians and the scientists have it wrong. All I can say about the evening, which was a big hooplah fundraiser for some "Urban Zen" project he's heading up with Donna Karan, is that Fran Drescher was there. What does that tell us about the world we live in?

Cosmos_a_personal_voyage said...

Your Blog's Fantastic....and your criticism of Chopra is spot on...I am from India and unfortunately have to admit that there are plenty of fakes like Chopra from my country spewing pseudoscience BS to make a quick buck.....And i am amazed how people in developed countries too fall for this sort of tripe.I guess people fall for its exotic and mysterious flavour,truth and logic be damned.Ive seen Hollywood too using the same formula with great success,so its not just India bitten by the mysticism bug.

Anonymous said...

[url=http://collagen-q.ca]natural collagen[/url]


Time to time it can happen that you want [url=http://www.treegrid.com/javascript-table.html]javascript table[/url] to make your html table more attractive and more interactive. Let's suppose you want to allow your visitors to [url=http://www.treegrid.com/silverlight-datagrid.html]silverlight datagrid[/url] and show some special rows in your table. Of course you are here because you want to do it without reloading [url=http://www.treegrid.com/data-grid.html]datagrid[/url]. It is possible with javascript to hide table rows and show it again later if you want.

First of all lets create a basic and simple html 3x3 [url=http://www.treegrid.com/ajax-grid.html]ajax grid[/url] where the first row contains the column captions. With the following html code:

My solution uses JavaScript, as CSS3 isn't truly a viable option yet. Browsers today still struggle to support CSS1 and CSS2. Even though HTML tables aren't recommended for Web page [url=http://www.treegrid.com/javascript-grid.html]javascript grid[/url], they are still perfectly suited to the presentation of tabular data. In this tutorial, I'll present three examples based on the same idea. I have tested [url=http://www.treegrid.com/edit-gridview.html]edit gridview[/url] the solutions in IE6, Firefox 1.0, Mozilla 1.7.3 and Opera 7.54 on the Windows platform only.