As Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." The way we move beyond simply passively reacting to our environments is by introspective understanding. Buddha had similar ideas, which is why directed meditation is so helpful.
Mr Tanzi, I can not thank you enough for those 7 minutes. But I have one concept or rather one word that I'm especially taking from you here : Desire! I was opposing the root of emotions in terms of fear/love but the word "desire" speaks way more to me than "love". It just makes sense! Thank you so much :)
As he says, we evolve based on desire and fear. I think we live in an era where we are currently evolving not only from selfawareness, but co-awareness. Our desire makes us do things that are selfish for ourselves, but punishment like law and other things like that, prevent us from committing the selfish "crimes" which is what currently holding us in balance (with a few criminal exeptions ..) So, our brain think only for ourselves, creating the odd desire to hurt and feel, but currently having less of a co-awareness to know that we course pain to others. But our brain begins to feel how we can in fact hurt others, by causing displeasure or sadness within us, when we emotionally see how we have hurt others. But knowing that its not the case for all people to feel that coawareness yet, i believe its because we are in the middle of that evolutionary state. My theory is that, in a few thousand years, we have evolved a strong enough co-awareness that our emotional scans of others and our picture of others, that we cant even THINK about hurting others. during the last 200 years, we have had wars because of our disagreement with each others, cauring this "displeasure" or "sadness" within us, enough to drive our own desire, which was to perish those who were wrong, based on our own selfish views, but that said, we have shown greater and greater understanding in each others with time, and i can only imagine that "the open mind" is a product of the brains new evolutionary way of thinking. I believe our next era is the Cognitive era.
For the Love of Pants Because Deepak Chopra has made some unfortunate claims in the past in regards to what constitutes evidence in the scientific community, which casts doubt on any other claims he makes about science. I don't mean anything by it; Deepak Chopra is a very wise man, but after just having come off of a scientifically grounded discussion of the brain, to be thrust into an advice about positive thinking by Deepak Chopra, it jarred me. Deepak Chopra has made erroneous claims in the past about quantum physics; a field that has been cited by the pseudo-scientific mockumentary _"What The Beep Do We Know?!"_ to have be affected by positive thinking. So, the connection from scientific discussion -> positive thinking -> Deepak Chopra immediately summons the image of Deepak Chopra endorsing _The Secret_ and _What the Bleep Do We Know?!_, which immediately makes me reflect on what was said with an unfairly overskeptical lens.
+Alderick van Klaveren Chopra is a con artist who takes advantage of the public's ignorance of quantum physics in order to sell his brand of *faith healing* nonsense. He is doing the whole world a disservice by lying about science and pushing pseudo-science instead.
Miranox I will not make any claims that Deepak Chopra misappropriated quantum physics like the _What the Bleep Do We Know_ mockumentary, since I haven't studied his material. I want to make clear that the word "quantum" is often added to conceptual movements which use quantum physics purely by analogy. I am not asserting that Deepak Chopra abuses the literal or the metaphorical (mis)understanding of quantum physics. I have to remain skeptical that that is what he meant. Less forgivable are his claims about what constitutes evidence, confusing concepts of the burden of proof for the public as well as the concept of solipsism as proposed by Renée Descartes. Though I am paraphrasing poorly what I think to remember Deepak Chopra claiming; our own emotions are the only true evidence of self in the world, thus scientific evidence of the physical world is not tenable. That assertion is an Orwellian language trap which equates two different meanings of evidence and observation. The visceral experience of emotions are evidence to us that the emotions exist for us, but per definition, emotions cannot be both replicated and observed in other people. This is what are called _"Qualia"_ or the _"Explanatory Gap"_. Instead, Deepak Chopra mistakes the _explanatory gap_ as being a flaw of "traditional" scientific observation and that the _explanatory gap_ must be bridged. The problem with that is; science never denied that the _explanatory gap_ nor the existence of qualia. Science doesn't have the goal to allow us to bridge this gap. That's to say that one day, that might be possible (what with singularity and all that), but science, unlike Deepak Chopra, never made that promise. If you want to bridge the _explanatory gap_, you use art. Under that, I would even say that faith and religion are a kind of art (though I think it would be fair to say we'd need a new word for this incorporation of faith and religion into art), if they attempt to replicate qualia in others, with the understanding that failure is always an option.
***** Pseudoscience is a word that describes any collection of ideas falsely attributed to *_a_* scientific method that differs from *_the_* scientific method. I do not personally regard pseudoscience to be a dirty word. I think that it is admirable to try and apply segments of the scientific method until the subject matter exits the scientifically tenable realm. For example, a lot of healthcare policies are not set by science, but by philosophy and ethics. Applying concepts such as replication of results to the replicating the reported results of patient happiness is feasible and there's empirical science and data being gathered from such a method, but patient happiness will (probably) never be experienced or confirmed by scientists to confirm it. That's, in my opinion, also a piece of pseudoscience, to try and extrapolate from actual science conclusions that science cannot observe. It can describe it, but it cannot penetrate the explanatory gap. However, what is not acceptable is when people report an unfalsifiable hypothesis as having been tested or confirmed by scientific methods. There is only one scientific method, which states that the result must be replicated in a way that can be observed. You cannot observe someone else's emotions for them. Deepak Chopra is claimed by Miranox to mislabel his methods as scientific, when they per definition are based on evidence that cannot observed by anyone but Deepak Chopra in the way he observes it. Claiming his conclusions to have been reached with scientific methods is false and misleading, not necessarily (all) the conclusions that he reached.
Life is about creating feelings and emotions. I really appreciate this video as it positively supports my self-created pursed up action. Empathic validity.
+Dragonslayer Sammy t Life is not really about creating feelings and emotions. Not if you define life as just something that lives. Because in that case the only true purpose of life is reproduction and replication. What gives meaning to your life is quite literally up to you
+SioxerNic don't forget evolution - reproduction/ replication and evolution is the goal/meaning of life.(and since evolution has no end the goal of life also never changes)
leon scott The thing is, you aren't. Everything is subjective and from a general point of view. The only true "argument" against it is to say the majority of society disagree with you.
leon scott I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here? You are mixing arguments left and right here. Yes I am conceding in the US homosexuality was considered evil up until the 70's. Saying that to each their own, and a group of people raping someone is not even an argument to counter my point. I am always talking from a societal standpoint. 5 guys and a girl is not an entire society. What is considered moral, right, good, evil, etc. is very much dependent on the society, time, place you are. What is a society? the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. It's a vague definition, but it is also a vague concept. But let's say it has to be a significant amount of people, and it has to be a community that has specific rules. But yes, even if society chooses together what is considered moral, the individual can believe what they want, making their morals different than society. This though would mean if their morals are significantly different and the person acts on it, the society will probably punish the individual (Murder, robbery, rape, etc.) But seriously, trying to discuss where you "magically" draw the line between a group and society is trying to derail the discussion completely. All you did here instead of really trying to argue against my points, you brought in extreme examples that has nothing to do with my point, trying to discuss definitions and just asking questions.
SioxerNic I'm not trying to veer from the conversation. You concede that morality is completely subjective, no matter what, in your world view..... Ok, can you know anything to be absolutely true?
Evolution as I refer to it here includes classic Darwinian natural selection over the long term and epigenetic modifications induced by lifestyle in the shorter term. The latter influences the former. This is further discussed in "Super Genes" for those interested in more recent genetic findings based on epigenetics.
It doesn't matter if Tanzi is working with Chopra if the brain is really heading towards the awareness direction we should learn the lesson...and develop brain horns on the forehead!
I've been struggling with how some people seem to be more geared toward survival, low effort entertainment, and sex whereas others seem to enjoy problem solving, high effort entertainment, and of course sex lol This guy finally puts my question into a coherent answer, saying that some people live in their "brain stems" and others live in their frontal cortex. I knew there was definitely a real divide there, thank you.
+doodelay lord have mercy, if the broad is thirsty ill have the man reimburse me. The part that hurts me, is when they try to work me. But I can never let u jerk me.
This is something I've been saying for years. I'm glad I'm not the only one utilizing the frontal and the R-complex circulation when explaining the human thinking pattern.
I want to talk with you and deepak about superbrains as well! I have so much to add to the conversation based off my own brain. My environment created my massively adaptive and Flow entering brain. Thank you parents :)
When he started talking vaguely about positive and negative 'gene activity' and neuronic mirroring of thoughts, my bullshit radar spiked. It all became clear the moment he mentioned Chopra.
great video, but as you can see in the comments, people still aren't connecting. at least this validation is something I can internalize. thanks again ^_^
John T- Thanks for your comment. Note that it's only the highly vocal minority that is not connecting and they are mainly concerned with ad hominem attacks with no substantive criticism of the content. Meanwhile, the video received 95% likes and only about 5% dislikes - so the vast majority of viewers do seem to be connecting.
I wish you people would listen to what he's saying rather than focusing on one thing he mentioned. What he's saying makes a lot of sense to me and it's not something people talk about that much. Of course we should be self aware and not ruled by fear. And I think its really interesting how he describes how our brain affects the choices we make. I like to think of our brain stem as the evil in people that Christians describe or just people in general who say people are inherently bad. That's one part of us, but another is our pre-frontal cortex, which has the potential to override the brain stem although there are many times where the brain stem wins. It only makes sense, after all our frontal cortex has to grow, mature and change a lot in our younger years where as the brain stem doesn't change much as far as I'm aware. I'm sure this guy has faults, some generalizations he makes about everything being in these two categories ect.. But whatever we all have faults. That doesn't reduce the credibility of his claim. All that should reduce the credibility is your own judgement of what the point is of what he's saying. If you really care that much about who people affiliate with, why not research everyone you listen to on big think to see everyone they've done work with. You probably haven't even read the book he's talking about to know whether it's the usual depak bullshit or not. It's not like depak is kent hovind.
+216trixie the problem you have is that you still have not justified why commmiting suicide is not a good idea? You don't have a basic foundation for objective good and bad..... so whether or not you think holding the door for an old lady matters is irrelevant. Good and bad are subjective in this world view, just like ketchup vs mustard or Bieber vs Taylor Swift.....
+leon scott What the heck are you on about? I said nothing about objective morality. lolol....Now I'm rewatching the video to see if he even brought it up..................But while we're at it, I'll say this: I do hold to an objective morality. Man's life is the basis or standard. Suicide would probably be the height of immorality ............................I made my comment based on many things he said about the evolution of the human mind.
216trixie If you do not hold objective morality, then how is there a height of immorality.... it doesn't matter. If something isn't objective, its subjective.... so suicide is as good as it is bad..... therefore rendering it completely opinionated and meaningless... like whether or not you put mustard on your hotdog or not
216trixie Oh lol sorry I thought it said "do not". Well thanks for the correction. So given morality is objective, where does it come from? All objects have an origin... what produces objective morality in your world view
+Schnupfndrache7 Deepak Chopra is a con artist, who uses pseudoscience to boost his mystical woo woo bullshit, while also preying of people's scientific ignorance.
+Sammy K Sammy, he may be a hunter, and we are nothing more than naked prey. Rest and realize, there is no fear except within yourself. It's nonexistent! Figment of your imagination or perhaps an evolutionary response. Nonetheless, you will prevail, as you always do.
+Sammy K Whats wrong with Deepak? If this man who mind you is a prof of Neurology at Harvard vouches for Deepak is it not possible that there may be SOME truth behind it??
I THINK PEOPLE ARE MISSING THE POINT. We are evolving from an animalistic way of thinking, to a more compassionate way of thinking. Living for the community and the world around you vs living only for you. And since the brain is plastic and always changing based on your lifestyle, AND the way you think, thinking this way will ultimately change your genetics. Granted in a small way, but it will definitely be shown in the generations to come. Think less about yourself And more about others
I think your being sarcastic, but can i say people matter, no matter what. Yeah people can suck, and i understand hating humanity to that point, but at the end of the day there are some good people in the world, people that need help, and even if most people don't necessarily have the best intentions, we all deserve a chance. Because the better we are as people, the better off humanity will be, and vice versa leon scott
OK, i think i understand your point, we may not matter in the grand scheme of things. But if your human, you evolved for a reason, to be a part of what carries our species forward in this evolutionary process. And so the only way that is done (at this point in this society we built) by looking at other humans as people who matter. People have to matter, for people. I know that's selfish and we have to take care of a planet that took care of us. But if we don't start caring for each other, it won't be a long wait for our extinction because of carelessness.
I don't care if it doesn't sound scientific enough. My critique for this is that it's not easy to keep being positive when everyone around you is so damn negative, waiting you to fail, discouraging you, stabbing you behind your back, talking bad about yourself, etc.
He keeps going in and out of nonsense throughout the video. Like some things he says are in line with psychology and neurology. Seems like he tries to mix that in with his own interpretation, assumptions and personal philosophy. Strangely enough this is what deepak TRIES to do also, it's astounding how easily people are fooled by charlatans. Philosophy and psychology are separate things, sometimes they coincide, but the leaps he has to make between them are large and not backed by any evidence unfortunately. Not sure if evolution was used right here either, i know evolution basically means change but the brain changes ALL the time and for any EVOLUTION to happen in the brain it would require a LOT of generations passing down their genes, and it will be the environments demands that will shape it, not our preferences. It is nothing you can do to yourself or anything that can happen within your life time.
Well said. It warms my heart that other viewers of this channel aren't swept off their feet by this nonsense. He does not use the word evolution here in the sense of natural selection. He seems to be trying to imply that we have a measure of control over the mutations and arrangement of the DNA in our sperm and eggs by utilizing our frontal cortex more than our brain stem. At least that's what I'm led to conclude from his Woo-speak. I was waiting for him to clarify what he meant by 'gene activity', but he stays purposefully vague and feels the need to defend his statements during a monologue by emphasizing that this gene activity in rodents is measurable and quantifiable with no specifics. We'll evolve by thinking happy thoughts, I guess.
+RouninPanda +MangoWolf Do some research on "Epigenetics" as far as I know it is possible to change how your cells read your DNA. But I dont think its possible to actually change the DNA by itself. So your actions have an impact on yourself, but not on your children I think.
Vader Darth I know what the study of epigenetics is, but this guy made no mention of that. Nor is it implied by the context of what he's saying. He doesn't really say anything scientific at all once he starts referring to 'gene activity'.
+RouninPanda Dude, it was a 7min video. I thought some of his points were well done and interesting. His use of his hand describing what parts of the brain was good analogy, but this isn't a book or a documentary. What do you expect him to say? Read one of his books or even Chopra if you want more explanation. They cite many of their sources to very reputable institutions.
I think what he meant was that the "selfless" brain areas the newest evolved structures in the brain, so the use of them must confer some advantage over simply using the older brain areas. Then he tries to build a personal philosophy around actively trying to use those brain areas.
Just discovered this channel and I was looking forward to listening to some of the discussions, until reference to the self aggrandizing, smooth talking Chopra. Nuff said.
I have always thought that the way we live our lives has always been a choice. We can choose to be more of an animal or an evolved entity that, I believe, Nature created and aspired us to be. However, we do rely on our physical brain to accomplish this. If the brain is deficient or in excess of certain activities/chemicals/nutrients, then it can be difficult to even have that choice. This is why I believe that our brain (bodies) come first then the true intent of our existence.
I get what hes saying, but i'm not quite sure natural selection works that way. I would work if we could filter out certain traits and push desired ones by selecting genes that already exist through our offspring. That would result in alot of killing and favored selecting. I dont think that thinking positive will cause the genes to be more positive in our offspring. But i'm not an expert on evolution through influencing genes through thought (if thats even possible), but i'm open to learn how this might make sense. The only way I see how this might make sense is that the brain is plastic and by thinking positive you create neural patters that will somehow influence and change genes for you frontal lobe to then register positive thinking easier. And since the genetic code has been changed, the offspring will then carry those traits.
Thanks to the many who "liked" this video (95%). As I scroll through the comments, it amazes me how many have watched this video and seemed to be benefiting from it and, then, like lemmings, jumped off the cliff yelling obscenities all the way down to the valley of disdain, once they heard me utter the name "Deepak". If you read the negative comments (BTW, only 5% of viewers), you see that this very vocal minority have in common only one thing - a dislike for Deepak. I would suggest that this vocal minority take the time to read our books "Super Brain" and "Super Genes" and then offer informed constructive criticism as opposed to ad hominem attacks. Their brains and our species may truly benefit in the process. Thanks to the many who liked this video and peace to the few who did not.
If you say you have to love something and you have to serve something or someone then you don't want to do it. No one wants to do something you have to do.
The ancients knew this knowledge. It is the The myth of the metals that Plato speaks of, it is the Three Ketes of knowledge. The Physical, Mental and Spiritual. This is not Science nor it is religion. It is Truth
But then your "negative attitude" also comes from your brain's connections, which are physical connections as he says, so to just have a "positive attitude" is a bit like saying if you have a broken foot and have trouble walking, then just make an effort to walk more. I mean.... depending on how broken your foot is of cause but this seems to be a limited and at some point stops even being a real solution.
All these people talking smack about him and Deepak Chopra.. Why don't you guys go work at Harvard or get a PH.D? He definitely has evidence and there are a massive amount of sources that prove his work and even Deepak's essential teachings. The core is that obtaining a higher level of consciousness will change & grow your brain, and in turn will change your perception of life. Meditation has time and time again been proved to promote brain activity and function, while it is also the vehicle to a fulfilling life of truth, contribution and compassion. Before you comment, do some real research and stay a little more humble. Also make sure you read his book before you try and dismiss things he says because there is information "missing". He obviously had to make it short for this video, it's actually pretty long compared to most Big Think videos.
The point is we use shortcuts wisely. If the head of ISIS wrote a book on compassionate parenting, who'd not be rightly skeptical? Likewise, Chopra has academic credentials, but he also has a reputation for inventing gibberish. Now, as this video makes a lot of assertions the supplying rigourous examination of their supporting premises (there's not time), we need to make tentative guesses about the trustworthiness of the content. Hence, mention of chopra contaminates an otherwise interesting and credible talk.
Okay I have a BA in Psychology and I believe what he says about the brain stem starting at about 2:50 is just incorrect? Can someone validate this? I'm fairly certain that the functions of the brain stem include various regulatory operations that keep you alive, such as vasodilation, breathing, and regulating the heart beat. He seems to be conflating the function of the brain stem with the function of the amygdalae, which are not located at the back of the brain but in the limbic system, in the center of the brain, and which has the functions of processing fear, anger, and pleasure?? This seems strange to me because he is a professor of Neurology at Harvard.
The brain stem technically includes the midbrain, which contains the amygdala that controls fight or flight. The medulla, which is also part of the brain stem (below the midbrain and pons), controls cardiac and respiratory functions, which you are referring to. It is true that the amygdala is also considered part of the limbic system. Here, I was referring to the amygdala technically being part of the midbrain, which is a part of the brain stem. Meanwhile, the limbic functions I was referring to included emotions and short term memory. I was trying to keep it simple..
It's great up until 2:50 where he makes a big leap and assumption based on what we find out later is most likely influenced by his spiritual values and those of Deeprak Chopra. However, later when he mentions how positive thoughts affect genetics, I have heard of those studies and think they might carry some real weight. But, his descriptions of the things that constitute positive thoughts are definitely biased.
n the dark side of the comment section, one can easily see how fooled people resist to be aided, it's the power of their ignorance combined with their fear that backs them, and this is a massive force to struggle with. Someones see that just mentioning Deepak as a taboo and a deal breaker , what a coward you make of yourself? man stop categorising people, and try judging their single ideas each and every time they talk. No one is full of sense and no one is all nonsense. Ignorance and belonging to a specific herd or the other, would never protect you, though it may indeed calm you for whiles. Now that's an illusion, a dangerous one.
6:10 I just hate that argument. It's so stupid because you can't value just being alive that much without building up a fear of death. The time we are alive is neglible to the time we we will spend being dead. We better hope it's not total shit being dead.
He should have mentioned Deepak Chopra early in the video and I could have saved 6 minutes of my time. Seriously, Deepak Chopra doesn't deserve any respect.
But you say mental outlook can directly affect your genes, but couldn't it be the other way round? Could your genes be the cause of your state? So you are not as conscious as you believe
You really should reconsider using words like selfish in a serious context like this. That word is incredibly loaded and confusing. The word is mostly used to provoke the very "fight or flight" response in whom ever you are talking to, to manipulate them into agreeing. I am sure you do not mean to do that, but it might still be the effect, and that would be very counterproductive to what you are trying to do here. I use my prefrontal cortex for what could be called selfish reasons in order to improve my life and the community I live in. Relying on the instinctive fight or flight is as far away from selfish behaviour as I can imagine. It's rather incredibly self-destructive, and will not let you reach your full potential, which is certainly not good the self.
Chopra is a nut, but I guess you have to put a big name on your book to sell copies. Would be incredible to see what this man came up without Chopra though.
I'll quote Dylan Moran saying you have to have a conversation with the beast within demanding more yummy. Basically go between a state of "yummy yummy yummyy" and "boo hoo boooo hoooo".
Maybe this explains why some people love Donald Trump and others love Bernie Sanders. Some brains are not evolving toward love and serving others and they have not evolved past fear and self serving desires.
So basically our brain structure and psychology is changing towards altruism.... Mmm i don't know where he takes the idea of frontal lobe it's altruism and reptile brain is selfishness... Where is the science supporting he's idea?... This video just don't conveice me.
None of this is new information The Buddha already described human brain thousands of years ago. He was first neuroscience its so sad that science moves slower then spirituality.
Nonsense video title. We can't guide our own evolution. That's simply not how evolution works. And even if we could change our genes, that would only impact the brains of our offspring (maybe).. not ours. And those altered future brains might be different but whether that difference is good, bad or neutral is totally at the mercy of natural selection. Thinking positive thoughts might lead only to future generations who are convinced nothing bad is going to happen. That could be a problem if you find yourself in the path of city bus. (I could force myself to watch the whole video, so if he mentioned all this my apologies)
don't buy it...too much vague mention of neurophysiological structure followed by a short-sighted attribution to its relevance to function. the claim that the hippocampus is a short-term memory store is also controversial. it's these types of simpletons that are to blame for perpetuating scientific hypotheses that lack convincing evidence and making them appear as truisms to the public.
So basically he summed up cognitive behavioural therapy. Something we've known, for quite a while, is effective. But he's inserted it into a cloud of bullshit. Lost quite a bit of credibility with the Deepak name-drop. What a chump.
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
As Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." The way we move beyond simply passively reacting to our environments is by introspective understanding. Buddha had similar ideas, which is why directed meditation is so helpful.
Self-Awareness, Decision making, Contribution... pre-frontal cortex
I AM Happy to be here.
I AM here for Growth & Contribution.
"I'm just happy to be here!" Good stuff, I will use that.
Mr Tanzi, I can not thank you enough for those 7 minutes. But I have one concept or rather one word that I'm especially taking from you here : Desire! I was opposing the root of emotions in terms of fear/love but the word "desire" speaks way more to me than "love". It just makes sense!
Thank you so much :)
As he says, we evolve based on desire and fear. I think we live in an era where we are currently evolving not only from selfawareness, but co-awareness.
Our desire makes us do things that are selfish for ourselves, but punishment like law and other things like that, prevent us from committing the selfish "crimes" which is what currently holding us in balance (with a few criminal exeptions ..)
So, our brain think only for ourselves, creating the odd desire to hurt and feel, but currently having less of a co-awareness to know that we course pain to others.
But our brain begins to feel how we can in fact hurt others, by causing displeasure or sadness within us, when we emotionally see how we have hurt others.
But knowing that its not the case for all people to feel that coawareness yet, i believe its because we are in the middle of that evolutionary state. My theory is that, in a few thousand years, we have evolved a strong enough co-awareness that our emotional scans of others and our picture of others, that we cant even THINK about hurting others.
during the last 200 years, we have had wars because of our disagreement with each others, cauring this "displeasure" or "sadness" within us, enough to drive our own desire, which was to perish those who were wrong, based on our own selfish views, but that said, we have shown greater and greater understanding in each others with time, and i can only imagine that "the open mind" is a product of the brains new evolutionary way of thinking.
I believe our next era is the Cognitive era.
The mention of Deepak Chopra sadly removes some of the credibility from this video. That's a shame, but I'll still take all of it to heart.
Why? o.O
For the Love of Pants Because Deepak Chopra has made some unfortunate claims in the past in regards to what constitutes evidence in the scientific community, which casts doubt on any other claims he makes about science.
I don't mean anything by it; Deepak Chopra is a very wise man, but after just having come off of a scientifically grounded discussion of the brain, to be thrust into an advice about positive thinking by Deepak Chopra, it jarred me.
Deepak Chopra has made erroneous claims in the past about quantum physics; a field that has been cited by the pseudo-scientific mockumentary _"What The Beep Do We Know?!"_ to have be affected by positive thinking.
So, the connection from scientific discussion -> positive thinking -> Deepak Chopra immediately summons the image of Deepak Chopra endorsing _The Secret_ and _What the Bleep Do We Know?!_, which immediately makes me reflect on what was said with an unfairly overskeptical lens.
+Alderick van Klaveren Chopra is a con artist who takes advantage of the public's ignorance of quantum physics in order to sell his brand of *faith healing* nonsense. He is doing the whole world a disservice by lying about science and pushing pseudo-science instead.
Miranox I will not make any claims that Deepak Chopra misappropriated quantum physics like the _What the Bleep Do We Know_ mockumentary, since I haven't studied his material.
I want to make clear that the word "quantum" is often added to conceptual movements which use quantum physics purely by analogy.
I am not asserting that Deepak Chopra abuses the literal or the metaphorical (mis)understanding of quantum physics. I have to remain skeptical that that is what he meant.
Less forgivable are his claims about what constitutes evidence, confusing concepts of the burden of proof for the public as well as the concept of solipsism as proposed by Renée Descartes. Though I am paraphrasing poorly what I think to remember Deepak Chopra claiming; our own emotions are the only true evidence of self in the world, thus scientific evidence of the physical world is not tenable.
That assertion is an Orwellian language trap which equates two different meanings of evidence and observation. The visceral experience of emotions are evidence to us that the emotions exist for us, but per definition, emotions cannot be both replicated and observed in other people. This is what are called _"Qualia"_ or the _"Explanatory Gap"_.
Instead, Deepak Chopra mistakes the _explanatory gap_ as being a flaw of "traditional" scientific observation and that the _explanatory gap_ must be bridged.
The problem with that is; science never denied that the _explanatory gap_ nor the existence of qualia. Science doesn't have the goal to allow us to bridge this gap. That's to say that one day, that might be possible (what with singularity and all that), but science, unlike Deepak Chopra, never made that promise.
If you want to bridge the _explanatory gap_, you use art. Under that, I would even say that faith and religion are a kind of art (though I think it would be fair to say we'd need a new word for this incorporation of faith and religion into art), if they attempt to replicate qualia in others, with the understanding that failure is always an option.
***** Pseudoscience is a word that describes any collection of ideas falsely attributed to *_a_* scientific method that differs from *_the_* scientific method.
I do not personally regard pseudoscience to be a dirty word. I think that it is admirable to try and apply segments of the scientific method until the subject matter exits the scientifically tenable realm.
For example, a lot of healthcare policies are not set by science, but by philosophy and ethics. Applying concepts such as replication of results to the replicating the reported results of patient happiness is feasible and there's empirical science and data being gathered from such a method, but patient happiness will (probably) never be experienced or confirmed by scientists to confirm it. That's, in my opinion, also a piece of pseudoscience, to try and extrapolate from actual science conclusions that science cannot observe. It can describe it, but it cannot penetrate the explanatory gap.
However, what is not acceptable is when people report an unfalsifiable hypothesis as having been tested or confirmed by scientific methods. There is only one scientific method, which states that the result must be replicated in a way that can be observed. You cannot observe someone else's emotions for them.
Deepak Chopra is claimed by Miranox to mislabel his methods as scientific, when they per definition are based on evidence that cannot observed by anyone but Deepak Chopra in the way he observes it. Claiming his conclusions to have been reached with scientific methods is false and misleading, not necessarily (all) the conclusions that he reached.
Life is about creating feelings and emotions. I really appreciate this video as it positively supports my self-created pursed up action. Empathic validity.
+Dragonslayer Sammy t Life is not really about creating feelings and emotions. Not if you define life as just something that lives. Because in that case the only true purpose of life is reproduction and replication.
What gives meaning to your life is quite literally up to you
+SioxerNic don't forget evolution - reproduction/ replication and evolution is the goal/meaning of life.(and since evolution has no end the goal of life also never changes)
leon scott The thing is, you aren't. Everything is subjective and from a general point of view. The only true "argument" against it is to say the majority of society disagree with you.
leon scott I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here? You are mixing arguments left and right here.
Yes I am conceding in the US homosexuality was considered evil up until the 70's.
Saying that to each their own, and a group of people raping someone is not even an argument to counter my point. I am always talking from a societal standpoint. 5 guys and a girl is not an entire society. What is considered moral, right, good, evil, etc. is very much dependent on the society, time, place you are.
What is a society?
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
It's a vague definition, but it is also a vague concept. But let's say it has to be a significant amount of people, and it has to be a community that has specific rules.
But yes, even if society chooses together what is considered moral, the individual can believe what they want, making their morals different than society. This though would mean if their morals are significantly different and the person acts on it, the society will probably punish the individual (Murder, robbery, rape, etc.)
But seriously, trying to discuss where you "magically" draw the line between a group and society is trying to derail the discussion completely. All you did here instead of really trying to argue against my points, you brought in extreme examples that has nothing to do with my point, trying to discuss definitions and just asking questions.
SioxerNic I'm not trying to veer from the conversation. You concede that morality is completely subjective, no matter what, in your world view..... Ok, can you know anything to be absolutely true?
Evolution as I refer to it here includes classic Darwinian natural selection over the long term and epigenetic modifications induced by lifestyle in the shorter term. The latter influences the former. This is further discussed in "Super Genes" for those interested in more recent genetic findings based on epigenetics.
I am here to love and serve others 💜🙌🌱 Thank you. I read your forward in Steven Eisenberg’s book “Love is the Strongest Medicine.” Amazing.
It doesn't matter if Tanzi is working with Chopra if the brain is really heading towards the awareness direction we should learn the lesson...and develop brain horns on the forehead!
Some humans don't, for they already have them. :)
I've been struggling with how some people seem to be more geared toward survival, low effort entertainment, and sex whereas others seem to enjoy problem solving, high effort entertainment, and of course sex lol
This guy finally puts my question into a coherent answer, saying that some people live in their "brain stems" and others live in their frontal cortex. I knew there was definitely a real divide there, thank you.
+doodelay Amen!
+doodelay lord have mercy, if the broad is thirsty ill have the man reimburse me. The part that hurts me, is when they try to work me. But I can never let u jerk me.
+fermin diaz I applaud ** claps **
+doodelay watch out for confirmation bias.
elvisitor you're right. I don't believe this is true anymore.
This is something I've been saying for years. I'm glad I'm not the only one utilizing the frontal and the R-complex circulation when explaining the human thinking pattern.
Excellent video! What an amazing world it would be if the majority of us could live in the frontal part of the brain!
I want to talk with you and deepak about superbrains as well! I have so much to add to the conversation based off my own brain. My environment created my massively adaptive and Flow entering brain. Thank you parents :)
Kinks, weird, love, help, we all ate the grapes of Eden’s garden.
Love that.
When he started talking vaguely about positive and negative 'gene activity' and neuronic mirroring of thoughts, my bullshit radar spiked. It all became clear the moment he mentioned Chopra.
great video, but as you can see in the comments, people still aren't connecting. at least this validation is something I can internalize. thanks again ^_^
John T- Thanks for your comment. Note that it's only the highly vocal minority that is not connecting and they are mainly concerned with ad hominem attacks with no substantive criticism of the content. Meanwhile, the video received 95% likes and only about 5% dislikes - so the vast majority of viewers do seem to be connecting.
+Rudy Tanzi I understand. Thank you again for the time, effort and passion you've tried to share with us all.
+Rudy Tanzi also, as an aside, thanks for replying ^_^
Sooo simple and yet sooo profound. I appreciate this.
I wish you people would listen to what he's saying rather than focusing on one thing he mentioned. What he's saying makes a lot of sense to me and it's not something people talk about that much. Of course we should be self aware and not ruled by fear. And I think its really interesting how he describes how our brain affects the choices we make. I like to think of our brain stem as the evil in people that Christians describe or just people in general who say people are inherently bad. That's one part of us, but another is our pre-frontal cortex, which has the potential to override the brain stem although there are many times where the brain stem wins.
It only makes sense, after all our frontal cortex has to grow, mature and change a lot in our younger years where as the brain stem doesn't change much as far as I'm aware. I'm sure this guy has faults, some generalizations he makes about everything being in these two categories ect..
But whatever we all have faults. That doesn't reduce the credibility of his claim. All that should reduce the credibility is your own judgement of what the point is of what he's saying. If you really care that much about who people affiliate with, why not research everyone you listen to on big think to see everyone they've done work with. You probably haven't even read the book he's talking about to know whether it's the usual depak bullshit or not. It's not like depak is kent hovind.
Really enjoyed this video, very insightful to me, thanks :)
Oh wow. Great video. Exactly my line of thought, and the actual evolution of my thinking over the last twenty years.
+216trixie the problem you have is that you still have not justified why commmiting suicide is not a good idea? You don't have a basic foundation for objective good and bad..... so whether or not you think holding the door for an old lady matters is irrelevant. Good and bad are subjective in this world view, just like ketchup vs mustard or Bieber vs Taylor Swift.....
+leon scott What the heck are you on about? I said nothing about objective morality. lolol....Now I'm rewatching the video to see if he even brought it up..................But while we're at it, I'll say this: I do hold to an objective morality. Man's life is the basis or standard. Suicide would probably be the height of immorality ............................I made my comment based on many things he said about the evolution of the human mind.
216trixie If you do not hold objective morality, then how is there a height of immorality.... it doesn't matter. If something isn't objective, its subjective.... so suicide is as good as it is bad..... therefore rendering it completely opinionated and meaningless... like whether or not you put mustard on your hotdog or not
leon scott I just said I do hold objective morality. You are weird. And my original comment, and the video, have nothing to do with the subject.
216trixie Oh lol sorry I thought it said "do not". Well thanks for the correction. So given morality is objective, where does it come from? All objects have an origin... what produces objective morality in your world view
Really? Deepak Chopra.....ugh
+Sammy K what does that mean?
+Schnupfndrache7 Deepak Chopra is a con artist, who uses pseudoscience to boost his mystical woo woo bullshit, while also preying of people's scientific ignorance.
+Sammy K Sammy, he may be a hunter, and we are nothing more than naked prey. Rest and realize, there is no fear except within yourself. It's nonexistent! Figment of your imagination or perhaps an evolutionary response. Nonetheless, you will prevail, as you always do.
+Sammy K Whats wrong with Deepak? If this man who mind you is a prof of Neurology at Harvard vouches for Deepak is it not possible that there may be SOME truth behind it??
+Godson Leon He is a narcissist fraud who believes his own press that's all.
I THINK PEOPLE ARE MISSING THE POINT. We are evolving from an animalistic way of thinking, to a more compassionate way of thinking. Living for the community and the world around you vs living only for you. And since the brain is plastic and always changing based on your lifestyle, AND the way you think, thinking this way will ultimately change your genetics. Granted in a small way, but it will definitely be shown in the generations to come.
Think less about yourself
And more about others
I think your being sarcastic, but can i say people matter, no matter what. Yeah people can suck, and i understand hating humanity to that point, but at the end of the day there are some good people in the world, people that need help, and even if most people don't necessarily have the best intentions, we all deserve a chance. Because the better we are as people, the better off humanity will be, and vice versa leon scott
un1fy003 Saying people matter does not explain why people matter... Why do people matter.... please explain
+leon scott These nihilistic statements indicate mild to moderate psychosis.
1122redbird Again, explain why people matter? I am asking a question.
OK, i think i understand your point, we may not matter in the grand scheme of things. But if your human, you evolved for a reason, to be a part of what carries our species forward in this evolutionary process. And so the only way that is done (at this point in this society we built) by looking at other humans as people who matter.
People have to matter, for people. I know that's selfish and we have to take care of a planet that took care of us. But if we don't start caring for each other, it won't be a long wait for our extinction because of carelessness.
I don't care if it doesn't sound scientific enough. My critique for this is that it's not easy to keep being positive when everyone around you is so damn negative, waiting you to fail, discouraging you, stabbing you behind your back, talking bad about yourself, etc.
He keeps going in and out of nonsense throughout the video. Like some things he says are in line with psychology and neurology. Seems like he tries to mix that in with his own interpretation, assumptions and personal philosophy. Strangely enough this is what deepak TRIES to do also, it's astounding how easily people are fooled by charlatans.
Philosophy and psychology are separate things, sometimes they coincide, but the leaps he has to make between them are large and not backed by any evidence unfortunately.
Not sure if evolution was used right here either, i know evolution basically means change but the brain changes ALL the time and for any EVOLUTION to happen in the brain it would require a LOT of generations passing down their genes, and it will be the environments demands that will shape it, not our preferences. It is nothing you can do to yourself or anything that can happen within your life time.
Well said. It warms my heart that other viewers of this channel aren't swept off their feet by this nonsense.
He does not use the word evolution here in the sense of natural selection. He seems to be trying to imply that we have a measure of control over the mutations and arrangement of the DNA in our sperm and eggs by utilizing our frontal cortex more than our brain stem. At least that's what I'm led to conclude from his Woo-speak. I was waiting for him to clarify what he meant by 'gene activity', but he stays purposefully vague and feels the need to defend his statements during a monologue by emphasizing that this gene activity in rodents is measurable and quantifiable with no specifics. We'll evolve by thinking happy thoughts, I guess.
+RouninPanda +MangoWolf
Do some research on "Epigenetics" as far as I know it is possible to change how your cells read your DNA. But I dont think its possible to actually change the DNA by itself. So your actions have an impact on yourself, but not on your children I think.
Vader Darth I know what the study of epigenetics is, but this guy made no mention of that. Nor is it implied by the context of what he's saying. He doesn't really say anything scientific at all once he starts referring to 'gene activity'.
+RouninPanda Dude, it was a 7min video. I thought some of his points were well done and interesting. His use of his hand describing what parts of the brain was good analogy, but this isn't a book or a documentary. What do you expect him to say? Read one of his books or even Chopra if you want more explanation. They cite many of their sources to very reputable institutions.
I think what he meant was that the "selfless" brain areas the newest evolved structures in the brain, so the use of them must confer some advantage over simply using the older brain areas. Then he tries to build a personal philosophy around actively trying to use those brain areas.
Thank you big think
Wow. Just wow.
Yes 🙌
This is necessary!
Just discovered this channel and I was looking forward to listening to some of the discussions, until reference to the self aggrandizing, smooth talking Chopra. Nuff said.
I stabbed my brain stem now I'm all brains.
Outstanding ideas
I have always thought that the way we live our lives has always been a choice. We can choose to be more of an animal or an evolved entity that, I believe, Nature created and aspired us to be.
However, we do rely on our physical brain to accomplish this. If the brain is deficient or in excess of certain activities/chemicals/nutrients, then it can be difficult to even have that choice.
This is why I believe that our brain (bodies) come first then the true intent of our existence.
"...my co-authro, Deepak Chopra..." (insert sad fail sting here)
+Tobias Hagström Whuah-whuuah-ouuuaaaaa...
Why ?
Thank you for this video. This man is wonderful.
Self awareness and compassion over selfishness... whoa.
I get what hes saying, but i'm not quite sure natural selection works that way. I would work if we could filter out certain traits and push desired ones by selecting genes that already exist through our offspring. That would result in alot of killing and favored selecting.
I dont think that thinking positive will cause the genes to be more positive in our offspring.
But i'm not an expert on evolution through influencing genes through thought (if thats even possible), but i'm open to learn how this might make sense.
The only way I see how this might make sense is that the brain is plastic and by thinking positive you create neural patters that will somehow influence and change genes for you frontal lobe to then register positive thinking easier. And since the genetic code has been changed, the offspring will then carry those traits.
as soon as he said 'deepak chopra' a red flag went up in my brain.
+BMTroubleU Same here.
Thanks to the many who "liked" this video (95%). As I scroll through the comments, it amazes me how many have watched this video and seemed to be benefiting from it and, then, like lemmings, jumped off the cliff yelling obscenities all the way down to the valley of disdain, once they heard me utter the name "Deepak". If you read the negative comments (BTW, only 5% of viewers), you see that this very vocal minority have in common only one thing - a dislike for Deepak. I would suggest that this vocal minority take the time to read our books "Super Brain" and "Super Genes" and then offer informed constructive criticism as opposed to ad hominem attacks. Their brains and our species may truly benefit in the process. Thanks to the many who liked this video and peace to the few who did not.
Wow really great vid
If you say you have to love something and you have to serve something or someone then you don't want to do it. No one wants to do something you have to do.
I’m happy to be here!
The ancients knew this knowledge. It is the The myth of the metals that Plato speaks of, it is the Three Ketes of knowledge. The Physical, Mental and Spiritual. This is not Science nor it is religion. It is Truth
But then your "negative attitude" also comes from your brain's connections, which are physical connections as he says, so to just have a "positive attitude" is a bit like saying if you have a broken foot and have trouble walking, then just make an effort to walk more. I mean.... depending on how broken your foot is of cause but this seems to be a limited and at some point stops even being a real solution.
Dr. Deepak Chopra has written over 20 bestseller books. Dr. Rudoolph Tanzi has written only a few bestsellers.
All these people talking smack about him and Deepak Chopra.. Why don't you guys go work at Harvard or get a PH.D? He definitely has evidence and there are a massive amount of sources that prove his work and even Deepak's essential teachings. The core is that obtaining a higher level of consciousness will change & grow your brain, and in turn will change your perception of life. Meditation has time and time again been proved to promote brain activity and function, while it is also the vehicle to a fulfilling life of truth, contribution and compassion. Before you comment, do some real research and stay a little more humble. Also make sure you read his book before you try and dismiss things he says because there is information "missing". He obviously had to make it short for this video, it's actually pretty long compared to most Big Think videos.
The point is we use shortcuts wisely. If the head of ISIS wrote a book on compassionate parenting, who'd not be rightly skeptical? Likewise, Chopra has academic credentials, but he also has a reputation for inventing gibberish. Now, as this video makes a lot of assertions the supplying rigourous examination of their supporting premises (there's not time), we need to make tentative guesses about the trustworthiness of the content. Hence, mention of chopra contaminates an otherwise interesting and credible talk.
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe use your brain sometimes
Okay I have a BA in Psychology and I believe what he says about the brain stem starting at about 2:50 is just incorrect? Can someone validate this? I'm fairly certain that the functions of the brain stem include various regulatory operations that keep you alive, such as vasodilation, breathing, and regulating the heart beat. He seems to be conflating the function of the brain stem with the function of the amygdalae, which are not located at the back of the brain but in the limbic system, in the center of the brain, and which has the functions of processing fear, anger, and pleasure?? This seems strange to me because he is a professor of Neurology at Harvard.
The brain stem technically includes the midbrain, which contains the amygdala that controls fight or flight. The medulla, which is also part of the brain stem (below the midbrain and pons), controls cardiac and respiratory functions, which you are referring to. It is true that the amygdala is also considered part of the limbic system. Here, I was referring to the amygdala technically being part of the midbrain, which is a part of the brain stem. Meanwhile, the limbic functions I was referring to included emotions and short term memory. I was trying to keep it simple..
wisdom
I like this
I got as far as "My co-author - deepak chopra" and then decided they both need more self-improvement
It's great up until 2:50 where he makes a big leap and assumption based on what we find out later is most likely influenced by his spiritual values and those of Deeprak Chopra. However, later when he mentions how positive thoughts affect genetics, I have heard of those studies and think they might carry some real weight. But, his descriptions of the things that constitute positive thoughts are definitely biased.
Oh no, he wrote a book with Deepak Chopra... But still, the video was quite nice.
n the dark side of the comment section, one can easily see how fooled people resist to be aided, it's the power of their ignorance combined with their fear that backs them, and this is a massive force to struggle with.
Someones see that just mentioning Deepak as a taboo and a deal breaker , what a coward you make of yourself? man stop categorising people, and try judging their single ideas each and every time they talk. No one is full of sense and no one is all nonsense.
Ignorance and belonging to a specific herd or the other, would never protect you, though it may indeed calm you for whiles. Now that's an illusion, a dangerous one.
would the logical conclusion of the evolutional process be all of mankind cooperating like a beehive selflessly and mindlessly ?
Chopra disciple? The woo is strong in this one.
Sound quality is a poor.
This thing went completely off the rails at 5:30.
Not sure what that has to do with evolution, but basically he's saying, "don't be a dick"
Dope
6:10 I just hate that argument. It's so stupid because you can't value just being alive that much without building up a fear of death. The time we are alive is neglible to the time we we will spend being dead. We better hope it's not total shit being dead.
5:51 The moment I stopped being interested in what he had to say.
Compassion. HA!
Or maybe i should cry?
He should have mentioned Deepak Chopra early in the video and I could have saved 6 minutes of my time.
Seriously, Deepak Chopra doesn't deserve any respect.
cool
More like big stink after watching this.
Agreed: Big Stink.
+Katherine Somarro You don't get it
I think somebody should tell ISISS that our brains are evolving into self awareness . I don't think they got the memo yet
those look like the nat geo imagesp
But you say mental outlook can directly affect your genes, but couldn't it be the other way round? Could your genes be the cause of your state? So you are not as conscious as you believe
I was kind of with him until he said he worked with Deepak Chopra at 5:52.
That is terrible, Chopra is ludicrous.
First time I liked a video in the middle (very nice information there), and then un-liked it at the end.
You really should reconsider using words like selfish in a serious context like this. That word is incredibly loaded and confusing.
The word is mostly used to provoke the very "fight or flight" response in whom ever you are talking to, to manipulate them into agreeing. I am sure you do not mean to do that, but it might still be the effect, and that would be very counterproductive to what you are trying to do here.
I use my prefrontal cortex for what could be called selfish reasons in order to improve my life and the community I live in. Relying on the instinctive fight or flight is as far away from selfish behaviour as I can imagine. It's rather incredibly self-destructive, and will not let you reach your full potential, which is certainly not good the self.
How to encourage people to use the word "evolution" correctly? Shaming hasn't worked. Individuals, adapt groups evolve.
Chopra is a nut, but I guess you have to put a big name on your book to sell copies. Would be incredible to see what this man came up without Chopra though.
I'll quote Dylan Moran saying you have to have a conversation with the beast within demanding more yummy. Basically go between a state of "yummy yummy yummyy" and "boo hoo boooo hoooo".
This explains why ADD and ADHD people act the way they do.
I thought it was a good video, and then he mentioned Deepak Chopra.
Maybe this explains why some people love Donald Trump and others love Bernie Sanders. Some brains are not evolving toward love and serving others and they have not evolved past fear and self serving desires.
Deepak Chopra....
at 620, you can see him choke up... it seems this guy is talking from experience.
Hmm something must be wrong with my programming I haven't found any sex yet
Indeed! Mindfucked by deepak chopra!! He should've clarified that in the beginning!
So basically our brain structure and psychology is changing towards altruism.... Mmm i don't know where he takes the idea of frontal lobe it's altruism and reptile brain is selfishness... Where is the science supporting he's idea?... This video just don't conveice me.
None of this is new information The Buddha already described human brain thousands of years ago. He was first neuroscience its so sad that science moves slower then spirituality.
Nonsense video title. We can't guide our own evolution. That's simply not how evolution works. And even if we could change our genes, that would only impact the brains of our offspring (maybe).. not ours. And those altered future brains might be different but whether that difference is good, bad or neutral is totally at the mercy of natural selection. Thinking positive thoughts might lead only to future generations who are convinced nothing bad is going to happen. That could be a problem if you find yourself in the path of city bus. (I could force myself to watch the whole video, so if he mentioned all this my apologies)
Lost all credibility at 5:50 when he introduced his co- author Deepak Chopora the Guru of Woo Woo.
don't buy it...too much vague mention of neurophysiological structure followed by a short-sighted attribution to its relevance to function. the claim that the hippocampus is a short-term memory store is also controversial. it's these types of simpletons that are to blame for perpetuating scientific hypotheses that lack convincing evidence and making them appear as truisms to the public.
This thumbnail is trophobiaia
Deepak Chopra? Yeah ok forget this
I listened to bullshit for about 6 mins, then I heard "my co-author deepak chopra". I'm out.
Deepak Chopra, co-worker. OOPS!!! This guy is koo koo.
lost me at deepak chopra
Deepak Chopra! really?, what else ..Jesus?
You lost me at Deepak.
It's wrong.
lost me at deepak, sorry, he's more dangerous then a creationist
Ya lost me at Deepak Chopra. The dude is a fraud trying to sell books and speaking fees.
he lost me at deepak charlatan.
This is not what evolution is.
First of all, you cant evolve your brain...............................
Second of all, why is this channel called Big Think?
A lot of Cognitive Dissonance is kicking in this comment section Lol sheesh
What is he even talking about
So basically he summed up cognitive behavioural therapy. Something we've known, for quite a while, is effective. But he's inserted it into a cloud of bullshit. Lost quite a bit of credibility with the Deepak name-drop. What a chump.