Skeptico

Would Deepak Chopra exist if no one looked at him?

Michael Shermer and Sam Harris recently debated uber woo Deepak Chopra and someone called Jean Houston – the subject being “Does God Have a Future?”  I haven’t seen that debate yet (click the link for a video), but I have read Shermer’s brief description and his account of an exchange (between Shermer and Chopra) that took place afterwards.  Read Shermer’s initial blog post My Debate Date with Deepak (and friends), which includes this:

During the debate Deepak claimed that the moon is nothing more than a soup of teeming quantum uncertainty. No. Subatomic particles may be altered when they are observed, but the moon is there even if no one looks at it.

Deepak apparently read this and replied.  Shermer posts Chopra’s replies in Does the moon exist if there are no sentient beings to look at it?  See if you can spot the equivocation / moving of goalposts:

[Quoting Chopra] When you see an object, the moon being the example you chose, your eyes are not really “seeing” the moon. Your eyes are responding to photons that follow all the rules of wave-particle duality.  […]  There was no moon till it was an experience in your consciousness.

Chopra just can’t be honest.  In the first paragraph, he is claiming the the Moon literally isn’t there (it’s just “a soup of teeming quantum uncertainty”) if no one looks at it.  Shermer calls him on this nonsense.  Chopra, slyly moves the goalposts and replies that now it’s the photons that enter your eyes that exhibit the quantum uncertainty.  He hopes you won’t notice the switch – that he is now talking about photons hitting your eyes (and creating the image of the Moon), and not the Moon itself that is subject to quantum uncertainty.  He has, effectively, conceded that the Moon is still there (and of course it must be – otherwise, where would the photons have been reflected from in the first place?), although he hopes you won’t notice that he actually just disproved his own point. 

Of course, even if we are just referring to photons following all the rules of wave-particle duality, there is still no reason to suppose that consciousness is necessary.  Chopra has a longer piece up on the huff Post - Which Is Real, the Moon or God?, where he makes this claim (if you can be bothered to wade through over 2,000 words some of of the most dense woo I have ever read).  According to Chopra, everything is quantum, which means everything is consciousness, therefore god exists, or something:

The basic understanding of the collapse of the wave function is called the Copenhagen Interpretation,

No, the Copenhagen Interpretation is just one way of looking at the situation.  It may represent reality, it may not, but it is not the “basic understanding” of QM.

in which a non-material observer is involved in quantum measurement.

Except for the “non-material” wording, that is (rather trivially) correct.  Clearly something (could be a human; could be a measuring instrument) has to “measure” something.  There is no evidence that that thing has to be “non-material.” 

John von Neumann demonstrated that an understanding of the collapse of the wave function requires consciousness.

No he didn’t.  As I wrote in my review of What the Bleep Do We Know, the theory of quantum mechanics doesn’t say this. Chopra is confusing the theory of quantum mechanics with an interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is an explanation to help understand what might be going on, but it is not part of the theory because it is not falsifiable: it cannot be tested in such a way that, if it were false, it would fail the test (without falsifying the whole of quantum mechanics, and therefore all the other interpretations too).

To falsify this interpretation you would have to see what would happen without a conscious observer monitoring the experiment. But that’s Catch-22: you need a conscious observer monitoring the experiment to see what happens. You can’t look at the experiment without looking at it so no one can ever know if this interpretation is true.  So although von Neumann may have believed such a thing, he never demonstrated it.

Without an observer, there is no collapse, no particle, no matter, no measurement.

Maybe, but the “observer” can be something non material – a scientific instrument, say.  There is no reason to suppose that consciousness is required.

Alternative quantum theories such as transactional interpretation and many-worlds theory try to get around the need of consciousness or an observer, but fail in the end. Essentially they don't fulfill the requirements of quantum physics because any quantum measuring device still must be physical and ultimately exist as quantum wave probabilities. One set of measuring waves superimposed on other waves to be measured, only leaves more waves, not particles, not a quantified measurement. And as Niels Bohr makes clear, in quantum mechanics, if it isn't measureable it isn't real. So in spite of these newer quantum speculations, no one has been able to successfully dispense with a non-material observer.

Well, of course no one has been able to dispense with an observer.  But it does not have to be a “non-material observer” as Chopra claims.  In fact, Chopra has not even demonstrated that such a thing as a “non-material observer” even exists.  Someone, ultimately, has to look at the measuring instrument to see what the result was.  Obviously.  Someone has to open the box and look at the cat.  But until that person does that , there is no way to know what the result was without consciousness, and so there is no justification for saying that consciousness is necessary.  Sorry Deepak, you don’t understand what you’re talking about.

(Sigh.)  Anyway, back to the original question raised in the post title - if we all ignored Deepak Chopra, would he cease to exist, would he disappear in a soup of teaming teeming quantum uncertainty?  Although we might perhaps wish this to be true, I have to say that, no, even if we all ignored him, Chopra would still exist to spew out more quantum drivel tomorrow, the next day, and the next day ad infinitum.  At least it gives me something to blog about. 

Bill Donohue - Vile and Immoral

Bill Donohue, self appointed cheerleader for the Roman Catholic church, has declared that the problem with the recent child abuse scandal in the church is not the abuse – the problem, according to Donohue, is that people are criticizing the church for the abuse.  Seriously.  Find it hard to believe that anyone could make such a case with a straight face?  Read his article, Criticism of Catholic Church is unfair (oh, boo hoo), which starts:

The rash of stories about priestly sexual abuse in Europe, especially in Ireland and Germany, has put many Catholics on the defensive. They should not be. While sexual molestation of any kind is always indefensible, the politics surrounding this story is also indefensible.

Note the words “While sexual molestation of any kind is always indefensible…” – and consider that is the only indication Donohue gives in the entire 650 word article that sexual molestation of children is bad.  Go on, read the whole thing.  There is nothing else in the whole piece – nothing – that indicates that raping children is wrong, it’s all about how everyone is being mean to the Catholic church.  Incredible.

Donohue starts with the old false equivalence trick:

Employers from every walk of life, in both the U.S. and Europe, have long handled cases of alleged sex abuse by employees as an internal matter. Rarely have employers called the cops, and none was required to do so.

He’s comparing rape of children to “alleged sex abuse by employees.”  Is he saying that companies in the US and Europe have been aware of their employees raping children as a part of their work?  Well, it’s hard to know for sure what’s in the mind of this old idiot, but somehow I don’t think even he is saying this.  What he is trying to get away with is equating workplace sexual harassment – the boss groping his secretary, say – with raping children.  And while it is certainly true that, say 30 or 40 years ago, sexist bosses could get away with things they would likely be sued and/or fired for now (watch Mad Men), this is nothing like what the church is accused of covering up.  Not even close.

Anyone who maintains that in North America or Europe it was common practice for employers outside the Catholic Church to file a police report about suspected wrongdoing by their employees needs to put up or shut up: Where is the evidence?

No one is saying that employers had to file a police report about any suspected wrongdoing by their employees.  That would be ridiculous.  I think most people would suggest that if an employer knew one of his employees had committed rape of a child while doing his job, then the employer should certainly report it.  And most probably would.  And the duty to report would be even greater if the employee’s job was to supervise the child that he had raped.  A job such as, for example, a schoolteacher, scout leader or a bleeding Roman Catholic priest.

Beyond that issue, the focus on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is far out of proportion to the attention given by the media to the sexual molestation of minors when committed by non-Catholic clergymen. According to a report by the New York Times in October, the Brooklyn district attorney's office had filed charges in 26 cases of sexual abuse involving members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.

Donohue just has to bring the Jews into it.  Hey, some Jews in Brooklyn abused children, so we can too.  Sorry, not an excuse.  If a Jewish religious community has been abusing children then that is just as bad, and the guilty people should be jailed.  If that didn't receive as much publicity as the Catholic church’s abuses, it’s because the Catholic church has a wider congregation, and the abuse affected many more children.

The reason the church is rightly getting all the criticism is that they claim to be god’s representatives on Earth, and they routinely preach their morality to the rest of us, including those of us who don’t believe their particular fairly story.  They demand obedience from their followers.  They (the priests) as part of their jobs are in positions of authority over small children.  They should be above reproach, but they have been shown to be unworthy of the trust placed upon them.  Most Catholics know this.  Even the pope seems to recognize it (belatedly).  But Donohue, while paying lip service to the “indefensible” nature of such abuse, thinks that the real problem here is with people criticizing the church for the abuse.  He actually says that this criticism – just the criticism mind you – is “immoral.”  If anything is immoral it is Donohue and this vile article.

Celebrities Say the Darndest Things

But “psychics” say even dumber ones.

If you don’t know who Heidi Montag is then (1) you haven't missed much and (2) you obviously don’t watch E channel’s The Soup as much as I do.  Anyway, she’s apparently some sort of reality TV star who has has numerous cosmetic surgeries (see picture).  A couple of weeks ago she hired a “psychic” to be her manager, as MSNBC reported in Heidi dumps Spencer as manager for a psychic:

After the incredible experiences I have had healing my life and truly connecting to my dreams with healer intuitive Aiden Chase, I have officially asked him to become my manager," Montag says. "Having an intuitive psychic leading my team gives me an edge no one else has.

Wow, a celebrity doing something dumb – dog bites man, in the parlance.  Funny thing though – two days ago, she fired him:

A week after hiring Malibu psychic Aiden Chase to replace Spencer Pratt as her business manger, Heidi Montag announced she'll go it alone.

"I have decided to part ways with Mr. Chase both as a manager and as a psychic…

Celebrity shows (albeit temporarily), some sense – that’s man bites dog!

Hum – the psychic got fired after one week.  I decided to check out the website of the psychic, Aiden Chase, and he claims:

my psychic gifts include clairvoyance

Clairvoyance.  And in this interview with Chase, he explains further what this means::

4. He Can See the Future:
"First and foremost I'm intuitive. I'm using that gut instinct, that third eye that we all have. I just have a heightened sense of intuition."

He can see the future.  (You know where this is going.)  But not only did this psychic douche bag not see his imminent firing, he still even now (that’s after the event, for those playing at home) doesn’t believe it’s happened:

"At this time, I am not aware of any change in my business relationship with Heidi Montag"

I guess he can see the future but not the past.

Look into my eyes and repeat after me, I have not been fired!

RFK Jr. - Still Clueless

Robert F. Kennedy Junior has learned nothing in the last five years.  Back in June 2005, Kennedy wrote a scare piece linking Thimerosal to autism, stating that scientists at a CDC meeting had spent days covering up this supposed link. I blogged then about how Kennedy’s article was totally dishonest, and followed up with a post about how Kennedy had quote mined the minutes of an Institute of Medicine meeting to make it appear that scientists were trying to cover up this same supposed link, although as I proved at the time, they were doing the opposite.  (If you don’t want to read that whole post, just scroll down to the “Walt wants” section – the sleaziest piece of all of Kennedy’s sleazy quote mining, and worth a re-read in my totally unbiased opinion.)

Well, he’s back, and as nuts as ever.  Last week he wrote Central Figure in CDC Vaccine Cover-Up Absconds With $2M – a headline that just by itself contains two falsehoods and an unproven assertion.  Here’s what Kennedy is saying, in summary:

1. Danish scientist Poul Thorsen was the central scientist behind studies showing that autism is not linked to Thimerosal or MMR
2. These studies (by Thorsen) are the key studies the CDC relies on to disprove a link between vaccines and autism
3. Thorsen has stolen a large amount of money
4. Point 3 above means that the studies referred to in 1 and 2 above, are no longer valid.

Unfortunately for Kennedy, points 1, 2 and 4 above are demonstrably false:

• Thorsen was not a leading figure, but a junior author on the papers in question
• There are numerous other studies, apart from the Danish ones, that support there being no link between vaccines and autism.  (In addition, Thimerosal was removed from vaccines in the US in 2002 and yet reported autism continues to rise.)
• The alleged fraud has no bearing on the studies anyway. Even if Thorsen stole money, and even if he were the lead author on the studies (which he wasn’t, but even if he were) this would not suddenly alter the studies so they now point to a different conclusion.  (It’s a basic ad hominem fallacy.)

Also, point 3 is just an allegation.  It may be true, but right now we really can’t say.  Kennedy is talking nonsense.

It says a lot about the anti-vaccine crowd that when a leading figure in the MMR causes autism world (Andrew Wakefield), whose study really was the only one (the original, and not replicated) that supposedly implicated MMR – when that person is actually found guilty of medical misconduct in the actual study they are associated with – in that case the response of the anti-vax nuts is of course to support the proven unethical Wakefield.  In that case, the guy clearly must be innocent and his studies must still be valid and good.  However, when a relatively insignificant junior author of one paper among many replicated studies around the world is accused (just accused mind you – not proven yet like Wakefield) of dishonesty in a matter totally unrelated to the study in question – in that case, this puts the conclusions of all such studies into doubt.  You have to wonder at the cognitive dissonance these people must suffer.  Although that would at least explain the hysterical tone of Kennedy’s latest piece.  While his 2005 article did at least give the impression it was written by an adult (albeit a dishonest one), Kennedy’s latest offering is astonishing in its lack of any attempt at a measured or even lawyerly tone.  The falsehoods start in Kennedy’s first sentence:

A central figure behind the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) claims disputing the link between vaccines and autism and other neurological disorders has disappeared after officials discovered massive fraud involving the theft of millions in taxpayer dollars. Danish police are investigating Dr. Poul Thorsen, who has vanished along with almost $2 million that he had supposedly spent on research.

This is, of course, pure hyperbole (to be polite).  The truth is that Aarhus University has recently detected a significant shortfall in their CDC grant money, and Thorsen is suspected of being to blame.  Apparently, authorities are investigating the shortfall, but it’s a little early to be calling it a “massive fraud.”  Right now, we just don’t know.  And Thorsen has “disappeared”?  Actually, no, he has just been unavailable for comment. (Hardly surprising.)  But Kennedy won’t let this lack of a real scandal prevent his lawyerly mind from making this a prosecution.  Watch how he runs with it:

Thorsen was a leading member of a Danish research group that wrote several key studies supporting CDC's claims that the MMR vaccine and mercury-laden vaccines were safe for children. Thorsen's 2003 Danish study reported a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after that country banned mercury based preservatives in its vaccines. His study concluded that mercury could therefore not be the culprit behind the autism epidemic.

Er, no, Thorsen was the sixth named author of one study relating to MMR and the fourth named author of a study on Thimerosal.  I’m not sure what your definition of “leading” would be, but for me it wouldn’t be sixth out of a team of eight.

Also note Kennedy’s hysterical “mercury-laden” wording.  No, they weren’t “mercury-laden,” they contained Thimerosal - a preservative that metabolizes to (amongst other things) ethyl mercury, an organic derivative of mercury.  Kennedy writes like a 12 year old.

His study has long been criticized as fraudulent since it failed to disclose that the increase was an artifact of new mandates requiring, for the first time, that autism cases be reported on the national registry. This new law and the opening of a clinic dedicated to autism treatment in Copenhagen accounted for the sudden rise in reported cases rather than, as Thorsen seemed to suggest, the removal of mercury from vaccines.

This is wrong on many levels. 

First, “Thorsen” didn’t suggest anything – he was a junior author of the paper, remember?  Funny how, according to Kennedy, “Thorsen” is now the author, the one suggesting things.  The others (including lead author Madsen) haven’t been accused of a crime, so they don’t count, I guess.

Second, the authors of the study did not fail to disclose the new way of counting.  What Kennedy is talking about is that in 1995, the Danish registry added "Outpatient Clinics" to their count of autism cases – and since outpatient cases are supposedly where 93% of Danish children are diagnosed with autism, that would inflate the reported number of cases after 1995.  But, the authors wrote in the “Results” section of their study (that I’ll link to, although Kennedy doesn’t):

In additional analyses we examined data using inpatients only. This was done to elucidate the contribution of the outpatient registration to the change in incidence.

So they didn’t fail to disclose this factor (as Kennedy claims), they actually specifically mentioned it.  They also attempted to allow for it by doing a separate analysis that excluded the increase due to the outpatients.  And even with this analysis, they still found an increase in autism.

As it happens, reported autism was increasing before 1995 anyway:

Kennedy just hopes you won’t read the study that he didn’t link to (and see that graph), so you won’t notice this.

(As an aside, I find it ironic and hypocritical that Kennedy says the Danish increases in autism don’t count because they’re the result of diagnostic changes and increased availability of services, and not a real increase in autism.  When skeptics give the same reasons (increased diagnosis) for reported autism rising in the US, Kennedy writes (in his 2005 article) that this is “a theory that seems questionable at best.”  Consistency was never one of Kennedy’s flaws.)

Third, the authors never suggested that the increase in autism was “accounted for” by the removal of Thimerosal, as Kennedy claimed.  What they actually concluded was:

Our ecological data do not support a correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism.

I guess that’s a bit too “sciencey” for Kennedy to understand.

Despite this obvious chicanery, CDC has long touted the study as the principal proof that mercury-laced vaccines are safe for infants and young children.

Again er, no.  The CDC has not “long touted” the study (or even short touted it, for that matter) as its “principal proof” as Kennedy puts it.  The Danish studies are just one of many.  For example, here are some more peer reviewed studies from around the world:

USA

USA

USA

Canada

UK

Australia

USA

And one more from Denmark.

Of course, none of these studies has Thorsen as an author so I suppose they don’t count either.

Mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, has relied on this study

This is a good one.  Kennedy must hope that his readers won’t click that link because it takes you to a New York Times page that does not discuss Thorsen, Denmark, or anything related to that story at all.  The link is actually to a story about Andrew Wakefield and the Lancet’s retraction of his terrible paper.  Go figure.

as the basis for its public assurances that it is safe to inject young children with mercury -- a potent neurotoxin -- at concentrations hundreds of times over the U.S. safety limits.

Clearly not, or it wouldn’t be allowed now would it? 

Thorsen, who was a psychiatrist and not a research scientist or toxicologist,

Unlike Kennedy, who is a fully qualified medical doctor and toxicologist.  Oh wait, no he’s not.

parlayed that study into a long-term relationship with CDC. He built a research empire called the North Atlantic Epidemiology Alliances (NANEA) that advertised its close association with the CDC autism team, a relationship that had the agency paying Thorsen and his research staff millions of dollars to churn out research papers, many of them assuring the public on the issue of vaccine safety.

Wow, the CDC paid them to do some work for them.  What a scandal.

Of course, we all know that lawyers work for free.  As did Andrew Wakefield.

The discovery of Thorsen's fraud

Correction: alleged fraud.  Come on Bobby – I know the science is a bit complicated for you to grasp, but you should know the lawyerey bits at least. 

And even if the fraud accusation were true, it would still bare no relation to the study Kennedy is talking about.

[Repetitive accusations snipped]

Thorsen's partner Kreesten Madsen recently came under fierce criticism after damning e-mails surfaced showing Madsen in cahoots with CDC officials intent on fraudulently cherry picking facts to prove vaccine safety.

Kennedy gets even more sleazy here.  Note that the lead author on the papers where Thorsen was a junior author, is now “Thorsen's partner.”  From this very thin connection, Kennedy seeks to connect this story to some supposedly damning emails from Madsen.  But even here, Kennedy can’t be transparent.  The link Kennedy provides is to an article describing numerous things, the Madsen emails being only one.  You have to read the whole article to find the link to the actual email within the article (strangely, linked twice, as though there were two sets of emails, not just one).  To save you the time, I’ll link direct to the email in question.  I’ll also save a copy on this blog too, just in case.  Now, if you read the actual email (as I encourage you to do), you’ll be hard pressed to find what’s “damning” about them.  As I read it, it’s just a CDC researcher asking Madsen for data on autism rates in Denmark (“did the rates increase dramatically from the late 1980’s into the 1990s”), and Madsen replying that no, they did not increase in the 1980s.  Madsen goes on to say that they did increase after 1993 but that the aforementioned change in registration procedures could account for it.  To repeat, this was something they reported on and attempted to control for in their paper anyway so it’s not at all “damning” except in Kennedy’s fevered imagination.

Leading independent scientists have accused CDC of concealing the clear link between the dramatic increases in mercury-laced child vaccinations beginning in 1989 and the epidemic of autism, neurological disorders and other illnesses affecting every generation of American children since.

Which leading independent scientists and what clear link?  Surprise - Kennedy doesn’t say.

Also, note the pejorative “mercury-laced” wording.  This is one of Kennedy’s favorite phrases.  Of course the word “laced” has connotations of adulteration – secretly adding something improper. I guess it would be too much for Kennedy just to say “vaccines containing Thimerosal.”

Questions about Thorsens's [sic] scientific integrity may finally force CDC to rethink the vaccine protocols since most of the other key pro vaccine studies cited by CDC rely on the findings of Thorsen's research group.

As I showed above, no they don’t.

These include oft referenced research articles published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New England Journal of Medicine and others. The validity of all these studies is now in question.

Nonsense.  The validity of  these studies is not in question.

There have been numerous other posts from the anti vax world (eg this post at the crank Age of Autism blog) crowing about this, but Kennedy’s piece is the most absurd (and that’s saying something) of them all.  Of course, Orac wrote an excellent post on this yesterday - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Poul Thorsen: The fine art of distraction from inconvenient facts, that you should read.  Journalist Brian Deer left a comment that is better than anything I could write to summarize Kennedy’s juvenile style, so I’ll just finish with it:

What struck me about the Kennedy article was the poor calibre of the person who wrote it. I'd naturally assume that someone with those family connections would have some sense of measure in their language, and a general demeanour of intelligence and professionalism. I believe he may have been to law school, also, and have some sense of the difference between, say, a falsehood and a lie, or between "missing" and "couldn't be contacted". Little things, which you find, for example, in the Philadelphia Inquirer report, which was, plainly, the work of an intelligent professional.

But there was none of that. It was like it was written by a college sophomore. Oozing malice and prejudicial, unsupported assertions, it was just of such poor quality. Like you, I've no idea about this Thorsen guy, who is plainly not a major player in the relevant research, but I was shocked by the hysterical tone of this man Kennedy's contribution. It's plain that neither Olmsted nor Kirby are professional journalists, but I'm just left wondering why the heroes of vaccine-autism believers are all of such meagre talent. It's kind of sad really.

Chopra - as bad as ever

Deepak Chopra doesn’t seem capable of expressing anything in a simple, straightforward manner.  And after reading (and trying to unravel) his latest piece of drivel, Only Spirituality Can Solve The Problems Of The World, I think I know why – it’s only with excessive flowery verbosity that he can hope to disguise the fact that he has absolutely nothing of value to say.  See if you can fathom what he’s getting at here:

Before addressing the importance of spirituality in modern times, we should first define it. Spirituality is the experience of that domain of awareness where we experience our universality.

Unfortunately, he doesn’t define universality, so his definition of spirituality is pretty empty.  I’ll have a go.  Merriam-Webster defines universality as “the quality of being universal” – the quality of occurring everywhere (among several definitions of “universal” – see if you can find a better one.)  Which rather begs the question – since Chopra hasn’t shown that we are everywhere.  In fact, I’m pretty sure we’re not.

He does wax more on the “domain of awareness” bit though:

This domain of awareness is a core consciousness that is beyond our mind, intellect, and ego.

Really?  Where is it then?  And, again, does it even exist?  (And how does Chopra know?)  But OK, I’ll play: the domain of awareness is a core consciousness.  And the core consciousness:

In religious traditions this core consciousness is referred to as the soul which is part of a collective soul or collective consciousness, which in turn is part of a more universal domain of consciousness referred to in religions as God.

Jesus, why didn’t he just say that at the start?  Let’s break down what (I think – but who really knows?) he’s saying:

1. Spirituality is the experience of that domain of awareness where we experience our universality
2. The domain of awareness is a core consciousness.
3. So spirituality is the experience of a core consciousness.
4. This core consciousness is referred to as […] God.
5. So spirituality is the experience of God.

As Chopra apparently had to put it:

Spirituality is the experience of that domain of awareness where we experience our universality. This domain of awareness is a core consciousness that is beyond our mind, intellect, and ego. In religious traditions this core consciousness is referred to as the soul which is part of a collective soul or collective consciousness, which in turn is part of a more universal domain of consciousness referred to in religions as God.

Which breaks down to “spirituality is the experience of God.”  Six words.  It took Chopra 70.

When we have even a partial glimpse of this level of awareness we experience joy, insight, intuition, creativity, and freedom of choice. In addition, there is the awakening of love, kindness, compassion, happiness at the success of others, and equanimity. As the turbulence of our mind settles down, our body also begins to heal itself because it also quiets down. The body's self-repair mechanisms are activated when the mind is at peace because the mind and body are at the deepest level inseparably one.

Pure assertion backed up by nothing.  Even by Chopra’s standards, this is weak.  I have to say, I think he’s phoning it in.  Probably PZ had the right idea – he asked Chopra one question: how?

Just to name a few problems of the world: overpopulation, famine, resource depletion, water scarcity, war, and disease. Deepak Chopra, quick, 30 seconds: how will you solve any one of those problems with spirituality?

But if he even knew (and of course, he doesn’t), would he be able to explain it?  Clearly not.  Why does anyone still think this bozo has anything of value to add?