• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ISHAR of Deepak Chopra and Rome Viharo

PainKiller

Scholar
PainKiller
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
95
Location
Secret
Does anyone know what happened to the Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository (ISHAR) that was created by Rome Viharo and Deepak Chopra?

It was apparently supposed to be a database for alternative medicine and mind/body woo.


Renowned integrative medicine advocate and New York Times bestselling author just launched ISHARonline (otherwise known as Integrated Studies Historical Archive and Repository), a worldwide gathering place of new, credible research findings in integrated medicine and mind/body approaches to healing.
Click to expand...

http://www.prevention.com/health/healthy-living/deepak-chopra-launches-isharonline

There was a lot of talk about it in 2014 and early 2015 but as of 2016 I have heard nothing about it. I guess the idea flopped and it was not a success?
 
My understanding was Rome Viharo left that project at some point, though I'm sure since you mentioned his name he will appear in this thread momentarily and correct me in some way.

Like most projects built around the theory that we-can-build-our-own-thing-to-counter-Wikipedias-anti-woo-bias, after an initial flutter of activitity, it seems like it petered out. (Most such projects are alternative wikis, and those die at a near 100% rate).
 
Last edited:
Do I remember there being a thread about this ISHAR revisionism thingy here, in GSP, not too long ago? Search function and my phone don't play well together.
 
Info on ISHAR

Hello, I'm the director and a founder of the ISHAR project. I just wanted to answer your questions and give you some updates on what we've been doing.

Rome Viharo is indeed no longer a part of this project, and after his departure the scope of ISHAR was significantly refined. We are an open-access reference database for integrative studies (medical, anthropological, historical, philosophical, and mathematical studies into the relationship of mind-body-environment). ISHARonline.org has been active for nearly two years and houses over 65,000 sources. We are ad-free, do not charge our users any fees nor require memberships.

It's likely many of you have not heard much about us because our retooling process moved ISHAR away from social media and into the academic arena, where we have been very pleased with our contributions. We are not a replacement nor competitor with Wikipedia (though our sources are cited there), we're an actively curated database that services researchers, universities, institutions, and non-profits.

We are proud to be an initiative of the Chopra Foundation, and to state they and Deepak Chopra have given this project the directive to adhere to strict academic standards with no interference. We are currently working with organizations including Columbia University, Harvard Medical, UCSD, and Karolinska Institutet, based in large part on our dedication to impartially housing and contextualizing the sources behind controversial topics, both for and against.

I hope that answers your questions about our status, and if you have anything more I'm happy to clarify further.
 
ISHAR,

It is not a little over two years since the ISHARonline.org site was heavily discussed here. There were promises made then by a member identified as ISHARonline about ISHAR being a service to wikipedia. There were also unanswered questions about, among other things, the value of ISHAR, that it was redundant with what already existed.

That was then. Where are we now?

Is ISHAR a service to wikipedia?
Does ISHAR add some unique value to the scientific community?
Is ISHAR's board of directors no longer a who's who of woo?
Does ISHAR view homeopathy as evidence based?
Many, many questions.
 
Deepak Chopra holds the belief that consciousness is fundamental in the universe and that everything arises from consciousness. This is a popular view amongst new-agers and pseudoscience proponents but has no solid evidence to support it. Chopra bases this idea on Vedanta philosophy. It is a religious viewpoint.

It is not surprising that on the ISHAR website we read:

There are still, however, a number of much discussed and important objections to materialism, most of which question the notion that materialism can adequately explain conscious experience.
Click to expand...

http://isharonline.org/consciousness

I am afraid I don't believe your statement "Deepak Chopra have given this project the directive to adhere to strict academic standards with no interference."

The agenda of ISHAR is to attack materialism and promote mind/body woo.

Now if you think about how many neuroscience papers have been published recently on consciousness, yet ISHAR only links to extreme fringe papers that argue against materialism.

http://isharonline.org/categories/consciousness

The first paper cited "A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness", argues for the existence of psychic powers and has paranormal proponents like Dean Radin on the signing list. Not encouraging.

Ken Wilber hardly represents mainstream scientific academia.

There is also links to Stuart Hameroff's papers which have been cited by paranormal proponents for years but have never stood up to scientific scrutiny.

None of this stuff represents mainstream academia or scientific research on consciousness and none of it is exactly new.

Let's be honest the only people who take ISHAR seriously are paranormal proponents or those involved with alternative medicine looking for evidence to support their beliefs. Science is not on your side I am afraid. There was talk about ISHAR taking over Wikipedia when it first came out, but I new this would never happen. I doubt many people use ISHAR. Wikipedia is much more reliable.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
ISHAR,

It is not a little over two years since the ISHARonline site was heavily discussed here. There were promises made then by a member identified as ISHARonline about ISHAR being a service to wikipedia. There were also unanswered questions about, among other things, the value of ISHAR, that it was redundant with what already existed.

That was then. Where are we now?

Is ISHAR a service to wikipedia?
Does ISHAR add some unique value to the scientific community?
Is ISHAR's board of directors no longer a who's who of woo?
Does ISHAR view homeopathy as evidence based?
Many, many questions.
Click to expand...

To answer your questions:
1) ISHAR is a service to Wikipedia in terms of providing original links, sourcing, and formatting help for all of our content. As I mentioned above, while we're happy to be cited there, Wikipedia is not a major part of our function at this time.
2) ISHAR's unique value is in our contextualization, metadata analysis, and interdisciplinary approach to various topics. This has been valuable enough to warrant collaboration with several Ivy-League universities and international institutes.
3) This is a confusing question. We do not have a Board of Directors, though we do have a Supervisory Board. These are volunteers who have agreed to donate time in perusing our tens of thousands of studies to check for formatting errors, fraudulent studies, etc. They do not have any direct control over what goes into or out of the archive. Needless to say, I do not agree with your dismissive view of their credentials.
4) We do not endorse or condemn any field of study, but we present the studies related to it, regardless of whether they debunk or support it. Our summaries are primarily descriptive, though we acknowledge widespread controversy. As far as perspectives, we include links to WebMD, Wikipedia, a pro and a con site.

Hope that's helpful.
 
Rome Viharo is indeed no longer a part of this project, and after his departure the scope of ISHAR was significantly refined.
Click to expand...

Do you know why Rome Viharo was fired?

Viharo is a banned Wikipedia sock-puppet who created the account SAS81 on Wikipedia to defend Deepak Chopra and promote ISHAR. This was despite the fact he had already created three Wikipedia accounts that had been banned previously (most notably his account Tumbleman).

Viharo on his account SAS81 never admitted to being a previously banned Wikipedia editor, so this was deliberate deception (the definition of sock-puppetry). He tried to hide his identity, but it did not work and he eventually got banned again.

He admits that here:


SAS81 is also the fourth Wikipedia account that I have used to successfully bring balance and attention to very genuine editorial problems and abuses occurring on the Wikipedia platform.
Click to expand...

He also admits he was fired on his website:

After I was fired, Ryan Castle was approached to ‘project manage’ a ‘new direction’ for ISHAR primarily as an online research archive managed by the Chopra Foundation. I wish them well with their venture.
Click to expand...

Rome Viharo has also been described by skeptics as an internet troll with a persecution complex:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo
 
Last edited:
ISHAR is a service to Wikipedia in terms of providing original links, sourcing, and formatting help for all of our content. As I mentioned above, while we're happy to be cited there, Wikipedia is not a major part of our function at this time.
Click to expand...

How is ISHAR a service to Wikipedia? You are completely different websites, unrelated. Wikipedia contains far more information than your own website.

Rome Viharo got banned from Wikipedia on an account that was associated with your organization. It was first called "Chopra Media" and then SAS81.

I think it's unlikely anyone would be citing ISHAR on Wikipedia after all with happened with the above including the banning. Viharo's own website has been blacklisted from Wikipedia due to the abusive content. Although Viharo no longer works for ISHAR he was the director of operations. Did Viharo get fired because he gave your organization a bad name on Wikipedia?
 
Last edited:
PainKiller said:
Deepak Chopra holds the belief that consciousness is fundamental in the universe and that everything arises from consciousness. This is a popular view amongst new-agers and pseudoscience proponents but has no solid evidence to support it. Chopra bases this idea on Vedanta philosophy. It is a religious viewpoint.

It is not surprising that on the ISHAR website we read:



...

I am afraid I don't believe your statement "Deepak Chopra have given this project the directive to adhere to strict academic standards with no interference."

The agenda of ISHAR is to attack materialism and promote mind/body woo.

Now if you think about how many neuroscience papers have been published recently on consciousness, yet ISHAR only links to extreme fringe papers that argue against materialism.

...

The first paper cited "A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness", argues for the existence of psychic powers and has paranormal proponents like Dean Radin on the signing list. Not encouraging.

Ken Wilber hardly represents mainstream scientific academia.

There is also links to Stuart Hameroff's papers which have been cited by paranormal proponents for years but have never stood up to scientific scrutiny.

None of this stuff represents mainstream academia or scientific research on consciousness and none of it is exactly new.

Let's be honest the only people who take ISHAR seriously are paranormal proponents or those involved with alternative medicine looking for evidence to support their beliefs. Science is not on your side I am afraid. There was talk about ISHAR taking over Wikipedia when it first came out, but I new this would never happen. I doubt many people use ISHAR. Wikipedia is much more reliable.
Click to expand...

It appears you didn't actually read the section on Consciousness that you're quoting. First, the quote you assume was written to please Deepak Chopra is actually from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy's explanation of materialism (as cited in Notes and References), and is part of a larger section that explains the reasoning and support behind materialism. The same treatment is given to various other philosophical interpretations of consciousness.
Second, your statement that this proves ISHAR is out to attack materialism and promote woo makes no sense, since the summaries reflect pro/cons of many, many theories, and are rooted in solid scholarly theories. Please review the page content list:
1. Terminological Matters: Various Concepts of Consciousness
2. Some History on the Topic
3. The Metaphysics of Consciousness: Materialism vs. Dualism
a. Dualism: General Support and Related Issues
b. Materialism: General Support
4. Specific Theories of Consciousness
a. Neural Theories
b. Representational Theories of Consciousness
c. Other Cognitive Theories
d. Quantum Approaches
5. Consciousness and Science: Key Issues
a. The Unity of Consciousness/The Binding Problem
b. The Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCCs)
c. Philosophical Psychopathology
6. Animal and Machine Consciousness
Click to expand...

Thirdly, I understand you have issues with several of the studies housed in ISHAR, but we house data as an accessible resource, not an endorsement of their conclusions (we have 60K+, many of them obviously contradict others). That said, the Consciousness source list appears to have been affected by a recent upload; it should have over 300 studies, but currently only shows a handful. I apologize for the incomplete reference list and will get that resolved.

Finally, it's important to note a difference in our reasoning. You assume that in order to be scientific a database must focus on orthodoxy, while we believe to be scientific we must focus on evidence, whatever it may say.

I am comfortable with our supporters and collaborators, they include some of the greatest research centers in the world. As far as Wikipedia, I'd hoped I'd clarified that above; we have no interest in "taking over" Wikipedia, we perform very different functions.
 
PainKiller;11657189]Do you know why Rome Viharo was fired?

Viharo is a banned Wikipedia sock-puppet who created the account SAS81 on Wikipedia to defend Deepak Chopra and promote ISHAR. This was despite the fact he had already created three Wikipedia accounts that had been banned previously (most notably his account Tumbleman).

Viharo on his account SAS81 never admitted to being a previously banned Wikipedia editor, so this was deliberate deception (the definition of sock-puppetry). He tried to hide his identity, but it did not work and he eventually got banned again.

He admits that here:




He also admits he was fired on his website:



Rome Viharo has also been described by skeptics as an internet troll with a persecution complex:

...
Click to expand...

Our decision to no longer work with Rome Viharo is not something I can legally discuss, I'm afraid, other than to clarify he has no role in ISHAR's current iteration or philosophy.
 
PainKiller said:
How is ISHAR a service to Wikipedia? You are completely different websites, unrelated. Wikipedia contains far more information than your own website.

Rome Viharo got banned from Wikipedia on an account that was associated with your organization. It was first called "Chopra Media" and then SAS81.

I think it's unlikely anyone would be citing ISHAR on Wikipedia after all with happened with the above including the banning. Viharo's own website has been blacklisted from Wikipedia due to the abusive content. Although Viharo no longer works for ISHAR he was the director of operations. Did Viharo get fired because he gave your organization a bad name on Wikipedia?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your question. ISHAR has features that are usable on Wikipedia (citation formatting, links, etc) relating to our topics, but we are not related, not attempting to perform the same function. I understand there was a focus on Wikipedia previously, but I can only clarify again & again that this is no longer the case.

People using ISHAR to cite research would not be citing ISHAR, they'd be citing the original study we send them to. This does occur with some frequency, but it is simply a feature we offer, not part of our main mission.
 
1. Terminological Matters: Various Concepts of Consciousness
2. Some History on the Topic
3. The Metaphysics of Consciousness: Materialism vs. Dualism
a. Dualism: General Support and Related Issues
b. Materialism: General Support
4. Specific Theories of Consciousness
a. Neural Theories
b. Representational Theories of Consciousness
c. Other Cognitive Theories
d. Quantum Approaches
5. Consciousness and Science: Key Issues
a. The Unity of Consciousness/The Binding Problem
b. The Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCCs)
c. Philosophical Psychopathology
6. Animal and Machine Consciousness
Click to expand...
Plenty of big words there, of which one is a trigger-word: Quantum. Sorry, but as soon as you use that word you will be asked to show your working. And by "show your working" I mean mathematics and particle physics. Because quantum is about those subjects alone.

Otherwise it is simply being used as a buzzword to impress the impressionable. Which is a typical Chopra-like tactic to sound all sciency and stuff. We know why he does that - flim-flammery. What's more, some of us here actually know the REAL quantum science stuff too, with the mathematics. Chopra's hogwash doesn't wash.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Plenty of big words there, of which one is a trigger-word: Quantum. Sorry, but as soon as you use that word you will be asked to show your working. And by "show your working" I mean mathematics and particle physics. Because quantum is about those subjects alone.

Otherwise it is simply being used as a buzzword to impress the impressionable. Which is a typical Chopra-like tactic to sound all sciency and stuff. We know why he does that - flim-flammery. What's more, some of us here actually know the REAL quantum science stuff too, with the mathematics. Chopra's hogwash doesn't wash.
Click to expand...

Please read the actual section before you accuse people of "flimflam" and other deceptive practices. In addition to listing the basic academic terms relating to consciousness (we didn't make up these terms), the section in question is a pretty straightforward summary of how people have cited quantum effects and how they might relate to consciousness. None of Chopra's ideas are presented in the summary.

With all due respect, you seem so eager to blame Deepak Chopra for supposedly inserting his viewpoint that you're not bothering to read what the actual viewpoint we're presenting is.
 
Last edited:
ISHAR said:
Please read the actual section before you accuse people of "flimflam" and other deceptive practices. In addition to listing the basic academic terms relating to consciousness (we didn't make up these terms), the section in question is a pretty straightforward summary of how people have cited quantum effects and how they might relate to consciousness. None of Chopra's ideas are presented in the summary.

With all due respect, you seem so eager to blame Deepak Chopra for supposedly inserting his viewpoint that you're not bothering to read what the actual viewpoint we're presenting is.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the whole "business" of trying to tie the word "quantum" to the subject of consciousness went down in ignominious flames decades ago. And yet it continues to reappear. So the use of the word itself indicates the "research" is about as relevant as bringing up, say, phlogiston or "the ether" when discussing electricity. It is about the same level of "science" as arguing about which dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Sorry, but the whole "business" of trying to tie the word "quantum" to the subject of consciousness went down in ignominious flames decades ago. And yet it continues to reappear. So the use of the word itself indicates the "research" is about as relevant as bringing up, say, phlogiston or "the ether" when discussing electricity. It is about the same level of "science" as arguing about which dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.
Click to expand...

It continues to reappear, so we report that it reappears, along with how people discuss it. As I mentioned to another person here, our job is not to tell people they're right or wrong, but to present the evidence for all significant perspectives. When it's lacking, we report that, but we don't exclude theories based on our own opinions on the research.
 
ISHAR said:
...
2) ISHAR's unique value is in our contextualization, metadata analysis, and interdisciplinary approach to various topics. This has been valuable enough to warrant collaboration with several Ivy-League universities and international institutes.
...
Click to expand...

Do tell.

Can you please tell us about some of these collaborations? And since such collaborations would not be with the university, itself, but with specific research centers and faculty, would you please identify the collaborations with at least that level of detail.
 
Mojo said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283187
Click to expand...

Thanks, Mojo!

Dear ISHAR,

By necessity, I'm a practical person. A tradesman with 39 years spent developing skills in most disciplines; from rough framing to fine carpentry, mechanical and electrical systems installation and repair, to repairing heavy equipment that's mired in the mud.

I said all that so you might better understand what I'm going to say next. I've never prayed a thing into good repair. Or chanted mantras that revealed the answer to a mystery. Never wished anything into being fixed. The materialistic worldview is the only thing that has had any measurable effect on my life.

Working the problem by following the evidence without fooling yourself by making unfounded assumptions along the way is the path that I strive to follow.

Mysticism, on the other hand, is just as useful as any other fiction: Something to take one's mind off of the drudgery of the things that must be done. Entertainment. Much of the same value as the arts. The beauty of some ideas and ideals has tugged at my heartstrings just as much as Mozart or Monet ever have. The depravity of others sickens me even more than the twisted pleasures I get from Stephen King or Umberto Echo novels. But as much as I enjoy it, I don't fool myself into thinking that any form of mysticism has any real usefulness to science. Perhaps, one day, psychology will get some benefit. For now... no.

The last I'll say is that I've read just enough Chopra to know that his path is not mine. And to me, dissemination of any informational resources that he's involved with need to be scrutinized by rational persons BEFORE publication. Some people are foolish enough to think that wishes come true if they only wish hard enough. The books that man sells to them encourage such wishful thinking, and teach nothing of practical value. Chopra knows this and profits. Sometimes to his more credulous reader's peril.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom