At the moment, and maybe for a long time, science (physics, biochemistry, and related fields) has little hope in explaining love, good music, jealous rage, and lots more. Philosophy, ethics, and many of the classical ways of thinking about life still have a lot of value.

But...

I'm very, very wary of saying that science cannot go there. Or that mumbo jumbo and word puzzles and redefinition of terms (common techniques of popular advocates of "Eastern" philosophies and the like who claim to have figured things out) is the way to understanding. Don't misunderstand though - I've got lots of respect for the beauty and apparent peace that meditation and so forth brings. "One-ness" is appealing. But it's not science; and quantum mechanics can't explain consciousness.

I always try to keep in mind that our brain's model of reality is not unbiased. Our eyes aren't cameras, our memories aren't WORM drives, etc. But I also recognize that Chopra has books and seminars to sell, and that logic and appeals to similarities to other fields only goes so far.

As you know, I'm a huge fan of Bertrand Russell's writings. He was beautifully clear in how he explained his views and in the construction of his arguments. But he was also flawed (in his Principia, and in some of his ideas about education, and probably in other things). Science isn't infallible, but it's the best way to prevent us from fooling ourselves.

Even if we do find a way to define consciousness sometime soon, and find it's home in the brain, and reproduce it in a supercomputer, there will still be mysteries for us to wonder and argue about. The madness of crowds, for instance. And Economics. After all, physics didn't stop when Newton figured out the laws of motion.

:-)

Cheers,
Scott.