RiderOnTheStorm said:

Sheldrake is offering a claim that consciousness is streamed like a radio signal, rather than originating in the individual's mind. I am open minded to the idea (rather romantic about it if I'm being honest), but the only way to advance discourse on it is to let the skeptics and scientists have at it. In what other manner would his hypothesis be proven or dismissed?

---

BlindSophist said:

RiderOnTheStorm said:

Sheldrake is offering a claim that consciousness is streamed like a radio signal, rather than originating in the individuals mind. I am open minded to the idea (rather romantic about it if I'm being honest), but the only way to advance discourse on it is to let the skeptics and scientists have at it. In what other manner would his hypothesis be proven or dismissed?

---

How is that idea any less viable than the idea that consciousness is generated ad-hoc by localized systems? Again, I have seen no evidence favoring either possibility. One is more parsimonious if you believe in God, the other is if you don't. There are many things which have been disproved by science but God is not one of them.

---

illustrain said:

Lol, eh, it's his show.  I don't have a problem with the guy, but also don't watch him regularly, only when something special comes up.  I don't think he has bad intentions, just a bit of a bro, brah.

---

RiderOnTheStorm said:

Regardless, no consensus or understanding on consciousness (or any other topic) is going to come from not skeptically analyzing both claims

---

Quote:

It's true that science has not disproven god and perhaps never will, but it has certainly minimized the probability and the necessity that he/she/it exists.

---

How has the ontological argument for the existence of God been "minimized" in its "probability"?

RiderOnTheStorm said:

Akira - I'd debate you on the fact that pseudoscience is highly damaging and has caused the deaths of many people, but don't really care to do that since I don't believe it would change your mind or any of our audiences, given the nature of this website.

---

Quote:

I'm not a fan of either Hancock or Sheldrake, but completely disavowing yourself from unpopular ideas does not constitute "skepticism" in its virtuous form. That is what TED has done.

---

BlindSophist said:

This whole story has me scratching my head.

For one thing, why the hell did TED feature Graham Hancock? I mean, Graham Hancock? Graham Hancock? You expect him to get up there and say something that isn't batshit crazy?

---

Quote:

Of course, the anger over a situation like this is like striking the hornet's nest-- all those self-important nerds come out of their study to comment on what science is and isn't, how pseudoscientific Hancock is, . God forbid anybody have a fucking imagination in their approach to a problem that has confounded science since its inception.

---

RiderOnTheStorm said:

That's exactly what happened here, only they neglected to realize that Graham Hancock would incite his mass of followers to cry censorship. When they demanded a response, TED's bloggers gave a shitty one, which was quickly picked apart.

Akira - I'd debate you on the fact that pseudoscience is highly damaging and has caused the deaths of many people, but don't really care to do that since I don't believe it would change your mind or any of our audiences, given the nature of this website.

While these talks certainly won't 'bludgeon the scientific community,' to assert that they cannot hurt TED's reputation is preposterous. Youtube videos have destroyed the reputation of many individuals and businesses. If Science Daily started publishing articles on the use of electromagnetic devices in the hunt for ghosts, I would find a better source for contemporary science news. TED is no different and certainly not immune to having it's reputation hurt, otherwise they wouldn't be defending it as hard as they are right now.

While I think that Hancock's video was removed for unpalatable reasons, he is really pushing the sensationalism of this whole thing to a next level, no doubt squeezing every ounce of much needed credibility out of this debacle. The implication that his video and the discussions surrounding it deserve more than two weeks of TED's full attention is self-entitled garbage. He should be happy that TED has garnered him any attention at all, if it weren't for this he'd just be another guy rattling on about Atlantis, the Face on Mars and the subjective values of psychedelics. Not only that but it only made sense for TED to give each video it's own debate forum, it was a mess trying to figure out whether each commenter was referring to Sheldrake's vid or Hancock's. Graham is trying to make it appear on his facebook page that TED made the move to bury him even deeper. Sensationalism, plain and simple.

---

BlindSophist said:

I'm not a fan of either Hancock or Sheldrake, but completely disavowing yourself from unpopular ideas does not constitute "skepticism" in its virtuous form. That is what TED has done.

---

BlindSophist said:

How has the ontological argument for the existence of God been "minimized" in its "probability"?

---

Vaipen said:

BlindSophist said:

This whole story has me scratching my head.

For one thing, why the hell did TED feature Graham Hancock? I mean, Graham Hancock? Graham Hancock? You expect him to get up there and say something that isn't batshit crazy?

---

I sincerely object to that statement.

Graham Hancock is a man of integrity and intellectual pursuit

---

Vaipen said:

Basically you are saying that Hancock should fight alone. That he cannot relay his predicament to others because that would "incite" his 'followers'. He should, according to your argument, keep things quiet and is personally responsible for how his 'followers' choose to respond. The same argument is used by one of the TED people in the comments. That Hancock's  view on Ayahuasca might be resulting in  some kid flying off to the Amazon to drink Ayahuasca' and that Hacock would be irresponsible somehow.

I am certain that the pope many hundreds of years ago would call it 'pseudo-science' when some obviously mistaken person said the Earth orbited the sun by looking at the phases of Venus.

The use of the word 'sensationalism' is preposterous in describing what is happening. People have the right to free speech and in this day and afe on the internet people WILL share if they are upset. I don't see any proof that Hancock is 'sensationalist' or using any strategy at all apart from honestly sharing that he is being attacked basically for his point of view, by people from this scientific advisory board, which seems to act as an unseen inquisition. If he would feel slandered, he has the right to show that.

Mentioning Atlantis is totally absurd in this discussion. It is a sleazy tactic to drag Hancock in the dirt by associating him with something that has nothing to do with the speech he have on TEDx. It is, again, the same tactic used to justify the removal of his speech. And I do not see how Hancock can be held responsible for the format in which the discussion was poured and that TED's  website functionality is such that they throw both Hancock and Sheldrake in together.

They are doing ever fucking thing wrong and I don't think it is only just blatant incompetence but also a willful strategy to undermine and confuse the situation.

---

johnm214 said:

Nothing, he's just a moron peddling wishful thinking to simpletons.  That's not really bad, just stupid.  It also doesn't belong at a serious event where the speakers are presummed to not be just making shit up as they go along.

---