Banned TEDTalks relating to non-materialism

[Foreigner]

The following two TEDTalks were so controversial TED censored them from their main website, along with the ensuing discussion, relegating them to the blogs section of their website where few people will see them. The reason, aside from the videos themselves, is that people, many of whom were professional academics with alternative theories, started posting about their views on non-material consciousness and psychic experiences in the TED forum. TED responded by quarantining the discussion to a separate section of their website that was non-searchable, and removed the videos from their Youtube channel and main site. Luckily the videos were preserved and publicized by others so that this information can get out.

Once you watch them, you will understand why they were banned. Both challenge the material reductionist philosophy of mainstream modern science in a highly public fashion, and the second one by Hancock directly challenges the world governments to create new rights about individual sovereignty to alter consciousness.

Very interesting talks. I hope others will take time to watch them and post their thoughts here!

Rupert Sheldrake, "The Science Delusion"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

Graham Hancock, "War on Consciousness"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w

Keep in mind that neither of these videos is saying that science should be discounted, only that dogmatic materialism must be challenged given the mounting evidence from a wide field of reports. In doing so, science can move into a new phase of its own evolution and investigation of reality as we know it.

 

[L2R]

ohhh, nice. thanks for posting. i'll have to check these out.

 

[34-dihydroxyphen]

I've only watched most of the first and the very beginning of the second so far, but really interesting.

I don't really understand why the first one would be censored? Is it that bad to criticize any aspects of science as it exists today? I thought a lot of that research, for example that people/animals get better at solving puzzles worldwide if they have already been solved before, even if the groups have no communication with one another was already well-established? Why is it so controversial?

 

[HypGnosis]

Yeh I've been keeping an eye on this. It's a shame, I really like TED, some of their stuff isn't that far from Sheldrake and Hancock anyway.

people/animals get better at solving puzzles worldwide if they have already been solved before, even if the groups have no communication with one another? Why is it so controversial?

Because Sheldrake's idea of Morphic fields (which is how he says the animals are able to do this), is also a mechanism for PSI, which the materialist pseudoskeptic hates.

We can't have these wacky ideas of ESP and suchlike (even though there is much supporting evidence), bad psientists.

 

[vibrancy3]

thoughtfully enjoyed "War on Consciousness" and the knowledge it brought.

 

[34-dihydroxyphen]

Here is the link to TEDx's reasoning for refusing to post these on their main site. Seems suspect to me. It's one thing to not agree with these guys, as not everything they say is necessarily agreeable, but it is entirely different and evident of tremendous bias both to

1) Claim zero factual support for certain arguments when such support both exists and is readily available

and

2) Hurl insults at these dudes while doing it.


Their rebuttals were pretty good as well, particularly Rupert Sheldrake's.


http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/

 

[Foreigner]

^ Also, the videos were removed based on assessments done by TED's "science committee", yet they won't mention the names of anyone on the committee. For a site that prides itself on credentials, it's acting pretty shady. There are likely political motivations.

 

[L2R]

the first vid is better than the second imo. at least it uses scientific method. the latter, whilst entertaining, seemed much more of an emotive and speculative argument.

i haven't yet looked at the TED explanations or the responses, nor the longer discussion vids.

 

[cire113]

rofl the science delusion is BRILLIANT it was made for rangrz and PA to watch

 

[Foreigner]

^ Now now, be nice.

 

[rangrz]

^ Also, the videos were removed based on assessments done by TED's "science committee", yet they won't mention the names of anyone on the committee. For a site that prides itself on credentials, it's acting pretty shady. There are likely political motivations.

Kind of like peer review, which is generally done anonymously; in order to encourage dissent against "main line" views or important colleagues. Kind of like journalists protecting sources.

 

[cire113]

I Just realized during the whole talk hes completely barefoot lol... I think his discussion is actually very interesting;

I hope that one day in the future science and spirituality will ultimately be able to become one and we will recognize a sort of spiritual science which explains best the nature of reality and the universe...

THe thing is; I really believe it is possible that there are things that are beyond our comprehension with normal human consciousness..

It seems humans are evolving still and the new evolutionary track is the need to alter our state of consciousness via anything we can get our hands on to drugs, ice cream, sex, etc..

There really should be just as much money put into studying the effects of entheogens and consciousness as there is in other sciences...

I feel as if entheogens will play a really important role in the future of science and understanding

Perception is everything;

 

[rangrz]

Humans, like every other organism in the history of the Earth, are constantly evolving. Evolution is a stochastic process of random DNA mutations and selection for the one's which are adaptive to environmental pressure, and negatively selecting the ones that are harmful or neutral, in balance of gain/loss of fitness for a given trait.

Altering consciousness is not a trait that can be evolutionarily selected for or against, it's a learned behaviour and the exogenous receptor ligands are exception circumstances that are not coded for by your DNA and ergo can not, even in principle, be subject to human evolutionary pressures. Not to mention, evolution does not have a prospective goal. It just happens, and the mutations which are beneficial are conserved, and the ones which are harmful are weeded out.

Consciousness receives lots of scientific study: Have you not heard of psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience and artificial intelligence as branches of science? They all study consciousness from different approaches to it. Drugs are widely studied, with "entheogens" being used in all kinds of studies, from in vitro pharmacology and neuroscience research on different receptor types to medical studies on approved pharmas like ketamine to psychology experiments done with various drugs, to research on substance abuse, to toxicology research, etc etc etc.

You, I suspect, don't want studies done with the scientific method being followed and rigorous mathematical and physical modelling of the effects. You just want an M.D. to supervise you while you trip balls and tell her about your frank hallucinations that are disconnected from empirical reality/make no sense, right? Like, you pretty much want the equivalent of anesthesia emergence from ketamine and the anesthesiologist to sit there and listen to you babble until the ketamine wears off, but without having any surgery done or the like.

 

[cire113]

Humans, like every other organism in the history of the Earth, are constantly evolving. Evolution is a stochastic process of random DNA mutations and selection for the one's which are adaptive to environmental pressure, and negatively selecting the ones that are harmful or neutral, in balance of gain/loss of fitness for a given trait.

Altering consciousness is not a trait that can be evolutionarily selected for or against, it's a learned behaviour and the exogenous receptor ligands are exception circumstances that are not coded for by your DNA and ergo can not, even in principle, be subject to human evolutionary pressures. Not to mention, evolution does not have a prospective goal. It just happens, and the mutations which are beneficial are conserved, and the ones which are harmful are weeded out.

Consciousness receives lots of scientific study: Have you not heard of psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience and artificial intelligence as branches of science? They all study consciousness from different approaches to it. Drugs are widely studied, with "entheogens" being used in all kinds of studies, from in vitro pharmacology and neuroscience research on different receptor types to medical studies on approved pharmas like ketamine to psychology experiments done with various drugs, to research on substance abuse, to toxicology research, etc etc etc.

You, I suspect, don't want studies done with the scientific method being followed and rigorous mathematical and physical modelling of the effects. You just want an M.D. to supervise you while you trip balls and tell her about your frank hallucinations that are disconnected from empirical reality/make no sense, right? Like, you pretty much want the equivalent of anesthesia emergence from ketamine and the anesthesiologist to sit there and listen to you babble until the ketamine wears off, but without having any surgery done or the like.

Well interesting views and opinions rangrz... I believe in evolution but i also believe its possible there is active intelligence behind it all...

But Now I am starting to think maybe we aren't meant to know the secrets of the universe and life?

It sure does a great job at remaining a mystery for the most part....

I think one of the biggest obstacles is that we may indeed be in a simulated environment ala the Matrix kinda; SO we are using science to measure things while still inside an illusionary perspective;

It's painfully obvious to me there is intelligence far greater than humans; but paradoxically humans are a part of it...

Its like we are doing all this searching and figuring out only to realize the inherent truth spirituality has shown humans for thousands of years which of course is only possible to discover through direct experience IMO

Also I think if psychedelics were really widely studied and researched there would be way more information about consciousness, the brain from a physiological perspective, and way more information about altered states of conscoiusness from a scientific view... so think there are really not a lot of these studies being done.. As the knowledge that we truely have and know about this extremely limiting; But maybe you can tell me all the things we know

Honestly, I think alot more is going on besides "tripping balls".. I feel like entheogens maybe allow us to perceive alot of things that may remain hidden to us from our normal state. Also that the brain is just a receiver of some sort and that our consciousness really does exist outside of our brains...

Its kinda of sad that society and people have to keep censoring shit; I mean its sad that entheogens are illegal everyone should be able to explore the freedom of their own mind and consciousness...

Obvoiusly there a a few people who have all the power that understand the true potential and power of psychedelics.. The funny thing is people discredit "drugs" but every single experience that happens in life is a chemical reaction in the brain caused by neurotransmitters lol

and lol why do i need a scientist to watch me while i trip? i can do that already by myself bro..

But actually I am done with psychedelics as Alan Watts said, " When you get the message, hang up the phone"

 

[34-dihydroxyphen]

An argument against consciousness existing outside of our brains: How do you reconcile that philosophy with traumatic brain injury and the ensuing mental retardation? Or with people who lose basically half their brain due to a stroke, and post-recovery emerge with all of their previous functional skills, but entirely different personalities? Or permanent episodes of memory loss/the inability to form new memories? Alzheimer's and dementia?

These would seem to contradict any notion that our consciousness exists anywhere else besides our brains.

 

[P A]

rofl the science delusion is BRILLIANT it was made for rangrz and PA to watch

In the interest of maintaining civility on this subforum, I will respectfully withhold my opinion re. what sort of educational material I believe is meant for you, cire.

An argument against consciousness existing outside of our brains: How do you reconcile that philosophy with traumatic brain injury and the ensuing mental retardation? Or with people who lose basically half their brain due to a stroke, and post-recovery emerge with all of their previous functional skills, but entirely different personalities? Or permanent episodes of memory loss/the inability to form new memories? Alzheimer's and dementia?

These would seem to contradict any notion that our consciousness exists anywhere else besides our brains.

To be fair to all the mystics and mysterians around here, I think your punchline is a bit of a non-sequitur. When most people refer to 'consciousness' within the context of the so-called hard problem, they're typically referring to qualia and the like, not cognitive processes nor sensory data per se. Each of your scenarios demonstrates an inextricable link between neurological states and self-reported (or empirically accessible) mental ones. This is not the same thing, really, as proving a seamless contiguity or, as is typically imputed, a synonymity between neurological events and experientially 'felt' conscious ones.

I'm of a pretty logical-empiric inclination myself, and even I must acknowledge that this 'hard problem' remains a tricky one indeed, especially for hardline materialists. That said, I haven't seen the opposing parties produce anything of substance for their part, as the vast bulk of the serious intellectual work has been left (somewhat ironically) to the analytic philosophers themselves.

 

[Foreigner]

An argument against consciousness existing outside of our brains: How do you reconcile that philosophy with traumatic brain injury and the ensuing mental retardation? Or with people who lose basically half their brain due to a stroke, and post-recovery emerge with all of their previous functional skills, but entirely different personalities? Or permanent episodes of memory loss/the inability to form new memories? Alzheimer's and dementia?

These would seem to contradict any notion that our consciousness exists anywhere else besides our brains.

As Hancock said, the physical brain is no doubt part of consciousness, but that does not mean consciousness is completely confined to that variable. The theory of morphic resonance means that consciousness could exist as a field that may interface with the physical biology, much like how a radio signal interfaces with a radio. If the radio is damaged then the signal cannot be received, but the signal itself continues to be transmitted from its source. Similarly, most spiritual systems believe that the soul interfaces with the body, and when the body dies the soul moves on elsewhere. It means that at least part of the "experiencer" is not endogenous to the corporeal body, but is being projected into it from elsewhere. Morphic resonance is a scientific theory that attempts to bridge the non-material aspect of consciousness with the material reductionist view.

What this potentially means is that even though someone has brain damage, their consciousness is not totally lost but simply cannot interface.

I'm not claiming this is true one way or another and I'll keep my own personal beliefs out of it. I'm just paraphrasing the theories to you.

 

[rangrz]

Also I think if psychedelics were really widely studied and researched there would be way more information about consciousness, the brain from a physiological perspective, and way more information about altered states of conscoiusness from a scientific view... so think there are really not a lot of these studies being done.. As the knowledge that we truely have and know about this extremely limiting; But maybe you can tell me all the things we know

There is a HUGE amount of this data available. It's just not that accessible to people without a strong scientific back ground, due to the complexity and density of scientific literature. Kind of the same way trying to reading Chaucer without understanding Medieval British culture and old/middle English is

and lol why do i need a scientist to watch me while i trip? i can do that already by myself bro..

You don't to just trip. But if you want scientific research on entheogens, that implies a scientist who's sober and observing the experiments using the usual trappings of rigour, double blinding and objectivity.

 

[Lady Codone]

I've watched the Graham Hancock one and thought it was better than some of the stuff they have on their site. Not the best I've seen, but no reason to remove it from the site. Nothing blatantly false or partisan in it.

 

[34-dihydroxyphen]

In the interest of maintaining civility on this subforum, I will respectfully withhold my opinion re. what sort of educational material I believe is meant for you, cire.



To be fair to all the mystics and mysterians around here, I think your punchline is a bit of a non-sequitur. When most people refer to 'consciousness' within the context of the so-called hard problem, they're typically referring to qualia and the like, not cognitive processes nor sensory data per se. Each of your scenarios demonstrates an inextricable link between neurological states and self-reported (or empirically accessible) mental ones. This is not the same thing, really, as proving a seamless contiguity or, as is typically imputed, a synonymity between neurological events and experientially 'felt' conscious ones.

I'm of a pretty logical-empiric inclination myself, and even I must acknowledge that this 'hard problem' remains a tricky one indeed, especially for hardline materialists. That said, I haven't seen the opposing parties produce anything of substance for their part, as the vast bulk of the serious intellectual work has been left (somewhat ironically) to the analytic philosophers themselves.

Interesting. It should be noted that I am on neither side of this matter. I honestly hold no opinion either way. I would hope that consciousness exists outside the brain, and I can agree with some of Sheldrake's principles, assuming they are indeed true and mainstream scientists are at the very least highly reluctant to study these matters. I generally try not to take sides in any philosophical/political debate unless personal ethical concerns leave me unable to detach myself from a particular argument, as I feel that being strongly opinionated and attached to particular points of view in these matters leads to incredible bias and an inability to adapt to new data that potentially contradicts previously held beliefs. I also believe that argument accomplishes nothing, as winning becomes more important than understanding the other perspective, and feel it is therefore necessary in almost any discussion on scientific/philosophical/political matters containing dissenting perspectives to have discussion rather than debate.

I know neither you nor foreigner were being the least bit argumentative. I simply want to make my neutral stance clear.

As Hancock said, the physical brain is no doubt part of consciousness, but that does not mean consciousness is completely confined to that variable. The theory of morphic resonance means that consciousness could exist as a field that may interface with the physical biology, much like how a radio signal interfaces with a radio. If the radio is damaged then the signal cannot be received, but the signal itself continues to be transmitted from its source. Similarly, most spiritual systems believe that the soul interfaces with the body, and when the body dies the soul moves on elsewhere. It means that at least part of the "experiencer" is not endogenous to the corporeal body, but is being projected into it from elsewhere. Morphic resonance is a scientific theory that attempts to bridge the non-material aspect of consciousness with the material reductionist view.

What this potentially means is that even though someone has brain damage, their consciousness is not totally lost but simply cannot interface.

I'm not claiming this is true one way or another and I'll keep my own personal beliefs out of it. I'm just paraphrasing the theories to you.

Interesting. Although the aspect I found most difficult to reconcile to the theory is the change in personality itself that occurs upon structural damage to the brain. If this theory ends up representing the true nature of our reality, then with this in mind, even our personalities as we know them would not share any similarities if our particular "resonance" (am I doing it right?) were transferred from one conduit to another in some form. Once again, not picking sides, simply playing Devil's Advocate in order to understand the concept.

I agree with L2R that Sheldrake was much more compelling than Hancock, for the reasons he mentioned. Although it should be noted that both were very clear about which statements were based off fact, and which statements were purely their untested or as of yet unfalsifiable opinions. Neither pulled any Rick Strassmen's or Terrence McKenna's.