There is absolutely nothing wrong with this talk. Those who are "outraged" should relax.
His main points are about thinking less dogmatically. He is a scientist, and he states the importance of science, he is only exploring the idea of moving beyond the dogma, and he is both qualified and well-spoken enough to earn a listen.
He makes valid points such as how science can't deal with the fact we're conscious. That's true. Science is still in the dark about consciousness. He proposes that our minds extend beyond our brains, which is an exciting and interesting idea worthy of consideration.
He talks casually, not conclusively, about the sensation of being stared at, which many of us are familiar with. He draws parallels with predator-prey relationships in nature.
He says "it may seem astonishing that this is a topic of debate within consciousness studies right now." [the question of "where" the images in our mind actually are]. And he is dead right.
Quite frankly, we need more outside of the box thinking. Don't take tokenadult's click-bait here. This talk is not centered on the speed of light, nor does he take aim at science in general.
If you want your quantum computers and interplanetary space travel to come online, you'll need to open your mind to everything including ideas presented in this talk.
Ah yes, but in typical "men in lab coats" testing environments, what we have is "blindfolded subjects attempting to guess whether persons were staring at them."
This is far removed from "prey detecting whether a predator is staring at them", which would be a much harder test to set up.
For humans, "prey" might mean someone with genuine sexual interest in you, staring at your backside. Try setting that up as a scientific test! Observer effect in full swing, and your results will be disappointing.
Not that I believe or support ideas because they're exotic and exciting. My point here is that it's worth keeping an open mind, precisely because science is entering uncomfortable areas such as consciousness, ego, identity, dreams.
It is very different and that is exactly the point. Experiments are not supposed to mimic the natural condition in which an effect is found, they are supposed to isolate the effect being tested and eliminate all confounding variables.
It might be the case that the "sense of being stared at" is real but it could easily be a combination of ordinary senses. By isolating the confounding variables scientists can determine whether this is an independent effect.
I don't disagree. It could easily be a combination of ordinary senses. Scientists not happy with people poly-filling the knowledge gaps with fictional ideas, have no choice but to improve their equipment for even more data capture and analysis.
It may be that the very act of staring at someone actually alters or influences something in the physical world, as those flowers do we've recently learned....
>"electrical fields—may work in concert with these other cues to provide extremely nuanced details about pollination status."
Along those lines, it's plausible that there's processes at work with staring we're currently unaware of, waiting for science to discover.
Better that fictional ideas about possible nature of matter come from scientists anyway. Having a go at guessing where science may uncover new mechanisms, or where current science deserves more attention, is a good thing to have a go at.
It's the equivalent of drawing attention to a new patch of ground for a fresh archeological dig, he's not actually claiming on the TEDx stage to have dug it up and found an alien artifact.
His main points are about thinking less dogmatically. He is a scientist, and he states the importance of science, he is only exploring the idea of moving beyond the dogma, and he is both qualified and well-spoken enough to earn a listen.
He makes valid points such as how science can't deal with the fact we're conscious. That's true. Science is still in the dark about consciousness. He proposes that our minds extend beyond our brains, which is an exciting and interesting idea worthy of consideration.
He talks casually, not conclusively, about the sensation of being stared at, which many of us are familiar with. He draws parallels with predator-prey relationships in nature.
He says "it may seem astonishing that this is a topic of debate within consciousness studies right now." [the question of "where" the images in our mind actually are]. And he is dead right.
Quite frankly, we need more outside of the box thinking. Don't take tokenadult's click-bait here. This talk is not centered on the speed of light, nor does he take aim at science in general.
If you want your quantum computers and interplanetary space travel to come online, you'll need to open your mind to everything including ideas presented in this talk.
Well done TEDx.