Pseudoscientific nonsense or possible scientific truth ?

zicada · Post by **zicada** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:39 pm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... gedu&vt=lf

(Don't worry, this is a video, not a TL;DR)

Some of the arguments he puts fourth are actually fairly convincing, even though i must say i laughed a few times during. His point that there should be more active scientific investigation into his and other "serious"
scientists findings, is sound IMO.

Anyway, watch and discuss!

PS: Google tech talks is excellent. For more, whip up http://video.google.com and search for "EngEdu" then set length to 20minutes+

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:21 pm

An hour and 37 minutes!? TL;DW.

Reading the three line abstract, the notion that the mind is not in the brain isn't really worth investigating. The "mind" is a poorly defined construct that we use to describe our self-awareness, so it's really just an idea. Our self-awareness is obviously a product of brain functioning, as it can be altered by altering the brain (drugs, injury).

Soapie · Post by **Soapie** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:37 pm

It's funny to think about a mechanical process creating conciousness though.

I wonder what the experience of, say, being a windmill is like.

JaydeMoon · Post by **JaydeMoon** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:30 pm

Probably pretty nice, until Don Quixote comes charging you sor the attack.

zicada · Post by **zicada** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:38 pm

Mulu wrote:An hour and 37 minutes!? TL;DW.

Reading the three line abstract, the notion that the mind is not in the brain isn't really worth investigating. The "mind" is a poorly defined construct that we use to describe our self-awareness, so it's really just an idea. Our self-awareness is obviously a product of brain functioning, as it can be altered by altering the brain (drugs, injury).

Indeed it is, and i very much agree with you. There is ALOT of scientific evidence to support his. However, he is making some bold claims, and I am personally open minded enough to definitely wish we look into those theories scientifically.

How often have you through about someone and they call you, or felt someone looking at you, turned around, and cough them. Obv, like he says, statistical psychological thing, you only notice when it happens. Sure, but if the "evidence" really says this happens alarmingly often, lets double check and see.

There's an abundance of scientific facts around now, that people would laugh their asses off at 20 years ago. Maybe 20 years into the future people will laugh at our own failure to check out new stuff openly. I think there is tradition at work with this sort of science,- eg. it used to be so stupid that it cant possibly be any more serious now.

So yeah, most likely crazytalk, but lets know for sure, imho.

NickD · Post by **NickD** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:52 pm

It's like that new age thing a friend was into years back where a group of her friends would get together and send good vibes to people through a photograph.

I don't really believe it. I suspect most of it is instinct - environmental clues we're not aware of on a conscious level. But I'm pretty open minded about most things. I could believe that people are capable of manipulating energy fields around them in small ways. But for now, I'm going with psuedoscientific ramblings.

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:48 pm

Confirmation bias. You remember when you thought about someone just before he called, not the 50000 times you thought about someone and there was no call.

And I didn't watch because of the length, but if he's talking about ESP it's been very heavily studied. No evidence has ever turned up. And if he's talking about the energy field New Age crap that Nick mentioned: what energy? Energy's not just some random word you can throw around, it's a measurable quantity.

NickD · Post by **NickD** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:53 am

Pyschic energy of course!

Energy may be a measurable quantity, but if there is a kind of energy we are not currently aware of... how would be know how to measure it? Let alone that we should be measuring it in the first place.

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:58 am

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you want to say there's some sort of energy we're not currently aware of, you had better have some compelling evidence for it. Otherwise it's pseudoscientific nonsense.

NickD · Post by **NickD** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:24 am

I'm not saying it's true. I just believe that you shouldn't remove something from the realm of possibility just because we aren't currently aware of it.

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:32 am

I'm not removing it. But you have to have evidence. You can't just run around claiming whatever idea you pull out of your ass and expect people to take it seriously.

danielmn · Post by **danielmn** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:40 am

"You can't just run around claiming whatever idea you pull out of your ass and expect people to take it seriously."

Iraq has WMD's.....hehe.

*runs, dodging tomatoes*

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:57 am

There's an invisible teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. :O

zicada · Post by **zicada** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:23 am

What about actually watching the video first ?

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:34 am

zicada wrote:What about actually watching the video first ?

Too busy looking for the teapot.