TED Conversations

  • TED
  • New York, NY
  • United States


This conversation is closed.

Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license.

For discussion: http://blog.ted.com/2013/04/01/a-note-to-the-ted-community-on-the-withdrawal-of-the-tedxwesthollywood-license


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 6 2013: btw, for those who are not familiar with the scientific literature on remote-viewing, do yourself a favor. please look into the history of SRI, Hal Puthoff, and Russell Targ. don't just take the "skeptics" word for it. follow the data wherever it may lead and draw your own provisional conclusions.

    you can start with this lecture by Hal Puthofff, Russell Targ's colleague at SRI, talking about their remote-viewing experiments with the late great Ingo Swann.

    then let your curiosity do the googling. you're welcome.

    Hal Puthoff, PhD, on CIA History of Top Secret Remote Viewing (Part 1 of 4) ~ http://youtu.be/7HeZxQYEQRw

    Hal Puthoff, PhD, on CIA History of Top Secret Remote Viewing (Part 2 of 4) ~ http://youtu.be/9G_zprLOdbg

    Hal Puthoff, PhD, on CIA History of Top Secret Remote Viewing (Part 3 of 4) ~ http://youtu.be/oATr63fu1eo

    Hal Puthoff, PhD, on CIA History of Top Secret Remote Viewing (Part 4 of 4) ~ http://youtu.be/2fjV14AHRck

    speaking of the late great Ingo Swann, his psi abilities had been replicated by Dr. Michael Persinger.

    see: Michael Persinger on No More Secrets ~ http://youtu.be/9l6VPpDublg

    it only takes a Black Swan to prove the reality of psi. Ingo Swann was that black swan.

    i don't know about you. but for me, these ideas are damn worth spreading.
    • thumb
      Apr 7 2013: "i don't know about you. but for me, these ideas are damn worth spreading."

      Well, yes, you do know about me. For me, they are not.
      • Apr 7 2013: John, obviously, the TED staff are with you. so bravo!
        • thumb
          Apr 7 2013: Yes. Score three for critical thinking.
      • Apr 7 2013: LOL. i didn't know it's about a scoring game. i thought it was about science, evidence, and dispassionate look at data. my mistake!
    • thumb
      Apr 7 2013: By the way, I'd like to get your take on this peer-reviewed article on quantum gravity by a respected physicist on the faculty of NYU:


      It begins:

      "There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in 'eternal' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the 'objective' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method."
      • Apr 7 2013: interesting. i skimmed it. but it's basically an (educated) opinion piece. nothing wrong with that of course.

        speaking of educated opinions and speculations, here's an excellent book. it's a collection of mystical writings by the founders of Quantum Physics. enjoy!

        "Here is a collection of writings that bridges the gap between science and religion. Quantum Questions collects the mystical writings of each of the major physicists involved in the discovery of quantum physics and relativity, including Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Planck. The selections are written in nontechnical language and will be of interest to scientists and nonscientists alike."

        ~ http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1570627681/
        • thumb
          Apr 7 2013: Thanks. That quantum gravity article has been the subject of a huge amount of buzz since the time of its publication in a journal based at Duke.

          Is this the individual at TCM who is attracting so much interest? I see he won the Nobel prize in physics in 1973:

          Brian Josephson

          "'From the viewpoint of the theoretical physicist' here means that there is a particular concern with general principles and the way these may help to reshape one's perspective on a problem. One of my guiding principles, also, has been the scientist's motto 'Take nobody's word for it' (nullius in verba), a corollary of which is that if scientists as a whole denounce an idea this should not necessarily be taken as proof that the said idea is absurd: rather, one should examine carefully the alleged grounds for such opinions and judge how well these stand up to detailed scrutiny."
      • Apr 7 2013: when it comes to Quantum Physics/Mechanics i heed this classic quote attributed to Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

        that said, it's interesting to see quantum physicists differ in their perspectives, speculations, and interpretations.

        see Physics Buzz: Zeilinger Polls Quantum Physicists on Nature of Reality ~ http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2013/01/zeilinger-polls-quantum-physicists-on.html
        • thumb
          Apr 7 2013: That article's a nice refutation of the phrase "scientific dogma."
        • Apr 7 2013: @Hoopes
          Hardly, you don't seem to understand what Sheldrake meant by the dogmas of science.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.