Rome Viharo

Los Angeles, CA, United States

About Rome

Bio

Co - Presenter of "Google Consciousness" at TEDx Cardiff. #1 Most Popular TEDx talk for 6 months on TED.com. Co-Founder of Audience Box - we work in media and technology, primarily in Strategic Development and Product development. We work with agencies, brands, and even countries helping them identify key media and technology planning, usually around social media. Founder of AL 0 1 2, a collective editor that sorts discussions by rational consensus, launching in 2014.

An idea worth spreading

All problems are solved effectively and for certain when all sides win.

I'm passionate about

Technology, Collective Intelligence, Media, Communications, Harmony.

My TED story

In 2011, Maf Lewis and I gave a TEDx talk called "Google Consciousness" which two years later is still in the top 10 most popular TEDx talks in the world. http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxCARDIFF-Google-Consciousnes

Comments & conversations

183316
Rome Viharo
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
TEDSTAFF writes:TED’s scientific advisors have questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions — indeed, several of the dogmas are actually active areas of science inquiry (including whether physical ‘constants’ are really unchanging) — and believe there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake’s more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance, and claim that the speed of light has been changing. 1.)His 'hypothesis' of morphic resonance is a straw man in this discussion i believe. This talk is not about his hypothesis. He mentions it in relationship to a point philosophically, but he could have also mentioned many hypothesis, and theories in science, that are either on the frills or questionable. His point is that because of a certain mindframe that guides science and many educated people, science is stopped into valid inquiry into many phenomenon that does not appear accountable in materialism. Question for TEDSTAFF. Is it fair to use Sheldrake's work in the past to judge the value of his current talk even though they are not related? 2.) Sheldrake does not clam that the speed of light is changing. He uses an example of recorded changes in the speed of light at a certain point in history to highlight how inquiring into the value of a fixed speed is never questioned. He gave quite a detailed rebuttal to Sean Carrol's 'debunking' and I believe that it is TEDSTAFF's fair duty hear to allow Sheldrake to talk this through with a reasoned and experienced party. It does not appear to me that TED has a grasp of the actual argument in question and is unable to frame their position.
183316
Rome Viharo
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
1.) Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation? Yes, absolutely it is an idea worth spreading. It's clear this discussion needs to happen as this is a valid philosophical dialogue and Sheldrake is able to frame it quite objectively. No this is not misinformation and positioning it that way is very misleading itself. I personally not have identified what in the talk is 'misinformation', a false idea presented as true scientifically in this talk. Can TEDSTAFF identify the misinformation in question? I believe that the examples given by TED regarding Sean Carrol's rebuttal have been addressed by Mr Sheldrake quite objectively here. http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/ Can TEDSTAFF follow up on his reasoned rebuttal point by point? I think it's important to note that what I believe TED is missing is that Rupert's presentation is not trying to conflict with any scientific facts, but rather he is addressing and critiquing the scientific materialistic philosophy that is shared amongst educated people in mainstream society. So 'misinformation' i believe is an incorrect way to phrase it, since these are philosophical issues he is raising.
183316
Rome Viharo
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
2.) Does Sheldrake accurately describe scientists’ beliefs and are his theories credible? What’s the evidence for either position? First off, is it fair to discuss his theories when the talk was not about his theories? Secondly, he has an hypothesis on Morphic Resonance and he is quite clear about labeling it a hypothesis and not a theory. Thirdly those are two distinct questions and really only one of them applies to this issue of his talk. So to answer your question does he describe what scientists believe? Sure, many of them, but Sheldrake is careful to frame his philosophy on the paradigm of scientific materialism, or materialism for short - so this extends not just to niche scientists in niche fields, but a large majority of educated people. Your question is more properly framed as "Does Sheldrake accurately describe materialistic philosophy?" and I imagine that is a debate to be had between Sheldrake and materialistic philosophers and scientists who hold that philosophy. So your question is somewhat of a strawman or at least that is how it appears to me and I believe framing it that way is not really honest in terms of addressing what Sheldrake is talking about. @TEDSTAFF, do you believe TED has honestly considered Sheldrake's talk, or at least understand it enough to make strong value judgements on it's content and Sheldrake's research?
183316
Rome Viharo
Posted over 2 years ago
Did Rupert Sheldrake make a factual error?
Rupert's response "This is a good opportunity to correct an oversimplification in my talk. In relation to the dogma that mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works, I said, “that’s why governments only fund mechanistic medicine and ignore complementary and alternative therapies.” This is true of most governments, but the US is a notable exception. The US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine receives about $130 million a year, about 0.4% of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) total annual budget of $31 billion. Obviously I could not spell out all the details of my arguments in an 18-minute talk, but TED’s claims that it contains “serious factual errors,” “many misleading statements” and that it crosses the line into “pseudoscience” are defamatory and false."
183316
Rome Viharo
Posted almost 3 years ago
Clay Shirky: How the Internet will (one day) transform government
Very exciting to see this idea catching on more and more. Last year in 2011, Maf Lewis and I gave a TEDx talk called 'Google Consciousness' which spoke to this broad theme specifically using social media to create new government administration which anyone can begin building now. Thank you Clay Shirky!