Mar 8 2013: So you have said. Tell me this: what would you do if several scholars came to you insisting on allowing a representative of the Discovery Institute to speak in favor of teaching religion (creationism) in public schools?
Mar 8 2013: Assuming material reality allows the investigator to formulate an effective experiment. To assume a supernatural (or unspecified force, i.e. Morphic resonance, ID ) event that could change the experiment "at will" would mean predictions of outcomes would not be possible. The scientist must specify a result in advance that would disprove the hypothesis. If a chemist thinks that combining A with B will result in C, but only if supernatural forces do not interfere, then he's wasting his time.
I tend to equate monism with materialism. Perhaps that's too easy. What other schemes are you thinking of in the context of Sheldrakes baffling remarks?
I think a key notion about modern philosophy is that many ideas that animated debate for centuries still have to account for our experimental science. Science and its findings are at least part of reality. Old frameworks that cannot account for a round earth, a heliocentric solar system, the germ theory of disease, mans place in nature as an evolved mammal, have been shed. Neuroscience is making the idea of souls, spirits, ghosts, demons, and gods, less likely.
Mar 8 2013: Interesting analysis. The difference between the philosophical, and scientific approach includes the idea that science is essentially pragmatic methodology. Materialism as an assumption of science allows for efficient discovery. Otherwise, science would flounder, as philosophy seems to do. Materialism imposes the fewest assumptions. Occam's raizor comes to mind. Also, materialism, from what I understand (not a philosopher) has largely been accepted by modern philosophers and many of the historical speculations of philosophers have been set aside. My guess is that fewer philosophers, for instance, hold to dualism. This is because many speculations were originally suggested when there was a lack of understanding of the physical world. Daniel Dennett is an example of a philosopher who filters philosophy based on modern science.
Mar 8 2013: Frank, it is precisely because scientists know they are not always "highly intelligent, open and free thinkers" that they have settled on an approach to discovery that does not require human perfection to work well. It's the scientific method, which Sheldrake does not adhere to. Yes, Toby, Sheldrake has audacity all right. Anyone as unscrupulous needs balls of brass to to show no shame for using TED in his marketing scheme.
Mar 8 2013: TL, I suggest you look at those so called "supporters" and "those who study mind" and see if they don't publish in popular magazines or produce books in pseudo scientific shelves of the book store (you know, where Sheldrick belongs). If anything, modern neuroscience seems to be going the other way. It has been piling up evidence for materialism for over 100 years with out more than an occasional hiccup.
Mar 8 2013: You are right TL. He speculated widely but explained nothing. I think, though, that this approach was deliberate. He raised, in a skeptical tone, 10 issues, any one of which he could have addressed more specifically, but instead, he skimmed through his analysis. He's casting about for an audience to buy his book, methinks.
Mar 8 2013: Sheldrake's talk is definitely unsuitable for TED as it it not based on fact or logic. However, rejecting him from this forum does not silence him. After all he has published all these silly notions in a book already. The contents of the book would not be accepted by a serious scientific publication and I don't think TED should dirty it's hands with it either. The book will probably be read by more people than know TED exists.
TEDCred score: +1.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
I tend to equate monism with materialism. Perhaps that's too easy. What other schemes are you thinking of in the context of Sheldrakes baffling remarks?
I think a key notion about modern philosophy is that many ideas that animated debate for centuries still have to account for our experimental science. Science and its findings are at least part of reality. Old frameworks that cannot account for a round earth, a heliocentric solar system, the germ theory of disease, mans place in nature as an evolved mammal, have been shed. Neuroscience is making the idea of souls, spirits, ghosts, demons, and gods, less likely.
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues