Kristen Jones

Someone is shy

Kristen hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Kristen Jones
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
Here's a recent talk by String Theory Physicist John Hagelin on how he thinks science, (specifically physics) and consciousness might actually link together. The field experiments he refers to are interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqdcdky9wR4
Noface
Kristen Jones
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
Thanks Amrita Bhohi for your comments explaining the thinking and mindset of the people who organized this Tedx event and set the theme for the speakers. I hope there’s more organizers out there like you, wanting to explore these challenging areas (human consciousness) which so many of us find fascinating. The real problem we have in front of us now though, is that a science board has critiqued a talk which is about consciousness, something science knows almost nothing about. The tools of science just can’t yet test or measure consciousness. We have a gap in our knowledge in this area. Science calls consciousness “the hard question” because it doesn’t yet know what consciousness is, how the brain creates it, or even if the brain creates it. Some well known scientists are starting to explore this area. Two who are probably making the most headway right now are Sir Roger Penrose and Stewart Hameroff with their Orch Or Theory. Here’s a link for anyone interested. It’s not yet proven nor disproven for the reasons already mentioned above. www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg&feature=share Sheldrake also dares to go here too. Richard Faynman, one of our greatest scientists famously said years ago that the very first step in creating any new laws of science is to “make a guess”. After that comes the hard work of trying to prove that guess. We are still somewhere in the middle of that process when it comes to the kinds of issues Hancock addresses and explores in his talk. This is why removing the talk on the basis of a scientific assessment of the material is wrong and has caused so much upset. Please, let’s see these talks go back onto the main Ted platform. Further debate can go on there. More importantly though, Hancock’s talk encourages further discussion and understanding of what it means to us to be human beings, exploring our personal, subjective and universal experience. Asking the big questions just as science does but using different techniques.
Noface
Kristen Jones
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
No one is disputing Ted’s legal right to decide the content of its site. However the problems here are: 1. In this case the talks were put on the site, they proved extremely popular and then were removed. 2. They were removed because a “science team” which is anonymous therefore very hard to challenge, decided the talks were “unscientific”. 3. Hancock, as already mentioned is not a scientist, was not speaking at a scientific conference and was discussing a topic (consciousness) that mainstream science has generally chosen to steer well clear of other than a few people like Sheldrake. 4. The Conference’s express purpose was to challenge and explore “existing paradigms” which is exactly what happened. No one is saying Ted should not have certain standards. Several posts in the earlier discussions go into this in depth. What people are saying is that in this instance, Ted’s behavior has been unfair notwithstanding its legal rights. Perhaps the problem here is we've made the mistake of seeing Ted as an open information sharing forum instead of a media company policing its content with a science board, even when the issues under discussion are better vetted in some other way. After all science describes consciousness as "the hard question", meaning traditional scientific tools don't work well here.
Noface
Kristen Jones
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
The theme for the Tedx event held in January this year at which both talks occurred was: “Visions for Transition: Challenging Existing Paradigms and Redefining Values (for a beautiful world)” That’s exactly what Sheldrake and Hancock did. Both talks received extensive hits and were extremely popular before they were removed from their original platform. Hancock’s talk is an exposition about his (and others) personal experiences exploring human consciousness. He has never claimed to be a scientist. Sheldrake, who IS a well known scientist, has successfully addressed the reasons put forward by Ted for removing his video. No pseudo science has yet been proven that I can see from reading this blog. Putting aside the censorship debate and also outrage expressed over an anonymous science board deciding what can and can’t be viewed by the public on the main Ted platform…it’s really just not fair of Ted to play with Sheldrake and Hancocks reputations this way. So, Ted, please re-instate these videos to their original platform and let’s move forward.