TED Community » Marcus T Anthony

Sign in to send Marcus T an email »

About Me

I'm a futurist, writer and personal consultant. I write books, articles and popular pieces about the future, and give public talks and workshops. But not just about any futures: I like to explore Deep Futures - profound, meaningful and sustainable visions of tomorrow. I have spent two decades exploring the human mind both personally and academically: thus MindFutures! Currently I live in Melbourne, Australia, and am lecturer (Critical Thinking and Foresight Methods) for the Masters of Strategic Foresight programme at the Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology.

Location:
Australia, Melbourne
Current organization:
MindFutures
Current role:
Director, MindFutures
Gender:
Male
Areas of expertise:
Futures Studies, Foresight, Mindfulness and consciousness studies, Developing the intuitive mind, meditation and healing, Intelligence in all its expressison
Associations:
World Futures Studies Federation
Languages:
English, Chinese
My website links:
MindFutures
Universities:
University of Newcastle Australia, University of the Sunshine Coast
Member Picture

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Personal futures, human futures, planetary futures, cosmic futures.

An idea worth spreading

There's more to the future than flying cars and a faster internet.

Talk to me about

The human mind and the future, sustainable futures. Mindfulness.

My TED Story

I gave a talk at TEDx Hong Kong in 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lFyHdaLPPk

Comments

  • TEDCred score: +1.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

  • +1

    A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk

    Mar 24 2013: Well, glad you found it useful, Lewis.
  • +8

    A comment on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk

    Mar 24 2013: A related issue is important in all this. People are getting smarter (not more stupid, as the skeptics would like to have us believe). Psychologist Stephen Flynn identified the fact that specific realms of human intelligence have been expanding dramatically, as indicated by IQ test scores – esp. visual-spatial intelligence and scientific thinking (and the capacity for abstraction). Flynn believes that people are smarter because of “scientific thinking”. In turn the widespread dissemination of “shorthand abstractions” such as “random sample”, “control group” and “falsifiability” equip us with cognitive tools which make us smarter. Still, Flynn is quick to criticise what he believes are false shorthand abstractions. He uses examples like “reality is a text” and “gender science”, and he is hostile to postmodern thought which attempts to contextualise knowledge formation. While some of Flynn’s criticisms of postmodern thought and relativism is well founded, his attitude highlights an issue at the heart of “the psi wars”. Conservative thinking in science wants us to accept the benefits of science and the great knowledge it has granted us. But many in the more conservative scientific community fail to grasp that the general public is now armed with a host of concepts akin to Flynn’s short-hand abstractions which make them far “smarter” than their parents. The concepts of “worldview”‘, “paradigm” and “ways of knowing”, for example, mean that masses of people are now able to pry behind the machinations of science to ask deeper questions about how our knowledge is produced and communicated. Sheldrake and many people looking at the issue from outside are just too informed to unquestioningly buy what they are being sold by TED and experts in the scientific community.
    As Einstein stated, a mind once expanded by a new idea can never return to its original size. Just as scientific literacy is here to stay, so is the deepening of awareness of how knowledge is created.
  • +2

    A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk

    Mar 24 2013: I think all we can do is try to present good arguments and evidence for including such talks. TED has the right to host whomever it wants. It has no legal responsibility to include any given idea or speaker. But does it have a moral obligation? What is clear is that TED has become such a huge voice for (often) progressive knowledge, that its policy decisions now have a global impact on the way people everywhere think. This comes with a great deal of responsibility. This then raises the issue of those interest groups behind the scenes who do not want certain kinds of information made public. Coyne, Meyer and the skeptics are an ideologically driven group with a very narrow and distorted understanding of certain realms of inquiry - and in this case this knowledge threatens the foundations, and the founding values, of their ideology. These people are typically intolerant, narrow minded and emotionally aggressive in regard to the subject matter at hand. They do not - and should not - have the right to indirectly control what others think and feel. This is not a small side discussion on a specific debate within a field of science. The issues that Sheldrake raises are foundational. They are absolutely critical to the future of science and to human futures in general. Coyne, Meyer and co. think this is why the talk should be removed. I think it is the very reason why it must stay.
  • +5

    A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk

    Mar 24 2013: Lime Crime, your post adds nothing intelligent to the discussion. You are simply reinforcing the commonly held perception that many in the skeptics' community are rude and intolerant, and prone to emotional outbursts. Every thread on the TED site discussing this current issue has been hijacked by such people. Censorship of progressive scientific inquiry, and an a priori dismissal of the evidence and arguments is indefensible.

Favorite talks

This member doesn't have any favorite talks yet.