TED Community » Harvinder Mann

Comments

• TEDCred score: +23.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +3

  A reply on Talk: David Deutsch: Chemical scum that dream of distant quasars

  Jun 14 2012: I respect no poorly thought out ideas, no matter how many people believe them, the truth is not democratic. You can also believe in God without being a creationist regardless of what the fundamentalists tell you, hell you can even believe in God without subscribing to any religious doctrine and have a truer freedom of thought. David Deutsch can express himself anyway he likes, as can other speakers on TED, we have freedom of religion as we do freedom of speech.

• A reply on Talk: Just how small is an atom?

  Apr 27 2012: Around the nucleus is a probability density cloud where electrons may be detected. Where there is a low probability of an electron being detected you could consider the space as effectively empty.
• +2

  A reply on Talk: Brian Greene: Is our universe the only universe?

  Apr 27 2012: Come on Tareq, there is no call to resort to creationist nonsense about the flagella and so on, that argument has been successfully disputed many times already. The evidence for evolution being a valid theory is there if you will but open your eyes, you can have God and Science together so long as your faith does not corrupt your reason. I'm sorry that you have reached such a high academic level but have decided to abandon reason in favour of revelation. As you say the theory of evolution is falsifiable, is the theory of God? If it is not then it is worthless as a scientific viewpoint.

• A reply on Talk: Brian Greene: Is our universe the only universe?

  Apr 27 2012: "there's nothing wrong with life as it is" Without progress there is stagnation, stagnation leads inexorably to death. The Easter Island civilisation was happy with life "as it was" and as a result were unable to deal with the paradigm shift brought about by deforestation. You cannot just stop scientific progress because you've decided an arbitrary line is "enough". I recommend reading David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity" which explores this is in much more depth, or check out his talk on optimism here: http://vimeo.com/22099396
• +1

  A reply on Talk: Aaron O'Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum object

  Jun 8 2011: That's not what I said at all, if you want to use quantum theory to help explain your data that's fine. If you want to use quantum theory to explain why astrology is correct, first you have to collect your data, not anecdotal "spooky" stories, real quantifiable data. Like Dean Radin for example. Science isn't talking in parallel terms with ancient mysticism, we are using a method of communication that essentially evolved to tell other apes where the fresh fruit was, it's just semantic overlap.
• +12

  A comment on Talk: Aaron O'Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum object

  Jun 2 2011: Brilliant talk, lets hope the mystics don't jump on his last comment, I'm looking at you Deepak Chopra.
• +2

  A reply on Conversation: What is the nature of consciousness? Is consciousness merely a by-product of the physical brain?

  Mar 7 2011: I don't persoannly see a difference between the spiritual and material. When I undergo a spiritual experience there are physical /material/ changes in my body and brain chemistry, changes which can be observed and measured. I see spirituality (and consciousness by the way) as a product of the mechanistic process of the brain, I don't see this as detracting from spiritual experiences, the more we understand about the nature of these experiences the better, so lets pull in our most objective thinking tools, logic and rationality.
  
  Some may claim ignorance is bliss, or that these things are beyond the realms of science to understand, these claims have been made before and no doubt will continue to be made, but I find a flower no less beautiful because I understand the process by which it formed, or because I know a little something about the matter from which it is formed, in fact that knowledge allows me to appreciate it even more.

• A reply on Conversation: Has religion outlived it's usefulness?

  Mar 5 2011: Sorry Kathy I'll reply to both your comments here as I seem unable to reply to your comment below. Dawkins's claims about Yahweh are textually accurate and in fact the image of the Christian God would have been in full keeping with the views held in the middle ages. I refer you to Milton's portrayal of God in Paradise Lost. To call it a temper tantrum and to claim he does not understand seems a pretty arrogant stance considering in literary and historical terms his account is accurate. As for the bible not saying anything about the Earth's age or making other scientific claims I don't think you need me to tell you of the priest who calculated the age of the planet by tracing the generations back to Adam & Eve, it may not be a direct claim of the bible but the inference is there and this was considered gospel truth (excuse the pun). Although I like Dawkins, I don't consider his work without fault, (I am not religious about it), perhaps he does hammer hard on ignorance but I don't see why his perfectly reasonable arguments should be discounted as a result.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Has religion outlived it's usefulness?

  Mar 5 2011: Okay Kathy lets look at it logically, sorry if you have heard this argument before but it bears repeating, I tell you that there is a fully grown space whale orbiting a planet 200 light years distant. Now you could believe me, you could disbelieve me, or you could withhold judgment until more evidence is available. Logically you should do one of the latter two, since I have provided no evidence and what evidence I could provide would be spurious. But now let's think rationally and scientifically, space whales have never been observed, there is no reason to assume they ever will be observed so now you are guided toward the middle response of disbelief. That is why I say atheism has everything to do with logic reason and the very fundamentals of scientific empiricism. I'd like to finish with a Carl Sagan thought experiment that I think explains the logical fallacy of belief better than I ever could:
  
  "Look at the pale blue dot of our planet. Take a good long look at it. Stare at the dot for any length of time and then try to convince yourself that God created the whole universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of cosmic dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that everything was made just for a single shade of that species, or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. If this doesn't strike you as unlikely pick another dot. Imagine it to be inhabited by a different form of intelligent life. They too cherish the idea of a God who has created everything for their benefit. How seriously do you take their claim?"
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Has religion outlived it's usefulness?

  Mar 5 2011: The phrase magic pixie dust to me seems perfectly apt, it is merely how Tim views the situation, As for holy text being somehow more "wise" I find this concept really interesting, for example the writing of Shakespeare is also open to myriad interpretations and presents a detailed and interesting study of the human condition and morality as do those of Philip K Dick. Why are these not considered "holy"?