TED Community » Christophe Cop

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Science, truth, social games, life, Japan

An idea worth spreading

[2 years ago] offer all children of the world the possibility to see Ted-talks ted talks (from a certain age, say 10 and up).
Each of those kids should at least know what adults can dream about. [Current] There is only one big story left... from the start of this universe up to now and how it all evolved and is evolving. We can go for an era of "splendorism", where we build on positive-sum-games that can propel humanity towards a great future.

Talk to me about

Statistics, TedxFlanders, Philosophy of science

People don't know that I'm good at

Appreciating them

My TED Story

July 3rd 2009: I organised the first TEDx event in Belgium. It was small scale, low budget. I did get 3 good speakers and an audience of 70 people. I see this as a step towards more events
October 2009: foundation of non profit organisation: IdeasWE vzw (Ideas Worth Executing).
January 22nd 2010: TEDx Flanders II. Four speakers, 70 people, warm atmosphere, very nice food during the break,... September 5th 2010 TEDxFlanders @the ZOO was our first big event, Since then, we started Youth events, Salons & Live events. 24th of September was our first big peak where 1000 people attended our main event in the Flemish Opera. There was absolutely no negative feedback! everybody loved it! We are still growing, and our name is getting established. This adventure is taking me further than I ever could imagine

Comments

• TEDCred score: +15465.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +2

  A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  21 hours ago: People who argue they can experience God like you can experience a cow: please bring me some god-milk please!
  
  I would argue that they are speaking metaphorically.
  
  If you really wish an answer to why a cow is actually an observable fact, living creature, obeying the same laws of our cosmos and from the same particles as us, and genetic material is similar to ours,... what we can describe as a cow and what not a cow is... and why a god: an un-measurable (no sensor, apparatus, sense, no observable influence,...), unknown, underdefined concept is not...
  
  There is a difference between experiencing something that is psychically out there, and experiencing something that is NOT out there.
  Would a religious person go so far as to claim that both are the same? If so, let them imagine still having all their money after giving it all to me.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  22 hours ago: if we know god exists, like we know cows exist, there would be no reason for discussion.
  
  If you know why your wife loves you... then all the better. There is immense beauty in knowing that (imo).
  
  knowing how a belief works (like knowing how cows produce milk), does not change that belief (it might, but not necessarily). [am I answering the question?] It does not alter the truth value of the claim you believe in either.
  I can believe in X, I can understand how "believing in X" works, and we might be able to estimate whether X actually refers to reality and to which extent.
  
  So I can believe my wife loves me, I can understand how my belief works, and I can know that she loves me (given sufficient proof &c)

• A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  23 hours ago: change asset to aspect (might be my imperfect use of English)
  
  Thanks for the answer.

• A reply on Conversation: Why are YOU killing the planet?

  3 days ago: I would opt for the abolition of tax on labor and tax consumption instead. As such you can in-calculate all costs (moral, ecological, social, medical) into the product. As such you would pay the actual amount of what something costs.
  (yes the calculus is do-able)
  
  You don't need to change individual behavior as such. Change the structure.
  
  The effort to ask everybody to behave against their en-cultured nature is an up-hill battle (and futile if you look at all the relatively useless propaganda, media, PR and publicity that has been done in order to try and change our behavior).
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Should males be treated as superior to female counterparts, in any sphere of life? Why or why not?

  3 days ago: I'm going to state the obvious, and want to illustrate that ignoring differences is just that: ignorance
  
  Women are superior in giving birth to children.
  Men are superior in a range of sports.
  Men are superior in excretion of testosterone
  
  And you can say that for any group that has shown differences (age, race, religion, culture,...)
  
  So... Yes we are all different, and in groups, average differences appear.
  
  So the question is: should a person be treated as superior because a group has average differences?
  NO: You shall not make the fallacy of distributing an aspect of the group (equally) to all its members.
  
  A person should be treated as superior if he is superior in the aspect you are comparing him/her.
  
  There is absolutely nothing wrong with stereotypes, group differences, comparisons, marketing division or grouping people into categories.
  There is however something wrong to assume that the differences between groups says something about the differences within the groups.
  And it is wrong to assume that if you are superior in one aspect, you are superior in other aspects.
  
  Almost all men are superior in urinating against trees than almost all women and therefore we get special latrines. I consider that as a superior treatment ;-) .
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  3 days ago: Helen,
  
  In what asset does the assumption of a panentheistic god differ to not assuming such a god?
  
  [The reason I ask is because:
  I think the conflict with science is the (in?)famous Occam's razor: if "A explains X" and "B explains X" then choose A over B if A has less assumptions (needs less code, is simpler, has lower entropy)
  i.e. if B= A+redundancy]
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  3 days ago: "Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me — should I then stop believing that she does?"
  
  you thinking your wife loves you is not the same as your wife loving you. there is no causal connection between these two.
  
  As for "thinking god exists" and "god existing"... same goes. So I think I follow the parallel here.
  A and B can be independently true or false.
  
  The understanding (neurological/psychological, biological, sociological,...) of how we humans think and act as such does not need to have any other implication as "nice to know".
  
  However,
  If you wish to uphold beliefs that are not contrary to truth, and here i quote John Stuart Mill:
  "In the opinion, not of bad men, but of the best men, no belief which is contrary to truth can be really useful"
  
  And that has some sincere implications!
  It means that you must reject all your superstitions and false beliefs (as soon as they appear to be so, (given likelihood, &c...)) even if you actually liked them or intuitively lean to believing them and wanting to believe them.
  (you can feel god exists, while knowing god does not exist...)
  
  As for your belief that your wife loves you: Even if she doesn't, that does not need to change the way you feel about her.
  You still can feel she loves you, while knowing she doesn't.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Should Music be Free?

  3 days ago: You might want to discuss this with your local pirate party (in the Netherlands). There are some experts on that matter who propagate a change in IP laws (and how BREIN plays it's role).
  
  It's not my specialty, and there are quite some good talks on the matter as well
  I think your question is not the right question.
  
  I think most IP laws are wrong and need revision.
  
  As for music: You performing does not need to be free. You selling records or songs at your desired price is you right. Crowd-sourcing money for your next album seems a good idea. Asking money from your fans is not the same as begging. It's sharing.
  
  There does not need to be a protection of something that is in the public or in the open. You want your music to be heard, spread, shared, mixed. If you can make money out of it: great for you. If you can't: too bad.
  Same goes for art or consulting or any other profession.
  
  If you want people to pay for your music: organize paid gigs where people need to leave any recording material outside and ask your price for exclusivity and uniqueness... And feel free to sell a cup of coffee on the side.
  
  Just the thoughts of a "starving" politician and "starving" idea generator (or "starving" TEDx organizer)... I don't blame anybody for not paying me to do what I like to do.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Why are YOU killing the planet?

  3 days ago: You assume that we "demanded" all of the above. I rather think that it is there and offered to us for quite a cheap price.
  If one decides to sell straight cucumbers, as it is easier to move around and that the (paid) cost of moving is higher than the (paid) cost of spoiling the curved ones (who might be salvaged to soup or other processes nearby).
  
  Anyway. I would say: a lot of stuff just happened. And we so happen to realize that some of our behavior as a group seems to affect our environment that might be harmful in the not so distant future.
  
  While some of us realize we are killing the planet, there are also other things we realize: there is hunger, war, crime,...
  Am I to feel guilty of that as well? Is this a re-introduction of the "original sin"
  Some people have a lot of trouble just getting by each day.
  
  It so happens that not everybody can bother about all causes, so don't ask that from people.
  
  You happen to choose for the ecological cause. So please do your best to come with the better options to the stores where most people buy. Please take actions that help solve the problem. I am glad you do.
  
  I think nudging people, individuals, communities, the rich, the powerful, the companies, one at a time or in other actions such as these can all contribute.
  
  I don't think feeling guilty will help solve these problems. And people wanting to nudge me into action through making me feel guilty are not on my list of people I wish to surround myself with.
  
  I don't feel guilty, because I follow my path in life that I think is valuable. I am doing what I think needs to be done in this world, while not forgetting to fulfill my own needs.
  
  Why am I killing the planet? Am I as an individual killing the planet? Are my cells killing the planet? Are my changing atoms killing the planet? Is my community killing the planet? Is my species killing the planet?
  
  Thanks for making me wonder ;-)
• +4

  A comment on Conversation: Is school and University education really needed in life?

  Apr 17 2013: If a society cannot uphold the same level of civilization, it will decline.
  
  We need education, and we need a lot of it at great quality.
  
  Is it "needed"... no, not in a basic Maslov way. But we need to learn a lot of things. Some turn out to be usefull, and others not.
  I would recommend you learn some things in your life. It will be advantageous.