The more I wade into the morass that
is TED the more horrified I become at the illusion of openness
this organization has wrapped around itself, when the truth as I
have now learned from direct experience is so very different.
TED talks a good talk about itself,
its nobility, its achievements.
"We believe passionately," TED
boasts, "in the power of ideas to change attitudes, lives
and ultimately, the world.
So we're building here a
clearinghouse that offers free knowledge and inspiration
from the world's most inspired thinkers, and also a
community of curious souls to engage with ideas and each
other."
(see here:
http://www.ted.com/pages/about).
But the truth is quite different.
Over the matter of the censorship on
YouTube of my "War on Consciousness" presentation and
Rupert Sheldrake's "Science Delusion" presentation, TED is closed
minded, operates with an extremely limited view of what is
scientifically orthodox, wishes to stay safely within that
orthodoxy, and is patronizing and disparaging about those who
question their policies.
As
TED Curator Chris Anderson
writes
here in response to comments
criticizing TED for censoring my presentation:
"Right now this comment section
is over-run by the hordes of supporters sent our way by
Graham Hancock.
It would be nice for you to calm down and
actually read some of the criticisms of his work so that you
can get a more balanced view point.
And meanwhile, we'll be reading
the views of anyone who'll be patient enough to express them
in a reasoned way... as opposed to throwing around shrieks
of censorship when nothing of the kind has happened."
Mr. Anderson seems to have plenty of
time to pour scorn on those who disagree with the way TED has
handled this matter, but so far, more than five hours after I
posted them he has not found the time to answer the four simple
questions I asked him
on page 1 of the public forum
he set up supposedly to foster open discussion of the
presentations by myself and Rupert.
Here are those four simple questions again:
-
TED says of my "War on
Consciousness" presentation: "...he misrepresents what
scientists actually think. He suggests, for example,
that no scientists are working on the problem of
consciousness."
I would like TED to identify where exactly in my talk
they believe I say that "no scientists are working on
the problem of consciousness"? Also in what other
specific ways does TED believe I misrepresent what
scientists actually think?
-
TED says of my presentation:
"He states as fact that psychotropic drug use is
essential for an "emergence into consciousness," and
that one can use psychotropic plants to connect directly
with an ancient mother culture."
I would like TED to identify where exactly in my talk
they believe I state as a fact that psychotropic drug
use is essential for an emergence into consciousness. I
would also like TED to identify where exactly in my talk
I state that one can use psychotropic plants to connect
directly with an ancient mother culture.
-
TED states that there are
many inaccuracies in my presentation which display a
disrespect both for my audience and for my arguments.
I would like TED to indentify where exactly in my talk
these alleged "many inaccuracies" occur.
-
TED says of my "War on
Consciousness" presentation: "He offers a one-note
explanation for how culture arises (drugs), which just
doesn't hold up."
Again I would like TED to identify the point in my talk where I
state this.
Do I not rather say that some
scientists in the last thirty years have raised an intriguing
possibility - emphasis on POSSIBILITY - which is that the
exploration of altered states of consciousness, in which
psychedelic plants have been implicated, was fundamental to the
emergence into fully symbolic consciousness witnessed by the
great cave art?
I can cite a wide range of
respectable peer-reviewed scientists who have suggested this
possibility and I do not see how reporting their work, which I
have every right to do, can be construed as offering "a one-note
explanation for how culture arises (drugs)."
Besides is every talk that touches
on the origins of culture obliged to consider all possible
factors that might be involved in the origins of culture?
How
could any speaker be expected to do that in one 18-minute talk?
