Understanding Consciousness | Rupert Sheldrake, George Ellis, Amie Thomasson

#conciousness #iaitv #sheldrake #physics #philosophy

The fundamental problem of philosophy, argued Heidegger is 'why is there something rather than nothing?' . Now, some scientists claim nothing doesn't existand even the deepest space is full of virtual particles. Have we misunderstood the very idea of nothing? Is this little more than a logical mistake, or might understanding nothing just be the key to explaining the universe?

Rupert Sheldrake: Biologist known for his research into parapsychology, evolution and morphic resonance, as well as author of The Science Delusion

George Ellis: Templeton prize winner and cosmologist, Ellis has been awarded the Order of the Star of South Africa by Nelson Mandela and is an expert on relativity.

Amie Thomasson: Amie Thomasson is an American philosopher, currently Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. Thomasson specializes in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, phenomenology and the philosophy of art.

[HigherSofia]

Finally. Rupert Sheldrake brings a voice that has been deeply missed in panel discussions like this. Well done !

[junasuncion]

Only Dr. Sheldrake seems to have an extended mind and intelligence, the rest has intelligence confined only in their academic- conditioned minds. Dr. Sheldrake is an artistic scientist, very free, creative yet grounded. That's a good breeding ground for new developments.

[shaneberquist]

Rupert. I’d prefer to listen to you in debates with people who understand your ideas.

[Poemander]

Dissapointed by this interviewer/host who clearly just couldn't stand Ruperts ideas, he was caricaturing his view and interrupting him in the middle of the sentence. Ending was worst - he stopped Rupert in the mid sentence again and thanked everyone for such a good conversation... He CLEARLY didn't let him finish the though that I was interested hearing. What an INCREDIBLE

[nitinbhasin]

Rupert makes some very important points. Scientific community needs to think seriously about prejudice and overreach.

[ryanqvincent]

I so like the views of Rupert Sheldrake. Especially when one starts to appreciate this place where we live. We are in a 'sea' of 'tuned energy' is the best phrase I can think of currently?

[lioneye]

Rupert making much more sense than the rest here

[MichaelHarrisIreland]

James Ladyman is making the discussion meaningless, it seems to me he's trying to look smart. Or hide science in the ivory tower where he wants to impress us he dwells. He ruined some of the very genuine discussion for the public at least. I've made this comment probably about half way through. Don't think I'll watch anymore. I watch this because I'm a human being like him, a member of the public. If he excludes people from science they have every reason to exclude him from teaching them anything. It's just natural. I had to give up listening to three amazing people because he's such a fool.

[candymandan]

I think the way they spoke over Sheldrake's ideas did such a good job in illustrating the point about dogma, that it became more clear than if he would've been allowed to explain it himself.

[janellemckinley]

Rupert the only really bright light here.

[smartartification]

Why is it that Rupert Sheldrake is always the only one in these debates who directly addresses the topic instead of talking in circles?

[natehockett]

Thank you James Ladyman for your adolescent facial acrobatics, sarcasm and defensive behavior. You may consider alternate approaches when debating about big boy topics.

[dennisb]

Having a disdain for one of your guests is something really unsettling to view

[davidetomsu]

Thank you Rupert, we are grateful for your presence in the science world.

[fukcggle]

The debate "moderator" has a clear prejudice towards Rupert. CONSCIOUSNESS

[aishwariyasweety]

I dont entirely agree with rupert but I find his theories fascinating and take them seriously.

But still, in this debate I was rooting for rupert and not george ellis, even though I'm a physicist myself.

[philsweeney]

I would argue that Tables and Chairs would no longer be Tables and Chairs unless there are Conscious beings around to recognise them as such. As far as the Universe is concerned they are just a collection of atoms with a certain amount of Mass and Energy.
I also think its debatable as to weather the would even physically exist if there are no Conscious beings around to collapse the super-positions of said Tables and Chairs.

[thomasforster]

talking about consciousness with people who haven't explored different forms of consciousness

[jewellstarsinger]

Wow, did the moderator chop Rupert's comment down like a guy with an axe, or what?! Disrespect. ugly.

[GeorgeMariolis]

Pity Krauss wasn't there. Krauss debating Sheldrake would drive Krauss mad.