8 ms·

Indeed. I just finished my undergrad degree in CS, so going 'in depth' into either field is still on the horizon for myself personally, but I am admittedly a bi

Indeed. I just finished my undergrad degree in CS, so going 'in depth' into either field is still on the horizon for myself personally, but I am admittedly a bit more acquainted with the neurological/psychological side of things. Thanks for the link, certainly seems to touch on a lot of familiar subjects so I'll be sure to go through it. Continuing on the 'philosophical challenge' tangent, this talk recently came to my attention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY I haven't delved into the matter much beyond what's presented there, but it seems plausible enough (given the evidence) to be another thorny aspect relating to 'consciousness'. Just thought I'd share.

richardjordan 13y ago
No, Sheldrake is a pseudo-science crank and charlatan. Like most pseudo-scientists he says lots of hand-wavy things, and rails against some imagined scientific "they" who won't listen to his theories. If your'e serious about learning in the space you need to steer clear of folks like him or the Deepak Chopra's of this world. Nothing but mystical platitudes lie down that path.
- oblique63 13y ago
  While I'm never convinced by such theories without conducting my own share of research, it's depressing how difficult it is to find any real credible refutations of the data presented without diving into the experiment papers and reproduction attempts themselves. I don't care what his followers think, I don't care what his detractors think, I don't even care what he thinks, I just care to find out the proper context for the data presented or at least cited examples of credible reproduction attempts that failed. Yet science blogs and comments are filled with so much noise and logical fallacies, that I can't blame tinfoil-hat people for trying to go against the 'status quo' they represent. The best way to discredit these people would be to list off simple objective contradictions and leave it at that, not to try and turn them into some kind of gossipy train-wreck like Lidsay Lohan -- that just makes everyone involved look bad.

richardjordan 13y ago

No, Sheldrake is a pseudo-science crank and charlatan. Like most pseudo-scientists he says lots of hand-wavy things, and rails against some imagined scientific "they" who won't listen to his theories. If your'e serious about learning in the space you need to steer clear of folks like him or the Deepak Chopra's of this world. Nothing but mystical platitudes lie down that path.

oblique63 13y ago
While I'm never convinced by such theories without conducting my own share of research, it's depressing how difficult it is to find any real credible refutations of the data presented without diving into the experiment papers and reproduction attempts themselves. I don't care what his followers think, I don't care what his detractors think, I don't even care what he thinks, I just care to find out the proper context for the data presented or at least cited examples of credible reproduction attempts that failed. Yet science blogs and comments are filled with so much noise and logical fallacies, that I can't blame tinfoil-hat people for trying to go against the 'status quo' they represent. The best way to discredit these people would be to list off simple objective contradictions and leave it at that, not to try and turn them into some kind of gossipy train-wreck like Lidsay Lohan -- that just makes everyone involved look bad.