Toward the First Revolution in the Mind Sciences

[cikymamble]

If you have not followed Alan Watts by reading his books and studying his background, and indeed putting his philosophy into practice, you have no right to put him down with uninformed and therefore dogmatic opinions. It amazes me to think how much the general public are in a deep ignorant sleep and yet those very people offer a critque of Alan Watts's work. So, for all you dogmatic sheep the message is move outside the "herd"...start by reading "Jonathan Livinston Seagull.

Siseneg.

[thomas5714]

@cikymamble

Alan Wallace is the guy talking, if you knew Allan Watts - you'd know the differnce.

[cikymamble]

@thomas5714 I was well aware that Alan watts was talking. I have several of his books and have followed his work for several years. What I was implying was that the comments made by people who are ignorant of Watt's brilliant work, are by definition dogmatic. Now with this info read my comments again.

[GinnyWinn]

I could not catch his name & would appreciate knowing it -

[squamish4244]

@GinnyWinn Alan Wallace?

[RosalieStreet]

w w w dealwithstresslabs com has more serious info on "How to deal with stress"

[yourtube20061]

no major substance, just that introspection shd be a science.

[squamish4244]

@yourtube20061 That alone is actually some pretty major substance. But he also makes some solid points about actual science vs. the physicalist attitude that dominates substantial areas of science.

[flowewritharoma]

great lecture/presentation.

and so google's staff is an intelectual man. I wish he spoke too.

[dracd235]

That was 7-23-2007 and it is all still completely valid and relevant - very interesting.

[freekiShLicks]

I ENJOY THIS CHARACTER. HOWEVER.........WHEN PEOPLE ARE WAY TOO CONFIDENT IN THEIR EXPLANATIONS ITS BECAUSE THEYRE TRYIN TOO HARD TO CONVINCE YOU. THATS THE ISSUE WITH ALL THESE PEOPEL THAT STUDY FOR YEARS AND YEARS. THEY ALL COME TO A POINT WHERE THEY JUST LIKE TALKIN ABOUT WHAT THEYVE LEARNED. THE BEST WAY TO DRAW A CONCLUSION IS TO BE OPEN TO ALL INFORMATION AND BE SURE TO QUESTION IT, AND ALSO TO NEVER DRAW A CONCLUSION. LEARN UNTIL DEATH FINDS YOU BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS SIMPLY NOTHING

[AndyJK45]

@freekiShLicks

Buddhism is not about learning form books. It is about discovering for yourself.

Alan talks form experience.

[heartofatum]

@Ken - What is that then???

[anxietyawaynow]

i like your channel, check out mine too...

[vilem94]

@anxietyawaynow yes, tell google to check your channel out, sounds good

[anxietyawaynow]

Cool channel you have

[DragonForceF0REVER]

Who are they going to invite next? A pothead? I'm sure they can tell the Googlers about their brilliant insights.

[AlreadyUnity]

"There is limitation in insisting that everything that is real must be physical". Truly mind opening to realize such a dogmatic presupposition has gone virtually unquestioned by the scientific community for so long. Religious dogma, "scientific" dogma... Apparently the old guard had to physically die before Einstein's theory of relativity was widely accepted. Egocentric keepers of the truth suck, as do lemmings who blindly believe whatever their professor/priest/shaman tells them.

[heartofatum]

He's right in what he's saying. 

[KenMacMillan]

@heartofatum He tells the usual lie about Galileo which makes me question the rest of his history.

[cpunchesful]

@tfsoccer, yeah. sure. /that's/ what it is. lol.

[cpunchesful]

This was like watching a trainwreck.

[tfsoccer]

@cpunchesful, are you projecting your own and his struggle to keep up with his intensity and depth?

[cpunchesful]

God, this guy has nooooo idea what he's talking about. I just can't believe how ....half-washed his representation of existing concepts are. It's like he didn't actually read any of it. Also, his whole skit on 'a blind spot in the physicalist vision of reality' was just....wrong. He just...if it didn't come with a slideshow I'd say he was making it up as he goes just to sound informed. Surely this guy is high.

[cpunchesful]

This guy wouldn't know innovation if it made fun of him on youtube. If I were in that audience, I'd feel like my intelligence was insulted at the end of the lecture.

He was almost about to touch on something thought-worthy until he decided to abandon Skinner's revelation instead of using it as a template to expand upon.

Nothing of any value was discussed here, and this man hasn't thought any of this through nearly far enough to even appear credible.

He should have gone deeper in his studies

[Jefferdaughter]

With all due respect to Watson & Crick and other researchers in the feild of genetics, the western reductionist approach to dissecting the 'machinery' of the genome has lead to as much misunderstanding as understanding. In short, the machinery serves the organism, not the other way around. Dr. Bruce Lipton has shared evidence -accessibly - others may find interesting. 'No gene operates in a vacuum.' M. Bowling Genetics is not 'over'.

[kajibabu]

why such great philosophers and scientists misinterpret the information that Buddha as Indian? Budhha belong to Nepal.

[the3dguy2]

@kajibabu buddha belongs to all

[btrausch]

WOW he really misrepresents the history of Behaviorism and Psychology in general. Very disappointing, I really don't think he has read the actual source material he claimed to be citing.

[sjerga01]

@btrausch - Please elaborate

[MokoszVive]

OK, so Allan Wallace calls all cognitive scientists to combine empirical methods such as introspection, with scientific method. I was waiting all the time that maybe after all the arguments for why we really need a revolution in the study of mind (in which he is probably right), that he might finally propose just HOW he envisions this combination method of study of the mind. I didn't hear any constructive ideas from Wallace. Such a method already exists and it's called NEUROPHENOMENOLOGY

[jonathanled]

True - Wallace has collaborated and debated with some from the neurophenomenology-group. What I think Wallace is trying to do is nurture this way of thinking even further by bringing further arguments to the debate. Check out the link in the description to see more about his attempt to materialize this way of thinking into a research program.

[Neil63d]

It's called the hard problem of consciousness, and it's hard posit the question, much less a possible solution.

I know neuroscientists working in the field. It's baffling even to them.

[ZannekMcMaro]

@MokoszVive

He's explored a lot of possible research methods in his books especially. There are also a few good examples in the videos/audio files linked on his website. Finally, he's also collaborated with a large number of scientists on a study called "The Shamatha Project" which you can find out more about from his website as well. Hope this helps.

[blonski]

I have the book Hidden Dimensions: the

unification of physics and consciousness of

autographed with dedication by B. Alan

Wallace, was in his speech launching the

translation of his book in Brazil, very nice,

is very useful to his teachings.

Thank you very much, mister Wallace!

You may floumsh!

[BinAlladin]

Google is masonic tempel and ritual making place to take blood from human ....

[DrLight9]

you are dipshit that cannot spel, or have good thought from brain.

[neotint]

Enjoyed B. Alan Wallace's talk here (thanks Google TechTalks!) so glad I now know about him.

More people need to be talking about William James, as mentioned in the book "The Metaphysical Club" James regretted naming his philosophy "Pragmatism" and instead later on preferred that it be called Humanism. Not just Mind but it's about the study of self, of human nature-- which we still don't know much about.

[gregw77]

sooo basically he just spent like 55 mins explaining how consciousness has not yet been explained?

[ZannekMcMaro]

@gregw77

Yeah, because a number of eminent speakers like to create the impression that it has.

[Nades129]

Wow. I wish I heard this guy 2 years before now...

[DZPROTON]

well!

[MaraboutYogi]

yea great vid but where is da rest-;)

[RavenXGhost]

This guy's my hero.

[rrrchk]

very interesting.. where's part 2?