TEDxHouston - Dr. David Eagleman

Dr. Eagleman holds joint appointments in the Departments of Neuroscience and Psychiatry at the Baylor College of Medicine. His areas of scientific expertise include time perception, vision, synesthesia, and the intersection of neuroscience with the legal system. He directs the Laboratory for Perception and Action, and is the Founder and Director of Baylor College of Medicine's Initiative on Neuroscience and Law. Dr. Eagleman has written several neuroscience books, including Wednesday is Indigo Blue: Discovering the Brain of Synesthesia (co-authored with Richard Cytowic, MIT Press, 2009) and Dethronement: The Secret Life of the Unconscious Brain (Pantheon, 2010). He has also written an internationally bestselling book of literary fiction, Sum, which was named a Best Book of 2009 by Barnes and Noble, New Scientist, and the Chicago Tribune. Dr. Eagleman has written for the New York Times, Discover Magazine, Slate, and New Scientist, and he appears regularly on National Public Radio to discuss both science and literature.

About TEDx, x = independently organized event

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized. (Subject to certain rules and regulations.)

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• TEDxHouston
• TEDx
• Houston
• Neuroscience
• Science
• epistemology
• possibilian
• possible

[2LegHumanist]

Sam Harris has just released a rebuttal to the Eagleman, specific to this TED talk, on his blog page.

Apparently Eagleman agreed to debate him but never responded to Sam's initial rebuttal. Sam got tired of waiting and published his opening remarks today.

[discipleoftheteapot]

as far as I can "possibilianism" is exactly atheism and skepticism repackaged - if you say "psychics might be real but we have to apply skeptical science to it" - that is no different from a Dawkins or a Randi. His entire argument is disingenuous and relies on a straw man

[frilansspion]

@GMrobsonga so youre not allowed to draw conclusions from scientific findings? any arbitrary idea is just as good as those that seem to correspond with reality? what good is it? he equates the idea of atoms with the idea of god. both should get taxmoney for research of course. good luck building a society around that. "rather large claims". yeah yeah. thats all it is

[frilansspion]

yeah I agree with discipleoftheteapot and others...hes just renaming the same thing, and in the process undermining dawkins and co and admitting defeat for no real reason. who cares if people are "tired" of debating. theyre trying to raise important questions, important misconceptions about scientific results. people are "tired" of what our kids should be taught in school? seriously?

[sketchup73]

i dont let anybody enter my mind with dirty feet. ..........mahatama gandhi

[sketchup73]

i have a question for you..............if brain cells regenerate .....then how do i remember the toys of my childhood.

is it like .....one brain cell that knows that the toy was red on his deathbed tells his sucessor...' please remember that the toy was red and pass this on to my grandson before you die' ...........how the hell do we remember things doctor ?

[DyzLecticus]

@GMrobsonga you also need some basic philosophical education; 'not believing in god(s)' is not the same as 'believing god(s) do(es) not exist'. The first is agnostic atheism, the second is gnostic atheism (which is basically an unreasonable faith that only very few atheists have).

Eagleman is not really saying anything new or interesting.

[GMrobsonga]

@DyzLecticus That doesn't make sense when you say "Agnostic atheism", which would sum to the opinion that there is no God and we cannot know anything about whether or not God exists. That opinion alone is fine but that is not what possibilianism is in content. It's also not atheism repackaged. It's not saying: "There is no god". Eagleman is stating that this platform works on the ideas of searching for and analyzing information without jumping to rather large claims, which is what science is.

[KingMe1220]

@DyzLecticus 10:41

[DyzLecticus]

"Possibilian" is the philosophically ignorant word for "Agnostic atheism"

People that talk about "New" (or "Neo") atheists are typically ignorant about basic philosophy.

[2LegHumanist]

@TheMidwestsk8ter You can find it on samharris dott org