Dennett en Sacks (1993) ' een schitterend ongeluk' ,

stukje uit de ontmoeting van ' een schitterend ongeluk' . Een serie van Wim Kayzer waarin hij naast Daniel C Denett, Oliver Sacks, Rupert Sheldrake, Stephen toulmin, Freeman Dyson en Stephan Jay Gould ontmoet. Nog steeds prachtig actueel. Hoe zouden ze er nu, 16 jaar later, over spreken... als dat mogelijk was.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Daniel
• Dennett
• Oliver
• Sacks
• brain
• machine
• Dawkins
• evolutie
• mind
• soul

[thnkgdnss]

buy the video; bol. nl. check > een schitterend ongeluk

[zeroenergyflux]

Sheldrake thoroughly refuted? Are you thoroughly sure of this? Perhaps you could provide a link or 2 to this effect. I've grown to recognize personal attacks as the last resort of a great number of fools.

[LennyBound]

It is a sin that this video doesn't have more views!!!

5/5

[soulsinger73]

@imbalancingact Pseudoscientific? He's a former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, studied natural sciences at Cambridge, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize. He studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow, before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology.

[Kookiekurre]

There seems to be no chance to get this series on DVD. I loved everything about it (except Rupert Sheldrake).

[hoah]

bitch get out with the cakes

[ArmageddonAfterparty]

@imbalancingact

Seen it, it was excellent! I have the book as well. Still looking to buy the vids.

[leezus83]

the rest of them are members of a cult called capitalism. thumbs up thankyou.

[DrKissbutt]

It is part of a series that was aired in the Netherlands 10 years ago "een schitterend ongeluk" .

[olywood9]

i think when philosophers resort to talk of logical possiblity theyre usally employing fuzzy semantics in order to side step a fundamental problem in their own position. Even if you do take the concept seriously (i dont) i think youd struggle and have to do alot of rationalising in order to make it fit within a methodology based solely upon scientific evidence and quantifiable phenomena.

I dont think Sheldrake is faultless either btw, i just think he's a better all-round philosopher.

[imbalancingact]

And you obviously don't understand what it means for something to be logically possible or as Dennett says about creating artificial brains right off the bat in this clip that it's possible "in principle", not, as you try to make it sound that he's claiming that it's possible in practice.

[imbalancingact]

You know what else Sheldrake is? A member of a cult called Christianity. What a brilliant, empirical thinker.