Today Ted has removed graham hancocks talk "The War On Consciousness" (ironically) which was put up a few months ago.

It can now be found here and a few other places where people have re-uploaded it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f5HzVv2H0w

Ted says-
"Hancock makes statements about psychotropic drugs that seem both nonscientific and reckless. He states as fact that psychotropic drug use is essential for an “emergence into consciousness,” and that one can use psychotropic plants to connect directly with an ancient mother culture. He offers a one-note explanation for how culture arises (drugs), which just doesn’t hold up."

sure, theres a level of personal experience/opinion/speculation in it... but theres lots of that in dozens of Ted talk videos, and everyone knows they don't represent Teds views. So what is the real reason? Removing it on those grounds is ridiculous IMO. I don't agree with many things hancock says, but thats not the point.

I love many Ted talks but this is sad to see going on.

Heres another video i just found where some guy goes into just how insane Ted can be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwLMBdnbXk

"(1) TED says of my “War on Consciousness” presentation: “…he misrepresents what scientists actually think. He suggests, for example, that no scientists are working on the problem of consciousness.”

I would like TED to identify where exactly in my talk they believe I say that “no scientists are working on the problem of consciousness”? Also in what other specific ways does TED believe I misrepresent what scientists actually think?

(2) TED says of my presentation: “He states as fact that psychotropic drug use is essential for an “emergence into consciousness,” and that one can use psychotropic plants to connect directly with an ancient mother culture.”

I would like TED to identify where exactly in my talk they believe I state as a fact that psychotropic drug use is essential for an emergence into consciousness. I would also like TED to identify where exactly in my talk I state that one can use psychotropic plants to connect directly with an ancient mother culture.

(3) TED states that there are many inaccuracies in my presentation which display a disrespect both for my audience and for my arguments.

I would like TED to indentify where exactly in my talk these alleged “many inaccuracies” occur.

TED says of my “War on Consciousness” presentation: “He offers a one-note explanation for how culture arises (drugs), which just doesn’t hold up.”

Again I would like TED to identify the point in my talk where I state this. Do I not rather say that some scientists in the last thirty years have raised an intriguing possibility — emphasis on POSSIBILITY — which is that the exploration of altered states of consciousness, in which psychedelic plants have been implicated, was fundamental to the emergence into fully symbolic consciousness witnessed by the great cave art? I can cite a wide range of respectable peer-reviewed scientists who have suggested this possibility and I do not see how reporting their work, which I have every right to do, can be construed as offering “a one-note explanation for how culture arises (drugs).” Besides is every talk that touches on the origins of culture obliged to consider all possible factors that might be involved in the origins of culture? How could any speaker be expected to do that in one 18-minute talk?"

The Rogan podcast with Eddie Huang:
http://jredatabase.com/2013/02/28/330-eddie-huang/

Huang was invited to talk at TED and explains in the cast what a bunch of T**sers the organisers really are...and what really goes on at the Talks...
Worth a watch if you are interested..

If you need to skip...its at
1:14:25: Eddie’s experience at TED **
Eddie Huang Speaks at TED 2013

Cyb-yea thats what i'm watching right now. i linked it in the OP. it was really surprising to hear this about ted :[

Apparently Ted makes 16million (a year?) on its 2,000 attendeestreats, and yet treats they're speakers like slaves and doesn't pay them a dime

This doesnt really surprise me for some reason.

I bet the problem was his rant about "reductionist scientists" and how they can't claim to know anything about consciousness. This probably made someone really mad. He really has given better talks, and it's a bit too political for TED i think. Still, the accusations do not hold up. At least he stirred his audience up good. I think that's a good thing if you imagine the typical TED audience as a bunch of rich intellectuals.

I also think that his audience can't connect psychedelics to negative global culture.

Are they trying to prove his point?

For all the disrespect he showed his audience, they sure were enthusiastic at the end.

Someone in the audience shouted at him several times. It might have been a TED guy and he surely felt disrespected...poor fella

Yeah, its not his best talk...But read my second post and watch the video again- He never claimed that "reductionist scientists cant claim to know anything about consciousness" as far as I heard

10:57 "The last people we should ask are materialist, reductionist scientists, they have NOTHING to say on that matter at all!"

oh, i stand corrected! for some reason i thought you were talking about the first point in the second post. thanks obli

I'm suggesting that this is how the "reductionist scientists" in the audience understood this passage. You hear what you wanna hear! I was also wondering what that "ancient mother culture" was about...wel..he talked about "Mother ayahuasca" and ancient civilisation....stuff gets mixed up in a disturbed mind. I had that happen to people around me as well as they would present me all kinds of accusations based on their phantasies. Its some sort of mental illness present in some people.

Universecannon

This is extremely discouraging as I have a profound amount of respect for Graham Hancock and his work, though this isn't at all surprising as the restriction of information about entheogens is always ever present especially if millions of people are going to be able to access and view the information.

I guess in a positive light it just means its even more vital to be conscious and aware that this is going on and to do everything that we can personally as individuals within our own lives to ensure the freedom of information and knowledge. Thank you so very much for this eye opening thread, it really is greatly appreciated.


Much Peace and Understanding

I think often if your saying anything worth hearing your bound to piss someone off. Oh well.

link

they also removed rupert sheldrakes talk

They have also prevented a major talk about income inequality from another speaker under the grounds that it was too politically charged.

Hah.

I used to admire TED, I realize now they are just as corrupt as the rest. The monopoly on the world is stronger than I believed.

After reading the comments I just realized that the TED organizers and staff are now under private interests payroll.

I love Hancocks books, very entertaining.
I love the TED talks.

I thought it was cool that Hancock was a part of them, but it did strike me as odd and seemingly out of place.

Still, it is lame they took it down.
I blame Oprah Winfrey, Richard Dawkins, eastern Canada and diet cola.

Funny for TED to act like a religious organization and stamp out or remove the HERESY!!!!!

Damn you Canada!

This is the third and, as far as i know, only other banned TED talk



Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs"

not surprising