We've Moved! Visit our NEW FORUM to join the latest discussions. This is an archive of our previous conversations...

You can find the login page for the old forum here.
CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
PREV123
Ted Talks censored a talk on DMT/Psychedelics Options
 
friken
#41 Posted : 3/21/2013 11:51:45 PM

I have gazed into the eyes of insanity and returned the smile


Posts: 142
Joined: 07-Feb-2013
Last visit: 30-May-2020
Location: Hyperspace
Thanks for the post. That was a GREAT ted talk! One of the best I've heard in a while. Shame on TED for pulling it. The reasons were pretty lame.
 

STS is a community for people interested in growing, preserving and researching botanical species, particularly those with remarkable therapeutic and/or psychoactive properties.
 
universecannon
#42 Posted : 3/22/2013 12:08:50 AM



Moderator | Skills: harmalas, melatonin, trip advice, lucid dreaming

Posts: 5257
Joined: 29-Jul-2009
Last visit: 24-Aug-2024
Location: 🌊
the original 'reasons' (which they only posted after a significant backlash) were actually complete fabrications, which Rupert and Graham both thoroughly debunked. Ted then retracted the statements, saying they were clumsy and rushed, and posted a revised version with them exed out which included both of the speakers responses. Now they've made yet another blog for debating the talks, but it closes in like 12 days..so basically its just another distraction to take focus off of how badly they've screwed this all up



<Ringworm>hehehe, it's all fun and games till someone loses an "I"
 
acacian
#43 Posted : 3/22/2013 12:19:35 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 2229
Joined: 22-Jul-2011
Last visit: 02-May-2024
Location: in the underbelly of the cosmic womb
I came accross a very interesting comment in the debate section yesterday which I think others would find quite interesting too:

Quote:
"The problem is that the language used to convey that idea belongs to a world and a culture that some people are hostile to - people who are central to the scientific paradigm questioned by Hancock and Sheldrake.

The materialists, radical atheists, whatever you want to call them, appear to believe that some of the words used by GH and RS are meaningless, such as 'spirit', and that others may only be used by themselves. When people try to use words from the former group, they are considered unscientific, probably superstitious. When they try to use words from the latter group, they are considered pseudoscientists.

These territorial claims over language are, I think, a big source of conflict between centre and fringe. In the case of psychedelics it is particular significant - these things have been illegal and demonized for so long that the language of their proponents, who have been driven underground where they have formed alternative communities, has grown so distant from that of the mainstream that native speakers of it have trouble expressing themselves to the mainstream, and when they try to invoke mainstream language the mainstream considers them quaint and backwards. Ultimately if the psychedelic community wishes to engage with the mainstream (if the mainstream won't initiate engagement, which I don't think it will) then the psychedelic community is going to have to work out how to 'write back to the centre.' Parallels could be drawn between this and the post-colonial situation, but that's another story.

Ultimately the effect is that when someone well versed in the psychedelic literature, or who is a participant in psychedelic culture watches Graham's video, they hear something somewhat different to what a materialist scientist might. Neil Degrasse Tyson said "when you're scientifically literate, the world looks different to you." He's right, but I think there are other forms of literacy to which this can be extended - psychedelic literacy not least."
 
TheAwakening
#44 Posted : 3/22/2013 12:35:34 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 136
Joined: 10-Mar-2013
Last visit: 06-Mar-2024
I saw Graham's talk before it was taken down and thought it was one of the more interesting ones I'd seen in a while. I got to meet him in Sydney last year which was awesome, his talk on the day spoke about a lot of the same topics but instead of going for 18 minutes it totalled about 2 hours.

To say that it's unscientific is really unfair to say the least. There is a lot of science backing up what Graham said. I'm doing an engineering degree at university at the moment so I know the scientific method of inquiry and I don't really think this video didn't show facts, it just showed those facts in a way that is accessible to everyone rather than just those with a science oriented mind. I mean there is plenty of scientific research behind Ayahuasca so if anyone is claiming that Graham is making stuff up they should check the scientific accounts of people who've experienced ayahuasca both in short term and long term.

It's great to see the outcry in the community. On the original blog post there are about 1,200 posts and most of these are scathing of ted. Admittedly a lot of them are immature and detract from the arguement but all the posters arguing for ted are even more immature. It's almost like it's a religious war judging by some of those comments Thumbs down

Khronos,
I agree that it's really sad to see people who are otherwise intelligent completely block their minds off to psychedelic drugs and the states they can bring fourth. Some of these intelligent people go out and get absolutely wasted drinking alcohol.

A.
 
dio
#45 Posted : 9/2/2013 2:46:43 AM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 66
Joined: 24-Dec-2012
Last visit: 27-Sep-2014
I always found this subject really interesting, why do the scientific rational minds immediately shut off their intelligence when they hear the word 'psychedellic'?

And really I think thats what it is... he simply used the P word, it's a bad word in those communities.

Ted doesn't ban metaphysical talks, or heresy, or even talks about being a spirit leaving the body. Or even esoteric subjects about all being one concioussness.

Watch these two videos
http://www.ted.com/talks...l_stroke_of_insight.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZNlN31hS78

Those two videos cover all those subjects, that first one being an actual TED talk, not TEDx which is not part of the central TED organization.

Between those two non-banned videos, Hancock did not say anything based on more heresy, more pseudo-science, more esoterism or any of that. In fact in Hancocks associated it to the archeological evidences of shamanism his talk I think is even more grounded in factual science.

So why is Hancock banned? The one thing Hancock talked about was psychedellics. I think that is really the one and single thing.

Which brings me back to my initial though that I find so interesting to think about. Why are psychedellics such a bad word to scientific rationalism? What is it specifically about psychedellics that once the subject is brought up, your put under automatic disregard. Either outright or by people becoming so narrowly focused on singular points to try to 'disprove' you, where if you never had said the P word, they wouldn't have gotten that critical. Bolte Taylor says way more things purely esoteric, and purely conjecture without ANY backing of anything, but they keep their mind open to kind of understand around that and try to understand her central point. But you say the P word, they stop doing that, the little things that would of gotten by like in Bolte Taylor's video now get highlighted point for point and dissected.

This is an open discussion I would like to hear more peoples thoughts on why. But this is why I think that may be.

Psychedellics force you to confront your demons. People don't like to do that. And we all know someone who has never had psychedellics probably has way more buried demons than someone who hasn't. By bring the subject of psychedellics up, you are bringing up something which is directly related to someones inner demons and they I think can almost instinctually FEEL that. The confrontation of their demons is associated with the P word. They shun the P word and immediatly shut down as a means of shutting down the unconciously percieved potential of having to confront their demons through psychedellics. They essentially shun psychedellics as an offensive measure in suppressing the confrontation of their own demons.

If all that esoteric talk is presented through the guise of a stroke and a near death experience like Bolte Taylor's video, it's ok. Because there is no 'thing' present that would have the power to force someone into such a state of confronting their own inner self. It's disconnected from them, it's just a subject of a talk, its just an idea. But bring in psychedellics and it's no longer just a subject of a talk. It's a real thing, you can go get it, take it, it will force you into that state. It brings it a little too close to home for them to be comfortable with. They don't want to let into their minds the awareness that something exists which could force them into the position of viewing their inner selves.

Now there is another point, and McKenna talk about this some in alot of his lectures. But there is just a long running tradition of shunning all plant based spirituality. Because the Christian church hated it, it was seen as a threat. All the 'witches' and 'pagans' were actually largely psychedellic people of their own, they were shamans of the european descent carrying on the lineage of plant based spiritualism. Which was a direct threat the christian enterprise. So just the notion that 'god' or 'spirit' could be brought through a plant, and NOT through the bible incited immediate and irrational criticism, or witch burning. I think alot of scientific rationalists have what I call 'residual christianity' in them. Where unconciously they still have instincts of the christian past running in them and they just don't realize it. The shunning of the P word, even in modern scientific study comes from this instinct. It's just an automatic irrational thing they do. Because we all know psychedellics have demonstrated incredible things under clinical scientific rigor, they are INCREDIBLY fascinating from the point of view of clinical empirical science. But they are still seen as taboo. With how scietifically interesting and promising psychedellics are, you would expect the entire scientific world to be all over them, under constant research. But they aren't it's a huge taboo. Which I think is just this running residual christianity where they are just unconsciously and irrationally suppressing anything that feels associated to it by old instincts in them.
 
arcologist
#46 Posted : 9/2/2013 3:11:37 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 503
Joined: 11-May-2013
Last visit: 29-Nov-2020
I've seen this talk, and as a scientist, I can understand why it was removed from a scientific forum. It's not given from a scientific perspective. There are a lot of assertions that are made without any rational behind them. If this were a conference on spirituality or philosophy, he'd fit right in, but it doesn't have a place among real science. I agree with his message and most of the information in the talk is factual, but I think the problem is with the way it was communicated. Once he gives the background information, the train of thought goes off the deep end. He is too willing to throw caution to the wind and embrace psychedelia, using unscientific terms like 'spirit', 'mother goddess', etc, whereas the scientific methodology would be a cautious one based on logical reasoning and deduction.

To be honest, I'm not sure why so many people worship this guy. He has some interesting ideas but I wouldn't take anything he says at face value. It smacks of conspiracy theories that haven't been developed by a logical though process. The nature of DMT can make it very tempting to think of internal hallucinations as reality. It takes a strong mind to approach the substance from an objective standpoint. If I believed everything I experienced on DMT I'd be a total nut-job, talking about aliens, alternate dimensions, and mother goddesses as if they really existed. They might exist, but I'd rather err on the side of caution until something more concrete is discovered.
 
dio
#47 Posted : 9/2/2013 6:12:36 AM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 66
Joined: 24-Dec-2012
Last visit: 27-Sep-2014
arcologist wrote:
I've seen this talk, and as a scientist, I can understand why it was removed from a scientific forum. It's not given from a scientific perspective. There are a lot of assertions that are made without any rational behind them. If this were a conference on spirituality or philosophy, he'd fit right in, but it doesn't have a place among real science. I agree with his message and most of the information in the talk is factual, but I think the problem is with the way it was communicated. Once he gives the background information, the train of thought goes off the deep end. He is too willing to throw caution to the wind and embrace psychedelia, using unscientific terms like 'spirit', 'mother goddess', etc, whereas the scientific methodology would be a cautious one based on logical reasoning and deduction.

To be honest, I'm not sure why so many people worship this guy. He has some interesting ideas but I wouldn't take anything he says at face value. It smacks of conspiracy theories that haven't been developed by a logical though process. The nature of DMT can make it very tempting to think of internal hallucinations as reality. It takes a strong mind to approach the substance from an objective standpoint. If I believed everything I experienced on DMT I'd be a total nut-job, talking about aliens, alternate dimensions, and mother goddesses as if they really existed. They might exist, but I'd rather err on the side of caution until something more concrete is discovered.



Thats not true, look at my post above yours where I highlight these two videos.

http://www.ted.com/talks...l_stroke_of_insight.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZNlN31hS78

I'm no Graham Hancock fan but I really do think this due to the specific taboo of psychedellics.

TED has had non-scientific based talks about esoterism, where people talk about 'spirit' and all that and mix all that in, like in those two videos. That bolte taylor video is pure heresy based on science that has long been refuted as wrong (the right left brain distinction) and she goes into complete spiritual conjecture about it. But the thing that spawned her talk is a real NDE, not psychedellics.

The unique thing about this one is psychedellics. TED has not had a psychedellic talk before this.
 
arcologist
#48 Posted : 9/2/2013 6:28:01 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 503
Joined: 11-May-2013
Last visit: 29-Nov-2020
dio wrote:

The unique thing about this one is psychedellics. TED has not had a psychedellic talk before this.


I wouldn't be surprised if it was removed for either reason. It's just a little out-there, psychedelic or not, and far from most people's experiences, so it may be harder for people to empathize with his 'spirit' talk than with something more people are familiar with.
 
corpus callosum
#49 Posted : 9/2/2013 7:02:04 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Medical DoctorModerator

Posts: 1952
Joined: 17-Apr-2010
Last visit: 05-May-2024
Location: somewhere west of here
I think that we here at the Nexus would be regarded as partisan in our views on psychedelics (and I guess we are, but for very good experiential reasons) and if we were to step back from this, Mr Hancocks opinions seem, IMO, to be a little too heavy on the passion side and in some ways absolutist in their pronouncements. Assuming the audience is not solely made of the likes of us then in order to convey ideas such as his I think it takes a more measured approach.Bear in mind he initially declares himself as an abuser of cannabis for x years and this alone will make some minds less receptive to his views.

One should always consider the headspace of the target audience when expounding on revolutionary ideas, IMO.
I am paranoid of my brain. It thinks all the time, even when I'm asleep. My thoughts assail me. Murderous lechers they are. Thought is the assassin of thought. Like a man stabbing himself with one hand while the other hand tries to stop the blade. Like an explosion that destroys the detonator. I am paranoid of my brain. It makes me unsettled and ill at ease. Makes me chase my tail, freezes my eyes and shuts me down. Watches me. Eats my head. It destroys me.

 
universecannon
#50 Posted : 9/2/2013 3:50:23 PM



Moderator | Skills: harmalas, melatonin, trip advice, lucid dreaming

Posts: 5257
Joined: 29-Jul-2009
Last visit: 24-Aug-2024
Location: 🌊
Yeah I agree that he definitely could have geared it to that TED audience more carefully, Corpus

arcologist wrote:
I've seen this talk, and as a scientist, I can understand why it was removed from a scientific forum. It's not given from a scientific perspective. There are a lot of assertions that are made without any rational behind them. If this were a conference on spirituality or philosophy, he'd fit right in, but it doesn't have a place among real science.


But....TED is not a scientific forum. Countless people who are not scientists have spoken there on philosophic, spiritual, or humorous topics. It was obvious that his talk was more a talk about his personal experiences and perspective- which is something TED has had many times- and not a talk about scientific facts.



<Ringworm>hehehe, it's all fun and games till someone loses an "I"
 
PREV123
 
Users browsing this forum
Guest (5)

DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
This page was generated in 0.032 seconds.