yes, it remains weird that he talks as if all he says are certain matters of fact. As if it's science. But maybe he just said something like "hey, these are just some mental exercises i'm talking about" and they just did not record him saying that.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Thomas Campbell: unifying physics and consciousness
- Thread starter tryptographer
- Start date
Well what bothers me the most is that he is a scientist. He has a Phd etc. But he has many mistakes in his theory at least things I see as large gaping holes. I will check out a couple of his other videos and see if I can find mistakes.
In video one he sais:
"scientists claim that the objective world is real and that the subjective is not real"
First of all scientists don't say that. They say that some subjective experience are just delusions or hallucinations.
My point though is that he starts off his lecture by trying to create a division between himself and mainstream science. Showing that he is somehow a revolutionary thinker that hes going against the grain. This is typical of intelligent designers and the like minded drivelers.
"science can't deal with the subjective it can only deal with the objective"
This is not true either you can study subjective experience objectively.
"the subjective is fundamentally more real then the objective"
this doesn't even make sense. none is more real and they aren't two completely separate worlds. there can be subjective experiences that are not real.
video two
he sais that theology and the list of things on this little chart are part of a larger reality.
This is a really stupid statement. They are only part of a larger reality in that we think about them. How can theology be part of a reality? That doesn't even make sense.
His central tennant is that consciousness is this larger reality. Anyway moving on...
"Assume there is a larger reality"
Again what does he even mean by that statement. It sounds fancy but does it really even mean anything in the context in which he talks about it? Lets see...
"You can't know about a larger system from a subsystem. The only way to learn about the larger system is to experience it".
WTF? Ok so we as humans can't really see much of our solar system which can be looked at as a larger system of which earth is a subsystem. But we can certaintly learn about our solar system without "experiencing it" we can look at it and study it.
Where is his division of whats a system and whats a subsystem.
I love how guys like him just through around words like subsystem like it matters.
His two assumptions:
"Consciousness exists and is part of the larger reality"
"Evolution exists and directs and encourages change toward more propabal? (wtf does that mean) states of being".
I was pretty content knowing that consciousness is part of our reality not some weird larger reality that we have no information for. Does anyone else see how this guys arguments aren't even real arguments?
Consciousness evolutionarily goal is:
"Entropy reduction"
ahahaha. First of all what kind of audience is he talking to that doesn't know what entropy means? Must not be very scientific. Ah I love how scientists go and describe stuff that makes no sense infront of audiences who don't really know anything about science.
"To define system one must experience it. Many people miss that"
I wonder why. Man this guy.
"Our physical universe is a tiny piece compared to conscious reality".
I love his graph hes got the universe and physical reality. Then he has paranormal, non physical, subjectivity, cosmology, theology on the other side.
What kind of division is this? Its pathetic. The physical universe is bigger then anything that has been concieved of theologically. Cosmology is a study of physical reality. Subjectivity can only be experienced by beings which make up a tiny part of the known universe. Non-physical, I love how he assumes this is just some kind of category that he can just assume to be so. Paranormal, again more things can be explained by using models of our physical universe and do a far better job then paranormal explanations of things. Think how far back paranormal explanations go and think how many have been explained by physical phenomenon.
Like demons causing disease. Its a paranormal explanation. Its wrong.
Alright now he gets bad. He claims his theory explains quantum mechanics. Oh boy.... Listen if it did he would have a nobel prize :roll: There are a many quantum physicist who could rip this guy apart. He continues to get into the physics and make claims like wave function collapse is caused by consciousness.
I am going to straighten this out by simply providing a link to a quantum physicists website who writes articles and has a couple books attacking people who make these kind of claims. If you believe people like Campbell I highly recommend checking it out:
Ok I am done watching this guy isn't really saying anything new. He is just trying to cash in on making it sound new. Seriously this quantum mysticism is bunk.
In video one he sais:
"scientists claim that the objective world is real and that the subjective is not real"
First of all scientists don't say that. They say that some subjective experience are just delusions or hallucinations.
My point though is that he starts off his lecture by trying to create a division between himself and mainstream science. Showing that he is somehow a revolutionary thinker that hes going against the grain. This is typical of intelligent designers and the like minded drivelers.
"science can't deal with the subjective it can only deal with the objective"
This is not true either you can study subjective experience objectively.
"the subjective is fundamentally more real then the objective"
this doesn't even make sense. none is more real and they aren't two completely separate worlds. there can be subjective experiences that are not real.
video two
he sais that theology and the list of things on this little chart are part of a larger reality.
This is a really stupid statement. They are only part of a larger reality in that we think about them. How can theology be part of a reality? That doesn't even make sense.
His central tennant is that consciousness is this larger reality. Anyway moving on...
"Assume there is a larger reality"
Again what does he even mean by that statement. It sounds fancy but does it really even mean anything in the context in which he talks about it? Lets see...
"You can't know about a larger system from a subsystem. The only way to learn about the larger system is to experience it".
WTF? Ok so we as humans can't really see much of our solar system which can be looked at as a larger system of which earth is a subsystem. But we can certaintly learn about our solar system without "experiencing it" we can look at it and study it.
Where is his division of whats a system and whats a subsystem.
I love how guys like him just through around words like subsystem like it matters.
His two assumptions:
"Consciousness exists and is part of the larger reality"
"Evolution exists and directs and encourages change toward more propabal? (wtf does that mean) states of being".
I was pretty content knowing that consciousness is part of our reality not some weird larger reality that we have no information for. Does anyone else see how this guys arguments aren't even real arguments?
Consciousness evolutionarily goal is:
"Entropy reduction"
ahahaha. First of all what kind of audience is he talking to that doesn't know what entropy means? Must not be very scientific. Ah I love how scientists go and describe stuff that makes no sense infront of audiences who don't really know anything about science.
"To define system one must experience it. Many people miss that"
I wonder why. Man this guy.
"Our physical universe is a tiny piece compared to conscious reality".
I love his graph hes got the universe and physical reality. Then he has paranormal, non physical, subjectivity, cosmology, theology on the other side.
What kind of division is this? Its pathetic. The physical universe is bigger then anything that has been concieved of theologically. Cosmology is a study of physical reality. Subjectivity can only be experienced by beings which make up a tiny part of the known universe. Non-physical, I love how he assumes this is just some kind of category that he can just assume to be so. Paranormal, again more things can be explained by using models of our physical universe and do a far better job then paranormal explanations of things. Think how far back paranormal explanations go and think how many have been explained by physical phenomenon.
Like demons causing disease. Its a paranormal explanation. Its wrong.
Alright now he gets bad. He claims his theory explains quantum mechanics. Oh boy.... Listen if it did he would have a nobel prize :roll: There are a many quantum physicist who could rip this guy apart. He continues to get into the physics and make claims like wave function collapse is caused by consciousness.
I am going to straighten this out by simply providing a link to a quantum physicists website who writes articles and has a couple books attacking people who make these kind of claims. If you believe people like Campbell I highly recommend checking it out:
Ok I am done watching this guy isn't really saying anything new. He is just trying to cash in on making it sound new. Seriously this quantum mysticism is bunk.
burnt said:
Yeah, because he is supposed to be a scientist, i initially thought he meant this in a cartesian way, that it was sort of a thought experiment like descartes 'meditations'. But later on he starts saying things that seem to contradict this view.
I also found it peculiar that he lectures at the london school of economics. Did someone in london just started this school as a hobby project or is it a renomated institute? I suppose anybody could start an institute somewhere, calling it something like 'the boston school of advanced medicine' and just teach voodoo.
The foundation of what he says is circular. First he says that we cannot get out of the subsystem if the assumptions of your theory are all founded just within that very subsystem.burnt said:
Therefore, he says, we can only get out of this subsystem if some of the scientific axioms of our theory are rooted in the larger system.
Therefore he says we have to make an assumption.
That is pivotal in his theory; we would only be able to know what the great spaghettimonster looks like, if we could see it and we can only see it if we have a clue on what to look for. Therefore we have to assume that it looks like a bolognese-type of spaghettimonster, with lot's of cheese.
So now we know what the great spaghettimonster looks like, we know it's real. For how could we know what it looks like, if it wheren't real?
You got to be honest...This campbell guy is absolutely brilliant.
He could sell the easternbunny to santaclaus, insure the contract at loyds of london and rent half of the insurence, mixed with some mortgages to meryl lynch.
So what's WRONG with pseudoscience? you make twice the money with half the work. haha!
^^Haha yea it amazes me. But what I notice with this guy is he isn't really saying anything new but selling it as if its a new or paradigm shifting idea and apperently people buy it. Did they have the Q and A session in this series of videos. Id like to see what the audience said.
I know people with PhDs who speak crap. A doctorate doesn't make you wise... not even scientific necessarily.
That's a general comment, it's not about that guy specifically- I haven't listened to his stuff.
That's a general comment, it's not about that guy specifically- I haven't listened to his stuff.
Awrite.
I gave this guy a chance and had a watch of his videos. Boy, very very disturbing for reasons that burnt and polytrip have already explicitly explained.
I really do not understand how people can actually resonate with what he says, he's total bunk.
I gave this guy a chance and had a watch of his videos. Boy, very very disturbing for reasons that burnt and polytrip have already explicitly explained.
I really do not understand how people can actually resonate with what he says, he's total bunk.
it's fantastic.
He actually uses the fact that he doesn't have something that even slightly resembles valid evidence, as an argument to back his statements: the subsystem story, the psi-uncertainty principle.
psi-uncertainty principle:d :d :d .....:?
He actually uses the fact that he doesn't have something that even slightly resembles valid evidence, as an argument to back his statements: the subsystem story, the psi-uncertainty principle.
psi-uncertainty principle:d :d :d .....:?