James Randi has offered a million dollars to anyone who can convince him that psychic abilities exist, but Deepak Chopra has also offered a million dollars to Randi, or any other sceptic, atheist or debunker who can explain how electrical signals in the brain form a 3D memory or experience.
Watch the full 5 min video here
$1M is nothing.
How much d’u think the computer industry is worth? An industry that doesn’t just explain how electrical signals in 100 000 000 000 manufactured brains form 3D memories or experiences, but controls that.
Divine Angel said:
James Randi has offered a million dollars to anyone who can convince him that psychic abilities exist, but Deepak Chopra has also offered a million dollars to Randi, or any other sceptic, atheist or debunker who can explain how electrical signals in the brain form a 3D memory or experience.Watch the full 5 min video here
What a nasty smug little hypocrite he is!
being able to prove how something happens that actually does happen should be easier than being able to prove something that is more than just a ‘hunch’
more *of just a hunch
>>How much d’u think the computer industry is worth?
A fair bit I’d reckon.
Arts said:
being able to prove how something happens that actually does happen should be easier than being able to prove something that is more than just a ‘hunch’
I’d say in practice both were impossible to prove to the satisfaction of the people offering the money, but in principle it should be easier to find observational evidence of phenomena that are impossible under accepted scientific theories (if such phenomena actually happen), than to provide a detailed mechanism for a very complex phenomenon, that is intrinsically difficult to study in detail.
Simple models of the world, which fit with observations of the world, are probably simple.
SCIENCE said:
Simple models of the world, which fit with observations of the world, are probably simple.
I built a simple model of the world, once.
Switched it on, and it burst into flames.
I was startled, but the manual said that it was inevitable.
SCIENCE said:
Simple models of the world, which fit with observations of the world, are probably simple.
Probably.
But there are of course many phenomena where simple models which fit with observations do not exist.
The real difference is that there’s lots of properly-trained scientists out there, conducting ethical research according to scientific principles, about how brains function. They document their methods and results, trying to eliminate bias and chance, and publish their findings for scrutiny by other people in the field who are also trained, ethical, and methodical.
Chopra’s abilities are vouched for by half-baked ‘researchers’ with dubious credentials and/or sloppy methods, who aren’t fussed about a bit of bias or chance creeping in, and their work is usually done in conjunction with some New-Age institute of woo-woo, who aren’t looking for any results that don’t confirm their preconceptions. The methods and results are rarely published, and almost never in journals that have reputations for any sort of rigor.
If science can’t yet explain all there is about brains, it’s not for lack of ongoing and rigorous effort.
If anyone has an explanation for Chopra’s claims, it’s almost certainly due to lack of rigorous effort.
>Simple models of the world, which fit with observations of the world, are probably simple.
tie a lot to ‘observation’
but of that evolved of
and I put to you ‘from’
why do we so love
separating dislocation