actually, that is a pretty shiny idea for a channel.
chip off the old ox, eh?

well, i just went through my stuff, and (gasp!) i only have 2 clips that qualify!!

just the little hidden reed switch thing, and kamen's tedtalk, which jonny
already beamed down to engineering.

i'll track down some new stuff this week.

>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
is this art though?

No, of course not. I was using an unrelated example of a subject which is not amenable to logic, in order to avoid a circular argument.

can you sum up the point he's putting across?

I'll try (but what I think he's saying isn't entirely relevant). First, he's describing the classical characterizations of God and how they have failed in the face of greater awareness and deep thinking. He then offers another way of thinking of God which is not a definition, but just a starting point. Ultimately, he says, "I don't know". The main point that really struck me, though, was his suggestion to view God not as an individual intentional entity. But that's just me. What you take from it is for you.

i really love TEDtalks, so it surprises me when they get people like this on.

Why surprised? I mean, the concept is "Ideas worth spreading", and the idea of considering divinity in a radically different way from church doctrine seems worth spreading to me.

i don't have a belief structure, it's the lack of one that allows me to see this for what it is, sorry.

Demonstrating that you do (as does everyone) is well beyond the scope of this conversation, but consider how and why you know everything you think you know.

is this art though? can you sum up the point he's putting across? he does say God a hell of a lot.
i really love TEDtalks, so it surprises me when they get people like this on. the one other time they did they had Daniel Dennett on straight after as a kind of rebuttal (which was smart).
i don't have a belief structure, it's the lack of one that allows me to see this for what it is, sorry.

^vote & reply beneath this comment by my pimp, Thylan:
I request a TEDTalk fad.

>> ^dgandhi:
We have recently been on a bad "fascist" cops binge.

true, but only only because that first one, was so appallingly blatant.
so, that naturally went through the roof.

>> ^thesnipe:
Let's not forget the ZPR fad that's still huge now!

for me, those got meh pretty fast.
i know. heresy, right? dunno'. just, after the first few, they got stale.

>> ^rottenseed:
Today I've seen a little microfad of marijuana related sifts.

really? i hadn't noticed...

>> ^Thylan:
I request a TEDTalk fad.

wewt. big things are afoot, at the circle k, ted.

What about all of the awesome TEDtalks videos (such as this one)? They always start off with a BMW ad. Would you downvote those?

I request a TEDTalk fad.

it might get more violent in certain small areas, but as a whole it's been shown in studies that we are becoming less violent (see TEDtalks).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'information, world, visualization, data' to 'hans rosling, information, database, world, visualization, data, tedtalks' - edited by fissionchips

FORA.tv could be the new TEDtalks, if only they have a faster bandwidth...

Enzoblue, I think his argument is that the singularity advocates are proposing large modifications to humanity based on the assumption that it will amplify every positive aspect of the human condition and stretch it out over eternity. He challenges this assumption through thought experiments that suggest the singularity might not make us happy; in fact it might make us miserable by robbing us of our most cherished sources of transcendence. At the very least, he argues, we don't know what the new human experience might be like after the singularity because it will be so alien to the current human experience.

I don't think he is saying that all advancement should be targeted towards making us happier. But if a piece of technology's appeal is based on its promise to make us happier we should take the time to think through its ramifications (especially in cases like this which can shake everything to the core) because we certainly have difficulty predicting what will make us happy (e.g.,
http://www.videosift.com/video/Malcolm-Gladwell-on-spaghetti-sauce-happiness-TED-talk http://www.videosift.com/video/The-misguided-Pursuit-of-Happiness--Dan-Gilbert-TEDTalks).

He is championing the case for restraint before we smash the atom so to speak. I also think his usage of the word 'happiness' encapsulates more than the pedestrian need to maximize our individual dopamine levels; it also encapsulates notions of transcendence, meaning, altruism to the extent that our selfish genes will allow us to derive happiness from these 'higher' ideals.

Melua's rerecording of this is mentioned/played at the end of Michael Shermer's TEDTalk. Apparently Simon Singh was upset with the inaccurate measurements she used in the song.

My favorite TED talk.

http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/

First of all I love this video and lecture. I agree with almost everything the man says, now to my rant.

I recut this video a while back and edited it down to get rid of his various tangents. Posted it on VS by asking James to sift it, and it did extremely well here. Then YouTube came along and not only took down this video and other TEDtalks I edited down, but went on to delete my entire account.

Here now, it's some guy pretending to be from TEDTalks, has a directors account and is just posting them straight from the website. Like honestly what, am I a pirate for making information more concise and digestible?

Fascists.

Dan Gilbert's TED talk about happines is better IMO

http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=d_gilbert

http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/
For all the other TED talks