This is a well-respected person in his field, but I have to say his response to the question leaves me wondering why? I guess when you don’t have any notes prepared and you have to wing it, you don’t come off sounding quite as smooth as when you’re fully prepared.
Of course I have always said, when you get science talking about the topic of “consciousness,” they are way out of their element, which is why most scientist avoid it. The usual thing scientists do is quote each other, all over the place. They pump each others books to no end, as supposed cutting edge research. I guess it’s a club,…you pump my book and I’ll pump yours.
When they get into a topic of discussion, about a field of study that no good scientist would be caught dead working in, they don’t seem to quote very many books as reference material. Maybe nobody is working in that field because they would be looked down upon by their peers. That’s when they often wing it and try to get by on their “reputation.” I like this guy, but I have to admit I could not suffer through the whole video.
The mans lack of understanding of the nature of consciousness is obvious, however when it comes to material reality, he is right at home.
What can I add that is constructive? Well in just a few sentences I’ll say consciousness is of God. We are of God, and so It’s not too surprising that we have, and make use of, our inborn consciousness. I would dare say that our over soul connection plays a large role in not only our consciousness, but our emotional body as well. It’s hard to get grants to study consciousness, or the over soul. If you gave a talk on it what colleague would come, and if you wrote a paper on it, who would read it? If it has no military or business application, who would fund your research?
They like to impress people with all their answers, but people have not clued in on the fact that the questions they are answering are “their questions,” not ours? They like to control the questions, so as to avoid any embarrassing ones that would leave them looking rather foolish. This is why religion and science debates produce nothing but conflict. Science has no faith, and religion has no logic.
This talk is somewhat different, as you can tell, however, it is still locked into the study of physical reality, which is a box, and as long as your only looking within the box, how much can you really find out?