Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 05. 2018
- Author of the best-selling Science Delusion; proponent of morphic resonance; banned by TED.
Rupert Sheldrake has been dubbed the most controversial scientist on Earth. His best-selling book, The Science Delusion, tackles what he calls the dogmas within conventional science which can blind us to deeper discoveries about the way the world works.
At ASPIRE 4 ALL, Rupert will discuss the ten dogmas on which he says science is built. These dogmas, he says - for example, that nature is mechanical and purposeless, that the laws and constants of nature are fixed, and that psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible - have held back the pursuit of knowledge.
This is the talk they didn’t want you to see. First delivered at a TEDx event in London, the talk was subsequently removed by TED from its website.
At ASPIRE 4 ALL, participants will have the opportunity to judge for themselves if Rupert’s are ideas worth spreading
-------------------------------------------
ASPIRE is the representative body of the Business Services and IT sector in Kraków, Poland... but that doesn't mean we can't be fun.
➡️ Like us on Facebook: ASPIREPoland/
➡️ Follow us on Twitter: / aspirepoland
➡️ Join us on LinkedIn: linkedin.aspire.org.pl/
➡️ Follow us on Instagram: / aspirepoland
➡️ Learn more about us: www.aspire.org.pl/
I am reminded of the story of the 2 researchers who determined that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria and could be cured with common antibiotics.
The 2 doctors were attacked from all sides by doctors and scientists who demanded retraction because their egos couldn't accept that they may have overlooked a simple cure for their patients. Then of course the threat of malpractice suits was a factor as well.
When ego and fear loom large in the picture many "scientists" will fall back on the security of dogma.
That is an excellent example of why science works. The data showing cures eventually got through.
Much of that slow response was caused by MD's that don't keep up with the science. Remember: Mechanics are to Engineers like MD's are to Science. MD's are not scientists (except the Ph.D, MD that are few in number).
More people need to hear about this video, spread the word. Share to your friend and on tik tok for younger audiences.
Too bad the antibiotics you think are the cure are all too often very harmful. Damage good gut bacteria. If the cure is pharmaceutical it most likely isn't science but business.
well, the scientists shouldn't be accepting dogma in the first place. Scientific knowledge is meant to be constantly changing.
And now( previous to 2023 We now understand ulcers and many more Dis- eases are "manifesred" in the body, ( sometimes looong after)the
Initial mental /emotional/ psycological stresses/ traumas occured , .
Dependindenton one one percieves such .
The
I’m an atheist, and I hate when people say “I don’t believe in god I believe in science.”
Science isn’t a thing you should simply believe in. That’s Scientism. Science is a process. It’s not a deity.
"Science without philosophy, facts without perspective and valuation, cannot save us from havoc and despair. Science gives us knowledge, but only philosophy can give us wisdom."
I totally agree; I make a point of never using the word 'Belief' when referring to science.
"I understand science" is a more accurate expression.
If I want to be really pernickitty I say something like "I try to keep my confidence in the scientific consensus proportionate to the data presented in support of it".
@@speggeri90 science, also known as Natural philosophy, Is philosophy with a set of empirical methodologies. So you can't have the one without the other.
@潘poon Knowledge perhaps to a certain extent, but wisdom and philosophy not, I agree. Philosophy is synthetic interpretation and wisdom is the outcome.
@潘poon You are confusing agency with instrumental value.
Science is a process of combined methodologies and philosophical inquiry based on Logic. Its a systematic evaluation of facts. Its good because this process of evaluation never stops challenging our epistemology of the past and future.
"Our science is anti-intellectual by nature. All it does is measure things!"
~ Nietzsche (1882)
Nietzsche a typical Philosopher, and controversial with it. 😖
Science is a conceptual discipline. Many people resent that because they don't have the intelligence to understand the concepts.
And that by the look of it includes Nietzsche.
@@howarddavies8937you seem offended. Nietzsche is a renown philosopher, and there are many highly accredited scientists who have a similar notion as Rupert Sheldrake. Theyre not saying science is BS, they're saying it is vastly incomplete, and some use it to arrogantly profess their superiority in what is true rather than modestly stating there is so much we don't know.
For example, a study was done where a subject was told to guess which of their three family members (also in the study) we're going to answer the phone. The study was intended to be 33% chance of course, but they were able to guess correct more often, and consistently beyond outliers. In other words, they managed to beat the odds with statistically significant odds although the mind should have no influence on the odds.
Just some food for thought and to hopefully keep your mind open to the many possibilities.
So@@howarddavies8937 having an emotional response to questions about the status quo immediately suggests a closed mind. Something a true scientist should never have.
I have been originally trained as an Electrical Engineer and have spent, quite literally, the rest of my life casually looking at Chaos Theory (I am now 60 yrs old). Chaos theory is beginning to question many of these very issues that Mr. (Dr.). Sheldrake is referring to. I have even seen a number of PhD's in engineering and physics directly question the models that they are using and come up with alternative descriptions of reality. Dr. Tiller (from I think Cal Tech) comes immediately to mind. In fact, the CLOSED system thinking that modern physics uses may be causing a number of the inherent problems (and ultimately creating their own paradoxes, zero point energy = infinity, is an example) in the current description of reality. Open system thinking may be much better suited to the reality that we see - even if the ultimate universe is effectively closed. It is OPEN from "our perspective" due to its overwhelming magnitude. This also may require a reaction diffusion wave (like the one used to describe modern computer chips) as a basic underlying wave structure rather than the "mechanical wave" modern physics currently subscribes to.
[Note: Mathematics tends to lead other fields of inquiry. Mathematics, is unlike any of the physics fields. It does not come about its thinking empirically as physics does, but rather through the deductions of logic. It is an "internal" rather than "external" form of thinking if you will, or as Plato would have said, from a three term proportion rather than a 4 term proportion. In most cases, Modern physics is from a 4 term proportional form of thought. Moreover, because of this internal deductive viewpoint, any two mathematicians will always come to the same conclusions when looking at the same information This is a result of the deductive form of thinking. In Mathematics, a proof is always a proof, just the realm of its application may be subsumed into larger and larger fields of understanding. In other words, even when Other forms of geometry came about, Euclidean geometry was still true, we have just found other forms of geometry that are also true, and we have to look at the specific situation to see which one to apply. Ie exactly what does the problem subscribe itself to]
An example of the problem Mr.(Dr.) Sheldrake is referring to, in modern physics is the concept of life "popping" up only after we have reached a certain level of complexity. In other words, currently physics makes the decision that we are only conscious because of our complexity . Consciousness itself is just a matter of complexity. This assumption seems rather implausible, but it is the current (or at least was) assumption used by physicist. Perhaps a better description of reality may be life occurring depending on the internal processing the entity is actually using (ie open or closed system processing- open system processing (balance in motion ie. K.E.= min) is used by a living system and closed system processing (balance - ie. P.E. = min) by a dead one), and the level of intellect is just a matter of how much internal processing we are capable of. In fact, Benoit Mandelbrot created the fractal dimension which is measures complexity by looking at the "internal" twisting or convolution of a data set; and many data sets (and certainly almost all living systems) get more complicated the closer you look, not less. This type of internal thinking, typically, is why Mathematics tends to lead physics and other scientific forms of thinking. Perhaps we should look at our underlying scientific assumptions very closely, because we are most likely to be thinking FROM those assumptions rather than TO those assumptions. Modern Physics has about 22 paradoxes that they currently can't resolve, and perhaps the underlying (often hidden) assumptions are actually causing the problem. Perhaps a shift from a closed system paradigm to an open system paradigm may resolve many of these issues. It appears Mr. (Dr.) Sheldrake is, very likely, looking at the problem from an open systems paradigm. Of course, this holistic form of thinking may cause people to come to the ultimate conclusion that the holographic sum total of the universe is 1) more powerful than that linear combination of elements that make it up (ie. non linear) and 2) acts quite like a God of our universe (and perhaps the God that Kurt Gödel proved existed after Einstein died) if you will, where you are both responsible for your own actions and succeeded or failed as primarily a result of that form of action but also you must still must subscribe to the desires and actions of the whole. Perhaps the split is something like 90-10 in general and sometimes 10-90 in particular situations) In other words, you succeed primarily based on your own actions but also the combination of your actions coupled with the actions of the whole and how well these action fit together. Going in a particular direction if the whole is going in a different direction doesn't make much sense unless you know the whole is about to change direction. I don't know (I haven't spent any time trying to determine this) that this God matches the Christian thought of God (or any other for that matter), but I also don't think modern liberalism is ready to accept this form of thought either. It would simply mean too much self responsibility (90% in general). Mental Individualization is very difficult for many people to accept and is not of much use politically.
Perhaps the works of the French Jean Pierre Garnier Malet could add Up to your knowledge.
Brilliantly said. I'm a game designer by trade and a devout Christian, and I just wanted to say I thoroughly enjoyed your comment and musings about the topic. The very tangible reality you pointed out at the end there, regarding self responsibility, I think is what marvelously aligns with the Christain understanding of ultimate reality, (which in essence is God and communion and connection with God directly as a person).
The magnificent beauty of God's rational intentionality in all things, I think only begins to emerge more sharply the further and more intimately science advances in its real understandings of our universe.
A quote I enjoy very much:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers
You might like a book called Science and Sanity.
When someone says that they believe in science, what they're really saying is that they believe in today's mechanistic materialism.
You are confused. Science rejects all metaphysical worldviews, materialism included.
Science is based on Methodological Naturalism, meaning that it acknowledges our methodological limitations within the physical world and any claim beyond it needs to be supported by objective evidence.
Any claim that can't be objectively verified is rejected.
Quantum Mechanics, Chaos theory, Emergence and Complexity science do not subscribe to a mechanistic picture of nature....so you need to update your "strawman accusations" about science.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 good point . I think Rupert is trying to draw attention to the way science is handled , not trying to invalidate the efficacy of the methodology as a whole. it’s good to draw attention to facets of science we’ve grown too familiar and comfortable with , allows us to employ skepticism and maybe find things in places we’d other wise neglect to look…
@@uruichii2968
-"I think Rupert is trying to draw attention to the way science is handled , not trying to invalidate the efficacy of the methodology as a whole"
-I am not sure about that. Science has a self correcting mechanism. Science can not be mishandled at an epistemic level. Sooner or later Objective falsification will remove any attempt to pollute our epistemology.
In a Technical aspect (commercial applications) we can agree that economics can manipulate science...but that is irrelevant to Rupert's points.
His goal is really clear. He rejects the Main Principles of Science.(Methodological Naturalism).
He demands science to lower the standards and replace the principle of an Epistemic Acknowledgment with a non naturalistic non methodological Philosophical worldview.
He wants to take science back to the Dark age.
Whoever says that science has the answer to everything is ignorant of science.
Love it when people say, "Scientists don't everything." My reply is, "Yes they do, they say they don't to not lose their pensions."
@@tomellis4750 ?
That is an strawman argument. What people say is irrelevant. Trying to create gaps in our epistemology in an effort to introduce pseudo science in to the picture that is a god of the gaps type of fallacy.
We don't need to claim that science can answer everything to see that this charlatan claims are unscientific and irrational.
But whoever says science is the best method mankind has to understand and solve problems about the world has got it right.
Or worse yet, that science even claims that…
I'm just a boiler maker welder and this man managed to educate me.
Thank you, plenty to think about now .
Don’t say ‘just’ a boiler maker. You might have a much better brain than you give yourself credit for. God knows there are a lot of educated people out there with very limited ability to actually think. Keep on searching for knowledge… it’s good for the soul. And btw, if listening to this guy resonated with you, I’d say you’re on the right track. He’s a genius in the true sense of the word.
Boiler maker welder? You can afford to get a car like Hooman, and do some social experiments like Hooman.
Quote of the week:
“ Somewhere inside your head there’s a little Rupert…”
Rupert Sheldrake, his intellectual honesty is almost materially tangible. There is none of the arrogance that you see in the depressing wing of science: material reductionism.
Reductionism enhances mental illness. It's a phase for most intelligent people, a spiritual adolescence, the phase of unrest and rebellion, when the hormones kick in and start messing us up. I went through that throughout my late teenage years until the early twenties. It is sad that many adults never come out of it.
Rupert Sheldrake has no intellectual honesty. He is a parapsychologist and easily confused.
@@kristenhansen1843 or are you just easily indoctrinated?
@@kristenhansen1843 are you scientist???
@@kristenhansen1843 Oh yeah for sure he's easily confused . It's by pure chance that he managed to put together a very clear and concise lecture . And it's by pure chance that he managed to give this 46 minute lecture to a full audience _____keeping them utterly silent and captivated .
But then again you knew this as your comment is that of a shill . Good day m'dam
Actually old Rap is just a total moron. Absolute idiot of the highest order.
I love listening to Sheldrake. Very rare mind!
a meshed up mind...
More people need to hear about this, spread the word. Share to your friend and on tik tok for younger audiences.
I would love to ask Rupert Sheldrake why i have experienced numerous times the sudden fearful urge to look at the bottom of my bedroom door, within 3 seconds a spider will come under the door frame and into my room. (We get house spiders, a fair amount.) But how do i "know" when its going to happen??!This has happened to me at least 5 times where i sort of telepathically "predict" it. Ive even sat up out of bed, in the dark, had the urge to shine my phone torch at the door frame, lo and behold, a spider walks in. I dont have any other psychic abilities that may be useful, or profitable!!! Just this stupid spider prediction!!
Best Quintessential ever - TED - masterpiece ! Shame on ted rejecting this outstanding presentation!
They reject him because his ideas are nonsense but impressive to the ignoranti.
It would have been harder for TED Talks to yield to the pressure to drop his presentation if he'd started by listing his scientific credentials (PhD, Harvard, Cambridge, publications, etc.) and then said, "I'm now going to commit an act of scientific heresy." It would also have helped if he'd called it 'The Scientism Delusion' instead.
@@anonymoushuman8344 this is exactly why we have not evolved over the narrow JUST physical explain- destroying ourselves!
This man is a genius, we need more people like him.
He’s human as all of us. What’s diff is he’s been more curious and open minded with healthy skepticism. Be the change you want to see.
Genius? He doesn't even know what atheism is nor understands maths and its predictive power.
Atheism is the rejection of the proposition that a god or gods exist based on the lack of evidence to the contrary. It's not a belief nor a worldview.
Science is all about NOT UNDERSTANDING OR KNOWING.
If we know everything there would be no need for science.
Moreover, Cartesian Duality is debunked by all philosophy and science.
The man is a moron.
@@jmc8076He's so open minded his brain fell out.
@@joelschama1735 unoriginal
@@LoveAIChatGPTMoneyMaking23 it's from Richard Dawkins. I thought everyone knew that. 🙄
Tesla said the moment we begin to study beyond the physical nature we will progress leaps and bounds.
Two requests: 1) Find out where Tesla said this 2) the second part is extremely vague and imprecise. Sounds good but upon analysis is more meaningless prattle.
Hello Steven Fernandez: my understanding is Tesla quoted "The day the Scientifc Communuty begin to study the supernatural, they will learn more in 10yrs than in ALL the previous years spent on scientific research"..............that said, I believe Sheldrake is onto something very important re 'revealing significant research' but then I'm no scientist, just a hunch, and I've long since learned to trust my intuition/God given senses.............In Almighty God We Trust.
@@damonhunter5143 The world runs on evidence: Legal, medical, criminal and scientific. Would you trust a doctor if he said that he would carry out a medical operation based on his "God given intuition"?
@@damonhunter5143 Tesla was what is called an 'intuitive physicist', that is, a person who has a feeling things work a certain way, and without a lot of formulaic rig-a-marole figures out how something works. We owe him thanks for AC electricity and the AC-motor plus a lot of other things. However I think his 'Venusian communication device' tops all the rest.
@@dankahraman354
I do not believe in god, but I do believe that intuition is areal and valuable thing. In animals we call it instinct, and believe it is how they survive.
Our brains process things even when we are not aware of this consciously (we don't need to think to breathe, our body becomes aware of, and reacts to threats before we are able to make a logical assessment. So it is very possible that based on information and pattern recognition, people can intuit, or have some level of knowledge about something, even if they lack a formal education. A practical example in regards to medicine: about 9 years ago I started getting very sick. Losing weight, having severe migraines, bouts of vomiting and diarrhea that put me in the ER for dehydration on several occasions. The doctors tested me for all the usual things. The weight loss and general illness made them think AIDS or Hepatitis, both tested negative again and again. More tests showed several severe nutritional deficiencies. The doctors still had no diagnosis. However, when I became aware of the nutritional deficiencies, I thought about the fact that these symptoms happened in episodes, and my first thought was some sort of autoimmune illness, probably dealing with the stomach. So I did research, turns out celiac disease presents with all teh symptoms I had. I suggested this to my doctor, who ordered the tests. The tests confirmed celiac. I began treatment (which is eating a gluten free diet) and my symptoms went away. They stay gone as long as I don't eat gluten. I didn't have medical training, but I recognized patterns, and followed a hunch, and essentially diagnosed an illness doctors couldn't figure out for several years. So if a doctor told me he had a hunch, or it was his "god given intuition" and what he or she said made sense to me, I would allow them to carry out a medical procedure based on that.
Mr. Sheldrake, one of the top 5 least known and appreciated thinkers/scientists of our era. Love this guy!
Who are the other "top 5" on that list?
@@darvidtorres I would put someone like randall carlson on the list along with graham hancock. i would have to think about who else to round out that specific top 5 cuz there are so many other independent thinkers out there who have fantastic perspectives.
@@unseenstalkr Nassim Haramein, Pierre Robitaille, Ben Davidson, Marko Rodin, Scott Mandelker
@@darvidtorres That's making 6 of them.
@@demonmonsterdave Terrance Mckenna, a friend of Sheldrake's, should be on that list!
Science: "Give me one free miracle and I'll explain everything to you."
I love these kind of people, so humble but so knowledgeable but most importantly, so sincere.
and so stupid
Snake oil peddlers are sincere too. Sincerely misleading and humbly humbuggering..wake up!
@@dankahraman354 you couldn't handl my wakefulness. You would go schizophrenic instantly.
@@mijubo Dr. Sheldrake might be in error, I am not qualified to say. But I do know this, he is not stupid.
@@IsaacNussbaum just some linguistic apologetics. I can just make assumptions on what Sheldrake is. But from his books I can just assume he is stupid and ignorant or not stupid and horribly mislead or intelligent and misleading. Choose what you want. In the end it just matters that he is wrong.
Thankful for this man 🙏🙌🕯
More people need to hear about this, spread the word. Share to your friend and on tik tok for younger audiences.
One thing science has been consistent at is proving itself wrong
"I don't know what the truth is, I'm just a scientist." - Donald Hoffman ✊❤️🤜🤛🔥✌️👌🤯😁
If only more scientists felt this way and didn't push ideas so easily off into pseudoscience and material based atheism.
Issue is the same that happened with religion as well, power and money started to get involved. Don't talk about X only Y. Instead of just letting them go fucking wild in every direction.
lol......you are ignorant and confused Seth.
Hoffman is a charlatan...he makes claims about a "mathematical model" when there aren't any variables for our mental properties.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 😂. Your ignorance is showing. Seth is on point.
@@InfoArtistJKatTheGoodInfoCafe You just stated what you wish to be true....not what is really true. You need to provide objective evidence for your beliefs or else you are just an irrational individual for accepting claims without good reasons.
Atheism has nothing to Do with Materialism do you realize than some Religions are Atheist!!!! And Besides it's the Great JuJu under the Sea that is the Progenitor of the Human Race he shit them out after Wugger-Wugger the Whale God Buggered him after an all night Bender in the sunken city of Atlantis I know the truth and anyone who Doesn't Believe me is a silly poopy head
To hear Dr Sheldrake put it that way... it sounds as if dark matter is species akin to 21st century epicycles to explain away retro motion behavior, a form of techno-hukom.
Can listen to him all day. Science needs to lose its love affair with materialism.
He has a beautiful, beautiful mind.
Science is science who said science is materialistic or is in "love" with materialism?
yup let's embrace faith healing, shut down our hospitals and do away with vaccines!
@@dankahraman354 :0)
@@dankahraman354 science IS material..thats the birth of science in the 1600's thats why you need "evidence" that must be tangible. Cant get more material than that.
I love science because it doesn't have answer of everything.
Recent events have unveiled the subjective application and focus of science!
Understatement of the century
Consciousness is no more in the brain then the announcer is in the radio
@Folk Aart If you break a radio it becomes disturbed and cant channel the radio signals. Same with brains.
Exactly where is it then? And if not how can a brain injury result in a split personality, even to the point that one is religious, and the other personality is atheist?
@Folk Aart you sound like a really bright, reasonable and open minded human being
I suggest you go to school too. When i had an accident and broke my leg i had no head injuries by the way, i went unconscious. @Folk Aart
so you are saying there signals to channel then? @@loke2860
Im obsessed with these talks, and his wife and children are just as brilliant ❤
WOW! What a brilliant talk.
only if one is gullible , ignorant with a huge existential anxiety.
Really though? Please note his claims of what science claims are nearly all wrong..
This video should be called The Science Illusion. The illusion is that it's about science.
When I was in my senior year of my college physics program & about to go off to a doctoral program, a psychic told me that I would end up working in the lower atmosphere. 15 years later, i was working air traffic control at an airport when I remembered that prediction. to say that my path to air traffic was incredibly convoluted, involving things like needing to get a job in the NY metro area because my wife (met 1 year after getting my BS & 6 mos after dropping out of grad school) wanted to move back to be near her mother.
dude we all work in the lower atmosphere....lol
Seems to me,
except for cosmonauts and astronauts,
we are all working in the lower atmosphere
so...
Seems to me,
'psychic abilities' were invented as a means to fleece
the gullible among us.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Seriously, my job as an air traffic controller involves the lower atmosphere in ways that few other jobs qualify. Yes, we all live & work in the lower atmosphere (even astronauts who do have to come down on occasion) but my job as an air traffic controller involves dealing with the lower atmosphere in ways that few other jobs entail. There are only 4 professions that I can think of that actually involve dealing with the lower atmosphere: pilot (I never had the vision), flight attendant (not likely in the early 1980s given that I am male), air traffic controller or weather observer/reporter. The last two professions do not account for many employment opportunities).
@@nickolasgaspar9660 we all work in the lower atmosphere but few professions work with the lower atmosphere in the same way as air traffic control.
@@dlsamson The 'psychics' prediction is not impressive as, no matter what job you found, you would be working in the lower atmosphere.
If you had become a miner miles underground you might argue even more strongly for her psychic power.
I mean, no one gets lower in the atmosphere than miners eh.
I like his very sly nod to the Electric Universe there at 15:13 ish... :P
Immanuel Velikovsky- Immanuel Velikovsky - Immanuel Velikovsky !!fak!!! Man!!!! . It makes so much more sense,but yeah, you don't want to kick of Newton of his throne now do ya, not to mention the domino effect that will follow.
Check channel suspicious observers for more 😀
One of the seeds of love , Thanks
Wonderful! Thank you!
Since 1985, the Amsterdam Science Museum has allowed visitors to participate in the am-I-being-stared-at experiment, based on Sheldrake’s work, with one subject and one starer doing 30 trials before vacating their seats for the next couple.
By 2002, more than 18,700 couples had taken part and the results were a staggering 10 to the power of 376 against them being produced by chance. It’s an on-going experiment and the number of subjects who have participated is now over 20,000, making this the largest and longest-running paranormal research project ever conducted.
Source??? Official source? I claim this is BULLSHIT. I ve been to the NEMO many times, never seen that “experiment”. I researched this online, this paragraph you pasted above appears only in a couple of sites that support .... drumroll... Rupert sheldrake !!! Don’t believe this crap
@@andytaylor3029 i do have personal "psychic" experience, so i do rather believe it. seems like you are still fettered to the chains of "science", poor fella
@@andytaylor3029 It seems to me a lot of people making comments in support of ludicrous nonsense have insufficient appreciation for the power of their own imaginations.
I've participated on that trial. I was sitting right in front of another guy. Then I've answered a questionnaire where I've declared that I was being stared. Isn't that amazing? 🤣
@@tanko.reactions176 I had a burger once. That proves that there is a McDonalds on the Moon.
I love this guy!
More people need to hear about this video, spread the word. Share to your friend and on tik tok for younger audiences.
I really do find the... "parallel" between quantum superpositions and actual realized actions, vs. our own human plans and eventual decisions, pretty striking. I don't think we should make too much of it, but it is "thought provoking."
you are made up of quantum particles, why wouldn’t quantum mechanics extend to you?
Back in the 80's, long before caller ID, I would answer the phone 'Hello (person's name). I was right so often my friends all wondered how I did it.
Science is about great scientists standing on the shoulders of preceding great scientists.
That's the theory; unfortunately, the reality is far uglier. There is a lot of "bad" science that is currently the favored paradigm at the moment. Sheldrake illustrates just one example.
I strive to find what I call “elegant solutions” to problems. I was fascinated as a child with spinning a ball overhead on a string because it seemed to defy gravity. When contemplating spinning galaxies later in junior high I asked the science teacher why the stars don’t just go flying off into space, or when is the universe going to start collapsing vs expanding? I always felt I was less intelligent because I couldn’t understand answers like dark matter or dark energy. And I’m still angry to this day over over having a test question on the nature of centrifugal vs centripetal force marked wrong. I watched this entire presentation based on this guys explanation of dark matter / dark energy. Again, I’ve always felt less intelligent than those who claim science has the answer to everything, not anymore!
Science may not have an answer for everything. However, it has dozens of questions for literally everything. This is why Science works: because Science is auto-correcting, increasingly converging to more and more precise understanding of everything.
I particularly don't like what Mr Rupert is doing. He is basically employing maximum skepticism in order to criticize and debunking Science. However, his skepticism disappears completely when he mentions religious dogma and superstitions.
@@richardgomes5420 he tries to poke holes in science's high standards of evidence in his attempt to sneak in his pseudo philosophy.
He strawmans science's auxiliary principles by introducing a philosophical worldview (materialism). Science's priciples are those of Methodological Naturalism . MN is not a philosophical worldview but an epistemic acknowledgment of our limitations as an empirical creature.
Bikes are balanced when having speed,even whilst standing still using a treadmill for example, the reason of this effect is unknown. It is not caused by centrifugal forces,since this effect is also present using skates on ice for example.
The orbital mechanism as we know them do not allow planets to stay in their orbits, this system would collapse very quickly.
Airplane wings create lift. They also create lift when upside down when you`d expect the opposite to happen the workings on the lift effect is also unknown. Taught you might like this information. Anyways
@@blauwzakjecrack : Bikes can roll for hundreds of meters without anyone riding them due to the geometry of the front wheel. This is a well known fact by designers of bikes and they build bikes this way in order to achieve augment stability and even safety. You not only got bikes wrong but also planet orbits wrong and also aerodynamics wrong.
Richard Gomes science is auto correcting ? This talk is aiimed at people just like you. The very point he is making is what you seemed to have missed....the dogmas he mentions restrict or limit scientific progress when it could progress faster without those limitations. For example, for decades biologists thought that the appendix was a vestigial organ that was functionally redundant through evolutionary progress so paid no attention to it. However, others ignored this worldview and studied it further to discover it had a important function during the developing baby stages in that it was the baby's sole immune system organ until the rest of the immune system slowly developed ad took over at some point after which the appendix stopped functioning. No auto correction happening here. Yet a faulty worldview prevented scientific progress in fully understanding our immune system for decades and is not an isolated case either.
Well explained 🌹
Thank you for leaving this public on CZcams.
If there is one understanding I've experienced it is of focused awareness.. of the desired knowledge.. a question asked.. the mind reaching out to give the answer.. one example out of many is bumping into the person you need to see.. in a strange place... knowledge of others being willing to wait for no reason at a place. And to have say 5 mins later a person walk in that needed to talk to you .. or visa verser .. we can and do focus. And project.. our wishes.. to others . If they are receptive.. it's oftentimes the case you will hear or meet them.. there are so many examples..
Dr Sheldrake is truly a maverick genius and a national treasure! He is a very brave man that has earned and deserves tremendous respect regardless of what we may think of his ideas or if they are true or not. It is men like him that have changed the world over the years.
He just sells pseudoscience books 😄.
@@simstar6557 he preys on the gullible and ignorant of this world.
@buzz magister Well politicians and charlatans try to sell pseudo philosophical ideologies...
Name one brave thing he does. Selling books to believers?
@@ihatespam2 lol
Yes. However, I suggest that machines are made in our image. All machines depend on movement if only that of electrons.
Biological life or mechanical action all depend on magnetics, and all depend upon time or all motion would cease.
I have been banned from TED.
Badge of honour?
I tried to get into the auditorium wearing latex suspenders and a gimp mask.
Apparently I should "never return"
I would like to watch a conversation between Dr Sheldrake and Dr Jordan Peterson!
I had the same thought just yesterday. Would be fascinating! Rupert talking with Dr. Bruce Lipton would be interesting as well.
@@Axiomatic75 there's a convo between Sheldrake and Lipton on here.
czcams.com/video/xqUFHM_qXBw/video.html (sheldrake & lipton)
Personally i think that would be a conversation between an open mind and a closed one.
Why not have a conversation with both yourself? I do it most days.
The parrot my grand parents had used to call my name for about an hour before we arrived. This reality is also very common between children and their mothers, sometimes fathers, but I believe seeing you were once literally connected to your mother a stronger connection remains. I know it is not like that for everybody but that its a reality for many cannot be denied, even if it counters modern science.
did you arrive at your grand parents approximately the same time every day. Dogs do that too when they expect their owners to return from work. So do children expecting to see their parents pick them up from day care. Are parrots, dogs and children therefore psychic? Let's not jump to confusions. There's a much simpler explanation. You should be able to figure this out.
@Kristen Hansen you don't know much about psychic phenomena, do you?
@@penyarol83 No one does...everyone has his personal subjective interpretations of an experience he had...influenced by previous popular interpretations. People just love to pretend to know things that they don't or don't understand.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 hope you’re looking into a mirror when you say that last line
@@penyarol83 I am not the one who pretends to know things that I don't and can't prove mate......
Wonderful !!
Such clarity
An eye opener!
Another eye opener well worth reading is the book " Pasteur vs Beauchamp"
or ...another pet in the back....
More people need to hear about this video, spread the word. Share to your friend and on tik tok for younger audiences.
Do you mean the one written by Ethel Hume?
The ability of one's mind to interpret reality = the level of one's intelligence.
how about this quote from Arthur Shopenhaur; " man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills'', im not a reader of A.S., but like this quote...
Or the extent to which correct predictions can be made.
@@mindsigh4 I don't get it.
@@djayjp ...and stay out of danger.
True "survival of the fittest".
@@mindsigh4 agreed .. Noone knows how the brain determine how it wills what we will... But my guess is that it's a continuum of stimulus-response guided by self-interest. And those with wisdom do best.
Can someone help me out? I can't remember the name of that one famous scientist--They write about him in all the text books, because he's super important to our understanding of the world--that he respected all the systemic limitations established within his field, and went along with the status quo, and never questioned the authority of the general consensus or orthodoxy of his time. I've been through several science textbooks in various fields, and so far I haven't come across any mention of him yet. What's his name again?
Brilliant clear impressive work…
Great to see Rupert being respected, the TED people were not so polite and banned this talk, because they cannot bear anyone to question the dogmas of 'Science'. The original foundation of science was based on questioning, and testing ideas, something they seem to have forgotten today.
Rupert has to back the science behind his speculations..is what he says repeatable? What are the conditions for testing his hypotheses?
Michael Gorman: well said and very, very true.............................God Bless.
@@damonhunter5143 Thank you Damon, all the best to you.
It depends very much on what is understood by the term 'Science'. The scientific method is tried and tested _ad nauseum_ but relying on some "consciousness Woo" which cannot be adequately pinned down, is why TED give it the thumbs down. I guess time will tell.
sorry but the ones who are deluded here are those defending Sheldrake.
Science is rigor, and the body of knowledge thereby attained. It does not create metaphysical implications within it's own discipline.
And therefore has limitations in terms of what it can tell us about the nature of reality, particularly if its practitioners are unwilling to examine the discipline's foundational assumptions.
@James Strawn A rigorous one. The bottom line is, if you start with that single idea, "science is rigor", you could recreate everything else we currently call science from it.
@@paulaoh5306 Right. Metaphysics is a framework for understanding everything in relation to everything else. As soon as you can study something rigorously, that's a scientific study for all intents and purposes. Whether or not it's done well it's a separate question. But there's more!
Logic is when we find rigorous relationships that always apply. Math is rigorous relationships of quantity.
1 thing the speaker here has incorrect is thinking that nature, like probabilistic quantum theory, considers possibilities. Nature does not consider possibilities. Probabilistic quantum theory does. Writing and solving a probabilistic quantum theory equation can determine probabilities of possibilities of an object because probabilistic quantum theory intentionally determines only general unspecified solutions to problems, and these general unspecified solutions turn out to be probabilities of possibilities. If probabilistic quantum theorists determine any general unspecified solution of an object, and then they specify the object's unspecified quantities, such as, in example, specifying the object’s exact initial position vector in nature and its exact initial speed vector in nature, then their general unspecified probabilities of possibilities solution becomes 1 exact specified solution, the 1 observable in nature, with all the probabilities of possibilities, which never existed in nature, eliminated.
He confuses the territory with the map.
Most people:
Watch comedy movies and TikTok.
Me:
Reading the comment sections of external consciousness propositions.
if you keep masturbating you'll have to get some tissues
comedy movies makes you laugh, comments on videos like this makes you cry and lose hope in humanity.
Interesting. I think he really points out well some of the dogma modern science has fallen into. That doesn't mean science is bad... certainly not, however if it breaks free of current dogma it is open to explore more and grow.
No he doesn't. He just labels dogma Science's high standards of evidence and evaluation and strawmans its principles
He has one job to do and he fails miserably. Science demands from him to provide Objective and independently verifiable evidence for his claims. HE can't so he decides to whine about it.
Its similar to a ball-buster kid who no one wants to play with him and somehow he believes its their fault.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Scientists pile up praises upon each other like there is no tomorrow , but don't know how to build the simplest known life form , that tells volumes of how little they know and how much they hyperventilate . Turning science institutions into social sexual dogmatic platforms brings a new twist to its course . Verifiable because its agreed on or else expelled he will be is the way forced indoctrination works ,it can only be this way because there is no other way they ramble . He has remarkable insights ,respectful demeanor and a free mind .
@@rovidius2006 -"Scientists pile up praises upon each other like there is no tomorrow"
-You are confused...you are confusing Scientists with science. A scientist's word in weak and unimportant , what is important is that his science is able to meet the high standards of the process.
-" but don't know how to build the simplest known life form"
-lol They don't????? we should fire them all. You are a troll right?
-"that tells volumes of how little they know and how much they hyperventilate "
-No it doesn't , if they couldn't build a simple life form that would mean that biology is a complex field of study.
You are able to post your ignorant claims because science understands many things on how reality works. Your device and internet connection are the result of our scientific knowledge.
Dude...are you a kid or something? what's wrong with you. What shitty arguments are those. Have you ever being at a library, ever opened a text book in your life.....Sure there are many things we can not do or know yet...but wake up and study, there are many things that we do know. Grow up
-"Turning science institutions into social sexual dogmatic platforms brings a new twist to its course . "
-ok you are way too stupid to talk to.....lol
@@nickolasgaspar9660No , It means that they have no idea of what life is and try to steal the show, liars and projectionists .
@@rovidius2006 lol....biology is not your strong point right?
Just gonna leave this name here: Immanuel Velikovsky / electronic universe. Would advise to research in an open space, cause your mind will be blown.
He often talks at EU conferences.
@@demonmonsterdave well, yes but n since he is dead. But his idea`s are represented with the eu vison of the universe.
I do also advocate the eu over the other theories.
Brilliant elaboration
I once got busted in my neighbour's yard with just a towel, checking up on her dog that was howling/barking. My neighbour got home from a holiday to a near naked man in her yard with a seemingly unlikely reason for being there.
Hi Tracy,
sorry about for being on your property in a state of undress.
My ah-ha moment is how potential is not measurable but events are but then they are in the past. So our past does not determine our future. Cannot recommend the book Power vs Force by Dr David R Hawkins fits very well and overlaps with this material.
Thank you.
I come from a science background myself and though I do see the advantages of a scientific method I also see some of the traps of it as well. This deterministic/materialistic framework doesn't seem to account for it all. In the last few years I have had experiences that are outside of what I can understand by science alone. There is clearly more work to understand about our minds and consciousness and how that needs to be brought into the equation. I do not know of anyone that understands this at all.
We are like children at the beach and perhaps one of the best things we can do is enjoy the experience of sand and water -- to live with a sense of wonder and awe at the amazing universe of which we are apart.
Greatly put into words, I completely agree! I believe consciousness will never be able to be fully explained by the deterministic framework science is currently using.
@@GHCODPvZ Thanks. One of the thoughts I have had is that people only look at information through their own perspective and bias. There are some scientists looking at these areas though their work isn't well supported. Rupert Sheldrake has some interesting observations.
Human consciousness is overvalued because it regards us humans. All living organisms have consciousness which must mean that Consciousness is an essential part or principal law of the Universe, at least to my understanding.
"To live with a sense of wonder and awe" is very well put. And when science or certain scientists simply can't deal with the phenomenon of consciousness it just shows the beauty and mysteriousness of life.
@@miklosdavid7627 I don’t think human consciousness is overvalued due to hubristic nature. Animals do have consciousness but it’s precisely self consciousness that is extremely deceptive. 95% of animals do not have any form of self awareness (they don’t know they are) they are the closest things to naturally and biologically programmed robots. The reason for mystique regarding human consciousness is because it is THE thing itself that is responsible for all observations made to begin with. It’s like only having a single measuring tool in terms of investigating the phenomena of existence itself, this is the only one we know of, all we know of is derived from here, we are the source for our own knowledge. So how exactly objective are the plethora of facts we have gathered over time. Modern science especially a materialistic world view is only working out the ‘how’ question but not the Why at all question which some might say is meaningless even tho we exactly know what is being referred to and the question is being avoided due to lack of answering faculties. We ultimately want to restrict everything that there is to existence itself down to the “universe” to shorten our field of inquiry so we can finally have a unified theory for “everything”.
So what exactly did you experience that you cannot understand using science?
Test the staring from behind thing by seeing if it also occurs when an electromagnetic source emits signals that emulate those from a human
Why would anyone want to ban this talk? Are they afraid?
Love this guy.. I think he is brilliant... I don’t know why but I have thought along these lines many times. Here is just a simple thought... Think about it long enough and you begin to understand a lot about life.
I was over at a friends house one day and we both were talking about a friend who had just past away. I was thinking, and said, when I die I wonder who or what I will become after my death ? Will there be hate, will there be war and bigotry, will there be sorrow, sickness, pain, hunger and sadness, and in between, will there be love, happiness, respect, and fulfillment ? Will I meet my friend again ? My friend looked at me and said, Tom, once you are dead you stay dead and you never come back. I looked back at my friend with a smile and said, the same can be said before I was born, but, here I am.
Tom Picketts' Astrophotography - Certainly, here you are. But like your friend said, once you are dead you stay dead and you never come back. Let's face it, the "afterlife" is just a wishy-washy way of saying "death". Sounds a lot nicer but it's still "death". There will be no more sorrow, sickness, pain, hunger and sadness from the moment you drop dead until the end of time! It's over. No free lunch!
@@kristenhansen1843 No joy, happiness, bliss. You don't know what happens.
If matter is unconscious how do electrons know when there filmed
Actually the "principle of conservation of mass" is only approximate. In most of the effects we experience in daily life its an extraordinarily GOOD approximation, but it's approximate nonetheless. In nuclear processes and particle physics processes it's not even approximate - it's just completely wrong, and scientists in those fields don't assume it. But even in chemistry, mechanical processes, and so on, mass varies a tiny tiny amount as energy moves into and out of systems. When you wind your wristwatch the mass of the spring increases a tiny amount, because you put in energy (E=mc^2, remember?)
Energy is actually conserved, except for one single effect. The expansion of the universe causes photons in flight to red shift, and that decreases their energy. You might say it "goes into the expansion." Of course, if the universe contracted again it would come back, but our normal expressions for writing down "total energy" don't include that "expansion" term, so in those calculations it's just gone. We could fix that if we wanted to - we'd just stick in a term for "expansion energy," and then the conservation would be perfect. It's just such a tiny proportion of energy we don't bother.
I just did the experiment of staring at my cat and focusing intently on his head. After 30 seconds the experiment ended. He never turned round to look at me, or gave any sign that he knew I was looking at him. Theory is busted. Animals cannot tell they are being watched.
Absolutely brilliant! I love it!
Huummm... not really. Richard Dawkins once said that Religion has the ability to make intelligent people say stupid things, which is the case of Mr. Rupert.
@@richardgomes5420 he is making a living by selling books to gullible and ignorant people with existential anxieties.
Haven't watched the whole video yet, but I have the same views. And I was surprised about how little numbers this story has attracted...
The truth is censored and suppressed. Big tech wants to turn you into a soulless consumer.
@@demonmonsterdave He has views, without evidence, therefore should be censored from science arenas, because it is dishonest and a waste of time. When he gets evidence for his 50 year old claim, everyone will change their tune.
Every science understanding is based on measurement and observation. Even theories are cooked up explanation for existing phenomenon (and repeatedly readjust to explain any newer discovered phenomenon). If suppose there are things exist that are absolutely immeasurable or unobservable, then it can neither be proven nor disproven. However, people get off into scientism when they started saying what can't be measure doesn't ever exist...
Uh, let me introduce the concept of "inference" to you. Mind blown huh?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:40 *🌎 The belief that science already understands the nature of reality is widespread, bolstered by technological achievements.*
02:26 *📚 Sheldrake lists 10 dogmas underlying modern science's materialist worldview, including nature being mechanical/machine-like and matter being unconscious.*
04:19 *🌟 Science requires accepting the "free miracle" of the sudden appearance of all matter, energy and laws at the Big Bang.*
09:35 *♻️ Sheldrake questions the assumption of conservation of matter/energy, pointing to dark matter/energy accounting for 95% of the unknown universe.*
15:17 *🧠 He challenges the dogma of unconscious matter, tracing its history from Descartes' mind-body dualism to modern materialism.*
19:20 *🔭 The persistence of human consciousness is causing the materialist worldview to break apart.*
22:05 *💫 Some materialists adopt panpsychism - the idea that consciousness permeates all matter/nature.*
25:29 *⏳ Whitehead proposed relating mind and body through time rather than space - mind as the future possibility, body as past actualization.*
28:37 *🔮 Sheldrake proposes mental causation as a stream from future possibilities towards past actualization, contrasting physical causation.*
30:24 *🧠 He challenges the dogma that minds are just brain activity, suggesting minds are fields extended in space-time like electromagnetic fields.*
33:21 *👁️ The view that our visual experiences are inside the brain contradicts the intuitive sense that we project images outwardly to where things seem to be.*
36:34 *👀 Sheldrake cites evidence that people can feel when being stared at from behind, suggesting minds can non-locally "touch."*
41:23 *☎️ He describes experimental evidence for telephone telepathy - knowing who is calling before answering.*
43:39 *💻 Modern telepathic experiences often involve communication technology like phones and email.*
44:05 *🐶 Animals demonstrate telepathic abilities, suggesting an extended psychic dimension of mind beyond the brain.*
45:10 *✨ Sheldrake argues minds are open not just to this psychic realm, but also to spiritual influences through mystical experiences.*
Made with HARPA AI
“Give is one free miracle, and we will explain the rest” -Terrence M. What realization, formed provocation.
@Prowler Cam thats a circular argument tho
No free miracles without belief
Of course there’s matter, but there’s energy. Science knows about probability, and it’s own limitations about truly knowing everything. No such things as eternal laws of nature, things change. Our understanding changes.
“Science” doesn’t know anything. It’s a method, a process. Understanding the limits of science occurs when the philosophy of science is known and applied by the humans practicing the scientific method.
Even the speed of light isn't constant.
Wonderful talk. God bless.
This man's comments RE the "placebo effect" are simply brilliant! The kind of realization you can't believe didn't occur to you...but it didn't.
It's good to see someone who dares mock and point out that science as we know it is wrong thanks Rupert .,.........
Did you notice everything runs, vehicles, devices, bodies and the creation. A timetable part of creation too
"Science" only connects the dots. Each time that happens there are two more questions that further detail where reality is. It is very powerful more in eliminating the thousands of possibilities that the actual dot proved to not exist than the single dot that it did. For seeking out such facts it is the best we have, and creating an "alternative" set of "facts" only enhances ignorance.
There is however an entire area of thought that science does not touch even in aspiration, and that is the proper role of religion. If you have a goal science can demonstrate how the goal may be accomplished, but what it cannot do is have any input as to why that should be the goal. The majority of oppositional athiests (there are many religions where an all powerful god does not exist, and the ones with many gods do not see them that way) never see that problem as an issue and much damage has been done trying to apply some sort of scientific justification to what they wanted. Unfortunately, 90% of what religions preach seeks to disprove what anyone using scientific principles can see for themselves. Beyond commentary about arrogance there is nothing about other galaxies that are relevant to religion. It is not about origins, alternative "metaphysics" universes etc. It is very much a discussion of how a person should act in the world, and the differences of good and "evil" motivations in deciding a goal, and a whole lot more in that direction.
Metaphors are a powerful tool in understanding nuances that can be hard to grasp but they they do not need to be physically the case to explain the mataphor. If the conflict in the decisions you make are described as two wolves fighting and the one that wins is the one you feed then the story can be true even without any actual wolves in this universe or any parallel universe. To even seek actual wolves to prove the story true is missing the point entirely.
Any religion that is authoritarian or claims itself the only truth, are just ego manifestations of a "leader" that cannot abide what he says to be questioned, and uses "God" as a tool to get his way. Still after the nonsence claims, and authoritarian demands, there are usually some valid reasoning worthy of discussion, but the defience that reality is other than your eyes can see,is a disservice to evryone.
Love getting high and getting mind blown with the one and only Sheldrake
Rupert Sheldrake is not a polemic, though he explicitly points out outrageous deficiencies in current science. However, he also points out correctly that many of these deficiencies are admitted by current science. Science is arrogant and has always tended to be so, but it is also unsure and in some ways humble in its arrogance and so it is a paradox. Science needs people like Sheldrake. It should not and must not reject him or people like him. They are the canary in the coalmine.
please list the outrageous deficiencies of science.
@@dankahraman354, the outrageous deficiencies of science makes for a long list.
There's not enough space here to list them but I could prioritise a few.
1 - Scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public in a way that is commonly understood.
2 - Scientists are permitting bogus science to become recognised as popular science, when it's not science.
3 - Bullets 1 and 2 embrace the problem of science being misunderstood against invalid arguments that are popular.
4 - Some scientists, and non-scientists masquerading as scientists, are giving science a bad name by not using science.
That's probably enough to be going on with.
@@TheBasicTruth cite examples under the 4 headings you listed. You haven't done anything of the sort.
How is science arrogant?
Isn't science a methodology used to try understand and explain phenomena?
That's what I understand science to be and I don't see how arrogance can be applied here, please explain.
The arrogance from conventional science is to reduce itself to the method and to insist that the world is understandable only through the 5 senses, not to include the intention of the person.In this way the technology is dominating our life and ignore our vision, moral and power. Sorry for my reduced English😉😊
Scientific 'knowledge' is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.
And his have no basis in demonstration so are far from certain.
His voice reminds me of Roger Scruton, which is nice.
No real scientist would agree with that opening statement.
@Mr Best Policy Yes the guy with unsubstantiated claims and no evidence is cool but those who doubt are brainwashed....
No scientist would agree with his opening statement, thats why he is not taken seriously. He makes claims without demonstrating them then whines about scientism like he is a victim. People would go ape shit over him if he could prove any of this stuff. Don't fool yourself. Evidence rules BS walks.
do you mean "science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in"?
yes that is a statement that no scientist would make.
It is a position that people who don't understand scientific method might make, given the incredible utility of science in our everyday lives.
@@enkido5838 how so? is it not the case that science implitly operates under the assumption that, say, we are able to apprehend truth through our sense though?
Science develops theories which it tests against evidence.
To the extent that evidence supports the theory and the theory has predictive power, it is a useful theory.
Every engineering achievememt in history is built on this.
It is many decades since Science dropped any thoughts of laws much less truth, in favor of theories and predictive utility.
The biggest steps in science are when a theory fails to explain an observation, leading to a new theory which does. If that theory is then supported with evidence it gains credence and utility.
Quantum theory is a massive example but Einstein had his moment as did Newton.
What science does even more than answer questions is uncover still more things we cannot explain.
It would foolhardy in the extreme and profoundly unscientific to think that we have all the tools (theories) we will need to explain innumerable questions which we have not yet even encountered.
Thanks! One of my favorite thinkers
You can actually practice the detection of visual observation. I got really good at it when I worked at music festivals, and I freaked the shit out of my skeptical friend proving it to him. If you are sneaking up on someone or something, do not look directly at them.
Why did the audience clap at the end.
It sounded quite polite.
We humans (like animals) identify too much with the illusion of fear and desire BUT we evolved from the animal form to discover our true nature as a spiritual being of light incarnated and hence can overcome this illusion and attain a state of inner balance (and return to the original source from whence all came). Such is the game of life and we keep on reincarnating until we achieve this equilibrium within.
here is your desire for symmetry, another "human" illusion hence a longing for the cosmos to somehow balance the ledger book, if not in this life in the "after-life".
Well, I choose Jesus so I can bypass all the reincarnation cycling. It's ridiculous. Who needs it? It won't do any good coming back here.
His criticism of science is correct. His alternative theory is bogus. The examples he gives as arguments for his theory in the second half are ironically already explained by science
HIs criticism can sometimes be correct. But if he could demonstrate his claims, scientist would be all over it.
which points do you find correct???
"Explained by science" doesn't mean that our science has found the ultimate truth in a topic. You can explain and explain away basically everything, doesn't matter if it is true or not or if your explenation is true or not.
If you’ve never heard his son’s music, check out Cosmo Sheldrake! Brilliance…
C.S. lewis wrote "the magicians twin",about this very thing.
Wonderfully clear and brilliant. We must be, in fact, projecting and receiving devices. A renaissance is happening with this new awareness, and our Creator is right around the corner, ready to welcome us if we press on.
yes, years ago i had a few dreams that were VERY memorable, & now im seeing things in society that are mirroring certain Key points in the dreams.
have u ever listened/watched Eckhart Tolle videos on youtube? in one of my dreams (from 35 yrs ago)it played out a scenario in the future (now) & it was demonstrated to me the activation of something in humans that caused immediate reactions & that most people were unaware of this activation while it was happening to them. when i read power of now in 2002 & he outlined the "pain-body" & i had a name for this thing that gets activated.& like Tolle says, it goes dormant, but sleeping with one eye open, waiting for an opportunity, like a vampire, to feed on us & stir up the pain-body of others, or to fire upthe collective pain body of groups &/or nation states as a whole.
@@mindsigh4 Your dreams were prophetic, and maybe still are. I've been guided by such dreams myself, and it's a good sign that you're marked for knowledge. But do not be distracted away from the Judeo-Christian God who created us. He alone has power and authority: thesecondtempleofsolomon.com
If there were demonstrative evidence you could claim clarity, but there is not, It is all postulations. How did you establish that we send and receive things outside of the natural order? And what's this deal about a creator? Got a definition or evidence?
or, not. And we just need to SERIOUSLY raise our educational standards.
@@ihatespam2 Evidence abounds in every age of history; white light after-death and coming back from impossible wounds; telepathy, both human and animal; miraculous, continuous and dramatic healings... the list is extraordinarily long. But always masses of people say, "That's not evidence."
That's really good that the very ridiculed Rupert Sheldrake of "pseudoscience" is in close relation of ideas to the great Donald Hoffman. I do enjoy both of their works. I've not read any of their books though. But Donald Hoffman is a pioneer for holographic principle and for panpsychism.
He could easily refute them with evidence. Wonder why he dent do that?
Rupert hung out with the likes of J Krishnamurti. This is fantastic and good.
So physicist discovered the Klevin. "Your equation plus a Klevin get you home by 7:00"
this is awesome. i loved Berlinski's book The Devils Delusion when it came out ,this on top of that is great
I can "feel" when something is about to happen.
For instance someone in another room drops something.
I have the preception of tension just before the sound of the object hitting the floor.
This happens to me continously throughout the day.
Im also quite good at remote viewing.
Nah
there are billions of things happening at any given moment.
ya right. sounds like a sheldrake delusion.
@@dankahraman354 lol, yeah - people know this guy admits to taking LSD, right? A solid base for logic and reason.
go see Robert Mueller and offer him your services!
Scientist: my vacuum cleaner is a collection of parts organised in a workable way.
Sheldrake: so you seriously believe that your vacuum cleaner is unconscious?
lol
Interestingly, very often when I am, say, walking behind a woman and admiring some specific aspect of her, she will reach around and straighten/fidget with the general region where I was looking as if a wave of modesty swept over her. I had chalked it up to either women regularly checking/adjusting their appearance or having perceived me simply being back there "somewhere" (the sound of walking, or having passed me just before for example).
I tried this method by staring at the back of my teacher's head really hard. Within 10 seconds he vigorously scratched it. It was kinda spooky. I didn't try it again.