Can metaphysical experiences be real? | Slavoj Žižek and Rupert Sheldrake
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 09. 2022
- Parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake goes head to head with philosopher Slavoj Žižek on metaphysical experiences and religion.
This excerpt is from "Fantasy and the void" featuring Slavoj Žižek, Rupert Sheldrake and Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen. Wes Alwan hosts.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/fantasy-and-the-...
#TheMetaphysicalExperience #WillScienceReplaceReligion #FantasyAndTheVoid
Slavoj Žižek is a globally renowned philosopher and cultural critic. He is international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London, visiting professor at New York University and a senior researcher at the University of Ljubljana's Department of Philosophy. He is the author of several books, including The Sublime Object of Ideology, The Parallax View, Living in the End Times and Heaven in Disorder. His unique style of philosophy, which is often imbued with humour and political incorrectness, has gained him admirers and critics across the globe.
Rupert Sheldrake is an English scientist whose research into parapsychology and evolution led to the theory of morphic resonance, expounded in the book A New Science of Life. The theory posits that "memory is inherent in nature" which makes it possible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms." Other topics he has written and spoken on include precognition, the relationships between spirituality and science and the psychic staring effect. Sheldrake's most recent book is Science and Spiritual Practices (2017).
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Do you think science and religion can coexist? Let us know in the comments below!
To watch the debate in full, visit iai.tv/video/fantasy-and-the-void?CZcams&+comment
NO
... Albert Einstein said that the deeper he got into science, the more he believed in God.. this has also been my experience.... but we need to look at God without the religion.
Science has been adopted as a surrogate for this ancient and premordial superstition, that there *must* an order and meaning in all this.
Religion in the future will run out of its beloved and well established arguments and take the place of a court yester in schemes of society.
Religion is the prototype model for any ideology and how to install and apply ideology as an Instrument of power.
Power over others and the illusion of supremacy.
Sheldrake failes to realise what he's talking about.
Žižeks' internet connection... once again, mirrors his fragmented and intermittent persona perfectly.
😮
someone get this nigga a proper mic & a normal $30 HD camera
Hahaha, you're so dumb.
Zizek is like Ali G pranking his interviewee. So Sheldrake calmly talks and Zizek start going crazy!
.. regarding conventional religious ideology, Dennis McKenna said the last thing the church wants you to do is to have a spiritual experience.
The mckenna brothers' wisdom will last for ages
That is not true? I disagree but the Church wants to make sure because people are often liars. There are so many people running around saying they talk to God or this and that. False people to lie.
Furthermore, many people get jealous or feel inferior if they do not get an "experience" too. This is where the problems start, and why real churches are hesitant to talk about all these alleged experiences people have.
Heck even the catholics believe and investigate events just look at all their recordings of apparitions. So what you are saying and who you are saying Dennis whoever, sounds like a fool and the brothers wisdom will never last.
the catholics lie and can not be trusted, but at the least, they do confess that strange things indeed happen, they just twist it and corrupt it
@Oskar in other words of you have a religious experience . . . forget about it. Absolutely agree.
Because 'spiritual experience' is the property of the privileged classes.
I just realized who Rupert is. I remember him from his discussions with Krishnamurti.
a fraud?
@@LordOfTime23 Lol. Yes Rupert Sheldrake is in a lot of talks with Jiddu Krishnamurti
@@TheInsomniac96 i mean that sheldrake is a fraud, a liar, a conman
@@LordOfTime23 no, it is the reductionist materialist worldview that has lied to and conned many, it is built on a lie and denial of reality directly experienced.
Ironically the materialist reductionist worldview functions as a dogmatic religion with the selected "experts" viewed as priests closest to God and the mysteries of reality. Science is being used as a whipping boy for atheists.
Consciousness is the ultimate data of science, every measurement is based on it, to not take into account is to fall for a false sense of objectivity.
The feeling of DYING when experiencing a panic attack is also very convincing. Yet you don't die, in that moment
So being under influence of drugs and seeing dragons is also concvincing that dragons exist? Our brains are not that perfect as you think
Having suffered panic attacks and knowing exactly what you're talking about, I have felt like I was dying, but the entire time I knew I was in fact NOT dead, and my survival instinct is exactly what prompted the panic.
Completely different from an NDE or mystical experiences. The fact that we have the conscious thought that we may die and place our physical self in strain and fear by metaphysical means, just shows the mind is metaphysical. Cheers.
@@cdb5001 no, it doesn't follow that the mind is metaphysical. Cheers.
@@LordOfTime23 wow! Great rebuttal. So much great content there. You really made a great argument! (Not!)
@@cdb5001 dude, do I need to write a book or something? You said some nonsense, I just pointed it out. Get a life
Love these guys. Didnt think they would ever meet. But then again zizek talked with cornel west. I wish zizek and ken wilber would talk as well.
that would be sick, ken should be featrured more. he kinda has a bad rep
@@liamnewsom8583 and not without good reason. Wilber so harks on about levels and always attaining levels. It's like spiritual pyramid selling.
Experiences are real but it proves only that something has been experienced and it is not necessary realistic.
It is very common that everybody see things differently.
In your own words, define “REAL”. ☝️🤔☝️
@@TheVeganVicar re: my comment:
I’m coming from a perspective that one may need to make seemingly effortful self initiated choices in at the initiation of a transformative process, that will eventually result in deeper peace & clarity than prior.
@@releasethefrogs, that presupposes freedom of volition. However, it is a demonstrable scientific fact that EVERY motion or thought which has occurred in the phenomenal universe was entirely determined by every preceding action, all the way back to the “Big Bang” singularity event. 🤓
@@TheVeganVicar have you ever heard of the "block universe"? The idea that time is actually a physical block with every single last moment from the "beginning" to the "end" of time being stuck in "space" like one of those flip-comics or a power point?
@@foodchewer, yes.
Where can I see the rest of this conversation?
My CZcams feed does not send me as many current links to Slavoj as in days past...?
I read in the comment section how he's a scientist through and through. I disagree
1) He's posited a hypothesis which was and is widely ignored in the scientific community. He took the scientifically sound concept of cell-splitting in plants and gave it an eastern-religious spin: it happens because of a magical field, of some sort. That's also the reason why his idea was rejected, how do you want to measure or prove it? It's nothing but religious bogus.
2) He's been massively influenced by Eastern religious philosophy, has held meditation sessions in India, so, he might have studied at friggin' Harvard, but his interest is more visible in the field of pseudoscience, religion, etc.. which discredits him totally
Very good Zizek
Slavoj refers to stimulation of the brain to create the sense of experience. This is not to say a bona fide experience is thus rendered invalid. I could have the sense of eating an apple through having centres of my brain stimulated. That does not devalue the experience of actually consuming an apple though.
Is that not the point though? Whether we eat the apple or not, our experience of eating the apple arrives to us through a certain stimulation. Having said that, I see what you are saying...
@@ubuntu94 mmm, we're talking about different experiences in this example though.
While we can agree that eating an apple and having an apple-eating experience are two different things, I think this is beside the point Žižek is trying to make. Sheldrake claimed to have had a _metaphysical_ experience, which to him was convincigly real. Žižek doesn't dispute the reality of it but merely points out that even such metaphysical experiences are, in fact, physical.
@@markoslavicek
Rupert isn’t denying the physical correlation of that experience
@@Some_Deist Correlation, sure, but he _does_ talk about the connection of our consiousness with some other "greater" consciousness. The latter is a metaphysical concept and Žižek implies that it doesn't necessarily have to be.
Interesting thanks for sharing your competencies with us . Maslow sounds weird but is interesting like scientific revolutions.
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
What?
@@TheVeganVicar What?
@@foodchewer, I am patiently awaiting your response to my question, SLAVE. ☝🏼
@@TheVeganVicar You never asked me anything. I did ask you something though, responding to one of your other comments down below
Žižek's bookshelf looking thirsty . . LOL 😂
Oh man, please post the full debate..
What would Rupert do?..😅😳
The link is in the description.
Pay wall...
.
Rupert sheldrake and zizek! ? Wow!
I can't wait til Slavoj meets jsus:):)
Where's the full talk??
The universe is a huge tapestry and consciousness is a lense
I don't know how I could possibly have an experience outside of my consciousness of another consciousness? That is how can I have an experience of something outside of my experience. I am not sure what I even mean be saying I am conscious, I mean who is saying that? A direct experience of a consciousness outside of my consciousness(?)...what a strange thought: as if I can experience anything outside of myself. I can imagine almost anything and dream about all kinds of things. As far as autonomous autogenic experience ....sure, but I have no way of knowing if it originates in my mind or outside of it,
and the mind could be just what the brain does. If you could give me an example of mind outside of a brain then we could have a different conversation. Until then I have literally no evidence of a mind outside of brain. Give me an example...a recording, a picture, something....anything. But you get nothing but a feeling, a wish, a mere belief. From an epistemological point you got nothing. For a belief you have no evidence outside of your experience.
For me the cup is really on the table (don't be an idiot here: the cup is really on the table ...you are drinking out of it). But a "good" feeling on a nice day is purely contingent upon the conditions of my body, my mind(brain sourced), my environment....
Change any of those conditions and my "good feeling" vanishes into cancer, broken bones, headaches, bee stings, covid etc. or for the brain: alzheimer's, stroke, brain damage, and for the environment: a tsunami, rock slide, fire, and a thousand other catastrophic things (and maybe not so catastrophic things a baby crying who cannot be consoled).
I understand your distaste for material reality: IT CANNOT BE CONTROLLED. But you have your spiritual, magical fantasies that comfort you. Good luck with that I'll stick with reality - at least I know what I'm up against.
These are all good questions and if you keep probing with an open mind you might find some clarity
@@gladyslucas198 what is it answering these questions ?
Perceptual experience is not systematic empiricism like science
The video title is a bit misleading. I’ve heard nothing from any speaker on the thing in itself, the true function of reality, the essence of any particular or general thing. Sheldrake claimed to have really experienced divinity and Zizek pointed out that the lack of experience of divinity is recurring in the religious texts of Buddhism and Christianity by the one revered as directly attached to god. There was no talk about the essence of the things experienced, only about empirical validity and invalidity of religious experiences.
Rupert Sheldrake is a scientist in its truest meaning! Correct the description!
'Pseudo-scientist' would be more accurate.
Definitely a pseudoscientist!
Semitics related to the definition of "real". When lost in the desert you may see a mirage, a mirage is not what it appears to be, in that it is not a real oasis, but it is a real optical illusion.
Do you mean “semiotics”?
What would differentiate between mirage and the oasis in this matter?
@@faiq026 the existence of the oasis independent of consciousness
The illusion you described is experienced with material possessions , in this case it's your optical sense . While in the metaphysical case you experience it with something that is definitely not material . And so you can't deny the second experience using the first one .
I assume you all wanted this thing to be watched by the widest audience possible, perhaps incorrectly. If so, why would you not make the entire debate available on CZcams? Instead we have to battle with incompetence in programming on IAI? And sign up? Forget it. Is this a paywall thing? Or just trying to make it more obscure?
"Neither the believer nor the unbeliever will find God".
Jiddu Krishnamurti
That's very zen really
@@haxstir When u climb up a mountain, looking for zEn, all the zEn u will find there is that which u bring
@@farrider3339 not looking, not bringing, not finding.
@@haxstir can you ?
@@farrider3339 .
Listening and watching Zizek just makes Sheldrakes case seem so right… why are these atheist materialists so off putting in so many ways.
@Derek Derinski Have reported you for bullying
@Derek Derinski Also reported you for this
He says before atheism then metaphysics brought him to the church and his focused importance on sharing experiences and new ones is opposed to nihilism and contininetal thought that independt clear thinking exmines the void of ultimate reality which is the seperation from the divine and reality where experience identifies what is foreign therfore where real science persists against oppresive dogma.
Why the religious and spiritual sophists are so bourgeois and materialistic is self-evident...
God bless sir
there are people who trust their experiences, and those who are sceptical
Rupert is both
@@Some_Deist my standard is a bit higher, i wouldnt belive my own experiences
@@DeadEndFrog
What makes your standard higher ? Without experience there is nothing
@@Some_Deist my acceptence of my own experience. I dont trust it, so it requires my disbelief inorder for me to trust it.
I dont trust experience which i have to belive inorder for it to make sense.
Example. Gravity is effective with or without my belief in it.therfor i trust it
Most experience that requires belief have a problem with placebo
@@DeadEndFrog
You are having an experience, you don’t need belief to accept the fact that you have experience. You’re experiencing as I’m writing this comment, there’s no belief of disbelief, it’s a fact, it’s happening and you’re aware of your experience.
Why can't it be physical and mental? Why can't the universe be an envir-organism? Physical processes of space-time develop into conscious being. Whats the problem?
Non-dual means excluding nothing
Is there any way to defeat materialism?
Phenomenology that we all agree upon seems to match or create a shared reality. Defeat implies it is an enemy as opposed to an set of ideas to be contemplated.
There's nothing to defeat, materialism is a frame of (historical) analysis, a useful one that is. It's not the only one "valid", but it is for sure a bullshit-cutter for the self-referential mythology that is usually and continously created and curated around a major ideea, event, social phenomenon/ practice etc.
Why should one want to defeat materialism?
I suggest reading the CTMU, as it specifically and intentionally destroys the intellectual basis of materialism. Materialism is a twisted psychology: ignoring the mind as a topic of reality-theory, because this virtually and morally "detaches" their own minds from the "reality" they suppose themselves to inhabit. If their "story" is about material reality only, their own egotistical self delusion and lust for power isn't even part of the discussion, and so they can go about their business per usual.
Why talk in terms of 'defeat'?
The problem is that you don't have "mystical experiences". What superstitious people call "mystical experience" is a culturally informed, self-induced emotional response to psychological stimuli. People then interpret these emotions or subjective feelings in mystical terms using the religious language that is common in their culture.
There's no "realization of the Absolute" which happens to any individual Ego. The term "Buddha Mind" indicates that realization of the Absolute happens in lieu of the Ego. So-called "religious experiences", "psychedelic trips", "out of body experiences", "prescient dreams and premonitions", interacting with "ghosts" or "little green men", or "neuroscientists with probes in your brain" - all have nothing relevant to do with "realizing the Absolute".
Rupert seems to err on the side of religious normies, but the fact remains that no "group experience" can suffice for realization of the Absolute (aka Nirvana, God's grace, ect) Zizek errs on the side of academic normies, but his own description of neuroscientists inducing "religious experience" can't be discerned from "brainwashing". It's not clear if either of these two well ever make valid, coherent sense of metaphysics.
Interesting ideas .
@@francescos7361 The scientific "theory of reality" is a settled issue, which is why the academics are scrambling to opposed ANY scientific modeling, per the "flat Earth" model obfuscation psyop that's going around. How many times have you heard professional scientists discuss "modeling"? Prior to the adoption of Heliocentrism as the standard model of solar systems, every last "official" and "expert" with any political authority adovocatged Geocentrism, and we're virtually stuck in the same conundrum today, except "modeling" has been buried as a topic altogether, while "political authority" is the default substitution in-lieu of a valid, coherent model that everyone grasps (lke Heliocentrism). With a valid model like Heliocentrism, the fake authority figures are non longer needed in the debate, no matter how insistent they were prior to the resolution of the issue.
@@xxxYYZxxx They are trying to ascribe to these experiences, strictly as per the experiences themselves, some kind of comprehensive understanding: yes, it's pedantic, but some people want to learn about these things, say, rather than busting up your local mailboxes.
Meditation shares the same psychological effect with the psychedelics.
Hallucination and delusion.
@@williamoarlock8634 have you tried psychedelics or meditation?
@@JR-tc4kq I don't need to try cocaine or heroin to know the effects.
@@williamoarlock8634 how is cocaine a psychedelic
@@williamoarlock8634 your sense of nature and reality shared with some monkeys is the greatest source of all delusion
The science delusion as I call it
The “God helmet” work of Koren and Persinger, to which Zizek refers, has not been replicated, and most people have stopped talking about it. I’m surprised Zizek thought it worth citing. It may be that the Buddha himself simply advocated detachment as a strategy for happiness, but practitioners over more than 23 centuries have experienced nirvana as bliss, not oblivion. Jesus cried out on the cross the first line of Psalm 22, but the rest of the Psalm invokes episodes when God delivered the wretched from their agony, and many Christians like Sheldrake have lived convincing experiences of Jesus’ compassionate triumph over pain; his, and their own. Zizek is a clever man, a benevolent and talented clown who makes books and discourse exciting for thousands of young people who might otherwise just keep scrolling on their phones. But his captivity to Hegel and Lacan disposes his fans to waste years dining on postmodern junk food. Zizek can be illuminating on political questions because he nimbly triangulates and avoids groupthink. But not here.
Psychedelic experience cant be labeled as mystical experience as there is no proof yet that it is the case. Philosophy is mind is not yet factualized/concluded therefore psychological phenomena of psychedelic experiences are also not yet factualized whether they're just biopsychological or something else.
I am using a browser, i cannot edit my comment. Philosophy of mind not philosophy is mind.
@@markvincentordiz Both ways said is correct, i claim.
Quantum Physics is real and likely elementary particles get metaphysical experiences.
Sometimes quantum physics sounds more like mysticism than science, at least in its various prevailing interpretations. And cosmology often sounds like a religion, when the cosmologists express their favorite theory as if it were a dogmatic set of facts, as they all too often do.
@@NondescriptMammal, The theory of cosmic inflation is not science at all. It is a cheating.
Buddha's experience can be explained easily, neuroscientifically,, via the nucleus reticularis thalami and the prefrontal cortex.
neural correlates aren't explanations at all. they don't "explain" phenomenal experience. see bernardo kastrup's 7-part course & iain mcgilchrist's section from his latest book for an overview of what modern brain scanning technology can actually reveal.
Rupert Sheldrake is a scientist!
Yes, but from pseudoscience department
@@VoloBonja some of it may be quacky but some of it is actually very intriguing, and I think there may be some validity to some of his ideas. I have his son's book 'entangled life' about fungi. It's a great book
@@philosphorus yes, intriguing :)
@@VoloBonja every theory of science is a useless piece of lie agreed upon by some useless monkeys who with their senses try to model reality and are always wrong 😂
The problem with naming a certain experience "religious" is to imply that "profane" ones exist. The religious experience, if one has to use it, is fundamentally a recognition of the inherent sacredness of ordinary life, of brushing your teeth, your morning tea etc, not necessarily a "out of body" experience.
Profane is a meaningful term. If you believe that all things are manifest through spirit, the counter belief that only the material is real is the profane view. It is just a word.
Bernardo Kastrup and Žižek next please!
There's no point. If zizek thinks that because someone can induce an experience in someone else by playing with parts of their brain, that means it can't be a deep inner experience for that subject, then he's not up to having the discussion.
Psychedelics reduce brain activity, or in Bernardo's model, temporarily weakens the dissociative boundary, thereby enriching your experience. So, if a scientist can do something similar, like zizek says here, then that doesn't undermine any claim by Bernardo or Rupert at all. Zizek seems to think that does undermine Bernardo or Rupert's position. Zizek is just not a player on this topic.
@@timh7882 Yes I agree with you. I just saw him saying something about neuro-teology and how he is fascinated that scientists can induce religious experience by tampering with your brain. Maybe he is just too much of a materialist, to even realize he is one.
@@Simon-xi8tb well, he must think ppl like kastrup have completely overlooked including brain activity and it's correlation with experience in their theories. It's hard to know what to think of an intellectual who assumes they've just stumbled apon a critical flaw in a whole field of study like that.
I have no doubt "religious experiences" are somehow brain wiring-based. It's like a guitarist plays a miraculous, magical piece of music -- _on a guitar!_ As soon as they completely explain consciousness as just a subjective name for a pedestrian emergent property of gray matter, then I'll dismiss "religious experiences." But then _what_ these moments, experiences mean, yeah, a whole other topic. So the world is divided into people like RS who want to see humans as nascent demi-angelic, and nihilist atheists who want to downgrade humans as just a tiny step up from reptilian, i.e., at best a curiosity in the universe. I don't see where either side is going at this point. But many see will as the decisive thing, i.e., we're a real big step up from reptile. But then the whole religious thing is too seldom to say, let's all just be Hare Krishnas at airports.
Excellent...Dr. Rupert Sheldrake is very much convincing.... thanks 🙏.
If Sheldrake's idea is true, then we have ALL had the 'metaphysical' experience; we just don't remember it. We are not supposed to.
What do you mean?
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
Yeah the first and maybe most powerful metaphysical experience, the transition from oblivion to birth to newborn humanhood
if we don't remember it we never become conscious of anything and remain ignorant and self destructive.
@@foodchewer That's a good point. I don't remember that. I'd never really thought about that. haha
I cant agree with Sheldrake 100% but also its almost impossible to falsify what he says as it is a subjective internal experience. I do not deny he has this experience but I suspect it is a psychological phenomena. To then say that explains some metaphysical reality in which we are connecting to some universal consciousness, its possible, but how can we prove that. It is almost impossible unless there are profound similarities across these mystical experiences, in which we can then use the methodology of science to gain evidence for.
Again I cant prove or disprove it. Where I agree with Sheldrake, and others like Bernardo Kastrup and Spira, we cannot actually prove materialism either. Science seems to be about connecting dots in our experience, measuring and finding correlations between phenomena, it doesn't tell us what is underneath that. At the end of the day, everything we experience and investigate is through conscious experience. I.e we cannot observe materialism head on, as the 'thing in itself'.
I would continue being open with both idealism and materialism, But I highly doubt there will ever be incontrovertible evidence for either.
What I would ask from the idealists is what tests and experiments can be done which will allow for better proof of their theory. I rarely hear answers from that. The answer I often get is "be open", lets investigate further. Sure but please lay out a plan for what those experiments and tests are. I would pose similar questions to Materialists working in the field of QM, who propose such theories as Many Worlds. Its an interesting and fascinating theory, but what future experiments can be done to better prove it.
Probably just finding more ways of contemplating and initiating said expeirences and going from there
Unfortunately I don't think any kind of scientific methodology or experiment can prove an ontology, nor do I think that ontology can truly make predictions.
Science and knowledge is all about descriptions. We describe our experiences, we describe our thought process, we describe what happens when we follow a certain set of rules or steps.
Never though do we successfully actually mention *what* we are describing though -- We only describe ever our experiences and thoughts about it, our ideas and related concepts.
Take for example, A Red Ball. I can give you the structure and the measurements I have made about this ball. I can tell you what the wavelength of reflected light, or it's colour, is. I can describe to you it's texture, it's temperature, it's weight and density, how it interacts with other things and the rules to which it seems to behave.
Never though, do i actually talk about what the ball fundamentally *is*. If I quote a material, then upon investigating what the material is, I also just default to descriptions of my experience and observations of the material. If I talk about it's atomic composition, then I am describing my experiences of looking at these "atoms".
No matter how I frame the language, I only ever describe my experience, my thoughts, and my feelings or observations -- I can't talk ever about what that thing fundamentally actually is.
This is why an ontology, which asks about what is fundamentally most real across the board and what is the nature of being, is impossible to determine scientifically. It can only be determined by testing the validity of knowledge claims about different types of proposed "being" by deseminating the meaning of this proposed kind of being, be it material or otherwise, and even then, we only ever describe our personal ideas and experiences. The concepts themselves, what we "think" they are and what we think we know, is not simply given to us through our life and observations -- the determination of the nature of what we really know and can know, is a deep maze of concepts, memories, feelings, and sense perceptions, none of which guarantee their own truth save on the assertion of a set of given rules, which are also determined on these same things.
I am struck by the obvious anger with which Zizek responds here. Looks like Sheldrake struck a nerve... 🙂
he's always like this, loud forceful gesticulating, something to do with over compensating for a speech impediment
People often get frustrated when someone is talking nonsense.
Imparting emotions into Zizek's behavior isn't intellectually honest, it's downright subjective bias. I can hardly understand Zizek's accent, but instead of rushing to emotional judgment, I just read the closed captions. If anything, Zizek's yelling is funny. Zizek is the one making more sense here of the two.
No, that's just his manner, he responds that way most of the time, he always sounds or appears angry regardless of the subject being discussed.
@@xxxYYZxxx Okay. Everyone says "He's just that way", so I will accept that. He still comes off to me as irascible, though, and I find it off-putting. But I will retract any assumption that Sheldrake hit a nerve, they just have a fundamental intellectual disagreement.
Slavoj looks so bored. Lol
Who could blame him?
Because he is boring.
Really? If you pay close attention, he's writing notes, and even uses the phrases like “I love your presentations” and “Christian experience, my God, I’m fascinated by it”.
Perhaps at his age hes mellowing out and learning how to listen to other ppl 😂
What? He's really into it and fascinated by this subject!
Most respectfully said, but I`m of the opinion that Dr Sheldrake has benefited very little from the conversations he had throughout the 70s with Jiddu Krishnamurti.
Belief has no place where truth is concerned - Jiddu Krishnamurti
Surprising since he touched religion and went quite deep in their discussions on "J. Krishnamurti - Ojai 1982 - Discussion with Scientists". He seems to have concluded that bringing people together through systems of belief like religion and ideology is the way to reach truth.
Slavoj moves and sounds like he is already in Hell.
Seems to touch a nerve.
einingful Buddha era illuminato e madership e altro. Jesus and è diretto a letutti gli archi nmalvagio I
"I believe that every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no matter how pure a “positivist” he may fancy himself." -- Albert Einstein
Pretty hard to argue with that. For example, quantum physics is very successful, as far as the predictive abilities of its mathematics is concerned. But any interpretation laid on top of the mathematics is necessarily philosophical and contains metaphysics.
This is borne out by its history, in which every brilliant physicist involved in its development was forced to resort to philosophy when interpreting its relation to reality as we know it, as evidenced by their lectures and writings on the subject.
Taste of coffee or the feeling of something cant be explained with physical forms. They are correlated with physical processes but they themselves are not the physical processes.
All evidence suggest that they are physical processes.
There is no reason to think that qualia cannot be explained without resorting to magical thinking.
@@vids595 It's got nothing to do with "magical thinking." It's got to do with the fact that masses, momenta and topologies don't contain the philosophical tools to eludicate subjectivity.
@@vids595 But before our species had any serious theories of physics, these experiences were still just as real. Our sense of understanding, of innate knowledge, is a more fundamental dimension of reality than whatever theories of physics we write up within it.
That's the fundamental substance of things, you could say: quality. Qualities of red and hazy, of blue and very small and glittery, of a rich green gray fog. These are not made of atoms or ideas. Ideas, which can be split infinitely into further ideas, are not made of ideas; they're made of pure quality.
You take the idea of an atom, which you can ration into several other ideas--- nucleus, energy, mass, spectral qualities, proton, neutrons--- and you split the protons into a few quarks, and presumably quarks are not made of anything. Very quickly in this model--- I imagine in any model--- you get to a place beyond ideas or explanation. But this is almost an arbitrary example. It's about as difficult to explain a quark as it is to explain The Beauty And The Beast. Fundamentally there's nothing within. Yes physics can explain things, but to what extent? Current physics cannot nearly explain how or why there is experience of quality--- which, again, precedes physics.
@@vids595What does physical mean?
difference between Jesus and the other prophets, enlightened men, is that christ was from god and did not experience god through enlightenment
Maybe we're underselling the capability and complexity and dignity of material as such as brain. The concept of a soul is simplistic and acts like a "gap filler" of sorts. That we are our brains is nothing to shun or be ashamed of. It is an incredible, unlikely cosmic event that is indeed the reason for all the magic.
The nature of all things are nuanced, this understanding comes with a developed knowledge in any subject. Therefore, I believe, the concept of a soul being simple doesn’t immediately discount the possible complexities of how this concept functions.
There is no soul 😂 because for it exist it has to have physical properties which isn't the case
We're our consciousness
And brain acts as a device 😊
Drugs force a change that you cannot willfully cause yourself. People get experience something that is of nature by via a willful act. They have these experiences and their mind's eye is able to perceive a bigger keyhole
They hallucinate.
@@williamoarlock8634 what? The ego hallucinates itself but is something it can't see; like how an eyeball can't see itself..
@@MichaelSmith420fu An eyeball can see itself by looking in a mirror...How's that for expanded consciousness? And don't say your hallucinogens are a mirror.
@@williamoarlock8634 You don't perceive much bro. I can see that very well.
An eyeball cannot see itself because it recognizes only 2 dimensions. It's the mind that collects information and makes it seem 3 dimensional. Also..a reflection of light is not what I was talking about..
I just...idk...
Don't say "my hallucinagen are a mirror "? Idk wtf that means...
@@williamoarlock8634 does gravity have a push or a pull?
Religions provide ethics. Your internal experience is a form no different to you responding to a bird flying past from the external world.
slavoj has a facepalm moment. ^_^
Everything that he says comes from his own imagination, how do you verify that someone's imagination is based on reality? My imagination does not come up with God, or a connection with other minds. About the closest you can get to God is through a Matrix world, a simulation created by Ai. then Ai can be classed as God, and then you have a scientific reason for God. Experience tells you that we can create realistic computer simulations, and Ai. Experience tells me that this video is nonsensical otherwise.
By definition, "God" can't be defined or exhibited. To presume raw "truth" could possibly defined and exhibited is also an error, as seen on TV. Consider the Medieval debate of Geo vs Helio - centrism: it doesn't matter how many "facts" are assembled, only a valid Model could settle the dispute - in the meantime, whatever Model is espoused by celebrities and elitists politicians will typically be more appealing to the public than a valid Model exhibiting valid truth, per Geocentrism as an example. Being the "dirty little secret" of intellectual discourse, "Models" are rarely discussed outside of formal discussions of Logic itself, and you can forget about any serious discuss of a "Model of Reality", as such a model wouldn't implicate Academia as intrinsic to its structure.
Zizek’s bookshelf boasts hardly any books - no props required
Jordan Peterson and you Rupert??? When. I think it will be good
I have never understood a single thing Zizek says. I must not be intelligent enough to grasp his profound insight.
As a true post-modernist, he's not interested in communing with the rest of the universe but in protecting individuality from fusing with everything else.
5:00 “SOMEONE” needs to meditate.
Test comment: Democracy. Capitalism. Science. Atheism.
Slavoj, ever the debased Atheist.
Oh dear, sometimes Rupert talks a lot of twaddle.
.. regarding the religious experience, psychedelics such as peyote, mushrooms, and cannabis, can show you that there is a real and true transcendental dimension. Knowing this can cheer you up for the rest of your life... thank you God.
That's not proof of a transcendental "dimension". That's proof of an experience not of something more.
Dimension has a precise meaning you seem not to be aware of.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos .... welp, they are now saying that Moses was possibly high on DMT from the local acacia trees when he received the Ten Commandments at the burning bush.
The silly part is that Materialism is based on believing material actually exists. When all we can prove is that Space exists, it appears to be a vacuum (to our instruments) and this space is occupied by energy (the foundation blocks of atoms). Because energy seems to be perpetual-motion, sub-sub-atomic 'packets' containing an electro-magnetic reaction (push-pull, North-South, attract-repel) this invokes a natural binary logic. Which can compound into our best guesses as to what is reality actually made of: to wit, the illusion of matter and properties of matter.
Where God fits in is to simplify the human desire for knowledge but it is safe to say from the evidence provided that no God has contacted this planet to our knowledge. We could be a plaything with conflicting lives and capacities but what God could possibly be amused by our history? Hence if God, then Satan wrote the religious texts. *Bring me a real God.* Till then...
What about God as the living universe? If there are multiverses in some form, is it universes all the way down? Or is it being created by something more fundamental than we know
I don’t think I’m the best, but what’s happening with the Personal freedom and The policy on the government being, if’s you ignoring the people your responsibility! You did for yourselves not Us! Only to know what’s your duties been why’d you made problems for US! Especially with the Dem craziness.
Zizek's bookcase is as barren as his response; the same rehearsed phrases resound like a decaying echo in the void.
Yet again, both sides seem like two sides of a whole coin.
I'm not a 'believer' per se, but started going to church after 40 years thanks to Rupert Sheldrake. Zizek over-reacts and unfairly equates Sheldrake's spiritual experience and practice to historical dogma and lab-induced illusion. Really?
Sorry, Slavoj, but just because you cannot conceive of something being real and true doesn't mean anything beyond your inability to do so. Btw, I have considerable sympathy for your position because I used to think very much as you do.
Zizek point is exactly that the one's experience cannot be indicator to make something "real" or "not"
@@commercialtao1291 what else could then. What do you have other than experience?
@@liamnewsom8583 bro, reality is not as same as experience. Thats why you need methodology. If every experience can be counting as real, you don't need science.
@@commercialtao1291 reality does not require science
@@liamnewsom8583 but it is the science that teach you how real reality is. It is the science that makes possible for you to comment on CZcams.
Wish Salvoj spoke real English
Careful what you wish for. In any case what is "real English"? Why not wish for yourself some more patience and understanding of others instead? lmao
@@ubuntu94 I. You are. We must. Property of England.
Sorry, I have tried mushrooms and I have tried natural life and I have had "experiences" and there is some fun to be had, but nothing compares to Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit. It is different and it changes everything. Anyone saying this or that, and not giving all glory to Adonai, is just tripping, maybe being tempted by the enemy. If someone says, here is the Spirit, there is the Spirit, do not go looking
Babbling nonsense from Zizek ... now there's a surprise 😆
Why is Sheldrake losing his precious time discussing such important topics like metaphysical experiences with jesters like Zizek?
You can skip first 3 min and 30 seconds, sheldrake is pseudoscience
What is science
Some objective fallacy acted upon which just changes in 1 second and uses our senses and useless logic to describe things in dogmatic manner based upon some set of beliefs which can't be questioned
@@chaitalichatterjee4742 "uses our useless logic" Not so useless, if used, right?