Science Experiments That Will Change The World - Rupert Sheldrake, PhD
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 07. 2024
- In this video I spoke with Rupert Sheldrake about the science experiments that will change the world, taking us from morphic resonance, telepathy to aging research.
Find out about Rupert here:
www.sheldrake.org
/ rupertsheldrakephd
Proc Royal Soc B aging paper discussed: www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/...
Find me on Twitter - / eleanorsheekey
Support the channel
through PayPal - paypal.me/sheekeyscience?coun...
through Patreon - / thesheekeyscienceshow
TIMESTAMPS:
Intro - 00:00
Biochemistry and background - 01:00
Experiments that would change the world - 03:50
Aging - 29:00
Thoughts - 46:00
Please note that The Sheekey Science Show is distinct from Eleanor Sheekey's teaching and research roles at the University of Cambridge. The information provided in this show is not medical advice, nor should it be taken or applied as a replacement for medical advice. The Sheekey Science Show and guests assume no liability for the application of the information discussed.
Icons in intro; "www.freepik.com/free-photos-v..."Background vector created by freepik - www.freepik.com - Věda a technologie
The *LONGEVITY-SCIENCE* part of this video starts at @30:39 - some people might want to jump in there directly. I see a lot of distracted energy in the comments - so sad, because there's lots of fascinating material on extracellular vehicles, stem cells, insight into immortal cell lines, a more "holistic" (system-wide) take on biology etc, in the last part of this video.
(Brief summary of the 1st half : a manifesto that Science ought to be able to investigate everything, even alleged phenomena for which no mechanistic explanation even seems conceivable, such as the "laws of nature" perhaps not being immutable, or some unknown "force fields", etc.)
I really enjoy interviews with people who has alternative theroies and views. And I appreciate when the host let's the guest talk without interupting. Thank you Eleanor!
I disagree completely. Wild theories like this need someone to point out holes and raise all the real issues. Eleanor is falling down on the job here letting him go on and on about nonsense.
What a very refreshing conversation and a fantastic way forwards for all industrial projects in different field's. And if only we could take down the way that people defend themselves in the ways that understand people who are able to think in different ways.
Keep shows like this going❤
What Rupert demonstrates id that science without philosophy which includes meta-physics is inadequate. Without a holistic understanding we tinker at our peril and in partial ignorance.
My favorite science show!
If you look at someone with their back to you and in your mind's eye you tap them on the shoulder whilst looking at the back of their head, the incidence of the person turning round to look directly at you, the observer, increases further still.
We're taught to not stare at people because it makes them uncomfortable. The only profession that denies telepathy, belief in thought transference, is psychiatry.
Great work
A good example of animal 'telepathy' was the Gordon Ramsey programme when he raised two pigs to show his kids and the viewers just what meat farming meant.
He took advice from a couple that raised livestock.
Anyway, come the fateful day the two pigs wouldn't move and were depressed so Gordon asked his advisors why, and they flatly said, 'they know'..
I also, as a non-pig, can often 'feel' when people are staring at me without seeing them or knowing theyre there..
Its a bit out of reach of present science to research.
But it's there.
Theres also the reports about the cats in old folks homes...
Love it.
Wow, that's definitely a new one. Thanks for interviewing him. Never bumped across morphic resonance before. What a fascinating theory
If this becomes another psuedo-science blog, I'm outta here.
Thank you for introducing such a thought-provoking topic. I didn’t expect a very formal scientist like Dr. Eleanor to pick up this topic.
This topic raises several questions for me. Is all knowledge contained within the scientific system? Or should science govern all knowledge? I assume many people believe that science is the best option to decode all phenomena around us, at least up until today. Perhaps thanks to STEM teachers, I am inclined to believe in scientific approaches. Personally, I believe that building any type of knowledge within a logical system can help us, at least up until today😊
Rupert Sheldrake is a legend, awesome interview. Regarding the feeling of being started at, maybe he could look into mirror neurons in the brain and the well proven fact that people's brainwaves come into synchronization/coherence under different circumstances. Also Micheal Levin's work may have some crossover with morphic fields.
i always find those “experts” who talk about anti aging or reverse aging doesn’t look younger and some even look worst. any explanation?
因為年輕人對抗衰老根本不感興趣
I wonder if some of Rupert's theories are compatible with David Sinclair's perspective on ageing?
Sheldrake proposed morphic resonance and other "interesting" ideas more than 30 years ago. Yet since then, all he has to show for his ideas are some poorly conducted experiments that can't be replicated. People have been claiming psychic ability for millennia, yet when put to the test under stringent experimental conditions, they ALWAYS fail. Psychic abilities are very attractive ideas, but that shouldn't make one loose one's objectivity.
Unlike others here, while I don't actually believe in ESP and the like, or rather, if someone says they are telepathic I am more likely to smirk than believe...
But unlike a very famous man who said *Strong Assertions require Strong Evidence* I recognise that what looks extraordinary to me, could well look banal and self expected to another.
So the same statistic evidence that would be needed for say, Epidemiological studies of food, should not be any lower than for ESP.
Edit to add:
Well. He talks about how to explain...
Well, I would think to use quantum mechanics math as a place to start with to begin to work on the description of what has been... *Not debunked* by now and observed...
As that math gets better, we can begin to break that down.
some of the best statistical evidence in any field is found in some esp studies proving it works, if we believe in statistical evidence. Something like "discovery" of higgs boson is million times more probable to be chance.
I need your opinion about my idea which investigates whether the transduction through the cell membrane happens only through the cascade of chemical reactions or through some form of energy else, like electromagnetism or others, the idea is to separate the cell membrane apart from the cytoplasm for example by a thin layer of air or something else and then we apply the ligand to the cell receptor and see if that trigger any response inside the cell, I need your opnion please reply to mr
Musn't forget his wish for more research. That you can't explain a demonstable phenomenon doesn't meant that there was something wrong with the experimental method (though all experiments are sub-optimal - just maybe).
If you must regard this stuff as rubbish; perhaps the recent and continuing work of Michael Levin's group at Tuft's. Would help you accept that phenomena can be inexplicable (so far) but blatantly real; That they defy our "knowledge" is egoistically difficult, but to hell with our beliefs! Honestly repeat the experiments and design more experiments, to unravel the mysteries. .. I'm optimistic that giant fairies are not the cause of my puzzles. Or for the spectacular epigenetics displayed by planaria or axylotyls or frogs, at Tufts.
If a sense of "being stared at" is substantial and reliable, then how does predation work at all? Or voyeurism? Or studying animals & people with remote cameras? Since the feeling exists, there must be a corresponding bit of brain matter involved, but I can't say there's a reliable causal mechanism for actually detecting the observer. On the other hand, I can say that many times, I've thought someone is waving at me. I can see them, and maybe they can see me, but the person of interest is someone else.
Great as usual, Sheekey. The "sense of being stared at" calls to mind (perhaps comically) the double slit experiment wherein photons *seem* to know when they're being observed. A few other weird but proven (empirically reproduced) phenomena, e.g., photon entanglement, suggest a *consciousness* operating at a subatomic level, not bound by three-dimensional distance. There's far more that we don't know than do. Then of course there are the reports of people who temporarily died (in traffic accidents or in the ER) reporting rising into the air and seeing their bodies below, before they are resuscitated.
Quantum decoherence doesn't require a conscious observer.
@@willnitschke Well, that's the question, isn't it?
@@Celtokee and the answer is, no consciousness required.
@@willnitschke Depends upon your definition of consciousness. Consciousness is as consciousness does. If a particular behavior at a subatomic level suggests the possibility of consciousness at that level, I do not off-handedly dismiss the possibility, and do not feel threatened by it.
@@Celtokee Atoms or their sub components don't have consciousness. If that's your definition of "consciousness" you're just changing what the word means to try to make your stupidity work, sorry.
BTW, it would be nice to progress IVG and Artificial womb too because it's getting closer. So that I don't have to keep comparing my life to others who have it figured it out and also for older women losing their reproductive organs. I love to reverse my age too but other techs are worth progressing too because it's close and that would get rid of discrimination of me not having kids of where my life is at.
Telepathy or premonition - I find that rational scientists rarely have such premonitions but non-scientists more often report such events. I wonder why? Is it a conditioning of the mind where a scientist is taught to believe only in evidence while a layman can be susceptible to unexplained telepathic insights?
💯
Cause it's nonsense and shows a bias towards the real data...that's being Ignored..in other words lazy
"Is it a conditioning of the mind where a scientist is taught to believe only in evidence while a layman can be susceptible to unexplained telepathic insights?"
The exact line of thinking that opens you up to conspiracy theories and believing in all manners of pseudo-science and anti-intellectualism. Please, please, please learn what the scientific method is before you criticize as some kind of indoctrination. "Conditioning of the mind" is the term you used. If you believe growing your knowledge and understanding is conditioning, you need to test your own hypothesis by acquiring some of it yourself.
Sheldrake is full of it.
............thats why
Ech. A lot of Woo Woo here.
As uncomfortable as I am questioning Rupert Sheldrake, I wonder at the underlying assumption that if telepathy is present in other animals that the phenomenon must be purely biological. If it is a result of, say, consciousness as a field rather than an emergent property of the brain, then could it not have a non biological cause even for dogs and cats? Pure speculation, but then, so is assuming it has a biological origin simply because it is present in non humans.
I don't have a problem questioning him..some his points are nonsense..and need to be called out. That's what peer reviewed is all about.
Relative expertise: his academic credentials far exceed my own so I exercise caution when expressing disagreement. This is partly from respect for his accomplishments, but has more to do with the awareness that my query may be misplaced or something he has already addressed at some point. It is not hero worship.
@@ericg6453 Problem with your logic is his academic credentials comes from standing on the shoulders of giants and others who might work in his department. This doesn't equate to instant credibility or respect as a mans opinion as conjectures and bias which don't make science only evidence does. Of which he has not supplied any...just bias and poor speculation. "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Hitch learn to look at evidence not the person..
@jujjuj7676 his credentials do, in fact, provide prima fascia evidence of his credibility within the discipline he is trained in. As for providing evidence, well, a youtube interview is hardly a thesis defense and lacks any requirement to formally defend a position. Remember that he is providing speculation on future research, not evidence already gathered. But enough: we seem to be in disagreement about nothing in particular except the gravity with which we approach criticizing others claims, which is about as silly a waste of time as I can imagine. Let us both apply ourselves to other tasks.
@@ericg6453 well said... im just seeing more and more nonsense being taken seriously thats preventing real research. gets annoying..so i make an effort to call it out when i see it. But you seem level headed so id agree with ur suggestion..have a good day out there..
Because there is good evidence on ways to interact with entities in another dimension using Physical-Mediumship / apports, or Electronic-Voice-Phenomena..
if one could communicate to the other side by only asking yes / no questions, what would be the line of questions that would best help explain the nature of life/death/consciousness
In science you are forced to choose between very precise answers to trivial, boring questions.. OR imprecise, vague answers to big exciting questions. Even worse however, is that science can only ever describe the way nature behaves, never the *WHY*.. nor what nature *IS*, therefore it is the wrong tool to understand our deeper reality.. consciousness.
Hindu philosophies / Tibetan Buddhism have been studying the nature of mind and consciousness for thousands of years.. whose people have spent 10s of thousands of hours vigorously probing the nature of consciousness via direct first-person experience. Shouldn't modern/western science and philosophy be double-clicking on the patterns/regularities about consciousness that have been made from all those people that have so many hours going deep? Are there any conclusions/observations on consciousness that are NOT rooted or contingent on the brain/neuroscience?
A think-tank is needed consisting of: Rupert Sheldrake , Jacque Vallee, Jeff Kripal, Bernado Kastrup, Sean Esbjörn-Hargens , Greg Bishop , Robert Kuhn, Jeffrey Mishlove, and Robert Bigelow!
Years ago a guy built an eye ray detector which could successfully detect if someone was looking at it by detecting the rays emitted by the human eyes. So yes the eyes do actually emit beams and humans are able to detect when these beams are directed at them
Denialism extends to the UFO/UAP community as well.
Thank goodness she let him she...Most podcast the guest keeps getting interupted...Esp. the so called science podcast...
Does he have a harry potter wand too. This guy is erasing credibility
Eleanor, why aren't you asking any penetrating questions? You're just letting him spout anecdotal nonsense with no pushback.
There was mention of experiments and a need for more; If you think you can design more rigorous experiments, where will you get funding? When you've retired? Would it be embarrassing then to arrange such experiments, what would the old colleagues think?
I had to give this video a thumbs down, for science fiction masquerading as science.
Yea, I love your channel but this one is a bit nutty, let's try to keep it science based and less homeopathic nonsense. Telepathy is pretty much nonsense as it's vague and can be easily explained away with observational behavior patterns and learned habits. Good try, but try again...telepathy..bhahaha we how bout telekenisis while we at it..I was wondering why I seen a dog fly over my head last week..😂 remember stay with science not pseudo science..I guess it not be the cheeky science channel with out the cheeky..😂😂
He lost me at "telepathy"
It's not the right word for it, but the phenomena are definitely there..
We just need to have a better way to explain it..
@@scotlandtheinsane3359 The word doesn't matter, a claim like that regardless of what you call it requires rigorous testing. Saying "I asked a bunch of people" or "I ran a few tests" is not scientific research, it is still only guesswork. Basically every other explanation - including that the testing was insufficient - has to be exhausted before "telepathy" or whatever else you want to call it, can be claimed as what's actually happening.
@gwen9939
Not everything in experience can be subjected to 'rigourous' testing for many reasons.. It doesn't mean we can't talk about it.
Of course, there has been testing on this anyway that is at least interesting.
And lots of anecdotal stories.
And yes, that's not close to the bar for provable scientific hypothesising.
Nevertheless, I'm not satisfied with his word choice to describe it even at this stage.
Considering all the worthy researchers with new ideas who do not get representation this interview is extremely disappointing
I know in advance that my dog will phone me.
Having a proponent of pseudoscience on steals credibility from all the reproducible, demonstrated scientific phenomena that you discuss in other videos. Sure you make more money if you attract the nutbags but you wont be a effective science communicator anymore. Their getting rare on youtube sadly.
agreed. Grifters and snake oil salesmen are a dime a dozen. If you want to believe anything in the world there's literally hundreds willing to prove you right if you pay them first.
Stressing interesting stuff here: this is only taboo in the west - in Africa and South Asia this is ALL people are interested in. But it ain’t science and leads to a lot of confusion, misunderstanding and of course a lot of charlatanism.
This guy has done too much acid in it's youth, and I did my fair share!