Rupert Sheldrake on the Influence of A. N. Whitehead

I interview biologist and psychical researcher Rupert Sheldrake to ask him about the influence of Whitehead on his ideas and worldview.
cobb.institute

[@saharaalberto4057]

Rupert Sheldrake: "Buddha didn't become enlightened by doing a PhD...." Love it!

[@KipIngram]

When my oldest daughter was in college, we were hopeful of her gettng a job of some kind to help cover the costs. She landed a job in a university lab, as a "basic low-end assistant." I was delighted. But the first thing they asked her to do (and which was going to be an ongoing part of her duties) was to "dispose of" a batch of laboratory mice. She just couldn't do it. I was disappointed that the financial side of that didn't pan out, but I certainly didn't want my daughter regularly doing something that caused her emotional pain. So I completely understand Dr. Sheldrake's decision to go into botany rather than zoology. I'm all for us advancing our scientific knowledge, particularly when the targeted outcome is the betterment of human lives (and it often is in cases like those we're discussing here). But killing is still killing, however you slice it. It does have an impact of the person you've asked to do it. I would go so far as to say that it would be good practice to require the lead researcher / head of laboratory to at least occasionally have to do that job themselves, so that they're not able to just "out of sight, out of mind" it. They're the decision maker - they should expose themselves to regular "am I still doing the right thing" situations.

[@user-nb4ex5zk3w]

The sad thing is how narrow science is, how far from 'being human'... meaning being compassionate, loving etc. because these qualities can't be contained in a bottle or a mathematical formula.

[@KL0098]

1:21:35 Amazing! This is the only time I've seen someone in a conversation format like this actually write down something he's learned during the conversation to go look it up later. Usually all you see is speakers spewing their theories as if they had nothing more to learn from others. What humility Sheldrake shows!

[@jamesridener3573]

I think I should put tea time with Rupert on my bucket list. What an authentic and fascinating mind.

[@goodsirknight]

Rupert is the man. And so are you Matt. Absolutely brilliant conversation, really makes me grateful that you great people are out there doing this inspiring work that really changes our worldview and how we perceive ourselves. It really is God's work

[@JillFreeman-kb4ih]

who is "the woman" here? dum dums

[@nochesdad]

This is a huge statement from Sheldrake: "Consciousness originates in the future"...........

[@johnbuckner2828]

I agree; the philosophy of time is the most difficult for me to grasp.

[@hyevoltage]

I remember watching a debate/dialogue about the hard problem of consciousness, Stuart Hameroff brought up the concept of retrocausal information and Dan Dennett, with a dismissive sardonic tone, replied "okkkkkkkk". With all due respect to Prof. Dennett, he showed he can be such a stubborn, willingly ignorant, ass.

[@johnbuckner2828]

@@hyevoltage yeah I remember right he believes we are fanncy clockwork i& says we're pretty sure of that because we have computers now.

[@patternsinchaos]

Physically speaking, there is a path that material forms take on their way to the next moment. That path is set up in the present moment, the time-and-space where the physical form's movement "rests" momentarily as the "wave-particle" curls and returns in the opposite direction. Then-and-there matter and energy are drawn forth toward their next resting point which was determined by their previous negotiation with the Universe. In this sense, yes indeed, along with matter and energy, consciousness is drawn through time by its own future state. This subtle arcane principle is primary for understanding the true nature of God and Genesis.

[@ramkitty]

@@hyevoltage I have observed the same from all 4 horseman and several of the humanists including fry and especially the Trans humanists. Aspects of pan(en) appear to be diversifying however the material imperialism is hard held to exclusion of very relevant and interesting ideas with hypocritical dismissal in conversation.

[@exxzxxe]

Always happy to listen to Rupert Sheldrake- something new and interesting every time I listen. Thanks!

[@kentbye1830]

It's great to hear that even Rupert Sheldrake has to rely upon secondary literature and Whiteheadean scholars to parse through all of the dense neologisms. I've gotten a lot out of Richard Tarnas & Grant Maxwell's writing, as well as listening to a lot of your work, but also recently Tripp Fuller had a great series with John Cobb. I think this type of dialectic is very helpful for building a larger relational context & different entry points, and more embodied metaphors to help grasp. When I went to the American Philosophical Association Eastern Meeting in January of 2019, I went to a lot of Chinese Philosophy sessions, and Whitehead & process philosophy actually came up quite a bit. Having a process-relational metaphysics rather than a substance metaphysics would actually cause some pretty significant differences when it came to translating Chinese texts into English. So it's not a surprise to hear that Process Philosophy is having such a resurgence in China. When I read The Secret of the Golden Flower, then there's a lot about Chinese Alchemy or other Daoists texts that I think has nature metaphors that help me grok a process-relational approach beyond the limitations of the subject-predicate grammar + object-oriented substance metaphysics that's infused into every part of the English language. I actually think that there will be more experiential modes of communication with virtual & augmented reality that will allow us to have interactive & spatial metaphors that will help us grok some of these Whiteheadean ideas of concresence. But I'm a huge fan of this type of oral history approach through these conversations. I'm glad that you were able to add another 40 minutes at the end, and I'd just encourage you to either not set an upfront time limit, or to just book a 2 to 3 hour time slot and not worry about an arbitrary one hour time limit. But I love hearing about all of these connections, people, citations, references, quotes all within a dialect that has shared so much deep context on the topic. Analytic philosophy is so focused on creating a rigorous written account of ideas, but I suspect that as time goes on we'll be valuing these types of conversations to really dig into the evolution of ideas and how they've spread out and influenced so many people. Certainly there's huge value in writing, and even writing clearly with powerful metaphors. But I get the sense that Whitehead really love the process of the ongoing conversation, and was probably more similar to Socretes in not wanting to write much things down. Or at least I extrapolate that from the combination of the fact that he held so many regular salons combined with his dying wish to not have grad students pouring through his letters and evolution of his own ideas. Anyway, I'm really happy to hear that you're working with the Cobb Institute on this project. And I'd also love to hear people who have read Whitehead, and are able to understand him enough to disagree with some of his ideas. Sometimes I learn the most when there's a fierce debate of ideas, and that's a great way to find some of the key points of disagreement. Thanks for the video, and I'm looking forward to this series!

[@JillFreeman-kb4ih]

interesting that you got a lot out of this. i am more interested in hearing experiences of those exploring the abstract. This here is two males talking about the intellectual possibilities and showing off about who knows Whitehead better. it's like watching two dogs sniff each other's butts. the best part was the mental field being about possibilities in the future, and the physical part of the field being about the past and history. but seriously-- it's 2024. i am sure i'm not the only one walking around in the dream-- so why can't we talk about experiences? too many chicken hearts that would rather read (and write) books than actually live in relationship to nature.

[@stefspijk]

I’ve been a fan of Sheldrake for many years and have followed a lot of his talks, but this is really one of his best and most natural talks I’ve seen him give, ever since the infamous trialogues with McKenna and Abraham. You’re completely on par with his level, which makes us see another side of Sheldrake, the more calm and humorous and natural Rupert. I would truly love for you two remarkable men to continue organizing such refreshing conversations, sharing more about what’s happening in the field by giving these beautiful stories likes the ones you’re sharing here. Thank you!

[@amanitamuscaria7500]

Wonderful Rupert. I tried to read A.N. Whitehead once. It might as well have been the periodic table in Mandarin. I will definitely look at Matt's work though. What a lovely young man.

[@amanitamuscaria7500]

@Philosophy_First I'll put them on my list

[@rhrh9012]

I loved Sheldrake in the Understanding Consciousness debate. The only critical voice in that discussion.

[@amywas1]

Probably the finest and most memorable conversation I have ever heard anywhere. A cudgeled my way through a bit of Whitehead a long time ago. All I ever took away from it, and still hold on to today, could be summed up in this line: Tho shalt not is the Law of the Father, whereas the Law of the Mother is, Thou mayest but be careful!

[@johnbuckner2828]

Great talk. I like Rupert, he's got a keen insight into the Logos.

[@patternsinchaos]

It was great to see this conversation taking place. Thanks.

[@jonathanadamson]

Thanks for sharing your conversation with Sheldrake. It’s great that you are both in dialog!

[@samalqattan]

What an epic interview. Thanks for doing this🙏🏼

[@vivablasfemia7604]

Check out the book: Rupert Sheldrake: The Sheldrake Shift: A Critical Evaluation of Morphic Resonance by Dr. Thomas Stark

[@chrisriker3006]

I agree. This book is revolutionary.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Rupert is a treasure. We need more Ruperts in this dull materialistic era.

[@wanderingthepeaks]

Love this open-minded and open-hearted chat. You have a gift as an interviewer. Still not quite sure what to make of Whitehead, however these are the kind of conversations I'd truly like to hear, where cross-fertilization is explored in the fields of counter-materialist ideas. Looking forward to the upcoming talk with Philip Goff (lately seeming more inclined toward cosmo-psychism than panpsychism, given his recent discussions with Bernardo Kastrup), vis-a-vis Whitehead's approach, and still similarly hope for a Matt-chat with Bernardo, in an effort to see where common ground may be found. :)

[@euclidofalexandria3786]

Thank you for posting, have a great day.

[@evanfirebrand]

Most stimulating conversation. Thank you.

[@M_K171]

Wonderful conversation about life, consciousness, causation, and the creative unfolding of the universe. This touches upon many different aspects of my own philosophy. It’s a rather important discussion, and I hope more people stop by to listen to it.

[@johannasopanen3490]

Awesome work you two!

[@rexsovereign7474]

Matt, this was an absolutely brilliant dialog. The both of you were fantastic. I do hope you will continue to bring Whitehead down to the level of us earthlings and to the Integral discussions where it is much needed.

[@geoffreynhill2833]

Just READ him, Rex!

[@geoffreynhill2833]

And Henri Bergson!

[@spacultures]

Thank you... both informational as well as inspirational for wholeness of psyche...!

[@MrNiceHk]

What a delightful conversation.

[@MA4TU2]

Wow! Great session. Will listen again.

[@KassJuanebe]

Around 35 minutes, past and future as physical and mental aspects of causality is, as others have said, mind-blowing. It's another way to mull acausality. Wonderful. Thanks to both of you.

[@juliapilgrim6074]

I appreciate the work of the Sheldrakes and of Jill Purce too. Rupert is her husband and well, look her up. A lovely interview, very well conducted. Thank you!

[@Scitzowicz]

Icon books should publish A.N. Whitehead for Beginners. I’d certainly buy a copy.

[@samrowbotham8914]

I have been in touch with Rupert on and of for at least the past 10 years and in my opinion, he is the best scientist to come out of Cambridge since Newton. It would be good if you could interview Bernardo Kastrup along similar lines.

[@cheri238]

Thank you all for this discussion on Afred Noth Whitehead with Rupbert Sheldrake. 🙏❤️🌎🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵

[@geoffreynhill2833]

This deserves more viewers!

[@geoffreynhill2833]

PS: The passage on Whitehead by Anthony Quinton in "The Fontana Biographical Companion To Modern Thought" dismisses his "Process & Reality"as "much less digestible" than his "Science and the Modern World". (Green Fire UK) 🌈🦉

[@geoffreynhill2833]

PPS: The very word "organ", used as it is both to suggest (1) something visceral and (2) something willed and rational - as in "organisation" - is bound to foster philosophical confusion.🤔

[@cosmicwit]

Really fantastic interview!

[@rhrh9012]

What I like most about Sheldrake is that he always gives a scientific experiment option to his supposedly bizarre, almost metaphysical ideas.

[@CoreyAnton]

Thanks. I enjoyed this, more than I thought I was going to. I do believe that "possibilities" are the key here. If everything in the universe is caught within chains of causality, then, what causes possibilities and what do possibilities cause?

[@vvendetta721]

Causality can be thought of as eddie's and whirlpools in any material dimension and so consider material as a dielectric between light and darkness. An unknown origin and age electromagnetic field emits through all celestial objects producing all consciousness known and unknown. Light equals conscious, electricity condensated light, plasma liquid light, life an ember. Material science a fly in a jar not understanding the way out is death.

[@M_K171]

Inspirational question, man. Thanks.

[@bostonboybob]

Nothingness. Consciousness and self-consciousness is an effect of “that which is.” Like you say, we are the sunset. Places and moments. It’s… ineffable. And maybe even perverse…

[@badactorsint]

​@@bostonboybob the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. currently, you are stood still.

[@maxzoe948]

Fascinating chat. Would you be able to recommend a introduction to ANW's ideas? I have a social science background but no tremendous philosophy experience so would be keen to for a "101" reader. Cheers!

[@tahoeperfectworkout1651]

Fantastic! Thank you soooo much

[@nochesdad]

Dr. Sheldrakes description of unconscious future events infiltrate the pas present related to pre-cognitive dreams brings up Jung's idea synchronicity. Jung's seminal example for synchronicity consisted of. a precognitive dream in which his patient had a dream of an Egyptian scarab beetle and during her session with Jung the next day. The beetle made its presence by knocking on the window behind Jung and Jung grabbing the beetle and presenting it to his patient. This event was instrumental in this patient breaking through some psychological defenses and her moving forward therapeutically.

[@rogermarks1110]

Thanks for this. It's hard to believe considering my own outlook and philosophy of experience that until I watched a video of yours a week or two ago I had no idea who whitehead was and until today who Sheldrake was. I am literally almost moved to tears by the realization that there are people like you, and sheldrake, and whitehead providing dignity to experience which I have long since given sole authority on informing my perspective -- the primary imperative of my being to account for every aspect of that experience. I would really love to have people to talk to about the things that emerge from that imperative. I have been feverishly almost compulsively writing for days, formulating and fashioning words around something that has taken root in my mind - nourished and provided for by my experience. It is roughly an explanation of the the collective unconscious as a sort of memory - and it investigates things like the biblical genesis from the perspective that it's author was experiencing a visionary experience which arose from this genetic memory. A lot of what Sheldrake says regarding gravity, genetics, and mystical experience is reflected in this. Let me share a bit of what I wrote. I'm a highschool dropout not a scholar or writer so this is literally *just* me formulating words around the idea. Edit: I wrote this before sheldrake started to quote genesis and now he is quoting it which is crazy LOL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Now this is a leap I know but I want to take a second to analyze the biblical "genesis" from this perspective - and suggest that it was a visionary experience not from god but a memory of our most primitive and earliest moments of mentality contained in our genome. The first awakening of experiential awareness of our earliest progenitor. First of all a quick google of "Genesis" The English title, Genesis, is Greek in origin and comes from the word geneseos, which appears in the pre-Christian Greek translation (Septuagint) of 2:4; 5:1. Depending on its context, the word can mean "birth," "genealogy," or "history of origin." This already gives me a little more confidence in my intuition here but I'll try to temper my enthusiasm because confirmation bias is a thing and I literally spent 30 seconds on google. You have to admit that it's compelling though. "*1*In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. *2*Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the water" I am compelled to sort of dismiss the first part as embellishment. Although from a panpsychist point of view I suppose you would argue even the formation of the solar system from a gas cloud would be an act of some abstract awareness -- The most abstract primeval form of active awareness being gravity. It makes sense because life in general and our genome is basically just a gathering up of, and compression of experiential information so it's compelling to think of gravity as the most primeval form of this process. The second line of Genesis was what sparked this line of thought though, because it is pretty widely accepted that the most likely place that life as we understand it first emerged was in the water. The spirit of god hovering over the water is likely just the visionary vantage point through which the collective unconscious, or primordial memory communicated this fact to the author. "*3*And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. *4*God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. *5*God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day." Line 3 & 4 describe life's emergent abstract awareness of light, and the acknowledgement that it's good is it's very rudimentary realization that it needs it as a source of energy to sustain it's own existence. Line 5 is the natural subsequent realization of the day/night cycle which still powerfully governs all life on the planet in one way or another." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've already altered a lot of this text in the book I write in by hand but this actually started out as a youtube comment that I never submitted but then transcribed and revised in my journa

[@rogermarks1110]

I'd also like to add for anyone who read the above I have been scouring human genome studies and science in an attempt to disprove or support this idea since I wrote it. What is interesting is that "At least a third of the approx. 20,000 genes that make up the human genome are active (expressed) in the brain. This is the highest proportion of genes expressed in any part of the body." "Unlike most cells in our body, the neurons in our brain can scramble their genes, scientists have discovered. This genome tampering may expand the brain's protein repertoire, but it may also promote Alzheimer's disease, their studies suggest" (So not only do neurons have greater access to the genetic information they can also alter it for better or worse)

[@ObsidianTeen]

@@rogermarks1110 Hi Roger. I too am a dropout (college dropout after 1.7 years), so it feels like I'm poking my nose in the "big boys'" room. I'm interested in the idea of our normal experience of matter as being collective memory...or the "collective unconscious" as you put it.

[@rogermarks1110]

@@ObsidianTeen Your user name is amazing lol. I had a dream last night and someone was explaining to me about this blueprint or schematic I had been obsessing over trying to figure out. The blueprint was really just a series of angular shapes, triangles and such. They were explaining to me that I was much too concerned about what occupies the space inside the shapes and why they are filled as they are - when really the only relevant information is the angles that make them. I took this to mean maybe I was zoning in on something that is not truly relevant. It's cool and the genes may be the mechanistic manifestation of how the collective unconscious presents itself but it's not as relevant. Really what's important is the fact that there is this gathering up of experiential awareness and this re-association of dissociated parts which used to be whole. My obsession with the science and mechanisms of it while interesting was missing the point, because they are just indicators of this process, symptomatic of this tendency towards wholeness and not to be obsessed over.

[@ramkitty]

Your story reflects aspects of a genuine mystical experience that profoundly changed your worldview. I like to paradoxically assume I am wrong trust what I know and observe and reflect on how. Eg. Plank length - is a photon analog or digital in space and how does that express through scales of size. Is time universal or an aspect of our observations in matter. Penrose caused me a similar experience.

[@verygoodjack]

Great interview. Anyone know where to find the transcript of the Whitehead Q+A he gave?

[@nonserviam751]

Well done. Pleased to be reminded that I've yet to read 'Religion in the Making'. I've been meaning to. Would you ever have a dialogue with Peter Sjöstedt-H?

[@louisdebeer2055]

Lovely, absolutely lovely

[@TrippFuller]

So glad he told the Sainting of Whitehead story!!

[@enidsnarb]

All these connections to my home town of Claremont California ! Love it!!!

[@johnmartin2813]

My favourite scientist discussing my favourite philosophers.

[@8brightside8]

This is absolutely delicious! Wow. Thank you.

[@sunltcloud]

Fascinating! We have been looking at the wake for too long. Soon the boat will be stranded on a sandbank. We must explore the raincloud!

[@CGMaat]

We love you Sheldrake since we watched that profited Ted lecture - follow your work and books … master who is advancing us - chardin would love to join this discussion!

[@truBador2]

Rupert make me want to be a scientist like when I was a kid. It was all about the True the Good and the Beautiful.

[@damienhickman4172]

2 brilliant minds trying to awaken the planet...bravo...

[@craigshelton5903]

A truly beautiful mind for our age.

[@brunocsnap]

Rupert if you want know more about the side theological, you can watch the videos of Antonio Farjani, from Brazil! He's great doing and explaining Astrotheology and mithologism

[@hosseinfaraji6813]

Do you have any idea about ; Unconscious and dynamic approach of mobilizing unconscious will, Thanks

[@thevulgarhegelian4676]

Teaming up John Cobb is always a good thing. Love to see this happening

[@monietz]

1:00:50 It's cool how Sheldrake's former student found a way to circumnavigate the oppressive barriers imposed by the materialists.

[@thranduiloropherion7756]

Love Rupert Sheldrake

[@charleswilson2134]

Henry P Stapp viewed ANW's Process Philosophy as a possible Container for Quantum Mechanics.

[@oliviergoethals4137]

Have seen a lot of interviews with Rupert but this one is great one in depth. Thx! Check The idea of the world of Bernardo Kastrup.😘

[@leslietaylor2754]

I'd like to add that although I proposed a theory that negates Dr. Sheldrakes' morphic resonance theory (and forgive me for I am not a scientist) that I do read his works and seek out his talks and interviews because, for some reason, when he speaks or when I read his books and whether I agree with him or not, I feel quite uplifted. Is that not the most important of all things?

[@Anders01]

Yes! Influences from the future as Sheldrake mentioned. I believe that happens and I heard that causality is still an unsolved problem in philosophy and in physics. So I started thinking of causality as systemic, meaning effects are a result of all of reality both past and future as a wholeness.

[@0neIntangible]

Thank you for helping to shape-up part of the framework for my little pet theory of "hysteresis"... in other words, the shadow or echo or reverberation or the "ghosting"... the persistance of what is happening in the present, backed up by what has happened in the past, and pushing forward by inertia towards what will happen in the future... the envelope of reality.

[@KassJuanebe]

Time is not linear. Go outside on a clear night. You will see light from events happening a fraction of a millisecond ago and that happened billions of years ago.

[@Anders01]

@@KassJuanebe Yet, those billions of years ago are measured as linear time. I think of the flow of time as linear. But I also believe that all the past is in the now moment, as timeless information.

[@TheCJWemyss]

Cool conversation. Try and talk to Iain McGilchrist.

[@ramkitty]

That whitehead summation of religion was a beautiful poetic statement.

[@alanmunro5068]

Did Rupert develop his trading app?

[@usteiner9]

du you know Principia Mathematica from Whithead and Russel - I read it in Frankfurt

[@yonj3269]

According to Whitehead's metaphysics, is it possible, under the influence of DMT or other substances, for a person to see spatial dimensions that he cannot perceive in his natural state except through his physical presence in the same place, such as seeing things outside a laboratory room?

[@jasonwilcox6637]

There are so many responses I post on YT, that simply state "Rupert Sheldrake."❤

[@phillylifer]

Feel like i need to climb over his humble brags to get to his insights

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Between sleep and waking, or waking and sleep, is where we can bridge the dimensions.

[@rhyothemisprinceps1617]

55:00 Michael Levin is the arguably the most significant biologist of our time. While I think Sheldrake has very interesting ideas and has done important research, I think he misconstrues Levin's findings. The bioelectric patterning is the computational output of cells and tissues. My guess it is mainly transduced through the cytoskeleton; there's bidirectional interaction between the cytoskeleton and ion channel function. It is not a pattern that is superimposed on the organism by an outside force.

[@perkwunos8515]

Re: possibilities for explanations of “precognition” in Whitehead-I think there’s a very important indication of how this could be explored in chapter IX, section VIII of Process and Reality, in which he discusses how “a non-statistical judgment of probability can be derived” via the “the graduated 'intensive relevance' of eternal objects to the primary physical data of experience”, that is, “the graduated order of appetitions constituting the primordial nature of God. There can thus be an intuition of an intrinsic suitability of some definite outcome from a presupposed situation. There will be nothing statistical in this suitability. It depends upon the fundamental graduation of appetitions which lies at the base of things, and which solves all indeterminations of transition.” Most interesting, to me, is that this seems similar to how Peirce explained the basis for abductive reasoning, i.e. pre-inductive hypothesis formation, as our ability to approximate to the right answers by our own continuity with the natural ordering of things. This would, then, serve as the very foundation for scientific reasoning! I do think Peirce is the other major figure here in being able to bring a more teleological/purposive mode of explanation back into legitimate science, as his influence on biosemiotics shows.

[@treygreen6983]

Why morphogenetic instead of morphic, in the chapter headings?

[@KassJuanebe]

52 minutes: Gravitation. Attraction, Teleology...Beautiful! King David asked God, can the dust proclaim your faithfulness? But what is gravity, but the longing of the dust for its source?

[@fracta1organism]

nice breakdown by sheldrake of the process-relational ontology of the trinity at around 116-125 min. i use a similar ontology using ken wilber's AQAL model, where the interaction of the dark energy with regular matter in the LR quadrant deposits a kosmic memory field of dark matter in the LL quadrant, and the subsequent interactions of that memory field with the possible future states of matter in the UL quadrant within the overall context of its environment, results in the emergence of matter from moment to moment in what is essentially a creative-adaptive learning process of the holomovement. life-consciousness is a natural and immanent unfolding of this process-relational ontology, based in already known physical factors. www.integralworld.net/corbett75.html

[@toddt9519]

I'm curious, is that an actual planet on your homepage or is it artwork? It's amazing, looks like something Van Gogh could've made, almost.

[@Footnotes2Plato]

That is a Nasa photo of Jupiter!

[@ALavin-en1kr]

The flaw in human thought is either/or rather than and/both. We are dual in a dual system and seeing unity is not easy.

[@richardtofield5210]

what if gravity isnt an attractive force but somehow a result of inertia as the fabric of space is moving.can a similar coming-together be modelled by gyroscopic spinning tops on a spinning table?,perhaps a table which is accelerating in its spin speed

[@mtvralinavi4677]

Someone would do well to get interested in Whitehead and Poetry. The key being, of course, Charles Olson.

[@juergenbloh45]

👍👍👍🙏🙏🙏

[@paulkelly1162]

I'm a huge fan of Whitehead too. I'm curious when asked, why Dr. Sheldrake did not refer to David Bentley Hart's critique of process theology? As Whitehead's God is composite, he cannot be the ground of being. There's a sense in which I think Whitehead was too tied to his empiricism: because it always takes contingent feature of the world and projects it onto it's first principles. I also worry that Whiteheads moral vision was lacking. The idea of aimlessly going on forever, even with God as a companion, constitutes a meaningful world.

[@PupilloSam]

I hope the wonderful Rupert has improved his knowledge of Muslims in Xinjiang since this interview, two years ago! If I was a Muslim, I;d rather be one there than anywhere else on the globe!!!

[@KassJuanebe]

Only reason for this answer is if you want to escape from religion and spirituality and freedom, but can't do it of your own will.

[@KipIngram]

1:27:45 - It's perfectly fair for a scientist to say "I don't have anything to say about that." But then they can't turn around and say they have everything covered. When you take something as given, you don't *have* to ask "why is it given?" You can just take the given thing and run with it. But... that doesn't make that "why" question just "not exist." That scientist is just *choosing* to leave that question for others to address.

[@kuningaskolassas4720]

I just started listening, so my apologies if you answered my concerns: I think Shelldrake misunderstands a lot of Whitehead's concepts, or he at least tries to make them fit within an orthodox Christian worldview more than they really can. I also think he falls into Dawkins mistake of marrying materialism to atheism.. I don't think I'd say I ascribe to either philosophy, and they obviously get along well, but I don't believe you have to be a hard core atheist just because you're a naturalist. Bergson makes this same mistake, but I think for me, the most brilliant thing about Whitehead is he sees the flaws inherent in both a purelt mechanistic metaphysics, as well ss classical theism. He sees the bad and the good points in both, and I think he does better than most, especially in the west, at figuring out which is which, and in explaining...whats really happening, for lack of a better term.

[@JEKAZOL]

1:12:39👌🤣

[@williamoarlock8634]

'Spiritual' practices reserved for the middle-classes.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Man being the apex of Creation, Human Consciousness is very likely at the Center of the Universe as the Ancients understood. It does not matter that our planet is not at the Center of the Universe. What matters is where our consciousness is. It makes sense that our earth is in ‘the Goldilocks zone’ in relation to the sun. Our consciousness can be anywhere, but functions better from the Center.

[@cornfall]

( 53:22 study notes biological mathematical, attractors: ? : like recursive fractal? “ Zero Sum Game” is - ? - is the inverse square attraction, balanced to zero with the normal force for objects on earth, being accelerate upward, e.g., the weight of an observer, a human. follow this to it’s absurd and out of balance, and we have a universe that is ever accelerating, always getting larger expanding with the speed of light the limit that it never reaches. Vis Viva & Natural Philosophy Principia - all most inconvenient. “ … I gave my love a ring that has no end … a wheel when it’s rollingit has no end )

[@leslietaylor2754]

Could Levin's African clawed frog eggs (zenoposts I thought Dr. Sheldrake said?)' observed features that are to become a face and eyes prior to actual development be not the result of electrical fields, but water beginning to organize these features? As well with the flatworms' memory once having had their heads removed then regrow with their memories before their heads were removed were observed to be intact. Are the specimen's not placed in water during observation? Is not the embryo, any embryo, encased in water? Is water not everywhere doing creative and life sustaining work and where water is wholly absent there is no life? As well is water, H20 molecules, not the Akashic records, so to speak? Holy no less. Creation's work and recorded then accessed through non local entanglement throughout the whole of organisms and same or similar organisms' bodies, the environment and throughout the universe in molecular H20 structures?

[@rhyothemisprinceps1617]

The scientific name of the African clawed frog is Xenopus laevis; Dr Michael Levin coined the term 'xenobots' for living robots made from cells of X. laevis. Levin has tested how morphogenesis occurs by manipulating bioelectric fields experimentally. Teratogens - things that disrupt development - are often chemicals that affect the function of ion channels, such as sodium or potassium channels. Disruption of these ion channels causes disruption of bioelectric fields. There are lots of lectures on YT by Levin if you want to see slides and short videos of his experiments.

[@thevulgarhegelian4676]

You and Philosopher Tripp Fuller need to have a dialogue

[@martinwilliams9866]

I have a hypothesis that many Scientists are semi-autistic & suffer from what I call "Incongruity Hypersensitivity", Iain McGilchrist says that people with tumors in their right hemi-sphere display reductionist type behavior, but one aspect is that if something treatens their "order" they get extremely angry. I would also suggest that people stop using "Materialist" & "Materialism" as it has been falsified by Physicalism, which including space-time, leaves open the possibility of Hyperdimensionality, the theory of which is completely compatible with the existence of Psi. I've often thought there is no such "thing" as Biology, as without Physics it is like a one winged bird, concerning life there's only Biophysics, Burr & Becker got there decades ago. That the Chinese are favouring Whitehead's Process Metaphysics, is very good news to me, soon they may rediscover their own indigenous Hua-Yen Buddhism. Atheism is a faith based position, but unlike Theists, they don't like to think about in that way, both of them are Agnostics in denial. "Supernatural" doesn't have to mean beyond Nature, as the prefix "Super" in Superhuman, obviously doesn't mean beyond human, but the exceptionally human. Non-necessity is not equivalent to non-existence, in what way do we need genital herpes? I have a hypothesis about consciousness, the word "Experience" is sometimes used as an equivalent to consciousness, however it's also used for the Physicality of inanimate objects & systems, I would suggest a Panprotopsychic model where consciousnessis a particular form of experience, that of Meta-experience, mainly related to the transverse Hall effect of the Glial network, after Becker.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

It is likely all is mind, at different rates of vibration, there being prototypes for the forms. Consciousness and Mind are different. Mind operates within consciousness. When consciousness is no longer ‘the hard problem’ it is very likely we will discover that consciousness is fundamental, not subject to motion or anything elemental, and predating Mind which is elemental; emerging with quantum events. Consciousness being beyond; underlying motion but itself being motionless.

[@elel2608]

1:30:00

[@williamstgeorge7289]

Plato is the key to Whitehead.

[@jupitersstring2823]

footnotes to kaballah

[@alandinsmore1186]

Trouble with evolutionary presuppositions is that they have yet to be proven.

[@Footnotes2Plato]

There’s no proving in natural science, at least not outside mathematics. There are only fallible hypotheses.

[@hugojames85]

Are Sheldrake and Whitehead related? They both have the same weird eyes....

[@otonanoC]

DAMER AND DEAMER !!

[@Erime]

"Laws 'all the way down?!,' hahaha (nope!)" - Rupert Sheldrake. I see this as his fundamental error - it is the very closed-mindedness that he accuses others of. There's nothing to suggest that the universe isn't just infinite novelty 'all the way down'.

[@Footnotes2Plato]

By law he means habit. Is there really nothing to suggest the universe isn’t just infinite novelty all the way down? I disagree. Why do we see the same galactic pattern repeated nearly ad infinitum in deep space? Why so many identical hydrogen and helium atoms?

[@Erime]

@@Footnotes2Plato dynamic systems that are structurally (materially) open, yet organisationally (pattern) closed, can have the same structural material - allowing for a pig's heart to be transferred to a human body, for example, but no two pigs or humans are ever identical in pattern of organisation. Similarly, no two galaxies, stars, or planets are identical. However, they all 'get along' within one seamless universe. Perhaps, for example, our universal laws are the common structural elements in our universe, whilst the varying patterns of organisation of those elements is the shapes of gravitational forces themselves - with varying, more 'fundamental' random shapes of gravity generating matter and energy, rather than the other way around - with such gravitational patterns governing all mass and energy in the universe 'all the way down' like a Mandelbrot fractal - with common motifs cropping up here and there, but always with certain novel details - making terrestrial type planets similar, for example, but never identical - via laws of impermanence that are themselves impermanent, even (hence instances of universal helium, hydrogen, universal laws, etc.)? I'm certainly open to these kinds of possibilities, but Sheldrake apparently isn't. Seemingly closed for business in that kind of front.

[@williammabon6430]

Here is the proof for the Construct theory: Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 This equation is God's mathematical name. God's name in this equation reads: God's Mind Is Man Changed With God. Breakdown: God's mind is infinite. In math this measure out as the set of infinity In math (1/x) represents a fraction of a whole. Any child is a fraction of a parent and man according to the Bible is God's child. Therefore man is a fraction of God Change in math is represented by the Greek letter (delta) and it denotes a difference of some kind. Plus (+) in math means to combine or add something with something. There is only one God. In math the number 1 means something or someone is complete and individual from all the rest. Spelled out: God's Mind (Infinity) is (=) Man (1/x) Changed ( delta) With (+) God (1). Scientific Method Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always = 4 Step 2 Question: Do math and Divinity share a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exist He should be found in the house of mathematics Step 4 Prediction: God's Mind Is Man Change With God is an equation Step 5 Test: Any number (Infinity) is (=) a set in space (1/x) that change (x^2) with (+) space (1)) Again: All and any number is a set in space that change with space Note: "X" describes any set, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise This equation tells us why 2 feet is not the same as 2 inches. Both distances are measured out as 2 units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each sets in a space of distance but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: New look at what makes up reality. Reality consist of 3 domains of space a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space or the whole of knowledge a.k.a. information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real therefore the value in enumeration demand God exist otherwise the domain for enumeration would be incomplete. We know the domain for enumeration is complete because we can count. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. As we can see God is fundamental in the cross between information and physical relationships I wrote a research doc looking deeper into this matter. Anyone who wants a free copy can contact me at: [e-mail] God's Mind Is Man Changed With God

[@dennismason3740]

This kid thinks that the whole universe is a lecture hall. Drop all of the isms, please. Terence was saturated in intellectual pretentiousness however he had a way of cutting through all of the isms if you could ride with him.