Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion

[@rainforest171]

Rupert does not at any point abandon the scientific method - he applies to explore questions shunned by mainstream science. If anything, it is mainstream science that refuses to think critically about areas that might undermine mechanistic thinking. Please listen again a careful ear and an open mind and you might be intrigued by the possibilities that Rupert points to

[@TheForeheadOfDoom666]

We saw it coming now it's here. Interests of rich will be met in the name of "science"

[@FFE-js2zp]

Nothing new about that. Royalty.

[@yacovmitchenko1490]

Back as a teenager I thought that just as human cells might be aware of (or communicate with) all other cells, so might our sun be doing something similar with other stars.

[@MugenTJ]

As a five years old I theorized that 0 + 0 = 1 before knowing about fraction. Now that I know about fraction, I still wonder if 0 + 0 = 1 existentially. Well, on a more practical note. Of course there is interaction among objects in the universe. We use different words to describe each type of interaction.

[@5T4RSCREAM233]

Great lecture... loved it. Thanks

[@ooo-oz5uq]

Fabulous talk. Thank you so much for recording and sharing this. :-)

[@bob40179]

This was a wonderful talk, and opens up important questions

[@LordOsiron]

Excellent talk!

[@sngscratcher]

The materialist belief trap is identical to the religious belief trap in that both create people who are victims of their own certitude; both are convinced of the righteousness of their convictions and the infallibility of their reality paradigm. And the most destructive part is, once you “know that you know,” you rigidly close yourself off to any new, potentially useful information that falls outside of your beliefs. Might as well stick a fork in you, ‘cause you’re done - learning and growing.

[@karlazeen]

I'm a materialist and I don't assume all that exists is material, rather I see that everything we have and can observe is all proven to be material and no immaterial stuff has been shown to exist at least nor currently. For now unless proven otherwise in the future everything that we understand is reality is material, if there is a method for observing and testing the immaterial than by all means show it to me.

[@sngscratcher]

@@karlazeen Check out the work being done at The University of Virginia School of Medicine, Division of Perceptual Studies.

[@denofpigs2575]

​@@karlazeen"Everything we understand in reality is material" he says, unconscious to the fact that his own consciousness is a nonmaterial phenomena.

[@enekaitzteixeira7010]

​@@denofpigs2575 Keep believing in magic buddy. Sane people will leave you behind.

[@nomad9338]

Brilliant, independent thinker.

[@benthejrporter]

Thanks. Rupert Sheldrake is brilliant!

[@anialiandr]

critical thinking means putting ideas in conversation with other ideas. This is what he says and advocated.

[@leeevans1874]

Ruberts vantage point on observing what is and being able to bring it to lanuage is a gift to the human race .

[@SittingSage]

I'd love to be able to make to such discussions with like minded individuals. These are the kind of subjects the deserve the attention that has been aulluded

[@ouishi9447]

Amazing talk

[@cogsofrust8630]

Bravo!

[@mydearpeers]

31:05 Morphic Resonance

[@djelalhassan7631]

Great and Beautiful

[@leonardaugustine2009]

Watching this 15th of August 2021 just shows the depth of everything.

[@quillanvideoclip]

Nicely put. I'll copy and paste this comment to myself. Thanks.

[@johnmcguire4635]

2013: "The drug companies are falling off the patents cliff" (Rupert Sheldrake) 2020: COVID-19 pseudomedicine, now desperate, grabs humanity by the throat.

[@denofpigs2575]

Man, that comment really died suddenly huh?

[@CACBCCCU]

If you ask me there's a box called "curved spacetime" but physics is "nonlocal" and entangled particles apparently make more sense if thought about as coupled by cold spinning atom retro-reflectively-focused gravity flows instead of spacetime bridges.

[@ninard2236]

Maybe the right term is that the Sun is interacting with other galactic object, the galactic mind is more like causality interaction as like other inanimate object, the whole speech are mind opening

[@ar-visions]

I love this man.

[@robgau2501]

I love him

[@mrnobody1321]

many repeat ideas without any real understanding of the assumptions of science, or even the validity of those statements. And That's a Belief.

[@georgegraham472]

A while ago this most infamous of pseodo-scientists wrote a book entitled "seven experiments that could change the world." the big problem for rupert turned out to be that many people or groups of people did the "scientific thing." many years later the world was not changed. i think this is called "hoist by his own petard."

[@alchemy3264]

Not sure that Descartes himself denied that we might be something other than matter.

[@FungusWhisperer]

Some Creationists are big on the BIG change too. "A common young earth argument for a young earth is that the velocity of light has been decreasing exponentially since the creation of the universe." 3w dot god and science dot org slash young earth). Seems like the further into 'new age' left fringe discourse goes - the more eerie parallels with old time religious right pop up. Maybe there's a 'round world' analogy in there somewhere - sail far enough east, you wind up west ...?

[@bhmansfi]

Virtual realities by Barry H Mansfield Waves of possibility weave together to create a tapestry of potential realities. Conscious perception defines the parameters of the potential possibility of perceived reality. This allows for the processes of creativity to be applied within the framework of existence. Okay, what does this mean. There is a potential for the direction of future circumstances that can be controlled, regulated, manipulated by the purposeful directionaliztion of consciousness through will. Even simpler The way we think controls our lives

[@conferencereport]

I'm very familiar with Sheldrake's work and have followed it closely for many years, so I don't take kindly to being told to 'listen again' thank you. Since you think it acceptable to offer advice I'd suggest you follow it yourself and apply a more critical ear.

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

You said science has ten different dogmas. But in actuality, science has trillions and trillions of dogmas.

[@DaithiDublin]

When I first encountered Sheldrake - some 20 years ago - his morphic resonance theory apparently explained why crossword puzzles are easier to complete the day *after* they were published. Despite being patently untrue, this was just one of a seemingly endless series of effects he seeks to ascribe to his hypothesis. He is not short of support or supporters, cash or cachet, yet he feels the need to misrepresent scientific development instead of constructively contributing to it.

[@dommidavros2211]

DaithiDublin - So you’re not impressed with this talk? But surely he’s just on a quest to find out what’s actually true and what the Hell’s going on like the rest of us! How could he improve?

[@anialiandr]

Then you do not really understand the word conversation. It is a theoretical word, as I used in in here. You asked a theoretical Q so I replied using theoretical terms. Informed can only mean in reference to. And these references will have to be OTHER ideas to give you tools for evaluation that you talk about.

[@metamaggot]

memory can be destroyed by brain damage ...that may be proof of where memory is kept...but then again there's people who live and walk around and are absolutely fine with half their brain missing...

[@mikepublic111]

+metamaggot -- They're called Republicans.

[@Cubivore10]

*Democrats Fixed that typo for you, friend. :)

[@lzeph]

The brain is where memories are processed and perceived, yes, so if the usual processing/perception channels are damaged, then access to those memories is impaired. Might not actually be irretrievable, though.

[@StopMoColorado]

You're conflating Memory with Recall...

[@conferencereport]

Critical thinking also means developing informed judgement based on clear procedures for the evaluation of evidence. Conversation is great, and I would applaud Sheldrake's ability to think creatively, but he's not at his strongest when he does the anti-science contrarian thing.

[@magicalthinkingbarbie4657]

Then science is not a delusion. It's a point of view among many. And why are you then asking the Physics to prove it to you?! Just think about it more.

[@911gpd]

Some of what he calls "dogma" are part of the Thermodynamic Theory (or Laws) which are mathematically proven and concorde with experiments. You could argue that experiments can be wrong (even though they've confirmed the laws for 150years) but maths don't lie. If you're not convinced that the equations are correct, it means that you believe in : 1+1 ≠ 2

[@raikenclw]

You missed his point, which was that the thermodynamic equations balance out because of the base assumption that they must do so. You also probably stopped listening before he discussed dark matter and dark energy. If 96% of reality doesn't appear to obey these "laws," why are they called laws?

[@minus3dbintheteens60]

1 + 1 can = 1

[@RobinParmar]

Oh God. The speed of light. There are many reasons why small variations in measuring c would change over time, based on the technologies available. Yet Sheldrake states the error he found was a BIG change. He is lying. The part he states is on the order of 10 to the -5. That's less than 1% of 1%. His larger point about dogma is a good one. A shame he has to sell it this way. At this point I give up and am rather depressed for humanity. :-(

[@Jacam781]

If this guy was willing to put up £1000 for the 'free energy' wager - with a 'winner takes all' bet, I'd happily up him to £5000 (my entire savings).

[@RobinParmar]

In [Sheldrake's] rant...

[@OspreyFlyer]

Everyone return to the box and stay inside! Sheldrake is a heretic and blasphemer.

[@conferencereport]

I've got half way through this video and have already lost count of the number of strawman fallacies aimed at science. This is combined with the selective use of scientific methodology such that it is cited as a valid means of establishing truth when useful (as a means of testing over-unity energy devices for example) but decried as dogmatic adherence to a repressive paradigm when it questions new age nonsense. This is really part of an MSc programme? Where is the critical thinking?

[@BlahBlah-jg8dl]

conferencereport I realize you posted this quite some time ago, but I was wondering (given this strawman argument accusation always seems to come up on Sheldrake's talks and since I do not want to just dismiss this out of hand) given the definition of the strawman argument is approximate to: an argument which is constructed against a version of the opposition's view that amounts to disingenuous satire. Would you mind, if you are still interested in this, in going point by point by point or "dogma by dogma" as Sheldrake is perhaps strawman-ing in your perspective to illustrate his faults and fallacies in portraying the materialistic philosophy of science's position?

[@johnmcguire4635]

I've talked to religious people who just think they know the truth. Probably not in England though LOL

[@JillFreeman-kb4ih]

yay. because the Chinese and India are never fond of cowardice... right

[@JillFreeman-kb4ih]

all the planets weigh in. your morphic field is ancient astrology... keep worshipping yourself Mr. Sun

[@brianfuggle3901]

I have not heard a poorer argument for logical thinking, or a weaker argument for the existence of God. Pathetic!