Rupert Sheldrake v. Michael Shermer | On the edges of knowledge | Full discussion

[@kathrynoneill81]

Love listening to Sheldrake, a person of Science who both understands the usefulness of rigorous study as well as the need to keep the door open in an active way in exploring the boundaries of Science. That IS Science. Dogma is not.

[@mariaashot5648]

Thank you, Rupert Sheldrake. I was a sceptic about telepathy until I actually experienced it, when my life was in danger. There are many things we do not fully understand yet. Genuine science is always open to exploring new horizons. By definition, horizons always expand. We are confronted with evidence for many uncomfortable phenomena, including so-called "near-death" (or Post-Death) narratives from people who were declared deceased by every scientific criterion, yet are still around, talking to us about what they remember observing during the period of their physiological non-existence....

[@mariaashot5648]

Always thrilled to listen to Professor Sheldrake!

[@AnnetteLouiseBickford]

Intellectual courage, curiosity, perseverance, humility, empathy; Sheldrake is extraordinary--how fortunate we are!

[@Element-oe8hn]

Only when he's absent.

[@gabrielmills2361]

Fascinating discussion, thank you both. A lot of sense talked by BOTH proponents. And I'm still rooting for Sheldrake.

[@MrLoonzy]

Me too just starting to watch it... be amazing if he had his old friend Terrence Mckenna with him too, to melt the other guy's mind with poetic hypnotic sentences that confuse but force you to contemplate it all. His title is world-leading sceptic? wonder how they measured that pointless statistic, not much of an achievement either it's just a case of disagreeing and disregarding everything he doesn't know or understand.

[@martinst8764]

I'm not sure about a lot of what Rupert says but I really like his attitude. I've learnt loads about the history of science from listening to him and I tune in to all of his conversations with Mark Vernon (recommended!!).

[@ljxn]

Sheldrake is an underrated genius, one of the best and brightest minds of our times.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Sorry😂, he's either a crackhead or a very smart bussinessman, selling his books and his pseudoscience to people like you. Well, just my opinion.

[@raimo7310]

Sure, or maybe there's a reason why his stuff has been written off as pseudoscience and he's just another one of those for the Internet gullibles where he can prosper

[@seabud6408]

@@raimo7310 with respect. Yes, it’s no surprise that science actually believes that dead unconscious stuff became living conscious stuff … sometime somehow .. Google it … no scientist has the first clue how that happened least of all how to make it happen again in a chemistry lab 🧪 There is no evidence that the brain secretes/ manufactures .. consciousness .. Google it. It’s very simple and logical … how could the plasma ball at the Big Bang (if it happened and it probably did within a cyclic birthing and dying universe ) … how could plasma just left to clump and cool make eggs and chickens … if that plasma ball wasn’t exactly like the developing egg it was going to facilitate around 12.5 billion years later. Cosmic egg 🥚 Cosmic Chicken 🐓 … and then Einstein, Dali and Disney. All happened without one single thought theory or plan . Just an intelligent living energy field unfolding. The Universe has likely never been devoid of life and consciousness at any system level. The Universe as a vast entangled fractal holographic holon .. has likely always existed .. outwith time. It’s a mystery .. and as someone said … “I don’t think the brain can understand it” (Jiddu Krishnamurti) Obviously militant materialism has nothing to say about the above. It’s banned from even considering it on pain of excommunication .. from the community of “scientists”

[@koenraad4618]

I agree, but the exact mechanism/physics that underlies Sheldrake's bio-morphologic 'field' has yet to be discovered. This might be a signal/wave of electro-scalar nature, with superluminal velocity.

[@karlschmied6218]

So tell me one of his most ingenious achievements or realizations, which every human being, who wants to stay on a rational ground, can understand and which also brings applications and not only speculates or looks for excuses, why it did not work.

[@Kafei]

The host had an obvious bias towards Shermer, but nevertheless my hat's off to Sheldrake. Always a beautifully spoken and articulate individual who cuts through the very core of these perspectives and issues in a very similar vein to his dead friend, rest his soul, Terence McKenna. Rupert, if you're reading this, please, we need more of it! You are a divine spark to ignite the collective creative soul of humanity that is so crucial to the salvation of our very planet! Keep it up, brother! (edit) The fact that Michael Shermer's ultimate "rebuttal" was a sheer straw man of Rupert's position is a testament to the recurring fact that consciousness is still quite a mystery to science or neuroscience, and that, as Sheldrake rightly emphasizes, that we shouldn't be so dogmatic with materialism on approaching these topics. It's not about "convincing the majority of neuroscientists" as Shermer seems to find so important. It's about finding the truth about the nature of consciousness, and what's actually going on in reality despite the consensus of professionals.

[@GoogleIsNotYourFriend]

It's about finding the truth...this is the core of the contention. Sheldrake's position (and many like him) is severely lacking in almost every aspect of that core issue.

[@AlpamayoJoe]

Sometime intuition is more effective than intelligence expecially in question regarding life. Bravo Rupert!

[@bastiaanvanbeek]

Well, intuition can be more effective, but it needs intelligence and a rational approach to be balanced. You have these persons who say "... but Einstein had great intuitive ideas" as a justification te be intuitive and irrational. But this is of course a mistake. Einstein was able to be genius with intuition 'in combination with' rational thought and intelligence.

[@AlpamayoJoe]

@@bastiaanvanbeek sometimes ( pretty often in the history of science) to go beyond the limit you need to dare and be a bit irrational.

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@AlpamayoJoe⁠​​⁠​⁠I agree with your sentiments in a general sense :) but it seems to me that 'intuition v. intelligence' is an unhelpful dichotomy, and unnecessary. Might not the former be said to be a form of the latter? From our even limited understanding of the mind, I would think we could say that intuition is a certain expressive faculty, if you will, of intelligence. I think making deliberate efforts to synthesize such concepts is a healthy practice in light of an intellectual cultural of binary categorization. Even in this video's "debate," the unspoken riff between "materialist science" and phenomena perceived as "non physicality" is frustrating to behold. Especially in the guy on the right. Synthetic correspondence is a rich way to look at the world. "On earth as it is in heaven." Material science -explains- describes things which have various correspondences at different levels of reality. "heart, soul, mind, body." Thinking in terms of harmonic overtones is a pleasant analogy. I do like how your brain thinks, OP. And your mind. You too, BastiaanVanbeek I hope the above doesn't come off as a noodly dish of word salad. Ha. If it does, I can at least promise you that the thoughts behind it are not. Shalom to you.

[@cottonfieldlover1]

intuition is intelligence.

[@joseffirmagemiyasato]

Definitely, I also think that intuition is a form of intelligence. Many skeptics deny it until it is a dead and unfamiliar thing. Those who listen can get even better at hearing.

[@MrFrawahr]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎙️ Introduction and Setting the Scene - The session is introduced, and the theme is set for a discussion on the limits of human knowledge. - The discussion will revolve around the boundaries of what is possible to know and explore in the physical universe and beyond. 01:19 🧠 Limits of Human Understanding (Michael Shermer) - Michael Shermer discusses the idea that humans are not omniscient and should approach knowledge with humility. - He emphasizes the importance of applying rationality and science to explore and understand the world. 05:49 🌌 Limits of Human Understanding (Rupert Sheldrake) - Rupert Sheldrake counters Michael's perspective, stating that there are intrinsic limits to human understanding. - He highlights the role of organized skepticism and materialism in limiting exploration of certain phenomena. 14:08 🧪 Discussion on Replication and Materialism - Michael Shermer challenges the notion of taboos and highlights the need for strong, replicable evidence. - The debate revolves around materialism and its impact on accepting or rejecting unconventional phenomena. 22:03 🧐 A Scientist's Perspective - The audience gains insight into the challenges of replication in scientific research. - The discussion emphasizes the importance of rigorous evidence and skepticism in scientific exploration. 00:00 🎯 Introduction and General Discussion - The discussion revolves around the nature of knowledge and evidence in science. - Key points: - Debate about what constitutes valid knowledge. - The challenge of deciding which evidence to believe. - How alternative theories are treated in scientific communities. 05:15 🤔 The Role of Scientific Consensus - The discussion delves into the role of scientific consensus in shaping accepted knowledge. - Key points: - Scientific consensus as a standard for accepting knowledge. - The historical context of previously fringe ideas becoming accepted. - Mention of the 97% consensus on climate change among climate scientists. 09:10 💡 Challenging Established Knowledge - The conversation focuses on how and when to challenge established scientific knowledge. - Key points: - The burden of proof in challenging established knowledge. - The history of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts. - An example of the Continental Drift theory. 13:05 🔬 Consciousness and Scientific Paradigms - The discussion turns to the role of Consciousness in scientific paradigms and the potential for a paradigm shift. - Key points: - Mechanistic materialism's limitations in explaining Consciousness. - The need for a broader view of Consciousness's role in science. - Predictions about the impact of such a paradigm shift. 17:34 🌍 Scientific Paradigms and Their Impact - The conversation touches on how scientific paradigms influence society, especially in areas like medicine and the environment. - Key points: - The impact of mechanistic materialism on our relationship with nature. - The potential for change in various fields with a broader paradigm. - Mention of comparative effectiveness research in medicine. 21:48 🔍 Balancing Skepticism and Openness - The debate wraps up with a discussion about striking a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas. - Key points: - The challenge of finding the right balance between skepticism and acceptance. - A reminder of the importance of good evidence in supporting new ideas. - The evolving nature of scientific knowledge. Made with HARPA AI

[@edbop]

That is a great demonstration that 'ai' does not posses intelligence. Also awkward that Michael failed to understand the question.

[@Junterhack]

Sheldrake for the win!

[@alvisinger112]

Fantastic exchange, we need a diverse range of ideas and plenty of challenge to move forward.

[@WakingUpToday213]

Rupert sparks a sense of wonder in me that I take as a touchstone of a larger reality.

[@bobs182]

Rupert sparks a sense in me that he lacks understanding of how the human mind functions.

[@iamhudsdent2759]

@@bobs182 You spark a sense in all those with a soul that you don't have one.

[@bobs182]

@@iamhudsdent2759 You are misguided as consciousness doesn't continue after death. If you are talking about morality, I take your disdain to be immoral.

[@williamoarlock8634]

A sense of complete contempt is all Sheldrake sparks in me.

[@johnalexir7634]

Science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive, nor need they even be in conflict with each other.

[@truBador2]

It is great listening to these two. Good show! Thank you.

[@pappapiccolino9572]

Sheldrake and Shermer have been interacting / arguing for years. In the past I've often found that Shermer has been very rude and dismissive of Rupert and his work. Now, he is at least prepared to be civil. Whether you agree with Rupert's ideas or not, his knowledge of real world science and his intellect are clearly superior to Michael's IMO.

[@oneoflokis]

💯👍

[@joesmoke9624]

Absolutely! Sheldrake's work encourages critical thinking and open-mindedness in scientific inquiry, pushing the boundaries of traditional scientific paradigms.

[@Vivenk88]

True. Because Shermer claims all these studies have been done and failed but I doubt he's correct. More research and experiments on alternative things is needed.

[@newpilgrim]

This. Marvelous conversation. Many thanks!

[@florincoter1988]

I wonder if "the edges of knowledge" is grasped as the single most important reason for scientific advancement. No matter how great is the curiosity or intellectual power of a person, without an edge there is nowhere to go. Sheldrake inspires!

[@andacomfeeuvou]

I am a spiritualist and I have no doubts about the existence of the spiritual world but, on the other hand, I love science and understand very well its need in the world and its functioning. And to tell you the truth, I feel much more honesty in science than in religion. Of course, there are very ill-informed scientists who say barbaric things in the name of science. I think that in truth everything is science and there is no topic within esotericism, occultism, mysticism, spirituality and religiosity that cannot be analyzed and understood by science. It is clear that the science we have today is not capable of doing so because it is trapped within limited paradigms and concepts. But in the future we will have deeper science.

[@DaboooogA]

Great exchange thanks. I personally have enjoyed Sheldrake's exchanges with the late great Terrence McKenna (particularly on the question of cannabis) , as well as Shermer's (single) exchange with Graham Hancock

[@AnHebrewChild]

28:30 Gosh I really like Dr Sheldrake. Such a jovial soul, and brimming with life.

[@joelvann1815]

What a man Sheldrake is

[@evfast]

"who is censoring you" . TED Talks censored him.

[@johncarter1150]

Well done TED!

[@evfast]

They recorded it, posted it, and then took it down. It's not available on their platform. Not sure how that's not censored. It is within the rights of the company to do so. But that doesn't change the term to describe removing it.

[@larrytinsley4247]

Yes and there is thousands of ways to censor someone active denial shadow banning organized smear campaign propaganda disengenuos articles like tge one he mentioned where the lady clearly either didn’t understand what he was saying or intentionally misinterpreted it I could go on and on

[@evfast]

Your movie was better than the reviews. It didn't deserve to fail. At least it wasn't removed from the disney catalogue.

[@MattHudsonAtx]

TED unpublished Sheldrake because his claims were bogus. Their audience is not as dumb as KZbin.

[@michaelleahcim4507]

Sheldrake levels above, tip my hat to the beautiful moderator inbetween.

[@mra4955]

it's not sexist to acknowledge someones beauty. you just did it too. chill bro

[@Gringohuevon]

Nice to see a friendly debate instead of a clash of egos

[@pjbloggs5491]

Sheldrake follows the Scientific method scrupulously. This should be called “Spirituality versus Materialism”.

[@rozzgrey801]

But he's actually been criticised for not following scientific protocols, which is why mainstream science doesn't accept his ideas. Guess you thought you'd see what your claim looks like in print so you pretend it's like, real.

[@bastiaanvanbeek]

Don't believe everything you read and hear. Sheldrake isn't really reliable. And he has had plenty of chances to prove himself.

[@undercoveragent9889]

lol Neither you nor Sheldrake have a clue about the scientific method. I suppose that you think that snake-oil salesman John Lennox is a leading scientist too, right? Sheldrake's entire schtick is, 'I heard that...' or a friend told me...' or 'many people believe', etc. He is more religious than scientific.

[@counterintuitivepanda4555]

​@@rozzgrey801 that's so absurd since most scientific papers don't even follow proper scientific procedures properly lol. It's just the fact that the content of his research is controvertial which is why he gets targetted.

[@cottonfieldlover1]

Nah, he's a grifter.

[@jrbda]

I didn't believe a friend who lived in an isolated place 40 km from my work. He and my dog ​​lived there and he always said that he knew when I would show up without warning. There was no way to warn him, and I made the decisions to go completely at random, when I had a break from work. Well, he told me he always knew when I would show up there, because my dog ​​would sit for hours, in an unusual position near the door. I doubted him, for 10 years, until I read one. Sheldrake book. I can absolutely guarantee there is telepathic communication between some living beings. Maybe it doesn't happen to all humans and this should be better investigated scientifically.

[@oneoflokis]

💯👍 (NB: Colin Wilson, in his seminal 1970s tome on the occult, The Occult, mentions at least one case of this, happening to a Scottish poet friend of his, and his wife's observation of the family dog. This was of course decades before Sheldrake's experiments.)

[@garybridges9482]

Synchro-finity Have you ever heard of the term coincidence? Quite a concept,or a con of incidence! For when things now happen, that we cannot explain. And are just too surreal for the norm to entertain. Then understand my friend's synchronicity is at work! The chance meetings, the haven't seen him in ages. That energy rush, that flows through and engages. Always left with that strange feeling. Scratching your head, leaving the best of us reeling! With no way to describe but “ just one of those things”. Much love GB xxx Early 2015 ?

[@natanaellizama6559]

The issue with Shermer's position is that as Sheldrake points out, is not honest. He shifts the argument until we get the image of: "Your work is not good enough to disprove the powerful evidence of the mainstream. I am honestly agnostic, and so more work needs to be done". Which sounds reasonable, of course. Yet that is not the case. As Sheldrake points out, there is plenty within the acceptable mainstream that has poor evidence, yet it is not taboo. So, it's not poor evidence vs great evidence. Also, he is not agnostic, he has a very strong bias against. Also, the evidence is also not poor. Also, as Sheldrake pointed out, there is dishonesty at work in the examination, presentation and countering of the data. So, what's at hand is "There is a counter paradigm that runs counter to the mainstream paradigm, which is not being taken seriously and dismissed without inquiry(non-agnosticism) and researchers suffer consequences(that such a powerhouse as Penrose took a little step outside the mainstream and received such backlash is not evidence of the openness but contrary to it), in which there's foul play". That is not scientific conservatism, or rational agnosticism, or skepticism, that is just age old dogmatism, which for some reason, many people consider cannot happen to scientists. Scientists are as biased as the next person, and it's only human that a canon authority that has a given paradigm is biased unto itself. It has happened literally in every historical case because it's "all too human".

[@larrytinsley4247]

I love both these guys

[@arbez101]

I'm of similar thought as you larrytinsley4247. My own position is in agreement with much of the principal of what they each say. The host made a note that what we accept as evidence, and what we make of said evidence is determined sometimes not by unilateral consensus, but by inner circle creed and perhaps dogmatism. This "set" of the mind happens on both sides or in all slices of the reality cake, I would say.

[@george5464]

What does it even mean to be a “world leading skeptic”? I find it baffling how someone has made a career out of being a “skeptic”, not realising his own positions I.e “humans not being special” requires skepticism P.S this doesn’t per se mean i have to think humans are “special”

[@NWLee]

Dr. Shermer can't get past mind-brain problem, stuck in materialistic science.

[@robertrobinson1554]

What an excellent debate. My eldest received a Ph.D. in food science related to how climate change might impact Fusarium head blight (FHB), also known as scab or tombstone. It is a severe fungal disease of wheat (including durum), barley, oats, and other small cereal grains and corn. His findings for the Northwest US indicated better yields in that region. But he got significant resistance because it didn't fit the narrative that all climate change is bad, bad, bad. So, there is considerable bias and dogma in the Sciences; it always has been and always will be.

[@robynmitchell9563]

The fact that climate change might be beneficial for growing crops & therefore has benefits for certain humans completely ignores the fact that humans are one species in a vast biological system. Loss of biodiversity at all levels will eventually have catastrophic effects on humans, no natter how much bread, pasta & corn syrup Americans will still be able to consume.

[@robertrobinson1554]

It wasn't about denying Climate Change. My comment was about the bias against any research that doesn't fit the narrative. It's what's been going on these last few years of canceling or full-out censorship. Those that censorship favors have no problem with it. Are you that type of person?@@robynmitchell9563

[@1SpudderR]

Permanent Head Damage....PHD- They really should rename that title! Perhaps Head Damage!? Priority Head Damage!? Lol!?

[@Vgallo]

@@robynmitchell9563 but this is not the point that op was highlighting. Correct me if I’m wrong but they didn’t challenge anything you’ve stated, both can be true and I think understanding both will be crucial to how we manage climate change effectively, suppressing these truths because they don’t fit the overall agenda, will hurt us more in the long run, than incorporating and using that data to help design effective strategies in dealing with climate change. Seems half the problem is most people’s minds are entirely binary and incapable of holding nuanced thought in their mind.

[@smlanka4u]

The theory of everything called Verifying the Origin of Everything shows why modern science is fundamentally wrong.

[@briansprock2248]

There is no 'versus' when there is right understanding.

[@1SpudderR]

I always analyse reword “Understanding” where Necessary. Which to me in some conversations implies I am subservient to to the user of that word ie “judge” in his environment? But out of his environment I am Not subservient to him and his Understanding as in this videotaped conversation!? And reapply the word “Understanding to comprehending” !? Regards

[@yngvesognen1092]

Yes, there is a great spiritual awakening going on, much greater than in the hippie, New Age, and other eras. Now it's enabled by the internet, instant knowledge.

[@williamoarlock8634]

Great 'navel-gazing' more like...

[@bastiaanvanbeek]

Coincidence or not, it is happening during the same time as the immense spread of misinformation and lack of rational thought in 2023. So, perhaps a bit of correlation or causation. lol

[@stelmarsky6778]

Spiritual awakening might be informed by the internet but instant knowledge is a two way sword.. Since you're thinking dualistically. The hippie, new age, and other eras are ever present they just change their appearance.

[@yngvesognen1092]

@@stelmarsky6778, yes of course, time is just a measurement, nothing basic has changed between each great movement. People however, experience more or less deeply. The internet enables both equally.

[@brucegelman5582]

Yes and now we have a tidal wave of nonsense daily rather than a slow leak.

[@counterintuitivepanda4555]

David Hawkins: Skepticism arises from a deep fear and lack of self trust. A healthy attitude is assuming everything is said in good faith until proven false. That does not mean one cannot enquire into the problem of finding out whether it is true or false, it's just that Skepticism has that added disadvantage of being distorted as it is motivated by fear. "I will consider what you say and test it out myself, as I have respect for you as a human being" versus "I don't trust anything, I doubt all of it"

[@Kalavinka623]

Michael Shermer: "your scientific ideas can't be true because they aren't mainstream and they would be self-evident and supported if they were true." Dazzling circular logic that isn't supported by the study of scientific paradigms, or generally speaking, epistemic paradigms.

[@faismasterx]

Not even 40 minutes? This discussion needs at least 2 hours.

[@ThatisnotHair]

That staring at people expirement is something that is experienced alot

[@jerrysikora2024]

Sheldrake is great pioneer of future science !

[@bastiaanvanbeek]

Not really, he's probably more similar to how scientists thought during the Middle Ages or like during the postmodern era of the 20th century, lol.

[@counterintuitivepanda4555]

​@@bastiaanvanbeek Not really. Scientists initially started out as philosophers. Eventually, science has move on and forgotten it's roots and hidden dogmas (materialistic views). With the limitations of our understanding that modern physics has revealed, it has been made clear that these dogmas were false. In light of this, people like Rupert are calling to make a change in our fundamental thinking, which stretches back to the old ways of thinking as you mentioned. Although it's more Greek than middle aged scientists and philosophers who influenced modern science's ways.

[@snowflakeca2079]

It’s not a “Head-to-head”… It’s not a competition… It’s 2 living beings of the same Super Organism… We are all 1.

[@betacam235]

True, but this IS the Internet after all....

[@phillipmaxwellastrology2978]

I think the resistance to allowing spiritual ideas in science is rooted in a fear that we will revert to a time of religious dogma. Seems though like we replaced one overly rigid dogma with another. I think we need to have no dogma that we are hard and fast attached to. But being attached to a dogma, world view paradigm seems to be deeply intertwined with the human condition

[@davidscott1052]

I think Dr Sheldrake has successfully countered Shermers arguments especially over the accusations that Sheldrakes experiments did not yield better than chance results

[@JimsPub-ds3qs]

The truth is very valuable.

[@atmanbrahman1872]

Yes. But it's not offered by scepticism for scepticism sake.

[@johncarter1150]

​@atmanbrahman1872 Yes, it is.

[@tleevz1]

And it's free. Too many find it radioactive.

[@DaboooogA]

Great exchange thanks. I personally have enjoyed Sheldrake's exchanges with the late great Terrence McKenna (particularly on the question of cannabis), as well as Shermer's (single) exchange with Graham Hancock...

[@IndigoHazelnut]

The irony in the arguments of most sceptics is this : opening up an argument by saying we can't be sure of what we know but now I will tell you how certain I am of these things I believe in. I would love to see Michael Shermer proposing his views to Donald Hoffman

[@williamoarlock8634]

The biggest irony - that's never addressed - is the 'spiritual' all being so materially and socially privileged...

[@philosopher0076]

@@williamoarlock8634 You mean the " religious " not the spiritual.

[@williamoarlock8634]

@@philosopher0076 The 'spiritual' are materialistic - from the so-called Dalai Lama and his wealthy friends, to Sheldrake and his dippy hippy wife and every other celebrity spouting 'spirituality' from their comfortable homes and privileged positions.

[@Nature_Consciousness]

@@williamoarlock8634 So you are attacking the person instead of their message?

[@williamoarlock8634]

@@Nature_Consciousness What message? Because all the 'spiritual' have is egotism and woo.

[@JessieAllen-r6m]

The future will prove thinkers like Sheldrake right. I've personally experienced out of body experiences which science does not explain at this level.

[@swinnyuk6584]

Same!

[@Mogorman87]

Delusions. Got it

[@JessieAllen-r6m]

@@Mogorman87 no, not delusions. Even CIA gateway experiment had confirmed that astral projection is real. But the “science religion” would not allow a proper discussion around it. Because the masses are supposed to feed the system the way it is set up.

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@Mogorman87When/if you ever have one of these experiences, you will know. I wish you well.

[@damien1166]

Good points from Shermer but he comes across as a 'Gatekeeper' whereas Sheldrake Covinced me of his open viewpoint.

[@PieJesu244]

Krauss, Dawkins et al could learn alot from this discussion in particular how to be civil but still making a strong case whilst listening to the opposite view.

[@Theactivepsychos]

W he ate your best example of incivility from Dawkins?

[@righteousshift482]

Dawkins is always very civil I've found. A polite, reverential guy. He does cast ridicule at ideas and behaviours but rarely at people. It doesn't mean he's always correct but he's a great example to people of how to behave in a discussion. Politicians could learn a lot by watching someone like Dawkins interacting with people from the other end of the ideological spectrum.

[@PieJesu244]

@@righteousshift482 Mmmmm not sure your right about that but we can agree to differ

[@yngvesognen1092]

She said the key word, experience. Science doesn't have to prove anything, just gather the evidence, the experiences of many people. Then they can reverse-engineer and see if the experiences fit into any scientific models. If not, a completely new field of our reality is being discovered. It's not about material vs spiritual, but discovering both.

[@bastiaanvanbeek]

Yes, but experiences can be false too. People can be delusions, you know. Like 3/4 of the earth's population experiences some kind of religious or spiritual things. But that doesn't make it true, lol. Our brains (humans, worldwide) are fooling us easily.

[@phillipmaxwellastrology2978]

Fantastic discussion, but it needed at least another hour to be complete

[@jamesboswell9324]

As odd as some of Rupert Sheldrake's theories and ideas are, his stance is solidly scientific. He is dead right to call out a lot of the phoney scepticism or 'scientific conservatism' that starts out with the answer (universe is made purely out of particles, waves and fields) and then dismisses every piece of empirical evidence that potentially challenges that model. At the extreme, such 'scientific conservatism' bleeds into a kind of mechanistic or physicalist fundamentalism. Whereas, if science is driven by anything besides curiosity, its extra-special element is doubt, which is clearly in diametric opposition to all kinds of fundamentalist belief, whether religious or (pseudo-)scientific. And too often scientists forget this. In short, they mix up science with scientism.

[@williamwhitten7820]

*I live with an African Gray Parrot who just whistled and walked into the room I am in just as I began writing this...* *She knows what I am thinking all of the time. I have absolutely no doubt of this...even though it surprized me just now as she came in here just now! Wow! I am continually amazed.*

[@brianmckerrow817]

Rupert is tapping into consciousness. A collective paramagnetic epigenetic that connects Life.

[@guntersostaric874]

In a lucid dream I had once experienced that our previous knowledge, in contrast to what exists, is minimal. I saw a number of closed doors. I opened one and saw ten closed doors again behind it. I was aware that behind every other one there were again ten closed doors, and on and on like that. We find that the greater our knowledge, the greater our ignorance. Experience is the only reality

[@clorofilaazul]

One doesn’t need to have a dream in order to know that… But I’m glad you had that dream.

[@nanonoise]

interesting debate.. I wish it was a bit longer though, at least 60 min

[@andrewx3y8c]

I think the overarching point by Sheldrake stands and came through towards the end - even if Sheldrake’s particular perspective on minds weren’t to prevail in the end, there’s an inherent bias (not to deny any bias in the other direction) in the fleetingly dominant mechanistic view of the world which is taken for granted and limited in scope, and it won’t be unseated quickly or easily. Short format so probably didn’t allow the time necessary to really begin to flesh things out, but wasn’t impressed with the conflation of “400 years of physics” to all possible fields of study or as if they’ve all been equally pursued across that timeline.

[@The-Wide-Angle]

Shermer's claim that there is no censorship is the weakest argument. Almost no universities and research centers allow for Sheldrake's line of research. Right or wrong, but that's a fact.

[@williamoarlock8634]

Sheldrake has nothing concrete to research.

[@counterintuitivepanda4555]

Yes... the limit is set FAR before even the topics Sheldrake researches. Any researcher will tell you it's all about the money and the funds. There's no time for real exploration and commitment to understanding.

[@betacam235]

Then there's the bias against any papers in Parapsychology presented for publication in 'Science and 'Nature' magazines.. This is ancient history, and very obvious censorship. Shermer is perfectly aware of this.

[@joesmoke9624]

The limits of human knowledge are vast and ever-expanding.

[@selliahlawrencebanchanatha4482]

God bless Dr thanking you

[@alaintavakoli4573]

Rupert is some other level guy you're looking for...🔥

[@bastiaanvanbeek]

Well, not really. Other level... Certainly not a higher level, lol.

[@richardhall5489]

Interesting that the term "the" placebo effect is used rather than "a" placebo effect. From my perspective the former implies "nothing to look at here" while the latter says "oh... interesting".

[@MattHudsonAtx]

They mean the exact same thing

[@tobiaszb]

Thank you for giving the huge example of the repeated studies and consensus - climate heating, human caused.

[@AnHebrewChild]

human -caused- influenced, indeed.

[@cliffjamesmusic]

One of the dilemmas of knowledge is that it can be very useful, enabling us to do things that would otherwise not be possible but on the other hand, it can take us in the “wrong” direction, if dogma replaces scepticism. Science (evidence-based opinion aka facts, exposed to scepticism and criticism) can help; but for life, belief is more important. It is belief that determines our attitudes and behaviour, whether that belief is in a saviour, interpretation of something as a threat, or whatever. When Belief is attached to dogma, as with religions, applied economic and political theory and in corrupted science, serious problems and conflicts can arise i.e. the World we live in today.

[@CVsnaredevil]

Rupert! 🙌🏼

[@Nalhek]

Shermer has his form down to a science, and I don't mean that to be flattering. He consistently moves the goalpost whenever it suits him. First he makes it about evidence, then makes it about the likelihood that evidence might be mistaken, then makes the assumption that Rupert being right would require throwing out all of physical science, then throws Penrose out there as a curve ball just to avoid going on defense, etc etc Anyone who isn't familiar with Rupert's work is really making a mistake.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Shermer will not entertain the magic kingdom and should be cancelled. You did well to quote mine through micky shermer's comment. I could say you continually move the goalposts if I pretend you did not include the "He" Of course it could be that you did not pay any attention ,made up your mind the drake's babbling was your priority or have difficulty parsing sentences.

[@endofscene]

Shermer is not a great mind. All his arguments and counter arguments are easily refuted.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@endofscene Apparently, Michael Shermer's arguments are irrefutable, at least by you, unless you plan to do better than you have. A reminder for everyone, including myself. Whenever we use the ubiquitous "ALL", we are certainly not getting off to a productive start. Even if we get one thing correct, it does not follow that everything we spill after that has credibility.

[@rozzgrey801]

@@endofscene I guess you're hoping we'll just take your word for that claim. We don't expect you to actually prove what you claim with any evidence at all, which is lucky for you as we all know you are bluffing.

[@SandipChitale]

Why is it that people like Eric Weinstein, Rupert Sheldrake and Stuart Hameroff complain about some kind of persecution in every debate. They can focus on the debate subject and not waste time on sociolo and complain elsewhere.

[@jacksonelmore6227]

It’s an adjacent social issue relevant to the progression of science, as well as the discussion at hand, there is an archetypal pattern of the acceptance of new discoveries Galileo, of course, but also: The Christ and the Buddha discovered the Self, and were persecuted; but now we all accept the Self, consciously or not

[@marksharman8029]

Michael Shermer as a skeptic, 'is not special'. And that is ok. There is a place for that. I'm just skeptical about the process of skepticism. Maybe finding ways to 'not' something could be counter productive. Given that sensitivity to nuances in perception are difficult to measure, could be perhaps rendered down to the: Known; Unknown; and the Unknowable. Having an open mind is maybe a better approach to walking the path you are on.

[@899547]

Maybe some people don't want to be scientific sheep. Science has it's place.

[@romanszefler7479]

We could never find what we are not looking for

[@mazharali4163]

Rupert is a genius ❤

[@briansprock2248]

Okay,.... there was a period in my life when I instictively knew when they were ovulating. The mother of my daughter was told by another man that she was pregnant, while she herself was not even aware of it herself. Like I mentoned before,.... some people pick things up. Instinct can be honed by paying attention to the subtle cues of your own body and that the environment gives off. It's a thing. And most people have experienced it in their lives.

[@MaheeSharma-u5l]

I claim this ,I have been thinking something and I opened my phone,and I saw video related to it.I was watching video and then I see that person who doesn't live around my area and has no chance of coming at all.I ignored due to materialist view that it was brain creating but I still think this much coincidence is not something am meaning there is something telepathic abt it ,which materialist try hard to disregard and unfortunately they are dominant in nature and they make you believe something wrong with you rather than saying may be we are not understanding something,but they are dogmatic and has command

[@MaheeSharma-u5l]

@@KatyWellsKingsland i actually ignore KZbin video things ,the idea running in my head and then coming to KZbin by denying that may be algorithm,which make no sense because KZbin doesn't read my mind but seeing something on KZbin and finding same person outside of him having no chance is actually very surprising for me ,other than this I was in village are to my dadi's hoise where no plane comes and I was just watching ladin air strike attack video summary and suddenly the plane come and I swear it's true and never the plane came there nad I actually wa shocked because I was watching that ladon attack video for 2 hoir from different channels I don't know why.But every person there strted talking it never came why plane came here .I don't know I ignored actually this things but these I don't know have significance or not

[@joecole6875]

Let's get Sheldrake on Joe Rogan. Why has this not happened? EDIT: Oh, it has!

[@etyrnal]

shermer didn't acknowledge that they gatekeep research

[@1SpudderR]

One of these commentators is in the mud And quite happy to be stuck there for the past Thirty or so years. The question....”Which One”!? I’ll have a really good guess, and still buy mind expanding books which are striving to get all of us out of the mud! Thinking For ourselves.

[@inad9300]

Bravo, Rupert.

[@mausperson5854]

Emperor's New Mind is a prime example of how it's quite respectable to study such things as the 'Hard Problem'. Popular science books that hint at the mysterious and immaterial fly off the shelves. What is there to complain about... These studies get funded notwithstanding the poor results suggesting 'spooky stuff' going on in the only place we can seemingly investigate from, i.e. the natural world. Science being dynamic and provisional allows for constant upgrades in what the best current models we have.

[@selliahlawrencebanchanatha4482]

Dr shelfreg love you

[@yngvesognen1092]

It's not about changing skeptics' minds. It is about using the spiritual means we have to navigate this material wold. That way maybe even some skeptics may "see the light".

[@johnjeffreys6440]

spiritual was the original name given to what we now cal quantum.

[@yngvesognen1092]

@@johnjeffreys6440Whatever sounds less woo-woo I suppose...but when you break material science down to the quantum level you still don't get to the essence, spirit, the reason behind it all, the "theory" of everything if you will. That scientists simply dismiss the many spiritual experiences of many millions of people over many millennia is both deplorable and laughable. They are so dogmatically convinced that there is nothing beyond material science that their narrow-mindedness has blinders on. There is an alternative understanding of quantum entanglement which I can expound upon if you wish.

[@counterintuitivepanda4555]

​@@johnjeffreys6440 it seems to be, yes. But the way we approach quantum leaves us with no real way of understanding it because of our limited brains. David Bohm clearly understood this

[@andrew348]

Why did the thumbnail make me think this was Saul Goodman vs Howard Hamlin?

[@patriciaflores5310]

I’m all Mr Shaldrake team.

[@patrickl6932]

How long are Rupert's arms? WOW

[@skand1nsky]

If everyone agrees that quantum entanglement / non locality is a real phenomena and facet of our reality, then why is it such a stretch to suggest that interactions in one brain can lead to simultaneous effects in another brain?? Isnt that what telepathy is? Signals can and do travel faster than light. The Bell EPR paradox was never disproven. Ergo, it makes sense to suggest that particles in one location mediate others elsewhere.

[@AnHebrewChild]

Agree, but one need not even appeal to QM to formulate a reasonable hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. The lack of imagination in so many is startling.

[@1SpudderR]

1:00.....I- Probably- We all, don’t comprehend how you (anyone) can be a world leading Sceptic!?

[@clungebucket23]

When did this talk take place?

[@drstrangelove09]

Shermer: (who I agree with) "Objective reality exists but we don't know what it is" -> what? yes, we do!

[@mykrahmaan3408]

Search for knowledge must only be for the single purpose of PREVENTION OF EVIL (predation, disasters, diseases, death). Hence, the only criterion of proof of accuracy of knowledge must be: PRACTICAL SATISFACTION OF THE NEEDS OF ALL BEINGS.

[@michaelleahcim4507]

Beautiful

[@СергейДядькин-я5ф]

Michael Shermer 👍

[@selliahlawrencebanchanatha4482]

Dear gods all you are gods live you

[@edmathews1817]

I do enjoy forum swear there is actually open discussion and listening 2 another side. Thank you for that.however the opening speaker started right out by telling me he doesn't know anything and I can't know anything either,. That is in fact then the end off dialog.

[@lakshmisharma6182]

Why sceptics are not towards materialism ,why towards others

[@chuckbirdnz]

I must say Michael is wrong about climate change. Some sceptics may be unqualified but others very well qualified. Dr Judith Curry is one and Dr Steven Koonin, author of "Unsettled" is another. Micheal should watch Koonin in a debate.

[@Gwest555]

Ive never got the impression that argument is that all of previous science is wrong but that the current paradigm is just a worldview and offering a new worldview convergent with other cultures metaphysics

[@chrisl3330]

The Story of Adam and Eve. There was this lady Eve, and she knew this fellow Adam, and they lived in a garden. The garden of Eden, a garden which covered the whole of our blue-green earth. And one day, Eve ate some fruit, and she evolved the ability of language, and her words flew through the garden like witches on broomsticks, poking Adam and telling him everything he did right, everything he did wrong, everything good, and everything evil. And so it was that Eve’s new ability allowed her words of thought, but it came at a price for language displaces instincts and so she could no longer live in the garden as did the bears and the wolves and the chickadees but now had to live upon the Earth surviving by her logic, emotions, and curiosity. Now it should be mentioned that Eve wasn’t just one woman, she was all of women, kind or otherwise, in her day’s journey of evolution, and Adam wasn’t just one man, kind or otherwise, he was all of men in his day’s journey of evolution, and a day is one-seventh of a measure of time, as in they were living in the seventh age of creation and God was resting. And we might recall that Adam was found to be naked, and that’s not to say he wasn’t adorned with a fig leaf-pattered shirt, but rather that he had lost the thick coat of fur that had once covered the human body. A coat like that which covers the bear and the wolf and the otter. And with the loss of fur, his exposed skin evolved the ability to sweat, keeping him cool and allowing him to toil upon the soil for the not-so-symbolic fruit of labor. But what of the snake, you wonder? That slithering symbol of danger to the visual mind became the hissing voice of danger to the auditory mind. A voice which, through Eve, spoke the first and most human words ever whispered. “Gossip” Attached to an old idea? Is it time for new interpretations?

[@selliahlawrencebanchanatha4482]

God bless love you all

[@kennyw871]

It would help to know which God you're referring to?

[@kalinthecity]

Any guy that quotes the author Philip K. Dick is good with me :)

[@zyxmyk]

i think skeptics believe everything that can be discovered has been. and they make a nice living arguing that point endlessly.

[@Qwitsoender]

@@zyxmyk No, they think that if one believes they have discovered something one has to be able to show it, and people have to be able to replicate the finding.

[@fcalin21]

Rupert is the next Deepak Chopra.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

tukdam in taipei 2020 was fully monitored and tested by neuroscientists and scientists and lasted over 30 days. what was demonstrated completely destroys modern biology, medicine, physics, etc, and physicalism.

[@martinwilliams9866]

In fact, we go round Venus, which goes round Mercury, which goes round the Sun, which goes round the Barycenter