I've met and spoken to Rupert and he's truly a wonderfully lovable human. I don't believe he's nailed it with his own theories, but his critiques of scientism and his general speculative outline of an emerging science I agree very much with.

It's interesting how Sheldrake's views on the human phenomena that are susceptible to an evolutionary process look like Jung's idea on the collective unconscious: once you form a new idea it becomes part of the collective unconscious by morphic resonance.

What a strange place to have an interview. I suppose it gives the sense of a private, even secretive talk of a taboo subject in a corridor at school. Looks like Rupert is about to either buy a little bag of weed or pass on a naughty novel to his friend.

@busheybushdawg

5 жыл бұрын

I thought the same - there are 3-4 videos in the same location - they must have stood there for over an hour lol

@AtheistCook

4 жыл бұрын

well, if you think about these are taboo subjects in science.

@miguelthealpaca8971

4 жыл бұрын

My guess is he's gonna hand over a naughty novel.

@ingenuity168

4 жыл бұрын

They think it's beautiful there.

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

Sheldrake ripped the seat of his pants, just stood there until everyone went home.

imo Rupert is an interesting Cat regardless of what you think of his particular ideas. At least he is aware of a dogma-box, that requires some outside thinking.

@b.g.5869

3 жыл бұрын

He's a crank.

Very interesting !

1:15 Habits of Nature v Laws of Nature. Great way of putting it. Evolving 'habits' make plenty of sense in an evolving cosmos.

@b.g.5869

3 жыл бұрын

Except that he's demonstrably wrong. The idea that the laws of nature are fixed isn't a 17th century superstition, it's an exhaustively proven fact. Not only that, to the extent anything Sheldrake says isn't demonstrably and outrageously false, it's not original. The idea that we can't be certain that the laws of nature never change is just the famous problem of induction first put forth by David Hume in the 1700s. But Sheldrake doesn't just say, as Hume did, that the fact that the laws of nature have always been observed to behave in a certain way does not in and of itself mean they won't suddenly change tomorrow (which is a logical conundrum rather than an actual concern), he asserts that they _are_ changing, which is simply false. He might as well claim that the moon is turning into cheese.

This whole bit about crystals... no way that's actually true, right?

I put a like on this brilliant clip of Rupert, a magnificent scientist in its truest sense. This clip also demonstrates the haughtiness he encounters from others, such as this host/interviewer. Bravo Rupert!

Could emergence of physical laws of nature happen as energy forms information, in quantum fields and space-time?

I guess all the meeting rooms were booked

The thing about quantum mechanics and the phenomenon of entanglement is that entanglement is fundamental and new entangled states are being added by entropy and consolidated as syntropy therefore defining time and the past as well as the template for the future. Morphic resonance and retrocausality is just quantum holographic memory and retrocausal sensing of old and new entangled states. Dark energy and cosmic expansion is an expression of that, as to prevent the a kinda halting or buffering of temporal continuation. Even the multiverse theory allows the preservation and establishment of of past and future associations or entangled states of potential outcomes. The conservation of mass and energy needs to include information and time. The past pushes and forces potential and constrained futures to emerge. So as energy is transferred so is information and time. Right now we have all of the pieces of the puzzle, yet very little has been fitted together. Entanglement is every materialists physicists nightmare yet it's fundamental. There are multiple levels or densities of entanglement the most dense being the Plank scale where everything is nearly infinitely tightly connected, than you have succeeding levels such as particles and the quantum geometry they derive from, atoms, their bonds and so forth. Black holes maybe large fields where all these levels have been forced into alignment. The past can be stored in what most scientists call vacuum, but would actually be a kind of software of reality where it is folded up and causes entropic quantum fluctuations that project outward like a hologram and expand space. It can be unfolded again as appropriate convergent conditions or contexts are met. As it projects out it goes into superposition or divergence and the wave function callaspes to convergence or a particle with a particular state depending on its presedent past actions and interactions in an environment etc. Everything is in a state of quantum coherence, it's just different tunes and symphonies of coherence. This is where quantum relativity can take place and how asymmetries arise. Quantum hall effects are another expression of the same thing as are all other quantum phenomena. The past is folded up into aetheria like compressed origami or holographic anti-projections. So we have been looking at matter as full of stuff even though it itself is almost completely empty. Matter, energy, space and time as well as information are just dynamic self-organizing geometries of activity that transform in a relative context to one another to establish relationships. In fact including matter, all reality is 99.999999999999% what materialists refer to as nothingness, that is actually something and everything and the root, ground state and derivative of all reality as we know and don't know it. This goes for all potential realities, as the simulation hypothesis is just revealing that reality needs to have pexelation or it would be seamless and uniform.

@beefy32

4 жыл бұрын

Very well put. Or we could all just be characters in a video game interpreting a data stream :)

@rv706

3 жыл бұрын

To somebody that writes long paragraphs full of science-y buzzwords, I just have to ask: do you know what a Hilbert space is?

we always love Rupert! We love hearing him debate with Terence McKenna in Trialogues...Rupert poses strong, valid and rational arguments...We "feel" he is right!

@rv706

3 жыл бұрын

I personally feel he is very wrong.

@b.g.5869

3 жыл бұрын

Sheldrake is a crank and McKenna was a phony. McKenna had stopped tripping many years before he died after having a horrible experience with mushrooms, yet continued to aggressively promote the consumption of them in "heroic doses". He also loathed his fans and the people that attended his talks and conferences and regarded them as idiots, but put up a front because they were his main source of income.

@rikkerthindriks3478

2 жыл бұрын

@@rv706 Yes me too. Terribly wrong.

@marcv2648

2 жыл бұрын

@@b.g.5869 Interesting. I was unaware of this. Can you point me to somewhere where I can find out more ?

@b.g.5869

2 жыл бұрын

@@marcv2648 The KZread wizards keep deleting my response. Just Google "The Terrence McKenna Thing".

With Mr. Kuhn's interviewing style we get more knowledge about the nature of an open and inquisitive mind, than we learn from the subject matter about the nature of reality. However, and to Sheldrake's credit, he does provide an excellent heuristic example for young people interested in pursuing a career in science of what it is to creatively hypothesize.

at what speed does morphic resonance propagate? you can't measure beyond the speed of light because signal.

Thankyou ! This is great :)

Emergence is the best materialistic hypothesis for consciousness. I always feel way more comfortable with a material explanation than a supernatural one.

@execwebtech3396

6 жыл бұрын

Jesse Gandy such is the nature of explanations, built of language as they are.

@miguelthealpaca8971

4 жыл бұрын

What's supernatural?

@JBSCORNERL8

3 жыл бұрын

Super natural? Lmfao

@nateureo5428

3 жыл бұрын

The universe came from nothing=The rabbit come out of the magician’s hat

@JBSCORNERL8

3 жыл бұрын

@@nateureo5428 the universe did come from nothing but that doesnt mean magic. Nothing is also infinity. Or Zero is equal to an infinite amount of numbers. Which means that this reality is basically a structured nothing. Sort of like a computer simulation but without the computer programmer. Reality is basically a living mathematical simulation.

damn what a bunch of godamn haters.....chill out.

I love listening to Rupert S. He has a brilliant brain.

How does fine-tuning become a habit?

@chrisbennett6260

Жыл бұрын

Ask the proponent of the theory

Is Sheldrake's assertion about new molecules being crystalised correct? Can we cite sources?

@antreasAnimations

8 ай бұрын

Read his book 'a new science of life' and google some of the examples he gives. Ive read at least 3 articles which cited the phenomena as 'paranormal activities' they are instances which did occur but science glosses over it

Take any object like a pencil or pin and no that every atom is bonded to one another and picture a carbon atom on one side and a carbon atom on another side and move your pin etc like a pendulum and know that each atom is 'entangled' at a mesoscopic scale and moving accordingly in simultaneity. The same is true for all systems as the waves of influence are retrocausally already sent and influenced by presedent actions. All the information is already there. Preceeding activity itself causes the universe to expand so more activities can occur and is a type of space-time warping. An atom has a galaxies worth of potential activities occurring within it. This principle of precedence in quantum mechanics is why Bayesian statistics of particle behavior is so effective at predicting output states.

What a ridiculously general opening question

Would an AI intelligence inhabit morphicfields? Or will 'It' act as a designer - since machines don't acquire morphicfields?

@execwebtech3396

6 жыл бұрын

The influence flows from morphic fields to AI but not in the other direction, in my understanding. . tinyurl.com/RobotsAndChicks

Solomon wrote, "There is nothing new under the sun." If there is any truth in this statement then it implies that reality is operating as an evolving fractal of a finite number of basic patterns. I am my father's son.

Was gravity a habit of nature??

occam's razor needed

Misleading title

I think it's reasonable to assert that we are not MEAT ROBOTS.

@cosmicsprings8690

3 жыл бұрын

Garry Burgess 🤣🤣🤣✨you can’t say that about every one boyo ✨🤣🤣🤣🤣✨have you seen Venice beach 🏝 lately..✨🤣🤣✨🌼🌞🌼✨🎶🇬🇧🎶✨🌞✨

I like the way he interviews the weirdo in the corridor!

@adamburling9551

2 жыл бұрын

Get over yourself

Consciousnes means aware of whole thing and none. None is meaningless without experinece. Thinking is a state of consciousness. The work of thinking is to be experienced, to which no Law applies. Experience and experiencer are two different things. Time gender reality belief perceptions it all exists based on experience. Experiencer is thinking, state of consciousness. No Law applies to thinking. That is why experience format understand that I am experiencing myself. Any accident can be prevented by advanced thinking. Because the absence of advance notice is part of an accident

@guillerminavelazquez2773

4 жыл бұрын

Interesting ideas some people believe that a person's life is programed/decided since birth and accidents are destined to happen.

I think it's best to not have comments on these videos because the bigots just use them to vent on.

@anthonymccarthy4164

5 жыл бұрын

@ichew gum No one is obligated to provide a platform for bigots.

Emergence of stupidity creates the quantum field of nonsense

As humanity continues, the Consciousness of each of us grows closer to the real connection that we have to the universe that allowed us just the perfect environment to produce Consciousness! We must continue to seek the root purpose and the impact of consciousness within the universe that made way for it!

Do the crystals and other such phenomenon themselves produce quantum fields of distant extension that with entanglement and superposition develop the habits described?

So the entire universe is self-aware? And conscious?

@glennralph7007

4 жыл бұрын

tatulem Basically yes. Consciousness was needed to create the Universe.

@tatulem

4 жыл бұрын

@@glennralph7007 I tend to think that yes, consciousness was indeed need it to create the Universe, but also that consciousness within the universe can a be a product of the physics inside it. I mean it in a way in which multiple Universes (with consciousness within or not) could be created using consciousness.

@glennralph7007

4 жыл бұрын

tatulem Consiousness is intelligence. And intelligence was needed to create anything and everything.

@antreasAnimations

8 ай бұрын

Correct

hmm... so the giraffe's neck gets longer because it thinks it should...

@nateureo5428

3 жыл бұрын

No but because it stretched it’s neck up to eat from tall trees and over the generations giraffes’ necks gradually grew elongated. Example of morphic resonance and evolution

If my theoretical idea concerning the theory of everything is basically true, then we are all beings of light (photons) in a universe entirely filled with light (photons). REVISED TOE: 9/22/2016. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". 14. I also believe that a pulsating singularity (which is basically a pulsating photon) is the pure energy unit. 15. When these pulsating pure energy units interact with other pure energy units, they tangle together. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the pure energy units unite together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the pure energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting pure energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.

@saganworshipper6062

7 жыл бұрын

TLDR! This is youtube bruh! It's not Nature.com

@charlesbrightman4237

7 жыл бұрын

+Sagan Worshipper I am an American in America bruh with "free speech". It's really nice to have and I like to exercise it every now and then to insure I still have it. But my comment fit the video anyway bruh. My comment speaks to the very nature of reality. In addition, the very CEO of KZread on a KZread video said she wanted YT to be a place of open idea exchanges. Hence also your comment bruh. As I am trying to get "Closer To Truth" also, I believe my comment is pertinent right here where it is. Go back to worshipping Sagan.

@CandidDate

6 жыл бұрын

+Charles --- you are indeed a 'bright man.' The problem with Universities is they are like explaining a game of chess by analyzing what happens on one square alone. They look at a part of the Universe and claim to know what it is like in every other part. I have a theory too, but it is not as long as yours. I enjoy seeing other ideas. Thanks for writing..

@joemarshall4226

5 жыл бұрын

You've thought a lot about things. some day, maybe some of your ideas can be tested. If I'm not wrong, Tesla also had the belief that everything is light….he thought Einstein was wrong in some of his basic ideas. @@CandidDate

@CandidDate

5 жыл бұрын

@@joemarshall4226 Atomic theory seems to be inadequate in explaining atoms but cannot be discarded because it has provided so many accurate predictions. It is by no means an exhaustive theory and I believe that consciousness is part of atomic theory. Like Shrodinger's cat, we only fully create reality when we participate by observation.

**That image of Ross Geller saying: "Get a load of this guy!"**

Oh dear

The 100th monkey effect on physics!

The out of focus beginning says it all.

This was first a Jungian concept, AFAIK.

Dont use drugs, kids.

@nateureo5428

3 жыл бұрын

www.ijpsy.com/volumen6/num3/149/mindreading-in-a-dog-an-adaptation-of-a-EN.pdf

Hi closer to truth guy, fish for dinner.

That makes no sense, I think the guy is floating the idea of "it starts somewhere and now it's 'resonance' can create the something anywhere else in the universe". That's just guesswork, he has no basis, certainly no physics basis to make such a claim. There's also no need. If it can happen here, it can happen over there anyway, so let's just leave it at that. Locally, however, it makes sense for their to be a build-up process, why not.

@allistairneil8968

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds like you know as little about nature as Rupert.

@videosbymathew

2 жыл бұрын

@@allistairneil8968 Sorry? Can you please reply with something I can respond to. Your statement doesn't have any content.

And then people die, meets God and realize that we were seriously overthinking. Screw you Occam!

nuts

Great I came up with an onion I don't except when he said we can't do something and there are examples of it being done he's right we can't do it maybe now so don't dispell the future me or other

Morphic resonance 😂

As wishy-washy as 'science' gets.... SCI-WOO - how to profit from la la landers into either or both sci-fi and woo-woo... That's a large market with a proven record of gullibility.

If you can’t test it, then your hypothesis is just woo-woo garbage!

@danilovegap

3 жыл бұрын

So germs didn't exist during the time it was "the germ theory", and they materialized only when they were finally looked under a microscope? now that sounds like woo woo biocentrism

@rv706

3 жыл бұрын

Worse: it's probably already very falsified.

no

A final word. Sheldrake's hypothesis has indeed been tested, in exactly the ways he describes, and absolutely no scientific evidence has ever been observed to support his claim. In the world of science that is known as a falsified hypothesis, or to the layman, simply wrong.

@lowbeampictures729

7 жыл бұрын

Please name the source of the test that you refer to.

@borderlands6606

7 жыл бұрын

A useful summary of the anti-Sheldrake phenomenon: www.sheldrake.org/reactions/the-anti-sheldrake-phenomenon

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

7 жыл бұрын

Er, actually, different investigators have gotten different results. Some replications (and not only by nut jobs). Some failures. The case is far from closed. I have no dog in the fight and frankly don't care if Sheldrake is right. But the hysterical skeptical response is just embarrassing and regressive.

Sheldrake is universally recognized as a crank. Morphic resonance is pseudoscientific nonsense, but it sounds very attractive to people that aren't familiar with the way science works and don't think critically. He's Interesting to listen to, but if you actually think what he's saying is plausible you really need to take a course in critical thinking and evaluation of evidence. It's funny to hear the old 'trialogues' with Sheldrake, Terrence McKenna, and Rupert Abraham, because McKenna made Sheldrake sound reasonable by comparison, which is pretty extraordinary.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

B Joseph, the stuff Sheldrake is saying doesn't resonate with me, but isn't calling him a crank the same as calling someone's religion a cult. All religions are cults and all scientists who stray past the scientific method are cranks.

@b.g.5869

3 жыл бұрын

@@caricue It's not clear what you imagine yourself to be disagreeing with me about here. Are you objecting to Sheldrake being characterized as a crank or not?

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@@b.g.5869 I do object to calling sincere and honest people cranks, or any other derogatory name. If you have an issue with his position, that should be the target of your ire, not the man. I do agree that his position is pseudo-scientific nonsense.

@b.g.5869

3 жыл бұрын

@@caricue Crank is a colloquial term for a pseudoscientist. It's not an adhominem attack. As to your assertion that he's honest that's demonstrably false. He's lied outright about the existence of evidence for morphic resonance many times and lied about his critics many times as well. He probably does actually think morphic resonance is a thing but it's impossible to know what he actually believes as opposed to what he claims to without being able to read his mind. It's hard to believe someone as intelligent and familiar with what is required in order to think something is actually true as Sheldrake is could actually believe in most of the things he claims but I suppose it's possible.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@@b.g.5869 You definitely make a good case against him, but I'm not sure what his significance is. I've never heard of him or his ideas outside of CTT. Kuhn interviews all kinds of people with ideas that are really out there, so I mostly just dismiss a lot of his guests if they don't bring anything new to the table. I'm sure you have your reasons for taking such a hard stand against him. Take it easy.

Materialists of the world unite!!!!! alarum! alarum!!!!

@nofran5325

7 жыл бұрын

It would be really nice for you to unite and present some evidence against non-materialism.

@TheAverageJoe2014

7 жыл бұрын

Was thinking the same think NofraN lol, materialism is a dying worldview with the physics of the coming decades regarding QFT and QED.

@BGlasnost

6 жыл бұрын

I think the original comment was sarcasm...

Kudos to Kuhn for keeping a straight face.

@nateureo5428

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah narcissists are good at pretending to be humble and hide their all-knowing, delusional selves

@nateureo5428

3 жыл бұрын

www.ijpsy.com/volumen6/num3/149/mindreading-in-a-dog-an-adaptation-of-a-EN.pdf

Sheldrake's sense of reality is not broad enough. the guy on the right I had to stop watching on cable because he hasn't read enough books or had enough experiences to even discuss reality. Sheldrake--you say it is hard to know where to begin? Begin with quarks that spin billions of times a second as light, which form what are called protons and neutrons. begin with discussing electricity, which proves there is no solidity. Begin with the study the army did with the Unified Field we are all saturated with. In the book "The Divine Matrix" written by Braden I remember the army wanting to know the distance emotions could travel from the source. they set up an experiment. The story was something like taking from a subject a part of their body and then traveling away hundreds of miles with it. Then they damaged this part of the body to see if the man felt it. Or the other way around. The experiment proved that the message was instantaneous over hundreds of miles. This proves the Unified Field being ONE mind. Each "part" knows what all the other parts are doing because this field IS ONE MIND. Parts are not really parts. We all use this one mind. We do not have separate minds. Physicists call this non locality or quantum entanglement. Barbara Brennan, a NASA physicist, wrote a book called "Emerging Light". Ford wrote of quarks MAGIALLY bursting forth into this reality apparently coming from another reality. I call this emergence the bursting of images from one frequency band into another frequency band. this whole conversation has to be wrapped up in quantum physics terms to be understood by everybody. People win Nobel Prizes for their work in quantum physics. There has to be grounds where everyone can meet AND that will never be what people call religion because there are too many opinions. Quantum physics cannot be opinion. Make quantum physics the ONE religion Understood by all. Sheldrake---PLEASE USE QUANTUM PHYSICS TERMS TO DESCRIBE WHAT YOU THINK. Evolution is an illusion. Energy always vibrates now. What is measured as far as age is concerned is the declining of the intent of consciousness to build something called solid. But solidity is an illusion because it takes super fast spinning quarks to burst forth from another faster spinning reality/frequency band to build what is called solidity. Quarks spin because consciousness has an idea. Waves bunch up into frequencies because of observation/intent. To have intent/observation there has to be consciousness first. The measurement of age is the measurement of energy. Energy does not age just like electricity does not age. ENERGY IS CONSTANTLY EMERGING. CREATION IS CONSTANT.

@nateureo5428

3 жыл бұрын

Begin with the 10 high 11 singularities/miracles and big bangs required to even make sense of materialism with missing matter and missing energy... creation myths www.ijpsy.com/volumen6/num3/149/mindreading-in-a-dog-an-adaptation-of-a-EN.pdf

Sheldrake is not the only one with half-truths, I run into so many scientist that start with the truth and then develop over-time into pseudo-scientific nonsense. I guess it's a side-effect of constantly seeing the world from the same point of view or the side-effect of the fact that they are not God, I guess.

@nateureo5428

3 жыл бұрын

www.ijpsy.com/volumen6/num3/149/mindreading-in-a-dog-an-adaptation-of-a-EN.pdf

We look back at our forebears with quaint condescension at their theorizing things like the ether, or bad humor is causing disease. We think it’s funny that they had academic positions at places like Oxford and Cambridge while still pursuing alchemy. Then you see this nut and recognize that it still happens.

So we can use the word evolution but not law? And your reasoning is what? Hog wash!

The word "hypothesis" lost all meaning... so any unfounded overly simplistic idea can be a hypothesis now? My hypothesis is this guy needs to read more than books on evolution.

@nateureo5428

3 жыл бұрын

Seek a mirror

Dear Rupert, you are back.I have missed your nonsense. Your hypotheses are still bunkum with a dash of woo woo. Watch out Depak! Completely inconsistent, contradictory physical energy imbalances , misuse of physics in general. When you poo poo the scientific use of 'law' with its supposed intonation of man-made and then whip out "habit", yes the Universe develops habits. Do I have any confidence in your summation of increasing IQ, faster and faster crystal growth ONCE the Universe gets the habit. Haw Haw Haw. That old chestnut of rats/mice across the Universe learning how to navigate a maze.Oh yes, and all those scientific experiments that somehow miss this. FAIL FAIL FAIL

@borderlands6606

7 жыл бұрын

The way to test Sheldrake's hypothesis is by experiment. Until then you deal in prejudice, ideology and metaphysics. The scientific model was developed to avoid dogma and prejudgement. How sad to see the return of polemics and pseudoskepticism into a discipline where it has no place.

not buying it

@Ryan-xq3kl

6 жыл бұрын

Nickolas Misling too bad it's not for sale

@benthecourier5006

4 жыл бұрын

Phew!

This guy is all kinds of nonsense and should not be taken seriously. His wholly headed theories are so full of holes you don't know where to start. Just as one example, if some mysterious cosmic 'habit' is formed when something new is created and this make it easier to create the same thing at a distant location by different people even though the method is not shared between them, then how does he explain the sudden and exponential increase in human ingenuity after the creation of the printing press and the widespread dispersal of accurate information throughout the developed world that until then could not have been achieved to any similar degree? If this kind of cosmic information was so freely distributed as he claims, then why were the Aborigines of Australia still living a straight up stone age existence when the first Europeans landed with their ships and steel and guns? You'd think some of that cosmic bronze or steel age information would have magically floated down to the Aborigines in the 4000 years since the start of the bronze age in other parts of the world (ie 2000 BC) and the time Australia was 'discovered', right? There is no experimental evidence for any of the theories he puts forth (have you heard about his telephone telepathy experiments that nobody can repeat?), even though many of them could be very very easily proved experimentally beyond a reasonable doubt. Why anyone would take him seriously is baffling to me.

Two false paradigms: Big Bang and Evolution. The universe as we know it was up-loaded around 6 thousand years ago.

@friedrichschopenhauer2900

7 жыл бұрын

Shut up

@joshuanicholls2692

7 жыл бұрын

:)

What nonsense. Is there any evidence for these “fields”

@nateureo5428

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah plenty but you will never even investigate. You sound like a skeptic of electrical fields and gravitational fields, inconsistent logic

@robertreeves5979

3 жыл бұрын

@@nateureo5428 nope took EM fields in college. Probably know more about it than 99% of the planet.

@nateureo5428

3 жыл бұрын

@@robertreeves5979 well if you know about electrical fields why are you skeptical of other non physical fields? There is no material evidence for the big bang or the multiple other universes with their own big bangs and like 10 high 11 singularities required to even make materialism make sense... you have to say 95% of matter is invisible and 95% of energy isn’t there... materialism is a cult. www.ijpsy.com/volumen6/num3/149/mindreading-in-a-dog-an-adaptation-of-a-EN.pdf the “evidence” of consciousness is you asking the question, not that there isn’t a real mystery here, but you can’t even prove you are conscious so I don’t know how you expect a physical proof of consciousness fields

@robertreeves5979

3 жыл бұрын

@@nateureo5428 do yourself a favor, read or reread the Scientific method. Look into the difference between a fact and a theory.

This one's a tough one to buy into. Makes giant claims without evidence just like religion. Edit: His book cover has a quote from Deepak Chopra praising it. Lol! Just what I suspected, bunch of pseudoscience like Deepak.

Right...the magical Morphic Resonance...of the gaps. I hope this channel doesn’t lose its credibility with this nonsense.

lawrence has to stop interviewing these quacks...

@dmartin1650

7 жыл бұрын

I was critical of Closer to Truth for posting this video, primarily because it is now very dated. I also have a visceral reaction when I see this pseudo scientific nonesense being given "air time" without being sufficiently challenged. Despite that, I have to admire Lawrence for his demeanor when interviewing people like this. His ability to resist the urge to simply ridicule them (which I often lack), means that they are far more prepared to open up and expose the full breadth of their ideas. We need to hear them fully admit to their beliefs and reasoning so as to be able to properly understand and then dismiss their fallacious positions. Being able to do this, with a straight face, is a skill that few people have, including myself.

@borderlands6606

7 жыл бұрын

Perhaps that's because you're a pseudoscientist, someone who pays lip service to scientific proofs being expedient, conditional and subject to constant reappraisal, but who actually believes they are fixed and the materialist metaphysical world view exhausts everything there is to say about the nature of reality? That may be why you're driven by emotions like scorn instead of a desire to test and evaluate Sheldrake's claims. Or it may simply be that you're a biological robot run entirely on genetic predisposition and lacking free will? In which case neither you or Sheldrake have any control over your responses to reality.

@dmartin1650

7 жыл бұрын

***** Methodological Naturalism is (imo) the best approach to studying the world/universe. I'm not sure what you mean by "materialistic metaphysical world view" though. It seems a bit self contradictory. Could you clarify?

@borderlands6606

7 жыл бұрын

David Martin Yes, materialism is a philosophical position that has attempted to colonise the scientific method by adopting an ideological stance towards it. Science is a method for observing repeated phenomena, which it does successful. It does not require polemics to support it, indeed they are inimicable to the method. Materialism rests on a number of unfalsifiable dogmas - that the universe is purposeless, that biology is machine like, that humans lack free will, that consciousness is epiphenomenal, and so on.

@dmartin1650

7 жыл бұрын

***** Materialism (as a form of monism) is based on the view that matter is the sole fundamental constituent of nature. It assert no more (or less) than that all of the phenomena you describe arise from interactions of matter. It does not *necessitate* that there is no teleological explanation for the universe (just that any purpose cannot arise from immaterial sources), nor does it necessitate the absence of free-will as far as I know. As for "machine-like" biology, I think that's absolutely fine. All Materialism says is that in the absence of the immaterial, then material interactions are the only source of ANY observable phenomena. This is a position which, although it MAY be false, there is plenty of evidence to suggest it is true, and little, if any, to the contrary. Given that, It seems like a pretty well supported position.

Drivel. edit: Not even drivel. If he's not just joking then he's a complete fruitcake.

@nateureo5428

3 жыл бұрын

Are they making skeptics who are immune to reason in a factory somewhere? Why aren’t they consistently skeptical with the big bang and multiverse hypotheses...? www.ijpsy.com/volumen6/num3/149/mindreading-in-a-dog-an-adaptation-of-a-EN.pdf Where are the reasonable skeptics?

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

@@nateureo5428 You must mean that I am a skeptic immune to reason. (Your factory hypothesis isn't supported in my case; I was born the regular way.) What reasoning am I not accounting for here? BTW lots of people including lots of skeptics and cosmologists are skeptical about the multiverse. Lots are skeptical about the big bang too, depending on what you mean by big bang.

This is some nonsense.

Wooooooooo,,,, Woooooooo, It's Morphic Resonance! I thought people had stopped promulgating this discredited pseudo-scientific nonesense years ago. Any claim to being a scientist was lost to Sheldrake long ago. I usually enjoy Closer to Truth, but the posting of this (old) interview is not your finest moment, and certainly not in keeping with the aims implied by your channel's title.

@cassandraseven3478

7 жыл бұрын

Get lost.

@dmartin1650

7 жыл бұрын

+Cassandra Seven nice to see the pseudoscience movement is maintaining its usual high level of intelligent discourse. Thanks for reminding everyone why we shouldn't take what you say seriously.

@dr_shrinker

7 жыл бұрын

David Martin I agree. I kept waiting for him to call this guy out on his non sense. Basically, he's saying that a scientific discovery is an evolution in physical laws. Lol I once bought a Camaro, then I started noticing Camaro's were everywhere. Weird. Must be resonance.

@ResIntellecta

7 жыл бұрын

Dr. Shrinker You didn't actually make any coherent argument against Sheldrake's hypotheses. If I under stand it correctly, becoming more aware of certain things after having been exposed to them in the past would be an example of resonance. Which means that you're more likely to be aware of these certain things because their form resonates as being significant in relation to your own past experiences. Morphic resonance is memory.

@dmartin1650

7 жыл бұрын

Zane leach There is no responsibility on *anyone* to make arguments against Sheldrake's "hypothesis". The burden is entirely on Sheldrake to prove or disprove it. Attempts have been made to prove it and failed. That's all that is required to dismiss it. If not for this practice, scientists would be required to "disprove" every nut-case hypothesis that anyone wished to throw out there. That is NOT how science is done, but it is how pseudo-science tries to gain credibility, i.e. by shifting the burden of proof

Pure mystical nonsense.

@Cor6196

7 жыл бұрын

Jim Stunkel I'm not sure about the "nonsense" part (I'm mostly a prose person, but I like a bit of poetry now and then), but the video had barely begun when I too began to think of mysticism, most especially of the mysticism of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit philosopher and mystic whose books were wildly popular in the '60's. For him too the universe was evolving, though there was a "purpose" or "goal" drawing that evolving universe towards itself, namely the Christ phenomenon. I'd be very surprised if Sheldrake hadn't immersed himself in Teilhard's works: They both express pretty much the same ideas, though with different vocabularies.

@cosmicsprings8690

3 жыл бұрын

Jim Stunkel that’s what your lady boys say about you Jimmy boyo ✨🤣🤣🤣✨🌼🌞🌼✨🎶🇬🇧🎶✨🧝‍♀️👩‍🎨🧝‍♀️✨🎶✨

The thing about quantum mechanics and the phenomenon of entanglement is that entanglement is fundamental and new entangled states are being added by entropy and consolidated as syntropy therefore defining time and the past as well as the template for the future. Morphic resonance and retrocausality is just quantum holographic memory and retrocausal sensing of old and new entangled states. Dark energy and cosmic expansion is an expression of that, as to prevent the a kinda halting or buffering of temporal continuation. Even the multiverse theory allows the preservation and establishment of of past and future associations or entangled states of potential outcomes. The conservation of mass and energy needs to include information and time. The past pushes and forces potential and constrained futures to emerge. So as energy is transferred so is information and time. Right now we have all of the pieces of the puzzle, yet very little has been fitted together. Entanglement is every materialists physicists nightmare yet it's fundamental. There are multiple levels or densities of entanglement the most dense being the Plank scale where everything is nearly infinitely tightly connected, than you have succeeding levels such as particles and the quantum geometry they derive from, atoms, their bonds and so forth. Black holes maybe large fields where all these levels have been forced into alignment. The past can be stored in what most scientists call vacuum, but would actually be a kind of software of reality where it is folded up and causes entropic quantum fluctuations that project outward like a hologram and expand space. It can be unfolded again as appropriate convergent conditions or contexts are met. As it projects out it goes into superposition or divergence and the wave function callaspes to convergence or a particle with a particular state depending on its presedent past actions and interactions in an environment etc. Everything is in a state of quantum coherence, it's just different tunes and symphonies of coherence. This is where quantum relativity can take place and how asymmetries arise. Quantum hall effects are another expression of the same thing as are all other quantum phenomena. The past is folded up into aetheria like compressed origami or holographic anti-projections. So we have been looking at matter as full of stuff even though it itself is almost completely empty. Matter, energy, space and time as well as information are just dynamic self-organizing geometries of activity that transform in a relative context to one another to establish relationships. In fact including matter, all reality is 99.999999999999% what materialists refer to as nothingness, that is actually something and everything and the root, ground state and derivative of all reality as we know and don't know it. This goes for all potential realities, as the simulation hypothesis is just revealing that reality needs to have pexelation or it would be seamless and uniform.

@GeoCoppens

4 жыл бұрын

Utter baloney!

@rv706

3 жыл бұрын

Hm.. Sir, could you tell me the definition of a Hilbert space?