Rupert Sheldrake BBC

	Duration: 17:07 minutes Upload Time: 07-03-22 07:49:10 User: w0rldpeace :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day
Description: Thanks to John Kuhles who originally posted this to video.google Sheldrake, some of you might know, is an evolutionary biologist from England. This bit is rather dated but still nascent, and I feel the concept (of morphic resonance) to be a valuable one. How to TIE this into cellular automata though ... hmm ... and what of reverse senescence? Surely there must be a unifying abstract. I think Wolfram has it by the neck. FIND THE ULTRARULE STEPHEN!!!! Worldpeace, Ben ***** Great 'Heretic'and Hero for me: Biography Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. Paranormal Experiments done by Science www.sheldrake.org/intro/ Sir ... all » John Maddox,Emeritus Editor of the scientific journal Nature. He was the author of an infamous editorial in Nature in 1981 about my first book, A New Science of Life, in which he wrote "This infuriating tract... is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years." In an interview broadcast on BBC television in 1994, he said: "Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reason. It is heresy." www.sheldrake.org/faq/ www.sheldrake.org/video_live/ www.sheldrake.org/realaudio/ www.sheldrake.org/papers/ Keep in mind that there is much more comfirmation of Rupert Sheldrake Theories AFTER 1994 ! Have fun watching, JohnKuhles.eu
Comments
lazerus9 ::: Favorites Perhaps the wide gap that Dr. Maddox spoke of between what is known and what is yet to be discovered can be bridged by pompous orthodoxy, but I would prefer Dr. Sheldrake's enlightened aproach. 07-08-21 22:34:41 __________________________________________________
w0rldpeace ::: Favorites Sound analysis. 07-07-07 07:05:38 __________________________________________________
Feldie22 ::: Favorites Where is the 2nd part of this program? I would like to see it. Thanks. 07-07-07 04:40:54 __________________________________________________
richidpraah ::: Favorites he has many ideas that people often consider wildly absurd like the notion of stars as conscious, but with little understanding of the linguistic suppositions behind them, they often lead to over-literal interpretations.. his critique of the newtonian-cartesian model is sound, and i believe SOMETHING like morphic memory and resonance must be true, and i don't think that it's "magic" as critics like to say. 07-06-06 16:50:25 __________________________________________________
richidpraah ::: Favorites it should just be said that sheldrake isn't a fundamentalist christian. he has lived in ashrams in india, and has expressed both understanding and appreciation of buddhism, taoism, hinduism and shamanism. i think one has to meditate a bit on his ideas, and i don't think his own experiments of collective memory actually are the right ways of confirming his ideas. certainly it will seem weird to people unacquainted with the general idea. 07-06-06 16:46:43 __________________________________________________
novaultrano1 ::: Favorites Nice docu, but you don't need a morphogenetic field to explain the behaviour of animals. The evolution theory can explain al the examples he gave. But it's always positive to hear that there are scientists who dare to think out of the box. 07-05-31 10:51:06 __________________________________________________
w0rldpeace ::: Favorites If I wanted to validate the theory I'd look at the high-end of electromagnetic spectrum for supporting evidence; an EM echo, stain, shadow, residue - something. Allowing for mutability, gives existence a little room to breathe ... if you consider life existence. Mutability works w/ evolution. In this age, even w/ X-Men and TMNT, we still don't truly consider its importance? The X-Men movie (first one, the third one sucked - thanks Ratner) is so apropos - see it. worldpeace, ben 07-05-17 12:14:55 __________________________________________________
mavaddat ::: Favorites That's interesting that you think the resonances cannot be unchangeable. As I understand him, Sheldrake thinks that the morphic fields are changing or 'mutable' as you say. Morphic fields are merely habits in nature that determine the regularity that we observe. His theory is not properly scientific, but metaphysical. He claims that he has 'evidence' for his theory, but all he has is curiosities in nature. 07-05-16 14:50:40 __________________________________________________
w0rldpeace ::: Favorites Well ... in so far as what direction the birds are flying I really don't know. His postulation regarding some kind of invisible framework that surrounds a flower is very intriguing indeed however. We need to know more about the radiation our material world puts out. Do we have the optics to image these morphic fields ... I'll have to view the vid again but where in the electromagnetic spectrum would such a field exist? I think Sheldrake goes wrong if he believes the resonances are immutable. 07-05-16 11:17:04 __________________________________________________
mavaddat ::: Favorites It is a common mistake to think of quantum entanglement as causation at a distance. It is not. What Sheldrake is trying to explain is a supposed causation at a distance. For example, the fact that flocks of birds are able to change direction so quickly. Sheldrake wants us to believe that they change direction too quickly to be merely reacting to changes in direction in the crowd. He wants us to believe that there is a more magical reason. It's not an aether. The aether was potentially testable. 07-05-16 10:32:09 __________________________________________________