The Science Delusion

Millions of people around the world claim personal experience of unexplained phenomena, which can be as simple as ‘knowing’ who is calling them when the telephone rings. Mainstream science can provide no explanation for this, other than dismissing it as mere delusion. Rupert Sheldrake, after many years of investigating telepathy, the unexplained powers of animals and human precognition, believes that he can. Sheldrake claims that his theory of ‘morphic resonance’ not only explains these widespread phenomena, it also shows how simple organic forms can self-organise into more complex ones, as an addition to Darwin’s process of Natural Selection. According to Sheldrake: “The formation of habits depends on a process called morphic resonance. Similar patterns of activity resonate across space and time with subsequent patterns. This hypothesis applies to all self-organising systems, including atoms, molecules, crystals, cells, plants, animals and animal societies. All draw upon a collective memory and in turn contribute to it. A growing crystal of copper sulphate, for example, is in resonance with countless previous crystals of copper sulphate, and follows the same habits of crystal organisation, the same lattice structure. A growing oak seedling follows the habits of growth and development of previous oaks. When an orb-web spider starts spinning its web, it follows the habits of countless ancestors, resonating across space and time. The more people who learn a new skill, such as snowboarding, the easier will it be for others to learn it because of morphic resonance from previous snowboarders.” There is far more to morphic resonance than this, but I’m not the one to explain, as I have to admit I don’t understand all of its many aspects. Sheldrake believes that memories are not stored in the brain but somewhere outside of it; the brain recalls them not as a hard drive does, by playing back physically-stored electrical signals, but more like a television that tunes into transmitted signals and decodes them as memories. It does this by morphic resonance. Here, there are strong similarities with Carl Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious and archetypes. Jung’s ideas were accepted (if rather half-heartedly) by many scientists of his day; although Sheldrake does get support from some of his peers, it tends to come privately. His explorations into the liminal areas of science are particularly unpopular with dogmatic sceptics, who regard the work as ‘pseudoscience’ and “outside the scope of scientific experiment’.

This is a new book by a Cambridge Professor that challenges science's "Mechanical" view of the Universe.
He does touch on areas considered paranormal, from what I read in the article it should be a good read.

Source

memories are not stored in the brain but somewhere outside of it...

So a neuron, when recalling a memory, transposes a space and a time within itself. Well now that suggests a whole new meaning to the term a 'power cell'.

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
His explorations into the liminal areas of science are particularly unpopular with dogmatic sceptics, who regard the work as ‘pseudoscience’ and “outside the scope of scientific experiment’.

Its very easy to shut those dogmatic skeptics up. Just provide the evidence that shows this morphic resonance exists.

reply to post by -PLB-


Quantum Physics all ready implies it exists.

2nd.

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Quantum Physics all ready implies it exists.

2nd.

I doubt it. Source, please.

reply to post by Maslo


I'll get them later, but transmitting particles through a wall as per thread in this forum, changing spin and or charge at a distance between two separate particles at a distance. that should be enough for you to start your own research in the subject. I cant' do all the work for you. If I did you wouldn't believe me. If you find it on your own your more likely to take it seriously.

Let me get you started.

Sou rces

reply to post by Wolfie0827


None of these things depends on "morphic resonance". In fact, all the things he says DO depend on it have fairly reasonable explanations that don't require it.

More, it should be easy for him to prove it. Surely generations of kids learning English grammar have made it a snap these days, by his theory they ought to pick up the book and know it! Oh, wait, they don't. Same with math - it still takes about the same time to learn the same things. Alas.

Hi science fans.

Originally posted by Maslo
I doubt it. Source, please.

"What the BLEEP do we know?! down the rabbit hole!
An extraordinary 3 DVD kit !
THAT has answered MANY questions of mine ! !

Blue skies.

Originally posted by C-JEAN
Hi science fans.

Originally posted by Maslo
I doubt it. Source, please.

"What the BLEEP do we know?! down the rabbit hole!
An extraordinary 3 DVD kit !
THAT has answered MANY questions of mine ! !

Blue skies.

"What the BLEEP" is a steaming pile of bovine excrement masquerading as science.

"Ramtha's School of Enlightenment" being its source ought to have clued you in.

reply to post by C-JEAN


What the bleep do we know is a pseudoscience that grossly misinterprets QM.

What the (Bleep) Were They Thinking?

Wikipedia - Academic Reaction

EDIT: and anyway, it is a really great stretch to claim that even this quantum pseudoscience somehow implies the existence of "morphic resonance". So again, I dont see any evidence to support the concept at all.

Ok, lets go old school (probably older than you and you take it for granted), Carl Jung and his "Sinchrynicity" which in psychology is an accepted fact. Look it up, it involves racial/community (meaning outside the brain) memory.

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
reply to post by Maslo

 

I'll get them later, but transmitting particles through a wall as per thread in this forum, changing spin and or charge at a distance between two separate particles at a distance. that should be enough for you to start your own research in the subject. I cant' do all the work for you. If I did you wouldn't believe me. If you find it on your own your more likely to take it seriously.

Let me get you started.

Sou rces

edit on 15-4-2012 by Wolfie0827 because: Added link.

No this isnt what that proves at all. I would suggest you go back and do research.Please explain how spin or anything else you mentioned is important?

Originally posted by C-JEAN
Hi science fans.

Originally posted by Maslo
I doubt it. Source, please.

"What the BLEEP do we know?! down the rabbit hole!
An extraordinary 3 DVD kit !
THAT has answered MANY questions of mine ! !

Blue skies.

I saw the film many of the premises it makes has all ready been discounted this is from the early days of quantum mechanics and alot of it is wrong.

reply to post by dragonridr

Anything effecting the quantum particles effects the atoms it is a part of thus effecting the whole. When this happens the make up of the whole system can be effected. And just how does this not jive with the scientific data that has been excepted by the scientific community?

reply to post by Wolfie0827


The information for the universe is experienced holographically through the mind. Although not exactly as a hologram. Literally your mind is a universe.

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Anything effecting the quantum particles effects the atoms it is a part of thus effecting the whole. When this happens the make up of the whole system can be effected. And just how does this not jive with the scientific data that has been excepted by the scientific community?

Your postulating everything we know about science is incorrect and theres some database somewhere in the universe.Well im game lets look at it does this theory explain one thing about the universe?

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by Wolfie0827

 

The information for the universe is experienced holographically through the mind. Although not exactly as a hologram. Literally your mind is a universe.

Thus there is no universal constants only what we measure, and when we measure.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Anything effecting the quantum particles effects the atoms it is a part of thus effecting the whole. When this happens the make up of the whole system can be effected. And just how does this not jive with the scientific data that has been excepted by the scientific community?

Your postulating everything we know about science is incorrect and there's some database somewhere in the universe.Well im game lets look at it does this theory explain one thing about the universe?

Yes and no, that there is a "database" that started with almost nothing but is constantly added too, and the statistical weight goes to the most efficient, but that not all goes there.

Ok, here is an example, in the past 10 years or so scientist's have noticed animals using tool, from Birds using sticks to dig out grubs, to chimps using digging tools to get at tubers, could this be them tapping into this "Database" at a lower level hence learning a little slower that we did? or is it something else?

That's why I started this thread. It was for discussion, bringing this Scientist's work to the table and discussing the merits or faults. While this is a "Soft Science" Field like psychology, it doesn't mean it has no merit what so ever.

reply to post by Bedlam


No according to him it should only make it easier for them, how they handle it is up to them, you can't make them "learn it, you can only guide them, what they do with it is up to them, they can try or they can ignore it. We are a little more complex than the orb weaver spider. It just does, we have choice which (at least here in the States) seems to be tending towards "I'm ignorant and I'm going to stay that way. And you can't make me be otherwise because I chose this path."

reply to post by Wolfie0827

Thus there is no universal constants only what we measure, and when we measure.

Damn that was a good way of putting it. I am going to use that now thank you.