The Science Delusion

reply to post by Astyanax

You say you make no supernatural claims, yet you are proposing that mind exists as an independent and immaterial, therefore supernatural, reality.

What if that is just "natural"???

reply to post by TheBandit795

Agreed... People often make the assumption that 'natural' means 'materialistic', but that's not necessarily true, and there's even evidence that shows it can not be true... But every time something immaterial comes up, people immediately categorize it as 'supernatural', to present it as a form of superstition that should not be entertained and should immediately be dismissed.. This is hampering human progress.

There is a very simple example of something that is immaterial that can not fall in the category of supernatural.. Information. And before people bring red herring counter arguments, two points.

1) Data =/= information
2) Transfer of X through material Y =/= X is material Y

reply to post by Astyanax

No where in my post did I say you ridiculed me, I stated that you where trying to turn the discussion in a direction that you could ridicule, the post not me! but since your not going to post (probably because you know you can't win) I guess the point is mute. May some other thread enjoy your "pleasant" company.

reply to post by TheBandit795

What if (immaterial mind, existing independent of matter) is just "natural"???

Despite my earlier announcement of withdrawal, this demands an answer.

When we say something is supernatural, we mean that there is no naturally detectable chain of cause and effect by which we can detect its operations – no material chain of causation between thought and deed.

If immaterial mind does exist, it must be a part of nature, and we should be able to detect its actions objectively. Until someone does so, we are forced to regard immaterial mind as a supernatural concept.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by TheBandit795

 

What if (immaterial mind, existing independent of matter) is just "natural"???

Despite my earlier announcement of withdrawal, this demands an answer.

When we say something is supernatural, we mean that there is no naturally detectable chain of cause and effect by which we can detect its operations – no material chain of causation between thought and deed.

If immaterial mind does exist, it must be a part of nature, and we should be able to detect its actions objectively. Until someone does so, we are forced to regard immaterial mind as a supernatural concept.

Ok, then by that definition all of Quantum Mechanics is "supernatural, there is no real cause and effect, though the "math" can explain part of it, Math is not material, it is a concept, so it to meets your definition of supernatural, so by extension any science relying on math is supernatural. Gee I guess natural is now the paranormal while supernatural is the normal.

In the materialistic science field nothing exist if you can't touch, see, hear or measure it. Taking the above math example a step further to prove my point, Math can not be touched, seen, felt, heard, or measured. And using the argument that math proves math exists is circular logic and is an invalid argument in any scientific circle. math is a concept like the mind so if one can exist without real proof , then there is the possibility that other concepts can exist without proof. Proof may be there, we just haven't discovered it yet, and part of the reason is too many in the science community are afraid to think out-of-the-box.

reply to post by Wolfie0827

By that definition all of Quantum Mechanics is "supernatural, there is no real cause and effect... Gee I guess natural is now the paranormal while supernatural is the normal.

Quantum mechanics does not abolish causality, whatever you may have read in new age books and articles.

Math is a concept like the mind so if one can exist without real proof, then there is the possibility that other concepts can exist without proof.

Mathematical proofs are more complete and rigourous than any other kind.

Of course concepts can exist without proof. Anyone can dream up a concept. But only real things have histories.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Wolfie0827

 

By that definition all of Quantum Mechanics is "supernatural, there is no real cause and effect... Gee I guess natural is now the paranormal while supernatural is the normal.

Quantum mechanics does not abolish causality, whatever you may have read in new age books and articles.

Sorry not new age books, I'm a scientist, not a new ager. My information comes from science, just not the hide bound, close-minded types you listen too.

"Proof" in itself is not a scientific idea, but nothing more than an exercise in logic. In other words, proof on itself is a branch of philosophy, not science. So I find it very ironic when people are asking for so-called 'scientific proof', when science does not actually deal with proof at all.. Let me leave this article here.. Although I don't agree with everything, it makes this point regarding science clear..

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

reply to post by Wolfie0827

I'm a scientist, not a new ager. My information comes from science, just not the hide bound, close-minded types you listen too.

A scientist who thinks science is a delusion. Very well, then, show us scientifically how you think quantum mechanics abolishes causality.

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
Source

Just before publication, I spoke to Sheldrake about the ideas in the book and his motives for writing it. First, the title, which appears to be a direct swipe at Richard Dawkins. Did Dawkins really inspire this response?

“No,” admits Sheldrake, “the title was at the insistence of my publishers, and the book will be re-titled in the USA as Science Set Free.

It's always fun to check out "Look Inside."

I like it when scientists pay attention to people's anecdotes.

Published on Apr 18, 2012 by RupertSheldrakeTV

Rupert Sheldrake loves hearing about people and their experiences. It's the basis of his research. Watch this video to see which paranormal and supernatural experiences Rupert Sheldrake is searching for.

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
Source

Sheldrake questions many of science’s basic ‘truths’, which are revealed, with splendid irony, to be either assumptions or, heaven forbid, beliefs. That the Universe began with a Big Bang has been orthodoxy since the 1960s, but it is actually a theory, and one that raises as many questions as it provides answers. Sheldrake does not dispute the theory but compares it to religious creation myths, all of which begin with an initial act of creation by God; the Big Bang theory is different only in that God has been removed from the story. One of the basic tenets of physics is the law of conservation of matter and energy, which asserts that neither can be created or destroyed: the amount of matter and energy in the Universe is always the same. Except of course, in the primal singularity of the Big Bang, when the Universe appeared from nothing, violating all of science’s laws. Sheldrake quotes Terence McKenna: “It’s almost as if science said, ‘Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.’”

That's a good one.

For all the people screaming for sources and evidence, look in the appendix of the book. It's a huge list of sources from scientific papers.

Followers of modern day science are so similar to blind religious people, it's not even funny.

This is from another book by Sheldrake, Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation:

Sheldrake, Rupert (2009-09-09). Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation . Inner Traditions Bear & Company. Kindle Edition.

A new way of doing science

Since the 1990s, much of my own experimental research has been concerned with the role that morphic fields play in social behavior in animals and people. My studies on unexplained aspects of animal and human behavior are summarized in my books Seven Experiments That Could Change the World (1994), Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home (1999), and The Sense of Being Stared At (2003). These investigations were concerned primarily with the spatial aspects of morphic fields, rather than with morphic resonance, which gives these fields their temporal or historical aspect.

This research is radical in two senses: it proposes not only a new kind of scientific thinking, but also a new way of doing science. This is the main theme of Seven Experiments That Could Change the World. Many of the experiments to test for morphic fields are simple and inexpensive. They show that science need no longer be the monopoly of a scientific priesthood. Research at the frontiers of science is open to participation by students and by nonprofessionals.

I love the idea of loosening up the choke-hold of arrogant scientists who think they're superior to the masses and can therefore dictate what is to be considered scientific truths.

Very good thread. I say that because I believe in a similar communication between people and everything in nature. Collective consciousness is probable in humans as it is in the animal world. When you join an organization or group you become 'of a kind'. You then are allowed to join the consciousness. Problems evolve when a person with an extreme ability to transmit has a flawed perception. This causes the group to go astray. Also those with voices of a certain frequency get listened to more. If their perception is flawed it can cause problems also with perception of those listening. This has been studied intensely by governments, Hollywood, and the recording industry. We think we do not hear the words of a song but our subconscious hears them. They have discovered how to teach people using light from LCD's. Could LCD technology be used presently by Big business to get you to buy things? Ask yourself this, how come the volume doesn't get higher for commercials anymore? Could it be because other technology is better? Like I said, what you have stated about the communication is well understood by those in Big Business. It is something that they keep from us so they can control us in various ways.

please watch this video and tell me if this is considered morphic resonance...

If you do not watch all of it, watch from 8 minutes to 9 minutes sound made visible...

p.s. a good video you should watch it all

Originally posted by mkkkay
please watch this video and tell me if this is considered morphic resonance...

The video is about cymatics. Using search in my Kindle for PC I see a reference regarding cymatics though the footnote 4:

5.3 Morphic resonance

The idea of a process whereby the forms of previous systems influence the morphogenesis of subsequent similar systems is difficult to express in terms of existing concepts. The only way to proceed is by means of analogy.

The physical analogy that seems most appropriate is that of resonance. Energetic resonance occurs when an alternating force acting on a system coincides with its natural frequency of vibration. Examples include the “sympathetic” vibration of stretched strings in response to appropriate sound waves; the tuning of radio sets to the frequency of radio waves given out by transmitters; the absorption of light waves of particular frequencies by atoms and molecules, resulting in their characteristic absorption spectra; and the response of electrons and atomic nuclei in the presence of magnetic fields to electromagnetic radiation in Electronic Spin Resonance and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. Common to all these types of resonance is the principle of selectivity: out of a mixture of vibrations, however complicated, the systems respond only to particular frequencies.

A resonant effect of form upon form across space and time would resemble energetic resonance in its selectivity, but it could not be accounted for in terms of any of the known types of resonance, nor would it involve a transmission of energy. In order to distinguish it from energetic resonance, this process will be called morphic resonance.

Morphic resonance is analogous to energetic resonance in a further respect: it takes place between vibrating systems. Atoms, molecules, crystals, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, and organisms are all made up of parts in ceaseless oscillation, and all have their own characteristic patterns of vibration and internal rhythm; the morphic units are dynamic, not static.3 But whereas energetic resonance depends only on the specificity of response to particular frequencies, to “one-dimensional” stimuli,4 . . .

Sheldrake, Rupert (2009-09-09). Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation (pp. 84-85). Inner Traditions Bear & Company. Kindle Edition.

4 The vibration of a system brought about by a “one-dimensional” energetic stimulus can in fact give rise to definite forms and patterns: simple examples are the Chladni figures produced by sand or other small particles on a vibrating diaphragm. Illustrations of numerous two-and three-dimensional patterns on vibrating surfaces can be found in H. Jenny, Cymatics (Basel, Switzerland: Basileus Press, 1967), and A. Lauterwasser, Water Sound Images (Newmarket, N.H.: Macromedia Publishing, 2006). However, this effect is not comparable to the type of morphogenesis brought about through morphic resonance.