I am reminded of the story of the 2 researchers who determined that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria and could be cured with common antibiotics. The 2 doctors were attacked from all sides by doctors and scientists who demanded retraction because their egos couldn't accept that they may have overlooked a simple cure for their patients. Then of course the threat of malpractice suits was a factor as well. When ego and fear loom large in the picture many "scientists" will fall back on the security of dogma.
That is an excellent example of why science works. The data showing cures eventually got through. Much of that slow response was caused by MD's that don't keep up with the science. Remember: Mechanics are to Engineers like MD's are to Science. MD's are not scientists (except the Ph.D, MD that are few in number).
Too bad the antibiotics you think are the cure are all too often very harmful. Damage good gut bacteria. If the cure is pharmaceutical it most likely isn't science but business.
And now( previous to 2023 We now understand ulcers and many more Dis- eases are "manifesred" in the body, ( sometimes looong after)the Initial mental /emotional/ psycological stresses/ traumas occured , . Dependindenton one one percieves such . The
@@howarddavies8937you seem offended. Nietzsche is a renown philosopher, and there are many highly accredited scientists who have a similar notion as Rupert Sheldrake. Theyre not saying science is BS, they're saying it is vastly incomplete, and some use it to arrogantly profess their superiority in what is true rather than modestly stating there is so much we don't know. For example, a study was done where a subject was told to guess which of their three family members (also in the study) we're going to answer the phone. The study was intended to be 33% chance of course, but they were able to guess correct more often, and consistently beyond outliers. In other words, they managed to beat the odds with statistically significant odds although the mind should have no influence on the odds. Just some food for thought and to hopefully keep your mind open to the many possibilities.
So@@howarddavies8937 having an emotional response to questions about the status quo immediately suggests a closed mind. Something a true scientist should never have.
That is an strawman argument. What people say is irrelevant. Trying to create gaps in our epistemology in an effort to introduce pseudo science in to the picture that is a god of the gaps type of fallacy. We don't need to claim that science can answer everything to see that this charlatan claims are unscientific and irrational.
Don’t say ‘just’ a boiler maker. You might have a much better brain than you give yourself credit for. God knows there are a lot of educated people out there with very limited ability to actually think. Keep on searching for knowledge… it’s good for the soul. And btw, if listening to this guy resonated with you, I’d say you’re on the right track. He’s a genius in the true sense of the word.
Boiler makers are what I want to be. Without boiler makers in the past and present, most "lab scientists " would be pocketing their liquid nitrogen...in a handbag...
I’m an atheist, and I hate when people say “I don’t believe in god I believe in science.” Science isn’t a thing you should simply believe in. That’s Scientism. Science is a process. It’s not a deity.
"Science without philosophy, facts without perspective and valuation, cannot save us from havoc and despair. Science gives us knowledge, but only philosophy can give us wisdom."
I totally agree; I make a point of never using the word 'Belief' when referring to science. "I understand science" is a more accurate expression. If I want to be really pernickitty I say something like "I try to keep my confidence in the scientific consensus proportionate to the data presented in support of it".
@@speggeri90 science, also known as Natural philosophy, Is philosophy with a set of empirical methodologies. So you can't have the one without the other.
@潘poon Knowledge perhaps to a certain extent, but wisdom and philosophy not, I agree. Philosophy is synthetic interpretation and wisdom is the outcome.
@潘poon You are confusing agency with instrumental value. Science is a process of combined methodologies and philosophical inquiry based on Logic. Its a systematic evaluation of facts. Its good because this process of evaluation never stops challenging our epistemology of the past and future.
I have been originally trained as an Electrical Engineer and have spent, quite literally, the rest of my life casually looking at Chaos Theory (I am now 60 yrs old). Chaos theory is beginning to question many of these very issues that Mr. (Dr.). Sheldrake is referring to. I have even seen a number of PhD's in engineering and physics directly question the models that they are using and come up with alternative descriptions of reality. Dr. Tiller (from I think Cal Tech) comes immediately to mind. In fact, the CLOSED system thinking that modern physics uses may be causing a number of the inherent problems (and ultimately creating their own paradoxes, zero point energy = infinity, is an example) in the current description of reality. Open system thinking may be much better suited to the reality that we see - even if the ultimate universe is effectively closed. It is OPEN from "our perspective" due to its overwhelming magnitude. This also may require a reaction diffusion wave (like the one used to describe modern computer chips) as a basic underlying wave structure rather than the "mechanical wave" modern physics currently subscribes to. [Note: Mathematics tends to lead other fields of inquiry. Mathematics, is unlike any of the physics fields. It does not come about its thinking empirically as physics does, but rather through the deductions of logic. It is an "internal" rather than "external" form of thinking if you will, or as Plato would have said, from a three term proportion rather than a 4 term proportion. In most cases, Modern physics is from a 4 term proportional form of thought. Moreover, because of this internal deductive viewpoint, any two mathematicians will always come to the same conclusions when looking at the same information This is a result of the deductive form of thinking. In Mathematics, a proof is always a proof, just the realm of its application may be subsumed into larger and larger fields of understanding. In other words, even when Other forms of geometry came about, Euclidean geometry was still true, we have just found other forms of geometry that are also true, and we have to look at the specific situation to see which one to apply. Ie exactly what does the problem subscribe itself to] An example of the problem Mr.(Dr.) Sheldrake is referring to, in modern physics is the concept of life "popping" up only after we have reached a certain level of complexity. In other words, currently physics makes the decision that we are only conscious because of our complexity . Consciousness itself is just a matter of complexity. This assumption seems rather implausible, but it is the current (or at least was) assumption used by physicist. Perhaps a better description of reality may be life occurring depending on the internal processing the entity is actually using (ie open or closed system processing- open system processing (balance in motion ie. K.E.= min) is used by a living system and closed system processing (balance - ie. P.E. = min) by a dead one), and the level of intellect is just a matter of how much internal processing we are capable of. In fact, Benoit Mandelbrot created the fractal dimension which is measures complexity by looking at the "internal" twisting or convolution of a data set; and many data sets (and certainly almost all living systems) get more complicated the closer you look, not less. This type of internal thinking, typically, is why Mathematics tends to lead physics and other scientific forms of thinking. Perhaps we should look at our underlying scientific assumptions very closely, because we are most likely to be thinking FROM those assumptions rather than TO those assumptions. Modern Physics has about 22 paradoxes that they currently can't resolve, and perhaps the underlying (often hidden) assumptions are actually causing the problem. Perhaps a shift from a closed system paradigm to an open system paradigm may resolve many of these issues. It appears Mr. (Dr.) Sheldrake is, very likely, looking at the problem from an open systems paradigm. Of course, this holistic form of thinking may cause people to come to the ultimate conclusion that the holographic sum total of the universe is 1) more powerful than that linear combination of elements that make it up (ie. non linear) and 2) acts quite like a God of our universe (and perhaps the God that Kurt Gödel proved existed after Einstein died) if you will, where you are both responsible for your own actions and succeeded or failed as primarily a result of that form of action but also you must still must subscribe to the desires and actions of the whole. Perhaps the split is something like 90-10 in general and sometimes 10-90 in particular situations) In other words, you succeed primarily based on your own actions but also the combination of your actions coupled with the actions of the whole and how well these action fit together. Going in a particular direction if the whole is going in a different direction doesn't make much sense unless you know the whole is about to change direction. I don't know (I haven't spent any time trying to determine this) that this God matches the Christian thought of God (or any other for that matter), but I also don't think modern liberalism is ready to accept this form of thought either. It would simply mean too much self responsibility (90% in general). Mental Individualization is very difficult for many people to accept and is not of much use politically.
Brilliantly said. I'm a game designer by trade and a devout Christian, and I just wanted to say I thoroughly enjoyed your comment and musings about the topic. The very tangible reality you pointed out at the end there, regarding self responsibility, I think is what marvelously aligns with the Christain understanding of ultimate reality, (which in essence is God and communion and connection with God directly as a person). The magnificent beauty of God's rational intentionality in all things, I think only begins to emerge more sharply the further and more intimately science advances in its real understandings of our universe. A quote I enjoy very much: For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers
you guys should read Quran. you would be amazed at the world view of Islam and Quarn. Quran wants its readers to open their eyes, think, ponder and reflect on the laws of the universe.
Brilliant commentary! In 15+ years of TH-cam, this may be my first random comment I’ve ever made on a video. Where can I listen to more of your meticulously crafted words of wisdom? Sincere thanks brother!
Rupert Sheldrake, his intellectual honesty is almost materially tangible. There is none of the arrogance that you see in the depressing wing of science: material reductionism. Reductionism enhances mental illness. It's a phase for most intelligent people, a spiritual adolescence, the phase of unrest and rebellion, when the hormones kick in and start messing us up. I went through that throughout my late teenage years until the early twenties. It is sad that many adults never come out of it.
@@kristenhansen1843 Oh yeah for sure he's easily confused . It's by pure chance that he managed to put together a very clear and concise lecture . And it's by pure chance that he managed to give this 46 minute lecture to a full audience _____keeping them utterly silent and captivated . But then again you knew this as your comment is that of a shill . Good day m'dam
This is a very encouraging lecture spoken with exceptional clarity, humility and sincerity .I find the arrogance of the times in which we are currently living makes our lives extraordinarily bleak in the spiritual sense at least certainly in Britain. . There is an assumption by many that our forbears who were much more in touch with nature and the spiritual realm were deluded or less intelligent . I have often thought that science ultimately has no choice other than to lean towards the spiritual realm. Nothing is as it seems ,everything we perceive is only relative to us not as it actually is, it is our truth but only to us . We exist somewhere between that which is infinitely small and that which is infinitely large and at the quantum level the universe is a very different place yet that is our origin and from where we emanate. Perhaps there is no such thing as a separate entity, that all is in fact one. Our minds or consciousness are not separate from anything at the quantum level either and perhaps act like nodal points connected within a matrix of an all encompassing universal panoramic consciousness, like a single computer connected to the internet. . Minds or consciousness being like in an ice cube which melts in it's own water when you die and becomes a part of a greater whole consciousness..
@@IsaacNussbaum just some linguistic apologetics. I can just make assumptions on what Sheldrake is. But from his books I can just assume he is stupid and ignorant or not stupid and horribly mislead or intelligent and misleading. Choose what you want. In the end it just matters that he is wrong.
You are confused. Science rejects all metaphysical worldviews, materialism included. Science is based on Methodological Naturalism, meaning that it acknowledges our methodological limitations within the physical world and any claim beyond it needs to be supported by objective evidence. Any claim that can't be objectively verified is rejected. Quantum Mechanics, Chaos theory, Emergence and Complexity science do not subscribe to a mechanistic picture of nature....so you need to update your "strawman accusations" about science.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 good point . I think Rupert is trying to draw attention to the way science is handled , not trying to invalidate the efficacy of the methodology as a whole. it’s good to draw attention to facets of science we’ve grown too familiar and comfortable with , allows us to employ skepticism and maybe find things in places we’d other wise neglect to look…
@@uruichii2968 -"I think Rupert is trying to draw attention to the way science is handled , not trying to invalidate the efficacy of the methodology as a whole" -I am not sure about that. Science has a self correcting mechanism. Science can not be mishandled at an epistemic level. Sooner or later Objective falsification will remove any attempt to pollute our epistemology. In a Technical aspect (commercial applications) we can agree that economics can manipulate science...but that is irrelevant to Rupert's points. His goal is really clear. He rejects the Main Principles of Science.(Methodological Naturalism). He demands science to lower the standards and replace the principle of an Epistemic Acknowledgment with a non naturalistic non methodological Philosophical worldview. He wants to take science back to the Dark age.
Or they're saying they think science provides support for or refutes hypotheses about "reality," that help us understand and inform our actions. Better than blindly believing in mythological stories used to control ignorant people and maintain their ignorance. You can be any religion you choose, but dinosaur bones don't care about your feelings.
Genius? He doesn't even know what atheism is nor understands maths and its predictive power. Atheism is the rejection of the proposition that a god or gods exist based on the lack of evidence to the contrary. It's not a belief nor a worldview. Science is all about NOT UNDERSTANDING OR KNOWING. If we know everything there would be no need for science. Moreover, Cartesian Duality is debunked by all philosophy and science. The man is a moron.
It would have been harder for TED Talks to yield to the pressure to drop his presentation if he'd started by listing his scientific credentials (PhD, Harvard, Cambridge, publications, etc.) and then said, "I'm now going to commit an act of scientific heresy." It would also have helped if he'd called it 'The Scientism Delusion' instead.
@@dankahraman354 science IS material..thats the birth of science in the 1600's thats why you need "evidence" that must be tangible. Cant get more material than that.
@@darvidtorres I would put someone like randall carlson on the list along with graham hancock. i would have to think about who else to round out that specific top 5 cuz there are so many other independent thinkers out there who have fantastic perspectives.
Two requests: 1) Find out where Tesla said this 2) the second part is extremely vague and imprecise. Sounds good but upon analysis is more meaningless prattle.
Hello Steven Fernandez: my understanding is Tesla quoted "The day the Scientifc Communuty begin to study the supernatural, they will learn more in 10yrs than in ALL the previous years spent on scientific research"..............that said, I believe Sheldrake is onto something very important re 'revealing significant research' but then I'm no scientist, just a hunch, and I've long since learned to trust my intuition/God given senses.............In Almighty God We Trust.
@@damonhunter5143 The world runs on evidence: Legal, medical, criminal and scientific. Would you trust a doctor if he said that he would carry out a medical operation based on his "God given intuition"?
@@damonhunter5143 Tesla was what is called an 'intuitive physicist', that is, a person who has a feeling things work a certain way, and without a lot of formulaic rig-a-marole figures out how something works. We owe him thanks for AC electricity and the AC-motor plus a lot of other things. However I think his 'Venusian communication device' tops all the rest.
@@dankahraman354 I do not believe in god, but I do believe that intuition is areal and valuable thing. In animals we call it instinct, and believe it is how they survive. Our brains process things even when we are not aware of this consciously (we don't need to think to breathe, our body becomes aware of, and reacts to threats before we are able to make a logical assessment. So it is very possible that based on information and pattern recognition, people can intuit, or have some level of knowledge about something, even if they lack a formal education. A practical example in regards to medicine: about 9 years ago I started getting very sick. Losing weight, having severe migraines, bouts of vomiting and diarrhea that put me in the ER for dehydration on several occasions. The doctors tested me for all the usual things. The weight loss and general illness made them think AIDS or Hepatitis, both tested negative again and again. More tests showed several severe nutritional deficiencies. The doctors still had no diagnosis. However, when I became aware of the nutritional deficiencies, I thought about the fact that these symptoms happened in episodes, and my first thought was some sort of autoimmune illness, probably dealing with the stomach. So I did research, turns out celiac disease presents with all teh symptoms I had. I suggested this to my doctor, who ordered the tests. The tests confirmed celiac. I began treatment (which is eating a gluten free diet) and my symptoms went away. They stay gone as long as I don't eat gluten. I didn't have medical training, but I recognized patterns, and followed a hunch, and essentially diagnosed an illness doctors couldn't figure out for several years. So if a doctor told me he had a hunch, or it was his "god given intuition" and what he or she said made sense to me, I would allow them to carry out a medical procedure based on that.
That's the theory; unfortunately, the reality is far uglier. There is a lot of "bad" science that is currently the favored paradigm at the moment. Sheldrake illustrates just one example.
I would love to ask Rupert Sheldrake why i have experienced numerous times the sudden fearful urge to look at the bottom of my bedroom door, within 3 seconds a spider will come under the door frame and into my room. (We get house spiders, a fair amount.) But how do i "know" when its going to happen??!This has happened to me at least 5 times where i sort of telepathically "predict" it. Ive even sat up out of bed, in the dark, had the urge to shine my phone torch at the door frame, lo and behold, a spider walks in. I dont have any other psychic abilities that may be useful, or profitable!!! Just this stupid spider prediction!!
When I was in my senior year of my college physics program & about to go off to a doctoral program, a psychic told me that I would end up working in the lower atmosphere. 15 years later, i was working air traffic control at an airport when I remembered that prediction. to say that my path to air traffic was incredibly convoluted, involving things like needing to get a job in the NY metro area because my wife (met 1 year after getting my BS & 6 mos after dropping out of grad school) wanted to move back to be near her mother.
Seems to me, except for cosmonauts and astronauts, we are all working in the lower atmosphere so... Seems to me, 'psychic abilities' were invented as a means to fleece the gullible among us.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Seriously, my job as an air traffic controller involves the lower atmosphere in ways that few other jobs qualify. Yes, we all live & work in the lower atmosphere (even astronauts who do have to come down on occasion) but my job as an air traffic controller involves dealing with the lower atmosphere in ways that few other jobs entail. There are only 4 professions that I can think of that actually involve dealing with the lower atmosphere: pilot (I never had the vision), flight attendant (not likely in the early 1980s given that I am male), air traffic controller or weather observer/reporter. The last two professions do not account for many employment opportunities).
@@dlsamson The 'psychics' prediction is not impressive as, no matter what job you found, you would be working in the lower atmosphere. If you had become a miner miles underground you might argue even more strongly for her psychic power. I mean, no one gets lower in the atmosphere than miners eh.
I come from a science background myself and though I do see the advantages of a scientific method I also see some of the traps of it as well. This deterministic/materialistic framework doesn't seem to account for it all. In the last few years I have had experiences that are outside of what I can understand by science alone. There is clearly more work to understand about our minds and consciousness and how that needs to be brought into the equation. I do not know of anyone that understands this at all. We are like children at the beach and perhaps one of the best things we can do is enjoy the experience of sand and water -- to live with a sense of wonder and awe at the amazing universe of which we are apart.
Greatly put into words, I completely agree! I believe consciousness will never be able to be fully explained by the deterministic framework science is currently using.
@@GHCODPvZ Thanks. One of the thoughts I have had is that people only look at information through their own perspective and bias. There are some scientists looking at these areas though their work isn't well supported. Rupert Sheldrake has some interesting observations.
Human consciousness is overvalued because it regards us humans. All living organisms have consciousness which must mean that Consciousness is an essential part or principal law of the Universe, at least to my understanding. "To live with a sense of wonder and awe" is very well put. And when science or certain scientists simply can't deal with the phenomenon of consciousness it just shows the beauty and mysteriousness of life.
@@miklosdavid7627 I don’t think human consciousness is overvalued due to hubristic nature. Animals do have consciousness but it’s precisely self consciousness that is extremely deceptive. 95% of animals do not have any form of self awareness (they don’t know they are) they are the closest things to naturally and biologically programmed robots. The reason for mystique regarding human consciousness is because it is THE thing itself that is responsible for all observations made to begin with. It’s like only having a single measuring tool in terms of investigating the phenomena of existence itself, this is the only one we know of, all we know of is derived from here, we are the source for our own knowledge. So how exactly objective are the plethora of facts we have gathered over time. Modern science especially a materialistic world view is only working out the ‘how’ question but not the Why at all question which some might say is meaningless even tho we exactly know what is being referred to and the question is being avoided due to lack of answering faculties. We ultimately want to restrict everything that there is to existence itself down to the “universe” to shorten our field of inquiry so we can finally have a unified theory for “everything”.
The parrot my grand parents had used to call my name for about an hour before we arrived. This reality is also very common between children and their mothers, sometimes fathers, but I believe seeing you were once literally connected to your mother a stronger connection remains. I know it is not like that for everybody but that its a reality for many cannot be denied, even if it counters modern science.
did you arrive at your grand parents approximately the same time every day. Dogs do that too when they expect their owners to return from work. So do children expecting to see their parents pick them up from day care. Are parrots, dogs and children therefore psychic? Let's not jump to confusions. There's a much simpler explanation. You should be able to figure this out.
@@penyarol83 No one does...everyone has his personal subjective interpretations of an experience he had...influenced by previous popular interpretations. People just love to pretend to know things that they don't or don't understand.
Dr Sheldrake is truly a maverick genius and a national treasure! He is a very brave man that has earned and deserves tremendous respect regardless of what we may think of his ideas or if they are true or not. It is men like him that have changed the world over the years.
To hear Dr Sheldrake put it that way... it sounds as if dark matter is species akin to 21st century epicycles to explain away retro motion behavior, a form of techno-hukom.
Since 1985, the Amsterdam Science Museum has allowed visitors to participate in the am-I-being-stared-at experiment, based on Sheldrake’s work, with one subject and one starer doing 30 trials before vacating their seats for the next couple. By 2002, more than 18,700 couples had taken part and the results were a staggering 10 to the power of 376 against them being produced by chance. It’s an on-going experiment and the number of subjects who have participated is now over 20,000, making this the largest and longest-running paranormal research project ever conducted.
Source??? Official source? I claim this is BULLSHIT. I ve been to the NEMO many times, never seen that “experiment”. I researched this online, this paragraph you pasted above appears only in a couple of sites that support .... drumroll... Rupert sheldrake !!! Don’t believe this crap
@@andytaylor3029 i do have personal "psychic" experience, so i do rather believe it. seems like you are still fettered to the chains of "science", poor fella
@@andytaylor3029 It seems to me a lot of people making comments in support of ludicrous nonsense have insufficient appreciation for the power of their own imaginations.
I've participated on that trial. I was sitting right in front of another guy. Then I've answered a questionnaire where I've declared that I was being stared. Isn't that amazing? 🤣
"I don't know what the truth is, I'm just a scientist." - Donald Hoffman ✊❤️🤜🤛🔥✌️👌🤯😁 If only more scientists felt this way and didn't push ideas so easily off into pseudoscience and material based atheism.
Issue is the same that happened with religion as well, power and money started to get involved. Don't talk about X only Y. Instead of just letting them go fucking wild in every direction.
lol......you are ignorant and confused Seth. Hoffman is a charlatan...he makes claims about a "mathematical model" when there aren't any variables for our mental properties.
@@InfoArtistJKatTheGoodInfoCafe You just stated what you wish to be true....not what is really true. You need to provide objective evidence for your beliefs or else you are just an irrational individual for accepting claims without good reasons.
Atheism has nothing to Do with Materialism do you realize than some Religions are Atheist!!!! And Besides it's the Great JuJu under the Sea that is the Progenitor of the Human Race he shit them out after Wugger-Wugger the Whale God Buggered him after an all night Bender in the sunken city of Atlantis I know the truth and anyone who Doesn't Believe me is a silly poopy head
I strive to find what I call “elegant solutions” to problems. I was fascinated as a child with spinning a ball overhead on a string because it seemed to defy gravity. When contemplating spinning galaxies later in junior high I asked the science teacher why the stars don’t just go flying off into space, or when is the universe going to start collapsing vs expanding? I always felt I was less intelligent because I couldn’t understand answers like dark matter or dark energy. And I’m still angry to this day over over having a test question on the nature of centrifugal vs centripetal force marked wrong. I watched this entire presentation based on this guys explanation of dark matter / dark energy. Again, I’ve always felt less intelligent than those who claim science has the answer to everything, not anymore!
Science may not have an answer for everything. However, it has dozens of questions for literally everything. This is why Science works: because Science is auto-correcting, increasingly converging to more and more precise understanding of everything. I particularly don't like what Mr Rupert is doing. He is basically employing maximum skepticism in order to criticize and debunking Science. However, his skepticism disappears completely when he mentions religious dogma and superstitions.
@@richardgomes5420 he tries to poke holes in science's high standards of evidence in his attempt to sneak in his pseudo philosophy. He strawmans science's auxiliary principles by introducing a philosophical worldview (materialism). Science's priciples are those of Methodological Naturalism . MN is not a philosophical worldview but an epistemic acknowledgment of our limitations as an empirical creature.
Bikes are balanced when having speed,even whilst standing still using a treadmill for example, the reason of this effect is unknown. It is not caused by centrifugal forces,since this effect is also present using skates on ice for example. The orbital mechanism as we know them do not allow planets to stay in their orbits, this system would collapse very quickly. Airplane wings create lift. They also create lift when upside down when you`d expect the opposite to happen the workings on the lift effect is also unknown. Taught you might like this information. Anyways
@@blauwzakjecrack : Bikes can roll for hundreds of meters without anyone riding them due to the geometry of the front wheel. This is a well known fact by designers of bikes and they build bikes this way in order to achieve augment stability and even safety. You not only got bikes wrong but also planet orbits wrong and also aerodynamics wrong.
Richard Gomes science is auto correcting ? This talk is aiimed at people just like you. The very point he is making is what you seemed to have missed....the dogmas he mentions restrict or limit scientific progress when it could progress faster without those limitations. For example, for decades biologists thought that the appendix was a vestigial organ that was functionally redundant through evolutionary progress so paid no attention to it. However, others ignored this worldview and studied it further to discover it had a important function during the developing baby stages in that it was the baby's sole immune system organ until the rest of the immune system slowly developed ad took over at some point after which the appendix stopped functioning. No auto correction happening here. Yet a faulty worldview prevented scientific progress in fully understanding our immune system for decades and is not an isolated case either.
Exactly where is it then? And if not how can a brain injury result in a split personality, even to the point that one is religious, and the other personality is atheist?
Great to see Rupert being respected, the TED people were not so polite and banned this talk, because they cannot bear anyone to question the dogmas of 'Science'. The original foundation of science was based on questioning, and testing ideas, something they seem to have forgotten today.
It depends very much on what is understood by the term 'Science'. The scientific method is tried and tested _ad nauseum_ but relying on some "consciousness Woo" which cannot be adequately pinned down, is why TED give it the thumbs down. I guess time will tell.
I totally love the way this person's mind works. We need more people who think this clearly and this controversially. I hope Dr. Sheldrake keeps going with these talks which will, in the end, will be referenced by future generations. When Dawkins, Dennett and the rest will have been long forgotten. Bravo!
Andrew Sheehy: The Christian inquisition demanded that people accept this type of delusional belief with threats of punishment or death if you rejected the dogma. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Krauss and others have brought us Freedom From Religions for which we are most grateful. Lest we forget! A return to the delusions of religious dogma and other delusional or conspiracy theories are not what is needed.
@@kimlowe705 I cannot understand how the many ideas advanced in this talk could be classified as a “delusional belief”. A lot of the thinking is sound. Suggest you check out the extraordinary work being done by people like Michael Levin who represent the future. In contrast, Dennett - as an example - has spent decades writing multiple books that - ironically - prove that he doesn’t understand what consciousness is.
Yes, his mind is so clear. "I'm just a scientist", so here you are my preferred deities which explain everything I don't know how to explain in the first place! Wherever he sees a gap in Science, his brilliant sharp mind is ready to insert an angel to fill the gap and explain how it work. Utterly brilliant. Only a sharp, accurate scientific minded person would be capable to arrive to such brilliant realization.
@@richardgomes5420 I really don't understand the 'passive-aggressive' nature of your comment. Dr. Sheldrake's reference to 'angels' was to provide historic context (Descartes advanced that idea). If you'd like to have an actual debate then let me know here and I'll share with you a simple way to falsify materialisim and then you can come back to be with a challenge to the thinking that I'll lay out. But, please, let's focus on the thinking not the person.
Important to keep in mind, the speaker is a scientist. He’s not saying all science is rubbish, he’s saying some of its main tenets ought not to be accepted unquestioningly. Then he goes on to hint at a theory of mind as a sort of projective field. Well, if you look at theories of electromagnetic fields, it seems similar to me, so I don’t think it’s radical at all, it just hasn’t been a focus in physics up to now, but so-called “quantum biology” is supposedly the hot new thing so expect to see much more in this sort of thing. I think it’s an exciting and overdue development in science!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:40 *🌎 The belief that science already understands the nature of reality is widespread, bolstered by technological achievements.* 02:26 *📚 Sheldrake lists 10 dogmas underlying modern science's materialist worldview, including nature being mechanical/machine-like and matter being unconscious.* 04:19 *🌟 Science requires accepting the "free miracle" of the sudden appearance of all matter, energy and laws at the Big Bang.* 09:35 *♻️ Sheldrake questions the assumption of conservation of matter/energy, pointing to dark matter/energy accounting for 95% of the unknown universe.* 15:17 *🧠 He challenges the dogma of unconscious matter, tracing its history from Descartes' mind-body dualism to modern materialism.* 19:20 *🔭 The persistence of human consciousness is causing the materialist worldview to break apart.* 22:05 *💫 Some materialists adopt panpsychism - the idea that consciousness permeates all matter/nature.* 25:29 *⏳ Whitehead proposed relating mind and body through time rather than space - mind as the future possibility, body as past actualization.* 28:37 *🔮 Sheldrake proposes mental causation as a stream from future possibilities towards past actualization, contrasting physical causation.* 30:24 *🧠 He challenges the dogma that minds are just brain activity, suggesting minds are fields extended in space-time like electromagnetic fields.* 33:21 *👁️ The view that our visual experiences are inside the brain contradicts the intuitive sense that we project images outwardly to where things seem to be.* 36:34 *👀 Sheldrake cites evidence that people can feel when being stared at from behind, suggesting minds can non-locally "touch."* 41:23 *☎️ He describes experimental evidence for telephone telepathy - knowing who is calling before answering.* 43:39 *💻 Modern telepathic experiences often involve communication technology like phones and email.* 44:05 *🐶 Animals demonstrate telepathic abilities, suggesting an extended psychic dimension of mind beyond the brain.* 45:10 *✨ Sheldrake argues minds are open not just to this psychic realm, but also to spiritual influences through mystical experiences.* Made with HARPA AI
@Mr Best Policy Yes the guy with unsubstantiated claims and no evidence is cool but those who doubt are brainwashed.... No scientist would agree with his opening statement, thats why he is not taken seriously. He makes claims without demonstrating them then whines about scientism like he is a victim. People would go ape shit over him if he could prove any of this stuff. Don't fool yourself. Evidence rules BS walks.
yes that is a statement that no scientist would make. It is a position that people who don't understand scientific method might make, given the incredible utility of science in our everyday lives.
@@enkido5838 how so? is it not the case that science implitly operates under the assumption that, say, we are able to apprehend truth through our sense though?
Science develops theories which it tests against evidence. To the extent that evidence supports the theory and the theory has predictive power, it is a useful theory. Every engineering achievememt in history is built on this. It is many decades since Science dropped any thoughts of laws much less truth, in favor of theories and predictive utility. The biggest steps in science are when a theory fails to explain an observation, leading to a new theory which does. If that theory is then supported with evidence it gains credence and utility. Quantum theory is a massive example but Einstein had his moment as did Newton. What science does even more than answer questions is uncover still more things we cannot explain. It would foolhardy in the extreme and profoundly unscientific to think that we have all the tools (theories) we will need to explain innumerable questions which we have not yet even encountered.
how about this quote from Arthur Shopenhaur; " man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills'', im not a reader of A.S., but like this quote...
@@mindsigh4 agreed .. Noone knows how the brain determine how it wills what we will... But my guess is that it's a continuum of stimulus-response guided by self-interest. And those with wisdom do best.
I really do find the... "parallel" between quantum superpositions and actual realized actions, vs. our own human plans and eventual decisions, pretty striking. I don't think we should make too much of it, but it is "thought provoking."
And therefore has limitations in terms of what it can tell us about the nature of reality, particularly if its practitioners are unwilling to examine the discipline's foundational assumptions.
@James Strawn A rigorous one. The bottom line is, if you start with that single idea, "science is rigor", you could recreate everything else we currently call science from it.
@@paulaoh5306 Right. Metaphysics is a framework for understanding everything in relation to everything else. As soon as you can study something rigorously, that's a scientific study for all intents and purposes. Whether or not it's done well it's a separate question. But there's more! Logic is when we find rigorous relationships that always apply. Math is rigorous relationships of quantity.
Love this guy.. I think he is brilliant... I don’t know why but I have thought along these lines many times. Here is just a simple thought... Think about it long enough and you begin to understand a lot about life. I was over at a friends house one day and we both were talking about a friend who had just past away. I was thinking, and said, when I die I wonder who or what I will become after my death ? Will there be hate, will there be war and bigotry, will there be sorrow, sickness, pain, hunger and sadness, and in between, will there be love, happiness, respect, and fulfillment ? Will I meet my friend again ? My friend looked at me and said, Tom, once you are dead you stay dead and you never come back. I looked back at my friend with a smile and said, the same can be said before I was born, but, here I am.
Tom Picketts' Astrophotography - Certainly, here you are. But like your friend said, once you are dead you stay dead and you never come back. Let's face it, the "afterlife" is just a wishy-washy way of saying "death". Sounds a lot nicer but it's still "death". There will be no more sorrow, sickness, pain, hunger and sadness from the moment you drop dead until the end of time! It's over. No free lunch!
I have a question about the vision explanation which I have not sat down to analyze. If we project what we are looking at in front of us, how do you explain the images that we are aware of in our dreams?
Immanuel Velikovsky- Immanuel Velikovsky - Immanuel Velikovsky !!fak!!! Man!!!! . It makes so much more sense,but yeah, you don't want to kick of Newton of his throne now do ya, not to mention the domino effect that will follow.
Rupert Sheldrake is not a polemic, though he explicitly points out outrageous deficiencies in current science. However, he also points out correctly that many of these deficiencies are admitted by current science. Science is arrogant and has always tended to be so, but it is also unsure and in some ways humble in its arrogance and so it is a paradox. Science needs people like Sheldrake. It should not and must not reject him or people like him. They are the canary in the coalmine.
@@dankahraman354, the outrageous deficiencies of science makes for a long list. There's not enough space here to list them but I could prioritise a few. 1 - Scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public in a way that is commonly understood. 2 - Scientists are permitting bogus science to become recognised as popular science, when it's not science. 3 - Bullets 1 and 2 embrace the problem of science being misunderstood against invalid arguments that are popular. 4 - Some scientists, and non-scientists masquerading as scientists, are giving science a bad name by not using science. That's probably enough to be going on with.
How is science arrogant? Isn't science a methodology used to try understand and explain phenomena? That's what I understand science to be and I don't see how arrogance can be applied here, please explain.
The arrogance from conventional science is to reduce itself to the method and to insist that the world is understandable only through the 5 senses, not to include the intention of the person.In this way the technology is dominating our life and ignore our vision, moral and power. Sorry for my reduced English😉😊
Of course there’s matter, but there’s energy. Science knows about probability, and it’s own limitations about truly knowing everything. No such things as eternal laws of nature, things change. Our understanding changes.
“Science” doesn’t know anything. It’s a method, a process. Understanding the limits of science occurs when the philosophy of science is known and applied by the humans practicing the scientific method.
Wonderfully clear and brilliant. We must be, in fact, projecting and receiving devices. A renaissance is happening with this new awareness, and our Creator is right around the corner, ready to welcome us if we press on.
yes, years ago i had a few dreams that were VERY memorable, & now im seeing things in society that are mirroring certain Key points in the dreams. have u ever listened/watched Eckhart Tolle videos on youtube? in one of my dreams (from 35 yrs ago)it played out a scenario in the future (now) & it was demonstrated to me the activation of something in humans that caused immediate reactions & that most people were unaware of this activation while it was happening to them. when i read power of now in 2002 & he outlined the "pain-body" & i had a name for this thing that gets activated.& like Tolle says, it goes dormant, but sleeping with one eye open, waiting for an opportunity, like a vampire, to feed on us & stir up the pain-body of others, or to fire upthe collective pain body of groups &/or nation states as a whole.
@@mindsigh4 Your dreams were prophetic, and maybe still are. I've been guided by such dreams myself, and it's a good sign that you're marked for knowledge. But do not be distracted away from the Judeo-Christian God who created us. He alone has power and authority: thesecondtempleofsolomon.com
If there were demonstrative evidence you could claim clarity, but there is not, It is all postulations. How did you establish that we send and receive things outside of the natural order? And what's this deal about a creator? Got a definition or evidence?
@@ihatespam2 Evidence abounds in every age of history; white light after-death and coming back from impossible wounds; telepathy, both human and animal; miraculous, continuous and dramatic healings... the list is extraordinarily long. But always masses of people say, "That's not evidence."
Scientist: my vacuum cleaner is a collection of parts organised in a workable way. Sheldrake: so you seriously believe that your vacuum cleaner is unconscious?
Interesting. I think he really points out well some of the dogma modern science has fallen into. That doesn't mean science is bad... certainly not, however if it breaks free of current dogma it is open to explore more and grow.
No he doesn't. He just labels dogma Science's high standards of evidence and evaluation and strawmans its principles He has one job to do and he fails miserably. Science demands from him to provide Objective and independently verifiable evidence for his claims. HE can't so he decides to whine about it. Its similar to a ball-buster kid who no one wants to play with him and somehow he believes its their fault.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Scientists pile up praises upon each other like there is no tomorrow , but don't know how to build the simplest known life form , that tells volumes of how little they know and how much they hyperventilate . Turning science institutions into social sexual dogmatic platforms brings a new twist to its course . Verifiable because its agreed on or else expelled he will be is the way forced indoctrination works ,it can only be this way because there is no other way they ramble . He has remarkable insights ,respectful demeanor and a free mind .
@@rovidius2006 -"Scientists pile up praises upon each other like there is no tomorrow" -You are confused...you are confusing Scientists with science. A scientist's word in weak and unimportant , what is important is that his science is able to meet the high standards of the process. -" but don't know how to build the simplest known life form" -lol They don't????? we should fire them all. You are a troll right? -"that tells volumes of how little they know and how much they hyperventilate " -No it doesn't , if they couldn't build a simple life form that would mean that biology is a complex field of study. You are able to post your ignorant claims because science understands many things on how reality works. Your device and internet connection are the result of our scientific knowledge. Dude...are you a kid or something? what's wrong with you. What shitty arguments are those. Have you ever being at a library, ever opened a text book in your life.....Sure there are many things we can not do or know yet...but wake up and study, there are many things that we do know. Grow up -"Turning science institutions into social sexual dogmatic platforms brings a new twist to its course . " -ok you are way too stupid to talk to.....lol
or evidence that he makes claims without any evidence or ability to demonstrate them. Why would TED care otherwise? Believe me, if he could substantiate his claims he would be on top of the world., he is no victim of scientism, he just fails to prove his claims, which is not scientific.
@@ihatespam2 i think it's naive to think he'd be on top of the world. Challanging the current orthodoxy is always going to be met with resistance. That's how the ego works. It fears letting go of its attachments to untruth. That's the metaphor of the devil. It deceives you and makes you cling egoically to all your attachments. Why would scientists operate any differently?
@@highvalence7649 that old trope? It is unreasonable and illogical to defend weak “scientific” ideas by claiming mainstream scientists are resistant. Scientists make their careers off coming up with groundbreaking ideas, not by disappearing into the consensus. It is fallacious to go after the system instead of the actual claim. Provide the facts of the claim, don’t insult the the people who disagree with the claim. Sure, you may get a lot of supporters with chips on their shoulders and who are easily bored by real science, but you haven’t moved the argument one inch.
@@ihatespam2 i wasn't defending any ideas in my earlier reply. That's like a straw man, or at least it's to miss the point. I was rather objecting to your claim that "if he (Rupert sheldrake) could substantiate his claims he would be on top of the world". I think that's naive. That doesn't mean his claims are true or substantiated. Of course not. I never argued that.
Can someone help me out? I can't remember the name of that one famous scientist--They write about him in all the text books, because he's super important to our understanding of the world--that he respected all the systemic limitations established within his field, and went along with the status quo, and never questioned the authority of the general consensus or orthodoxy of his time. I've been through several science textbooks in various fields, and so far I haven't come across any mention of him yet. What's his name again?
@@demonmonsterdave well, yes but n since he is dead. But his idea`s are represented with the eu vison of the universe. I do also advocate the eu over the other theories.
They are not the same thing but they both feed each other. Science enables technological advances and Technology enables new observations and discovery of new facts.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I don't need to understand hydrodynamics to make a simple water wheel to irrigate or draw water. While they are obviously intertwined, people make the mistake of confusing the two. " My iPhone is amazing so their other theories must be true". The assumption being that technological advancement automatically equals understanding. My point is there is a need for caution, and not accepting at face value the claims or theories of much of what is passing as 'science' these days. A lot of wild, ridiculous theories out there being presented as though they are fact, with the average person allowing themselves into being cowed because of technology.
My ah-ha moment is how potential is not measurable but events are but then they are in the past. So our past does not determine our future. Cannot recommend the book Power vs Force by Dr David R Hawkins fits very well and overlaps with this material.
This is the same argument that has always been presented by religious or spiritual people. It is based in false assumptions like arguing that "science is a believe system". It has been explain countless times already the difference between believing something because dogmatism and trusting because evidences and experiences leads to a great degree of trust, there is a huge difference between thinking you know something because your holly book says so and thinking you have a good method to determine how trustworthy is an idea by examining patterns and using logic. The point of this speech is to mislead people into thinking that science acts like a believe system. If you truly understand the scientific method you don't make that assumption. It is actually weird since this guy is actually graduated in biology and biochemistry... I guess what Dawkins says is true and religion can really make intelligent people say stupid things.
Eagle Dee it is actually a very valid point, as no scientific research is able to get the necessary funding if it isn’t in line with theories that are currently popular with in the scientific community. In that sense, it is a belief system of sort
@ChakRaLight you should realize how misinformed you are by saying that. It amuses and somehow scares me how many people don't really understand that in science a theory is the highest level an idea gets and to get promoted to the level of theory an hypothesis need to pass peer review and the scrutiny of the scientific method. It is such a usual sentence to be heard from superstitious and religious people "it is just a theory". You know the theories of the electromagnetic field and quantum physics are what makes possible our little chat about this video right now. They seems to work pretty solid doesn't they? There is nothing that makes science a belief system and whoever says so is ignorant of the truth. Science doesn't rely in faith, or dogma. Science relies on trial and error, on propositional logic and the language of nature: mathematics. Science gives us tools that allows us to make reliable predictions on what may or may not happen in an specific scenario, so people of science doesn't deposit their faith in science, they simply trust a scientific theory while it's predictions continues to work accurately, eventually a better theory comes and the predictions are better and that's why science has the humility to call it Theory, unlike dogmatic ideas which are static. Try to inform yourself a little on this subject, it's easy, just make a little research on what is the scientific method and learn some history of science.
@ChakRaLight if you study science It becomes obvious todo you which ideas works and which doesn't. Science does not use any faith based ideas nor does it requires you to have faith in anything, the only reason you say so is because you need to make it look like that in order to keep up with this conversation. It is really funny thar you acuse me of ad hominem when you are saying that science is a dogmatic belief. If you delete all dogma and religion and come back in a hundred years the new religions will be totally different, but if you do so with science you will find it will.come back exactly the same, that is how you can tell science is not based on dogmas and non sense. Keep up with your non sense trying to strawmaning me whith your dishonest conversation, the only thing you are achieving is demonstrating that superstitous thiughts are really poluting society.
@ChakRaLightThat sole expression "unproven theories" just show why you are so wrong about this subject. It is a waste of time trying to explain you why science is not religion or dogma or any kind of belief system. I just hope people reading this will immediately do a research, and find all the information they need, there is plenty of thinkers and philosophers talking about this and the conclusion is clear solid. If you don't understand that with science we for example came with the theories of the electromagnetism and we tested them and they worked out so well that we can make predictions, and based on that we did build complex systems that automatizes tasks, then if you can't understand how all this is not a belief system, I have nothing else to talk. You can keep adding non-sense here, but I hope anyone else would just make a research and get to their own conclusions. I'm outta this unending conversation. You can keep adding replies until you reach the end of your precious life, I'm not gonna waste a second more with this.
Why would Ted ban him?! All he is saying, very logically, is could this be possible I've done some scientific experiment. Maybe we should look into it more. By banning his talk all they have done is discredit themselves.
I enjoy Rupert but surely science is the very act of "looking into it more" these so called assumptions of science are not taken lightly. It's the best we can say on what we can actually measure and see. From what we actually have. We can all just say well it might be something else. But that has to add up with the physics and maths we have. I'm not saying either way I'm just saying the scientists haven't just made these things up
Because the ones running the show do not want us to question what they say that science is: "Science says" or "experts say", which is being broadcast daily is not science. Anybody with an audience can say these words: "Science says". They want us to have blind faith in what they claim science says without any further investigation. Then they can control the masses much easier. The scientist becomes the priest.
@@justbreakingballs No, because the "best we can measure and see" REQUIRE them to concoct things that they DON'T measure and see in order to make the math work. Dark matter and dark energy are ENORMOUS fudge factors - the very definition of "just made these things up."
1 thing the speaker here has incorrect is thinking that nature, like probabilistic quantum theory, considers possibilities. Nature does not consider possibilities. Probabilistic quantum theory does. Writing and solving a probabilistic quantum theory equation can determine probabilities of possibilities of an object because probabilistic quantum theory intentionally determines only general unspecified solutions to problems, and these general unspecified solutions turn out to be probabilities of possibilities. If probabilistic quantum theorists determine any general unspecified solution of an object, and then they specify the object's unspecified quantities, such as, in example, specifying the object’s exact initial position vector in nature and its exact initial speed vector in nature, then their general unspecified probabilities of possibilities solution becomes 1 exact specified solution, the 1 observable in nature, with all the probabilities of possibilities, which never existed in nature, eliminated.
@@demonmonsterdave He has views, without evidence, therefore should be censored from science arenas, because it is dishonest and a waste of time. When he gets evidence for his 50 year old claim, everyone will change their tune.
I once got busted in my neighbour's yard with just a towel, checking up on her dog that was howling/barking. My neighbour got home from a holiday to a near naked man in her yard with a seemingly unlikely reason for being there. Hi Tracy, sorry about for being on your property in a state of undress.
Love this guy! & he never forget to mention his friend Terrence McKenna. I would be glad to hear him to mention Nikola Tesla too while he talking about mobile phones, Aether and things that Tesla discovered.
It's about smell when you sense someone in the room. I was blown away by this. My friend would always wake up when I walked out of my room when he was sleeping infront of a loud TV with my being 100% quite. Turns out he smelt me and its a defense thing.
If there is one understanding I've experienced it is of focused awareness.. of the desired knowledge.. a question asked.. the mind reaching out to give the answer.. one example out of many is bumping into the person you need to see.. in a strange place... knowledge of others being willing to wait for no reason at a place. And to have say 5 mins later a person walk in that needed to talk to you .. or visa verser .. we can and do focus. And project.. our wishes.. to others . If they are receptive.. it's oftentimes the case you will hear or meet them.. there are so many examples..
Huummm... not really. Richard Dawkins once said that Religion has the ability to make intelligent people say stupid things, which is the case of Mr. Rupert.
That's really good that the very ridiculed Rupert Sheldrake of "pseudoscience" is in close relation of ideas to the great Donald Hoffman. I do enjoy both of their works. I've not read any of their books though. But Donald Hoffman is a pioneer for holographic principle and for panpsychism.
"I don't know what the truth is, I'm just a scientist." - Donald Hoffman ✊❤️🤜🤛🔥✌️👌🤯😁 If only more scientists felt this way and didn't push ideas so easily off into pseudoscience and material based atheism.
I can "feel" when something is about to happen. For instance someone in another room drops something. I have the preception of tension just before the sound of the object hitting the floor. This happens to me continously throughout the day. Im also quite good at remote viewing.
This projection is the creation of consciousness. Everyone has a unique world created by a unique conscious agent, and each universe depends on unique learning, experience, culture, traditions, beliefs, and experiences.
His criticism of science is correct. His alternative theory is bogus. The examples he gives as arguments for his theory in the second half are ironically already explained by science
"Explained by science" doesn't mean that our science has found the ultimate truth in a topic. You can explain and explain away basically everything, doesn't matter if it is true or not or if your explenation is true or not.
Science is a business and social-political activity. Even physics there is so much bullshit it's ridiculous, all for the purpose of clever marketing and career-making.
No he isn't. For more than ~2000 years we struggled to remove this kind of comforting and fallacious reasoning from our Natural Philosophy but you all think that you 've discovered Antlantis by listening to this medieval charlatan. Read the history and Philosophy of Science first before posting ignorant claims in public.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 "Heresy!" "Repent sinner!"... is that all you can say? You only sound like someone whose belief system was triggered. It's not even a proper argument. I'll help you think about it: that is the difference between "strong consciousness" and "great intelligence"?
@@ihatespam2 Okay then, would you mind explaining how his Big Bang argument is a strawman? Because I don't get it. The concept does violate the first law of thermodynamics after all, or doesn't it?
Some of you misunderstand what he’s doing completely. He isn’t “debunking” science, you can’t debunk observation, what he’s doing is debunking *scientism* , and saying that our modern understanding of science is more of a religion than a process: purely based on presuppositions, that we aren’t *actually scientifically testing* . He wants us to actually use scientific methods to observe and come to conclusions, not just believe the heresy, that’s not what science was intended for. Observation and consciousness are two wonders given to us by God, he doesn’t fear science like the media has portrayed, making it seem as if belief and science are at war with each other, but he wants us to embrace our gifts, because after all, he made us in *his* image. Belief is something we will always need, because there is only so much we can observe. There is a limit, even to science. We will *always* have to believe, we will always have to blindly have faith.
I am reminded of the story of the 2 researchers who determined that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria and could be cured with common antibiotics.
The 2 doctors were attacked from all sides by doctors and scientists who demanded retraction because their egos couldn't accept that they may have overlooked a simple cure for their patients. Then of course the threat of malpractice suits was a factor as well.
When ego and fear loom large in the picture many "scientists" will fall back on the security of dogma.
That is an excellent example of why science works. The data showing cures eventually got through.
Much of that slow response was caused by MD's that don't keep up with the science. Remember: Mechanics are to Engineers like MD's are to Science. MD's are not scientists (except the Ph.D, MD that are few in number).
More people need to hear about this video, spread the word. Share to your friend and on tik tok for younger audiences.
Too bad the antibiotics you think are the cure are all too often very harmful. Damage good gut bacteria. If the cure is pharmaceutical it most likely isn't science but business.
well, the scientists shouldn't be accepting dogma in the first place. Scientific knowledge is meant to be constantly changing.
And now( previous to 2023 We now understand ulcers and many more Dis- eases are "manifesred" in the body, ( sometimes looong after)the
Initial mental /emotional/ psycological stresses/ traumas occured , .
Dependindenton one one percieves such .
The
"Our science is anti-intellectual by nature. All it does is measure things!"
~ Nietzsche (1882)
Nietzsche a typical Philosopher, and controversial with it. 😖
Science is a conceptual discipline. Many people resent that because they don't have the intelligence to understand the concepts.
And that by the look of it includes Nietzsche.
@@howarddavies8937you seem offended. Nietzsche is a renown philosopher, and there are many highly accredited scientists who have a similar notion as Rupert Sheldrake. Theyre not saying science is BS, they're saying it is vastly incomplete, and some use it to arrogantly profess their superiority in what is true rather than modestly stating there is so much we don't know.
For example, a study was done where a subject was told to guess which of their three family members (also in the study) we're going to answer the phone. The study was intended to be 33% chance of course, but they were able to guess correct more often, and consistently beyond outliers. In other words, they managed to beat the odds with statistically significant odds although the mind should have no influence on the odds.
Just some food for thought and to hopefully keep your mind open to the many possibilities.
So@@howarddavies8937 having an emotional response to questions about the status quo immediately suggests a closed mind. Something a true scientist should never have.
Whoever says that science has the answer to everything is ignorant of science.
Love it when people say, "Scientists don't everything." My reply is, "Yes they do, they say they don't to not lose their pensions."
@@tomellis4750 ?
That is an strawman argument. What people say is irrelevant. Trying to create gaps in our epistemology in an effort to introduce pseudo science in to the picture that is a god of the gaps type of fallacy.
We don't need to claim that science can answer everything to see that this charlatan claims are unscientific and irrational.
But whoever says science is the best method mankind has to understand and solve problems about the world has got it right.
Or worse yet, that science even claims that…
I'm just a boiler maker welder and this man managed to educate me.
Thank you, plenty to think about now .
Don’t say ‘just’ a boiler maker. You might have a much better brain than you give yourself credit for. God knows there are a lot of educated people out there with very limited ability to actually think. Keep on searching for knowledge… it’s good for the soul. And btw, if listening to this guy resonated with you, I’d say you’re on the right track. He’s a genius in the true sense of the word.
Boiler maker welder? You can afford to get a car like Hooman, and do some social experiments like Hooman.
Boiler makers are what I want to be. Without boiler makers in the past and present, most "lab scientists " would be pocketing their liquid nitrogen...in a handbag...
I’m an atheist, and I hate when people say “I don’t believe in god I believe in science.”
Science isn’t a thing you should simply believe in. That’s Scientism. Science is a process. It’s not a deity.
"Science without philosophy, facts without perspective and valuation, cannot save us from havoc and despair. Science gives us knowledge, but only philosophy can give us wisdom."
I totally agree; I make a point of never using the word 'Belief' when referring to science.
"I understand science" is a more accurate expression.
If I want to be really pernickitty I say something like "I try to keep my confidence in the scientific consensus proportionate to the data presented in support of it".
@@speggeri90 science, also known as Natural philosophy, Is philosophy with a set of empirical methodologies. So you can't have the one without the other.
@潘poon Knowledge perhaps to a certain extent, but wisdom and philosophy not, I agree. Philosophy is synthetic interpretation and wisdom is the outcome.
@潘poon You are confusing agency with instrumental value.
Science is a process of combined methodologies and philosophical inquiry based on Logic. Its a systematic evaluation of facts. Its good because this process of evaluation never stops challenging our epistemology of the past and future.
I have been originally trained as an Electrical Engineer and have spent, quite literally, the rest of my life casually looking at Chaos Theory (I am now 60 yrs old). Chaos theory is beginning to question many of these very issues that Mr. (Dr.). Sheldrake is referring to. I have even seen a number of PhD's in engineering and physics directly question the models that they are using and come up with alternative descriptions of reality. Dr. Tiller (from I think Cal Tech) comes immediately to mind. In fact, the CLOSED system thinking that modern physics uses may be causing a number of the inherent problems (and ultimately creating their own paradoxes, zero point energy = infinity, is an example) in the current description of reality. Open system thinking may be much better suited to the reality that we see - even if the ultimate universe is effectively closed. It is OPEN from "our perspective" due to its overwhelming magnitude. This also may require a reaction diffusion wave (like the one used to describe modern computer chips) as a basic underlying wave structure rather than the "mechanical wave" modern physics currently subscribes to.
[Note: Mathematics tends to lead other fields of inquiry. Mathematics, is unlike any of the physics fields. It does not come about its thinking empirically as physics does, but rather through the deductions of logic. It is an "internal" rather than "external" form of thinking if you will, or as Plato would have said, from a three term proportion rather than a 4 term proportion. In most cases, Modern physics is from a 4 term proportional form of thought. Moreover, because of this internal deductive viewpoint, any two mathematicians will always come to the same conclusions when looking at the same information This is a result of the deductive form of thinking. In Mathematics, a proof is always a proof, just the realm of its application may be subsumed into larger and larger fields of understanding. In other words, even when Other forms of geometry came about, Euclidean geometry was still true, we have just found other forms of geometry that are also true, and we have to look at the specific situation to see which one to apply. Ie exactly what does the problem subscribe itself to]
An example of the problem Mr.(Dr.) Sheldrake is referring to, in modern physics is the concept of life "popping" up only after we have reached a certain level of complexity. In other words, currently physics makes the decision that we are only conscious because of our complexity . Consciousness itself is just a matter of complexity. This assumption seems rather implausible, but it is the current (or at least was) assumption used by physicist. Perhaps a better description of reality may be life occurring depending on the internal processing the entity is actually using (ie open or closed system processing- open system processing (balance in motion ie. K.E.= min) is used by a living system and closed system processing (balance - ie. P.E. = min) by a dead one), and the level of intellect is just a matter of how much internal processing we are capable of. In fact, Benoit Mandelbrot created the fractal dimension which is measures complexity by looking at the "internal" twisting or convolution of a data set; and many data sets (and certainly almost all living systems) get more complicated the closer you look, not less. This type of internal thinking, typically, is why Mathematics tends to lead physics and other scientific forms of thinking. Perhaps we should look at our underlying scientific assumptions very closely, because we are most likely to be thinking FROM those assumptions rather than TO those assumptions. Modern Physics has about 22 paradoxes that they currently can't resolve, and perhaps the underlying (often hidden) assumptions are actually causing the problem. Perhaps a shift from a closed system paradigm to an open system paradigm may resolve many of these issues. It appears Mr. (Dr.) Sheldrake is, very likely, looking at the problem from an open systems paradigm. Of course, this holistic form of thinking may cause people to come to the ultimate conclusion that the holographic sum total of the universe is 1) more powerful than that linear combination of elements that make it up (ie. non linear) and 2) acts quite like a God of our universe (and perhaps the God that Kurt Gödel proved existed after Einstein died) if you will, where you are both responsible for your own actions and succeeded or failed as primarily a result of that form of action but also you must still must subscribe to the desires and actions of the whole. Perhaps the split is something like 90-10 in general and sometimes 10-90 in particular situations) In other words, you succeed primarily based on your own actions but also the combination of your actions coupled with the actions of the whole and how well these action fit together. Going in a particular direction if the whole is going in a different direction doesn't make much sense unless you know the whole is about to change direction. I don't know (I haven't spent any time trying to determine this) that this God matches the Christian thought of God (or any other for that matter), but I also don't think modern liberalism is ready to accept this form of thought either. It would simply mean too much self responsibility (90% in general). Mental Individualization is very difficult for many people to accept and is not of much use politically.
Perhaps the works of the French Jean Pierre Garnier Malet could add Up to your knowledge.
Brilliantly said. I'm a game designer by trade and a devout Christian, and I just wanted to say I thoroughly enjoyed your comment and musings about the topic. The very tangible reality you pointed out at the end there, regarding self responsibility, I think is what marvelously aligns with the Christain understanding of ultimate reality, (which in essence is God and communion and connection with God directly as a person).
The magnificent beauty of God's rational intentionality in all things, I think only begins to emerge more sharply the further and more intimately science advances in its real understandings of our universe.
A quote I enjoy very much:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers
You might like a book called Science and Sanity.
you guys should read Quran. you would be amazed at the world view of Islam and Quarn. Quran wants its readers to open their eyes, think, ponder and reflect on the laws of the universe.
Brilliant commentary! In 15+ years of TH-cam, this may be my first random comment I’ve ever made on a video. Where can I listen to more of your meticulously crafted words of wisdom? Sincere thanks brother!
Quote of the week:
“ Somewhere inside your head there’s a little Rupert…”
Rupert Sheldrake, his intellectual honesty is almost materially tangible. There is none of the arrogance that you see in the depressing wing of science: material reductionism.
Reductionism enhances mental illness. It's a phase for most intelligent people, a spiritual adolescence, the phase of unrest and rebellion, when the hormones kick in and start messing us up. I went through that throughout my late teenage years until the early twenties. It is sad that many adults never come out of it.
Rupert Sheldrake has no intellectual honesty. He is a parapsychologist and easily confused.
@@kristenhansen1843 or are you just easily indoctrinated?
@@kristenhansen1843 are you scientist???
@@kristenhansen1843 Oh yeah for sure he's easily confused . It's by pure chance that he managed to put together a very clear and concise lecture . And it's by pure chance that he managed to give this 46 minute lecture to a full audience _____keeping them utterly silent and captivated .
But then again you knew this as your comment is that of a shill . Good day m'dam
Actually old Rap is just a total moron. Absolute idiot of the highest order.
This is a very encouraging lecture spoken with exceptional clarity, humility and sincerity .I find the arrogance of the times in which we are currently living makes our lives extraordinarily bleak in the spiritual sense at least certainly in Britain. . There is an assumption by many that our forbears who were much more in touch with nature and the spiritual realm were deluded or less intelligent . I have often thought that science ultimately has no choice other than to lean towards the spiritual realm. Nothing is as it seems ,everything we perceive is only relative to us not as it actually is, it is our truth but only to us . We exist somewhere between that which is infinitely small and that which is infinitely large and at the quantum level the universe is a very different place yet that is our origin and from where we emanate. Perhaps there is no such thing as a separate entity, that all is in fact one. Our minds or consciousness are not separate from anything at the quantum level either and perhaps act like nodal points connected within a matrix of an all encompassing universal panoramic consciousness, like a single computer connected to the internet. . Minds or consciousness being like in an ice cube which melts in it's own water when you die and becomes a part of a greater whole consciousness..
I love listening to Sheldrake. Very rare mind!
a meshed up mind...
More people need to hear about this, spread the word. Share to your friend and on tik tok for younger audiences.
I love these kind of people, so humble but so knowledgeable but most importantly, so sincere.
and so stupid
Snake oil peddlers are sincere too. Sincerely misleading and humbly humbuggering..wake up!
@@dankahraman354 you couldn't handl my wakefulness. You would go schizophrenic instantly.
@@mijubo Dr. Sheldrake might be in error, I am not qualified to say. But I do know this, he is not stupid.
@@IsaacNussbaum just some linguistic apologetics. I can just make assumptions on what Sheldrake is. But from his books I can just assume he is stupid and ignorant or not stupid and horribly mislead or intelligent and misleading. Choose what you want. In the end it just matters that he is wrong.
When someone says that they believe in science, what they're really saying is that they believe in today's mechanistic materialism.
You are confused. Science rejects all metaphysical worldviews, materialism included.
Science is based on Methodological Naturalism, meaning that it acknowledges our methodological limitations within the physical world and any claim beyond it needs to be supported by objective evidence.
Any claim that can't be objectively verified is rejected.
Quantum Mechanics, Chaos theory, Emergence and Complexity science do not subscribe to a mechanistic picture of nature....so you need to update your "strawman accusations" about science.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 good point . I think Rupert is trying to draw attention to the way science is handled , not trying to invalidate the efficacy of the methodology as a whole. it’s good to draw attention to facets of science we’ve grown too familiar and comfortable with , allows us to employ skepticism and maybe find things in places we’d other wise neglect to look…
@@uruichii2968
-"I think Rupert is trying to draw attention to the way science is handled , not trying to invalidate the efficacy of the methodology as a whole"
-I am not sure about that. Science has a self correcting mechanism. Science can not be mishandled at an epistemic level. Sooner or later Objective falsification will remove any attempt to pollute our epistemology.
In a Technical aspect (commercial applications) we can agree that economics can manipulate science...but that is irrelevant to Rupert's points.
His goal is really clear. He rejects the Main Principles of Science.(Methodological Naturalism).
He demands science to lower the standards and replace the principle of an Epistemic Acknowledgment with a non naturalistic non methodological Philosophical worldview.
He wants to take science back to the Dark age.
Or they're saying they think science provides support for or refutes hypotheses about "reality," that help us understand and inform our actions. Better than blindly believing in mythological stories used to control ignorant people and maintain their ignorance. You can be any religion you choose, but dinosaur bones don't care about your feelings.
This man is a genius, we need more people like him.
He’s human as all of us. What’s diff is he’s been more curious and open minded with healthy skepticism. Be the change you want to see.
Genius? He doesn't even know what atheism is nor understands maths and its predictive power.
Atheism is the rejection of the proposition that a god or gods exist based on the lack of evidence to the contrary. It's not a belief nor a worldview.
Science is all about NOT UNDERSTANDING OR KNOWING.
If we know everything there would be no need for science.
Moreover, Cartesian Duality is debunked by all philosophy and science.
The man is a moron.
@@jmc8076He's so open minded his brain fell out.
@@joelschama1735 unoriginal
@@CEOKILLERIOHSFBPOWFILfjka it's from Richard Dawkins. I thought everyone knew that. 🙄
Best Quintessential ever - TED - masterpiece ! Shame on ted rejecting this outstanding presentation!
They reject him because his ideas are nonsense but impressive to the ignoranti.
It would have been harder for TED Talks to yield to the pressure to drop his presentation if he'd started by listing his scientific credentials (PhD, Harvard, Cambridge, publications, etc.) and then said, "I'm now going to commit an act of scientific heresy." It would also have helped if he'd called it 'The Scientism Delusion' instead.
@@anonymoushuman8344 this is exactly why we have not evolved over the narrow JUST physical explain- destroying ourselves!
Science: "Give me one free miracle and I'll explain everything to you."
Thanks, Terrence.
Can listen to him all day. Science needs to lose its love affair with materialism.
He has a beautiful, beautiful mind.
Science is science who said science is materialistic or is in "love" with materialism?
yup let's embrace faith healing, shut down our hospitals and do away with vaccines!
@@dankahraman354 :0)
@@dankahraman354 science IS material..thats the birth of science in the 1600's thats why you need "evidence" that must be tangible. Cant get more material than that.
Mr. Sheldrake, one of the top 5 least known and appreciated thinkers/scientists of our era. Love this guy!
Who are the other "top 5" on that list?
@@darvidtorres I would put someone like randall carlson on the list along with graham hancock. i would have to think about who else to round out that specific top 5 cuz there are so many other independent thinkers out there who have fantastic perspectives.
@@unseenstalkr Nassim Haramein, Pierre Robitaille, Ben Davidson, Marko Rodin, Scott Mandelker
@@darvidtorres That's making 6 of them.
@@demonmonsterdave Terrance Mckenna, a friend of Sheldrake's, should be on that list!
Tesla said the moment we begin to study beyond the physical nature we will progress leaps and bounds.
Two requests: 1) Find out where Tesla said this 2) the second part is extremely vague and imprecise. Sounds good but upon analysis is more meaningless prattle.
Hello Steven Fernandez: my understanding is Tesla quoted "The day the Scientifc Communuty begin to study the supernatural, they will learn more in 10yrs than in ALL the previous years spent on scientific research"..............that said, I believe Sheldrake is onto something very important re 'revealing significant research' but then I'm no scientist, just a hunch, and I've long since learned to trust my intuition/God given senses.............In Almighty God We Trust.
@@damonhunter5143 The world runs on evidence: Legal, medical, criminal and scientific. Would you trust a doctor if he said that he would carry out a medical operation based on his "God given intuition"?
@@damonhunter5143 Tesla was what is called an 'intuitive physicist', that is, a person who has a feeling things work a certain way, and without a lot of formulaic rig-a-marole figures out how something works. We owe him thanks for AC electricity and the AC-motor plus a lot of other things. However I think his 'Venusian communication device' tops all the rest.
@@dankahraman354
I do not believe in god, but I do believe that intuition is areal and valuable thing. In animals we call it instinct, and believe it is how they survive.
Our brains process things even when we are not aware of this consciously (we don't need to think to breathe, our body becomes aware of, and reacts to threats before we are able to make a logical assessment. So it is very possible that based on information and pattern recognition, people can intuit, or have some level of knowledge about something, even if they lack a formal education. A practical example in regards to medicine: about 9 years ago I started getting very sick. Losing weight, having severe migraines, bouts of vomiting and diarrhea that put me in the ER for dehydration on several occasions. The doctors tested me for all the usual things. The weight loss and general illness made them think AIDS or Hepatitis, both tested negative again and again. More tests showed several severe nutritional deficiencies. The doctors still had no diagnosis. However, when I became aware of the nutritional deficiencies, I thought about the fact that these symptoms happened in episodes, and my first thought was some sort of autoimmune illness, probably dealing with the stomach. So I did research, turns out celiac disease presents with all teh symptoms I had. I suggested this to my doctor, who ordered the tests. The tests confirmed celiac. I began treatment (which is eating a gluten free diet) and my symptoms went away. They stay gone as long as I don't eat gluten. I didn't have medical training, but I recognized patterns, and followed a hunch, and essentially diagnosed an illness doctors couldn't figure out for several years. So if a doctor told me he had a hunch, or it was his "god given intuition" and what he or she said made sense to me, I would allow them to carry out a medical procedure based on that.
Im obsessed with these talks, and his wife and children are just as brilliant ❤
One thing science has been consistent at is proving itself wrong
Science is about great scientists standing on the shoulders of preceding great scientists.
That's the theory; unfortunately, the reality is far uglier. There is a lot of "bad" science that is currently the favored paradigm at the moment. Sheldrake illustrates just one example.
I would love to ask Rupert Sheldrake why i have experienced numerous times the sudden fearful urge to look at the bottom of my bedroom door, within 3 seconds a spider will come under the door frame and into my room. (We get house spiders, a fair amount.) But how do i "know" when its going to happen??!This has happened to me at least 5 times where i sort of telepathically "predict" it. Ive even sat up out of bed, in the dark, had the urge to shine my phone torch at the door frame, lo and behold, a spider walks in. I dont have any other psychic abilities that may be useful, or profitable!!! Just this stupid spider prediction!!
Count the number of times you look and there's no spider. Don't cheat.
I used to hurt the spiders now I learned to accept them and let them do their thing, they won't hurt you
If you can monetize it 😂
WOW! What a brilliant talk.
only if one is gullible , ignorant with a huge existential anxiety.
Really though? Please note his claims of what science claims are nearly all wrong..
When I was in my senior year of my college physics program & about to go off to a doctoral program, a psychic told me that I would end up working in the lower atmosphere. 15 years later, i was working air traffic control at an airport when I remembered that prediction. to say that my path to air traffic was incredibly convoluted, involving things like needing to get a job in the NY metro area because my wife (met 1 year after getting my BS & 6 mos after dropping out of grad school) wanted to move back to be near her mother.
dude we all work in the lower atmosphere....lol
Seems to me,
except for cosmonauts and astronauts,
we are all working in the lower atmosphere
so...
Seems to me,
'psychic abilities' were invented as a means to fleece
the gullible among us.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Seriously, my job as an air traffic controller involves the lower atmosphere in ways that few other jobs qualify. Yes, we all live & work in the lower atmosphere (even astronauts who do have to come down on occasion) but my job as an air traffic controller involves dealing with the lower atmosphere in ways that few other jobs entail. There are only 4 professions that I can think of that actually involve dealing with the lower atmosphere: pilot (I never had the vision), flight attendant (not likely in the early 1980s given that I am male), air traffic controller or weather observer/reporter. The last two professions do not account for many employment opportunities).
@@nickolasgaspar9660 we all work in the lower atmosphere but few professions work with the lower atmosphere in the same way as air traffic control.
@@dlsamson The 'psychics' prediction is not impressive as, no matter what job you found, you would be working in the lower atmosphere.
If you had become a miner miles underground you might argue even more strongly for her psychic power.
I mean, no one gets lower in the atmosphere than miners eh.
I come from a science background myself and though I do see the advantages of a scientific method I also see some of the traps of it as well. This deterministic/materialistic framework doesn't seem to account for it all. In the last few years I have had experiences that are outside of what I can understand by science alone. There is clearly more work to understand about our minds and consciousness and how that needs to be brought into the equation. I do not know of anyone that understands this at all.
We are like children at the beach and perhaps one of the best things we can do is enjoy the experience of sand and water -- to live with a sense of wonder and awe at the amazing universe of which we are apart.
Greatly put into words, I completely agree! I believe consciousness will never be able to be fully explained by the deterministic framework science is currently using.
@@GHCODPvZ Thanks. One of the thoughts I have had is that people only look at information through their own perspective and bias. There are some scientists looking at these areas though their work isn't well supported. Rupert Sheldrake has some interesting observations.
Human consciousness is overvalued because it regards us humans. All living organisms have consciousness which must mean that Consciousness is an essential part or principal law of the Universe, at least to my understanding.
"To live with a sense of wonder and awe" is very well put. And when science or certain scientists simply can't deal with the phenomenon of consciousness it just shows the beauty and mysteriousness of life.
@@miklosdavid7627 I don’t think human consciousness is overvalued due to hubristic nature. Animals do have consciousness but it’s precisely self consciousness that is extremely deceptive. 95% of animals do not have any form of self awareness (they don’t know they are) they are the closest things to naturally and biologically programmed robots. The reason for mystique regarding human consciousness is because it is THE thing itself that is responsible for all observations made to begin with. It’s like only having a single measuring tool in terms of investigating the phenomena of existence itself, this is the only one we know of, all we know of is derived from here, we are the source for our own knowledge. So how exactly objective are the plethora of facts we have gathered over time. Modern science especially a materialistic world view is only working out the ‘how’ question but not the Why at all question which some might say is meaningless even tho we exactly know what is being referred to and the question is being avoided due to lack of answering faculties. We ultimately want to restrict everything that there is to existence itself down to the “universe” to shorten our field of inquiry so we can finally have a unified theory for “everything”.
So what exactly did you experience that you cannot understand using science?
Thankful for this man 🙏🙌🕯
More people need to hear about this, spread the word. Share to your friend and on tik tok for younger audiences.
I love this guy!
More people need to hear about this video, spread the word. Share to your friend and on tik tok for younger audiences.
Recent events have unveiled the subjective application and focus of science!
Understatement of the century
The parrot my grand parents had used to call my name for about an hour before we arrived. This reality is also very common between children and their mothers, sometimes fathers, but I believe seeing you were once literally connected to your mother a stronger connection remains. I know it is not like that for everybody but that its a reality for many cannot be denied, even if it counters modern science.
did you arrive at your grand parents approximately the same time every day. Dogs do that too when they expect their owners to return from work. So do children expecting to see their parents pick them up from day care. Are parrots, dogs and children therefore psychic? Let's not jump to confusions. There's a much simpler explanation. You should be able to figure this out.
@Kristen Hansen you don't know much about psychic phenomena, do you?
@@penyarol83 No one does...everyone has his personal subjective interpretations of an experience he had...influenced by previous popular interpretations. People just love to pretend to know things that they don't or don't understand.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 hope you’re looking into a mirror when you say that last line
@@penyarol83 I am not the one who pretends to know things that I don't and can't prove mate......
Dr Sheldrake is truly a maverick genius and a national treasure! He is a very brave man that has earned and deserves tremendous respect regardless of what we may think of his ideas or if they are true or not. It is men like him that have changed the world over the years.
He just sells pseudoscience books 😄.
@@simstar6557 he preys on the gullible and ignorant of this world.
@buzz magister Well politicians and charlatans try to sell pseudo philosophical ideologies...
Name one brave thing he does. Selling books to believers?
@@ihatespam2 lol
To hear Dr Sheldrake put it that way... it sounds as if dark matter is species akin to 21st century epicycles to explain away retro motion behavior, a form of techno-hukom.
Since 1985, the Amsterdam Science Museum has allowed visitors to participate in the am-I-being-stared-at experiment, based on Sheldrake’s work, with one subject and one starer doing 30 trials before vacating their seats for the next couple.
By 2002, more than 18,700 couples had taken part and the results were a staggering 10 to the power of 376 against them being produced by chance. It’s an on-going experiment and the number of subjects who have participated is now over 20,000, making this the largest and longest-running paranormal research project ever conducted.
Source??? Official source? I claim this is BULLSHIT. I ve been to the NEMO many times, never seen that “experiment”. I researched this online, this paragraph you pasted above appears only in a couple of sites that support .... drumroll... Rupert sheldrake !!! Don’t believe this crap
@@andytaylor3029 i do have personal "psychic" experience, so i do rather believe it. seems like you are still fettered to the chains of "science", poor fella
@@andytaylor3029 It seems to me a lot of people making comments in support of ludicrous nonsense have insufficient appreciation for the power of their own imaginations.
I've participated on that trial. I was sitting right in front of another guy. Then I've answered a questionnaire where I've declared that I was being stared. Isn't that amazing? 🤣
@@tanko.reactions176 I had a burger once. That proves that there is a McDonalds on the Moon.
"I don't know what the truth is, I'm just a scientist." - Donald Hoffman ✊❤️🤜🤛🔥✌️👌🤯😁
If only more scientists felt this way and didn't push ideas so easily off into pseudoscience and material based atheism.
Issue is the same that happened with religion as well, power and money started to get involved. Don't talk about X only Y. Instead of just letting them go fucking wild in every direction.
lol......you are ignorant and confused Seth.
Hoffman is a charlatan...he makes claims about a "mathematical model" when there aren't any variables for our mental properties.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 😂. Your ignorance is showing. Seth is on point.
@@InfoArtistJKatTheGoodInfoCafe You just stated what you wish to be true....not what is really true. You need to provide objective evidence for your beliefs or else you are just an irrational individual for accepting claims without good reasons.
Atheism has nothing to Do with Materialism do you realize than some Religions are Atheist!!!! And Besides it's the Great JuJu under the Sea that is the Progenitor of the Human Race he shit them out after Wugger-Wugger the Whale God Buggered him after an all night Bender in the sunken city of Atlantis I know the truth and anyone who Doesn't Believe me is a silly poopy head
Thank you for leaving this public on TH-cam.
Brilliant elaboration
I strive to find what I call “elegant solutions” to problems. I was fascinated as a child with spinning a ball overhead on a string because it seemed to defy gravity. When contemplating spinning galaxies later in junior high I asked the science teacher why the stars don’t just go flying off into space, or when is the universe going to start collapsing vs expanding? I always felt I was less intelligent because I couldn’t understand answers like dark matter or dark energy. And I’m still angry to this day over over having a test question on the nature of centrifugal vs centripetal force marked wrong. I watched this entire presentation based on this guys explanation of dark matter / dark energy. Again, I’ve always felt less intelligent than those who claim science has the answer to everything, not anymore!
Science may not have an answer for everything. However, it has dozens of questions for literally everything. This is why Science works: because Science is auto-correcting, increasingly converging to more and more precise understanding of everything.
I particularly don't like what Mr Rupert is doing. He is basically employing maximum skepticism in order to criticize and debunking Science. However, his skepticism disappears completely when he mentions religious dogma and superstitions.
@@richardgomes5420 he tries to poke holes in science's high standards of evidence in his attempt to sneak in his pseudo philosophy.
He strawmans science's auxiliary principles by introducing a philosophical worldview (materialism). Science's priciples are those of Methodological Naturalism . MN is not a philosophical worldview but an epistemic acknowledgment of our limitations as an empirical creature.
Bikes are balanced when having speed,even whilst standing still using a treadmill for example, the reason of this effect is unknown. It is not caused by centrifugal forces,since this effect is also present using skates on ice for example.
The orbital mechanism as we know them do not allow planets to stay in their orbits, this system would collapse very quickly.
Airplane wings create lift. They also create lift when upside down when you`d expect the opposite to happen the workings on the lift effect is also unknown. Taught you might like this information. Anyways
@@blauwzakjecrack : Bikes can roll for hundreds of meters without anyone riding them due to the geometry of the front wheel. This is a well known fact by designers of bikes and they build bikes this way in order to achieve augment stability and even safety. You not only got bikes wrong but also planet orbits wrong and also aerodynamics wrong.
Richard Gomes science is auto correcting ? This talk is aiimed at people just like you. The very point he is making is what you seemed to have missed....the dogmas he mentions restrict or limit scientific progress when it could progress faster without those limitations. For example, for decades biologists thought that the appendix was a vestigial organ that was functionally redundant through evolutionary progress so paid no attention to it. However, others ignored this worldview and studied it further to discover it had a important function during the developing baby stages in that it was the baby's sole immune system organ until the rest of the immune system slowly developed ad took over at some point after which the appendix stopped functioning. No auto correction happening here. Yet a faulty worldview prevented scientific progress in fully understanding our immune system for decades and is not an isolated case either.
Consciousness is no more in the brain then the announcer is in the radio
@Folk Aart If you break a radio it becomes disturbed and cant channel the radio signals. Same with brains.
Exactly where is it then? And if not how can a brain injury result in a split personality, even to the point that one is religious, and the other personality is atheist?
@Folk Aart you sound like a really bright, reasonable and open minded human being
I suggest you go to school too. When i had an accident and broke my leg i had no head injuries by the way, i went unconscious. @Folk Aart
so you are saying there signals to channel then? @@loke2860
Great to see Rupert being respected, the TED people were not so polite and banned this talk, because they cannot bear anyone to question the dogmas of 'Science'. The original foundation of science was based on questioning, and testing ideas, something they seem to have forgotten today.
Rupert has to back the science behind his speculations..is what he says repeatable? What are the conditions for testing his hypotheses?
Michael Gorman: well said and very, very true.............................God Bless.
@@damonhunter5143 Thank you Damon, all the best to you.
It depends very much on what is understood by the term 'Science'. The scientific method is tried and tested _ad nauseum_ but relying on some "consciousness Woo" which cannot be adequately pinned down, is why TED give it the thumbs down. I guess time will tell.
sorry but the ones who are deluded here are those defending Sheldrake.
This video should be called The Science Illusion. The illusion is that it's about science.
This man's comments RE the "placebo effect" are simply brilliant! The kind of realization you can't believe didn't occur to you...but it didn't.
I totally love the way this person's mind works. We need more people who think this clearly and this controversially. I hope Dr. Sheldrake keeps going with these talks which will, in the end, will be referenced by future generations. When Dawkins, Dennett and the rest will have been long forgotten. Bravo!
Andrew Sheehy: The Christian inquisition demanded that people accept this type of delusional belief with threats of punishment or death if you rejected the dogma. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Krauss and others have brought us Freedom From Religions for which we are most grateful. Lest we forget! A return to the delusions of religious dogma and other delusional or conspiracy theories are not what is needed.
@@kimlowe705 I cannot understand how the many ideas advanced in this talk could be classified as a “delusional belief”. A lot of the thinking is sound.
Suggest you check out the extraordinary work being done by people like Michael Levin who represent the future. In contrast, Dennett - as an example - has spent decades writing multiple books that - ironically - prove that he doesn’t understand what consciousness is.
Yes, his mind is so clear. "I'm just a scientist", so here you are my preferred deities which explain everything I don't know how to explain in the first place!
Wherever he sees a gap in Science, his brilliant sharp mind is ready to insert an angel to fill the gap and explain how it work. Utterly brilliant. Only a sharp, accurate scientific minded person would be capable to arrive to such brilliant realization.
@@richardgomes5420 I really don't understand the 'passive-aggressive' nature of your comment. Dr. Sheldrake's reference to 'angels' was to provide historic context (Descartes advanced that idea).
If you'd like to have an actual debate then let me know here and I'll share with you a simple way to falsify materialisim and then you can come back to be with a challenge to the thinking that I'll lay out. But, please, let's focus on the thinking not the person.
the last 4 years have shown that nearly all "experts" got things 100% wrong.
I would like to watch a conversation between Dr Sheldrake and Dr Jordan Peterson!
I had the same thought just yesterday. Would be fascinating! Rupert talking with Dr. Bruce Lipton would be interesting as well.
@@Axiomatic75 there's a convo between Sheldrake and Lipton on here.
th-cam.com/video/xqUFHM_qXBw/w-d-xo.html (sheldrake & lipton)
Personally i think that would be a conversation between an open mind and a closed one.
Why not have a conversation with both yourself? I do it most days.
Important to keep in mind, the speaker is a scientist. He’s not saying all science is rubbish, he’s saying some of its main tenets ought not to be accepted unquestioningly. Then he goes on to hint at a theory of mind as a sort of projective field. Well, if you look at theories of electromagnetic fields, it seems similar to me, so I don’t think it’s radical at all, it just hasn’t been a focus in physics up to now, but so-called “quantum biology” is supposedly the hot new thing so expect to see much more in this sort of thing. I think it’s an exciting and overdue development in science!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:40 *🌎 The belief that science already understands the nature of reality is widespread, bolstered by technological achievements.*
02:26 *📚 Sheldrake lists 10 dogmas underlying modern science's materialist worldview, including nature being mechanical/machine-like and matter being unconscious.*
04:19 *🌟 Science requires accepting the "free miracle" of the sudden appearance of all matter, energy and laws at the Big Bang.*
09:35 *♻️ Sheldrake questions the assumption of conservation of matter/energy, pointing to dark matter/energy accounting for 95% of the unknown universe.*
15:17 *🧠 He challenges the dogma of unconscious matter, tracing its history from Descartes' mind-body dualism to modern materialism.*
19:20 *🔭 The persistence of human consciousness is causing the materialist worldview to break apart.*
22:05 *💫 Some materialists adopt panpsychism - the idea that consciousness permeates all matter/nature.*
25:29 *⏳ Whitehead proposed relating mind and body through time rather than space - mind as the future possibility, body as past actualization.*
28:37 *🔮 Sheldrake proposes mental causation as a stream from future possibilities towards past actualization, contrasting physical causation.*
30:24 *🧠 He challenges the dogma that minds are just brain activity, suggesting minds are fields extended in space-time like electromagnetic fields.*
33:21 *👁️ The view that our visual experiences are inside the brain contradicts the intuitive sense that we project images outwardly to where things seem to be.*
36:34 *👀 Sheldrake cites evidence that people can feel when being stared at from behind, suggesting minds can non-locally "touch."*
41:23 *☎️ He describes experimental evidence for telephone telepathy - knowing who is calling before answering.*
43:39 *💻 Modern telepathic experiences often involve communication technology like phones and email.*
44:05 *🐶 Animals demonstrate telepathic abilities, suggesting an extended psychic dimension of mind beyond the brain.*
45:10 *✨ Sheldrake argues minds are open not just to this psychic realm, but also to spiritual influences through mystical experiences.*
Made with HARPA AI
No real scientist would agree with that opening statement.
@Mr Best Policy Yes the guy with unsubstantiated claims and no evidence is cool but those who doubt are brainwashed....
No scientist would agree with his opening statement, thats why he is not taken seriously. He makes claims without demonstrating them then whines about scientism like he is a victim. People would go ape shit over him if he could prove any of this stuff. Don't fool yourself. Evidence rules BS walks.
do you mean "science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in"?
yes that is a statement that no scientist would make.
It is a position that people who don't understand scientific method might make, given the incredible utility of science in our everyday lives.
@@enkido5838 how so? is it not the case that science implitly operates under the assumption that, say, we are able to apprehend truth through our sense though?
Science develops theories which it tests against evidence.
To the extent that evidence supports the theory and the theory has predictive power, it is a useful theory.
Every engineering achievememt in history is built on this.
It is many decades since Science dropped any thoughts of laws much less truth, in favor of theories and predictive utility.
The biggest steps in science are when a theory fails to explain an observation, leading to a new theory which does. If that theory is then supported with evidence it gains credence and utility.
Quantum theory is a massive example but Einstein had his moment as did Newton.
What science does even more than answer questions is uncover still more things we cannot explain.
It would foolhardy in the extreme and profoundly unscientific to think that we have all the tools (theories) we will need to explain innumerable questions which we have not yet even encountered.
The ability of one's mind to interpret reality = the level of one's intelligence.
how about this quote from Arthur Shopenhaur; " man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills'', im not a reader of A.S., but like this quote...
Or the extent to which correct predictions can be made.
@@mindsigh4 I don't get it.
@@djayjp ...and stay out of danger.
True "survival of the fittest".
@@mindsigh4 agreed .. Noone knows how the brain determine how it wills what we will... But my guess is that it's a continuum of stimulus-response guided by self-interest. And those with wisdom do best.
The materialism era is over.
😂 in what way? Rupert has nothing.
Wonderful talk. God bless.
I really do find the... "parallel" between quantum superpositions and actual realized actions, vs. our own human plans and eventual decisions, pretty striking. I don't think we should make too much of it, but it is "thought provoking."
you are made up of quantum particles, why wouldn’t quantum mechanics extend to you?
Science is rigor, and the body of knowledge thereby attained. It does not create metaphysical implications within it's own discipline.
And therefore has limitations in terms of what it can tell us about the nature of reality, particularly if its practitioners are unwilling to examine the discipline's foundational assumptions.
@James Strawn A rigorous one. The bottom line is, if you start with that single idea, "science is rigor", you could recreate everything else we currently call science from it.
@@paulaoh5306 Right. Metaphysics is a framework for understanding everything in relation to everything else. As soon as you can study something rigorously, that's a scientific study for all intents and purposes. Whether or not it's done well it's a separate question. But there's more!
Logic is when we find rigorous relationships that always apply. Math is rigorous relationships of quantity.
This is a brilliant presentation! He's covering all the bases!
Every new age, supernatural, woowoo base...
You have an idiot as your profile pic. He makes up his own science like drinking bleach to cure covid.
@@siliconiusantogramaphantis2122 Solid retorts refrain from derogatory comments. By the way I am not a Trump supporter.
@@siliconiusantogramaphantis2122
Hardly, he misrepresents and only covers those false statements which support his borrowed ideas.
Love this guy.. I think he is brilliant... I don’t know why but I have thought along these lines many times. Here is just a simple thought... Think about it long enough and you begin to understand a lot about life.
I was over at a friends house one day and we both were talking about a friend who had just past away. I was thinking, and said, when I die I wonder who or what I will become after my death ? Will there be hate, will there be war and bigotry, will there be sorrow, sickness, pain, hunger and sadness, and in between, will there be love, happiness, respect, and fulfillment ? Will I meet my friend again ? My friend looked at me and said, Tom, once you are dead you stay dead and you never come back. I looked back at my friend with a smile and said, the same can be said before I was born, but, here I am.
Tom Picketts' Astrophotography - Certainly, here you are. But like your friend said, once you are dead you stay dead and you never come back. Let's face it, the "afterlife" is just a wishy-washy way of saying "death". Sounds a lot nicer but it's still "death". There will be no more sorrow, sickness, pain, hunger and sadness from the moment you drop dead until the end of time! It's over. No free lunch!
@@kristenhansen1843 No joy, happiness, bliss. You don't know what happens.
I love science because it doesn't have answer of everything.
I have a question about the vision explanation which I have not sat down to analyze.
If we project what we are looking at in front of us, how do you explain the images that we are aware of in our dreams?
I like his very sly nod to the Electric Universe there at 15:13 ish... :P
Immanuel Velikovsky- Immanuel Velikovsky - Immanuel Velikovsky !!fak!!! Man!!!! . It makes so much more sense,but yeah, you don't want to kick of Newton of his throne now do ya, not to mention the domino effect that will follow.
Check channel suspicious observers for more 😀
Rupert Sheldrake is not a polemic, though he explicitly points out outrageous deficiencies in current science. However, he also points out correctly that many of these deficiencies are admitted by current science. Science is arrogant and has always tended to be so, but it is also unsure and in some ways humble in its arrogance and so it is a paradox. Science needs people like Sheldrake. It should not and must not reject him or people like him. They are the canary in the coalmine.
please list the outrageous deficiencies of science.
@@dankahraman354, the outrageous deficiencies of science makes for a long list.
There's not enough space here to list them but I could prioritise a few.
1 - Scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public in a way that is commonly understood.
2 - Scientists are permitting bogus science to become recognised as popular science, when it's not science.
3 - Bullets 1 and 2 embrace the problem of science being misunderstood against invalid arguments that are popular.
4 - Some scientists, and non-scientists masquerading as scientists, are giving science a bad name by not using science.
That's probably enough to be going on with.
@@TheBasicTruth cite examples under the 4 headings you listed. You haven't done anything of the sort.
How is science arrogant?
Isn't science a methodology used to try understand and explain phenomena?
That's what I understand science to be and I don't see how arrogance can be applied here, please explain.
The arrogance from conventional science is to reduce itself to the method and to insist that the world is understandable only through the 5 senses, not to include the intention of the person.In this way the technology is dominating our life and ignore our vision, moral and power. Sorry for my reduced English😉😊
The whole Sheldrake family is extraordinary, but this guy's my favorite.
Why would anyone want to ban this talk? Are they afraid?
Brilliant clear impressive work…
An eye opener!
Another eye opener well worth reading is the book " Pasteur vs Beauchamp"
or ...another pet in the back....
More people need to hear about this video, spread the word. Share to your friend and on tik tok for younger audiences.
Do you mean the one written by Ethel Hume?
Of course there’s matter, but there’s energy. Science knows about probability, and it’s own limitations about truly knowing everything. No such things as eternal laws of nature, things change. Our understanding changes.
“Science” doesn’t know anything. It’s a method, a process. Understanding the limits of science occurs when the philosophy of science is known and applied by the humans practicing the scientific method.
Wonderfully clear and brilliant. We must be, in fact, projecting and receiving devices. A renaissance is happening with this new awareness, and our Creator is right around the corner, ready to welcome us if we press on.
yes, years ago i had a few dreams that were VERY memorable, & now im seeing things in society that are mirroring certain Key points in the dreams.
have u ever listened/watched Eckhart Tolle videos on youtube? in one of my dreams (from 35 yrs ago)it played out a scenario in the future (now) & it was demonstrated to me the activation of something in humans that caused immediate reactions & that most people were unaware of this activation while it was happening to them. when i read power of now in 2002 & he outlined the "pain-body" & i had a name for this thing that gets activated.& like Tolle says, it goes dormant, but sleeping with one eye open, waiting for an opportunity, like a vampire, to feed on us & stir up the pain-body of others, or to fire upthe collective pain body of groups &/or nation states as a whole.
@@mindsigh4 Your dreams were prophetic, and maybe still are. I've been guided by such dreams myself, and it's a good sign that you're marked for knowledge. But do not be distracted away from the Judeo-Christian God who created us. He alone has power and authority: thesecondtempleofsolomon.com
If there were demonstrative evidence you could claim clarity, but there is not, It is all postulations. How did you establish that we send and receive things outside of the natural order? And what's this deal about a creator? Got a definition or evidence?
or, not. And we just need to SERIOUSLY raise our educational standards.
@@ihatespam2 Evidence abounds in every age of history; white light after-death and coming back from impossible wounds; telepathy, both human and animal; miraculous, continuous and dramatic healings... the list is extraordinarily long. But always masses of people say, "That's not evidence."
Scientist: my vacuum cleaner is a collection of parts organised in a workable way.
Sheldrake: so you seriously believe that your vacuum cleaner is unconscious?
lol
Love this ❣️❣️❣️
Interesting. I think he really points out well some of the dogma modern science has fallen into. That doesn't mean science is bad... certainly not, however if it breaks free of current dogma it is open to explore more and grow.
No he doesn't. He just labels dogma Science's high standards of evidence and evaluation and strawmans its principles
He has one job to do and he fails miserably. Science demands from him to provide Objective and independently verifiable evidence for his claims. HE can't so he decides to whine about it.
Its similar to a ball-buster kid who no one wants to play with him and somehow he believes its their fault.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Scientists pile up praises upon each other like there is no tomorrow , but don't know how to build the simplest known life form , that tells volumes of how little they know and how much they hyperventilate . Turning science institutions into social sexual dogmatic platforms brings a new twist to its course . Verifiable because its agreed on or else expelled he will be is the way forced indoctrination works ,it can only be this way because there is no other way they ramble . He has remarkable insights ,respectful demeanor and a free mind .
@@rovidius2006 -"Scientists pile up praises upon each other like there is no tomorrow"
-You are confused...you are confusing Scientists with science. A scientist's word in weak and unimportant , what is important is that his science is able to meet the high standards of the process.
-" but don't know how to build the simplest known life form"
-lol They don't????? we should fire them all. You are a troll right?
-"that tells volumes of how little they know and how much they hyperventilate "
-No it doesn't , if they couldn't build a simple life form that would mean that biology is a complex field of study.
You are able to post your ignorant claims because science understands many things on how reality works. Your device and internet connection are the result of our scientific knowledge.
Dude...are you a kid or something? what's wrong with you. What shitty arguments are those. Have you ever being at a library, ever opened a text book in your life.....Sure there are many things we can not do or know yet...but wake up and study, there are many things that we do know. Grow up
-"Turning science institutions into social sexual dogmatic platforms brings a new twist to its course . "
-ok you are way too stupid to talk to.....lol
@@nickolasgaspar9660No , It means that they have no idea of what life is and try to steal the show, liars and projectionists .
@@rovidius2006 lol....biology is not your strong point right?
It's good to see someone who dares mock and point out that science as we know it is wrong thanks Rupert .,.........
Being banned by ted is a badge of honor
or evidence that he makes claims without any evidence or ability to demonstrate them. Why would TED care otherwise? Believe me, if he could substantiate his claims he would be on top of the world., he is no victim of scientism, he just fails to prove his claims, which is not scientific.
@@ihatespam2 Sure, but ted is a terrible platform that has allowed all kinds of nonsense
@@ihatespam2 i think it's naive to think he'd be on top of the world. Challanging the current orthodoxy is always going to be met with resistance. That's how the ego works. It fears letting go of its attachments to untruth. That's the metaphor of the devil. It deceives you and makes you cling egoically to all your attachments. Why would scientists operate any differently?
@@highvalence7649 that old trope? It is unreasonable and illogical to defend weak “scientific” ideas by claiming mainstream scientists are resistant.
Scientists make their careers off coming up with groundbreaking ideas, not by disappearing into the consensus.
It is fallacious to go after the system instead of the actual claim. Provide the facts of the claim, don’t insult the the people who disagree with the claim. Sure, you may get a lot of supporters with chips on their shoulders and who are easily bored by real science, but you haven’t moved the argument one inch.
@@ihatespam2 i wasn't defending any ideas in my earlier reply. That's like a straw man, or at least it's to miss the point. I was rather objecting to your claim that "if he (Rupert sheldrake) could substantiate his claims he would be on top of the world". I think that's naive. That doesn't mean his claims are true or substantiated. Of course not. I never argued that.
Wonderful! Thank you!
Can someone help me out? I can't remember the name of that one famous scientist--They write about him in all the text books, because he's super important to our understanding of the world--that he respected all the systemic limitations established within his field, and went along with the status quo, and never questioned the authority of the general consensus or orthodoxy of his time. I've been through several science textbooks in various fields, and so far I haven't come across any mention of him yet. What's his name again?
Just gonna leave this name here: Immanuel Velikovsky / electronic universe. Would advise to research in an open space, cause your mind will be blown.
He often talks at EU conferences.
@@demonmonsterdave well, yes but n since he is dead. But his idea`s are represented with the eu vison of the universe.
I do also advocate the eu over the other theories.
“Give is one free miracle, and we will explain the rest” -Terrence M. What realization, formed provocation.
@ thats a circular argument tho
No free miracles without belief
If matter is unconscious how do electrons know when there filmed
An informative journey..for the most part open ended which I like..
I have for years been saying that science and technology are not the same things and that one does not necessarily validate the other.
They are not the same thing but they both feed each other. Science enables technological advances and Technology enables new observations and discovery of new facts.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I don't need to understand hydrodynamics to make a simple water wheel to irrigate or draw water. While they are obviously intertwined, people make the mistake of confusing the two. " My iPhone is amazing so their other theories must be true". The assumption being that technological advancement automatically equals understanding. My point is there is a need for caution, and not accepting at face value the claims or theories of much of what is passing as 'science' these days. A lot of wild, ridiculous theories out there being presented as though they are fact, with the average person allowing themselves into being cowed because of technology.
My ah-ha moment is how potential is not measurable but events are but then they are in the past. So our past does not determine our future. Cannot recommend the book Power vs Force by Dr David R Hawkins fits very well and overlaps with this material.
Thank you.
This is the same argument that has always been presented by religious or spiritual people. It is based in false assumptions like arguing that "science is a believe system". It has been explain countless times already the difference between believing something because dogmatism and trusting because evidences and experiences leads to a great degree of trust, there is a huge difference between thinking you know something because your holly book says so and thinking you have a good method to determine how trustworthy is an idea by examining patterns and using logic. The point of this speech is to mislead people into thinking that science acts like a believe system. If you truly understand the scientific method you don't make that assumption. It is actually weird since this guy is actually graduated in biology and biochemistry... I guess what Dawkins says is true and religion can really make intelligent people say stupid things.
Eagle Dee it is actually a very valid point, as no scientific research is able to get the necessary funding if it isn’t in line with theories that are currently popular with in the scientific community. In that sense, it is a belief system of sort
@ChakRaLight you should realize how misinformed you are by saying that. It amuses and somehow scares me how many people don't really understand that in science a theory is the highest level an idea gets and to get promoted to the level of theory an hypothesis need to pass peer review and the scrutiny of the scientific method. It is such a usual sentence to be heard from superstitious and religious people "it is just a theory". You know the theories of the electromagnetic field and quantum physics are what makes possible our little chat about this video right now. They seems to work pretty solid doesn't they? There is nothing that makes science a belief system and whoever says so is ignorant of the truth. Science doesn't rely in faith, or dogma. Science relies on trial and error, on propositional logic and the language of nature: mathematics. Science gives us tools that allows us to make reliable predictions on what may or may not happen in an specific scenario, so people of science doesn't deposit their faith in science, they simply trust a scientific theory while it's predictions continues to work accurately, eventually a better theory comes and the predictions are better and that's why science has the humility to call it Theory, unlike dogmatic ideas which are static. Try to inform yourself a little on this subject, it's easy, just make a little research on what is the scientific method and learn some history of science.
@ChakRaLight if you study science It becomes obvious todo you which ideas works and which doesn't. Science does not use any faith based ideas nor does it requires you to have faith in anything, the only reason you say so is because you need to make it look like that in order to keep up with this conversation. It is really funny thar you acuse me of ad hominem when you are saying that science is a dogmatic belief. If you delete all dogma and religion and come back in a hundred years the new religions will be totally different, but if you do so with science you will find it will.come back exactly the same, that is how you can tell science is not based on dogmas and non sense. Keep up with your non sense trying to strawmaning me whith your dishonest conversation, the only thing you are achieving is demonstrating that superstitous thiughts are really poluting society.
@ChakRaLightThat sole expression "unproven theories" just show why you are so wrong about this subject. It is a waste of time trying to explain you why science is not religion or dogma or any kind of belief system. I just hope people reading this will immediately do a research, and find all the information they need, there is plenty of thinkers and philosophers talking about this and the conclusion is clear solid. If you don't understand that with science we for example came with the theories of the electromagnetism and we tested them and they worked out so well that we can make predictions, and based on that we did build complex systems that automatizes tasks, then if you can't understand how all this is not a belief system, I have nothing else to talk. You can keep adding non-sense here, but I hope anyone else would just make a research and get to their own conclusions. I'm outta this unending conversation. You can keep adding replies until you reach the end of your precious life, I'm not gonna waste a second more with this.
@ChakRaLight oh, sorry I am not a native English speaker and sometimes I make mistakes, but I guess that is not what matters here, does it? Lmao
Why would Ted ban him?! All he is saying, very logically, is could this be possible I've done some scientific experiment. Maybe we should look into it more. By banning his talk all they have done is discredit themselves.
I enjoy Rupert but surely science is the very act of "looking into it more" these so called assumptions of science are not taken lightly. It's the best we can say on what we can actually measure and see. From what we actually have. We can all just say well it might be something else. But that has to add up with the physics and maths we have. I'm not saying either way I'm just saying the scientists haven't just made these things up
Because the ones running the show do not want us to question what they say that science is: "Science says" or "experts say", which is being broadcast daily is not science. Anybody with an audience can say these words: "Science says". They want us to have blind faith in what they claim science says without any further investigation. Then they can control the masses much easier. The scientist becomes the priest.
@@justbreakingballs No, because the "best we can measure and see" REQUIRE them to concoct things that they DON'T measure and see in order to make the math work. Dark matter and dark energy are ENORMOUS fudge factors - the very definition of "just made these things up."
Because he Constantly misrepresents other peoples claims. He creates straw man arguments.
1 thing the speaker here has incorrect is thinking that nature, like probabilistic quantum theory, considers possibilities. Nature does not consider possibilities. Probabilistic quantum theory does. Writing and solving a probabilistic quantum theory equation can determine probabilities of possibilities of an object because probabilistic quantum theory intentionally determines only general unspecified solutions to problems, and these general unspecified solutions turn out to be probabilities of possibilities. If probabilistic quantum theorists determine any general unspecified solution of an object, and then they specify the object's unspecified quantities, such as, in example, specifying the object’s exact initial position vector in nature and its exact initial speed vector in nature, then their general unspecified probabilities of possibilities solution becomes 1 exact specified solution, the 1 observable in nature, with all the probabilities of possibilities, which never existed in nature, eliminated.
He confuses the territory with the map.
Wonderful !!
Thanks! One of my favorite thinkers
Haven't watched the whole video yet, but I have the same views. And I was surprised about how little numbers this story has attracted...
The truth is censored and suppressed. Big tech wants to turn you into a soulless consumer.
@@demonmonsterdave He has views, without evidence, therefore should be censored from science arenas, because it is dishonest and a waste of time. When he gets evidence for his 50 year old claim, everyone will change their tune.
Love getting high and getting mind blown with the one and only Sheldrake
I once got busted in my neighbour's yard with just a towel, checking up on her dog that was howling/barking. My neighbour got home from a holiday to a near naked man in her yard with a seemingly unlikely reason for being there.
Hi Tracy,
sorry about for being on your property in a state of undress.
Such clarity
Love this guy! & he never forget to mention his friend Terrence McKenna. I would be glad to hear him to mention Nikola Tesla too while he talking about mobile phones, Aether and things that Tesla discovered.
no.such.thing.as.the.ether.
Oxiigen: I too would like to see Sheldrake expand on some of Tesla' ideas, especially The Aether................God Bless.
there is no ether unless you are referring to "laughing gas".
Forget mobile phones, Tesla once invented a device to communicate with Venusians. I think he even patented it. Sounds like you already have one.
It's about smell when you sense someone in the room. I was blown away by this. My friend would always wake up when I walked out of my room when he was sleeping infront of a loud TV with my being 100% quite. Turns out he smelt me and its a defense thing.
100% quite of quiet?
Is your friend Wolverine?
If there is one understanding I've experienced it is of focused awareness.. of the desired knowledge.. a question asked.. the mind reaching out to give the answer.. one example out of many is bumping into the person you need to see.. in a strange place... knowledge of others being willing to wait for no reason at a place. And to have say 5 mins later a person walk in that needed to talk to you .. or visa verser .. we can and do focus. And project.. our wishes.. to others . If they are receptive.. it's oftentimes the case you will hear or meet them.. there are so many examples..
Back in the 80's, long before caller ID, I would answer the phone 'Hello (person's name). I was right so often my friends all wondered how I did it.
Yes !!!
✨️🙂✨️
Thank you, sir .
Absolutely brilliant! I love it!
Huummm... not really. Richard Dawkins once said that Religion has the ability to make intelligent people say stupid things, which is the case of Mr. Rupert.
@@richardgomes5420 he is making a living by selling books to gullible and ignorant people with existential anxieties.
Absolutely wonderful. Morphic Resonance makes sense to me. It blew my mind at first.
Most people:
Watch comedy movies and TikTok.
Me:
Reading the comment sections of external consciousness propositions.
That's really good that the very ridiculed Rupert Sheldrake of "pseudoscience" is in close relation of ideas to the great Donald Hoffman. I do enjoy both of their works. I've not read any of their books though. But Donald Hoffman is a pioneer for holographic principle and for panpsychism.
"I don't know what the truth is, I'm just a scientist." - Donald Hoffman ✊❤️🤜🤛🔥✌️👌🤯😁
If only more scientists felt this way and didn't push ideas so easily off into pseudoscience and material based atheism.
#GoVegan 💚
@@ReligionAndMaterialismDebunked aren't you a smart pickle well done you.
I can "feel" when something is about to happen.
For instance someone in another room drops something.
I have the preception of tension just before the sound of the object hitting the floor.
This happens to me continously throughout the day.
Im also quite good at remote viewing.
Nah
there are billions of things happening at any given moment.
ya right. sounds like a sheldrake delusion.
@@dankahraman354 lol, yeah - people know this guy admits to taking LSD, right? A solid base for logic and reason.
go see Robert Mueller and offer him your services!
Most people:
Watch comedy movies and TikTok.
Me:
Reading the comment sections of external consciousness propositions.
if you keep masturbating you'll have to get some tissues
comedy movies makes you laugh, comments on videos like this makes you cry and lose hope in humanity.
This projection is the creation of consciousness. Everyone has a unique world created by a unique conscious agent, and each universe depends on unique learning, experience, culture, traditions, beliefs, and experiences.
His criticism of science is correct. His alternative theory is bogus. The examples he gives as arguments for his theory in the second half are ironically already explained by science
HIs criticism can sometimes be correct. But if he could demonstrate his claims, scientist would be all over it.
which points do you find correct???
"Explained by science" doesn't mean that our science has found the ultimate truth in a topic. You can explain and explain away basically everything, doesn't matter if it is true or not or if your explenation is true or not.
Science is a business and social-political activity. Even physics there is so much bullshit it's ridiculous, all for the purpose of clever marketing and career-making.
You just don't understand what science is.......
@@nickolasgaspar9660 or maybe you don’t
This man is SO needed to balance out this golden calf worship of science today.
No he isn't. For more than ~2000 years we struggled to remove this kind of comforting and fallacious reasoning from our Natural Philosophy but you all think that you 've discovered Antlantis by listening to this medieval charlatan.
Read the history and Philosophy of Science first before posting ignorant claims in public.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 "Heresy!" "Repent sinner!"... is that all you can say? You only sound like someone whose belief system was triggered. It's not even a proper argument.
I'll help you think about it: that is the difference between "strong consciousness" and "great intelligence"?
He fooled you too. Every claim he makes of science dogma is false, he builds a straw man then knocks it down.
@@ihatespam2 Okay then, would you mind explaining how his Big Bang argument is a strawman? Because I don't get it. The concept does violate the first law of thermodynamics after all, or doesn't it?
Some of you misunderstand what he’s doing completely. He isn’t “debunking” science, you can’t debunk observation, what he’s doing is debunking *scientism* , and saying that our modern understanding of science is more of a religion than a process: purely based on presuppositions, that we aren’t *actually scientifically testing* . He wants us to actually use scientific methods to observe and come to conclusions, not just believe the heresy, that’s not what science was intended for.
Observation and consciousness are two wonders given to us by God, he doesn’t fear science like the media has portrayed, making it seem as if belief and science are at war with each other, but he wants us to embrace our gifts, because after all, he made us in *his* image.
Belief is something we will always need, because there is only so much we can observe. There is a limit, even to science. We will *always* have to believe, we will always have to blindly have faith.
Brilliant comment!
Rupert is wearing the fuck out of that suit