The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Google Tech Talks
September 2, 2008
ABSTRACT
We have been brought up to believe that the mind is located inside the head. But there are good reasons for thinking that this view is too limited. Recent experimental results show that people can influence others at a distance just by looking at them, even if they look from behind and if all sensory clues are eliminated. And people's intentions can be detected by animals from miles away. The commonest kind of non-local interaction mental influence occurs in connection with telephone calls, where most people have had the experience of thinking of someone shortly before they ring. Controlled, randomized tests on telephone telepathy have given highly significant positive results. Research techniques have now been automated and experiments on telepathy are now being conducted through the internet and cell phones, enabling widespread participation.
Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake
Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than 75 technical papers and ten books, the most recent being The Sense of Being Stared At. He studied at Cambridge and Harvard Universities, was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge and a Research Fellow of the Royal Society. He is currently Director of the Perrott-Warrick project, funded from Trinity College Cambridge.
In the Marine Corps we were trained when approaching a sentry from behind (with the intention of "neutralizing" them) to never look directly at them or they will turn around. Use your perifiel vision while creeping up on them.
57:14 "TikToking...in China"
He predicted TikTok
😲
100 percent true. Even more so someone stairs at you and you subconsciously feel it and turn and catch them.
How many times have you spun around to find.. er.. no one's there?. You are likely not to recall, because nothing happened. Not 'training'. Why is no one calling this guy out? Iron filings just won't cut it. Miraculously? No. I shut my eyes, and Rupert disappears. I read a book and I imagine, eyes shut or open. Telekinesis? Give me a break. "100s of thousands.. effect rather small.. overwhelmingly positive" Give the references. Paranoia is associated with believing one is stared at, for sure. "Probably yes if they've trained their sensitivity a bit". Tosh. Lovely soothing voice, mind.
I've heard that snipers are trained to be careful of staring at their target too. Because of the extended range even if you aim and shoot it can still afford them a half a second or two to duck or dodge.
@@clivewells1736tell Trump and the crowd behind him recently.
Thank you for taking the time to do this, Dr. Sheldrake. What stamina to deal with so much prejudice and ignorance! You are a saint.
What I appreciate about this presentation, and what I think lends significant credibility, is the frequent encouragement to replicate the experiments yourself. No appeal to authority. No caveats that you shouldn't expect these results. None of that. Such openness is hard to reconcile with the idea of intentional fraud.
I sense that energy is being transferred from my butt to my chair in the form of heat.
One problem is that most people don't have the understanding of how to set up a properly controlled scientific experiment, or the means to gather enough subjects to make it statistically significant.
No appeal for $ equals false.
These experiments have been done countless of times since the '70s and telepathy has been completely discredited. He is a fraud.
❤ Exactly right my friend
The telepathic stuff is very obvious to me as a mum. I always woke just before my babies needed feeding and started to cry - I’m sure most mums do this. But now that my kids are adults, I still have a feeling when something is wrong and then when I contact them, invariably there is! I knew the day my daughter would crash her car - I messaged her one morning and asked her to be careful and not drive that day. Unfortunately she didn’t get my message and crashed it! Thank goodness she was okay. I also have a strong link with my own mother. When I was 16, I heard her ‘call’ me when I was at school. I knew something was wrong and walked home to find her very ill in bed. It’s very strange, but very true.
I’ve heard exactly the same report of a connection between her and her son from a former coworker.
I have the same with babies I live with, not even blood related. Knew my mum was sick multiple times, even felt my cat's spaying operation at the exact minute they made the incision🐱
P😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
😅😅😅
P😅😅😅😅😅
When I was in the army and in SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) course we were told if we were trying to hide not to look at the enemy.
facepalm
***** most likely because we are wired to notce looks directed at us; sort of how we are wired to recognize faces
SERE sucked balls
I mean we know this by instinct for instance children closing their eyes when someone about to find them weather it's a game or a life or death situation natural reaction squeeze those eyes closed
@@jaredb9523 the motivation behind that is „ if I can’t see him, he can’t see me“
as a energy worker I can say that this is refreshing to see, someone acknowledging what people for millenium have been subjectively discovering; mind isn't just your brain, it goes way beyond that. he doesn't go far enough, though, I don't see any limit to it. what he's describing is the energy level of mind (the first is awareness of the physical body, the next is awareness of the energy level) but it keeps on going. the whole problem is that science currently only accepts indirect (objective) experience and not direct experience. very limiting since science is made by subjective beings, you can't take subjectivity out, and if you try you end up with a lopsided method, useful, but limited. hopefully one day science will put the time into developing methods to calibrate subjective experience (or leverage the mind science that exists in yogic, buddhist, taoist, etc, methods) and we can really start developing ourselves from the inside and the outside, both. thanks for posting.
Very interesting. I've seen some of his experiments, and I've never forgotten them.
He is into real things that I wish we knew more of. No fireworks, all scientific method.
I'm so enthusiastic to search and find more about this, and hope to confirm your standpoint.
@@macac3382 You will he's absolutely right.
Its nice to see Dean Radin up-front taking notes.
Maverick scientists like these will change the way we look at the world.
Really impressed with this talk. The guy seems to have done extensive research and isn't afraid to bring up his critics and involve them.
On the contrary, a lot of what he cites as evidence are annectdotes and "tradition", and when he does refer to studies, he gives no specific references. I'm underwhelmed.
@@nabuk3Oh? Where's your evidence then? Your research? Just asking...🤔
It's amazing, and from what little study I've done the one thing I've concluded beyond a shadow of doubt in my mind is that no one knows all there is to know on consciousness, and it just keeps getting more interesting all the time.
Yes, you are correct which confirms you're on the right path 👌🏾
I was thinking the same thing. What an incredible world we live in where so much is waiting to be discovered.
Personally, I have little difficulty believing the ideas of Sheldrake and Radin because their truth resonates within. It might sound like laziness or lack of scientific training, but the Resonance is I believe traceable to something akin to indigenous knowing.
@@maureenmannion6748I love your attitude, methaphysics is my favorite field of philosophy, especially because of How vast and rich it is, and how it demands abstract thinking and creativity.
Reality is amazing, extremely more rich and interesting than any materialist would think, and it shows how close to theology it actually is.
@@Nature_Consciousness thank you. You have a great attitude to expanding your consciousness. All the best on this journey.
Somehow I just found this lecture so comforting. It's so calming to realize there's so much more beyond the daily anxieties and horrors our brains can imagine.
I've been listening for years, and he is definitely the great calmer, (kamma!?) the steady, alert, warm and lucid way everything is delivered by him. if there is a god, Rupert fits the bill.
@@heidiankers108that’s….extreme😊
This commentary was so insightful and brilliantly orchestrated. Its evident that the material here is way ahead of its time. Sheldrake is not only credible but his delivery is clear, concise addressing the more weightier subjects of this natural phenomena. My hope is that one day the sheer brilliance of his work will be as revered as concrete proof of natural fundamental intrinsic behavior beyond reasonable doubts.
@tiffanypage9077 Well put and I agree wholeheartedly on what you have said. Sheldrake always looks outside the circle of accepted mainstream knowledge. The amount of knowledge and information he has is at times extraordinary and insightful. God bless all who support and follow Rupert Sheldrake's work. Best wishes from Adelaide, South Australia.
In my childhood, we lived in the country and had a female pet dog that had been with us for more than a decade.
We would often leave for the city, and when we came back from the city (which was 100+ km away), every single time, about 5 km away from home we would see her running towards us, irrelevant on which direction we approached home from.
Sangemaru,
And that proves what ?
It implies the fucking dog had some way of tracking us or becoming aware of our presence, even though we did not have any pre-arranged plans. We'd be missing for days or weeks sometimes.
It doesn't 'prove' anything.
sangemaru I agree that it doesn't prove anything but try telling that to Sheldrake and he'll tell you your dog was telepathic !
You may not be aware that his "dog at the window" experiment has been explained scientifically .but Sheldrake doesn't want to know. ; he prefers an explanation involving telepathy even though he no proof.
See, here's the thing. The dog might be, since they sure as hell can pull of some pretty cool stuff. Sheldon's is a theory like any other theory, which may end up confirmed or disproved. Until then it needs to be researched insofar as there is interest in researching it.
sangemaru But I have told you that a repeatable scientific experiment has shown why some dogs run to a door or a window just before their owner arrives home. It has been demonstrated on television. What I'm trying to get across to you is that there is no need to speculate about telepathy as Sheldrake continues to do because we now know that there is a proven explanation based on a dog's fantastic sense of smell, something which we lack. Do you know that a dog can scent a bitch on heat when she is up to 3 miles away, again nothing to do with telepathy. It's simply down to a dog's superior sense of smell compared to ours. That's why sniffer dogs are used.at airports, for example. A dog can sniff out traces of a narcotic I a suitcase which carried narcotics weeks ago. Same thing with people's clothing.
So, no metaphysical explanation needed.
I love his ability to understand and paraphrase the questions asked by the audience with his eloquence and open attitude. So polite and intelligent..
***** None of your responses actually address data in the video and there is no scientific methodology shown for your conclusions, so do you really think that we all should take your comments at all seriously? Wouldn't it be better just to admit that you have a biased agenda, and are really incompetent to speak on these matters?
Rupert is a wonderfully brave person who is able to withstand endless attacks on his integrity, his sanity, his theses, you name it, and yet carry on with very interesting science, aided by his brilliant talents for story-telling and mind-opening.
Fascinating. And connectedness has such implications for society, peace, war and the rest of it. Sheldrake refers to Dean Radin's 2006 book 'Entangled minds'. That's a great read. A jaw-dropper, packed with independent research, very rational. Only just found it myself.
As for scepticism: impossible for me personally - aside from the researches of Sheldrake/Radin and many others: One day my late wife screamed in pain for no apparent reason. "It's my sister!" We phoned her house, three miles away, and a startled husband said she'd just gone in for emergency surgery. I had made a written note of exact location of pain and the time of day. Later, we were able to confirm total correspondence with the instant the knife went in and the position.
Might it be that mainline scientists resist psi so strongly, not only to protect their careers but because at some level they sense that their thoughts might overflow and disrupt experimental processes? As with 'psi-missers' their scepticism may well block such an influence - so, up to a point, useful.
A former coworker reported an event very similar to the one you described.
"The solid citizen of academia would not think of expressing a great thought, even if one should perchance cross his mind, for "sensible" men who achieved position and the emoluments of their professions are not tempted to jeopardize their reputations and security as crusaders in the cause of truth. Nor has anyone the right to ask the other fellow to run the risk of martyrdom in a world which is already tough enough."
"If I have learned anything throughout nearly half a century of study, it is to keep an open mind and to avoid confusing majority opinion with truth. Many seemingly preposterous myths have turned out to be correct. While savants "with both feet on the ground" were agreed that Troy was a fiction of Homer's poetic fancy, Schliemann, with the childish faith of an amateur, unearthed it. Notable breakthroughs often require the kind of thinking that "sound" people (i.e., who have the weight of consensus behind them) will brand as "unscientific" or plain "crazy." And to be quite frank, it is not always easy to determine the fine line that separates creative genius from unproductive nonsense. The only criteria we have are the results. "By their fruits shall ye know them." And here the element of luck enters into the picture. Unconventional thinking, when it is crowned with success, is meritorious. But if it meets with failure, it reaps a harvest of ridicule and disgrace. Pioneers must be willing to take the chance."
C. H. Gordon, in Before Columbus, page 79.
@@trimetrodon An amazing quote and I agree wholeheartedly with what was said. Rupert Sheldrake is an amazing researcher and well informed scientist with a mind that looks outside the circle of mainstream controlled knowledge. God bless Sheldrake and all who admire his works, from Adelaide, South Australia.
Really enjoyed Rupert Sheldrake. When someone is "not" paranomal prone, what they believe doesn't changes a persons paranormal experiences! The experiencer is the authority. Skeptisim can be healthy, but the burden is on the skeptic. I will have 100's more paranormal experience's and the skeptic will be right where they started!
Rupert was so ready for all of the questions, i had his books in mind for quite some time now... I'ts time to buy them and read them :D Great work, thank you :D
All the cases of lost dogs finding their way home, often from distances of hundreds of miles away, sure makes it appear that there are some kind of "non-material" forces in this physical reality that we are unaware of. I don't know if it's telepathy in this case, but it seems pretty impossible for animals to find their way home like this using only their five senses. Cheers.
A cellphone app could do it, without GPS, just by sampling accelerometer measurements.
@@jsfec he said a dog, not a computer preprogrammed to do so.
My dog once walked a distance of over 3 miles between two places over a route he had never travelled before.
He knew where he was going or rather he knew the person he was going to, but how he knew is a complete mystery.
Its not hundreds of miles but given it was right through the middle of London it could not have been by virtue of any of the senses I'm aware of.
@@Telcontar1962 Indeed. There is a level/function of consciousness that we are unaware of (most of us, anyway) that likely led your dog home. It has something to do with what some call the "non-locality" of consciousness. If you're interested, check out the work being done at The University of Virginia School of Medicine, Division of Perceptual Studies. I believe they are on the right track in more fully understanding this mysterious side of consciousness. Actually, it's not that mysterious to me any more, since I've been investigating it for so long. It just seems like the way things are, it just seems normal to me now. Cheers.
Dogs are better at sensing electromagnetism than us.
He has had far bigger audiences. I think he's really onto some major things that will continue to get more attention, and, hopefully, support. An original thinker.
This is awesome! I have a MA in Consciousness Studies and I'm a hypnotherapist. I've often felt that our minds are larger than our skulls and that our thoughts and consciousness spread out affecting everything and everyone around us. I know that when I'm working with people it's a powerful experience when they tune into the idea that their thoughts are expansive and it somehow affects change within them.
Because the speaker speaks clearly and slowly, this 1.5 hour presentation is perfectly intelligible when you turn it to 1.5 playback speed. I love the speed setting in TH-cam for these lectures.
Could you please help me to find the playback speed? :)
ytringer It's in the lower right of the frame around the video. It looks like a gear just to the left of "TH-cam." Click on that gear, and a drop up menu will appear. 2 options: Speed and Quality. to the right of "Speed," you'll see "Normal." Click on "Normal." Once you're there, click on one of the options beneath "Normal." For example, "1.25," "1.5," or "2."
the will to disbelieve is as strong as the will to believe..
The Professor is Brilliant & his work is amazing ..
That's actually pretty valid.
I have spent years in combat: I can feel the snipers aim, the trigger mans gaze and hear the lies even when I don't understand the language. The Hagakure speaks of this phenomenon also.
Thomas Cashman Let me guess, you can't prove this at all?
Hagakure indeed! In Ninjutsu we are told that a killing intention is the easiest to feel, and we use that when training, dodging boken strikes when blindfolded.
+Thomas Cashman May we one day find a kinder way to train our senses.
Yes. Women also experience that in public spaces.
And animals, obv.
(By the way, if you were to say that as a Female, you'd be called paranoid, bipolar, schizophrenic. Fyi. Fun facts!)
Such an incredibly beautiful man! Thank you Rupert!
Yes he is a very good person, in my opinion too.
Absolutely Excellent Talk Thank you for sharing. Dr Rupert Sheldrake extremely Interesting/Entertaining and simplified explanations of exciting scientific studies on Telepathy.
One of the few vectors we have to address the larger mystery of consciousness, too.
+nickolasgaspar The term is "proto-science", and do you have a better approach?
This talk is so liberating. For years I have encountered the hostage attitude. What surprises me is that this type of attitude often comes from highly educated people. But when you try to bring the discussion deeper, they always disqualify you before you find out themselves are actually not qualified in the field.
Just to share a personal experience: I have had a healer for the last 8 year, once a week we talk on the phone for 30 minutes (includes 5 minutes talk, 25 minutes of me hanging up the phone, lying there and resting). We have never met, and I pay him £30 each time - to tell you these is only for showing you that he is not trying to lure my money or any sexual contact. I have no idea how he does it but I can see the result of me being happier, healthier and stronger. I can't explain and I don't even know where to start apart from telling you all the information above.
There are so much we don't know anything about. To stay openminded may not be a bad idea.
I am 100% sure that happened to me in this way: In my room I usually kill mosquitos almost every night. What I learned overtime is that when I see one on the wall, I tend to not think about killing it, otherwise the mosquito somehow detects my thought and escape. First I thought that maybe the mosquito detects fluctuations in the air as I am moving toward it. But this happens even if I was sitting on my chair and think about killing it. This happened a lot of time, that I remember telling my family members about it. I just take this for granted.
I think Sigmund Freud wrote something about this, and that this helps the species to survive in some situations.
Even though this was from a long time ago i had to add in. Living in the tropics for many years I had many many mosquito's to deal with and I too found that if I had the though of killing them they immediately would begin to evade
You'd have to find it, but there have been studies with plants where if you THOUGHT of ripping a leaf off, burning it -- harming it -- the plant would give off a (for plants) stress-response.
similar with mosquitos in my van, because its very small space, my problem ironically is that I can't contain my mind sufficiently to 'not' think it,.! while they are crammed in there I know they can 'hear me' lol
I experience the same thing with mankind's oldest enemy, the fly. They'll buzz around landing wherever they please on your body, but the instant you decide to kill them they immediately stop flying around and seemingly vanish. When you decide to give up the hunt they start flying around again.
@@spracketskooch I watched karate kid when I was little and taught myself to catch flies in my hands, the strategy is to sweep in slowly and not think too much about it, like your not actually trying to catch them. They don't respond in time if they don't perceive you as a threat. If you focus on speed and trying to catch the fly it will probably never happen, but if you just focus on fluid movements and pretend the fly isn't there it's not too difficult.
This man is a real scientist who has the guts to do his research and not care what others say. Most scientists are fearful of ridicule and keep away from things considered unacceptable. This why the few scientists make the greatest discovers and the majority simple poke along.
there was a definite effect of "feeling that you're being stared at" happening with live "eagle cams", where they hid a camera in a tree to spy on an eagle's nest. Eventually the eagle destroyed the camera; before that, the eagle's attention would be toward the camera and it definitely seemed to be disturbed in its nest - by the camera. This happened while I was watching the eagle cam, there was no mistaking it. It's really a shame how frightened some people seem to be of this stuff.
When you have been used to using 'visualisation' most of your life and you get what you want all the time, it makes you ask questions...
Greetings *fistbump,* I'm in a similar situation myself. I also apply my particular flavor of nerdiness to figuring out the "how & why" part of such an effect, and yet even with being able to answer just about any question or doubt someone might have, most fellow open-minded people are just not "ready to have that experience (even though the number of people I know who do use this ability are more than I expected).
I don't even use the words "not ready" with any sense of "not worthy" meaning to them, it just seems that many collegues are busy having a different *kind* of life experience, they're having the experience of walking through life without having such power as an option. And I keep living that experience too, until I have moments of suddenly realizing "oh yeah, I can basically call in a care package from the quantum world... I should do that now" XD
What if u asked for a billion dollars^^ does that work I dont think so^^
Well duh XD Unless of course you were a particular class of C.E.O. then perhaps that would be reasonably within one's realm of possible events.
so you are saying it's bullshit :D
KingsExecutor the world is not binary/boolean. The world is a duality, it is true as he says, but, you have to believe it, it's that simple.
You sound like you need to sit in a room saying 'I will be a billion dollar CEO' then decide you are already and act like one would. If you are any good at 'acting as if' you will get your billion, it _is_ that simple.
46, been getting things I should never have all my life.
I was alabourer at 19 emptying cess-pits... yes, I was actually bucketing other peoples sh1t...
...so when I say I ended up in the 'City of London' with the job I wanted, a 5 bed house and a 22 year old blond...
I stopped believing and fell off. Money is an imaginary thing anyhow.
Now I am richer than ever :0)
He is awesome.
Straight forward, no stumbling, no nonsense. Because he follows the original reason for science; to find the truth. Scientists as a rule seem to find a probable reason for things then label it a law or a fact. Then they have nothing left to do but discredit people that decide that that is not good enough.
Also, I love how some people in the audience look so bored. Dudes, you're at google, surrounded by presumably brilliant people with accents from all over the world, getting paid to listen to a talk by a thoughtful academic on evidence-based telepathy. What more could you want in life??
Nah but the Q&A session was great too.
Terrible audience extraordinary presentation
I’m shocked at the audience
A very Impressive & Profound presentation!!!
When my cat is playing with a toy mouse sometimes she will act casual and look away from the toy before suddenly striking. I wonder if that's a related instinct... to avoid giving yourself away by staring at the prey too much.
Interesting!
I've watched a few documentaries and it looks like sound/frequencies is what holds us together. Another form of energy. And certain frequencies are more beneficial to us than others. If you put that with the fact the Earth emits a certain frequency that is beneficial to us, then it's not hard to believe we are living batteries. Just food for thought.
Should be interesting too see what the other planetary resonant frequencies hold for us human.
"...science has been having unprotected sex..." One of his best lines ever.
When baby monitors first came out, I was truly confused as to why anyone got one. I always knew whether my infant was awake or asleep -even though I lived in a very large house when my son was a baby. Finally I decided other people were just "showing off" how affluent they were by buying one. Whatever would you need it for? I truly think if people were not 'trained out" of natural psychic abilities, people would be much more understanding. There wouldn't be the rampant illness and stress.
That's a good point about people being trained out of accepting their natural knowing. The reactions of the conservative scientists remind me of the reactions of many Roman Catholic clergy when their interpretations about God are questioned. Both react with such wrathfulness. Both groups are extremely threatened by any view that differs from the accepted dogma.
@@maureenmannion6748 It's very natural human behaviour to get defensive, when something contradicts with our own conception or worldview.
Very informative, i find rupert shelldrake's contributions to science an asset to humanity in general. Thank you rupert.
Carl Banfield What contributions are you thinking of ? His invrention of the woo engine perhaps ?
This is very thought provoking and interesting'To quote a wise man you should keep an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out'
Still watching, but I think it's funny how the staring phenomena is a point of contention in the scientific community while being taken for granted so many other places...funny to think about.
I think maybe certain people put a little too much faith in the scientific community as purveyors of truth - myself included. Not that scientific study isn't an amazing tool for discovering more about the physical world, but it's only as good as it's application, I think.
***** It's funny how the form of the earth was disputed by a few cranks while its flatness was taken for granted in so many places.
My mom always says she was just thinking of me when I call her. I always thought that it was just coincidence having a scientific, skeptical mind, but now I see there is real merit. Pretty cool. Another thing: I've always made sure not to stare at a pretty girl like in the gym or whatever because I feel like she would know. I guess she can tell... lol.
Jonathon Ross How about all the times your mom is thinking of you a when you don't call her ?
Myles Lawless We don't talk about that, only positive "evidence" never point out the negatives. Hippie science🐂💩
my mom say the same things
@@myleslawless6594 Dude, that was literally addressed in the video.
@@jackbean213 Uh, no, that's completely false. The tests themselves are designed to rule out chance, since chance expectation (with four potential callers) is 25%, actual results- over thousands of tests- are 40%. That is massively statistically significant. You obviously have never read a single one of the studies Sheldrake cites. Anecdotal evidence raises the question but isn't proof of anything, and Sheldrake, as a professionally trained scientist, is perfectly aware of that. That's why the experiments he designed are systematic and statistically measured, designed to distinguish chance from real results and move beyond anecdote. John got the point of the video, you missed it or didn't even watch it.
Most people have the tendency to dismiss things they find difficult to understand.
According to Rupert, in India and Africa they don't have that problem because they LIVE with this "energy field" knowledge since they are born... ;-)
I have had thoughts of this over 50yrs ago, but they were just ideas that I had to keep to myself. Thank you very much Mr.Sheldrake for this lecture. Now my thoughts/ideas can be formalised in my mind before I die. [ I am 68yrs of age]
This is why we have the feeling when someone is watching. Because we can feel when someone is watching
Interesting point about staring.
Ever tried to kill a mosquito when it lands on a hard surface? Usually they can 'feel' when they are about to be attacked and fly away.
When I was younger, I taught myself this trick:
Don't try to squash the mosquito; Train your mind to choose a point on the wall or table and 'squash' that instead. It's easy to train your brain to do this by doing it without any mosquitos involved - Just choose a point on the wall, focus on it, and 'squash' it.
After about 30 minutes of training this in my mind on the day I thought it up, since then for many years I have been able to easily kill mosquitos without them ever moving before they get squashed. In fact, after a short while I became able to calmly kill them with the point of my finger - Like pressing an elevator button or light switch.
The mosquitos don't ever even try to move because I am squashing the point on the wall underneath them, therefore technically there is nothing threatening them and they are not alerted to anything.
Hey, this works. During this video I stared hard at Rupert Sheldrake and said repeatedly, "don't name any peer-reviewed studies or evidence in a way that would allow me to look it up myself and independently verify it". And lo and behold, he didn't, despite the fact that this would be the most obvious, honest and necessary thing for him to do, given that many of his claims fly in the face of dozens of reputable studies in psychology and animal behaviour.
I woke up with a jolt at 4.08 am lat week. My wife also woke up just at the moment just before i fell asleep. Later we received a call from relatives that they woke up 6 am and found my mother in law was already not breathing and felt cold. So it seems likely we woke up around the time she passed away.
"The extended mind" is an idea I've come up myself in my own musings. I do believe that any healthy person can be perceptive enough to use information beyond their direct sensory experience. Our brain does something like machine learning on a connectome of current and past sensory experiences. This definitely does make us fitter creatures than a system that could not learn or make predictions under uncertainty. The ability to read emotions on even portions of the face of those around us is a highly evolved sense and heavily influences our minds. I don't come to the same conclusions he does often during the talk, but I still thought a lot of the research he presented was interesting enough to give a like. I liked the guy's question about introducing noise into the system.
Perhaps I can explain. You say that the entire Universe only exists in the mind. I say, that that is the only place indeed in which it does not exist. Because the concept is not the thing. One should not mistake the map for the territory. What is "in our head" is the map. Our mind is the cartographer; a complex system of processes that detect a variety of differences in its environment that it can use to build a simulation of reality. But the simulation will never be "everything" and in comparison to "everything" my mind and your mind and the mind of anyone reading this is only an ephemeral approximated record of the present.
@@goldfishlaser Keeping your mind OPEN is the point and.. name of the game ! 🤓
Wow. And I'm just now finding this. I had no idea there was anyone else who understood it this well and as something more than just theory. Or for this long.
2 phenomena ... My sister and I both awakened w/o alarm clock at will, for years, various times as lives changed. The other is personal, as a swimmer/surfer I would see who was surfacing right before the person's face popped out of water and this would even be of my image. Now that may have been more mirror effect.
In an experiment, especially relating to personal matters, telling the 'Population' that 'they' are involved in an ' experiment' is bad! They are likely to be 'unconsciously primed'.
I like this guy.
As person which often experience telepathy and also one who speaks about I know others with their experiences. We all want to know more about. And to answer on of the questions to Sheldrake he didn't really wanted to answer. Yes, you defintively can train it!
If he doesn't answer a particular question it can be just self protection. If he tells everybody what he feels about, then more people would call him implausible.
I know the reactions very well. Especially the unsure ones often angry about
a visionary scientist whose groundbreaking work and books will hopefully one day be appreciated by so many more
I have often got a definite, distinct feeling or sense of something hidden round a corner when driving, and slowed down. Usually this proves to be another vehicle and usually, too, it happens on fairly narrow roads where a head-on collision might have happened had I not slowed down.
The last time this happened, a few months ago, I was returning around 9 am on my most usual route home (I have a choice of three) from dropping off my grandchildren at school along a quite broad and fast, and almost always deserted, country lane.
On this occasion, I instinctively slowed almost to 20 mph from just over 50 mph - rather than my usual 45 mph or so - when approaching a particular corner on what had so far been a traffic-free section of my journey.
On turning the corner, there was a lady dog-walker having problems with her four (or five? - not sure) dogs, who were spilling over to my side (left, UK) of the road, even though she was on the other side (my right). I slowed even further when I saw her and almost stopped entirely, which gave her time to get the dogs back on her side of the road.
If I had been going at my normal speed on this usually empty country road, I would almost certainly not have had time to slow down sufficiently to avoid hitting one or more of the dogs.
You're highly intuitive. So glad you listened to your feelings.
We have been before you were aware of what was and is too come. Happy you both had a more fortuitous life this time.
The way I see it is like this, Quantum physics shows us that at the most fundamental level of reality, information processing is what drives everything. So in that sense you can almost think of the universe as one giant computer program, now our minds are like access terminals that are linked to the program. As well as being able to take in information from the program, we can also send information out and affect the program to. I think the term "Universal field" get's used a lot and I imagine that our mind interacts with this field ( could it possibly have anything to do with the EM fields generated by our brains and hearts?) although on subconscious level. Now I am a Jehovah's witness ( Christian ) and my personal beliefs lead me to believe that currently we are in an incomplete or imperfect state, so perhaps right now we are only really experiencing a fraction of our minds true capabilities wherein telepathy and "Mind over matter" might be commonplace. Of course this is just pure speculation and my perspective but I do think that it is quite a good possibility (and I for one couldn't think of anything more amazing). Spare your hatred towards my beliefs as it only shows you aren't a mature adult who can tolerate a difference of opinions.
The idea that consciousness is a function of the brain is just one of many tenable explanations for our experience. Of these explanations, the idea that consciousness is a function of the brain is not even the most parsimonious explanation. Occam's Razor sides with the idealist position that consciousness is fundamental and that the observable universe exists within mind. There is no reason to believe that consciousness is a function of the brain, and by extension there is no reason to believe that experience ceases with the death of the brain. Physicalism is an obsolete metaphysics.
Which is more parsimonious, that the 'observable universe exists' or that the 'the observable universe exists within mind'? Think about it.
Ben Thornton Clearly, it is that the observable universe exists within mind. We know that experience exists. From our experience we can deduce that which orders experience must also exist. I am saying that which orders experience is the only thing that exists, and it's behaviors are our experiences. This explains our experience with the fewest imaginary entities.
I'm sorry but one clearly contains less assumptions than the other, you must see that.
As for the rest, exactly the same thing can be said for materialism with the conclusion that the only (type) of thing that exists ('that which orders experience') is matter and among 'its behaviours are our experience'.
Clearly you have to present additional assumptions or arguments to differentiate the two.
Ben Thornton
*_"I'm sorry but one clearly contains less assumptions than the other, you must see that."_*
I do see that - the idealist interpretation is more parsimonious.
*_"As for the rest, exactly the same thing can be said for materialism with the conclusion that the only (type) of thing that exists ('that which orders experience') is matter and among 'its behaviours are our experience'."_*
Materialism implies all kinds of interactions that have nothing to do with ordering experience, where as under idealism there is _only_ that which orders experience and it's behaviors.
Materialism also requires the existence of non-experiential primitives that give rise to experience, where as the idealist holds that experience is basic to what exists.
AnduinX BYM The universe existing 'within mind' vs the 'universe existing' has a clear winner in terms of simplicity, I will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.
(I notice that your in your defence you use different terms, this is telling I think.)
You say that, "under idealism there is only that which orders experience and it's behaviours." That is true for Materialism. There is just one type of thing, Matter. It is that which orders experience and only it exists, along with it's 'behaviours'.
Of-course there are 'interactions' that are not directly tied to experience, this is a 'behaviour' and both theories allow for a multitude of 'behaviours', they must do. Matter does a lot of different things, yes but matter is still all there is.
As for your last point, it is merely a continuation of this mistake, plus a reiteration of the definition of Idealism. So what?
In the materialist view 'non-experiential primitives' and 'experience' and just different 'behaviours' of the same thing, matter. (same mistake) This again does not show any additional assumptions are required by Materialism, in fact quite the opposite.
Like I said, If you want to back up the claim that Idealism is simpler all your work is still ahead of you.
I'd rather not comment on TED, but on something that may not be instantly obvious. The person we see here is among the most remarkable scientific figures of all times. And this 'll be recognized, too; with luck he may even live to see it.
He is so Bright and so Right.
I'm educating myself every day. Are you?
Easy... Its just a question of intention: To feel Peoples (and animals) intentions. And we can read intentions from the magnetic Field. You can also train yourself to do this. By the way; The speaker is not the first to collect reports from animal owners. A writer from Norway did the same thing 20 years ago. Greetings from Norway.
Wonderful talk and well put forth. It was very easy to follow and understand, thanks for your work, Rupert. :)
The scientific taboo surrounding this subject and the consensus of scientific reaction is analogous to the scattering of shoals of fish when confronted by a threatening predator. What more compelling evidence is needed to prove the theory of morphic fields than when the mainstream scientfic community itself moves in a consensual field of 'avoid dance' of what it considers to be a taboo subject. I smell the ancient fires of superstition smouldering in the lofty halls of the scientific academic priesthood. Oh how I miss my cat!
not really, for over 20 years the american government and scientists took psi research very seriously. After 20 years of trying and finding no trace and the fact that it was shown that people claiming to have psi abilities are frauds.
@@TheJadedSkeptic
Uh, that is not at all what the results were. Stargate produced some important intelligence.
Very embarrassing to put on a public forum, but I have to tell what happened. It happened one night long ago when I was 11 or 12 in 1981 or 82. We were a group of four or five friends, boarders in a residential school in south India waiting for our dinner outside the school dining hall. We spotted a star that was moving. At first we thought it was a satellite, but it was moving randomly. We watched it move around for may be five or ten minutes, until one of us, I don't remember who among us it was said " what if it moved to that star?" pointing to one star that was near our moving star, and lo and behold it went near it and then circled that star, at least thats what it seemed to us then. Then we kept asking it to move to different stars that was nearby and to our surprise it kept moving and circling every star we guys were asking it to do...to make things easier to understand, I'll take the example of the big dipper, If we asked it to move along the handle part of the dipper, it would move and then ask it to come back it would..Now I know its hard to explain because I know these are just random stars that are millions of light years away from each other, but from our perspective it looks like a big dipper, but that night this star did just that, did what we told it to do for may be 1/2 an hour...believe it or not. Two of the witnesses still remember it.
Well said. I am sure if the internet existed in the 19th century, people like him would say the same about Relativity.
For "telephonic telepathy" phenomenon, I would say that the intent or thought of the person must be genuine and not artificially produced. That is to say, the desire to call the person must be spontaneous and earnest.
I have made several observations following the threads to this video and would like to offer a brief summary of them. Those in support of pseudoscientists like Sheldrake do not understand and therefore misuse the words and concepts: dogma, evidence, science, and quantum physics. Due to this misunderstanding and a overpowering ideology, that there is something more to reality than can be discovered using the scientific method and reason, these people are unable to look at these issues objectively.
For the same reasons these threads follow a painful template, that being:
1. Someone, like myself, demonstrates why an experiment carried out by, say, Sheldrake was conducted in an unacceptable way and offers numerous pieces of peer reviewed literature backing up that point and indicating why the conclusion of the experiment in question is false.
2. Someone from the "dogma of science" camp responds by saying science is dogmatic! you should believe Sheldrake because he is correct, and proceeds to offer more "evidence" that is, for the exact same reasons, just as problematic. Or, something to the effect of, "the world was once thought to be flat, so what I believe to be true despite currently available evidence must be true" - failing to follow this line of reasoning to the conclusion that anything anyone believes is true is therefore true, because sometimes new evidence proves old theories incorrect.
The beauty of the scientific method is that bad theories are disproved when new evidence comes to light, as Einstein said: "No amount of experimentation can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
This frustrating circular playing out of comments on these threads seems to fairly conclusively show that the "dogma of science" crew has not understood a word of what has been said by myself and others. And that we who base our beliefs on evidence have thus far failed in our attempts to reason with the unreasonable.
And where is your scientific peer reviewed paper demonstrating that Sheldrakes methodology was flawed? or was that just a hypothetical to illustrate that you believe Mr Sheldrake has not conducted his experiments properly? in either case what is the basis for your assumption/assertion?
I provided a number of peer reviewed papers showing the flaws in Sheldrake's experiments, and replications of his experiments that did not generate the same results as he claims his have in another comment thread for this video. If you would like to read them it would not be hard to find on here or with a quick google search. Thanks.
Well lets look at who you are in the real world and check your credentials to see how transparent you are? Is that ok? You claim expertise on the scientific method yet so far all I have heard from you is logical fallacy. Come on brave boy let's see what you got?!
It reminds me of the people 400 years ago trying to prove Galileo Galilei wrong, because it scared them too much that the earth might actually NOT be the center of the universe. Today everyone laughs at their stupidity. Who are you to think you know everything already, when all the evidence shows this is clearly not the case?
The ones who think a bit...think people like Kyle Egeland are stupid.
My game ~~> working In health care getting to know many patients, I would ask how many children they had then quickly stop them saying, "let me guess the genders". Over the many years I gained in expertise greatly with practice to the point I would guess > 80%, very much to my patient's amazements! A lady once told me she had six children, perfect test. So I said 4 boys 3 girls but she corrected me by saying she said six, then hesitated intriguingly saying, "I did have a still birth, a boy, making you right." I found intention, tuning into my state of mind when making correct answers most important, with excess consciousness the greatest hinderance. Merely "tune" into that magic place where knowledge dwells and feel it out.
My technique for increasing my psychic abilities, from working in Physical Therapy, getting to know patients I would ask them how many children they have. Stopping them before they say number and gender of their offspring, I trained my mind to enter a "blank" space, letting the answers "sink in". So five children, ok, I then "guess" 3 boys 2 girls, being right >80% of time! The trick was not worry about being wrong, rather to savor my state of mind when right, then repeating this same state, trail and error, tuning into a external universal field. Who is calling on phone or anything can be intuited ~~
The double slit experiment where an electron is observed always as a particle but if unobserved it can act as a wave or a particle. I think this shows a quantum entanglement as well.
Isn't this the guy who got banned by TED?
Yup. Says a lot more about TED than about Sheldrake.
Yarrow Mahko Ditto!
Yarrow Mahko You're right it does say a lot about TED, like they aren't a bunch a of morons that get tricked by BS pseudoscience.
kokofan50
Exactly.
kokofan50 Just like you can't talk about or criticize GM crops and Monsanto. TED isn't pro science. It is a bought out forum like most mainstream ones. Even if the presentation or presenter subscribes to pseudoscience, are the viewer idiots who blindly accept anything shown to them? Isn't banning him an insult to the viewers?
Getting board at 42 mins :s
It is simple, your mind clearly understands reality far better than you do. Just look at all the things it does 24/7/365 without "you" having to "know" anything about it. We do use all the mind but I suspect that the conscious awareness is only a small part of our conscious and awareness overall. The thoughts just off in the dark only get presented to the awareness enough to get on with life.
What exactly is this separation between "me" and "my mind" you're making? Actually nothing you said makes sense...
statikreg When you look at a computer screen you're not consciously aware of every electron's individual action inside each chip and circuit. If you look at a single photo you will see far more detail captured than you were aware of at the time of capture. In the same respect, the "leaps of logic" we all have point strong evidence toward our sub-conscious operating in much the same way as our conscious awareness, only it is set to mute and takes in/thinks about great deal more than is ever presented to "you". It makes huge evolutionary sense to. We all know about perceived time-dilation in adrenaline-filled situations and the implications for conscious awareness that brings, that requires a very highly pumped-up brain that is set to "dumb-mode" for day-to-day living to be less demanding. Those individuals possessing a divided conscious in this manner will have had major benefits when it comes to many aspects of social living. If you think of your neural pathways as being akin to the structure of an intertwined forest of trees, turn that picture upside-down(including gravity) and our "conscious" is the dirt the roots would be growing in. A lot of the "magical" abilities of the human conscious are totally understandable in the context of our brains simply being a lot smarter than we ever let them be. There are though, and always will be many even more complex and hidden facets to reality so the human musings over such matters will never cease. If you want to see what I'm talking about then I suggest that you go do a skydive or even just watch something emotive on here and "you" will soon hear what your "mind" has to say about it. Right now my mind is saying "the reply is done now..." and I have to agree :)
Karl Slicher Sounds like you're a Steven Pinker fan.
Bored? Perhaps your mind is as a board!
jerry decaire ? Who is that? It is difficult to explain a picture too complex for youtube to be honest bud.
Yes, you wait for Mommy and Daddy to tell you it's okay to read his book.
Oh yes, also, skeptics that undergo a psychic test to guess the color of the next card of a shuffled deck are so bent into disproving the right color that they are guessing the wrong color in a very strong statistical way. There could could be fun ways to investigate this by telling this fact to skeptics before a test, they might actually be spot on 50% of the time guessing the right color, which would in itself be a statistical anomaly. I dealt with James Randy by email, he proved to be quite a rude gentleman. I told him about my reaction of my father's death hours before getting the phone call telling me about the bad news; he was completely dismissive about it. Telepathy is also anti-business, how do you think corporations feel about having trade secrets known by telepathy - hence the business and science aversion against it...
We are the Borg!
Resistance is futile!
Does anyone else have this experience and it happens to me once every two months or so. My smartphone, and it happened with my old one, one iphone 5s and the other a galaxy. Often it will execute swipe commands when I think about it rather than touching it. Sometimes it shortcuts me to the action without my even entering the menu.
Aumchanter You have awesome powers. Keep chanting !
I don't use swipe commands, but here is an unsolicited theory which would explain what you speak of: The capacitive sensing of the screen isn't just by touch. It also extends a short distance away from the phone. You can extend range of electromagnetic sensing by knowing what to look for by machine learning algorithms, such as Hidden Markov models. Your phone might be reading your motor cortex.
All mothers have eyes in the back of their heads and know this. Your child in the back does something and you know even in another room. It’s also what we have always known as awareness some is more aware of surroundings than others
The problem with skepticism is that if you're purely skeptic you risk being blind to the truth. The solution is to be skeptic AND open minded.
Most times dogs, cats, and other pets spend most of their time napping or sleeping whenever they are not eating, or whenever nothing exciting is happening. Which explains much.
I've experienced something similar years ago, Remote Viewing. This could be what they're implementing to know when their owners are coming home. I'll tell you this based off of what I experienced. You can only practice "psychic" abilities during trance/sleep states. Never while awake...
The matter is also well know from spear fishing, as our thinking attentions are fully influencing to fish.
this is why its scary they could possibly be disrupting these fields with new towers and types of frequencies as well as dulling peoples senses with harmful medicine and mindless consuming.
Wise Rupert Sheldrake
The days before googles corruption.
I love the clash between Sheldrake and Dawkins. When two such powerful minds interact, new knowledge can be created. Excelent!
***** By not spelling "excellent" as "excelent you have just shown that mawfic resonanz doesn't work.
@@bodach7524 I'm an engineer.
I always assumed that they did these tests years ago, and concluded scientifically that these ideas had no basis in science. What on earth gave anyone the nerve to call that dismissal "scientific fact" with no experimentation whatsoever? I know science is also cultural, and not as free of bias as it's language suggests, but that's completely different.
Because the experiments' results, if experiments were carried out, were not replicated. And humans usually are inordinately self-aware when they go through these experiences. Also, he doesn't talk about when someone is focused on a task, for example, and isn't aware that they are being watched. It's pretty common.
Around 1:24:02 A questioner asks, what is a morphic field, spoken of by Sheldrake. As an amateur quantum theorist, I intuitively feel that the answer exists there. However, what I'm about to say required some knowledge of QM.
In QM, everything exists as imaginary complex abstract vectors; it is reality as we know it that is evident only as the intersection of two complex vectors, one a conjugate of the other in which reality, or what we call 'real', meaning observable and measurable can be found. This is an extremely small subset of complex abstract vectors, and yet by a belief held widely, it supposedly is the only thing that really exists; ordinary people being confounded by the QM and Mathematical definition of the word 'imaginary' and 'complex'.
Nevertheless, complex abstract vectors are the bases everything, and the foundation of 'reality'. Once we understand how something which can't be observed or measured can actually exist, and that's the operative word, 'exists', then we begin to understand almost axiomatically what is really going on, and why reality is a product of it. The morphic field could be 'complex' in nature and therefore only manifest though some identifiably unobservable and unmeasurable way other than through the actual physical manifestation of the phenomena of events tested and having statistical results; if anyone should understand that, QM physicists should.
As such, we presently have no instruments which can measure the imaginary complex vector space (except for that defined as 'reality' complex vectors and their conjugates), and only a few tests that even hint at this hitherto unobserved, and unmeasured part of existence, these complex vectors which are not conjugates.
Right now, the only things we seem to be able to say about these complex abstract forces is that mathematics define it. But, not only does mathematics define complex, imaginary, abstract existence but reality and how and why it exists. Experiments based on this set of mathematics not only predict 'real' data; but, are able to explain what appear to be strange events or behaviors in the 'real' world that defies classical explanations. And although it doesn't explain every strange or weird event or behavior observed in the real world, the explanation could still exist in the theory.
So, it is not surprising to me that a morphic field may have no electronic instrument which can detect it, and that like QM the morphic field itself it may contain unobserved and unmeasured things which in turn create reality, which is ultimately revealed by observing the effect it has in nature and that the results like QM, to date, are defined by parameters of probability. Just like Sheldrake's results shown here. Statistical results can show group behavior; even if it can't observe directly any individual's or particle's interaction.
Personally, I think it would be absurd to reject evidence of the type shown here, credibility be damned for a scientist unable to objectively accept data showing conclusive proof one way or the other; the very objectivity of science itself is being challenged and under threat by this apparent lack of willingness to even consider "looking through the telescope" and doing the research to make even more independently verifiable proof of the data or the lack thereof. I applaud Sheldrake for admitting the one test failed precognition tests and only produced results nearly identical to random results. For myself, that only builds his credibility.
Quote this, and frame it.
"Prejudice skepticism, an ignorant bigoted type of skepticism. People who are really skeptical have such a strong belief that they know in advance that the evidence must be wrong. If they believe it is impossible, and someone comes along and provides results which actually show it’s possible, they believe it either proves they are a fool, they've done the experiments so badly or incompetently it produced false positive results and they haven’t been smart enough to see it; or, they’re a fraud and trying to deceive the skeptic and the world. And so, the instant reaction is one of hostility, and accusing people of being fools or frauds." - Sheldrake
Thank you for explaining your understanding of QM and its possible relationship to morphic resonance. Without scientists like Sheldrake and others who are brave enough to look outside the box, science would proceed at a glacial rate with no breakthroughs, no renaissance. I also intuitively feel the answers lie in QM and that eventually one will explain the other. I know of a scientist, a geneticist who has recently had some anomalous experiences in his life (no pathology present - although at first he thought he was going mad). He has now come to accept those experiences although he can't explain them. I found it interesting that when he spoke to his work colleagues about them, he found one or two others who'd also had similar experiences, but the most senior scientist, who was the most open minded, said he did not want to know because he was not "ready for it.". It would have shattered his understanding of the world, and he would have felt lost and unhappy. I think that fear is prevalent amongst not only scientists but many others as well.
I'm tickled by the discovery of Entanglement, for the first time science is gaining a foothold on complex abstract vector space, although one set of equations seem to give a simple answer to Entanglement it fails to describe the phenomena observed in recent tests results showing that the information is traveling at over 10,000x the speed of light. Imaginary Complex vectors can. More on this in a bit, I have to run
So,, to continue... The Entanglement test resulted in a 11-12hr continuous bell's inequality - violation. So, we're starting to expand our understanding. One really good thing to also come out of that test was they disproved the local hidden variable theory, proving Einstein wrong on his spooky action concept. ...
Chip Cooper
so numerical descriptions of a thing are all that they are? If I radar a speeding car and it tells me the car is traveling at 80 MPH, does that prove anything other than the fact that it was, at the time of measurement, moving at 80 mph? What is math other than a partial description? Am I a number? Did the sun not exist until we put a number to it?
Steve Perkins Well, I'm not sure where you got the idea I was suggesting that numerical descriptions are the only thing that exists; quite contrary, they are as you say, descriptions only. Visualizations of what it is, since they don't obey the empirical laws we experienced our whole lives don't always give us good visual models, especially in the case of quantum behaviors.
But, the bell's inequality measurements actually describe event's which based on describing actual behavior, in classical terms appear as a missing observation of an expected behavior. This is based on a visual understanding of something we can never actually see because it can only be described mathematically from parameters that are beyond classical understanding, the act of observation.
I went to a gas station store to purchase a money order. I received my money order and proceeded to leave the store. As I was leaving some men were standing outside begging for money. I told them I didn't have anything and walked away as I was walking I heard a voice say go back and get your receipt. I wanted to listen to the voice, but didn't want to come in contact with those men again, so I kept going. later I got home became distracted as I was putting the money order in the envelope. I quickly mailed it and came back to put up the receipt, but couldn't find it. I wondered if I had mailed it, but wasn't sure. later I was told the person who I sent the money order to never received it. I thought back to the voice and realized that's why I was being told to get the receipt, had I gone back I could have recovered my money order.
Your mind was paying more attention than you!
I knew this was bad, but the crazies really came out of the wood work here.
Very true, the materialist pseudo-skeptics are rampant everywhere these days. Their ideology is failing so they have to react in some way.
21:00 my mom has a small terrier dog who I occasionally groom/cut her hair, she is the sweetest happiest little girl, every time she sees me she comes wiggling over to say hi, which is quite often as I'm over there very often. But when I get it in my mind that I'm going to cut her hair I swear she knows! As soon as she sees me, despite nothing being different about me, no words said, nothing where she could possibly know what I'm intending, she goes the other way and hides! It's incredible.
My dogs do that (go hide) when im about to give them a bath...... (before water is ran ect.... i corral them first) lol a lot of truth in this! Lol
The two slit experiment caused paint to behave as expected when observed but more unexpectedly when not viewed. I do feel someone looking at me. When separated at store with my spouse, I just look at him and then he often quickly looks in my direction soon after and we meet again. I closed my eyes and had someone trace a horizontal lines or a vertical about a foot away and could tell the person the direction. I had a stare down with a cat yesterday and this morning felt a cat kneading my head. I know when the stray cat comes to my door for food. I joked she telepathically called me to feed her. She tries to eat when other cats are around so feeding her is at different times disproving that she just comes at same times of day.
Rupert Sheldrake is to Science what Jesus was to the religion that murdered him eventually .. I Hope Rubert does not have to become a Martyr as well...
Sheldrake will never have to become a martyr, because he is promoting pseudoscience. His studies have never met the standards of any science journal, and he has never been peer-reviewed. His theories have been refuted and his results have never been replicated, and for good reason. Upon examination it appears as though his biases have been allowed to taint his research due to sloppy experimental protocols and improper statistical analyses. He will be only remembered as a figure of pseudoscience.
@@Charles-Anthony
The Heliocentric model was also pseudoscience for a long time, I think we haven't evolved that much, just knowledge, so we lack the wisdom to remain open minded, blinded by the vast amount of knowledge that becomes dogmatic.
This is ridiculous speculation. Appealing to woo woo isn't what an eminent scientist should do.
Mostly he's making wild assertions, with no credible evidence.
just like all the great scientists of history? wow, what a jerk!
So sick of the words woo woo. Just putting a label on it doesn't make it nonsense. Take each assertion he makes and argue with that. Pointing your cretin finger and saying, woo woo! is not cool.
Doriesep6622
Yet, woo woo is what it is.. He has no experimental evidence backing his claims, he talks in vague terms that appeal to people's emotions, he uses unfalsifiable concepts, and brings in quantum mechanics... woo woo then...
***** Why would anyone want to cover up a phenonenon like telepathy, were it real? Stop being a conspiracy idiot
***** Then all you have to do is produce a good quality study that demonstrates telepathy.. Problem?
Gee, Zeenutz. Always good to have another fan. Even one with such tragically limited abilities. I have to admit, though, that I'm deeply, deeply impressed by the depth and quality of your arguments. I'm just curious - are you even old enough to be on the Internet, or is this just some kind of therapy that they allow in your mental health facility?
Dr. Sheldrake is a great man and great scientist. Someday he may be appreciated for how groundbreaking some of his ideas have been!
The "evidence " presented in this talk is mostly based on anecdote, and as such is deeply un-scientific.
What happened to the scientific method ! ... saying that people report that their pets are aware they are coming home
has NO value as scientific evidence whatsoever .
Not just that, he ignores other answers that give explain things without any problem and don't require a rewrite of science.
If defying chance repeatedly is anecdotal then I guess we should scrap statistical data since it holds no water....Look you ignoramus, he's not just recalling people saying these things, he's testing the premise rigorously and gathering statistical evidence which happens to be in favor of the claims.
Why would you refer to someone as an ignoramus? I couldn't find anything wrong with what he said. What you said doesn't make sense I'm afraid. You seem to get statistics and "statistical data" confused. Yes we should throw out statistical data, if the data is in question. Thats doesn't att all sugest we should throw out the method of using statistics.
Does he mention where and how this "data" was gathered? Do we have any idea of any of these "studies" that he mentions?
He's coming out with lots of speculative (at best) things. For crying out loud he's talking about pure conjecture. Hes apealing to all sorts of fallacious arguments. He ABSOLUTELY should know better.
I'm afraid that while obviously Mr Sheldrake is a very eminent, educated man, when he starts to propound such "theories" he comes accross as verging on the religious.
rationalmartian Oh, well thanks for clearing that part about statistics for me. Your point seems to make some sense but I can't quite make it out in my head.... can you please tell me, given that his research was done in all honesty, accurately and without bias, how this information or these results should be interpreted?
VideosWorthSpreading
*"If defying chance repeatedly is anecdotal"*
If I give you a 6-sided weighted dice, tell you to throw it 100 times, and to guess which side it comes down to, you will be able to figure out which side is weighted and then by guessing this side achieve results significantly better than chance. Question: Does that make you psychic? Why not?
Then read what Sheldrake has done in his studies:
www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_staring_effect_an_artifact_of_pseudo_randomization/
Sheldrake, similar to many of his ilk, are capitalizing on the current state of ignorance---lack of knowledge about certain artifacts. They'll go away as soon as some light is shined over the issue by real researchers.
IndicaDreaming
Well, the current ignorance has been around for a much monger time.
Shumbus Gumbuli
We'll just have to wait and see...the cutting edge of scientific understanding is always orgiastic in a sense. There will always be more wrong than right. It's based upon observation of natural patterns, which we all know has the appearance of chaos. I'm on the fence because it provides a unique vantage point. If you think someone ignorant or overtly radical, just remember the initial reactions to some of the greatest discoveries of man. I'm not being an apologist, I just wanna keep the door open so we can still fit through.
Todd Allen In other words you are a true skeptic, having an open mind, not dismissing anything until it is proven to be false? Not like the pseudo-skeptic idiots.
Jasmine blake
Indeed!
Todd Allen I'm all for this position; this is the only position that makes sense. But it's not like 50-50 right now, we know better than that. See Sean Carroll for example, for a real skeptic.
Well organized group of skeptics . .. Well said. I Love youe intelligence, humor and perseverance.
Who here - back when phones were analog - has picked up a phone to call someone at the exact moment they were calling you? As in, the phone never rings....?
Thank you very much Mr. Rupert Sheldrake, ❤🌿🔥🍀🌒🌕🌘🍀🔥🌿❤ Namasté and Blessed Be.
This is really fascinating. I really hope Humans will be able to discover an ability that will make us closer as a society. Go Go!
5:15 5:30 Audio is also experienced outside the head, unless you wear headphones and listen to stereo audio where it then becomes inside your head (unless you listen to binaural audio!)