Sheldrake VS Shermer - a Debate on Science - How The Light Gets In 2023
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- Rupert and well-known skeptic Michael Shermer explore the boundaries of human understanding and the nature of scientific knowledge. Shermer argues that while we can never be entirely certain about anything, the scientific method is the best tool we have for approximating truth. He emphasizes the importance of replication in scientific studies and is skeptical of claims that challenge established scientific theories without strong evidence. Sheldrake, on the other hand, believes that there are areas of human experience currently considered taboo in mainstream science that deserve investigation. He argues that the skepticism towards such phenomena is often rooted in a materialist worldview that limits the scope of scientific inquiry. Both agree on the importance of evidence but differ on what constitutes sufficient evidence to challenge existing paradigms.
00:00 Introduction
01:32 Michael Shermer pitch
05:48 Rupert Sheldrake pitch
13:58 Who is censoring you?
17:39 Psychic research evidence
20:30 Consciousness
22:02 What is evidence?
22:52 Alternative theories of physics
25:35 Mechanistic materialism
27:37 Roger Penrose
29:28 How do ideas become accepted?
30:45 Burden of proof
32:24 Scientific conservatism
34:28 Alternative medicine
36:30 Everybody thinks they're Galileo
------
Presented by The Institute of Art and Ideas at the ‘How The Light Gets In’ festival at Hay-on-Wye, 2023
iai.tv
------
Dr Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, is a biologist and author best known for his hypothesis of morphic resonance. At Cambridge University he worked in developmental biology as a Fellow of Clare College. He was Principal Plant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics and From 2005 to 2010 was Director of the Perrott-Warrick project, Cambridge.
www.sheldrake.org
------
Michael Shermer is the editor of Skeptic magazine, the author of the Skeptic column in Scientific American and head of the Skeptics Society.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 68 | คู่เอก "พระจันทร์ฉาย vs โจนาธาน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/F3IM3w-XchI/mqdefault.jpg)
Rupert Sheldrake is an amazing human
Shermer has become more adept at presenting the skeptical viewpoint as open-minded and reasonable and Rupert was too polite to mention the decades of hateful and obstructive vitriol he's had to put up with from zealous skeptics - none of it reasonable, humouress or even particularly rational, let alone friendly.
Sadly it all boils down to money, power and invested interests. The problem has never been about two reasonable people having a reasoned debate: it's about scientific enquiry being twisted, corrupted and warped into a self-serving dogma that's little better than the religious dogmatism it has thankfully supplanted, at least on the surface.
Indeed, if one believed in reincarnation one might even think that all the rabidly fanatical inquisitors of the middle ages had been reborn into the bodies of modern-day skeptics. Though the poor souls must be very frustrated deep down that they're no longer allowed to torture, imprison and burn at the stake, though they do their best, at least figuratively speaking.
Very well said. Thank you.
Skepticism and negative thinking have always been rampant among people. It's amazing that humanity has been able to make what progress that it has made, despite that.
Yes, Shermer is intellectually dishonest and conforms to Joyce's delicious description of Shem:
"Shem’s bodily getup, it seems, included an adze of a skull, an eight of a larkseye, the whoel of a nose, one numb arm up a sleeve, fortytwo hairs off his uncrown, eighteen to his mock lip, a trio of barbels from his megageg chin (sowman’s son), the wrong shoulder higher than the right, all ears, an artificial tongue with a natural curl, not a foot to stand on, a handful of thumbs, a blind stomach, a deaf heart, a loose liver, two fifths of two buttocks, one gleetsteen avoirdupoider for him, a manroot of all evil, a salmonkelt’s thinskin, eelsblood in his cold toes, a bladder tristended, so much so that young Master Shemmy on his very first debouch at the very dawn of protohistory seeing himself such and such, when playing with thistlewords in their garden nursery,... dictited to of all his little brothron and sweestureens the first riddle of the universe: asking, when is a man not a man?: ....All were wrong, so Shem himself, the doctator, took the cake, the correct solution being-all give it up?-; when he is a-yours till the rending of the rocks,-Sham." (Fin... again?, pp. 169-170)
Love your comment ❤❤❤
@@Demosophist ?
Imagine making a living being a skeptic. Literally paid to build walls around the establishment viewpoint and divert all eyes away from anything extending beyond their own limited understanding of the world. It's actually quite sad, and dare I say pitiful. Keep at it Sheldrake. I've seen enough of your work to know you are certainly looking in all the right places.
There's so much deluded nonsense in the world I'm glad someone gives us a chance of discovering the truth or at least seeing that it is nonsense.
@@John_Bradburydo you mean Shermer or Sheldrake? Indeed, these days, the line is very much blurring on which side may represent the more prudential healthy skepticism.
Imagine being closely associated with James “The Amazing” Randi (RIP), Shermer being a perennial speaker at “The Amaz!ng Meeting”, and hoping that stage magic and Science will save humanity!
Indeed, once you have sampled the work of the likes of Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock (two thinkers particularly targeted), then you will never again see scientific establishment as the unbiased project it claims to be.
@eliaseal331 I prefer a stance of initially believing nothing, although I don't always agree with Shermer's conclusions. I like some of Sheldrake's ideas, but I also like the ideas of Robert Sawyer, my favourite science fiction writer.
@eliaseal331 Science can certainly be biased because it is a human endeavour, but it's the best method we have of finding truth or at least modelling it.
Rupert is an outstanding man. He lives a very admirable life. I’m very glad to have discovered him and his work.
I'm excited to see Rupert being invited to these discussions, looking forward to seeing more. ♥
Being invited to? Him and Shermer probably set it up as personal fundraisers.
Rupert Sheldrake is a great being 🙏🏼. Thank you
I'm so glad Rupert is still out there participating in the public sphere so eloquently and joyously at 81 years old!
I'm with Sheldrake. The people of the world are shifting from a material consciousness to a spiritual consciousness.
I hope so. Be in the world, not "of" the world.
The questions are deeper and the subsequent answers - may be profound too.
Spiritual consciousness - is polished - by practice and lived experience
and it always involves - the heart in a primary way
- and disciplines the mind - to learn - with said heart - for wholistic research - that one feels
- not something so abstract and obstruse - just play - in space - cosmic or nano.
Wonder, gratitude - goodwill and sharing - are the necessary gifts - of spiritual endeavour.
Fare thee well.
Love you, Rupe, keep on keepin' on. I'm with you 100%!
Absolutely beautiful Rupert! ❤
Thank you Rupert for the great work. Came across you through Jiddu Krishnamurti, and happy to see the work blossom 🙏🏼
The ones who know, the ones who will never know and the ones who will potentially know. The truth is everywhere, mostly we are unaware.
Sheldrake is one of the human beings I admire the most. I can’t believe how dishonest Shermer is about the data.
I think it's deeper than dishonesty. It's about love and faith. At least, a particular kind of dishonesty (I think the kind that you're talking about) operates at the level of ego. And ego per se does not know as it ought to know.
Denial and bias are powerful forces in the human mind.
I find Shermer's first rebuttal disingenuous as Sheldrake had already spoke about where the censorship happens, that it does get in the way of funding for research, harming the reputation of scientists who explore such topics and hence making it less likely they'd get a professorship or chair position, it doesn't get positive interest in the most relevant publications but will instead more likely to have skeptics debunking such claims published, etc. Instead he says "look, we're all here now aren't we, you're a best selling author, etc." which doesn't address Sheldrake's points.
I can. Not the sharpest blade in the drawer.
Most science researches what the money funds it to research. Only until a scientist becomes at least somewhat famous, or wins a Nobel prize, will they start speaking their own true views, politics, or conduct research that is considered esoteric
*I wish Terence McKenna was still with us.*
In the materialist point of view he may be.
As always, thank you to Rupert for holding the torch! I have been obsessed with Robert Temple's latest book called 'A New Science of Heaven'. Plasma physics may well be the path out of this period.
Very good conversation and Rupert Sheldrake held up well against Shermer. I liked the mention of Dr Roger Penrose as I think his theories on microtubules connecting consciousness to the universe and the universe being infinite in regards to spacetime is interesting.
How lucky are we to have Rupert, such courage to speak the truth and shine a light on the limiting dogmatic maintream materialistic ideology. Time will indeed show how right Rupert was...
Thankyou Mr. Sheldrake ✨🫶🏻✨
On October 1, 2014, Michael Shermer posted an article on Scientific American entitled “ Anomalous Events That Can Shake One’s Skepticism to the Core” about such an event that he experienced. In it he indicated a slight opening towards the possible existence of phenomena beyond the limits of scientistic rationality. Pretty sure he slammed locked that door in short order.
The more that one explores beyond the "accepted" boundaries of reality, the more that he will be criticized. These days, the explorers aren't tortured and executed. They're just deprived of respect and money.
Shermer's reality fits McKenna's taunt about "give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest". If we ignore the nature of consciousness, what makes us happy and unhappy, avoid thinking about the inevitability of death, don't dwell on ontology, accept we live in a financially and intellectually privileged bubble that represents a fraction of past and present human experience, treat good and evil as category errors, then lifestyle materialism makes perfect sense. You can run a model railway as if it's the real thing, but it's still a model.
always loved that quote by McKenna, he was a treasure
Shermer has the tools at his disposal to find out the truth for himself, it's the body he's living in and his consciousness, there will prob never be an apparatus or machine that will give him the external 'proof' that he needs. A lot of these guys aren't willing to go down that road though.
@RupertSheldrakePhD - based on your premise, “if we have a broader, more holistic worldview … may work as well - or better than - traditional mechanistic medicine” resonates with me for many reasons...
I was guided to read / learn about a comprehensive, holistic-integrative medical approach to diagnosis and treatment for candidiasis; in addition to addressing the presence of other infectious invaders (harmful parasites, bacteria, mold, and other viruses) and any allergic consequences - contributing to ill-health...
“Unraveling Candidiasis: The Perplexing Puzzle of Medical Maladies” encouraged me to move forward with dark-field microscopy. And, since I saw fungus and bacteria in my blood, I’m aware of its existence - and am motivated to find the right practitioner that is open to Dr. Bielski’s approach.
Anyway, thought I’d share this information with you ... since I believe it connects with a broader, more holistic-integrative worldview.
Thanks - and - best!
#candida
#microbiome
#holistichealth
#allergies
#evidencebasedmedicine
Shermer seems to not understand science and towards the end when he starts to pull in random unequivocal comparisons and illogical counter positions he is just doing his job which is to weave a mist. I’m working hard at keeping my comment nice but I can manage it by saying, we’ll done Rupert…always the thinker and true scientist 👍💪
We should look around where Shermer's funding comes from! That will answer the question imo
Well said.
@@AlexHillsCandles4AssangeRockefeller agent provocateur
Agreed. I've heard enough of these discussions and I didn't learn anything new here. Those that hold the materialist view are like religious zealots and there is no point in trying to hold scientific discussions with them. What happened with Rupert's Ted talk and his Wikipedia page are examples of their dishonesty. The truth will out without them, in spite of them.
To be expected I suppose. Shermer isn't a scientist and Rupert is :P
Dr Sheldrake gets my vote
As Rupert says, a lot of what he says is testable. It is amazing the establishment blocks it out. Very disappointing.
Very good.
Wow ruperts opening response was awesome
Wonderful, thank you. Mainstream science will be stuck until they assume more imaginative points of view
He's a pretentious paid gatekeeper and wants everyone to feel warm fuzzy self righteousness when they hear about the control of all academic questions by the Funding cattle guards, down the line to departmental silos. I can't listen to Shermer without wanting to insult him personally, because he's obtuse and lying by omission if he knows anything at all.
I don't follow Rupert's work closely, but I will say that I discovered early on, as a kid playing hide and seek in the 70s, if I was hiding it would be easier to be found if I was watching the seeker. So I didn't do it any more than necessary. 🤔
Reading these comments gives me hope! The truth is known and is becoming more evident everyday. :)
Sheldrake doesn't gather evidence and then develop a conclusion; he starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it.
Wow...Shermer Just begins by yelling nonsensical disjointed crap. It looks like a man in crisis. Sheldrake is sublime as usual.
I don't disagree but I wonder whether part of our assessment is that culturally, Shermer comes across as a brash American, whereas Sheldrake seems a polite Briton.
@@Suburbangeekvery true. I can imagine that to a majority of Americans, Dr Rupert Sheldrake may come across as a Star Wars baddie 😆
(Edited: for auto-capitalisation)
You sound like a troll@blaze7726
I could listen to Rupert all day long❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
False assumption, "all of the people who failed to prove their alternative theories were wrong, that's why we never heard about them." What if a significant number of them were right, or at least on the right track, but the dogmatic infrastructure Sheldrake describes was simply efficient enough to snuff them out through lack of funding, ridicule or one of the other endemic mechanisms which Shermer rather dismissively acknowledges, yet acknowledges, nevertheless.
Loved Ruberts work for a while now and morphic fields is what we need to be studying instead of dropping bombs and starting wars. The majority of our human capabilities remain hidden and unstudied or explored.
Interesting that the word "tabu" is one which comes from a people who at the time (1770 or so) were technologically primitive and almost completely illiterate, and yet so perfectly encompasses the mainstream materialist attitude toward particular subjects.
Gatekeeping is stronk in mr Shermer - i bet he is double boosted.
I'm a long-time Sheldrake admirer, but hats off also to Shermer for being a participant in the debates. The problem is when Shermer talks of '400 years of physics' (same expression used by Anil Seth in another dialogue with Sheldrake). What bearing does physics have? It's surely the belief that only what is physical, i.e. what can be understood in physical terms, is real, and that Sheldrake's theories challenge that. So Sheldrake's morphic resonance and morphic fields are not encompassed by physics, suggesting that physicalism is not, after all, the last word. But the problem is, if it's not physical, then what is it? There's no paradigm within which it seems to make sense, it challenges both the scientific and common-sense view of the world.
Well Done!
Michael Shermer didn't really address Sheldrake's main point: whether mechanistic materialism actually is a dogmatic belief system among these skeptics.
Yeah his refrain of "you just haven't convinced anyone credible in mainstream science of your pet theories over anyone elses" is quaint... he has a very naive view of academic science, as though it's openminded people purely interested in truth without politics, vested intetests, dogmas, legacies, rivalries, prejudices, patrons, gatekeeping mechanisms, etc.
He totally missed the ways in which Sheldrake claimed the gatekeeping worked and brought up the least relevant ones that Sheldrake never claimed.
@@jtzoltan If they had more time they might have gotten into it. Michael Shermer may understand this to some degree as well, I dont think he would dismiss it, it would have been very interesting if they could go more into all this. Especially if they could begin exploring the potential of science to overcome these limitations, which is where their interests converge. Many of the skeptics are afraid to even look at these questions, but I think Michael Shermer could go into it with a more open mind. He has a very reasonable attitude and brings up essential issues. This conversation was simply to short.
Hello from Virginia my friend 🇺🇸
More videos like this!
2:10 “I don’t wanna believe things that have to be believed in, in order to be true.”
That’s the problem. And one could spend many lifetimes explaining why that’s the problem, and people still would not be able to see why.
That actually brings up an interesting idea of things which are true only IF believed in.
He's essentially parsing belief based on evidence versus belief based on faith.
He says that half of all psychic experiments have failed to replicate… which is on par with all of psychology and medicine, which have far more funding and quantity of research. Half of all psychology and medicine studies fail to replicate as well so it’s really not a good argument unless he’s willing to trash the whole fields of psychology and medicine like he’s trashing parapsychology
Those snide looks of hers are priceless. Talk about owned.
Strikes me that Shermer more interested in his own fame / business of being a sceptic .. vs Sheldrake who is in constant and wonderful enquiry, and doing the work. I appreciate Sheldrakes open mindedness , and feel its guys like Shermer who kill the idea that we create our own realities.. i feel like we see what we want to see..and if we can have others see it, we get closer to a truth. Others might agree by science, or by enrollment in an idea, based on their own feelimg of what is right, intuitively . We can surely apply science to both possibilities
A great discussion, thank you. Both of these men are needed, they're both open-minded in their own ways and they are both needed in the ecosystem that makes up Humanity. We do need a change in worldview from mechanistic to holistic, if we are care for our planet and I hope it can be done without losing the precious rigours of the scientific approach
The thing is - kind of: scepticism is a function that is needed for proper navigation of life and not a position to rest on, like creativity, open-mindedness, methodological rigour, and so on and so further, too.
Shermers claim that it isnt taboo is disingenuous. He has clearly been heavily censored and discouraged and had an editor of a academic magazine call to burn his book!
I dont believe in Sheldrakes hypothesis, but still find him to be one of the most important scientist of our age
Having watched this twice, it's hard to believe how deeply Michael gets owned here. Funny to find out that he's the true idealist of the two in this convo.
"radical scientist" - WTF kind of intro is that?
That's what I thought heh..
The sceptic is unfortunatelly restricted by the narrow box he refuses to exit. It hurts to let go of ones own flawed worldviews, cant blame him for wanting to unconsciously hang on to those... Awsome debate though! ❤
What do you know that he doesn't?
When I hope about a future human being,I hope it looks, acts and thinks like Sheldrake. Not just Rupert but his children too. They are equally brilliant. They are angels, ethereal.
Thanks to the Goddess in the middle
Dr. Sheldrake's humor won the whole argument! 😉❤
The great mystic Edda the Elder said:" when the soul wishes to experience something she casts out the image before her and then enters into her own image"
Michael Shermer does not answer a single thing Sheldrake says, does not really address hus research, is not familiar with it and just throws out slogans. No, no. Not good enough.
I’m English but live in Japan. Catching people staring at me from behind happens all the time! At least once a week. What’s interesting is that I don’t get a sense I’m being looked at, then turn around and find the person doing it, no. I suddenly turn and look without any initial sense or decision and not only that, my eyes immediately go to the eyes of the person looking at me. It’s really strange how it’s possible but I kind of enjoy it haha.
Where in Japan do you live?
Thks for the Sheldrake vs Shermer Smack-Down;
However it seems the crux of the disagreement is simply the lack-of support/funding & unbiased designing/testing/evaluating/integrating/etc for other-than orthodox science.
Oh if Shledrake would make pragmatic weapons out of his claims, he would get lots of funding from around the-world just like orthodox science. It just the way the real world works.
Check out 34:23 and see her opinion about Rupert. Her face and sigh say it all.
I have no idea what Sherman was on about.
It's Shermer, Sherman was a tank and a popular shirt worn by mods in the 70s in London.
@@samrowbotham8914
Cool story.
M S Still thinks that the arrow of time is linear - an artefact of our biologic origins
19:20 Placebo and No-cebo.
Desire and attention informs the phenomenology. Perception itself REQUIRES a perceiver.
Here we are again with extraordinary doubt, discussing comparing arguing on the transcendent qualities of two different caterpillars, and can't wait to evaluate the caterpillars' worldly beneficial impact upon metamorphosis .
Shermer is lovable tho.
There is so much evidence showing that materialism is incorrect, this conversation didn't need to happen.
Go, Rupert!
This man is blind if he cant see censorship in mainstream anything really, especially over the last 3 years. He wont patronise me either by assuming what i know or dont know about reality.
Poor cosmic program folks have to publish their work on medium. They do incredible research. All self funded. All fringe and taboo. They say they can’t even publish them anywhere mainstream, forget about funding.
I've heard enough of these discussions and I didn't learn anything new here. Those that hold the materialist view are like religious zealots and there is no point in trying to hold scientific discussions with them. What happened with Rupert's Ted talk and his Wikipedia page are examples of their dishonesty. The truth will out without them, in spite of them.
I am a big fan of Sheldrake. But when he says that our perceptions of objects in the external world are taking place at the spot of the object, I'm not sure how this squares with, say, when he is looking at the sun or a star? Would he claim that the perception of the sun is at the location of the sun even though he knows that his perception of the sun is of how the sun was 8 minutes in the past? I'm an analytical idealist so I'm not challenging his fundamental notion of consciousness as an ontological primitive. I just don't see how he could believe that perceptions aren't a function of his bounded consciousness. He could still claim that some other aspect of himself is united with the object and this then gets interpreted as an image OF the object, but, even then, he'd need to acknowledge that he is often looking at stars that no longer exists, right?
I planted a bunch of flowers recently, i did it because i read about the quantum photosynthesis! but what about humans? is our laught or other things related to some quantum processes inside us.. keeping an eye on this 😅
Interesting how there are 2 people on one side of the table and 1 person on the other side .
Rupert is isolated and there is subliminal suggestion that he’s a little crazy and they’re ganging up on him. Doesn’t help that she’s smirking....and Michael sounds completely dismissive. Rupert is not against science , he is suggesting that in addition traditional science , there is
something else to be considered.
Ouch Michael..... Best Chairing I have seen on this subject.
Two things. Firstly, I think Shermer is a CIA shill. Secondly, shermer needs to do 30mg of DMT...then come talk to us.
As for Sheldrake...you're good...
That three things. ⚟
@@arawiri great response!
@@arawiri I'm not a scientist
presumably everyone watching and commenting here are fairly ‘sciency’. it is amazing that the overwhelming comments are with sheldrake. i suspect it’s because despite what we study in traditional science, we all ‘know’ that there is more to life than just material reality.
We are told there is no centre to the universe yet the big bang must of started at some point in the universe which would be the centre of the universe.
The big bang didn't start in the universe: there was no universe before the big bang. It's not something that we can really understand, but if the theory is correct then it was the beginning of space and time as we know it. But I also don't understand why every point in the universe can be treated as the centre. But I'm not an astrophysicist ;)
Everywhere is the center of the observable universe.
Sceptic Magazine only has 40 000 subscribers. There are not a lot of them, they are just loud. Most people are non materialists just like most people are against war but see where we are.
I was an atheist for my first forty years until God came to me powerfully to show me His reality. After my spiritual crisis because I had no idea what was happening, I realized that it was God acting. Then, I looked back over my life and realized that God had ensured that I was educated in physics and the other sciences. Now I explain to atheists that although science believes that they have all of the knowledge possible, they have missed one very important point that basic science explains.
Before any singularity or Big Bang something needed to create matter and energy or the physical could not exist. Neither matter or energy can be created or destroyed. That being the case, what created them? They couldn't just pop into existence by themselves from nothing.
Additionally, science cannot explain consciousness. What can be explained is that medical personnel who work with people who have died then have been revived all say that the people who have been brought back to life all experienced the same thing. I won't explain this. Research near death experiences. This is known worldwide and has been recorded as long as man has recorded experiences. This is a genuine phenomenon that is known by science.
Now physicists are discovering that atoms that are viewed change their trajectory, that our reality isn't locally real, that quantum entanglement exists. Einstein called this spooky action at a distance.
We humans can reach into the other dimension. It is simply the case that most scientists choose not to test those things that they have decided could not exist.
Last, the United States Government used, and maybe still does, people who could remote view distant locations. They traveled out of body to report what they saw at distant locations.
It all is genuine but people like Michael Shermer have their minds made up that none of this is possible. So, they refuse to study the evidence that does exist.
God bless you, Rupert, and even you, Michael.
Of course, there are so many that we do not know.
However, I wonder about your interpretation of documented NDEs shared with words by the experiencer. I have watched about a dozen or so among perhaps thousands we can find. The story is always tightly connected to individual’s culture, education, real world experience etc. There is very little consensus of what they saw, told, learned etc.
@@marka2188 Well, no. They all travel out of body. Look down on their bodies. Travel through a tunnel to a place that is warm and loving and meet a being of light.
You may be referring to those who believe that they met the religious figure who they believe in. I do believe in the teachings of Jesus but also in Native American spirituality. Both are the same. I don't have much if any cultural bias. I simply believe that there is one God of all mankind who knows everyone.
I also believe in science. The quantum is the spiritual. Some scientists have realized this. Michio Kaku, for example, also believes in God, just not the God of the Bible. I don't believe all of the Bible either because I met the God of all mankind as an atheist. I went through a spiritual crisis because I had no idea what was happening to me. When I finally realized that it was God acting, I then searched to see which religion or spirituality understood the true God of all mankind.
Science actually is the study of the spiritual. It is just that most scientists don't believe this. Everything in our world is made of atoms. When atoms are viewed, their trajectory changes. Spooky action at a distance, as Einstein termed it, does exist. The dimensional is the spiritual. Before any singularity or Big Bang, something had to create matter and energy for either to exist. They could not simply pop into existence by themselves from nothing and neither can be created or destroyed. So, God, who is often misunderstood, created both or there would not be the physical. That is basic science which the God of all mankind ensured that I was educated in before coming to me.
I can explain much more. Please let me know what I can tell you. The God of all mankind led my life even during the time that I thought that I was an atheist. I am well educated in the wisdom of God and of this world.
@@marka2188 I'm in a similar boat. I have huge interest in NDEs and have watched hundreds at this point. While I do think it's at least evidence towards consciousness surviving bodily death, I don't see them as affirmations of the truth of religion(s) and for the reasons you pointed to. So much variance in their experiences and often shaped by their cultural upbringing.
Schmucker: We don't know, so we have to decide what to believe ... I don't want to believe things that have to be believed in, to be true. 🙄 Right out the gate.
Consciousness exists as a state of electromagnetism and is fractal in nature.
Interesting
I find Shermer's first rebuttal disingenuous as Sheldrake had already spoke about where the censorship happens, that it does get in the way of funding for research, harming the reputation of scientists who explore such topics and hence making it less likely they'd get a professorship or chair position, it doesn't get positive interest in the most relevant publications but will instead more likely to have skeptics debunking such claims published, etc. Instead he says "look, we're all here now aren't we, you're a best selling author, etc." which doesn't address Sheldrake's points.
It could also be that Shermer was preoccupied in his mind and had trouble listening and focusing his response properly
Shermer must have a maget on his fingers thats attracting them to his nose ✋ 🧲 👃
for Shermer to keep claiming the authority of not overthrowing 'four hundred years of physics' is a pure joke - what part of classical mechanics, or even quantum mechanics, or relativity, rules out the 'sense of being stared at'? Or dogs being able to know when their owners are coming home? I too am a very desperate skeptic - but mostly of Shermer's materialist/reductionist worldview.
The claim of "throw out four hundred years of physics research" is more of a tell than most skeptics want to admit. It is clearly admitting a fear that what they have dedicated their entire lives to researching might be invalidated or made moot and thus minimize their importance in the hierarchy of academics. It is a strawman argument. It appeals to instincts rather than logic: you want to eradicate 400 years of science & technology leaves someone with the thought that they are advocating for a return to a religious theocracy where witches are burned at the stake, doctors cure illness with leeches, and electricity is replaced with candlelight (whether intentional or not).
As a skeptic, I would advise you to check out Michael Levin's research at Tufts University regarding bioelectricity. While it does not validate Sheldrake's thesis, it is a breakthrough along the lines of his theory in opposition to the current scientific belief that all of life's building blocks are contained in DNA strands.
Rupert, you need to talk to me. I have the most original life. I dream things and eventually in time it happens. I’m not even the avatar in that starring show, but as the law of correspondence suggests the consciousness of me experienced life prior to it’s happening elsewhere. I also have vibratory
tinnitus the had many levels from high pitched ring to low OM like hum, sometimes intermittent Morse code like beeps. So what of it? My hearing is fine. There’s so much in the hidden world and multi dimensionality. Dimensions are layers of YOU in time playing out in 3D. They originate in the dream realm. I’ve dreamt my sons life pre-cognitively and my daughters ( as if it were me) I’ve been places physically although not in my waking body.
That’s it in a nutshell. It’s very very unsettling when it happens and surreal. My son doesn’t want to hear more of “ I dreamed - I was that person sitting on that bench talking to that person and had that conversation. Yet I’ve never physically been to that park yet in time. And much much more. Our consciousness travels in dreams through what E think is time and allows you to interface with a version of yourself.
Shermer realised early that he was out of his depth
Where’s the censorship? Look up Halton Arp.
It is not always true that something only can be 'real' (for skeptics) if it has been replicated X times. Evidence of one single case can be proof if it is a water tight controllable case. For instance, if an accidental occurrance of almost nil probability happens, as proven, this proves that almost impossible coincidences do happen. The question then is: is it coincidence or is something else in play? Which leads to the next question: what is coincidence, actually, and what is its meaning scientifically? Which leads to the question: what do we mean with 'meaning' in scientific terms? Etc. etc.... things to be investigated with all the rationality we have on our command.
PS: Sheldrake's explanations are entirely convincing. Full stop.
PS 2: Shermer gets something terribly wrong where he says that Sheldrake is claiming that 400 years of science has been wrong (ca. 24:30). That is a distortion, Sheldrake is merely trying to extend the bounderies of hard science with his psychic research. Any outcome of this kind of research does not mean, for instance, that the human mind is NOT in the brain, it may be shown that it does MORE than sitting exclusively in the brain. And so it is with ANY scientific development. Shermer is a convservative.
Radical
I've always appreciated Rupert Sheldrake's willingness to accept that humans are limited in what they can know. By accepting that there are questions that can't be answered by reductionist, limited, rationalist thinking, he's willing to see the expansive questions and possibilities to which they point. Skeptics have the narrow, yet for them, comfortable perspective that humans are capable of having the final say on what is and what isn't real and possible. And yet, not a single one of them can genuinely explain the existence of consciousness. They are using the lens of consciousness without understanding what it is and how it affects perception. The goldfish in the fish bowl will be unable to describe the nature of water because water is what has always been. It doesn't see itself as separate from it because separation creates death and that's a whole new point of view that lacks ordinary reality limitations. So, as long as the goldfish is swimming in the water, that water will remain invisible to it.
Feel like anyone in the audience can fill in shermer's chair and produce same words..wat exactly does he do again? Anyone and everyone is a sceptic of all sorts
22:19 This is it. Exactly. Which is directly related to my other two comments.
“What is evidence? Whose evidence do you believe? And therefore, what constitutes actual knowledge?”
CS Lewis from The Magician’s Nephew: “What you see and hear depends a lot upon where you’re standing and on the kind of person you are.”
What’s so crazy to me is that Michael Shermer immediately affirms what the host just said, but it is philosophically contrary to what he said at 2:10.
Hi im Rupert the sun and moon are conscious Sheldrake
What's your metaphysical position?
Hi im worksat and I believe that consciousness is only in the brain despite that contradicting my own beliefs
Michael apparently doesn't know what steel manning an argument is.
Also, why does the age of the Darwin theory give it 99% probability? It's not even that old.
I like Shermer, he’s at least one of the better skeptics out there despite his inability to think outside of what he’s told.
Shermer seems unthoughtful. It is saddening to see a human be so in-human.
Shermer spouts the party line for a psychopathic establishment.
Is Shermer getting the money?
Shermer embodies dogmatism
Read Tzamalikos and his work on Anaxagoras and Origen ! #TheoryofLogoi