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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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...
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
@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 👍💪
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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! ❤
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.
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. 🤔
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.
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
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.
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
I loved the trialogues with Rupert and Terrance and Ralph Abraham. I would love to hear Rupert have a similar trialogue about consciousness speaking with an AI expert of some kind like Sam Altman or a futurist like Kurzweil and maybe an AI reconstruction of Terrance McKenna trained on McKenna’s life’s work.. Short of that, I would like to hear how AI has changed Sheldrake’s view on consciousness and experiments that could be conducted with AI that he would like to see.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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"
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
As I understand it Penrose doesnt say it stops in the microtubules, that just that theyre what picks it up. Or maybe thats closer to what his partner Stuart Hameroff supposes
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 was a big fan of Sheldrake's… I suggest everyone look up the science behind the paranormal/ ghosts/ psychics/etc. I think some may be surprised just how much we know and what has been proven.
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 😅
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?
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 ;)
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.
Shermer is wrong because he' is Subjective. *'Objective Reality does Not exist* Since he acknowledges he does Not know objective reality, he cannot know if somebody else know it. Bigotry and fundamentalism exist because humans evolved in groups such as bacteria, plants and animals. For EACH GROUP the things that allowed it to thrive were "Good" and could be different from those of neighboring groups. The moment when a Collective determines that there is an "Absolute or Objective TRUTH" it becomes a Belief and a "Good" and this is defended with Intolerance, Intransigence and Violence by FFRs. We have the con�ict served. This is where religions/beliefs/faith in the ideas of others arise.
The "Laws of Nature dont change overtime"? How do we know it? That is just another ASSUMPTION of EUI deities (Eternal-Universal- Immutable laws) like Gravity-Radiometric Decay or Doppler Redshift. Just another Religion like Gravitational Universe. *The first law in the Universe is CHANGE because it is a Must for any AWARENESS OR CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE to happen (change in time-space-matter-energy)...* So "laws" may also CHANGE!
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.
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
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 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.
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.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm so glad Rupert is still out there participating in the public sphere so eloquently and joyously at 81 years old!
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.
Rupert is an outstanding man. He lives a very admirable life. I’m very glad to have discovered him and his work.
Rupert Sheldrake is an amazing human
He's a loon, presenting no rational basis for anything he claims. He just whines that it isn't accepted.
lol
Love you, Rupe, keep on keepin' on. I'm with you 100%!
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
Absolutely beautiful Rupert! ❤
Thank you Rupert for the great work. Came across you through Jiddu Krishnamurti, and happy to see the work blossom 🙏🏼
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
*I wish Terence McKenna was still with us.*
In the materialist point of view he may be.
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.
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.
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 ✨🫶🏻✨
Dr Sheldrake gets my vote
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
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.
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
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 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.
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
Wow ruperts opening response was awesome
Check out 34:23 and see her opinion about Rupert. Her face and sigh say it all.
@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
As Rupert says, a lot of what he says is testable. It is amazing the establishment blocks it out. Very disappointing.
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
Very good.
Reading these comments gives me hope! The truth is known and is becoming more evident everyday. :)
Wonderful, thank you. Mainstream science will be stuck until they assume more imaginative points of view
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Those snide looks of hers are priceless. Talk about owned.
I could listen to Rupert all day long❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Hello from Virginia my friend 🇺🇸
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.
Gatekeeping is stronk in mr Shermer - i bet he is double boosted.
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?
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?
19:20 Placebo and No-cebo.
Desire and attention informs the phenomenology. Perception itself REQUIRES a perceiver.
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.
More videos like this!
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. 🤔
Thanks to the Goddess in the middle
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.
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
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.
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
I loved the trialogues with Rupert and Terrance and Ralph Abraham. I would love to hear Rupert have a similar trialogue about consciousness speaking with an AI expert of some kind like Sam Altman or a futurist like Kurzweil and maybe an AI reconstruction of Terrance McKenna trained on McKenna’s life’s work..
Short of that, I would like to hear how AI has changed Sheldrake’s view on consciousness and experiments that could be conducted with AI that he would like to see.
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.
Sheldrake doesn't gather evidence and then develop a conclusion; he starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it.
"radical scientist" - WTF kind of intro is that?
That's what I thought heh..
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.
Dr. Sheldrake's humor won the whole argument! 😉❤
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.
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 .
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"
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.
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.
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.
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
Shermer is lovable tho.
The crazy thing is you NEED the Shermers to be able to fully appreciate the Sheldrakes
M S Still thinks that the arrow of time is linear - an artefact of our biologic origins
Well Done!
Rupert is good, the other not.
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
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.
Go, Rupert!
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.
Ouch Michael..... Best Chairing I have seen on this subject.
As I understand it Penrose doesnt say it stops in the microtubules, that just that theyre what picks it up. Or maybe thats closer to what his partner Stuart Hameroff supposes
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 was a big fan of Sheldrake's… I suggest everyone look up the science behind the paranormal/ ghosts/ psychics/etc.
I think some may be surprised just how much we know and what has been proven.
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 😅
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
Would these two thinkers please give us their theory of the strange cattle mutations that have been happening throughout time.
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?
There is so much evidence showing that materialism is incorrect, this conversation didn't need to happen.
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.
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.
Shermer is wrong because he' is Subjective. *'Objective Reality does Not exist*
Since he acknowledges he does Not know objective reality, he cannot know if somebody else know it. Bigotry and fundamentalism exist because humans evolved in groups such as bacteria, plants and animals. For EACH GROUP the things that allowed it to thrive were "Good" and could be different from those of neighboring groups. The moment when a Collective determines that there is an "Absolute or Objective TRUTH" it becomes a Belief and a "Good" and this is defended with Intolerance, Intransigence and Violence by FFRs. We have the con�ict served.
This is where religions/beliefs/faith in the ideas of others arise.
The "Laws of Nature dont change overtime"? How do we know it? That is just another ASSUMPTION of EUI deities (Eternal-Universal-
Immutable laws) like Gravity-Radiometric Decay or Doppler Redshift. Just another Religion like Gravitational Universe.
*The first law in the Universe is CHANGE because it is a Must for any AWARENESS OR CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE to happen (change in time-space-matter-energy)...*
So "laws" may also CHANGE!
Ok
Shermer: "look at wikipedia"
CUT✋
Debate over.... Shermer, you lose!
Congratulations Rupert🎉
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.
Why is she so incredibly obtuse, arrogant and rude?
People like shermer lack courage and imagination, but have arrogance in spades.
There are other scientists much more arrogant than Shermer. He's tame in comparison.
Exactly.
@@fs5775 Shermer is a historian of science...don't think he'd be considered a scientist.
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.
Money influences everything.
Thats the problem with scientist,archaeologists,historians etc their all worried they got it wrong.
Where’s the censorship? Look up Halton Arp.
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
Read Tzamalikos and his work on Anaxagoras and Origen ! #TheoryofLogoi
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.
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.