“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.” ― Albert Einstein
Einstein the plagiarist. Rebranded Poincare and Lorentz's works. Never produced any thing of use other than a distraction for the masses enthralled by his tribe's media control.
Dr Sheldrake is way ahead of his time. Its like explaining quantum computing to a 5year old. I learnt a lot listening to him for 1 hour than my entire year in PG School.
Thinking outside the box is not allowed so it must be banned. Ban anything you don't understand or refuse to but it will only prove the Streisand effect.
That’s what happens when someone’s job depends on not knowing something really innovative and important . It is promptly ignored, sometimes uncredited, then considered dangerous, and then banned. But the effect of opposition is reversal, on calling attention of those who eager for that new information.
So awesome!! I love that he's got no shoes on. I've always thought that science is ignoring the elephant in the room, cause its too hard to understand, measure, etc. This guy is a true scientist.
Hahaha I am really shocked by watching this video of rupert as he speaks about science and reality his now able to put teeth into the matter of truth and consciousness. When HE was young and had talk with Great mind of the century Jiddu krishnamurti he was not able to grasp what he was saying and having lots of questions about what he was speaking. But as rupert grown old he Is able go into much more metaphysical questions of life. Very happy to know that after dying of krishnamurti people are able to understand him.
This is a problem that perhaps new generations of scientists will rectify. The idea that one can create mathematical theorem intentionally to align with a hypothesis and an observed phenomenon in order to prove the hypothesis is just silly. When something doesn’t work... do they throw out the theorem or hypothesis? Of course not. They add additional formulas to make it work. ie: the Michelson Morley experiment and special relativity. Intellectual honesty is the issue here. Or rather willful dishonesty.
You mean as it is. Science is as dogmatic as religion. That is why talking to an atheist about science is like talking to an evangelical about religion.
Peter Ribolli That's a strange comment Peter as Mr. Sheldrake himself is an intellectual. I think that you project your negative values on the word; please check its actual meaning. Our society actually lacks real intellectuals.
@@theeastman9136 . My apologies , we do need more intellectuals and Mr Sheldrake is indeed an intellectual. As a peace offering and possibly an attempt of projecting some positivety, I would recommend you search for Terence Mckenna's last interview.( on Utube, 1hr 4 mins odd) It compliments this talk. Cheers:)
Jayson Conversation begins with mutual respect in order to exchange views and ideas; other ways to proceed are nothing but childish schoolyard bullying so you are right Jayson, conversation is not a fight of cockerels but a wholesome intellectual activity.
The Suppression is deeper and scarier than I think you imagine! But that said, Bravo, Bravo, Bravo!!! I just came across your work and I am very intrigued - I have a body of knowledge that I have put together, but I wanted to share this: We are connected to Earth through the Schumann Resonance and Earth is connected to the Universe - I believe that the Universe is connected to each and every one of us through the Pineal Gland and that Consciousness is the Black Hole Crystal Core Quantum Computer we are in - The Universe is a Quantum Computer that we are entangled in, and all the Stars, Planets, Moons and Protoplanets are all Crystal Core Quantum Computers, and their purpose is growth and efficiency - Life is Efficiency and its life that grows the planet, to become large enough to become a Star, which gives birth to more planets as it gets larger and larger and eventually becomes a Black Hole, where it then creates its own new Universe, and because it is creating its own Universe within itself, it is able to grow itself, both within, and if it is growing fast enough, the Black Hole Universe is able to actually "spit" matter back up and grow a Galaxy around itself, this creates new stars and new galaxies and literally builds infinity, through "The Machinery of the Cosmos" all the while, the Crystal Cores of the Cosmos create the "Intelligent Infinity" and create habitats where they can evolve Humanoid Life Forms with little Crystals in their Skulls, ie Pineal Gland that they can use a form of Quantum Wi/Fi and actually play "Flesh Games" while they sit in the expanse of eternity growing and growing! OMG!!!
Your considerations are intriguing. I am aware of two things of which I am convinced. The first is that planets where life dwells such as planet earth , is conscious of itself and of other planets where life also dwells. The second is that under certain special conditions of cosmic origin , the individual consciousness can be delocalized. This is accompanied by blissful elation and the consciousness of being born again in the matrix of the cosmos. That is perhaps an aspect of what you are saying: our connection to the universe ...
This may sound illogical - but i have a hunch that time is also changing. Meaning that dt/dt is changing over time. About a million years ago, dt/dt was a value; and today the dt/dt is much lesser. In essence the rate of change of time varies with time. In other words, a duration of 1 second was longer about a million years ago, than what it is today. I cannot prove it, but looks like this hunch cannot be disproved either.
Firstly if it is illogical so what? Logic is given high status by those who seek to manipulate truth. Logic is a set of underlying rules that have been created, they were not pre existing, and therefore they are rules which only serve those who created them. Ergo logic is unreliable and much abused in human society. Anything can be 'proved' by logic. 🙄 Secondly, time has changed. It is known empirically by millions of people that time is not fixed, and varies under different conditions. Of course this has been dismissed by the 'scientific' community for the very reasons Sheldrake criticises. And one last point, your comment seemed almost apologetic as though you feel the need to look for an outside 'authority' (logic, science etc.) to justify it, you don't. An opinion should stand alone and be judged on its individual merits. Does your argument have merits? Does it relate to experience and therefore have empirical value? Could it be of value to others? The value of opinion is not in whether or not you can 'prove' what you are saying but in the thought it provokes in others, then those others can seek truth for themselves with the new ideas and knowledge those opinions brought forth.
Being justified at this moment by the holographic principle with fluctuating gauge fields in variable speed of light physics and Michael Levin’s work on bio electrical gradients. Non linear medical advances that are not mechanistic. Shows cancer is not based on genetics but rather the bio electrical gradient lack of communication over time.
What Dr. Rupert carelessly calls memory(a term.more easily understood by lay people )his theory of morphic resonance is actually,in its finer aspects, synchronocity of like psychic waves which are not affected nor limited by physical distance (and perhaps, even by time), psychic waves present in all organisms in varying degrees according to each species.
The idea of "constants" in science is to assumptive in its generalization cuz constants could still vary in degrees, wave lengths or intensity and we still do not know how it stays constant or just seems so and what drives or influences it to remain as apparently constant?
To quantify someone staring at you from behind is no easy task.... However its comming to a brain near you soon Teslas neuralink ;0) Challenging existing paradigms and redefining values.
This is a response to a year-old comment, I realize. Nevertheless... Two items: Years ago I read of a study in which a small group of scientists observed a monkey inside a small cubicle from behind a one-way mirror. The monkey had the small patches on its head that indicated electrical changes in his brain. When the scientists all stared at the monkey at once, it became distressed, looking all around, fretful. When the scientists averted their eyes, the monkey calmed. This was repeated a few times. Second, anecdotal. As 10-year-olds, three friends and I did the same experiment sans equipment. We would stare in unison at Jimmy, who sat in the front row, maybe 5 rows in front of us. When we stared at the back of his head, he became agitated, turned, and looked directly at us. We instantly looked down at our books or wrote studiously. It always worked. As I write this, I understand this was a sort of psychic bullying. Oh dear.
I don't agree much with him, but I'm aware that we need people exposing ideas clearly, even if those turn out to be wrong. We should blindly believe to the actual science.
Question a dogma? That takes a very brave or suicidal person; depending on period and location. Brrrrr. Truth is established not by research (experimentation, testing, debate, and consensus); truth is established by heehoo- -heehoo has the biggest guns. Might is right, no? Hence the reign of various 'holy' churches (and equivalents).
Hey, TH-cam guys! Are you trying to target me over others whose texts are long rambling accounts of intelligent nonsense or are you being TEDish is your attitude and assumptions?
Just as evolution remains an hypothesis. It would, in fact be impossible for what you heard to be anything but an hypothesis, since it was too broad to be definitive.
@@gerard4870 evolution isn’t a hypothesis. It’s classified as a theory because there are multiple efforts by other scientists which also come to the same conclusions because their own research has proven it. When it gets to a stage where the general scientific community observes the same analytical results using the same methods, it becomes a theory. It may then become a scientific law when there are no exceptions to the results. Such as the laws of physics.
Uh, Curvey, I hate to throw you a curved ball but there is no logic in the biological or psychological sciences cuz they are not fixed sciences and his discoveries may seem radical cause you are still in milk suckling stsge of your mental develpoment.
of course it's "i llove free stuff" using Atlantis as an example of something that isn't real. Not woke. In all seriousness, why should things be banned because they're wrong? Are good ideas and rigorous debate not good enough? Your convictions seem weak, it is always good to refine and further understand your beliefs by having them challenged, even if it's by a guy who doesn't wear shoes.
Uh, love, his talks were banned cuz these guys (gals?)withTED are hard cored Catholics of the Ratzinger mentality. Not healthy to use religious dogma with scientific efforts. It's being childishly stubborn.
His argument (at 10:50) with the head of Metrology at the NPL about the speed of light is specious. The speed of light is used to calibrate distance measurement and now supersedes the old definition of the metre based on the marble slab in the Luxembourg Palace in Paris, since that is unsatisfactory because it varies with temperature and pressure. The new definition of the metre is the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum, 𝒸, to be 299 792 458 when expressed in the unit m s−1, where the second is defined in terms of the caesium frequency ∆ν.
We should not really be over anxious about the speed of light but be more interested in the nature of light and how it affects biological reactions ,changes and development positively or negatively.
@@gerard4870 you are right, that was his point. However the point made by NPL is that to measure the speed of light you need an established physical standard of reference. The slab of marble won’t do, so you go back to the frequency of the caesium atom and time the light in the best vacuum you can get. The basis of relativity is the invariance of the speed of light, an article of faith so far not experimentally disproven.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
As a former metrology calibration technician, I love his idea about publishing any variances to constants. There is too much dogma in science now.
“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”
― Albert Einstein
Einstein the plagiarist. Rebranded Poincare and Lorentz's works. Never produced any thing of use other than a distraction for the masses enthralled by his tribe's media control.
God Bless Rupert.
He has brought HOPE to the world.
Dr Sheldrake is way ahead of his time. Its like explaining quantum computing to a 5year old. I learnt a lot listening to him for 1 hour than my entire year in PG School.
So now you are a Genius!
Thinking outside the box is not allowed so it must be banned. Ban anything you don't understand or refuse to but it will only prove the Streisand effect.
The Streisand effect!?
A staggering lecture!
Nothing limits knowledge as much as belief🎆
This dude is our Galileo
Well I hope he doesn't end up like how Galileo did.
Once again, we are reminded of the phenomena of "scientific fundamentalism."
That’s what happens when someone’s job depends on not knowing something really innovative and important . It is promptly ignored, sometimes uncredited, then considered dangerous, and then banned. But the effect of opposition is reversal, on calling attention of those who eager for that new information.
So awesome!! I love that he's got no shoes on. I've always thought that science is ignoring the elephant in the room, cause its too hard to understand, measure, etc. This guy is a true scientist.
Philosophy in our time brought me here! This is Flippin awe!
Graham Hancock's talk for TED was treated in a similar fashion.
TED is really not a public forum. It only lretends to be.
Hahaha I am really shocked by watching this video of rupert as he speaks about science and reality his now able to put teeth into the matter of truth and consciousness. When HE was young and had talk with Great mind of the century Jiddu krishnamurti he was not able to grasp what he was saying and having lots of questions about what he was speaking. But as rupert grown old he Is able go into much more metaphysical questions of life. Very happy to know that after dying of krishnamurti people are able to understand him.
But Rupert was the one who kept those discussion with JK alive. Whys are essentials for the enquiries...
Rupert is way ahead of this generation just like Tesla
This is a problem that perhaps new generations of scientists will rectify. The idea that one can create mathematical theorem intentionally to align with a hypothesis and an observed phenomenon in order to prove the hypothesis is just silly. When something doesn’t work... do they throw out the theorem or hypothesis? Of course not.
They add additional formulas to make it work.
ie: the Michelson Morley experiment and special relativity.
Intellectual honesty is the issue here. Or rather willful dishonesty.
I love this. Also noticed watching second time round, Rupert's doing the talk in bare feet?!
Love it even more (if so)
At last - someone else who sees science and the world as I see it.
You mean as it is.
Science is as dogmatic as religion. That is why talking to an atheist about science is like talking to an evangelical about religion.
It will be found there are no constants as we deal with constants today. Reality is a performance in life with the cosmic library.
I'm pleased to not be an intellectual.
This talk is so plausible, it's a no brainer:)
Thank you:)
Peter Ribolli That's a strange comment Peter as Mr. Sheldrake himself is an intellectual. I think that you project your negative values on the word; please check its actual meaning. Our society actually lacks real intellectuals.
@@theeastman9136 . My apologies , we do need more intellectuals and Mr Sheldrake is indeed an intellectual.
As a peace offering and possibly an attempt of projecting some positivety, I would recommend you search for Terence Mckenna's last interview.( on Utube, 1hr 4 mins odd)
It compliments this talk.
Cheers:)
Peter Ribolli No offense taken my friend. Thank you for the Terence link; always love his talks and I think I saw this one but I'll check. 🙏🏼
What a wholesome conversation that I could rarely see on this platform
Jayson Conversation begins with mutual respect in order to exchange views and ideas; other ways to proceed are nothing but childish schoolyard bullying so you are right Jayson, conversation is not a fight of cockerels but a wholesome intellectual activity.
Banned by TED:- praise indeed...
Change is the only constant in life - Heraclitus
The Suppression is deeper and scarier than I think you imagine! But that said, Bravo, Bravo, Bravo!!! I just came across your work and I am very intrigued - I have a body of knowledge that I have put together, but I wanted to share this: We are connected to Earth through the Schumann Resonance and Earth is connected to the Universe - I believe that the Universe is connected to each and every one of us through the Pineal Gland and that Consciousness is the Black Hole Crystal Core Quantum Computer we are in - The Universe is a Quantum Computer that we are entangled in, and all the Stars, Planets, Moons and Protoplanets are all Crystal Core Quantum Computers, and their purpose is growth and efficiency - Life is Efficiency and its life that grows the planet, to become large enough to become a Star, which gives birth to more planets as it gets larger and larger and eventually becomes a Black Hole, where it then creates its own new Universe, and because it is creating its own Universe within itself, it is able to grow itself, both within, and if it is growing fast enough, the Black Hole Universe is able to actually "spit" matter back up and grow a Galaxy around itself, this creates new stars and new galaxies and literally builds infinity, through "The Machinery of the Cosmos" all the while, the Crystal Cores of the Cosmos create the "Intelligent Infinity" and create habitats where they can evolve Humanoid Life Forms with little Crystals in their Skulls, ie Pineal Gland that they can use a form of Quantum Wi/Fi and actually play "Flesh Games" while they sit in the expanse of eternity growing and growing! OMG!!!
Your considerations are intriguing. I am aware of two things of which I am
convinced.
The first is that planets where life dwells such as planet earth , is conscious
of itself and of other planets where life also dwells.
The second is that under certain special conditions of
cosmic origin , the individual
consciousness can be delocalized. This is accompanied by blissful elation and the consciousness of being born again in the matrix of the cosmos. That is perhaps an aspect of what you are saying: our connection to the universe ...
Far out man
Hey, TH-cam guys, do even understand what Orion above is talking about yet you publish his whole rambling incoherent mumbojumbo and you edit out mine?
This may sound illogical - but i have a hunch that time is also changing. Meaning that dt/dt is changing over time. About a million years ago, dt/dt was a value; and today the dt/dt is much lesser. In essence the rate of change of time varies with time. In other words, a duration of 1 second was longer about a million years ago, than what it is today. I cannot prove it, but looks like this hunch cannot be disproved either.
Firstly if it is illogical so what? Logic is given high status by those who seek to manipulate truth. Logic is a set of underlying rules that have been created, they were not pre existing, and therefore they are rules which only serve those who created them. Ergo logic is unreliable and much abused in human society. Anything can be 'proved' by logic. 🙄
Secondly, time has changed. It is known empirically by millions of people that time is not fixed, and varies under different conditions. Of course this has been dismissed by the 'scientific' community for the very reasons Sheldrake criticises.
And one last point, your comment seemed almost apologetic as though you feel the need to look for an outside 'authority' (logic, science etc.) to justify it, you don't. An opinion should stand alone and be judged on its individual merits. Does your argument have merits? Does it relate to experience and therefore have empirical value? Could it be of value to others?
The value of opinion is not in whether or not you can 'prove' what you are saying but in the thought it provokes in others, then those others can seek truth for themselves with the new ideas and knowledge those opinions brought forth.
真的很興奮 24種語言 就是沒有中文 讓我吸引些中文留言 重回6千萬點擊
Great Lecture! Thank you for translating to Hebrew.
Being justified at this moment by the holographic principle with fluctuating gauge fields in variable speed of light physics and Michael Levin’s work on bio electrical gradients. Non linear medical advances that are not mechanistic. Shows cancer is not based on genetics but rather the bio electrical gradient lack of communication over time.
So lack of communication is the problem, really? So we need a PT&T tech not a neuroscientiist.
What Dr. Rupert carelessly calls memory(a term.more easily understood by lay people )his theory of morphic resonance is actually,in its finer aspects, synchronocity of like
psychic waves which are not affected nor limited by physical distance (and perhaps, even by time), psychic waves present in all organisms in varying degrees according to each species.
The idea of "constants" in science is to assumptive in its generalization cuz constants could still vary in degrees, wave lengths or intensity and we still do not know how it stays constant or just seems so and what drives or influences it to remain as apparently constant?
.....too assumptive
...is too assumptive.
To quantify someone staring at you from behind is no easy task.... However its comming to a brain near you soon Teslas neuralink ;0) Challenging existing paradigms and redefining values.
This is a response to a year-old comment, I realize. Nevertheless...
Two items: Years ago I read of a study in which a small group of scientists observed a monkey inside a small cubicle from behind a one-way mirror. The monkey had the small patches on its head that indicated electrical changes in his brain.
When the scientists all stared at the monkey at once, it became distressed, looking all around, fretful. When the scientists averted their eyes, the monkey calmed. This was repeated a few times.
Second, anecdotal. As 10-year-olds, three friends and I did the same experiment sans equipment. We would stare in unison at Jimmy, who sat in the front row, maybe 5 rows in front of us. When we stared at the back of his head, he became agitated, turned, and looked directly at us. We instantly looked down at our books or wrote studiously. It always worked.
As I write this, I understand this was a sort of psychic bullying. Oh dear.
I can listen to this brilliant, barefoot man indefinitely👣💕
I'd like to know more about the ''habits'' of physics, and how we understand them.
Interesting talk, thank you.
Amazing talk!!
This is beautiful
That was really good!
@Rupert sheldrake I still can't get over your young face very confused sitting in front of j krishnamurti and dr david bohm.
Didn't this happened with mothers' milk with regards to SARS II? that is, developing nutrients in mothers milk to withstand these changes in dna?
Amazing!
"I AM SCIENCE, ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVE"
Mr. 'mad dog' Fauci
I don't agree much with him, but I'm aware that we need people exposing ideas clearly, even if those turn out to be wrong. We should blindly believe to the actual science.
wonder who the militant biologists were👀
Question a dogma? That takes a very brave or suicidal person; depending on period and location. Brrrrr.
Truth is established not by research (experimentation, testing, debate, and consensus); truth is established by heehoo-
-heehoo has the biggest guns.
Might is right, no? Hence the reign of various 'holy' churches (and equivalents).
Jogh, dogma is a bad and selflimmiting way of thinking.
A dogma is nothing but curddled milk and not reheatable.
A dogma is like curdlled milk that has outlived its usefulness.
Is this the full speech
No
Hey, TH-cam guys, are you trying to edit me out again cuz you are not printing my comments. Are you breing TEDish?
Hey, TH-cam guys! Are you trying to target me over others whose texts are long rambling accounts of intelligent nonsense or are you being TEDish is your attitude and assumptions?
🙏
Kind sir one ☝️ thing you might want to look at is the word and definition of Karma.
Banned?
He’s articulate but his logic is flawed. His ideas will remain a hypothesis not because they are radical, but because philosophy isn’t always reason.
Just as evolution remains an hypothesis. It would, in fact be impossible for what you heard to be anything but an hypothesis, since it was too broad to be definitive.
@@gerard4870 evolution isn’t a hypothesis. It’s classified as a theory because there are multiple efforts by other scientists which also come to the same conclusions because their own research has proven it. When it gets to a stage where the general scientific community observes the same analytical results using the same methods, it becomes a theory. It may then become a scientific law when there are no exceptions to the results. Such as the laws of physics.
Uh, Curvey, I hate to throw you a curved ball but there is no logic in the biological or psychological sciences cuz they are not fixed sciences and his discoveries may seem radical cause you are still in milk suckling stsge of your mental develpoment.
I can see why this talk was banned. Hold on let me go jump on a Unicorn and fly to Atlantis.
It's never hard finding the overconfident and undereducated....
of course it's "i llove free stuff" using Atlantis as an example of something that isn't real. Not woke. In all seriousness, why should things be banned because they're wrong? Are good ideas and rigorous debate not good enough? Your convictions seem weak, it is always good to refine and further understand your beliefs by having them challenged, even if it's by a guy who doesn't wear shoes.
Uh, love, his talks were banned cuz these guys (gals?)withTED are hard cored Catholics of the Ratzinger mentality. Not healthy to use religious dogma with scientific efforts. It's being childishly stubborn.
His argument (at 10:50) with the head of Metrology at the NPL about the speed of light is specious. The speed of light is used to calibrate distance measurement and now supersedes the old definition of the metre based on the marble slab in the Luxembourg Palace in Paris, since that is unsatisfactory because it varies with temperature and pressure. The new definition of the metre is the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum, 𝒸, to be 299 792 458 when expressed in the unit m s−1, where the second is defined in terms of the caesium frequency ∆ν.
That wasn't his point. 🙄
And, regardless, prove it. Every day. Forever. That WAS his point.
We should not really be over anxious about the speed of light but be more interested in the nature of light and how it affects biological reactions ,changes and development positively or negatively.
@@gerard4870 you are right, that was his point. However the point made by NPL is that to measure the speed of light you need an established physical standard of reference. The slab of marble won’t do, so you go back to the frequency of the caesium atom and time the light in the best vacuum you can get.
The basis of relativity is the invariance of the speed of light, an article of faith so far not experimentally disproven.