Morphic resonance and abstract rationality

"Give us one free miracle and we can explain everything else"

Rupert is not dismissing science but questioning scientific dogma which if jettisoned would allow science to become interesting and "I hope, life-affirming"

Natural Inclusion and many other ways of thinking and feeling support Rupert's contention. We must not blindly follow authoritarian dogma but question everything in the light of experience and observation.

Daily Pickings has highlighted the importance of resonance with nature and each other - morphic resonance appears to guide evolution and nature, not rigid laws and constants.

Comments   

 
0 #11 James Walter 2017-05-06 18:54
"False Assumption #10) Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works"

All the aforementioned faults - one more time. Science has actually proven that "the mind" matters with the immune system, in getting well. Many doctors recognize the power of the mind in health. Some doctors do both sides. Of course, many doctors specialize and the old British saying aptly applies, "Nothing works like leather". This is human - just as Rupert Sheldrake is human. I believe in learning, comparing, asking questions when it is important.
At any rate, my bottom line is that existence (i.e. everything in infinite matter and infinitesimal detail), the infinite space it occupies in the infinity of time from and to infinity), that is not explainable - it is the only miracle - everything else is just incalculable physics - though short runs using educated efforts can bring realistically imagined outcomes.
 
 
0 #10 James Walter 2017-05-06 18:35
"False Assumption #9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory"

Again, overgeneralizin g and uses strawmen. I believe in mental telepathy and have a scientific hypothesis about it. I am not alone. The facts from recorded history have proven it a significant number of times. Wives who woke up at exactly the time their husband was killed in the war, etc.
Emanuel Swedenborg told about ongoing fires, predicted his own death. No trickery in these accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg
I cannot account for how he predicted his death unless it was some type of awareness of his body - just sensing and calculating - the human mind is a super novenary (9 base number) computer. And one more time, the burden of proof is on the asserter - but my hypothesis is that minds are like radios - they have complex electrical "circuits" with pulsed electric currents. Pulsed electric currents produce magnetic radio waves. A radio receiver and a radio transmitter are very similar. So the hypothesis is that our brains can act like radios - some people have more efficient output and reception.
But again he creates two dimensional strawmen. Show a real scientist the proof and he/she will change his mind - but there are not many real scientists out there - publish or perish
 
 
0 #9 James Walter 2017-05-06 18:00
"False Assumption #8) Memories are stored chemically in the brain and disappear at death.
"In summary, modern scientists believe that memories are stored chemically, using the brain as some sort of biological hard drive, and that if they could only find the location of the brain in which these chemicals are stored, they could literally "read your mind" like copying files from a thumb drive.

"This assumption is wildly off the mark. I'm convinced that memories are holographically stored across not only brain matter itself, but also in a non-material spirit matrix of some sort which interacts with the physical brain."

He says, "Wildly off the mark" and gives not one shred of evidence!?! He proposes "holographicall y stored" in a non-material spirit matrix." Fine. Where is the proof, the model of how it works, etc.? That is science. Not making assertions that cannot be proven.
 
 
0 #8 James Walter 2017-05-06 17:56
"False Assumption #7) There is no such thing as a "mind" other than an artifact of brain function...I find it bewildering that most modern-day scientists still do not dare acknowledge the existence of the "mind" -- a non-material awareness / presence / consciousness that coexists with the brain but is not derived from the mechanics and chemistry of the brain.

"Comically, many scientists use their minds to attempt to disprove the existence of all minds. They would like us to believe self-awareness is an illusion or that terms like "mind" or "consciousness" are just "word tricks" used to talk about brain chemistry, not actual concepts that really exist.

"But they have failed. To date, there is no scientific proof whatsoever that supports the odd notion that consciousness does not exist or that the mind is not present in a conscious being..."

More mind reading, overgeneralizin g, and twisting. I and most scientists know we have a consciousness and therefore some type of "mind" - interesting that he does not define it. And Korzybski would chide that no one word says a flipping thing - it is the context, the similarity to reality that counts - which single words cannot do.
 
 
0 #7 James Walter 2017-05-06 17:51
False Assumption #6) All biological inheritance is material, carried in DNA.

More overgeneralizin g, false connection, and dated. That may have been the majority view at one time, but scientists in the field have embraced epigenetics and are studying it - do not believe that DNA is the only source of change. They do believe that it is materially inherited:a consensus definition of the epigenetic trait, "stably heritable phenotype resulting from changes in a chromosome without alterations in the DNA sequence",

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics.
 
 
0 #6 James Walter 2017-05-06 17:43
Part 2 of False Assumption 5. He is using press BS, not science: "consider the fact that although many thousands of humanoid-like fossils have been unearthed in the last two centuries, there are still no fossils that record the theoretical "missing link" which is supposed to link humans to primates."

"Again, the press are talking about “the missing link“. Let’s get one thing clear. There is no missing link. Rather, there are an indefinite number of missing branches. To have a missing link, you need to visualize evolution as a chain. If there’s a gap in the chain, then you have a missing link. But evolution, at least at the scale of animals and plants, is mostly a tree. And all we see are individual nodes of the tree, the extant species that form, in Darwin’s metaphor, the leaves of the living tree, and the extinct species that form branching points deeper in the tree. But we do not have enough information to know the shape of the tree for all but the smallest twigs and larger branches. There may be, for all we know, millions of missing species. We might have a species that is an ancestor of some other species, and yet not know enough to say that they are indeed the ancestor in question."

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/05/11/there-is-no-missing-link/

"The "missing link" is a term often thrown around by the media to describe fossils that are believed to bridge the evolutionary split between higher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans. Many scientists cringe when it's used, because it often suggests far more importance and meaning a given discovery actually holds."
http://www.livescience.com/32530-what-is-the-missing-link.html
 
 
0 #5 James Walter 2017-05-06 17:38
False Assumption #5) Nature is purposeless, with no goal or direction.

Illogical statement. "Nature", if you mean matter without a physical mind cannot have a purpose. Only intelligences can create a purpose, figure out a desired path. Again, prove that nature has a goal or philosophical direction - obviously there are many things going many directions.
 
 
+1 #4 James Walter 2017-05-06 17:34
False Assumption #4) The laws of nature are fixed.
No. Scientists do not assume that they are fixed. They demand that you prove they are not fixed. Since no one has, then working models ignore that possibility.
 
 
0 #3 James Walter 2017-05-06 17:32
False Assumption #3) The total amount of matter and energy is always a constant
This assumption of modern science is especially suspicious given that even conventional cosmologists readily admit that 96% of the universe has yet to be detected at all.

Again he overgeneralizes . Only scientists who believe in the Big Bang. Science is not a democracy. The majority have often, usually are wrong. What scientists really believe is that matter is energy - a type of gyroscope energy - energy whirling or whatever around a center point, a phenomena that we call matter. The amount of both energy and matter is infinite, like space.
 
 
0 #2 James Walter 2017-05-06 17:26
False Assumption #2) All matter is unconscious...t he fact that most modern scientists do not believe they are, themselves, conscious beings....

Bull! I am most scientists believe we are conscious. Show us the proof that hydrogen atoms are conscious - or any other simple matter. Do microbes have a consciousness - are they aware of their surroundings? Some have sensors and therefore have a limited consciousness. But only when we get to actual brains do we see the scratch pad memory large enough to do complex "awareness" such as quantum mechanics, that can reflect on the death and complex futures. And Again, the burden of proof lies with the asserter - where is your proof that any simple matter has a consciousness. If someone actually does, science will accommodate it eventually (Scientists are people who resist being found wrong)
 

Please register to post comments