subject:"Is Sheldrake credible \? I personally think so."

Hi Alberto G. Corona  

I have no problem with natural selection, it is a reasonable hypothesis. 
But natural selection implies some form of intelligence, which materialism 
cannot explain. 



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/7/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Alberto G. Corona  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-07, 07:05:29 
Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


it is perfectly possible to accept natural selection with all the implication 
in genetics without being a materialist. 


The materialism is a superfluous ideological substrate. ?heldrake is right 
about this critic of materialism. I? not materialist, and I accept Natural 
selection. ?aterialism is the logical consequence of the distrust of the human 
intellect that was Nominalism. This distrust ?ondemned to?n-existence any inner 
knowledge and ?eified only what produced effect that other can observe in the 
short term (complex and long term effects were disqualified because they where 
not so easily observable). So material is anything experimental, that is 
anything that is enough simple and enough?mmediate?o be observable by many. 
This excludes long term, complex knowledge imprinted in the mind innately?r 
culturally by natural or social selection. Then the common sense, the human 
aspirations, motivations and beliefs, are condemned to subjectivity, and 
rejected as object of study, only as matter of belief for the believers or a 
matter of engineering for the nonbelievers. 
?? not being materialist besides I accept natural Selection. NS is not an ?gent 
of causation on the deep. neither matter is. Matter is ??ubstrate. It is? the 
sensible part that we perceive. this perception is composed by the mind, from 
the input of the anthropically selected mathematical reality. 


Natural selection only happens ?or beings living in time like us. From a 
timeless view, from above, the universe has spacetime locations where there is 
no dynamic of selection. There are only existence and inexistence. there are 
good spacetime trajectories that diverge and flourish and bad ones that are 
death paths. ?hese paths have precise physiological and social laws in the same 
whay that they have phisical laws, that are derived from ?he mathematical 
structure of reality that indeed IMHO are a consequence of the antrophic 
principle of existence of the mind.? 


It seems that the mind is computation, but the physical substrate, which is 
ultimately?athematical, only?eflect this computation as well as the mind, but 
matter, being a product of the mind, can?not ?e?the causation of the mind. 


As a product of the mind, ?atter is a proxy for the study of the mind. trough 
natural selection.. Because NS is how we, as temporal beings perceive the very 
long term coherence between the mind and the anthropicallly selected 
mathematical reality 





2013/1/6 Platonist Guitar Cowboy  




On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Roger Clough  wrote: 

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
? 
You've obviously never watched one of Sheldrake's 
lectures.  

Watched, listened, and even read some things a few years back. I sincerely 
tried to open my mind, but when I realized I was forcing that, instead of doing 
my homework, I dropped him. Doesn't mean he hasn't changed, but what you posted 
sounds like the old song. Maybe my prejudice.  
? 
All of his speculations are supported with  
empirical data. You'll find some of it on his website, 
others in his books and lectures.  


Aware of that. 
? 
I?atched the first hour of McKenna's lecture as given below,  
It was essentially a promo for taking drugs, and it showed no data, 
so finding him distasteful after watching for an hour, I gave up. 
? 

May I ask what approximate criteria you associate with taste in this case?  

? 
So where's all of McKenna's data? 

He never pretended to have any. He's self-avowed fool: the object of this talk 
is that you never have to hear this sort of thing again in your life; you can 
put that behind you paraphrased from video. 
? 
I think he died about a decade ago 
of some brain problem (could it have been from taking drugs?). 

Begging. 
? 
His brother became a drug addict also, don't know what happened to him. 
? 


Same again, which seems to indicate you don't really care. Otherwise one google 
search and click would've wikied you this on a silver plate: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_McKenna 
PGC  



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]  
1/5/2013  

Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen  
- Receiving the following content -  

From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-05, 07:15:28  

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.  



Hi Everythingsters,  

When things get a little fringe, I want the best bang for my buck (time 
reading/listening in this case). Here Sheldrake only

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Hi Stephen P. King 

Its simple. Quantum mechanics is nonphysical (is only mathematical).


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/7/2013 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-06, 16:34:51
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/6/2013 3:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Stephen P. King

 I think what was meant was the inverse, namely that
 no consistent materialist can believe in quantum mechanics.

 Ah. OK. I would like to see an explanation of this claim if I had 
the time for such minutia.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Hi meekerdb 

OK. I overreacted.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/7/2013 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-06, 16:19:52
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


No, I meant that quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, general relativity, 
are all 
current models of matter and it's interaction. So it is silly to say QFT is 
immaterial. 
Of cours it's immaterial; it's a *theory*. But it's a theory of matter (and a 
very good 
one). So to say a materialist can't 'believe in' QFT is confused.

Brent

On 1/6/2013 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Stephen P. King

 I think what was meant was the inverse, namely that
 no consistent materialist can believe in quantum mechanics.


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/6/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Stephen P. King
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-06, 15:31:01
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


 On 1/6/2013 3:14 PM, meekerdb wrote:

 On 1/6/2013 11:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
 On 1/6/2013 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:

 So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism can't 
 very well be scientific dogma as you keep asserting.

 Brent

 Hi Brent,

 I think that you are taking as evidence the lack of overt statements as 
 evidence. Any person that is marxist, for example, is a materialist, by 
 definition...



 So how many physicists are marxists in the philosophical sense. I don't know 
 even one.

 Brent

 Hi,

 OK, so we can safely discount your claims about no physicists since 
 Schrodinger are materialists... My point is that the lack of a direct 
 statement in some particular form, like I am a materialist does not act as 
 proof that no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. It only tells 
 us some of the limits of your personal knowledge.
 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Hi meekerdb 

Quantum fields are nonphysical, since they do not exist in spacetime.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/7/2013 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-06, 16:23:37
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/6/2013 12:59 PM, Roger Clough wrote: 
quantum physics, which is nonphysical

A new record.  You've contradicted yourself in only five words.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-07 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

 You're allowed to have that opinion, or any opinion.

 We're different. I am a retired laboratory scientist and
 a pragmatist to boot.  So to me, data trumnps everything.
 So I will believe that the moon is made of green cheese
 if there's data to suppport that.




Not to me, I'll give you that.

Data is as important as who is delivering the data and how it was
collected, as data is hardly separable from belief about data.

And you wouldn't believe the moon is made of green cheese, because you'd
probably not like the data's taste and stop reading/listening in under an
hour, well before the conclusion of the talk or paper, as you show above
with McKenna, when you throw out ten videos for everyone to see, but will
not be able to finish just one, posted by the same youtube uploader you
chose, that somebody in this thread puts up, clicking on your links. This
paints a picture, I do not have to elaborate.

Drugs and their promotion, entirely misses McKenna's narrative focus as
the semantics with which you use the term, do not apply to what he's
talking about. Drugs in your usage do not exist, implying some definite
ethical line between permissible and non-permissible pleasures, which is
about as far removed from McKenna's speculations as you can get.

It's seems not surprising that you don't listen to a talk, when you post
ten.
PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-07 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 06 Jan 2013, at 20:07, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 1/6/2013 6:56 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social  
consequiences. When I say A. I don´t only say A is true. I say  
also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set of  
my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you  
must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status  
than you, the reluctant.


As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in  
natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is  
associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of  
ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy  
of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep, much to  
gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary  
question.  The creatie, syncere founders are substituted by media  
polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio.


This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the  
former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX  
century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the  
minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying  
free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews  
are  in many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality  
controls.


As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a  
separation of State and science as much as was necessary a  
separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique  
church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science  
dominated by the state is a danger for any science.


The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical  
consequence of  the a philosophical stance of protestantism: the  
Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and  
separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the  
knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek  
philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common  
sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in  
the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common  
sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the  
individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical  
revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively  
dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic  
relativism as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where  
common sense is still supported by the faith.


 The other cause were the wars of religion among christian  
denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between  
church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to  
religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was  
admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of  
political religion. This political religion was teist at the  
beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist,  
following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the  
progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence  
of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform  
gave birth).


In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country  
history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic,  
try to destroy national identity of each individual european  
country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration  
worldviews. This is in part, no matter how shockig is, the logical  
evolution of the agreement that ended the religious wars of the XVI  
century.


In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the  
transcendence in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the  
divine has a plan, and people belive in the divine, the legitimacy  
of the state, in the hearths fo the people, becomes real when the  
nation-state is inserted in this divine plan.


When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among them,  
the  state took over Science to legitimate itself, because the  
State no longer had the transcendence as an option to suppor his  
legitimacy. the legitimacy of the state was supported by a  
materialistic sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from any  
heterodoxy.


So there is the current science, an image of the state political  
religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist.




Hi!

Excellent post!


OK.

Bruno








2013/1/4 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

very few scientists

Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically  
prove what he claims.
The results are in his books. Some have been published in New  
Scientist.


See http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/


A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its  
opponents and making them see the light, but rather

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-07 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi meekerdb

Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are  
inconsistent

if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical.



All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist  
theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non  
physical things with some class of physical phenomena.


Careful, in philosophy of mind, materialism means only matter  
fundamentally exists. But comp is already contradicting weak  
materialism, the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among  
possible other things).


Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist  
( (which is stronger and is necessary with comp). But even them are  
still often physicalist. They still believe that everything is  
explainable from the behavior of matter (even if that matter is  
entirely ontologically justified in pure math).


Comp refutes this. Physics becomes the art of the numbers to guess  
what are the most common universal numbers supporting them in their  
neighborhood, well even the invariant part of this.


Bruno





[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/6/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb

Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and
functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't  
materialists.


So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists.  So materialism  
can't very well be scientific dogma as you keep asserting.


Brent



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/6/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist

Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma
(such as materialism) any day.

It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being  
dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved  
metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all  
immaterial.


Brent

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date:  
01/03/13
--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy 

Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/7/2013 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-07, 08:33:45
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.





On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
?
You're allowed to have that opinion, or any opinion.
?
We're different. I am a retired laboratory scientist and
a pragmatist to boot. ?o to me, data trumnps everything.
So I will believe that the moon is made of green cheese
if there's data to suppport that.
?
?

Not to me, I'll give you that. 

Data is as important as who is delivering the data and how it was collected, as 
data is hardly separable from belief about data.

And you wouldn't believe the moon is made of green cheese, because you'd 
probably not like the data's taste and stop reading/listening in under an hour, 
well before the conclusion of the talk or paper, as you show above with 
McKenna, when you throw out ten videos for everyone to see, but will not be 
able to finish just one, posted by the same youtube uploader you chose, that 
somebody in this thread puts up, clicking on your links. This paints a picture, 
I do not have to elaborate.

Drugs and their promotion, entirely misses McKenna's narrative focus as the 
semantics with which you use the term, do not apply to what he's talking about. 
Drugs in your usage do not exist, implying some definite ethical line between 
permissible and non-permissible pleasures, which is about as far removed from 
McKenna's speculations as you can get.

It's seems not surprising that you don't listen to a talk, when you post ten.
PGC




? ? 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories
quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/7/2013 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi meekerdb

 Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are 
 inconsistent
 if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical.


All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist 
theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non 
physical things with some class of physical phenomena.

Careful, in philosophy of mind, materialism means only matter 
fundamentally exists. But comp is already contradicting weak 
materialism, the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among 
possible other things).

Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist 
( (which is stronger and is necessary with comp). But even them are 
still often physicalist. They still believe that everything is 
explainable from the behavior of matter (even if that matter is 
entirely ontologically justified in pure math).

Comp refutes this. Physics becomes the art of the numbers to guess 
what are the most common universal numbers supporting them in their 
neighborhood, well even the invariant part of this.

Bruno




 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/6/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: meekerdb
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


 On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi meekerdb

 Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and
 functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't 
 materialists.

 So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism 
 can't very well be scientific dogma as you keep asserting.

 Brent



 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/6/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: meekerdb
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


 On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma
 (such as materialism) any day.

 It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being 
 dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved 
 metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all 
 immaterial.

 Brent

 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date: 
 01/03/13
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
 .

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
 .


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-07 Thread meekerdb


On 1/7/2013 3:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
You're allowed to have that opinion, or any opinion.
We're different. I am a retired laboratory scientist and
a pragmatist to boot.  So to me, data trumnps everything.
So I will believe that the moon is made of green cheese
if there's data to suppport that.



Nobody believes a theory, except the guy who thought of it.
Everbody believes an experiment, except the guy who did it.
 --- Leon Lederman, Nobel prize winner, physics

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-07 Thread meekerdb


On 1/7/2013 4:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

But natural selection implies some form of intelligence,


You don't understand evolution.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-06 Thread Alberto G. Corona

A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. When I
say A. I don´t only say A is true. I say also that because A is true
and you must accept it because a set of my socially reputated fellows of me
did something to affirm it, you must believe it, and, more important, I
deserve a superior status than you, the reluctant.

As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in natural
selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated from the
beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter the intentions
or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a
power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth
becomes a secondary question.  The creatie, syncere founders are
substituted by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio.

This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the former
when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, because
science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum common
denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry which was
vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are  in many sofft disciplines,
filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls.

As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a separation
of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion of State and
church: Because a state with a unique church of science is a danger for
freedom, and because a science dominated by the state is a danger for any
science.

The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical
consequence of  the a philosophical stance of protestantism: the
Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated
dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of the
things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. Mind-soul and
matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the Nous were not a
matter of science and reason, like in the greek philosophy (what is
reasonable included what makes common sense, just like it is now in common
parlancy), but a matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of
the biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively
dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism
as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where common sense is still
supported by the faith.

 The other cause were the wars of religion among christian denominations,
that endend up in a agreement of separation between church and state, where
any conflictive view was relegated to religion as faith, and only the
minimum common denominator was admitted as a foundation for politics, This
MCD was a form of political religion. This political religion was teist at
the beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist,
following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the progressive
secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence of the nominalism
and the proliferation of faiths that the reform gave birth).

In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country history,
and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, try to destroy
national identity of each individual european country, in the effort to
accomodate the incoming inmigration worldviews. This is in part, no matter
how shockig is, the logical evolution of the agreement that ended the
religious wars of the XVI century.

In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the transcendence
in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the divine has a plan, and
people belive in the divine, the legitimacy of the state, in the hearths fo
the people, becomes real when the nation-state is inserted in this divine
plan.

When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among them, the
 state took over Science to legitimate itself, because the State no longer
had the transcendence as an option to suppor his legitimacy. the legitimacy
of the state was supported by a materialistic sciece, subsidized,
controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy.

So there is the current science, an image of the state political religion,
Multicultural, relativistic and materialist.




2013/1/4 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

  On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King

 very few scientists

 Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he 
 claims.
 The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist.

 See http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/


 *A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
 and making them see the light http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Light, but
 rather because its opponents eventually 
 diehttp://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Death,
 and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck.*

 --
 Onward!

 Stephen

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-06 Thread Roger Clough

Hi meekerdb 

Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and 
functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't materialists.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/6/2013 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
Hi Richard Ruquist  

Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma 
(such as materialism) any day. 

It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being dogmatic 
materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved metric space, 
quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all immaterial.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-06 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/6/2013 6:56 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. 
When I say A. I don´t only say A is true. I say also that because 
A is true and you must accept it because a set of my socially 
reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you must believe 
it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status than you, the 
reluctant.


As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in 
natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated 
from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter 
the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the 
founders. There is a power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as 
time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary question.  The creatie, 
syncere founders are substituted by media polemizers and mediocre 
defenders of the status quio.


This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the 
former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, 
because science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum 
common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry 
which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are  in many 
sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls.


As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a 
separation of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion 
of State and church: Because a state with a unique church of science 
is a danger for freedom, and because a science dominated by the state 
is a danger for any science.


The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical 
consequence of  the a philosophical stance of protestantism: the 
Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated 
dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of 
the things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. 
Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the 
Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in the greek 
philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common sense, just 
like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the individual 
spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical revelation. The problem 
is that this umbrela progressively dissapeared, and with it, common 
sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the 
exception of USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith.


 The other cause were the wars of religion among christian 
denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between 
church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to religion 
as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was admitted as a 
foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of political religion. 
This political religion was teist at the beginning (As is not in USA) 
laater deist and now is materialist, following a path of progressive 
reduction to accomodate the progressive secularization (which indeed 
was a logical consequence of the nominalism and the proliferation of 
faiths that the reform gave birth).


In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country 
history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, 
try to destroy national identity of each individual european country, 
in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration worldviews. This 
is in part, no matter how shockig is, the logical evolution of the 
agreement that ended the religious wars of the XVI century.


In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the 
transcendence in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the 
divine has a plan, and people belive in the divine, the legitimacy of 
the state, in the hearths fo the people, becomes real when the 
nation-state is inserted in this divine plan.


When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among them, the 
 state took over Science to legitimate itself, because the State no 
longer had the transcendence as an option to suppor his legitimacy. 
the legitimacy of the state was supported by a materialistic sciece, 
subsidized, controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy.


So there is the current science, an image of the state political 
religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist.




Hi!

Excellent post!





2013/1/4 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net 
mailto:stephe...@charter.net


On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

very few scientists

Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he 
claims.
The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist.

Seehttp://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/  


*A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see thelight
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Light, but rather because its
opponents eventuallydie

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-06 Thread meekerdb


On 1/6/2013 11:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 1/6/2013 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists.  So materialism can't very well be 
scientific dogma as you keep asserting.


Brent

Hi Brent,

I think that you are taking as evidence the lack of overt statements as evidence. 
Any person that is marxist, for example, is a materialist, by definition...




So how many physicists are marxists in the philosophical sense.  I don't know 
even one.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-06 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/6/2013 3:14 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/6/2013 11:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 1/6/2013 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists.  So materialism 
can't very well be scientific dogma as you keep asserting.


Brent

Hi Brent,

I think that you are taking as evidence the lack of overt 
statements as evidence. Any person that is marxist, for example, is a 
materialist, by definition...




So how many physicists are marxists in the philosophical sense. I 
don't know even one.


Brent

Hi,

OK, so we can safely discount your claims about no physicists 
since Schrodinger are materialists... My point is that the lack of a 
direct statement in some particular form, like I am a materialist does 
not act as proof that no physicists since Schrodinger are 
materialists. It only tells us some of the limits of your personal 
knowledge.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-06 Thread Roger Clough

Hi meekerdb  

Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are inconsistent 
if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/6/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: meekerdb  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote:  
Hi meekerdb  

Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and  
functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't materialists. 

So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists.  So materialism can't very 
well be scientific dogma as you keep asserting. 

Brent 



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/6/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: meekerdb  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:  
Hi Richard Ruquist   

Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma  
(such as materialism) any day.  

It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being dogmatic 
materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved metric space, 
quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all immaterial. 

Brent 

No virus found in this message. 
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date: 01/03/13 
--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-06 Thread meekerdb


On 1/6/2013 12:59 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

quantum physics, which is nonphysical


A new record.  You've contradicted yourself in only five words.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-06 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/6/2013 3:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

I think what was meant was the inverse, namely that
no consistent materialist can believe in quantum mechanics.


Ah. OK. I would like to see an explanation of this claim if I had 
the time for such minutia.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-06 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

 You've obviously never watched one of Sheldrake's
 lectures.


Watched, listened, and even read some things a few years back. I sincerely
tried to open my mind, but when I realized I was forcing that, instead of
doing my homework, I dropped him. Doesn't mean he hasn't changed, but what
you posted sounds like the old song. Maybe my prejudice.


 All of his speculations are supported with
 empirical data. You'll find some of it on his website,
 others in his books and lectures.


Aware of that.


 I watched the first hour of McKenna's lecture as given below,
 It was essentially a promo for taking drugs, and it showed no data,
 so finding him distasteful after watching for an hour, I gave up.



May I ask what approximate criteria you associate with taste in this case?



 So where's all of McKenna's data?


He never pretended to have any. He's self-avowed fool: the object of this
talk is that you never have to hear this sort of thing again in your life;
you can put that behind you paraphrased from video.


 I think he died about a decade ago
 of some brain problem (could it have been from taking drugs?).


Begging.


 His brother became a drug addict also, don't know what happened to him.



Same again, which seems to indicate you don't really care. Otherwise one
google search and click would've wikied you this on a silver plate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_McKenna
PGC



 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/5/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-05, 07:15:28
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


 Hi Everythingsters,

 When things get a little fringe, I want the best bang for my buck (time
 reading/listening in this case). Here Sheldrake only delivers when held in
 check by McKenna and Abraham, even if not stunning.


 On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roger Clough wrote:



 Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis
 by loadedshaman?1 year ago?15,768 views
 Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995)
 1:05:49


 Otherwise, I find Sheldrake rather a sleeping pill. If we're gonna step
 into areas of wild speculation, then I want the writer/speaker to go as far
 as they can, instead of charting out curiosities as cracks in the sciences.

 Thus I simply prefer McKenna as wild speculator, as he at least leaves a
 trail for 1p to convince themselves of the trajectory of his speculation.
 So 1p can do some things to verify to a certain extent the wild
 propositions, and perhaps one day to lay things out more formally.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQfC4WRg-g

 With Sheldrake, you're sort of just left with the speculation, and there's
 no harness whatsoever, which is why I fall asleep so quickly.
 PGC

 ?


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.+everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+
 unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. +unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.+everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+
 unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. +unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.+everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+
 unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. +unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-05 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

Hi Everythingsters,

When things get a little fringe, I want the best bang for my buck (time
reading/listening in this case). Here Sheldrake only delivers when held in
check by McKenna and Abraham, even if not stunning.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:



1. Terence McKenna, Rupert *Sheldrake*, Ralph Abraham - 
 Metamorphosishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYOC_IFmWzE

by loadedshaman http://www.youtube.com/user/loadedshaman•1 year 
 ago•15,768
views

Terence McKenna, Rupert *Sheldrake*, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis
(1995)
 2. [image: Thumbnail]1:05:49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MOzlSF0a8M


 Otherwise, I find Sheldrake rather a sleeping pill. If we're gonna step
into areas of wild speculation, then I want the writer/speaker to go as far
as they can, instead of charting out curiosities as cracks in the sciences.

Thus I simply prefer McKenna as wild speculator, as he at least leaves a
trail for 1p to convince themselves of the trajectory of his speculation.
So 1p can do some things to verify to a certain extent the wild
propositions, and perhaps one day to lay things out more formally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQfC4WRg-g

With Sheldrake, you're sort of just left with the speculation, and there's
no harness whatsoever, which is why I fall asleep so quickly.
PGC




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-05 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

You've obviously never watched one of Sheldrake's
lectures. All of his speculations are supported with 
empirical data. You'll find some of it on his website,
others in his books and lectures. 

I watched the first hour of McKenna's lecture as given below, 
It was essentially a promo for taking drugs, and it showed no data,
so finding him distasteful after watching for an hour, I gave up.

So where's all of McKenna's data ? I think he died about a decade ago
of some brain problem (could it have been from taking drugs?).
His brother became a drug addict also, don't know what happened to him.
  


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/5/2013 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-05, 07:15:28 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


Hi Everythingsters, 

When things get a little fringe, I want the best bang for my buck (time 
reading/listening in this case). Here Sheldrake only delivers when held in 
check by McKenna and Abraham, even if not stunning. 


On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roger Clough wrote: 



Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis 
by loadedshaman?1 year ago?15,768 views 
Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 
1:05:49 


Otherwise, I find Sheldrake rather a sleeping pill. If we're gonna step into 
areas of wild speculation, then I want the writer/speaker to go as far as they 
can, instead of charting out curiosities as cracks in the sciences. 

Thus I simply prefer McKenna as wild speculator, as he at least leaves a trail 
for 1p to convince themselves of the trajectory of his speculation. So 1p can 
do some things to verify to a certain extent the wild propositions, and perhaps 
one day to lay things out more formally. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQfC4WRg-g 

With Sheldrake, you're sort of just left with the speculation, and there's no 
harness whatsoever, which is why I fall asleep so quickly. 
PGC 

? 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 04 Jan 2013, at 09:24, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to
prove and call materialism bad science.

You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the
superstitious who don't even know what materialism means. They
are 90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant 90%.

I think he is the vanguard
of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas.

So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be
replicated?

A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because
materialism
can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must
be physical).

That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain
consciousness. Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the
head changes your consciousness.

It does not. Or you have to tell the flaw in UDA, or to give your (no-
comp) theory of mind, and the materialist explanation.

Bruno

Brent
The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you
are the easiest person for you to fool.
--- with apologies to R. Feynman

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-05 Thread Roger Clough

Hi meekerdb 

By quanta I meant quantum fields. These are
merely mathematical fields of no substance. 

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/5/2013 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-04, 16:49:55
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/4/2013 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi meekerdb

 1) Materialists don't have any dogmas. Just ask one of them.

Theists have nothing but dogmas and you don't have to ask them, they tell you, 
e.g. one of 
their dogmas is that materialism is wrong, humans have immortal souls, and God 
will punish 
you if you don't like Him.

 2) quanta are not materials.

If electrons and quarks aren't material, what is?

 3) materialism cannot accept empty space, since it isn't a material.

What is this accept? Is it like have faith in? Does it mean accept as 
dogma? Most 
models of the physical world include empty space (although 'empty' is relative 
to the model).

Brent


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/4/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: meekerdb
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-04, 03:14:17
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


 On 1/3/2013 11:47 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Russell Standish

 Most scientific publications are based on the 19th century religious cult of 
 materialism,
 which dogmatically rejects mind and spirit for atheistic purposes (not 
 reasons, there are none).
 Do you have any citations showing where this dogma is written down?

 It cannot deal with fields at all,
 Ever hear of quantum *field* theory.

 for example the theory of relativity, since that
 theory asserts that there is no such thing as space (and yet it works).
 General relativity is a theory of metric space.

 M does not
 believe in fields, for they are anathema: immaterial, purely mathematical.
 So of course monads and morphisms are nonsense to a materialist.
 He lives in a fantasy world.
 You must be living in some other world to think scientist cannot deal with 
 fields - a
 concept they invented.

 Brent


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/4/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Russell Standish
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-03, 18:32:37
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


 On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
 While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish
 them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives
 arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last
 person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian
 Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012.

 Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where
 almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my
 last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
 Richard
 I'm sceptical of Sheldrake's explanation in terms of morphic fields
 (or even monads). It makes no sense. However, the empirical effect he
 observed may well stand. We should probe such results, test for any
 methodological flaws, and if they continue to hold up, look for
 alternative explanations that might work.

 Of course it is a hard row to hoe. A few years ago, I had some
 empirical results that literally flew in the face of neutral evolution
 thoery
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). I
 could not get these results published, and got treated by scorn by
 journal referees. Then after about a year of thought, I worked out the
 mechanism - in the end it was quite a simple, but nevertheless real
 effect. This time, the paper was accepted without question.

 You can see the resulting paper at arXiv:nlin.AO/0404012

 In spite of thise result having quite profound implications for
 things like the molecular clock idea, AFAIK, nobody has investigated
 whether anything like this happens in real biology.

 It does also stand as an example of what is required to publish
 contra-paradigmatic results.

 Cheers

 -- 

 
 Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
 

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-05 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Richard Ruquist  

Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma 
(such as materialism) any day.  


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/5/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Richard Ruquist  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-04, 08:31:56 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Stephen P. King  wrote: 
 On 1/4/2013 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: 
 
 On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: 
 
 I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference 
 a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic 
 fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I 
 and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion 
 condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions. 
 
 In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov 
 for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could 
 well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic 
 field. 
 
 An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between 
 physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of 
 the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a 
 physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe 
 that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC, 
 more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM. 
 
 The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness 
 presented at that conference that may of of interest: 
 http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html 
 Richard 
 
 Hi Richard, 
 
 I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any 
 substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other 
 representationally? 

Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs 
certainly can copy each others configurations. 

 
 
 More from the paper: Briefly the model of consciousness is that 
 Cooper-pair layers of positive and negative half-spin axions couple to the 
 ?orporeal? physical brain on one (metaphorical) side, and to an 
 ?ncorporeal? higher self or soul composed of half-spin axions on the other. 
 The incorporeal layer is said by Jerome to be a living, sentient life-form. 
 The actual coupling mechanism to the brain is also incorporeal, i.e. not 
 chemical or electrical, consistent with Bohm theory below. 
 
 How is this qualitatively different from Descartes postulation of the 
 Pinial gland as the point where res extensa and res cognitas met and 
 interact? The Stone duality idea works so much better that applies to any 
 logical structure and its dual, particles or axion are just versions of 
 Stone spaces in my thinking! (And there is no dependence on temperature for 
 their isomorphism to hold!) 
 
 -- 
 Onward! 
 
 Stephen 
 
I expect that a physical BEC pervades the entire brain if not the body 
sorta along the lines of the Penrose-Hamerof microtuble model. I 
previously mentioned to you that the Calabi-Tau compact manifolds 
appear to have the properties of a Stone space. But I cannot remember 
my reasoning. I also do not understand the relationship of the axions 
to the compact manifolds. However, on another list a fellow made an 
interesting case based on evolution that the volume of the pineal 
gland contains our thinking. 
Richard 
Richard 



 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group. 
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-05 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/4/2013 6:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:

On 1/4/2013 8:31 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Hi Richard,

 I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any
substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other
representationally?

Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs
certainly can copy each others configurations.


Hi Richard,

 This ability to copy each others configuration , does it give us some
thing like representability? What does representability mean to you?

Well in the Consciousness Canonizer my string consciousness model is
listed or categorized under Representational Qualia Theory but I do
not really have an appreciation for what that means

The Stanford Encyl has an article on Representational Theories of
Consciousness which says that intentionality is representation???
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-representational/

That defines a word in terms of another word that I do not understand-
a problem I often have on this list. However further into the article
is a clarifying sentence:

 Like public, social cases of representation such as writing or
mapmaking, intentional states such as beliefs have truth-value; they
entail or imply other beliefs; they are (it seems) composed of
concepts and depend for their truth on a match between their internal
structures and the way the world is; and so it is natural to regard
their aboutness as a matter of mental referring or designation. 

So I conclude that this is quite different issue from one BEC copying
what exists in another BEC.


Hi Richard,

Yes. Copying states and representing states are not the same thing.



Representionality is closer to IMO Godelian incompleteness or
Marchal's CTM wherein beliefs and truth, etc. can be represented. I do
not know how.


Representations are about things, they are not themselves things 
in the physical sense and yet physical processes can act as media on 
which representations can be rendered. Representations are strange in 
that they can be about other representations, even themselves. It is 
this property, more than any other, that distinguished minds from bodies.



But my conjecture is that whatever representations exist in the CTM
BEC of string theory  can be copied into the BEC of (human brain)
physical consciousness, and vice versa. This is essentially a
mind/body duality.
Richard



yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a 
solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's 
idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct 
aspects of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan 
Pratt explains this in his paper: http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-05 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
 On 1/4/2013 6:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
 wrote:

 On 1/4/2013 8:31 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Hi Richard,

  I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any
 substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other
 representationally?

 Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs
 certainly can copy each others configurations.

 Hi Richard,

  This ability to copy each others configuration , does it give us
 some
 thing like representability? What does representability mean to you?

 Well in the Consciousness Canonizer my string consciousness model is
 listed or categorized under Representational Qualia Theory but I do
 not really have an appreciation for what that means

 The Stanford Encyl has an article on Representational Theories of
 Consciousness which says that intentionality is representation???
 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-representational/

 That defines a word in terms of another word that I do not understand-
 a problem I often have on this list. However further into the article
 is a clarifying sentence:

  Like public, social cases of representation such as writing or
 mapmaking, intentional states such as beliefs have truth-value; they
 entail or imply other beliefs; they are (it seems) composed of
 concepts and depend for their truth on a match between their internal
 structures and the way the world is; and so it is natural to regard
 their aboutness as a matter of mental referring or designation. 

 So I conclude that this is quite different issue from one BEC copying
 what exists in another BEC.


 Hi Richard,

 Yes. Copying states and representing states are not the same thing.


 Representionality is closer to IMO Godelian incompleteness or
 Marchal's CTM wherein beliefs and truth, etc. can be represented. I do
 not know how.


 Representations are about things, they are not themselves things in
 the physical sense and yet physical processes can act as media on which
 representations can be rendered. Representations are strange in that they
 can be about other representations, even themselves. It is this property,
 more than any other, that distinguished minds from bodies.

 But my conjecture is that whatever representations exist in the CTM
 BEC of string theory  can be copied into the BEC of (human brain)
 physical consciousness, and vice versa. This is essentially a
 mind/body duality.
 Richard


 yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a
 solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's
 idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct aspects
 of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan Pratt
 explains this in his paper: http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf

 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


On reading Pratt it appears that he elevates mind/body duality to a TOE.
But I have not read in sufficient depth, assuming that is possible for
me, to know if that is true.
Richard




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-05 Thread meekerdb


On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Richard Ruquist

Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma
(such as materialism) any day.


It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being dogmatic materialists and 
yet you think their world picture: curved metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave 
functions,... is all immaterial.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-05 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/5/2013 2:54 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a
solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's
idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct aspects
of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan Pratt
explains this in his paper:http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf

--
Onward!

Stephen


On reading Pratt it appears that he elevates mind/body duality to a TOE.
But I have not read in sufficient depth, assuming that is possible for
me, to know if that is true.
Richard


Hi Richard,

Yes, he is advancing a particular vision, but I would not call this 
piece a TOE, it is part of a TOE that he advocates.




--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-05 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
 On 1/5/2013 2:54 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a
 solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's
 idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct
  aspects
 of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan Pratt
 explains this in his paper:http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf
 
 --
 Onward!
 
 Stephen
 

 On reading Pratt it appears that he elevates mind/body duality to a TOE.
 But I have not read in sufficient depth, assuming that is possible for
 me, to know if that is true.
 Richard

 Hi Richard,

 Yes, he is advancing a particular vision, but I would not call this
 piece a TOE, it is part of a TOE that he advocates.



 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


It Pratt's mind/body duality mechanism
an alternative to mind/body coupling via BECs?



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

2013-01-05 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/5/2013 9:03 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:

On 1/5/2013 2:54 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a

solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's
idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct
aspects
of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan Pratt
explains this in his paper:http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf

--
Onward!

Stephen


On reading Pratt it appears that he elevates mind/body duality to a TOE.
But I have not read in sufficient depth, assuming that is possible for
me, to know if that is true.
Richard


Hi Richard,

 Yes, he is advancing a particular vision, but I would not call this
piece a TOE, it is part of a TOE that he advocates.



--
Onward!

Stephen


It Pratt's mind/body duality mechanism
an alternative to mind/body coupling via BECs?


Dear Richard,

yes, there is an isomorphsim between the two, no need for coupling. ;-)

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Hi Craig Weinberg  

IMHO Sheldrake is one of the  very few who have had the courage to 
prove and call materialism bad science. I think he is the vanguard 
of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas. 

A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism 
can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical).
 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/4/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-03, 11:57:45 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 




On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:44:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Telmo Menezes  

Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results 
(there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply 
trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are 
untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things.  
Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. 




I agree, I think that Sheldrake is obviously sincere and while his efforts may 
fall short of the expectations of some as far as scientific rigor goes, it is 
clear to me that the general topic of his research is valid. There does seem to 
be much more to the content of experience and the sharing of awareness than our 
current science has accounted for. The fact that this is such a polarizing 
subject, turning those who claim to be scientifically minded into witch-hunting 
bigots makes me suspect that this is indeed an important direction for science 
to investigate fully. 


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZD0DoE04VB0J. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/3/2013 11:47 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Russell Standish

Most scientific publications are based on the 19th century religious cult of 
materialism,
which dogmatically rejects mind and spirit for atheistic purposes (not reasons, 
there are none).


Do you have any citations showing where this dogma is written down?



It cannot deal with fields at all,


Ever hear of quantum *field* theory.


for example the theory of relativity, since that
theory asserts that there is no such thing as space (and yet it works).


General relativity is a theory of metric space.


M does not
believe in fields, for they are anathema:  immaterial, purely mathematical.
So of course monads and morphisms are nonsense to a materialist.
He lives in a fantasy world.


You must be living in some other world to think scientist cannot deal with fields - a 
concept they invented.


Brent




[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 18:32:37
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:

While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish
them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives
arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last
person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian
Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012.

Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where
almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my
last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
Richard

I'm sceptical of Sheldrake's explanation in terms of morphic fields
(or even monads). It makes no sense. However, the empirical effect he
observed may well stand. We should probe such results, test for any
methodological flaws, and if they continue to hold up, look for
alternative explanations that might work.

Of course it is a hard row to hoe. A few years ago, I had some
empirical results that literally flew in the face of neutral evolution
thoery
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). I
could not get these results published, and got treated by scorn by
journal referees. Then after about a year of thought, I worked out the
mechanism - in the end it was quite a simple, but nevertheless real
effect. This time, the paper was accepted without question.

You can see the resulting paper at arXiv:nlin.AO/0404012

In spite of thise result having quite profound implications for
things like the molecular clock idea, AFAIK, nobody has investigated
whether anything like this happens in real biology.

It does also stand as an example of what is required to publish
contra-paradigmatic results.

Cheers

--


Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

IMHO Sheldrake is one of the  very few who have had the courage to
prove and call materialism bad science.


You don't know how to count.  The world is full of mystics and the superstitious who don't 
even know what materialism means.  They are 90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant 
90%.



I think he is the vanguard
of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas.


So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be replicated?



A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism
can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical).


That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain consciousness.  
Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the head changes your consciousness.


Brent
The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you
are the easiest person for you to fool.
  --- with apologies to R. Feynman

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Hi Telmo Menezes  

Sheldrake, as you might surmise, is totally empirical, 
which is the irrefutable tactic to disprove materialism. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/4/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Telmo Menezes  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-03, 11:17:59 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


Thanks Roger! I'm intrigued and will investigate further when time permits. 


Another more mundane explanation might be related to the effect of knowing 
that something is possible. I believe there is some research on this effect. 
In sports, for example, when someone breaks a psychological barrier (e.g. 
running a mile under 4 minutes), it's not unusual for other athletes to 
replicate the record soon enough. 


But I'm talking out of my ass, as you Americans say. I'll read for myself. 


I agree with you that too much skepticism can be counterproductive. As Carl 
Sagan put it, there's an ideal mix of skepticism and wonder. 



On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roger Clough  wrote: 

Hi Telmo Menezes  
  
Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results 
(there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply 
trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are 
untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things.  
Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. 
  
You might try lookking at his results: 
  
Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance. 
  
- Herbert Spencer 
  
.  
1:25:27  
Dr Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion (May 2012) 
by Alan Roberts 6 months ago 10,803 views  
In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, 
located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr Sheldrake to ... 
1:20:28  
Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe 
by BroadcastBC 8 months ago 6,707 views  
In 1981 Rupert Sheldrake outraged the scientific establishment with his 
hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field ... 
1:37:42  
The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence 
by GoogleTechTalks 4 years ago 250,577 views  
enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, 
Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than ... 
CC 
1:02:24  
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real 
by LondonRealTV 1 month ago 10,264 views  
London Real talks to Biologist  Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this video 
clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv ... 
9:38  
Rupert Sheldrake 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay 
by conscioustv 3 years ago 10,340 views  
Rupert Sheldrake - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert 
Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than ... 
7:10  
Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations 
by Dan Booth Cohen 4 months ago 2,601 views  
Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family 
Constellations. He explains how all social animals ... 
31:00  
Rupert Sheldrake - Distant Mental Influence 
by metaRising 1 year ago 4,889 views  
Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers 
and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the ... 
1:14:36  
Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis 
by loadedshaman 1 year ago 15,768 views  
Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 
1:05:49  
Rupert Sheldrake: the Evolution of Telepathy 
by Brian Josephson 1 year ago 10,918 views  
The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011), in 
which were described phenomena indicative of the ... 
4:38  
Science Set Free -- Rupert Sheldrake 
by Bill Weaver 4 months ago 11,200 views  
HD 
5:45  
Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy 
by Matthew Clapp 5 years ago 86,152 views  
The renowned biologist Rupert Sheldrake presents his recent findings, 
powerfully suggesting that part of us extends beyond our ... 
10:24  
Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind - Telepathy. Pt 1/3 
by xcite83 3 years ago 89,453 views  
Rupert Sheldrake is a British former biochemist and plant physiologist who now 
researches and writes on parapsychology and ... 
9:48  
Rupert Sheldrake - Genie oder Scharlatan? 1/4 
by quantumsciencetv 1 year ago 9,105 views  
Die ?liche Biologie f?rt in eine Sackgasse. (RS) ?er die Thesen des 
umstrittenen Wissenschaftlers, den Bezug zur ... 
3:24  
The Morphogenic Field Part 1 
by Dyule 4 years ago 9,922 views  
Rupert Sheldrake on morphogenic fields. www.sheldrake.org ... dyule ... 
physical science biology consciousness ... 
5:57  
Rupert Sheldrake - The Rise of Shamanism 
by heartofthehealer 3 years ago 25,632 views  
Rupert Sheldrake, one of the worlds most innovative biologists, is best known 
for his theory of morphic fields and morphic ... 
1:37:11  
Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton A Quest Beyond the Limits of the Ordinary

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/4/2013 3:24 AM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

IMHO Sheldrake is one of the  very few who have had the courage to
prove and call materialism bad science.


You don't know how to count.  The world is full of mystics and the 
superstitious who don't even know what materialism means.  They are 
90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant 90%.


Ah, and you are in that elite 10%! Congratulations are in order!




I think he is the vanguard
of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas.


So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be 
replicated?


He does propose experiments. They cost money to perform...





A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because 
materialism
can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be 
physical).


That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain 
consciousness.  Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the 
head changes your consciousness.


Good! But it still cannot explain how!



Brent
The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you
are the easiest person for you to fool.
  --- with apologies to R. Feynman




--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
 On 1/4/2013 3:24 AM, meekerdb wrote:

 On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Craig Weinberg

 IMHO Sheldrake is one of the  very few who have had the courage to
 prove and call materialism bad science.


 You don't know how to count.  The world is full of mystics and the
 superstitious who don't even know what materialism means.  They are 90% of
 the Earth's population - the ignorant 90%.


 Ah, and you are in that elite 10%! Congratulations are in order!



 I think he is the vanguard
 of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas.


 So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be
 replicated?


 He does propose experiments. They cost money to perform...




 A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because
 materialism
 can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be
 physical).


 That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain
 consciousness.  Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the head
 changes your consciousness.


 Good! But it still cannot explain how!



 Brent
 The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you
 are the easiest person for you to fool.
   --- with apologies to R. Feynman



 --
 Onward!

 Stephen



I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference
a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic
fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I
and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion
condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions.

In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov
for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could
well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic
field.

An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between
physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of
the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a
physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe
that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC,
more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM.

The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness
presented at that conference that may of of interest:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html
Richard





 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference
a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic
fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I
and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion
condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions.

In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov
for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could
well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic
field.

An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between
physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of
the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a
physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe
that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC,
more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM.

The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness
presented at that conference that may of of interest:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html
Richard


Hi Richard,

I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any 
substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other 
representationally?


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/4/2013 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference
a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic
fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I
and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion
condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions.

In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov
for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could
well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic
field.

An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between
physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of
the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a
physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe
that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC,
more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM.

The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness
presented at that conference that may of of interest:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html
Richard


Hi Richard,

I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any 
substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other 
representationally?



Hi Richard,

I looked at the paper and my skeptisism remains. I don't understand 
the proposed mechanism of the BEC such that it allows for informative 
relations between differing BECs. A BEC is a state of a medium, as I 
understand such. Why not look at the essential effect that the BEC 
engenders and not the particular BEC 'substance'? ISTM, that it the link 
that matters, not what is making it up... The relations and statistics 
that appear in quantum pseudo-telepathy are much more 'informative' and 
seem to have more of a 'representational' flavor than a BEC mechanism, IMHO.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/4/2013 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference
a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic
fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I
and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion
condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions.

In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov
for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could
well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic
field.

An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between
physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of
the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a
physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe
that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC,
more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM.

The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness
presented at that conference that may of of interest:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html
Richard


Hi Richard,

I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any 
substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other 
representationally?




More from the paper: Briefly the model of consciousness is 
that*Cooper-pair*layers of positive and negative half-spin axions couple 
to the */corporeal/*physical brain on one (metaphorical) side, and to 
an */incorporeal/*higher self or soul composed of half-spin axions on 
the other. The incorporeal layer is said by Jerome to be a living, 
sentient life-form. The actual*coupling mechanism*to the brain is also 
incorporeal, i.e. not chemical or electrical, consistent with Bohm 
theory below.


How is this qualitatively different from Descartes postulation of 
the Pinial gland as the point where res extensa and res cognitas met and 
interact? The Stone duality idea works so much better that applies to 
any logical structure and its dual, particles or axion are just versions 
of Stone spaces in my thinking! (And there is no dependence on 
temperature for their isomorphism to hold!)


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
 On 1/4/2013 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

 On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference
 a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic
 fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I
 and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion
 condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions.

 In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov
 for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could
 well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic
 field.

 An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between
 physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of
 the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a
 physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe
 that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC,
 more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM.

 The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness
 presented at that conference that may of of interest:
 http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html
 Richard

 Hi Richard,

 I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any
 substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other
 representationally?

Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs
certainly can copy each others configurations.



 More from the paper: Briefly the model of consciousness is that
 Cooper-pair layers of positive and negative half-spin axions couple to the
 “corporeal” physical brain on one (metaphorical) side, and to an
 “incorporeal” higher self or soul composed of half-spin axions on the other.
 The incorporeal layer is said by Jerome to be a living, sentient life-form.
 The actual coupling mechanism to the brain is also incorporeal, i.e. not
 chemical or electrical, consistent with Bohm theory below.

 How is this qualitatively different from Descartes postulation of the
 Pinial gland as the point where res extensa and res cognitas met and
 interact? The Stone duality idea works so much better that applies to any
 logical structure and its dual, particles or axion are just versions of
 Stone spaces in my thinking! (And there is no dependence on temperature for
 their isomorphism to hold!)

 --
 Onward!

 Stephen

I expect that a physical BEC pervades the entire brain if not the body
sorta along the lines of the Penrose-Hamerof microtuble model. I
previously mentioned to you that the Calabi-Tau compact manifolds
appear to have the properties of a Stone space. But I cannot remember
my reasoning. I also do not understand the relationship of the axions
to the compact manifolds. However, on another list a fellow made an
interesting case based on evolution that the volume of the pineal
gland contains our thinking.
Richard
Richard



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Hi Stephen P. King  

very few scientists 

Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he 
claims. 
The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist. 

See http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/ 



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/4/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-04, 04:24:57 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


On 1/4/2013 3:24 AM, meekerdb wrote: 
 On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
 Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
 IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to 
 prove and call materialism bad science. 
 
 You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the  
 superstitious who don't even know what materialism means. They are  
 90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant 90%. 

 Ah, and you are in that elite 10%! Congratulations are in order! 

 
 I think he is the vanguard 
 of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas. 
 
 So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be  
 replicated? 

 He does propose experiments. They cost money to perform... 

 
 
 A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because  
 materialism 
 can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be  
 physical). 
 
 That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain  
 consciousness. Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the  
 head changes your consciousness. 

 Good! But it still cannot explain how! 

 
 Brent 
 The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you 
 are the easiest person for you to fool. 
 --- with apologies to R. Feynman 
 


--  
Onward! 

Stephen 


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Hi Richard Ruquist 

New Scientist has published work by Sheldrake.  
But we'll have to wait for the materialist trolls 
which decide what can be published die off. 
Materialism cannot be justified scientifically.
That journal will be an obsolete curiosity.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/4/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Richard Ruquist  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-03, 13:46:20 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote: 
 
 
 On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:44:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
 
 Hi Telmo Menezes 
 
 Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results 
 (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply 
 trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are 
 untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. 
 Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. 
 
 
 
 I agree, I think that Sheldrake is obviously sincere and while his efforts 
 may fall short of the expectations of some as far as scientific rigor goes, 
 it is clear to me that the general topic of his research is valid. There 
 does seem to be much more to the content of experience and the sharing of 
 awareness than our current science has accounted for. The fact that this is 
 such a polarizing subject, turning those who claim to be scientifically 
 minded into witch-hunting bigots makes me suspect that this is indeed an 
 important direction for science to investigate fully. 
 

While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish 
them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives 
arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last 
person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian 
Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012. 

Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where 
almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my 
last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf 
Richard 

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group. 
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZD0DoE04VB0J. 
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Hi Stephen P. King  

L states that all substances are alive, that's how they can communicate. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/4/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-04, 07:26:21 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: 
 I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference 
 a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic 
 fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I 
 and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion 
 condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions. 
 
 In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov 
 for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could 
 well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic 
 field. 
 
 An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between 
 physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of 
 the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a 
 physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe 
 that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC, 
 more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM. 
 
 The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness 
 presented at that conference that may of of interest: 
 http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html 
 Richard 
 
Hi Richard, 

 I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any  
substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other  
representationally? 

--  
Onward! 

Stephen 


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Hi meekerdb  

1) Materialists don't have any dogmas. Just ask one of them. 
2) quanta are not materials. 
3) materialism cannot accept empty space, since it isn't a material. 

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/4/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: meekerdb  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-04, 03:14:17 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


On 1/3/2013 11:47 PM, Roger Clough wrote: 
 Hi Russell Standish 
 
 Most scientific publications are based on the 19th century religious cult of 
 materialism, 
 which dogmatically rejects mind and spirit for atheistic purposes (not 
 reasons, there are none). 

Do you have any citations showing where this dogma is written down? 

 
 It cannot deal with fields at all, 

Ever hear of quantum *field* theory. 

 for example the theory of relativity, since that 
 theory asserts that there is no such thing as space (and yet it works). 

General relativity is a theory of metric space. 

 M does not 
 believe in fields, for they are anathema: immaterial, purely mathematical. 
 So of course monads and morphisms are nonsense to a materialist. 
 He lives in a fantasy world. 

You must be living in some other world to think scientist cannot deal with 
fields - a  
concept they invented. 

Brent 

 
 
 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
 1/4/2013 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: Russell Standish 
 Receiver: everything-list 
 Time: 2013-01-03, 18:32:37 
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 
 
 
 On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote: 
 While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish 
 them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives 
 arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last 
 person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian 
 Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012. 
 
 Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where 
 almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my 
 last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf 
 Richard 
 I'm sceptical of Sheldrake's explanation in terms of morphic fields 
 (or even monads). It makes no sense. However, the empirical effect he 
 observed may well stand. We should probe such results, test for any 
 methodological flaws, and if they continue to hold up, look for 
 alternative explanations that might work. 
 
 Of course it is a hard row to hoe. A few years ago, I had some 
 empirical results that literally flew in the face of neutral evolution 
 thoery 
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). I 
 could not get these results published, and got treated by scorn by 
 journal referees. Then after about a year of thought, I worked out the 
 mechanism - in the end it was quite a simple, but nevertheless real 
 effect. This time, the paper was accepted without question. 
 
 You can see the resulting paper at arXiv:nlin.AO/0404012 
 
 In spite of thise result having quite profound implications for 
 things like the molecular clock idea, AFAIK, nobody has investigated 
 whether anything like this happens in real biology. 
 
 It does also stand as an example of what is required to publish 
 contra-paradigmatic results. 
 
 Cheers 
 
 -- 
 
  
 Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
 Principal, High Performance Coders 
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 
 University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
  
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group. 
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 
 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

New Scientist has very little credibility in the scientific world.
They are in business to make money and paranormal material sells.

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 New Scientist has published work by Sheldrake.
 But we'll have to wait for the materialist trolls
 which decide what can be published die off.
 Materialism cannot be justified scientifically.
 That journal will be an obsolete curiosity.


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/4/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Richard Ruquist
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-03, 13:46:20
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


 On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:


 On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:44:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

 Hi Telmo Menezes

 Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results
 (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply
 trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are
 untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things.
 Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition.



 I agree, I think that Sheldrake is obviously sincere and while his efforts
 may fall short of the expectations of some as far as scientific rigor goes,
 it is clear to me that the general topic of his research is valid. There
 does seem to be much more to the content of experience and the sharing of
 awareness than our current science has accounted for. The fact that this is
 such a polarizing subject, turning those who claim to be scientifically
 minded into witch-hunting bigots makes me suspect that this is indeed an
 important direction for science to investigate fully.


 While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish
 them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives
 arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last
 person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian
 Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012.

 Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where
 almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my
 last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
 Richard

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZD0DoE04VB0J.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

very few scientists

Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he 
claims.
The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist.

Seehttp://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/  


*A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its 
opponents and making them see thelight 
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Light, but rather because its opponents 
eventuallydie http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Death, and a new generation 
grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck.*


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/4/2013 1:24 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 1/4/2013 3:24 AM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

IMHO Sheldrake is one of the  very few who have had the courage to
prove and call materialism bad science.


You don't know how to count.  The world is full of mystics and the superstitious who 
don't even know what materialism means.  They are 90% of the Earth's population - the 
ignorant 90%.


Ah, and you are in that elite 10%! Congratulations are in order!




I think he is the vanguard
of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas.


So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be replicated?


He does propose experiments. They cost money to perform...





A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism
can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical).


That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain consciousness.  
Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the head changes your consciousness.


Good! But it still cannot explain how!


How? is one of those perpetual questions, like the child that responds to every answer 
with Why?.  When Newton was asked how gravity pulled on the planets he said, Hypothesi 
non fingo. So let's see Sheldrake explain some what.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/4/2013 8:31 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Hi Richard,

 I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any
substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other
representationally?

Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs
certainly can copy each others configurations.


Hi Richard,

This ability to copy each others configuration , does it give us 
some thing like representability? What does representability mean to 
you?


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/4/2013 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi meekerdb

1) Materialists don't have any dogmas. Just ask one of them.


Theists have nothing but dogmas and you don't have to ask them, they tell you, e.g. one of 
their dogmas is that materialism is wrong, humans have immortal souls, and God will punish 
you if you don't like Him.



2) quanta are not materials.


If electrons and quarks aren't material, what is?


3) materialism cannot accept empty space, since it isn't a material.


What is this accept?  Is it like have faith in?  Does it mean accept as dogma?  Most 
models of the physical world include empty space (although 'empty' is relative to the model).


Brent



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-04, 03:14:17
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On 1/3/2013 11:47 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Russell Standish

Most scientific publications are based on the 19th century religious cult of 
materialism,
which dogmatically rejects mind and spirit for atheistic purposes (not reasons, 
there are none).

Do you have any citations showing where this dogma is written down?


It cannot deal with fields at all,

Ever hear of quantum *field* theory.


for example the theory of relativity, since that
theory asserts that there is no such thing as space (and yet it works).

General relativity is a theory of metric space.


M does not
believe in fields, for they are anathema: immaterial, purely mathematical.
So of course monads and morphisms are nonsense to a materialist.
He lives in a fantasy world.

You must be living in some other world to think scientist cannot deal with 
fields - a
concept they invented.

Brent



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 18:32:37
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:

While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish
them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives
arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last
person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian
Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012.

Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where
almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my
last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
Richard

I'm sceptical of Sheldrake's explanation in terms of morphic fields
(or even monads). It makes no sense. However, the empirical effect he
observed may well stand. We should probe such results, test for any
methodological flaws, and if they continue to hold up, look for
alternative explanations that might work.

Of course it is a hard row to hoe. A few years ago, I had some
empirical results that literally flew in the face of neutral evolution
thoery
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). I
could not get these results published, and got treated by scorn by
journal referees. Then after about a year of thought, I worked out the
mechanism - in the end it was quite a simple, but nevertheless real
effect. This time, the paper was accepted without question.

You can see the resulting paper at arXiv:nlin.AO/0404012

In spite of thise result having quite profound implications for
things like the molecular clock idea, AFAIK, nobody has investigated
whether anything like this happens in real biology.

It does also stand as an example of what is required to publish
contra-paradigmatic results.

Cheers

--


Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.