Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[jwinter]

On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

...
The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism
by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set Free 


...


Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole 
Experiment  (see near 
end of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr 
program).  Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly 
surprising that he is no longer a fundamentalist of "scientific 
materialism" persuasion (if he ever was)!

Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[Nigel Dyer]

My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as 
the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will 
turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and 
grounded in the science that we already understand.


Nigel

On 08/01/2014 06:36, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:

On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

...
The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism
by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set Free 


...


Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole 
Experiment  (see near 
end of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr 
program).  Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly 
surprising that he is no longer a fundamentalist of "scientific 
materialism" persuasion (if he ever was)!

Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[Foks0904 .]

*"My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as
the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn
out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in
the science that we already understand."*

Well I would say many of the ideas will still remain in the
"non-materialist" realm because the core of "materialism" is A) direct
measurement, and B) isolated atomism. So while the newly unveiled science
will still have a "material" (3 Dimensional) aspect, it will draw much more
heavily on A) indirect measurement, and B) interconnected field theory. And
of course as we dig down deeper and deeper into the quantum realm the whole
notion of "material" entities begins to lose its coherence because nothing
more than smeared quantum waves exist that obey all manner of bizarre rules
contrary to our experience. Also the whole "non-materialist" notion is
inlaid with the idea of teleology and meaning, while "materialism" is all
about random chance and serendipity. So you're right that "materialism"
will not disappear, but our understanding of how the world works and our
place in it will be totally reworked (similar to the transition from
medieval to renaissance thinking).

Regards,
John


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

>
> My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as
> the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn
> out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in
> the science that we already understand.
>
> Nigel
>
>
> On 08/01/2014 06:36, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:
>
> On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
>
> ...
> The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism
>   by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set 
> Free
> ...
>
>
> Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole
> Experiment  (see near end
> of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr program).
> Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly surprising that
> he is no longer a fundamentalist of "scientific materialism" persuasion (if
> he ever was)!
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[jwinter]

On 8/01/2014 5:26 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such 
as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain 
will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and 
grounded in the science that we already understand.
It is hard to imagine how a glowing disembodied hand, which floats over 
and taps you on the shoulder when you ask it to, could ever turn out to 
be classed as "materialist"!

Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[ChemE Stewart]

I think this video sums it up...:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrriKcwvlY#t=58




On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:09 PM,  wrote:

>  On 8/01/2014 5:26 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
>
> My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as
> the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn
> out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in
> the science that we already understand.
>
> It is hard to imagine how a glowing disembodied hand, which floats over
> and taps you on the shoulder when you ask it to, could ever turn out to be
> classed as "materialist"!
>
>

RE: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[Jones Beene]

 

 

From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au 

 

 Nigel Dyer wrote:

My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the
idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out
to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the
science that we already understand. 

 

It is hard to imagine how a glowing disembodied hand, which floats over and
taps you on the shoulder when you ask it to, could ever turn out to be
classed as "materialist"!

 

. what about wave-particle duality? 

The glow is photonic, photons are waves but wave-particle duality implies
that there is physical aspect. that is, if you buy into "complementarity" . 

.not to mention, as skeptics will surely do - if the hand is a hologram
there is probably a laser somewhere.

The major disagreement between Sheldrake and Dawkins often boils down to
what can be called "degrees of randomness" . the implication being that
nothing is truly random within a complex system - and like Maxwell's demon,
order can arise from disorder to the degree that information nudges natural
uncertainty in a goal-oriented way.

Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[leaking pen]

Heh i've been playing around with that idea since reading a book on
chemical memories when I was 12.


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

>
> My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as
> the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn
> out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in
> the science that we already understand.
>
> Nigel
>
>
> On 08/01/2014 06:36, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:
>
> On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
>
> ...
> The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism
>   by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set 
> Free
> ...
>
>
> Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole
> Experiment  (see near end
> of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr program).
> Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly surprising that
> he is no longer a fundamentalist of "scientific materialism" persuasion (if
> he ever was)!
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

Sir William Crookes also showed non-physical like events under strict
scientific protocols:

 

http://www.atisma.com/spiritart/crookes.htm

 

Wow, it just occurred to me that Rossi's secret ingredient surely is
"Ectoplasm".

 

Hoyt Stearns

Scottsdale, Arizona US

 

 

 

From: leaking pen [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 6:59 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for
granted

 

Heh i've been playing around with that idea since reading a book on chemical
memories when I was 12. 

 

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:


My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the
idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out
to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the
science that we already understand.  

Nigel

 

On 08/01/2014 06:36, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:

On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

...
The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism

by Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set Free
<http://www.deepakchopra.com/book/view/927> 
...


Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole
Experiment <http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/scole.htm>  (see near end
of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr program).
Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly surprising that he
is no longer a fundamentalist of "scientific materialism" persuasion (if he
ever was)!

 

 



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[Alain Sepeda]

good remarks.

Unlike some critics against mainstream scientist,
my main feeling is that many scientists share with pseudo-scientists a love
for theory, teleology, coherence, and when facing reality, serendipity,
anomalies, they refuse to accept it.

for me scientists are not enough materialist, which may force them to admit
black magic effects if experiments were showing it...

discussing on a blog with a skeptic he moaned about SRI that it was not the
Stanford academics, and that when facing a famous magician (huri geller?)
the (bad experimentators but real )  scientists concluded from a sucessful
experiment that they should study more...
Of course they made mistakes in protecting from that smart artist and were
ridiculed.

for those pretended scientist, if you observe an evidence of something that
should not exist, you should...
IGNORE IT... and keep being sure about the theory.

of course, the risk when accepting evidence, is that if the evidence is
wrongly made, and the theory is right, you may study something unreal...
It happen most of the time when you find an anomaly... not always.

for me that is the game. Science is taking the risk to make experimental
error, to trust evidences, but verify.

and as engineer, I know we learn much from errors.


2014/1/8 Foks0904 . 

> *"My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as
> the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn
> out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in
> the science that we already understand."*
>
> Well I would say many of the ideas will still remain in the
> "non-materialist" realm because the core of "materialism" is A) direct
> measurement, and B) isolated atomism. So while the newly unveiled science
> will still have a "material" (3 Dimensional) aspect, it will draw much more
> heavily on A) indirect measurement, and B) interconnected field theory. And
> of course as we dig down deeper and deeper into the quantum realm the whole
> notion of "material" entities begins to lose its coherence because nothing
> more than smeared quantum waves exist that obey all manner of bizarre rules
> contrary to our experience. Also the whole "non-materialist" notion is
> inlaid with the idea of teleology and meaning, while "materialism" is all
> about random chance and serendipity. So you're right that "materialism"
> will not disappear, but our understanding of how the world works and our
> place in it will be totally reworked (similar to the transition from
> medieval to renaissance thinking).
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:
>
>>
>> My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as
>> the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn
>> out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in
>> the science that we already understand.
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>> On 08/01/2014 06:36, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:
>>
>> On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism
>>   by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set 
>> Free
>> ...
>>
>>
>> Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole
>> Experiment  (see near
>> end of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr
>> program).  Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly
>> surprising that he is no longer a fundamentalist of "scientific
>> materialism" persuasion (if he ever was)!
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

Unlike some critics against mainstream scientist,
> my main feeling is that many scientists share with pseudo-scientists a
> love for theory, teleology, coherence, and when facing reality,
> serendipity, anomalies, they refuse to accept it.
>

I like teleology.  But I try not to mix teleology with my (hobby) science.


>  for those pretended scientist, if you observe an evidence of something
> that should not exist, you should...
> IGNORE IT... and keep being sure about the theory.
>

I think it can be a little hard to decipher the behavior of scientists with
regard to a new discovery.  If the discovery is benign and falls under
Kuhn's "normal science," there's not much to the matter and there is no
controversy.  With discoveries that do not fall under normal science,
perhaps there are three groups of scientists, classified by their reaction
to the anomaly under investigation:

   - Scientists who take a passive or fleeting interest in it, and are open
   to chalking it up to something we don't understand yet, whether they are
   optimistic or skeptical.  They may even have something of an opinion, but
   they reserve the option to change their mind.  Meanwhile they're busy doing
   other things and are happy to let other people worry about it. (Perhaps the
   vast majority.)
   - Scientists who take an active interest in the anomaly and champion
   further research (a small minority).
   - Scientists who are outspoken in their criticism of the science giving
   rise to the anomaly (a small minority).

The behavior of the last group can be the most challenging to understand,
and it is easy to misinterpret.  In their criticisms they seem to be
addressing the scientists who have produced the anomaly and the hobbyists
who follow it on message boards and mailing lists.  In fact, they are more
likely to be addressing potential funders who might be listening in on the
conversation.  In years of tight budgets, perhaps they do not want to see
part of the limited funding going to their research diverted to the deluded
group that is inveigling people with the alleged anomaly.  The takeaway
here is that it seems like they are arguing that the science is bad, but
this is only a half-hearted effort.  Really what has happened is that they
knew all along that the science was bad and they just don't want the
funders to waste their attention and limited analytical ability on the
matter, because they could end up confusing themselves and extravagantly
spending money on the wrong thing.

Who can blame the funders for being liable to confusion?  They did not
study the science involved for years and years and acquire the crucial
insights.  You have to protect them from themselves, and that might mean
taking a little bit of a roundabout approach and revealing little snippets
here and there about why the science is bad.  But this type of
demonstration would neither stand up to the scrutiny of one's peers, nor is
it expected to.  It is polemics.  In other contexts and on other topics,
these people, or some of these people at any rate, are capable of dropping
the whole "psuedosceptic" tack and providing a solid, scientific argument.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[Alain Sepeda]

What you say seems rational.
I just moderate the par on talking to funders, seems outspokend people like
Kelvin have no problem of funding... they were, like many, locked in their
conservatism...

by the way, as a foreign english speaker, could you say what does mean
"outspoken", as you use it, as Charles Beaudette use in his book...

It seems to be a little a critic for you and Beaudette, like people who
talk loud and capture the apparent opinion with their critics, insults...

like "grande gueule" in French. loudmouth.

My dear Indonesian translator told me it was in a fact more positive, like
someone who dare to clearly state what he consider as a problem, not
chatting, but stating without politically correct self-censorship...

like "franc-parler" in french... straight, frankly speaking.

maybe our outspoken physicists are simply sincerely deluded conservative
without enough imagination compared to their ego.



2014/1/10 Eric Walker 

> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
> Unlike some critics against mainstream scientist,
>> my main feeling is that many scientists share with pseudo-scientists a
>> love for theory, teleology, coherence, and when facing reality,
>> serendipity, anomalies, they refuse to accept it.
>>
>
> I like teleology.  But I try not to mix teleology with my (hobby) science.
>
>
>>  for those pretended scientist, if you observe an evidence of something
>> that should not exist, you should...
>> IGNORE IT... and keep being sure about the theory.
>>
>
> I think it can be a little hard to decipher the behavior of scientists
> with regard to a new discovery.  If the discovery is benign and falls under
> Kuhn's "normal science," there's not much to the matter and there is no
> controversy.  With discoveries that do not fall under normal science,
> perhaps there are three groups of scientists, classified by their reaction
> to the anomaly under investigation:
>
>- Scientists who take a passive or fleeting interest in it, and are
>open to chalking it up to something we don't understand yet, whether they
>are optimistic or skeptical.  They may even have something of an opinion,
>but they reserve the option to change their mind.  Meanwhile they're busy
>doing other things and are happy to let other people worry about it.
>(Perhaps the vast majority.)
>- Scientists who take an active interest in the anomaly and champion
>further research (a small minority).
>- Scientists who are outspoken in their criticism of the science
>giving rise to the anomaly (a small minority).
>
> The behavior of the last group can be the most challenging to understand,
> and it is easy to misinterpret.  In their criticisms they seem to be
> addressing the scientists who have produced the anomaly and the hobbyists
> who follow it on message boards and mailing lists.  In fact, they are more
> likely to be addressing potential funders who might be listening in on the
> conversation.  In years of tight budgets, perhaps they do not want to see
> part of the limited funding going to their research diverted to the deluded
> group that is inveigling people with the alleged anomaly.  The takeaway
> here is that it seems like they are arguing that the science is bad, but
> this is only a half-hearted effort.  Really what has happened is that they
> knew all along that the science was bad and they just don't want the
> funders to waste their attention and limited analytical ability on the
> matter, because they could end up confusing themselves and extravagantly
> spending money on the wrong thing.
>
> Who can blame the funders for being liable to confusion?  They did not
> study the science involved for years and years and acquire the crucial
> insights.  You have to protect them from themselves, and that might mean
> taking a little bit of a roundabout approach and revealing little snippets
> here and there about why the science is bad.  But this type of
> demonstration would neither stand up to the scrutiny of one's peers, nor is
> it expected to.  It is polemics.  In other contexts and on other topics,
> these people, or some of these people at any rate, are capable of dropping
> the whole "psuedosceptic" tack and providing a solid, scientific argument.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[Nigel Dyer]

To give an example of what might be an ignored anomoly

In the last few years Konovalov in mosow has published papers that 
appear to show that when you do serial dilultion of certain solutes then 
structures persist in the water that can be seen in the water (and 
therfore might be the basis for some homeopathy like effects). He uses 
DLS to do the measurements, and when I spoke some people who work on DLS 
they told me they occasionally see much the same thing and assume that 
it means that impurities have got into the water, so will restart the 
experiment.


Nigel


On 10/01/2014 05:36, Eric Walker wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Alain Sepeda > wrote:


Unlike some critics against mainstream scientist,
my main feeling is that many scientists share with
pseudo-scientists a love for theory, teleology, coherence, and
when facing reality, serendipity, anomalies, they refuse to accept it.


I like teleology.  But I try not to mix teleology with my (hobby) science.

for those pretended scientist, if you observe an evidence of
something that should not exist, you should...
IGNORE IT... and keep being sure about the theory.


I think it can be a little hard to decipher the behavior of scientists 
with regard to a new discovery.  If the discovery is benign and falls 
under Kuhn's "normal science," there's not much to the matter and 
there is no controversy.  With discoveries that do not fall under 
normal science, perhaps there are three groups of scientists, 
classified by their reaction to the anomaly under investigation:


  * Scientists who take a passive or fleeting interest in it, and are
open to chalking it up to something we don't understand yet,
whether they are optimistic or skeptical.  They may even have
something of an opinion, but they reserve the option to change
their mind.  Meanwhile they're busy doing other things and are
happy to let other people worry about it. (Perhaps the vast majority.)
  * Scientists who take an active interest in the anomaly and champion
further research (a small minority).
  * Scientists who are outspoken in their criticism of the science
giving rise to the anomaly (a small minority).

The behavior of the last group can be the most challenging to 
understand, and it is easy to misinterpret.  In their criticisms they 
seem to be addressing the scientists who have produced the anomaly and 
the hobbyists who follow it on message boards and mailing lists.  In 
fact, they are more likely to be addressing potential funders who 
might be listening in on the conversation.  In years of tight budgets, 
perhaps they do not want to see part of the limited funding going to 
their research diverted to the deluded group that is inveigling people 
with the alleged anomaly.  The takeaway here is that it seems like 
they are arguing that the science is bad, but this is only a 
half-hearted effort.  Really what has happened is that they knew all 
along that the science was bad and they just don't want the funders to 
waste their attention and limited analytical ability on the matter, 
because they could end up confusing themselves and extravagantly 
spending money on the wrong thing.


Who can blame the funders for being liable to confusion?  They did not 
study the science involved for years and years and acquire the crucial 
insights.  You have to protect them from themselves, and that might 
mean taking a little bit of a roundabout approach and revealing little 
snippets here and there about why the science is bad.  But this type 
of demonstration would neither stand up to the scrutiny of one's 
peers, nor is it expected to.  It is polemics.  In other contexts and 
on other topics, these people, or some of these people at any rate, 
are capable of dropping the whole "psuedosceptic" tack and providing a 
solid, scientific argument.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

by the way, as a foreign english speaker, could you say what does mean
> "outspoken", as you use it, as Charles Beaudette use in his book...
>

"Outspoken" has mildly negative connotations.  It vaguely suggests that one
is a little bit of a boor about something, or that one has a vendetta.  I
don't recall having heard "outspoken" used in a positive context.  It does
not imply that a person is wrong about something, though.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[Foks0904 .]

*I like teleology.  But I try not to mix teleology with my (hobby) science.*

I think its a misconception that teleology and science are mutually
exclusive. I think Nagel in Mind and Cosmos, amongst others, makes a
convincing argument for this. The neo-Darwinian and Newtonian conception of
how we got here and our natures are inaccurate and myopic to an extreme
degree. When we actually look at the evidence there very little evidence
for "random" process, especially when we contemplate deeply the meaning of
non-linear chaos and open system dynamics. This is not to say we're
deterministic robots, certainly free will coexists along side it as an
equal partner, but nature does tend to have a "arrow of evolution". As flow
accelerates (both cosmic and earthbound), nature is always attempting to
harmonize those flows into cycles and reach higher and higher levels of
cooperation between those flows. That is the deterministic aspect (and
arguably the teleological aspect at base level). What happens within those
flows, and the interactions between them, is where free will enters the
picture.

There are no easy answers to these questions however.

Regards,
John


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
> by the way, as a foreign english speaker, could you say what does mean
>> "outspoken", as you use it, as Charles Beaudette use in his book...
>>
>
> "Outspoken" has mildly negative connotations.  It vaguely suggests that
> one is a little bit of a boor about something, or that one has a vendetta.
>  I don't recall having heard "outspoken" used in a positive context.  It
> does not imply that a person is wrong about something, though.
>
> Eric
>
>