-
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 13:05:33
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:37, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the
definition below,
a field
: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 11:07:17
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Roger,
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
?
Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone.
?
How is opinion
the chair.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 12:40:25
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so
: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-07, 17:58:06
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
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
: 2013-01-07, 18:04:22
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/7/2013 4:46 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Quantum fields are nonphysical, since they do not exist in spacetime.
?? Where did you learn quantum field theory (I want to be sure not to hire any
: 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
Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories
quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical
Hi Roger,
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone.
How is opinion not connected to data? Have you found a way of neatly
separating the information and data from opinion and
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
. - 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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
: 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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
: 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
], [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
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.
-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
...@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
]
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
: 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
- 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
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
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/
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
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
: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
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
Roger,
How are morphic fields related to monads?
Richard
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net 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
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
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
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 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
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
On 1/3/2013 10:47 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
How are morphic fields related to monads?
Richard
Hi,
May I attempt an answer? Monads are not entities that are localized
in a place, they are entire fields of experience. Morphic fields are a
way to think of how monads synchronize and
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Morphic fields are a way to think of how monads synchronize and reflect
their histories with each others using a substance based model
Stephan, Could you elaborate? Richard
--
You received this message because you
On 1/3/2013 7:33 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Morphic fields are a way to think of how monads synchronize and reflect
their histories with each others using a substance based model
Stephan, Could you elaborate? Richard
]
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
69 matches
Mail list logo
