• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Banned TEDTalks relating to non-materialism

3 said:
Interesting. Although the aspect I found most difficult to reconcile to the theory is the change in personality itself that occurs upon structural damage to the brain. If this theory ends up representing the true nature of our reality, then with this in mind, even our personalities as we know them would not share any similarities if our particular "resonance" (am I doing it right?) were transferred from one conduit to another in some form. Once again, not picking sides, simply playing Devil's Advocate in order to understand the concept.
Click to expand...

If I understand the theory correctly, the physical DNA provides the template for experience to be imprinted upon, but it is the resonant fields that imprint the actual experience. What Sheldrake is basically saying is that all experiences that have already happened are contained in a field which makes repeat attempts at those experiences easier, thus ancestral knowledge has a non-material basis. The only analogy I can think of to help me understand it is the theory of mass consciousness. Everything that is said and done is stored as a frequency, which is then transmitted in real time to others as they need it. In other words, your primary learning experience in life was made easier because billions of people have done it before you. It means we are tapping into knowledge and experience not only ancestrally but on a species level, through this field. It also means that anyone anywhere can affect someone else instantaneously across space-time through this field. It's why the telephone experiences are so interesting, and common. It provides an explanation for telepathy.

Genetics is responsible for what our body does, but morphic resonance is responsible for the experiential interface. As an aside, our genes are constantly changing throughout life. Even our metabolic pathways change in accordance with what we eat, and what drugs we take. Genetics is often portrayed as being rather concrete but all that "junk DNA" we have is actually highly mutable. The theory of morphic resonance states that it's the field which impacts the DNA, and not the other way around.

I've read the studies on Sheldrake's site and they are really fascinating. I find this theory really "out there" from a scientific basis but instead of shutting him out I wish mainstream science would evaluate it.
 
cire113 said:
Well interesting views and opinions rangrz... I believe in evolution but i also believe its possible there is active intelligence behind it all...

But Now I am starting to think maybe we aren't meant to know the secrets of the universe and life?

It sure does a great job at remaining a mystery for the most part....

I think one of the biggest obstacles is that we may indeed be in a simulated environment ala the Matrix kinda; SO we are using science to measure things while still inside an illusionary perspective;

It's painfully obvious to me there is intelligence far greater than humans; but paradoxically humans are a part of it...

Its like we are doing all this searching and figuring out only to realize the inherent truth spirituality has shown humans for thousands of years which of course is only possible to discover through direct experience IMO

Also I think if psychedelics were really widely studied and researched there would be way more information about consciousness, the brain from a physiological perspective, and way more information about altered states of conscoiusness from a scientific view... so think there are really not a lot of these studies being done.. As the knowledge that we truely have and know about this extremely limiting; But maybe you can tell me all the things we know :)

Honestly, I think alot more is going on besides "tripping balls".. I feel like entheogens maybe allow us to perceive alot of things that may remain hidden to us from our normal state. Also that the brain is just a receiver of some sort and that our consciousness really does exist outside of our brains...

Its kinda of sad that society and people have to keep censoring shit; I mean its sad that entheogens are illegal everyone should be able to explore the freedom of their own mind and consciousness...

Obvoiusly there a a few people who have all the power that understand the true potential and power of psychedelics.. The funny thing is people discredit "drugs" but every single experience that happens in life is a chemical reaction in the brain caused by neurotransmitters lol

and lol why do i need a scientist to watch me while i trip? i can do that already by myself bro..

But actually I am done with psychedelics as Alan Watts said, " When you get the message, hang up the phone"
Click to expand...

I agree with this post pretty much 100%. Well said.

I was excited to see this piece of news, but I winced when I saw the name Rupert Sheldrake. If I recall correctly, wasn't he caught up in some sort of scandal involving data falsification or some other sort of dishonest scholarship a couple decades back? I don't know the story much at all, but I was under the impression he lost a lot of face in the world of academic science, which had nothing directly to do with his interest in the paranormal. Rather, he pushes this unpopular agenda because he has nothing left to lose.

I would have been a lot more excited if I'd seen a public intellectual in indisputably good standing in the academic world champion a challenge to physicalism.

I haven't read Graham Hancock, but from what I understand he isn't a scientist or scholar at all, and never claimed to be one. Not that he doesn't necessarily have good ideas, but again, why him? Why, indeed, does anyone get chosen to do a TED talk? What kinds of qualifications do you need besides well-articulated ideas that make heads turn when you start going on about them in a public place?

The TED talks are essentially edutainment, from what I can see.
 
A relevant article. It's a review of a recent book written by well-known philosopher Thomas Nagel, which defends it against the onslaught of criticism that followed its publication. The book is arguing against the hard materialist, reductionist attitude.
 
TheAppleCore said:
A relevant article. It's a review of a recent book written by well-known philosopher Thomas Nagel, which defends it against the onslaught of criticism that followed its publication. The book is arguing against the hard materialist, reductionist attitude.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That article helped me to clarify my thoughts on the matter, and why I have been jumping from defending Sheldrake to questioning his ideas.


I agree with much of what he says in principle, but to me, he seems like the kind of dude who is so strong in his convictions that he might have a tendency to either falsify data, or, more likely in my opinion, allow his bias to skew his results. Which is the same criticism I would have of the "materialist" scientists who peer review said data: With their worldview they have a vested personal interest in disproving Sheldrake's data, and the data of anyone else looking to challenge materialism. Not only that, even if they were to look past their own personal interests, their bias itself would cause them to look at the data and methodology more critically than they would otherwise look at "ordinary" scientific data, noting this flaw and that flaw as possible reasons for results in favor of non-materialism. Hence, the methodology will always be flawed no matter how convincing the study.


That said, Sheldrake's absolute certainty in these matters is a major red flag. If he came out there with a more neutral perspective (like Nagel), I would be inclined to be more convinced, but something about it rubs me the wrong way, even though I personally do not know any of his data to be false (nor do I know it to be true, and for the above mentioned reasons it would be very difficult to remain both objective and choose a side in the matter). Basically, I agree with much of his perspective in terms of the overreaching theme of it (that not all of the universe is physical and measurable, and that much we know of has very little in the way of physical explanation i.e. matter coming into existence and consciousness), but remain skeptical of the details.

Even so, there is absolutely no reason for this talk to be banned. The same holds for Hancock.
 
^ I think you hit an interesting point. I think it may be Sheldrake's degree of certainty in his theories, rather than the theories themselves, that loses him points with the professional culture of experimental science. In my experience at all levels of scientific academe, from household names to community college adjuncts, clinging fervently or stubbornly to one viewpoint on any debatable idea is not respected. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but you're expected to at least pretend to be flexible and not easily swayed by bias. Research scientists are human of course, and I'm sure all of them have biases and tightly held beliefs that weren't rationally arrived at. But I would guess most are very discrete about letting their passion for these viewpoints show when they're with other scientists, even in casual social settings. It's a loss of face because it makes other scientists wonder if the true believer would chase their favorite idea as far as dishonest research. In fact, I think scientific research projects driven from day one by strong underlying biases or vested interests are more the rule than the exception. But it's always hush hush.
 
I think Sheldrake has a lot of zeal, but because the peer review process is closed to him by virtue of peer review being material reductionist, it's kind of a catch-22. Can't prove the theory because the model doesn't want to acknowledge that it could be provable, and the model can't change to accommodate it because it has inherent mechanisms that make it averse to non-materialism.

Either way, I have seen much more vain and controversial theories on TED than this that have not been censored. TED made a strange call with this one.
 
^Indeed. I thought TED was about the sharing of ideas. The seeds of a good idea can go on to demonstrate their usefulness and truth in different ways. Seems like a little bit of close mindedness here on the part of the owners/organizers.
 
It's possible the TED talks are underwritten in large part by somebody rich who really doesn't like the cut of these two gentlemen's jib, and threatened to pull funding if their acts weren't relegated to the back room.
 
Foreigner said:
Either way, I have seen much more vain and controversial theories on TED than this that have not been censored. TED made a strange call with this one.
Click to expand...

Yes - remember the TED talk in which a stroke victim described her experience, which strongly resembled a psychedelic breakthrough? There wasn't anything remotely scientific about that talk. It was very spiritual / mystical in flavor. Yet, I don't believe there were any censorship concerns with that video?
 
^ Because it wasn't spiritual pseudoscience.. It's a complex neurological affect which resulted in a psychological experience.
 
While I don't dispute the possibility of such things as morphic fields and Sheldrake's other hypotheses, I really can't take them very seriously as science. He is proposing things that, if they do exist, we do not have the tools to measure them or to even conceive of measuring them. It isn't a matter of our tools not being sensitive enough or precise enough, it's a matter of non-materialism, by its very nature and definition, being immeasurable. How can something be science when it can't be objectively and reproducibly quantified?

Furthermore, I offer the same challenge to his hypotheses that I offer to those who claim that Biblical creationism holds the same scientific footing as evolution. What evidence could you conceive of that would definitively DISPROVE Sheldrake's theories? Science depends on falsifiable hypotheses - non-materialist thought can lead into an infinite number of imagined possibilities. Perhaps Sheldrake is on to something with the data he has collected, but he steps firmly outside the bounds of science when he creates fantastical, un-falsifiable explanations for the observations.
 
To what extent are Sheldrake's arguments sophistry?

The argument about science's inconsistency regarding matter not containing consciousness (yet we are matter and do possess it), seems awfully... simplistic. If we're in the realm of unprovable hypotheses, then maybe consciousness is an aberrant phenomena when matter is arranged in particular forms?

Also, how true is his report about the 'fixing' of physical constants? It sounds like the sort of thing that someone says when they're partially educated on a subject, then makes some gross interpretation about the data. On the other hand, his argument about environmental fluctuation 'feels' intuitively correct. Can anyone qualified in this subject comment on this?
 
Foreigner,

Thank you for the viewing material. It reasserts sentiments I've been dealing with in recent times.
 
@AppleCore..

That article is a biased piece of bull..

So far, so good. But the human brain can do much more than this. It can perform calculus, hypothesize metaphysics, compose music—even develop a theory of evolution. None of these higher capacities has any evident survival value, certainly not hundreds of thousands of years ago when the chief aim of mental life was to avoid getting eaten
Click to expand...

So the ability to problem solve didn't help us survive?

If you have an understanding of evolution you'd realise most of these ideas are complete bull.
 
Last edited:
^ You're right, the article is biased, and that is bullshit. It got you thinking, though - that's what counts. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top