Ten Dogmas Of Science

[cire113]

I personally found this ted talk very interesting.. It talks about 10 dogmas of Science. He makes alot of good points in this talk..


The 10 Dogmas Of Science

-That nature is mechanical.
-That matter is unconscious.
-The laws of nature are fixed.
-The totally amount of matter and energy are always the same.
-That nature is purposeless.
-Biological inheritance is material.
-That memories are stored as material traces.
-The mind is in the brain.
-Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.
-Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

 

[bit_pattern]

Oh yeah. This guy is a grade-A fuckwit of absolute ding-dong proportions

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

And on why TED pulled this gibberish from their website

http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk/

 

[ebola?]

A note on 'censored' Ted talks: they are not "censored" per se, but rather those running the primary Ted site decided that the talk failed to meet their criteria for sufficient rigor and substantive content; pretty much anyone can host their own Tedx talk (hence the "x", for "extension"), but whether it's chosen for hosting at the main site is another story. This is not to say that assessment of rigor and substantive value is not subject to bias--I'm sure it would have to be. And even then, given sufficient controversy of failure to host a Tedx talk, the site will open up specific discussion on the matter centered around the talk, as Bit Pattern noted above.
...
My short response is that the speaker appears to engage a straw man of the positions and assumptions of mainstream science and their justifying rationales without putting forth a clear, well-justified alternative; even if his position is correct, he fails to engage the subject matter in a thorough, satisfying way. What he puts forth is a misrepresentation of what I've learned in my work focusing on philosophy of mind and cognitive neuroscience, at the very least.

ebola

 

[ebola?]

More quick thoughts:

1. I'd like to see some of the primary studies establishing the validity of morphic resonance in whatever domain, with special attention to the control conditions that they used.
2. I'd like to see a more rigorous body of evidence that establishes that prior constants are in flux. Scientists indeed test whether these constants fluctuate, but no clear trend has developed, throwing doubt on the single example the speaker gave. With the example of G, it seems more parsimonious that local seismic activity and other factors determining gravitational influences on the experimental apparatus would vary, leading to measurement error.
3. Cognitive neuroscience and philosophy of mind already engage the idea of consciousness as extending beyond the brain, insofar as the context of the organism in interaction with its environment anchors neural activity's role in guiding the organism's behavior.

ebola

 

[bit_pattern]

My short response is that the speaker appears to engage a straw man of the positions and assumptions of mainstream science and their justifying rationales without putting forth a clear, well-justified alternative; even if his position is correct, he fails to engage the subject matter in a thorough, satisfying way. What he puts forth is a misrepresentation of what I've learned in my work focusing on philosophy of mind and cognitive neuroscience, at the very least.

ebola

This is what I MEANT to say when I said "grade-A fuckwit of absolute ding-dong proportions" but cousin ebola just has a better way with words

 

[socko]

Follow the money

I've never heard him talk before this. What a pant-load.

NSFW:

I liked the part where he claimed the speed of light being constant is a conspiracy, a cover up of international proportions to protect one of his "10 dogmas of science." Based on a trip to a library and looking up published values of the speed of light in old Hand Books of Physics and Chemistry, I think it was, he found that the speed of light dropped 20 meters/sec in 1928 and in 1945 it returned to normal. He goes on to say that the International bureau of weights and measures, I think he was trying to say, have changed the way the meter is measured to cover up the fact the speed of light actually changed. He goes on to tell another story where he thinks the Gravitational Constant is changing as well. That's what he gives us as evidence. That and a lot of "There are a lot of studies that support" the things he claims.

At first I was wondering how a former scientist who had done promising work in biochemistry and plant physiology could do this, but then I googled sheldrake and Amazon.com. He must be making millions selling all of those books. That's a lot more than he would ever have made if he'd stayed in academia.

 

[Foreigner]

^ From everything I've read on Sheldrake, I think he believes in what he's saying and it's not just a ponzi scheme to make money off new agers or something.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

You won't hear me defending the folks Prof. Sheldrake locks horns with regularly in the major media. Although I haven't read the lurid details and really don't care, I understand Prof. Sheldrake has lost a good bit of face in the world of mainstream Western academe over issues of scholarly integrity. Nevertheless, I think he gets close to a few important points in this particular TED talk, but he goes off the deep end of Jerry Springer's piss-warmed pool by targeting all that is encompassed by the word "science" for his attack. That's where he loses me. It's not science-the-method or even science-the-praxis which is dogmatic. It is the culture of a large, vocal contingent of people who do and/or write about science in the Anglophone world who adhere to the dogmata Prof. Sheldrake uncharitably articulates. Clearly he has been blackballed by the adherents of these dogmata, and feels he has been done an injustice. I get that. Whether this is a fair and balanced assessment of his situation is neither here nor there. In either case, Prof. Sheldrake would be on much morally higher ground by attacking the dominance of a professional culture he doesn't cotton to, which is his right so long as he adheres to professional codes of conduct whenever doing his work. He hasn't a leg to stand on attacking all of science, when he clearly is attempting to do science.

 

[Shrooms00087]

So this guy just denied himself the title of scientist, using the word "dogma". Well....Maybe not.

 

[exists]

"-That nature is purposeless."

How could we possibly know that? Something that appears to be a purposeless process may in fact not be so.

An example: I can create a cellular automaton (a type of life/matter simulation) that is meant to do something specific. While it's running, one may conclude that it serves no real purpose, since it's working on principles natural to its own parameters. It's just a machine running along. But... there was a creator behind it! I created it to do what I had intended for it to do. Might not the universe at large be the same?

"-Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory."

The electromagnetic energy produced by the brain extends past the skull. This has been proven time and again, although in the lab, electrodes attached to the skull are used because the power is greater the closer you get to the brain.

I've probably mentioned this too many times already, but it bears repeating. Radiating electromagnetic energy follows the inverse square law:

I = P/A
A = 4πr²​

where:

I = power intensity at a given distance
P = power level of emitting source
A = area of a sphere at radius r
π = pi (3.14159265∞)
r = radius (distance being tested)​

If you work out the math, you'll find that the intensity of an EM source never reaches zero at any distance (if the universe is continuous). Moreover, the energy isn't perfectly smooth and devoid of detail, otherwise researchers would not be able to glean anything useful from it.

So, this information-rich energy bleeds outward from the brain, extending indefinitely in all directions, albeit at a greatly diminished intensity the farther it travels. It's quite possible that like-minds may be influenced by this energy, and this would be a form of telepathy.

And that's not even bringing possible quantum mechanics into play

 

[rickolasnice]

So, this information-rich energy bleeds outward from the brain, extending indefinitely in all directions, albeit at a greatly diminished intensity the farther it travels. It's quite possible that like-minds may be influenced by this energy, and this would be a form of telepathy.

I mused over the same idea a while ago..

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...othesis-of-a-possible-cause-to-it-s-existence

The hypothesis, obviously, has no evidence to support it.. I have ideas for studies that can be done to look for evidence that people can pick up on others conscious thoughts but i have neither the resources nor the money to do anything about it.. Anyone wanna fund me?

For the record - I don't believe my hypothesis to be true.. But I would love to find out it was.

 

[exists]

The hypothesis, obviously, has no evidence to support it.. I have ideas for studies that can be done to look for evidence that people can pick up on others conscious thoughts but i have neither the resources nor the money to do anything about it..

Hmm, I would be interested in hearing what methods you plan to use.

Since I believe the inverse square theory of thought transference has merit, I'd suggest starting with an experiment involving two or more people sleeping head-to-head. Monitor the people as they sleep, to rule out any sleep-talking that might occur. Have the subjects recount any dreams they may have had, and compare notes. The experiment would have to be carried out over a number of nights. Some sort of "control" would have to be devised, otherwise you wouldn't be able to recognize a statical deviation, should one arise.

 

[rickolasnice]

^ When two people experience very similar things through their day, there's a good chance that their dreams will have aspects that are similar / the same..

My ideas involve a chamber (or two) that will block out as much interference from the rest of the world (and people) as possible.. Radio waves, wifi, etc..

Then i thought of using a device to try and push the participants brain waves into whatever stage needed (Probably gamma) while they are sitting in different rooms.. Then I'd carry out all sorts of tests like touching the arm of one to see if the other feels it, invoking different emotions, think of a number, show one a card with a symbol on and see if the other can guess them write to a significantly higher degree of accuracy than chance, have them try to communicate with each other, etc etc.. I'd have brain monitoring systems on both while this is all going on to see if there is any match in brain activity relating to an event that only one of them went through.. Sit in silence.. Maybe try telling them to imagine walking down some steps, going through a door and into a garden.. Then ask them to draw the garden they see.. blah blah blah.. These are all just ideas off the top of my head I'm sure I could come up with better.

And / Or the same kind of thing but using meditation - with and without the brain wave machine.

I'd gather a mixed group of participants.. but i'd be especially interested in couples (mother and daughter, husband and wife, twins, best friends, etc etc) that are extremely close, have known each other for a long time and spend a lot of time together.


Me and my girlfriend had the exact same (part) of a dream a couple of years ago. Both standing on top of a hill.. She dreams she has hands full of lighters (the clipper type) that she keeps dropping over the floor.. I dream I keep finding lighters (yep, clippers) in the mud, by the time i wake up my hands are full..

To be honest I'm no scientist so I can't even work out what the control group would do / be.. But If i ever did get the chance to conduct this experiment.. I'd be sure to take a back seat to a real scientist when it comes to the planning

 

[Roger&Me]

lol this sheldrake guy shows up babbling about god-knows-wat in some terence mckenna recordings i've heard

 

[exists]

^ When two people experience very similar things through their day, there's a good chance that their dreams will have aspects that are similar / the same..

Right, and it isn't necessarily indicative of telepathy, merely similar thought processes.

My ideas involve a chamber (or two) that will block out as much interference from the rest of the world (and people) as possible.. Radio waves, wifi, etc..

Will electromagnetic energy be allowed to pass between the chambers housing the subjects? If not, you might be cutting off the mechanism by which telepathy works.

Then i thought of using a device to try and push the participants brain waves into whatever stage needed (Probably gamma) while they are sitting in different rooms..

It's funny that you should be thinking along similar lines as I My idea (as mentioned in a PM to a fellow BLer) was to use computer monitor with flashing screen and image, set to a certain frequency. I figured I would test out different frequencies although, due to my monitor's 60 Hz refresh rate limit, I can only achieve 30 Hz (30 "on" states & 30 "off" states per second). This would only account for the lowest part of the gamma range. I've already written a program to do this, but haven't experimented with it very extensively.

There's also the problem on synching monitors for two or more subjects; I simply don't have the skills to pull it off.

I'd gather a mixed group of participants.. but i'd be especially interested in couples (mother and daughter, husband and wife, twins, best friends, etc etc) that are extremely close, have known each other for a long time and spend a lot of time together.

Good idea. I read somewhere that telepathic phenomena occurs more frequently between people who are close to one-another. I can't remember the site, but there were some documented cases of people correctly guessing who was calling on the phone, before the receiver was picked up. Some of the best evidence out there, if true.

Me and my girlfriend had the exact same (part) of a dream a couple of years ago. Both standing on top of a hill.. She dreams she has hands full of lighters (the clipper type) that she keeps dropping over the floor.. I dream I keep finding lighters (yep, clippers) in the mud, by the time i wake up my hands are full..

I've also picked up thoughts & dreams from people I was sleeping in proximity to (same house or room). Unfortunately, in at least two cases, the people in question are well-known sleep talkers, so I must discount those events as any real evidence.

Are you or your GF sleep talkers? Was there an incident earlier in the day that might explain you both having dreams of clipper-type lighters?

 

[Master_Shitlord]

A note on 'censored' Ted talks: they are not "censored" per se, but rather those running the primary Ted site decided that the talk failed to meet their criteria for sufficient rigor and substantive content; pretty much anyone can host their own Tedx talk (hence the "x", for "extension"), but whether it's chosen for hosting at the main site is another story. This is not to say that assessment of rigor and substantive value is not subject to bias--I'm sure it would have to be. And even then, given sufficient controversy of failure to host a Tedx talk, the site will open up specific discussion on the matter centered around the talk, as Bit Pattern noted above.

I don't know... The way TED handled Graham Hancock's talk on Ayahuasca was very inflammatory. They pulled his talk for "factual errors". When Chris Anderson couldn't produce these errors he shits on Hancock instead to save face. I'm not a fan of Graham's archaeology(or Sheldrake) but that was an exceptionally nuanced talk on the psychedelic experience that didn't overstep its bounds. You can't tell me he was removed for lack of "sufficient rigor and substantive content".

http://www.dailygrail.com/Fresh-Science/2013/3/TED-Deletes-Talks-Rupert-Sheldrake-and-Graham-Hancock

 

[rickolasnice]

Nah neither me nor my girlfriend sleep talk but i guess we could have done that night..

Wouldn't explain the imagery we seemed to share, though

But even I don't count this as evidence. Anecdotal evidence is worth sweet fuck all.. i can think of many other reasons for that night and none of them involve telepathy.

Yeah electro-magnetic fields would be able to pass from room to room with ease.. The point is to block as much outside "noise" as possible so the only things influencing their brain waves is each others brain waves.

http://www.makershed.com/Brain_Machine_Kit_p/mkad41.htm

 

[ebola?]

I don't see why the sum low frequency radiation emitted by the brain would carry a good deal of information, let alone anything relating to specific thoughts.

ebola

 

[rickolasnice]

Neither do I

Was just an idea i was toying with.. I don't believe it.

 

[exists]

I don't see why the sum low frequency radiation emitted by the brain would carry a good deal of information, let alone anything relating to specific thoughts.

Could you explain "sum low frequency radiation" to me, please? Are you referring to how multiple frequencies, emitted in a near-simultaneous fashion, would add together thus confusing any interpretation of them?

It's unlikely that all or any neurons will be firing at exactly the same time. We're back to the pixel of time again. The probability that any two neurons from the same brain would cause a fluctuation in the EM field at precisely the same moment is extremely low. If the universe is continuous, the likelihood drops to almost nothing.

Any action in the brain can potentially cause a fluctuation in the EM field, however slight. For every action and all that. The information is all there; nothing is lost, only changed. So the question is: can those minute fluctuations influence another person's brain? If so, to what degree?

If I were to embark on a serious investigation of the matter, I would look not to the structures in the brain that store information, but rather those which receive information from other parts. Just how sensitive are they? Can one calm his/her own mind to the point of being able to pick up the thoughts of others?

Feel free to shoot down any of the theories on which I base my arguments