Interesting article - starts out all purple monkey dishwasher, then goes off into "We're being persecuted" and finishes off with a little four-day time cube.
Needs more cowbell.

Bevets: The unlucky fact that our current form of mechanistic materialism rests on muddled, outdated notions of matter isn't often mentioned today. It's a mess that can be ignored for everyday scientific purposes, but for our wider thinking it is getting very destructive. We can't approach important mind-body topics such as consciousness or the origins of life while we still treat matter in 17th-century style as if it were dead, inert stuff, incapable of producing life. And we certainly can't go on pretending to believe that our own experience - the source of all our thought - is just an illusion, which it would have to be if that dead, alien stuff were indeed the only reality...

Rupert Sheldrake, who has long called for this development, spells out this need forcibly in his new book. He shows how materialism has gradually hardened into a kind of anti-Christian faith, an ideology rather than a scientific principle, claiming authority to dictate theories and to veto inquiries on topics that don't suit it, such as unorthodox medicine, let alone religion.

The materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age. ~ Stephen Meyer

Go Home Beverly, The Adults are talking now. Crawl back to your cave, and worship your invisible wizard.

I was wearing my god helmet while reading that so I feel that the author was divinely inspired.

/there's a presence here... it comforts me...

Oh Bevets, I was getting worried about you. Didn't see you in a while.

You're some modtard's troll alt, aren't you?

Okay, I'll say it.

Cube4 Intelligence, SuperSymmetry Of TimeCube4 Math Is Absolute Proof Of School Retardation. No 1 Educated matches my intelligence. Really, just how diabolic are the humans educated on Earth based upon ONEness?

**********************************************
+1 x +1 = +1 as if a male value and

-1 x -1 = -1 as if a female opposite,

Hell awaits those who add these.

***************************
No educated person could work for me who could not tear and burn the bible - for he would be a liar of 1 day deception. Humans are only using 1 of the 4 existing days available to them. A single day is impossible as all 4 are interdependent.

Greenwich Mean Time is wrong and evil, for there are 4 simultaneous Days, not 1. Greenwich has a midnight to midnight 1 corner day rotation. It has an imaginary midday to midday with broken lines on chart to avoid bible 1 day error conflict. It completely ignores sunup & sundown. Actually, Genesis 1:5 is not even 1 day. What you have is 4 corners, no time rota. Earth has 2 plus quads & 2 minus quads existing as 0 as opposites but, voiding as 1.

You can't comprehend fact that Cube4 simultaneous 24 hour days rotate within same 24 hour rotation of Mother Earth.

You can't tell the difference between your Mother and a queer guised as God. God can't match ma hole & pa pole sex. Every male on Earth born of a woman. Your Dictionary will explain Viviparous. Believers Ego kills Teen for queer image.

Having finished The God Delusion just last night, I'm getting a kick...

actually no, no I'm not.

As one of Britain's greatest thinkers once wrote:

On ITV and BBC they talk about the curse
Philosophy is useless, theology is worse
History boils over, there's an Economics freeze
Sociologists invent words that mean industrial disease

He has been making claims about two forms of perception that are widely reported to work but which mechanists hold to be impossible: a person's sense of being looked at by somebody behind them, and the power of animals - dogs, say - to anticipate their owners' return. Do these things really happen?

Sheldrake handles his enquiries soberly. People and animals do, it seems, quite often perform these unexpected feats, and some of them regularly perform them much better than others, which is perhaps not surprising. He simply concludes that we need to think much harder about such things.

I propose we devise some set of rules to that would help us investigate this phenomena. I would imagine we would first need to precisely identify what we are talking about. Does this mean the person looks at the person behind them, says there is a person behind them, or what. Once that is determinded, we need some sort of way to test when this happens. We would need to see if things like lines of sight, distance, temperature, ambient noise and a host of factors will impact the results. We would need to make sure that people measuring the subject don't inject any bias into what is happening as well, as they could tip off the person if someone is in fact behind them. I would imagine we would need to do it to many, many people across a broad spectrum of cultures to see what happens there as well. Once we figure it out, it would be cool if others could replicate what we did and find the same things. This would take some serious effort to make sure it is done right, but I am sure such a method, whatever we want to call it, would yeild some promising results.

A fark it, God/aliens/magic would just screw up the results and make all this pointless anyway. I'm leaving this magic box of writin and going to watch what the aliens are putting on the talky box.

Bevets:
The materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age. ~ Stephen Meyer
What does a chick who writes about twinkly vampires know about science?

Kar98: Oh Bevets, I was getting worried about you. Didn't see you in a while.

You're some modtard's troll alt, aren't you?

Considering he's been here pretty much since the beginning, it's probably Drew himself.

There's a whole lot of derp in that article. The morphic fields and resonance idea in particular. From wiki:

Morphic field

"Morphic field" is a term introduced by Sheldrake. He proposes that there is a field within and around a morphic unit which organizes its characteristic structure and pattern of activity.[17] According to this concept, the morphic field underlies the formation and behaviour of holons and morphic units, and can be set up by the repetition of similar acts or thoughts. The hypothesis is that a particular form belonging to a certain group, which has already established its (collective) morphic field, will tune into that morphic field. The particular form will read the collective information through the process of morphic resonance, using it to guide its own development. This development of the particular form will then provide, again through morphic resonance, a feedback to the morphic field of that group, thus strengthening it with its own experience, resulting in new information being added (i.e. stored in the database). Sheldrake regards the morphic fields as a universal database for both organic (living) and abstract (mental) forms.

That a mode of transmission of shared informational patterns and archetypes might exist did gain some tacit acceptance, when it was proposed as the theory of the collective unconscious by renowned psychiatrist Carl Jung. According to Sheldrake, the theory of morphic fields might provide an explanation for Jung's concept as well. Also, he agrees that the concept of akashic records, term from Vedas representing the "library" of all the experiences and memories of human minds (souls) through their physical lifetime, can be related to morphic fields,[18] since one's past (an akashic record) is a mental form, consisting of thoughts as simpler mental forms (all processed by the same brain), and a group of similar or related mental forms also have their associated (collective) morphic field. (Sheldrake's view on memory-traces is that they are "non-local," and not located in the brain.)[19]

Sheldrake's concept has little support in the mainstream scientific community. Members of the scientific community consider Sheldrake's concept to be currently unfalsifiable and therefore outside of the scope of scientific experiment. The morphic field concept is believed by many to fall into the realm of pseudoscience.[20][21][22]

Morphic resonance

Essential to Sheldrake's model is the hypothesis of morphic resonance.[23] This is a feedback mechanism between the field and the corresponding forms of morphic units. The greater the degree of similarity, the greater the resonance, leading to habituation or persistence of particular forms. So, the existence of a morphic field makes the existence of a new similar form easier.

Sheldrake proposes that the process of morphic resonance leads to stable morphic fields, which are significantly easier to tune into. He suggests that this is the means by which simpler organic forms synergetically self-organize into more complex ones, and that this model allows a different explanation for the process of evolution itself, as an addition to Darwin's evolutionary processes of selection and variation.


Also, when they say "materialst", I think they should more properly say "deconstructionist". I may, however, be off base there.

FTA: He simply concludes that we need to think much harder about such things.

Yup, that's what we should do. Sit down and have a good think. Just keep thinking at it until the sheer accumulation of thought is so large as to swamp the problem in sheer thinkiness. Think longer and harder than anyone has thought before.

Because experimentation and observation are for wimps.

After reading global warming threads I have been expecting a thread in which posters claim the internet isn't real. The headline got my hopes up. Still waiting :'(

On the other hand, there is both a conspicuous absence of a philosophical basis for scientific explanations of consciousness, and failure by the marketing department to communicate the various philosophies of science beyond falsificationism (or even that there might be more than one philosophy of science).

Bhruic: FTA: He simply concludes that we need to think much harder about such things.

Yup, that's what we should do. Sit down and have a good think. Just keep thinking at it until the sheer accumulation of thought is so large as to swamp the problem in sheer thinkiness. Think longer and harder than anyone has thought before.



When I sit and think that long the toilet seat cuts of circulation to my legs so I can't stand and I have to sit and think even longer.

I usually thing really long after I eat lots of cheese.

Explain that science...

I thought British people were supposed to have a command over the English the language. Someone get Sam Jackson to pay this woman a visit.

Damnit, Science shouldn't be used as a noun, it should be more like a verb. It isn't a thing, it isn't a canon of ideas, and it certainly isn't a quasi-religious orthodoxy.

Science is the scientific method. It is a process.

Guessing, testing, and checking our guess against the outcome is the best process we've come up with yet for understanding the world around us. If you don't like some of the answers that people have come up with, propose your own hypotheses and do your own experiments. But to attack the results and not the method is to utterly, spectacularly, self-defeatingly miss the point.

John Nash: l read the collective information through the process of morphic resonance, using it to guide its own development. This development of the particular form will then provide, again through morphic resonance, a feedback to the morphic field of that group, thus strengthening it with its own experience, resulting in new information being added (i.e. stored in the database). Sheldrake regards the morphic fields as a universal database for both organic (living) and abstract (mental) forms.

I'm also pretty sure he stole morphic fields from Terry Pratchett's Discworld.

/It's turtles all the way down

Science is best summed up as "Damned if I know, but I'll figure it out eventually."

People compare science to religion, but I have never seen a religion that admitted "We don't know. We think we've got it sort of right, but we still expect that the next generation will look at us and wonder how the hell we ever believed something so stupid."

Old enough to know better: Okay, I'll say it.

[patrick.net image 312x387]

A man who thinks dogs are psychic wrote a book trashing the entire endeavor of modern science as we know it because scientists got tired of working with him whenever he'd make a silly claim and eventually stopped returning his calls, more or less.

atomsmoosher: Old enough to know better: Okay, I'll say it.

[patrick.net image 312x387]

A man who thinks dogs are psychic wrote a book trashing the entire endeavor of modern science as we know it because scientists got tired of working with him whenever he'd make a silly claim and eventually stopped returning his calls, more or less.

For example.

Smoky Dragon Dish: atomsmoosher: Old enough to know better: Okay, I'll say it.

[patrick.net image 312x387]

A man who thinks dogs are psychic wrote a book trashing the entire endeavor of modern science as we know it because scientists got tired of working with him whenever he'd make a silly claim and eventually stopped returning his calls, more or less.

Ha! Dogs aren't psychic. It only appears that way, because they're so easily possessed by spirits.

They also can't look up.

Felgraf: I'm also pretty sure he stole morphic fields from Terry Pratchett's Discworld George Lucas' "Star Wars".

LouDobbsAwaaaay: He shows how materialism has gradually hardened into a kind of anti-Christian faith, an ideology rather than a scientific principle, claiming authority to dictate theories and to veto inquiries on topics that don't suit it, such as unorthodox medicine, let alone religion.

"Hurr durr, science is anti-Christian because it's based on reality but also it's just another religion so everything is equal, durr."

http://www.skepdic.com/scientism.html (new window)

This sounds like a bunch of Cult of Ramtha mumbo-jumbo crap.

Oh and folks, can we please just ignore Bevets in this thread? We all know that he will only toss around out-of-context quotes, so please just dno't even bother with the guy. You're not going to change his mind and we all already know how ignorant he is, so there's no point in engaging the guy.

^ When has telling people to ignore "someone" ever worked?