Morphogenetic Resonance, the unseen Human collective of minds

[Nameless Foot Soldier]

So it's possible that there is an unseen connection between all living things. It's called Morphogenetic Resonance. There's a guy named Rupert Sheldrake who has been conducting research and experiments which is stacking this theory with more and more convincing evidence. He proposes that the humanity has a shared collective of thoughts, as what we call instincts and phobias. That we are truly one, like the cells within our body working together to make us. God could be real and not in the way people think, we all together as one are God itself. Now at first you may be skeptical but a quick google on this man and a scan of his work, you will realize that the evidence is quite propelling. He's done experiments that consisted of counties as a whole that participated.

[sivispacem]

It's woo, basically- pseudoscience. No-one has ever been able to replicate his findings and the scientific community simply doesn't believe them. It's an interesting idea but not one supported by empirical evidence.

[uNi]

Pretty much all you need to know on the subject: http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html

[Nameless Foot Soldier]

Oh, so he's the only one who claims these results? I guess that's why his theories haven't really gotten anywhere from he started claiming these things in the 80's.

[S0lo]

this very much aligns with what i felt whenever i was under the influence of either Psilocybin and LSD, and for a short while back then i found it incredibly fascinating to explore these experiences and to translate them in to, for the lack of a better word, spiritual theory. That quickly took a very dark turn when i lost myself in some silly, esoterical constructs that were impossible to communicate to the outer world. Took me years until i got some feeling of sanity back.

 

I have long since stopped looking for a deeper meaning within the drug-addled misfirings of my neurons and have only ever felt more sane that way. As for the theory itself... it's a nice, calming thought that makes me feel kinda warm inside, but that's all there is to it for me. Way to vague and unproven to be anything more than, well, just another theory.

[GTA_stu]

Morpho whatnow.

 

Pretty much all you need to know on the subject: http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html

 

 

...tests the telepathic powers of a parrot.

 

Yeahhhh, I'm out.

[GN 92]

I'd read that skepdic website but I'm under the influence

[psymin]

OP - have you studied Hinduism?

 

I <3 guys like Sheldrake and Graham Hancock (google banned ted talks) that are trying to dislodge the cancer of materialist based scientific world view.

 

I ask about Hinduism as I have been studying Kashmir Shivaism lately and for me, it all just clicks.

[sivispacem]

the cancer of materialist based scientific world view.

I'd have no problem with people like Sheldrake and Hancock peddling their woo if they didn't pretend it was science. I find it odd that you imply science is abhorrent and harmful, and then profess your support for two individuals who intentionally misuse it to try and give their opinions validity.

[psymin]

 

the cancer of materialist based scientific world view.

I'd have no problem with people like Sheldrake and Hancock peddling their woo if they didn't pretend it was science. I find it odd that you imply science is abhorrent and harmful, and then profess your support for two individuals who intentionally misuse it to try and give their opinions validity.Materialist-based science.

 

Thats the key.

Quantum science is written about in the Vedas of Hinduism.

all the great scientific discoveries and advancements were made by mystics.

Now science is full of twats like Dawkins, Hawking, and my personal favorite 'scientist' Neil deGrasse Tyson. A man who has 'no time for the bigger questions'.

 

Im not anti-science, im anti materialist.

I am antimatter. (lol)

Edited February 23, 2015 by N0 F34R

[sivispacem]

But basically the sole reason that people like Sheldrake get roundly lambasted by the scientific community is because they pretend that their views were empirical. The whole point in science is that it's evidence-based. If it ceases to become evidence-based, it isn't science, and adding a random buzz-word like "quantum" at the beginning doesn't mitigate this. I've always been of the view that you can believe whatever outlandish bollocks you fancy, but start pretending your beliefs are empirical when they're not and you deserve to be laughed at.

 

 

all the great scientific discoveries and advancements were made by mystics

That is, to put it politely, utter sh*te.

[El Dildo]

all the great scientific discoveries and advancements were made by mystics.

Now science is full of twats like Dawkins, Hawking, and my personal favorite 'scientist' Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[OysterBarron]

But basically the sole reason that people like Sheldrake get roundly lambasted by the scientific community is because they pretend that their views were empirical. The whole point in science is that it's evidence-based. If it ceases to become evidence-based, it isn't science, and adding a random buzz-word like "quantum" at the beginning doesn't mitigate this. I've always been of the view that you can believe whatever outlandish bollocks you fancy, but start pretending your beliefs are empirical when they're not and you deserve to be laughed at.

all the great scientific discoveries and advancements were made by mystics

That is, to put it politely, utter sh*te.

I think we all know that science stems from clever men using mind altering drugs in order to perceive the world around them differently and try and understand it.

[psymin]

Two articles I feel worth reading.

 

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jul-aug/05-isaac-newton-worlds-most-famous-alchemist

 

http://theweek.com/articles/447197/neil-degrasse-tyson-philistine

 

I feel no need to explain myself further. Im not here to convert anyone. Just saying my piece.

 

Peace

[S0lo]

 

 

the cancer of materialist based scientific world view.

I'd have no problem with people like Sheldrake and Hancock peddling their woo if they didn't pretend it was science. I find it odd that you imply science is abhorrent and harmful, and then profess your support for two individuals who intentionally misuse it to try and give their opinions validity.

Materialist-based science.

 

Thats the key.

Quantum science is written about in the Vedas of Hinduism.

all the great scientific discoveries and advancements were made by mystics.

Now science is full of twats like Dawkins, Hawking, and my personal favorite 'scientist' Neil deGrasse Tyson. A man who has 'no time for the bigger questions'.

 

Im not anti-science, im anti materialist.

I am antimatter. (lol)

 

 

exactly. you do not matter. that is usually the result of sacrificing one's intellectual credibility on the altar of mysticism.

 

Edit; I appreciate the sentiment you presented me with elsewhere just now. Makes me wish i had expressed above point without trying to be cute in the process.

Edited February 23, 2015 by King S0lo

[psymin]

 

exactly. you do not matter. that is usually the result of sacrificing one's intellectual credibility on the altar of mysticism.

lolololol like I care.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

I dont. Its nice.

[sivispacem]

Two articles I feel worth reading.

One about how alchemy, which was basically chemistry without the underlying basis of physics, gave us some of our greatest discoveries through what was essentially trial and error, and a subjective commentary on Neil deGrasse Tyson and the validity of philosophical thinking in modern society. None of which appears to have anything to do with any point you've made. The discoveries from the age of alchemy are well-understood scientific phenomenon that can be empirically demonstrated, and confusing a legitimate criticism of a single individual's subjective views on the interaction between philosophy and science with the kind of pseudoscience that Sheldrake peddles is utterly laughable.

 

 

I feel no need to explain myself further.

Well, I'd like you to explain why you posted those two links as if they had something to do with anything you'd mentioned, when they clearly don't.

[Abel.]

 

 

the cancer of materialist based scientific world view.

I'd have no problem with people like Sheldrake and Hancock peddling their woo if they didn't pretend it was science. I find it odd that you imply science is abhorrent and harmful, and then profess your support for two individuals who intentionally misuse it to try and give their opinions validity.

I am antimatter.

 

 

 

Whose existence was predicted by Paul Dirac, who had no regard whatsoever for mysticism.

 

 

Historically many scientists have held strong religious views (Newton, Leibniz, Cantor, Euler and Riemann spring to mind). However, they never used these views to further their theories. For these men faith was a symbol of hope, which is absolutely fine. However when pursuing their scientific work they never invoked religion ("Oh this proposition is correct because G-d told me, so bugger the proof"). There remain many orthodox Jewish scientists who see their scientific work as a way of being closer to G-d. On the other hand there are also a great many scientists in history who were atheists or agnostic. Karl Gauss, without whom countless facets of the modern world simply never would have been possible, had no discernible religious or mystical beliefs despite living in a very religious time.

 

Bottom line is this: Religion and personal belief in mysticism are both fine, but to even suggest that mysticism has been the driving source of scientific progress (as opposed to rigorous mathematical, empirical measurement and hard work) is bollocks of the highest order, utterly ignorant and frankly insulting to the tireless efforts of today's research scientists.

 

 

I also resent the idea of putting Dawkins into the same category as Professor Hawking. Dawkins is a militant atheist intent on pushing his agenda which many atheists/secular humanists want nothing to do with; Hawking is one of the most esteemed theoretical physicists of modern times and by all accounts a decent, humble man.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Failure

[make total destroy]

 

Im not anti-science, im anti materialist.

 

 

 

Or in other words, 'silly'.

[reiniat]

If we were all part of a massive conscience, that conscience would be one of the most stupid supreme entities in the universe.

"Were all god, how about we kill each other over the color of our skins or the other gods we believe in"

"Were all god, lets destroy all the delicate ecosistems that support our existence"

"Were all god, lets go to the moon and then stop because money"

"Were all god, lets browse dank memes, and watch Baby Baby 400 million times"

"Were all god, lets watch midget porn"

 

Way to go god, way to go.

Edited February 23, 2015 by reiniat

[Jehannum]

I read and rejected some of Sheldrake's stuff back in the 80s.

 

He was sceptical that stars were actually really far away. He saw the eye as not a receiver but a projector of a morphic field and that we see objects within this field. This means his hypothesis is troubled if the stars are really far away (instantaneous movement of information).

 

As I read through his book I just thought he was being sceptical for the sake of it, particularly with anything that didn't fit in with his hypotheses. And there were lots of things that didn't fit.

 

He said people know when you're staring at them from behind because they sense the 'field' emanating from your eyes. I used to test it out during university lectures. One girl did turn around, but that's a different story.

[Nameless Foot Soldier]

To, reiniat (My quote mechanic is not working). Brings a whole new meaning to created in his image, doesn't it? Nature is not perfect, is never has been. Destruction and infinite chaos is seen throughout the universe. Sometimes to such a degree that is becomes beautiful. Like a star, those things are f*cking crazy! Do you think the essence of a star makes much sense when it comes to it's own inner workings? Like I said, chaos that's beautiful. It would be odd to think an organic race of living creatures on a single planet would be any different.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Nameless Foot Soldier

[Abel.]

If you're an astrophysicist who's expended a great deal of intellectual effort to elucidate the "inner workings" of stars then yes, I would argue that it makes sense in this case.

 

My issue with pseudoscience (beyond the obvious issue of it misinforming people) is that it is remarkably, undeservedly arrogant. Purveyors of this nonsense claim to be in touch with some convoluted "higher truth" (despite having no supporting evidence to speak of), and have the gall to claim that actual scientists (with a wealth of evidence to support their findings) are doing things wrong, or that nature is "too crazy" for us to understand. Science takes effort--it took 300 years for man to out calculus on a rigorous footing alone.

 

People like this are dangerous. Scientific literacy is critical and needs to be given more emphasis in school curricula. Maybe then we'd have fewer "anti-vaxers" and charlatans abusing the name of scientific endeavour would be laughed out of town.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Failure

[whats_a_username?]

My issue with pseudoscience (beyond the obvious issue of it misinforming people) is that it is remarkably, undeservedly arrogant. Purveyors of this nonsense claim to be in touch with some convoluted "higher truth" (despite having no supporting evidence to speak of), and have the gall to claim that actual scientists (with a wealth of evidence to support their findings) are doing things wrong, or that nature is "too crazy" for us to understand. Science takes effort--it took 300 years for man to out calculus on a rigorous footing alone.

 

Sounds a lot like what religious institutions, such as the catholic church just to name one, are doing. Specifically, when they try to say that evolution isn't the truth. Edited February 27, 2015 by whats_a_username?