Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Rupert Sheldrake talks about herd mentality in science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Rupert Sheldrake Portrait

Sheldrake, author of Science Set Free, is a Cambridge-trained biochemist and plant physiologist, is a prominent public intellectual critical of the authoritarianism and closed-mindedness that he finds increasingly typical of mainstream science.

But we will let him tell it to philosopher James Barham here:

The Best Schools: On p. 93 of your new book, Science Set Free (Deepak Chopra, 2012), you speak of the “intellectual phase-locking”—that is, the “group think” or herd mentality—that clearly plagues mainstream science today. We were wondering whether this was mainly due to the hubris that comes from the unprecedented social prestige scientists now enjoy, or whether it might not be more a matter of the metaphysical commitment to materialism that has been deeply ingrained in the scientific community for the past 400 years.

In other words, is the intellectual phase-locking of scientists more about arrogance and turf-protecting? Or is it more about their being in the grip of a misguided ideology? Or both? Please elaborate.

Rupert Sheldrake: The materialist ideology promotes a high degree of conformity in scientific thinking because it is indeed ideological, and materialists are unforgiving towards heretical deviations from this belief system.

Over the course of the twentieth century, the atmosphere within biology became increasingly intolerant, at the same time as physics opened up a wider range of possibilities. There are still great limitations on what professional physicists can think, but there is a toleration of alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, divergent interpretations of cosmology, the question of whether there is one universe or many, and so on.

Another reason for the greater uniformity of thinking is the professionalization of science. In the nineteenth century, many of the most creative scientists were not professionals. For example, Charles Darwin was an amateur naturalist living on a private income, with no academic post or government grant. He was much freer as a result.

Now, the vast majority of scientists rely on salaries and are far more aware of peer-group pressure. In fact, the peer-review system for jobs, grant applications, and publication of papers in journals means that peer pressure dominates their lives. In the nineteenth century, there were fewer constraints on creative and independent thinking. More.

Don’t miss: Non-Darwinian biologist Rupert Sheldrake takes on Darwinian atheist Daniel Dennett

Rupert Sheldrake: An early non-Darwinian biologist looks back on it all

Figure of fun Richard Dawkins gets thrown out of Sheldrake’s lab

Rupert Sheldrake likes Dembski’s Being as Communion

Comments
Just wrote a blog post relevant to this topic earlier this week hereKD
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
BA77,
well Daves, somehow I knew that some Darwinist would try to smear PEAR’s research (is that evidence for telepathy?).
No smear intended. Rather, I simply believe that they arrived at a null result.
as to your claim: Their work is poorly documented, yet that is, as usual for Darwinists, just plain false:
Ok, to be fair, I was referring mainly to their remote-viewing experiments there. From Critique of the PEAR Remote-Viewing Experiments, by Hansen, Utts, and Marwick:
It is also noteworthy that the [PEAR] work has been given virtually no coverage in two parapsychology textbooks (Edge, Morris, Rush, & Palmer, 1986; Nash 1986). Palmer (1985, p. 57) defended his omission saying ``As procedural details of the subsequent trials are not included in the report, a methodological critique cannot be undertaken.''
Numerous problems with their methods are also discussed in that article. Their work with REGs might have been documented more carefully, but then this just makes the problems that much more clear (see Stanley Jeffers).
As to the false accusation ‘this would be a thriving area of research. Instead, PEAR no longer exists’. International consciousness research laboratories http://icrl.org/
Well, your next line says:
PRINCETON'S PEAR LABORATORY TO CLOSE
which supports my claim, no? But yes, I do acknowledge that Jahn and some of his team are still together. But again, if all this were real, it would be one of the most sensational discoveries ever. The fact that a prestigious university essentially washed its hands of the whole operation speaks volumes.daveS
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Just a few thoughts about the use of the term 'science': 'Science' is becoming a diluted term, a linguistic construct the meaning of which is becoming weakened, washed away through casual and mistaken usage. 'Science' is not a verb, while 'scientism' and 'sciencism' are suffixed-nouns, which turn science into an activity or process. 'Science' is both noun and adjective ... a proper nomen (name) for knowledge and a concept that modifies or describes another noun, such as 'scientific' methodology. Lewis Carroll treated the use and misuse of words in his writings, embedding his socio-political ideas in fantasy stories: " ... "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'?" Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't, till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'?"   "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master, that's all." Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them, particularly verbs, they're the proudest, adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs, however I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!" ... " Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872)redwave
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Of related interest: Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments - Radin - 2012 Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6•10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem. http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf also of related note: The materialistic conjecture of the 'many worlds interpretation' of quantum mechanics was recently dealt a death blow: Quantum mechanics Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[43] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_implications Quantum experiment verifies Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' - March 24, 2015 Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein's original conception of "spooky action at a distance" using a single particle. ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle's wave function.,, According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,, ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,, This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,, "Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle," says Professor Wiseman. "Einstein's view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points. "However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices." "Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong." http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-einstein-spooky-action-distance.htmlbornagain77
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
well Daves, somehow I knew that some Darwinist would try to smear PEAR's research (is that evidence for telepathy?). as to your claim: Their work is poorly documented, yet that is, as usual for Darwinists, just plain false: Publications http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html As to the false accusation 'this would be a thriving area of research. Instead, PEAR no longer exists'. International consciousness research laboratories http://icrl.org/ PRINCETON’S PEAR LABORATORY TO CLOSE The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program at Princeton University, internationally renowned for its extensive study of the influence of the mind on physical reality, will be completing its agenda of basic research and closing its physical facilities at the end of February. The purpose of the program, established in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, an aerospace scientist who was then Dean of the university’s School of Engineering and Applied Science, was "to study the potential vulnerability of engineering devices and information processing systems to the anomalous influence of the consciousness of their human operators." The research was funded by gifts from Princeton alumni James S. McDonnell, patriarch of the McDonnell Douglas Aerospace empire, Laurance Rockefeller, Donald C. Webster, and by numerous other philanthropic benefactors. Jahn and his colleague, Brenda Dunne, a developmental psychologist from the University of Chicago who has served throughout as PEAR's laboratory manager, together with other members of their interdisciplinary research staff, have focused on two major areas of study: anomalous human/machine interactions, which addresses the effects of consciousness on random physical systems and processes; and remote perception, wherein people attempt to acquire information about distant locations and events. The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measurable influences on physical reality. The researchers have also developed several theoretical models that attempt to accommodate the empirical results, which cannot be explained by any currently recognized scientific model. "We have accomplished what we originally set out to do 28 years ago, namely to determine whether these effects are real and to identify their major correlates. There are still many important questions to be addressed that will require a coordinated interdisciplinary approach to the topic, but it is time for the next generation of scholars to take over." Jahn and Dunne said. Their future plans involve oversight of the International Consciousness Research Laboratories (ICRL), a non-profit organization established in 1996 to promote quality research, educational initiatives, and practical applications of consciousness-related anomalies www.icrl.org. The members of ICRL represent some 20 countries and a broad range of professional backgrounds, and most have had some association with the PEAR program in the past. Jahn and Dunne currently serve as advisers to Psyleron, www.Psyleron.com, a Princeton, NJ-based enterprise that produces a line of state-of-the-art technology to enable public exploration of human/machine anomalies. They will both also continue to serve as Officers of the Society for Scientific Exploration: www.ScientificExploration.org. More than 50 publications are available on the PEAR website, and Jahn and Dunne's textbook, Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Harcourt, 1987) has been in print for nearly 20 years. As part of their extensive archiving efforts, Jahn and Dunne have recently prepared a 150-page anthology of those PEAR publications pertinent to the burgeoning fields of complementary and alternative medicine, for a special issue of Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, edited by Dr. Larry Dossey, which is currently in press. An educational DVD/CD set entitled The PEAR Proposition, produced by Strip Mind Media, offers a comprehensive overview history and accomplishments of the laboratory is also available, and can be obtained on-line from the ICRL website at www.icrl.org. http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/press-statement.htmlbornagain77
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
BA77,
As well, a Princeton study, spanning over a decade, also found evidence for ‘mind’:
Somehow I knew that Robert Jahn and PEAR would eventually make an appearance here. :-) Their work is poorly documented, they observed a tiny effect, and it has not been replicated. You would think that if they had discovered a real phenomenon, this would be a thriving area of research. Instead, PEAR no longer exists.daveS
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
William J Murray, thanks for the compliment, but you are far more agile at defending the 'primacy of Mind' than I am:
"In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place." - William J. Murray “If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.” - William J Murray
I simply have not seen the problem put as concisely as you put it WJM. And you did that by reason not empirics! As tight as your reasoning is, that empirical evidence would confirm your reasoning should be no surprise for you. ,,, ,,,some of my notes can be accessed by clicking on my handle. But I overloaded that site about a year ago and now just keep word pad documents.bornagain77
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
BA77, do you have a website where you keep this stuff up and available? Categorized, perhaps? If not, can UD accommodate a permanent page where his links can be categorized and made easily accessible? It's pure gold, man!William J Murray
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
Further notes:
Atheistic Materialism: Illusions of free will within an illusion of mind https://docs.google.com/document/d/19M1c_Vxye4imjw_vGL0_-I3uHOIkQyyWwJPsz1Ys90g/edit Higher Dimensional Special Relativity, Near Death Experiences, Biophotons, and the Quantum Soul https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XGuV7FWwaDag4T5glstQWjsQNtWHKw3T9qLF14fUHHo/edit The fact we have souls, and the fact that unguided Darwinian processes cannot generate functional information, appear to be two sides of the same coin that strongly support each other. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/1-dawkins-wants-to-land-porn-on-muslim-world-2-dawkins-yawnfest-has-just-got-to-stop/#comment-545518
bornagain77
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
In fact, besides being able to effect the structure of the brain, 'mind' has now been shown to be able to reach down to the genetic level and effect the expression of our genes:
Is mindfulness meditation good medicine? - August 18, 2014 Excerpt: In a 2010 meta-analysis (quantitative review), psychologist Stefan Hofmann of Boston University and his colleagues examined studies that tested both forms of mindfulness meditation as a remedy for anxiety disorders and depression. They found that the meditation sessions led to significant improvements in both conditions immediately after therapy, as well as approximately three months later,, a 2013 meta-analysis partly backs up the 2010 assessment. In that review, psychologist Bassam Khoury, then at the University of Montreal, and his colleagues found that both types of mindfulness-based therapies were effective for depression and anxiety disorders, https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/is-mindfulness-meditation-good-medicine/ Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, - December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/
Needless to say, the preceding findings are very antagonistic to the materialistic belief that we have no free will and are merely helpless 'victims of our genes'. But perhaps the strongest evidence for the reality of 'mind' is the success of modern science itself. Modern science was born out of the Christian belief that man has a rational 'mind':
Epistemology - Why Should The Human Mind Even Comprehend Reality? - Stephen Meyer https://vimeo.com/32145998 Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
In fact, denying the reality of 'mind', as materialists do, leads to the epistemological failure of modern science. One humorous consequence of denying the reality of mind is "Boltzmann Brain":
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
As the preceding highlights, materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place. This epistemological failure inherent in materialism has been further clarified in Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism:
Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw
The following computer simulations reveal the problem of 'cognitive reliability' is much worse for naturalists/materialists than what even Plantinga realized. i.e. The following simulations revealed that, if naturalism is assumed as true, then we should not believe ANY of our perceptions to be true.
Quote: "In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage" Donald Hoffman PhD. - Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception - 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439
Thus, when one looks past the bullying tactics of Darwinists, one finds that there is in fact much strong empirical evidence, spanning multiple levels of investigation no less, to support the Sheldrakes's contention for 'extended mind', and that Darwinists have, as usual, nothing but hot air and insults to support their position: Verse and Music:
Mark 8:36-37 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? ROYAL TAILOR – HOLD ME TOGETHER – music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpJ2FeeJgw
bornagain77
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
As well, a Princeton study, spanning over a decade, also found evidence for 'mind':
Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program - 1997 Abstract: Strong correlations between output distribution means of a variety of random binary processes and pre-stated intentions of some 100 individual human operators have been established over a 12-year experimental program. More than 1000 experimental series, employing four different categories of random devices and several distinctive protocols, show comparable magnitudes of anomalous mean shifts from chance expectation, with similar distribution structures. Although the absolute effect sizes are quite small, of the order of 10–4 bits deviation per bit processed, over the huge databases accumulated the composite effect exceeds 7 ?( p approx.= 3.5 × 10 –13). These data display significant disparities between female and male operator performances, and consistent serial position effects in individual and collective results. Data generated by operators far removed from the machines and exerting their efforts at times other than those of machine operation show similar effect sizes and structural details to those of the local, on-time experiments. Most other secondary parameters tested are found to have little effect on the scale and character of the results, with one important exception: studies performed using fully deterministic pseudorandom sources, either hard-wired or algorithmic, yield null overall mean shifts, and display no other anomalous feature. http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1997-correlations-random-binary-sequences-12-year-review.pdf Dean Radin - Random Number Generators correlate to intention - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFULrlxTFsA Random Number Generator-GCP - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w4wCWx3n1I Mind Effects Matter - Perturbed Randomness Following Worldwide crisis - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE1haKXoHMo Mass Consciousness: Perturbed Randomness Before First Plane Struck on 911 - July 29 2012 Excerpt: The machine apparently sensed the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre four hours before they happened - but in the fevered mood of conspiracy theories of the time, the claims were swiftly knocked back by sceptics. But it also appeared to forewarn of the Asian tsunami just before the deep sea earthquake that precipitated the epic tragedy.,, Now, even the doubters are acknowledging that here is a small box with apparently inexplicable powers. 'It's Earth-shattering stuff,' says Dr Roger Nelson, emeritus researcher at Princeton University in the United States, who is heading the research project behind the 'black box' phenomenon. http://www.network54.com/Forum/594658/thread/1343585136/1343657830/Mass+Consciousness-+Perturbed+Randomness++Before+First+Plane+Struck+on+911
Here are some of the papers to go with the preceding video and article;
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research - Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena - publications http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html The Global Consciousness Project - Meaningful Correlations in Random Data http://teilhard.global-mind.org/
I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiments, "Since you ultimately believe that the 'god of random chance' produced everything we see around us, what in blue blazes is my mind doing pushing your ‘god of randomness’ around?" Moreover, completely contrary to materialistic thought, besides reaching 'outside the body', and preturbing random number generators in a way that correlates to intention, there is now fairly strong evidence that 'mind' is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity):
The Case for the Soul - InspiringPhilosophy - (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz's work) - Oct. 2014 - video The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
bornagain77
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
Well it seems that Sheldrake's appeal to a more open minded, less dogmatically materialistic, science has raised the hackles of the resident Darwinians of UD and they have resorted with their usual name calling and mud slinging. The irony with materialists never stops. Ad hominem is not just a problem for internet trolls, but even prominent Darwinists such a Dawkins, Meyer, Coyne and Moran, apparently think that insults count as legitimate refutations in science.,,, Anyway,,, much contrary to what Darwinian atheists think are successful refutations in science, insulting a person and/or his field of work does not qualify as empirical refutation in science as much as they think it does, and as much egotistical comfort as they may get from falsely thinking they are superior to person simply because they insulted him. In fact, it a fallacious tactic that is known as ad hominem. And the tactic is not unlike a school yard bully thinking he is now the smartest kid in school because he beat up the the smartest kid in class. But if one looks past the insults of atheists, at the actual evidence presented by Sheldrake, one finds that his research is above board. Here is a video that highlights much of Sheldrake's work:
The Mind Is Not The Brain - Scientific Evidence - Rupert Sheldrake - (Referenced Notes) - video http://vimeo.com/33479544
What is interesting in the preceding video is that, at the 25:00 minute mark of the video, Sheldrake speaks of a well known skeptic that he invited to replicate his experiment with dogs. The results of the skeptic revealed the same pattern of ‘extended mind’ that Sheldrake had consistently witnessed for dogs, but the well known skeptic refused to accept the possibility that ‘mind’ had anything to do with the results and tried to postulate another far fetched cause. Sad! ,,, Anyways, all in all I found Sheldrake’s methods to be thoroughly above board and yes, most importantly, ‘scientific’. In fact, Sheldrake, in the spirit of full disclosure, talks of a internet site that he has set up especially for skeptics (or whomever) so they could perform the experiments for themselves at home (or at school): Here is the online test site:
Online Tests Excerpt: Rupert Sheldrake invites you to participate in his ongoing research. No previous experience is necessary, and the online tests can be done immediately. Most of these experiments are suitable for use in schools and colleges, and some make an excellent basis for student projects. http://www.sheldrake.org/participate
Here is a simple test that would be fairly easy to conduct at home with some friends:
Telephone telepathy with the Nolan Sisters - video http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=22013
What I found particularly interesting, at the 17:38 minute mark of the 'The Mind Is Not The Brain' video, several experiments were discussed that highlighted some animals (such as dogs, cats, and birds) have a transcendent component to their being that is able to sense what the owner's intentions are. (of note: reptile pets demonstrated no transcendent connection to their owners). Here is a interesting short video done by 'ordinary' people demonstrating that fact:
Jaytee: A dog who knew when his owner was coming home - video https://vimeo.com/81150973
And Sheldrake is far from alone in finding postive evidence for 'mind'. In the following study, a Cornell University scientist found 'statistically significant' evidence for telepathy:
Study suggests precognition may be possible - Nov 18, 2010 Excerpt: A Cornell University scientist has demonstrated that psi anomalies, more commonly known as precognition, premonitions or extra-sensory perception (ESP), really do exist at a statistically significant level. http://phys.org/news/2010-11-precognition.html
Ironically, materialists often invoke the experiments of Benjamin Libet when they try to deny free will. Yet, Libet himself was a strong defender of free will:
Do Benjamin Libet's Experiments Show that Free Will Is an Illusion? - Michael Egnor - January 15, 2014 Excerpt: Materialists often invoke the experiments of Benjamin Libet when they deny free will.,,, (Yet) Libet himself was a strong defender of free will, and he interpreted his own experiments as validating free will. He noted that his subjects often vetoed the unconscious "decision" after the readiness potential appeared. ,,,"The role of conscious free will would be, then, not to initiate a voluntary act, but rather to control whether the act takes place. We may view the unconscious initiatives for voluntary actions as 'bubbling up' in the brain. The conscious-will then selects which of these initiatives may go forward to an action or which ones to veto and abort, with no act appearing." - Libet Libet even observed that his experimental confirmation of free will accorded with the traditional religious understanding of free will:,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/do_benjamin_lib081171.html
In fact, many leading neuroscientists besides Libet, also supported 'mind':
Materialism of the Gaps - Michael Egnor (Neurosurgeon) - January 29, 2009 Excerpt: The evidence that some aspects of the mind are immaterial is overwhelming. It's notable that many of the leading neuroscientists -- Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet -- were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/materialism_of_the_gaps015901.html Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs - 2010 Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong. http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf
bornagain77
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Materialist science is an oxymoron...Joe
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT
From the turkeys at Southern Baptist (HT to sparc): “Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,” To fall within the bounds of the Baptist Faith & Message, Patterson said a professor needs to believe only that there was a time when nothing but God existed, ... any belief in theistic evolution is not within the bounds of Southern Baptists’ confession of faith. And on and on it goes. Jeez but that's scary. All those crazy loons in one place.Graham2
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
Thanks for the link, Sparc! From the article (quoting Dembski's repentant statement "admitting error" regarding Noah’s flood):
In a brief section on Genesis 4–11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6–9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.
Certainly, Andre, it's materialist science that does not allow to follow the evidence where it leads... [BANG! FZZZZ! -- need a new irony meter.]Piotr
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT
Graham2 @ 7, for whatever reasons the original page at Florida Baptist Witness has been 404ed but it is still available from the wayback archive.sparc
March 26, 2015
March
03
Mar
26
26
2015
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT
Seversky Materialist science does not allow to follow the evidence where it leads....Andre
March 25, 2015
March
03
Mar
25
25
2015
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
sparc: Jeez, I sure did, got a link ?Graham2
March 25, 2015
March
03
Mar
25
25
2015
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
Did you miss: Non-Darwinian baptist creationist Paige Patterson takes on non-Darwinian baptist creationist cdesign proponentsists ID proponent William Dembski?sparc
March 25, 2015
March
03
Mar
25
25
2015
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
Rec: and flying priests.Graham2
March 25, 2015
March
03
Mar
25
25
2015
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
If you want herd mentality, go to TSZ.Mung
March 25, 2015
March
03
Mar
25
25
2015
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
@3....but Graham....he worked at Cambridge....for a few years....in the 70s. I really fear for y'all. No skepticism. Deepak Chopra and fake news from tabloids and psychic dogs and quantum woo. There is a "nigerian prince" looking for the UD email list....so that he can transfer money into all your accounts.REC
March 25, 2015
March
03
Mar
25
25
2015
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Herd Mentality & Groupthink in science are probably most common in Biology. "Evolution is True" blah blah blah. Blah.ppolish
March 25, 2015
March
03
Mar
25
25
2015
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
This is the Morphic Resonance kook. UD just cant resist.Graham2
March 25, 2015
March
03
Mar
25
25
2015
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
What is it that science isn't free to do?Seversky
March 25, 2015
March
03
Mar
25
25
2015
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
I think science proves to be just a methodology used by human beings. A verb and not a noun. So the people simply presum other people know better. They don't question conclusions because they have no alternative hunch to base a question on. So they accept. Then its a higher acceptance because they believe its a intellectual class above the average. So they don't like anyone questioning the tribe. Then with conclusions backing up anti religious ideas or other things tHEY REALLY circle the wagons. They just ain't that sharp after all.Robert Byers
March 25, 2015
March
03
Mar
25
25
2015
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply