Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion

Author of the best-selling Science Delusion; proponent of morphic resonance; banned by TED.

Rupert Sheldrake has been dubbed the most controversial scientist on Earth. His best-selling book, The Science Delusion, tackles what he calls the dogmas within conventional science which can blind us to deeper discoveries about the way the world works.

At ASPIRE 4 ALL, Rupert will discuss the ten dogmas on which he says science is built. These dogmas, he says - for example, that nature is mechanical and purposeless, that the laws and constants of nature are fixed, and that psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible — have held back the pursuit of knowledge.

This is the talk they didn’t want you to see. First delivered at a TEDx event in London, the talk was subsequently removed by TED from its website.

At ASPIRE 4 ALL, participants will have the opportunity to judge for themselves if Rupert’s are ideas worth spreading

-------------------------------------------
ASPIRE is the representative body of the Business Services and IT sector in Kraków, Poland... but that doesn't mean we can't be fun.

[airman]

I’m an atheist, and I hate when people say “I don’t believe in god I believe in science.”

Science isn’t a thing you should simply believe in. That’s Scientism. Science is a process. It’s not a deity.

[jamesbarlow]

"Our science is anti-intellectual by nature. All it does is measure things!"
~ Nietzsche (1882)

[duderama]

I am reminded of the story of the 2 researchers who determined that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria and could be cured with common antibiotics.
The 2 doctors were attacked from all sides by doctors and scientists who demanded retraction because their egos couldn't accept that they may have overlooked a simple cure for their patients. Then of course the threat of malpractice suits was a factor as well.
When ego and fear loom large in the picture many "scientists" will fall back on the security of dogma.

[winstonbarquez]

Whoever says that science has the answer to everything is ignorant of science.

[scottdonaldson]

I have been originally trained as an Electrical Engineer and have spent, quite literally, the rest of my life casually looking at Chaos Theory (I am now 60 yrs old). Chaos theory is beginning to question many of these very issues that Mr. (Dr.). Sheldrake is referring to. I have even seen a number of PhD's in engineering and physics directly question the models that they are using and come up with alternative descriptions of reality. Dr. Tiller (from I think Cal Tech) comes immediately to mind. In fact, the CLOSED system thinking that modern physics uses may be causing a number of the inherent problems (and ultimately creating their own paradoxes, zero point energy = infinity, is an example) in the current description of reality. Open system thinking may be much better suited to the reality that we see - even if the ultimate universe is effectively closed. It is OPEN from "our perspective" due to its overwhelming magnitude. This also may require a reaction diffusion wave (like the one used to describe modern computer chips) as a basic underlying wave structure rather than the "mechanical wave" modern physics currently subscribes to.

[Note: Mathematics tends to lead other fields of inquiry. Mathematics, is unlike any of the physics fields. It does not come about its thinking empirically as physics does, but rather through the deductions of logic. It is an "internal" rather than "external" form of thinking if you will, or as Plato would have said, from a three term proportion rather than a 4 term proportion. In most cases, Modern physics is from a 4 term proportional form of thought. Moreover, because of this internal deductive viewpoint, any two mathematicians will always come to the same conclusions when looking at the same information This is a result of the deductive form of thinking. In Mathematics, a proof is always a proof, just the realm of its application may be subsumed into larger and larger fields of understanding. In other words, even when Other forms of geometry came about, Euclidean geometry was still true, we have just found other forms of geometry that are also true, and we have to look at the specific situation to see which one to apply. Ie exactly what does the problem subscribe itself to]

An example of the problem Mr.(Dr.) Sheldrake is referring to, in modern physics is the concept of life "popping" up only after we have reached a certain level of complexity. In other words, currently physics makes the decision that we are only conscious because of our complexity . Consciousness itself is just a matter of complexity. This assumption seems rather implausible, but it is the current (or at least was) assumption used by physicist. Perhaps a better description of reality may be life occurring depending on the internal processing the entity is actually using (ie open or closed system processing- open system processing (balance in motion ie. K.E.= min) is used by a living system and closed system processing (balance - ie. P.E. = min) by a dead one), and the level of intellect is just a matter of how much internal processing we are capable of. In fact, Benoit Mandelbrot created the fractal dimension which is measures complexity by looking at the "internal" twisting or convolution of a data set; and many data sets (and certainly almost all living systems) get more complicated the closer you look, not less. This type of internal thinking, typically, is why Mathematics tends to lead physics and other scientific forms of thinking. Perhaps we should look at our underlying scientific assumptions very closely, because we are most likely to be thinking FROM those assumptions rather than TO those assumptions. Modern Physics has about 22 paradoxes that they currently can't resolve, and perhaps the underlying (often hidden) assumptions are actually causing the problem. Perhaps a shift from a closed system paradigm to an open system paradigm may resolve many of these issues. It appears Mr. (Dr.) Sheldrake is, very likely, looking at the problem from an open systems paradigm. Of course, this holistic form of thinking may cause people to come to the ultimate conclusion that the holographic sum total of the universe is 1) more powerful than that linear combination of elements that make it up (ie. non linear) and 2) acts quite like a God of our universe (and perhaps the God that Kurt Gödel proved existed after Einstein died) if you will, where you are both responsible for your own actions and succeeded or failed as primarily a result of that form of action but also you must still must subscribe to the desires and actions of the whole. Perhaps the split is something like 90-10 in general and sometimes 10-90 in particular situations) In other words, you succeed primarily based on your own actions but also the combination of your actions coupled with the actions of the whole and how well these action fit together. Going in a particular direction if the whole is going in a different direction doesn't make much sense unless you know the whole is about to change direction. I don't know (I haven't spent any time trying to determine this) that this God matches the Christian thought of God (or any other for that matter), but I also don't think modern liberalism is ready to accept this form of thought either. It would simply mean too much self responsibility (90% in general). Mental Individualization is very difficult for many people to accept and is not of much use politically.

[swilliams]

When someone says that they believe in science, what they're really saying is that they believe in today's mechanistic materialism.

[mikelabor]

I love listening to Sheldrake. Very rare mind!

[peterrichards]

Science: "Give me one free miracle and I'll explain everything to you."

[carolberry]

Can listen to him all day. Science needs to lose its love affair with materialism.

[kevinwells]

Quote of the week:
“ Somewhere inside your head there’s a little Rupert…”

[rainbowcupcakeish]

I would love to ask Rupert Sheldrake why i have experienced numerous times the sudden fearful urge to look at the bottom of my bedroom door, within 3 seconds a spider will come under the door frame and into my room. (We get house spiders, a fair amount.) But how do i "know" when its going to happen??!This has happened to me at least 5 times where i sort of telepathically "predict" it. Ive even sat up out of bed, in the dark, had the urge to shine my phone torch at the door frame, lo and behold, a spider walks in. I dont have any other psychic abilities that may be useful, or profitable!!! Just this stupid spider prediction!!

[Alex-ltpp]

Rupert Sheldrake, his intellectual honesty is almost materially tangible. There is none of the arrogance that you see in the depressing wing of science: material reductionism.
Reductionism enhances mental illness. It's a phase for most intelligent people, a spiritual adolescence, the phase of unrest and rebellion, when the hormones kick in and start messing us up. I went through that throughout my late teenage years until the early twenties. It is sad that many adults never come out of it.

[RedziRekuEdze]

I love these kind of people, so humble but so knowledgeable but most importantly, so sincere.

[stevenfernandez]

Tesla said the moment we begin to study beyond the physical nature we will progress leaps and bounds.

[nomad]

This man is a genius, we need more people like him.

[ReligionAndMaterialismDebunked]

"I don't know what the truth is, I'm just a scientist." - Donald Hoffman ✊❤️🤜🤛🔥✌️👌🤯😁

If only more scientists felt this way and didn't push ideas so easily off into pseudoscience and material based atheism.

[crouchingwombathiddenquoll]

I'm just a boiler maker welder and this man managed to educate me.
Thank you, plenty to think about now .

[andrecampbell]

Science is about great scientists standing on the shoulders of preceding great scientists.

[swavekbu]

Science is a business and social-political activity. Even physics there is so much bullshit it's ridiculous, all for the purpose of clever marketing and career-making.

[CGMaat]

Best Quintessential ever - TED - masterpiece ! Shame on ted rejecting this outstanding presentation!