I paid attention on telepathy and tried to watch people while being myself behind a toned windows in a car. Women are very sensitive and normally they turn back to look who is watching them. About dogs, I believe it can be so as it is described in a lecture and there is a telepathic connection between mammals. I can feel when our dog is coming to a door without seeing it and in very noisy environment of my workshop. It produces no noise but I just get feeling that somebody else is present nearby
I would be interested in more studies about social interaction and social entanglement (morphic studies) with regard to Autism. I have a daughter on the spectrum and even though people think autistic people don't connect with others, I believe the problem is that they are too connected. My daughter often experiences sensory overload because she is processing multiple conversations and sensing multiple people's emotions simultaneously. She is unable to filter. She is too 'entangled'.
"its wishful thinking" agreed! I meant the 'nobel prize' comment to be a challenge to the believers, sorry I didn't make that clear. earlier commenters said that sheldrake's 'theories' can't be tested under the conditions of the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge because of such-and-such statistical 'reasons'. This renders sheldrake's 'theories' as Untestable as a practical matter.
@untestableClaims If you want to see evidence of telepathy, why not conduct the Ganzfeld Experiments under double-blind, sensory-isolated, automated controlled conditions? Many independent meta-analyses from researchers such as Honorton (32%), Andrew Endersby(27-29%), etc. and academia such as University of Edigburgh found very small effects, but highly statistically significant results where the probability of Type I error is much more unlikely than winning the lottery...
This kind of work needs more attention. It is our duty as humans to explore every possible dimension of our intellect to better understand its nature. Each study on so called paranormal experiences at the very least provides a clearer picture of the true essence of life whether the idea is proved or disproved.
Those who turn their heads away from this work are fundamentally attached to a materialistic world view that has been dominating our perception for the past few hundred years.
special pleading. the JREF,as I understand it, conducts tests under conditions to which the JREF and the claimant both agree to in advance. there are also other skeptical groups which provide testing and awards, not to mention the availability of the proper scientific community. if this stuff is real, its a new discovery worthy of the Nobel Prize. So where's the Prize? (standing by for more Pleading)
@untestableClaims I completely understand your point, but everything you said has nothing to do what I mentioned. Again, the problem with those tests is that these P=0.001 (Preliminary) and P=0.000001 (formal) & small sample-size are usually set in the JREF's protocols, which can easily result in Type II errors. Any statistician well-informed in significance testing knows that such tests are corrupted because they have a high risk of false-negatives than the usual tests used in most research.
@untestableClaims See the problem with the JREF tests is that they usually rely on small sample-sizes, alpha level of P=0.001/P=0.000001 (if not close to it), and lack of legitimate, statistical significance testing. The problem with small sample-sizes and those alpha levels which are JREF's standards is that they can easily reject a claim, even if the truth is far from the null-hypothesis.....
This isn't to say that nobody can win, but you need to be exceptionally skilled/lucky to do so..
@untestableClaims "if...evidence of telepathy..million dollar prize."
A prevalent misconception. Actually, the probability of the claimant claiming the $ depends on the sample-size, alpha level of the JREF's tests & the claimant's average hit rate. A claimant with a 32% average hit rate with a 1/4 prob. of hit can show evidence of psi in the long run; however, when it comes to the small-run, the tests can easily commit Type II errors..
consciousness is just your brain aware of it's own computation. it's just our brain's equivalent of a visceral GUI. It was evolutionary win move when our brain made doubled copies of certain brain regions to allow us to simulate. consciousness is that simulator. when you daydream your visual cortex actually lights up with the image you're imagining.
"I've communicated with my sister on at least 3 occasions that way"
if anyone can demonstrate compelling evidence of telepathy under controlled conditions, they can win the James Randi million dollar prize. if one can't reproduce such a claim under controlled conditions, then a more mundane explanation, such as coincidence or confirmation bias, remains a likely candidate. I didn't watch the entire video: did the speaker mention anything about applying for the million dollars?
I know alot of people will say bullshit to this video, but I'm pretty convinced he's spot on, I KNOW telepathy is possible, I've communicated with my sister on at least 3 occasions that way. It's not super natural, it's just an unexplained science.
People interested in this might also find great value in the work of the physicist David Bohm and the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti. These two complement Sheldrake synergistically (Sheldrake even has text of a dialogue with David Bohm at the back of his book "Morphic Resonance"). Bohm's essential text is "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", K's essential text is "The First and Last Freedom". These three texts are really one text, perhaps one of the most important of our times.
Sheldrake does more for inspiring further my faith in the methods of intelligence or the scientific methodology than purely mathematical theoreticians. And his experiments are proximal, dealing with issues of consciousness, which no amount of readings of mathematical physics approaches, but which is the commonest fact of any reader.
If he wore a beard and top hat he'd look exactly like Abraham Lincoln. I'd like to see him start his lecture with with "Fourscore and seven years ago..." just to see the reaction of the audience.
Consciousness is a central mystery of the cosmos and the current science is wholly inadequate. What a relief that some scientists are continuing to advance scientific inquiry, independent of ideological obstruction.
@Zenith88 You're right, science is not a democracy, but if a large part of the population experiences something then it is a scientific phenomena (literally, it can be observed) and bears looking into. Sheldrake's argument is not "people believe this so it's true," it's "people believe this, so why? Here's some ideas. Here's some data." The role of the scientist is not to dismiss but to examine. If 80% of the population believe something, I think that bears some examination, don't you?
I take back what i've said after watching Mr Shelldrakes video on fasting. This guy seems to be a mystic with some scientific training, who coats half-truths in a pseudo-scientific way. Why do i think this? Intuition. It doesn't come from psy, it comes from the experience of having seen his type before. The well mannered, well-spoken individual, slightly charismatic, who strongly believes what he's preaching. I just can't take seriously anyone who advocates depriving your body of nutrients.
I'm a skeptic myself but I do appreciate the civilized and apparently professional way in which mr. Shelldrake presents his point of view. However so far, perhaps because of my ignorance, I've only heard his side of the story on this matter. It may very well be that his theory is so flawed that nobody takes it seriously for good reason. I haven't seen anyone trying. But it's going to take more than one guys speech to change the way i view things so the jury is still out on this one.
I also didn't like two things about his presentation. He often used the argument that x% of the population thinks this and that. As far as i know science is not democratic in the sense that i matters what the majority thinks. The majority can go and occupy whatever street they think, as long as the thing they're supporting is false then it's end of story. Take that statement in the general sense, all i'm saying is that it isn't a valid argument in a debate that want's to be scientific.
@Zenitth88 Please check out also the Dean Radin's google lecture. he talks about the taboo in science about PSI. Very interesting and also has very good Q&A in the end half with very sceptic audience. I am sold :)
@geromino2007 There is nothing unique with the skepticism/criticism in the basis of parapsychology. Skepticism & Criticism have been on going way before the origin of parapsychology. In fact, even the work from the most famous, well-respected scientists such as Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, etc. were discriminated and ridiculed due to the bigotry and lack of open-mindedness in that time.
One thing is to critique, rejecting claims/evidence out of hand is a different matter...
@Zenitth88 Great! I would then highly recommend watching Dean Radin's "Science and the taboo of psi" video here on Youtube. it will give you much more evidence. Good luck!
not scientific. lots of anecdotal stuff. unsupported claims. pretty weak. this guy is not a scientist. the plural of anecdote is anecdotes not data. to not understand the difference between anecdote and data is lame and just plain stupid.
@cunnidvd You do realize that you're talking out of your own ass by the look of your comment don't you????
Who said that his hypotheses are supported only by anecdotes??? None of course.
For your information, he does have genuine, quantitative data from his significance tests that support his hypotheses; however, I am not convinced that his data is legitimate since his significance tests aren't double-blind, automated, nor rigorously controlled......
The double-blind experiment is one of the greatest flaws in research. Do you have ANY idea of the number of pharmaceuticals, surgical devices, and procedures which, after being subjected to such methodology and proved efficacious, are either dangerous are worthless. Furthermore, every doctor knows that the person in the countrol group in a study for a new cancer drug, let's say, will either hope he is getting the drug or fearful he is not, which can effect outcome.
@YD8189 I agree that double-blind studies involving real-deal pills/placebo pills are flawed since experimenters in the groups can easily tell test-subjects that these pills may/may not be real, placebo pills look fake to test-subjects, etc. which increases the odds of unconscious bias. However, this is possibly due to the lack of realism in double-blindness....
As for parapsychology, double-blindness eliminates, if not, minimize conscious/unconscious bias between subjects/experimenters...
@YD8189 True, but over a large number of trials this "doubting/hoping" artifact should be evenly distributed. That's why our confidence in the effect increases with the size of the data pool. Also, many drugs in the medical sciences are not tested for a long period of time. Even the placebo controlled double blind experiments will only show compelling evidence after a large number of trials. We should be more careful about claiming that these widely accepted procedures are flawed; they're not.
I must disagree with you about your contention that these methods are flawless. Even when the methodology is bulletproof, such research is based on a fiction: that of the "average person". There is no such thing.
The recent rejection of PSA testing as the gold standard in the prevention of PCa deaths (200+ men have to be screened and 12 treated to save one life) is but one example of procedures that ultimately prove worthless
@cunnidvd amusing how you missed the part about how he DID explicitly say that that it doesn't prove them right - anecdotes that is - it is stupid to misrepresent what someone says for your own lame and just plain stupid notions of the idea. When it comes to exploring some phenomena all science has is anecdote and it must draw what it can from those anecdotes for the sake of discovering the truth of the phenomena that is being studied. You can tell the limitation of your own reasoning...
cool idea,..i mean, but does this mean the mind continues after death? i doubt it,..cuz as he said the mind and the brain are like earth's gravitational field or the earth's magnets and the magnetic field
@Atheist603 Maybe, but maybe not. If for example our consciousness is not "stored" in our brain, then there would be no reason to expect it to "die" with the degradation of its physical counterpart. It could quite plausibly move on to another vessel for example. The strongest evidence at the moment in this area are a couple thousand anecdotes compiled by reincarnation researchers of children who claim to remember previous lives with astonishing accuracy. No guarantees, but still fascinating.
i doubt reincarnations happen, think about how a child develop from a sperm cell connecting with an egg cell that the mother was born with. and as for consciousness it's likely that it dies when we die,..all evidence point to that,..and i believe that the mind and memories are located in the brain unlike this guy, just think about injury to the brain and you lose memories, sometimes even consciousness (coma)
@Atheist603 Read my reply to 47f0 below. We now have significant reason to doubt that the mind is the sole product of the brain. Serious scientists from all over the world have turned up compelling evidence for non-local consciousness phenomena such as ESP. There is a good discussion of this evidence above. For even more, watch Dean Radin's "Science and the Taboo of Psi" on this very search column. If you want to know the truth about psi, do some research. It just may surprise you. Good luck!
I doubt it, think about it this way,..if the mind wasn't the product of the physical brain,..why does having chromosome defect cause serious mental retardation. also, things like Alzheimer's when neurons starts dying, the mind also starts dying which results to death of the whole body? we might not know fully understand how the mind and the brain work,..but it's a study in progress. just like we don't fully understand many biological process such as stem cells, cell signaling, meiosis etc...
@Janotheknight furthermore,... what about the mind reading machine that scientists can read some brain patterns to read thoughts and make a video from it ,..I mean, how much more evidence do you need? well, i bet you one of those people who want to convince themselves that the mind is not the product of the brain
@Atheist603 Your comparison of the human mind with man-made machines is fallacious. Man-made machines aren't and will never be conscious beings like biological species. Comparing the mind with machines is akin to comparing apples with oranges.....
While there are machines that look and sound A.I., they are not. They lack genuine, biological emotions and consciousness at all levels.
You can believe in the assumption that minds are like machines all you want, but there's no such thing......
@IceAges14Aces where did I compare human and man-made machines? no, humans aren't made up of silicon, human are organic, cells are made up of organic material. All i'm saying is that the brain produces the mind,..mind and consciousness is the production of neurons. I said this guy's idea of the mind being able to travel, and move around (telepathy) is a cool idea,..but that doesn't mean the mind can function w/o the brain like there's earth magnetic field can't function w/o the earth
@Atheist603 Even though I am a skeptic and strongly disagree with the work of this biologists, there are actual, scientific, peer-reviewed studies that strongly support the possibility that thoughts can fly across space and influence matter and also transfer via another person's mind under rigorously, double-blind, automated controlled conditions, i.e. telepathy.
The DMILS (Distance Mental Interaction Between Living Organisms) & Ganzfeld Meta-Studies are one of them.....
I think this scientist would be more than interested to see my first uploaded video "Witness a miracle.". I swear the footage is absolutely genuine. It is best seen full screen and the key moment to pay attention would be as soon as the film comes into focus. I have personal evidence which may support his theories. If it hadn't had this first had evidence I may doubt it my self, but I swear on all that is good and innocent in this world that it is true. This is only one small example of many.
What utter, distilled, mystical drivel. Quack "science" at its worst. Not one of my perceptions extends more than a fraction of a millimeter beyond my various sensory nerves. My camera does not "project itself" out into the world. The microphone on my computer does not "project itself" out into the world. My freaking fingers do not need to be "bigger than the elephant" to feel an elephant, and my skull does not need to "encompass the sky" to have a few sky photons hit my ass-backwards retinas.
@47f0 Out of curiosity, do you insult anything that is considered non-mainstream or contrary to materialism? While Sheldrake's theories deserve critique, it is foolish to ignore and vapidly insult claims that aren't mainstream.
I believe that there are certain ideas, for example, those relating to consciousness and psychedelic drugs, that can't be verified with "hard" evidence because they are purely subjective. They're real, but un-provable. They shouldn't be disparaged for that, should they?
@TheLANDADDY - No, I pretty much just insult things that are patently foolish. Superman shot X-rays out of his eyes. My eyes, on the other hand, have to sit around and wait for photons to bang into a bit of rhodopsin. As an ex acid-head, I promise you - the tracers and other visual effects that I still get from streetlights or headlights when I'm moving past them are "real" only inside my skull - and completely unprovable to anyone else. But that's not reality - or science.
@47f0 Wait a minute. There is not one shred of evidence for a mind=brain model; its nothing more than a faith-based postulate which you have (mis)taken for scientific truth. The overwhelming majority of evidence in fact, if you actually watched the lecture or spent some time researching parapsychology, (no, I don't mean the skeptical inquirer or equivalent materialist propaganda) points to a brain=receiver model.
@Janotheknight - Wrong. There are many shreds of evidence that brain=mind. And by shredded, I mean, shredded brains. Damage this part of the brain, and that part of the mind doesn't work. We know how neurons work - we can probe a flatworm brain in great detail. Stack some flatworm brains together and you get a bug brain. Keep doing that and you get a human brain - and mind. The flatworm brain is superior in one respect, though. It's too simple to foolishly swallow pseudo-scientific hogwash.
@47f0 Your reply already comes off assuming that the brain=mind model is correct, therefore all the evidence you find is likely to corroborate your beliefs. If you compare a brain to a television for example, however many wires you cut and however many television functions you render useless, you still haven't proven that the information is generated in the television, which it is not.
@47f0 Furthermore, certain functions in the brain are sometimes known to reappear in different places if the part conventionally associated with that function is damaged. How could this be? If we were destroying the neurons that "stored" that information, that function would be completely gone. Memory is another example. Karl Lashley discovered that memories have no precise "address" in the brain; his laboratory rats would remember a procedure irrespective of what part of their brain he damaged.
This idea that when we see an image it is outside our head, is refuted by comparing it with a tv camera. The image is quite clearly inside the camera.
This nonsense is a consequence of the human need to be 'special'.
This is pseudo-science. A quaint idea but with no evidential support. He might as well be talking about Auras. His theory on morphic fields has been tested and failed.
Mainstream science rejects his ideas. Of course those that think this only validates the ideas have their own agenda but that is certainly not a scientific one.
You don't have an agenda? Bullshit? Your agenda is to discredit what you opposes your "orthodoxy". Some bow at the statue of a Saint.Your "religion" is science. Do you have any idea how many pharmaceuticals, surgical procedures, or devices are proven worthless after exhaustive "double-blind studies
Donald Light, a researcher at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, found about 85 percent of new drugs offer few, if any, new benefits.
There are two , main reasons why telepathy research has kinda taboo and nonscientific reputation. 1 Conspiracy: This area is in a huge interests of secret services of all countries doing parallel research on it (which is qualified) and they better annonce this research as nonsence then PAY "big" scientist to support them. It is well known that projecting of minds was studied in KGB labs and then was released by retired military officers.
@mariamcz There's no conspiracy in parapsychological research. Psi research has been conducted since 1880s-present & there are experiments that deserve further consideration. The reason why parapsychology is suppress in the scientific community isn't because it's nonsense, but because of bigotry & confirmation bias. This taboo is not unique in psi research. Many scientific discoveries were ridiculed and rejected, even Einstein was ridiculed.
@mariamcz - Oooooh - the KGB "studied" this. Wow, That means it must be true. NOT. Clue time. The KGB had an idiot for a leader - at least, scientifically. Stalin loved that moron Lysenko, for example, and countless Russians starved as a result. Crap, it was no better than when Rasputin had power in the court of Nicholas. There has been some good Russian science - most of it stolen. But when you have scientifically illiterate leaders, the field is wide open to every crackpot and charlatan.
At around 21 minutes, Sheldrake starts talking about the dog experiment. My first thought, if I were to set up such an experiment, would be to have the person randomly come home only 50% of the days, the other days sleeping over at work or a friend's place. And then see if there is a statistical difference in behavior in the dog, comparing days when the owner goes home to days when he/she does not. A kind of "compare to placebo/baseline" analogy.
@Zee96969696 A first step could be to take a course in Artificial Neural Networks. When I studied, there were variants both under the Physics department (related to complex systems, emergent properties, chaos etc), and under the Philosophy department. Then you study the currently know things about neural networks, such as various ways to form memory, how many memories they can contain, and which problems they can solve. One idea is that consciousness is an emergent property of some kinds of NNs.
@Zee96969696 Neural Networks. (I think I used up exactly all of the YouTube comment characters, so I had to keep it short.) When I say "one idea is", it's just that. Some would see it as just as non-proven as Sheldrake's work. Some then go into research trying to investigate one such idea, others try to investigate the other. Etc.
(As far as I know, the research into NN has not yet given any answer to what consciousness is. But that's where I'd do research if I had the time and resources.)
@0debug I like the idea of Stuart Hameroff, even though I don't know if he is right or not, but it sounds like he is looking in the right direction to try to understand consciousness. U know of the double slit experiment? people should try to dig and see what the hell is going on with that, it deffinately has something to do with consciousnes. that's just about the only thing that tells us for sure that there is a consciousness, that's the only scientific proof we got
@keroine9 I think he mistakes the psychological side (people's interpretation of things) with some kind of physical phenomenon. I try to keep an open mind, but most of what Sheldrake says (i.e. that it's a physical phenomenon) smells like bogus. If what he says is true, more scientists would jump onto this. I think he does more harm than good for the scientific community.
(Investigating this in the field of psychology _is_ important, in my opinion, but that's not what Sheldrake does.)
@RazzaBeeDaSilva dreams are a re-organization of memory and dreaming re-sets the thresholds of neural pathways to recalibrate our brain for use the following day in order to maintain sensitivity. Lates research sees dreaming as a conscious process
I agree that the brain generates an electromagnetic field, but if vision is really "projected out" how can we be so easily fooled by optical illusions?
@victorvartan agree, our sensual perceptions get synthesized into a holistic, homogenous reality that tries to match where things are - this subject-object entanglement and the concept is close to what Sheldrake tries to put forward
All these comments of the nature of reality, as if anybody knows. Why do we expect that a breed of monkeys, barely conscious after a mere million years would be able to understand the true nature of the universe. Nobody has a clue, scientist or not and that is the stance you should have on any exploratory journey. Use your rational mind in all the irrational situations...
What’s with this stupid sarcasm? He never claimed that you can be able to do such things. You are making the mistake of lumping him and his theories together with superstitious nonsense. Sheldrake is a scientist and as such employs the scientific method. He’s not doing half-assed work.
And of course he spends much time on addressing his critics. With such an immense opposition (an outright taboo even, cf. Radin) you can’t just pretend that your stance is respected and everyone agrees with you.
I’m not sure. That comment was a reply to some smartass but it looks as though that person deleted their post so I can’t tell you what exactly this person implied that Sheldrake supposedly alleged. Sorry.
if the world is noting but a super imposed projection of the brain ! were did the initial data come from and how does this virtual world sometimes cause physical harm to the body ? has the brain super imposed a sense of pain and or physical damage how does your arm get chopped off etc ?
Doesn’t he address that in this video? Or was that Dean Radin who answered this question?
Anyway, the problem is that the rules of the challenge (proving it in a statistical way with a set required probability) would require them to set up an enormous study (huge in both time frame and size) that would cost them way more than a $1,000,000.
i see the truth in what he's saying, because consciousness is based in information, and an information network is not confined to one point in space/time. quantum entanglement proves this.
@ceclovitchable agree 101% ! And I for one have had these experiences all my life, today they happen frequently, it's destroyed my belief in coincidence! lol
Deep and intelligent presentation. Thank you for taking these concepts out of the hokey realm of non-sense and for dealing with them deliberately and seriously.
I had the same problem. it came 'on' in a scary way during a very complex time in my life. I was meditating regularly and withdrew from my anti-depressants. it manifested over two days...i was ready to kill myself. i went back onto anti-depressants and consulted an experienced meditator (my anti-depressants supressed everything again, including the fear).
The meditator advised this was common....many people use meds and wont meditate after theyve experienced it (intensity fades after a time).
i hate being psychic. its horrible because every time i do something new like going away on holiday or vacation when im on the vacation i suddenly remember the dream i had that was the exact experience what i am just experiencing. its not somethign you can control it just comes in the form of dreams and rarely involuntary thoughts and voices or sounds which i have proven to be correct and not just a guess. my theory is what we expence in this life comes from a last lifetime. it has to be
Could it be that there's a very brief moment you are not registering what is happening and when the registering kicks in again the memories you had from a moment two seconds ago are not attached to a moment in time so they feel like they came from a dream or a past life?
I probably didn't do a great job explaining but I hope you get the idea.
@210482fmj you should read the work of matthew delooze ,he says that we subconsiously create what we want to experience before we experience it ,in the eyes of the psychic the memory of having the dream never dissappears,but for the rest of us they do. i cand send you one of his ebook if you want,just pm your mail adress=)
One of the best practice i suggest is to pick one closed friend, relatives o who ever you think has the same ability to develop. heres the experiment training....
Materials : Colored balls, cups with numbers, a board that can cover what others doing, table and chairs.
procedure : sits on the both ends of the table with the desire distance. look at each other before you pick the desire colored ball and put on the numbered cup, after you finished picking balls, compare with you partner....
Want to learn what enlightenment really is?Want to finally get something different?Unlock your true spiritual and psychic potential.THE-HIDDEN-SPIRITdotCOM It is time to lift the veil.
Let me clarify I am not claiming all of Randi's fans are as such but there are a great many that relentlessly hold to priori assumptions that such things cannot occur because such things cannot occur which is asinine.
(I let my agitation get the better of me when i wrote this ;p)
I do think Randi misleads people in that psychic phenomena is not supernatural nor paranormal it is part of nature and as such one cannot prove the paranormal.
@TheArcaneSanctum Yes, You are absolutely right. I didn't complete the thought. What I have found is that most people who identify themselves as skeptics are actually pseudo skeptics.
@TheArcaneSanctum es, absolutely right. I should have said, in my experience it's those who identify themselves as skeptics are actually pseudo skeptics...
Tired of fake spiritual enlightenment information?Want to really wake up from the lies?psychic powers, telepathy, precognition, it is all real.This is the time to lift the veil THE-HIDDEN-SPIRITdotCOM .
I loved this, thnx 4 sharing, I am in the yoga & meditation and I am very bad while playing memory with my niece, she was 5! then now, after doing my morning meditations I was playing and did not win but got a lot better!! I was very surprised, my husband asked me how you did it? as he knows me well! I said I just felt I shall take this card, not knowing why or if it may be the one, just had the feeling of "take this one now" & I did and got lots of cards at the end of the game! other things....
one funny thing that might be recurrent in people's experience: when you drive at high speed, and then suddenly you spot an obstacle in front of you, I tell you if you keep staring at it, no matter how you try, you'll hit right into it!
Worded another way, it seems that humans and animals all have a type of surveilance mode or radar like KIT the Car on Knight Rider when we turn it on.
18:35 I like the way he went to say quantum entanglement is well under stood, realised that noone in the universe understands quantum mechanics, and bailed out with "wuh ah eeh uuh uuh well documented"
@georgemargaris what's wrong with 'theism'? ....you closed minded? I smell a bit of 'big bangism' from you - and what a leap of faith that requires. Possibly the greatest faith imagineable. Don't get me wrong, you may well be right, but I really admire your faith either way.
@georgemargaris Evolution within a species, yes. Transitional forms, no. The very fact we exist and can potentially evolve over millions of years, (certaily by your position), means we could infact become 'gods' - unless you believe science/inovation has a limit? The logical explanation is that we were created by God and are deliberately limited in our ability to conceive of such things as 'where did God come from'. To believe a big bang came out of nothing, rather than from a creator is absurd.
But why the approach that in the beginning there was nothing? And therefore you argue that from nothing comes nothing. So far I follow...
But the new point I want to add is: There is no nothing. There never was. The idea of "nothingness" is only a mathematical construct of human mind.
Quantum physicists found out that even if you empty the room completely (100% vacuum) there is still something left.... call it the room-energy or whatever.
@georgemargaris If you believe in God, then there was never 'nothingness'. I would argue, most scientists do not know what preceded the 'big bang'. Either way, It still doesn't answer how life can spring from 'room energy (to use your term) then a big bang, and then to life. I could accept the room energy could create a 'big bang', but never that life would follow - even given eternity.
@georgemargaris I'm listening to your man Krauss at the moment. But meantime, I refer to my previous answer that God is ouside time. He does not need an explanation for his existence, but anything else does, 'big bangs, energy fields, singularities etc. What you should be asking (as neither of us can prove either right or wrong) is why the bible prophecies always come true. Even the descriptions of the cretion of the world in Genesis have an uncanny parallel to scientists' views of life starting
@BewareTheBeast More than anything else"GOD" is the wish of a frigthened boy asking for a "father" to help guide him through the darkness. Its such a childish behaviour.
I understand that tribes some thousand years ago were always looking for the "father figure" in everything they didnt understand.
But today we are so much more enlighted. Why still insist on this father figure? Cant we agree that the universe is probably so "out of reach" that it follows other rules.
@georgemargaris It is fashionably to take your 'childish behaviour' view. I used to think that way too. I studied biology at Edinburgh Uni, and it took me over 20 years to change my view to the biblical one. It all started when I read 'Revelations' (as I had a interest in dark/occult things) I could hardly believe what was written back then (by 'primitive' people) in that book. It's bizarre predictions (and they would have seemed nuts until recently) are now coming true. More truths followed.
@BewareTheBeast Also this notion of yours, that the universe "NEEDS" to be created. I disagree.
Stuff inside this universe usualy has a creator and something that is created. But that doesnt mean that you can apply this "creator creates a creation"- principle to the universe itself.
Again: Inside of this universe an entity can create something with the available material.
But that doesnt mean you can automatically apply that the universe itself is something that can be created by a creator.
@BewareTheBeast If you like, watch this video: "A universe from nothing", by lawrence krauss.
v=7ImvlS8PLIo
In his speech he makes several explanations that in fact the universe can never consist of nothingness and never has. Therefore if you have no nothingness in the beginning you do not have the need for a creator to come along and "create something"....
because there was always something, never nothing.
@georgemargaris I will watch it & comment later. Meantime, remember, you are talking in 'linear time' God was never in linear time (Jesus exception). There was no beginning for God. He creted time (our linear time).
@georgemargaris how exactly is this pseudo-science, he has a theory and presented evidence, Richard Dawkins didn't even look at it and Peter Atkins a few years ago instantly dismissed sheldrake's evidence without even looking at it as well
@georgemargaris well how is it possible for it to be peer reviewed if Dawkins as head of public understanding for science doesn't even look at it, if Robert Winston calls him a charlatan and doesn't even look at it, if Atkins calls it "playing with statistics", and why must evidence if unfalsifiable be disregarded
@georgemargaris well how is it possible for it to be peer reviewed if Dawkins as head of public understanding for science doesn't even look at it, if Robert Winston calls him a charlatan and doesn't even look at it, if Atkins calls it "playing with statistics", and why must evidence if unfalsifiable be disregarded?
@marcusantonio91 peer reviewede has been discreditated,due to fraud and whistleblowers,and politics money driven.only reproducible experiment results are applicable.this is the true scientific empirical process.forget peer review.its not science.this georgemargaris guy sounds suspiciously like the military's PERSONA software system,they use for propaganda.1 pc operator can be 100 fake people.prob they dont want the gen public knowing this information.as for studies theer are hundreds,lots,lots!
@georgemargaris how is it not falsifiable? the simplist way to disprove Sheldrake's theory is to run his tests, if you score at chance level, you therefore surely can say it's disproved?
@marcusantonio91 I am just curious to know if you think this is all hokum, why are you even bothering to comment on it? or is it because of the religious nutcase below?
I know Sheldrakes work (bought his book 15 years ago) , but I am into real science and promoting it. So I have a background where I get into fights with religious people. (Family etc...) I also know a lot ot people who are not religious, but somehow have a problem with science.
In a way I try to understand Sheldrake. But my point still remains: this is not science! Far from it. And it should not be promoted as if it were science. Thats wrong, and thats what I fight.
@georgemargaris I've had my fair share of religious shit, I was told by a teacher at school a few years ago when I was 11 that I would go to hell if I didn't believe in God, I have little time for organised religion but if people have there own beliefs it's not my place to tell them they're wrong. I also have no problem with science either, I know evolution is fact so you wont argue with me there, peace dude
20:00 "He collected thousands of stories of people who think they have observed something"....
As if this would provide more weight to evidence.
One of the biggest problems the human species has:
The human mind is extremely deceptible to hallunications. We tend to see patterns and order where there is just chaos. I personally dont care how many "cat-owners" believe their cats can read their minds... Many people see ghosts, many even literally HEAR the Voice of God. Can you imagine...
@georgemargaris just curious, you talk about a theory needing to be falsifiable to be considered scientific, well evolution is obviously true but can you tell me how evolution is falsifiable
@marcusantonio91 Thats how evolution would be "falsifiable". And some scientists are still looking to find such a bon or fossil that would seem paradoxically wrong.
So you see. thats why evolution is an accepted science, because it IS CLEAR to the scientists HOW evolution would be falsifiable, HOW evolution would be proven wrong.
The fact that since darwin (and 150 years of many evolution scientists) evolution stands stronger and stronger means that evolution has become a FACT.
@marcusantonio91 how is evolution obviously true?this is a science subject,please leave your religious beliefs to yourself.stop pushing religion on us.
@bobo007xx , I never, ever said that I thought Sheldrake was wrong, I accept his evidence, but I also accept evolution as well, both I think can co-exist peacefully
the extened mind in truth is beyound what is said here. in that it is the tool of the spirit or incarnational presence . i live the avatar leavel of enegy feild and i can tell you th
I paid attention on telepathy and tried to watch people while being myself behind a toned windows in a car. Women are very sensitive and normally they turn back to look who is watching them. About dogs, I believe it can be so as it is described in a lecture and there is a telepathic connection between mammals. I can feel when our dog is coming to a door without seeing it and in very noisy environment of my workshop. It produces no noise but I just get feeling that somebody else is present nearby
freediver57 4 days ago
I would be interested in more studies about social interaction and social entanglement (morphic studies) with regard to Autism. I have a daughter on the spectrum and even though people think autistic people don't connect with others, I believe the problem is that they are too connected. My daughter often experiences sensory overload because she is processing multiple conversations and sensing multiple people's emotions simultaneously. She is unable to filter. She is too 'entangled'.
MariaBlatnick 1 week ago
Dualists V materialist
UrbanSands 1 week ago
Thumbs up if you arrived here thanks to Spirit Science!!
MrBurdickchris 1 week ago
"its wishful thinking" agreed! I meant the 'nobel prize' comment to be a challenge to the believers, sorry I didn't make that clear. earlier commenters said that sheldrake's 'theories' can't be tested under the conditions of the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge because of such-and-such statistical 'reasons'. This renders sheldrake's 'theories' as Untestable as a practical matter.
untestableClaims 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sheldrake's methodology: post-hoc anomaly-hunting. google 'The Psychic Pet Phenomenon A reply to Rupert Sheldrake'.
untestableClaims 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@untestableClaims If you want to see evidence of telepathy, why not conduct the Ganzfeld Experiments under double-blind, sensory-isolated, automated controlled conditions? Many independent meta-analyses from researchers such as Honorton (32%), Andrew Endersby(27-29%), etc. and academia such as University of Edigburgh found very small effects, but highly statistically significant results where the probability of Type I error is much more unlikely than winning the lottery...
IceAges14Aces 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This kind of work needs more attention. It is our duty as humans to explore every possible dimension of our intellect to better understand its nature. Each study on so called paranormal experiences at the very least provides a clearer picture of the true essence of life whether the idea is proved or disproved.
Those who turn their heads away from this work are fundamentally attached to a materialistic world view that has been dominating our perception for the past few hundred years.
bugskeee 1 month ago
Comment removed
bugskeee 1 month ago
Comment removed
bugskeee 1 month ago
*shrug* then screw the JREF. go directly for the Nobel Prize. if this stuff is real, its gotta be one of the biggest discoveries ever made.
untestableClaims 1 month ago
@untestableClaims But its not is it, its wishful thinking about vitalism and angels.
MGX890 2 weeks ago
"The latter (Type II) is JREF's greatest flaw....
special pleading. the JREF,as I understand it, conducts tests under conditions to which the JREF and the claimant both agree to in advance. there are also other skeptical groups which provide testing and awards, not to mention the availability of the proper scientific community. if this stuff is real, its a new discovery worthy of the Nobel Prize. So where's the Prize? (standing by for more Pleading)
untestableClaims 1 month ago
@untestableClaims I completely understand your point, but everything you said has nothing to do what I mentioned. Again, the problem with those tests is that these P=0.001 (Preliminary) and P=0.000001 (formal) & small sample-size are usually set in the JREF's protocols, which can easily result in Type II errors. Any statistician well-informed in significance testing knows that such tests are corrupted because they have a high risk of false-negatives than the usual tests used in most research.
IceAges14Aces 1 month ago
@untestableClaims See the problem with the JREF tests is that they usually rely on small sample-sizes, alpha level of P=0.001/P=0.000001 (if not close to it), and lack of legitimate, statistical significance testing. The problem with small sample-sizes and those alpha levels which are JREF's standards is that they can easily reject a claim, even if the truth is far from the null-hypothesis.....
This isn't to say that nobody can win, but you need to be exceptionally skilled/lucky to do so..
IceAges14Aces 1 month ago
@untestableClaims "if...evidence of telepathy..million dollar prize."
A prevalent misconception. Actually, the probability of the claimant claiming the $ depends on the sample-size, alpha level of the JREF's tests & the claimant's average hit rate. A claimant with a 32% average hit rate with a 1/4 prob. of hit can show evidence of psi in the long run; however, when it comes to the small-run, the tests can easily commit Type II errors..
The latter (Type II) is JREF's greatest flaw....
IceAges14Aces 1 month ago
consciousness is just your brain aware of it's own computation. it's just our brain's equivalent of a visceral GUI. It was evolutionary win move when our brain made doubled copies of certain brain regions to allow us to simulate. consciousness is that simulator. when you daydream your visual cortex actually lights up with the image you're imagining.
TheOrganicartist 1 month ago
"I've communicated with my sister on at least 3 occasions that way"
if anyone can demonstrate compelling evidence of telepathy under controlled conditions, they can win the James Randi million dollar prize. if one can't reproduce such a claim under controlled conditions, then a more mundane explanation, such as coincidence or confirmation bias, remains a likely candidate. I didn't watch the entire video: did the speaker mention anything about applying for the million dollars?
untestableClaims 1 month ago
I know alot of people will say bullshit to this video, but I'm pretty convinced he's spot on, I KNOW telepathy is possible, I've communicated with my sister on at least 3 occasions that way. It's not super natural, it's just an unexplained science.
Corrupt5358 1 month ago
my wife knows exactly what to say and when and how to say it to piss me off.
she can do this every time and from a long ways away. Thanks for this, Google and Rupert.
barrywilliamsmb 1 month ago
People interested in this might also find great value in the work of the physicist David Bohm and the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti. These two complement Sheldrake synergistically (Sheldrake even has text of a dialogue with David Bohm at the back of his book "Morphic Resonance"). Bohm's essential text is "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", K's essential text is "The First and Last Freedom". These three texts are really one text, perhaps one of the most important of our times.
Blissentia 1 month ago
Por favor traducir al español Gracias
angelusluz4 1 month ago
what a bunch of crap.
untestableClaims 2 months ago
@untestableClaims I hope you jump off a bridge.
CAnnMAntarr 2 months ago
Wonderful. I with more scientists were like him.
ZhangLing1000 2 months ago
Sheldrake does more for inspiring further my faith in the methods of intelligence or the scientific methodology than purely mathematical theoreticians. And his experiments are proximal, dealing with issues of consciousness, which no amount of readings of mathematical physics approaches, but which is the commonest fact of any reader.
rogerscottq 2 months ago in playlist More videos from GoogleTechTalks
If he wore a beard and top hat he'd look exactly like Abraham Lincoln. I'd like to see him start his lecture with with "Fourscore and seven years ago..." just to see the reaction of the audience.
OutaSynch 2 months ago
Consciousness is a central mystery of the cosmos and the current science is wholly inadequate. What a relief that some scientists are continuing to advance scientific inquiry, independent of ideological obstruction.
robosextoid 2 months ago 10
@Zenith88 You're right, science is not a democracy, but if a large part of the population experiences something then it is a scientific phenomena (literally, it can be observed) and bears looking into. Sheldrake's argument is not "people believe this so it's true," it's "people believe this, so why? Here's some ideas. Here's some data." The role of the scientist is not to dismiss but to examine. If 80% of the population believe something, I think that bears some examination, don't you?
CousinAfro 2 months ago 18
25min in, jolly good.
metalhead420fuq 2 months ago
I take back what i've said after watching Mr Shelldrakes video on fasting. This guy seems to be a mystic with some scientific training, who coats half-truths in a pseudo-scientific way. Why do i think this? Intuition. It doesn't come from psy, it comes from the experience of having seen his type before. The well mannered, well-spoken individual, slightly charismatic, who strongly believes what he's preaching. I just can't take seriously anyone who advocates depriving your body of nutrients.
Zenitth88 3 months ago
I'm a skeptic myself but I do appreciate the civilized and apparently professional way in which mr. Shelldrake presents his point of view. However so far, perhaps because of my ignorance, I've only heard his side of the story on this matter. It may very well be that his theory is so flawed that nobody takes it seriously for good reason. I haven't seen anyone trying. But it's going to take more than one guys speech to change the way i view things so the jury is still out on this one.
Zenitth88 3 months ago
I also didn't like two things about his presentation. He often used the argument that x% of the population thinks this and that. As far as i know science is not democratic in the sense that i matters what the majority thinks. The majority can go and occupy whatever street they think, as long as the thing they're supporting is false then it's end of story. Take that statement in the general sense, all i'm saying is that it isn't a valid argument in a debate that want's to be scientific.
Zenitth88 3 months ago
@Zenitth88 Please check out also the Dean Radin's google lecture. he talks about the taboo in science about PSI. Very interesting and also has very good Q&A in the end half with very sceptic audience. I am sold :)
geromino2007 3 months ago
@geromino2007 There is nothing unique with the skepticism/criticism in the basis of parapsychology. Skepticism & Criticism have been on going way before the origin of parapsychology. In fact, even the work from the most famous, well-respected scientists such as Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, etc. were discriminated and ridiculed due to the bigotry and lack of open-mindedness in that time.
One thing is to critique, rejecting claims/evidence out of hand is a different matter...
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@Zenitth88 Great! I would then highly recommend watching Dean Radin's "Science and the taboo of psi" video here on Youtube. it will give you much more evidence. Good luck!
Janotheknight 2 months ago
not scientific. lots of anecdotal stuff. unsupported claims. pretty weak. this guy is not a scientist. the plural of anecdote is anecdotes not data. to not understand the difference between anecdote and data is lame and just plain stupid.
cunnidvd 3 months ago
@cunnidvd You do realize that you're talking out of your own ass by the look of your comment don't you????
Who said that his hypotheses are supported only by anecdotes??? None of course.
For your information, he does have genuine, quantitative data from his significance tests that support his hypotheses; however, I am not convinced that his data is legitimate since his significance tests aren't double-blind, automated, nor rigorously controlled......
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
Comment removed
cunnidvd 3 months ago
Comment removed
cunnidvd 3 months ago
Comment removed
cunnidvd 3 months ago
Comment removed
cunnidvd 3 months ago
Comment removed
cunnidvd 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces
The double-blind experiment is one of the greatest flaws in research. Do you have ANY idea of the number of pharmaceuticals, surgical devices, and procedures which, after being subjected to such methodology and proved efficacious, are either dangerous are worthless. Furthermore, every doctor knows that the person in the countrol group in a study for a new cancer drug, let's say, will either hope he is getting the drug or fearful he is not, which can effect outcome.
YD8189 3 months ago
@YD8189 I agree that double-blind studies involving real-deal pills/placebo pills are flawed since experimenters in the groups can easily tell test-subjects that these pills may/may not be real, placebo pills look fake to test-subjects, etc. which increases the odds of unconscious bias. However, this is possibly due to the lack of realism in double-blindness....
As for parapsychology, double-blindness eliminates, if not, minimize conscious/unconscious bias between subjects/experimenters...
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@YD8189 True, but over a large number of trials this "doubting/hoping" artifact should be evenly distributed. That's why our confidence in the effect increases with the size of the data pool. Also, many drugs in the medical sciences are not tested for a long period of time. Even the placebo controlled double blind experiments will only show compelling evidence after a large number of trials. We should be more careful about claiming that these widely accepted procedures are flawed; they're not.
Janotheknight 2 months ago
@Janotheknight
I must disagree with you about your contention that these methods are flawless. Even when the methodology is bulletproof, such research is based on a fiction: that of the "average person". There is no such thing.
The recent rejection of PSA testing as the gold standard in the prevention of PCa deaths (200+ men have to be screened and 12 treated to save one life) is but one example of procedures that ultimately prove worthless
despite rigorous research.
YD8189 2 months ago
@cunnidvd amusing how you missed the part about how he DID explicitly say that that it doesn't prove them right - anecdotes that is - it is stupid to misrepresent what someone says for your own lame and just plain stupid notions of the idea. When it comes to exploring some phenomena all science has is anecdote and it must draw what it can from those anecdotes for the sake of discovering the truth of the phenomena that is being studied. You can tell the limitation of your own reasoning...
GrendelHall 3 months ago
cool idea,..i mean, but does this mean the mind continues after death? i doubt it,..cuz as he said the mind and the brain are like earth's gravitational field or the earth's magnets and the magnetic field
Atheist603 3 months ago
@Atheist603 Maybe, but maybe not. If for example our consciousness is not "stored" in our brain, then there would be no reason to expect it to "die" with the degradation of its physical counterpart. It could quite plausibly move on to another vessel for example. The strongest evidence at the moment in this area are a couple thousand anecdotes compiled by reincarnation researchers of children who claim to remember previous lives with astonishing accuracy. No guarantees, but still fascinating.
Janotheknight 2 months ago
i doubt reincarnations happen, think about how a child develop from a sperm cell connecting with an egg cell that the mother was born with. and as for consciousness it's likely that it dies when we die,..all evidence point to that,..and i believe that the mind and memories are located in the brain unlike this guy, just think about injury to the brain and you lose memories, sometimes even consciousness (coma)
Atheist603 2 months ago
@Atheist603 Read my reply to 47f0 below. We now have significant reason to doubt that the mind is the sole product of the brain. Serious scientists from all over the world have turned up compelling evidence for non-local consciousness phenomena such as ESP. There is a good discussion of this evidence above. For even more, watch Dean Radin's "Science and the Taboo of Psi" on this very search column. If you want to know the truth about psi, do some research. It just may surprise you. Good luck!
Janotheknight 2 months ago
Comment removed
Atheist603 2 months ago
I doubt it, think about it this way,..if the mind wasn't the product of the physical brain,..why does having chromosome defect cause serious mental retardation. also, things like Alzheimer's when neurons starts dying, the mind also starts dying which results to death of the whole body? we might not know fully understand how the mind and the brain work,..but it's a study in progress. just like we don't fully understand many biological process such as stem cells, cell signaling, meiosis etc...
Atheist603 2 months ago
@Janotheknight furthermore,... what about the mind reading machine that scientists can read some brain patterns to read thoughts and make a video from it ,..I mean, how much more evidence do you need? well, i bet you one of those people who want to convince themselves that the mind is not the product of the brain
Atheist603 2 months ago
@Atheist603 Your comparison of the human mind with man-made machines is fallacious. Man-made machines aren't and will never be conscious beings like biological species. Comparing the mind with machines is akin to comparing apples with oranges.....
While there are machines that look and sound A.I., they are not. They lack genuine, biological emotions and consciousness at all levels.
You can believe in the assumption that minds are like machines all you want, but there's no such thing......
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
@IceAges14Aces where did I compare human and man-made machines? no, humans aren't made up of silicon, human are organic, cells are made up of organic material. All i'm saying is that the brain produces the mind,..mind and consciousness is the production of neurons. I said this guy's idea of the mind being able to travel, and move around (telepathy) is a cool idea,..but that doesn't mean the mind can function w/o the brain like there's earth magnetic field can't function w/o the earth
Atheist603 2 months ago
@Atheist603 Even though I am a skeptic and strongly disagree with the work of this biologists, there are actual, scientific, peer-reviewed studies that strongly support the possibility that thoughts can fly across space and influence matter and also transfer via another person's mind under rigorously, double-blind, automated controlled conditions, i.e. telepathy.
The DMILS (Distance Mental Interaction Between Living Organisms) & Ganzfeld Meta-Studies are one of them.....
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
Comment removed
Atheist603 2 months ago
I think this scientist would be more than interested to see my first uploaded video "Witness a miracle.". I swear the footage is absolutely genuine. It is best seen full screen and the key moment to pay attention would be as soon as the film comes into focus. I have personal evidence which may support his theories. If it hadn't had this first had evidence I may doubt it my self, but I swear on all that is good and innocent in this world that it is true. This is only one small example of many.
veracityfilms 3 months ago
What utter, distilled, mystical drivel. Quack "science" at its worst. Not one of my perceptions extends more than a fraction of a millimeter beyond my various sensory nerves. My camera does not "project itself" out into the world. The microphone on my computer does not "project itself" out into the world. My freaking fingers do not need to be "bigger than the elephant" to feel an elephant, and my skull does not need to "encompass the sky" to have a few sky photons hit my ass-backwards retinas.
47f0 3 months ago
@47f0 Out of curiosity, do you insult anything that is considered non-mainstream or contrary to materialism? While Sheldrake's theories deserve critique, it is foolish to ignore and vapidly insult claims that aren't mainstream.
I believe that there are certain ideas, for example, those relating to consciousness and psychedelic drugs, that can't be verified with "hard" evidence because they are purely subjective. They're real, but un-provable. They shouldn't be disparaged for that, should they?
TheLANDADDY 3 months ago
@TheLANDADDY - No, I pretty much just insult things that are patently foolish. Superman shot X-rays out of his eyes. My eyes, on the other hand, have to sit around and wait for photons to bang into a bit of rhodopsin. As an ex acid-head, I promise you - the tracers and other visual effects that I still get from streetlights or headlights when I'm moving past them are "real" only inside my skull - and completely unprovable to anyone else. But that's not reality - or science.
47f0 3 months ago
@47f0 Wait a minute. There is not one shred of evidence for a mind=brain model; its nothing more than a faith-based postulate which you have (mis)taken for scientific truth. The overwhelming majority of evidence in fact, if you actually watched the lecture or spent some time researching parapsychology, (no, I don't mean the skeptical inquirer or equivalent materialist propaganda) points to a brain=receiver model.
Janotheknight 2 months ago
@Janotheknight - Wrong. There are many shreds of evidence that brain=mind. And by shredded, I mean, shredded brains. Damage this part of the brain, and that part of the mind doesn't work. We know how neurons work - we can probe a flatworm brain in great detail. Stack some flatworm brains together and you get a bug brain. Keep doing that and you get a human brain - and mind. The flatworm brain is superior in one respect, though. It's too simple to foolishly swallow pseudo-scientific hogwash.
47f0 2 months ago
@47f0 Your reply already comes off assuming that the brain=mind model is correct, therefore all the evidence you find is likely to corroborate your beliefs. If you compare a brain to a television for example, however many wires you cut and however many television functions you render useless, you still haven't proven that the information is generated in the television, which it is not.
Janotheknight 2 months ago
@47f0 Furthermore, certain functions in the brain are sometimes known to reappear in different places if the part conventionally associated with that function is damaged. How could this be? If we were destroying the neurons that "stored" that information, that function would be completely gone. Memory is another example. Karl Lashley discovered that memories have no precise "address" in the brain; his laboratory rats would remember a procedure irrespective of what part of their brain he damaged.
Janotheknight 2 months ago
This idea that when we see an image it is outside our head, is refuted by comparing it with a tv camera. The image is quite clearly inside the camera.
This nonsense is a consequence of the human need to be 'special'.
We are monkeys - get over it
betamale3 3 months ago
This is pseudo-science. A quaint idea but with no evidential support. He might as well be talking about Auras. His theory on morphic fields has been tested and failed.
Mainstream science rejects his ideas. Of course those that think this only validates the ideas have their own agenda but that is certainly not a scientific one.
Huttate1 3 months ago
@Huttate1
You don't have an agenda? Bullshit? Your agenda is to discredit what you opposes your "orthodoxy". Some bow at the statue of a Saint.Your "religion" is science. Do you have any idea how many pharmaceuticals, surgical procedures, or devices are proven worthless after exhaustive "double-blind studies
Donald Light, a researcher at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, found about 85 percent of new drugs offer few, if any, new benefits.
YD8189 3 months ago
There are two , main reasons why telepathy research has kinda taboo and nonscientific reputation. 1 Conspiracy: This area is in a huge interests of secret services of all countries doing parallel research on it (which is qualified) and they better annonce this research as nonsence then PAY "big" scientist to support them. It is well known that projecting of minds was studied in KGB labs and then was released by retired military officers.
The other reason is a figth- devil against God..
mariamcz 4 months ago
@mariamcz There's no conspiracy in parapsychological research. Psi research has been conducted since 1880s-present & there are experiments that deserve further consideration. The reason why parapsychology is suppress in the scientific community isn't because it's nonsense, but because of bigotry & confirmation bias. This taboo is not unique in psi research. Many scientific discoveries were ridiculed and rejected, even Einstein was ridiculed.
There will always be 2 sides of the same coin....
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@mariamcz - Oooooh - the KGB "studied" this. Wow, That means it must be true. NOT. Clue time. The KGB had an idiot for a leader - at least, scientifically. Stalin loved that moron Lysenko, for example, and countless Russians starved as a result. Crap, it was no better than when Rasputin had power in the court of Nicholas. There has been some good Russian science - most of it stolen. But when you have scientifically illiterate leaders, the field is wide open to every crackpot and charlatan.
47f0 3 months ago
he is a genius
mariamcz 4 months ago
At around 21 minutes, Sheldrake starts talking about the dog experiment. My first thought, if I were to set up such an experiment, would be to have the person randomly come home only 50% of the days, the other days sleeping over at work or a friend's place. And then see if there is a statistical difference in behavior in the dog, comparing days when the owner goes home to days when he/she does not. A kind of "compare to placebo/baseline" analogy.
0debug 4 months ago
I now understand why Google has the disclaimer at the start of their video clips. :) It's apparently not just for legal reasons...
0debug 4 months ago
Everything is not "trainable." Jiddu Krishnamurti points out the problem with training when it comes to the mind.
DDPhantomPhilosopher 4 months ago
how can I study consciousness? do I study psychology or physics? what is it? I didn't know it was possible to study consciousness
Zee96969696 4 months ago
@Zee96969696 A first step could be to take a course in Artificial Neural Networks. When I studied, there were variants both under the Physics department (related to complex systems, emergent properties, chaos etc), and under the Philosophy department. Then you study the currently know things about neural networks, such as various ways to form memory, how many memories they can contain, and which problems they can solve. One idea is that consciousness is an emergent property of some kinds of NNs.
0debug 4 months ago
@0debug what's NNs?
Zee96969696 4 months ago
@Zee96969696 Neural Networks. (I think I used up exactly all of the YouTube comment characters, so I had to keep it short.) When I say "one idea is", it's just that. Some would see it as just as non-proven as Sheldrake's work. Some then go into research trying to investigate one such idea, others try to investigate the other. Etc.
(As far as I know, the research into NN has not yet given any answer to what consciousness is. But that's where I'd do research if I had the time and resources.)
0debug 4 months ago
@0debug I like the idea of Stuart Hameroff, even though I don't know if he is right or not, but it sounds like he is looking in the right direction to try to understand consciousness. U know of the double slit experiment? people should try to dig and see what the hell is going on with that, it deffinately has something to do with consciousnes. that's just about the only thing that tells us for sure that there is a consciousness, that's the only scientific proof we got
Zee96969696 4 months ago
Surely, he can't be serious?
keroine9 4 months ago
@keroine9 I think he mistakes the psychological side (people's interpretation of things) with some kind of physical phenomenon. I try to keep an open mind, but most of what Sheldrake says (i.e. that it's a physical phenomenon) smells like bogus. If what he says is true, more scientists would jump onto this. I think he does more harm than good for the scientific community.
(Investigating this in the field of psychology _is_ important, in my opinion, but that's not what Sheldrake does.)
0debug 4 months ago
49:10 the randi sheild is so true :o)
greenelf12 4 months ago
These are interesting and fun to ponder ( ._.?)
Lawsuit 5 months ago
Comment removed
jtcol1966 5 months ago
I think Rupert Sheldrake and Terance Mckenna's idea about psychedelics is very interesting and unique!!
yogeesunshine 5 months ago
do dreams ever have any meaning?
RazzaBeeDaSilva 5 months ago
@RazzaBeeDaSilva dreams are a re-organization of memory and dreaming re-sets the thresholds of neural pathways to recalibrate our brain for use the following day in order to maintain sensitivity. Lates research sees dreaming as a conscious process
jonakompa 5 months ago
I agree that the brain generates an electromagnetic field, but if vision is really "projected out" how can we be so easily fooled by optical illusions?
victorvartan 5 months ago
@victorvartan agree, our sensual perceptions get synthesized into a holistic, homogenous reality that tries to match where things are - this subject-object entanglement and the concept is close to what Sheldrake tries to put forward
jonakompa 5 months ago
Comment removed
AixSimon 5 months ago
All these comments of the nature of reality, as if anybody knows. Why do we expect that a breed of monkeys, barely conscious after a mere million years would be able to understand the true nature of the universe. Nobody has a clue, scientist or not and that is the stance you should have on any exploratory journey. Use your rational mind in all the irrational situations...
ceclovitch 5 months ago
What’s with this stupid sarcasm? He never claimed that you can be able to do such things. You are making the mistake of lumping him and his theories together with superstitious nonsense. Sheldrake is a scientist and as such employs the scientific method. He’s not doing half-assed work.
And of course he spends much time on addressing his critics. With such an immense opposition (an outright taboo even, cf. Radin) you can’t just pretend that your stance is respected and everyone agrees with you.
MoaiMaea 5 months ago 22
@MoaiMaea what do you mean? be able to do what?
jonboy1028 1 month ago
I’m not sure. That comment was a reply to some smartass but it looks as though that person deleted their post so I can’t tell you what exactly this person implied that Sheldrake supposedly alleged. Sorry.
MoaiMaea 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My Question is ?
if the world is noting but a super imposed projection of the brain ! were did the initial data come from and how does this virtual world sometimes cause physical harm to the body ? has the brain super imposed a sense of pain and or physical damage how does your arm get chopped off etc ?
theonick2 6 months ago
Comment removed
theonick2 6 months ago
Doesn’t he address that in this video? Or was that Dean Radin who answered this question?
Anyway, the problem is that the rules of the challenge (proving it in a statistical way with a set required probability) would require them to set up an enormous study (huge in both time frame and size) that would cost them way more than a $1,000,000.
MoaiMaea 6 months ago
i see the truth in what he's saying, because consciousness is based in information, and an information network is not confined to one point in space/time. quantum entanglement proves this.
frankenbat 6 months ago
A true scientist, we need more
ceclovitchable 6 months ago
@ceclovitchable agree 101% ! And I for one have had these experiences all my life, today they happen frequently, it's destroyed my belief in coincidence! lol
itchcitizen2 6 months ago
Deep and intelligent presentation. Thank you for taking these concepts out of the hokey realm of non-sense and for dealing with them deliberately and seriously.
rcb281 6 months ago
I had the same problem. it came 'on' in a scary way during a very complex time in my life. I was meditating regularly and withdrew from my anti-depressants. it manifested over two days...i was ready to kill myself. i went back onto anti-depressants and consulted an experienced meditator (my anti-depressants supressed everything again, including the fear).
The meditator advised this was common....many people use meds and wont meditate after theyve experienced it (intensity fades after a time).
mrt4278 6 months ago
i hate being psychic. its horrible because every time i do something new like going away on holiday or vacation when im on the vacation i suddenly remember the dream i had that was the exact experience what i am just experiencing. its not somethign you can control it just comes in the form of dreams and rarely involuntary thoughts and voices or sounds which i have proven to be correct and not just a guess. my theory is what we expence in this life comes from a last lifetime. it has to be
210482fmj 6 months ago
@210482fmj Like deja vu?
Could it be that there's a very brief moment you are not registering what is happening and when the registering kicks in again the memories you had from a moment two seconds ago are not attached to a moment in time so they feel like they came from a dream or a past life?
I probably didn't do a great job explaining but I hope you get the idea.
Plopkap 6 months ago
@210482fmj You should look up a man calle Antohny Peake
greenelf12 4 months ago
@210482fmj you should read the work of matthew delooze ,he says that we subconsiously create what we want to experience before we experience it ,in the eyes of the psychic the memory of having the dream never dissappears,but for the rest of us they do. i cand send you one of his ebook if you want,just pm your mail adress=)
vaevictious 2 months ago
One of the best practice i suggest is to pick one closed friend, relatives o who ever you think has the same ability to develop. heres the experiment training....
Materials : Colored balls, cups with numbers, a board that can cover what others doing, table and chairs.
procedure : sits on the both ends of the table with the desire distance. look at each other before you pick the desire colored ball and put on the numbered cup, after you finished picking balls, compare with you partner....
mytubedragon 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Want to learn what enlightenment really is?Want to finally get something different?Unlock your true spiritual and psychic potential.THE-HIDDEN-SPIRITdotCOM It is time to lift the veil.
DawnTharpe 7 months ago
Sceptic Definition:
A person who won't change his mind even in the face of overwhelming evidence that contradicts his opinion.
SpiritRenew 7 months ago
@SpiritRenew
Those who do not change their minds are psuedo skeptics randi is one of those and the hack pseudo skeptics that follow him.
TheArcaneSanctum 7 months ago
@TheArcaneSanctum
Let me clarify I am not claiming all of Randi's fans are as such but there are a great many that relentlessly hold to priori assumptions that such things cannot occur because such things cannot occur which is asinine.
(I let my agitation get the better of me when i wrote this ;p)
I do think Randi misleads people in that psychic phenomena is not supernatural nor paranormal it is part of nature and as such one cannot prove the paranormal.
TheArcaneSanctum 7 months ago
@TheArcaneSanctum Yes, You are absolutely right. I didn't complete the thought. What I have found is that most people who identify themselves as skeptics are actually pseudo skeptics.
SpiritRenew 6 months ago
@TheArcaneSanctum es, absolutely right. I should have said, in my experience it's those who identify themselves as skeptics are actually pseudo skeptics...
SpiritRenew 6 months ago
@SpiritRenew That is not a skeptic.
Strangerinasland 6 months ago
@Strangerinasland seriously, what bs. Made up nonsense. Angers me slightly. Im not a skeptic myself but holy fuck, what nonsense.
Oen713 6 months ago
@SpiritRenew That isn't a skeptic, it's actually a pseudoskeptic.
IceAges14Aces 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tired of fake spiritual enlightenment information?Want to really wake up from the lies?psychic powers, telepathy, precognition, it is all real.This is the time to lift the veil THE-HIDDEN-SPIRITdotCOM .
NicoleLeblanc100 7 months ago
I loved this, thnx 4 sharing, I am in the yoga & meditation and I am very bad while playing memory with my niece, she was 5! then now, after doing my morning meditations I was playing and did not win but got a lot better!! I was very surprised, my husband asked me how you did it? as he knows me well! I said I just felt I shall take this card, not knowing why or if it may be the one, just had the feeling of "take this one now" & I did and got lots of cards at the end of the game! other things....
hidearCellofGod 7 months ago
@hidearCellofGod Relaxing improves your short time memory.
Plopkap 6 months ago
Comment removed
magnusalexa 7 months ago
@magnusalexa
can't wait
xjustamem0ryx 7 months ago
does this mean I can one day learn to use the force!?
xjustamem0ryx 7 months ago
Comment removed
magnusalexa 7 months ago
@magnusalexa
talk about every day!
xjustamem0ryx 7 months ago
@ 45:30.lmao. Yeah buddy, yer goin' BALD!
mmalice 8 months ago 4
one funny thing that might be recurrent in people's experience: when you drive at high speed, and then suddenly you spot an obstacle in front of you, I tell you if you keep staring at it, no matter how you try, you'll hit right into it!
17secret 8 months ago
Worded another way, it seems that humans and animals all have a type of surveilance mode or radar like KIT the Car on Knight Rider when we turn it on.
violetlightburst 8 months ago
I can use telepathy, it works to 100% and all the time. I can send and receive voice and video up to few kilometer.
VinkoRajic 8 months ago
What R U Saying
amreshkrsingh101 8 months ago
What R U Saying
amreshkrsingh101 8 months ago
18:35 I like the way he went to say quantum entanglement is well under stood, realised that noone in the universe understands quantum mechanics, and bailed out with "wuh ah eeh uuh uuh well documented"
DisabledKoala 8 months ago
pseudo-science, based on wishful thinking.
I even smell a little bit of "theism" in this...
...you know, "released mind" ....possibly to wish for a life after death and other hocuspocus.
All that has nothing to do with the cold but true reality. I love the reality no matter how uncomfortable it might be.
georgemargaris 8 months ago in playlist the brain
@georgemargaris what's wrong with 'theism'? ....you closed minded? I smell a bit of 'big bangism' from you - and what a leap of faith that requires. Possibly the greatest faith imagineable. Don't get me wrong, you may well be right, but I really admire your faith either way.
BewareTheBeast 8 months ago
@BewareTheBeast So only to clear this up and to set the stage for future discussion:
do you believe in the way of scientific thinking? I do.
Do you believe in evolution? I do.
Or do you think that the universe needs a god/creator to exist? I certainly dont.
hm, I see in your favorites you have "PROOF of planet Niburu X 2012", and a lot of UFO related videos.Please explain yourself... :-)
georgemargaris 8 months ago
@georgemargaris Evolution within a species, yes. Transitional forms, no. The very fact we exist and can potentially evolve over millions of years, (certaily by your position), means we could infact become 'gods' - unless you believe science/inovation has a limit? The logical explanation is that we were created by God and are deliberately limited in our ability to conceive of such things as 'where did God come from'. To believe a big bang came out of nothing, rather than from a creator is absurd.
BewareTheBeast 8 months ago
@BewareTheBeast Ok, I understand your point.
But why the approach that in the beginning there was nothing? And therefore you argue that from nothing comes nothing. So far I follow...
But the new point I want to add is: There is no nothing. There never was. The idea of "nothingness" is only a mathematical construct of human mind.
Quantum physicists found out that even if you empty the room completely (100% vacuum) there is still something left.... call it the room-energy or whatever.
georgemargaris 8 months ago
@georgemargaris If you believe in God, then there was never 'nothingness'. I would argue, most scientists do not know what preceded the 'big bang'. Either way, It still doesn't answer how life can spring from 'room energy (to use your term) then a big bang, and then to life. I could accept the room energy could create a 'big bang', but never that life would follow - even given eternity.
BewareTheBeast 8 months ago
@BewareTheBeast Asking what was before the big bang, is like asking what is south of the southpole.
There is no "more south" than the south pole.
This universe is probably embedded in a higher multiverse, but who knows.
But for you to call the multiverse "god" I have a problem with that.
Why not get rid of the idea of god. Why do you need it to be a "personality of sorts"?
If god created the universe, then the next question should be who created god?
You see, god is not a solution.
georgemargaris 8 months ago
@georgemargaris I'm listening to your man Krauss at the moment. But meantime, I refer to my previous answer that God is ouside time. He does not need an explanation for his existence, but anything else does, 'big bangs, energy fields, singularities etc. What you should be asking (as neither of us can prove either right or wrong) is why the bible prophecies always come true. Even the descriptions of the cretion of the world in Genesis have an uncanny parallel to scientists' views of life starting
BewareTheBeast 8 months ago
@BewareTheBeast More than anything else"GOD" is the wish of a frigthened boy asking for a "father" to help guide him through the darkness. Its such a childish behaviour.
I understand that tribes some thousand years ago were always looking for the "father figure" in everything they didnt understand.
But today we are so much more enlighted. Why still insist on this father figure? Cant we agree that the universe is probably so "out of reach" that it follows other rules.
georgemargaris 8 months ago
@georgemargaris It is fashionably to take your 'childish behaviour' view. I used to think that way too. I studied biology at Edinburgh Uni, and it took me over 20 years to change my view to the biblical one. It all started when I read 'Revelations' (as I had a interest in dark/occult things) I could hardly believe what was written back then (by 'primitive' people) in that book. It's bizarre predictions (and they would have seemed nuts until recently) are now coming true. More truths followed.
BewareTheBeast 8 months ago
@BewareTheBeast Also this notion of yours, that the universe "NEEDS" to be created. I disagree.
Stuff inside this universe usualy has a creator and something that is created. But that doesnt mean that you can apply this "creator creates a creation"- principle to the universe itself.
Again: Inside of this universe an entity can create something with the available material.
But that doesnt mean you can automatically apply that the universe itself is something that can be created by a creator.
georgemargaris 8 months ago
@georgemargaris Why is the universe unique then? Why do the same laws not apply to it, as they do for all the other creations?
BewareTheBeast 8 months ago
@BewareTheBeast If you like, watch this video: "A universe from nothing", by lawrence krauss.
v=7ImvlS8PLIo
In his speech he makes several explanations that in fact the universe can never consist of nothingness and never has. Therefore if you have no nothingness in the beginning you do not have the need for a creator to come along and "create something"....
because there was always something, never nothing.
georgemargaris 8 months ago
@georgemargaris I will watch it & comment later. Meantime, remember, you are talking in 'linear time' God was never in linear time (Jesus exception). There was no beginning for God. He creted time (our linear time).
BewareTheBeast 8 months ago
@georgemargaris how exactly is this pseudo-science, he has a theory and presented evidence, Richard Dawkins didn't even look at it and Peter Atkins a few years ago instantly dismissed sheldrake's evidence without even looking at it as well
marcusantonio91 8 months ago
@marcusantonio91 Evidence != evidence.
It needs to be scientifical evidence. It needs to be able to be "peer reviewed".
It needs to be falsifiable.
Sheldrake's evidence is all of that NOT!
Thats why it is NOT evidence.
georgemargaris 8 months ago
@georgemargaris well how is it possible for it to be peer reviewed if Dawkins as head of public understanding for science doesn't even look at it, if Robert Winston calls him a charlatan and doesn't even look at it, if Atkins calls it "playing with statistics", and why must evidence if unfalsifiable be disregarded
marcusantonio91 8 months ago
@georgemargaris well how is it possible for it to be peer reviewed if Dawkins as head of public understanding for science doesn't even look at it, if Robert Winston calls him a charlatan and doesn't even look at it, if Atkins calls it "playing with statistics", and why must evidence if unfalsifiable be disregarded?
marcusantonio91 8 months ago
@marcusantonio91 "Why must evidence if unfalsifiable be disregarded?"
You see, its comments like that who make Dawkins ignore you.
If something is not falsifiable, it means it is not "testable". Its outside of the testable explorable region.
For something unfalsifiable you cant come up with a real test to prove something right/wrong (and therefore make it falisifiable)...
Its like "existence of god".... not provable, not unprovable... therefore not interesting to scientists.
georgemargaris 8 months ago
@marcusantonio91 peer reviewede has been discreditated,due to fraud and whistleblowers,and politics money driven.only reproducible experiment results are applicable.this is the true scientific empirical process.forget peer review.its not science.this georgemargaris guy sounds suspiciously like the military's PERSONA software system,they use for propaganda.1 pc operator can be 100 fake people.prob they dont want the gen public knowing this information.as for studies theer are hundreds,lots,lots!
bobo007xx 8 months ago
@georgemargaris how is it not falsifiable? the simplist way to disprove Sheldrake's theory is to run his tests, if you score at chance level, you therefore surely can say it's disproved?
marcusantonio91 8 months ago
@marcusantonio91 I am just curious to know if you think this is all hokum, why are you even bothering to comment on it? or is it because of the religious nutcase below?
marcusantonio91 8 months ago
@marcusantonio91
I know Sheldrakes work (bought his book 15 years ago) , but I am into real science and promoting it. So I have a background where I get into fights with religious people. (Family etc...) I also know a lot ot people who are not religious, but somehow have a problem with science.
In a way I try to understand Sheldrake. But my point still remains: this is not science! Far from it. And it should not be promoted as if it were science. Thats wrong, and thats what I fight.
georgemargaris 8 months ago
@georgemargaris I've had my fair share of religious shit, I was told by a teacher at school a few years ago when I was 11 that I would go to hell if I didn't believe in God, I have little time for organised religion but if people have there own beliefs it's not my place to tell them they're wrong. I also have no problem with science either, I know evolution is fact so you wont argue with me there, peace dude
marcusantonio91 8 months ago
20:00 "He collected thousands of stories of people who think they have observed something"....
As if this would provide more weight to evidence.
One of the biggest problems the human species has:
The human mind is extremely deceptible to hallunications. We tend to see patterns and order where there is just chaos. I personally dont care how many "cat-owners" believe their cats can read their minds... Many people see ghosts, many even literally HEAR the Voice of God. Can you imagine...
georgemargaris 8 months ago
@georgemargaris just curious, you talk about a theory needing to be falsifiable to be considered scientific, well evolution is obviously true but can you tell me how evolution is falsifiable
marcusantonio91 8 months ago
@marcusantonio91 Very good question, thank you.
A famous answer is: "Show me rabbit bones that are dating back to the dinosaurs".
Meaning, if you where to find bones of an animal that clearly should not belong to that time, than you would have found a "hole".
Or imagine you would find a fossil that shows a human skeletton inside a dinosaurs belly?
Clearly those would immediately send shockwaves through the evolution-science, and scientist would struggle to explain this.
georgemargaris 8 months ago
@marcusantonio91 Thats how evolution would be "falsifiable". And some scientists are still looking to find such a bon or fossil that would seem paradoxically wrong.
So you see. thats why evolution is an accepted science, because it IS CLEAR to the scientists HOW evolution would be falsifiable, HOW evolution would be proven wrong.
The fact that since darwin (and 150 years of many evolution scientists) evolution stands stronger and stronger means that evolution has become a FACT.
georgemargaris 8 months ago
@georgemargaris how is it a fact?arent u pushing your religion on us a little too hard.?
u need to see how controlled,and robotically brainwashed you are.try dr jose delgado on electronic mind control.
try svpril on google for sympathetic vibratory physics
walter russell
john w keely
dale pond on you tube
mike behy darwins black box
do NOT watch robocop!
bobo007xx 8 months ago
@marcusantonio91 how is evolution obviously true?this is a science subject,please leave your religious beliefs to yourself.stop pushing religion on us.
stick to science.
bobo007xx 8 months ago
@bobo007xx , I never, ever said that I thought Sheldrake was wrong, I accept his evidence, but I also accept evolution as well, both I think can co-exist peacefully
marcusantonio91 8 months ago
@georgemargaris my friend saw sea serpents in alaska waters.discovery paid him 80,000 dollars for the video.some thing ARE real.
bobo007xx 8 months ago
So how come people aren't wicked good a pictionary, or charades?
wordupwhitey 8 months ago
Who do Voodoo like you do ?
3877michael 8 months ago
Wow!! now i know that my assumptions about these things are not just a personal mind trip! lol
skunksnag 8 months ago
the extened mind in truth is beyound what is said here. in that it is the tool of the spirit or incarnational presence . i live the avatar leavel of enegy feild and i can tell you th