Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind - The Sense Of Being Stared At. Pt 1/3

[untestableClaims]

Hey, I've just decided that there is a Delusional Field. By considering this Valid Hypothesis, many things are now explained that weren't explained before, like why Sheldrake is whoring his scientist credentials with this tripe and why there are so many gullible morons who swallow it. Since I have this Experimental Evidence for the Delusional Field, it *must* be real. There's probably some quantum entanglement shit involved with it, somehow.  Gotta sign-off now, my dog is barking knowingly.

[Karlemids]

very interesting. i recommend also watching nick herbert & david bohm's videos.

[mcnugget124]

p.s please correct me if im wrong etc/ point out anything i missed :)

happy to learn! :D

[mcnugget124]

and even then i believe (with an open minded view) that there is most likely a more realistic view of the reason for the %10 difference, and that could be for instance, maybe the human body does emit a certain "force" sometimes that can be picked up when some people are focussing, like animals being able to sense tiny electric pulses etc. i would not say this is my main belief on this because mainly i am sceptical towards it.

but yeah, i think his claims seem odd and not relative to reality :/

[mcnugget124]

to the brain, and then understood, in exactly the same way a computer just, just hugely more in depth and complicated because theres massively more neurons etc in the brain than memory in a PC, its know that our eyes only take in a small amount of the world around us and the brains memory fills in the rest. this is shown by optical illusions. now the fact they had results of 60% felt they were being stared at isnt conclusive in the slightest.... being a low difference from random.....>

[mcnugget124]

ok... i just watched this video and the one thing im picking up on is the fact he says that our vision is not understood and conciousness cant be explained.

but i cant really understand why he thinks what he thinks, it makes much more rational sense to imagine the human mind as a machine, a computer that is taking in information and processing it. as in we know how the eyes work, just like a LDR in that light has a physical effect on our eyes that results in electrical impulses being sent

[paulhunter123]

Rupert Sheldrake really seems to make perfect sence. I dont see things in my brain but where they are in space outsdie my head, where they are of course.

[paulhunter123]

i believe when im stoned my fields increase and vibrate

[veracityfilms]

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.

[Keeper69s]

The Matrix!!!! 4:40 ''It's an imagine in your mind, constructed and interpreted by your mind''.

[gaslimp]

Hes talking about the Aura

[XxSGTKITKATxX]

so where cell phones but we dont know it kool

[CylusFox04]

2 people have minds confined to their skulls.

[BenduONE]

I don't understand what does he mean by talking about looking at the sky. My skull is there or what? I'm sorry, I'm not native english speaker.

[davidtitterington]

@BenduONE if the sky is just an image happening inside your head, then your skull exists beyond that sky. (if you could somehow see through the sky into your brian, you would see your skull beyond the sky). 

[59media]

This equates with personal experience.

[Gabrionus85]

I believe he is attempting to explain the theory in a way that is understood by his audience.

A different audience would require different examples to show his meaning. I don't believe he is attempting to "pull a fast" one as jackal would have us believe.

It sounds like he may be speaking to students...hence the simple examples.

[dafuki]

Isn't saying there is a mind inside the brain just like saying parapsychology is a science?

[420Woltar]

@dafuki No... both of those comments make you a proven potently retarded lass who can even see under her cooch hole2 notice you gotza mutant,crippled bojangler,and half a gonad, making you a no bail,high risk, sexual predator by law automatically charged double with a soliciting to minors and man whore tranny chester the molester who thinks shes a boy cuz she hasnt seen her 9inch limp wanger hangin under her snatch right in her man gooch. just like obama, arent you! Fukn Communist Jesus Humper!!

[dafuki]

@420Woltar wtf LOL not even one part of your comment has any sense in it. Im not a "lass" you twat

[dew02005]

Most people make the mistake of 'collective' conciousness. We don't have connective conciousness, conciousness is mostly personal, we have collective knowledge which like this does stretch out but throught the universe not just around us.

[subbtopp]

love the accent

[universaljack925]

8)

In this, he is forming his 're-spiritualization' of science and tries to justify why visual experience seems so interactive and "real". I agree with his assertion that we should re-spiritualize our quest for scientific knowledge but here he is out on a long limb as far as I'm concerned.

[universaljack925]

7)

So simple it's hard = so simple it stinks and it's hard because the concept has no guts and he stops far short of explaining just what is 'projected' or why this leap is even a required idea. Again, this 'projection' of sight somehow intrinsically tied to and carried forth out of the skull by conciousness to facillitate the concious experience of seeing the outside world is simply to ease his inability to grasp that what APPEARS to be 'out there' is all a trick of the brain.

[universaljack925]

6)

Rather what he's trying to say is that the mind becomes one with the imagery itself and projects conciousness forth to whatever it sees no matter how far away. That logic is an unnecessary and illogical leap and he skirts around the brass tacks of this concept. No-one in his audience can get it because, at best, it is presented deceptively with a 'catch me if you can' attitude, using the skull/sky b.s. red herring to brow-beat any logical pondering.

[universaljack925]

5)

That the eyes and brain translate a signal which the brain/conciousness then projects BACK OUT to where the objects are so to explain why visual the experience of things APPEAR to be "out there". Even if the conciousness/mind-field was projecting the brain's info from the optic nerve back outside the skull - then what? Then the projected image must again be sensed but how?

[universaljack925]

4)

In fact sight only happens within the skull.  Ie- things are not inherantly "visable". Sure, they are always reflecting light protons but just like the tree that falls in the woods with no-one to hear it; objects only become visable when there is an eye and brain looking at it. I DO agree with him about the mind-field being not limited to the skull but he's describing a concept (and not very well) that is nonsense:

[universaljack925]

3)

It's only that sight is such a truly magnificent sense perception in all its 3D and colour that we simply refuse to accept that it remains inside the skull. I rest my case on this idea: you watch a movie with awsome footage of outerspace - does that mean that your video screen is "beyond outerspace"? Of course not.

[universaljack925]

2)

I have really caught Rupert in pulling a fast one here. So simple it's hard to grasp? No, he's just re-mystifying this concept. The proposed connundrum, "is your skull beyond the sky?" is bs and he knows it. Basically the visual faculty is being processed and experienced primarily in the skull (to the bottom rear of the skull, completely shielded from light).

[universaljack925]

1)

I am familiar with the concept of a mind-field but I am not with him or Plato or others who insist on the knee-jerk idea that conciousness is PART of the visual perception by projecting the brain's messages back out in front of you so we our seeing is still outside the skull as we thought before science.

[taboosun]

Everything is where it is.

Everything is as it should be.

We are unlimited, but we CAN choose to limit ourseleves.

[madscirat]

Holy crap he just explained the quantum physical paradox of altering far distant objects by viewing them and thereby causing their probability fields to collapse. If the projection is also a non local phenomenon there is no longer any paradox, its just reality as normal. Oh man I just got like 1000000 neurons back which were tied up in that one.

[peterhguk]

If by "viewing" you mean "looking at", then we never view a distant object we only observe the photons that have emanated from it. Which, going back to Einstein, is not the same thing.

[taboosun]

Lol yeah it is mind blowing and releivingto Know this. He solved the paradox which makes complete sense. Were all really connected.

[Masonictoaster9]

@madscirat Hey- cool you know that. Maybe i should show you something cool.

[fretbuzz6]

yeah? wild idea, but i hope you actually explain yourself in subsequent videos instead of relating humans to telephones and magnets.

[Biochips1]

Rupert Sheldrake is an amazing scientist. He deserves much more attention.

[metedude2]

awesome vid!

thanks :)

PEACE AND LOOOVE