A simple explanation of Sheldrake's morphic resonance observations

[Roger Clough]

Hi

 

Sheldrake's morphic resonance is based on observations such as this:

repeated operations by people doing the same times crossword puzzle cause

subsequent solving of the puzzle later in the day easier.

 

This is ridiculed by scientists.

But IMHO morphic resonance could be understood as modification of random behavior
(on a platonic or Leibnizian shared mental plane) subjected to a lawful universe,

such as is found in natural selection through evolution 

As an explanation, consider this analogy. They've put hidden optical speed detectors

on my neighborhood streets to slow down traffic. If you don't see the

detectors and speed through, the detectors will flash photo your license

plate and electronically issue you a speed ticket. Gradually everybody

tends to slow down to meet the legal speed limit.

A wild speculation is perhaps quantum mechanics behavior gradually
adapts to einstein behavior in such a way.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

[John Clark]

I have a even simpler explanation of Sheldrake's morphic resonance observations, Rupert Sheldrake is a simpleton and a crappy scientist.

  John K Clark

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Roger,

I'm curious about the experimental setup. Could it be that he's just misinterpreting a probabilistic distribution? Suppose the amount of time it takes people to solve a puzzle follows a normal distribution. As time passes and we ride the slope to the mean, we can get the mistaken impression that people solving the puzzle are causing more people to solve it.

I hope I'm wrong by the way! I love weird experimental results.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Telmo Menezes

 

Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results

(there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply

trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are

untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things.

Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition.

 

You might try lookking at his results:

 

"Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance."

 

- Herbert Spencer

 

.

2. 1:25:27

   Dr Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion (May 2012)

   by Alan Roberts•6 months ago•10,803 views

   In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr Sheldrake to ...
3. 1:20:28

   Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe

   by BroadcastBC•8 months ago•6,707 views

   In 1981 Rupert Sheldrake outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field ...
4. 1:37:42

   The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence

   by GoogleTechTalks•4 years ago•250,577 views

   enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than ...

   • CC
5. 1:02:24

   Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real

   by LondonRealTV•1 month ago•10,264 views

   London Real talks to Biologist & Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv ...
6. 9:38

   Rupert Sheldrake 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay

   by conscioustv•3 years ago•10,340 views

   Rupert Sheldrake - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than ...
7. 7:10

   Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations

   by Dan Booth Cohen•4 months ago•2,601 views

   Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals ...
8. 31:00

   Rupert Sheldrake - Distant Mental Influence

   by metaRising•1 year ago•4,889 views

   Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the ...
9. 1:14:36

   Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis

   by loadedshaman•1 year ago•15,768 views

   Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - "Metamorphosis" (1995)
10. 1:05:49

    Rupert Sheldrake: the Evolution of Telepathy

    by Brian Josephson•1 year ago•10,918 views

    The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the ...
11. 4:38

    Science Set Free -- Rupert Sheldrake

    by Bill Weaver•4 months ago•11,200 views

    • HD
12. 5:45

    Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy

    by Matthew Clapp•5 years ago•86,152 views

    The renowned biologist Rupert Sheldrake presents his recent findings, powerfully suggesting that part of us extends beyond our ...
13. 10:24

    Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind - Telepathy. Pt 1/3

    by xcite83•3 years ago•89,453 views

    Rupert Sheldrake is a British former biochemist and plant physiologist who now researches and writes on parapsychology and ...
14. 9:48
    Rupert Sheldrake - "Genie oder Scharlatan?" 1/4

    by quantumsciencetv•1 year ago•9,105 views

    "Die übliche Biologie führt in eine Sackgasse." (RS) Über die Thesen des umstrittenen Wissenschaftlers, den Bezug zur ...
15. 3:24

    The Morphogenic Field Part 1

    by Dyule•4 years ago•9,922 views

    Rupert Sheldrake on morphogenic fields. www.sheldrake.org ... dyule ... physical science biology consciousness ...
16. 5:57

    Rupert Sheldrake - The Rise of Shamanism

    by heartofthehealer•3 years ago•25,632 views

    Rupert Sheldrake, one of the worlds most innovative biologists, is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic ...
17. 1:37:11

    Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton A Quest Beyond the Limits of the Ordinary

    by bangonitdave•1 year ago•17,053 views
18. 2:47

    Interview With Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D.

    by abetterworldtvshow•4 years ago•5,154 views

    A clip from A Better World, Mitchell J. Rabin interviews Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. For More Information Please Visit Our Website ...
19. 1:51

    Rupert Sheldrake Stabbed in Santa Fe

    by Matthew Clapp•4 years ago•37,782 views

    An Englishman speaking on "thought transference" during an international conference at La Fonda on Wednesday was stabbed in ...
20. 80 videos

    Rupert Sheldrake

    by bloodsweatfire

    • •Rupert Sheldrake: Creative Evolution
      (7:12)
    • •Glorious Accident Interview with Rupert Sheldrake part 9
      (9:54)
    • •Rupert Sheldrake 2 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay
      (9:44)

    view full playlist (80 videos)

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Telmo Menezes

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 10:17:52

Subject: Re: A simple explanation of Sheldrake's morphic resonance observations

Hi Roger,

I'm curious about the experimental setup. Could it be that he's just misinterpreting a probabilistic distribution? Suppose the amount of time it takes people to solve a puzzle follows a normal distribution. As time passes and we ride the slope to the mean, we can get the mistaken impression that people solving the puzzle are causing more people to solve it.

I hope I'm wrong by the way! I love weird experimental results.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi

�

Sheldrake's morphic resonance is燽ased on爋bservations such as this:

repeated operations by people doing the same times crossword puzzle cause

subsequent solving of the puzzle later in the day爀asier.

�

This is ridiculed by scientists.

But IMHO morphic resonance could be understood as modification of random behavior
(on a platonic or Leibnizian shared mental plane) subjected to a lawful universe,

such as is found in natural selection through evolution�

As an explanation, consider this analogy. They've put hidden optical speed detectors

on my neighborhood streets to slow down traffic. If you don't see the

detectors and speed through, the detectors will flash photo your license

plate and electronically issue you a speed ticket. Gradually everybody

tends to slow down to meet the legal speed limit.

A wild speculation is perhaps quantum mechanics behavior gradually
adapts to einstein behavior in such a way.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Richard Ruquist]

Roger,

How are morphic fields related to monads?

Richard

[Telmo Menezes]

Thanks Roger! I'm intrigued and will investigate further when time permits.

Another more mundane explanation might be related to the effect of "knowing that something is possible". I believe there is some research on this effect. In sports, for example, when someone breaks a psychological barrier (e.g. running a mile under 4 minutes), it's not unusual for other athletes to replicate the record soon enough.

But I'm talking out of my ass, as you Americans say. I'll read for myself.

I agree with you that too much skepticism can be counterproductive. As Carl Sagan put it, there's an ideal mix of skepticism and wonder.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist

Sheldrake says that, if I remember properly,
monads are a combination of mind and body,
so are mindbrains. The perceptions of these
in turn reflect all of the perceptions of all
of the other monads in the universe, so the
universe is a giant mindbrain. Then there
is a universal memory.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/3/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 10:47:59
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Roger,
How are morphic fields related to monads?
Richard

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes

Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results
(there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply
trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are
untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things.
Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition.

You might try lookking at his results:

"Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance."

- Herbert Spencer

.

1:25:27
Dr Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion (May 2012)
by Alan Roberts 6 months ago 10,803 views
In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr Sheldrake to ...

1:20:28
Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe
by BroadcastBC 8 months ago 6,707 views
In 1981 Rupert Sheldrake outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field ...

1:37:42
The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence
by GoogleTechTalks 4 years ago 250,577 views
enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than ...
CC

1:02:24
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real
by LondonRealTV 1 month ago 10,264 views
London Real talks to Biologist & Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv ...

9:38
Rupert Sheldrake 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay
by conscioustv 3 years ago 10,340 views
Rupert Sheldrake - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than ...

7:10
Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations
by Dan Booth Cohen 4 months ago 2,601 views
Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals ...

31:00
Rupert Sheldrake - Distant Mental Influence
by metaRising 1 year ago 4,889 views
Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the ...

1:14:36
Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis
by loadedshaman 1 year ago 15,768 views
Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - "Metamorphosis" (1995)

1:05:49
Rupert Sheldrake: the Evolution of Telepathy
by Brian Josephson 1 year ago 10,918 views
The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the ...

4:38
Science Set Free -- Rupert Sheldrake
by Bill Weaver 4 months ago 11,200 views
HD

5:45
Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy
by Matthew Clapp 5 years ago 86,152 views
The renowned biologist Rupert Sheldrake presents his recent findings, powerfully suggesting that part of us extends beyond our ...

10:24
Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind - Telepathy. Pt 1/3
by xcite83 3 years ago 89,453 views
Rupert Sheldrake is a British former biochemist and plant physiologist who now researches and writes on parapsychology and ...

9:48
Rupert Sheldrake - "Genie oder Scharlatan?" 1/4
by quantumsciencetv 1 year ago 9,105 views

"Die ?liche Biologie f?rt in eine Sackgasse." (RS) ?er die Thesen des umstrittenen Wissenschaftlers, den Bezug zur ...

3:24
The Morphogenic Field Part 1
by Dyule 4 years ago 9,922 views
Rupert Sheldrake on morphogenic fields. www.sheldrake.org ... dyule ... physical science biology consciousness ...

5:57
Rupert Sheldrake - The Rise of Shamanism
by heartofthehealer 3 years ago 25,632 views
Rupert Sheldrake, one of the worlds most innovative biologists, is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic ...

1:37:11
Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton A Quest Beyond the Limits of the Ordinary
by bangonitdave 1 year ago 17,053 views

2:47
Interview With Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D.
by abetterworldtvshow 4 years ago 5,154 views
A clip from A Better World, Mitchell J. Rabin interviews Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. For More Information Please Visit Our Website ...

1:51
Rupert Sheldrake Stabbed in Santa Fe
by Matthew Clapp 4 years ago 37,782 views
An Englishman speaking on "thought transference" during an international conference at La Fonda on Wednesday was stabbed in ...

80 videos

Rupert Sheldrake
by bloodsweatfire
Rupert Sheldrake: Creative Evolution
(7:12)
Glorious Accident Interview with Rupert Sheldrake part 9
(9:54)
Rupert Sheldrake 2 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay
(9:44)
view full playlist (80 videos)


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/3/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 10:17:52
Subject: Re: A simple explanation of Sheldrake's morphic resonance observations


Hi Roger,


I'm curious about the experimental setup. Could it be that he's just misinterpreting a probabilistic distribution? Suppose the amount of time it takes people to solve a puzzle follows a normal distribution. As time passes and we ride the slope to the mean, we can get the mistaken impression that people solving the puzzle are causing more people to solve it.


I hope I'm wrong by the way! I love weird experimental results.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi

Sheldrake's morphic resonance is?ased on?bservations such as this:

repeated operations by people doing the same times crossword puzzle cause

subsequent solving of the puzzle later in the day?asier.

[Richard Ruquist]

Roger,

But how do morphic fields fit in with this scheme of things?
Richard

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist

 

They rule everything.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Richard Ruquist

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 11:48:05

Subject: Re: Monads and Sheldrake

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:44:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes

 

Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results

(there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply

trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are

untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things.

Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition.

 

I agree, I think that Sheldrake is obviously sincere and while his efforts may fall short of the expectations of some as far as scientific rigor goes, it is clear to me that the general topic of his research is valid. There does seem to be much more to the content of experience and the sharing of awareness than our current science has accounted for. The fact that this is such a polarizing subject, turning those who claim to be scientifically minded into witch-hunting bigots makes me suspect that this is indeed an important direction for science to investigate fully.

[Richard Ruquist]

Morphic fields are your god???

>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

[Richard Ruquist]

While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish
them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives
arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last
person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian
Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012.

Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where
almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my
last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
Richard

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZD0DoE04VB0J.

[meekerdb]

Don't be so narrow-minded. You must also incorporate Orgone, Feng Shui, Qi, ectoplasma,
the astral plane, and NDE's. Nevermind those piddling rational, mechanistic, material
problems like global warming, overpopulation, lack of water, depletion of oil...

Brent
There are those who claim that magic is like the tide; that it
swells and fades over the surface of the earth, collecting in
concentrated pools here and there, almost disappearing from other
spots, leaving them parched for wonder. There are also those who
believe that if you stick your fingers up your nose and blow, it
will increase your intelligence.
-- "The Teachings of Ebenezum, Volume VII"

>>> London Real talks to Biologist& Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish
> them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives
> arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last
> person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian
> Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012.
>
> Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where
> almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my
> last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
> Richard

I'm sceptical of Sheldrake's explanation in terms of "morphic fields"
(or even monads). It makes no sense. However, the empirical effect he
observed may well stand. We should probe such results, test for any
methodological flaws, and if they continue to hold up, look for
alternative explanations that might work.

Of course it is a hard row to hoe. A few years ago, I had some
empirical results that literally flew in the face of neutral evolution
thoery
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). I
could not get these results published, and got treated by scorn by
journal referees. Then after about a year of thought, I worked out the
mechanism - in the end it was quite a simple, but nevertheless real
effect. This time, the paper was accepted without question.

You can see the resulting paper at arXiv:nlin.AO/0404012

In spite of thise result having quite profound implications for
things like the "molecular clock" idea, AFAIK, nobody has investigated
whether anything like this happens in real biology.

It does also stand as an example of what is required to publish
contra-paradigmatic results.

Cheers

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/3/2013 10:47 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Roger,
> How are morphic fields related to monads?
> Richard

Hi,

May I attempt an answer? Monads are not entities that are localized
in a place, they are entire fields of experience. Morphic fields are a
way to think of how monads synchronize and reflect their histories with
each others using a substance based model. As any one kind of monad
learns new experience, such is reflected in all other similar monads.

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Stephen P. King <step...@charter.net> wrote:
> Morphic fields are a way to think of how monads synchronize and reflect
> their histories with each others using a substance based model

Stephan, Could you elaborate? Richard

[Stephen P. King]

Hi Richard,

I don't have much time or brain power atm, but I'll try. Morphic
fields are, IMHO, a theoretical construct, a means to give an
explanation of a seemingly anomalous effect. If they do a good job being
predictively good, if not to the rubbish heap with them. Monads are,
similarly, another explanatory model. Monads treat experience as
fundamental. Sheldrake sees fields as fundamental. So be it. There is
not just one way of explaining our world of common experience. ;-)

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Roger Clough]

Hi Russell Standish

Most scientific publications are based on the 19th century religious cult of materialism,
which dogmatically rejects mind and spirit for atheistic purposes (not reasons, there are none).
It cannot deal with fields at all, for example the theory of relativity, since that
theory asserts that there is no such thing as space (and yet it works). M does not
believe in fields, for they are anathema: immaterial, purely mathematical.
So of course monads and morphisms are nonsense to a materialist.
He lives in a fantasy world.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 18:32:37

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to
prove and call materialism bad science. I think he is the vanguard
of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas.

A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism
can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical).

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 11:57:45

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZD0DoE04VB0J.

[meekerdb]

On 1/3/2013 11:47 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Russell Standish
>
> Most scientific publications are based on the 19th century religious cult of materialism,
> which dogmatically rejects mind and spirit for atheistic purposes (not reasons, there are none).

Do you have any citations showing where this dogma is written down?

>
> It cannot deal with fields at all,

Ever hear of quantum *field* theory.

> for example the theory of relativity, since that
> theory asserts that there is no such thing as space (and yet it works).

General relativity is a theory of metric space.

> M does not
> believe in fields, for they are anathema: immaterial, purely mathematical.
> So of course monads and morphisms are nonsense to a materialist.
> He lives in a fantasy world.

You must be living in some other world to think scientist cannot deal with fields - a
concept they invented.

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to
> prove and call materialism bad science.

You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the superstitious who don't
even know what "materialism" means. They are 90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant
90%.

> I think he is the vanguard
> of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas.

So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be replicated?

>
> A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism
> can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical).

That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain consciousness.
Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the head changes your consciousness.

Brent
The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you
are the easiest person for you to fool.
--- with apologies to R. Feynman

[Roger Clough]

Hi Telmo Menezes

Sheldrake, as you might surmise, is totally empirical,
which is the irrefutable tactic to disprove materialism.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 11:17:59

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Thanks Roger! I'm intrigued and will investigate further when time permits.


Another more mundane explanation might be related to the effect of "knowing that something is possible". I believe there is some research on this effect. In sports, for example, when someone breaks a psychological barrier (e.g. running a mile under 4 minutes), it's not unusual for other athletes to replicate the record soon enough.


But I'm talking out of my ass, as you Americans say. I'll read for myself.


I agree with you that too much skepticism can be counterproductive. As Carl Sagan put it, there's an ideal mix of skepticism and wonder.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes

Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results
(there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply
trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are
untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things.
Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition.

You might try lookking at his results:

"Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance."

- Herbert Spencer

.

1:25:27
Dr Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion (May 2012)
by Alan Roberts 6 months ago 10,803 views
In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr Sheldrake to ...

1:20:28
Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe
by BroadcastBC 8 months ago 6,707 views
In 1981 Rupert Sheldrake outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field ...

1:37:42
The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence
by GoogleTechTalks 4 years ago 250,577 views
enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than ...
CC

1:02:24
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real
by LondonRealTV 1 month ago 10,264 views
London Real talks to Biologist & Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv ...

9:38
Rupert Sheldrake 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay
by conscioustv 3 years ago 10,340 views
Rupert Sheldrake - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than ...

7:10
Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations
by Dan Booth Cohen 4 months ago 2,601 views
Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals ...

31:00
Rupert Sheldrake - Distant Mental Influence
by metaRising 1 year ago 4,889 views
Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the ...

1:14:36
Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis
by loadedshaman 1 year ago 15,768 views
Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - "Metamorphosis" (1995)

1:05:49
Rupert Sheldrake: the Evolution of Telepathy
by Brian Josephson 1 year ago 10,918 views
The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the ...

4:38
Science Set Free -- Rupert Sheldrake
by Bill Weaver 4 months ago 11,200 views
HD

5:45
Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy
by Matthew Clapp 5 years ago 86,152 views
The renowned biologist Rupert Sheldrake presents his recent findings, powerfully suggesting that part of us extends beyond our ...

10:24
Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind - Telepathy. Pt 1/3
by xcite83 3 years ago 89,453 views
Rupert Sheldrake is a British former biochemist and plant physiologist who now researches and writes on parapsychology and ...

9:48
Rupert Sheldrake - "Genie oder Scharlatan?" 1/4
by quantumsciencetv 1 year ago 9,105 views

"Die ?liche Biologie f?rt in eine Sackgasse." (RS) ?er die Thesen des umstrittenen Wissenschaftlers, den Bezug zur ...

3:24
The Morphogenic Field Part 1
by Dyule 4 years ago 9,922 views
Rupert Sheldrake on morphogenic fields. www.sheldrake.org ... dyule ... physical science biology consciousness ...

5:57
Rupert Sheldrake - The Rise of Shamanism
by heartofthehealer 3 years ago 25,632 views
Rupert Sheldrake, one of the worlds most innovative biologists, is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic ...

1:37:11
Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton A Quest Beyond the Limits of the Ordinary
by bangonitdave 1 year ago 17,053 views

2:47
Interview With Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D.
by abetterworldtvshow 4 years ago 5,154 views
A clip from A Better World, Mitchell J. Rabin interviews Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. For More Information Please Visit Our Website ...

1:51
Rupert Sheldrake Stabbed in Santa Fe
by Matthew Clapp 4 years ago 37,782 views
An Englishman speaking on "thought transference" during an international conference at La Fonda on Wednesday was stabbed in ...

80 videos

Rupert Sheldrake
by bloodsweatfire
Rupert Sheldrake: Creative Evolution
(7:12)
Glorious Accident Interview with Rupert Sheldrake part 9
(9:54)
Rupert Sheldrake 2 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay
(9:44)
view full playlist (80 videos)


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/3/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 10:17:52
Subject: Re: A simple explanation of Sheldrake's morphic resonance observations


Hi Roger,


I'm curious about the experimental setup. Could it be that he's just misinterpreting a probabilistic distribution? Suppose the amount of time it takes people to solve a puzzle follows a normal distribution. As time passes and we ride the slope to the mean, we can get the mistaken impression that people solving the puzzle are causing more people to solve it.


I hope I'm wrong by the way! I love weird experimental results.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi

Sheldrake's morphic resonance is?ased on?bservations such as this:

repeated operations by people doing the same times crossword puzzle cause

subsequent solving of the puzzle later in the day?asier.

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

 

If there is empirical evidence for the truth of those, I'll accept them.

Sheldrake's work is totally empirical.

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/4/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 14:30:28

>>> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>>> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>>> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>>> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>>> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/4/2013 3:24 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>> Hi Craig Weinberg
>>
>> IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to
>> prove and call materialism bad science.
>
> You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the
> superstitious who don't even know what "materialism" means. They are
> 90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant 90%.

Ah, and you are in that elite 10%! Congratulations are in order!

>
>> I think he is the vanguard
>> of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas.
>
> So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be
> replicated?

He does propose experiments. They cost money to perform...

>
>>
>> A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because
>> materialism
>> can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be
>> physical).
>
> That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain
> consciousness. Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the
> head changes your consciousness.

Good! But it still cannot explain how!

>
> Brent
> The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you
> are the easiest person for you to fool.
> --- with apologies to R. Feynman
>

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Richard Ruquist]

I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference
a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic
fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I
and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion
condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions.

In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov
for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could
well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic
field.

An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between
physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of
the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a
physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe
that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC,
more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM.

The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness
presented at that conference that may of of interest:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html
Richard

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference
> a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic
> fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I
> and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion
> condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions.
>
> In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov
> for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could
> well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic
> field.
>
> An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between
> physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of
> the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a
> physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe
> that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC,
> more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM.
>
> The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness
> presented at that conference that may of of interest:
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html
> Richard
>

Hi Richard,

I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any
substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other
representationally?

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Stephen P. King]

Hi Richard,

I looked at the paper and my skeptisism remains. I don't understand
the proposed mechanism of the BEC such that it allows for informative
relations between differing BECs. A BEC is a state of a medium, as I
understand such. Why not look at the essential effect that the BEC
engenders and not the particular BEC 'substance'? ISTM, that it the link
that matters, not what is making it up... The relations and statistics
that appear in quantum pseudo-telepathy are much more 'informative' and
seem to have more of a 'representational' flavor than a BEC mechanism, IMHO.

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/4/2013 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

    More from the paper: "Briefly the model of consciousness is that Cooper-pair layers of positive and negative half-spin axions couple to the “corporeal” physical brain on one (metaphorical) side, and to an “incorporeal” higher self or soul composed of half-spin axions on the other. The incorporeal layer is said by Jerome to be a living, sentient life-form. The actual coupling mechanism to the brain is also incorporeal, i.e. not chemical or electrical, consistent with Bohm theory below."

    How is this qualitatively different from Descartes postulation of the Pinial gland as the point where res extensa and res cognitas met and interact? The Stone duality idea works so much better that applies to any logical structure and its dual, particles or axion are just versions of Stone spaces in my thinking! (And there is no dependence on temperature for their isomorphism to hold!)

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

[Richard Ruquist]

Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs
certainly can copy each others configurations.

>
>
> More from the paper: "Briefly the model of consciousness is that
> Cooper-pair layers of positive and negative half-spin axions couple to the
> “corporeal” physical brain on one (metaphorical) side, and to an
> “incorporeal” higher self or soul composed of half-spin axions on the other.
> The incorporeal layer is said by Jerome to be a living, sentient life-form.
> The actual coupling mechanism to the brain is also incorporeal, i.e. not
> chemical or electrical, consistent with Bohm theory below."
>
> How is this qualitatively different from Descartes postulation of the
> Pinial gland as the point where res extensa and res cognitas met and
> interact? The Stone duality idea works so much better that applies to any
> logical structure and its dual, particles or axion are just versions of
> Stone spaces in my thinking! (And there is no dependence on temperature for
> their isomorphism to hold!)
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>

I expect that a physical BEC pervades the entire brain if not the body
sorta along the lines of the Penrose-Hamerof microtuble model. I
previously mentioned to you that the Calabi-Tau compact manifolds
appear to have the properties of a Stone space. But I cannot remember
my reasoning. I also do not understand the relationship of the axions
to the compact manifolds. However, on another list a fellow made an
interesting case based on evolution that the volume of the pineal
gland contains our thinking.
Richard

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King

....very few scientists....

Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims.
The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist.

See http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Stephen P. King

Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-04, 04:24:57
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist

 

No, morphic fields are not God, they are the tools of God.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/4/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Richard Ruquist

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 13:32:24

Subject: Re: Re: Monads and Sheldrake

>> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist

New Scientist has published work by Sheldrake.
But we'll have to wait for the materialist trolls
which decide what can be published die off.
Materialism cannot be justified scientifically.
That journal will be an obsolete curiosity.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 13:46:20

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King

L states that all substances are alive, that's how they can communicate.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-04, 07:26:21

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

1) Materialists don't have any dogmas. Just ask one of them.
2) quanta are not materials.
3) materialism cannot accept empty space, since it isn't a material.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-04, 03:14:17

[Richard Ruquist]

New Scientist has very little credibility in the scientific world.
They are in business to make money and paranormal material sells.

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King  

....very few scientists.... 

Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. 
The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist. 

See http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/ 

    "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

[meekerdb]

On 1/4/2013 1:24 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 1/4/2013 3:24 AM, meekerdb wrote:
>> On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi Craig Weinberg
>>>
>>> IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to
>>> prove and call materialism bad science.
>>
>> You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the superstitious who
>> don't even know what "materialism" means. They are 90% of the Earth's population - the
>> ignorant 90%.
>
> Ah, and you are in that elite 10%! Congratulations are in order!
>
>>
>>> I think he is the vanguard
>>> of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas.
>>
>> So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be replicated?
>
> He does propose experiments. They cost money to perform...
>
>>
>>>
>>> A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism
>>> can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical).
>>
>> That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain consciousness.
>> Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the head changes your consciousness.
>
> Good! But it still cannot explain how!

"How?" is one of those perpetual questions, like the child that responds to every answer
with "Why?". When Newton was asked how gravity pulled on the planets he said, "Hypothesi
non fingo." So let's see Sheldrake explain some "what".

Brent

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/4/2013 8:31 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>> >
>> > I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any
>> >substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other
>> >representationally?
> Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs
> certainly can copy each others configurations.
>

Hi Richard,

This ability to "copy each others configuration" , does it give us
some thing like "representability"? What does "representability" mean to
you?

--
Onward!

Stephen

[meekerdb]

On 1/4/2013 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi meekerdb
>
> 1) Materialists don't have any dogmas. Just ask one of them.

Theists have nothing but dogmas and you don't have to ask them, they tell you, e.g. one of
their dogmas is that materialism is wrong, humans have immortal souls, and God will punish
you if you don't like Him.

> 2) quanta are not materials.

If electrons and quarks aren't material, what is?

> 3) materialism cannot accept empty space, since it isn't a material.

What is this "accept"? Is it like "have faith in"? Does it mean "accept as dogma"? Most
models of the physical world include empty space (although 'empty' is relative to the model).

[Richard Ruquist]

Well in the Consciousness Canonizer my string consciousness model is
listed or categorized under "Representational Qualia Theory" but I do
not really have an appreciation for what that means

The Stanford Encyl has an article on Representational Theories of
Consciousness which says that intentionality is representation???
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-representational/

That defines a word in terms of another word that I do not understand-
a problem I often have on this list. However further into the article
is a clarifying sentence:

" Like public, social cases of representation such as writing or
mapmaking, intentional states such as beliefs have truth-value; they
entail or imply other beliefs; they are (it seems) composed of
concepts and depend for their truth on a match between their internal
structures and the way the world is; and so it is natural to regard
their aboutness as a matter of mental referring or designation. "

So I conclude that this is quite different issue from one BEC copying
what exists in another BEC.

Representionality is closer to IMO Godelian incompleteness or
Marchal's CTM wherein beliefs and truth, etc. can be represented. I do
not know how.

But my conjecture is that whatever representations exist in the CTM
BEC of string theory can be copied into the BEC of (human brain)
physical consciousness, and vice versa. This is essentially a
mind/body duality.
Richard

>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

Hi Everythingsters,

When things get a little fringe, I want the best bang for my buck (time reading/listening in this case). Here Sheldrake only delivers when held in check by McKenna and Abraham, even if not stunning.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

1. Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis

   by loadedshaman•1 year ago•15,768 views

   Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - "Metamorphosis" (1995)

1. 1:05:49
   
   

Otherwise, I find Sheldrake rather a sleeping pill. If we're gonna step into areas of wild speculation, then I want the writer/speaker to go as far as they can, instead of charting out curiosities as cracks in the sciences.

Thus I simply prefer McKenna as wild speculator, as he at least leaves a trail for 1p to convince themselves of the trajectory of his speculation. So 1p can do some things to verify to a certain extent the wild propositions, and perhaps one day to lay things out more formally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQfC4WRg-g

With Sheldrake, you're sort of just left with the speculation, and there's no harness whatsoever, which is why I fall asleep so quickly.
PGC

 

[Roger Clough]

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

 

You've obviously never watched one of Sheldrake's

lectures. All of his speculations are supported with

empirical data. You'll find some of it on his website,

others in his books and lectures.

I watched the first hour of McKenna's lecture as given below,

It was essentially a promo for taking drugs, and it showed no data,

so finding him distasteful after watching for an hour, I gave up.

 

So where's all of McKenna's data ? I think he died about a decade ago

of some brain problem (could it have been from taking drugs?).

His brother became a drug addict also, don't know what happened to him.

  


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/5/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-05, 07:15:28

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

Hi Everythingsters,

When things get a little fringe, I want the best bang for my buck (time reading/listening in this case). Here Sheldrake only delivers when held in check by McKenna and Abraham, even if not stunning.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roger Clough wrote:



Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis

by loadedshaman?1 year ago?15,768 views

Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - "Metamorphosis" (1995)

1:05:49


Otherwise, I find Sheldrake rather a sleeping pill. If we're gonna step into areas of wild speculation, then I want the writer/speaker to go as far as they can, instead of charting out curiosities as cracks in the sciences.

Thus I simply prefer McKenna as wild speculator, as he at least leaves a trail for 1p to convince themselves of the trajectory of his speculation. So 1p can do some things to verify to a certain extent the wild propositions, and perhaps one day to lay things out more formally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQfC4WRg-g

With Sheldrake, you're sort of just left with the speculation, and there's no harness whatsoever, which is why I fall asleep so quickly.
PGC

?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Jan 2013, at 09:24, meekerdb wrote:

> On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>> Hi Craig Weinberg
>>
>> IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to
>> prove and call materialism bad science.
>
> You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the
> superstitious who don't even know what "materialism" means. They
> are 90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant 90%.
>
>> I think he is the vanguard
>> of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas.
>
> So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be
> replicated?
>
>>
>> A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because
>> materialism
>> can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must
>> be physical).
>
> That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain
> consciousness. Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the
> head changes your consciousness.

It does not. Or you have to tell the flaw in UDA, or to give your (no-
comp) theory of mind, and the materialist explanation.

Bruno

>
> Brent
> The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you
> are the easiest person for you to fool.
> --- with apologies to R. Feynman
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.

> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

 

By quanta I meant quantum fields. These are

merely mathematical fields of no substance. 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/5/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-04, 16:49:55

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist

Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma
(such as materialism) any day.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/5/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-04, 08:31:56

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

> ?orporeal? physical brain on one (metaphorical) side, and to an
> ?ncorporeal? higher self or soul composed of half-spin axions on the other.

[Stephen P. King]

Hi Richard,

Yes. Copying states and representing states are not the same thing.

>
> Representionality is closer to IMO Godelian incompleteness or
> Marchal's CTM wherein beliefs and truth, etc. can be represented. I do
> not know how.

Representations are "about" things, they are not themselves things
in the physical sense and yet physical processes can act as media on
which representations can be rendered. Representations are strange in
that they can be about other representations, even themselves. It is
this property, more than any other, that distinguished minds from bodies.

> But my conjecture is that whatever representations exist in the CTM
> BEC of string theory can be copied into the BEC of (human brain)
> physical consciousness, and vice versa. This is essentially a
> mind/body duality.
> Richard
>

yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a
solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's
idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct
aspects of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan
Pratt explains this in his paper: http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Richard Ruquist]

On reading Pratt it appears that he elevates mind/body duality to a TOE.
But I have not read in sufficient depth, assuming that is possible for
me, to know if that is true.
Richard

[meekerdb]

On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Richard Ruquist  

Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma 
(such as materialism) any day. 

It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all immaterial.

Brent

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/5/2013 2:54 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>> yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a
>> >solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's
>> >idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct aspects
>> >of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan Pratt
>> >explains this in his paper:http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf
>> >
>> >--
>> >Onward!
>> >
>> >Stephen
>> >
> On reading Pratt it appears that he elevates mind/body duality to a TOE.
> But I have not read in sufficient depth, assuming that is possible for
> me, to know if that is true.
> Richard
>

Hi Richard,

Yes, he is advancing a particular vision, but I would not call this
piece a TOE, it is part of a TOE that he advocates.



--
Onward!

Stephen

[Richard Ruquist]

It Pratt's mind/body duality mechanism
an alternative to mind/body coupling via BECs?

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/5/2013 9:03 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Stephen P. King <step...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 1/5/2013 2:54 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>> yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a
>>>>> solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's
>>>>> idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct
>>>>> aspects
>>>>> of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan Pratt
>>>>> explains this in his paper:http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Onward!
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen
>>>>>
>>> On reading Pratt it appears that he elevates mind/body duality to a TOE.
>>> But I have not read in sufficient depth, assuming that is possible for
>>> me, to know if that is true.
>>> Richard
>>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Yes, he is advancing a particular vision, but I would not call this
>> piece a TOE, it is part of a TOE that he advocates.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Onward!
>>
>> Stephen
>>
> It Pratt's mind/body duality mechanism
> an alternative to mind/body coupling via BECs?
>

Dear Richard,

yes, there is an isomorphsim between the two, no need for coupling. ;-)

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

 

Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and

functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't materialists.

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/6/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

[meekerdb]

On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi meekerdb

 

Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and

functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't materialists.

So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists.  So materialism can't very well be "scientific dogma" as you keep asserting.

Brent

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/6/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Richard Ruquist  

Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma 
(such as materialism) any day. 

It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all immaterial.

Brent

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date: 01/03/13

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/6/2013 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism
> can't very well be "scientific dogma" as you keep asserting.
>
> Brent

Hi Brent,

I think that you are taking as evidence the lack of overt
statements as evidence. Any person that is marxist, for example, is a
materialist, by definition...

--
Onward!

Stephen

[meekerdb]

So how many physicists are marxists in the philosophical sense.  I don't know even one.

Brent

[Stephen P. King]

Hi,

    OK, so we can safely discount your claims about "no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists..." My point is that the lack of a direct statement in some particular form, like "I am a materialist" does not act as proof that "no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists". It only tells us some of the limits of your personal knowledge.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King

I think what was meant was the inverse, namely that
no consistent materialist can believe in quantum mechanics.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/6/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-06, 15:31:01

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are inconsistent
if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/6/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42

[meekerdb]

Or that your complaints have no basis.

Brent

[meekerdb]

No, I meant that quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, general relativity, are all
current models of matter and it's interaction. So it is silly to say QFT is immaterial.
Of cours it's immaterial; it's a *theory*. But it's a theory of matter (and a very good
one). So to say a materialist can't 'believe in' QFT is confused.

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 1/6/2013 12:59 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

quantum physics, which is nonphysical

A new record.  You've contradicted yourself in only five words.

Brent

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/6/2013 3:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> I think what was meant was the inverse, namely that
> no consistent materialist can believe in quantum mechanics.

Ah. OK. I would like to see an explanation of this claim if I had
the time for such minutia.

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

 

You've obviously never watched one of Sheldrake's

lectures.

Watched, listened, and even read some things a few years back. I sincerely tried to open my mind, but when I realized I was forcing that, instead of doing my homework, I dropped him. Doesn't mean he hasn't changed, but what you posted sounds like the old song. Maybe my prejudice.
 

All of his speculations are supported with

empirical data. You'll find some of it on his website,

others in his books and lectures.

Aware of that.
 

I watched the first hour of McKenna's lecture as given below,

It was essentially a promo for taking drugs, and it showed no data,

so finding him distasteful after watching for an hour, I gave up.

 

May I ask what approximate criteria you associate with taste in this case?

 

So where's all of McKenna's data?

He never pretended to have any. He's self-avowed fool: "the object of this talk is that you never have to hear this sort of thing again in your life; you can put that behind you" paraphrased from video.
 

I think he died about a decade ago

of some brain problem (could it have been from taking drugs?).

Begging.
 

His brother became a drug addict also, don't know what happened to him.

  

Same again, which seems to indicate you don't really care. Otherwise one google search and click would've wikied you this on a silver plate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_McKenna
PGC

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

 

You're allowed to have that opinion, or any opinion.

 

We're different. I am a retired laboratory scientist and

a pragmatist to boot.  So to me, data trumnps everything.

So I will believe that the moon is made of green cheese

if there's data to suppport that.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/7/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-06, 17:08:32

Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

�

You've obviously never watched one of Sheldrake's

lectures.

Watched, listened, and even read some things a few years back. I sincerely tried to open my mind, but when I realized I was forcing that, instead of doing my homework, I dropped him. Doesn't mean he hasn't changed, but what you posted sounds like the old song. Maybe my prejudice.
�

All of his speculations are supported with

empirical data. You'll find some of it on his website,

others in his books and lectures.

Aware of that.
�

I爓atched the first hour of McKenna's lecture as given below,

It was essentially a promo for taking drugs, and it showed no data,

so finding him distasteful after watching for an hour, I gave up.

�

May I ask what approximate criteria you associate with taste in this case?

�

So where's all of McKenna's data?

He never pretended to have any. He's self-avowed fool: "the object of this talk is that you never have to hear this sort of thing again in your life; you can put that behind you" paraphrased from video.
�

I think he died about a decade ago

of some brain problem (could it have been from taking drugs?).

Begging.
�

His brother became a drug addict also, don't know what happened to him.

牋

[Alberto G. Corona]

it is perfectly possible to accept natural selection with all the implication in genetics without being a materialist.

The materialism is a superfluous ideological substrate.  Sheldrake is right about this critic of materialism. I´m not materialist, and I accept Natural selection.  Materialism is the logical consequence of the distrust of the human intellect that was Nominalism. This distrust  condemned to in-existence any inner knowledge and  reified only what produced effect that other can observe in the short term (complex and long term effects were disqualified because they where not so easily observable). So material is anything experimental, that is anything that is enough simple and enough immediate to be observable by many. This excludes long term, complex knowledge imprinted in the mind innately or culturally by natural or social selection. Then the common sense, the human aspirations, motivations and beliefs, are condemned to subjectivity, and rejected as object of study, only as matter of belief for the believers or a matter of engineering for the nonbelievers.

 I´m not being materialist besides I accept natural Selection. NS is not an  agent of causation on the deep. neither matter is. Matter is  a substrate. It is  the sensible part that we perceive. this perception is composed by the mind, from the input of the anthropically selected mathematical reality.

Natural selection only happens  for beings living in time like us. From a timeless view, from above, the universe has spacetime locations where there is no dynamic of selection. There are only existence and inexistence. there are good spacetime trajectories that diverge and flourish and bad ones that are death paths.  These paths have precise physiological and social laws in the same whay that they have phisical laws, that are derived from  the mathematical structure of reality that indeed IMHO are a consequence of the antrophic principle of existence of the mind. 

It seems that the mind is computation, but the physical substrate, which is ultimately mathematical, only reflect this computation as well as the mind, but matter, being a product of the mind, can not  be the causation of the mind.

As a product of the mind,  natter is a proxy for the study of the mind. trough natural selection.. Because NS is how we, as temporal beings perceive the very long term coherence between the mind and the anthropicallly selected mathematical reality

2013/1/6 Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multipl...@gmail.com>

--
Alberto.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Alberto G. Corona

I have no problem with natural selection, it is a reasonable hypothesis.
But natural selection implies some form of intelligence, which materialism cannot explain.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/7/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-07, 07:05:29
Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

it is perfectly possible to accept natural selection with all the implication in genetics without being a materialist.

The materialism is a superfluous ideological substrate. ?heldrake is right about this critic of materialism. I? not materialist, and I accept Natural selection. ?aterialism is the logical consequence of the distrust of the human intellect that was Nominalism. This distrust ?ondemned to?n-existence any inner knowledge and ?eified only what produced effect that other can observe in the short term (complex and long term effects were disqualified because they where not so easily observable). So material is anything experimental, that is anything that is enough simple and enough?mmediate?o be observable by many. This excludes long term, complex knowledge imprinted in the mind innately?r culturally by natural or social selection. Then the common sense, the human aspirations, motivations and beliefs, are condemned to subjectivity, and rejected as object of study, only as matter of belief for the believers or a matter of engineering for the nonbelievers.
?? not being materialist besides I accept natural Selection. NS is not an ?gent of causation on the deep. neither matter is. Matter is ??ubstrate. It is? the sensible part that we perceive. this perception is composed by the mind, from the input of the anthropically selected mathematical reality.


Natural selection only happens ?or beings living in time like us. From a timeless view, from above, the universe has spacetime locations where there is no dynamic of selection. There are only existence and inexistence. there are good spacetime trajectories that diverge and flourish and bad ones that are death paths. ?hese paths have precise physiological and social laws in the same whay that they have phisical laws, that are derived from ?he mathematical structure of reality that indeed IMHO are a consequence of the antrophic principle of existence of the mind.?


It seems that the mind is computation, but the physical substrate, which is ultimately?athematical, only?eflect this computation as well as the mind, but matter, being a product of the mind, can?not ?e?the causation of the mind.


As a product of the mind, ?atter is a proxy for the study of the mind. trough natural selection.. Because NS is how we, as temporal beings perceive the very long term coherence between the mind and the anthropicallly selected mathematical reality





2013/1/6 Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

?

You've obviously never watched one of Sheldrake's
lectures.

Watched, listened, and even read some things a few years back. I sincerely tried to open my mind, but when I realized I was forcing that, instead of doing my homework, I dropped him. Doesn't mean he hasn't changed, but what you posted sounds like the old song. Maybe my prejudice.

?

All of his speculations are supported with
empirical data. You'll find some of it on his website,
others in his books and lectures.


Aware of that.

?
I?atched the first hour of McKenna's lecture as given below,

It was essentially a promo for taking drugs, and it showed no data,
so finding him distasteful after watching for an hour, I gave up.

?

May I ask what approximate criteria you associate with taste in this case?

?
So where's all of McKenna's data?

He never pretended to have any. He's self-avowed fool: "the object of this talk is that you never have to hear this sort of thing again in your life; you can put that behind you" paraphrased from video.

?

I think he died about a decade ago
of some brain problem (could it have been from taking drugs?).

Begging.

?

His brother became a drug addict also, don't know what happened to him.

?

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King

 

Its simple. Quantum mechanics is nonphysical (is only mathematical).

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/7/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Stephen P. King

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-06, 16:34:51

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

 

OK. I overreacted.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/7/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-06, 16:19:52

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

 

Quantum fields are nonphysical, since they do not exist in spacetime.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/7/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-06, 16:23:37

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

 

You're allowed to have that opinion, or any opinion.

 

We're different. I am a retired laboratory scientist and

a pragmatist to boot.  So to me, data trumnps everything.

So I will believe that the moon is made of green cheese

if there's data to suppport that.

 

 

Not to me, I'll give you that.

Data is as important as who is delivering the data and how it was collected, as data is hardly separable from belief about data.

And you wouldn't believe the moon is made of green cheese, because you'd probably not like the data's taste and stop reading/listening in under an hour, well before the conclusion of the talk or paper, as you show above with McKenna, when you throw out ten videos for everyone to see, but will not be able to finish just one, posted by the same youtube uploader you chose, that somebody in this thread puts up, clicking on your links. This paints a picture, I do not have to elaborate.

"Drugs" and their promotion, entirely misses McKenna's narrative focus as the semantics with which you use the term, do not apply to what he's talking about. "Drugs" in your usage do not exist, implying some definite ethical line between "permissible and non-permissible pleasures", which is about as far removed from McKenna's speculations as you can get.

It's seems not surprising that you don't listen to a talk, when you post ten.
PGC




   

[Bruno Marchal]

On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi meekerdb
>

> Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are
> inconsistent
> if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical.

All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist
theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non
physical things with some class of physical phenomena.

Careful, in philosophy of mind, "materialism" means "only matter
fundamentally exists". But comp is already contradicting "weak
materialism", the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among
possible other things).

Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist
( (which is stronger and is necessary with comp). But even them are
still often physicalist. They still believe that everything is
explainable from the behavior of matter (even if that matter is
entirely "ontologically" justified in pure math).

Comp refutes this. Physics becomes the art of the numbers to guess
what are the most common universal numbers supporting them in their
neighborhood, well even the invariant part of this.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Roger Clough]

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

 

Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/7/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-07, 08:33:45

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

�

You're allowed to have that opinion, or any opinion.

�

We're different. I am a retired laboratory scientist and

a pragmatist to boot. 燬o to me, data trumnps everything.

So I will believe that the moon is made of green cheese

if there's data to suppport that.

�

�

Not to me, I'll give you that.

Data is as important as who is delivering the data and how it was collected, as data is hardly separable from belief about data.

And you wouldn't believe the moon is made of green cheese, because you'd probably not like the data's taste and stop reading/listening in under an hour, well before the conclusion of the talk or paper, as you show above with McKenna, when you throw out ten videos for everyone to see, but will not be able to finish just one, posted by the same youtube uploader you chose, that somebody in this thread puts up, clicking on your links. This paints a picture, I do not have to elaborate.

"Drugs" and their promotion, entirely misses McKenna's narrative focus as the semantics with which you use the term, do not apply to what he's talking about. "Drugs" in your usage do not exist, implying some definite ethical line between "permissible and non-permissible pleasures", which is about as far removed from McKenna's speculations as you can get.

It's seems not surprising that you don't listen to a talk, when you post ten.
PGC

� �

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

 

Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories

quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical.

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/7/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Bruno Marchal

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com

> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com

> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[meekerdb]

On 1/7/2013 3:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

 

You're allowed to have that opinion, or any opinion.

 

We're different. I am a retired laboratory scientist and

a pragmatist to boot.  So to me, data trumnps everything.

So I will believe that the moon is made of green cheese

if there's data to suppport that.

"Nobody believes a theory, except the guy who thought of it.
Everbody believes an experiment, except the guy who did it."
         --- Leon Lederman, Nobel prize winner, physics

[meekerdb]

On 1/7/2013 4:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

But natural selection implies some form of intelligence,

You don't understand evolution.

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 1/7/2013 4:46 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi meekerdb

 

Quantum fields are nonphysical, since they do not exist in spacetime.

?? Where did you learn quantum field theory (I want to be sure not to hire any engineers or physicists from there).

Brent

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

Even bacteria have some miniscule amount of intelligence,
which is IMHO the ability to autonomously make choices.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-07, 17:58:06

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

Mathematical structures such as quantum fields are not in spacetime.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-07, 18:04:22

Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

 

Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories

quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical.

This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by "quantum fields" are not physical? 

It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which "particles" become field singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them physical, even "material".

With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by measurement.

May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use "physical" in different sense.

Bruno

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below,
a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".....that would
act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would"
tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself.

A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits
the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball
tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself.
It has no physical existence, only potential existence.

Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only
detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. )

http://science.yourdictionary.com/field

field

"A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force,
such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would
act on a body at any given point in that region. "

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com

> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com

> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Wave collapse and consciousness

According to the discussion below, a field only has potential
existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it.
This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we
may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical
entity. But the only "real" part of the field is the electrons
moving in/through it.

Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing
the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations.
When the photon collides with something, the probability
is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location.

So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the
collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such
as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field
to cause a collision.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Roger Clough
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17
Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

Hi Roger,

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

 

Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone.

 

How is opinion not connected to data? Have you found a way of neatly separating the information and data from opinion and beliefs?

If you have, please share and if not:  this is straw man, that can't even stand on its pole.

I've spent days in Sheldrake land and Sheldrake has spent days in McKenna land; it seems to become more and more clear why you post 10 videos and can't complete watching 1 other video from the same Channel you posted, with McKenna that Sheldrake has produced numerous talks with, before things become "distasteful" in your words.

Sheldrake had miserable taste then too, according to your reasoning... Why would you listen to some guy that takes that "distasteful drug advocate" seriously?
PGC

[Richard Ruquist]

For the record,

Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind:
the EM, and quantum waves and, fields;

and the body: mainly electrons and photons.

We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic.
We have some division on if that property extends to the body:
like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the duality...

yanniru

[meekerdb]

On 1/8/2013 6:37 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below,
> a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".....that would
> act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would"
> tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself.
>
> A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits
> the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball
> tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself.
> It has no physical existence, only potential existence.
>
> Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only
> detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. )

Note that we can say the same about chairs. A chair is just a concept in our model of the
world. We can't see a chair, only their effect on our vision.

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:37, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi Bruno Marchal
>

> IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the
> definition below,
> a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".....that
> would
> act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would"
> tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence
> itself.
>
> A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits
> the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball
> tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the
> gravitational field itself.
> It has no physical existence, only potential existence.
>
> Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only
> detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. )
>
> http://science.yourdictionary.com/field
>
> field
>
> "A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction
> of a force,
> such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object,
> that would
> act on a body at any given point in that region. "

But they are talking on physical space and physical time, about
physical forces, which means locally measurable in our local physical
reality (which comp explains as being something real, even if emergent
from the first pov of numbers in numberland).

Gravitational fields, in GR, are physical deformation of a physical
space-time. We can't see any force, we can only measure effects, but
this does not make the force non physical. I use physical informally
to denote anything related to what we can observe and measure and made
testable prediction on, in our "physical reality". What is that, andf
where does it come from? That is the question I am interested in, and
comp here does not just suggest an answer, if imposes an answer and
the math suggests that the (ideally correct) machine's theory is more
Platonist than Aristotelian.

With comp, nothing *fundamental* is physical, but the physical is
still something fundamental for our type of consciousness to be
selected in statistically stable and sharable histories.

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:57, Roger Clough wrote:

> Wave collapse and consciousness
>
> According to the discussion below, a field only has potential
> existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to
> interact with it.
> This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we
> may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical
> entity. But the only "real" part of the field is the electrons
> moving in/through it.
>
> Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing
> the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations.
> When the photon collides with something, the probability
> is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location.
>
> So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the
> collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such
> as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field
> to cause a collision.

Are you saying there is nothing without the probe?
This can be refuted in some quantum experience where interference
comes from the absence of a probe on a path.

IN QM, even the (amplitude of) probability is "physically real".

And what is a particles if not a singularity in a field (as in quantum
field theory).

I agree with you, at some other level. Yes, the physical reality is
only a cosmic GSM to help localizing ourselves in a (vaster) reality.
Yes, the physical is a map. But this concerns both particles and
forces/fields.

You might still be too much materialist for comp, Roger.

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote:

> For the record,
>
> Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind:
> the EM, and quantum waves and, fields;
>
> and the body: mainly electrons and photons.
>
> We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic.

Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a
universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person
indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than
arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in
machine's mind.

> We have some division on if that property extends to the body:
> like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the
> duality...

No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like
mind.

Bruno

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

 

I understand your point, which is correct as long as there

is a body in the field. 

 

But consider the quantum wavicle of a photon. It is just a quantum wave before

it hits a photographic plate, at which point it becomes a distinct photon.

The quantum form of the photon before it hits the plate is a probability

field with probability <1 all over the universe. Since p <1, it doesn't physically

exist, it is nonphysical.

 

 

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/9/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Bruno Marchal

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-08, 13:05:33

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com

>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com

>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com

> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com

> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com

> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

There is nothing physical besides the probe before the probe
interacts with the quantum wave field. The quantum wave field
is simply a probability field (with prob <1) all over the universe.
Anything with prob<1 doesn't physically exist, because the (r,t) is not
yet fixed. It is nonphysical. When the probe collapses
the quantum field, then a physical photon with p=1
at (r,t) appears (materializes), and is physical because it is at a
particular (r,t).

I am not as sure about a physical body such as a ball bearing
in a gravitational field, but a situation I had never thought of
might be possible. I am told that the Heisenberg Uncertainty
principle would also hold for the case of a ball bearing in
a gravitational field, so apparently even fairly large bodies
can be considered as wavicles, that is, being nonphysical probability
fields with p<1 all over the universe before materializing at
a specific (r,t), where the wavefield collapses.

If this is possible, then the Big Bang might have been the collapse
of a huge "pre-existing" quantum wave field (? )

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-08, 13:20:52
Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness

[Roger Clough]

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

"Tentative meaning" would be more suitable than the word "opinion."

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-08, 11:07:17
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


Hi Roger,

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy

?

Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone.

?

How is opinion not connected to data? Have you found a way of neatly separating the information and data from opinion and beliefs?

If you have, please share and if not:? this is straw man, that can't even stand on its pole.

I've spent days in Sheldrake land and Sheldrake has spent days in McKenna land; it seems to become more and more clear why you post 10 videos and can't complete watching 1 other video from the same Channel you posted, with McKenna that Sheldrake has produced numerous talks with, before things become "distasteful" in your words.

Sheldrake had miserable taste then too, according to your reasoning... Why would you listen to some guy that takes that "distasteful drug advocate" seriously?
PGC

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

Very good; that is possibly a new version of Idealism.

Also, Sheldrake and many other philosophers (eg Plato)
believe that vision is a two-stage process. First the
light from the object enters into our eyes, then
we "project" the image back out into the world to
where we "see" the chair.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-08, 12:40:25

[Roger Clough]

Penrose's concept of consciousness as quantum wave collapse
would seem, at least this morning, to be similar or analogous
to my suggestion that ideas are fixed forms of consciousness created
by some type of collapse of quntum wave collapse such as
photons are formed by the collapse of a wavicle.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

-list?hl=en.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal


You say, "Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic."

Wouldn't a Platonist say instead that arithmetic arises from mind ?

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-09, 05:13:03

Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness

On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote:

> For the record,
>
> Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind:
> the EM, and quantum waves and, fields;
>
> and the body: mainly electrons and photons.
>
> We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic.

Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a
universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person
indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than
arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in
machine's mind.



> We have some division on if that property extends to the body:
> like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the
> duality...

No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like
mind.

Bruno




>
> yanniru
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:17, Roger Clough wrote:

>
> Penrose's concept of consciousness as quantum wave collapse
> would seem, at least this morning, to be similar or analogous
> to my suggestion that ideas are fixed forms of consciousness created
> by some type of collapse of quntum wave collapse such as
> photons are formed by the collapse of a wavicle.

A nonsensical theory of observation (collapse) needs a nonsensical
theory of mind, perhaps.

Bruno

>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
> 1/9/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> -list?hl=en.
>

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:20, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
>

> You say, "Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic."
>
> Wouldn't a Platonist say instead that arithmetic arises from mind ?

Some Platonist have defended idealism, but the problem then is that we
can no more an explanation for mind.
With comp, we do get a simple theory of mind (computer science/
mathematical logic), and we can explain both consciousness and the
illusion of matter from it, and this leads us back to the root of
Platonism: Pythagorism. There is only numbers and numbers computable
relations (in the outside view). The inside view get richer, though.

All you need is arithmetical realism: the idea that "43 is prime" in
all possible situation, independently of the existence of humans,
aliens, bacteria, etc.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

 

The how do ideas form, and what are they ?

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/10/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Bruno Marchal

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-09, 09:50:12

Subject: Re: Where do ideas come from?

On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:17, Roger Clough wrote:

>
> Penrose's concept of consciousness as quantum wave collapse
> would seem, at least this morning, to be similar or analogous
> to my suggestion that ideas are fixed forms of consciousness created
> by some type of collapse of quntum wave collapse such as
> photons are formed by the collapse of a wavicle.

A nonsensical theory of observation (collapse) needs a nonsensical
theory of mind, perhaps.

Bruno


>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
> 1/9/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> -list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com

> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

Platonism is not at least overtly Berkeley's idealism, but is idealism at least of the type described below.


idealism
noun \i-'de-(?-)?liz-?m, 'i-(?)de-\
Definition of IDEALISM
1
a (1) : a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena (2) : a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/10/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-09, 09:55:41

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Jan 2013, at 13:08, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

 

The how do ideas form, and what are they ?

They are "intensional numbers", or if you prefer, programs, or generalization about programs, or about generalizations on generalizations on programs, etc, made by programs. 

(I answer in the comp theory).

They are all generated and put in context, by the universal dovetailer, which generates and executes them with a very special redundancy, which plays some role in the measure on our first person possible consistent extensions.

Bruno

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Jan 2013, at 13:13, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi Bruno Marchal
>

> Platonism is not at least overtly Berkeley's idealism, but is
> idealism at least of the type described below.

OK. That was my point. With comp we get a pythagorean sort of
immaterialist theory. Like in Plotinus, both matter and God are not
part of the Being. They do "exist", but in a different sense from what
exist in the sensible, or intelligible sense.

Bruno