> Krimel > After all what ever "identity" or > "self" we have is in the pattern of > particles and fields, not the particles or fields > themselves. Well, it least > unless you take Sheldrake seriously.
gav: i like the idea of morphogenetic fields. [Krimel] In 1981 Nature editor John Maddox said in a review that Sheldrake's first book "...is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years." The comment has been widely quoted and cause a big controversy. After reflecting on his comments for more than 10 years Maddox clarified his thinking in a 1994 BBC documentary. "I was so offended by it, that I said that while it's wrong that books should be burned, in practice, if book burning were allowed, this book would be a candidate (...) I think it's dangerous that people should be allowed by our liberal societies to put that kind of nonsense into currency." I listened to the Sheldrake interview in the Canadian series on ways to think about science. It was very favorable to him and he explained his ideas in some detail. I think Maddox was being charitable. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
