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

[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], [rclo...@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
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


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.

Bruno







 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@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
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.




 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







 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@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
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


 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

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

[Roger Clough]

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy  

Tentative meaning would be more suitable than the word opinion. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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 

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

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

[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], [rclo...@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 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


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 

 
 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], [rclo...@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 
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 
 
 
 
 
 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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@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 
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 
 
 
 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 
 
 
 
 
 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@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 
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 
 
 
 On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
 Hi meekerdb 
 
 Materialists can't consistently

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

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb  

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


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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. 


On 1/7/2013 4:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote:  
But natural selection implies some form of intelligence, 

You don't understand evolution. 

Brent

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

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

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb  

Mathematical structures such as quantum fields are not in spacetime. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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. 


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

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

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

[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], [rclo...@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  
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.  




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  







[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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  
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.  


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  


  
  
 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@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  
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.  
  
  
 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], [rclo...@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

Re: Re: 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 rclo...@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

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

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

[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 multiplecit...@gmail.com



 On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@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



 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@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

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

[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], [rclo...@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. 
? 


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  



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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

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

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King 

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


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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.


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


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

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

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb 

OK. I overreacted.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


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

On 1/6/2013 12:52 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.


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@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.


 On 1/6/2013 3:14 PM, meekerdb wrote:

 On 1/6/2013 11:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
 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...



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

 Brent

 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


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

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

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb 

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


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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.


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

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

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

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@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

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

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

[Roger Clough]

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy 

Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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 rclo...@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. ?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




? ? 

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

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

[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], [rclo...@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
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


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




 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@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
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


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

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

[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], [rclo...@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

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

Re: 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], [rclo...@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 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


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

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

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@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



 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@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 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.+everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+
 unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. +unsubscr...@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-list@googlegroups.com.+everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+
 unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. +unsubscr...@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-list@googlegroups.com.+everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+
 unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. +unsubscr...@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-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@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-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http

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

[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], [rclo...@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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@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-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@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-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@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-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

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

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb 

By quanta I meant quantum fields. These are
merely mathematical fields of no substance. 

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


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).

Brent


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@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
 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.


 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


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@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.


 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 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
 

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http

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

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist  

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


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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. 


On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Stephen P. King  wrote: 
 On 1/4/2013 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: 
 
 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? 

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 
 ?orporeal? physical brain on one (metaphorical) side, and to an 
 ?ncorporeal? 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 
Richard 



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

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

[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], [rclo...@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. 




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. 


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

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

[Roger Clough]

Hi Telmo Menezes  

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


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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

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

[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], [rclo...@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. 


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 


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

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

[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], [rclo...@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. 


On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote: 
 
 
 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. 
 

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

Re: 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], [rclo...@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. 


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 


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

Re: 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], [rclo...@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 
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 


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 

 
 
 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@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. 
 
 
 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 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 
 University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
  
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group. 
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@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-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@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-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

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

[Richard Ruquist]

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

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 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], [rclo...@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.


 On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:


 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.


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

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

[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], [rclo...@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. 


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 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
 

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