What you say seems rational.
I just moderate the par on talking to funders, seems outspokend people like
Kelvin have no problem of funding... they were, like many, locked in their
conservatism...
by the way, as a foreign english speaker, could you say what does mean
outspoken, as you use it, as
To give an example of what might be an ignored anomoly
In the last few years Konovalov in mosow has published papers that
appear to show that when you do serial dilultion of certain solutes then
structures persist in the water that can be seen in the water (and
therfore might be the basis
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:
by the way, as a foreign english speaker, could you say what does mean
outspoken, as you use it, as Charles Beaudette use in his book...
Outspoken has mildly negative connotations. It vaguely suggests that one
is a
*I like teleology. But I try not to mix teleology with my (hobby) science.*
I think its a misconception that teleology and science are mutually
exclusive. I think Nagel in Mind and Cosmos, amongst others, makes a
convincing argument for this. The neo-Darwinian and Newtonian conception of
how we
[mailto:itsat...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 6:59 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for
granted
Heh i've been playing around with that idea since reading a book on chemical
memories when I was 12.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:26 AM
good remarks.
Unlike some critics against mainstream scientist,
my main feeling is that many scientists share with pseudo-scientists a love
for theory, teleology, coherence, and when facing reality, serendipity,
anomalies, they refuse to accept it.
for me scientists are not enough materialist,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
Unlike some critics against mainstream scientist,
my main feeling is that many scientists share with pseudo-scientists a
love for theory, teleology, coherence, and when facing reality,
serendipity, anomalies, they
My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as
the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will
turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and
grounded in the science that we already understand.
Nigel
On 08/01/2014 06:36,
*My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as
the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn
out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in
the science that we already understand.*
Well I would say many of the ideas
On 8/01/2014 5:26 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such
as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain
will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and
grounded in the science that we already
I think this video sums it up...:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrriKcwvlY#t=58
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:09 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:
On 8/01/2014 5:26 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as
the idea that memories
From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
Nigel Dyer wrote:
My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as the
idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn out
to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in the
science
Heh i've been playing around with that idea since reading a book on
chemical memories when I was 12.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:
My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as
the idea that memories are not just physical
On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
...
The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism
by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set Free
http://www.deepakchopra.com/book/view/927
...
Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the
14 matches
Mail list logo