SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
sheldrake or mandrake?......DEALING WITH SHELDRAKE’s “SCIENTIFIC LUNACY” IS NOT AS STRAIGHT FORWARD AS SOME ENLIGHTENED PEOPLE MAKE OUT. SHELDRAKE DEALS IN “MORPHIC RESONANCE” WHICH FOR MANY (ALL) SCIENTISTS IS AKIN TO WITCHCRAFT… THE STARTING POINT OF HIS THEORY IS QUITE BANAL, REALLY: “memory is inherent in nature”. NO-ONE, NOT EVEN THE MOST INSANE MAD PRIEST OR LOONY SCIENTIST CAN ARGUE AGAINST THIS. DNA IS THE MEMORY OF LIFE. IF DNA WENT RANDOM WE WOULD NOT EXIST. IF DNA WENT TOO CREATIVE, WE’D BE GODZILLAS…. BEFORE THIS, IT WAS THE BIBLE OR THE K’RAN THAT CARRIED OVER THE SOCIAL MEMORY AND STILL DOES IN SOME WAY, WRONGLY OR RIGHTLY. WE, GUS AND HIS PUB MATES HAVE LONG STATED THE FACT — DNA IS THE MEMORY OF LIFE — WHILE PHILOSOPHICALLY LOOKING THROUGH THE ACTIVITIES OF ESTERS AND MICROBES THAT CAN CHANGE GRAPE JUICE INTO RED NED. BUT ONE ARGUMENT HERE COULD BE HOW LONG IS NATURE? IS NATURE PERMEATING THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE? SURE, RED NED CAN AFFECT ONE’S MEMORY IN VARIOUS WAYS ACCORDING TO QUANTITY OF THE STUFF, BUT WE’RE NOT ON “THE WAGON” YET. AS AN ASIDE, BEING ON THE WAGON, WAS AN EXPRESSION THAT CAME TO BE WHEN GOOD SAMARITANS GAVE A LAST DRINK TO CONDEMNED MEN ON THE WAY TO THE SCAFFOLDS, WHILE BEING TRANSPORTED ON A WAGON. RETURNING TO THE WAGON, THEIR FEET NEVER TOUCHED THE GROUND AGAIN… WE KNOW THE FEELING.
BUT SHELDRAKE EXTENDS THIS ORDINARY MEMORY VISION INTO OTHER CONCEPTS “such as precognition, empirical research into telepathy, and the psychic staring effect.” THIS IS BECOMING HEAVY.
THE PSYCHIC STARING EFFECT IS USED BY THE SCIENTOLOGISTS TO ALTER YOUR MEMORY. WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE DANGEROUS CRACKPOTS, BUT THE PROCESS WORKS — NOT IN THE WAY THEY THINK LIKE A MYSTERIOUS TRANSFERENCE BETWEEN STARING PEOPLE, BUT IN ARRESTING YOUR ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE INCESSANT RUMBLE INSIDE YOUR BRAIN. NOTHING MAGIC ABOUT THIS. IT’S A MATTER OF DEFOCUSING OR DECLUTTERING (SEE OUR NON-REACTIVE DEFOCUSING ON THIS SITE) AND “LIBERATING” SOME BRAIN-POWER FOR A TASK AT HAND ON WHICH WE HAVE HAD A “MIND-BLOCK”. YOU ARE LUCKY IF YOU DON’T HAVE MIND-BLOCKS. IT SEEMS THAT CREATIVE PEOPLE HAVE TOO MANY OF THESE, WHILE TRYING TO BE “CREATIVE”. EVERYONE CAN BE CREATIVE, BUT THERE IS A LONG DISTANCE BETWEEN BEING A SUNDAY AFTERNOON PAINTER AND A GENIUS LIKE MOODY TURNER. MY GUESS WOULD BE THAT WHEN PAINTING, TURNER WOULD GO INTO A “TRANCE”. WE, CREATIVE PAINTERS, DO. THANK YOU FOR THE APPLAUSE…. BUT BACK TO OUR MEMORY….
OF ALL THE SCIENTOLOGISTS, THE MOST FAMOUS IS TOM CRUISE WHO IS A BAD ACTOR IN MY VIEW, POSSIBLY BECAUSE HE IS TOO NEAT AND HIS CREATIVE FOIBLES SEEM AS ARTIFICIAL AS A ROW OF EMPTY PLASTIC BOTTLES. CREATIVE PROCESS RELY ON MEMORY AND empirical research (EXPLORATION) — OTHERWISE WE END UP WERE WE STARTED WITHOUT MOVING — THAT IS TO SAY WITHOUT EXPLORING THE WRONG OR RIGHT OF THINGS. AND NEWLY CREATED THINGS DO NOT HAVE A WRONG OR RIGHT, JUST A WAY TO BE SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE INTERPRET AS AN ABSTRACT IDEA OF POSSIBLE WRONG OR RIGHT OR CROOKED OR STRAIGHT. OUR INTERPRETATIONS ARE MEMORY BASED FOR COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE NEW AND THE OLD, empirically.
WE HAVE EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT HOMO SAPIENS HAS MORE MEMORY THAN NEEDED TO BE IN THE SURVIVAL MODE. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HANDS AND BRAIN DEVELOPED/INTERACTED WITH THIS EXTRA MEMORY — OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS — INTO A CREATIVE POWER. WE CAN INVENT THINGS, WHILE INTELLIGENT ANIMALS CANNOT THOUGH THEY CAN ADAPT TO A NEW SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND USE TOOLS… ON THIS LEVEL, OUR EXTRA BRAIN POWER BASED ON OUR EXTRA MEMORY GIVE US A NEW ADAPTED DIMENSION: OUR STYLISTIC INVENTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS. WE HAVE BUILD CIVILISATIONS THAT HAVE “EXTRAORDINARY” BREADTH AND WE HAVE DESTROYED THE SAID. AND WE HAVE EXTENDED THE DECEIT IN NATURE INTO POWERFUL LIES. WE CAN DECEIVE OUR SELF AND OTHERS, BY ACCIDENT — BUT OFTEN FOR PROFIT. WE HAVE CHANGED SURVIVAL INTO THE GREATER NOTION OF PROFIT. TRUTH RARELY FITS THE NOTION OF “PROFITABLE” (THIS IS A HUGE CONCEPT THAT WE WILL PASS FOR NOW). SO WHERE TO WITH SHELDRAKE’s NEXT PROPOSITIONS ABOUT precognition AND telepathy? WE KNOW WE HAVE BRAINWAVES, BUT CAN WE INTERPRET THE BRAINWAVES OF OTHERS “INSTANTLY” WHEN WE DON’T KNOW THE MEANING OF OUR OWN? Telepathy?
THERE IS A POSTULATE IN QUANTUM MECHANICS THAT IRKED EINSTEIN. WE HAVE EXPLORED IT HERE ON THIS SITE: IT’S CALLED ENTANGLEMENT. THIS COULD BE THE MOST BIZARRE SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT. THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS: Quantum entanglement is the phenomenon that occurs when a group of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in a way such that the quantum state of each particle of the group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance. The topic of quantum entanglement is at the heart of the disparity between classical and quantum physics: entanglement is a primary feature of quantum mechanics not present in classical mechanics. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? THIS MEANS THAT SHOULD THE PARAMETERS OF ONE PARTICLE CHANGE, THE PARAMETERS OF THE OTHER PARTICLE, A LONG LONG DISTANCE AWAY (THOUSANDS OF KILOMETRES THROUGH SPACE) HAS TO CHANGE IN AN OPPOSITE MANNER. HOW DO THEY KNOW? AND DO THEY KNOW?
THIS REMINDS ME OF MY FATHER WHO USED TO SAY “WHITE” WHEN HIS COUSIN SAID “BLACK” AND VICE VERSO. AMAZING SHIFTS OF ARGUMENTS ON THE SAME SUBJECTS… ANYWAY, EXPERIMENTS HAVE CONFIRMED THIS MAD ENTANGLEMENT THEORY. Precognition AND telepathy SEEM TO BE TAME IN COMPARISON, BUT COMPLEX PROCESSES OF HABIT AND MEMORY CAN TELL US WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF PRECISION WHAT’S IN THE HEAD OF OUR TENNIS PLAYER OPPONENT ABOUT WHERE HE/SHE IS GOING TO PLAY HIS/HER NEXT SHOT… THE MORE ACCURATE WE CAN GUESS, THE BETTER WE CAN RESPOND. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A FEATURE OF WARFARE EVEN IN ITS CRUDEST FORM. SO IS SHELDRAKE A LUNATIC MANDRAKE? SCIENTIFIC STATISTICS AT THE MICRO-LEVEL MAY SAY NO. SCIENTIFIC STATISTICS AT THE MACRO-LEVEL WILL SAY YES. MEANWHILE IT’S RAINING CATS AND DOGS AGAIN TODAY… GLOBAL WARMING, YOU KNOW.
GUS LEONISKY LUNATIC DOING CARTOONS SINCE 1951.
Image at top by Gus Leonisky
|
User login |
a nutcase....
SHELDRAKE DEFEATS HIS OWN ARGUMENTS BY BELIVING IN GOD. THIS IS SIMPLE ENOUGH. LET'S SAY FOR A SECOND THAT TELEPATHY EXISTS, THE ARGUMENT IS THIS WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD, HIS LIST OF SINS OR HIS LAST JUDGEMENT. WE ARE NATURAL BEASTS WITH A GREAT APTITUDE TO TELL STYLISTIC PORKIES. SCIENCES ARE THE LEAST LYING OF OUR ACTIVITIES, THOUGH SOME SCIENTISTS CAN FIDDLE WITH STATISTICS....
Sheldrake is a practicing Anglican. He has stated that he studied with a Sufi teacher and practiced Sufism while he was in India. Sheldrake reported "being drawn back to a Christian path" during his time in India.
FROM QUORA:
In defense of Richard Dawkins against Rupert Sheldrake
My father hates Richard Dawkins. He believes the professor to be a "pundit" who is "in the same vane as Deepak Chopra" in that he "twists things to make them sound the way he wants them to."
To support this assertion, he quoted Rupert Sheldrake, claiming that the two had discussed telepathy and that Professor Dawkins had dismissed evidence out of hand, claiming he "wouldn't believe it even if he saw it." (It may be important to say that, when I asked my dad for a video of this, he responded "Are you calling me a liar, child?" An obvious pejorative, as I'm old enough to cancel out his vote during the next election, be a parent, or smoke.)
After searching forever for this interview, the best I could find was a blog post by Sheldrake which seems to suggest he was right.
The part worth looking at:
Richard seemed uneasy and said, “I’m don’t want to discuss evidence”. “Why not?” I asked. “There isn’t time. It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about.” The camera stopped.
Now, my question is, does anyone have a link to this interview? Has anyone heard of this before? I'd like to see the unbiased material. I know what Sheldrake's opinion is, and I don't care.
FROM A BLOGGER:
Richard Dawkins, being a scientist, understands that one cannot have a debate with someone who has no evidence to back up their position. It is a futile waste of time because Prof. Dawkins would present the evidence for his side of the argument, the religious person would just blather the usual boring, non-evidence-based platitudes. Everyone with a brain would roll their eyes and nothing would be gained… except… the religious moron gets free publicity and air-time off the back of Prof. Dawkins’ good reputation. Worse still, they would gain undeserved credibility because they had taken part in a debate with him.
GOD DOES NOT EXIST. SHELDRAKE IS A CLEVER NUTCASE.
GUS LEONISKY
RABID ATHEIST AND CARTOONIST SINCE 1951 (CRIMEA WAS STILL RUSSIAN).