themiddleway Posted March 27, 2014 Dr.Sheldrake was foolish enough to do research on psychic phenomena. Has been branded a pseudo scientist ever since, not with standing his excellent credentials. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themiddleway Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) All of this is still speculative and controversial but it makes for some interesting reading. http://www.entelechyjournal.com/rupertsheldrake.html The law metaphor is embarrassingly anthropomorphic. Habits are less human-centered. Many kinds of organisms have habits, but only humans have laws. The habits of nature depend on non-local similarity reinforcement. Through morphic resonance, the patterns of activity in self-organizing systems are influenced by similar patterns in the past, giving each species and each kind of self-organizing system a collective memory. http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3707 ..dynamical laws for quantum systems can evolve as the universe evolves, because new precedents are generated by the formation of new entangled states. http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/MorphicPilot.htm Conceptual bridge-building between quantum theory, morphic fields and psi phenomena. (Some of this is a weeee bit dense) Edited April 7, 2014 by themiddleway 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) All success to Professor Sheldrake. That's a lonely furrow he's ploughing trying to reconcile 'science' with the numinous by using scientific terms and concepts. If a philosophy lecturer resorted to using mechanical models as teaching resources to illustrate the various schools of philosophy then she/d be unlikely to retain many students or secure tenure. Or hold down a university teaching job. Brave chap that he is Professor Sheldrake is perhaps creating something of a rod for his own back via his didactic approach. For engaging with , in order to discuss; 'our' sort of stuff, sometimes; metaphysical texts and concepts might serve one better than would, for example; a car repair manual. Edited April 7, 2014 by GrandmasterP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themiddleway Posted April 7, 2014 Agreed. He is trying to find proof in science for his faith but his ideas about habits vs laws are interesting. For example in Vajra.Buddhism ideas like : continuum of spiritual lineage, transmission between Guru and student, Tulkus, rebirth, continuum of karma, no self, siddhi's etc the discourse around these issues is often abstruse/ paradoxical because they are not consistent with the broader philosophy within which they are contained. "Spiritual" discource should endeavour to explore all explanatory options, even a as yet untested concept like morphic resonance. If the habits of nature can be shown to be dependent on 'non-local similarity reinforcement' that would have profound implications on religious discourse. I suspect that paradox can be a way of avoiding problematic and inconsistent epistemology. Or maybe I just hate haikus to much 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Yep. He's comparing apples to bananas IMO. Waste of time really or would be but that he seems to be getting a living by doing it, so good luck to the Prof. Edited April 7, 2014 by GrandmasterP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
