Is it concerning the Rupert Sheldrake book where he expounds his theory of 'morphic resonance', and talks about the ten fundamental dogmas of materialism which he turns into questions to get the thought processes outside the box?
I read it recently and found it very interesting with one or two 'woa there hang on just a bit' moments. I'd just read Richard Wiseman's 'Paranormality: why we see what isn't there' . Thought he came across as a bit smug and self satisfied in the final ananlysis although I couldn't argue with much of what he had to say .. most of which I already knew in any case.
I don't think Sheldrake wanted his book called that but his publishers wanted to cash in on the 'God delusion' (which incidently I've not read mainly because I find Dawkins a bit smug and self satisfied as well.)
So Farmer me ol' fruit what is it you wish to discuss ... I can't see it either as I need a 'plugin' apparently and I have this weird delusion that if I mess with my computer it will chuck out all my important stuff or let in demons or something!
Yeah that's the one Ivy... The TED talk that TED censored by removing it from their site.
"Rupert Sheldrake Talks: Psychic Phenomena and 10 Dogmas of The Science Delusion"
Thanks for the links Farmer. I'll have a read through the comments later. I listened to the talk to refresh my memory, he speaks well and amusingly .
The trouble is, although very interested, I don't really know enough to have an informed opinion about his theories. Sadly my RL friend who could have talked me through all this has died. The last convo I had with him was about Prof Brian Cox and whether or not his way of simplifying things almost to the point of misrepresentation was a good or bad thing. I felt it was a good thing as it got more people interested and those that had the brains and followed up would get it right eventually. For those of us without the brains does it really matter if we'd got it a bit wrong? Well it only matters if we start thinking we are an authority on it! Andy more or less agreed with me before going on to discuss the horrors of Christian fundamentalism!
Anyway I seemed to have strayed off topic but that was just to say that I don't really know what to think of Rubert Shelldrakes points but they do seem to make sense. I know there is a lot of politics and inflated egos in the scientific community and the distortion of reporting can further cloud the water.
So what do you think?
btw That meeting with Andy was one of those 'wow what's going on here?' type of coincidences (made all the more meaningful by his not totally unexpected death a few weeks later) that are so special to the people they happen to but so easily dismissed as 'just coincidences that have too much meaning read into them' by others!