Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Morphic resonance is just a gibberish term

---

Yay! Another ignoramus who hasn't a clue about the difference between a theory and a wild idea.

Quote:

Psychologically speaking, people who are attracted to the Big Bang theory, are just looking for a God creator of everything. It is Christianity dressed up as science.

---

Feelter said:

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Morphic resonance is just a gibberish term

---

Yes, it competes in stupidity with the "Big Bang" theory.

Materialists talk a lot of gibberish too, based on their philosophy towards the creation and life, rather than science.

The fact remains that on subjects such as "Life in the Universe", EVERYONE can put out a theory that in the end has the same validity as the Big Bang Theory.

Psychologically speaking, people who are attracted to the Big Bang theory, are just looking for a God creator of everything. It is Christianity dressed up as science.

---

Quote:

I had previously read "Morphic Resonance"(titled "A New Science of Life" in the U.K.), which introduced the concept, but that book focused almost exclusively on its applications to biology. In this book, Sheldrake expands the concept of morphic resonance to a much wider variety of areas, from genetics and inheritance to mind and memory to culture and language to psi and the paranormal, which will inform his later work. While the simple non-materialist aspect of morphic resonance is almost certainly part of the reason it is so taboo among mainstream scientists, I think it's likely that a bigger reason they fear it is because of the can of worms it opens onto other taboo subjects, such as telepathy, out-of-body experiences, past life memories, and so on. Sheldrake, in a show of open-mindedness we're taught to expect from scientists but rarely see, is not afraid to tackle these topics head on. This book opens up the door to incredible possibilities. How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

---

Quote:

I am just saying that having a need to believe that everything started from a Single thing, is basically a Christian need.

---

Quote:

I rejoice that the big ban theory

---

Rose likes that!

Feelter said:

I am just saying that having a need to believe that everything started from a Single thing, is basically a Christian need.

Asian philosophies are smarter. They can accept eternity, even if they cannot grasp it.

---

redgreenvines said:

just say no
you have obviously had too much

---

Quote:

but theories like Rupert Sheldrake's can

---

Quote:

I like this review form Amazon reviews of Sheldrake's book:

Quote:


I had previously read "Morphic Resonance"(titled "A New Science of Life" in the U.K.), which introduced the concept, but that book focused almost exclusively on its applications to biology. In this book, Sheldrake expands the concept of morphic resonance to a much wider variety of areas, from genetics and inheritance to mind and memory to culture and language to psi and the paranormal, which will inform his later work. While the simple non-materialist aspect of morphic resonance is almost certainly part of the reason it is so taboo among mainstream scientists, I think it's likely that a bigger reason they fear it is because of the can of worms it opens onto other taboo subjects, such as telepathy, out-of-body experiences, past life memories, and so on. Sheldrake, in a show of open-mindedness we're taught to expect from scientists but rarely see, is not afraid to tackle these topics head on. This book opens up the door to incredible possibilities. How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Here is the thing: science does not require belief nor liking nor emotional attachment. It is NOT a popularity contest. It requires facts and reproducible experiments. Why don't you list those?

---

Feelter said:

Going to the moon is science, observing the space is science.

Explaining the creation of the Universe though mathematics, is a philosophical claim, not science.

---

redgreenvines said:

this is what I think you are referring to:
some perspective towards one thing that encompasses both internal and external.

internal and external mixes on the mind-stage, and it relates to where one is in the world in the moment.

---

DividedQuantum said:

redgreenvines said:

this is what I think you are referring to:
some perspective towards one thing that encompasses both internal and external.

internal and external mixes on the mind-stage, and it relates to where one is in the world in the moment.

---

Very well said.  This is in essence my feeling.  The general perception seems to be that the universe and consciousness are two different things. What if in truth there is only one thing, and to us there is normally only an apparent difference in our minds? To suggest that the two are fundamentally different things is a fragmentation. And fragmentation is not natural -- wherever one finds it, it was put there by us. The universe and consciousness constitute one basic objective reality. It would not even be correct to say that each one needs the other to exist. At a fundamental level one is unable to differentiate the two.  In this way, I feel the labels "in here" and "out there" become irrelevant as the categories fall away in the presence of non-local consciousness.

---

Of course, 'in here' implies 'out there' and like you say in QM there is the understanding of non locality. But the physicalists cling to the consciousness-in-the-skull routine and some even try and explain away consciousness. Quite ironic when doing so undermines their own consciousness doing so. But we know about dumbing down....riiiight?