The Science of Interconnectedness.

Chief Walkin Eagle · Aug 18, 2012

I didnt throw the first rock, I merely stated what was already expressed in the article, that scientists and skeptics attacked and ridiculed Sheldrakes theories just because it didnt have anything to do with their world view. Showing the reluctance of scientists and skeptics to step away from their material views is attacking? Like I said, I simply stated what was already stated in the article. The person saying "Like it or not, you're WRONG! You're a LIAR! You dont KNOW!" threw the first rocks. I merely stated the subject matter of the article.

Why is it so wrong for scientists to study supernatural concepts? How are we supposed to truly figure out reality if scientists that cross that line are looked down upon? If the "supernatural" exists, then wouldnt it be natural because it is a part of nature, since reality and nature and almost the same thing?

dtp5150 · Aug 18, 2012

Chief Walkin Eagle said:
I heard similar concepts explained by a couple of people, this is the first scientist I heard talking about it. It does seem like endless possibilities open up with this concept. If this resonating field interacts with consciousness then perhaps you could call it a consciousness field too. Maybe someone who is a master of spirit and resonance can have some control of physical reality shits crazy lol. I think there were such people at some point of time though. I believe in Graham Hancocks extensive research on a lost god-like civilization, and that we are a species with amnesia that forgot what reality really is due to some cataclysmic event.

there are many examples of thoughts manifesting into reality. its a concept we are familiar with but do not understand

or maybe someone does

dtp5150 · Aug 18, 2012

"If somebody learns a new skill, say windsurfing, then the more people that learn it, the easier it becomes for everyone else because of morphic resonance."

that is why IQ tests need to be readjusted thru time.

and why arbitrage in economics is a dwindling asset

"DNA is grossly overrated." lol i love it

collective memory, like a communal consciousness over time

"What my observations indicate is that there’s more to nature than matter" lets build him a memorial

"SC: Once the shift in fundamental perception occurs, wouldn’t it impact the morphic field of most people in addition to scientists?" lol what a troll

"Science’s present view of nature is based on the perception that nature is a machine and acts mechanically" OMFG

"SHELDRAKE: What we now understand in science is that activity in nature depends on energy, but energy can take any form. " i shall now invent my own nobel prize and award it to this person.

i specifically remember being taught there are 2 kinds of energy in this world. kinetic and potential. what a joke

"For instance, we know in modern physics that quantum fields organize quantum particles" the wave particle duality

"Yes, it’s a separate field. The gravitational field is separate from the electromagnetic field. It does different things, and quantum fields are different from gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields" i bet 3oz of silver he didnt write this. it was a planted comment. how is a person going to title something the science of INTERCONNECTEDNESS then say fields are separate. he could have said it, but i highly doubt it. It also doenst go with the same flow as previous comments. Fishy

what is electromagnatism? it is gravity. what are "quantum fields" it is gravity/em in relatively small quantities. the non-sense of that comment is revealing that he didnt write it. unless im missing something

"fields that govern living organisms" govern ok fishy

fields do extend beyond the brain. some people call it love, hate etc. coincidences dont exist. im glad they let his true quotes round out the article

Chief Walkin Eagle · Aug 19, 2012

dtp5150 said:
ive been obsessed with a symbol. draw a triangle inside a circle. then a circle inside the triangle. isnt that shit nuts. u can pretty much proof everything known by mathematicians to this day with that diagram. id say thats pretty fucking imporant. why am i discovering it now? ive got a notebook filled with graphs and proofs.

u can draw a peace sign with it

Is there a name for this symbol? Im assuming its apart of sacred geometry (which I need to start practicing). It reminds me of a similar spiritual concept called "Circling the square and squaring the circle" though I cant remember what the meaning of it was. Though pretty much everything in the universe can be explained with this stuff... Also, that symbol you're obsessed with could be your spiritual symbol. Try and see how that symbol matches up with other spiritual/religious concepts and symbols.

Padawanbater2 · Aug 19, 2012

Chief Walkin Eagle said:
Why is it so wrong for scientists to study supernatural concepts? How are we supposed to truly figure out reality if scientists that cross that line are looked down upon? If the "supernatural" exists, then wouldnt it be natural because it is a part of nature, since reality and nature and almost the same thing?

How can supernatural concepts be studied?

dtp5150 · Aug 19, 2012

nobody has named/identified this symbol. ive searched!

the closest thing is the generalized proof of triangle angles inside a circle. but it ends there. they dont expand the concept with compounded symmetrical figures, or rotating, or etc....

dtp5150 · Aug 19, 2012

i think there is a biological being that we cannot comprehend exists, that is ruling us. its only our inflated ego that thinks we are the most advanced life form in the universe. Could we be any more dumb? We are the plateau of universe development? What a joke. We are rats in a cage. monkeys on a planet

higher biological being, i can meet u and my head wont explode. please visit i promise to keep it a secret

nevermind, ur radiation would hurt me. send me a txt how about that

Padawanbater2 · Aug 19, 2012

dtp5150 said:
i think there is a biological being that we cannot comprehend exists, that is ruling us. its only our inflated ego that thinks we are the most advanced life form in the universe. Could we be any more dumb? We are the plateau of universe development? What a joke. We are rats in a cage. monkeys on a planet

higher biological being, i can meet u and my head wont explode. please visit i promise to keep it a secret

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it is limitless. What evidence do you have that supports this idea? What's to stop me from saying "I believe the world is candycanes and gumdrops when we die, our soul travels to a land of sugar and sweets, complete with liquid chocolate lakes and graham cracker houses!" and that statement being just as accurate as anything posted in this thread?

Do you understand the implications of proof? Evidence? What use is believing in something we want to be real/true if it actually isn't? What value does tricking ourselves have in the grand scheme of things? How would we advance as a species if that was the accepted standard for proof? Why don't you think about these kinds of things? How would it be OK to simply accept theories without proper experimentation?

dtp5150 · Aug 19, 2012

its a theory. i accept this. ok.

btw limitless thinking is not a problem

does a fish know we exist? maybe if they tested the "limits" of the water-air barrier.

Padawanbater2 · Aug 19, 2012

dtp5150 said:
its a theory. i accept this. ok.

btw limitless thinking is not a problem

does a fish know we exist? maybe if they tested the "limits" of the water-air barrier.

It seems you see it as more than just a theory though, that's the thing..

I thought using the word 'limitless' would become an issue.. I mean that in the sense that there are rules one needs to abide by to ensure testing is accurate. There are limits to science, and we have to accept them to come to an accurate conclusion. Something that's 'supernatural' can't be tested by science, by its very definition.

The fish analogy is faulty because fish, as far as we know, are not self aware, conscious beings. How could they possibly 'know' we exist?

dtp5150 · Aug 19, 2012

Padawanbater2 said:
It seems you see it as more than just a theory though, that's the thing..

I thought using the word 'limitless' would become an issue.. I mean that in the sense that there are rules one needs to abide by to ensure testing is accurate. There are limits to science, and we have to accept them to come to an accurate conclusion. Something that's 'supernatural' can't be tested by science, by its very definition.

The fish analogy is faulty because fish, as far as we know, are not self aware, conscious beings. How could they possibly 'know' we exist?

1: can u talk to fish? how do you factually know the awareness of every single fish .....does that not seem egotistical? Who is judging this trait and by what standards. Redonkulous
2:Rules? abide? lol....

Padawanbater2 · Aug 19, 2012

dtp5150 said:
1: can u talk to fish? how do you factually know the awareness of every single fish .....does that not seem egotistical? Who is judging this trait and by what standards. Redonkulous
2:Rules? abide? lol....

No, clearly I can't. Can you?

Exactly. Why would you assume fish are self aware without any evidence to suggest they are?

Yes, there are rules to discern reality, exactly why I framed the point with the hypothetical. What makes your heaven, hell, afterlife, reincarnation, whatever, more real than my candyland?

dtp5150 · Aug 19, 2012

Padawanbater2 said:
No, clearly I can't. Can you?

Exactly. Why would you assume fish are self aware without any evidence to suggest they are?

Yes, there are rules to discern reality, exactly why I framed the point with the hypothetical. What makes your heaven, hell, afterlife, reincarnation, whatever, more real than my candyland?

1: dont believe in hell candyland etc. we are made of recycled energy and atoms. its circles, waves, and resonance
2: why would you assume the opposite

Padawanbater2 · Aug 19, 2012

dtp5150 said:
1: dont believe in hell candyland etc. we are made of recycled energy and atoms. its circles, waves, and resonance
2: why would you assume the opposite

I agree, but why/how is the theory in the OP connected to that?

I assume the opposite because it's the automatic default position to take. You don't automatically assume every positive characteristic about a theory is true then attempt to disprove them, you start off with a theory then attempt to prove it with supporting evidence. If we took the opposite approach we would be in an endless process of disproving every imaginable theory wrong.

Heisenberg · Aug 19, 2012

Chief Walkin Eagle said:
Funny how you try to dictate discussions about spirituality with materialistic science and expect everyone to agree with your one dimensional concepts of the physical world lol. Funny how top scientists of the world actually take this guy seriously enough to debate him to no avail yet skeptics here ignorantly dismiss Sheldrake... Does one know if hes a pseudo-skeptic?

I have no idea what this guy even says, which is why I have not commented on the theory. How have I dictated this discussion? have I prevented you from saying what you want? Where do you see me demanding everyone agree with my concepts? It's easier for you to ignore criticism if you paint it as unfair treatment, and you always do. Everyone who has disagreed with you since you joined this forum has received the same song and dance. Apparently it's impossible for someone to disagree with you based on merit. Do you suppose the only reason there could be to disagree with your ideas is materialism? That's the only explanation? It's the only one you ever point to.

I have no idea if the theory discussed in this thread is a bad idea, but any reason I might list would get the same retort. I am open to the idea that we are all connected because I believe we all came from star stuff. We are each the universe manifested as consciousness, and I believe there is clearly a sacred element to our existence. I am very interested in this type of subject, interested enough to want to weed out the false paths. The way I rule out false paths is skepticism. This is how I personally feel is best for me to gain accurate answers about the things I wonder most. This is my choice, and I am passionate about it. All you have ever done is slam that choice when I express it, disrespect it and even go as far as to make shit up so you don't have to listen to it. You have never given one ounce of consideration to my words beyond degrading me, and for no other reason than I disagree. Yet you are the one constantly playing the hurt and indignant card.

Heisenberg · Aug 19, 2012

mindphuk said:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Materialism
Methodological materialism is neither a belief nor an assumption but a restriction on method. Briefly stated it holds that a non-material assumption is not to be made. Science, for example, is necessarily methodologically materialist. Science wishes to describe and explain nature. Diversion into the “supernatural” begins to describe and explain matters that are not natural and obfuscate the natural.

Methodological materialism is a defining characteristic of science in the same way that “methodological woodism” is a defining characteristic of carpentry. Science seeks to construct natural explanations for natural phenomena in the same way that carpentry seeks to construct objects out of wood. In operating in this manner neither discipline denies the existence of supernatural forces or sheet plastics, their usefulness or validity. The use of either supernatural forces or sheet plastics is simply distinguished as belonging to separate disciplines.

Many scientists are also ontological materialists. Richard Dawkins espouses ontological materialism when he claims a completeness of science.
Both forms of materialism are very closely related to philosophical and methodological naturalism and at first glance seem almost identical. Materialism and naturalism differ only in that while naturalism assumes or studies the observable, materialism assumes or studies the observable and material. The difference is very, very small.

So here we have CWE pointing to a ontological materialist, Dawkins and attempts to imply that all skeptics and scientists likewise hold an identical philosophy. Instead of merely discussing Sheldrake, he must take the opportunity to level attacks against science and skeptics conflating the necessary methodological materialism of science with philosophical materialism then whines and complains when others point it out and denies that he threw the first rocks. Denialism must be his philosophy.

I also love the accusation that skeptics discount these beliefs because it makes them uncomfortable. As if skepticism is a position of comfort. No magic, no God, no ESP, no alternative medicine, no ghosts, no afterlife, no cryptids, no free energy, no miracles, yes entropy, yes mortality, yes heat death, ... where is the comfort part?

dtp5150 · Aug 19, 2012

Padawanbater2 said:
I agree, but why/how is the theory in the OP connected to that?

I assume the opposite because it's the automatic default position to take. You don't automatically assume every positive characteristic about a theory is true then attempt to disprove them, you start off with a theory then attempt to prove it with supporting evidence. If we took the opposite approach we would be in an endless process of disproving every imaginable theory wrong.

dont be scarred of endless, limitless thinking

are you seriously asking me to explain how ideas from different people are connected in a thread titled "the science of interconnectedness"

zat · Aug 19, 2012

The Hopi once said that science and medicine would eventually prove the existence of God (or Spirit/Creator...whatever your preferred name is). I think the interconnectedness of all things can only be experienced at higher levels of consciousness....and most people function at the lowest level...a.k.a. Land of the Living Dead. Try this....if your cat/dog is just chilling but not paying attention to you....just sit there and stare at your pet with intent. They will eventually look at you because they can feel the energy from you. Good post Chief. I always enjoy your contributions.

Zaehet Strife · Aug 19, 2012

If you cannot prove your beliefs to be true beyond reasonable doubt, they are not true... you merely think they are.

Regardless of how convincing your argument is, it holds no value, no relevance, because you cannot provide enough evidence in order to prove it to be true to everyone else.

If you base your evidence on "experience" where you cannot show anyone unless they experience it too, how can we differentiate between YOU, and some crazy person who says they experience the devil, and that they know from "experience" that the devil is real, it defeated god 3000 years ago, that this is all an illusion, and we are really in hell?

If you base your knowledge on experience alone, and not evidence, you are put into the same category as someone who claims that existence is a computer simulation constructed by an alien race for their pleasure.

(As we all know, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.)

We find your convictions to be just as ludacris as everyone else who bases their knowledge on experience rather than evidence. How do you know you aren't crazy if you can't show everyone else what you think is true beyond reasonable doubt? What if you have a mental disorder? How do you know?

You don't, you merely think you know. Until you can provide yourself or anyone else with enough evidence, you don't know. Because the possibility always exists that these "experiences" could merely be projections of your imagination that you either fear, or want to be true so badly, that your mind actually makes you believe it.

I seriously think that some people just don't have the ability to think critically, or refuse to, because what they think is true makes them feel good.

Padawanbater2 · Aug 19, 2012

dtp5150 said:
dont be scarred of endless, limitless thinking

are you seriously asking me to explain how ideas from different people are connected in a thread titled "the science of interconnectedness"

It's got nothing to do with 'being scared'. It has to do with abiding by the rules outlined by the scientific method to ensure the most accurate results.

No, I'm asking you how;

"we are made of recycled energy and atoms. its circles, waves, and resonance"

applies to the OP, and what value a statement like this has.

The Science of Interconnectedness.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member