Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion 

I am reminded of the story of the 2 researchers who determined that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria and could be cured with common antibiotics. The 2 doctors were attacked from all sides by doctors and scientists who demanded retraction because their egos couldn't accept that they may have overlooked a simple cure for their patients. Then of course the threat of malpractice suits was a factor as well. When ego and fear loom large in the picture many "scientists" will fall back on the security of dogma.

"Our science is anti-intellectual by nature. All it does is measure things!" ~ Nietzsche (1882)

When someone says that they believe in science, what they're really saying is that they believe in today's mechanistic materialism.

I’m an atheist, and I hate when people say “I don’t believe in god I believe in science.” Science isn’t a thing you should simply believe in. That’s Scientism. Science is a process. It’s not a deity.

I have been originally trained as an Electrical Engineer and have spent, quite literally, the rest of my life casually looking at Chaos Theory (I am now 60 yrs old). Chaos theory is beginning to question many of these very issues that Mr. (Dr.). Sheldrake is referring to. I have even seen a number of PhD's in engineering and physics directly question the models that they are using and come up with alternative descriptions of reality. Dr. Tiller (from I think Cal Tech) comes immediately to mind. In fact, the CLOSED system thinking that modern physics uses may be causing a number of the inherent problems (and ultimately creating their own paradoxes, zero point energy = infinity, is an example) in the current description of reality. Open system thinking may be much better suited to the reality that we see - even if the ultimate universe is effectively closed. It is OPEN from "our perspective" due to its overwhelming magnitude. This also may require a reaction diffusion wave (like the one used to describe modern computer chips) as a basic underlying wave structure rather than the "mechanical wave" modern physics currently subscribes to. [Note: Mathematics tends to lead other fields of inquiry. Mathematics, is unlike any of the physics fields. It does not come about its thinking empirically as physics does, but rather through the deductions of logic. It is an "internal" rather than "external" form of thinking if you will, or as Plato would have said, from a three term proportion rather than a 4 term proportion. In most cases, Modern physics is from a 4 term proportional form of thought. Moreover, because of this internal deductive viewpoint, any two mathematicians will always come to the same conclusions when looking at the same information This is a result of the deductive form of thinking. In Mathematics, a proof is always a proof, just the realm of its application may be subsumed into larger and larger fields of understanding. In other words, even when Other forms of geometry came about, Euclidean geometry was still true, we have just found other forms of geometry that are also true, and we have to look at the specific situation to see which one to apply. Ie exactly what does the problem subscribe itself to] An example of the problem Mr.(Dr.) Sheldrake is referring to, in modern physics is the concept of life "popping" up only after we have reached a certain level of complexity. In other words, currently physics makes the decision that we are only conscious because of our complexity . Consciousness itself is just a matter of complexity. This assumption seems rather implausible, but it is the current (or at least was) assumption used by physicist. Perhaps a better description of reality may be life occurring depending on the internal processing the entity is actually using (ie open or closed system processing- open system processing (balance in motion ie. K.E.= min) is used by a living system and closed system processing (balance - ie. P.E. = min) by a dead one), and the level of intellect is just a matter of how much internal processing we are capable of. In fact, Benoit Mandelbrot created the fractal dimension which is measures complexity by looking at the "internal" twisting or convolution of a data set; and many data sets (and certainly almost all living systems) get more complicated the closer you look, not less. This type of internal thinking, typically, is why Mathematics tends to lead physics and other scientific forms of thinking. Perhaps we should look at our underlying scientific assumptions very closely, because we are most likely to be thinking FROM those assumptions rather than TO those assumptions. Modern Physics has about 22 paradoxes that they currently can't resolve, and perhaps the underlying (often hidden) assumptions are actually causing the problem. Perhaps a shift from a closed system paradigm to an open system paradigm may resolve many of these issues. It appears Mr. (Dr.) Sheldrake is, very likely, looking at the problem from an open systems paradigm. Of course, this holistic form of thinking may cause people to come to the ultimate conclusion that the holographic sum total of the universe is 1) more powerful than that linear combination of elements that make it up (ie. non linear) and 2) acts quite like a God of our universe (and perhaps the God that Kurt Gödel proved existed after Einstein died) if you will, where you are both responsible for your own actions and succeeded or failed as primarily a result of that form of action but also you must still must subscribe to the desires and actions of the whole. Perhaps the split is something like 90-10 in general and sometimes 10-90 in particular situations) In other words, you succeed primarily based on your own actions but also the combination of your actions coupled with the actions of the whole and how well these action fit together. Going in a particular direction if the whole is going in a different direction doesn't make much sense unless you know the whole is about to change direction. I don't know (I haven't spent any time trying to determine this) that this God matches the Christian thought of God (or any other for that matter), but I also don't think modern liberalism is ready to accept this form of thought either. It would simply mean too much self responsibility (90% in general). Mental Individualization is very difficult for many people to accept and is not of much use politically.

I'm just a boiler maker welder and this man managed to educate me. Thank you, plenty to think about now .

Whoever says that science has the answer to everything is ignorant of science.

Quote of the week: “ Somewhere inside your head there’s a little Rupert…”

Rupert Sheldrake, his intellectual honesty is almost materially tangible. There is none of the arrogance that you see in the depressing wing of science: material reductionism. Reductionism enhances mental illness. It's a phase for most intelligent people, a spiritual adolescence, the phase of unrest and rebellion, when the hormones kick in and start messing us up. I went through that throughout my late teenage years until the early twenties. It is sad that many adults never come out of it.

I love these kind of people, so humble but so knowledgeable but most importantly, so sincere.

This man is a genius, we need more people like him.

Mr. Sheldrake, one of the top 5 least known and appreciated thinkers/scientists of our era. Love this guy!

I love listening to Sheldrake. Very rare mind!

Tesla said the moment we begin to study beyond the physical nature we will progress leaps and bounds.

Can listen to him all day. Science needs to lose its love affair with materialism.

I would love to ask Rupert Sheldrake why i have experienced numerous times the sudden fearful urge to look at the bottom of my bedroom door, within 3 seconds a spider will come under the door frame and into my room. (We get house spiders, a fair amount.) But how do i "know" when its going to happen??!This has happened to me at least 5 times where i sort of telepathically "predict" it. Ive even sat up out of bed, in the dark, had the urge to shine my phone torch at the door frame, lo and behold, a spider walks in. I dont have any other psychic abilities that may be useful, or profitable!!! Just this stupid spider prediction!!

Best Quintessential ever - TED - masterpiece ! Shame on ted rejecting this outstanding presentation!

Consciousness is no more in the brain then the announcer is in the radio

One thing science has been consistent at is proving itself wrong

Thankful for this man 🙏🙌🕯

Recent events have unveiled the subjective application and focus of science!

Science: "Give me one free miracle and I'll explain everything to you."

WOW! What a brilliant talk.

Im obsessed with these talks, and his wife and children are just as brilliant ❤

"I don't know what the truth is, I'm just a scientist." - Donald Hoffman ✊❤️🤜🤛🔥✌️👌🤯😁 If only more scientists felt this way and didn't push ideas so easily off into pseudoscience and material based atheism.

When I was in my senior year of my college physics program & about to go off to a doctoral program, a psychic told me that I would end up working in the lower atmosphere. 15 years later, i was working air traffic control at an airport when I remembered that prediction. to say that my path to air traffic was incredibly convoluted, involving things like needing to get a job in the NY metro area because my wife (met 1 year after getting my BS & 6 mos after dropping out of grad school) wanted to move back to be near her mother.

I love science because it doesn't have answer of everything.

To hear Dr Sheldrake put it that way... it sounds as if dark matter is species akin to 21st century epicycles to explain away retro motion behavior, a form of techno-hukom.

I come from a science background myself and though I do see the advantages of a scientific method I also see some of the traps of it as well. This deterministic/materialistic framework doesn't seem to account for it all. In the last few years I have had experiences that are outside of what I can understand by science alone. There is clearly more work to understand about our minds and consciousness and how that needs to be brought into the equation. I do not know of anyone that understands this at all. We are like children at the beach and perhaps one of the best things we can do is enjoy the experience of sand and water -- to live with a sense of wonder and awe at the amazing universe of which we are apart.

Since 1985, the Amsterdam Science Museum has allowed visitors to participate in the am-I-being-stared-at experiment, based on Sheldrake’s work, with one subject and one starer doing 30 trials before vacating their seats for the next couple. By 2002, more than 18,700 couples had taken part and the results were a staggering 10 to the power of 376 against them being produced by chance. It’s an on-going experiment and the number of subjects who have participated is now over 20,000, making this the largest and longest-running paranormal research project ever conducted.

This video should be called The Science Illusion. The illusion is that it's about science.

Dr Sheldrake is truly a maverick genius and a national treasure! He is a very brave man that has earned and deserves tremendous respect regardless of what we may think of his ideas or if they are true or not. It is men like him that have changed the world over the years.

I would like to watch a conversation between Dr Sheldrake and Dr Jordan Peterson!

The parrot my grand parents had used to call my name for about an hour before we arrived. This reality is also very common between children and their mothers, sometimes fathers, but I believe seeing you were once literally connected to your mother a stronger connection remains. I know it is not like that for everybody but that its a reality for many cannot be denied, even if it counters modern science.

The ability of one's mind to interpret reality = the level of one's intelligence.

I strive to find what I call “elegant solutions” to problems. I was fascinated as a child with spinning a ball overhead on a string because it seemed to defy gravity. When contemplating spinning galaxies later in junior high I asked the science teacher why the stars don’t just go flying off into space, or when is the universe going to start collapsing vs expanding? I always felt I was less intelligent because I couldn’t understand answers like dark matter or dark energy. And I’m still angry to this day over over having a test question on the nature of centrifugal vs centripetal force marked wrong. I watched this entire presentation based on this guys explanation of dark matter / dark energy. Again, I’ve always felt less intelligent than those who claim science has the answer to everything, not anymore!

If matter is unconscious how do electrons know when there filmed

Science is about great scientists standing on the shoulders of preceding great scientists.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:40 *🌎 The belief that science already understands the nature of reality is widespread, bolstered by technological achievements.* 02:26 *📚 Sheldrake lists 10 dogmas underlying modern science's materialist worldview, including nature being mechanical/machine-like and matter being unconscious.* 04:19 *🌟 Science requires accepting the "free miracle" of the sudden appearance of all matter, energy and laws at the Big Bang.* 09:35 *♻️ Sheldrake questions the assumption of conservation of matter/energy, pointing to dark matter/energy accounting for 95% of the unknown universe.* 15:17 *🧠 He challenges the dogma of unconscious matter, tracing its history from Descartes' mind-body dualism to modern materialism.* 19:20 *🔭 The persistence of human consciousness is causing the materialist worldview to break apart.* 22:05 *💫 Some materialists adopt panpsychism - the idea that consciousness permeates all matter/nature.* 25:29 *⏳ Whitehead proposed relating mind and body through time rather than space - mind as the future possibility, body as past actualization.* 28:37 *🔮 Sheldrake proposes mental causation as a stream from future possibilities towards past actualization, contrasting physical causation.* 30:24 *🧠 He challenges the dogma that minds are just brain activity, suggesting minds are fields extended in space-time like electromagnetic fields.* 33:21 *👁️ The view that our visual experiences are inside the brain contradicts the intuitive sense that we project images outwardly to where things seem to be.* 36:34 *👀 Sheldrake cites evidence that people can feel when being stared at from behind, suggesting minds can non-locally "touch."* 41:23 *☎️ He describes experimental evidence for telephone telepathy - knowing who is calling before answering.* 43:39 *💻 Modern telepathic experiences often involve communication technology like phones and email.* 44:05 *🐶 Animals demonstrate telepathic abilities, suggesting an extended psychic dimension of mind beyond the brain.* 45:10 *✨ Sheldrake argues minds are open not just to this psychic realm, but also to spiritual influences through mystical experiences.* Made with HARPA AI

Great to see Rupert being respected, the TED people were not so polite and banned this talk, because they cannot bear anyone to question the dogmas of 'Science'. The original foundation of science was based on questioning, and testing ideas, something they seem to have forgotten today.

I like his very sly nod to the Electric Universe there at 15:13 ish... :P

I love this guy!

I really do find the... "parallel" between quantum superpositions and actual realized actions, vs. our own human plans and eventual decisions, pretty striking. I don't think we should make too much of it, but it is "thought provoking."

No real scientist would agree with that opening statement.

My ah-ha moment is how potential is not measurable but events are but then they are in the past. So our past does not determine our future. Cannot recommend the book Power vs Force by Dr David R Hawkins fits very well and overlaps with this material.

Interesting. I think he really points out well some of the dogma modern science has fallen into. That doesn't mean science is bad... certainly not, however if it breaks free of current dogma it is open to explore more and grow.

Thank you for leaving this public on RU-vid.

1 thing the speaker here has incorrect is thinking that nature, like probabilistic quantum theory, considers possibilities. Nature does not consider possibilities. Probabilistic quantum theory does. Writing and solving a probabilistic quantum theory equation can determine probabilities of possibilities of an object because probabilistic quantum theory intentionally determines only general unspecified solutions to problems, and these general unspecified solutions turn out to be probabilities of possibilities. If probabilistic quantum theorists determine any general unspecified solution of an object, and then they specify the object's unspecified quantities, such as, in example, specifying the object’s exact initial position vector in nature and its exact initial speed vector in nature, then their general unspecified probabilities of possibilities solution becomes 1 exact specified solution, the 1 observable in nature, with all the probabilities of possibilities, which never existed in nature, eliminated.

“Give is one free miracle, and we will explain the rest” -Terrence M. What realization, formed provocation.

Love this guy.. I think he is brilliant... I don’t know why but I have thought along these lines many times. Here is just a simple thought... Think about it long enough and you begin to understand a lot about life. I was over at a friends house one day and we both were talking about a friend who had just past away. I was thinking, and said, when I die I wonder who or what I will become after my death ? Will there be hate, will there be war and bigotry, will there be sorrow, sickness, pain, hunger and sadness, and in between, will there be love, happiness, respect, and fulfillment ? Will I meet my friend again ? My friend looked at me and said, Tom, once you are dead you stay dead and you never come back. I looked back at my friend with a smile and said, the same can be said before I was born, but, here I am.

Wonderful! Thank you!

One of the seeds of love , Thanks

Science is rigor, and the body of knowledge thereby attained. It does not create metaphysical implications within it's own discipline.

Rupert Sheldrake is not a polemic, though he explicitly points out outrageous deficiencies in current science. However, he also points out correctly that many of these deficiencies are admitted by current science. Science is arrogant and has always tended to be so, but it is also unsure and in some ways humble in its arrogance and so it is a paradox. Science needs people like Sheldrake. It should not and must not reject him or people like him. They are the canary in the coalmine.

I have been banned from TED. Badge of honour? I tried to get into the auditorium wearing latex suspenders and a gimp mask. Apparently I should "never return"

Most people: Watch comedy movies and TikTok. Me: Reading the comment sections of external consciousness propositions.

An eye opener! Another eye opener well worth reading is the book " Pasteur vs Beauchamp"

Just gonna leave this name here: Immanuel Velikovsky / electronic universe. Would advise to research in an open space, cause your mind will be blown.

Back in the 80's, long before caller ID, I would answer the phone 'Hello (person's name). I was right so often my friends all wondered how I did it.

Yes. However, I suggest that machines are made in our image. All machines depend on movement if only that of electrons. Biological life or mechanical action all depend on magnetics, and all depend upon time or all motion would cease.

Of course there’s matter, but there’s energy. Science knows about probability, and it’s own limitations about truly knowing everything. No such things as eternal laws of nature, things change. Our understanding changes.

If there is one understanding I've experienced it is of focused awareness.. of the desired knowledge.. a question asked.. the mind reaching out to give the answer.. one example out of many is bumping into the person you need to see.. in a strange place... knowledge of others being willing to wait for no reason at a place. And to have say 5 mins later a person walk in that needed to talk to you .. or visa verser .. we can and do focus. And project.. our wishes.. to others . If they are receptive.. it's oftentimes the case you will hear or meet them.. there are so many examples..

Such clarity

Can someone help me out? I can't remember the name of that one famous scientist--They write about him in all the text books, because he's super important to our understanding of the world--that he respected all the systemic limitations established within his field, and went along with the status quo, and never questioned the authority of the general consensus or orthodoxy of his time. I've been through several science textbooks in various fields, and so far I haven't come across any mention of him yet. What's his name again?

Haven't watched the whole video yet, but I have the same views. And I was surprised about how little numbers this story has attracted...

This man's comments RE the "placebo effect" are simply brilliant! The kind of realization you can't believe didn't occur to you...but it didn't.

Well explained 🌹

Even the speed of light isn't constant.

I can "feel" when something is about to happen. For instance someone in another room drops something. I have the preception of tension just before the sound of the object hitting the floor. This happens to me continously throughout the day. Im also quite good at remote viewing.

Wonderfully clear and brilliant. We must be, in fact, projecting and receiving devices. A renaissance is happening with this new awareness, and our Creator is right around the corner, ready to welcome us if we press on.

I once got busted in my neighbour's yard with just a towel, checking up on her dog that was howling/barking. My neighbour got home from a holiday to a near naked man in her yard with a seemingly unlikely reason for being there. Hi Tracy, sorry about for being on your property in a state of undress.

Do we think about a person then receive a call or does the person calling us, think of us first, causing us to then know they are calling? I’m getting myself confused now!

Love getting high and getting mind blown with the one and only Sheldrake

Love this guy! & he never forget to mention his friend Terrence McKenna. I would be glad to hear him to mention Nikola Tesla too while he talking about mobile phones, Aether and things that Tesla discovered.

i have noticed my neighbor dog start barking and making noises about 5 minutes before the owners arrive from other side of the town (its a small town), i have noticed that i think of a person and he calls me (happened many many times), also ask this question, who is aware of you mind thinking? that would be the quantum matrix that we call the soul.

I just did the experiment of staring at my cat and focusing intently on his head. After 30 seconds the experiment ended. He never turned round to look at me, or gave any sign that he knew I was looking at him. Theory is busted. Animals cannot tell they are being watched.

We humans (like animals) identify too much with the illusion of fear and desire BUT we evolved from the animal form to discover our true nature as a spiritual being of light incarnated and hence can overcome this illusion and attain a state of inner balance (and return to the original source from whence all came). Such is the game of life and we keep on reincarnating until we achieve this equilibrium within.

This is a brilliant presentation! He's covering all the bases!

Why would anyone want to ban this talk? Are they afraid?

Test the staring from behind thing by seeing if it also occurs when an electromagnetic source emits signals that emulate those from a human

I like to define science as seeking unknown reality. As we find it, we have to adjust our presentation of knowledge (known reality).

That's really good that the very ridiculed Rupert Sheldrake of "pseudoscience" is in close relation of ideas to the great Donald Hoffman. I do enjoy both of their works. I've not read any of their books though. But Donald Hoffman is a pioneer for holographic principle and for panpsychism.

Wonderful !!

Scientific 'knowledge' is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.

Being banned by ted is a badge of honor

Science is a business and social-political activity. Even physics there is so much bullshit it's ridiculous, all for the purpose of clever marketing and career-making.

Every science understanding is based on measurement and observation. Even theories are cooked up explanation for existing phenomenon (and repeatedly readjust to explain any newer discovered phenomenon). If suppose there are things exist that are absolutely immeasurable or unobservable, then it can neither be proven nor disproven. However, people get off into scientism when they started saying what can't be measure doesn't ever exist...

Actually the "principle of conservation of mass" is only approximate. In most of the effects we experience in daily life its an extraordinarily GOOD approximation, but it's approximate nonetheless. In nuclear processes and particle physics processes it's not even approximate - it's just completely wrong, and scientists in those fields don't assume it. But even in chemistry, mechanical processes, and so on, mass varies a tiny tiny amount as energy moves into and out of systems. When you wind your wristwatch the mass of the spring increases a tiny amount, because you put in energy (E=mc^2, remember?) Energy is actually conserved, except for one single effect. The expansion of the universe causes photons in flight to red shift, and that decreases their energy. You might say it "goes into the expansion." Of course, if the universe contracted again it would come back, but our normal expressions for writing down "total energy" don't include that "expansion" term, so in those calculations it's just gone. We could fix that if we wanted to - we'd just stick in a term for "expansion energy," and then the conservation would be perfect. It's just such a tiny proportion of energy we don't bother.

Absolutely brilliant! I love it!

I totally love the way this person's mind works. We need more people who think this clearly and this controversially. I hope Dr. Sheldrake keeps going with these talks which will, in the end, will be referenced by future generations. When Dawkins, Dennett and the rest will have been long forgotten. Bravo!

Scientist: my vacuum cleaner is a collection of parts organised in a workable way. Sheldrake: so you seriously believe that your vacuum cleaner is unconscious?

Why did the audience clap at the end. It sounded quite polite.

This man is SO needed to balance out this golden calf worship of science today.

His criticism of science is correct. His alternative theory is bogus. The examples he gives as arguments for his theory in the second half are ironically already explained by science

"Science" only connects the dots. Each time that happens there are two more questions that further detail where reality is. It is very powerful more in eliminating the thousands of possibilities that the actual dot proved to not exist than the single dot that it did. For seeking out such facts it is the best we have, and creating an "alternative" set of "facts" only enhances ignorance. There is however an entire area of thought that science does not touch even in aspiration, and that is the proper role of religion. If you have a goal science can demonstrate how the goal may be accomplished, but what it cannot do is have any input as to why that should be the goal. The majority of oppositional athiests (there are many religions where an all powerful god does not exist, and the ones with many gods do not see them that way) never see that problem as an issue and much damage has been done trying to apply some sort of scientific justification to what they wanted. Unfortunately, 90% of what religions preach seeks to disprove what anyone using scientific principles can see for themselves. Beyond commentary about arrogance there is nothing about other galaxies that are relevant to religion. It is not about origins, alternative "metaphysics" universes etc. It is very much a discussion of how a person should act in the world, and the differences of good and "evil" motivations in deciding a goal, and a whole lot more in that direction. Metaphors are a powerful tool in understanding nuances that can be hard to grasp but they they do not need to be physically the case to explain the mataphor. If the conflict in the decisions you make are described as two wolves fighting and the one that wins is the one you feed then the story can be true even without any actual wolves in this universe or any parallel universe. To even seek actual wolves to prove the story true is missing the point entirely. Any religion that is authoritarian or claims itself the only truth, are just ego manifestations of a "leader" that cannot abide what he says to be questioned, and uses "God" as a tool to get his way. Still after the nonsence claims, and authoritarian demands, there are usually some valid reasoning worthy of discussion, but the defience that reality is other than your eyes can see,is a disservice to evryone.

You can actually practice the detection of visual observation. I got really good at it when I worked at music festivals, and I freaked the shit out of my skeptical friend proving it to him. If you are sneaking up on someone or something, do not look directly at them.

I think Sheldrake is a great communicator, and like many such he has a fantastic grasp of the problems and he explains them brilliantly. His explanation here of what waves are was the best I've ever heard, and is one I will remember. However, like many great communicators (from Sagan to Peterson) his proposals fall short. The idea of the mind projected is interesting, but could also be explained and expanded by including Hameroff and Penrose's ideas about the quantum nature of the mind. Still, a wonderfully engaging talk.

Why would Ted ban him?! All he is saying, very logically, is could this be possible I've done some scientific experiment. Maybe we should look into it more. By banning his talk all they have done is discredit themselves.

His voice reminds me of Roger Scruton, which is nice.

Did you notice everything runs, vehicles, devices, bodies and the creation. A timetable part of creation too