Bruce Fenton, 788,000 Year Old Science |562|

I remember in my undergrad days back at U of G- it was- as it is now- spoken of derisively as "Moo U" since so much of it's research was involved in agriculture and animals. At one point they were making four-legged chickens with the idea that this might double the meat possibilities for industry, until someone there said, "Um, isn't think a little unethical?" and it was quietly dropped.

Strange, what forces were engaged. For example, my ex-wife's father was an environmental chemist at the school, and in the late seventies he had come up with a process that would take away the need for oil. He created a grain-based fuel system that the Swedes were already to purchase and use to get off of gas. The FBI (who really have no jurisdiction in Canada) showed up at his door, and told his department head that it was "national security" issues and the idea of getting off of oil back then was quickly shelved.
I forgot about that until just this moment. I guess that's another example of the ruling three-letter elites making sure they were doing the corporate masters bidding even back then.
J

Biofuels not only produce greenhouse emissions (as do other hydrocarbons), but contribute to food shortages.

https://www.dw.com/en/biofuels-good-or-bad-for-the-environment/a-44354834

Farmers across the world, particularly in South America and Southeast Asia, were incentivized to start growing crops for fuel instead of food. Government targets meant an artificially inflated market, which began to drive up food prices and change land use. The changes have resulted in food shortages, according to nongovernmental groups.

That change in farming land use, experts say, is actually causing more carbon emissions than biofuels are able to abate in the transport field, because farmers are razing forests in order to grow biofuel crops.

A study made public in 2016, commissioned by the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, concluded that the EU's renewables law has probably increased carbon emissions since it was put in place in 2009.

Those increased emissions happen not only when a forest is cleared to grow biofuels, but also when a field that was used to grow food switches to growing crops for the more profitable biofuel.

This phenomenon, known as "indirect land use change" (ILUC) can cause new land to be cleared to grow the food crops. When land is cleared, carbon locked up in woody matter like bushes or trees is released into the atmosphere.
 
Here is a discussion between Rupert Sheldrake and John Horgan. All of it looks interesting, but in particular it does touch on the missing hereditability problem.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...phic-fields-psychic-dogs-and-other-mysteries/

I wouldn't say that most scientists lie - although certainly a few do. But they kind of stray from the truth. I mean sure the genes are important as a store of blueprints for making protein molecules (and some regulatory functions). However, how many people realise that the genes only explain a small fraction of the similarities that you see in families? I doubt whether most people know that this problem exists. It is rather like the 'Climate Change' lunacy - it is built on the fairly shakey measurement of 1.2 C temperature rise since 1880. You never see a banner saying "Danger! The earth has warmed up 1.2 C in the last 140 years!"

It is interesting that you mention the morality of experimenting on animals. Rupert Sheldrake had the same reaction - it seems to have been part of his disillusionment with conventional science. I had a course called "Biology of Cells" as an undergraduate. Fortunately we didn't mess with any creature larger than a fruit fly, and most of what we did involved bacteria.

David

Thanks David. Reading through it now. I remember seeing this in a video years ago. It boggles my mind that a scientist would explicitly say such a thing:

John Maddox, the long-time editor of Nature, who once called Sheldrake's views "heresy" that deserved to be "condemned."
 
Specifically about the reaction to Sheldrake's work:
'an alternative framework—involving his theory of morphic resonance (explained below)--in his 1981 book A New Science of Life, which Maddox, in a now-famous Nature editorial, called "the best candidate for burning there has been for many years."'

I'm not being condescending or facetious; I really do find such a statement so shocking. I actually respect the honesty of it. But why such a visceral reaction?

I'm guessing that it's multifaceted, but maybe the main reason is fear that opening the door to anything spiritual in the worldview means automatically that we'll be back in the middle ages, with inquisitions, religious wars, burnings at the stake etc. So as a reaction to that, best to burn the book before actual people start getting burnt?
 
Specifically about the reaction to Sheldrake's work:
'an alternative framework—involving his theory of morphic resonance (explained below)--in his 1981 book A New Science of Life, which Maddox, in a now-famous Nature editorial, called "the best candidate for burning there has been for many years."'

I'm not being condescending or facetious; I really do find such a statement so shocking. I actually respect the honesty of it. But why such a visceral reaction?

I'm guessing that it's multifaceted, but maybe the main reason is fear that opening the door to anything spiritual in the worldview means automatically that we'll be back in the middle ages, with inquisitions, religious wars, burnings at the stake etc. So as a reaction to that, best to burn the book before actual people start getting burnt?

"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.” ― Heinrich Heine
 
Further from the Scientific American article, the author writes:

I conclude, "I’m a psi skeptic, because I think if psi was real, someone would surely have provided irrefutable proof of it by now. But how I wish that someone would find such proof!... The discovery of telepathy or telekinesis would blow centuries of accumulated scientific dogma sky high. What could be more thrilling!"

This to me just sounds like the standard line given by pseudo-sceptics, that there's Nothing they'd like more than psi phenomena to be real, but unfortunately there's no convincing evidence for it...

Richard Wiseman even said in a skeptiko interview that Sheldrake's telepathy experiments were correct but a stronger statistical result was necessary than usual, because "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

That to me is in the top 3 of classic skeptiko moments that indicates there is an extended consciousness realm.

What would be in your top 3 skeptiko moments that show this?
 
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.” ― Heinrich Heine

I was thinking of that quote too. Spooky really... especially considering the scientist who said Sheldrake's book should be burnt is meant to be a luminary of rational thinking
 
The article is so smarmy. What's your opinion

Ultimately, just because an article's perceived attitude might rub a reader as "smarmy", doesn't mean that it doesn't contain information that we shouldn't be aware of. As critical thinkers, we have a duty to look at whatever information might be relevant to the accuracy of the claims being made. BTW, I don't buy into morphic resonance either.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately, just because an article's perceived attitude might rub a reader as "smarmy", doesn't mean that it doesn't contain information that we shouldn't be aware of.

I understand. But how would you summarise the critique and its merits vs what Bruce Fenton says
 
This from Sheldrake in the Scientific American article I also found interesting:

"Morphic fields take place in self-organizing systems. Machines are not self-organizing - they are made in factories - and I would not expect them to have morphic fields. Therefore I expect artificial intelligence on digital computers will remain rather limited in scope, and those who have high hopes for it will be disappointed"
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
It interests me that someone so brilliant and scientific as Sheldrake would nevertheless believe the New Testament. Even if one didn't know about Joe Atwill's deconstruction of the NT, there are so many fundamental contradictions in the NT, that I'm surprised there are still so many brilliant thinkers who nevertheless think it's true:

"Yes, I believe in God. I am a practicing Christian, specifically an Anglican (in the US, an Episcopalian). I went through a long atheist phase, and began to question the materialist orthodoxy of science while I was still an atheist. I later came to the conclusion that there are more inclusive forms of consciousness in the universe than human minds. But my ideas about morphic resonance and telepathy are not part of orthodox religious belief, any more than they are part of orthodox science."
 
And how the article concludes, with the pseudo-sceptic Michael Shermer... as Sheldrake says:

"I would invite him to have a debate about the existence of telepathy and other psychic phenomena. In 2003, in relation to my research on the sense of being stared at and on telepathy, he asserted in USA Today that "The events Sheldrake describes don't require a theory, and are perfectly explicable by normal means." I emailed him to ask what his normal explanations were. He was unable to provide them, and confessed that he had not actually read the evidence"
 
... there are so many fundamental contradictions in the NT, that I'm surprised there are still so many brilliant thinkers who nevertheless think it's true ...
I guess it depends on how literally they're doing the interpreting. Perhaps some truths are allegorical.
 
I guess it depends on how literally they're doing the interpreting. Perhaps some truths are allegorical.
That might sound fair enough for some things. But there's also a limit without the whole thing becoming so free to interpretation that the whole thing is meaningless.
A case in point: the Jesus character gives a 'prophecy' that is very specific, about The Son of Man:

Mathew 24
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&version=NIV

Mark 13
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+13&version=NIV

Luke 21
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+21&version=NIV
 
To quote from Mark 13:

...'those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.

20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive.
[...]
26 “At that time people will see the SON OF MAN coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it[d] is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I tell you, THIS GENERATION WILL CERTAINLY NOT PASS AWAY UNTIL ALL THESE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED.
'
Essentially the same thing is said in the other synoptic gospels. But the 'prophecy' is clearly wrong. Those things did NOT happen within a generation of the Jesus character saying them.

That in itself should be a MASSIVE red flag that Christianity isn't accurate. But instead, what seems to have happened is a doubling down, to proselytise even more. That's what tends to happen with many people in modern cults when the prophecies don't come to fruition: some leave the cult, whereas others double down and proselytise out of desperation...
 
And the Son of Man 'prophecy' takes on a different light when comparing it to what Josephus wrote in The Jewish War 6.5.4:
'But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.'

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=J.+BJ+6.5.4&fromdoc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0148
 
This from Sheldrake in the Scientific American article I also found interesting:

"Morphic fields take place in self-organizing systems. Machines are not self-organizing - they are made in factories - and I would not expect them to have morphic fields. Therefore I expect artificial intelligence on digital computers will remain rather limited in scope, and those who have high hopes for it will be disappointed"

Wow. great. thanks for digging this up. it's funny how dated this sounds, " they are made in factories" :)

It's hard not to imagine a future where factories and machines are run by machines.



Computer science eats science... AI eats computer science.

Riz Virk, Computer Science Eats Science |524| - Skeptiko
https://skeptiko.com › riz-virk-computer-science-eats-sc...




Oct 26, 2021 — So, so smart Riz Virk new book, The Simulated Multiverse and MIT computer scientist explores parallel universes, the
 
It interests me that someone so brilliant and scientific as Sheldrake would nevertheless believe the New Testament. Even if one didn't know about Joe Atwill's deconstruction of the NT, there are so many fundamental contradictions in the NT, that I'm surprised there are still so many brilliant thinkers who nevertheless think it's true:

"Yes, I believe in God. I am a practicing Christian, specifically an Anglican (in the US, an Episcopalian). I went through a long atheist phase, and began to question the materialist orthodoxy of science while I was still an atheist. I later came to the conclusion that there are more inclusive forms of consciousness in the universe than human minds. But my ideas about morphic resonance and telepathy are not part of orthodox religious belief, any more than they are part of orthodox science."

I agree. the last time I spoke with him he rationalized with ( paraphrasing) " I can spend my Sunday washing the car, or being in a beautiful cathedral with stained glass and inspiring music"

I guess he has a point as far as it goes... but it sure seems to me that he's compartmentalizing his sense of inquiry... his passion for discovering the truth... for following the data wherever it leads.
 
Back
Top