Are human beings robots? Interview with Dr. Rupert Sheldrake

Are human beings robots? Interview with Dr. Rupert Sheldrake

What is a human being? It is the ultimate question, to which institutional science offers surprising answers. The materialistic paradigm, which has dominated institutional science for well over a century, states that the essence of consciousness can be reduced to the physical components of the brain. However, does an alternative scientific perspective exist?

One of the most remarkable researchers into consciousness and the evolution of life is biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake. Dr. Sheldrake is the author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. He has won international acclaim for his experimental research on his hypothesis of morphic fields and morphic resonance. 

Dr. Sheldrake’s official website: http://www.sheldrake.org

Videotaped experiments featured in this presentation: Telephone Telepathy with the Nolan Sisters:http://www.sheldrake.org/videos/telephone-telepathy-with-the-nolan-sisters

Jaytee: A dog who knew when his owner was coming home: http://www.sheldrake.org/videos/jaytee-a-dog-who-knew-when-his-owner-was-coming-home-the-orf-experiment

Dr. Sheldrake’s responses to various self-styled skeptics’ misrepresentations of his research – Controversies and debates with skeptics: http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/controversies

Source: The Thunderbolts Project

Comments

Vision 4 years ago

Main point is that Sheldrake brings up real issues. I don't know if his answers are always 100% right, but for example to explain species purely by genes needs some extra factors being involved in protein coding (in my opinion at least). To explain things simply by genes and survival of the fittest doesn't very realistically support this level of biodiversity either. So I think we need these extra elements.

I actually think many scientist would agree with this, They might not explain it by new field phenomena, but they might say maybe there exist deeper gene interaction, unknown layer of gene information or something similar. Point is, even if we would explain things by genetics, we might still have to alter our world view in some unknown way to make it truly work.

While it doesn't make panpsychism as something to just blindly embrace, it becomes a good hypothesis. I do find it realistic that there would be yet unknown life supporting factors in nature. Sheldrake has this theory of collective memory between species. When one understand that this in not something that is meant to be "a stable image", but something that supports survival, one might speculate with some form of lamarckism where information from past few generations affects the way proteins are coded, or rather the way in which this genetic information starts to work as a complex unique unit. Of course many things affect it after that, but there really might be this yet unknown memory factor that supports panpsychism, something like "bodily memory" and so on.

If there would be traces of this kind of very early instinctual memory between certain members of species, it explains some psychic phenomena as well (especially if some material bond would exist as well?). Of course this would take more speculative leap. But when formulated in the way I did here, I would definitely call myself as pan psychic. I think it can simply explain certain things in a much wider level.

Post a comment

Your name: *

Your email address: *

Comment text: *

The image that appears on your comment is your Gravatar