Thoughts are external not internal

http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

I found this on subject of being stared at though I myself have little experience of that so neither for or against it but remain open minded. This guy has PhD in chemistry.

Anyone care to comment on this chap?

He says this:

"A New Science of Life:
The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance
By Rupert Sheldrake
Why do many phenomena defy the explanations of conventional biology and physics? For instance, when laboratory rats in one place have learned how to navigate a new maze, why do rats elsewhere in the world seem to learn it more easily? Rupert Sheldrake describes this process as morphic resonance: the past forms and behaviors of organisms, he argues, influence organisms in the present through direct connections across time and space. Calling into question many of our fundamental concepts about life and consciousness, Sheldrake reinterprets the regularities of nature as being more like habits than immutable laws."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, Rupert is a wellknown crackpot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A well known PhD crackpot

crackpot being: someone who's hypothesis conflicts with current scientific thinking.

If every highly qualified scientist (that has something new to say) is a crackpot, then this PROVES beyond doubt

we can no more trust a scientist than we can a carpet cleaner when it comes to science matters.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is the new thing then that he has to say?

 

so you are labelling him crackpot because he says something someone has said?

again, that definition makes you all crackpots

 

That is not the definition of crackpot.

crackpot: a whimsically eccentric person

 

so by your definition the 'crackpots' I have named here are still credible then.

So why isn't anyone saying anything constructive regarding their research. WHY haven't you Q said anything about J Utts work and conclusions?


Meanwhile from wiki:

"Crackpot most generally means a capriciously eccentric person. In various other uses, the term can mean:

Pejoratively, the term Crackpot is used against a person, subjectively also called a crank, who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in science, but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs."

 

Because to you Sheldrake is news. To me it is old history. He has been saying the same shit for decades and designed experiments, but no results.

what else is there to say?

 

name the experiments to which he had no results

 

meanwhile spurious you did not answer this re your 'staring experiment'

 

All.

 

2-5-10m.

Obviously vision was not obscured otherwise it would have been difficult to ascertain if they were looking back. You need to see the eyes for that.

 

Maybe you should try it further away (maybe 15m) with people partially obscuring their view of you , but have someone closer to them who can report whether they looked around or not?

 

why?

If telepathy is dependent on eyesight it is not telepathy, but television.

 

Doesn't spuriousmonkey have a PhD too?

 

Yes. I'm a crackpot too.

 

You see, and nobody takes EVERYTHING he says seriously.

 

from sheldrakes own paper:

Needless to say Sheldrake twists the results and says because a few people said they were stared at that indeed they actually knew they were stared at.

 

Heh.
First. This reminds me of that commercial for E.F. Hutton. "My stock broker is E.F. Hutton and E.F. Hutton says...."

Second. It's funny how you've brought up this thing where nobody can argue with you until they've read this book you recommend when back in the threads on cognition you wrote a while back you got all pissy when people recommend that you study up on the basics....
Makes you a bit of a hypocrite? Perchance?


Brain waves are pretty much a crock of shit, by the way. I know they've been brought up in here a time or two, but they're more folk science than real science.

 

From a paper from J. Utts

Br J Psychol. 2004 May;95(Pt 2):235-47.

Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: two meta-analyses.
Schmidt S, Schneider R, Utts J, Walach H.

Notice the use of language. And notice the lack of results, which are turned into a 'hints' of an effect.