Tag Archives | Rupert Sheldrake

TED Talks: Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake, a fresh take

For those of you who took TED to task for taking down the Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock TEDx talks, you’ve partially succeeded: TED has at least addressed the censorship issue (below), saying

The goal here is to have an open conversation about:

- the line between science and pseudoscience

- how far TED and TEDx should go in giving exposure to unorthodox ideas

But they haven’t restored the videos themselves. Yet.

The hardest line to draw is science versus pseudoscience. TED is committed to science. But we think of it as a process, not as a locked-in body of truth. The scientific method is a means of advancing understanding. Of asking for evidence. Of testing ideas to see which stack up and which should be abandoned. Over time that process has led to a rich understanding of the world, but one that is constantly being refined and upgraded.

Read the rest
Continue Reading

Graham Hancock Calls Out TED’s Blatant Censorship

Via Graham Hancock’s facebook feed.

In attempt to brush up their severely tarnished image after censoring my presentation“The War on Consciousness” from the TEDx website today (on the grounds that I was “unscientific”) and also censoring the presentation “The Science Delusion” by my colleague Rupert Sheldrake for the same reason, TED have now rushed to create a remote corner of their website, which I imagine they hope no-one will see, where our talks have been put back online and may be debated: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/.This gesture, they claim, is in response to my suggestion that they had censored us and should be taken as evidence of their “spirit of radical openness”.

All I can say is this is extremely devious behavior on TED’s part. On the one hand they take down two videos from Youtube that had generated enormous public interest and traction (mine had received over 130,000 views and Rupert’s over 35,000 views).

Read the rest
Continue Reading

Why Biologist Rupert Sheldrake’s Work is So Interesting for Fans of Mixed Martial Arts and Occultists

The sense of being stared at is only one aspect of Dr Sheldrake’s research but it’s the area most obviously relevant to the archetypal image of an occultist. If you really can occasionally ‘feel’ yourself being looked at, as his work appears to suggest, this could reveal something of the long suspected human “telepathic” abilities of ancient legend.

Sheldrake argues our minds actually connect with objects as they percieve them:

“The sense of being stared at works because our minds reach out to touch what we’re looking at and sometimes we can feel that, or animals can feel it, so we can affect what we’re looking at, simply by looking at it. So, there’s something coming out of our eyes, as well as going in.”[1]

Furthermore this might even be a skill you can learn to enhance. Experiments conducted into the phenomena have been altered to include instant feedback for the person being stared at.… Read the rest

Continue Reading

Reality Sandwich Interviews Rupert Sheldrake

Picture: Rupert Sheldrake (PD)

Gabriel D. Roberts of Reality Sandwich interviewed the controversial (in some quarters) biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake. It’s well worth a read. Here’s a snip:

You’ve experimented a good deal with the sense of being stared at. This sort of thing seems so simple to the average person, and yet a scientific materialist might say, “That’s just nonsense.” Is this another example of the dogma you refer to?

One of the ten dogmas I discuss in Science Set Free is that the mind is inside the head. The assumption of materialism is that the mind is nothing but the activity of the brain, therefore it is all inside the head. That means that when you look at somebody, your image of that person is inside your head, it’s not out there in any way. So when you look at somebody, you shouldn’t be able to affect them.

Read the rest
Continue Reading

Time for Dogmatists to Put their Cards on the Table.

Adelaide Now has an interesting, and in my opinion misjudged, editorial piece on Tarot cards at the moment:

A SURPRISINGLY honest tarot reader at “Psychic Tarot Insights” has tried to locate Jill Meagher.
Here’s the surprisingly honest (if understated) bit: “Tarot is not considered 100 per cent accurate by law and I cannot claim to solve issues, only show what I have in the cards.”

They go on to say: “Something must have happened quickly; that there was a male person, stronger than her; there might be a car, something, something, rural area, something, something, eight weeks, something, something, sex and weapons and southeast and someone tall and strong. And a horse. Maybe a church. A dog.”

Other possible links are: “Deserts, woods, obscure valleys, caves, dens, holes, mountains, churchyards, ruined buildings, coalmines, muddy places, wells, houses, offices.

“Perhaps some of this information will help, can’t be sure until information comes in to verify it,” they conclude.

Read the rest
Continue Reading