Rupert Sheldrake on Joe Rogan Experience #550

[JeffreyW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZklRSn92ek4

An excellent interview of someone who is challenging multiple dogmas in establishment science.

Thank you Mr. Rogan for doing this interview and Mr. Sheldrake for taking out the time to speak about these matters candidly. I can learn a lot from both of you.

[Plasmatic]

Rogan has both ends of the spectrum covered. Sam Harris: atheist, eliminative materialist-denier of freewill and self, and Sheldrake the medieval revivalist who seems to evade the entire historical debate that led to a naturalist worldview that holds entities as causal primaries, as well as the debate about the ontology of fields, essentially idealist metaphysics.....

[Lloyd]

I doubt if those labels are exactly accurate. Thornhill has long admired Sheldrake and Talbott, I presume, invited him to speak at one or more EU conferences, and he accepted and did speak.

The reality of morphic fields appears to have good evidence in support of it, as explained in the video above.

And it seems to hold promise for suggesting how we might overcome dogma in science and major corruption in society.

Are there morphic fields of dogmatism and corruption? If so, how can those fields be morphed into positive traits? I think Sheldrake says a creode is a pathway by which one type of morphic field morphs through stages of development, such as human growth from conception to old age and death. There would then also likely be creodes for how species evolve and how societies evolve within species. So maybe history can give us some answers or clues for answers to these problems. History and the scientific studies of developmental processes I mean.

[Plasmatic]

Loyyd said:

I doubt if those labels are exactly accurate. Thornhill has long admired Sheldrake and Talbott, I presume, invited him to speak at one or more EU conferences, and he accepted and did speak.

I hope that isn't how you make your evaluations bro... Can you relay to me Sheldrakes justification for the ontology of fields?

Edit:

Shelgrake.org said

field: A region of physical influence. Fields interrelate and interconnect matter and energy within their realm of influence. Fields are not a form of matter; rather, matter is energy bound within fields. In current physics, several kinds of fundamental field are recognized: the gravitational and electro-magnetic fields and the matter fields of quantum physics. The hypothesis of formative causation broadens the concept of physical fields to include morphic fields as well as the known fields of physics.

Now, integrate this with Wal's view of what energy is.

[viscount aero]

Loyyd said:

I doubt if those labels are exactly accurate. Thornhill has long admired Sheldrake and Talbott, I presume, invited him to speak at one or more EU conferences, and he accepted and did speak.

I hope that isn't how you make your evaluations bro... Can you relay to me Sheldrakes justification for the ontology of fields?

Edit:

Shelgrake.org said

field: A region of physical influence. Fields interrelate and interconnect matter and energy within their realm of influence. Fields are not a form of matter; rather, matter is energy bound within fields. In current physics, several kinds of fundamental field are recognized: the gravitational and electro-magnetic fields and the matter fields of quantum physics. The hypothesis of formative causation broadens the concept of physical fields to include morphic fields as well as the known fields of physics.

Now, integrate this with Wal's view of what energy is.

Nobody knows what actual energy is. Wal Thornhill makes no claims as to what it is to my knowledge.

Moreover, Sheldrakes probings into the nature of being is not unscientific. It has been at the cornerstone of the human question probably longer than recorded history. In my opinion, that ontology ought to be considered off-limits or deemed merely metaphysical, in the pejorative, is the more unscientific position.

[Plasmatic]

Viscount said:

Nobody knows what actual energy is. Wal Thornhill makes no claims as to what it is to my knowledge.

No, those who don't know how the concept was abstracted from percepts don't know what energy is...That is, those who don't know what "energy" means.

Viscount said:

Wal Thornhill makes no claims as to what it is to my knowledge.

Wal has expressed the historically materialist view that energy is a relation between entities-bodies in motion. The original view of energy in history of those who formed the concept.

Viscount said:

Moreover, Sheldrakes probings into the nature of being is not unscientific.

Thats your evaluation based on your criteria for what you think "science" is. Your not equivocating being with energy are you?

It has been at the cornerstone of the human question probably longer than recorded history. In my opinion, that ontology ought to be considered off-limits or deemed merely metaphysical, in the pejorative, is the more unscientific position.

I assume you mean "the inquiry into the nature of being" in a Hiediggerien sense. What makes you think that ontology is thought of in this way relevant to this thread? Are you referring to Wal's view of metaphysics?