I am interested in hearing other opinions of his work, I'm having trouble accepting his work as it is endorsed by Depak Choprah, and anything that crack pot lauds raises an eyebrow with me, though I must admit in listening to Rupert he has his act down well enough to gain some traction for his opinions.
I am very impressed by Sheldrake, perhaps because I think he looks and sounds like me. He has great credentials. The first three chapters of "A New Science of Life" I thought brilliantly illuminated the issues involved in various kinds of vitalism. I read his latest book, though, and it seemed like tired re-runs of the same ideas.
I think he's onto something with his morphic resonance, but he seems indiscriminate in how he attributes it. I have a similar theory which I see applying only to living creatures, he applies his resonance to all kinds of things, even to melting points of solid crystals. I couldn't understand what he thought the resonance was operating through--the crystals or the experimenters, and I'm not sure he thought the issue worth resolving. I feel he's applying his theory like a blunderbus.
To me, though, he's the key figure to watch for some breakthrough in vitalism. He's got the smarts and the experience, also he's so little reputation left he's nothing to lose. A loose canon. Hooray!
The link above leads to a denied entry to the movie. I watched it on youtube
This deals with his latest book and I think I failed to give it credit. I think it's fascinating. And important.
He's almost unique, I think, in being able to question the fundamentals of science, while using the simplest, most ingenious kinds of tests. His interview concerning the fundamental constants is classic. Very funny. He's very droll. He reminds me of Galton who used statistical procedures to see if people prayed for the most actually lived longer, and found they didn't. The boldness and simplicity of it quite takes your breath away.
Sheldrake is both ruthlessly rational, highly intellectual, and unrestrainably speculative. I recommend him highly.
Unfortunately, Sheldrake was a phenomenon of the Me Generation and its fixations on the seeming compatibility between the "new" physics and certain schools of mystical thought. When one considers that Krishnamurti was close to David Bohm -- so close that they collaborated in a book -- this is hardly surprising. Take for example the basic symbolism of Hua Yin Buddhism: a Queen asking a Buddhist master for a lesson in ontology only to be shown into a vast hall, a room with mirrors for walls, floor, and ceiling such that when a candle was lit, it touched everything in the cosmos, including the Queen herself. Bohm's "vast interconnectedness" of the "implicate" order is precisely the same thing.
But, Sheldrake has been called in question, hasn't he? Deep Pack Chopswood is another story. What a total, unmitigated fraud!
LOL James that's how I felt about him as well. Watching it I felt almost as if I'd been to one of those sermons by Joel Olsteen <sp?> with his self-help style of evangelism...
I posted this so long ago I had forgotten I posted it, so it was a surprise to see people commenting on it! I've unfortunately been a bit overwhelmed with work and family medical matters lately so I've been somewhat absent from the forums.
I'm a crackpot myself, so I'm sympathetic to other crackpots, like Sheldrake. I take him at face value. And I find someone who's highly intelligent, fanatically rational, and likable. I feel he's a great resource, whatever his associations. We crackpots attract strange bedfellows, partly because we can get close enough to other crackpots to see what's worthy about them, where most people remain so remote as to see only the stereotypes. If Sheldrake is aligning himself with Depak than that makes me respect Depak a little more, maybe I should look closer.
Sheldrake has been called into question? Good. My kind of guy.
LOL Shaun, okay, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I found Rupert Sheldrake's TED talk incompetent and misleading. I wish that TED would allow someone else to tell the story of the evidence that supports the view that I have, as do millions of others. I don't know that the talk could be done in 18 minutes or less, but TED could allow a TEDx event to include a host of speakers who all address the AMAZING science that is coming out of unexpected places in the last decade and before.
Unfortunately, TED has taken a position that calls the legitimate science being done by many esteemed scientists, "pseudoscience" and has banned any association of its name with that science. TED, therefore, by blocking the discussion of science that it doesn't want talked about, has turned TED into a religion. I am an ex-TEDster as well as an ex-xtian.
The thing about Sheldrake, as poor as his talk was, is that his opinions are based in legitimate scientific research being done using rigid scientific methods. What researchers are discovering is that our worldviews are wrong. That's hard to grasp, seeing as a worldview is so fundamental to our lives and our cultures.
Sheldrake is not proposing that there is a God. Sheldrake is leading up to the point where he is saying that YOU are a god and no God has any power over you. The worldview he speaks of, if accepted, would turn the culture upside down and inside out.
Gail-- "the view that I have." It can be scary to post one's unorthodox belief online, it can raise a storm of personal abuse. But on this site you can post your opinions on your blog, give it suitable keywords, and get viewers. Posts you don't like you can delete. People you don't want you can blacklist, on their profile page. As far as I'm concerned, you can control response to your blog as you can't, or shouldn't, in general forum posts. I think those blog posts continue to get viewers, as people search for those keywords. I'm very impressed with this utility. It allows me to publish my views without having to put up with the sting of personal abuse.
Thanks. I'm new here and will explore the site more completely.