Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 19:13:58 BST

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD Seeing Reality as Values"

    Hi

    if it is radical enough 20 years is not too long,
    see Sheldrake's own web site for his continuing work,
    I think the SOM means that his work is rejected on metaphysical grounds,
    wrong ones! Sheldrake in the light of MOQ could give a different reading of
    the position. Sheldrake's ideas have been rarely tested due to this problem
    and often successful when actually tested!

    DM

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <jonathan.marder@newmail.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 3:51 PM
    Subject: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

    >
    > David M., Platt,
    >
    > David M.
    > > Of course, physical science calls these
    > > patterns law and try to reduce all patterns to lower level 'law'
    > > patterns. Any thoughts? Do you know Rupert Sheldrake's work? His ideas
    > > may be useful in this area.
    >
    > Platt:
    > If memory serves, Sheldrake proposed a universe of conscious memory
    > fields that, when strong enough, cause behavior in a species to change
    > and eventually become habitual (static.) His theory would explain how
    > static patterns "fix themselves."
    > It's been awhile since I read up on Sheldrake's theory, but I recall
    > being impressed at the first time I came across it. It appeared to
    > bolster my belief that the brain taps into consciousness in the
    > environment rather than creating consciousness independently and
    > miraculously out of a whirlwind of the neurons.
    >
    >
    > Jonathan replies:
    > Please note that Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Fields idea has failed to gain
    > serious credence.
    > The observations Sheldrake cites are controversial (conventional
    > explanations work just as well as Sheldrake's) and Sheldrake has been
    unable
    > to provide an acceptable means of testing his ideas. A quick Google search
    > will throw up plenty of material on Sheldrake, from which it quickly
    becomes
    > apparent that contrary to 20 years ago, few scientists now take him
    > seriously - the ideas just didn't pan out.
    >
    > Jonathan
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 19:16:44 BST