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

From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Wed Sep 03 2003 - 22:00:39 BST

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MD A metaphysics"

    Hi David,

    Since I am having such a difficult time understanding Scott, could you please
    explain to me how something as obscure as "trying to explain perception through
    the products of perception" can throw any favorable light on the work of
    SHeldrake over the other conventional "materialist" explanations? If we are not
    allowed to explain experience through what we experience, then what are we left
    with? How does Sheldrake avoid this cunumdrum?

    Thanks,
    Andy
    > Hi Scott
    >
    > thanks for below, I agree entirely.
    >
    > David Morey
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:19 PM
    > Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
    >
    >
    > > Jonathan,
    > >
    > > > 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.
    > >
    > > On the other hand, work in seeking mechanistic explanations for such
    > things
    > > as instinctual behavior, how language is learned and used, or how memory
    > > works, haven't panned out either, and this in spite of getting most all
    > the
    > > grant money and holding most all the research positions. Conventional
    > (read
    > > materialist) explanations do not work just as well in these areas, for
    > > reasons I have given in the past (roughly, trying to explain perception
    > > through the products of perception).
    > >
    > > - Scott
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > 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
    >

    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 : Wed Sep 03 2003 - 22:05:33 BST