I found this lecture a while back by Cambridge biologist Dr. Sheldrake, a proponent of the existence telepathy and other unofficial phenomena that might be considered to be outside the gates of science. I know the inclusion of parapsychology in science is controversial to say the least, but I think the experiments mentioned in this lecture warrant further investigation and experimentation into the abilities of the consciousnesses of humans and animals. I have to admit, I didn't think I'd watch this whole lecture, but it surprised me with being one of the only lectures that has kept my interest through the entire duration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MOzlSF0a8M

I'm curious about the thoughts of the nexus on this video and the subject in general. Do such experiments have a place in "official" science? or should these topics be forever outside the domain of scientific investigation? I favor the former if it wasn't obvious (especially by where it was posted), but the argument that science should deal with the material and not the psychic does carry some weight. Perhaps mental phenomena should be left us psychonauts?

yes his ideas definaitly resonate with me and my expereinces. I have had a few experiences in particular that I can only explain really in the context of his ideas. I have 2 of his books and would recomend reading his works, especially "Morphic Resonance, Presence of the past"..he collaberated with Mckenna as well and did some talks with him. I know sheldrake is experienced with psilocybin and I wonder how much that influenced his ideas.

Thanks for the link.

They already HAD a place in official science, in the 70's and 80's. That place was ABANDONED when NOBODY could produce definitive results that the phenomenon even existed.

thanks for the link, i haven't seen that. He definitely has some wild ideas, but i was always interested in them ever since i started experiencing alot of things which can't be explained in the current zeitgeist we are living in.. An updated version of his book Morphic Resonance came out a few years ago..it has alot of additions and a great conversation between him and David Bohm. Its a very dense and level-headed scientific investigation..highly recommended

I am aware of the numerous experiments done throughout the decades in telepathy, but it was my impression that parapsychology was always an underground movement that fought for acceptance within "offical" science. I also think from what I have read that definitive results may have been produced. Some of the presentiment and ganzfeld research has been replicated as well as Sheldrake's experiment with dogs that know when their owners are coming home. The last experiment was actually replicated by Michael Shermer, though he denied it vehemently, he got similar results.

http://www.amazon.com/Pa...-Existence/dp/1585011088

This is a pretty dang good book about the history of parapsychology research and the truly insane attempts to suppress it.

I am a fan of Sheldrake's research but unfortunately I haven't got around to reading his books yet. I've always been interested in the spiritual aspects of biology. I suppose i should read "morphic resonance" and "presence of the past" soon. I didn't know he was in to psilocybin actually. That sheds a whole new light on his unorthodox research for me.

There are still people doing legitimate research into paranormal phenomenon SWIMfriend. The reason I really like Sheldrake is becasue he is a true biologist who is not afraid to ask these questions and come up with new ideas. I dont believe that all of his ideas have been proven wrong. The thing that has always influenced me the most is his theories on morphic resonance, and while they have not been proven to be true I havent seen anything that proved them wrong. If you have a link to a study that has proven them wrong I would love to read it.

I doubt his ideas are 100% correct anyway..but I do find certain aspects of morphic resonance very facinating and intuitivly do seem to fit in somewhere. How much of that might be spot on and how much of it might not be who knows. There is alot that we still do not know and that is why science IS important..

"I didn't know he was in to psilocybin actually"

I dont know how deep he was/is into it, but I know that he mentioned it in a talk here and there. He was friends with Mckenna and gave one very famous talk with Mckenna and Abraham..

Here is it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP8oT6ryRys

The once common occurrence of "parapsychology departments" in major universities has declined to, essentially, zero. Parapsychology as an academic study now is, for all practical purposes, non-existent.

Well that is great if the only place you believe legit research can be done is in a univestiy. Personally, I went to post secondary school and I dont believe the education system is the be-all of true scientific research..the eduction system on all levels is so full of dogmatic bullshit.

You know not too long ago there was no more psychedelic studies taking place at any major universities either, that doesnt mean there was not some merit to the idea of resuming that work.

100% agree. Science, like religion, is inherently conservative, it doesn't like new ideas usurping its traditions unless it is forced to accept them (Quantum Mechanics). Science is essentially an organization based out of the research universities throughout the world. To become a part of this organization, you have to please the established authorities to get your membership card, or doctorate, and it still requires pleasing the authorities far more to do actual research published in journals. Don't get me wrong, I love science, but there is at least some reason to be skeptical of the opinions of the mainstream scientific establishment. We here at the nexus certainly can relate to mainstream society not liking our "heretical" beliefs.

Parapsychology is the black sheep of science if you accept that it is a part of it. It is the only branch of science concerned with the immaterial, making resistance to it quite intense. Parapsychology usurps the Newtonian-Materlialistic worldview that science is, in my opinion, firmly rooted in. Universities used to be friendlier to parapsychology than they are today, but parapsychology has always fought an uphill battle for acceptance no matter the era. Many hardcore skeptics have fought it tooth and nail for years, but even those same skeptics, such as Ray Hyman, have admitted that by the standards of any other science telepathy has been proven as a fact.

If you would like more information on unorthodox research, there is a professional organization dedicated to it:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/

thanks for that video fractal, listening to it right now.

I didn't say whether there was or there wasn't merit. I said that there HAD been interest, and that interest essentially EVAPORATED, because those who had an interest were UNABLE TO FIND SUBSTANCE to sustain their interest.

SWIMfriend, you should read The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin, which gives the results of very many experiments in parapsychological phenomena. Far from being 'unable to find substance', the results show consistently that something is really happening here. The problem is that while the deviation from chance is tiny (and so not newsworthy (or grantworthy)), the likelihood of that tiny deviation from chance continuing over 1000s of repetitions of the test is extraordinarily small. e.g. If a tossed coin is predicted 56% of the time, that may not seem much of a big deal, but the chances against that happening over many 1000s of guesses is actually billions to one.

Sorry, I'm not interested in "evidence." The type of evidence offered is ALWAYS the sort which...evaporates when examined more closely (or when repeats of the experiments are attempted). The current system of peer review in academics does a good job of promoting VERIFIABLE evidence--which is why people today "with evidence" are reduced to writing books, instead of publishing journal articles.

Some people here are NOT ACKNOWLEDGING A USEFUL FACT: Parapsychology was GIVEN A DECENT SHOT in mainstream academics, and it simply COULD NOT PROVIDE THE SUBSTANCE to enable it to remain a respected discipline. They were given a good TWENTY YEARS to come up with something, and they failed. It's a little late, now, to start saying "But wait, there's evidence."

If there really IS good, clear, repeatable evidence, then my BELIEF is not required: solid evidence will ALWAYS find its way into people's minds, eventually.




And the problem in those sorts of situations is usually a failure to have a proper experimental protocol--and so biases creep in that require TIME AND EFFORT to tease out and expose. Nobody CARES anymore to examine these studies that closely to discover any possible weak points (or even fraud).

Don't you find it interesting that the "evidence" has degraded to the point of "If we do a million trials, we get a few more positive results than chance would predict" when, initially, there were people LINED UP to demonstrate their irrefutable psychic abilities?

The most realistic way to think about the HISTORY of evidence for such things is that people WANT TO BELIEVE, and all they have now are efforts to "slip evidence under the radar" that is so vague (slightly off-kilter numbers) that it is DIFFICULT TO REFUTE without a lot of expert examination.

Finally, in the interest of fairness, sceptics HAVE stepped up to try to repeat some of these studies--and the results always flop. The reason given by believers: The presence of sceptics upsets the morphgenic fields.

Ah well, it's probably not the book for you then, as it is just a collection of the results of academic studies.

Again, I rest on the historical fact that for a good twenty years such matters HAD the ear of academics, and HAD a respectable position in academics. That position was LOST because, simply, promising-looking early results fell flat, and nothing of substance and repeatability was FOUND.

But I'm not surprised there are people still trying to make a buck from it, or still trying to rev up believers.

^did you even listen to the talk posted in the origional post? I would assume not based on your responce to the thread in general. Rupert Sheldrake had skeptics carry out the same experiments on the realtionships between pets and owners with the exact same results. Noone has any other explaination for what the hell is going on there..unless you want to say it is all just chance. The odds of chances like that seem rediculous.

I understand that there is alot of weirdo new age people out there, but I dont get that vibe from rubert Sheldrake. If you do some research concerning studies he is referring to in that talk it doesnt seem like it is all summed up so easily. When skeptics reproduce the same results you cant use points such as skeptics NOT producing the same results.

None of this means they are telepathic of course. But it is worth investigating.

I listened to ten or so minutes. I just listened to a few minutes more around the middle. He mentions "bird flock movements" as an example. Here, you can find the "straight dope" on the phenomenon.

To me is sounds like Sheldrake SAYING things (such as saying that no one can explain bird flock movements). I already KNOW what he believes, so hearing him repeat it all doesn't impress me. What would impress me is actual DATA from experiments that can be REPEATED. So far, there is no clear, repeatable data. I know you and he WANT there to be, but there isn't. If there were, it would be SUNG from the rooftops.

There were certainly times in my life when I was QUITE INTERESTED in such things. But after a long LIFETIME of being interested in such things, and meeting with only PROMISES of "convincing experiments" but no SUBSTANCE to the promise, one begins to think that what is being observed is WISHFUL THINKING about such phenomena.

It's funny how these things work. I once had an extended forum discussion with a Pakistani MD, who was also a Sufi muslim. He was a standard MD, educated in the west, but was born and raised in Pakistan. He told me quite casually (but repeatedly and insistently!) that advanced Sufi adherents can easily bring the dead back to life--often for hours or more. I simply told him that, as a western educated doctor, he could easily just record and verify such events, and quite likely win himself fame, fortune and...the equivalent of a Nobel prize! AND...he could bring BILLIONS of converts to Islam, too!

His response was...well, vague...and basically saying he "didn't want to do that."

Some people WANT to believe things, and a lack of evidence DOESN'T DISSUADE THEM IN THE LEAST.

I'll repeat: Western science was ACADEMICALLY OPEN and even ENCOURAGING of such things for a good, long twenty year span late in the twentieth century; but those interested--in the end--COULD NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE of the very phenomenon they purported to study! At a point, 99% of academic "parapsychologists" simply gave up the effort.

The remainder, apparently, are those like Sheldrake, who can't give up their desire to believe.

Yes, I'm not a "believer." As far as I can tell, you HAVE to be a "believer" in order to believe these things--that alone is quite telling.

EDIT: BTW, why bothering trying to convince ME about the evidence for these things? You (and Sheldrake) should make the effort to convince the NEW YORK TIMES, or similar! These "stories" have all been around for YEARS. They don't make "the big time" because they can't be substantiated. If they COULD, they would be picked up by HORDES of sceptics, who find fantastic things JUST AS FASCINATING AS EVERYONE ELSE.

Wow...is your head buried in the sand or are your fingers in your ears while you yell, blah...blah...blah...blah?

Why do you even bother commenting on a topic if you can't take the time to watch/read the information which is being presented? Especially from such a close minded perspective...

Since you're making that "kind" of judgment about me....does it interest you or matter to you that for a good TWENTY-FIVE YEARS of my life I was very OPEN MINDED about such things?

If one wants to progress in life (and one works hard at learning and trying to understand things) one comes to a realization that BELIEVING (or "wanting to believe" ) is NOT THE PATH TO TRUTH. One must FOLLOW truth, not try to LEAD IT.

If you know what he believes than why did you not address the studies I was referring to? I was not referring to bird flocks at all.

I am not going to argue the rest of your post there becasue it does not interest me in the least. Bringing people back from the dead is not relevant and not what this topic is about. If you want to address the studies Sheldrake did between pets and owners, that other skeptics did with the same results then that would interest me much more.