Science is a dogmatic system

In this video, British biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world’s most innovative scientists, describes how science is being constricted by unexamined assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. These dogmas not only put arbitrary limits on the depth and scope of science, but may well be dangerous for the future of humanity.

According to these dogmas, all of reality is material or physical; the world is an inanimate machine; nature is purposeless; free will is an illusion; notions of higher orders of consciousness and absolute (“God”) awareness exist only as ideas in human minds, which are themselves nothing but electrochemical processes imprisoned within our skulls.

So Dr. Sheldrake asks: should science be an ideology or belief system, or should it reclaim its birthright as an unbiased, open-ended method of inquiry? In his latest book, SCIENCE SET FREE, he argues that the materialist ideology is moribund; under its sway, increasingly expensive research is reaping diminishing returns while societies around the world are paying the price. In the skeptical spirit of true science, SCIENCE SET FREE turns ten fundamental dogmas of materialist science into exciting questions, and shows how all of them open up startling new possibilities for discovery. This book may well challenge your view of what is real and what is possible.

See also:
Mysterious Lack of Dark Matter
Rupert Sheldrake: The Habits of Nature
Where are our thoughts written?
The Morphic Field War
The Quest For Overunity

There is no such thing as locality

Action at a distance and nonlocality appears to be spooky and supernatural. But indeed locality is not normal at all. Look at how the atom is composed: A nucleus and some electrons flying around the orbit … eehhhm, nope, this is the old school model for kids and a very materialistic one. Electrons are considered in quantum mechanics as a cloud of probabilities and the nucleus too. They are not here on the specific x,y,z coordinates, even if we observe them. During a measurement in laboratory we can determine only the reaction the atom has at a certain time moment on a specific coordinate, but after this observation we don’t know where the atom is. This would require another observation or measurement of it’s supposed location.

Magnetism too is a action at a distance, like gravity, which occurs on macroscopic scale. So why do (we) most people regard locality as normal? This is because of our way we perceive reality and I’m sure that it is colored by our world view. By changing the world view from materialism to idealism, mind as the ground of being, then locality becomes something exotic and strange. This is not a little step and very difficult to achieve.

Some philosophical thought experiments exist on locality, like the Zeno paradox. You should consider them to study, especially the quantum zeno paradox, which helps to understand that locality is just a illusion generated by our mind.

See also:
Quantum Nonlocality
The Biggest Error Ever Made in the Name of Science

A consciousness creates a universe

The science of the invisible realm of spirit, from which matter derives, space and time, is called metaphysics.

How would it be like if a mind of a spiritual person creates another person? Would the new person be disconnected from the original consciousness, or would it be a part of the whole?

The video tries to explain a simple principle.

See also:
Consciousness is order and the source of energy
Fibonacci numbers define key points in human aging
Number 144 versus 666
Avoiding the Infinite
The Biggest Error Ever Made in the Name of Science

Is Consciousness More than the Brain?

No truly coherent cosmology can fail to address human consciousness. As Wal Thornhill has written, “A real cosmology must be a broad and coherent natural philosophy. It may always be incomplete, based on our limitations, but to be valid there can be no exceptions in our experience. In particular, cosmology must address issues of life and the human condition. Therefore it must be a truly interdisciplinary pursuit.”

Today, perhaps the ultimate unsolved mystery of human life is: how and why does consciousness exist? Although some scientific literature still acknowledges that the question remains open, the overwhelming consensus among neuroscientists today is that the brain alone creates conscious experience. However, for decades, acclaimed scientists around the world have conducted research into consciousness that provides a very different picture. One of the most remarkable of these researchers is Dr. Gary Schwartz, professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery at the University of Arizona and director of its Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health. We asked Dr. Gary Schwartz for his thoughts on the mystery of consciousness.

See also:
Planetary Consciousness
Out of Body Experiences
Robert Lanza on theory of Biocentrism
Science Set Free

The Biggest Error Ever Made in the Name of Science

Mistaking the _image_ of a process for the _cause_ of the process is the biggest error ever made in the name of science. This video shows how this error has gripped Western thinking when it comes to the relationship between mind and brain. It also shows how reality is much simpler than the contrived worldview derived from the error. The video is an excerpt from Bernardo’s Science and Non-Duality (SAND) Europe 2013 presentation.

See also:
Why Materialism Is Baloney
Robert Lanza on theory of Biocentrism
Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
From a materialistic point of view
The momentum for change

Weltschmerz

Weltschmerz (from the German, meaning world-pain or world-weariness) is a term coined by the German author Jean Paul Richter and denotes the kind of feeling experienced by someone who understands that physical reality can never satisfy the demands of the mind. This kind of world view was widespread among several romantic authors such as Lord Byron, Giacomo Leopardi, François-René de Chateaubriand, Alfred de Musset, Nikolaus Lenau, Hermann Hesse, and Heinrich Heine. It is also used to denote the feeling of sadness when thinking about the evils of the world.

The modern meaning of Weltschmerz in the German language is the psychological pain caused by sadness that can occur when realizing that someone’s own weaknesses are caused by the inappropriateness and cruelty of the world and (physical and social) circumstances. Weltschmerz in this meaning can cause depression, resignation and escapism, and can become a mental problem (compare to Hikikomori).

See also:
Consensus Reality and the Idealistic Approach

Reality is created in a Consensus Agreement of all Participants

The idealistic worldview considers consciousness as the base of the reality, which generates dynamically space and time in order to communicate. It is not consciousness what represents an epiphenomena of the brain chemistry, but instead the apparent locality of “objects” or objective reality is the phenomenon which is the real mystery. Quantum mechanics has discovered that every particle is everywhere (nonlocal) in the universe at the same time, as long it is not observed by a conscious being. The act of observation collapses the wave to a particle or the wave remains a wave if the necessary information lacks. So locality is a information, nothing else …?

If Idealism is true, if the primacy of consciousness is true, then why are objects so real? Why does this reality act so stable and not fuzzy like a dream?

The solution lies in the fact that our reality is created in a consensus agreement of all participants. Every observer views reality from a slightly different angle and this contributes to the stability of our reality. Like biodiversity enables a well working ecosystem, so the different observers provides a stabilized framework.

To whom belongs this dream?

On the level of individual created reality, inside our dreams, there is no other observer except the dreamer himself. Therefore this kind of reality is fuzzy, always changing, not stable. But the reality of the wake state, what we know as “physical reality“, is the stabilized reality created together by the collective consciousness.

Can you imagine what would happen if we would agree on a different kind of physical law, all together, everybody in one consensus reality? Would this law begin to exercise power over every individual? From the point of view of biocentrism, idealism and the theory of morphic fields, such a scenario is not just fantasy.

When things went wrong
Creating a reality in a consensus reality has a huge problem: when the majority of the participants has the wrong worldview, reality becomes a trap and not a place where life is beautiful. Long time ago the first human pair decided to make their own thing, rebelling against God. The result was catastrophically for every human. Fortunately every reality which is created based on lies and illusion has a short shelf life (compared to the eternity) and it will perish sooner or later. Every reality has the tendency to decompose, with exception of the one reality which is based on the eternal truth (not affected by entropy). We are approaching now with quick pace the end of the evaluation period of this old system.

… in the context of eternity whatever is imperfect is considered inexistent or corrupt, not worthy to continue to exist forever …

This reality, created in a consensus of people which do not love the truth and questions heavens authority, will fade away and make place for a new reality, a kingdom ruled by God. Can you now imagine what this means? Some physical laws will be altered and eternal life will be possible again. Being thankful means to be completely aware of the truth.

Further readings:
An alternative way to express ZERO
Fractal Cosmology
Consensus Reality and the Idealistic Approach

Morphic Fields are like Electromagnetic Fields

Sheldrake’s metaphors suggest that the morphic fields are objective, autonomous realities. As such, they are supposed to be like electromagnetic fields, but of a different nature.

Electromagnetic fields are abstract and invisible, detectable only by their ability to interact with particular arrangements of matter, like ionized gases or magnetically polarized metals. Similarly, morphic fields, which are equally abstract and invisible, are detectable only by their ability to resonate with particular arrangements of matter under particular circumstances, like those of embryonic development or electrochemical activity in the brain.

Sheldrake thus places his views on a firmly realist ground: Morphic fields exist objectively in nature as part of it, next to other objective parts of nature like atoms and fields of other types. In other works, Sheldrake also suggests that mind itself is a kind of field centered in the brain but extending beyond the brain, much like the electromagnetic field of a magnet is centered in the magnet but extends beyond it. Here again, Sheldrake’s metaphors seem to be underpinned by a realist assumption: Minds are objective and causally-effective fields just like electromagnetic fields. As such, mind-fields are a part of nature, but not the very medium of all reality, as idealism entails.

Source: bernardokastrup.com