Tag Archives: materialism

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

Morphic resonance fields infuriate materialists

The idea of morphic resonance infuriates materialists — and nearly all modern-day scientists are materialists — because the presence of a non-physical field of information naturally leads to the most dangerous idea of all to materialist science: the idea of consciousness.

This idea that your body as a whole, as well as each cell in your body, can tap into a field of information which encodes the “memory” of what a human form is supposed to be threatens the very pillars of materialistic science, upon which nearly the entire pharmaceutical industry is based, by the way. This is why materialist scientists are desperately attempting to defend the human genome as the single source of all the information needed to develop a human body, even though the human genome clearly doesn’t have the storage capacity to represent an entire body (not to mention inherited physiological functions and behavioral inheritance).

The best place to read and learn about morphic resonance is at Rupert Sheldrake’s website:
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/pap…

I also recommend his amazingly insightful book, A New Science of Life.

Keep in mind that if you read about Rupert Sheldrake from any materialistic science website — including Scientific American which is 100% pro-Monsanto, pro-GMO and anti GMO labeling, by the way — you are going to read vicious attacks against Sheldrake from desperate materialists who brand morphic resonance as “magical thinking.”

This is especially comic, given that these same materialists believe the entire universe in which we live spontaneously appeared from nowhere without cause or reason through a process they call the “Big Bang.” Somehow, the big bang isn’t magical thinking to the materialists, but the idea of a non-physical field of inheritance is magical thinking. It’s almost like these people have never heard of gravity: yet another invisible field that affects all living things.

Learn more: The big lie of genetics exposed: human DNA incapable of storing complete blueprint of the human form

See also:
- We have just scratched the surface of what we know about the DNA!
- How to teleport DNA through Space and Time
- DNA stores most of the information needed to build your entire body

Can Science and Religion be Integrated?

Can science and religion be integrated? What comes to mind immediately is that religions themselves cannot agree with one another whereas science is basically monolithic. How can there even be trade between the two, let alone integration?

Currently, the overall perception of science is that it is materialist. The belief is that science cannot be done without the dogma of material monism: all things of our experience have a material origin.

Cosmos

On the other hand, there is common ground for all religions in three respects:
1) all religions agree that there is God …
2) All religions also posit the existence of non-material “subtle” bodies connected with our internal experiences–feeling, meaning, and values–in addition to the material body.
3) All religions posit the importance of certain values as the goal of life; values such as, love, truth, beauty, justice, good.

The Dogma of Material Monism
Currently, the overall perception of science is that it is materialist. The belief is that science cannot be done without the dogma of material monism: all things of our experience have a material origin.

It is only logical that the practitioners of materialist science should have something to object and negate about the three religious contentions about reality enunciated above.

Materialists also posit that God, consciousness, mind, feelings, values, all things internal besides what we experience externally, matter, are explainable in material terms.

In quantum physics, objects are not determined things of Newtonian vintage. Instead, they are waves of possibility. When we observe, these waves “collapse” into actual events in our experience. Instead of spread-out waves what we observe is a localized particle. This is the famous observer effect.

The resolution of the paradox is to turn the materialist view of consciousness upside down. Let consciousness be the base of the world and let matter consist of waves of possibilities of consciousness. Consciousness chooses from the possibility waves of matter within it to collapse the actual events that we observe.

For the materialist model of individual consciousness associated with each brain, the solution is called solipsism. Only your consciousness is real; everybody else is a fragment of your imagination.

The good news is that not one, but three separate experiments are now showing that quantum consciousness, the author of downward causation is nonlocal, is unitive, is God.

Source: Can Science and Religion be Integrated? – Amit Goswami

See also:
- Biocentrism – A Theory of Everything that makes sense
- Quantum Zeno Effect and the Burning Bush

Till Death Do You Part – A World in Decomposition

Skull

“Decomposition is the continual process of gradual decay and disorganization of organic tissues and structures after death.”

Source: Decomposition: World of Forensic Science

The Mainstream of science, politics, economics, arts and social relations is now in the phase of decomposition. It is evident in the way of thinking and acting of the leaders of this world and of the billions of their proponents.

Atomic Age and the Sexual Revolution
1950s started the Atomic Age, using the nuclear power for killing humans, producing fear and electric energy. 1960s heralded a new culture of “free love”, the so called Sexual Revolution. Both has one think in common: separation!

A feeling of nuclear optimism emerged in the 1950s in which it was believed that all power generators in the future would be atomic in nature. But what is left of this optimism today?
Continue reading

Materialism has gradually hardened into a kind of anti-Christian faith

Rupert Sheldrake, who has long called for this development, spells out this need forcibly in his new book. He shows how materialism has gradually hardened into a kind of anti-Christian faith, an ideology rather than a scientific principle, claiming authority to dictate theories and to veto inquiries on topics that don’t suit it, such as unorthodox medicine, let alone religion. He shows how completely alien this static materialism is to modern physics, where matter is dynamic. And, to mark the strange dilemmas that this perverse fashion poses for us, he ends each chapter with some very intriguing “Questions for Materialists“, questions such as “Have you been programmed to believe in materialism?“, “If there are no purposes in nature, how can you have purposes yourself?“, “How do you explain the placebo response?” and so on.

In short, he shows just how unworkable the assumptions behind today’s fashionable habits have become. The “science delusion” of his title is the current popular confidence in certain fixed assumptions – the exaltation of today’s science, not as the busy, constantly changing workshop that it actually is but as a final, infallible oracle preaching a crude kind of materialism.

Source: The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake – review, by Mary Midgley

Further readings:
- Scientism
- Flynn Effect and Morphic Resonance
- Rupert Sheldrake’s Alternative Science
- Physicalism
- Morphic Fields and Morphic Resonance

Rupert Sheldrake’s Alternative Science

Richard Dawkins will barely give him the time of day and many other scientists hint darkly that he has gone mad. Since 1981, when a leader in the journal Nature accused him of “pseudoscience” and “finding a place for magic within scientific discussion”, Rupert Sheldrake has been outlawed by the science establishment.

But, before he went rogue, he was accepted as a very distinguished biochemist indeed so he cannot easily be dismissed as an ill-informed fantasist. The origin of his heresy lay in his conviction that biochemistry alone could not solve the problem of how organisms assumed their final form, the process of morphogenesis. He alighted on the idea of morphic resonance. We are all surrounded by as yet undetected fields, which carry information from the past that forms new organisms. Not only that, they carry our memories and store skills. So, thanks to morphic resonance, the first person who learns to ride a bike makes it easier for the second person and so on.

This points to a perennial failing of the institution of science (and, in fairness, of most institutions) — dogmatic vanity.

In a series of books, Sheldrake has explored the evidence for and the implications of this idea. This involves ordinary phenomena such as dogs who know when their owner is coming home and the way people seem to know they are being stared at, as well as critiques of the whole edifice of materialist science.

Continue to read here …

Further reading:
- Morphic Fields and Morphic Resonance
- Consciousness involves a different kind of causation

Avoiding the Infinite

Tonight is the thriller night, a night full of horror. Materialistic scientist from all over the world are going to watch a movie at the local cinema outside the town, near the dark wood. The title of the movie is so mysterious like the invitation which was teleported right on top of their desks:”The Infinite

You should know something about materialistic scientists, they fear the infinite like a little girl fears the darkness in the attic. They avoid this thematic and when they are confronted with it they start immediately to whistle, changing the topic, crying loud out for mommy, or just running away. Cowards! Indeed they fear to have reached the edge of their worldview and recognize finally that they lived in a illusion. Materialists are loosing territory with every single scientific discovery. Indeed the best they could do is to hide into theoretical classical physics and playing with their Big Bang simulation until mommy is going to get them to home.

People do think that if they avoid the truth, it might change to something better before they have to hear it.
(Marsha Norman)

The Big Bang and the Imaginary Time
Imaginary time was introduced by Stephen Hawking (materialist scientist) to avoid singularities, or points at which the spacetime curvature becomes infinite, that occur in ordinary time. Imaginary time too would be curved by matter in the universe and therefore would meet the three spatial dimensions to form a closed surface like that of Earth. This curved surface would not have a beginning or end, or indeed any boundaries or edges. This idea helps to avoid the fundamental question of what happened before the Big Bang.

Physicalism

Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things. The term was coined by Otto Neurath in a series of early twentieth century essays on the subject, in which he wrote:

According to physicalism, the language of physics is the universal language of science and, consequently, any knowledge can be brought back to the statements on the physical objects.

In contemporary philosophy, physicalism is most frequently associated with the mind-body problem in philosophy of mind, regarding which physicalism holds that all that has been ascribed to “mind” is more correctly ascribed to “brain” or the activity of the brain. Physicalism is also called “materialism“, but the term “physicalism” is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles. The related position of methodological naturalism says that philosophy and science should at least operate under the assumptions of natural sciences (and thus physicalism).

The ontology of physicalism ultimately includes whatever is described by physics — not just matter but energy, space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes, information, state, etc. Because it claims that only physical things exist, physicalism is generally a form of ontological monism.

Do you really believe in Homeopathy?

Skeptic Person:”You believe in Homeopathy?”

Me:”No. Homeopathy is not a religion, it’s science, a therapy method based on a universal principle.”

Skeptic Person:”But you take homeopathic remedies.”

Me:”Well, yes. It works even if you don’t believe that it works.”

Skeptic Person:”In my opinion it is just a placebo. Unconsciously you believe that it works, therefore it works.”

Mmmh, I got really no time and delight in convincing him in something that is so obvious for me and million other people who knows for experience that homeopathy indeed works.

Me:”It works for animals, bacteria, … do they believe?”

Skeptic Person:”No … but there is no scientific proof that water has a memory …”

Oh here we are again: The legend of “No scientific proof”

Me:”Sure, scientific proofs exist, thousands of scientific proofs, done in laboratory, under strict conditions, double-blind, double-double-triple-blind, …”

Skeptic Person:”So if (IF … THEN … ELSE) … if science proved that it works, why is it not recognized in mainstream medicine?”

Oh dear, … no but he is right. It’s a good question!

Me:”Let me ask you first a question. Then maybe you will understand on your own the reason why it is not accepted in mainstream. What is the difference between a person who believes in a meaning of life and a person who don’t?”

Skeptic Person:”Most people who believe that life has a meaning believe also in God, a creator, or at least in some force. In contrast people who don’t believe that life has an meaning are in some kind lost, without hope.”

Me:”What do you think, whom of this people is more adhere to the golden rule*?”

* Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

Skeptic Person:”Who believes that life has a meaning, right?!”

Me:”And why should people who don’t believe in a meaning of life not take the golden rule into account?”

Skeptic Person:”Because a person who has hope has the natural desire to share his hope. Therefore who has no hope will not consider the golden rule.”

Me:”Ok, now just another question and you will see how the big picture looks like. Is homeopathy a materialistic science?”

In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.

Scientific ‘Materialism’ is often synonymous with, and has so far been described, as being a reductive materialism. In recent years, Paul and Patricia Churchland have advocated a radically contrasting position (at least, in regards to certain hypotheses); eliminativist materialism holds that some mental phenomena simply do not exist at all, and that talk of those mental phenomena reflects a totally spurious “folk psychology” and Introspection illusion.

Skeptic Person:”It seems to be a kind of idealism.”

You should know that we have talked about the difference between materialism and idealism. So he knew the difference at the time we talked about homeopathy.

Me:”And on what kind of science is the mainstream medicine based?”

Skeptic Person:”Materialism … ah now I understand!”

Me:”We are living in a material world, right?”

Skeptic Person:”Ok I got the point. It’s the same thing as with the free energy research. …”

… we talked for another half hour and and we met again the next month. Surprisingly he was now convinced about homeopathy and he desired to know more about the memory of water. I was very curious and asked him what part exactly of our conversation changed his mind about homeopathy and he answered with a smile:”None of it. I made a self proving.”