Mod+ Joe Rogan interviews Rupert Sheldrake

#2
Good find... easily understandable summary of his morphic resonance ideas, and I think he's pretty much right as regards his general ideas that past, influences present, and that is seen as habits in nature.

For me though, it's more like temporal processing occurring through spatial patterns of storage, and vice versa. So that Ruperts classical 'habits' are observed, because relative patterns in space, can only move information across time.
 
#3
Good find... easily understandable summary of his morphic resonance ideas, and I think he's pretty much right as regards his general ideas that past, influences present, and that is seen as habits in nature.

For me though, it's more like temporal processing occurring through spatial patterns of storage, and vice versa. So that Ruperts classical 'habits' are observed, because relative patterns in space, can only move information across time.
Sheldrake is moving "correctly" in many areas of expanding knowledge. However there are some area where he continues to hold strong beliefs in the status-quo concepts. Two of those are evolution and linear time as a fundamental. Because of those beliefs he has derived what amounts to simply putting a new coat of paint on the same wall.
Linear time is a fiction. One that, in physical, we focus within - but a fiction none the less. But to put things correctly within that framework, the actuality is closest to the "past" is being constantly influenced, even generated, by the present.

Your conceptualization is closer to the actuality than Sheldrake's. The only change would be that it isn't that "relative patterns in space, can only move information across time" but that in our standard physical perceptions we access information within a linear time format
 
#4
Linear time is a fiction. One that, in physical, we focus within - but a fiction none the less. But to put things correctly within that framework, the actuality is closest to the "past" is being constantly influenced, even generated, by the present.
Come on - you can't talk as if you were the ultimate oracle about such questions! You may question linear time, and I am inclined to agree that there is some evidence for that, but we are all groping for the ultimate solution - including you!

David
 
#5
The only change would be that it isn't that "relative patterns in space, can only move information across time" but that in our standard physical perceptions we access information within a linear time format
I don't really know what what means... other than what I've already said?
 
#6
Come on - you can't talk as if you were the ultimate oracle about such questions! You may question linear time, and I am inclined to agree that there is some evidence for that, but we are all groping for the ultimate solution - including you!
lol.
A - I talk, or of more pertinence to this format, express as I please. You don't get to proscribe that anymore than I get to force knowledge upon you.
B - Perhaps you could point out where I claimed to be an oracle.
C - Sorry to disappoint you and your cherished beliefs but I'm not at all "groping for solutions".

I've shared a bit of what the actuality is closer to. And, as I've stated many times, what anyone chooses to do with that info is up to them. Take it in, discard, mock it, whatever. I'm close to I couldn't care less about that. Even if I could force anyone to accept anything, that would infringe on their freedom so I still wouldn't do so.

Oh and - whatever you chose to be groping - make sure you keep your grubby little mitts off my bod.
 
Last edited:
#10
That is an exceptionally good interview with Rupert Sheldrake, and covers some new ground - such as his experience with psychedelics, and a very interesting idea about the origin of the concept of being born again in baptism.

David
 
#11
Saiko was wrong once, but he went back in time to correct his mistake.
:) lol. Where did you hear that line?
Your nice zinger aside, more to the point is: "I've shared a bit of what the actuality is closer to. [] Take it in, discard, mock it, whatever. I couldn't care less about what you do with the info."

And just as importantly, the zinger shows that you don;t get what is being stated. For there to be a "going back in time" in itself is based on a linear time framework.

There is info I'm looking for but basics like linear time not being fundamental in primary consciousness isn't among them.
 
Last edited:
#12
Yeah I got that, but didn't understand what you meant by "...standard physical perceptions we access information within a linear time format..."
that was "in standard physical perceptions" Meaning that while physical the default way we function is to structure events according to a linear time framework.
 
#13
that was "in standard physical perceptions" Meaning that while physical the default way we function is to structure events according to a linear time framework.
Ok, but that doesn't seem particularly different from what I first wrote... other than I've tried to put some more flesh on the framework you mentioned... ...That is that relative patterns in space, can only move information across time.

Thats why I think we generally experience consistency between one time period and another time period, as our classic perception of 'matter'.
 
#14
Ok, but that doesn't seem particularly different from what I first wrote... other than I've tried to put some more flesh on the framework you mentioned... ...That is that relative patterns in space, can only move information across time.

Thats why I think we generally experience consistency between one time period and another time period, as our classic perception of 'matter'.
Okay. We're individuals, It certainly could be the case that your perception already encompasses what I expressed but in my reading of what you stated I thought there was a difference. I guess what threw me was the "relative patterns in space." I took that to mean something that we (as primary consciousness) weren't choosing and doing.
 
#15
Okay. We're individuals, It certainly could be the case that your perception already encompasses what I expressed but in my reading of what you stated I thought there was a difference. I guess what threw me was the "relative patterns in space." I took that to mean something that we (as primary consciousness) weren't choosing and doing.
Ok, whenever I'm talking, I'm talking about indirect perception type ideas... Otherwise I have problems explaining optical illusions, dreams etc. I sometimes dont state that explicitly... otherwise my sentences become really tortured.

I think its me who's unpicking something into space-time, manipulating it, and reweaving it. What the something is, I don't know, but it seems perhaps like it might be informational.
 
#17
And just as importantly, the zinger shows that you don;t get what is being stated. For there to be a "going back in time" in itself is based on a linear time framework.
Sorry... To be absolutely correct, I should have said:

"Saiko will be wrong every once in a past life, but he corrects his mistake recently."
 
#18
I think its me who's unpicking something into space-time, manipulating it, and reweaving it. What the something is, I don't know, but it seems perhaps like it might be informational.
Hmmm . .though I'd likely frame it differently, I guess "informational" works. It's tough to describe what I recall of that state but yeah something akin to sentient, self (and lots more)-aware information.
 
#19
Sorry... To be absolutely correct, I should have said:

"Saiko will be wrong every once in a past life, but he corrects his mistake recently."
Meh. Your first one was a sweet zinger. This one is just an utter fail. BTW, as I inquired before, where did you hear/read the first zinger?
 
Top