Konspiracy Korner: Morphic Resonance
the paranormal studied scientifically? Careful what you wish for

.

When you're typing fast, you don't have time to mix in all the caveats, cautions and quid pro quo's.  This leaves you wide open to people who know what they're talking about:

.

You've mentioned in previous Konspiracy Korners about Rupert Sheldrake and idea of a legitimate 6th sense. Extending ki, long body, collective conciousness, perhaps these are all concepts describing different parts of the same elephant. I don't think it's mumbo-jumbo. We should entertain ideas until difinitively proven incorrect. It's no slight to give credence to an idea that someone else thinks is impossible. That's where competitive advantages are born.

One technique that's worked for me is to exhale for 7 seconds 3 times consecutively. I've heard that your brain understands that it does not need to be in a fight or flight state of anxiety if your body has the ability to do this and, accordingly activates the parasympathetic nervous system. Whether that's true or not, it certainly helps!

.

By "aiki mumbo jumbo" I'm thinking of a class I took at Kannagara, in which a white belt raised his hand after class and praised sensei for "tickling" his spine from behind during a bokken practice.  Students were more or less required to sign off on the fact that Sensei could practice telekinesis with his ki extension.  The widespread nature of this attitude in aikido dojos is a constant sense of amusement for Dr. D.

Some of these amigos are not far off from thinking that the Ki extension in Dragonball Z, or at least in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, are attainable in reality.  :- )

That said, Dr. Sheldrake has made a career out of studying "long body" phenomena in nature.  We say that birds fly "by instinct" but what, precisely, does that mean in terms of mechanical consciousness?

Animal psi has been experienced directly by about half of pet owners.  For instance, one time he called 64 veterinarians in the U.K. and 63 of them told him that it was routine and predictable, that cat owners should expect to find their cat hiding when the owner went to get them into the car ...

Sheldrake has documented, for peer-reviewed journals, the fact that some dogs can predict when their owners are coming home - absent sounds, smells, routine patterns or any other variable.  He has demonstrated that humans can perceive being stared at from behind, at a level significantly (not massively) beyond chance.  He's done experience on "joint attention" such as exemplified in the Global Consciousness Project.  The GCP's computers stopped generating random numbers about 16-20 hours before (!) the 9/11 attacks:

.

After much thought, Sheldrake has pushed forward his hypothesis of "morphic resonance" to explain all these phenomena at once -- basically, the idea that non-conscious matter forms "habits" or "memories" as crystals seem to, and as the Double Slit Experiment seems to confirm in tiny particles.

Sheldrake's site is a fascinating read.  He is a reasonable, soft-spoken man in the Freeman Dyson mode, who has systematically applied cutting-edge experimental design to a dozen different such subjects.

I would be very grateful to read a half-a-dozen theories from Denizens that speak to the question of, "IF a parrot can read a human being's mind, and IF random numbers on computers can be influenced by human emotions, and IF these other things have a basis, THEN my own explanation of that would be ... "

Personally, I lean (lean!) toward the idea of C.S. Lewis' "good dreams."  That paranormal-type manifestations, the 0.1% of them that are real, are usually here to remind us of a broader context than materialism.  But who knows.

...

As to Carroll's "long body" teachings and his historic NFL defense ... it seems to me that all of Sheldrake's phenomena are very subtle, and need very quiet conditions to manifest.  If NFL players could extend their consciousness and read minds during the maelstrom of an NFL power sweep, I'd be pretty surprised.  But the intention to "play for each other" is of course documented by four or five seasons' worth of having the NFL's best defense :- )

Cheers,

Jeff

Blog: 

Comments

1

Forgot the primary middle ground here between Coach Carroll and Dr. Sheldrake.

Have read in many places that a huge flock of birds turns 'as on organism,' more as a unit than math would predict.  Dr. Sheldrake has often referred to this observation as the very genesis of his thoughts on collective consciousness.

The turning of flocks and schools of fish would be Question #1 for me, directed towards a strict materialist.  If he hadn't dealt with that question, then there wouldn't be much place to go from there.  It's CC 101.

2
Seattle Sports Outsider's picture

Ongoing research in quantum mechanics is beginning to posit theory about the role of the "observer" that have possible implications that the entirety of the observable world exists only because of an "observer conscious mind". An "observer conscious mind" large enough to "observe" the entirity of existence into being? Sounds strangely similar like an age-old description I've heard about God.

It's clear that the mind/body has a dual agency - the body can take over the mind's actions and the mind can take over the body's actions. If the mind can control the body through physical matter/particles eletrically connected- why would it be impossible to say a "mind" can also affect / be affected by external, more loosely connected matter/particles? Just as a infant human aquires/refines the mind / body control skill set, we see rare glimpes those people who have developed a mind / external bodies control set (paranormal as some would say), however rare they may be. Apparently the leap from mind / body to mind / external body is extremely difficult to master.

In regards to collective consciousness, if we all exist in the unverse because we are "observed" into being by an all powerful "observer", then we would be a part of the "obeservers" consciousness to some extent. Maybe God does think about all of us on an individual level? If God ceased to "observe" us, would we then cease to exist?

3

It seems to me the reason science misses the mark in this domain is that it is not well equipped to deal with matters of subjectivity. The scientific method posits that in order to endure its rigors, hypotheses must be falsifiable and experimental results must be repeatable by a 3rd party.  Therefore, anything that is experienced subjectively is "out of bounds" of science.  This is great for making physical models of the universe, but IT IS NOT a complete picture of reality,

Clear thinking scientists will not equate this "out of bounds" as "worthless" or "false", but as simply not the domain of science. Unfortunately, there are many who DO make such statements, although they are not logically sound. In their mind, if it can't be measured and quantified, it's garbage.  Many times this is true, but not always. 

Here is Stanford educated, well-respected secular author and neuroscientist speaking on why science is currently not well-equipped with dealing with subjectivity and how we can distill legitimate insights from spirituality that are hastiliy dismissed by most of the scientific community: Link

Also, some of the godfathers of quantum mechanics were mystics, who attributed consciousness to being more fundamental to the universe than the laws of physics. Here is link a to quotes from Erwin Schroedinger speaking about consciousness and how it relates to science.

Some gems:

  • The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.
  • Our mind, by virtue of a certain finite, limited capability, is by no means capable of putting a question to Nature that permits a continuous series of answers. The observations, the individual results of measurements, are the answers of Nature to our discontinuous questioning.

  • We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture. Our bodies belong to it. Not only my own body, but those of my friends, also of my dog and cat and horse, and of all the other people and animals. And this is my only means of communicating with them.
4

Would only add that --- > laymen PERCEIVE scientists as having fewer FEELINGS about man's purpose than does some average schlub who hasn't learned how to differentiate an equation.  In my experience, almost the opposite is true; most academics get married to their positions for life, no divorce court applicable.  :- )

Dissenting views (even dissenting studies!) on climate change are a prime example.

Great post.

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.