The allegory with the TV set is not pointing to the "sender or receiver" within the physical brain. .. but the signal itself. The spiritual element of the human being as existing free from the physical brain.
The idea that "thoughts themselves" are "signals" that travel upon what Sheldrake calls the "morphic field" is nothing new. Esoterics have been saying exactly this for a few hundred years. So Sheldrake is picking up on this same phenomena and has given it a new name, one that sound more scientific ... I don't know much at all about Sheldrake. Never heard of him before I came over this big discussion on TED about him. It would be interesting to hear more of what you weren't satisfied with from his research.
That the brain might be a sense organ for thought rather than a creator of thought is an interesting postulate.
Should it ever be confirmed (via NDE for example) that the human being does in fact have a spiritual body that survives the death of the physical body, ...then .. it isn't such a big step to postulate that thoughts themselves arise from another place than the physical brain. If it could it be proven true that the spirit can exist free from the physical body, then why can't thoughts also exist free from the physical body..?
Morality is temporary. It is determined by individual cultures and peoples within those cultures at a certain point in time.
Slavery was once accepted and no one ever questioned it's moral implications. Today it is quite different. One day a light went on in the heads of a society and they agreed that slavery was something that we should consider to be wrong or immoral.
A few thousand years ago, in certain cultures in South America, human sacrifice was considered an "honor" for the "chosen one" ... what do you think people in today's society would say...? Moral attitudes have changed.
Such questions are going on every single day in the minds of different cultures of people. Take the question of abortion. Is it right to take the life of a fetus? ....After how many weeks? ....8...10....12 ?
There are even some scientists that propose it is perfectly OK to take the life of a newborn baby. ... because they have not yet developed a "personality" ... Many cultures in the world in fact practice just this. They cannot provide for a baby, so they set it out in the forest alone to die.
So who's moral standard are we to use? ... the scientists? ... Moses's? ... Islam? Cut off your hand for stealing?
You are talking in circles. Take your first sentence.
"Objective moral truth does indeed exist, and by definition requires no agreement by anyone. "
My first question to you is:
How then do these "objective moral truths" come about ? ...if not for people coming to agreement on them? Do you not see in the world today hundreds and thousands of different attitudes and ideas of what is moral or not moral.
Do you think that they just pop up in the world ... before mankind has begun to form ideas of their own actions and cast their judgement upon these same actions.
Moral ideas are created by mankind for mankind. They are subjective and by their nature can only be and must always be in the subjective realm of the individual. Just like the inner experience of love and beauty. You cannot find these things in the "outer world" ... because they are "abstract concepts" They are inner feelings. Beauty cannot be objective because it takes the active participation of an observing individual to create the feeling of beauty.
Yes, Perhaps "ethical truths" are easier to "locate"
It surprises me how so many people are trying to find an "objective morality" in the outer world. As though it could exist on its own without mankind's participation in it. They look for it like a solid rock or a tree that stands there like an object in the outer world. Some exclaim even that there cannot exist a God without and objective morality that we all can set on our shelf and gaze upon like a photo copy of the 10 commandments.
I think the problem lies in the two words. ... objective and morality. Firstly, because as I mentioned earlier, this is an oxymoron.
Secondly, because the word morality is a "collective concept" that has no real meaning until one fills it with an example of some or another form of action. It's the action that gives the word meaning. Do you see what I mean by this?
the word "beautiful" is also an example of this. It is an "abstract idea" We must give it a "concrete content" before we can say "this or that gives me an experience of beauty" If two people (or the whole word of people as Malissa questions) have an experience of beauty, say from a red rose, the two experiences are and have to be subjective. They belong to the individual who is observing the flower. Their feelings may be similar, but it does not qualify them to be "objective" ... also because only the individual having the experience can make the judgement upon him or herself as to whether or not they themselves experience something as beautiful. No one can directly experience another persons feelings.
It surprises me that the highly respected Sam Harris allow himself to fall into this intellectual trap of trying to find an objective morality
This conversation is more about censorship than psychic dogs ... however, because you ask, and because of your total sceptisism I would like to relate a little story to you. Experienced first hand.
Around the year of 1976, I was living in California with my cousin for a few months. During this time he had a stray dog at the house that just came by one day and never left.
One day, after dark, at around 10 o'clock at night, very dark outside, we put the dog in the trunk of the car and drove it about 30 miles away from the house. We stopped the car on a country road and let the dog out of the car and drove home again. .... To our surprise, the next morning, the dog was sitting on the step of the house again .... So, not saying this "proves" anything about the psychic abilities of a dog, it does show that they have some amazing abilities that we humans can only look with wonder at.
TEDCred score: +25.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Could the stars be conscious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
A reply on Conversation: If certain scientific laws remain consistent, is reincarnation / rebirth logical?
The allegory with the TV set is not pointing to the "sender or receiver" within the physical brain. .. but the signal itself. The spiritual element of the human being as existing free from the physical brain.
The idea that "thoughts themselves" are "signals" that travel upon what Sheldrake calls the "morphic field" is nothing new. Esoterics have been saying exactly this for a few hundred years. So Sheldrake is picking up on this same phenomena and has given it a new name, one that sound more scientific ... I don't know much at all about Sheldrake. Never heard of him before I came over this big discussion on TED about him. It would be interesting to hear more of what you weren't satisfied with from his research.
That the brain might be a sense organ for thought rather than a creator of thought is an interesting postulate.
Should it ever be confirmed (via NDE for example) that the human being does in fact have a spiritual body that survives the death of the physical body, ...then .. it isn't such a big step to postulate that thoughts themselves arise from another place than the physical brain. If it could it be proven true that the spirit can exist free from the physical body, then why can't thoughts also exist free from the physical body..?
A reply on Conversation: There are no objective moral truths
Exactly!
A reply on Conversation: There are no objective moral truths
Give me just 3 examples of objective morality?
A comment on Conversation: There are no objective moral truths
Morality is temporary. It is determined by individual cultures and peoples within those cultures at a certain point in time.
Slavery was once accepted and no one ever questioned it's moral implications. Today it is quite different. One day a light went on in the heads of a society and they agreed that slavery was something that we should consider to be wrong or immoral.
A few thousand years ago, in certain cultures in South America, human sacrifice was considered an "honor" for the "chosen one" ... what do you think people in today's society would say...? Moral attitudes have changed.
Such questions are going on every single day in the minds of different cultures of people. Take the question of abortion. Is it right to take the life of a fetus? ....After how many weeks? ....8...10....12 ?
There are even some scientists that propose it is perfectly OK to take the life of a newborn baby. ... because they have not yet developed a "personality" ... Many cultures in the world in fact practice just this. They cannot provide for a baby, so they set it out in the forest alone to die.
So who's moral standard are we to use? ... the scientists? ... Moses's? ... Islam? Cut off your hand for stealing?
A reply on Conversation: There are no objective moral truths
You are talking in circles. Take your first sentence.
"Objective moral truth does indeed exist, and by definition requires no agreement by anyone. "
My first question to you is:
How then do these "objective moral truths" come about ? ...if not for people coming to agreement on them? Do you not see in the world today hundreds and thousands of different attitudes and ideas of what is moral or not moral.
Do you think that they just pop up in the world ... before mankind has begun to form ideas of their own actions and cast their judgement upon these same actions.
Moral ideas are created by mankind for mankind. They are subjective and by their nature can only be and must always be in the subjective realm of the individual. Just like the inner experience of love and beauty. You cannot find these things in the "outer world" ... because they are "abstract concepts" They are inner feelings. Beauty cannot be objective because it takes the active participation of an observing individual to create the feeling of beauty.
A comment on Conversation: There are no objective moral truths
Yes, Perhaps "ethical truths" are easier to "locate"
It surprises me how so many people are trying to find an "objective morality" in the outer world. As though it could exist on its own without mankind's participation in it. They look for it like a solid rock or a tree that stands there like an object in the outer world. Some exclaim even that there cannot exist a God without and objective morality that we all can set on our shelf and gaze upon like a photo copy of the 10 commandments.
I think the problem lies in the two words. ... objective and morality. Firstly, because as I mentioned earlier, this is an oxymoron.
Secondly, because the word morality is a "collective concept" that has no real meaning until one fills it with an example of some or another form of action. It's the action that gives the word meaning. Do you see what I mean by this?
the word "beautiful" is also an example of this. It is an "abstract idea" We must give it a "concrete content" before we can say "this or that gives me an experience of beauty" If two people (or the whole word of people as Malissa questions) have an experience of beauty, say from a red rose, the two experiences are and have to be subjective. They belong to the individual who is observing the flower. Their feelings may be similar, but it does not qualify them to be "objective" ... also because only the individual having the experience can make the judgement upon him or herself as to whether or not they themselves experience something as beautiful. No one can directly experience another persons feelings.
It surprises me that the highly respected Sam Harris allow himself to fall into this intellectual trap of trying to find an objective morality
A comment on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Thanks! I'll surely have to find time to check them out.
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Any good suggestions? I'm not aware of any other sites like TED.
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
This conversation is more about censorship than psychic dogs ... however, because you ask, and because of your total sceptisism I would like to relate a little story to you. Experienced first hand.
Around the year of 1976, I was living in California with my cousin for a few months. During this time he had a stray dog at the house that just came by one day and never left.
One day, after dark, at around 10 o'clock at night, very dark outside, we put the dog in the trunk of the car and drove it about 30 miles away from the house. We stopped the car on a country road and let the dog out of the car and drove home again. .... To our surprise, the next morning, the dog was sitting on the step of the house again .... So, not saying this "proves" anything about the psychic abilities of a dog, it does show that they have some amazing abilities that we humans can only look with wonder at.