I’m downloading it right now. Sounds like a real eye-opener.

Have you read the book? What are your thoughts?

Consider making a post about the book.

Fascinating! Sounds like our nervous system is using Bluetooth. ??

Thought experiments are useful even if they can’t be carried out.

I think there is some evidence for universal consciousness. It’s not sufficient to persuade many people but evidence is there. Even if you leave out such things as ESP and reincarnation studies, there is still enough evidence to have interested some of history’s greatest physicists.

@WilliamFleming Interest, as you noted, isn't probative. I put this in the same category as UFOs and Ancient Aliens. Unless a lot more is demonstrated and despite the stature of the people who were interested, it remains unfounded speculation,

@sterlingdean Maybe so, but speculation is a very good and necessary exercise IMO. Without speculation no new discoveries would be made.

@WilliamFleming Speculation based on factual observation is useful.

@sterlingdean

“Lest the idea of a unitary, group, or universal mind be dismissed as new-age woo-woo, we should note that some of the most distinguished scientists of the 20th century have endorsed this perspective. The renowned physicist David Bohm said, "Each person enfolds something of the spirit of the other in his consciousness. Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty... and if we don't see this it's because we are blinding ourselves to it." Anthropologist and psychologist Gregory Bateson: "The individual mind is immanent but not only in the body. It is immanent also in the pathways and messages outside the body; and there is a larger Mind of which the individual mind is only a sub-system..." Physicist Henry Margenau: "There is a physical reality that is in essence the same for all... [This] oneness of the all implies the universality of mind... If my conclusions are correct, each individual is part of God or part of the Universal Mind." Nobel physicist Erwin Schrodinger also believed that minds are united and one. He said, "To divide or multiply consciousness is something meaningless. There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness... [I]n truth there is only one mind." [huffpost.com]

Your first statement is false.

[qbi.uq.edu.au]

Your last statement is also false. There is plenty of evidence that the Mind exists at least throughout the entire body. What you choose to make of that evidence of course is up to you but nevertheless it exists.

[smithsonianmag.com]

@Metahuman I agree that my information is out of date regarding neurogenesis.

I disagree that my statement is false. It does not accord with one person's opinion, and she is very qualified to have that opinion, but she also espouses viewpoints at odds with prevailing science. If I could cut your head off and keep it alive, you would still be you. You would still think, process information. If you can demonstrate any definitive evidence of consciousness action other than by a corporeal living being, you might have an argument.

@sterlingdean your thought experiment consisting of if you could cut my head off and keep me alive I'd still be me is useless because it's not something we're capable of doing right now, and you don't know what the result would be. You're speculating.

@Metahuman Actually, we are. Heart lung machines are used all the time during surgery to provide blood flow and oxygen. It's based purely on available technology and established science. No one would actually do it as it would be incredibly cruel, inhumane, and bizarre. We have a good analog with people who, due to injury or other reasons, are paralyzed and insensate from the base of their necks down. They do not cease to be conscious despite the total loss of voluntary functioning of their bodies.

@sterlingdean I'm not saying or even suggesting that consciousness does not reside in the brain. What I am saying is that it doesn't just reside in the brain, and that there is a lot of good evidence for that. You can downplay Perts work because of her association with mysticism or pop psychology, but that's an ad hominem attack. It does not discredit her valid scientific work on neuropeptides and her conclusion that your consciousness resides in every cell of your body. Granted, there's an awful lot we don't know about consciousness. That's the whole point.

@Metahuman Losing a limb in no way affects the individual's consciousness. I see no validity in these assertions. When one is expressing an opinion based on science, that makes the individual's reputation and other attitudes relevant to the discussion.

@sterlingdean losing a limb in no way affects the individual's consciousness?

I would be willing to bet that it would affect your consciousness greatly if I were to chop your arm off.

As to your last sentence, you do understand what an ad hominem fallacy is, don't you?

Great video!

Consciousness can not be created by opening and closing switches, no matter how many switches or how intricate the programming.

Could you say by corollary that consciousness can not be created by the firing of neurons?

Great input. It might take awhile for me to digest your response.

Interesting article—thanks.

I gleaned this little gem:

“These issues have a long history. In 1775 Thomas Reid wrote:[26] “I would be glad to know... whether when my brain has lost its original structure, and when some hundred years after the same materials are fabricated so curiously as to become an intelligent being, whether, I say that being will be me; or, if, two or three such beings should be formed out of my brain; whether they will all be me, and consequently one and the same intelligent being.”

You are right of course that no one knows for sure

I’m not clear on how universal consciousness would confer immortality to our individual selves. It seems to me that it would strip us entirely of those selves, past present and future and merge us with the whole. I think the whole must be immortal, yes, but that’s nothing anyone needs to yearn for.

As an analogy think of your body as a radio transceiver, The death of a transceiver is of little consequence because the system as a whole goes on. So far as evolution, yes, the best transceiver designs are the ones that are selected.

@WilliamFleming
I'm not sure I understand what the word consciousness means to you. Can you give me a concise definition?

@skado Knowing that we know.

@WilliamFleming
If I could know that I know, after my body dies, I would consider that immortality. And I would prefer it to not knowing.

@skado After further thought I realize that the definition I gave presupposes some sort of self that experiences the consciousness. We almost have to accept our existence in some form because that is what we experience directly. To be a self you have to have awareness though. They go together. I guess you could just say that conscious self is what we experience, but that is circular. What is “we”? What is “experience”?

I give up. It’s an abject mystery!

@WilliamFleming
It’s hard to pin down; maybe impossible.

I guess the conjecture is that you and I have a common consciousness. We have different memories, thoughts, emotions, but those are bodily things that have nothing to do with consciousness.

You mean two brains get connected and there’s just one self? Wow, sounds great.

@WilliamFleming Powerful hormones in sync. Hormones are absolutely amazing!

@Spinliesel I wish I wasn’t so damned old. Enjoy.

Very intriguing!

I think tabula rasa fell out of favor long before Sheldrake, and to my knowledge, Sheldrake's ideas, while certainly worth exploring, have next to zero supporting evidence, and about zero acceptance, so far, in the scientific community. Seems like a nice guy, with some very interesting ideas, but I think we're a long way from seeing any substantive support for them. I, personally, don't expect it to be forthcoming.

@skado I'm disappointed by that response. We're not really supposed to counter ideas with our feelings. Sheldrake challenges the scientific community in this video which was banned on TedTalks but became available again through public complaint:

@brentan
I'm not talking about feelings. I just don't see any scientific foundation under his ideas. I don't object to a fellow challenging the scientific consensus, but he, himself, refers to his work as hypothesis. That's great. Hypothesis is a part of the scientific process. But I don't see that his ideas are science driven. They appear to me to be emotion driven. I'll be happy to adopt them when the hypothesis becomes theory, but as far as I know, that's a long way off. I have no sympathy for scientists who cry about not being accepted by the scientific community, as if there's some conspiracy against them personally. It's science's job to conspire against all ideas until they gather sufficient evidence. If it weren't so, science would have no value at all.

I'll be happy to embrace his ideas the minute they pass the test of long-form science, and if that happens tomorrow, I'll be delighted. But I'm guessing it won't happen in my, or your, or Rupert's lifetime. And without that full scientific validation, I have no need to adopt his hypothesis. Why would anyone?

@skado
I see hypothesis and theory as the same thing – proposals of an idea. Why would anyone accept a proposal as possible? Because they consider it plausible. That would hold from Plato to today. It includes the Big Bang Theory. Why does the scientific community accept Richard Dawkin’s proposal that the mind dies with the brain? Because it’s plausible. Why has the idea become so universally accepted? Because of feelings about the subject that have developed and dominated since Descartes. There is no fundamental reason to adopt Dawkins (much as I love him) and reject Sheldrake and say the differentiation is based on the acceptance of the scientific community. I’m pleased to see that this article we’re discussing is about this very topic and the opinions of the experts are leaning in this direction. I put this down to the mechanical notion of mind reaching a dead end, forcing new thinking about what is plausible. Curiously, I was able to borrow one of Sheldrake’s books from my local library recently so I think his ideas are becoming more acceptable in the mainstream.

@brentan
Sheldrake definitely has a growing popular following outside of scientific circles, but I'm not aware of any, and I mean any acceptance inside the field of science. I don't know if he has done any scientific studies on morphic resonance, for example, and if he has, I'm pretty sure they haven't been replicated by a competing team. As I'm sure you know, writing popular books does not constitute "science".

The reason the scientific community accepts the idea that the mind dies with the brain is not because it's plausible. It's because everything we can currently test points in that direction, and nothing we can conclusively test points in any other direction. It's not about plausibility, beyond the hypothesis stage. After that it's only about testing. And none of his work, that I am aware of, has been substantiated by testing.

There is a very fundamental reason to listen to Dawkins, when he is speaking within his field of evolutionary biology, because his claims are based on 150 years of scientific testing - not just plausibility. But when he pretends to be a theologian, his head is just as far up his arse as Sheldrake's is when he makes creative conjecture outside of tested, or sometimes even testable, science.

The word theory is used differently inside science than how it is used popularly.
In my understanding, hypothesis is like a question: How can this be true?
And theory is more like an answer: It can be true like this.
[merriam-webster.com]

@skado I guess we better leave it that.

I agree that other animals have conscious awareness. That in no way negates the idea of some sort of universal consciousness. The idea is woo because we can’t understand it.

Frankly, consciousness totally baffles me.

Deep conscious awareness has been extremely baffling to many of the worlds greatest intellects.

My opinion is that you have to differentiate deep conscious awareness and bodily sentience. Robots can have sensors and act on sensory input, but so far they have no true awareness.

I think the idea of universal consciousness is that the sense of self as a particular body is an illusion. The question is “What are we”?

An afterlife is meaningless if my self is illusory.

How do you know?

Maybe it’s in the semantics. Most people think of particles of matter as the fundamental building blocks of all that exists. So if instead, consciousness is the fundamental foundation for all existence it follows that what we think of as matter is a construct of consciousness.