Campurile morfice sau Teoria Morfogenetica

[DeReLiCt]

Eu stau si ma intreb daca piramidele au fost intr-adevar construite in perioada civilizatiei egipteane... Oare nu cumva ei le-au gasit deja acolo ?

[StarDust]

Cred ca ai inteles mesajul StarDust...Simplu ca braga !  :-)

Clar, am inteles totul! :D
Va salut!

[Kymosabe]

Eu stau si ma intreb daca piramidele au fost intr-adevar construite in perioada civilizatiei egipteane... Oare nu cumva ei le-au gasit deja acolo ?

Marile Piramide de la Gizeh nu au aparut dintr-o data din nisipul Saharei (poate Sfinxul , dar nu si piramidele  :wink:) .
Exista dovezi arheologice care demonstreaza faptul ca piramida a evoluat din ,,mastaba'' ,vechiul mormant egiptean in forma de trunchi de piramida .
Acum vreo 4500 de ani , unui arhitect egiptean numit Imhotep i-a venit ideea sa construiasca mai multe ,,mastaba'' asezate una peste alta , proiect care s-a concretizat in faimoasa piramida in trepte de la Saqqara . 
A urmat apoi prima piramida cu fete netede , forma care a atins perfectiune odata cu constructia Marii Piramide a lui Khufu .

Rezumat : (1)mastaba ---> (2)piramida in trepte --->(3)piramida cu fete netede .  :wink:

[Khaarsha]

    Mi se pare mai mult decat paluzibila teoria ce sustine existenta campurilor morfice. De fapt, cred ca e necesara existenta lor din mai multe motive. Unul dintre ele ar fi ca daca se considera un subiect apartinand unei specii oarecare, ce are o evolutie spectaculoasa, dar nu poate procrea, descoperirile lui ar ramane stiute doar de el, iar asta ar fi o pierdere.
     Cred ca toti indivizii unei specii s-au simtit, constient sau nu, in legatura cu ceilalti membri, iar specia in legatura cu celelalte. Interdependenta e vitala aici pe pamant, nu cred ca e fiecare pentru el.
     Orice actiune a omului, fiecare gand, ii afecteaza si pe ceilalti, mai mult sau mai putin , in functie de rezonantele proprii. Sunt persoane care stiu cum sa faca apel la asa-zisa memorie colectiva pentru a afla unele lucruri trecute, prezente sau viitoare.... Probabil ca acest lucru e valabil si pentru celelalte vietati.

[klingonianul mascat]

Eu nu am inteles prea bine cum se manifesta aceste campuri morfogenetice. Unde actioneaza ele?

[fiulploii]

http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/


Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake at TEDx Whitechapel

According to our science board, Rupert Sheldrake bases his argument on several major factual errors, which undermine the arguments of talk. For example, he suggests that scientists reject the notion that animals have consciousness, despite the fact that it's generally accepted that animals have some form of consciousness, and there's much research and literature exploring the idea.

He also argues that scientists have ignored variations in the measurements of natural constants, using as his primary example the dogmatic assumption that a constant must be constant and uses the speed of light as example. But, in truth, there has been a great deal of inquiry into the nature of scientific constants, including published, peer-reviewed research investigating whether certain constants – including the speed of light – might actually vary over time or distance. Scientists are constantly questioning these assumptions. For example, just this year Scientific American published a feature on the state of research into exactly this question. ("Are physical constants really constant?: Do the inner workings of nature change over time?") Physicist Sean Carroll wrote a careful rebuttal of this point.

In addition, Sheldrake claims to have "evidence" of morphic resonance in crystal formation and rat behavior. The research has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, despite attempts by other scientists eager to replicate the work.

Response to the TED Scientific Board's Statement

Rupert Sheldrake
March 18, 2013

I would like to respond to TED's claims that my TEDx talk "crossed the line into pseudoscience", contains "serious factual errors" and makes "many misleading statements."

This discussion is taking place because the militant atheist bloggers Jerry Coyne and P.Z. Myers denounced me, and attacked TED for giving my talk a platform. I was invited to give my talk as part of a TEDx event in Whitechapel, London, called "Challenging Existing Paradigms." That's where the problem lies: my talk explicitly challenges the materialist belief system. It summarized some of the main themes of my recent book Science Set Free (in the UK called The Science Delusion). Unfortunately, the TED administrators have publically aligned themselves with the old paradigm of materialism, which has dominated science since the late nineteenth century.

TED say they removed my talk from their website on the advice of their Scientific Board, who also condemned Graham Hancock's talk. Hancock and I are now facing anonymous accusations made by a body on whose authority TED relies, on whose advice they act, and behind whom they shelter, but whose names they have not revealed.

TED's anonymous Scientific Board made three specific accusations:

Accusation 1:
"he suggests that scientists reject the notion that animals have consciousness, despite the fact that it's generally accepted that animals have some form of consciousness, and there's much research and literature exploring the idea."

I characterized the materialist dogma as follows: "Matter is unconscious: the whole universe is made up of unconscious matter. There's no consciousness in stars in galaxies, in planets, in animals, in plants and there ought not to be any in us either, if this theory's true. So a lot of the philosophy of mind over the last 100 years has been trying to prove that we are not really conscious at all." Certainly some biologists, including myself, accept that animals are conscious. In August, 2012, a group of scientists came out with an endorsement of animal consciousness in "The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness". As Discovery News reported, "While it might not sound like much for scientists to declare that many nonhuman animals possess conscious states, it's the open acknowledgement that's the big news here." (http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/animals-consciousness-mammals-birds-octopus-120824.htm)

But materialist philosophers and scientists are still in the majority, and they argue that consciousness does nothing – it is either an illusion or an "epiphenomenon" of brain activity. It might as well not exist in animals – or even in humans. That is why in the philosophy of mind, the very existence of consciousness is often called "the hard problem".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

  Etc, etc. As fi pus tot ca sa nu se piarda insa ..asta e.  :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPccMlgug8A