Belt tweaks are more powerful than Celebrex. They are more like radiation!

Belt tweaks, the only ones with a half life measured in thousands of years. You may be on to a new sales angle.

Quite a Celebrex fixation you have there.

Here's a free tweak....print this radiation image and place it somewhere on your system where the sun don't shine, and then report back on the effect. It's like eating fish....unless you do it, you'll never know if you like it. 

The image was treated with special sauce before I posted it, and the morphic resonance of the treatment will transfer freely to your printer, so need to put your own special sauce on it! Isn't morphic resonance great?

Happy listening, man!

No Belt tweaks were harmed and no Belt laws were violated in the creation of this new and incredible tweak.

"Morphic resonance has been shown to be a real phenomenon"

Citation of a paper published by a peer confirming a Sheldrake claim please.

"There have been other experiments as well that demonstrate the concept."

Citation of a paper published by a peer confirming a Sheldrake claim please.

"Sheldrake's claims are both falsifiable AND inside the scope of scientific experiment."

They should be falsifiable and within the scientific scope but statements from Sheldrake such as this one

"Perhaps his negative expectations consciously or unconsciously influenced the way he looked at the subjects." [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ruperts-resonance&page=2]

prevent his work from being falsifiable, at least in Sheldrake's mind.

Here is an even handed summary of experimentation work done on Sheldrake's question #4  Our own tendency to know when we are being stared at from behind .

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_staring_effect_an_artifact_of_pseudo_randomization/

Why would a researcher of Sheldrake's intelligence use non random sequences as the basis for his work?  Why does he insist the subjects being stared at get correctness feedback during these experiments (enabling implicit learning of non random sequences)?  Why does he report results from unverified experimental results published from unknown individuals?

And one more point about Sheldrake. He is not scoffed at by the scientific community because his theories are unconventional. He is scoffed at because his use of the scientific method is consistently flawed.  For this he can only blame himself, although he seems to prefer the infamy of championing bizarre ideas over performing actual science.   It seems that somewhere early in his career he realized he had little chance of making a significant scientific discovery and switched to psuedo science and parapsychology instead.

Ilikemusic, you have misrepresented Sheldrake in your rush to judgement.  I suspect the scientific community and you have much in common.  Sheldrake's early education and achievements, including his motivation for researching morphic resonance, can be found in the following paragraphs taken from Wikipedia.

Early life and education

Sheldrake was born in Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire to Doris (née Tebbutt)[2] and Reginald Alfred Sheldrake (b.1903),[3][4] a family of Methodists. His father graduated from Nottingham University with a degree in pharmacy,[5] was also an amateur naturalist and microscopist, and encouraged his son's interest in plants and animals.[6]

He attended Worksop College, an Anglican boarding-school, and specialized in science. Sheldrake obtained a scholarship to studyBiology at Clare College, Cambridge. He specialized in biochemistry, graduated with double-first-class honours, and won the University Botany Prize.[7] He won a Frank Knox fellowship to study philosophy and history at Harvard University at around the time Thomas Kuhn'sThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) was published, which he writes informed his view on the extent to which the mechanistictheory of life is just a paradigm. He returned to Cambridge, where he obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry.[6]

[edit]Career

He became a Fellow at Clare College, director of studies in biochemistry and cell biology, and a Research Fellow of the Royal Society. From 1974 to 1985, he worked in Hyderabad, India, where he was Principal Plant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. For a year and a half he lived in the ashram of Bede Griffiths, where he wrote his first book, A New Science of Life.[6][7]

As a biochemist, Sheldrake researched the role of auxin, a plant hormone, in the cellular differentiation of a plant's vascular system. He ended this line of study when he concluded, "The system is circular, it does not explain how [differentiation is] established to start with. After nine years of intensive study, it became clear to me that biochemistry would not solve the problem of why things have the basic shape they do."[8] More recently, drawing on the work of French philosopher Henri Bergson, Sheldrake has proposed that memory is inherent to all organically formed structures and systems. Where Bergson denied that personal memories and habits are stored in brain tissue, Sheldrake goes a step further by arguing that bodily forms and instincts, while expressed through genes, do not have their primary origin in them. Instead, his hypothesis states, the organism develops under the influence of previous similar organisms, by a mechanism he has dubbed morphic resonance.[9]

Isn't it possible that the "circular nature of the established line of reasoning why things have the basic shapes they do" is something the scientific community has accepted without argument?  If so, that's not very good science, not at all.  

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

its all the same to me.

http://io9.com/5916646/pbs-autotunes-mr-rogers-the-results-are-tender-an...

A dab of goo and a bit of foil seem to get a lot of people excited around here!

Let's try an experiment- let's bring some goo and/or foil close to Anton and observe his responses. If he breaks into a sweat and he feels the need to run away, then we know it's a sympathetic nervous response; if he drools and he runs towards a MacDonald's, then it's parasympathetic.

Betcha Pavlov wouldn't have thought of that!

Speak, Anton, speak!

Or failing that...

Do something, Anton, do something!

Quote:

"somewhere on your system where the sun don't shine"

Q: If Anton and ILikeMusic were to have their heads firmly implanted up their rectums (recta?), would they be Klein Bottles or Moebius Strips?

A: If one kept his mouth shut, they could be one of each!

Nobody is denying Sheldrake's stellar credentials garnered early in his career. However, it only makes his subsequent deviation from the proper usage of the scientific method more startling.

"Isn't it possible that the "circular nature of the established line of reasoning why things have the basic shapes they do" is something the scientific community has accepted without argument?"

You *still* do not understand.  Merely suggesting something may be true (ala Sheldrake, May Belt and a host of others) is not the same as presenting a logical argument supported with facts and evidence.

Now answer the questions I posed concerning Sheldrake's question #4  Our own tendency to know when we are being stared at from behind -

Why would a researcher of Sheldrake's intelligence use non random sequences as the basis for his work?  Why does he insist the subjects being stared at get correctness feedback during these experiments (enabling implicit learning of non random sequences)?  Why does he report results from unverified experimental results published from unknown individuals?

"So, you admit it took many years for Einstein's theory of relativity to be accepted.  That is my point. 1919 would be 14 years after Einstein's publication of his theory, as you yourself point out."

So it took 14 years for Einstein's theory of relativity to go from publication to complete acceptance by virtually the entire scientific community and the general public.

Sheldrake published "A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance" in 1981.  So in 31 years Sheldrake's theory has gone from publication to ... nowhere.

Is this the favorable comparison that you were trying to evince?

Ilikemusic wrote,

"Nobody is denying Sheldrake's stellar credentials garnered early in his career."

Well, I'm afraid *you* did in your previous post.  

ilikemusic wrote,

"However, it only makes his subsequent deviation from the proper usage of the scientific method more startling."

Sez you.  I don't think so, I think it demonstrates his curiosity and investigative skill and sticktoitiveness once he suspected there was something terribly wrong somewhere with the conventional mainstream science.  

ilikemusic wrote,

""Isn't it possible that the "circular nature of the established line of reasoning why things have the basic shapes they do" is something the scientific community has accepted without argument?" (Geoff's statement)

"You *still* do not understand.  Merely suggesting something may be true (ala Sheldrake, May Belt and a host of others) is not the same as presenting a logical argument supported with facts and evidence."

But you are guilty of the same thing - suggesting it is NOT true with no evidence.  Now that you mention it, there has never been any experiment that provided evidence or proof that the theory of morphic resonance is false.  But, as I pointed out previously (which you have ignored) there have been at least several experiments that proved the theory correct, including the one that won the 10,000 dollar prize.  How convenient of you to ignore any evidence that might show you're wrong.  Ignoring evidence is not a good indication for someone who's arguing the importance of the scientific method.  

Ilikemusic wrote,

"Now answer the questions I posed concerning Sheldrake's question #4  Our own tendency to know when we are being stared at from behind -

Why would a researcher of Sheldrake's intelligence use non random sequences as the basis for his work?  Why does he insist the subjects being stared at get correctness feedback during these experiments (enabling implicit learning of non random sequences)?  Why does he report results from unverified experimental results published from unknown individuals?"

Answer to your first question - I have no idea.  If he identified individuals would that make you happy or suspicious?  Maybe he's protecting them from nutcases.  Sheldrake was attacked by some maniac with a knife a couple of years ago.  If it were me I would not publish names either.  

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

Ilikemusic wrote,

"Acceptance rates

"So, you admit it took many years for Einstein's theory of relativity to be accepted.  That is my point. 1919 would be 14 years after Einstein's publication of his theory, as you yourself point out.". (Geoff's quote)

So it took 14 years for Einstein's theory of relativity to go from publication to complete acceptance by virtually the entire scientific community and the general public.

Sheldrake published "A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance" in 1981.  So in 31 years Sheldrake's theory has gone from publication to ... nowhere."

i wouldn't say nowhere.  He has written a number of books on the subject and continues to lecture extensively around the world.  I suspect that the mainstream scientific community simply doesn's wish to get involved, who knows why, perhaps they're afraid of what they might find or what people in the community might think of them.  Kind of similar to why it's increasing difficult to find reviews of controversial tweaks, now that I think about it.

Ilikemusic wrote,

"Is this the favorable comparison that you were trying to evince?"

I think you're quibbling.  Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics and he had many years to do so.  I trust you would agree Einstein was part of the scientific community.  Even if Sheldrake is never accepted by the scientific community that is still not proof or even evidence that he's wrong. Follow?

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

Quote the line in any of my posts were I specifically deny the Sheldrake's early career credentials.

" he suspected there was something terribly wrong somewhere"

no doubt somehow perpetrated by someone.

"

"However, it only makes his subsequent deviation from the proper usage of the scientific method more startling."

Sez you.  I don't think so, I think it demonstrates his curiosity and investigative skill and sticktoitiveness once he suspected there was something terribly wrong somewhere with the conventional mainstream science.  "

Clearly you do not have the intelligence to differentiate between the process of creating theories and hypothesis and the methods used to verify them.  The latter benefits from creativity; the latter has rather strict rules that must be adhered to and can not be supplanted with creativity.

"But you are guilty of the same thing - suggesting it is NOT true with no evidence."

You are a complete idiot.

"Now that you mention it, there has never been any experiment that provided evidence or proof that the theory of morphic resonance is false."

In turn, let us replace "morphic resonance" with "flying spaghetti monster" and "invisible zombies". Could any statement you make show a more complete misunderstanding of the scientific method or inability to think rationally?

"

"Now answer the questions I posed concerning Sheldrake's question #4  Our own tendency to know when we are being stared at from behind -

Why would a researcher of Sheldrake's intelligence use non random sequences as the basis for his work?  Why does he insist the subjects being stared at get correctness feedback during these experiments (enabling implicit learning of non random sequences)?  Why does he report results from unverified experimental results published from unknown individuals?"

Answer to your first question - I have no idea.  If he identified individuals would that make you happy or suspicious?  Maybe he's protecting them from nutcases.  Sheldrake was attacked by some maniac with a knife a couple of years ago.  If it were me I would not publish names either."

You have no answer for questions 1 and 2.  Let us note that these practices are absolutely bad scientific methodology. Now let me propose an answer - The feedback is necessary to enable the subject to learn the non random sequences used by Sheldrake, thereby enabling Sheldrake to claim a 'positive' outcome for the ability to sense being stared at from behind.

The third question refers to Sheldrake'spractice of collecting data through the internet from experiments that he (nor any other qualified individual) has not overseen and that in fact may never have been performed.  It has nothing to do with protecting individuals.

"

"Sheldrake published "A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance" in 1981.  So in 31 years Sheldrake's theory has gone from publication to ... nowhere."

i wouldn't say nowhere.  He has written a number of books on the subject and continues to lecture extensively around the world. "

More books and lectures written and given by the person who proposed the theory amounts to nowhere.

"Even if Sheldrake is never accepted by the scientific community that is still not proof or even evidence that he's wrong. Follow?"

Sigh. Geoff, you are beyond help.

"But, as I pointed out previously (which you have ignored) there have been at least several experiments that proved the theory correct, including the one that won the 10,000 dollar prize."

This paper was sent to the Tarrytown Prize in 1986 by Johannes Herwig-Lempp.

It discusses the falsifiability of Sheldrake's theories.

http://www.herwig-lempp.de/daten/veroeffentlichungen/8611sheldrakeJHL.pdf

Ilikemusic wrote,

"Quote the line in any of my posts were I specifically deny the Sheldrake's early career credentials."

OK, since you ask -  "It seems that somewhere early in his career he realized he had little chance of making a significant scientific discovery and switched to psuedo science and parapsychology instead."

Ilikemusic wrote,

"Clearly you do not have the intelligence to differentiate between the process of creating theories and hypothesis and the methods used to verify them.  The latter benefits from creativity; the latter has rather strict rules that must be adhered to and can not be supplanted with creativity."

For some reason you appear to think Sheldrake is required to verify his own theories. I bet you also think tweak manufactures are required to provide proof their products work.

Ilikemusic wrote,

"The third question refers to Sheldrake'spractice of collecting data through the internet from experiments that he (nor any other qualified individual) has not overseen and that in fact may never have been performed.  It has nothing to do with protecting individuals."

"May never have been performed"?  Really?  What proof or evidence do you have?  Idle speculation.

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

Ilikemusic wrote,

""Sheldrake published "A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance" in 1981.  So in 31 years Sheldrake's theory has gone from publication to ... nowhere." 

"I wouldn't say nowhere.  He has written a number of books on the subject and continues to lecture extensively around the world.". (Geoff's statement)

More books and lectures written and given by the person who proposed the theory amounts to nowhere."

It's up to the scientific community to verify or disprove his theories, but so far they don't have the balls.

Geoff Kait

Machina Dynamica

Re the article sent to Tarrytown

From the arricle sent to Tarrytown:

"Precisely that means that there is no exception and really that all systems are included. But that is a strange assumption because there is a lot of "material morphic units" whose "forms" are obviously caused without any "morphic resonance" or "morphogenetic fields". For example we can think of all the systems that are constructed and build by men. No doubt, all kinds of machines can be considered as systems and as "material morphic units", but not even Sheldrake would seriously state like "all past refrigerators act upon a subsequent refrigerator by morphic resonance", even though it is in strict accordance with his hypothesis."

This illogical argument presented in the letter to Tarrytown demonstrates that the author doesn't understand what Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance is.  Sheldrake obviously had in mind living things, not inanimate things, as described in all of Sheldrake's books, New Theory of Life, The Presence of the Past, the sense of being stated at.  On the other hand, if inanimate things of the same type do create a morphogenic field, which they may, this does not mean all past inanimate things "act on subsequent things," in the sense that Sheldrake discusses it, which involves MEMORY, and we all know refrigerators don't have memory.  it only means the morphogenic field is created by the things, the more things the stronger the field.  I suspect there is a rather strong morphogenic field for refrigerators, as there is for telephone books, CDs, TVs, iPhones, things of that nature.

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

Maj. Major Major Major: Is something wrong?
Tappman: No, no. I . . . just thought I saw something.
Maj. Major Major Major: A naked man in a tree?
Tappman: Yes, that's it.
Danby: [looking through binoculars] That's just Fremer.

"It's up to the scientific community to verify or disprove his theories"

Nonsense.

 "It seems that somewhere early in his career he realized he had little chance of making a significant scientific discovery and switched to psuedo science and parapsychology instead."

I did not write "at the start of his career".

Additionally I describe him as intelligent in the same post.

"For some reason you appear to think Sheldrake is required to verify his own theories."

For some reason you seem to think it is the scientific community's responsibility to verify every theory any crackpot suggests.  This is obviously an unworkable tenet.

""The third question refers to Sheldrake'spractice of collecting data through the internet from experiments that he (nor any other qualified individual) has not overseen and that in fact may never have been performed.  It has nothing to do with protecting individuals."

"May never have been performed"?  Really?  What proof or evidence do you have?  Idle speculation."

Hardly.  In fact I just made a bogus submission to his on line staring experiment at

http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/portal/staring.html

I encourage all rational people to do the same.

lol

" Sheldrake obviously had in mind living things, not inanimate things, as described in all of Sheldrake's books ..."

http://www.intuition.org/txt/sheldrak.htm

So nature is essentially habit forming, and all aspects of nature, I think, are based on the principle of habit. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that what we call the laws of nature are more like the habits of nature. 

MISHLOVE: You seem to be suggesting, then, that what we call the laws of the universe, which we sometimes believe are inviolable and extend indefinitely and permanently, that these laws are in effect memories and habits that have evolved as if the universe itself were an organism.

SHELDRAKE: Exactly that, yes. 

http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/

I prefer to drop the metaphor of 'law' altogether, with its outmoded image of God as a kind of law-giving emperor, as well as an omnipotent and universal law-enforcement agency. Instead, I have suggested that the regularities of nature may be more like habits. According to the hypothesis of morphic resonance, a kind of cumulative memory is inherent in nature. 

 Ilikemusic wrote,

"Sheldrake and morphic resonance applied to universal laws

" Sheldrake obviously had in mind living things, not inanimate things, as described in all of Sheldrake's books ..." 

http://www.intuition.org/txt/sheldrak.htm

So nature is essentially habit forming, and all aspects of nature, I think, are based on the principle of habit. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that what we call the laws of nature are more like the habits of nature. 

MISHLOVE: You seem to be suggesting, then, that what we call the laws of the universe, which we sometimes believe are inviolable and extend indefinitely and permanently, that these laws are in effect memories and habits that have evolved as if the universe itself were an organism.

SHELDRAKE: Exactly that, yes. 

http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/

I prefer to drop the metaphor of 'law' altogether, with its outmoded image of God as a kind of law-giving emperor, as well as an omnipotent and universal law-enforcement agency. Instead, I have suggested that the regularities of nature may be more like habits. According to the hypothesis of morphic resonance, a kind of cumulative memory is inherent in nature."

Yes, and?  I'm a little confused why you posted this dialogue as it supports my argument and doesn't support your argument or the Argument of the guy who sent the article to Tarrytown that you consider some sort of smoking gun.  The dialogue you posted here is simply a thumbnail description of what morphic resonance is - habits and behaviors that are "controlled" by a cumulative memory inherent in nature, as opposed to being controlled (entirely) genetically.  In the context of what Sheldrake is saying in the dialogue, laws of nature and the universe as an organism are referring to living things, obviously.

geoff kait

machina dynamica

Ilikemusic wrote,

"""The third question refers to Sheldrake'spractice of collecting data through the internet from experiments that he (nor any other qualified individual) has not overseen and that in fact may never have been performed.  It has nothing to do with protecting individuals."

"May never have been performed"?  Really?  What proof or evidence do you have?  Idle speculation."

Hardly.  In fact I just made a bogus submission to his on line staring experiment at

http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/portal/staring.html

I encourage all rational people to do the same.

lol"

Well, at least your claim that the submissions are bogus is now true.  To what lengths will pseudo skeptic vigilantes go?  Stay tuned....

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

Ilikemusic wrote,

 ""For some reason you appear to think Sheldrake is required to verify his own theories."

For some reason you seem to think it is the scientific community's responsibility to verify every theory any crackpot suggests.  This is obviously an unworkable tenet."

Oh, you mean crackpot theories like the theory of relativity?  The one that took them 14 years to verify.  Or do you mean quantum physics or quantum teleportation?  Maybe you were thinking of Stephen Hawking's theories of black holes or Bohr's theory of the atom. String theory, dark matter, dark energy, let's throw them all out the window!

Geoff Kait

machina dramatica

"Yes, and?  I'm a little confused why you posted this dialogue as it supports my argument and doesn't support your argument or the Argument of the guy who sent the article to Tarrytown that you consider some sort of smoking gun."

Let me sort it out for you, as usual.

You wrote

"Sheldrake obviously had in mind living things, not inanimate things, as described in all of Sheldrake's books ..."

so Sheldrake applies morphic resonance to the universal laws but the universal laws are not living things and do not apply solely to living things.

"Ilikemusic wrote,

 ""For some reason you appear to think Sheldrake is required to verify his own theories."

For some reason you seem to think it is the scientific community's responsibility to verify every theory any crackpot suggests.  This is obviously an unworkable tenet."

Oh, you mean crackpot theories like the theory of relativity?  The one that took them 14 years to verify.  Or do you mean quantum physics or quantum teleportation?  Maybe you were thinking of Stephen Hawking's theories of black holes or Bohr's theory of the atom. String theory, dark matter, dark energy, let's throw them all out the window!

Geoff Kait

machina dramatica"

You have a childish habit of changing the subject when losing an argument, or perhaps when not being able to follow an argument.  It is much better to first admit you are wrong on the original subject or at least ask for clarification before changing the subject. 

And no I did not mean any of the theories you list, although those theories are no different in the matter of initial verification.  I specifically said "crackpot theories" to emphasize the point I was making.

Do you think that Bohr himself did not do the initial validation work on his atomic model? If so you are wrong.  Do you think that Einstein did not do initial validation work on his theory of relativity? If so you are wrong. It is the owner of the theory who is responsible for jump starting investigation into validating, extending and applying the theory.  It is his responsibility to convince others of the correctness and usefulness of his theory.  Once done, other researchers will assist in the effort. This is obvious.

Ilikemusic wrote,

#1

laws are not living things

"Yes, and?  I'm a little confused why you posted this dialogue as it supports my argument and doesn't support your argument or the Argument of the guy who sent the article to Tarrytown that you consider some sort of smoking gun."(Geoff) 

Let me sort it out for you, as usual.

You wrote

"Sheldrake obviously had in mind living things, not inanimate things, as described in all of Sheldrake's books ..."

so Sheldrake applies morphic resonance to the universal laws but the universal laws are not living things and do not apply solely to living things."

I'm only going to repeat this once, realizing you have undoubtedly not read much about Sheldrake's theories, but he concerns himself in everything he writes and says with living things, not inanimate things.  He's a biologist.  Hel -looo!  Take another gander at the titles of his books -  a new science of *life*, how *dogs* know when their owners are coming home, the sense of being stared at.  Not to mention his landmark book, The Presence of the Past, which concerns itself exclusively with, you guessed it, the behavior and habits of animals.  By contrast he has NOT written, a new science of refrigerators, causative formation in TVs, or the sense refrigerators have of being stared at. When he refers to "universal laws" he's referring to laws of nature, evolution, laws of animal behavior, things in that vein. 

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

poor Geoff wrote

"I'm only going to repeat this once, realizing you have undoubtedly not read much about Sheldrake's theories, but he concerns himself in everything he writes and says with living things, not inanimate things."

From the FAQ posted at Sheldrake's official web site -

http://www.sheldrake.org/Resources/faq/answers.html

"
What are morphic fields? How do they fit into your Hypothesis of Formative Causation?

The Hypothesis of Formative Causation states that the forms of self-organizing systems are shaped by morphic fields. Morphic fields organize atoms, molecules, crystals, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, societies, ecosystems, planetary systems, solar systems, galaxies.

...

For example, crystals of a given kind are influenced by all past crystals of that kind, ...

"

When I last checked neither atoms, molecules nor crystals were living organisms, but are the basis for refrigerators and TV's.

Geoff, what does crow taste like?

Ilikemusic, looks like Sheldrake finally came around to seeing it my way.  When I asked him about this question 10 years ago he said his theory only applied to living things.  As I said previously, I think that morphic resonance applies to inanimate things as well as living things.  Refrigerators produce a morphic field, as do CDs, telephone books, Hydrogen atoms, words and phrases, etc. - the more of a thing that exists the stronger the field.  Anyway, congratulations, I am eating crow. It doesn't taste good.

Geoff Kait

machina dynamica

Dr. Gaw at Enjoy the Music is the latest skeptical reviewer to report on PWB Cream Electret.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0712/aa_chapter_152.htm

Geoff Kait,

machina dynamica