Revolutionary Science

Abstract; Some of the interaction between plutocracy and science. As it turns out, well established science is very revolutionary, and plutocracy may have interest to swipe this under the carpet by promoting anti-science (as revolution is contagious!).


There is something called TED talks where authoritative speakers, often with commending, not to say commanding, British accents, distill a wisdom compatible with the reigning oligarchies, and a clipped delivery. Although the subjects vary, the tone seems to be always the same.

“TED” stands for “Tech, Entertainment, Design”. Anti-plutocrats should be aware that TED banned a talk where Nick Hanauer pointed out that “rich people don’t create jobs”. TED did not find Hanauer entertaining. Thus we know that, by design, TED applies the technology of eradication to some “ideas worth spreading”. [After getting lots of flak, after this essay was first published, TED reversed itself, and then published Hanauer’s talk. At least for a while.]

“Ideas worth spreading” according to TED, are those of plutophiles and plutocrats. So TED gave its ‘grand prize’ to the pseudo-Christian “Bono” of U2 (for becoming a Facebook billionaire?), or to Bill Clinton (for authorizing banks to invest in financial derivatives, instead of the base material world they used to belong to, before their elevation to the derivative universe?).

In a book called “Science Set Free” (USA), or: “Science Delusion” (UK) Dr. Sheldrake challenges notions about science that many take for granted:  Sheldrake itemizes what he calls the 10 “dogmas” of modern science, then tries to challenge them in his own special way.

Rupert Sheldrake was invited to give a TED talk. He is a Ph.D., a biologist, author of more than 80 scientific papers and 10 books.  A former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he got a Ph.D.  in biochemistry at Cambridge U.  He was a Fellow in Cambridge, and Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology.

Here is the default world view of science educated people hold, according to Sheldrake. Every of these scientific dogmas is questionable, he says. As I will show, and it’s spectacular, little does he know…

1.  Nature is Mechanical.
2.  Matter is unconscious.
3.  The Laws of Nature are fixed.
4.  The total amount of matter and energy is constant.
5.  Nature is purposeless.
6.  Biological inheritance is entirely material.
7.  Memories are stored inside your brain in material processes.
8.  Your mind is inside your head.
9.  Psychic phenomena are impossible.
10.  Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works.

(Sheldrake believes in his own weird and unnecessary theory. He does not understand the way units relate in physics, so he went on a flight of fancy from there. He wants young giraffes’ (!) minds to be educated by a mysterious force out there, not realizing that the environment itself is doing so, in subtle and mighty ways.)

What fascinated me, when I came across Sheldrake’s amusing list above, is that the most established recent science itself has thrown many of these dogmas down. So Mr. S. is blissfully unawares of the true state of science. Indeed:  

 1) Nature is Mechanical: we are machines, “lumbering robots” (Dawkins)

What’s outrageous about Dawkins, and many other leading thinkers, is that they do not seem to have a full vision of science. Question: What’s mechanics? It is certainly not about mechanical robots, in the classical mechanics sense. One has to realize that mechanics is Quantum mechanics. And nobody under-stands that. quantum systems have one thing in common with conscious system, namely that they are not completely predictable.

 2) Matter is Unconscious: lots of philosophy of mind in the last century is about proving that we are unconscious.

Right, well…Question: define conscious. Are sleep walkers conscious? Is an electron conscious when it decides to do whatever it’s doing with the 2-slits it seems aware of? Consciousness cannot be experimentally defined.

 3) Laws of Nature are fixed:

Remark: this is under constant check by physicists. When on the moon, the acceleration of gravity, a “law”, has changed. The reason for the suspicion is the fact the universe itself is evolving. Also Conventional Big Bang theory creates universes from nothing; that’s probably why it’s false.

Einstein himself admitted that his theory of gravitation threw down the constancy of the speed of light (be it only because gravitation can make light go around in circle, or come to a stand still).

 4)  The total amount of matter and energy is constant.

First we should know how to detect all the matter and energy, before we assert such a thing. The whole riddle of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is that we can’t do either. So, by astronomy’s own reckoning, right now, we miss 96%, we fail to detect or explain, 96% of the matter and energy out there (WMAP). The WMAP seven-year analysis gave an estimate of 72.8% dark energy, 22.7% dark matter and 4.6% ordinary matter.

This science is so official that the discovery of Dark Energy has already been rewarded by several Nobel Prizes.

 5)  Nature is purposeless.

Question: Are we part of nature? Some of us have purpose.

 6)  Biological inheritance is entirely material.

Question: What is material? Is information material? Is a photon material? If it is, and it is, then information is material. Much of biology is a mix of the inherited, and the informed. Both come from material processes.

 7)  Memories are stored inside your brain in material processes.

What else?

 8)  Your mind is inside your head.

We don’t know what “inside the head” means, because we don’t know how many dimensions the universe really has. Some contemporary physicists have tried to depict gravity as a leak, in three dimensions, of a stronger phenomenon, in higher dimensions. It goes without saying that the same could apply to minds.

 9)  Psychic phenomena are impossible.

I don’t know what a “psychic” phenomenon could be. Control of object by pure thinking has already been achieved in the lab by animals, including Homo.

 10)  Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works.

Well the placebo effect really exists, and that’s pretty spiritual (as it’s all in the mind!). Speaking of revolutionary science…



It’s not clear the placebo effect will save plutocracy, though. The illusion that bankers and oil men created for us the best of possible worlds is fraying fast. (In spite of desperate counterattacks such as those orchestrated by Sheryl Sandberg, a creature of Larry Summers, soon to be adressed appropriately on this site.)

Real, mechanical, old fashion remedies against the plutocratic plague are on the way. The European Union ordered Cyprus to levy a 10% tax on plutocrats’ bank holdings. Otherwise, the EU will let Cyprus go bankrupt. It goes without saying that Cyprus’ days as a tax haven are over, should Cyprus’ Parliamentpass the law it has been ordered to pass. Meanwhile, ATMs are blocked.

In other anti-plutocratic news, France and Britain threatened to send sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles to the rebels fighting the major plutocrat Assad. They gave what boils down to an instructive ultimatum to the rest of Europe.

By instructive, I mean that many countries that were clueless when confronting Hitler, are now incited, by France and Britain, in a pedagogical manner, to learn to assume some anti-fascist standing. For some of these countries, it’s like learning to walk. It’s an occasion for them to learn. Obviously, France and Britain will act, and Obama’s admirable USA, quite differently from Roosevelt’s despicable, cowardly and greedy USA, will follow.

Even Conservative PM Cameron had his fill with (Assad’s) outrageous plutocracy, so he offers to roll out the missiles. Nice.


Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , ,

30 Responses to “Revolutionary Science”

  1. Martin Lack Says:

    Nice one, Patrice. I thought about the title of my post on this quite carefully. I am inclined to think, as did the Roman Governor Festus of St Paul (see Acts of the Apostles, chapter 26, verse 24), that too much learning is not helping Sheldrake deal with reality. However, since I cannot prove he is wrong, I am forced to be dogmatic and say that I find his assertions about morphic resonance (and most of the rest) to be highly improbable (to say the least).

    In other news, Channel 4 in the UK broadcast a fascinating documentary entitled Churchill and the Fascist Plot (in May 1940), which I have found on YouTube:


    • Martin Lack Says:

      Sorry about the unsolicited reference to Nazis (ironic since I have often complained about you doing it). However, may be you will take the video and make it the basis of another post? If so, have a read of this, too:


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Glad you liked it, Martin. Glad also that you seem to approach increasingly the point of view that the climate atrocity (transforming the planet in a gas chamber), National-Socialism, and plutocracy are all related.

      I used Sheldrake as a prop, as you did. It’s clear he put its crazy stuff forward, because he does not know modern physics, or even understand enough to realize he does not know. Well, as he would say, it works for what he considers important to achieve in life.

      I tried to explain that what many people view as some of the dogmas of existing science have already been proven wrong by science.


      • Martin Lack Says:

        The C4 documentary highlights the connection between anti-Semitism (arising from the fake ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ document) and anti-Bolshevism that was clearly popular amonst the British aristocracy. I guess that what you are therefore alluding to is the fact that ruling elites continue to deny the nature of reality (by refusing to acknowledge that climate change is a limits to growth phenomena). Apart from that, I think it a bit tenuous to blame anti-Semitism for the rise of all environmental problems (which is what you appear to be trying to do).


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          dear Martin: Let me reassure you: I do NOT “blame anti-Semitism for the rise of all environmental problems“. Not at all. Now that we have semites (Jews) fighting semites (Arabs), I do not know what “antisemitism” means. Even Hitler was very pro-Arab (his idyl with the grand mufti of Jerusalem is well known). Anti-Judaism was just a Christian thing. When Christians appeared, they were few, whereas there were millions of Jews. Christians naturally used anti-Judaism to gain favor from the Roman masses. Then it snowballed.

          No, it’s much more direct than that:
          1) Esso was one of the main support of Hitler and Mussolini. In general USA oil men never saw a fascist dictator they did not love. I have been over this in countless articles. Technically WWII got started because Hitler wanted his hands on Polish oil (that beat depending upon USA oil men).

          2) USA plutocrats instrumentalized European fascism, Nazism being just one example. Even Stalin’s USSR got a lift (as Lenin himself famously pointed out).

          3) JP Morgan, the Wall Street banker, was already creating German pawns for himself (Schacht). See:

          Wikipedia of course speaks as little as possible of the relationship between the creators of the Nazi Party and the very top USA authorities. Wall Street was 100% behind the German/Nazi fascist military machine. For example, it created IG Farben (famous gas maker, among other things), a super monopoly to turn around USA law.

          Plutocrats brought us WWII. Now they are busy bringing something bigger, and much improved (from their point of view).


          • Martin Lack Says:

            Thanks for that explanation, Patrice. I do not dispute any of the facts you itemise above. However, I do have a question regarding your assertion that “Anti-Judaism was just a Christian thing.”, which may well have been true in the past. However, today, the only people who still believe in a global Jewish conspiracy (as supposedly revealed by ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’) are extremist Palestinian groups such as Hamas and The Muslim Brotherhood.

            P.S. We have got way off topic again! 🙂


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Well, Martin, from my point of view, Islam is just desertified Judeo-Christianism. Yet, many of the worst practices of Islam were picked up directly from extensive Christian insanity starting in 363 CE, and boosted by 381 CE. I view Wahabbist style Islam as very dangerous, while I am actually FOR Senegalese style Islam. As long as Wahhabism style Islam reigns on politics and law, fascism will reign in the affected parts.

            Palestinians will say whatever; they have good reasons to be very angry. But it would be smarter to view Israel as an asset.

            Anyway, better stick to the topic here. Funny scientific people do not even know what today’s scientific dogmas are, while denouncing them.


  2. Martin Lack Says:

    Since you have taken the trouble to do a little more than I did in listing these 10 dogmas, I will reciprocate with a few of my thoughts on them too:

    1. Nature is Mechanical – maybe so but we are also irrational.
    2. Matter is unconscious – not seriously in doubt in my mind! 😉
    3. The Laws of Nature are fixed – I guess we should not be surprised if they are not.
    4. The total amount of matter and energy is constant – physics is still very much in the dark about this! 😉
    5. Nature is purposeless – I admit that I struggle with this one a lot. 😦
    6. Biological inheritance is entirely material – See 2. 🙂
    7. Memories are stored inside your brain in material processes – it seems pure nonsense to question whether what we see with our eyes is actually there or inside our heads.
    8. Your mind is inside your head – where else could it be unless I’ve lost it? 😉
    9. Psychic phenomena are impossible – I am inclined to think they are but, then again, scientists now say time travel and teleportation are possible (at a quantum level).
    10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works – what bothers me most about alternative medicine is the collateral damage faith in it causes (elephant ivory, rhino horn, sharkfin, tiger ?, etc).


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well Martin you were the one advising/ordering to make short “posts”. You should be in heavens! ;-)! I changed it by putting in a longer anti-plutocratic section at the end. Anti-plutocratism is revolutionary science.

      What is reason? Do Quantum systems act “irrationally”? Bears are unpredictable, “irrational”, precisely because they are so conscious.

      How do you think we go from unconscious matter to conscious mind? By piling up more atoms? I will tweak the “post” a bit about QM, so this can be said more clearly. There are some IDENTIFICATIONS between Quantum and Consciousness. I do NOT believe those are accidental.

      What Quantum does, or does not do, is quite delicate. It’s states that get teleported. I do NOT believe in time travel, not even at the Quantum level. “Alternative” medecine of course does not exist.


  3. Paul Handover Says:

    Sort of reminds me of that English saying, “the more I know, the less I know..”

    Even with huge advances in so many scientific fields, the list of unknowns continues to remain a long one.

    On a tangential level, back in 2009 Professor Marcus du Sautoy, he of Oxford University (Professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford) set out to explain the human brain in mathematical terms. Thankfully, the BBC website still has reference to an article, ‘Just what does make me ‘me’?’ see here

    I recall watching the BBC Horizon programme devoted to Sautoy’s work.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Paul: The more one knows the more unknowns one has, the more one knows. In math and physics, there are so called “no go theorems”. Although they say what can’t be, they are viewed as knowledge. A lot of positive knowledge actually started as negative knowledge. Group theory from the impossibility of solving soem equations (Galois). Transcendental numbers, similarly.

      The key of modern science is the Quantum. Unfortunately, much, if not all, about teaching the Quantum has not been done. Greatly because even leading expository scientists, or practicizing physicists have too little understanding of it. I have still to write an essay about it, deep impact style.


  4. Paul Handover Says:

    Should have added that many of the TED presentations are deeply educational and inspiring. But I don’t condone the sort of filtering that you and Martin mention, not at all.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Paul: We agree that many of the TED presentations are “deeply educational and inspiring”. And we also do not “condone the sort of filtering that you and Martin mention, not at all”.

      Yet, this filtering, plutocratic propaganda, is the main effective message. I know, as I live (quite a bit) in the Silicon Valley, and I actually talk with engineers and VCs there. Their lack of awareness causes me anxiety. And their determined will to keep their heads deep in the sand.


  5. Revolutionary Science | Says:

    […] Recommended Article FROM […]


  6. Hazxan Says:

    Agree with you on those awful TED talks: “Hey, lets have more capitalism and technology to solve the problems caused by capitalism and technology”. Or maybe we could for once try something different…

    The best is the one you mention by Nick Hanauer. Shameful that it has been banned, although it is still freely viewable on Youtube.

    Some random musings:
    Item 2. What is consciousness? Did anybody come up with the definite answer? In MRI brain scans, does anything show up in the human brain that doesn’t show up in animal brains? Is consciousness a spectrum? Are all humans equally conscious?

    Item 8. Equally, your head is inside your mind. Without a mind to conceive of it, you have no head.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      dear Hazxan: Agreed on all. You have an excellent definition of the TED talks. That and the “60 Minutes” plutocratic propaganda once a week, make me feel whole.

      We don’t have one clue about consciousness. I know I have it occasionally, but certainly it’s somewhat different when I sleep. I think there is a sort of consciousness identifier instinct. When I interact with my daughter, I often feel a sort of consciousness through her, instead of through me.

      Anyway, one point I always make is that consnciousness in others shows up as unpredictability. Interestingly, the Quantum has the same character. I am ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT BOTH WIL BE FOUND TO BE ENTANGLED.

      What else?
      Consciousness has to come from somewhere… And that where is the only plausible where there is…


  7. Lovell Says:

    Nature is purposeless.

    Question: Are we part of nature? Some of us have purpose.

    Hi Patrice,
    Just skimming through some of your older posts here and I found this one quite interesting. I’d wish you could expound a little bit more on what you meant by “some of us have purpose”.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Lovell: I am generally trying to write my essays to last. That can backfire. A top (young) mathematician-physicist I know told me he would study my ideas in physics in… 50 years.

      A kind, very experienced (he saved part of Yosemite from commercial development) Californian lawyer used to tell me I was the new Montaigne (!). That reading my older site (Tyranosopher, now discontinued as somebody else managed it). Well, Montaigne was a rich noble, so I am certainly no Montaigne. However I own the full edition of his works.

      Michel modified his essays after initial publication, BTW, and DICTATED them. As I said, he was rich. He had a tower built to isolate his work from the rest of the castle… Montaigne certainly had purpose. He refused to become mayor of Bordeaux, as he said he prefered to see the world, and think. So he travelled throughout Europe, and was elected in absentia. (A sort of fate he shared with Fermat, an Aquitaine lawyer and politician who invented calculus a generation before Newton, and two after Montaigne.)

      I think purpose characterizes intelligence. Purpose is the difference between reality and what intelligence makes of it.

      Unfortunately, as I have long pointed out, our dear Leader’s sense of purpose may not be proprotional to the tasks at hand, as an article in today’s (July 16 2013) NYT points out… And as I have long complained.

      Um, that essay on Revolutionary Science ought to be relevant to the latest one on philosophy…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I scanned though the essay, and I added a few things here and there, to make its logical coherence more visible…


    • Lovell Says:

      Dear Patrice,
      Yes it is indeed relevant to your latest essay on philosophy. I think it can be generally stated that we are all struggling to find meaning and purpose in an otherwise meaningless and purposeless universe.

      Dawkins and others have suggested that, instead of feeling dreadful at this reality, we become agents of meaning and purpose ourselves. That should, I surmise, tie in quite nicely with your “Purpose is the difference between reality and what intelligence makes of it.”

      Or at least that’s how I understand what you meant.

      Anyways, Helene Courtois of University of Lyons have made this graphic animation of our local universe which I found fascinating.

      What intrigues me is the concept of dark flow and the “great attractor”. I wonder how accurate their modeling of data used for this video is because there were, I understand, challenges on this theoretical frameworks.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Dear Lovell: As I said, I tweaked the essay a bit, because some of its transitions were inexistent. I will add a hyperlink from the PHILOSOPHY one. I will look at Helene Courtois later. It’s actually a French astronomer in Nice who implemented the idea of linking several telescope together to make a bigger one (he was starved in $…)

        The fact that the universe is not homogenous on a grand scale is a problem for the Big bang joke. (I have my own alternative, straight from my alternative Quantum Physics.) In any case, it’s fascinating, and philosophically inspiring.


      • Lovell Says:

        Dear Patrice,
        What are the flaws of the BB theory?


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Long story. Pieces of argument can probably be found by using the search engine on my site. I should write a compact (hahaha) essay on it, but I am writing one called “what’s money”…
          What’s Wrong with Big Bank? Never so much has depended on so little. Sorry, typo:
          What’s Wrong with Big Bang? Never so much has depended on so little.
          Physicists are either deeply deluded, or dishonest, about it.
          They make hypotheses about an ad hoc inflaton field, nobody has ever seen, and about the quantum in general, which has been seen, but nobody can be sure it really work that way.

          Anyway I used the search engine, and plenty came out. Starting with:


      • Logan Says:

        And if purpose is a manifestation of intelligence, and intelligence is a manifestation of consciousness, and consciousness (although this is not proven) is manifestation of some quantum interactions… Then purpose has a direct link to the material universe. Just like Patrice’s first common sense remark – some of us literally have purpose.


  8. Lovell Says:

    Re: Consciousness

    My crude understanding of consciousness is that it is a function of complexity, i.e., the more complex an organism is, the more conscious it becomes. Complexity here refers to an organism’s nervous system which is, mainly, the brain.

    Hence, to broadly illustrate on the entire spectrum of life, a single-celled organism is less conscious than a fully grown modern human.

    Is this wrong?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      That’s the view of consciousness as an emergent property. No doubt. The crux of consciousness will be the Quantum, in my opinion. Massive Quantum computers will be conscious.


    • Lovell Says:

      Technological singularity possible?


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Well, the technological singularity is going on, in a slow-motion dragged down by the plutocratic singularity that accompanies it, opportunistically… In Rome, plutocracy brought scientific, intellectual and even technological progress in full reverse…


  9. Logan Says:

    Patrice, really enjoy your stuff. It’s really, really awesome to read your thoughts and opinions because they differ not just from the main stream, but from many streams. It’s extremely valuable.

    Now, this part of your essay really draws something for me:

    “He does not understand the way units relate in physics, so he went on a flight of fancy from there. He wants young giraffes’ (!) minds to be educated by a mysterious force out there, not realizing that the environment itself is doing so, in subtle and mighty ways.”

    A lot of “alternative” people talk about the ‘intuition’ as a guide to decision making. Our ‘intuition’ normally referring to our ‘gut feelings’ so to speak, or that part of us that lives in our gut we contact when our intellect is silent – this sort of present core ‘thing’ if you know what I mean. And, metaphysically, they argue that this intuition, or our gut feelings, or our heart’s desires, are a connection to something greater – a greater intelligence existing in nature. They say, our rational mind is so small and limited that it cannot possibly comprehend the present state of the world. Yet, we have another guide for this – the intuition. In short, they argue, the intuition is connected to a greater knowledge that can guide us in the midst of our conscious mind’s unknowing.

    Well, others propose that the best way to make big decisions is to employ the rational mind and use reason. People like Daniel Kahneman write that the intuition is the human’s way of saving energy in decision making. Our rational thinking takes a lot of energy, so we create heuristics to side step it, and they speak to us through our gut feelings. So, in his eyes, our intuition is an evolved energy saving shortcut that lets our unconscious repositories of experience speak to us in a literally guttural way.

    So, what is the intuition? A connection to something greater (even if it is just our own unconscious mind) that we ought to trust as a guide, always? Or, is it our heuristical thinking we ought to trust as a guide in simple and everyday situations, reserving the arduous and energy-consuming process of rationality for major decisions and planning.

    How does this relate to what you wrote? Well, it makes me favor the Kanhemann approach to a certain extent, because, when I read it, I feel that we should use our sensory experience to gather information about the world around us in a very practical and grounded way, only drawing conclusions when we really have sufficient data. Yet, somehow being willing to chose those conclusions in the midst of new information. Yes, there is something grand out there, but it’s not far away. We can see it with our eyes. So, we ought to study it and never cease, letting it continually inform us, instead of believing that our ‘hunches’ provide this connection. But, consider the Romans who I’ve read used the birds to divine truths, or Carl Jung’s idea of synchronicity. Or, the evidence that no animals are harmed during certain tsunamis, or when your dog barks like crazy on the night when your great grandma dies (and I don’t think they’re ‘thinking’ about these things.) Coincidences? Not? That latter list of things makes me think that the intuition is a source of greater intelligence, something that is not limited to our conscious mind’s construction of space-time, and so is maybe to be trusted even when what it hints at seems rather insane to our rational mind.

    I was hoping you would comment on these threads just to hear your opinion – the intuition, the rational mind, observing the world around us practically, observing as as intelligent and capable of communicated messages through things like street signs and tarot cards. A balance to found, or not.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Logan, and welcome! Thanks for your complements! Your comments will appear immediately from now on.

      Different minds have different capabilities. A smaller brain will think faster, for the same reason as a smaller CPU is faster. I have long believed that, considering for example that bee wings flap 200 times per second (if I remember well). Actually recently some insects thought processes were measured to be exactly seven times faster than the human ones.

      As far as quakes, etc., the best tech detection available gives up to 30 seconds warning (and would not be that expensive to implement in vast networks). Earthquakes are noisy, but many of the frequencies, we cannot hear, although other animals can (elephants pick now frequency vibration from great distances). Some have also suggested electric field effects. (The magnetic vision of some birds, although clearly existing, is not well understood yet.)

      So we still have lots to learn from the rest of life’s capabilities…


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: