Skip to main content

Tread carefully in the mindfield

I was excited to get my hands on Anthony Peake's new book The Infinite Mindfield, as I had found his previous title taking a scientific approach to life after death intriguing - and there are parts of the new book I found equally excellent. I was fascinated to learn more about the pineal gland, about which I had very little idea, apart from knowing of the now dismissed idea that identified it as a kind of withered third eye. It is particularly fascinating that the gland can contain piezoelectric crystals that in principle mean it could act as a kind of natural radio receiver. There were also other parts of the book about the nature of light, zero point energy, hallucinogenic drugs and more that were very approachable. Peake has a great way of making you really think about a subject, rather than just take in a set of facts. However there were other sections that I have problems with.

The overall approach that I felt unsure with was the lack of selectivity. Everything from the outcome of detailed scientific study to the made up meanderings of the likes of Madam Blavatsky and Rudolf Steiner are presented on exactly the same level as if they are all true. Totally unsubstantiated concepts like chakras, based on the concept of an 'energy' that has never been detected and that has no physical basis are stated as if they are simple fact. I think the first section of the book, which looks at various religions (through to less well established concepts like theosophy and anthroposophy) is genuinely interesting, but I would have been much more comfortable if the various beliefs were stated in terms of 'this is what these people believe based on no verifiable evidence' rather that stating the beliefs, however unlikely, as if they were on a par with scientific discovery. (I've checked with the author, and this wasn't the intent, but it is how it came across to me.)

The other side of the book I have issues with is the way some fringe science is presented as if it is on a par with proper, peer reviewed discoveries. So, for instance, we hear of Luc Montagnier's assertion that DNA in one test-tube can influence pure water in another test-tube and turn it into more DNA. We are told 'Montagnier thinks that this suggests that DNA emits its own electromagnetic signals that imprint DNA's structure on other molecules.' Peake points out that it is telling that even a 'Nobel Prizewinning scientist is not immune to being labelled a "pseudoscientist" if he decides to apply his knowledge and experience in areas that are labelled "fringe" by the modern equivalent of the Inquisition, the "thought police" who hide under the term "sceptics."'

I have a number of problems with this. Just because someone is a renowned scientist does not mean he can't be totally ignorant outside his field - there have been plenty of examples of this in the past. And Montagnier, a medical doctor, is hardly qualified to deal with physics. Just think what he claims is happening. In order to transform water into DNA you would have to turn the elements hydrogen and oxygen into nitrogen, carbon and phosphorous. So this is not just a matter of 'imposing structure' - you would have to produce nuclear fission and fusion using only a 'weak electromagnetic field'. To say this doesn't make sense is an understatement. It is not unreasonable, or Inquisition-like to be sceptical in the face of such a claim.

Finally, I am a little concerned when Peake spends quite a while telling us how 'mainstream scientists have dismissed the vast majority of [DNA] code as being useless.' This might have been true 30 years ago, but since the development of epigenetics I can't imagine there are any biologists who think that what used to be labelled 'junk DNA' is useless. It is entirely recognised by mainstream science that much of this DNA has plenty of functionality.

So my problem with this book is mostly a failure to distinguish, sometimes between analogy and reality - so assuming the use of terms like 'energy' and 'light' when applied in an illustrative manner makes them the same as real energy and light - and sometimes not distinguishing between made up ideas and scientific theories, or between anecdote and data. There is plenty of good stuff in there, and if you can read the book in an appropriately selective manner it is both enjoyable and informative - but I suspect many readers will struggle to make that distinction. I am reminded in some ways of Chariot of the Gods - there is a similar logical, informative and entertaining approach, but also a similar lack of distinction between science and beliefs. A curate's egg? Definitely. But one I enjoyed nevertheless.

See more at and


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope