[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[John Carl]

Some snippets to whet your desires"


And therein lies the great expanse of our oversight, that science has not
confronted the one thing that is at once most familiar and most mysterious —
consciousness.  As Emerson wrote in “Experience,” an essay that confronted
the facile positivism of his age: “We have learned that we do not see
directly, but mediately, and that we have no means of correcting these
colored and distorting lenses which we are, or of computing the amount of
their errors. Perhaps these subject-lenses have a creative power; *perhaps
there are no objects*.”

Consciousness is not just an issue for biologists; it’s a problem for
physics. There is nothing in modern physics that explains how a group of
molecules in a brain creates consciousness. The beauty of a sunset, the
taste of a delicious meal, these are all mysteries to science — which can
sometimes pin down where in the brain the sensations arise, but not how and
why there is any subjective personal experience to begin with. And, what’s
worse, nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter.
Our understanding of this most basic phenomenon is virtually nil.
Interestingly, most models of physics do not even recognize this as a
problem.


On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:21 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Ham, I just got home,
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi John --
>>
>> I recall your mentioning Robert Lanza, whom I cited on this forum in 2007
>> after republishing his essay "A New Theory of the Universe" on my Values
>> page.  Dr. Lanza is an executive at Advanced Cell Technology and teaches at
>> Wake Forest School of Medicine.  He has supposedly written some 20 books. Do
>> you know if any of them lay out the theory of Biocentrism?
>>
>
> An excellent place to start would be the abridgement of his book,
> Biocentrism, How Life Creates the Universe, at this link which I had posted
> a while back....
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31393080/ns/technology_and_science-science/
>
> I'm glad you have a prior interest in Lanza, as I find this new development
> in philosophy very relevant to the MoQ and the Perennial...
>
>
>
>
>>
>> This is the aspect of 'biocentrism' I don't understand.  If consciousness
>> is not the function of the brain and nervous system, how can the precept of
>> space and time be considered biological?
>>
>
> Well one way to look at it, in a general upper room sort of view, is that
> since "brain" and "nervous system" are themselves ordered parts of the
> cosmos they observe, then the discrepancy isn't as big as we "thought".
>
> But I think biocentrism points to a deeper meaning than life creating the
> cosmos or the cosmos creating life.  I think it demonstrates  empirically
> grounded values revealed in resonant energies responsible for both.  Perhaps
> leading to an "intelligent design" permutation of some stripe.  But what
> appeals to me the most is that ultimately Nature makes the most sense as our
> ultimate source of value.
>
>
>
>>
>> I agree with the epistemology; I just don't see how it centers on biology.
>> If you can explain the conscious precepts-to-biology connection, I might
>> join in your exploration of Biocentrism.
>>
>> Thanks, John,
>>
>> --Ham
>>
>>
>>
> Well follow the link and let the author explain it best in his own terms.
>  Only Hegel was a true Hegelian.    I just know this, there has been more
> hard factual research linking mind and matter in the last decade, than
> philosophy has had time to catch up with.
>
> imvho
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>  Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
>
>