[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Ham Priday]

Hi John --



> 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...
>
> 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".

If there is a "discrepancy" in our reality paradigm, it isn't a matter of 
whether our thinking is based on biology or physics, since it's obvious (as 
Lanza et al demonstrate) that empirical evidence does not provide the 
answers.  Yet it appears that the Biocentrists are unwilling to let go of 
the Science that has failed them and to acknowledge Metaphysics as a more 
likely source for Truth.

Thanks for the link to the abridged Lanza/Berman thesis.  I've reviewed the 
material and was disappointed to find it a chronology of scientific thinking 
rather than an original ontology.  Biocentrism at this juncture is obviously 
an idea in search of a proper metaphysical foundation.  Inasmuch as Biology 
is the Science of Life, one can see why the biophysicist would assume that 
the 'magic elixer' lies in a marriage of biology and physics.  But the 
authors raise more questions than they answer.  While it is one thing to say 
that the universe was designed to support life, it's quite another to 
conclude that life created the universe.  This essay seems to be asserting 
both.  It reminds me of Donald Hoffman's theory that Consciousness is the 
ultimate reality.

I've made my own abridgement of what I consider the most pertinent 
statements ...

"A more accurate understanding of the world requires that we consider it 
biologically centered.  It's a simple but amazing concept that Biocentrism 
attempts to clarify: Life creates the universe, instead of the other way 
around.  Understanding this more fully yields answers to several long-held 
puzzles.  This new model  -  combining physics and biology instead of 
keeping them separate, and putting observers firmly into the equation  -  is 
called biocentrism.

"Undeniably it is the biological creature that makes the observations and 
creates the theories.
The world appears to be designed for life, not just at the microscope scale 
of the atom, but at the level of the universe itself.  Scientists have 
discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that make it appear 
as if everything it contains  -  from atoms to stars  -  was tailor-made 
just for us. ... Tweak any of them and you never existed.  Many are calling 
this revelation the "Goldilocks Principle," because the cosmos is not "too 
this" or "too that," but rather "just right" for life.

"In biocentrism, space and time are forms of animal understanding  - 
period.  They are tools of the mind, and thus do not exist as external 
objects independent of life.  Though still in its infancy, few doubt that 
this century, in which computer power and capabilities keep expanding 
geometrically, will eventually bring researchers to confront the problem in 
a serious way.  A 'thinking device' will need the same kind of algorithms 
for employing time and developing a sense of space that we enjoy.  ... 
Accepting space and time as forms of animal sense perception (as biologic), 
rather than as external physical objects, offers a new way of understanding 
everything from the microworld (for instance, the reason for Heisenberg's 
uncertainty principle and the two-hole experiment) to the forces, constants, 
and laws that shape the universe."

> 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.

No intelligent person can deny that the universe is "intelligently" 
designed.  The question that needs to be answered is: Does this design 
manifest the intelligence of the observer, the universe itself, or a 
transcendent Creator?

"Nature" is only man's name for Existence and its physical, biological, and 
psychical properties.  But is the "nature" of man the "nature" of the 
universe?  Lanza, the biologist, is persuaded that it is.  Carl, the logical 
analyst, believes that Nature makes the most sense as our ultimate source of 
value.  Pirsig, the philosopher, believes that Value is the primary 
empirical reality.  Priday, the essentialist, believes that Nature 
represents our valuistic sense of an ultimate source.

Which of us has it right?

Thanks again, John
Ham


>> 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