[MD] BioCentrism: Was Zeno correct?

[MarshaV]

Adrie,

RMP has stated that static patterns of value are anything that can 
be conceptualized, in other words they have a relationship with 
consciousness.  Time and space are static patterns of value, or 
in the words of Robert Lanza "Without consciousness, space and 
time are nothing."   I see that as a point of agreement between the 
MoQ and Biocentrism.   


Marsha   



On Nov 7, 2010, at 1:14 PM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> 
> Adrie,
> 
> Now I am suppose to accept a quote submerged within a Discover 
> article to represent Hawking's full theory, and refutation of what?  
> 
> What explanation and evidence do you use to identify a theory such 
> as Robert Lanza's as occult?   What authority do you offer to make a 
> judgement that I have committed anti-Moq behavior by posting this 
> article?  "Backpeddling to the caves?"   That is nothing more than 
> your weak, feckless opinion.     
> 
> The point of my stating "tools of the mind" was that there was no 
> assigning anything as Absolute Truth which was your accusation.   
> A TOE was not your issue, but assigning Absolute Truth was your 
> issue.   
> 
> An untestable 'hypothetical model' to me is speculation.  Science is 
> suppose to produce theories that can be tested.   And linking Hawking 
> with RMP on an issue which was besides your original point (Absolute 
> Truth) is another attempt at sleazy argumentation.  
> 
> 
> Marsha   
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 7, 2010, at 11:45 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
> 
>> In the Oct. 2010 issue of Discover, theoretical physicists Stephen Hawking
>> and Leonard Mlodinow state, "There is no way to remove the observer -- us --
>> from our perceptions of the world ... In classical physics, the past is
>> assumed to exist as a definite series of events, but according to quantum
>> physics, the past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a
>> spectrum of possibilities."
>> 
>> 
>> This quote of Hawking was submerged within the article, and it is about the
>> only part that makes sense.
>> Biocentrism is an occult form of science,stating the theory of everything is
>> possible, and positioning biocentrism as such theory of everything.
>> 
>> According to Stephen Hawking an Robert Pirsig(moq), there is no theory of
>> everything,it is simply not possible.
>> 
>> 
>> Strange that biocentrism in the form of the article presented here is
>> rejecting
>> Hawking's models, and is quoting Hawking at the same time.???
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Quoting you , Marsha, in the article time and space are tools of the mind
>> as in your abstraction of it, i hate to say it, but yes i was reading the
>> article
>> and your interpretation here is limping truly,
>> this is the correct sentence in the article.
>> 
>> "
>> In biocentrism, space and time are forms of animal intuition. They're tools
>> of the mind and thus don't exist as external objects independent of
>> life""(end.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Speculation, hm , nope, hypothetical models are hypothetical models
>> 
>> Zeno and Lanza are on the speculative run.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2010/11/7 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>> 
>>> 
>>> Adrie,
>>> 
>>> In the BioCentrism article, time and space are claimed to be tools
>>> of the mind.  That is hardly labeling them Absolute Truth, but maybe
>>> you didn't read the article.  And please save the use of an 'argument
>>> by authority' for someone else, for I am skeptical of scientific dogma,
>>> its scientific materialism base and the public-relation propaganda of
>>> its superstars.  Most of Hawking's theories are not yet testable, which
>>> put them in the category of speculation.
>>> 
>>> You want a good laugh.  Watch 'Into the Universe with Stephen
>>> Hawking:  Episode 1 - Aliens'.  What a pathetic, animated joke!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 7, 2010, at 9:19 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The Moq and Time, Mc Watt commenting on Pirsig's point of view
>>>> towards Parmenides and Zeno,
>>>> 
>>>> (extract)
>>>> On the other hand, from the Dynamic sense of the MOQ, Parmenides is,
>>>> strictly speaking, correct as the concept of ‘change’ is an abstraction
>>> from
>>>> Dynamic Quality and, therefore, (as with anything abstracted) doesn’t
>>> exist
>>>> in an absolute sense.   Possibly, the koan-like theories of Parmenides
>>> and
>>>> "Zeno" indicate (and they may have shared similar thinking to Zen masters
>>>> for such verbal conundrums) ""the error of assigning absolute truth to a
>>>> static concept when reality is fundamentally dynamic. ""
>>>> (end)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Can you pay attention to the endconclusion?, the endsentence.
>>>> 
>>>> on the same page, quote Mc Watt,
>>>> 
>>>> *"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only
>>> a
>>>> hypothesis: you can never prove it.  No matter how many times the results
>>> of
>>>> an experiment agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next
>>>> time the result will not contradict the theory. *
>>>> And tends to support Pirsig’s caution about assigning anything objective
>>> as
>>>> an absolute reality independent from any observer."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> again pay attention to the endformulation, ..(Zeno conflicts with
>>> everything
>>>> by assuming reality to be independent from the observer,as an "absolute")
>>>> 
>>>> This is also to conflict Einstein,Hawking and about 95 % of science and
>>>> scientifical evidence.
>>>> 
>>>> (i have the material to roll in Hawking's opinion if you like)
>>>> 
>>>> Adrie
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2010/11/7 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 7, 2010, at 7:08 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi, Marsha, it means only this, importing Zeno in the moq is not a good
>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>> better that it is told to you before it fires in your hands.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please explain why?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nobody owns the truth.
>>>>>> we cannot have reality blurred with occultism.
>>>>>> dont get me wrong , i like mysticism, occultism, but do not make a
>>> widget
>>>>>> out of it.
>>>>>> Okay?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2010/11/7 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Adrie,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Although I think that quantum physics represents the West's most
>>>>>>> dynamic, cutting-edge science, what I find most interesting are the
>>>>>>> enigmas, paradoxes and anomalies because they most likely are
>>>>>>> the weak spots that may shatter the deep-seated belief in scientific
>>>>>>> materialism.  Einstein and Hawking have offered ever-changing,
>>>>>>> relational, impermanent intellectual static patterns of value, not the
>>>>>>> Absolute Truth.   Space-time and wormholes are conceptually
>>>>>>> constructed patterns overlaid onto a flow of Dynamic Quality.  So
>>>>>>> citing Anthony citing Einstein and Hawking to bolster your opinion
>>>>>>> that the BioCentrism article was wrong, means what?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Marsha



 
___