The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > Other Discussions > Open Mic

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #46  
Old 09-30-2018, 09:32 AM
Davis Webb Davis Webb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyhu View Post
If I understand correctly, biocentrism posits that the primacy of biology is rooted in our understanding that consciousness is most clearly (or, most observably) present in the sensing, thinking, and perceiving that are manifest in sentient creatures, and hence, is best studied (scientifically) by the science of biological processes, and that consciousness appears to be the different from all other phenomena/appearances.

Of course, consciousness can be explored and studied non-scientifically...but that is a very different vantage point, which (IMO) has great value, but such approaches are fundamentally different.

It is also important to appreciate that “consciousness” is not understood to be a capacity of individual brains or a feature of individual minds. Consciousness is more inclusive and all-pervading than that....

Biocentrism has been critiqued as well, echoing many of the thoughts here.

http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/11/25/biocentrism/
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-30-2018, 10:06 AM
robj144 robj144 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 10,430
Default

It's an idea, but it is completely not testable, so it's not really science.
__________________
Guild CO-2
Guild JF30-12
Guild D55
Goodall Grand Concert Cutaway Walnut/Italian Spruce
Santa Cruz Brazilian VJ
Taylor 8 String Baritone
Blueberry - Grand Concert
Magnum Opus J450
Eastman AJ815
Parker PA-24
Babicz Jumbo Identity
Walden G730
Silvercreek T170
Charvell 150 SC
Takimine G406s
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-30-2018, 10:13 AM
Fogducker Fogducker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 658
Default

If there were no trailer parks-----------would there be any tornados?

Fog
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-30-2018, 10:21 AM
Silurian Silurian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Ex Europa
Posts: 2,311
Default

The answer is, and always will be, 42.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-30-2018, 10:31 AM
BrunoBlack's Avatar
BrunoBlack BrunoBlack is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: New England
Posts: 10,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyhu View Post
If I understand correctly, biocentrism posits that the primacy of biology is rooted in our understanding that consciousness is most clearly (or, most observably) present in the sensing, thinking, and perceiving that are manifest in sentient creatures, and hence, is best studied (scientifically) by the science of biological processes, and that consciousness appears to be the different from all other phenomena/appearances.

Of course, consciousness can be explored and studied non-scientifically...but that is a very different vantage point, which (IMO) has great value, but such approaches are fundamentally different.

It is also important to appreciate that “consciousness” is not understood to be a capacity of individual brains or a feature of individual minds. Consciousness is more inclusive and all-pervading than that....
So as an extremely minor example (or question), doesn’t it make sense that the presence of different concentrations of chemicals between individuals’ biological composition alter the perceived reality of each — and shape subsequent behavior that further sculpts reality of others (at least on this planet?) We can protract this to all physical properties if we are so inclined. So what’s the driving force? Of course, I don’t know, but since I’m a physical scientist I have my biases
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-30-2018, 11:08 AM
Dirk Hofman Dirk Hofman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NOR * CAL
Posts: 7,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davis Webb View Post
Biocentrism has been critiqued as well, echoing many of the thoughts here.

http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/11/25/biocentrism/
Thanks for posting that, good read. Key points:

Quote:
He is making two key mistakes here. The first is the confusion of “observer” with “consciousness” (actually his entire premise rests upon this fallacy). He states that when the physicist is looking light will go through the two slits as particles, making two clumps of light on the other side. If the physicist is not looking, however, the light will pass through as a wave and make an interference pattern.

This is wrong. The results of the experiment depend not at all on the presence or absence of an observer or a consciousness. What matters is whether or not there is a detector in each slit, detecting the presence of the photon as it passes through the slit. In other words, if the photon has to interact with any particle of matter, then the probability wave must collapse and it behaves like a particle. If the photon is not detected, however, then it continues to travel as a wave until it hits the film or photon detector on the other side of the slit, at which point the wave function collapses.

The only thing that matters is whether or not the photons are detected or interacted with in any way prior to or after passing through the slits. This has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness or an observer. This is the common misunderstanding of the quantum gurus.

Lanza’s second mistake is to extrapolate from quantum experiments, in which conditions are very carefully controlled, to macroscopic conditions. He actually makes the analogy to your kitchen, as if your kitchen is not really there unless you are there to observe your kitchen. Nothing in quantum mechanism justifies such a macroscopic extrapolation. Particles interacting with each other collapse all the wave forms and once you get up to something like a kitchen all the quantum weirdness disappears and essentially classical physics predominates (there may be some really subtle effects around the edges, but the kitchen certainly does not disappear).

Lanza has a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum mechanics and the details and implications of experiments like the double-slit experiment. This alone obliterates his entire notion of biocentrism.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-30-2018, 11:29 AM
guitar george guitar george is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: 49th parallel north
Posts: 4,080
Default

All dogs have 4 legs. A cat has 4 legs. Conclusion: a cat is a dog.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-30-2018, 11:37 AM
sdelsolray sdelsolray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 6,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haasome View Post
This is interesting. I suppose opinions align with the type of scientist you are. There seems to be at least a couple of ideas that describe Biocentrism. There seems to be one definition that focuses on - respecting all life equally. However, the OP seems to consider — “...biology as the central driving science in the universe, and an understanding of the other sciences as reliant on a deeper understanding of biology.“ I have trouble accepting the second set of guiding principles. If you look at any biological entity (as we currently understand them), they are composed of molecules, of atoms, sub atomic particles, energy, electrical charges, etc., etc., etc. Biology seems to result from the combination of these fundamental components. A reasonable case can be made that the physical forces in the universe give rise to a particular combination of elements that is Biological.
According to current cosmology, astronomy and stellar evolution theory, and at least with respect carbon based life and related biology, the early universe simply did not contain the atomic elements needed for such life and biology. Elements such as carbon, oxygen and iron are only formed in stars near the end of their respective life cycles. The dispersal of these elements, as well as elements heavier than iron, only occurs with supernova events (and a few other much rarer events).

I'm not sure how long it took for sufficient elements needed for life were dispersed and subsequently became part of new solar systems' planets. The evidence reveals it took 10 billion years for this to happen for our solar system.

If biology drives the universe, how did it do so before it emerged in the universe?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-30-2018, 11:42 AM
BrunoBlack's Avatar
BrunoBlack BrunoBlack is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: New England
Posts: 10,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdelsolray View Post
According to current cosmology, astronomy and stellar evolution theory, and at least with respect carbon based life and related biology, the early universe simply did not contain the atomic elements needed for such life and biology. Elements such as carbon, oxygen and iron are only formed in stars near the end of their respective life cycles. The dispersal of these elements, as well as elements heavier than iron, only occurs with supernova events (and a few other much rarer events).

I'm not sure how long it took for sufficient elements needed for life were dispersed and subsequently became part of new solar systems' planets. The evidence reveals it took 10 billion years for this to happen for our solar system.

If biology drives the universe, how did it do so before it emerged in the universe?
This is the foundation for my last sentence. That is, physical components give rise to biological entities. I tend to agree.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-30-2018, 02:51 PM
RedJoker RedJoker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitar george View Post
All dogs have 4 legs. A cat has 4 legs. Conclusion: a cat is a dog.
False.

I have a three legged cat. She absolutely unique in that way. As are all the other three-legged cats.
__________________
Original music here: Spotify Artist Page
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-30-2018, 04:01 PM
guitar george guitar george is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: 49th parallel north
Posts: 4,080
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJoker View Post
False.

I have a three legged cat. She absolutely unique in that way. As are all the other three-legged cats.
This just proves that conclusions reached by deductive reasoning are not always true.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-30-2018, 06:07 PM
Daniel Grenier Daniel Grenier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Linda Manzer lives here too.
Posts: 1,094
Default

It’s a good paying gig. Deepak Chopra makes millions spewing essentially the same variety of WOO WOO to the gullible.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-30-2018, 06:56 PM
Dirk Hofman Dirk Hofman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NOR * CAL
Posts: 7,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Grenier View Post
It’s a good paying gig. Deepak Chopra makes millions spewing essentially the same variety of WOO WOO to the gullible.
There's a fantastic video on YouTube with Michael Shermer and Deepak Chopra where Shermer calls him out for exactly that in no uncertain terms. Pretty funny.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-30-2018, 07:26 PM
Davis Webb Davis Webb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Grenier View Post
It’s a good paying gig. Deepak Chopra makes millions spewing essentially the same variety of WOO WOO to the gullible.
I would call this discussion that of a "thinking man's Chopra".
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-30-2018, 07:37 PM
Song Song is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Boston Texas
Posts: 2,064
Default

The Chicxulub Impactor provided the means and ways for hominidae to exist.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > Other Discussions > Open Mic

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=