Heartmind Heartmind
 
* *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. May 23, 2012, 10:15:25 AM


Login with username, password and session length


Recent posts
[March 10, 2012, 07:44:26 AM]

[January 27, 2012, 03:16:55 AM]

by Jane
[January 18, 2012, 03:03:56 PM]

[January 08, 2012, 10:14:43 AM]

by Jana
[December 21, 2011, 06:47:56 PM]

by Jana
[October 28, 2011, 06:33:09 PM]

by Jana
[October 14, 2011, 12:22:43 PM]

by Jana
[October 13, 2011, 10:56:04 PM]
17 Guests, 0 Users
Last 5 Chats:
May 18, 2012, 12:16:46 PM
thanks H... as long as it's not mine! lol
May 16, 2012, 11:53:40 AM
looking and sounding better than ever Reverend J! Do you work Weddings?
May 13, 2012, 09:07:13 AM
Happy Divine Mother Day!
May 08, 2012, 11:43:23 AM
this weeks sounds true "insights at the edge" podcast with Judith Blackstone is good
Quotations
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable. ~ John Kenneth Galbraith
Themes

 



Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Biocentrism  (Read 502 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
jimtzu
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 884


View Profile
« on: July 06, 2010, 11:53:23 PM »

In the past few decades, major puzzles of mainstream science have forced a re-evaluation of the nature of the universe that goes far beyond anything we could have imagined. 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. Its necessity is driven in part by the ongoing attempts to create an overarching view, a theory of everything. Such efforts have now stretched for decades, without much success except as a way of financially facilitating the careers of theoreticians and graduate students.

Could the long-sought Theory of Everything be merely missing a component that was too close for us to have noticed?  Some of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been mapped or the idea that we are close to understanding the “Big Bang” rests in our innate human desire for completeness and totality.  But most of these comprehensive theories fail to take into account one crucial factor: We are creating them. It is the biological creature that fashions the stories, that makes the observations, and that gives names to things. 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.”

read the whole article here:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31393080/
Logged
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
TinyPortal v0.9.7 © Bloc


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM