According to Robert Lanza biocentrism has seven principles.
1.A First Principle of Biocentrism: What we perceive as reality is a process
that involves our consciousness. An "external" reality, if it existed, would
by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space
and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal
mind.
2.A Second Principle of Biocentrism: Our external and internal perceptions are
inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot
be divorced from one another.
3.Third Principle of Biocentrism: The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed
all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an
observer.
Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an
undetermined
state of probability waves.
4.Fourth Principle of Biocentrism: Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an
undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded
consciousness only existed in a probability state.
5.Fifth Principle of Biocentrism: The structure of the universe is explainable
only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes
perfect
sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is
simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.
6.Sixth Principle of Biocentrism: Time does not have a real existence outside
of
animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the
universe.
7.Seventh Principle of Biocentrism: Space, like time, is not an object or a
thing.
Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an
independent
reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus,
there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur
independent of life.
Ron:
Problems I have with Lanzas Principles, Principle 1 and 2 seemingly
undercuts the remaining principles. 3-subatomic particles by virtue of
principle 1 is meaningless. Same for 4. the fifth principle I have a problem
with the term "only". six I can live with and seven, how can we know with any
certainty?
Biocentrism, while it claims to be anti anthropocentric, seems to tend towards
anthropomophism,
how do we know what other life forms experience? we only have our own, as human
beings to draw from.
Therefore how can any human understanding about expereince NOT be
anthropocentric.
The danger and the problem is when it's in conjunction with objectivism.
What I like about the MoQ is that it leaves most of these principles to DQ.
undefinable and takes experience for what it is, human expereince. It leaves
the door
open for alternate species having intellectual patterns but it does not suppose
to know what
those patterns are. It recognizes the interconnectivity with all life in the
sustaining of lower
levels of the static moral hierarchy.
>From what I gather from these principles, it seems to smack of subjective
>idealism and tends to
project anthropomorphically. Although I do like the central theme of shared
biological tendancies
of expereince with all living creatures.
Have to do some more reading on it. But those were my first impressions.
-Ron
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/
