Biocentrism - A Theory

[_mikwut]

Hi honor:

I overall have a great deal of agreement with everything you wrote. Just a few quibbles worth elaborating on.

First, I take it as a given that my own perspective is not reliable on it's own. I interpret the world through mental filters that bias my interpretations, fill in gaps based on assumptions or expectations, and otherwise operate as a flawed instrument for converting inputs into a perceived reality.

Second, while herd mentalities get a bad rap among teens, hipsters, and iconoclasts, consensus serves as a critical tool for correcting the problems that come from the first issue above. The scientific method is a formal means of doing this but we are biologically primed to do this informally because it had survival benefits for those of our ancestors who had this trait. Someone looking over an ancestor's shoulder who exhibited fear or shock, causing a reaction in return that resulted in dodging an incoming rock or predator, had value that translates into inheritable impulses to have concern for the perspective of others. If I see one guy on the street ranting at the sky while others walk around him going about their business, I may or may not take a glance in the direction of what he is looking at. But I'm going to be skeptical there's anything there even if I do. If I see most people on the street starting to look up in the sky and expressing an emotion of some kind, I'm definitely going to look and anticipate subconsciously I'm priming for fight or flight. Likewise, I like to check my own understanding coming out of meetings with others who were present. I look for information that is arguing against my views precisely because a strong argument that contradicts my own assumptions and worldview is quite possibly going to lead me to a better understanding and thereby greater trust in my own thinking. In short, reality that is confirmed by others is more trustworthy to me than reality that only I perceive.

I have to emphasize how much agreement I have with you here. I might even go farther than you, our belief forming cognitive faculties are narrowly reliable. Their reliability comes from necessary wiring for our survival. These "brain bugs" as Dean Buonomano calls them in his book of the same name are extensive and can wreak havoc on a believing mind in myriad ways. I have said this before but it often times doesn't seem to stick. When we really look at our belief forming cognitive faculties a belief in for example a creator that loves us simply can't reliably come from those faculties at a basic level. But faith isn't believing things that just aren't true or without any evidence. Faith begins as a fundamental trust towards reality. We develop a fundamental trust towards reality itself in order to survive. We also develop fundamental trust toward that innate sense of there being something more. Or we don't. But those developments of trust from inside us shouldn't be confused with our everyday decision making, thinking etc..

Third, moral arguments that imply an ought of some kind seem to require another who will be affected by my thinking and the resulting actions that arise out of it. Otherwise, what purpose does an ethical system service if it isn't for easing the frictions between individuals towards some societal aim?

Individual aims as well?

Fourth, I am much more convinced of the existence of other people than I am of the existence of a metaconsciousness.

To me it is incorrigible. When one really understands idealism and arguments for all the different isms, a sincere intellect in my estimation can only conclude, I don't know. This is why we should not commit one way or the other. but trust remains for those that are constructing views based on all of their concrete human experience based on trust.

As an aside, one of my biggest issues with Mormonism since leaving it is the emphasis on moral laws as the basis for ethics that creates morally underdeveloped people if one instead assumes a morality based on trying to not hurt other people. Religious systems that treat morality as primarily between God and an individual create moral disabilities, in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly. I once was one of those disabled, probably still am but accepting my disability.

Last of all, I assume the premise behind idealism is essentially true - reality as we experience is a construct of our own minds -

Yes and no. That portion of idealism finds a wide spectrum. Kant probably wouldn't want to be mixed with a biocentrist. Hegel and Schopenhauer were further than Kant. I find idealism in a pure form as consciousness IS fundamental reality. The conscious experience we have is steps away from that. We find our conscious experience IN consciousness. Our world is consciousness.

mikwut

[_SPG]

People into spiritualism whether via DMT or whatever else or the religious like DCP rejecting materialism or even atheists rejecting idealism most often do so with little regard for what the terms actually mean in contemporary philosophical discussions or they quote chalmers without understanding it. I’m a little surprised to see mikwuts reactions given his background. Physicalism or idealism don’t capture the dispute anymore which is better framed by naturalism or non natural.

The typical mystics I’m used to running into, like SPG, usually end up describing the supernatural in familiar material terms except with a different set of rules where boundaries are created by story plots rather than stuff. What the props are made of don’t seem to be of much interest as their inquiry isn’t strictly philosophical

FYI I hadn’t seen mikwuts response until after I wrote this:.:

What confuses me, is why you cannot see this. Stories have impact and influence. That there are billions of Christians isn't because Jesus actually walked on water, it because of the story that he did. (I'm over simplifying it some.)

What many people seek in life, perhaps most, it to gain a sense of who they are. Even if the that "who they are" doesn't yet exist. Some people can accept, "you are the bob, the builder." But many want a deeper understanding like, "Am I just a random happening, or was there some plan that put my life in motion?" Like, "maybe I am special because there was a King or dude in my family 28 generations back." Mormon DNA testing of ancestor lines has taken the nation by storm. We want identity. And what we do with it is completely up to us.

But we want "metadata" to our identity, because we want purpose and meaning.

Stories, ultimately will, (and I think have been) one of main driving forces of our culture.

[_honorentheos]

Hi mikwut,

I appreciate that we had much in agreement. It certainly helps a conversation to establish where that is the case.

In the interest of focus, I'm curious if you could explain more about what you mean when you say the following:

When we really look at our belief forming cognitive faculties a belief in for example a creator that loves us simply can't reliably come from those faculties at a basic level.

I've read and reread this, rolled it around a few times, and am still not sure I am understanding what it is you are saying. My read of it is you are saying we ought not to be able to conceptualize a loving creator given the mechanics and structures of our material brains and their abilities without some sort of outside push. Which, if accurate, I don't follow. It seems very easy to imagine humanity forming a posteriori views about there being a creator since the world appears complex which would imply someone or thing made it with intention rather than it happening randomly if one lacks the means of sifting out how complexity could arise without a conscious mind directing it. The loving part is also not difficult to imagine being the product of deductive, just-so reasoning.

So I am running on the assumption I have something wrong about what you were saying.

[_SPG]

Hi mikwut,

I appreciate that we had much in agreement. It certainly helps a conversation to establish where that is the case.

In the interest of focus, I'm curious if you could explain more about what you mean when you say the following:

When we really look at our belief forming cognitive faculties a belief in for example a creator that loves us simply can't reliably come from those faculties at a basic level.

I've read and reread this, rolled it around a few times, and am still not sure I am understanding what it is you are saying. My read of it is you are saying we ought not to be able to conceptualize a loving creator given the mechanics and structures of our material brains and their abilities without some sort of outside push. Which, if accurate, I don't follow. It seems very easy to imagine humanity forming a posteriori views about there being a creator since the world appears complex which would imply someone or thing made it with intention rather than it happening randomly if one lacks the means of sifting out how complexity could arise without a conscious mind directing it. The loving part is also not difficult to imagine being the product of deductive, just-so reasoning.

So I am running on the assumption I have something wrong about what you were saying.

While I am fully for the believing in God, I sort of disagree with "mikwut" but respectfully, but I also sort of agree.

In the scripture is an idea that we will return to God, that we have somehow been removed from his presence. We cannot return until we have learned how to love ourselves within the context of our own identity. In other words, we have to love what we are, want it to succeed, and never depend upon someone/something else to love us, thus giving us the freedom to be what we want, (within reason.)

While I agree with Mikwut, though it is thought we must developed the ability to love within ourselves, it really does come from higher places, but I think we are cut off from it. At least, from our perspective.

But I got on the bandwagon with Biocentrism is that "consciousness" of our lives is real energy and doesn't die, like a computer circuit when you unplug it. The idea that there is a life form that lives beyond the physical body, that is the true observer. This observer must become self contained by defining what is God, and what is him/her, learning how they can be one, separate. Thus be the power of love, but not depend on another for it.

[_Gadianton]

"What confuses me, is why you cannot see this...Stories...Am I just a random happening, or was there some plan that put my life in motion?" Like, "maybe I am special because there was a King or dude in my family 28 generations back." Mormon DNA testing of ancestor lines has taken the nation by storm. We want identity. And what we do with it is completely up to us

.

And I agree.

Hey, I'm a sucker for stories myself. I go on Netlfix binges like everyone else. One of the great things about stories is we can leave reality behind and live in any kind of world we want. We don't need the laws of physics or evolution to be true, religion can be superior to science, basically, the possible landscapes of what we can do are endless, and I think that's wonderful.

BUT --

What do you think about a story that's going along great, mysteries, surprises, plot twists, interesting characters, and then suddenly it ends in a really dumb way? Like, remember LOST, how great the premise was and all these mysteries are built up? There were all kinds of possible elaborate plots people were coming up with on the Internet, but then as the seasons went on, so many plot points seem to fall by the wayside with no real meaning behind them. It seemed like they just started making things up as they went along, and then the series ended exactly in one of the ways the producers assured us it wouldn't end at the beginning of the series.

In a story, you can break any and every rule of the real world you wish, but you can't break the rules of the world you create. If you do, people get bored or frustrated and put the book down. Your story will have rules even if you intend them to or not, and people get a feel for what they are as they read, and they will catch you if you break your own rules. Now here's the rub: suppose real life is just another story -- for life to be satisfying, it must be bound by rules. Even if you say everyone can have their own story -- fantastic, everyone has their own story with their own set of rules. Wherever you look, SPG, even in extreme storybook land, there are rules and laws and order that put limits to the powers of belief of any character in the story, and if it weren't so, nobody would want to read it nor would the characters even care to take part. Rules and laws that break the will -- like the bars of a prison cell, rules and laws surround you, SPG, even in the land of stories. There is no hope.

[_SPG]

Rules and laws that break the will -- like the bars of a prison cell, rules and laws surround you, SPG, even in the land of stories. There is no hope.

But there is hope. That was the point many prophets tried to make.

Yes, there are rules. But they sort apply in layers. Some apply to everyone, like gravity, electricity, etc. But some rules are more flexible, life Love, kindness, influence, social laws. (Hated Lost, by the way,)

But my story is cool. We must learn to be story writer and the main character.

[_mikwut]

Hi honor:

mikwut wrote:
When we really look at our belief forming cognitive faculties a belief in for example a creator that loves us simply can't reliably come from those faculties at a basic level.


I've read and reread this, rolled it around a few times, and am still not sure I am understanding what it is you are saying. My read of it is you are saying we ought not to be able to conceptualize a loving creator given the mechanics and structures of our material brains and their abilities without some sort of outside push. Which, if accurate, I don't follow. It seems very easy to imagine humanity forming a posteriori views about there being a creator since the world appears complex which would imply someone or thing made it with intention rather than it happening randomly if one lacks the means of sifting out how complexity could arise without a conscious mind directing it. The loving part is also not difficult to imagine being the product of deductive, just-so reasoning.

So I am running on the assumption I have something wrong about what you were saying.

Thanks for allowing me to elaborate. I wouldn't say "conceptualize". I am speaking more about belief. Im making a demarcation between our belief forming faculties that we really have no control over. Our faculties simply form beliefs based on the evidence presented to them (this isn't to say the evidence is critical or quality in nature). Our belief forming about the question of God for example stem, in my view, from our trusting of our inner senses rather than through a present day cultural critical look at the question. The analogy is close to our sense of wonder. We can choose an attitude towards our sense of wonder that is positive or negative, we aren't making a critical evaluation like we do with beliefs, or should do, because we can't, it isn't an empirical question, it is simply a sense we experience. Another analogy would be our basic fundamental trust in reality and how it develops. The idealism, physicalism discussion is relevant because it demonstrates how certain our belief forming faculties can be regarding questions that we have no idea where the truth actually lies. That should tell us something. Our belief forming faculties simply form commitments toward certain beliefs. When we trust initially in basic senses such as something greater than us our belief forming faculties form certain beliefs automatically, likewise if we don't trust those basic senses alternative beliefs form. I think our will is found in the fundamental attitudes we take towards reality.

I have said many times on this board that reality is manifold. I mean by that our initial attitudes towards all of concrete reality branches into entire constructs that can be supported by our cognitive faculties.

Hope that clarifies a bit.

mikwut

[_SPG]

Hi honor:

mikwut wrote:
When we really look at our belief forming cognitive faculties a belief in for example a creator that loves us simply can't reliably come from those faculties at a basic level.


I've read and reread this, rolled it around a few times, and am still not sure I am understanding what it is you are saying. My read of it is you are saying we ought not to be able to conceptualize a loving creator given the mechanics and structures of our material brains and their abilities without some sort of outside push. Which, if accurate, I don't follow. It seems very easy to imagine humanity forming a posteriori views about there being a creator since the world appears complex which would imply someone or thing made it with intention rather than it happening randomly if one lacks the means of sifting out how complexity could arise without a conscious mind directing it. The loving part is also not difficult to imagine being the product of deductive, just-so reasoning.

So I am running on the assumption I have something wrong about what you were saying.

Just to cloud the issue some, I'd like to take a stab it too.

I first, when I was TBM, I thought God had "already" created us. I never dawned on me that I was still being created, even with the eternal increase promise of Mormonism.

I think part of what mikwut is saying that we are creating spaces for our being. We have both private realities and share realities. Did these realities exist before I did. . . . not mine. Perhaps other advanced beings might have already highly developed realities.

But part of the configuration is a sense of self that is like God, it watches over us, judges us, and we feel that judgement. Some philosophies call the "mindfulness" which the ability to watch yourself in third person. Some call it the "higher self." Its your, but not the human you, is sort of weird.

God introduced himself to Moses as, "I AM THAT I AM." Strangely, this implies a higher mind over the presenting mind.

What mikwut is saying, I think, is how could a mechanical evolving mind come up with a higher mind that loves and looks over it? It's sort like of puppy inventing humans.

My own opinion on this is that both minds are part of us, both are evolving. The higher is without specific form and basically love or process anything, while the lower mind is what we mostly consider ourselves. But ability to read and interpret the universe not automatic, we have to learn it.

For the human mind, like right now, to have this ability is really incredible and places to put it judgement that isn't condition to the moment, ie, "I don't believe in stealing, except for right now, because I want that." The reason I brought the biocentrism is everything we think of outside of us, like church, community, friends, God, and stuff, we have recreated in our own head. What ever influence God has in our lives, is in our own head. But, not to understand estimate the power of the mind, the subconscious links to people and things, etc.

So, I agree, that we have this "other mind" is something beyond just us, because we all do it, but it's also something that we all develop basically on own own.

Thanks for allowing me to elaborate. I wouldn't say "conceptualize". I am speaking more about belief. Im making a demarcation between our belief forming faculties that we really have no control over. Our faculties simply form beliefs based on the evidence presented to them (this isn't to say the evidence is critical or quality in nature). Our belief forming about the question of God for example stem, in my view, from our trusting of our inner senses rather than through a present day cultural critical look at the question. The analogy is close to our sense of wonder. We can choose an attitude towards our sense of wonder that is positive or negative, we aren't making a critical evaluation like we do with beliefs, or should do, because we can't, it isn't an empirical question, it is simply a sense we experience. Another analogy would be our basic fundamental trust in reality and how it develops. The idealism, physicalism discussion is relevant because it demonstrates how certain our belief forming faculties can be regarding questions that we have no idea where the truth actually lies. That should tell us something. Our belief forming faculties simply form commitments toward certain beliefs. When we trust initially in basic senses such as something greater than us our belief forming faculties form certain beliefs automatically, likewise if we don't trust those basic senses alternative beliefs form. I think our will is found in the fundamental attitudes we take towards reality.

I have said many times on this board that reality is manifold. I mean by that our initial attitudes towards all of concrete reality branches into entire constructs that can be supported by our cognitive faculties.

Hope that clarifies a bit.

mikwut

[_honorentheos]

Hi mikwut,

I appreciate your focused reply on my question, though I still don't feel able to follow exactly. I read it on Friday when you posted it, thought it best to give it a day to roll around and consider, but to be honest it didn't open up for me. I think what's hanging me up is what seems like a contradiction between these two sentiments that I've identified as "a" and "b" in your reply:

a) I'm making a demarcation between our belief forming faculties that we really have no control over. Our faculties simply form beliefs based on the evidence presented to them (this isn't to say the evidence is critical or quality in nature). Our belief forming about the question of God for example stem, in my view, from our trusting of our inner senses rather than through a present day cultural critical look at the question.

b) The idealism, physicalism discussion is relevant because it demonstrates how certain our belief forming faculties can be regarding questions that we have no idea where the truth actually lies. That should tell us something. Our belief forming faculties simply form commitments toward certain beliefs. When we trust initially in basic senses such as something greater than us our belief forming faculties form certain beliefs automatically, likewise if we don't trust those basic senses alternative beliefs form.

I can't quite make heads or tails of whether or not intuited beliefs about something should be given some sort of higher regard in your view? Or be considered flawed and treated skeptically? If the first, what is the point you were making with "b"? If the later, then what is it we're actually discussing in relation to wonder and god-belief?

Your choice to end the paragraph with, "I think our will is found in the fundamental attitudes we take towards reality," leaves me feeling that deep down, it is an argument saying that to choose to believe in...??? is an assertion of individual identity; assuming some control of the wheel of one's destiny as it were. If so, I'm still unsure how this all isn't just a confabulated attempt to give meaning to one's own existence beyond being satisfied with the kind of meaning that is obvious if impermanent that comes from the relationships and experiences we have and our impact on the lives of other people.

[_EAllusion]

Doxastic voluntarism has basically nothing to do with whether you should take at face value an "inner sense" of God. Saying "I do not subscribe to doxastic volunteerism; therefore, I trust an inner apprehension of God" is a non-sequitur. Whether or not belief formation is volitional has nothing to say about whether a religious sense exists and if it should be presumed prima facie accurate. Rejecting doxastic voluntarism just says that whatever thought process you use to arrive at what you think about that question ultimately was the result of a process beyond your control. It has no bearing on the soundness of the reasoning.

This is blending an attempt at a "proper basically" argument with a separate philosophical issue that functions as a red herring.