Biocentrism - A Theory

[_mikwut]

HI Res,

What do you mean by the "persistence" of the real world? Do you mean it remains without a perception or something else?

With regards to shared experience the answer might be the same to your persistence objection. The shared world objection often misunderstands what IN consciousness means. If mind is fundamental then our minds are sharing a dream IN consciousness. In this form of idealism it is the body that is in a universal fundamental primary consciousness NOT a fundamental consciousness in a body like we currently experience. So a shared dream in idealism is no less plausible than a shared world in physicalism. Once that distinction is made idealism is very plausible, obviously that can't be proved, but neither can physicalism's counter.

mikwut

[_honorentheos]

Hi mikwut -

The problem with the article you presented against idealism generally is when attempting to falsify idealism there is some form of physicalism that usually lurks behind the curtains kind of unsaid...The falsification is just an illusion of a priori accepting the form of physicalism. This is a problem because we know physicalism is an abstraction, i.e. the world out there is not what we perceive the world out there to be. The question is how deep of an abstraction is the physical world. But, idealism takes the lead here, right out of the gates, because we know consciousness is the most real experience we have.

Let's use one of the early examples from the article for discussion purposes: Color.

The biocentrist position was stated as:

Consider the color and brightness of everything you see ‘out there.’ On its own, light doesn’t have any color or brightness at all. The unquestionable reality is that nothing remotely resembling what you see could be present without your consciousness. Consider the weather: We step outside and see a blue sky – but the cells in our brain could easily be changed so we ‘see’ red or green instead. We think it feels hot and humid, but to a tropical frog it would feel cold and dry. In any case, you get the point. This logic applies to virtually everything.

The article indeed offers exactly what you suggest - an assumed physicalism that basically answers the above with, "Ok, double rainbow dude. You see the rainbow, it blows your mind and the experience of "rainbow" takes place in your mind but underlying that are light waves that have measurable traits which are informing your experience rather than your experience being the sum total of what there is to say about color unless one chooses to limit color to only that what the mind experiences individually."

Or, in their words -

There is only some partial truth to Lanza’s claims. Color is an experiential truth – that is, it is a descriptive phenomenon that lies outside of objective reality. No physicist will deny this. However, the physical properties of light that are responsible for color are characteristics of the natural universe. Therefore, the sensory experience of color is subjective, but the properties of light responsible for that sensory experience are objectively true. The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself; it creates a subjective experience or a representation of the phenomenon.

It's not so much that the traits of light we might describe as its physical properties are sneaking in the back door of the discussion. They happen to be the traits of light that meet certain criteria including the ability of multiple people to share "experience" in a predictable way when they interact with those particular properties. Could that all be part of a shared illusion? Maybe. We could all lack free will, be part of an elaborate future Mormon's genealogical computer simulation, or just a figment of Joe Rogan's imagination. But each fails to meet a certain pragmatic threshold for me in much the same way that an indifferent universe does not demand one surrender to immorality or radical cynicism as is sometimes argued by theists. The alternative also isn't radical idealism unless one is also up for a healthy dose of solipsism.

[_Gadianton]

Physics guy, thanks for the explanation and also Res for your note. I might have a response after I dig up a book buried in a box somewhere.

Gadianton's insistence

Hi Mikwut, nice to see you again. Nice try. CFR dude. I've said nothing against idealism. I said the position in the article seems incoherent. I gave one specific example. If I wanted to argue for idealism (i think i could do a better job than the article) I would be extraordinarily careful about claiming quantum mechanics as a victory for it. It adds an unnecessary complication. If you would like to address that point above, be my guest, but until then, the only "insistence" is coming from you.

I don't have a problem with idealism per se; I have a problem with lunacy.

The falsification is just an illusion of a priori accepting the form of physicalism

Why does falsification have anything to do with physicalism or idealism?

[_honorentheos]

The falsification is just an illusion of a priori accepting the form of physicalism

Why does falsification have anything to do with physicalism or idealism?

Hi Gad -

Perhaps I'm wrong but I believe mikwut was responding to my argument back to SPG that biocentrism is unscientific despite it's globbing onto scientific theories and evidence because nothing that it claims is testable or falsifiable. I read Mikwut as arguing that at the grandiose scales of -isms nothing is really falsifiable but instead to borrow from Physics Guy, "Most of the time we take the advice of J.S. Bell and simply 'shut up and calculate'."

That point to SPG originated in the evolution thread where I made it clear I wasn't really interested in discussing the non-scientific ideas that Biocentrism overlays onto discussions of evolution in that particular thread to which he had said something about my calling it non-scientific as evidence of my missing the point of what he was sharing. In that context, it was meant as a response but I guess now it's into the abyss with what can and can't be falsified if we choose to discuss the philosophical ontological basis for one's worldview. Perhaps that is where any discussion on biocentrism ends up, but only because the subject itself is an attempt to drag all discussions into that particular pit.

;) winking at you, mikwut. All in good fun of course.

[_mikwut]

Hello Gad,

Honor hit exactly what I was getting at.

Nice try. CFR dude. I've said nothing against idealism.

I was referring to your insistence here:

Obviously, it's the detector that interferes with the photon in the double-split and not the human mind.

Or just mind. It is a physicalist worldview that makes that statement. An idealist view is a lot more open minded respecting the possibilities. It wasn't a dig at you.

If I wanted to argue for idealism (i think i could do a better job than the article)

I'm quite sure you could. I didn't realize you were open to idealism, it has been some time since i visited the board but our last exchange about the afterlife included idealism and I thought you were pretty adverse to it. I apologize if I presupposed something.

I would be extraordinarily careful about claiming quantum mechanics as a victory for it.

Well I don't like the word victory either, and although I think quantum arguments can be made for idealism I agree with you it can be done in a hot mess of a way. I quibble a bit without wanting to go much farther, but I don't see how an instrument avoids a mind observation, observations must be made.

Nice to see you too. mik

[_mikwut]

Hi honor:

But each fails to meet a certain pragmatic threshold for me in much the same way that an indifferent universe does not demand one surrender to immorality or radical cynicism as is sometimes argued by theists. The alternative also isn't radical idealism unless one is also up for a healthy dose of solipsism.

You shouldn't conflate solipsism with idealism. Idealism like physicalism leaves itself open in principle to falsification, solipsism does not.

Your first sentence is more interesting to me. I would argue that within idealism morality and meaning wouldn't be forced, they would more easily be grounded in a concrete reality offering a deeper trust one could have in them. But I am interested, it seems you are arguing physicalism actually offers the better side of meaning, morality? Or am I mis reading you?

mikwut

[_Gadianton]

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:.:

[_mikwut]

Hi honor:

Perhaps that is where any discussion on biocentrism ends up, but only because the subject itself is an attempt to drag all discussions into that particular pit.

I don't see it that way.

mikwut

[_Gadianton]

Thanks for the clarification, Mikwut.

I wrote:

Obviously, it's the detector that interferes with the photon in the double-split and not the human mind.

Your reply:

Or just mind. It is a physicalist worldview that makes that statement. An idealist view is a lot more open minded respecting the possibilities. It wasn't a dig at you.

I disagree that it is a physicalist worldview that makes that statement. If I say the tree fell because obviously somebody cut it down, that doesn't rule out idealism just because I didn't admit that the mind could have made it fall assuming idealism is true. a physicalist can believe consciousness is physical and collapses the wave function. I would have made the same remark to such a physicalist.

I did explain why I think the mind as collapsing the wave function under idealism doesn't make sense. if mind creates the world rather than observes something "out there", then it's a contradiction in terms to say the mind creates a wave function -- the thing that only exists when not observed, only now substitute "created" for "observed". That doesn't refute idealism at all if true -- the obvious being go "many worlds". I think there's another way to save it but becomes compatible with and not proof. Maybe you have a better answer to that then I do -- either way, I obviously made an argument, even if it's not very good, I didn't insist.

I didn't realize you were open to idealism

I'm not "open" to it, but then again I'm not really "open" to physicalism either. I think it's a fascinating discussion, and I wish I knew the answer, but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to have the answer before I die and cease to exist. I like to have my mind blown as much as anyone with something I never would have expected. But I'm sorry, the essay linked is just dumb, not mind-blowing.

[_honorentheos]

Hi mikwut -

Your first sentence is more interesting to me. I would argue that within idealism morality and meaning wouldn't be forced, they would more easily be grounded in a concrete reality offering a deeper trust one could have in them. But I am interested, it seems you are arguing physicalism actually offers the better side of meaning, morality? Or am I mis reading you?

To get at what I mean, I should point out a few assumptions that underlay my thinking.

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.

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?

Fourth, I am much more convinced of the existence of other people than I am of the existence of a metaconsciousness. Therefore, my ethics is derived primarily based on the relationship between myself and other people, and not between myself and some metaconsciousness whether that be God or the Tao or whatever other higher mind is postulated. 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.

Last of all, I assume the premise behind idealism is essentially true - reality as we experience is a construct of our own minds - but because of one through four above, it's usefulness is better tied to understanding why this makes my own perspective less reliable rather than prime. How reality looks without a mind to perceive it is a secondary concern to me given the problems of asking how functional a mind might be if it became too convinced of it's own importance in not just creating reality out of stimuli but in authoring reality as it ought to be believed in.