Your Extrinsic Nature - Page 2

AB517 · 11-21-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

For example, an observation of light passing through water creating a skewed perspective leading to the adaption of water lenses (and then glass) to manipulate light to create a magnifying device that allows us to look into cells or into the cosmos.

That's an example of cross correlation of observations to produce new knowledge. Taking facts and comparing them and then using the results to observe something else and make new observations... That process feeding off of itself.

There's no such thing as an uncorrelated piece of knowledge.. That's an illogical statement. There's always a logical inspiration from an observation combined with another idea that allows for new knowledge to be obtained.

Perhaps you could elaborate on your notion of "songs of knowledge" that "come from" something different than cross correlated observations?

I understand the first example.

Like a bird born that can build a birds nest.

marmalade · 11-21-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

They are not some intrinsic thing. They are a conduit that modifies sensory signals and creates a physical representation of certain types of information contained within those signals. They are defined entirely by their neural networks.

Interesting research. I see how it applies to this. The mind isn't intrinsic because it can only function based on neural connections.

But we could speculate about a larger extrinsic viewpoint. Even brains may not be isolated physically. Brains could be transmitters and receivers of information, and information could be connected in a network such as Sheldrake's Morphogenetic fields. Of course, this is getting outside of the present limits of what science can easily research.

Quote:

But all of the concepts scale, obviously. All "beings" are confluences of natural events.

I'm interested on the larger end of the scale. What is extrinsic to our normal notions of extrinsic?

Quote:

You can put your hands on it, see it with your eyes, hear it with your ears. Distinctions and boundaries are only "local variables" that describe how our systems behave, but don't have meaning outside of that.

Subjective experience is built on intersubjective networks. There is no intrinsic objectivity to reality. Objectivity is just the appearance of stable patterns, but all patterns are relative and change like the genetics of species evolves over time.

Even the 'laws' of the universe are non-intrinsic because they evolve with the universe. I'm referring to the early period right after the Big Bang. On the larger scale, science is more descriptive than its predictive because we have only one universe to observe and there is no control.

Quote:

I have found that I like many of the tenets of Buddhism, but much of the mysticism that floats around about it doesn't really do much for me.

I have mystic tendencies, but try to separate mysticism from some of its world-denying traditions. To me, mysticism is just an insight into reality as science gives insight. Neither mysticism nor science is intrinsic reality. They're both just perspectives, and they are only good to the extent they are useful.

Quote:

When I say this notion is empowering, I am speaking to the world view it produces. I am speaking to how you can see your enemy as a part of the whole picture and you can see events that you would otherwise regret as a necessary path of your "soul" as part of the cosmos.

This worldview is also what I was refering to. Its not just a philosophy; its a potentially very profound insight and way of being in the world. There are positive results of this experience as you describe, but there are also difficulties. The mystic literature is filled with both.

I wouldn't discount the mystic tradition even though much of it is pre-scientific. If you're curious about how mystical insight can fit into scientific knowledge, then I'd highly recommend you looking into Integral Theory(the most well-known proponent being Ken Wilber).

Quote:

All of this other silly stuff like "supreme being" and "soul" and "free will" just fall off as inconsequential and part of some fantasy world illusion that we've had for so long as a race. This true nature of the human is slowly being revealed to us by the kind of work I'm involved in. I think it's extremely cool.

Terms such as "supreme being" and "soul" and "free will" are pre-scientific. This doesn't mean that there isn't some insight behind them whether metaphysical or merely psychological. I think this true nature of the human is slowly being revealed across many fields, but science is bringing a lot of it together.

You might like the idea of Bruce Lipton. He came out with a book about genetics and its relationship to the mind. I'm not a scientific type. Part of what I understood of his ideas is that genes aren't determinitic, but act more as a source material of biological potentials. Here is a link to an article by him:

http://www.brucelipton.com/article/m...he-new-biology

AB517 · 11-21-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

They are not some intrinsic thing. They are a conduit that modifies sensory signals and creates a physical representation of certain types of information contained within those signals. They are defined entirely by their neural networks.

Interesting research. I see how it applies to this. The mind isn't intrinsic because it can only function based on neural connections.

But we could speculate about a larger extrinsic viewpoint. Even brains may not be isolated physically. Brains could be transmitters and receivers of information, and information could be connected in a network such as Sheldrake's Morphogenetic fields. Of course, this is getting outside of the present limits of what science can easily research.

Quote:

But all of the concepts scale, obviously. All "beings" are confluences of natural events.

I'm interested on the larger end of the scale. What is extrinsic to our normal notions of extrinsic?

Quote:

You can put your hands on it, see it with your eyes, hear it with your ears. Distinctions and boundaries are only "local variables" that describe how our systems behave, but don't have meaning outside of that.

Subjective experience is built on intersubjective networks. There is no intrinsic objectivity to reality. Objectivity is just the appearance of stable patterns, but all patterns are relative and change like the genetics of species evolves over time.

Even the 'laws' of the universe are non-intrinsic because they evolve with the universe. I'm referring to the early period right after the Big Bang. On the larger scale, science is more descriptive than its predictive because we have only one universe to observe and there is no control.

Quote:

I have found that I like many of the tenets of Buddhism, but much of the mysticism that floats around about it doesn't really do much for me.

I have mystic tendencies, but try to separate mysticism from some of its world-denying traditions. To me, mysticism is just an insight into reality as science gives insight. Neither mysticism nor science is intrinsic reality. They're both just perspectives, and they are only good to the extent they are useful.

Quote:

When I say this notion is empowering, I am speaking to the world view it produces. I am speaking to how you can see your enemy as a part of the whole picture and you can see events that you would otherwise regret as a necessary path of your "soul" as part of the cosmos.

This worldview is also what I was refering to. Its not just a philosophy; its a potentially very profound insight and way of being in the world. There are positive results of this experience as you describe, but there are also difficulties. The mystic literature is filled with both.

I wouldn't discount the mystic tradition even though much of it is pre-scientific. If you're curious about how mystical insight can fit into scientific knowledge, then I'd highly recommend you looking into Integral Theory(the most well-known proponent being Ken Wilber).

Quote:

All of this other silly stuff like "supreme being" and "soul" and "free will" just fall off as inconsequential and part of some fantasy world illusion that we've had for so long as a race. This true nature of the human is slowly being revealed to us by the kind of work I'm involved in. I think it's extremely cool.

Terms such as "supreme being" and "soul" and "free will" are pre-scientific. This doesn't mean that there isn't some insight behind them whether metaphysical or merely psychological. I think this true nature of the human is slowly being revealed across many fields, but science is bringing a lot of it together.

You might like the idea of Bruce Lipton. He came out with a book about genetics and its relationship to the mind. I'm not a scientific type. Part of what I understood of his ideas is that genes aren't determinitic, but act more as a source material of biological potentials. Here is a link to an article by him:

http://www.brucelipton.com/article/m...he-new-biology

right marm, Thats the radio I have been speaking of.

Not really sure how you are using the word “source”
DNA is not really the "source" material, it more like the blue print and the resources come in. Think of a building being built. It starts at architect down to labor. Proteins do most of the work.

Now I have 2 books to read.
Thanks Marm.

marmalade · 11-21-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB517

right marm, Thats the radio I have been speaking of.

Not really sure how you are using the word “source”
DNA is not really the "source" material, it more like the blue print and the resources come in. Think of a building being built. It starts at architect down to labor. Proteins do most of the work.

I'm not a scientist nor am I scientifically-inclined. I'm largely ignorant about how research is done and how to interpret statistical data, but I try to keep myself relatively informed of intriguing scientific theories. I'm an idea man and I take ideas where ever I can find them.

From the Bruce Lipton link:

Quote:

Earlier in my career as a research scientist and medical school professor, I actively supported the perspective that the human body was a "biochemical machine ‘programmed’ by its genes. We scientists believed that our strengths, such as artistic or intellectual abilities, and our weaknesses, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer or depression, represented traits that were preprogrammed into our genes. Hence I perceived life’s attributes and deficits, as well as our health and our frailties as merely a reflection of our heredity expression.

I don't know if he entirely dismisses the idea of a blueprint, but he seems to be giving DNA a slightly different role in the influence of our biology.

Quote:

Until recently, it was thought that genes were self-actualizing…that genes could ‘turn themselves on and off.’ Such behavior is required in order for genes to control biology. Though the power of genes is still emphasized in current biology courses and textbooks, a radically new understanding has emerged at the leading edge of cell science. It is now recognized that the environment, and more specifically, our perception (interpretation)of the environment, directly controls the activity of our genes. Environment controls gene activity through a process known as epigenetic control.

This seems to fit well into this thread. Its not just genes in isolation, but rather genes in the context of the whole environment in which the biology is situated.

Quote:

The functional units of life are the individual cells that comprise our bodies. Though every cell is innately intelligent and can survive on its own when removed from the body, in the body, each cell foregoes its individuality and becomes a member of a multicellular community. The body really represents the cooperative effort of a community of perhaps fifty trillion single cells. By definition, a community is an organization of individuals committed to supporting a shared vision. Consequently, while every cell is a free-living entity, the body’s community accommodates the wishes and intents of its ‘central voice,’ a character we perceive as the mind and spirit.

He is arguing that there is some fundamental consciousness at the level of the cells meaning that the mind isn't an epiphenomenon of the brain. This fits into the idea that the ego-identity is in some sense false. However, he doesn't go very far in philosophizing about where consciousness does come from.

He does seem to get grouped with certain other writers who are popular with the alternative spirituality crowd: Ervin Laszlo, Rupert Sheldrake and Lynne McTaggart come to mind. All of these authors explore science in terms of consciousness, and all have been involved in scientific research. Nonetheless, I'm sure they're dismissed by most mainstream scientists.

I don't know what to think of these ideas besides my enjoyment of thinking about them. I'm very curious where science will be heading in the next few decades.

Quote:

Now I have 2 books to read.
Thanks Marm.

You're welcome, but you might want to be careful because I could give you whole lists of fascinating books.

AB517 · 11-23-2007, 07:59 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB517

right marm, Thats the radio I have been speaking of.

Not really sure how you are using the word “source”
DNA is not really the "source" material, it more like the blue print and the resources come in. Think of a building being built. It starts at architect down to labor. Proteins do most of the work.

I'm not a scientist nor am I scientifically-inclined. I'm largely ignorant about how research is done and how to interpret statistical data, but I try to keep myself relatively informed of intriguing scientific theories. I'm an idea man and I take ideas where ever I can find them.

From the Bruce Lipton link:

Quote:

Earlier in my career as a research scientist and medical school professor, I actively supported the perspective that the human body was a "biochemical machine ‘programmed’ by its genes. We scientists believed that our strengths, such as artistic or intellectual abilities, and our weaknesses, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer or depression, represented traits that were preprogrammed into our genes. Hence I perceived life’s attributes and deficits, as well as our health and our frailties as merely a reflection of our heredity expression.

I don't know if he entirely dismisses the idea of a blueprint, but he seems to be giving DNA a slightly different role in the influence of our biology.

No he doesn’t. I agree with this as it stands here by itself.
I use blue Print as a close analogy. Most analogies don’t give the complete picture.
These are physical attributes of the body and coded in. I am sure he understands that DNA can be changed by the environment.

Quote:

Until recently, it was thought that genes were self-actualizing…that genes could ‘turn themselves on and off.’ Such behavior is required in order for genes to control biology. Though the power of genes is still emphasized in current biology courses and textbooks, a radically new understanding has emerged at the leading edge of cell science. It is now recognized that the environment, and more specifically, our perception (interpretation)of the environment, directly controls the activity of our genes. Environment controls gene activity through a process known as epigenetic control.

This seems to fit well into this thread. Its not just genes in isolation, but rather genes in the context of the whole environment in which the biology is situated.

I never remember being taught that genes were only self-actualizing . I always was under the impression that either a random mutation or environmental conditions could alter them.
But I am not a Bio guy.
**edit here** I have to read about this **

Quote:

The functional units of life are the individual cells that comprise our bodies. Though every cell is innately intelligent and can survive on its own when removed from the body, in the body, each cell foregoes its individuality and becomes a member of a multicellular community. The body really represents the cooperative effort of a community of perhaps fifty trillion single cells. By definition, a community is an organization of individuals committed to supporting a shared vision. Consequently, while every cell is a free-living entity, the body’s community accommodates the wishes and intents of its ‘central voice,’ a character we perceive as the mind and spirit.

He is arguing that there is some fundamental consciousness at the level of the cells meaning that the mind isn't an epiphenomenon of the brain. This fits into the idea that the ego-identity is in some sense false. However, he doesn't go very far in philosophizing about where consciousness does come from.

He does seem to get grouped with certain other writers who are popular with the alternative spirituality crowd: Ervin Laszlo, Rupert Sheldrake and Lynne McTaggart come to mind. All of these authors explore science in terms of consciousness, and all have been involved in scientific research. Nonetheless, I'm sure they're dismissed by most mainstream scientists.

I agree with you. He can't really state with any high degree certainty where it comes from; No one knows. Some people are calling it the "Big WOW" at the time of the "Big Bang". Medical imaging of the brain is just starting. Real time images of the brain will help us understand more.

Quote:

I don't know what to think of these ideas besides my enjoyment of thinking about them. I'm very curious where science will be heading in the next few decades.

Why it is heading for new discoveries. Like I said, they just started real time running images of the Brain.
The higher power hides nothing from us.
The seekers of knowledge are the finders of truth.