Biocentrism and BF

[gigantor]

2 hours ago, WSA said:

 

Google “How big can entanglement get” and be prepared to have this idea challenged.

 

I'll look into it when I get a chance.

[NCBFr]

17 hours ago, WSA said:

The quest to find a singular unified explanation "outside" our biocentric view leads us to unsatisfying and incomplete things like string theory, that always are one or two equations away from coming up with the grail.One principal tenant of Lanza's theory is the fact that all of the forces of the universe, like gravity, weak forces, etc., are calibrated right in the sweet-spot for the universe (and us) to exist. Now what are the chances of that just happening, ...

 

If you really want to know, I suggest you read "Faster than the speed of light" by Joao Magueijo.  Not an easy read but enjoyable if you are a physics geek.

 

 

[WSA]

Thanks for the recommendation NCBFr.  As an English Major I find the math challenging (O.K., incomprehensible!), but I am fascinated by the theoretical implications of this stuff. My approach is more philosophical than mathematical too, so I find lots to chew on.

 

Now that my awareness has been elevated, I increasingly view the mysteries of the natural world by applying the biocentric model.  It is, so far, the explanation that "fits" more often.

 

The quantum world is continuing to encroach on our paradigm. We all at one point could make some peace with it by putting it in the box labeled, "Oh, that is just what photons do, and what does it have to do with MY world?" Increasingly, not so much. 

 

Biocentrism is as old as Schroeder's Cat, and as ancient as Buddha, so the recent spate of words about it is merely repackaging, at least on a superficial level. But then you mix in Einstein and quantum properties and it suddenly hits a little closer to home.  The mystery of consciousness is absolutely the crux of the gist for me, and the topic of what a BF's consciousness is ? Well, THAT is on another level-up still.    

[Arvedis]

23 minutes ago, WSA said:

The mystery of consciousness is absolutely the crux of the gist for me, and the topic of what a BF's consciousness is ? Well, THAT is on another level-up still.    

 

Yes, this entire thread is more about physics than BF. The great mystery of BF consciousness is he likes to eat. He apparently will breed as well as develop forms of clan life. They like to break trees, maybe to vent? Perhaps probing the intellectual value of tree breaking will unearth startling clues.

 

Anyone talking to them in the forest has been unable to satisfactory explain why their physical behavior does not mirror this alleged consciousness-speak which gives them buddah like powers.

[Wolfjewel]

WSA, I appreciate your post, especially :

"The quantum world is continuing to encroach on our paradigm. We all at one point could make some peace with it by putting it in the box labeled, 'Oh, that is just what photons do, and what does it have to do with MY world?' Increasingly, not so much."

 

As a non-scientist I did put quantum in that box. But as a writer/editor I wish to break down what is being said, so I -- and people like me -- can understand it. Although I can say I just don't get a lot of what is mentioned in this thread, what you are saying does make sense. If you could write more with specific examples of biocentrism, I'd be happy. The mystery of BF consciousness, now that's quite a topic, as is the whole mystery of its illusiveness. 

 

[WSA]

Wolfjewel....I know. Even theoretical physicists I'm told have moments where what they think they are aware of becomes incomprehensible. If you want to dip your toe in to the quantum universe it is a fascinating exercise, and just realize the befuddlement you'll experience at the weirdness of it all is something shared by the greatest minds in history.  You'll feel really dumb, but you'll be in great company!

 

But to put this back on track of the OP, let me just put it in the context of BF studies. The most intriguing premise of biocentrism is that there is no objective time that exists in the universe, and what we comprehend as the passing of time is merely imposing a linear measurement on entropic processes. In other words, say you  are watching evaporation occur in the form of paint drying. The water in an acrylic paint is changing from a liquid to a gas, which produces what we call "dry paint".  Painters call this "open time" because they need to know when they can apply a second coat. The universe doesn't keep that information. The non-time description of the entropic process   will do just as well if you don't need to predict when you can rehang your pictures on the wall you just painted.

 

So what is our "time" to a BF? I've thought that there is a real possibility BF exists outside of time as we know it, which gives it an incredible advantage over  those trying to pin it down. One basic human tendency that thwarts a lot of human ambition is impatience. When you think about it, impatience as a trait cannot exist outside of time. So if I am a researcher who needs to predict or out wait a BF, I'm already one down.  If BF is more human than ape, you've got a formidable adversary on this level alone...a human-like intellect with no drive (or possibly no ability at all) to operate in measurable or perceptible time.    While a researcher is hampered by predictions and anxieties about the future (how long will my FLIR batteries last; how much daylight do I have left; do I have to get home in time to let the cat out...?), my presumption is a BF is not.  A BF probably exists in a permanent state of "now", without all these considerations. I believe that much of the forest-ninja rhetoric is describing this advantage over we humans who exist in a constant state of comparative chronological position.  

[WSA]

Arvedis, what you describe is not indicators of consciousness....at least to the extent I'm using the term.  I would consider those to be behavioral traits, and although those can be indicators of consciousness, they are not the same thing to me. 

 

To put a little finer point on what I mean, I'm not referring to how the fish likes to swim, but rather what is its "water"?  Coming to grips with that idea as it applies to a BF is, I grant you, rather an impossible task when we have to admit we really don't know what human consciousness is, so we'd certainly not be able to say if BF consciousness differs from ours....only a guess is possible. My understanding of the biocentrism theory leads me to conclude that it IS possible that BF consciousness differs remarkably from our own.  Or, at the least, it would be rash to think it can't. If we want to understand this animal, whatever it is, we would be best served by proceeding from that premise.