Reddit reviews Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death
We found 3 Reddit comments about Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
acclaimed biologist Robert Lanza, one of TIME Magazine’s "100 Most Influential People in 2014," and leading astronomer Bob Berman, take the reader on an intellectual thrill-ride as they re-examine everything we thought we knew about life, death, the universe, and the nature of reality itself.
You might be interested in surfing around Princeton's Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena research. I'm about halfway through the book "Consciousness and the Source of Reality". I also just finished reading "Biocentrism" and now I'm working on "Beyond Biocentrism" as well. It is all related.
Then, if you're really brave, (because personally, I find it really difficult to process), you could check out The Fractal Holographic Universe.
Lots of goodies in all of this material.
I recently picked up Beyond Biocentrism after reading this article on Aeon. I discovered the book Biocentrism after purchasing Beyond, now I'm wondering if I need to read Biocentrism first. Good to hear that others here have read and enjoyed the material, seems like it's worth a read.
>I didn't even imply that, speaking of intellectual shortcomings. Furthermore, I could just snipe back and say your intellectual shortcomings are quite obvious if you don't recognize pragmatism as bullshit. Can we not do this?
>I'd have much more respect for you if you bothered tackling what I actually said.
>So instead of wasting our time pointlessly going back and forth like that, I'll just repeat what I said and see if you deal with it this time.
>1) I said that most everyone understands "truth" to have a particular meaning, and if you use "true" to mean something else, you're going to mislead and confuse people. That is entirely independent of whether or not pragmatism has any merit.
Everyone once thought the Earth was flat. Just because something is widely accepted doesn't mean it's right (or true)
>2) I said there are other words you could use that mean the same thing you're trying to say, but are not going to needlessly confuse people.
I agree that saying knowledge is much easier to understand. Jordan is just using the lingo that pragmatic philosophers use
>3) Peterson should have acknowledged that and used another word. "When I say "true" I mean X, but I realize that's confusing, so instead I'll say it like this."
See question #2
>4) Peterson's refusal to do so shows he has an ulterior motive. This is, I believe, being able to say some religious belief that has no evidence is true.
Again he is going off of a previously formed philosophy. He never once every says Religion is historical fact, or true. Only that it is useful. I explain it more below.
>4a) This is a bastardization of pragmatism.
No it isn't. You guys keep getng stuck on this one word and not the actual views Jordan is presenting.
If you expand your understanding to something other than Material Realism, we could actually have a decent conversation. His argument is that you can't form an ought to be from an is. Science cannot answer it all, and Mythology is just as important to forming a usable truth (I would call it something like "necassary knowledge" but I understand why JP uses truth, as in science sometimes provides, or could provide, insufficient truths)
Biocentrism and Beyond Biocentrism, both by Dr. Robert Lanza, are good books if you're looking for an opposing view from Material Realism.