Question

1) Discuss biocentrism. Explain its idea. What kinds of observation have led to the

development of this idea? How does this school of thought find support from quantum

physics? What do you think about this ancient idea that has been repackaged as new by

Robert Lanza? A link to an excellent reading about this idea is posted below:

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-creates-time-space-

cosmos

2) The mechanical philosophy, which arose from the scientific revolution, presents the

universe as a grand machine, one that operates blindly according to invariable laws. From

this mechanical view, the universe is devoid of teleology. As a machine runs according to

its rules, so does the universe. Darwin’s theory in 1859 expanded this non-teleological

conception of the cosmos to the living world. His theory of natural selection presented an

evolutionary process that is random and blind, the result of many accidents, some of

which were beneficial and, therefore, were preserved and have accumulated to drive the

change in form over time. This process gives the impression of an intentional, goal-

oriented process, but as natural selection is random and blind, any appearance of

teleology is an

illusion

. The science of abiogenesis, that studies the natural process

through which life has arisen, has operated since the 1920’s from the assumption that life,

as in its evolution, must also have arisen from a very random and high unlikely accident

of circumstances.

Discuss this non-teleological view of the universe, which has dominated physics and biology

for over 300 years. Do you agree with such a view? Do you see any lines of

evidence/observation that challenges the assumption that the universe operates blindly, that

life has arisen by accident, and that its evolution has come about through a strictly random

process? Regardless if you agree with a non-teleological view of the cosmos or not, support

your views with empirical data and observation.

3) Discuss the difference between technology and science. How are they related to each

other? How do they relate to the ‘Baconian vision’, put forth by Francis Bacon? Would

you say that we have achieved his vision, exactly as he envisioned it? Why or why not?

Finally, explain your position regarding the pros and cons of prioritizing applied research

over basic research. Deal with both sides of the argument. That is, argue why it is best to

prioritize applied over basic research. Then argue from the other side and make a case for

why it is better to prioritize basic research, or at least give equal funding to it. Finally,

explain your own personal position and why you hold it?

4) Discuss what you believe ‘consciousness’ is. Do all living organisms possess it? If not,

which do and which do not? From where do you think it arises? Finally, do you think we

can study understand the phenomenon of consciousness using the tools of reductionism

or do you think an epistemology of holism is needed?

5) In Erwin Schrodinger’s famous little book entitled ‘What is Life”, published in 1944,

Schrodinger looks at the phenomenon of life through the eyes of “a naïve physicist”. He

attempts to address the mystery of living organisms through appeal to physical and

chemical principles. This book has been said to have catalyzed what is now referred to as

the ‘molecular biology revolution’ that gained momentum in the 40’s and currently

dominates the life sciences. While acknowledging decades of productive reductionist

research in the life sciences there are those who argue that a shift to a more organismal

approach is now necessary if we are to truly answer Schrodinger’s question, “what is

life?”. This shift would means considering the organism as a whole without reducing it to

its constituent parts (aka organicism), the opposite of ‘reductionism’. My question to you

is whether you believe that a full explanation of life can be obtained by employing a

purely reductionist methodology? Why or why not?

6) We discussed quite a bit about the evolving role of mathematics in man’s endeavor to

explain the natural world. An eternal question remains: does mathematics exist as an

objectively ‘real’ language/symbolic scheme beyond man’s own mental construct? Or is

the whole of mathematics a contrivance of the human mind that man uses to describe the

universe? How do you personally see this debate? As always, explain your reasoning.

7) The following is a quote from a giant of 20th century biology, Carl Woese:

“Biology today is at a crossroads. The molecular paradigm, which so successfully guided

the discipline throughout most of the 20th century, is no longer a reliable guide. Its vision

of biology now realized,

the molecular paradigm has run its course. Biology,

therefore,

has a choice to make, between the comfortable path of continuing to follow molecular

biology's lead or the more invigorating one of seeking a new and inspiring vision of the

living world, one that addresses the major problems in biology that 20th century biology,

molecular biology, could not handle and, so, avoided. The former course, though highly

productive, is certain to turn biology into an engineering discipline. The latter holds the

promise of making biology an even more fundamental science, one that, along with

physics, probes and defines the nature of reality. This is a choice between a biology that

solely does society's bidding and a biology that is society's teacher.”

Quoted from

A New Biology for a New Century, 2004

Discuss this quote and your thoughts on the matter. Do you agree with Carl Woese? Has

biology become strictly an engineering discipline? If so, is there anything wrong with such

a direction? Do you think biology, as he suggests, has the potential to become a

fundamental science like physics? If so, how? Again, these questions are meant to be

suggestive to get you thinking about this topic. Feel free to discuss in your own way

Answer 1

1. Biocentrism is an environmental ethics. The earth community consists of all the species as well as humans. This ethics provide support for all the species have their own inherent values, they are living as their own way. Humans are not the inherently superior. The whole earth community as well as nature is neutral for the living of each species.

The precursor of this theory is the Darwin's evolution theory which proved that the humans did not came earth supernaturally, it was by the natural law. Besides this in all the religions, not the humans, god(nature) has the supreme power.

The consciousness we get is a perception which we received from the reality. The space and time are the tools to us for better understand the reality. Like the behaviour of particles, our external and internal perception are intertwined. If one type of the perception change, it has the effect on the another type of perception. In quantum physics, same type of behaviour of particles is explained.

As from the ancient time the religious faith is that everything of nature are unchangeable by human, if we change something it affects other. This ancient idea that has been repackaged as new by Robert Lanza.