Mod+ 256. DR. DONALD DEGRACIA, WHAT IS SCIENCE?

[Don DeGracia]

BACK TO ALEX'S QUESTION

So I wanted to try to get back on topic. We seem to have gotten lost in Experience, and gone off on Maya and God and stuff like that. But I would like to get back to Alex's question at the end of my interview about treating yoga as scientific.

I would suggest the key point here is the link between the gunas of yogic and Hindu philosophy and an important branch of modern physics called Dynamics.

Now, as I get to know those of you participating here, I see that philosophy gets a lot of air time and there is not a lot of discussion of specific scientific stuff. However, if I were to try to discuss this on a physics forum, they would run me out with pitch forks, torches, and hand axes, so let's see if we can try to develop something here in a more hospitable environment.

I begin by reminding you in Episode 201, Alex interviewed Ralph Abraham. Dr. Abraham is one of the leading workers in nonlinear dynamics in the 20th century. He did his stuff in the 1960s and there has been A LOT of water under the bridge since then. This stuff is now taught to undergraduates in physics and engineering (if you can sit through the 45 min, it really is an excellent lecture I've linked to).

Ralph spoke about "chaos theory". "Chaos" is just one type of dynamical system, technically called "dynamics of strange attractors". The overall field however is not too difficult in a broad sense because there are only three categories of dynamical systems called:

1. Fixed point attractors
2. Periodic attractors
3 Chaotic attractors

In an earlier post, I mentioned a pendulum. If a real pendulum swings in the air, this is an example of a fixed point attractor. What this means is, you push the pendulum, and it swings, but with each swing, it swings less until it comes to a stop pointing straight down. The point where it stops is called a "fixed point" because the system stops changing. Or, technically, the rate of change equals zero at the attractor point.

An example of a periodic attractor is an imaginary pendulum in a frictionless environment. Here, if you give the pendulum a push, it will swing back and forth, and the wings will never decay because there is no friction. It will just go back and forth forever. In this case, the attractor state traces out a circle and the system just keeps going round and round on the circle forever. A real life example of something that approximates a periodic dynamical system is the solar system. At least at time scales that are long compared to us humans, the planets rotate round and round the Sun in a periodic fashion.

Chaotic dynamics are a little harder to explain, but the weather is a good example where it seems periodic but does not exactly repeat each time around. Like here in Michigan, we go through the four seasons every year, but each year the daily details are different from any other year. This is a hallmark of a chaotic dynamical system.

So, what I think is the most important part of What Is Science? is my suggestion that the three types of dynamics identified in modern physics are identical to the three gunas of ancient Indian thought. The three gunas are:

1. Tamas. This is normally considered "inertia" or "lack of motion" and I equate it to fixed point attractors like the real pendulum whose motion comes to a stop.
2. Satva. This is "harmony" where things are balanced. I associate this with periodic motions, like sound waves, that literally do make harmonies, like what the ancient Greeks identified.
3. Rajas: This is "excitment" or "chaos" in hindu thought. I equate this to chaotic attractors.

Now, beyond making these links, the most interesting implication is that, in Hindu and yogic thinking, if you were to ask: what is moving? What is the substance that is tamas, or satva or rajas? They would say "nothing". Nothing is moving. There are only the patterns of movement. Whereas here in the West, even though we have identified scientifically the 3 basic types of movement, we have not yet recognized that nothing moves. We still cling to the idea that "something" is moving.

So, an important aspect, but by no means the only aspect, of my claim that yoga is scientific is because this very substantial link can be drawn between the gunas and modern dynamics.

Anyone want to jump in and comment? Again, I know it will be hard to get too technical about it, and we might again slip into philosophy, but I think it would be interesting to hear how this idea strikes people.

Thank you!

Don

 

[David Bailey]

Now, beyond making these links, the most interesting implication is that, in Hindu and yogic thinking, if you were to ask: what is moving? What is the substance that is tamas, or satva or rajas? They would say "nothing". Nothing is moving. There are only the patterns of movement. Whereas here in the West, even though we have identified scientifically the 3 basic types of movement, we have not yet recognized that nothing moves. We still cling to the idea that "something" is moving.

That is tough for me to interpret - except in terms of Idealism - where everything, including all material things are evoked by mental actions - so then there really isn't anything moving.

David

 

[Don DeGracia]

Thanks for that!

First to note that you probably should put something on your website to indicate that the links to books do contain missing sections - otherwise people may not even realise that there is a complete version available for a price!

I do feel rather disheartened that occult chemistry has been muddied by probable cheating in this way - because what I would really like would be some sort of proof that your scheme of things is close to the truth.

I must say, I had thought that occult chemistry was developed well before the facts it describes were observed.

Remember that I am only part way through your book, so I don't know - is there any other evidence that occult science can be proved to work?

I was also trying to think about your concept of matter being composed of 'tones' - i.e. thinking about the standing waves around atoms as being like standing audio waves.

One problem I have with that is that Schroedinger's equation contains the coordinates of all the relevant particles in the Hamiltonian - i.e. you can't really forget the particle concept - at least in that representation.

Also, the electron waves around atoms have a fixed amplitude - unlike audio tones - because they are subject to <ψ|ψ*>=1

The waves also can't seemingly propagate out from the atom/molecule - i.e. communicate with anything that is not adjacent.

BTW, I think we all appreciate the fact that you are taking time to discuss your ideas here on the forum.

David

Hi David

There is a lot of stuff there so I will try to tackle what I can! Also, I very much enjoy talking about this stuff. It is very cool to participate with such a lively and intelligent group (some of whom have a biting sense of humor/irony, which I very much appreciate).

There are many other aspects of Occult Chemistry that McBride has to bend over backwards to dismiss. For example, B&L clearly described isotopes of atoms before these were even known. McBride does some hand waving about this but his stuff so lacks credibility I can't even remember it. Also, B&L very clearly described structures composed of 3 UPAs. And there are two types of UPAs, a clockwise spinning one and a counterclockwise spinning one. The triplets these formed correspond almost perfectly with the modern understanding of how up and down quarks make the proton, neutron and other composite particles. Stephen Phillips gets into this in acute technical detail if you want further info on this. Another thing that struck me very strongly has to do with the fact that my BS is in chemistry, so I learned quite a bit of modern chemistry, including taking a 400 level class in applications of group theory to chemistry. Now, if you read Occult Chemistry, they begin with a discussion of the Platonic solids and talk about how you need to know these to understand what they "saw". I don't know if you know, but group theory is all about shapes. People often use the word "symmetry" to describe group theory, but they are taking about the symmetry of shapes. For example a sphere has a different symmetry than a football shape. Different groups describe the different types of symmetry that objects have. There is an intimate link even between group theory and the Platonic solids. So, that B&L made such a BIG DEAL out of shapes of what they saw is really incredible to me. If you consider the first OC observations were published circa 1890, at that time in physics there was very little application of geometry to atomic structure. There was an idea of a "plumb pudding model" of atoms that came out in the first decade of the 1900s where the + and - charges were thought to be embedded together into some kind of structure. Around that time Rutheford did his thing, and we got the idea of a tight, small positive nucleus surrounded by a "planetary" electrons . The whole idea that atoms have complex shapes came in the 1920s and 1930s when people figured out how to solve Schrodinger's equation to calculate what we now call atomic orbitals.

So, no matter how you look at it, Occult Chemistry is just plain freaky. It cannot be easily dismissed at all. McBride attacks only one small aspect of the huge amount of information B&L produced.

Matter and tones. When Beyond the Physical (BP) was written I had my undergrad training in quantum mechanics. Since they I have continued to study more and more about it because chemist have a very rudimentary knowledge compared to the way physicists use it. Just over the past few months I have been reading books by Erwin Schrodinger to understand what he thought of his own equation. I do not know if you are aware of all the big drama, but Schrodinger never accepted the Copenhagen interpretation and he and Einstein teamed up against Bohr, Born and Heisenberg (this is where the cat thought experiment came from that has become a media darling in recent decades). It was Born that developed the probabilistic interpretation of Schrodinger's equation that everyone uses today and which constitutes the Copenhagen interpretation.

Erwin never accepted Copenhagen. I have to admit the book I just read, I did not understand his arguments because they were all mathematical and used math I do not know. But based on the editors commentary (The book is "The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by Schrodinger) Schrodinger's math was part of what today is called "entanglement".

But what I did understand is that Schrodinger interpreted his own equation to describe only waves, recognizing that you could interpret the wave front as a particle. He advocated strongly to eliminate the idea of particle from quantum mechanics.

My interpretation in BP is highly over-simplified, but it goes in the general direction of what Schrodinger was trying to do. However, even he felt he was never able to successfully resolve the problem so he wrote a book about life and gave impetus to the rise of modern molecular biology and wrote some stuff about the mind that has not had a wide impact yet. I will be drawing heavily on what he wrote about the mind in my future writings. I will be making my PhD neuroscience students read his essay this semester (don't let them know, they might drop the class!).

There is a super great video series on youtube that explain QM about the best and easiest it can be explained:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL193BC0532FE7B02C

The thing Schrodinger did was introduce complex numbers into doing calculations about physical quantities. This affects everything and is the technical "rub" to really understanding the wave equation and QM. The difference between Schrodinger and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics is that the MM is more just a way to calculate that gives the right answer but suggests little about what the calculations mean (a "shut up and calculate" mentality). Schrodinger made an actual theoretical equation that is open to interpretation. Schrodinger spent his life trying to interpret it but got mowed over by the loud mouth Copenhagen people, who won out on the mainstream level. Now, I don't want to knock Bohr. His point of view was very reasonable, more reasonable than Einsteins in a way, and I think that is really why Bohr won. Here is the essence of their debate:

Einstein (and Schrodinger too): The equations MUST describe some kind of reality.
Bohr: Reality is only what we can measure.

To go any deeper than this, we leave science and enter philosophy. This debate makes a very clear border between the two TYPES of inquiry. Attempts to deal with this scientifically gave rise to string theory and you can go read Peter Woit on one hand, or Lubus Motl on the other to see how that is working out for the physicists.

Ok, will stop here. David thank you so much for writing and raising such interesting issues.

Best wishes,

Don

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

That is tough for me to interpret - except in terms of Idealism - where everything, including all material things are evoked by mental actions - so then there really isn't anything moving.

David

Yeah, it seems to me once we're talking about the supposed illusion of movement we're talking about philosophy, or at least a borderland between physics and metaphysics.

 

[Don DeGracia]

That is tough for me to interpret - except in terms of Idealism - where everything, including all material things are evoked by mental actions - so then there really isn't anything moving.

David

Hi again, David!

Well, I suggest in the book that the Hindu/yogic ideas are a substantial (as opposed to a trivial intellectual) solution to the Western mind-body problem. In other words, they resolve the Materialism/Idealism debate. This is certainly how the ideas are used in yogic teachings so I am not superimposing this over their ideas. I don't have the direct quote at my access, but Krishnananda says it something like this: "Since the mind and senses are made of the same thing as the external world (the gunas) that is why they have an affinity for each other, that is why the external world sucks the mind into it (and vice versa), etc.).

And that is the heart and soul of the idea: the patterns in the mind are made of gunas just as are the patterns outside the mind. It transitions from being "merely" philosophical to being scientific because Western science has a rich understanding of the patterns of change outside the mind: dynamics. And in a complementary way, the yogic methods have an equally, if not greater, richness of manipulating and "controlling" (put in quotes because "nirodah" doesn't have an easy translation into English) the patterns of movement in the mind.

So, that is why I consider it the most important part of What is Science? Back when I wrote Beyond the Physical, I did not understand the idea of gunas nor dynamics well enough to see that they are just different ways to say the same thing.

Best,

Don

 

[Don DeGracia]

Yeah, it seems to me once we're talking about the supposed illusion of movement we're talking about philosophy, or at least a borderland between physics and metaphysics.

I think most people in dynamics would take issue with this, especially when they use it to make the Mars Rover, or Large Hadron Collidor or a blast furnace, or cell phone or something, where dynamics has practical application. -Don

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I think most people in dynamics would take issue with this, especially when they use it to make the Mars Rover, or Large Hadron Collidor or a blast furnace, or cell phone or something, where dynamics has practical application. -Don

What does that have to do with the illusion of change and whether all time is a single frozen moment?

 

[David Bailey]

There are many other aspects of Occult Chemistry that McBride has to bend over backwards to dismiss......

That sounds a lot more encouraging! Yes, I remember group theory applied to chemical structures (well remember may be a bit strong - I'd struggle to actually do any of the calculations now!) because I did a PhD in chemistry, very very many years ago!

There is a species of extreme skeptic that will bend over backwards to dismiss any evidence. I mean to be fair to Leadbeater, perhaps he just got himself a chemistry book to check out his own observations - not really thinking that he was messing up his own evidence.

In case you are wondering, the extreme skeptics are corralled in one part of this forum. It is not that we don't like to debate with them, but we don't want them to just swamp discussions like this one.

If they got into such details back in 1890, that is very encouraging. I guess the details may be waiting for me further on in the book (unless you deleted them :) ) but did they manage to visualise the structures of specific compounds, such as various salts - particularly with ligands attached - or maybe some organic compounds.

David

 

[Michael Larkin]

I hope EthanT comes in on the physics/mathematics side of things: he seems to be our resident expert on this, and I think David Bailey is our resident chemistry expert (don't you have a PhD or something in chem, David? I only did a year of chem and biochem at university) Ethan, are you reading this? What do you have to say? Come in wherever you are!

I hope you hang around longer, Don; even if Alex posts a different podcast thread soon, this thread will remain open and I'm sure there's lots more to discuss: we've had some epic and long-lasting threads here in the past.

Incidentally, out of curiosity, I've started reading your OOBE book. It's not something I've ever tried, but I have had that "sleep paralysis" type thing in the past which it seems you are positing is being aware within the etheric realm. We have OOBE experts here too, like Andy Paquette, who's currently getting ready to present his PhD thesis and so may not be able to contribute for a week or two.

 

[David Bailey]

Incidentally, out of curiosity, I've started reading your OOBE book. It's not something I've ever tried, but I have had that "sleep paralysis" type thing in the past which it seems you are positing is being aware within the etheric realm. We have OOBE experts here too, like Andy Paquette, who's currently getting ready to present his PhD thesis and so may not be able to contribute for a week or two.

I'd love to go OOBE too - but when I go to bed, I just fall asleep! I have tried one or two prescriptions as to how to go into an OOBE - such as trying to stay awake as the body goes to sleep - but I just stay awake for a while and then I just fall asleep anyway!

David

 

[LoneShaman]

There is a species of extreme skeptic that will bend over backwards to dismiss any evidence.

In case you are wondering, the extreme skeptics are corralled in one part of this forum. It is not that we don't like to debate with them, but we don't want them to just swamp discussions like this one.

Why don't you tell Don there is no difference between a pattern and a random arrangement of matter, because of the mathematical probability of 1 in 10x10^150 ? :)

 

[Pepe Silvia]

I'd love to go OOBE too - but when I go to bed, I just fall asleep! I have tried one or two prescriptions as to how to go into an OOBE - such as trying to stay awake as the body goes to sleep - but I just stay awake for a while and then I just fall asleep anyway!

David

Working on visualization might help. I read one guide about OBEs where the author recommended setting up a path through your house with 7 or 8 checkpoints, taking time to deeply examine each point and collect as much sensory information you can about each point, walking through the path once a night for a few days, and then mentally walking the path for a while. Another method popularized by William Buhlman is the target technique, where you find 3 objects in another room, closely examine these objects, and then deeply focus on these objects as you drift off to sleep

 

[LoneShaman]

Krishnananda says it something like this: "Since the mind and senses are made of the same thing as the external world (the gunas) that is why they have an affinity for each other, that is why the external world sucks the mind into it (and vice versa), etc.).

And that is the heart and soul of the idea: the patterns in the mind are made of gunas just as are the patterns outside the mind. It transitions from being "merely" philosophical to being scientific because Western science has a rich understanding of the patterns of change outside the mind: dynamics. And in a complementary way, the yogic methods have an equally, if not greater, richness of manipulating and "controlling" (put in quotes because "nirodah" doesn't have an easy translation into English) the patterns of movement in the mind.

Hi Don, that speaks to me.
I have a special interest in microbiology. For the past several years I have been researching alongside some other interests that converged, and am currently studying chemistry.

I am constantly refering to semiotics and biosemiotics in relation to consciousness and genetics. In the way that patterns of matter become something beyond that matter by way of representations. That in genetics, the formal operations defined by symbolic representations do not and cannot in fact be derived from the medium that embodies them.

I see this in exactly what you are saying. And where this philosophical problem of meaning, intention, where through the use of representations mind meets matter, the mind body problem extends right down to the genetic level where it can be addressed scientifically. Biosemiotics deals with this issue, Howard Pattee has spent a large proportion of his life to this fundamental problem. I think you would enjoy his work.
Biology seems oblivious to the fact they are working within two mediums.

But yes you would be driven off with pitchforks for placing mind in any context with biology beyond neurology. Would love to bear you thoughts on gunas and the heart of the issue as it relates to biology.

Have not heard the interview yet, so I might be missing some context. will do soon.

Thanx.

 

[Don DeGracia]

What does that have to do with the illusion of change and whether all time is a single frozen moment?

Well, most today would consider it a scientific issue. Relativity and dynamics are both very well developed. Relativity is a special form of dynamics in fact.

 

[Don DeGracia]

That sounds a lot more encouraging! Yes, I remember group theory applied to chemical structures (well remember may be a bit strong - I'd struggle to actually do any of the calculations now!) because I did a PhD in chemistry, very very many years ago!

There is a species of extreme skeptic that will bend over backwards to dismiss any evidence. I mean to be fair to Leadbeater, perhaps he just got himself a chemistry book to check out his own observations - not really thinking that he was messing up his own evidence.

In case you are wondering, the extreme skeptics are corralled in one part of this forum. It is not that we don't like to debate with them, but we don't want them to just swamp discussions like this one.

If they got into such details back in 1890, that is very encouraging. I guess the details may be waiting for me further on in the book (unless you deleted them :) ) but did they manage to visualise the structures of specific compounds, such as various salts - particularly with ligands attached - or maybe some organic compounds.

David

Hi David

Thanks for the reply and thanks for helping me navigate the site. I just found the extreme skeptic area and was pursuing through it.

The thing with being fair to Leadbeater is that it is a classic case of "extreme claims need extreme evidence". Given that it all happened in the past we run into the problem of interpreting records etc, that is, it becomes a topic of history. Unfortunately, there is nobody I know today that is claiming to have the ability the way B&L did. Geoffry Hodson, a student of Leadbeater also had the ability. There are tape recordings from the 1950s floating around out there somewhere of his sessions. More substantial things were done, like having him observe substances in the presence and absence of an electric current or magnetic field. But other than this, woefully little follow up. So, Occult Chemistry sits there as a weird historical oddity, and the McBride's of the world can say whatever they want.

When I was younger I tried to hang more stock on this case, but have, quite similar to Alex, taken to what really is the main question: what is consciousness? If it is caused by the brain, then EXACTLY how is it caused by the brain. Until we can answer these foundational questions, everything about what the mind is and how it works is just speculation, at least for the Western mindset. The alternative is to use yoga as a "get out of jail free" card and move past all the intellectual cacophony.

Thank you, David.

Best wishes,

Don

 

[Don DeGracia]

I hope EthanT comes in on the physics/mathematics side of things: he seems to be our resident expert on this, and I think David Bailey is our resident chemistry expert (don't you have a PhD or something in chem, David? I only did a year of chem and biochem at university) Ethan, are you reading this? What do you have to say? Come in wherever you are!

I hope you hang around longer, Don; even if Alex posts a different podcast thread soon, this thread will remain open and I'm sure there's lots more to discuss: we've had some epic and long-lasting threads here in the past.

Incidentally, out of curiosity, I've started reading your OOBE book. It's not something I've ever tried, but I have had that "sleep paralysis" type thing in the past which it seems you are positing is being aware within the etheric realm. We have OOBE experts here too, like Andy Paquette, who's currently getting ready to present his PhD thesis and so may not be able to contribute for a week or two.

Hi Michael. Yes, I expect I will continue to hang out. I am definitely having fun and learning things.

Back when I wrote DO_OBE I linked sleep paralysis with the etheric realm because there is a certain class of what I call "etheric experiences" characterized by: (1) you are generally in a familiar environment, (2) but you are "heavy" and it is hard to move, and (3) maybe half the time it is dark and scary. All these correlate to some extent with the theosophical view of the etheric plane and so I used their term.

A few years after DO_OBE was written I learned about sleep paralysis in the context of psychology. As you indicated it is relatively common, most people having experienced it at least a few times in their lives. There is an easy neurological explanation for sleep paralysis: one's mind wakes up before the body does. It is well known that in REM sleep the body is paralyzed and so this is being consciously experienced during sleep paralysis.

Anyway, feel free to try out the methods I describe. Make sure you read the one plaintalk article "More about the trance state" that goes into further helpful details. And feel free to ask questions if you run into bumps along the way.

Thanks for letting me know about Andy's interest. I'll look forward to hearing for him at some future date, hopefully.

Best wishes,

Don

 

[Don DeGracia]

I'd love to go OOBE too - but when I go to bed, I just fall asleep! I have tried one or two prescriptions as to how to go into an OOBE - such as trying to stay awake as the body goes to sleep - but I just stay awake for a while and then I just fall asleep anyway!

David

Hi David

First cardinal rule is to wake up about 30 minutes early to try to OBE. It is no good trying to do it when you go to sleep at night. Again, I discuss the reasons in the plain talk article "More About the Trance Method"

Best,

Don

 

[Don DeGracia]

Why don't you tell Don there is no difference between a pattern and a random arrangement of matter, because of the mathematical probability of 1 in 10x10^150 ? :)

Okay... I detect a hint of cynicism or irony, but forgive me, I am daft sometimes and don't get it...

Oh man, and don't get me started on pattern vs. randomness. I just did a lecture in an advanced neuro class I run and challenged all my students (most of whom are pre-med Masters level) belief in Darwinian evolution. Fun times!

Don

 

[LoneShaman]

Okay... I detect a hint of cynicism or irony, but forgive me, I am daft sometimes and don't get it...

Oh man, and don't get me started on pattern vs. randomness. I just did a lecture in an advanced neuro class I run and challenged all my students (most of whom are pre-med Masters level) belief in Darwinian evolution. Fun times!

Don

Ya, spot on. Nothing at all to with your comments. That very argument is the one I was referring to. We had just been arguing about it here on the forum.
just pointing out some irony in my usual cynical way.

 

[Don DeGracia]

Hi Don, that speaks to me.
I have a special interest in microbiology. For the past several years I have been researching alongside some other interests that converged, and am currently studying chemistry.

I am constantly referring to semiotics and biosemiotics in relation to consciousness and genetics. In the way that patterns of matter become something beyond that matter by way of representations. That in genetics, the formal operations defined by symbolic representations do not and cannot in fact be derived from the medium that embodies them.

I see this in exactly what you are saying. And where this philosophical problem of meaning, intention, where through the use of representations mind meets matter, the mind body problem extends right down to the genetic level where it can be addressed scientifically. Biosemiotics deals with this issue, Howard Pattee has spent a large proportion of his life to this fundamental problem. I think you would enjoy his work.
Biology seems oblivious to the fact they are working within two mediums.

But yes you would be driven off with pitchforks for placing mind in any context with biology beyond neurology. Would love to bear you thoughts on gunas and the heart of the issue as it relates to biology.

Have not heard the interview yet, so I might be missing some context. will do soon.

Thanx.

Hi LoneShaman

See, this is what I am talking about re the fun of this forum. I never heard of semiotics or biosemiotics and went and looked it up. Yes, there is a direct connection to the dynamics point of view. They seem to be two different methodologies converging to the same insights. I saw the term "downward causation" in the Wikipedia article and that is one of the sides of system dynamics. You can have bottom up dynamics (as in Craig Reynolds' Boid algorithm of flocking) or top down dynamics (which encompasses a LOT of stuff). Alex mentioned my work on nonlinear dynamics of cell injury. It is a top-down dynamical approach to the molecular biology of cell death. I mentioned above about torturing my students and challenging their almost religious (Certainly unquestioning) belief in evolution with exactly this idea. New ideas are emerging, related to emergence and dynamics in biology and evolution. One can now see evolution as emergent dynamics instead of some stupid random process that makes no sense when appropriately thought thorough. Like, your great comment about 10^10^10^10...stupid old fashioned biologists.

Yes, you are absolutely correct about two mediums. Actually, ironically, they have known these two mediums explicitly for decades: genotype and phenotype. In the old days (1930s) it was all phenotype. Then Watson and Crick and BOOM! It all became genotype. Since probably the late 1980s when sequencing became widespread, all these people forgot about phenotype and think everything is genotype. The one good thing you can say about them is they sequenced the human genome. But other than that they are the worst type of reductionists. Reductionism in physics looks like heaven and in biology looks like hell when you compare them.

Now tho, with the rise of nonlinear dynamics, its going back to understanding the link between genotype and phenotype. So really, people are now thinking three layers (or mediums): genotype --> dynamical layer --> phenotype. Again, this is the basis for my cell injury theory. I am applying the idea to cell injury but people are now applying it to all kinds of things like cancer, cell division, development and all those biological processes that completely resisted the reductionist paradigm.

Yeah, and this is all mainstream stuff. So then I go making it all "weird" (play Twilight Zone theme song) by including these 2000+ year old Hindu ideas of the gunas! Good times!

Anyway, it sounds like semiotics is coming at this too from a different angle but converging at the same place.

Finally, if Alex is reading this: I agree completely: if consciousness emerges from the brain, tell me exactly how it does so. Where does it start and where does it stop?

It is not consciousness that emerges from the brain, it is the CONTENTS of consciousness, what yoga calls vrittis, and apparently what the semiotic people recognize, although I will need to learn more about it.

Nice to meet you LoneShaman.

Best,

Don