Comments on: Ecology and Physics http://dandeliontimes.net/2009/04/ecology-and-physics/ A Left-Biocentric Online Journal Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:53:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Guido http://dandeliontimes.net/2009/04/ecology-and-physics/comment-page-1/#comment-80 Guido Tue, 11 May 2010 13:12:12 +0000 http://dandeliontimes.net/?p=176#comment-80 Phil, I really think an important way for making peace with the Earth could come from modern science, that's an accepted way by people. But not by the "official" science, materialistic-mechanistic against any evidence. I have tried to explain this in my book "Deep Ecology" but it's in Italian and I didn't succeed in finding an English-tongue Publisher for a translation. If in any unstable branching-point a complex system has a choice, that's meaning that a kind of mind is present. There's no way at all, nor in a theoretical field, to predict future of the system: he/she is choosing. So mind is not a product of brain or neural cells. If Mind is everywhere, all is ethics-worth, there's no "inert matter" . All the Complex is Gaia, she's a Mind-Organism. But official science denies all this questions, despite many ideas born by a branch of science itself. Our hope is that science changes its path of development as a consequence of last thoughts on quantum physics, system theory and studies on sensing beings (maybe also on cybernetics and artificial minds). Our superficial logic is a forced Cartesian logic, is out of any present knowledge,.. but it' the official old-path science (that calls itself "truth"). Phil,
I really think an important way for making peace with the Earth could come from modern science, that’s an accepted way by people. But not by the “official” science, materialistic-mechanistic against any evidence.
I have tried to explain this in my book “Deep Ecology” but it’s in Italian and I didn’t succeed in finding an English-tongue Publisher for a translation.
If in any unstable branching-point a complex system has a choice, that’s meaning that a kind of mind is present. There’s no way at all, nor in a theoretical field, to predict future of the system: he/she is choosing. So mind is not a product of brain or neural cells. If Mind is everywhere, all is ethics-worth, there’s no “inert matter” . All the Complex is Gaia, she’s a Mind-Organism. But official science denies all this questions, despite many ideas born by a branch of science itself.
Our hope is that science changes its path of development as a consequence of last thoughts on quantum physics, system theory and studies on sensing beings (maybe also on cybernetics and artificial minds). Our superficial logic is a forced Cartesian logic, is out of any present knowledge,.. but it’ the official old-path science (that calls itself “truth”).

]]> By: Phil Henshaw http://dandeliontimes.net/2009/04/ecology-and-physics/comment-page-1/#comment-79 Phil Henshaw Sat, 08 May 2010 13:35:19 +0000 http://dandeliontimes.net/?p=176#comment-79 Guido, I've been developing another way to use physics for studying natural systems, to help point to where in the physical world information is so dense and complex that we need to consider them "information voids", for the sake of representational science, i.e. structures not possible to represent. What I find is that that is an efficient way to point to the objects of the natural world that are significantly organized and animated from the inside. I agree with your starting point above, that: "Conventional science remains limited by the philosophical milieu into which it was born three centuries ago, still strictly bound by the Newtonian-Cartesian view of reality. " I think in the struggles with breaking out of those confines we still find ourselves with a flawed concept of science, which relies on representing nature with one or another kind of information. I think that represents the physical location of the natural world within the reasoning of our own minds... is the problem. We could make a long list of proofs of that, how we treat nature as being as empty of meaning as our own superficial logic, or how we model "progress", quite universally, as continually doubling the scale of our consumption of anything usable in our own environment. What do you think of including the idea that science took a path of development that effectively failed to recognize the physical world as its subject as being part of the "problem definition" for making peace with the earth? Guido,
I’ve been developing another way to use physics for studying natural systems, to help point to where in the physical world information is so dense and complex that we need to consider them “information voids”, for the sake of representational science, i.e. structures not possible to represent. What I find is that that is an efficient way to point to the objects of the natural world that are significantly organized and animated from the inside.

I agree with your starting point above, that: “Conventional science remains limited by the philosophical milieu into which it was born three centuries ago, still strictly bound by the Newtonian-Cartesian view of reality. ” I think in the struggles with breaking out of those confines we still find ourselves with a flawed concept of science, which relies on representing nature with one or another kind of information. I think that represents the physical location of the natural world within the reasoning of our own minds… is the problem. We could make a long list of proofs of that, how we treat nature as being as empty of meaning as our own superficial logic, or how we model “progress”, quite universally, as continually doubling the scale of our consumption of anything usable in our own environment.

What do you think of including the idea that science took a path of development that effectively failed to recognize the physical world as its subject as being part of the “problem definition” for making peace with the earth?

]]>