Beyond the "I"
RS is a proud media sponsor of this year's Science and Nonduality Conference. Check out the information below:
A new paradigm is emerging in spirituality that goes beyond religion, beyond faith, beyond gurus. It is an approach that is grounded in cutting-edge science, using the latest findings from quantum physics and neuroscience to support an analysis of consciousness that is consistent with the ancient wisdom of nonduality.
At this year’s Science and Nonduality Conference, October 20-24, preeminent scientists, philosophers, artists, and mystics will converge for five days of stimulating exchange. Last year, people gathered from all over the world to listen to such luminaries from the worlds of science and spirituality as Stephen Wolinsky, Henry Stapp, Daniel Pinchbeck, Marilyn Schlitz, Peter Russell, and Amit Goswami.
This year’s lineup includes CSO at Advanced Cell Technology, Robert Lanza; spiritual leader and teacher of nonduality Adyashanti; Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, Stuart Hameroff; author Jeff Foster; physicist Nassim Haramein; founder of the Diamond Approach, A. H. Almaas; artist and author Rupert Spira; evolutionary biologist Elisabet Sahtouris; Advaita teacher Francis Lucille; plus many, many more.
In addition to talks from prominent scientists and spiritual leaders, selected presenters will offer interactive workshops that give conference participants more opportunity to engage directly with the speakers.
This year’s program also includes many experiential sessions, co-presented with the magazine Conscious Dancer, in which different movement modalities are offered. With both live and DJ’ed music, movie screenings, and poetry readings in the evenings, this year’s conference promises to be a stimulating, illuminating, and fun experience.
The Science and Nonduality Conference is organized by Neti Neti Media in association with the Center for Consciousness Studies (CCS) at the University of Arizona, the Institute of Noetic Science (IONS), and Conscious Dancer Magazine.
Neti Neti Media is a conscious conglomerate of filmmakers, scientists, and philosophers committed to expanding human potential by bridging modern science and ancient traditions.
For full list of speakers click here.
Image by Wonderlane on Flickr courtesy of Creative Commons Licensing
Tweet
- 9-23-10
- Remi Gurak's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Lanza's Theory
Lanza's theory of Biocentrism doesn't strike me as all that odd -- Von Neumann thought the very same, himself. This is not a new line of thought. I find it pretty realistic.
Much of the complaints are more critical of the description of the ideas. What I'm saying is -- I'm comparing it to: "Einstein is nuts. Here's a petty and cute aphorism ("gedanken" -- how woo can you get?) about riding on a light-beam! Sure to attract the nutters out there, but where's the substance??"
It's basically just whining about an idea that the authors of the comments don't like. They're just saying "do not want," but putting a "scientific skeptic" gloss over it all.
So my question for them is, "OK, so what's your theory of consciousness?"
The 33[+] Meanings of "Consciousness"
Do you see what the big deal is about consciousness?
Do you think it's "much ado about nothing," or do you see a fundamental problem there, something not explained, or even explainable [by current mode], of science?
Because my experience is:
Those who say "no problem" or "much ado about nothing" don't understand what we (David Chalmers and Co.) are on about.
I wish I were at home, because I have a book ("A Place for Consciousness") that references another book (title unknown,) that is entirely dedicated to distilling out some 33+ isolated things that people can mean when they say "consciousness," for the sole and express purpose of pointing out the one that we care about.
Whenever someone is explaining how any of the other 32 (or whatever) meanings of "consciousness" are working, they are not talking about the one that we're talking about.
And it's my experience that people who just shrug and say "I can think of a few explanations, ..." ...they are always talking about one of those other meanings.
Lanza's meaning of "Time"
I think you might be misunderstanding [what I think] Lanza means by "time," when he says that "time" doesn't exist.
(This is similar to Daniel Dennett systematically misunderstanding what David Chalmers means by "consciousness." Daniel Dennett always imagines that David Chalmers is talking about mental computation -- something that we can all agree issomething that peopel can come to understand. David Chalmers is not talking about mental computation, though. David Chalmers is talking about raw awareness, or the fact of experience, period. This is not something that we know anything about. In effect, the argument is over the meaning of a homonym.)
Here's a question that would point to Lanza's meaning of the word "time," when he says things to the effect of "time is a creation of awareness":
"Why is it right now, rather than any other moment?"
For example, if space and time make a four-dimensional fabric of some sort, -- why is it that right now is a particular moment in time, rather than any other particular moment in time?
If you compressed the four dimensional fabric into a line, so that any point on the line is the entire universe at that particular time, and the line itself embodying all of time, -- then why is it now the particular moment that it is?
Another way of asking it is, "If that line were the groove of a record, and the universe were a record playing in a record player, -- then what is the needle?"
By "time", Lanza is not referring to a dimension. Rather, Lanza is talking about the existence of a present moment.
And hey, by the way, I never compared Lanza to Einstein, thank you very much.
Just Registered
nutritionals453
Platinum Protection