Biology of Belief - TTLG Forums

the_grip on 20/7/2009 at 20:00

(http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Belief-Unleashing-Consciousness-Miracles/dp/1401923119/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248119704&sr=1-1)

Anyone read this? I'm just now getting through it, and it is an interesting read. This is a look at the mechanics of a cell's behavior, quantum physics, and then broadening the lens out to overturn the idea of genetic determinism that is so prevalent in the media. Instead, Lipton argues for a more environment-controlled expression of genetics and, by extension, he goes into programming the subconcious mind, etc.

This book also brought my attention to power psychology (which I have never heard of before).

Lipton also has a website: (http://www.brucelipton.com/)

I'd like some comments from anyone who is biologically inclined (i.e. not me) who could comment on this subject (assuming you've read or heard about it). It's interesting to see a scientist come from a genetic determinist background and evolve into where he is now which includes a movement from disregard of spirituality into a strong spiritual belief (and this is not a Christian book or anything of the sort... this dude just believes in the idea of oneness and that the whole environment - i.e. the universe - is god, yada yada... because the energy - quantum physics - that each person is comprised of is a reflection of the energy that activates their identity receptors on their cells and all kinds of stuff...)

Anyways, just curious if anyone who has a scientific background knows about this guy and what they'd say.

Muzman on 20/7/2009 at 21:07

I've not read it or anything, but it sounds like someone taking epigenetics and running with it to fashion a slightly more bio-rational version of some Deepak Chopra-esque quantum new age folderol. I guess it was bound to happen.

Is the media really all that deterministic though? There was a bit of an upswing back when evolutionary psychology was all the rage (maybe that's when it was written) but they managed to write themselves and some not so bad ideas out of the picture with the sheer volume of batshit crazy they came out with (bullshit about high heels and red lipstick having deep structural bases from baboon's arses or some rubbish, week after week).
I haven't seen much of it recent years though. Under Bush I doubt things that weren't all "god and personal responsibility" were terribly popular. But I haven't really been paying close attention. I guess if race prejudice counts as genetic determinism then maybe.

the_grip on 20/7/2009 at 21:11

Quote:

epigenetics

Thanks, that's the word... I don't have the book in front of me.

This was my first introduction to a science-based view of environmental impact. The spirituality stuff is the epilogue, and I get the feeling he is more Einstein about god than some guy who is forming some weird faction of folks. That said, I really can't say as I've only read the book. For the untrained (like myself), it seems like a good book. His emphasis in the book is more on understanding how environment impacts cells and the proteins that affect DNA etc... and then he broadens that to show how our multicelluar development evolved into the subconcious mind... and then he goes to show how the subconcious mind is an evolutionary advantage to program sophisticated stimulus-response behaviors but how this can also be a negative thing (i.e. telling a child they suck can program their subconcious mind due to the EEG brain waves that are strongest at a young age, etc.). Interesting stuff, but like I said I'm not much beyond biology and physics 101 in college.

demagogue on 20/7/2009 at 23:09

My undergrad studies were in philosophy of mind, so I always have a critical eye to this kind of work. I don't know about this book in particular, but books in this genre tend to be better on the science than the philosophy.

I myself think the biggest breakthroughs in understanding consciousness are going to come more from top-down work than bottom-up ... building more out of fields like economics and cognitive science than microbiology or pscyhophysics. They'll find the functional architecture before they pin down the biological structure, though the two inform each other. I'm really critical of "quantum" explanations of consciousness, since really, plain old electromagnetism does just fine running Hebbian dynamics, and nothing else is really relevant. All the tough questions are about the functional architecture.

That said, I do think there's promise in fleshing out some "spiritual" concepts in the new science of consciousness. I think a useful approach to that is connecting classic work on phenomenology with cognitive science and neuroeconomics. It's something I've noticed that books like this tend to overlook; it's like they're trying to re-invent the wheel from scratch and (unsurprisingly) doing an amateurish job of it.