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

development of this idea? How does this school of thought findsupport from quantum

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

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

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

cosmos

2) The mechanical philosophy, which arose from the scientificrevolution, presents the

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

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

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

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

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

which were beneficial and, therefore, were preserved and haveaccumulated to drive the

change in form over time. This process gives the impression ofan 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 naturalprocess

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

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

of circumstances.

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

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

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

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

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

your views with empirical data and observation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

explain your own personal position and why you hold it?

4) Discuss what you believe ‘consciousness’ is. Do all livingorganisms 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 thetools of reductionism

or do you think an epistemology of holism is needed?

5) In Erwin Schrodinger’s famous little book entitled ‘What isLife”, 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 throughappeal to physical and

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

the ‘molecular biology revolution’ that gained momentum in the40’s and currently

dominates the life sciences. While acknowledging decades ofproductive reductionist

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

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

life?”. This shift would means considering the organism as awhole 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 beobtained by employing a

purely reductionist methodology? Why or why not?

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

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

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

the whole of mathematics a contrivance of the human mind thatman 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 centurybiology, Carl Woese:

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

the discipline throughout most of the 20th century, is no longera 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 continuingto follow molecular

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoted from

A New Biology for a New Century, 2004

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

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

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

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

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