Tag Archives: Vitalism

Darwinists are horrified


Click Here

Article reads: Score one for science this week. Evolutionary biologists were horrified by the news that a scholarly press was going to publish a work in favor of intelligent design. But a spokesman for the publishing house confirmed to Inside Higher Ed Wednesday that the book’s publication is on hold as it is subjected to further peer review.

Human body did not evolve by a Darwinian process

Even Provda gets this right:

Click Here

Artcile reads: Evolution has no proven explanations for the origin of just one irreducibly complex system, let alone the interdependent web of irreducible systems that comprise the human body.

What is needed is a Trinitarian vitalism, where the middle term is permitted a more complex expression with evolution.

Rupert Sheldrake promotes new book


Click Here

Article reads: His new book, The Science Delusion, is a summation of this thinking, an attempt to address what he sees as the limitations and hubris of contemporary scientific thought. In particular, he takes aim at the “scientific dogmatism” that sets itself up as gospel. The chapters take some of the stonier commandments of contemporary science and make them into questions: “Are the laws of nature fixed?”; “Is matter unconscious?”; “Is nature purposeless?” “Are minds confined to brains?”

The Gyromodel, and a letter to Dr Andrulis

 Hi Dr Andrulis

 I am trying to understand your paper (http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/1/pdf), and I am running into difficulty.
First, I like the idea of gyre. It is a lot like the holon idea introduced by Arthur Koestler. I like the idea of oscillation around a singularity, as the gyre reaches to high and low energy states. I understand the second law of thermodynamics to be two-sided, meaning that the equivocation of “reprensentation” and “recognition” is the only way to foolishly return to something one-sided; that is, yes the 2nd law hides a metphysical singularity. 
But I don`t understand Figures 1 and 2. In fact, its is unclear how the philosophy of the gyremodel relates to the biochemistry (which I am not an expert). Moreover, one may describe the philosophy more generally before trying to integrate the model back into the biochemistry. One is led to a possible conclusion that your paper is another spoof that follows the style of Alan Sokal. But I want to show your theory more grace than that, if only because Lovelock`s Giai theory is probably correct, as well as a neo-vitalism, and panpsychism, all of which may be agreeable with the gyremodel.
I have my own Trinitarian vitalism, or theory, that I would like to reconnect to a chemical hierarchy and pattern of emergence, even by starting with the elementary particles. Mapping out this emergence in detail would convince a lot of non-believers. I thought just maybe that you have done this?
See some of my papers:
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Stephen P. Smith, author of Trinity: the scientific basis of vitalism and transcendentalism

Gyromodel: a neo-vitalism, almost Trinitarian



Article reads: The basic idea of Dr. Andrulis’ framework is that all physical reality can be modeled by a single geometric entity with life-like characteristics: the gyre. The so-called “gyromodel” depicts objects-particles, atoms, chemicals, molecules, and cells-as quantized packets of energy and matter that cycle between excited and ground states around a singularity, the gyromodel’s center.

The singularity represents a space-holder for a middle-term, according to Trinitarian thinking!

A letter to David Haury

Hi David,
Interesting article you have in:
When reflecting on the origin of truth, one discovers that this particular issue does not really belong to science. The topic is closer to philosophy, i.e., epistemology where Kant made his mark, but even this does not do the topic justice. According to intuitionist understanding, apparent truth springs from something more innate: a trust worthy awareness, of which knowing thy self becomes more fundamental. Or in other words, to win a trust that grounds us to broad reality, there must be a vetting process to puts our most tightly held beliefs to the test. Unfortunately, this vetting process is not traditional science, rather it is closer to a transcendental science as Edmund Husserl noted.
Putting the “scientific theory of evolution” to the test does NOT return Darwin`s theory of evolution, it returns something different as I explain in my paper:

The placebo effect goes deep



Article reads: A particular mind-set or belief about one’s body or health may lead to improvements in disease symptoms as well as changes in appetite, brain chemicals and even vision, several recent studies have found, highlighting how fundamentally the mind and body are connected.

Two-sided emotion and universal grammar

I wrote before about the two-sidedness of emotionality. This should not be surprising, sense emotionality relates to motivation, desire, action and intention. Because action and intention come to bear on the question of determinism and freewill, we see that emotion relates directly to Kant`s third antinomy that is found two-sided: i.e., it is just as easy to interpret emotion from the vantage point offered by liberation and self-determination, as it is to argue that emotion is the by-product of circumstance beyond our control.

This explains why traditional science can`t explain emotion, and why emotion can only be studied with a transcendental science. This explains why the unscrupulous libertine can interpret emotions one way, and act in a different way; that is, the libertine will equivocate his two interpretations of emotionality depending on what is most expedient.

I offer two definitions that may find relevance, assuming my intuition is pristine enough:

1. Prejudice: a premature articulation and judgment of what emotion that is found sense-certain.

2. Intolerance: a call to respect the two-sidedness of one`s own emotionality, while enforcing a one-sided interpretation of the emotionality coming from others.

Question: Assuming God`s plan is to avoid prejudice and intolerance, and noting that Kant`s third antinomy offers a doorway into Trinitarian philosophy where emotionality is found sourcing the middle-term that holds the sides of the antinomy together, then how might we arrive at the universal grammar that is now underwritten by the emotionality that is found transcendent?

When faced with emotion we may slow down, to give emotion enough time for its articulation and thoughtful action. Feeling may be treated by reflex action where we give ourselves over to subconscious control, which is fine. However, to avoid being a libertine we seek a pathway beyond prejudice, defined above, and this implies that enough time must pass to bring deliberation to a proper conclusion. Then we may act, noting that deliberation is followed by liberation. Note, however, to avoid intolerance there must also be a call to respect the two-sided emotionality that is found transcendent. So not just any conclusion will do, and more work may be noted.

Awareness finds itself with the articulation of the emotion that is found sense-certain. But note, this is as much the emotion returning to its transcendent source by liberation, and so awareness finds its self in its provisionality that is less than an absolute understanding. Therefore, this provisionality should open itself up to its own two-sidedness again, lest more unresolved tension remain for further rounds of articulation. The less aware, or the libertine, will fall short in these demands. Nevertheless, I believe the universality of this pattern remains, and hence we find the universal grammar.

The Errors of Statistical Hypotheses and Scientific Theories

My latest paper:


Abstract reads: The process of error recognition is explored first in statistics, and then in science. The Type II error found in statistical hypothesis testing is found analogous to Karl Popper’s “logical probability” that is intended to measure the likelihood that a scientific theory can avoid its refutation. Nevertheless, Popper’s reliance on deductive thinking is found detracting from his demarcation that separates science and metaphysics. An improved critical logic for science is presented that permits error recognition more broadly: for induction by Popper’s falsification principle; but also for deduction and emotionality. The reality of induction creates a limitation for a science that has not accommodated a fuller menu of error recognition. The reality of induction places limits of what can be known from empiricism, and this has philosophical implications.

Wallace 98 Years Later



Article reads: What would surprise Wallace the most were he to be transported to this world 98 years later? At least seven things come to mind.