Do physical fields imply panpsychism?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Fcacciola
Posts: 89
Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 4:32 pm

Re: Do physical fields imply panpsychism?

Post by Fcacciola »

Bohm2 wrote:In my view there are:

1. Extrinsic stuff ...
2. Intrinsic stuff ...
I agree with that distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic stuff. I also agree that our cognition does not allow us to asses any external intrinsic stuff, so, it is not possible to, for example, directly "see" something like consciousness on matter itself.
On the other hand....

We have only direct cognition of our own intrinsic properties (such as our own consciousness), which means, we don't really asses that on other people, yet, we clearly deem them conscious.
Why is that?
Because we are in empirical interaction with other people (and other objects like rocks), and it is inferred from that interaction that people are conscious, just like we do.
That is, the attribution of conscious traits that we ascribe to other people is in fact the result of empirical "research" in spite of that consciousness being intrinsic to them. We don't directly see the consciousness of other people any more than we don't see it in a rock.

From that it follows (to me) that the scientific discovery of conscious traits on just about everything, from rocks to atoms, is in principle feasible, and the "intrinsicness" of it does not get itself in the way.

Now...

Suppose I am right and we do scientifically discover, eventually, conscious traits on, say, a complex organic molecule, like a nucleotide (the building block of DNA)
At that point, considering the level at which we find it, "consciousness from matter" (classic emergentism) would still be just a possible as "matter from consciousness" (my form of emergentism), even if we are way closer than today (since is now a nucleotide, not a person)
But then, suppose we find it also on single atom. Then, also on a single electron. Then also on a quark.
Clearly, if we start discovering consciousness at progressively lower leves, the "matter from consciousness" theory becomes much more likely, almost evident.

So, there is a clear scientific path of discovery that might tell us how is it. And I happen to believe that path is concrete and hopefully soon we'll start to walking down on it.
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: Do physical fields imply panpsychism?

Post by Mgrinder »

Bohm2 wrote:
Mgrinder wrote:Yes there is. You can use physics and predict that many water molecules will produce liquid properties when many of them are put together (at the right temperature, solid at other temperatures). So you can call that "proto-liquidity". You can even show that many Sodium and Chlorine atoms will produce a solid at room temperature when bound ionically, not a liquid ("proto-solidity" of a sort). "proto" is admittedly a terrible way to put it, but the idea of "proto-whatever" works in a fashion.

However, you can't use physics to predict and derive that someone or something will be conscious or not. It won't happen. So I am sure you are quite wrong here Bohm2.

Plus it will never happen. As Sean Carrol says (he ought to know) we've discovered all the physics that exists in our neck of the woods (energy levels from near absolute zero up to and beyond the temperatures that occur in stars). Carrol rightly calls it a stunning achievement, we know all the physics relevent to human beings. The only physics that's missing is that for extreme energy regimes like black holes and the birth of the universe. However, when this is found, it won't contradict any of the physics that we know to work in our energy realm, it will just be physics we can derive our current physics from, with no contradiction. The idea of particles, atoms and molecules will still be fruitful ideas, just a Newtonian physics is still a great bunch of ideas for the energy realm it applies to. If we can't derive it from current physics (which will always be valid for this energy regime) we'll never derive it from future physics (unless maybe you incorporate my ideas :).
I agree that the liquidity example is not a good example but it's an easy one that everyone would be familiar with. But I don't think many would deny the existence of weak emergence. A highly cited paper on emergence, that is often discussed in reviews on emergence/reductionism is the paper written by the Nobel laureate physicist P.W. Anderson:

More is Different
https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~jay ... ferent.pdf

It's the existence of strong emergence that is questioned:

In search of ontological emergence
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2660261?se ... b_contents

Are systems in entangled states emergent?
http://www.cmls.polytechnique.fr/perso/ ... rgence.pdf

Ontology, Matter and Emergence1
http://michel.bitbol.pagesperso-orange. ... enceMB.pdf
Strong emergence is wrong. That fact that it's hard to derive complex phenomena from fundamental doesn't make it absolutely impossible in principle. It also ignores the consistencies between all the more fundamental physics and the more complicated stuff. It's hard to model quarks to make a nucleus, and hard to model protons and electrons together to make an atom, but we can still get results from the basic ideas that are all consistent and work. No you can't get all the phase transitions of water (right now) from theory, but you can still derive that it will be a liquid.

The short is that even if we can't or never will completely derive things about complex phenomena, we still know that it's all based on the fundamental principles we know about. IF we can't figure out how to derive something about water (or whatever) we can still point out how we could do it. If we could solve this or that, we say, then we could derive this more successfully. This is exactly what happens. We have recent success in a number of fields with statistical breakthroughs and computing power that is now solving problems in condensed matter that we couldn't 50 years ago. 50 years ago they knew which problems to solve, and had a general idea of how it could be done.

But we can't do that for consciousness. Nobody can point to anything and say "once we solve these mathematical problems, we can see how we'll be able to derive consciousness.." It's not happening, it never will.
Bohm2 wrote: With respect to Carrol's view that there isn't much more to be discovered in physics, history is not on his side.

Yes it is. Newtonian physics is still valid in it's domain of applicibility, which is basically his point. Yes we found more fundamental physics, but we can derive Newtonian physics from this new stuff. It's still valid for the energy regime it works at. Yes we will find more fundamental physics, but quantum field theory will still work from absolute zero to temperatures hotter than stars, we know that. IF we can't see how to derive consciousness from the physics of today (show a pathway of discovery as you can do for condensed matter, even in a state of great ignorance, as scienctists were 50 years ago), we never will.
Bohm2 wrote: One can look back to the history of physics where similar pronouncements were made only to be crushed down later on by the new physics.
No, no no,that's not what he's saying. Physics of those days was not really found to be wrong, it was just inadequate for the new energy levels they were starting to explore. Given all you read, Bohm2, your interpretation of physics history ought to be better. If you get a degree in physics, this is well understood, your profs show you how to derive newtonian physcs from relativity, but I guess if you don't it's hard to understand the subtlties.
Bohm2 wrote: We can't even account for ~ 85% of the matter in our universe.
And when we do, the results and usefulness of Quantum field theory will not disappear, neither will the success of General Relativity. If Dark matter requires overturning General Relativity, that will not mean that GR was not validated time and time again, and is a useful approximation to deeper physics.

However, it's also a very good bet that overturning GR of QFT is not needed to explain dark matter.
Bohm2 wrote: And with respect to the QM (i.e. wave function) we don't even know what it represents. You use "particles" throughout your essay as do most physicists but can a particle picture account for the double slit results and other similar phenomena?
Whatever new physics holds, QFT will still be useful and valid for it's energy regime, just like classical electrodynamics.
Bohm2 wrote: And I'm not saying that this has any impact on your essay arguments. I'm only saying that although we have exceptional predictive models (particularly with simple systems), it's not clear what the mathematical entities represent. Carrol on the one hand claims that physics has largely been completed for all intensive purposes but in another blog goes on to discusses the embarrassing interpretational difficulties that plague QM:
Think about it — quantum mechanics has been around since the 1920’s at least, in a fairly settled form. John von Neumann laid out the mathematical structure in 1932. Subsequently, quantum mechanics has become the most important and best-tested part of modern physics. Without it, nothing makes sense. Every student who gets a degree in physics is supposed to learn QM above all else. There are a variety of experimental probes, all of which confirm the theory to spectacular precision.
And yet — we don’t understand it. Embarrassing. To all of us, as a field (not excepting myself).
The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/bl ... n-physics/
Interpretational problems are just that. QM is weird. Oh you might like reading this that I wrote. The issue is : can we show a pathway of discovery to problems like deriving how to put quarks together to get a better undesrstanding of how the nucleus works? Yes, and the results so far already show an OK understanding and little calculations you can do demonstrate consistency. We're far from many things on the nucleus, but we know how it can be done.

Can anyone even conceive of how to do this for consciousness? No. Hence it's different.

Why? Because it's the source of physical laws, it doesn't follow them. Hence physics, as done today, will never discover consciousness.
User avatar
Bohm2
Posts: 1129
Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Canada

Re: Do physical fields imply panpsychism?

Post by Bohm2 »

Fcacciola wrote:Suppose I am right and we do scientifically discover, eventually, conscious traits on, say, a complex organic molecule, like a nucleotide (the building block of DNA). At that point, considering the level at which we find it, "consciousness from matter" (classic emergentism) would still be just a possible as "matter from consciousness" (my form of emergentism), even if we are way closer than today (since is now a nucleotide, not a person) But then, suppose we find it also on single atom. Then, also on a single electron. Then also on a quark. Clearly, if we start discovering consciousness at progressively lower leves, the "matter from consciousness" theory becomes much more likely, almost evident.
Are you arguing for idealism or panpsychism?
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Do physical fields imply panpsychism?

Post by Rr6 »

Humans have a single digestive track ergo humans are toroidal. Perhaps 4-hole torus to be more correct.

Entropy, derived from prime numbers within specific context of shape that can be associated Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )( as a complex torus.

Human is the most complex set of tori that aggregate as a complex torus and has complex conscious as identified with humans ability to access metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.

( ) positive outer surface of Space

^v volume, body, charge as inversions from two outer surfaces v ^ v ^ v ^ /\/\/\/\

)( negative inner surface of Space

Simple consciousness > complex consciousness is just a matter of degrees of complexity, that, gradually lead to more complex integration of awareness of memory and awareness of a greater integral whole.

Simple parts > Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )( ----> (^v)(V^)

Complex integral whole ( * i * )

Complex integral whole is 4-hole torus oOo====O

Two nasal{ oo } and one mouth{ O } holes, tube==== and anus{O} defines 4-hole torus.

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Bohm2
Posts: 1129
Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Canada

Re: Do physical fields imply panpsychism?

Post by Bohm2 »

Mgrinder wrote:No, no no,that's not what he's saying. Physics of those days was not really found to be wrong, it was just inadequate for the new energy levels they were starting to explore. Given all you read, Bohm2, your interpretation of physics history ought to be better. If you get a degree in physics, this is well understood, your profs show you how to derive newtonian physcs from relativity, but I guess if you don't it's hard to understand the subtlties.
Newtonan mechanics cannot account for chemical phenomena. It was only when Newtonian mechanics was superceded by QM, that chemistry could be unified with physics. Furthermore on a conceptual level, there is a difference between Newton's space + time versus Einstein's spacetime and this spacetime does not approach space + time in the limit as velocity tends toward zero. There are also macroscopic quantum phenomena that cannot be accounted in the Newtonian scheme. We need QM. Mass is a frame-dependent property of objects in Relativity. Newton's mechanics treats mass as if it is a frame-independent property of objects (cf. the second law). Relativity involves more than simple numerical corrections, otherwise, how could general relativity explain the precession of Mercury’s perihelion whereas Newtonian mechanics cannot? Therefore, if our instruments were accurate enough, Newtonian mechanics would be false on all levels.

I have taking 2 years of university physics and more years of chemistry and took 2 courses in philosophy of physics and philosophy of science and I've come across instrumentalists that would probably agree with you, but many other would disagree.

With respect to consciousness, I agree with you, that even with future revisions of our physics/science, I can't see how stuff like consciousness can be unified with the other sciences because science, particularly physics concern structure and dynamics (as Chalmers has argued) and I don't see how consciousness can be be accomodated within such a scheme:
A low-level microphysical description can entail all sorts of surprising and interesting macroscopic properties, as with the emergence of chemistry from physics, of biology from chemistry, or more generally of complex emergent behaviors in complex systems theory. But in all these cases, the complex properties that are entailed are nevertheless structural and dynamic: they describe complex spatiotemporal structures and complex dynamic patterns of behavior over those structures. So these cases support the general principle that from structure and dynamics, one can infer only structure and dynamics.
Some have argued that information may be the ticket but others are not convinced:
..no reason has been given at all why there should be any special connection between information theory and consciousness. In his earlier views, Koch argued that consciousness is explained by synchronized neuron firings. Now he objects to that previous view. The objection is: Why should there be any connection between certain rates of neuron firings and consciousness? The same question arises with information theory: Why should information theory give us the essence of subjectivity? What is the connection supposed to be?
Rosenthal's higher-order thought (HOT) account of consciousness is another model that has been proposed:
On Rosenthal’s view a mental state M is conscious (i.e., non-transitively conscious) if and only if there is another mental state M* such that M* is an occurrent higher-order thought representing M as its object. Thus, it is in virtue of being represented by a HOT M* (which in itself may be either conscious or unconscious, as the case may be) that M becomes conscious.
But it's still not clear how this would work:
The absurdity lies in the idea that the fact that a given state M curls upon itself, thereby instantiating an informational closed-loop, could somehow transform M from an otherwise insentient state into a locus of experience. For, how could M’s self-accessing be responsible for the transmutation? If the default assumption is that barring the self-referencing M is just like any other physical state, which, per hypothesis, means an utterly insentient state, then there is “no one at home” to feel, sense, or be cognizant of the incoming information, and the fact that the information is self-originated, or self-effected, does nothing to change it. Or to put it differently, an insentient medium, or substance, cannot feel itself any more than it can feel any other thing – for it can feel nothing at all...

The moral of these consistent failures is that you cannot derive experience from information processing; you cannot get the feeling aspect of consciousness (FAC) from the knowledge aspect of consciousness (KAC). Representational access may serve to transform phenomenal character in myriad significant ways but it cannot generate sentience from scratch. If we start with the idea that the task is to derive experience from a decisively non-experiential realm, and that representations of one sort or another are our means to do so, we just end up producing more and more blind representations, blindly representing a blind world. Or in Joe Levine’s apt words: “it’s just piling on more representations”...
Fcacciola
Posts: 89
Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 4:32 pm

Re: Do physical fields imply panpsychism?

Post by Fcacciola »

Bohm2 wrote:Are you arguing for idealism or panpsychism?
Technically speaking, neither of these really.
The views I'm presenting here come from an Argentinian spiritualist church that is only 100 years old (exactly, as of 2017!), so is rather unique in its content.

The word I came up for this is: "Paraphysism", which derives from "Paraphysics", which would be the study of a larger reality such that the physical universe is a subset of it(the bigger->big bang I summarized before).
There are of course several points in common with both idealism and panpsychism, but there are also differences.

For what is worth, I've been presenting bits here and there as the different topics unfold, but I never presented a proper overview, as I should. I've planned to do that all along, but I always find myself caught up in the ongoing conversations (and like most people here, I have a dayjob and a family, so I'm already stretching my luck)
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: Do physical fields imply panpsychism?

Post by Mgrinder »

Bohm2 wrote:
Mgrinder wrote:No, no no,that's not what he's saying. Physics of those days was not really found to be wrong, it was just inadequate for the new energy levels they were starting to explore. Given all you read, Bohm2, your interpretation of physics history ought to be better. If you get a degree in physics, this is well understood, your profs show you how to derive newtonian physcs from relativity, but I guess if you don't it's hard to understand the subtlties.
Newtonan mechanics cannot account for chemical phenomena. It was only when Newtonian mechanics was superceded by QM, that chemistry could be unified with physics. Furthermore on a conceptual level, there is a difference between Newton's space + time versus Einstein's spacetime and this spacetime does not approach space + time in the limit as velocity tends toward zero. There are also macroscopic quantum phenomena that cannot be accounted in the Newtonian scheme. We need QM. Mass is a frame-dependent property of objects in Relativity. Newton's mechanics treats mass as if it is a frame-independent property of objects (cf. the second law). Relativity involves more than simple numerical corrections, otherwise, how could general relativity explain the precession of Mercury’s perihelion whereas Newtonian mechanics cannot? Therefore, if our instruments were accurate enough, Newtonian mechanics would be false on all levels.
I agree with all that, but none of it contradicts my statement. Classical physics has a domain of applicability, where it is still useful and definitely what you want to use. Oceanography, classical physics. Atmospheric science, classical. etc. Astronomy: classical until you need to use GR. Further, classical concepts like momentum and Energy and Force do not go away with new physics, they are still used too, just recast.
Bohm2 wrote: I have taking 2 years of university physics and more years of chemistry and took 2 courses in philosophy of physics and philosophy of science and I've come across instrumentalists that would probably agree with you, but many other would disagree.
Then you know there is a reason you get taught classical physics first, because it still has a lot of validity on the scales humans inhabit, and always will.

Disagree with what? Admittedly, my statement was a bit vague, but the main point is that Carroll is right to point out that, even with new physics, GR and QFT are valid (work) over large energy scales, and only inadequate around black holes and the beginning of the universe, just as Classical physics will always work well in it's domain of applicability. If we can't see how we might explain why qualia occur (and doesn't occur) now, we never will. You can see this with string theory and loop quantum gravity or whatever, nobody can use them to explain consciousness either.
Bohm2 wrote: With respect to consciousness, I agree with you, that even with future revisions of our physics/science, I can't see how stuff like consciousness can be unified with the other sciences because science, particularly physics concern structure and dynamics (as Chalmers has argued) and I don't see how consciousness can be be accomodated within such a scheme:
Neither can anyone else who takes the question seriously. It's like giving a ten year old a bunch of blocks, then asking them to demonstrate 2+2=4, 3+2=5, and so on. They can do it fine. Then ask them to demonstrate 2+2=5. They will quickly see they cannot, and might look at you oddly.

Similarly, give a well educated adult the tools of science, and ask them how they might demonstrate (theoretically, nothing to do with verbal reports) that qualia are generated by nerves. Guess what will happen (odd looks).

Solution: The phenomena associated with consciousness do not follow the rules of nature, their behaviour produces the rules of nature. Then this difficulty makes sense.
Bohm2 wrote:
A low-level microphysical description can entail all sorts of surprising and interesting macroscopic properties, as with the emergence of chemistry from physics, of biology from chemistry, or more generally of complex emergent behaviors in complex systems theory. But in all these cases, the complex properties that are entailed are nevertheless structural and dynamic: they describe complex spatiotemporal structures and complex dynamic patterns of behavior over those structures. So these cases support the general principle that from structure and dynamics, one can infer only structure and dynamics.
Some have argued that information may be the ticket but others are not convinced:
..no reason has been given at all why there should be any special connection between information theory and consciousness. In his earlier views, Koch argued that consciousness is explained by synchronized neuron firings. Now he objects to that previous view. The objection is: Why should there be any connection between certain rates of neuron firings and consciousness? The same question arises with information theory: Why should information theory give us the essence of subjectivity? What is the connection supposed to be?
The connection is that something actually uses the information, something calculates with it. Given all your vast reading (I'm really impressed actually) have you ever found someone asking the obvious question : does anything use this information in information theory? Does anything calculate with quantum information? I've read a few books here and there, and never seen anyone deal with this obvious and basic question, let alone even ask it...
Bohm2 wrote: Rosenthal's higher-order thought (HOT) account of consciousness is another model that has been proposed:
On Rosenthal’s view a mental state M is conscious (i.e., non-transitively conscious) if and only if there is another mental state M* such that M* is an occurrent higher-order thought representing M as its object. Thus, it is in virtue of being represented by a HOT M* (which in itself may be either conscious or unconscious, as the case may be) that M becomes conscious.
But it's still not clear how this would work:
The absurdity lies in the idea that the fact that a given state M curls upon itself, thereby instantiating an informational closed-loop, could somehow transform M from an otherwise insentient state into a locus of experience. For, how could M’s self-accessing be responsible for the transmutation? If the default assumption is that barring the self-referencing M is just like any other physical state, which, per hypothesis, means an utterly insentient state, then there is “no one at home” to feel, sense, or be cognizant of the incoming information, and the fact that the information is self-originated, or self-effected, does nothing to change it. Or to put it differently, an insentient medium, or substance, cannot feel itself any more than it can feel any other thing – for it can feel nothing at all...

The moral of these consistent failures is that you cannot derive experience from information processing; you cannot get the feeling aspect of consciousness (FAC) from the knowledge aspect of consciousness (KAC). Representational access may serve to transform phenomenal character in myriad significant ways but it cannot generate sentience from scratch. If we start with the idea that the task is to derive experience from a decisively non-experiential realm, and that representations of one sort or another are our means to do so, we just end up producing more and more blind representations, blindly representing a blind world. Or in Joe Levine’s apt words: “it’s just piling on more representations”...
Self awareness consciousness is often confused with consciousness. Which the above seems to do with higher order thoughts. Again, you have to postulate that something uses the information (calculates with it), rather than the information is simply processed when quantum stuff changes state.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021