[PheliarearY]

I'm just reading up on Brian Lanza'a theory of Biocentrism, and thought it relevant to the thread. It's interesting. Schroedinger's cat may well be more important than Einstein's brain. I wonder if THAT cat's whiskers would make it to the Mutter. Just keep in mind that his theory is not meant as a proof for God.

Thank you for bringing Dr. Lanza and Biocentrism to my attention. I have previously been unfamiliar with him and his theory. I shall investigate both presently and perhaps have some comments. Thanks again.

P.S. I see where he is about a year and a half younger than myself. That’s already one strike against him! I don’t appreciate being enlightened by young whippersnappers!

[imnaone]

I'm just reading up on Brian Lanza'a theory of Biocentrism, and thought it relevant to the thread. It's interesting. Schroedinger's cat may well be more important than Einstein's brain. I wonder if THAT cat's whiskers would make it to the Mutter. Just keep in mind that his theory is not meant as a proof for God.

Although Dr. Lanza is obviously a brilliant man, apparently once a child prodigy, from a summary overview of his theory I find little within it that is new and not derivative of ideas that date back to von Neumann in the modern scientific paradigm of quantum physics and much farther back in the realm of the metaphysical. Indeed, his theory reminds one of Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics, the landmark book that first tried to effect a synthesis of quantum mechanics and Eastern metaphysical thought.

More recently, the Indian-American physicist Amit Goswami argued much along the same lines with his theory of monistic idealism, in effect, a sort of universal solipsism; that is, instead of reality being a product of just one single mind imagining it, it is the product of all minds imagining it. This is indicative of Dr. Goswami’s Hindu background and the concept of Lila, “the play of God.” In this context, “God” is Brahman, the universal consciousness which compartmentalizes itself to present the illusion of material reality and individuality. It does this through the concept of maya, or illusion.

It is this illusion that is held to be the source of all human discomfort, the inherent belief that we are individuals and separate from all others. This is the source of all social ills and evil, the belief, for example, that there are others with whom we must compete and sometimes injure in order to survive and flourish. Therefore, the goal of Hinduism and the Buddhism it spawned is to realize our oneness with universal consciousness and thus overcome the illusion of separateness.

The fundamental distinction between traditional Western thought (whether theistic or atheistic) and Eastern metaphysical thought is that while the former holds that consciousness is an epiphenomenon (springs from) of matter (in the form of a human/animal brain) the latter holds to the reverse, that matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness, the primal ground of reality which cannot be further sublated. It “just is,” exactly as Western theistic thought holds God to be and apparently as atheists hold matter to be.

As I said, I have just read a cursory review of Dr. Lanza’s theory and some comments and criticism regarding it. Apparently his book regarding Biocentrism is, true to his apparently pedantic nature, scholarly and might offer some unique variations and insights regarding this ancient school of thought and contemporary attempts to update it in light of discoveries made since the advent of quantum physics. However, it doesn’t seem on the face of it to warrant claming that he has formalized a new paradigm separate and distinct from works already out there.

On a final note, my philosophical proof of a creator is just that. It does not purport to prove the existence of a transcendent, anthropomorphic type deity (though it does not preclude such), merely a creator of some kind. Dr. Lanza’s theory seems to be in concurrence in that he is positioning consciousness to be the creative force of our perceived material reality, a proposition I lean towards as well.

[HOTgirlsXXL]

Although Dr. Lanza is obviously a brilliant man, apparently once a child prodigy, from a summary overview of his theory I find little within it that is new and not derivative of ideas that date back to von Neumann in the modern scientific paradigm of quantum physics and much farther back in the realm of the metaphysical. Indeed, his theory reminds one of Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics, the landmark book that first tried to effect a synthesis of quantum mechanics and Eastern metaphysical thought.

More recently, the Indian-American physicist Amit Goswami argued much along the same lines with his theory of monistic idealism, in effect, a sort of universal solipsism; that is, instead of reality being a product of just one single mind imagining it, it is the product of all minds imagining it.

Lanza is unique in that he uses Scientific observed facts to prove the existence of the entire world exists only for, and because of, the individual (not for or because of a universal consciousness). It is generally an old idea, but his proofs are interesting and do make logical sense, and feel intuitively correct because we all experience the world only as an individual. What he brings to the table is proof time and space are nothing but figments of the imagination, and that the world I experience is unique to me, and there are as many worlds out there as there are biological entities- we don't all share the same world. Which means we truly are alone.

But I'm not done reading the book yet.

[evennyNiz]

Lanza is unique in that he uses Scientific observed facts to prove the existence of the entire world exists only for, and because of, the individual (not for or because of a universal consciousness). It is generally an old idea, but his proofs are interesting and do make logical sense, and feel intuitively correct because we all experience the world only as an individual. What he brings to the table is proof time and space are nothing but figments of the imagination, and that the world I experience is unique to me, and there are as many worlds out there as there are biological entities- we don't all share the same world. Which means we truly are alone.

But I'm not done reading the book yet.

Okay, I’m confused. In the summary of his views that I read (Wikipedia), it is stated that: “Without consciousness, ‘matter’ dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.” (This is in accordance with various interpretations of quantum mechanics and is nothing new.)

But then you seem to be saying that he argues that life is central. But life is material. There seems to be a contradiction here. How can material life be central when without consciousness it is a mere probability and does not have actual existence? Which is he arguing is primal: consciousness or life?

Thanks.

[Krruqgwt]

It is generally an old idea, but his proofs are interesting and do make logical sense, and feel intuitively correct because we all experience the world only as an individual. What he brings to the table is proof time and space are nothing but figments of the imagination, and that the world I experience is unique to me, and there are as many worlds out there as there are biological entities- we don't all share the same world. Which means we truly are alone.

By way of afterthought, if we all don’t share the same world, then why did he write a book? Who else in his world is there to read it? For that matter, how are you and I communicating?

[nvideoe]

Okay, I’m confused. In the summary of his views that I read (Wikipedia), it is stated that: “Without consciousness, ‘matter’ dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.” (This is in accordance with various interpretations of quantum mechanics and is nothing new.)

But then you seem to be saying that he argues that life is central. But life is material. There seems to be a contradiction here. How can material life be central when without consciousness it is a mere probability and does not have actual existence? Which is he arguing is primal: consciousness or life?

Thanks.

Many quantum experiments prove that stuff/matter exist only in a state of probability. for example, wave functions are an expression of the probability of where a particle may be. It is is only frozen in place when it is observed... This guy argues that the only observation that matters is that made by a biological being. What makes a biological being different from matter is that it has a consciousness, and we can all agree that consciousnes is not matter.

[marcusdexz]

By way of afterthought, if we all don’t share the same world, then why did he write a book? Who else in his world is there to read it? For that matter, how are you and I communicating?

Its all conjecture, like belief in a god.

Except that in my world, he or you only exist only in my journey, not separate from my journey (a scenario which is non-existent). I read the book, and so he exists in my world- I probably don't exist in his world unless he reads philly speaks.

It's another variation on the scientific theory of multiple universes, which some physicists feel they can prove is the case, via mathematics.

[artofeyyy]

Many quantum experiments prove that stuff/matter exist only in a state of probability. for example, wave functions are an expression of the probability of where a particle may be. It is is only frozen in place when it is observed... This guy argues that the only observation that matters is that made by a biological being. What makes a biological being different from matter is that it has a consciousness, and we can all agree that consciousnes is not matter.

Thank you for the response, but you still haven’t answered my chicken or egg type question. Which is an epiphenomenon of the other, consciousness or matter? You state that Dr. Lanza believes that nothing is actualized into the material world until a measurement (observation) is made by a biological entity. Does this imply that matter (in the form of a biological brain) is primal? If matter only exists in a probabilty state until observed, then how can a biological entity preexist itself in order to make said observation?

Thank you.

[Battwenue]

Its all conjecture, like belief in a god.

Except that in my world, he or you only exist only in my journey, not separate from my journey (a scenario which is non-existent). I read the book, and so he exists in my world- I probably don't exist in his world unless he reads philly speaks.

It's another variation on the scientific theory of multiple universes, which some physicists feel they can prove is the case, via mathematics.

It’s funny that you should mention this. Not very long ago I commented on someone’s website that his particular ontological theory sounds like a modified form of solipsism. Instead of just one mind existing and imagining all others and all else, we all do actually exist in our own personal universes.

In my personal musings, I quickly discounted what I term to be “radical solipsism,” the notion that only I actually exist and you are all figments of my imagination, on the grounds that I couldn’t possibly imagine the myriad people that I have encountered within my life. I’m not that creative! Therefore, it occurred to me that life might be like a movie in which each of us can draw from "central casting” to populate our reality. Some others figure prominently in our lives, others less so; others still as bit players, and still more as extras, like the people we pass on the road or sidewalk each day. In turn, we might or might not appear in the reality of the people who appear in ours.

To your discernment, is this what Dr. Lanza is getting at?

[DumnEuronoumn]

It's another variation on the scientific theory of multiple universes, which some physicists feel they can prove is the case, via mathematics.

Yes, Amit Goswami mentions such in his book The Self-Aware Universe. He refers to the variation as “The Many-Minds" interpretation of QM (basically, a transposition of his theory of monistic idealism). Bear in mind, however, that the appeal to many scientists of the conventional Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is precisely because it retains material objectivity, a virtue (to their minds) that it holds over the Copenhagen interpretation and even more radical ones that seem to invoke some sort of subjective, almost mystical notion of reality. (The MWI also has the appeal of being the only tenable interpretation that resolves apparent paradoxes with time travel if such is even theoretically possible.)

True to his Hindu (Advita Vedanta) heritage, Dr. Goswami is an idealist, a belief that is abhorred by most physicists and other scientists.

[gundas]

Thank you for the response, but you still haven’t answered my chicken or egg type question. Which is an epiphenomenon of the other, consciousness or matter? You state that Dr. Lanza believes that nothing is actualized into the material world until a measurement (observation) is made by a biological entity. Does this imply that matter (in the form of a biological brain) is primal? If matter only exists in a probabilty state until observed, then how can a biological entity preexist itself in order to make said observation?

Thank you.

Observing a particle freezes the particle for the consciousness- it is no longer a particle of possibilities. That is not the same as actualizing it into the material world. It's always been in the material world, but exactly where only happens when it is observed (by a consciousness).

There are many experiments that prove a particle can be anywhere and everywhere at any one moment in time. It is only frozen in place once it is observed. Light is a particle AND a wave- That is high school physics. The how is understood, but not the why. Lanza thinks the why depends on conciousness, which is why he labels his theory Biocentrism.


I think he is saying they are symbiotic. Thinking that one came before the other is meaningless because "time" does not exist in physics. Time only exists in our brain to help us make sense of the world. He points out that "time" is relevant to only one Physics equation/theory: Entropy. No other fundamental equation includes space or time.

Look at E=mc2. Neither time nor space show up as a function, even though people use it all the time to talk about time travel.

[Goodwin]

Observing a particle freezes the particle for the consciousness- it is no longer a particle of possibilities. That is not the same as actualizing it into the material world. It's always been in the material world, but exactly where only happens when it is observed (by a consciousness).

There are many experiments that prove a particle can be anywhere and everywhere at any one moment in time. It is only frozen in place once it is observed. Light is a particle AND a wave- That is high school physics. The how is understood, but not the why. Lanza thinks the why depends on conciousness, which is why he labels his theory Biocentrism.


I think he is saying they are symbiotic. Thinking that one came before the other is meaningless because "time" does not exist in physics. Time only exists in our brain to help us make sense of the world. He points out that "time" is relevant to only one Physics equation/theory: Entropy. No other fundamental equation includes space or time.

Look at E=mc2. Neither time nor space show up as a function, even though people use it all the time to talk about time travel.

Well, then to my mind this implies a creator in accordance with my proof. If both matter and consciousness exist concurrently and always have, then their origin could not have been in our plain of reality. They must have been created sequentially in a higher dimension than ours. To merely assert that consciousness and matter are symbiotic and that one doesn’t necessarily need precede the other in existence begs the question of how that can be. Can one’s twin sister also be one’s mother?