Biocentrism - Robert Lanza

[Spectrum]

‘Biocentrism’: How life creates the universe
Authors say cosmology misses the big picture unless it includes biology

Dr. Robert Lanza’s specialty and scientific credential on stem cells is unquestionable, however his theory of Biocentrism is very controversial.

An abridgment of his book,
"Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe,"
by Robert Lanza with Bob Berman, published by BenBella Books.


Your views?

[Maldon007]

Is he saying our observations are biased, sort of? As in, our brains adjust reality so it makes sense to us? If that is it, than why does this paradigm break down when we observe sub ataomic stuff... why deosn't it break down when we observe evolution's history or thermal dynamics, or whatever... And again, if the observation adjusts reality so that it makes sense, why doesn't it do the same at the quantum level?

Seems like the quandry that led him to conclude this, is mostly about the mystery of conscious and less about reality... Maybe conscousness is the construct, not the universe.

[Spectrum]

Is he saying our observations are biased, sort of? As in, our brains adjust reality so it makes sense to us? If that is it, than why does this paradigm break down when we observe sub ataomic stuff... why deosn't it break down when we observe evolution's history or thermal dynamics, or whatever... And again, if the observation adjusts reality so that it makes sense, why doesn't it do the same at the quantum level?

Seems like the quandry that led him to conclude this, is mostly about the mystery of conscious and less about reality... Maybe conscousness is the construct, not the universe.

Observations can be biased if there are errors, but that is not Lanza's point.

Lanza's main points are;
There is no absolute external reality out there.
Whatever the reality, it is based on observations, experiences and other human activities which is essentially grounded on 'biology'.
Observations and experiences are grounded on consciousness which is grounded on biology.
Thus the only reality is biocentric.

The 7 Principles of Biocentrism are;
The Seven Principles of Biocentrism:
First Principle of Biocentrism: What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An “external” reality, if it existed, would—by definition—have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.

Second Principle of Biocentrism: Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.

Third Principle of Biocentrism: The behavior of subatomic particles— indeed all particles and objects—is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.

Fourth Principle of Biocentrism: Without consciousness, “matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.

Fifth Principle of Biocentrism: The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The “universe” is simply the complete spatiotemporal logic of the self.

Sixth Principle of Biocentrism: Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.

Seventh Principle of Biocentrism:
Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.


I have just finished reading Lanza's book re Biocentrism.
I do agree with him on his main points but not totally.
I highly recommend his book, understanding (not necessary to agree with him) his points will expand one's vantage point of reality.

Many of his points are not novel, and had been debated within philosophy (modern and ancients), but his perspective and presentation are interesting.

[Seremonia]

It's very interesting.

Allow me to explain this on different point of view. On my point of view. Since there are similarities. But further i need to learn more on biocentrism.

This is my understanding:

There is only one universe as myself, but there could be multiple universe inside myself. These universes are possibilities, but there is only huge universe as myself.

Compared to others, then there are more universes as many as themselves.

What is universe?

Imagine these:

There is water, and from water we can see an ice. Single ice would be considered as a border of universe for myself. Inside an ice there is a little bit liquidity and it called my consciousness. Multiply it for any of us. So if there are billion people, then there are billion of a kind of ice.

What we perceive as living, it’s differentiation from one state to another state of liquidity in the middle of my own ice (this ice causes a sense of territory - I am not you). Universe is not the ice but it’s a part of possible differentiation of a state of liquidity in the middle of my ice.

When you are touching your friend, then there is a changing of liquidity in the middle of your ice that give you perception there is you and your friend and you are trying to touch your friend. On another ice owned by your friend, there will be synchronized to your action, so if you succeed touched your friend, then inside your friend’s ice there will be a changing of liquidity that reflects your friend is being touched by you.

So there is no causality (that can be observed empirically) inside your universe. Causality (that can be observed empirically) is between my universe and yours to control how something should be related. WE ARE ALL CONNECTED EACH OTHER.

WE ARE ALL CONNECTED EACH OTHER, it has meaning that in one (single) universe there is only me (one consciousness) and no one else (no other consciousness). Every creature (that has consciousness) has its own single universe. For just one (single) universe, there is only one consciousness, but there maybe many events or similar in one universe.

So, if we are placed as observer, outside multiple universes, we will only see one (single) scenario for every consciousness. Its like giant puzzle. There will be no duplication for each of us. That is why i disbelieve with MWI (many world interpretation). Also i disbelieve parallel universe as mentioned generally http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... luni.shtml

If someday we found ourselves in another parallel universe, then only we are as living being with consciousness, another you (other than yourself while reading this) never equipped with consciousness.

Many world in my version assert the fact that for each of universe donates one (single) actor (consciousness). For each of the existing universe, contributing only one (single) consciousness (me or you, or him, or her, or other living being) joined with others to form a big event (movement, causality etc) with no duplication.

Its like we are playing online game, each of us has its own display with our own avatar. But on the other side (your friend while interact with you) has its own appearance on its own display. My display and another display owned by my friend (while doing interaction with me) has different appearance, but both displays are SYNCHRONIZING each other (CAUSALITY, that can be observed empirically). And for each of display connected only to one (single) consciousness (in this analogy similar to myself as a player).

WE ARE ALL CONNECTED EACH OTHER TO SUPPORT SYNCHRONIZING EACH OTHER (AS NEEDED IN INTERACTION)

Why there is no causality (that can be observed empirically) inside your universe ? Because we can not observe ourselves, since observer and what is being observed is in unity, but the interaction between us indicates there is observer (the player) and something that being observed (as a result of the synchronization) between one universe to another universe (in interaction between you and me).

A causality indicates there are two different state of awareness simultaneously. If there is a causalities within myself then there are more than one different state of awareness within myself (contradiction). Meaning, it's impossible for causalities within myself. One state of awareness has causalities because of being compared to another state of awareness. Everything is a state of awareness. All changes on my universe is a change in a state of my awareness.

But as i mentioned before, our observation to others (on distance) actually is illusion to us, because observation is changing liquidity (changing energy, or changing of something) within ourselves that translated by our brain to a kind of visualization as there is duality, as there is distance. Actually there is no distance between us and we didn't touch anything. There is only different number of binary (analogy that represent specific changing of liquidity on ourselves) that we perceived as touching visualization.

Empty space within universe is not nothingness.

If there is a process that could lead to something toward the zero condition, where all particles motion stop completely, then it turned into something we recognize as empty space.

Judging from the motion of a particle:

- From the material turned into empty space, it requires effort (energy)

- From the empty space into a particular matter requires effort.

- But from empty space into something completely different, equal to something that try to pass through it, it doesn't require effort. That is i believe there is no transparent empty space.

There is no something is passing through empty space. There is only something is changing an empty space into something itself. That is i believe there is no transparent empty space. Empty space is not transparent, but it soon turned into something that can move (trying) through it.

Empty space is an unstable particle and easily turned into something that can get through it. But if we are able to raise just a little movement using (Just) empty space, then empty will be visible manifestation of a certain material (as far as relevant to the circumstances of the movement) and it takes effort to restore to an empty state.

In terms of awareness, along with the collapse of something toward the zero condition, where all particle motion stops completely, then it turned into something we recognize as empty space, which is known as a deep meditative state. Empty space is a state of awareness.

If we are able to control our consciousness and is able to strengthen the will, then we can transform the space into a particular matter ("x"). And if there is another observer directs his perceptions at the coordinates of the location where the conversion of space into matter (x ") was happened, then at the speed (maybe almost) instantaneously, there would be" copy and paste 'of such material ("x") reflected to the universe of the observer, so that the observer will see the material ("x") with slightly different based on different points of view.

The more we go into the particles, then the final frontier of particle is not the smallest particle (or the smallest of something), but the smallest one is something as an emptiness (space).

That's my point of view. And thank you for bringing up your post.

[Maldon007]

Is he saying our observations are biased, sort of? As in, our brains adjust reality so it makes sense to us? If that is it, than why does this paradigm break down when we observe sub ataomic stuff... why deosn't it break down when we observe evolution's history or thermal dynamics, or whatever... And again, if the observation adjusts reality so that it makes sense, why doesn't it do the same at the quantum level?

Seems like the quandry that led him to conclude this, is mostly about the mystery of conscious and less about reality... Maybe conscousness is the construct, not the universe.

Observations can be biased if there are errors, but that is not Lanza's point.

Lanza's main points are;
There is no absolute external reality out there.
Whatever the reality, it is based on observations, experiences and other human activities which is essentially grounded on 'biology'.
Observations and experiences are grounded on consciousness which is grounded on biology.
Thus the only reality is biocentric.

Yeah, I think I get it now... but it seems like he took the wave collapse deal and ran too far with it.

The 7 Principles of Biocentrism are;
The Seven Principles of Biocentrism:
First Principle of Biocentrism: What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An “external” reality, if it existed, would—by definition—have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.

I agree with the first 12 words.

Second Principle of Biocentrism: Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.

How does he know this? This seems like a hypothesis that requires proofs, but it seems like he arrived at it through logic... And it seems very convienient to his thesis. It would be just as likely that our observational bias can be removed from the equation, once we could measure it/if we could measure it. Saying it can't be, seems like giving up, almost like "cause god made it that way!".

Third Principle of Biocentrism: The behavior of subatomic particles— indeed all particles and objects—is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.

Fourth Principle of Biocentrism: Without consciousness, “matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.

When we perceive evidence of an external behavior, say a fallen tree, is he literally saying there was no tree there before we observed it... it was somewhere between falling and standing, and maybe an infinite number of other positions?

And when we percieve an external behavior resulting from a long chain of events, obvious to the observer to be ancient... crap, my head hurts.

Fifth Principle of Biocentrism: The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The “universe” is simply the complete spatiotemporal logic of the self.

Sixth Principle of Biocentrism: Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.

Seventh Principle of Biocentrism:
Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.

This seems like a different thing mixed in, the idea of our simple minds not being able to truly perceive of something, so we construct something we can understand to represent it... While also creating it with our observations.

I have just finished reading Lanza's book re Biocentrism.
I do agree with him on his main points but not totally.
I highly recommend his book, understanding (not necessary to agree with him) his points will expand one's vantage point of reality.

Many of his points are not novel, and had been debated within philosophy (modern and ancients), but his perspective and presentation are interesting.

So, what did you take away? How has your view of the universe changed? And do you conclude that scientists should look in this "new" direction? It seems unnecessary, since external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined... There is nothing to be done really, no adjustment or weighting can help us better realize what reality is (if there is any).

My main problem with it is- If our view of reality is so colored by our consciousness, that reality can never truly be seen, how likely is his theory to be true? It seems to disagree with itself... He percieved that reality is quantum, yet how could he?

[Spectrum]

Yeah, I think I get it now... but it seems like he took the wave collapse deal and ran too far with it.

Lanza may only have apparently relied too much on Quantum Physics, but he did rely on knowledge from other faculties and perspective to support his views. At most he may have given a weightage of 7/10 to QM.

Since he is a cell specialists, he did mention amongst others, the following;

... From a biocentric viewpoint, these nerve cells are the fundamental units of reality. They are the first thing nature seems to want most to create when left alone. Neurons—not atoms—lie as the bedrock and base of our observer-determined world. pg. 149

Second Principle of Biocentrism: Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.

How does he know this? This seems like a hypothesis that requires proofs, but it seems like he arrived at it through logic... And it seems very convienient to his thesis. It would be just as likely that our observational bias can be removed from the equation, once we could measure it/if we could measure it. Saying it can't be, seems like giving up, almost like "cause god made it that way!".

Yes, it can be inferred logically and through personal experience. Humans (individually and collectively) are part and parcel of reality. We are all ingredients inside a reality soup with everything else. One additional breath or a fart in t₀ is enough to change the unique characteristic of reality as it is in t₁. Thus we are biologically interdependent with reality which is biologically (consciousness) determined.

Third Principle of Biocentrism: The behavior of subatomic particles— indeed all particles and objects—is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.

Fourth Principle of Biocentrism: Without consciousness, “matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.

When we perceive evidence of an external behavior, say a fallen tree, is he literally saying there was no tree there before we observed it... it was somewhere between falling and standing, and maybe an infinite number of other positions?[

Yes, but this is only one of the point, together with other principles as stated and other knowledge form the foundation of Biocentrism.

Fifth Principle of Biocentrism: The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The “universe” is simply the complete spatiotemporal logic of the self.

Sixth Principle of Biocentrism: Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.

Seventh Principle of Biocentrism:
Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.

This seems like a different thing mixed in, the idea of our simple minds not being able to truly perceive of something, so we construct something we can understand to represent it... While also creating it with our observations.

Lanza explained each principles in great detail in his book. If you can get to read his book, it will help rather than me explaining based on a one-time reading of the book.

I have just finished reading Lanza's book re Biocentrism.
I do agree with him on his main points but not totally.
I highly recommend his book, understanding (not necessary to agree with him) his points will expand one's vantage point of reality.

Many of his points are not novel, and had been debated within philosophy (modern and ancients), but his perspective and presentation are interesting.

So, what did you take away? How has your view of the universe changed? And do you conclude that scientists should look in this "new" direction? It seems unnecessary, since external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined... There is nothing to be done really, no adjustment or weighting can help us better realize what reality is (if there is any).

My main problem with it is- If our view of reality is so colored by our consciousness, that reality can never truly be seen, how likely is his theory to be true? It seems to disagree with itself... He percieved that reality is quantum, yet how could he?

My view of reality had not changed as my initial view is in general similar to Biocentrism. Lanza presentation is just presenting it in a different perspective. Btw, Lanza specifically mentioned some points in his book as speculative, e.g. re chapter Death and Eternity which I do not agree at all.

Those scientists who has the inclinations may look in this "new" direction scientifically. However, I would recommend that all scientists step out of their scientific shoes into the philosophical shoes to look at this view interdependently with their scientific pursuits.

There is no absolute truths, how likely a theory to be true will depend on the accuracy and precision of observations in alignment with an interdependent dynamic reality, not a fixed classical reality out there waiting to be corresponded with facts.

-- Updated Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:52 am to add the following --

It's very interesting. Allow me to explain this on different point of view. On my point of view. Since there are similarities. But further i need to learn more on biocentrism. That's my point of view. And thank you for bringing up your post.

Noted your points.

[Seremonia]

I want to highlight the most essential similarities are:

- Universe stands within our consciousness; - In between the observer and the observed there is no distance; - There is no multiple times, but there is only a time.

To make it easier to be understood, we may use a streaming video playing on our computer.

- We can see a living inside running video; - Our computer display or any part of computer that can be considered as a device to projecting frames, is not far away from the image inside streaming video itself. If we saw a film where someone was sitting, then there was no distance in between actress that was sitting with the display computer that projecting its sitting; - If we saw multiple times, like, slower here, slower there, faster here, faster there on a film, but actually, there is only single time that was distributed equally (constant). The single time in this example was produced from the speed that came from how a video player capable provide steady (constant) speed.

Personally as Spectrum said, i encourage someone to read biocentrism or we can read this The Holographic Universe

We don't have to agree with all of these, since it's debatable. But we may accept it as several knowledge that may be someday will be our trigger to expand our point of view to the same case or to the different situation of our life. Or at least, it gives us a better tolerance to be open minded. Open minded for other purposes that may be with different focus than what we already discussed here.

Open minded, is for conditioning ourselves from one step to be easier for further steps and better possibilities.

Less or more ...

[Perry Calton]

A fantastic grouping of ink spots on what I perceived as paper. I preceived the ink spots as flowing symbols of letters that gathered familiar words that I perceived as having important meanings and thoughts. Most were familiar ideas and some ideas were slightly new for me.  Most refreshing were ideas suggesting that any true ToE would need to include life and conscienceness, i.e., "Biocentrism" and that what seems beyond sensory perception seemingly undefinable, but fluid-like and real.  Finally, I've found the written words of others that untangle my whirlpool of ideas. "Biocentrism"  seemed connected to many of my mind's thoughts, but expressed with preciseness, eligance, and humor that I envy.  For far too long,  I've lacked the know how to put my thoughts and ideas in groups of words that made sense. Of course, some of my ideas seem beyond definable, but I've learned to live with that.  Not intending to be spooky-like, I dare to believe that "Biocentrism" came my way like a stream of consciousness. 

[MTspace]

It appears to me that one of the strongest pillars of Biocentrism is the double slit experiment. I perceive that what is meant by that is that phenomena does not have a fixed reality because when we observe it it changes. That is correct with the DSE but doesn't seem to hold true to any other observable phenomena. For instance we can take a picture of the moon and even if no one is observing the moon the picture reveals the same thing as when we are observing it. So this may be the case with the DSE but how does that translate or influence all other observable phenomena?

[Perry Calton]

Seems like the quandry that led him to conclude this, is mostly about the mystery of conscious and less about reality... Maybe conscousness is the construct, not the universe.

Perhaps consciousness and universe are one in the same.

[Tobeornotobe]

I've read Robert Lanza's book, it makes a lot of sense. Proved many of my own points. My question is, what does one do with this information? I feel as if I am a prisoner of my own consciousness. All that is perceived by me is a product of my own imagination, and there is nothing out-there other than that...

[Toasterx]

Just found this thread and have just read Biocentrism (and am about to start his follow-up, Beyond Biocentrism) having heard Russell B recommend it on the JRE podcast and spookily having had something of an insight along similar lines while stoned a coupld of weeks beforehand

Anyway I have found it utterly transformational, an entire shift of perspective from being a meat-robot aspiring to enlightenment, to a glimpse of being the infinite oneness of cosnsciousness being manifest as a human. From being a human being having a spiritual experience/quest to being a spiritual being having a human experience/quest. I can't claim to "get it" but to me it does seem to obviate certain fundamental questions that I have been wrestling with around existential purpose.

That said, I found the last quarter or so of the book didn't manage to deliver on what the implications of this might be and how it might suggest I could conduct my life differently. In particular it didn't "explain" what individuation is, why is it that in my normal day to day life I do not /feel/ connected to everyone else and that, if I am pure consciousness mediated thru the meat-body then who am "I", independent from my wife, my dog, from you the reader etc?

I feel it's been a huge shift for me but that it has set me back in some way to be the beginning of a new journey of discovery. I also find it a relief somewhat because it permits me to consider that everything else I ever thought to be real is an illusion, on even more levels of illusion than I imagined

Would love to have some discussion/dialogue on this important subject

Namaste, T

[Logic_ill]

Lanza's theories seem interesting enough, but I disagree. The reason why I do so, is because we have not clearly defined "objective reality". We may never be able to do so. If I create a robot and the robot functions through a series of programs, would that not be part of its reality and my own? I mean, yes human beings may not be able to observe a complete or exact objective reality but they are real and so are their perspectives. Human beings have been known for manipulating their realities to construct useful artifiacts, and change what seems to be their nature or reality.

No, we might not view an entire/complete faithful objective reality because our perspectives get in the way, but we are real and so are our perspectives. It's like we function within our own dimesnions, as much as many organisms might do. There are many instances in which we have shown to transcend our default version of the truth, for example the matter of discovering atoms, elctrons, etc. All that is real too. In some sense this is objective reality, except that one of those realities is reaching the conclusion that because of our humanity we might not get to experience the entire spectrum of reality if that is possible.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

What does this book says about the quest for the origin of life? Does it lay in the Big Bang? (Universe=life?) I am curious.

A world void of any life cannot be real? This leads me to wonder if unreality may exist, say as fiction does exist. But does fiction really exist?

Also, is the living cell, as a reality, a living thing or an imagined thing? By being bio centric, are we centered upon our selves or upon our real observable living bodies?

Nice food for thoughts indeed.

[Logic_ill]

Ok, I take it back and must confess I didn´t watch Lanza´s video. I had reasons for that, but there are still ideas that I don´t entirely agree with. That the universe is a translation or a construct of our minds is true to me because we have evidence for it, at least regarding some aspects. However, maybe there is an "external physical reality". I mean the latter doesn´t exactly prove that there is no external reality. The reason why I mention this is because we have manipulated, what we perceive as nature, to be different. For example hybrid plants. I do not know exactly how other people define "consciousness", but some might include these plants as possessing one. Well, if they do, this might be an example of a consciousness that manipulates another. Human consciousness knows how that plant came to be in its current form and it parts from a construct of reality that sees things as external to self. However, the plant doesn´t seem to know its own nature, yet might view itself as external to its "manipulator" as well. The latter I mention because there is some evidence out there that proves that plants exhibit behaviors that indicate they somehow mark differences between same species organisms and other organisms as well, to have a better chance of survival. The point I´m trying to make is that we might both exist in a realm of reality in which organisms perceive themselves as external to one another or separate, yet one of them (humans in this case) knows how the other was manipulated. The plant does not seem to know, but does that mean that the human who "manipulated it" (engineered it) is not external to it or does not view itself as external to the hybrid in question? Not in this case. By the same token, humans may not know, even though they possess a consciousness themselves, what other life forms may know about them. The last may view humans as external too. In other words, we humans may be a construct of other sentient and non-sentient beings as well. We certainly are separate to one another.

Regardless of our definitions or our perspectives, however, we can do practical/useful things with what seems to be our reality. I think we should go forward with that. Lanza´s ideas are very important because we should bear in mind that at times we have discovered how everything we know is filtered through our brains and there may be no way around it. We should also bear in mind how limited we might be.

In the meantime, whether we see the universe as external or not, we have to behave as though it was, because our lives may depend on it. For example, I might want to avoid being struck by lighting, or taking too much drugs, tying to avoid a huge asteroid from hitting the earth, etc...

Another idea that came to mind was the matter of sentient beings not even being able to understand or know their own realities completely, let alone the entire universe´s. For example, I have trouble knowing whether some other human is lying to me or what they dream, think, feel, etc., imagine the layers and layers of reality out there???