Biocentrism: Opinions?

I am finding I largely agree with biocentrism as possible or even likely.

It does fit with a lot of ancient beliefs as to the nature of reality. For example the Ancient Egyptian belief that the world formed out of "chaos" *perhaps a reference to all superimposed possibilities talked about in Quantum Mechanics?.

The idea can be found in fiction as well. For example Neil Gaiman's graphic novel series "The Sandman" which, I think, illustrates the principles of Biocentrism.

But one problem is that I think that it's altogether likely that this is simply an effect of the "shadow" ourselves starting to be reflected in our observations. Leaving it not altogether impossible that biocentrism is merely a artifact of our many cognitive and perceptural shortcomings and flaws.

Anyrate. Some reading material that I am not sure I 100% agree with as I am not so sure the author's certainty is warrented.

Could the long-sought Theory of Everything be merely missing a component that was too close for us to have noticed? Some of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been mapped or the idea that we are close to understanding the “Big Bang” rests in our innate human desire for completeness and totality. But most of these comprehensive theories fail to take into account one crucial factor: We are creating them. It is the biological creature that fashions the stories, that makes the observations, and that gives names to things. And therein lies the great expanse of our oversight, that science has not confronted the one thing that is at once most familiar and most mysterious — consciousness. As Emerson wrote in “Experience,” an essay that confronted the facile positivism of his age: “We have learned that we do not see directly, but mediately, and that we have no means of correcting these colored and distorting lenses which we are, or of computing the amount of their errors. Perhaps these subject-lenses have a creative power; perhaps there are no objects.”

‘Biocentrism’: How life creates the [email protected]

So anyway, thoughts, criticisms or dancing gerbils?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Hey Watcher, I read the book a couple months back, and sadly wasn't as impressed as I had hoped to be.

A large portion of Biocentrism is spent exploring the Copenhagen interpretation while completely ignoring the opposite viewpoint. This is done to such an extent that one can't help but imagine Dr. Lanza writing his manuscript with both hands over his ears and his tongue out in mocking revelry. The book makes a good case for bio-participatism. However it fails to succeed in arguing the case that reality is centric to consciousness or biological beingness. This tunnel vision is remarkably similar to the mechanistic philosophy of modern day science in that it assumes things can only be one way and not also the other.

I look forward to the day when both mechanical and transcendental aspects of reality can exist side-by-side the same way irrational numbers sit adjacent to rational ones on the number line. Reality as composed of both physical mechanisms and intangible conscious meanderings is a potpourri of natural, imaginary, real, complex, and every other form of abstraction imagined or unimagined. In no way should a "theory of everything" be boxed or shoe-horned to fit into one idea just so we can pat ourselves on the back and in an illusory way conclude "all things are explained."

Even though the writing style was extremely approachable and the personal elements humanizing. I found Dr. Lanza's finger pointing and general condemnation of broad categories of scientific research as self serving and hypocritical. This really came to the fore on pg. 175 when he wrote,

"Let man," declared Emerson, "then learn the revelation of all nature and all thought to his heart; this, namely; that the Highest dwells with him; that the sources of nature are in his own mind."

If only the physicists had respected the limits of their science as Skinner did his.

Dr. Lanza is as guilty of this as any physicist when he claims the building blocks of biology or consciousness have any bearing on inert physical structures. Achieving a physical theory of everything would likely provide some insight into consciousness. However like an EEG we'd probably have no real picture of what quantum-states or brain-waves are telling us about what's going on in a persons conscious subjective mind. Similarly understanding consciousness down to its roots would probably tell us something about physical reality, but more than likely we can expect that it would have little to say about quantum gravity. Blurring the lines to say one tells us wholly about the other and vice versa is the height of sophistic thinking.

While it's fun to think, "Reality is a function of my conscious existence." The evidence is still very much inconclusive any way you look at it.

reply to post by Xtraeme


Hi. Thank you for your reply. Please don't take my criticism personally.

A large portion of Biocentrism is spent exploring the Copenhagen interpretation while completely ignoring the opposite viewpoint. This is done to such an extent that one can't help but imagine Dr. Lanza writing his manuscript with both hands over his ears and his tongue out in mocking revelry.

Why must the proponent of a certain viewpoint talk about other possible viewpoints? It's rather like asking Dr. Dawkins to talk about the good aspects of theistic religion. Extreme example I know but you get my point.

Dr. Lanza is as guilty of this as any physicist when he claims the building blocks of biology or consciousness have any bearing on inert physical structures.

I found this website during my research session. I wasn't too awfully impressed with it. Case in point:

There is only some partial truth to Lanza’s claims. Color is an experiential truth - that is, it is a descriptive phenomenon that lies outside of objective reality. No physicist will deny this. However, the physical properties of light that are responsible for color are characteristics of the natural universe. Therefore, the sensory experience of color is subjective, but the properties of light responsible for that sensory experience are objectively true. The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself; it creates a subjective experience or a representation of the phenomenon.

source[/b ]

This does not discredit the possibility that the universe is in fact "created" by the minds of the creatures living in it. I fail to see how anyone can see it as such. Would you care to explain it to me please?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

There is only some partial truth to Lanza’s claims. Color is an experiential truth - that is, it is a descriptive phenomenon that lies outside of objective reality. No physicist will deny this. However, the physical properties of light that are responsible for color are characteristics of the natural universe. Therefore, the sensory experience of color is subjective, but the properties of light responsible for that sensory experience are objectively true. The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself; it creates a subjective experience or a representation of the phenomenon.

nirmukta.com...

This does not discredit the possibility that the universe is in fact "created" by the minds of the creatures living in it. I fail to see how anyone can see it as such. Would you care to explain it to me please?

Lanza for whatever reason seems to have hard time distinguishing between subjective experiences versus objective means of measuring EM, that can be performed by non-living inert instrumentation like spectrographs.

The only known life in our universe came in to existence several hundred million years after the creation of planet Earth. To assume biological life could have existed at the inception of the universe during the big bang, when there wasn't even 3rd generation matter stretches credulity. So if there were no observers at the beginning the hypothesis kind of falls apart on itself.

Re Xtraeme

I can only support your posts 100%. The crucial point lies in an understanding of consciousness (which understanding we haven't yet), and your suggestion of an inclusive model containing both mechanistic and transcendental aspects is something I've been working on for years (as a layman).

The quantum physicisist are maybe getting a little ahead of themselves by disregarding or diminishing the importance of the observable cosmic STRUCTURE, which may or may not be an unknown intrinsic quality of quantum mechanics itself (alternatively a super-imposition emerging with a classical big bang).

That such premature enthusiasm, declaring a TOE already found or unnecessary, then leads to cottage industry 'explanations' is for me rather sad, because we'll soon be overrun with parallels to the hijacked 'intelligent design' pseudo-science model. In the case of this thread I can already see 'creationism' lurking potentially in the background, hoping for some kind of twisted justification by people believing in that kind of stuff.

And going in that direction would be troublesome, both concerning the wasted time in trying to convince adherents the futility of it, and inversely its leading interest away from the potential of a mechanistic/transcendental - cosmos/chaos context in a 'holographic' universe (or whatever the proper name eventually turns out to be).

And to Watcher: If you really are interested in the position, 'meaning' or importance of the emergence of biological life in the universe, I find the 'strong anthropic principle' a much more rewarding approach. A combination of growing complexity and enthropy has been suggested already in the late forties as a part of the cosmic 'blueprint'.

The problem I have with Biocentrism is that the inventors toss in some unsupportable notions (relying on a lab experiment involving light-beam splitters that yielded vague results that the authors run off a cliff with) concerning consciousness being able to retroactively adjust its own progressive development (as in actually rewinding the entire impact of progressive causation within the affected contextual environment) in order to skip out on the requirement for a clearly detailed existential genesis. I would imagine to be able to claim that consciousness back-storied itself and therefore never needed to have a beginning at all - which is ludicrous. That's too much bending and twisting of unrelated and poorly substantiated information in order to get it to fit a pre-conceived notion. Especially if that notion depends heavily on that unrelated and poorly substantialed information.

Concerning Biocentrism, the only thing that consciousness predated is the premise itself. It was invented to sell books, and so far it's been pretty successful. No worse that Deepak Chopra, but no better either.

It makes sense only if we do away with a Materialist Monism (matter is primary) and an arrow of time (the past is real). and adopt the frame of reference of a Monistic Idealism (consciousness is primary) in an eternally unfolding present moment (no time but the present). What I've found most intriguing is that a Monistic Idealism is the ONLY way to do away with the quantum paradoxes.

I am not going to get into why someone should or should not agree with Dr. Lanza and his philosophy, but I do feel everyone should read this book if just to open themselves to the concepts.

There were two topics that really captured my imagination. One was the section on photons and the experiments that proved the "behavior" of these photons was modified simply by the act of observation. Also, the still mystical connection between photons that seems to break the laws of physics (instantaneous...i.e. faster than the speed of light).

The other topic was that of reality itself being a creation of consciousness. The old question...If a tree falls in the woods and there was no one around to hear it does it make a sound? Answered by Dr. Lanza as "No!" Of course it does not because WHAT IS SOUND without a mind to process it? For that matter what is LIGHT, TASTE, DARK, BRIGHT, ETC!? None of these things exist without a consciousness to observe them.

Thought provoking concepts and worth the read IMO.