Biocentrism and afterlife

#2
I've started to bring up that book - Biocentrism - here a couple of times . . . I read it a few years back when it first came out . . .

With everyone - especially and most laughably, the social sciences - having such physics envy, I tend to think of this. Our science is so, so, so physics heavy and centered! At the very least, one has to appreciate the idea of centering science around something else, in his case, biology . . . though in the end, it ought be consciousness, of course.

At any rate, in the book he clearly shied away from sounding too out there . . . so I'm a bit surprised at the name of the article . . . (I haven't read it yet, but will momentarily).
 
#3
Read the article, have to say didn't fully get all of it. It Felt like very slap dash reporting, that didn't present a very coherant picture of Dr Lanza's hypothesis.

It went over some ground I am familiar with philosophically, and new ground I had not before considered, but still a little confusing. Didn't understand what drove Dr Lanza's confidence in an afterlife, or what this hypothesised afterlife might consists of, or why necessarily it must exist. Scratching head a bit over here.

Love the fact that he is claiming this though - will need a thorough looking over I reckon. I can only hope there is some real meat to the bones presented in this sensationalist article. Thanks for sharing Enrique.

Soul
 
#4
I've started to bring up that book - Biocentrism - here a couple of times . . . I read it a few years back when it first came out . . .

With everyone - especially and most laughably, the social sciences - having such physics envy, I tend to think of this. Our science is so, so, so physics heavy and centered! At the very least, one has to appreciate the idea of centering science around something else, in his case, biology . . . though in the end, it ought be consciousness, of course.

At any rate, in the book he clearly shied away from sounding too out there . . . so I'm a bit surprised at the name of the article . . . (I haven't read it yet, but will momentarily).
Bio-centrism is the norm. That can be seen even among those with an interest in "spirituality" /non-physical consciousness. Often there are at least some views that derive from thinking of physical life as primary. It isn't. So bio-centrism would be even more of a regression than materialism. Physics "rules" because it offers possible bridges to the greater expanse of source/npc.
 
#7
I did an article on this over two years ago. I think you'll find it more coherent than the OP article.

http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/...a-consciousness-centric-view-of-the-universe/

As Reese stated, the OP article takes the theory to places that the book didn't go.
Loved the overview Craig. Absolutely fascinating, and very enlightening. Its all beggining to slowly come together. I think its tremendous when many lines of evidence from different scientific fields converge to really begin to flesh out a theory and offer compelling support for it. Thank you so much for your work.
 
#8
Loved the overview Craig. Absolutely fascinating, and very enlightening. Its all beggining to slowly come together. I think its tremendous when many lines of evidence from different scientific fields converge to really begin to flesh out a theory and offer compelling support for it. Thank you so much for your work.
Thanks! Right now I'm working to get Jim Carpenter's First Sight theory into a short easy to understand format. His book is very complex and difficult to read, but it's also very comprehensive and spot on.
 
#9
Bio-centrism is the norm. That can be seen even among those with an interest in "spirituality" /non-physical consciousness. Often there are at least some views that derive from thinking of physical life as primary. It isn't. So bio-centrism would be even more of a regression than materialism. Physics "rules" because it offers possible bridges to the greater expanse of source/npc.
Well it is good you have spoken on this, because otherwise I might have been tempted to take Robert Lanza's idea seriously :)

Seriously though, physics 'rules', but it does so inside people's minds - you can't get away from Lanza's idea as easily as that. I think this theory is one particular take on Idealism - which I suspect is the 'ultimate' explanation for reality.

David
 
Last edited:
#10
Well it is good you have spoken on this, because otherwise I might have been tempted to take Robert Lanza's idea seriously :)

Seriously though, physics 'rules', but it does so inside people's minds - you can't get away from Lanza's idea as easily as that. I think this theory is one particular take on Idealism - which I suspect is the 'ultimate' explanation for reality.

David
Amazing that you can get it so completely backwards. Bio-centrism is what rules peoples minds. A cursory look at human societies makes that clear. As for the "get away from" . .what? Get away from a weak repackaging of the same old materialiam silliness? lol. Like I said . .physical realities are not primary . . . not drivers.
 
#14
true, but most people use such theoretical sciences without actually understanding them, the case is already bullet proof, no other theory can account for all the elements of the nde apart form the simple theory the indeed the self survives the death of the body
I understand your point and agree about the evidence, but the fact is not everyone shares the same values, attitudes, ideas, etc, and need to be convinced in different ways. The evidence is very strong, but it is also extremely difficult for some people to wrap their heads around it. Sometimes this has to do with basic differences in personality and perception. So the more ways you can come at this stuff, the better.
 
#15
I understand your point and agree about the evidence, but the fact is not everyone shares the same values, attitudes, ideas, etc, and need to be convinced in different ways. The evidence is very strong, but it is also extremely difficult for some people to wrap their heads around it. Sometimes this has to do with basic differences in personality and perception. So the more ways you can come at this stuff, the better.

very true, thanks for your reply
 
#16
Amazing that you can get it so completely backwards. Bio-centrism is what rules peoples minds. A cursory look at human societies makes that clear. As for the "get away from" . .what? Get away from a weak repackaging of the same old materialiam silliness? lol. Like I said . .physical realities are not primary . . . not drivers.
I don't want to start a flame war - we had enough of them on the old Skeptiko board - but it might help if you wrote a little more clearly.

Lanza's concept of biocentrism is not some repackaging of psychology (so it can't effectively be defined as "what rules people's minds") - it purports to explain the nature of the universe. It reminds me of the theory of MUI interfaces by the neuroscientist Donald Hoffman, both of which seem to hint at idealism.

I am about 1/3 of the way through his book, and I would say that after a rather pedestrian start (where photons are called "bits of light") he settles into a pretty subtle argument.

David
 
#17
I think Lanza is precipitated with his claims, because what he presents is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, not facts. In my opinion I prefer a study of psychic evidence: OBEs, NDEs, apparitions, mediumship, to consider it more likely that there is a form of afterlife.

the thing is, we dont need theoretical physics to make a solid as nails case for the
afterlife!
I agree, but it's time for someone to develop a theoretical model to explain the evidence for the afterlife. For example: to investigate what material can be made the etheric body, the vehicle of the mind that remains after organic death.
 
#18
I think Lanza is precipitated with his claims, because what he presents is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, not facts. In my opinion.

He does present the Many Worlds interpretation, but he dismisses it as absurd - and I must say, I agree. A theory that postulates an exponentially increasing number of universes shouldn't be taken seriously. Did you have any other interpretation in mind.


I agree, but it's time for someone to develop a theoretical model to explain the evidence for the afterlife. For example: to investigate what material can be made the etheric body, the vehicle of the mind that remains after organic death.
I have my doubts if that is really possible. I mean things that simply follow equations - even with a random component - don't seem like the sort of thing that consciousness can be made of (see Roger Penrose's books on the limitations of anything that can be simulated on a computer).

I would guess that the body that some people report while in an OBE is some sort of mental construct. That makes it no less real - because possible everything in the afterlife is a mental construct - or indeed possibly the whole of reality.

However, I do feel encouraged that someone of Lanza's reputation is willing to dive into this matter feet first. I won't know whether he discusses ψ phenomena until I get to the end of the book, because the Kindle version doesn't have an index, but I am sure he is aware of the possible connections.

David
 
#19
indeed that would be
I think Lanza is precipitated with his claims, because what he presents is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, not facts. In my opinion I prefer a study of psychic evidence: OBEs, NDEs, apparitions, mediumship, to consider it more likely that there is a form of afterlife.



I agree, but it's time for someone to develop a theoretical model to explain the evidence for the afterlife. For example: to investigate what material can be made the etheric body, the vehicle of the mind that remains after organic death.
interesting, but i cant see it bearing any fruit till both technology and our concepts advance
 
#20
Did you have any other interpretation in mind.
Yes, I think Lanza accepts the interpretation of quantum mechanics which considers the collapse occurs by a conscious observer. So we can raise two points. First, I have not clear that the collapse occurs by a conscious observer when lately physicists proposed decoherence. And second, I see no connection between this interpretation of quantum mechanics and an afterlife.

I have my doubts if that is really possible. I mean things that simply follow equations - even with a random component - don't seem like the sort of thing that consciousness can be made of (see Roger Penrose's books on the limitations of anything that can be simulated on a computer).

I would guess that the body that some people report while in an OBE is some sort of mental construct. That makes it no less real - because possible everything in the afterlife is a mental construct - or indeed possibly the whole of reality.
Well, as a working hypothesis is always best to assume that we can develop scientific theories about the phenomena. Non-computable is not the same as non-scientific, Penrose himself trying to make a non-computable scientific theory of consciousness.

I wanted to say is that there must be something physical in these phenomena governed by certain laws, albeit an unknown physics today. Maybe in a deep level the idealism is correct, I do not know, but on a pragmatic level it is better to accept a physical existence to these phenomena. For example: collective apparitions seen by several witnesses at once, apparitions that cast shadows and reflected in mirrors, reciprocal apparitions, etc.
 
Top