Biocentrism - A Theory

[_honorentheos]

In another thread, SPG noted he had read multiple books on the subject of biocentrism. That clicked in where his views were originating and seems like a better topic to engage with than the bits and pieces of it's application to other topics that can derail threads away from their underlying idea into how someone coming from the perspective of embracing biocentrism might understand that topic.

There's an article from a decade ago in The American Scholar that was written by a major proponent of the idea that has the virtue of being short enough to capture the ideas in a quick read through for those who are curious and haven't heard of this idea. It's also available for free at this link:

https://theamericanscholar.org/a-new-th ... KFNlHdFxaQ

Here are a few salient bits from the article for those unable or unwilling to follow it:

Living in an age dominated by science, we have come more and more to believe in an objective, empirical reality and in the goal of reaching a complete understanding of that reality. Part of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been mapped or with the idea that we are close to understanding the big bang rests in our desire for completeness.

But we’re fooling ourselves.

Most of these comprehensive theories are no more than stories that fail to take into account one crucial factor: we are creating them. It is the biological creature that makes observations, names what it observes, and creates stories. Science has not succeeded in confronting the element of existence that is at once most familiar and most mysterious—conscious experience. 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 subjectlenses have a creative power; perhaps there are no objects.”

...

We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature. The ether of the 19th century, the “spacetime” of Einstein, and the string theory of recent decades, which posits new dimensions showing up in different realms, and not only in strings but in bubbles shimmering down the byways of the universe—all these are examples of this speculation. Indeed, unseen dimensions (up to a hundred in some theories) are now envisioned everywhere, some curled up like soda straws at every point in space.

Today’s preoccupation with physical theories of everything takes a wrong turn from the purpose of science—to question all things relentlessly. Modern physics has become like Swift’s kingdom of Laputa, flying absurdly on an island above the earth and indifferent to what is beneath. When science tries to resolve its conflicts by adding and subtracting dimensions to the universe like houses on a Monopoly board, we need to look at our dogmas and recognize that the cracks in the system are just the points that let the light shine more directly on the mystery of life.

...

Modern science cannot explain why the laws of physics are exactly balanced for animal life to exist. For example, if the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies to form and for life to begin. If the strong nuclear force were decreased by two percent, atomic nuclei wouldn’t hold together. Hydrogen would be the only atom in the universe. If the gravitational force were decreased, stars (including the sun) would not ignite. These are just three of more than 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that they cannot be random. Indeed, the lack of a scientific explanation has allowed these facts to be hijacked as a defense of intelligent design.

Without perception, there is in effect no reality. Nothing has existence unless you, I, or some living creature perceives it, and how it is perceived further influences that reality. Even time itself is not exempted from biocentrism. Our sense of the forward motion of time is really the result of an infinite number of decisions that only seem to be a smooth continuous path. At each moment we are at the edge of a paradox known as The Arrow, first described 2,500 years ago by the philosopher Zeno of Elea. Starting logically with the premise that nothing can be in two places at once, he reasoned that an arrow is only in one place during any given instance of its flight. But if it is in only one place, it must be at rest. The arrow must then be at rest at every moment of its flight. Logically, motion is impossible. But is motion impossible? Or rather, is this analogy proof that the forward motion of time is not a feature of the external world but a projection of something within us? Time is not an absolute reality but an aspect of our consciousness.

This paradox lies at the heart of one of the great revolutions of 20th-century physics, a revolution that has yet to take hold of our understanding of the world and of the decisive role that consciousness plays in determining the nature of reality. The uncertainty principle in quantum physics is more profound than its name suggests. It means that we make choices at every moment in what we can determine about the world. We cannot know with complete accuracy a quantum particle’s motion and its position at the same time—we have to choose one or the other. Thus the consciousness of the observer is decisive in determining what a particle does at any given moment.

Einstein was frustrated by the threat of quantum uncertainty to the hypothesis he called spacetime, and spacetime turns out to be incompatible with the world discovered by quantum physics. When Einstein showed that there is no universal now, it followed that observers could slice up reality into past, present, and, future, in different ways, all with equal reality. But what, exactly, is being sliced up?

Space and time are not stuff that can be brought back to the laboratory in a marmalade jar for analysis. In fact, space and time fall into the province of biology—of animal sense perception—not of physics. They are properties of the mind, of the language by which we human beings and animals represent things to ourselves. Physicists venture beyond the scope of their science—beyond the limits of material phenomena and law—when they try to assign physical, mathematical, or other qualities to space and time.

Return to the revelation that we are thinking animals and that the material world is the elusive substratum of our conscious activity continually defining and redefining the real. We must become skeptical of the hard reality of our most cherished conceptions of space and time, and of the very notion of an external reality, in order to recognize that it is the activity of consciousness itself, born of our biological selves, which in some sense creates the world.

Despite such things as the development of superconducting supercolliders containing enough niobium-titanium wire to circle the earth 16 times, we understand the universe no better than the first humans with sufficient consciousness to think. Where did it all come from? Why does the universe exist? Why are we here? In one age, we believe that the world is a great ball resting on the back of a turtle; in the next, that a fairy universe appeared out of nowhere and is expanding into nothingness. In one age, angels push and pummel the planets about; in another age, everything is a meaningless accident. We exchange a world-bearing turtle for a big bang.

...

It’s important here to address a fundamental question. We have clocks that can measure time. If we can measure time, doesn’t that prove it exists? Einstein sidestepped the question by simply defining time as “what we measure with a clock.” The emphasis for physicists is on the measuring. However, the emphasis should be on the we, the observers. Measuring time doesn’t prove its physical existence. Clocks are rhythmic things. Humans use the rhythms of some events (like the ticking of clocks) to time other events (like the rotation of the earth). This is not time, but rather, a comparison of events. Specifically, over the ages, humans have observed rhythmic events in nature: the periodicities of the moon, the sun, the flooding of the Nile. We then created other rhythmic things to measure nature’s rhythms: a pendulum, a mechanical spring, an electronic device. We called these manmade rhythmic devices “clocks.” We use the rhythms of specific events to time other specific events. But these are just events, not to be confused with time.

...

The experiments of Heisenberg and Bell call us back to experience itself, the immediacy of the infinite here and now, and shake our unexamined trust in objective reality. But another support for biocentrism is the famous two hole experiment, which demands that we go one step further: Zeno’s arrow doesn’t exist, much less fly, without an observer. The two-hole experiment goes straight to the core of quantum physics. Scientists have discovered that if they “watch” a subatomic particle pass through holes on a barrier, it behaves like a particle: like a tiny bullet, it passes through one or the other holes. But if the scientists do not observe the particle, then it exhibits the behavior of a wave. The two-hole experiment has many versions, but in short: If observed, particles behave like objects; if unobserved, they behave like waves and can go through more than one hole at the same time.

Dubbed quantum weirdness, this wave-particle duality has befuddled scientists for decades. Some of the greatest physicists have described it as impossible to intuit and impossible to formulate into words, and as invalidating common sense and ordinary perception. Science has essentially conceded that quantum physics is incomprehensible outside of complex mathematics. How can quantum physics be so impervious to metaphor, visualization, and language?

If we accept a life-created reality at face value, it becomes simple to understand. The key question is waves of what? Back in 1926, the Nobel laureate physicist Max Born demonstrated that quantum waves are waves of probability, not waves of material as the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger had theorized. They are statistical predictions. Thus a wave of probability is nothing but a likely outcome. In fact, outside of that idea, the wave is not there. It’s nothing. As John Wheeler, the eminent theoretical physicist, once said, “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”

[_Gadianton]

Out of all the dumb ideas in this article, it's hard to tell which is the dumbest and therefore, where to start as a response. I doubt Biocentricism even rises to the level of basic coherency. I'll bet that if you were to take two Boicentricists who don't know each other, and ask each to construct an assessment test of basic Biocetricist principles -- without being told to what ends the test would be put -- and then each had to take the other's test, that they'd both fail to pass.

[_honorentheos]

All great points, Dean Robbers. I'd suspect the attempt to even construct a workable test a challenge that they might not be able to pass given the literature, let alone being able to recognize an attempt at rigorous definition in order to pass such as test.

Of the sources that take the effort to explain what it is getting wrong, I thought this website was well organized and informative.
http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentr ... -universe/

Salient points related to The American Scholar article include:

As science and reason dismantle the idea of the centrality of human life in the functioning of the objective universe, the emotional impulse has been to resort to finer and finer misinterpretations of the science involved. Mystical thinkers use these misrepresentations of science to paint over the gaps in our scientific understanding of the universe, belittling, in the process, science and its greatest heroes.

In their recent article in The Huffington Post, biologist Robert Lanza and mystic Deepak Chopra put forward their idea that the universe is itself a product of our consciousness, and not the other way around as scientists have been telling us. In essence, these authors are re-inventing idealism, an ancient philosophical concept that fell out of favour with the advent of the scientific revolution. According to the idealists, the mind creates all of reality. Many ancient Eastern and Western philosophical schools subscribe to this idealistic notion of the nature of reality. In the modern context, idealism has been supplemented with a brand of quantum mysticism and relabeled as biocentrism. According to Chopra and Lanza, this idea makes Darwin’s theory of the biological evolution and diversification of life insignificant. Both these men, although they come from different backgrounds, have independently expressed these ideas before with some popular success. In the article under discussion their different styles converge to present a uniquely mystical and bizarre worldview, which we wish to debunk here.

...

(a) Lanza questions the conventional idea that space and time exist as objective properties of the universe. In doing this, he argues that space and time are products of human consciousness and do not exist outside of the observer. Indeed, Lanza concludes that everything we perceive is created by the act of perception.

The intent behind this argument is to help consolidate the view that subjective experience is all there is. However, if you dig into what Lanza says it becomes clear that he is positioning the relativistic nature of reality to make it seem incongruous with its objective existence. His reasoning relies on a subtle muddling of the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity...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.

...

Time and space receive similar treatment as color and heat in Lanza’s biocentrism. Lanza reaches the conclusion that time does not exist outside the observer by conflating absolute time (which does not exist) with objective time (which does). In 2007 Lanza made his argument using an ancient mathematical riddle known as Zeno’s Arrow paradox. In essence, Zeno’s Arrow paradox involves motion in space-time...In the first case Lanza seems to state that motion is logically impossible (which is a pre-relativistic view of the paradox) and in the next case he mentions that uncertainty is present in the system (a post-relativistic model of motion). In both cases, however, Lanza’s conclusion is the same – biocentrism is true for time. No matter what the facts about the nature of time, Lanza concludes that time is not real. His model is unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be a part of science. What Lanza doesn’t let on is that Einstein’s special-relativity theory removes the possibility of absolute time, not of time itself. Zeno’s Arrow paradox is resolved by replacing the idea of absolute time with Einstein’s relativistic coupling of space and time. Space-time has an uncertainty in quantum mechanics, but it is not nonexistent. The idea of time as a series of sequential events that we perceive and put together in our heads is an experiential version of time. This is the way we have evolved to perceive time. This experiential version of time seems absolute, because we evolved to perceive it that way. However, in reality time is relative. This is a fundamental fact of modern physics. Time does exist outside of the observer, but allows us only a narrow perception of its true nature.

...

Much confusion and uncalled-for debate has been engendered by the (scientifically unsound) ‘strong’ or cosmological version of the anthropic principle, which is sometimes stated as follows: Since the universe is compatible with the existence of human beings, the dynamics of the elementary particles and the initial conditions of the universe must have been such that they shaped the fundamental laws so as to produce human beings. This is clearly untenable. There are no grounds for the existence of a ‘principle’ like this. A scientifically untenable principle is no principle at all. No wonder, the Nobel laureate Gell-Mann, as quoted above, described it as ‘so ridiculous as to merit no further discussion.’

The chemical elements needed for life were forged in stars, and then flung far into space through supernova explosions. This required a certain amount of time. Therefore the universe cannot be younger than the lifetime of stars. The universe cannot be too old either, because then all the stars would be ‘dead’. Thus, life can exist only when the universe has just the age that we humans measure it to be, and has just the physical constants that we measure them to be.

It has been calculated that if the laws and fundamental constants of our universe had been even slightly different from what they are, life as we know it would not have been possible. Rees (1999), in the book Just Six Numbers, listed six fundamental constants which together determine the universe as we see it. Their fine-tuned mutual values are such that even a slightly different set of these six numbers would have been inimical to our emergence and existence. Consideration of just one of these constants, namely the strength of the strong interaction (which determines the binding energies of nuclei), is enough to make the point. It is defined as that fraction of the mass of an atom of hydrogen which is released as energy when hydrogen atoms fuse to form an atom of helium. Its value is 0.007, which is just right (give or take a small acceptable range) for any known chemistry to exist, and no chemistry means no life. Our chemistry is based on reactions among the 90-odd elements. Hydrogen is the simplest among them, and the first to occur in the periodic table. All the other elements in our universe got synthesised by fusion of hydrogen atoms. This nuclear fusion depends on the strength of the strong or nuclear interaction, and also on the ability of a system to overcome the intense Coulomb repulsion between the fusing nuclei. The creation of intense temperatures is one way of overcoming the Coulomb repulsion. A small star like our Sun has a temperature high enough for the production of only helium from hydrogen. The other elements in the periodic table must have been made in the much hotter interiors of stars larger than our Sun. These big stars may explode as supernovas, sending their contents as stellar dust clouds, which eventually condense, creating new stars and planets, including our own Earth. That is how our Earth came to have the 90-odd elements so crucial to the chemistry of our life. The value 0.007 for the strong interaction determined the upper limit on the mass number of the elements we have here on Earth and elsewhere in our universe. A value of, say, 0.006, would mean that the universe would contain nothing but hydrogen, making impossible any chemistry whatsoever. And if it were too large, say 0.008, all the hydrogen would have disappeared by fusing into heavier elements. No hydrogen would mean no life as we know it; in particular there would be no water without hydrogen.

Similarly for the other finely-tuned fundamental constants of our universe. Existence of humans has become possible because the values of the fundamental constants are what they are; had they been different, we would not exist; that is how the anthropic principle (planetary or cosmological, weak or strong) should be stated. The weak version is the only valid version of the principle.

It covers a range of topics that get grouped by biocentrists into manipulations of science to make New Age-like claims about the mind, belief, the godlike nature of humankind, etc., etc. It's a gloss, but a reasonable one for showing the ideas SPG espouses haven't gone unchallenged or even outright refuted.

[_Gadianton]

He'd be in good company over at SeN with this dredge, that's for sure. I'm surprised it hasn't cropped up over there, actually.

Obviously, it's the detector that interferes with the photon in the double-split and not the human mind. What if the scientists didn't watch their instruments and just recorded the data as the detectors ran? He'd be forced to say that the "wave function" doesn't "collapse" until our consciousness listens to the recording. But what if we axed part of the base of a tree away in a forest and left a tape recorder there (with a 50-5- chance of falling)? Would he say the tree doesn't fall until we listen to the tape?

If he says "no" to that, then we have to wonder what good it is that our consciousness only determines the outcome of such tiny events -- quantum idealism isn't much of a victory. But I think almost certainly he'd say "yes", which means consciousness is redundantly creating events when dealing with quantum interactions.

[_SPG]

It covers a range of topics that get grouped by biocentrists into manipulations of science to make New Age-like claims about the mind, belief, the godlike nature of humankind, etc., etc. It's a gloss, but a reasonable one for showing the ideas SPG espouses haven't gone unchallenged or even outright refuted.

Thanks for this. It's a lot of reading, and I admit I only read through enough that it seems consistent with what I have learned.

Of course, stuff gets refuted, even though there is always more evidence and experiences to support it.

I admit, I refer to biocentrism when it is convenient, when it supports my idea, but it's not the "originating" source of my views. I got connected to quantum theories because my ideas were often compared to it.

My ideas comes from more mysterious sources, like personal visions, mediation, spiritual study, etc. I have been slowly studying math with the hope that I will someday understand the math of what they are doing. But right now, it's just thinking, praying, and writing that gives me my ideas.

I picked up the idea of the "observer" from some ancient Sanskrit texts about 30 years. I saw in a vision while hiking back in the 80s the concept of dark energy and dark matter, that there are realms that we cannot see because they do not reflect our light. They are not dark in their own context, but to us, they are.

The idea of the Observer from the Sanskrit text implied that we cannot control the universe, merely choose how we see it. We cannot control people or events, merely decide how we view them. But, in the viewing, the seeing, the powers of the gods are made known. If I can see the good in someone, point it out, chances of the good coming forward increase. If I see the faults of someone, and point them out, chances are those faults will increase, but, I'm not actually controlling anything, just observing.

A friend from France just posted a Facebook article about more and more quantum experiments being done that prove there is no objective reality. This to me is a spiritual idea, that we are not "forced" to accept the common/shared reality. If we want, we can retreat into a personal space that others cannot touch. There we can be God, superman, or Darth Vader and it has a real effect on our personality or soul. But when we joined the "shared reality" we must comply with the laws and risks of that realm. Like, if a person is a slave in the shared realm, it might not be something they like. They might risk it for the benefits of working in the shared realm, but the universe doesn't force people to partake if they want to escape. There are private spaces that are our own.

The idea of the observer and the powers thereof are being experimented with in quantum projects all over the world. Even back as far as the 1920s when they were trying to decide of light was a particle or a wave, and finally decided that it was both, the finally decision of whether light is a particle or wave falls upon the observer.

Some part of biocentrism that I both agree with but have other options on is the "it only exists when the observer is looking or thinking about it." Biocentrism states that if you close the door and turn off the light that the room disappears. My theory is that if something is forgotten, it disappears. But my theory also includes larger beings, like Gods and archangels, (watchers are mentioned) that keep the realm real for us and keep the laws true. Just like parents keep the focus on knowledge and focus on spiritual, mental, or emotional forms for their children, we have beings looking out for humans. But if a child is tossed to the wolves to be raised, all the ideas those parents will be forgotten and no impact on him. So the human race is really about gaining knowledge and maintaining the conscious focus on it. Otherwise, it is lost.

I could go but I have others duties today.

[_SteelHead]

Have you tried looking at a rock in a hat? I hear it is a great source for mysterious visions.

[_SPG]

Have you tried looking at a rock in a hat? I hear it is a great source for mysterious visions.

Not that partiicular method of scrying, but I'm familiar with the concept.

[_Res Ipsa]

He'd be in good company over at SeN with this dredge, that's for sure. I'm surprised it hasn't cropped up over there, actually.

Obviously, it's the detector that interferes with the photon in the double-split and not the human mind. What if the scientists didn't watch their instruments and just recorded the data as the detectors ran? He'd be forced to say that the "wave function" doesn't "collapse" until our consciousness listens to the recording. But what if we axed part of the base of a tree away in a forest and left a tape recorder there (with a 50-5- chance of falling)? Would he say the tree doesn't fall until we listen to the tape?

If he says "no" to that, then we have to wonder what good it is that our consciousness only determines the outcome of such tiny events -- quantum idealism isn't much of a victory. But I think almost certainly he'd say "yes", which means consciousness is redundantly creating events when dealing with quantum interactions.

I’d defer to Physics Guy on this, Dean Robbers, but I’m sure you are correct. What the biocentrists say about QM is in the category “not even wrong.” In the first place, nothing in QM says that observing or taking a measurement “creates” anything. The particle exists in a superposition of states before the measurement, but that’s still existence. And once the measurement is taken, the result of the double slit experiment is always a particle. In fact, it’s always the particle that corresponds to the type of particle waves being emitted. The result is never a wave or a different kind of particle or a tiger or a flower. The measurement results in the same kind of particle every time. Extrapolating this to a conclusion that conscious creates reality is pure, unadulterated BS.

[_SPG]

I’d defer to Physics Guy on this, Dean Robbers, but I’m sure you are correct. What the biocentrists say about QM is in the category “not even wrong.” In the first place, nothing in QM says that observing or taking a measurement “creates” anything. The particle exists in a superposition of states before the measurement, but that’s still existence. And once the measurement is taken, the result of the double slit experiment is always a particle. In fact, it’s always the particle that corresponds to the type of particle waves being emitted. The result is never a wave or a different kind of particle or a tiger or a flower. The measurement results in the same kind of particle every time. Extrapolating this to a conclusion that conscious creates reality is pure, unadulterated ____.

I get where you are coming from on this, but it strikes at the heart of what physics has struggled with for years. "What caused the Big Bang?"

There is common consensus that for every particle of matter, there is its twin of anti-matter. Many speculate that there is an universe of anti-matter out there somewhere with our name written on it, that it will collide with us and we will be destroyed. But, bottom line, the universe is sum-zero. For everything that is, there is something that isn't.

But, if you "add things together" to get nothing, what divided the nothing in the first place? Physics hasn't been able to explain this. There is another thing that physics says is true, but really cannot explain, and that is parallel realities. How could universes be created as fast as possibilities? Where does all that matter and energy come from? The only thing that explains it, to my thinking, is that there is still nothing, that we only think we are here, and that parallel realities are created in the minds of those in them. How can there be infinite universes if matter is finite?

I don't think that "I" (this observer) creates particles. I think that particles can exist in multiple universes, but that a "higher observer" does the creating. But, that is one paradox that I don't think anyone here can explain. Where does matter/antimatter come from and who makes it? Because as the numbers go, it's nothing, should still be nothing.

[_Gadianton]

I guess I'm saying Shrodinger's cat is a sham. Cesium decay has a certain probability (to say it IS the probability wave is I believe is false, but more important, a speculative and an unwarranted assumption), the cat is dead in the box independent of whether anybody has looked in the box, if the decay happened. It was "looked" at without any human looking (hell, the cat looked, right?). However, how can the human know it all went down without first looking? We can't, but that has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics, we already had the tree-falling thought experiment from Bishop Berkeley. I can rig a tree in a forest with a 50/50 chance of falling and to say the tree is in a "superposition of states" every bit as much as the cat is in a "superposition of states" which is to say that it isn't in one. So adding quantum mechanics as a mind-determines reality mystery is doing double-duty and drastically confusing the perfectly legitimate Berkeley suggestion that we already had.

As RPG confirmed it's unnecessarily complicated now: If I open my eyes, the room and the double-slit experiment going on is suddenly created, along with chairs and tables etc., with the exception of one thing: a something going through one or two slits or both, but since my mind just suddenly created an entire room, why didn't it create either a wave or a particle along with the rest of the room? How is it that I have to observe a wave or a particle within a room that I just now already observed? Quantum would have to be a virtual world within the virtual world I created with a unique set of observation laws; but while that's "possible" in the loosest bat-shit-crazy sense of the word, it doesn't provide the evidence the mystic wants it to that the world is mind-dependent.

At any rate, a brilliant strategy by mystics is to throw the 10 most difficult ideas in the world all together and make ordinary guys like me stumble in trying to make corrections, because then it feels like a victory to the mystic that he or she is at least on equal playing ground if I get something wrong.


RPG,

Thanks for helping me understand your initials better. I have a question. You say the world ends with memory vs. ending with opening and closing our eyes or otherwise observing it with out pseudo-senses. Suppose I believe the world ends when I close my eyes, what argument would you make to convince me that it really ends with memory instead? What would make me, as a biocentricist, update my views with your suggestion?