Science
Related: About this forumBiocentrism’: How life creates the universe
By Robert Lanzawith Bob Berman
Special to msnbc.com
updated 6/16/2009 5:40:40 PM ET
Print Font:
This abridgment is based on "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.
The 21st century is predicted to be the Century of Biology, a shift from the previous century dominated by physics. It seems fitting, then, to begin the century by turning the universe outside-in and unifying the foundations of science, not with imaginary strings that occupy equally imaginary unseen dimensions, but with a much simpler idea that is rife with so many shocking new perspectives that we are unlikely ever to see reality the same way again.
In the past few decades, major puzzles of mainstream science have forced a re-evaluation of the nature of the universe that goes far beyond anything we could have imagined. A more accurate understanding of the world requires that we consider it biologically centered. Its a simple but amazing concept that Biocentrism attempts to clarify: Life creates the universe, instead of the other way around. Understanding this more fully yields answers to several long-held puzzles. This new model combining physics and biology instead of keeping them separate, and putting observers firmly into the equation is called biocentrism. Its necessity is driven in part by the ongoing attempts to create an overarching view, a theory of everything. Such efforts have now stretched for decades, without much success except as a way of financially facilitating the careers of theoreticians and graduate students.
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.
There are many problems with the current paradigm some obvious, others rarely mentioned but just as fundamental. But the overarching problem involves life, since its initial arising is still a scientifically unknown process, even if the way it then changed forms can be apprehended using Darwinian mechanisms. The bigger problem is that life contains consciousness, which, to say the least, is poorly understood.
Consciousness is not just an issue for biologists; its a problem for physics. There is nothing in modern physics that explains how a group of molecules in a brain creates consciousness. The beauty of a sunset, the taste of a delicious meal, these are all mysteries to science which can sometimes pin down where in the brain the sensations arise, but not how and why there is any subjective personal experience to begin with. And, whats worse, nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter. Our understanding of this most basic phenomenon is virtually nil. Interestingly, most models of physics do not even recognize this as a problem.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31393080/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/biocentrism-how-life-creates-universe/#.T9CnnI5nn9O
Very Long enjoyable article I might have to get the book.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)I've read the book and enjoyed it thoroughly.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)on why its not explained or explored is intriguing.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)Re-packaging ancient Advaita and claiming it as the cutting edge of their next theory of everything.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Someone had problems in the object permanence stage of development. The kitchen is still there, I swear to you.... it is still there.
I think people are just placing more importance on their own existence than there really is. The truth is that life as we know it could not have begun for billions of years after the start of the universe. The universe will also continue for many orders of magnitude longer after life can no longer exist than it would have existed while life was possible.
Consciousness is meaningless, except to the one who is conscious. A sunset is beautiful and meals taste good because recognizing these things help us survive. Everything "unexplained" here is explained by evolution and has been for a very long time. If the authors can't grasp that then I don't see why anyone can respect their opinion.
IMO, their premise that there is a "GUT" or "TOE" is flawed.
A better theory is that there is no "Theory of Everything" and to simply deal with the fact that we can't bring everything into one nice neat little package no matter how hard we try. Many of the greatest minds of our species have been at it for over a century and we are still completely clueless on the subject. This alone should imply that it really might not exist.
I believe we should consider the possibility that Grand Unification is a pipe dream. Grand Diversification/Duality may make more sense. Everything seems to have a duality to it. Matter and anti-matter. Matter and energy. Usable energy and entropy. Order and Chaos. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Male and Female. Plant and animal. Organic and inorganic. Even the states of matter can easily be divided in two once you realize that the only difference between a solid a liquid and a gas is temperature and pressure. IMO these are all the same and only Plasma and non-plasma are distinct states of matter.
Once we realize that the quantum universe operates on a different set of rules than the one Relativity defines then we can stop with this nonsense about the two-hole experiment dictating that our kitchen disappears at night. I'm sorry but the cat can't be both alive and dead. Not in this reality. I think we need to stop projecting our hopes onto science and just accept the evidence as it is.
And don't even get me started on this whole "Multi-verse, every time we make a choice we create a new universe" crap. This craziness fits right in with our consciousness creating our universe and it makes no sense either.
Jim__
(14,077 posts)You claim: Consciousness is meaningless, except to the one who is conscious.A sunset is beautiful and meals taste good because recognizing these things help us survive. Everything "unexplained" here is explained by evolution and has been for a very long time.
As stated in the article:
How does consciousness arise from matter? Where does evolution explain this?
As to your claims claim: (c)onsciousness is meaningless, except to the one who is conscious, and: (a) sunset is beautiful and meals taste good because recognizing these things help us survive. But recognition of beauty and appreciation of the taste of food are attributes of conscious beings. So, you are implicitly claiming that consciousness is important for evolution; and therefore, not meaningless.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and it has no meaning other than to the one who is conscious.
I did not say it is important for evolution, it isn't.
I am willing to accept the argument that physics is need to answer exactly how a brain creates consciousness. That does not mean that consciousness creates the universe. Hell, physics is needed to design a car or to build a bridge, why wouldn't it be needed to understand the workings of a brain?
The real problem here, which I did not address in my earlier post, it that consciousness is simply what we decide it is. A dog may think it is conscious. So may a fish, we don't know. We may not really be conscious by any definition other than our own. A sampling of one is a pretty poor thing to base a scientific theory on and a really poor thing to base reality on.