Lanza is an expert in regenerative medicine and scientific director of Advanced Cell Technology Company. Before he has been known for his extensive research which dealt with stem cells, he was also famous for several successful experiments on cloning endangered animal species.

But not so long ago, the scientist became involved with physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. This explosive mixture has given birth to the new theory of biocentrism, which the professor has been preaching ever since. Biocentrism teaches that life and consciousness are fundamental to the universe. It is consciousness that creates the material universe, not the other way around.

read more

without reading the article my first first are chemistry meets electricity meets particles

or is that the other way round?

I read read article now

cough

my first thoughts

memories are a combination of electricity and chemicals that make up the human brain

without either one

no consciousness

maybe particles and electricity play a greater role in the universe than we think

perhaps memories/electricity

are shared across the whole universe, in ways we cannot yet grasp

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/4769-biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanza-39-s-notion-of-a-conscious-universe

It’d be an uncanny yet-to-fully-implode-oblivion-of-sorts about the faith of biocentrism if it were motivated to be made true by sort of a social constructionist delusion and suspended so, I am a bit surprised the author himself didn’t hit the self-destruct button on the launch pad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe

hmm

I think consciousness would be more intrinsically linked to the universe than just a reliance on quantum gravity.

we are in the universe

we are within the universe

not separate from it

just validating, you knew that

/tic

>I think consciousness would be more intrinsically linked to the universe than just a reliance on quantum gravity.

Humans inflate consciousness, it’s more inflation and conflation than real. But that of it that is really real is quite reliably real, in those cases that it is reliably real. Whatever it is it’s in fact quite a modest thing, probably more fleeting noise.

Microtubules are a component of the cytoskeleton, found throughout the cytoplasm. These tubular polymers of tubulin can grow as long as 50 micrometres, with an average length of 25 µm, and are highly dynamic.

Microtubules are filamentous intracellular structures that are responsible for various kinds of movements in all eukaryotic cells

is Microtubules/cytoskeleton/eukaryotic cells something to do with,

consciousness/memories meets chemistry/electromechanical, meets quantum forces of the universe?

other wise I’m lost

CrazyNeutrino said:

consciousness/memories meets chemistry/electromechanical, meets quantum forces of the universe?

No.

Next hypothesis?

>other wise I’m lost

Be glad, the alternative is no alternative at all.

associating quantum with consciousness is delving into the realm of woo.

In the Worlds before Monkey, primal chaos reigned.
Heaven sought order, but the Phoenix can fly only when its feathers are grown.
The four worlds formed again and yet again, as endless aeons wheeled and passed.
Time and the pure essences of Heaven, the moistures of the Earth, and the powers of the Sun and the Moon
all worked upon a certain rock – old as Creation, and it magically became fertile.
That first egg was named Thought.
Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha, said, ‘With our thoughts we make the world.’
Elemental forces caused the egg to hatch: from it there came a stone Monkey.
The nature of Monkey was … irrepressible!

ChrispenEvan said:

associating quantum with consciousness is delving into the realm of woo.

Apparenlty, associating an L/NP govt with acts of class warfare is also within the realms of woo.

http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/

the full article i linked to previously.

all our experiences and memories get sucked by a gravity force towards a black hole that records everything in the galaxy

its been written about before in Science Fiction

ChrispenEvan said:

associating quantum with consciousness is delving into the realm of woo.

Why?

it isn’t so much that quantum isn’t associated with certain elements of the brain, after all we’re made of atoms, it is the associations being talked about here that lean to woo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

In the land of woo

much can go boo

in the land woo

>Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death

But Most Scientists Claim Consciousness Dies At Death, Deal With It

Bubblecar said:

>Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death

But Most Scientists Claim Consciousness Dies At Death, Deal With It

But is there 97% consensus?

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

>Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death

But Most Scientists Claim Consciousness Dies At Death, Deal With It

But is there 97% consensus?

Probably more like 99.99%, but I haven’t actually called for a show of hands.

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

>Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death

But Most Scientists Claim Consciousness Dies At Death, Deal With It

But is there 97% consensus?

Probably more like 99.99%, but I haven’t actually called for a show of hands.

You’re suggesting only one in ten thousand scientists believe in some sort of life after death? Big call.

Consciousness is simply one point in the phase space of evolution. It’s not fundamentally different to long necks on giraffes or fins on fish.

There is no indication yet that consciousness even has long term survival advantages never mind the very special relationship to reality described in the OP.

esselte said:

Consciousness is simply one point in the phase space of evolution. It’s not fundamentally different to long necks on giraffes or fins on fish.

There is no indication yet that consciousness even has long term survival advantages never mind the very special relationship to reality described in the OP.

I don’t even know what phase space means… It must be awesome being SMRT

Thanks Boris that clears it up

ChrispenEvan said:

Well, that clinches it for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space

ChrispenEvan said:

But it does look pretty, I reckon.

ChrispenEvan said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space

How does that relate to evolution ?

i’m just a conduit for information pertaining to notions alluded to by other participants here. i hold no views of my own on the subject matter under discussion..

i’m also full of shit.

;-)

Dropbear said:

I don’t even know what phase space means…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space

In mathematics and physics, a phase space is a space in which all possible states of a system are represented, with each possible state of the system corresponding to one unique point in the phase space. For mechanical systems, the phase space usually consists of all possible values of position and momentum variables (i.e. the cotangent space of configuration space). The concept of phase space was developed in the late 19th century by Ludwig Boltzmann, Henri Poincaré, and Willard Gibbs.

Also see the related concepts of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_space
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_space

The neat thing about phase space etc is that it lets you represent the behaviour of a complex system of multiple entities as the trajectory of a single point. Sure, that point is moving in a space with lots of dimensions, but much of the mathematical machinery remains the same no matter how many dimensions are involved. So we can use a single mathematical technique to model a wide variety of systems that would each require their own model using traditional methods.

esselte said:

Consciousness is simply one point in the phase space of evolution. It’s not fundamentally different to long necks on giraffes or fins on fish.

There is no indication yet that consciousness even has long term survival advantages never mind the very special relationship to reality described in the OP.

Hmm. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but I will agree that we probably overestimate the specialness of human consciousness & intelligence.

However, the term “consciousness” is notoriously difficult to define adequately, partly because it covers a lot of territory & means different things to different people, depending on education, culture, etc.

I get where you’re coming from with the long necks on giraffes etc. OTOH, self-reflexive intelligence as an evolved attribute does have some properties that giraffes necks & peacocks tails do not share. Our ability to reason abstractly, communicate, and leave records of our thought processes has allowed humans to modify our environments and to influence our descendants in ways that qualitatively outstrip “mere” physical attributes.

ChrispenEvan said:

associating quantum with consciousness is delving into the realm of woo.

Probably, but not necessarily. OTOH, I’ve never seen any attempt to associate quantum stuff with consciousness that didn’t get into woo territory.

OTOH, I’ve never seen any attempt to associate quantum stuff with consciousness that didn’t get into woo territory.

me neither. but who knows what the future holds.

ChrispenEvan said:

http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/

the full article i linked to previously.

That’s an interesting article, but it has a few wonky notions of its own, which I suspect may be due to the author relying on pop-sci articles for info outside his own field. He’s obviously a fan of some form of Many-Worlds interpretation of QM, and that’s ok, but he then goes onto claim that the Copenhagen interpretation is now discredited, and that’s just BS.

I really hate these vague, uninformative subject lines.

didn’t read it all myself, gets into stuff i am not able to understand.

Dropbear said:

ChrispenEvan said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space

How does that relate to evolution ?

There’s probably trillions of possible “things” that evolution can come up with. Maybe even more, maybe an uncountable number, maybe even near-infinite…

We tend to think of consciousness and sentience as being “special”, but there isn’t any evidence to show this is true. It’s probably not special at all. It’s just a thing that evolution has thrown in to the mix… Try it out, see what happens kind of thing.

The scientist mentioned in the OP is claiming not only that consciousness is special, but that it is EXTRA special. I have an alternative hypothesis – the corkscrew penis of the duck creates the material universe and is fundamental to the existence of the universe. No cork-screw duck penises, no universe!

My duck penis hypothesis Is every bit as valid as the consciousness creates universe hypothesis.

is this coming close to ID? but a non-godlike ID?

Dropbear said:

ChrispenEvan said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space

How does that relate to evolution ?

Consider a space that represents all possible genotypes of organisms. I.e., for any possible genotype we have a point in this vast multidimensional space. For ease of visualisation, pretend that this genotype space is a simple 2D plane.

Now add an extra dimension (height) that represents the fitness of the phenotype of an organism with that genotype. So now we have a kind of landscape of all possible (terrestrial) organisms – the coordinates in the “plane” tell us what the genotype of an organism is, and the height at that point tells us how well that organism fits its environment.

Small mutations combined with natural selection will allow species to climb hills in this fitness landscape, but it’s not so easy to get from one hill to a nearby hill that’s actually taller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape

In evolutionary biology, fitness landscapes or adaptive landscapes (types of Evolutionary landscapes) are used to visualize the relationship between genotypes and reproductive success. It is assumed that every genotype has a well-defined replication rate (often referred to as fitness). This fitness is the “height” of the landscape. Genotypes which are very similar are said to be “close” to each other, while those that are very different are “far” from each other. The set of all possible genotypes, their degree of similarity, and their related fitness values is then called a fitness landscape. The idea of a fitness landscape is a metaphor to help explain flawed forms in evolution, including exploits and glitches in animals like their reactions to supernormal stimuli.

The idea of studying evolution by visualizing the distribution of fitness values as a kind of landscape was first introduced by Sewall Wright in 1932.

dv said:

I really hate these vague, uninformative subject lines.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InWhichATropeIsDescribed

ChrispenEvan said:

didn’t read it all myself, gets into stuff i am not able to understand.

You’re forgiven; it’s not a short article, and as you say it does get into some deep waters. But I felt obliged to read it all before casting aspersions on it. :)

i figured someone would read it. what i said earlier re being a conduit, though said partially in jest, has some truth to it. i can see connections even if i don’t understand the substance.

ChrispenEvan said:

is this coming close to ID? but a non-godlike ID?

Sort of, but not really. The idea that consciousness is the primordial “substance” of reality is an ancient Hindu idea. See Brahman for an introduction to this vast topic.

Brahman can be identified with a personal God, but it doesn’t have to be. Brahman doesn’t have to personally design stuff, as in the usual conception of ID. The forms of existence arise naturally from the intrinsic qualities of brahman. To give a simple example, once you have the natural numbers, the fact that 5 + 7 = 12 follows automatically, brahman / God doesn’t have to create all the separate facts of arithmetic individually.

One of Deepak Chopra’s primary goals is to unite concepts from modern physics with those of Hindu mysticism. He wants to give the old ideas a modern dress to make them more appealing to the modern mind, and he wants to use science to prove that the mystics were right all along. However, his grasp of modern physics is marginal. And he doesn’t even know his Hindu philosophy as well as he thinks he does. :)

ChrispenEvan said:

i figured someone would read it. what i said earlier re being a conduit, though said partially in jest, has some truth to it. i can see connections even if i don’t understand the substance.

Fair enough.

PM 2Ring said:

ChrispenEvan said:

is this coming close to ID? but a non-godlike ID?

Sort of, but not really. The idea that consciousness is the primordial “substance” of reality is an ancient Hindu idea. See Brahman for an introduction to this vast topic.

Brahman can be identified with a personal God, but it doesn’t have to be. Brahman doesn’t have to personally design stuff, as in the usual conception of ID. The forms of existence arise naturally from the intrinsic qualities of brahman. To give a simple example, once you have the natural numbers, the fact that 5 + 7 = 12 follows automatically, brahman / God doesn’t have to create all the separate facts of arithmetic individually.

One of Deepak Chopra’s primary goals is to unite concepts from modern physics with those of Hindu mysticism. He wants to give the old ideas a modern dress to make them more appealing to the modern mind, and he wants to use science to prove that the mystics were right all along. However, his grasp of modern physics is marginal. And he doesn’t even know his Hindu philosophy as well as he thinks he does. :)

The Transcendental Meditation movement (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi) used the notion of Cosmic Consciousness in that sense, too.

I agree, consciousness is memory.

Would it also apply to other creatures with intelligence? If not why not?

We inhabit the world with billions of other creatures, yet if we are to believe other religions (apart from possibly Buddhism) we are the only ones with another life after death. Don’t make sense to me, or is this the main role of religion.

// Don’t make sense to me … is this the main role of religion.

correct

When something (self-aware/conscious) evolves from and within the physics of the world (which includes other organisms, environments they and we build inclusive, and co-evolution), there are always likely projection artifacts from perception and conception, some of which are necessary (of qualities, devices that get the job done), and some of which have utility by way of quantity (the devices can be loosely replicated and more get things done this way). So you have the thing something does exactly, and you have what is tended inexactly.

The projections often are necessary to trend for a trajectory, though no real specific end-point trajectory need really exist in space or as a thing. This provides ‘time’ to do things.

‘Possibility space’ is largely uninhabited fortunately, as it would yeild no potentials for the future if fully occupied (things that happen, ‘reality’ displaces possibilities) – possibility space is the territory of what may be done, what may come about or be happened upon.

The word-concept employed with the term ‘happened upon’ is instructive, even ‘happen’ similarly, because the concept requires an idea of what hasn’t happened, that may never happen, or may happen, it sort of invokes the reality that there is some repository of possibilities, a ‘sometime’ become a somewhere (to become a material something or event maybe).

A summary look at the subject of biocentrism indicates to me that this is the territory it is entering, but that it overshoots (as you’d expect a projection artifact to do) the non-material physical forces that lend to any reality at all.

Most people can be sure their toothbrush will be where they last left it, and they find it where they left it and brush their teeth, this simple task can be performed reliably, which sort of suggests some things represented by senses do reflect somewhat accurately something of the world external of ourselves. Largely courtesy gravity much of these certainties are, or even ‘evolved’.

Energy and mass, the relationship between or/and of, are evolving. Not just changing.

I think it the case that for centuries (at least) there has been some aspects of consciousness (to the extent it exists) that have produced a very mixed bag of notions humans try to have resemble or expressed as some material reality, not least of these are the projections to do with identity, from the notion of man’s work (ladies too, read ‘humans’) that roughy approximate ‘man as force of nature’, and ‘consciousness as force of nature’, and from that ‘culture as force of nature’. Of these the latter I think somehow got a special boost late in the nineties (possibly as a result of interactive media promoting hypersociability and media abundance). Simultaneously some realities associated with this were sublimated and non-ideological man had magically emerged.

It’s not so much that man through culture isn’t a force of nature(to whatever extent he is), it is more that small errors held by the many that embrace this (notions of it that appeal in some way) get seriously amplified, exponentially, lending to distortions anyway.

There’s a further strangeness in those that hold more minimalist absolute perspectives regarding the mortality of individual consciousness, when they tend a more minimal view in response to the crazies at the other end of the spectrum.

Thrust being there’s no need to lurch into the extremes for some practical metaphysics, or abandon it completely as the case may be.

I think this little poem sums up the situation nicely:

Storm

:) watched that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think this little poem sums up the situation nicely:

Storm

I’ll propose the concept that the soul is composed of pure time. Spacetime could then be a product of the tangential relationship between mathematics and language. Problem solved(apart from empirical evidence).

:P

>I’ll propose the concept that the soul is composed of pure time”

shift the magic
take soul
here’s the trick
give it a roll
rename it

it’s now pure
a special time
be the lure
spin it blind
the renaming tour