Biocentrism:
How Life and Consciousness
Are the Keys to Understanding
the True Nature of the Universe
by Robert Lanza
with Bob Berman
Kindle
Robert Lanza article, American Scholar
Biocentrism search
Posted on 05/25/2009 1:29:44 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Three hundred years ago, the Irish empiricist George Berkeley contributed a particularly prescient observation: The only thing we can perceive are our perceptions. In other words, consciousness is the matrix upon which the cosmos is apprehended. Color, sound, temperature, and the like exist only as perceptions in our head, not as absolute essences. In the broadest sense, we cannot be sure of an outside universe at all. For centuries, scientists regarded Berkeley's argument as a philosophical sideshow and continued to build physical models based on the assumption of a separate universe "out there" into which we have each individually arrived. These models presume the existence of one essential reality that prevails with us or without us. Yet since the 1920s, quantum physics experiments have routinely shown the opposite: Results do depend on whether anyone is observing. This is perhaps most vividly illustrated by the famous two-slit experiment. When someone watches a subatomic particle or a bit of light pass through the slits, the particle behaves like a bullet, passing through one hole or the other. But if no one observes the particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave that can inhabit all possibilities -- including somehow passing through both holes at the same time.
(Excerpt) Read more at discovermagazine.com ...
Biocentrism:
How Life and Consciousness
Are the Keys to Understanding
the True Nature of the Universe
by Robert Lanza
with Bob Berman
Kindle
Robert Lanza article, American Scholar
Biocentrism search
· Google ·
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
| Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar · | ||
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
|
|
|||
Gods |
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
I wouldn't trust any particle that does things in private that it wouldn't do in public!
Just another way to try & say “man is god”. Goes back to Gen 3:5.
I would guess biocentrism, like many theories concocted by man, will bring more questions than answers.
And biocentrism would not be the first erroneous theory attempting to establish the logically impossible idea that creation is also creator.
The universe is a sham.
Could it be a ShamWow! ? Vince wants to know.
:’) “The world is the dream of the gods, the gods are the dream of man.”
In a nutshell, the argument posits existence depends upon the conscious perception. The argument is a bit pedantic, given the existence of God, His omniscience and He is the Creator.
Gadfry, but it’s a hoot watching scientists discover philosophy and theology in middle age.
Since they never had Intro to Philosophy, they always end up recreating some ancient error.
And how many contemporary philosophers bother to take any science?
One do wonder.
Well said!
Nothing exists until I open my eyes in the morning.
;-)
The universe is a virtual reality, and our bodies are avatars controlled by our minds in our unconcious celestial bodies, interfaced via the brain.
When we die, we awake in Heaven back in our real bodies, to face God, who will judge us as to whether we chose to follow Him; or chose to reject Him, and work for The Adversary, Satan.
That is why it is written in Ecclesiastes, that when we die our soul returns instantly to He who made it.
He set the whole thing up as a test, after a third of us followed Satan in his original rebellion.
Those who ‘pass’ the test, recieve eternal life, but the others....
Other explanations’ milage will vary.
See? That’s not even the right question.
The question is, “How many contemporary philosophers take it upon themselves to promulgate scientific propositions?”
And why is the discussion limited to contemporary philosophers? There are none of note.
Even if no philosopher had ever learned even a scintilla of science, that would not fit scientists to leap into philosophy in middle age, with no study of what had gone before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
