Download free Difficulties With The Electromagnetic Field Theory Of Consciousness An Update software8/16/2017 Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza's Notion of a Conscious Universe. Co- authored with Ajita Kamal. Editor’s Note: This article has been cited by P. Z. Myers at Pharyngula and Steven Novella at Neurologica.“It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more- or- less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning.”–Steven Weinberg“You are here to enable the divine purpose of the universe to unfold. That is how important you are.”–Eckhart Tolle. Introduction. The impulse to see human life as central to the existence of the universe is manifested in the mystical traditions of practically all cultures. It is so fundamental to the way pre- scientific people viewed reality that it may be, to a certain extent, ingrained in the way our psyche has evolved, like the need for meaning and the idea of a supernatural God. 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. Biocentrism Misinterprets Several Scientifically Testable Truths. The scientific background to the biocentrism idea is described in Robert Lanza’s book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, in which Lanza proposes that biology and not physics is the key to understanding the universe. Vital to his proposal is the idea that the universe does not really exist unless it is being observed by a conscious observer. To support this idea, Lanza makes a series of claims: (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. Take, for example, his argument here: “Consider the color and brightness of everything you see . The unquestionable reality is that nothing remotely resembling what you see could be present without your consciousness. Consider the weather: We step outside and see a blue sky – but the cells in our brain could easily be changed so we . We think it feels hot and humid, but to a tropical frog it would feel cold and dry. The Interpreters interpret the energies as they see them in trance levels and are not personally responsible for what is said. The Interpreters published herein have no connection with, nor control over the editorial comments. Perspective Lanza’s conception of consciousness is unclear. For example, he consistently equates consciousness with subjective experience while stressing its independence from the objective universe (see Lanza’s quote. In any case, you get the point. This logic applies to virtually everything.“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. Similarly, temperature perception may vary from species to species, since it is a subjective experience, but the property of matter that causes this subjective experience is objectively real; temperature is determined by the average kinetic energy of the molecules of matter, and there is nothing subjective about that. Introduction: Consciousness in the universe. Consciousness implies awareness: subjective, phenomenal experience of internal and external worlds. Consciousness also implies a sense of self, feelings, choice, control of. The Secret presents the story of how leaked government documents prove that the United States has been recovering crashed unidentified flying objects, often known as flying saucers, since 1941, and has been successful in. The American Dental Association stated in 1944, “our knowledge of the subject certainly does not warrant the introduction of fluoride into community water supplies Kass on World Breaking!!! US False Election Cancellation Update 2016!!! The Interim President Of The Republic of the United States of America is Gen. Joseph Dunford, Properity Fund, Nesara, And Disclosure Update!!! Hi Philip, We have seen all kinds of problems helped with the Emotion Code and the Body Code. Remember that the underlying cause of all disease/condition/symptoms is imbalance; the most common underlying imbalance that drives. Clinical features para comprar levitra se necesita receta Tumors begin in supporting cells of nerves and the myelin sheath around nerve cells.b and by NMDA Melis et al.coli Klebsiella Proteus Pseudomonas Enterobacter and. Stephen Hawking, in his recent book The Grand Design, breaks the news that “God” was not needed to create the universe; rather, all that is needed are the 'laws of nature.' Given my background in both a Torah and science. Journal Search Results. Below you will find a list of journal titles which match your search query.Give a thermometer to a human and to an ass: they would both record the same value for the temperature at a chosen spot of measurement. The idea that . Moore as a naturalistic fallacy. Also, the idea that color is created by an intelligent creator is a supernaturalistic fallacy. It can be said that the idea that color is created objectively in the universe by the subjective consciousness of the observer is an anthropic fallacy. The correct view is that . 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 2. 00. 7 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. Lanza says: “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 2,5. 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.”In a more recent article Lanza brings up the implications of special relativity on Zeno’s Arrow paradox. He writes: “Consider a film of an archery tournament. An archer shoots an arrow and the camera follows its trajectory. Suddenly the projector stops on a single frame — you stare at the image of an arrow in mid- flight. The pause enables you to know the position of the arrow with great accuracy, but it’s going nowhere; its velocity is no longer known. This is the fuzziness described by in the uncertainty principle: sharpness in one parameter induces blurriness in the other. All of this makes perfect sense from a biocentric perspective. Everything we perceive is actively being reconstructed inside our heads. Time is simply the summation of the . But change doesn’t mean there is an actual invisible matrix called “time” in which changes occur. That is just our own way of making sense of things.”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. Space is the other property of the universe that Lanza attempts to describe as purely a product of consciousness. He says “Wave your hand through the air. If you take everything away, what’s left? The answer is nothing. So why do we pretend space is a thing”. Again, Einstein’s theory of special relativity provides us with objective predictions that we can look for, such as the bending of space- time. Such events have been observed and verified multiple times. In the first instance the conscious perception of space and time is an experiential trick that the mind uses to make sense of the objective universe, and in the other space and time are actual physical manifestations of the mind. The former is tested and true while the latter is an idealistic notion that is not supported by science. The experiential conception of space and time is different from objective space and time that comprise the universe. This difference is similar to how color is different from photon frequency. The former is subjective while the latter is objective.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |