Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I've seen several definitions of "biocentrism" now. Some actually seem diametrically opposed to others. I think Robert Lanza may have hijacked the term. Since I'm not a religionist, I don't know about compatibility, but the re-boot method of carrying on after death seems a familiar topic. I really don't think there is one biocentrist theory. The ones I've seen seem to avoid talking about the "elephant in the room".According to biocentrism theory, after we die we kind of "re-boot somewhere else".
Is biocentrism "compatible" with religions that believe in reincarnation/rebirth ?
This is a usage of the term "biocentrism" that I am not familiar with. Could you provide a few external references for further reading? I can't really respond to the question without better context.
According to biocentrism theory, after we die we kind of "re-boot somewhere else".
Is biocentrism "compatible" with religions that believe in reincarnation/rebirth ?
How depressing. Yet another example of Quantum Woo.
Not saying I understand QM, but I'm pretty sure this guy does. He thinks it has a lot to do with it.propagated by people who do not understand QM.
But does his area of expertise as a scientist (Robert Lanza is an American medical doctor, and head of Astellas Global Regenerative Medicine, which looks to find cures for disorders of the posterior segment of the eye.) have anything to do with Biocentrism?Sounds interesting and the author's a world renowned scientist, but having read part of his book it seems like a lot of speculation.
Well, he has published an awful lot of stuff, but maybe the most pertinent is this. It's a pdfI can't see anything about the topic on the link. What does he say?
Hmm. I can't say I'm impressed with that. The guy is not a quantum physicist but an astronomer, he does not set out in any detail the basis of his assertions about the universe being mental and he seems to rely on Michael Frayn, an English playwright, rather a lot.Well, he has published an awful lot of stuff, but maybe the most pertinent is this. It's a pdf
According to biocentrism theory, after we die we kind of "re-boot somewhere else".
Is biocentrism "compatible" with religions that believe in reincarnation/rebirth ?
Any other interpretation seems self-evidently mad, as you would not be able to use QM to predict the evolution of the universe until man came along to observe it. Nobody seriously suggests that the behaviour of a quantum system changes when the experimenter goes off to get a cup of coffee.
Yeah this is a wrong interpretation - or at the very least an extreme minority view - of QM, as I suspected. Thinking this way is utterly unhelpful to the progress of science and strikes me as metaphysically arid.Here's another quote. He's pretty much saying observation is where it's at, just not necessarily ours.
Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.”
Richard Conn Henry and Stephen R. Palmquist
Journal of Scientific Exploration Issue 21-3
I'm trying to decide if this is New Age mumbo jumbo pseudoscience or something that's actually legitimate and respected within the sciences. I'm strongly suspect the first one, but I suppose it doesn't matter with respect to the question being asked.
From what I gather, "biocentrism theory" is nihilistic with respect to the concept of death. That is to say, it insists death is not a thing or that it does not exist. That in of itself makes it incompatible with reincarnation. The ideas this person espouses deny both linear thinking about birth-death and they deny cyclical thinking about birth-death. That makes it incompatible with both Abrahamic conceptions of afterlife (aka, linear afterlife concepts) and those common to Eastern religions that feature reincarnation (aka, cyclical afterlife concepts). It's a third category that is, again, best described as nihilistic.
I will quibble, Quint! Actually, to say that death does not exist is deeply compatible with ideas of reincarnation. For many, reincarnation means that dying is very similar to sleeping - the person goes out of focus for a while, and then essentially remanifests in a shape formed by one's expectations and desires. There isn't really any death, nothing meaningful actually goes away or ceases to be. It's one river of life, with the eddies within it simply changing in shape over time.
From what I gather, the interpretation on the denial of death is very different in this "biocentrism theory" thing than for reincarnation, though. This "theory" really straight up denies death is a thing. It doesn't do so through proposing there's continuity of existence or cyclicality like reincarnation does, it straight up denies death is a thing, period. To this guy, it's all mind games and a construct, or a function of human consciousness. There's no lessons about connectedness and relatedness in his narrative, it's straight up nihilistic. I don't see that nihilism in reincarnation.
That said, I'm operating off very limited information about this "biocentrism theory" so it's very possible I'm getting it wrong. Honestly, my brain tends to shut off whenever I see quantum mechanics being applied to anything outside of its appropriate auspices. I had my fill of that New Age pseudoscience years ago, and it just annoys me every time I see it.
Well, it's an interpretation by a substantial scientist that seems to answer many questions. He also infers it's very helpful to science in sort of a Copernicus way. I don't understand "metaphysically arid". It seems to me it takes the supernatural out of metaphysical.Yeah this is a wrong interpretation - or at the very least an extreme minority view - of QM, as I suspected. Thinking this way is utterly unhelpful to the progress of science and strikes me as metaphysically arid.
It would be interesting to ask Lanza a few questions. I'm not sure I agree with all of his assertions, because he avoids the elephant in the room. He seems to be going in the right direction though.By the way it also lends no support to the notion that biology is somehow necessary for the existence of the universe, as Lanza seems to be contending.
Of course, since he is denying objective reality altogether, that would be true. However, thought evolves, no question. I think his findings are probably very useful, but a bit scary. I wonder how early seafarers felt, sailing towards the horizon, assuming they would fall into an abyss.As for Henry, he would seem to deny it evolved at all, in any objective sense. How useful is that?