1. 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Biocentrism ?

Discussion in 'Interfaith Discussion' started by Jadamas, Aug 8, 2018.

  1. Jadamas

    Jadamas Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2018
    Messages:
    46
    Ratings:
    +11
    Religion:
    I believe in god
    According to biocentrism theory, after we die we kind of "re-boot somewhere else".
    Is biocentrism "compatible" with religions that believe in reincarnation/rebirth ?
     
  2. Quintessence

    Quintessence Tale Weaver
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    18,650
    Ratings:
    +11,149
    Religion:
    Druidry
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. WalterTrull

    WalterTrull Godfella

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,481
    Ratings:
    +518
    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".
     
  4. Jadamas

    Jadamas Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2018
    Messages:
    46
    Ratings:
    +11
    Religion:
    I believe in god
  5. Quintessence

    Quintessence Tale Weaver
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    18,650
    Ratings:
    +11,149
    Religion:
    Druidry
    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.
     
  6. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    9,670
    Ratings:
    +3,219
    Religion:
    Antipasto
    Sounds interesting and the author's a world renowned scientist, but having read part of his book it seems like a lot of speculation.
     
  7. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    How depressing. Yet another example of Quantum Woo.

    It is a total misunderstanding of quantum theory to suppose that it says anything about conscious observers having anything to do with reality. This is a myth, propagated by people who do not understand QM. This bloke is a medical doctor and won't have studied QM at all, I suspect.

    This theory will be baloney.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. WalterTrull

    WalterTrull Godfella

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,481
    Ratings:
    +518
    Not saying I understand QM, but I'm pretty sure this guy does. He thinks it has a lot to do with it.
     
  9. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    I can't see anything about the topic on the link. What does he say?
     
  10. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    22,951
    Ratings:
    +7,852
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    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?

    Biocentrism (theory of everything) from Greek: βίος, bios, “life”; and κέντρον, kentron, “center” — also known as the biocentric universe — is a theory proposed in 2007 by American scientist Robert Lanza, which sees biology as the central driving science in the universe, and an understanding of the other sciences as reliant on a deeper understanding of biology. Lanza believes that life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos—consciousness creates the universe rather than the other way around. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, Lanza claims that scientists will need to place biology before the other sciences to produce a "theory of everything".
    Source: Wikipedia
    Obviously not, but then it doesn't have to. Lanza seems to have concocted a theory all of his own and can therefore define and describe it any way he wishes. Want to buy into it, feel free. Want to ignore it, feel free. I'm opting for the later.

    .
     
  11. WalterTrull

    WalterTrull Godfella

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,481
    Ratings:
    +518
    Well, he has published an awful lot of stuff, but maybe the most pertinent is this. It's a pdf
     
  12. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    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.

    As I understand it, the most prevalent current view among quantum physicists is that the wavefunction is collapsed not by observation by a conscious observer but by interaction of the quantum system with something. All acts of measurement or observation inevitably involve an interaction, but you can have interactions that are unobserved too, of course. 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.

    Quantum woo is a horrible disease of our time, as is relativism. I wonder if he has caught one or other of these ghastly diseases.
     
  13. Regiomontanus

    Regiomontanus Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    505
    Ratings:
    +331
    Religion:
    Christian Socialist
    Here is a link to a radio interview with Dr. Lanza, the biocentrism supporter discussed in that second link you provided:

    Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death | CBC Radio

    IMHO he does not really understand quantum mechanics (to the degree we can). He sounds like he is, essentially, advocating a new version of Berkeley's immaterialism put forth centuries ago.

    Peace
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    4,942
    Ratings:
    +1,746
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Biocentrism is an assertion, not a theory, at least not in the scientific use of the word theory.
     
  15. WalterTrull

    WalterTrull Godfella

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,481
    Ratings:
    +518
    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
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    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.

    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.

    I'd like to see Lanza's account of the evolution of the cosmos. As for Henry, he would seem to deny it evolved at all, in any objective sense. How useful is that?
     
  17. Kirran

    Kirran
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    10,604
    Ratings:
    +6,292
    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.
     
  18. Quintessence

    Quintessence Tale Weaver
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    18,650
    Ratings:
    +11,149
    Religion:
    Druidry

    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. :sweat:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Kirran

    Kirran
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    10,604
    Ratings:
    +6,292
    I think it is all mind games and variations of consciousness! But so is being a person and having a body!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. WalterTrull

    WalterTrull Godfella

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,481
    Ratings:
    +518
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
Loading...