Does Robert Lanza's new book "Biocentrism", signal a new era of scientific affirmation for Intelligent Design and Life after Death?

So he’s a meta-physicist? How’s that new? Interesting ideas nonetheless.

He’s a biologist.

Nope. It is simply another opinion.

Some opinions are based upon scientific observation. Some are not.

A biologist, telling us that biology is the most important thing in the Universe?
Not exactly the most revolutionary idea, if you’ve met many biologists.

Still, looks interesting. Presumably this guy can write, so I might read it.

The theory suggests that consciousness is the most important thing in the universe. Consciousness creates the universe.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Some opinions are based upon scientific observation. Some are not.

They are all based on the interpretation of the opinion holder – be it involving empirical or theoretical data.

So does this signal a new wave of scientific affirmation for intelligent design and life after death?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
Does it detail the theoretical mechanics of this? Does it contain scientifically testable ideas about the specific mechanisms, through which the entire physical Universe was born out of “consciousness”?

Because, if it doesn’t, why would any scientist consider it as more reasonable than abiogenesis?

Haven’t read the book. Heard a radio interview and it caught my interest. The interview crossed accepted science with philosophy. Quite interesting.

It sounds like it’s an unprovable philosophy rather than a testable scientific hypothesis.
I’ll stick to Darwin and Dawkins.

He may be a biologist but his theory in knee deep in the realm of metaphysics. Theologians have brought up this idea before.

@cazzie
The interview I heard touted many scientific studies on consciousness, physics, biology, and compared them to the philosophies of Kant and others.

“scientific studies on consciousness”

From that “scientific discipline” of Psychology?
Please.

@Captain_Fantasy
Yes that’s what I’m saying basically. Theologians have suggested the same, but shroud it with dogmatic perceptions. This is purely science and philosophy, sans theology or religion.

Have you noticed that older scientists are more likely to be religious or support Intelligent design, or even creationist positions? I think there comes a time in some of their lives that they lose their ability for creative, rational thinking, and slip into magical thinking.Lanza may be one of them and Michael Behe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe is another.

I don’t think philosophy and hard science should be combined unless you are trying to settle an ethical question like deciding ways to conduct human medical trials.

Intelligent design is not science and does not belong in the scientific conversation.

@Ron_C Agree.

@The_Idler
I haven’t heard the word Psychology associated with anything from Lanza.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Via what discipline were the “scientific studies on consciousness” ultimately related to the nature of the universe?

@Ron_C
From what I gathered from the radio interview, biocentrism is not a philosophical view of biology. Philosophy is only introduced because he’s finding that his research is actually proving some philosophies of Kant and others. But he makes no philosophical statements about his work.

I biologist claiming that life creates the univers…
I am sorry, but that guy should stick to biology and not make spurious claims about physics, in which he has no expertise in.
When I want my tap fixed I consult a plumber, not a surgeon. Likewise if I want a surgery I will go to the surgeon and not the plumber.
There is a german saying: “Schuster, bleib bei deinen Leisten.”

That means: “Cobbler, know your place!”

@The_Idler
Quantum Physics and its relationship to sentient observation.

@ragingloli
Sure, I understand. Does that mean what he claims is automatically false?

Biocentrism (ethics): a political or ethical stance which asserts the value of non-human life in nature.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
SO this biologist claims to understand that relationship within quantum physics then?

I guess I’d better read the book, this could be the big one!
If only he’d been a physicist; he is merely a biologist, yet perhaps the greatest physicist on Earth!

BTW… I’m not trying to prove or disprove his research. I’m just interested in knowing if this is signaling a further wave of Science embracing God concepts.

@The_Idler That means: “Cobbler, know your place!”

In English it equates to “Let the cobble stick to his last” a very old adage.

the day Science embraces God concepts is the day science dies.

I don’t know enough about his research to judge it one way or another.

@cazzie
If science proves God concepts, why would that result in the end of science? Should there be anything “off limits” for science to research?

What ‘God concepts’ can science prove? I don’t want scientists in my universities to start claiming… Oh.. it’s God’s hand.. we don’t know why that person got better… or that person died… it’s God’s will’ When science starts explaining events with supernatural powers at work,.. well. that’s the day science has given up looking for real answers.

God, by definition, is untestable. Otherwise religion wouldn’t survive. It’s kinda the point.

@cazzie
Your argument is against Religion. But if it turns out that science proves the necessity for a conscious element required for reality to exist, then we must accept the evidence for what it is. And I suggest we do our best to protect that evidence from the dogmas of Religion and Hard Materialism alike.

BTW… I don’t believe in the supernatural. If indeed a God being exists, then it would be perfectly natural for that being to exist.

I’ve got to get back to work. I’ll check with you guys later… Thanks for the replies.

One person does not signal a wave, except perhaps a wave of people who will misconstrue what he’s saying by extracting only what they want to hear from his writing.

If anything, this would lend credence to gnosticism.

His idea sure beats creationism by a mile and then some. In a way he is stating an obvious theory that would be near impossible to refute in the vein of a big bang theory. The muffins I made for breakfast didn’t exist until I thought of doing so the same way he proposes the universes simply exists because we will it to do so, What was going on before man arrived?? Was the world simply an unopened can of playdough?

Well, then. Isn’t that handy for him? and religion survives because some people need it and want it.

My argument is not against the result of belief in gods (religion). My argument is against the use of ‘supernatural’ reasons when looking for truths that are testable.

If god is untestable, then he is unscientific and has no place in scientific ‘theories’ muting the argument that this ‘theory’ is scientific.

Of course not, silly. It’s just more claptrap to ease your anxious mind about our existential dilemma.

There is historical precedent for scientists following nonsense. For example, Newton took alchemy very seriously. I am not qualified to go through any quantum connections but it sure sounds like the empiricism of Berkeley, who said that only what is observed exists and we exist because God is watching us.

This is the most explainable ‘chicken and the egg argument’ I’ve ever heard… ‘Consciousness had to be present before the universe took shape?’ for a start, the premise is horribly anthropomorphic, and it gets worse from there.

To me, this looks like a hungry dog, chasing it’s tail and starving to death.

I’m confused after reading all of this. I don’t understand what it is he’s supposed to be supporting.

@MissAnthrope read a little bit here…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(c)

He’s taking the beginnings of the cosmos and starting with a complex RESULT… human consciousness. He wants us to think that a conscious ‘being’ made the Universe.

I always laugh that people try to insert God into an equation and use scientific rhetoric so that it sounds rational. I think I’m going to come up with a theory using the Roman god Vulcan to help explain earthquakes, or the Titan Atlas to reenforce the concept of a flat Earth.

More of the so-called “anthropic principle”. We used to think there could be no such thing as heliocentrism, too. Same reasoning.

It seems that basically the idea is:
because our perception of the universe is not a good representation of the actual structure of it, the universe cannot be said to exist in a meaningful way, without our consciousness perceiving it.

Which provokes the immediate response from me that:
Obviously, if we did not exist to perceive the Universe in our unique way, then that unique way of perceiving the Universe would not exist (and so the universe would not exist in a meaningful way to humans), but the reality of the actual structure of the universe would remain.

Just because we cannot conceive the actual structure of the universe, doesn’t mean it isn’t, in the end, the base upon which our consciousness is built. In fact, it makes it more plausibly so.

@dpworkin Heliocentric theory was quickly discovered to be true… now who was it that was against that new SCIENTIFIC evidence coming out???

In 1539, Martin Luther said: (speaking of Copernicus)
......... The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”

and Copernicus had geometry and testable science on his side as well as people who already knew the truth from earlier times.

There are still people who don’t believe in heliocentrism. Just as there are people who still subscribe to Bishop Ussher’s timeline.

Well, I have to say I disagree with this theory. I also am skeptical of quantum physics because I’m a scientist and it’s all talk to me until you can prove your ideas. It makes no sense to me that ‘the universe can’t exist in any meaningful way unless we’re able to fully grasp its magnitude’. That seems incredibly and dubiously anthropocentric.

Also, if “The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around”, then why does life seem to be the exception rather than the rule, in the universe?

@MissAnthrope
Yeah. The “fine tuned for life” argument is one of the worst ever intvented.
Only a tiny fraction of the universe, like a billionth of a billionth of a percent, supports life. The rest of the universe will instantly kill you. Fine tuned for life? Yeah right.
It is like claiming that a kilometre highe supercrane that is unable to lift even an atom is finetuned for lifting.

@The_Idler “God, by definition, is untestable. Otherwise religion wouldn’t survive. It’s kinda the point.” I think you have this a little skewed. God (claims) can and should be tested by science. It is religion that protests. What is the point of faith if you can prove your facts? Facts become science and religion become irrelevant.

But as soon as you come up with a test for a God, the faithful alter the definition of their God to circumvent this weakness, because the test shows invariably negative.

That is how religion survives. By making the fundamental idea that supports it all untestable.

To answer your actual question, I’d first have to clarify this statement; “Without saying as much, this suggests a form of Intelligent Design…”
You have not read the book, and are only positing a theory about what he intents to say by an interview you heard. I’d want to read the book first and verify his intent.
However, taking what you say as read, I would say that once the door is open by a “reputable” scientist, the possibility of others with similar theories could very well flood the airwaves and television talk shows.

@The_Idler that’s exactly religion operates. Even when you let them set the bar, they move it when you get close. Besides, it is religion responsibility to prove their claims are true, not ours to prove a negative.

@Trillian the best thing to do is to realize that the guy is a biologist writing about physics. He doesn’t stand anywhere close to being reputable outside his field unless the I.D. people jump on board. This is, however, a good way to boost book sells.

I know @Ron_C, but the question was about whether we could expect to see a bunch of people coming out now and expounding their own similar (or not so similar) theories. I think that there is a good chance of that if this book gets really popular. It seems that compatible theories come out together in waves, and depending on how much merit and credibility this theory and author have, it certainly could spark a host of others who have had similar thoughts all along but were hesitant to speak out when the mainstream says differently.
And what you said about people jumping on board is exactly the thing. The average layperson can listen and say “Yeah, that makes sense.” And people don’t question credentials. So, I’m just saying that yes, it could happen. We need to revisit this question in a couple months and see.

It it unfortunate when a supposedly bonafide philosopher and scientist adopts New Age ideas and sounds like Deepak Chopra..

Part of the problem lies in the science. It is as, physicists are the first to admit, really weird. What are we to make of particles that go from here to there without stopping anywhere in between? More importantly, the whole idea of an observer collapsing the wave function is an open invitation to all kinds of silliness. Maybe the theory of everything will be discovered and put this all on an intuitive basis, but I seriously doubt it. There is no reason why the behavior of tiny particles at fast speeds should behave like the world that we lay people perceive.

By the way, some guys have managed to put an object big enough to see (about 14 trillion atoms) in a quantum state!

@Cruiser __The muffins I made for breakfast didn’t exist_

They didn’t? You willed them into existence? I would have thought that they existed in your cupboard and all you did was prepare and apply heat.