Biocentrism - Do You Live Only Once? - Robert Lanza

[Alpha]

Incidentally, Art is interviewing Dr Robert Lanza tomorrow night, March 26, 2010.

What do you all think about this?



Do You Only Live Once? Experiments Suggest Life Not One-Time Deal (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/do-you-only-live-once-exp_b_508440.html)



We think we die and rot into the ground, and thus must squeeze everything in before it's too late. If life -- yours, mine -- is a just a one-time deal, then we're as likely to be screwed as pampered. But experiments suggest this view of the world may be wrong.


The results of quantum physics confirm that observations can't be predicted absolutely. Instead, there's a range of possible observations each with a different probability. One mainstream explanation, the "many-worlds" interpretation, states that there are an infinite number of universes (the "multiverse"). Everything that can possibly happen occurs in some universe. The old mechanical -- "we're just a bunch of atoms" −- view of life loses its grip in these scenarios.



Biocentrism extends this idea, suggesting that life is a flowering and adventure that transcends our ordinary linear way of thinking. Although our individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the "me'' feeling is just energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn't go away at death. One of the surest principles of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. When we die, we do so not in the random billiard ball matrix but in the inescapable life matrix. Life has a non-linear dimensionality −- it's like a perennial flower that returns to bloom in the multiverse.



A series of landmark experiments show that measurements an observer makes can influence events that have already happened in the past. One experiment (Science 315, 966, 2007 (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/216/4?etoc&eaf)) confirmed that flipping a switch could retroactively change a result that had happened before the switch was flipped. Regardless of the choice you, the observer, make, it'll be you who will experience the outcomes −- the universes −- that will result.



The implications of this were clear with my sister "Bubbles." The earliest remembrance I have of my childhood was with her, in her play doctor's office.........................


This tale of Bubbles is one that has a thousand variations, told by many families, of tragedy interspersed with joyous times. But plays of experience, even ones like that of my sister, are never random, nor the end of the story. Rather, they're interludes in a melody so vast and eternal that human ears can't appreciate the tonal range of the symphony.


"Whenever anything in nature seems to us ridiculous, absurd or evil," said Spinoza "it is because we have but a partial knowledge of things."



Life has a power that transcends any individual history or universe. The story of my sister is part of a more profound drama, one that I know holds more joyful fortunes as her life unfolds in the multiverse. As in the Science experiment, whether it's flipping a switch or making other choices, she will experience the many outcomes and resulting universes. I only hope -− if she becomes a doctor −- the medicine goes down a lot easier than it did in her play-office so long ago.



Full Article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/do-you-only-live-once-exp_b_508440.html)


Biocentrism (cosmology) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_%28c%29)

[Alpha]

Does Death Exist? New Theory Says 'No' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-new-theo_b_384515.html)


Many of us fear death. We believe in death because we have been told we will die. We associate ourselves with the body, and we know that bodies die. But a new scientific theory suggests that death is not the terminal event we think.


One well-known aspect of quantum physics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability.

One mainstream explanation, the "many-worlds" interpretation, states that each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe (the 'multiverse').

A new scientific theory - called biocentrism - refines these ideas. There are an infinite number of universes, and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe. Death does not exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them.

Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling - the 'Who am I?'- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn't go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?........................

According to Biocentrism, space and time are not the hard objects we think. Wave your hand through the air - if you take everything away, what's left? Nothing. The same thing applies for time. You can't see anything through the bone that surrounds your brain. Everything you see and experience right now is a whirl of information occurring in your mind. Space and time are simply the tools for putting everything together.

Death does not exist in a timeless, spaceless world. In the end, even Einstein admitted, "Now Besso" (an old friend) "has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us...know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Immortality doesn't mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether...................


Full Article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-new-theo_b_384515.html)


Reminder, Dr Robert Lanza is scheduled to appear on C2C with Art Bell tonight, March 26, 2010!!

[VOguy]

Thinking about it from Einstein's view, with energy not being able to be created or destroyed, only altered from one state to another, what does that say for the soul?

[Alpha]

Thinking about it from Einstein's view, with energy not being able to be created or destroyed, only altered from one state to another, what does that say for the soul?

Assuming his theory is ubiquitously applied, then I guess we can assume that all energy is "immortal".

What I did not connect with with Lanza's interview among a few things was they he equated cerebral activity to consciousness....I had a real problem with that and don't agree. The other point was that his premise is that without consciousness or an observer, life or life events....nothing can exist.

[RedDog]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought after listening to Art Bell's interview with Robert Lanza, that he's the smartest dumb person I've ever heard. Heck the character in "Good Will Hunting" was based on him.

He reminds me of a very high functioning idiot savant.

It was pretty funny listening to Art, who know's better, heave a great sigh, then rephrase the question about which consciousness started the Big Bang, and Lanza would sigh right back and spit back out, his own new paridigm of reality being linked to the conscious observer.

I found myself rolling my eyes so hard it actually hurt!:bigeyes2:

Not that Lanza is totally wrong. I actually think, as Art does, that he's on the right track, which for a classically trained scientist is saying quite a bit. He's way out on a professional limb and I can see why.

His savant like ability to look broadly at the micro and macro universe of cellular biology is mind boggling. For him, it is a bit of a curse, as he's seen the duality of superpositioning which defies solid mathmatical definitions. Unfortunately, he is not able to totally give up his mathmatical training and kept referring to someday in the future man would eventually have the complete algorithms to describe consciousness!

Funny how even the smartest people, will balk when they come up against the wall of the duality paridigm which represents intelligent design. They look to their tools, created and used within this running construct to try and define that which created the construct. That is "just silly" to quote Lanza.

It is a bit like trying to use Holographic tools to fix a holographic simulation from inside the simulation. I've watched the Star Trek series often enough to know that the engineer would always have to use real tools created outside the simulation to diagnose or repair it!

I like the questions that Lanza raises, but he is asking questions which cannot be answered by any scientific method. What is most interesting is the effects of duality, or quantum probabilities which are manifesting at larger and larger scales. They become harder and harder to ignore, which Lanza simply can't.

There should be some very interesting papers coming out of these labs that are now picking up on the variable nature of quantum states impacted by the observer. I often pondered if the propulsion of so called UFO's is based in part on this effect, controlled by the observer?

[Sadhu]

Interesting and important concerns, indeed. Part of the problem in finding answers into this most subtle of subjectivity is that the people who presume themselves most adroit in exploring such realms are looking for solutions materially, materialistically. What is at the origins is experienceable, though how people are going about it is relatively preposterous, despite good intentions, because of their belief systems, or lack thereof.

The closer, more intimate one gets to the subtler realms of the Universe, the more the experiences are psychic. It's hard to find evidence of the existence of water, by those who have never witnessed it, from a slab of granite. Even if that slab of granite has watermarks or erosion on it, such entities will never recognize nor acknowledge the evidence until they permit themselves to reframe their minds. Some things we want to know more about in the Universe are so esoteric or subtle that they necessitate reframing our minds to make our ability to perceive them more available, and when we do, the evidence -- perhaps the only evidence -- will be by psychic experience, while those of lesser preparation will continue to look materially/materialistically and bark chauvinistically about "if it ain't material, then it's not real!!!"



I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought after listening to Art Bell's interview with Robert Lanza, that he's the smartest dumb person I've ever heard. Heck the character in "Good Will Hunting" was based on him.

He reminds me of a very high functioning idiot savant.

It was pretty funny listening to Art, who know's better, heave a great sigh, then rephrase the question about which consciousness started the Big Bang, and Lanza would sigh right back and spit back out, his own new paridigm of reality being linked to the conscious observer.

I found myself rolling my eyes so hard it actually hurt!:bigeyes2:

Not that Lanza is totally wrong. I actually think, as Art does, that he's on the right track, which for a classically trained scientist is saying quite a bit. He's way out on a professional limb and I can see why.

His savant like ability to look broadly at the micro and macro universe of cellular biology is mind boggling. For him, it is a bit of a curse, as he's seen the duality of superpositioning which defies solid mathmatical definitions. Unfortunately, he is not able to totally give up his mathmatical training and kept referring to someday in the future man would eventually have the complete algorithms to describe consciousness!

Funny how even the smartest people, will balk when they come up against the wall of the duality paridigm which represents intelligent design. They look to their tools, created and used within this running construct to try and define that which created the construct. That is "just silly" to quote Lanza.

It is a bit like trying to use Holographic tools to fix a holographic simulation from inside the simulation. I've watched the Star Trek series often enough to know that the engineer would always have to use real tools created outside the simulation to diagnose or repair it!

I like the questions that Lanza raises, but he is asking questions which cannot be answered by any scientific method. What is most interesting is the effects of duality, or quantum probabilities which are manifesting at larger and larger scales. They become harder and harder to ignore, which Lanza simply can't.

There should be some very interesting papers coming out of these labs that are now picking up on the variable nature of quantum states impacted by the observer. I often pondered if the propulsion of so called UFO's is based in part on this effect, controlled by the observer?

[Sadhu]

Part of what makes that question difficult to answer is the morphous meaning of what a soul is. As subtler realms are explored, greater understanding facilitates modifying one's comprehension of those subtleties and the terms used for them. As each new theshold is attained, something more subtle is sought further, until, at the final theshold, a single dimensionless point is arrived at, at the tangency beween the manifest and unmanifest Universe. This singular point from which the Universe manifests and to which each unit being and the Universe at large each attain their desideratum is the soul, which remains constant regardless of manifestation.

The bundle of sam'skaras which entities perceive as themselves and which incarnates from form to form may have different names, one of which may be Eckankara. Such a bundle of unrequited affinities morphs as the entity experiences things, till it arrives at a magnimity that envelopes the whole Universe as a singularity, at which time the knots in its mind are unfettered, relinquished and satiated into oval shape matching the Universe it has just embraced and from which it originates in this manifest Universe. At this moment liberation, or mukti in Sanskrit, is attained, merger with the manifest Universe, while when one attains the dimensionless point tangent between the manifest and unmanifest Universe, salvation, or moksa in Sanskrit, is attained, which is evidently far more subtle an experience.

This point of tangency between the manifest and unmanifest Universe is not somewhere on the outer body of an oval-shaped sphere in an ocean of nothingness -- it is a point that is found anywhere and everywhere in the Universe, wherever one is, at the center-most of one's being. As the Eckankara -- while it always exists until our mukti or moksa -- morphs constantly, it cannot be the constancy nor most centric element of our being, of which the dimensionless point, Atman, is the most present, the most constant, is there before our inception into the Universe, and is there after our inception into the Universe, and is there when our journey as a unit being is fulfilled with the Universe.



Thinking about it from Einstein's view, with energy not being able to be created or destroyed, only altered from one state to another, what does that say for the soul?

[RedDog]

Well Lanza made it back on, this time with George Knapp. Knapp is a very good layperson interviewer and asked the same questions that most normal people have when confronted with Lanza's comments about Time and Space being artifacts of our consciousness, like the shell of a turtle
we drag them along with us. Knapp even asked Alpha's question: "The other point was that his premise is that without consciousness or an observer, life or life events....nothing can exist."
He explains himself more clearly with Knapp by making a wave/particle arguement about the mass created by the observer which exists long after the observer was conscious of it.
Without consciousness everything remains as potential or a wave. Obviously, without consciousness there is no life, so life then would not exist. The better question has to do with
mass, the physical objects in the Universe. Did they existing without consciousness? If not, then who's consciousness made them happen?

For us in this reality, we have already colasped into a body/mass and continue to cause wave functions to collapse into
some kind of mass or collection of slowed particles that make up our physical world around us.

It was much clearer and easier to understand than the Bell interview. Worth listening to.

[Judee]

I absolutely love this subject. An NDE brought me to a definite understanding of what we are, and what is of primary importance for 'us'. The question of the infinite beginning of all this wonder of who and what we are opens many doors, and I haven't quite walked through the right one yet...

[RedDog]

Lanza has a very wide fan base. His article on this subject in the Huffington post, brought in more than 3000 comments!!!
All similar to Judee's. That format also does not lend itself to any kind of meaningful dialog, it is mostly comments pro and con
and the usual flaming and name calling.

I really think Lanza is on the right track and it would be wonderful to have an open, broad dialog with others who shared a
genuine interest in exploring the topic of reality leaning towards a consciousness foundational structure.

I think I'll post a simple missive (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-the-past-exist-yet-e_b_683103.html#comments)about such a dialog here at I.W. over there and see what happens.

[Alpha]

I missed Knapps show with Lanza, RedDog :yikes:....I think I'll try to give it a listen today...I love my cordless head phones!!! :yup: :wink1:

Yes please do.....it would be nice to get some new folks here who are interested in "information dense dialogue" :yup: :wink1:

[Judee]

I read your comment RedDog. Good going! :fing02:

[Alpha]

Assuming his theory is ubiquitously applied, then I guess we can assume that all energy is "immortal".

What I did not connect with with Lanza's interview among a few things was they he equated cerebral activity to consciousness....I had a real problem with that and don't agree. The other point was that his premise is that without consciousness or an observer, life or life events....nothing can exist.

I hate to quote myself, however in this case I will.

I just listened to Knapp's interview with Lanza.

Granted I was doing this while donig other things and perhaps did not give it the due diligence it deserved.

RedDog, I agree...it was a superior interview to the one he did with Bell.

However that said, I still have a real problem with some of his basic tenants, if I understand them correctly, related to his reference to "observation", seeming to equal perception either in a third dimensional awake or a dream state to consciousness.

These may be parts on consciousness IMHO, however they are not in my CBT to what ubiquitous consciousness is....fragments of it perhaps, in the best way we third dimensional beings can attempt to understand.

His statements of how particles react differently based on what he calls "observation" was also a hurdle for me.

Although I can accept and understand that there is likely an "energy" exchange between "life forms" who become "aware" of each other.....and thus perhaps some stimulus and response related to that....I just don't know if that is a definitive criteria or even a necessary element as we are all energy that is connected.

Lanza IMHO failed to define "observation" and seemed to take it from a third dimensional realm of perception...which to me is just what our brain...the filter or the CPU is able to observe. or think we do within that reference in either a dream or awake state.

That perhaps is the typical "scientist" who can only see things that way :dunno: or perhaps I didn't get it at all and will have to re-listen and reframe.

He also wasn't quite clear IMO about how when death occurs, that we just "reboot" is his terminology...with no "memory".

Overall a very interesting program. Knapp did a much better job at trying to flush out what Lanza had to say IMHO....however that said...the observation/perception in how it was presented is just not resonating with me.

Would like to hear other thoughts on this.

BTW, for those interested and who missed the show...here you go (http://www.google.ca/search?q=knapp%2C%20lanza&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=vid:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv)

[Alpha]

:bump: for tonight's show:

June 5-6, 2012 - Consciousness & Cell Research, Robert Lanza/ Happiness & Longevity, Howard S. Friedman (http://imaginativeworlds.com/forum/showthread.php?24654-June-5-6-2012-Consciousness-amp-Cell-Research-Robert-Lanza-Happiness-amp-Longevity-Howard-S-Friedman)

And a blast from the past:

Biocentrism; Robert Lanza with Art Bell 03:2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT31962MJgU