Robert Lanza: The Theory of Biocentrism, Part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2011
- Robert Lanza's talk on Biocentrism at the Science and Nonduality Conference 2010.
www.scienceandnonduality.com
Watch Part 2 here: • Robert Lanza: The Theo...
The mission of Science and Nonduality (SAND) is to forge a new paradigm in spirituality, one that is not dictated by religious dogma, but rather is based on the timeless wisdom traditions of the world, informed by cutting-edge science, and grounded in direct experience.
I'm 79. I fell in love with quantum physics when I was 15. I still don't understand it, but I understand what I don't know. I've experienced a lot. I've seen many odd things. I've read this guy's books. They give a new direction to understanding the real world we exist in. His comments on space and time make sense to me. It will take a lot of time for this idea to crack the belief systems of the scientific community, but I think it will happen. Or maybe not. It doesn't really matter if it is fact.
I'm 64 with a science degree in nursing and biology. I am also an NDE. This scientist is spot on.
Ron, good day, I’m hoping you’re well now in your 82nd year 👍 Rob comes as close as I’ve found a physicist to have come to bringing clarity to this wonderful subject, I have absolutely no doubt but that our consciousness creates our so called ‘out there’ reality, but the years are passing and the message still isn’t gaining wide spread adoption….which is a pity as, were it to do so, we’d have a far happier population overall.
God bless you all, that you are so actively interested in these things in your age.
Understanding the nature of reality is beyond words and explanation. You just have to experience it. Sometimes I think that language may be the greatest barrier to discovering the truth.
7 o clock is when people wake up to go to work. Sadly many WANT that to be the only reality. Lm
Krishnamurti said " The Observer is the Observed" He said this 60 years ago so its nice to see that this was not simply a philosophical statement - K knew!
The results of the 2 slit experiment are about 20 years older than that.
He knew because it was common knowledge. A Watts directly mentions the experiment and makes the comparison at the same time period.
Most eastern philosophers with a western audience were at pains to point it out.
Not sure why this guy is given credit.
The affect of conscious observation (the measurement problem) is by far the most strangest thing to come out of physics ever imo.
How consciousness works (known in neuroscience as "the hard problem") also a great mystery.
This guy not the 1st, in fact, not even the 100,000th to put the 2 together.
This is a weird con I do not understand why is being promoted as some kind of revolutionary thought by this guy.
Einstein said we are the universe subjectively experiencing itself
Actually dear JKM is only translated vedic knowledge
And Nondulaity is advait vedant philosophy
This theory is absolutely amazing. Because from one end, I read about Buddhist ideas and Buddha said a long time ago that the world exist only because of our observing. Everything is there only because we're conscious. And the world is merely an illusion. This is the first time I saw a scientist came up with a scholarly theory that agrees with this Buddhist claim. I'd recommend researchers of Biocentricsm also look up some Buddhist texts as possible reference.
why did he say, "I alone am the honored one"
Joe Mel ， because I am.
+Grant J Robert Lanza is a Doctor of Medicine and has done more in medicine than you ever will, so you can shut up. If you're sick then you've already observed yourself. You have no idea how fucking delicate quantum systems are.
Very good example I hadn't heard before!! BUT... Until the time that the doctor takes a sample and observes it, you can not be certain that it is a Pathogen....and Many symptoms and afflictions resemble each other, sometimes very closely. But you make a good point... I tend to believe there is external "Information" and we paste our own personal veneer onto everything. We just Interpret sensory signals and we totally design our own particular brand of "Reality!!" If you're a cop, the way you approach life & people will be through the lens of Law, Crime, Justice, etc. It's like they say, to a hammer, the world seems made of nails!! Even though we share experiences, we rarely agree on the specifics of just about everything!!
***** "observed directly" doesn't even meaning anything. You have no idea what you're talking about and are just inventing fantasies to satisfy your own mental experiments. Quantum systems are delicate, I say again.
Perhaps the most enlightened being to ever walk the planet, Ramana Maharshi, on the nature of reality and the means by which to abide in/as that which is real. As Mr. Lanza states, the Self creates the world, and therefor is ultimate reality. Misinterpreting (via thought) physicality as ultimate reality is the source of all vexation and suffering.
I suggest starting at minute 6.
Who Am I - Ramana Maharshi Audio Book
If you can understand what this man is saying -- and he's not the first by a long shot -- you have a chance at achieving freedom as a sentient being in your lifetime.
Its like unlocking a gear in your brain, like the movie arrival your brain starts to think differently
this guy makes me feel like i'm not alone in these theories
Makes you REALIZE*
I always had these thoughts and I had no idea it was an accepted type of thinking. Glad I found this.
So when someone has an NDE their "essence"(or conscious) goes to another dimension/place and then return? That would explain how they get informations they couldn't know, it's strange to say but I think we are getting close to prove that we have a "soul".
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley
yes they do. you wouldn't be watching this video with interest if "facts" behaved exactly as they are supposed to. Huxley is of another time which relates less and less to the present we experience.
@@jfreeman2927 Facts don't care about your feelings.
They arent ignored by others just because you ignore it
IT’S ALL ONE!
The Big Bang like everything else, is symbolic of the beginning of consciousness as a unified consciousness where all is one. That "nothingness" that existed before the BIG BANG is the still point of refined and perfect consciousness at the center of all being in all the multiverses of Infinite consciousness.
For me the symbolic nature of our perception is obviously the key! Synchronicity or meaningful coincidence proves that the world inside the mind is reflected somehow in the chaos of the outside world! It implies that the Youniverse knows what a person is going through and reflects it symbolically in chance happenings that have a particular personal meaning and are symbolically charged to guide, encourage, and inspire.
The YOUNIVERSE is a living, thinking, aware being. The meaning of life is that life has meaning. Everything has a sense of inner being! Everything is alive inside just like you and I. We all are the stars that we all are the stars that we all are the stars...!
Just a supposition,
I may be right or wrong,
believe what you will,
and write your own song!
Try telling a close minded materialist all that, the world unfortunately is not ready to wake up yet. But it will happen, slowly but surly.
@@joshc7865 ha! 'surly' kinda fits
I've always sensed things to be the same as you described. I have no science to prove it...
There must be an uncaused cause
I think, therefore you are.
kevnar No, each person has their own mind. You think, therefore you are. And your friend thinks therefore he is.
i never have thought of you before...but i existed before today
Does he have a train to catch? He's speaking in such a rush.
No, thank you.
Kevnar, I love it! I used to say, "I am, therefore I think," but your idea is perfect for this vid. :D
~♥~
I guess one of the best possible explanations of existence i have heard so far
And your qualifications are?
Bob Fisher if you look at the comments you can see tge people are very low intellects with great pride and a habit of speaking illogical untruth.
pleased to meet you I’m not arguing with you I’m just curious , why is it pseudoscience?
Try reading the bible
Funny how I have never heard of this guy before... I must have created him just now... :D
nope, i created him coz im the only conscious
How the FUCK is he a top scientist... Lol apparently 800k people's brains imagined the same SHIT just now...
@@tylerconkle6304 ditto!
Actually I created him. I wrote this theory in much greater detail about 20 years ago. No one listens.... so I had a popular science version created in 21 other professors and adjuncts. Distributed the concepts to help others. But do they help me? Nope.
I would be upset, but they cannot fit it in their brains. I am hopeful that AI some day might be able to understand. Anyway this is cool. My book was “The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God” and I said the EXACT SAME THING as a tiny part of a much larger theory.
Anyway maybe I am a little upset since I am currently living in my car. Sucks to be too smart. Too into thinking. 🤷♀️🤦♀️
If you actually follow his theory with even just a bit of understanding of science and the process of science itself you'd be amazed about how this theory will have your brain twisting around not interpreting things as simply as they are being fed to you by science. I'm sure he is wrong I am sure he didn't nail it with this biocentrism thing but bravo for taking many scientists and many others and myself for an awesome trip that has added features to my mind. Great job Robert Lanza and to the awesome team you worked with. There will always be people grabbing their own shit and throwing it at you it's part of setting yourself apart. Haters you all have been checked. Keep making lemonade from your perspective🇭🇳 💪🇭🇳
I'm too stoned to comprehend this shit
Kenny Arroyo haha good one, LMFAO
It's common sense to me
ha.take some magic mushrooms. This will help your understanding of reality. .
There's another universe where he didn't knock his mic out
Spoiler Alert
~ The right perception of reality ~ Requires the right perspective ~ The right perspective ~ Requires an expanded awareness ~ An expanded awareness ~ Requires the right mindfulness ~ The right mindfulness ~ Requires a brain and qualia experiences ~
What's your point?
Samuraisahsah His point is that you cant quench your thirst by thinking about Water, you have to Drink it. Same with feeling the "Right perception of Reality", there is no combination of words that you can read that will make you understand it, you have to try it for yourself !
Well said
So, am I right in thinking that the universe only exists because we are collectively creating it with our own conscience? That the further we look out into deep space the more we will see because we are making it reality?
Yes I see, however there is something that is really bugging me here. If the scientists are correct about the big bang theory, I can only say that consciousness must have also been 'switched on' like a light switch being flicked on at the same time as the big bang, we cant have one with out the other, the universe IS consciousness, and we are merely becoming self aware and questioning everything.?
No
Hello. First that all thank you very much for your videos. They're very interesting and accurate. May I ask you a question? May I use this video for put it translated into my spanish channel? I think it will be very informative por the spanish speakers.
Thank you very much again.
Fabio.
this guys has dropped off the planet since this talk i listened to this when it was months old i remember feeling excited about it .
What you have discovered is great. It is true that consciousness creates the universe and that the universe we live in is two, not three, and that you will not feel in your death. You will complete your life in another universe, but you are dead for them.
I am trying to grasp all this but I will say one thing this guy does not look nearly 60 yrs old.Seems to me he has a clue about how to slow down aging.
he eats good real food
When your consciousness recognizes the illusion of time, you get a different pace.
Good genes, along with non-destructive lifestyle.
He's SIXTY!!!??? NO WAY!! He looks FORTY. :o
Thanks---so many important empowering points. For me it's ol' Alan Watts tapping on the ceiling: We are in It, and It is in Us. (Add crazy laughter here.)
"True reality is nothingness"
@@kashourikatsu2543 What does not exist does not exist.
¿Cómo podría encontrar videos de Robert Lanza en español?
Gracias.
So if everything is essentially a figment of my consciousness, did I just come up with this theory?
no, his theory is just a part of your conscious awareness
We are all waves in the one ocean of consciousness. We each have our own experience, and we are all the one.
StevieG good one
It is. If it's that is true to you.
StevieG this os just liberal assholery 101
reading his book now
I imagined this years ago in philosophy class, that nothing is truly as we see it, it is only the minds way of explaining to itself what it sees, but I did not know how to explain what I was thinking. It is a similar idea to this, that truly nothing exists the way we think it does, we are biased to believe what we experience and understand, but it is us writing the definition to the observation itself.
Finally somebody find a courage to think differently. Thank you Mr. Lanza for giving us alternative to this convoluted Einstainian picture what is what.
It's pretty much impossible to deny at this point that the first principle of Biocentrism is pretty much a fact. Reality IS a process which involves our consciousness.
+FocusReborn No-one even knows what reality is so your comment is nonsense.
pibroch What a completely irrelevant response. Did I even mention anything about what reality is or isn't? Read my comment again. I said reality is a process which involves our consciousness. Whatever reality is... it has something to do with consciousness. Please don't make me explain why this is so...
+FocusReborn You said: Reality IS a process which involves our consciousness so you clearly did mention something about what reality IS. Source: your original comment. You have not provided any evidence or even a line of argument to support your view that reality has something to do with consciousness. And if your view is so impossible to deny and does not need explaining then why even bother to state it in the first place? Nevertheless I call your bluff and challenge you to offer an explanation.....
pibroch Saying that reality is a process which involves our consciousness is only a surface-level, simplified description of the mechanisms and factors involved (reality being both a process and involves consciousness). I haven't specifically defined reality to be anything, only that it is a **process** which involves consciousness. E.g. Photosynthesis is a process which involves carbon dioxide and energy. Does this statement tell you what photosynthesis actually is? No. It's a generalized description. Our everyday perception of sound requires an ear-brain mechanism. There is no objective "sound" outside of us. It's all just pulses of air spreading out into a medium (e.g. water, air, steel etc.) It becomes a sound when those pulses of air register inside the small components of our ear which then interpret them into electrical information which our brain encodes as "sound". Our consciousness is every bit as important in the creation of sound as the pulses of air themselves. This makes them symbiotic in nature, and thus a process. Without consciousness those pulses of air have zero "sound" whatsoever... this is what I meant by "reality being a process which involves consciousness". It's not as radical as you think...
+FocusReborn I agree with everything you just said now that you have explained what you meant - I was confused by the words you used initially. It seems to me that you are using the word reality to mean what I would call human perception. (Similarly I often use the word sound to mean the pulses of air, when I am talking science, and to mean the perception of the pulses of air when I am taking about animal perception of these pulses)
mind blowing.
welcome to the noosphere dr. lanza . so glad you could join us
This is very intriguing. But my only questions would be, if our
consciousness creates the world around and the universe, how do we all perceive the same thing? You would think that we are all the same, but we think so differently, so we should perceive everything in whatever way we construct our world/conscious??
No because we are ALL FORCED to follow rules norms and values of society
Because we belong to the same spices
I'm stoned and I understand it, it's eye opening, it's like there is reality but it only exists if your conscious.
same 4 years later , youre a bad as jake wherever you are in the world. and well whoever you are.
This ties almost directly into Bruce Lipton phd 's Biology of Belief findings, which proves that you have the power to create your own world, and your own body...
Yes, its a shame the WooWoo crowd embraced Lipton.
Forgive my ignorance on this subject but could someone please explain how I can bring an object into a room, that’s never been seen before and ask my husband to describe it and he describes it exactly how I see it!
Our conciousness is an infinite focused line of light creating time and space through a lifetime
I always thought of this as a kid, I would believe that I was the ‘real’ person of the world and that everything else is only created by own mind.
Solipsism take a look at that.
The obvious objection to this as I see it is consensus reality. If reality is a construction of consciousness, how come lots of different people can perceive the same thing? Wouldn't that thing have to exist independently? No. What this means is that we are all parts of one consciousness. The one consciousness creates everything and we, as individual observers see that thing from our own perspective
People do not perceive exactly the same thing, each person does experience things slightly different, sometimes the difference is so small it goes with out the observer noticing or is not related to others.
Because we are all one consciousness. The universe is aware of itself.
Jamie Case who's to say that what you perceive is the same to another? How would you know that what each person describes is the same? Think of it like colors. I perceive the color red a certain way, you perceive it also in a certain way. There's no way to know what you perceive is exactly the same as what I perceive. Even trying to describe the color with attributes (darkish/lightish) has the same problem. There's no way to know if everyone does indeed perceive the same thing.
Never heard of people taking psychedelic drugs like lsd or people on the verge of death feeling an strange connection with the universe, a oneness with everything? That's right...
This is a exercise that reminds me of the saying if a tree falls over in the forest and no human ears are present to hear the event does it still make a sound or is there a sound with nothing to hear it or something like that
It is all in your Head. I believe this theory is right on. Thanks for Posting.
Thank You Dr. Tough to get a grip on but fascinating
i hav something like his in my mind b4 i came to know about him.....OMG i luv his idea.....
I read a book written 2015 years ago talking about the eternal life. The soul and the spirit are two different things, the soul is personal, the spirit is universal. The shock is when we find out we are all the same here on Earth.
Worth consideration. That's all. Be careful what you end up believing or not believing. Accept the present as it appears to you and don't let anything distract you from it. What has been has been realised. What is now is processing. What is yet to come is hearsay.
Thank you! Spot on! More scientists should follow suit in their quest in understanding life and the universe. Wicked Awesome!!!
This is Buddhism in its purest light!
So if a tree fall in the woods and I'm not there to here but a friend is, does that friend exist in that place when I phone hom on my phone?
(cont) to observe without intefering in the same way.
Think of it as painting a dot on the marble, and then rolling it on a floor coated in an invisible ink that lights up as it comes in contact with the dot.
As the marble rolls, the point touches the floor after a full rotation, revealing where the marble is at that point in time, in a dark room, without pushing it.
(cont)
I'm a big believer in Biocentrism, Simulation Theory, and Digital Physics. These things come together in my mind that allows me to better understand reality. However, one thing I just cannot completely reconcile is how multiple people can participate in the same event(s)!! For example, consider a boxing match..... The two fighters are engaged in the same event and resulting causal chains and the referee, spectators, and TV audience at home ALL are participating and acting/reacting on the Same stimuli. To me, this implies Some sort of "Objective Reality" which exists externally to the observers. Solipsism would explain it but I am definitely Not a proponent of that concept!! I am thinking that maybe there is some sort of "Information" for objects and events that is external but we all kinda copy/paste our personal perceptions and ideas onto the "blank slate" of raw Information!! I do Not Know....
Check out the p2p simulation hypothesis.
I feel like the explanation for shared experiences has to be rooted in the fact that our physical organs that allow us to perceive (eyes, retina, brains, etc) are so similar being that we’re all humans. Why else would we come up with a classification system of scientific species based on anatomy and biology other than to explain the differences in living beings’ physical abilities to sense/perceive?
If all us humans have nearly identical sensory organs then the probability that we will perceive the same energy/particles/light nearly identically it is very high.
I feel like this idea explains how two people can have a conversation and walk away with conflicting feelings/interpretations of that same conversation. Because language is just verbal symbolism, there’s a lot of room for the incredibly subtle differences in our sensory organs to create two slightly different “realities” in each of our minds (i.e. unique perspective).
Agreed.
Thanks for the civility and discussion/exploration.
Good luck on your book, and whatever else you proceed to do in the future :)
It's like getting on a ride. You have to 'get in' in order to experience the ride. Consciousness gets into a body and boyyyyy, what a ride - floating brains 🧠 and all sorts!
If the mic falls off his head and no ones paying any attention to his speech anyway, did it really happen?
I think this theory is strongly supported by the concept of time. According to Einstein we all experience time differently. Kant wrote about how time is simply a way that we, as conscious beings, organise the universe. This makes a lot of sense because it is difficult to imagine time in a universe where no conscious being is there to experience it. Time would be meaningless. Equally this would explain our difficulty accepting the face that before the universe, there was no time.
So true. We create our reality.
So my question is what if we all close our eyes without seen what's around us and I mean all close our eyes would that affect consciousness and what would happen?
Regardless of the conclusions that Lanza comes to, there is certainly no denying the two basic premises: we perceive the universe only through our senses (and from what we are "told"), therefore our idea of it is stored in all its magnificence in our minds; and we are aware that we can control some things in this perceived universe, but other things seem beyond our control.
The last part of the second thing is REALLY interesting. Maybe we can control more than we think just by observing...or by imagining....
This guy. this guy gets it.
did he say idear?
Lizzy H ya
Lizzy H He is from a place called Boston that he created with his consciousness
He grew up 23 miles south of Boston = Stoughton, MA
I have 3 doubts here. 1. The quantum observer need not be conscious, it could be a screen. 2. Why should the external world be the same thing to all observers if they independently create it. 3. Parameter tuning of the universe is inevitable when you start from the knowledge that we exist... we wouldnt be here to ask the question if the parameters were different.
Fascinating!
This was mind blowing.
Joe Rogan Experience #812 - Russell Brand
#POWERFUL
by the way...hands down one of my fav JRE episodes ever. Been waiting to see Russell on forever.
Yep...I came because of that episide
OO thanks!! I have not seen this and will search it out. :)
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but there's a lot better content out there than a joe rogan interview with russell bland
I can't stomach Russel Brand. As soon as he starts talking my mind feels like it needs a shower as bad as a victim does.
and so if reality is a creation of consciousness, whats limiting that consciousness from controlling the reality its in? id love for someones input on my questions. thanks.
Wish robert had a new sequel to his 2 books.
I do love this and oddly enough thought this concept since I was a kid. I’ve always thought that the universe is created through our need to experience it. What we “need”...becomes. I do have a quandary though and it is this: how do multiple people create the same (or at-least extremely) similar world about them to experience it together? Why does my creation of a small thicket in a forest match another’s creation of that thicket? Or, as a thought question: is the creat-able works about beginning to lose the possible variations because there are too many minds reflecting on a similar landscape, a landscape that has already been created? And if so, how much control is there over a landscape created? In other words: if one million people reinforce the creation say of a “thicket” at a park, would it more minds to increate that thicket and replace it with a new reality?
just keep it on your side, do not impersonate
The point is: there is really no other. Even they are just a figment of the same one consciousness. You and I are. Even you and somebody that has a whole different perspective on life. Individuality and separation are false, there is only one experience. Our Mind creates the illusion of separation. Is your body separate because its made of millions of individual cells?
He has written 2 great books
He rips off Anthony Peake
when we enter a building,,, no actually the building enters "I"
the head is a container for awareness,,, no actually the awareness contains the head
and so on, and so on
the truth should set us free no matter what it is called
I have a hypothesis for biocentrism, maybe the first observer to observe something creates it all observers thereafter observes the same thing; so i hypothesize that if two observers observe something at exactly the same time relative to each other could we create two different observations based on what each observer observes.
1. How do they know what happens to partials that are not observed? Doesn't that knowledge require observation?
2. I didn't hear one piece of evidence presented that points to the universe/reality existing as a result of consciousness rather than independent of consciousness. Can someone tell me what I missed? He said over and over that things do not exist until they are observed. Where is his evidence?
3. 9:05 is he really suggesting schizophrenics are seeing real people?
4. He says that the conditions of the universe are fine tuned for life and if changed at all life would be impossible, setting aside that virtually all of the known universe, except for some of the surface of the planet we live on, is inhospitable for life, how does he know it is even possible for the values of the properties of the universe to be different or that if they were different a different form of life wouldn't exist?
This all sounds like poppycock.
A brief study of quantum psychics explains that everything is energy (or sub atomic particles) and that same energy takes form when we bring our attention (or focus) on it. So in reality nothing actually exists unless we are focusing on it or forming the energy with our conscious attention.
This isn't entirely accurate.
The element of quantum mechanics you are referring to is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it proposes that it is impossible to know both the location and momentum of a particle simultaneousy. This is not because the particle itself does not exist prior to observation, but because the act of observing the particle alters it's state (momentum or location).
The Captain Right! Since the observation alters the state of the particle we can be more certain the what we want is moving toward us when we bring our attention onto it.
I love quantum physics for the sheer fact that we can prove how deliberate creation works, and how we are creators.
We may not be able to prove with 100% certainty how this works, but I’m 100% certain and faithful that this is how miracles work.
Wether you believe in praying to a God or infinite intelligence, time and time again miracles have worked and prayers have been answered for people.
I believe this is how we prove them!
Thanks for your response(:
You should message me on Instagram!
@J_chambs
Drunkenprophet23 I've heard this type of mystical “theories” so many times, they're plain based on solipsism and are purely metaphysical, nothing serious. They're just selling ideas to lucrate.
1. Because of the Double-slit experiment. It's been studied and replicated thousands of time. You basically shoot one particle into a tube system with the shape of the Y. At the end the particle can take either one way or the other. Now, you have no way of knowing which way the particle chooses unless you put a small detector in the bifurcation. If you have it on, you can see each time the particle is shot that it either goes one way or the other, and you can see that pattern on the wall where the particle collapses. Strangely, when those detectors are off and you don't know which way it will take, when you see the pattern on the wall right at the exit of the tube you will see a wave pattern that can only be explained if the particle has passed through both exit tubes at the same time.
2. I am totally sure you have heard of the famous experiment known as the Schrödinger's cat. Basically it derives from the same idea that you don't know how something behaves until you observe it. If you put a cat in a box with a 50% chance of releasing a poisonous gas and killing the cat, you don't know for sure if it's either dead or alive until you open the box. So before you force a possibility to collapse in an observation you know for sure that the cat is dead and alive at the same time. So the notion of a cat being alive or dead will only be possible once you open the box, hence that's why the universe behavior is strangely attached to a consciousness making an observation. Same thing with Einstein's relativity, time perception is different depending on the observer, it does not flow the same way for everybody/ everything in the universe.
3. You did not understand him correctly, he is not saying people with schizophrenics are seeing real people, but rather their universe is totally different from yours. They see things as much as real as you do, instead you can't see what they see. Because their brain is creating a totally different universe that you cannot perceive.
4. Because even modern physics do the same as well, ever heard of the famously accepted Multiverse theory? Maths proof that there are multiple universes with different constants and it's based on measures done on the universe and cosmic radiations. This theory is very big and hard to understand and I can't explain it to you completely, but you can investigate it on your own. Also we have simulators which scientists insert different parameters and we can pretty much get different outcomes depending on what values we insert.
You have to remember everything we see and experience in this universe is because of our consciousness. Colors do not exist, what we experience as a color is just our brain interpreting what really is just a wave vibrating in a particular frequence.
Please Dr Lanza take up Joe Rogans invite onto his podcast.
I have a problem with this theory based on my understanding of the double slit theory. It isn't conscious observation that changes the particle's behavior, but the photons that interact with said particle at c (speed of light). This causes the particle to take on the behavior of a single particle instead of a wave. It has nothing to do with 'our eyes', which do NOT send out signals, but receive photons coming IN. How would our observation have any effect on anything, when they are sense organs?
i really like ur theory.....its the way that i also think the world is....
this is some trippy shit.
it is just shit that people are tripping over.
buff hooper I dunno. I think I had the same thought process a few years back on a drug related experience. Seems about as probable.
And you are one trippy moron.
reverse-engineering our own existence. fucking amazing. incredible time to be alive!
can it be possible to see all that information in a power point. could be in your background or in a video.I learn better with visuals
part 2?
The photon observed is not a particle of illumination. It is "nano" bit of frequency (visual light being 330 to 780 Thz) from the infinite frequency of e.m energy, so even the observation of light is purely a subjective experience. Light exists only "within", so of course, we are creative with the experience.
Scientists are now discovering that colors are actually feelings. I find this particularly interesting, as my grandmother when dying, said not to tell anyone, but the flowers she could see were singing. This was 1993.
how does one with a theory about an observer dependent relative universe contact robert lanza?
Just found out about this .. Thanks www
I very much agree with Lanza. The only thing that remains unclear is his dismissal of the multiverse idea, where we live in one in a gazillion universe amo others, and ours is the lucky one, and he claimed we could do better than that. Why, exactly? Other than that, this is all very convincing.
The multiverse theory exists because there is no other explanation for why a Universe like ours should exist, that can be stable and support life. When you look at the odds of something like this happens with only one Universe, it is funny. So the multiverse theory make it so that since every universe exists, we find ourselves in the one that fits us.
I see no reason at all why multiverse doesn't coexist with Lanza's amazing theory. I take an intuitive crack at explaining and understanding this crucial property of the universe in my Truth Cypher book/podcast ua-cam.com/play/PLjyuGqEHDxIoiDPn3eMHhvx1wLxh6yOjX.html
Yeah, i agree. i stopped watching at that. This guy mixes the cause with the effect. The perfect conditions are there because we live here and "oh well, what a coincidence". We live here because here are the perfect conditions. This is like saying "Well, why always the protagonist of the movie experiences all the cool shit ?" Because if he didn't he wouldn't be the protagonist. Cause and effect, not the other way around.
So why do we have to eat?
Armin Makovec we don’t but consensual rules of the simulation dictate we do to preserve the material illusion
Biocentrism is an interesting concept, but I feel consciousness is irrelevant to fundamental truths. Perhaps we don't perceive everything 100% accurately, but implying that the universe is dependent on living beings for interpretation is incredible. I'm open-minded to new ideas and would be willing to further read into proof or critiques.
I have an I deer, came with my I phone. .lol, but seriously I get this and have the same feeling. Great video!
so where is part 2??
So how do you know that you're not massively schizophrenic and living in a hallucination or dream?
You don't...and you are...
Paaaahhticles
It's not really an accent, just a whole city of people saying most words wrong.
clovis2012 I'm an Aussie - That's literally our accent haha.
Biocentrism
clovis2012 pot-o-golds
clovis2012 idear
Maybe a weird question, but how would you know whether or not it was meant?
Interesting and in many ways not a completely new concept. The today ‘us’ is essentially the cumulative thoughts and experiences of our lifetime- our past- and we all acknowledge that we each ‘see the world through our own eyes’. Just follows that we have each created our world and our personal reality. It rings true.
Well, I hope this is true because I will need to find the love of my life” Tricia Roberts” in the next life ad hope we can find each other forever, I will be searching for you, my dear.
Love this.
Godspeed brother.
@@RRFTB Merry Christmas to you and yours. Still searching...lol
I'm trying to understand this point of view. Can someone who understand this explain this to me: 'So, if consciousness creates the reality we see, how come everyone sees the same reality'?
+Daniel Carr I second that. Also if the human race was wiped of the earth would it not still be a Earth left for our dogs to shit on? We do know that when the solar system was newborn, there was no life and thus no form of consciousness on the planet. Does that mean that the planet was not here?
+Daniel Carr it doesn't. It's a flawed premise.
"No. This is a common misunderstanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and quantum decoherence.
The gist of the problem is this: a fundamental notion of Quantum Mechanics is the "measurement". A common quantum mechanics equation looks like this:
p^∣ψ⟩=p∣ψ⟩p^∣ψ⟩=p∣ψ⟩
That is, p^p^ is an operator that causes takes a state ∣ψ⟩∣ψ⟩ from one with an indefinite value to one with a definite value pp . In particular, the measurement will now be consistent: take the same measurement twice, and you get the same result; that is, p^2=1p^2=1 .
As you can see, consciousness appears nowhere in this equation. Humans appear in the operation when we take measurements. That is, we interact with the system ∣ψ⟩∣ψ⟩ , and in the process it "collapses" into one with a definite value for pp .
What that means is that when humans are involved, quantum-mechanical indefinite processes become definite. What it does not mean is that humans are necessary to the process; that's a fallacy called "affirming the consequent": just because A implies B, it does not mean that B implies A. Quantum collapse occurs any time two macro-scale systems interact.
Detecting that always means that a human is involved, simply because there's an implicit "you" there: "you detect". You can't interact with a quantum system without interacting it with a macro-scale object, you (or, more directly, your measuring apparatus, which interacts with you).
But it still exists, collapsed or uncollapsed, whether you were there or not. It's just that you can't say anything about it until you interact with it, which will always reduce the system from one in an indefinite state of overlapping possibilities to one in a definite state with only one possibility."
- Joshua Engel Jun 28, 2011
+Heli Your example is kind of funny, if even the concept of time is only a part of our mind, we have that vision of early earth only make sense to we human. If the Earth don't have a being with awareness, who would call it Earth and say that the sky blue, for example?. I would not say that beings and phenomenon are illusions, but they are like illusion. not they are like nothing, but they are product of our mind.
No one experiences the same reality. It is impossible. It doesn't exist as an objective fact.
Átila I understand what you are saying, and agree but that wasn't what I was asking.
I'd have to reread Hawking's 'The Grand Design' to answer properly, as this is only a hobby of mine - but from his in depth discussion on this experiment, 'observing' is a matter of trying to catch the particle going through a particular slit. This act changes the particles entire path - which is a fascinating glimpse at the behavior of time. But to observe the particle involves light and other signals let off by recording devices. This is what changes it, not our consciousness.
You rebuild your reality every time fluctuation happens: you create the reality out of the conciseness and your observation which collapses the wave of all possibilities, and get this picture back feed to the conciseness. They call it the Planck oscillation I think - so the one of many theories :)
Beautiful.
Holy shit, blowing my mind
Me too
+Erik Fok
It shouldn't. This is unscientific nonsense. He does not understand quantum physics. He's not even a physicist.
If you don't understand something, then you should be skeptical. Being blown away is the wrong reaction to something, that you do not actually understand. Especially, when no actual physicist agrees with him. He's alone in the scientific community and for a good reason.
Vander766
Well, i'm not an american and i'm sick of people like this guy misrepresenting quantum mechanics. It doesn't matter what i've studied, since i can't prove it on the internet anyway. I've made a claim and people can check it or leave it. They can research what actual physicists say about this kind of nonsense or simply keep believing their fairy-tales.
I'm really sick of people misrepresenting quantum mechanics for this kind of new age nonsense. This guy falls into the same category as Deepak Chopra. And it's actually naive people like you, who are the cancer of this world. People, who do not understand something even the slightest bit, who have no education in higher math and yet are flabbergasted by an explanation, that they do not even understand the slightest bit. People like you who get their quantum mechanics from a medicinal doctor like Lanza without checking what actual physicists have to say.
*****
So how how are you going to learn more about the world if not by empiricism? Do you have a better method, that actually works? How does that method work?
*****
"ll insults, no substance. His position and skepticism are obviously going to clash with the view of physicists who are obsessed with the empirical and objective world."
You wrote that. And i was asking questions regarding that statement. Are you afraid of answering those questions?
and how i can achieve whatever iw ant ? please reply
Clearly define consciousness according to your theory . You mention 'biocentrism arriving at the same conclusion as non-duality' around 0:40. What are the these conclusions?
so because of the double slit experiment and Heisenburg's uncertainty principle, everyone are all wrong and this guy is right
Matter doesn't exist.
I would agree it sounds a little bit... to the side.. had he been alone on this maybe you cast this aside as well. Problem is, he isnt alone with this, it isnt build on his own free fantasy either. He may not have everything right, but there certainly is something there that is worth investigating more.
Zone Television
existence doesn't matter
buff hooper Spoken like a true materialist.
as for materialism being a monist ontology, i would say skip the monist and keep the ontology
Just finishing up his book on this topic, I recommend reading it to any naysayers out there of this theory, before you pass judgements as a whole. 2 points to address here, based on comments that really don't do much to discredit this:
1) "This is a god-of-the-gaps argument disguised in newage form."
Nowhere in his book does he say "God did it." In fact, there is explicit reference to religions and their place within Biocentrism and he makes it quite clear that faith doesn't even factor into the formula. From the way I understand it, this theory isn't about cosmogenesis but rather about the nature of consciousness and how it relates to physical systems. It's more of an excercise in logic than anything. As he points out time, and time again.
2) "He doesn't understand Quantum Theory and just throws around terms without understanding them. It's our MEASUREMENTS not our observations that affect quantum systems."
Fair enough about the author's background since, indeed, he is not a theoretical physicist in any form, a point he also makes very clear in his book (should you care to actually read it). However there is a glaring incosistency in this statement which I am sure many others have noticed, and that is the supposed dichotomy of observation and measurement. I personally don't believe you can divorce the two, a point that Biocentrism hinges upon as one of its main theses. You may think that, somehow in a "dumb universe" (as Lanza puts it), that there are machines performing functions irrespective of any input from us. But, I ask, where have you ever seen this? You think you are replying with a scientifically informed criticism but to me it sounds like you are purely speculating. How does one prove that measurements can be performed without observing them? As part of the definition of 'measurement' one needs to apply their consciousness to it to gather data. But say that still doesn't do it for you and you're still convinced that measurement means one thing and to interpret it another; how about the fact that all instrumentation used by humans to measure the physical world is created by humans and therefore cannot come into existence without the conscious input of a human mind? It seems then that if you want to divorce measurement from observations then you need to remove the human interpretation of measurement since that is how instrumentation is calibrated to begin with. A ruler doesn't measure some objective value in space: humans defined the centimetre, the inch etc. Perhaps then you could argue that "well perhaps there is some greater objective being that has devices that can interpret all dimensions of a physical object and thus we would have a benchmark for reality." As far-fetched as this sounds, it's entirely possible something that powerful exists in the universe, given its sheer size and number of potentially habitable planets, which brings me to the last argument one may make against Biocentrism.
3) "This makes humans look special in a universe where science clearly shows us we are not."
Umm, where does Lanza ever say "human" consciousness creates the universe? Sure that is the focus of the topic to illustrate the theory using an experience we can all relate to, but it need not be that way. In fact, I believe he refers to consciousness in his book as "a field" or perhaps some kind of "force", one that becomes available once necessary brains (or whatever machinery a creature has) have sufficiently evolved to translate it.
For all of the above reasons I have to agree with him that it makes MORE scientific sense to infer that the universe is at best unavailable for conception outside of conception. For where in life have we ever seen without seeing, heard without hearing, thought without thinking? Think about it, and then don't think about thinking about it, and there's your answer. Also consider the fact of how many very, very intelligent people are on board with this, scientists and philosophers alike. If NOTHING truly exists, then it shouldn't be existing by definition.
Trippy right?
how can I get the complete talk please???
It doesn't resolve it, depending on what you see the problem to be.
Previously, we could only observe photons by interfering with them directly.
Think of it as finding a marble in the dark by hitting it with another marble, and registering where they hit. The problem with this is that the event where the marbles hit eachother makes the marble you're measuring change direction and/or velocity. With those instruments, it was impossible not to.
The TEM01 mode of the laser makes it possible (cont)