Have you ever had a dream that was so real, so rich in detail that when you woke up, you were kind of confused about reality. I kind of dream one time that I was on a pirate ship.
It was a dream. People now in case you’re, wondering no. I’ve, never been on a pirate ship. I don’t, really know what that’s like, but the details were so vivid in this dream, like the smell of the ocean water, the spray of the water in the air.
The way the the light scattered through the sails and, of course, this this hair stuck on this weathered and splintered railing that had been worn down by years of abuse and sword, fights probably yeah.
My brain just made all that up now I & # 39. Ve talked before about how our brains are just wired for consciousness. It’s. This default mode is to create a conscious experience. It literally can’t, not do it and when it doesn’t have any sensory input to make any kind of conscious experience out of like when you’re sleeping.
It just makes something up something every bit as real as your regular waking, conscious experience. So in many ways our brains do create reality as we experience it, but some people have taken this idea further much much further.
They suggest that consciousness, doesn’t just create an experience of reality that it creates actual physical reality itself. Welcome to the weird and controversial world of biocentrism before science was a thing before science was the method we use to understand our world.
It was philosophers who created our view of reality. They made observations and use logic and reason to come up with ideas, ideas that for better or worse shape the thinking of cultures for centuries, then science came around and proved that most of these ideas were wrong.
I’m. Looking at you, Aristotle, we constructed a physical mechanistic view of the universe made up of some physics and chemistry and some fundamental forces. We had a pretty good handle on this thing.
Then we got inside the atom and we realized we had to rethink a lot of stuff. We learned through tests like the double slit experiment, that particles actually behave waves until you measure them, and the act of measuring them causes the wave form to collapse and for the particle to exist in real 3d space.
If you measure the particle by letting it hit the wall, then it will act like a wave until it hits the wall, basically creating an interference pattern like ways would do. But if you measure it at the slit as it passes through the slit, then it will go down to a particle and behave as a particle, creating two lines on the wall behind it.
Somehow the act of measuring the act of observation causes the particle to behave like a particle. Why this happens is one of the most pervasive mysteries in all of science. There have been countless explanations, each one has an experiment that proves it and one that disproves it.
But one of the ideas is that it’s, our consciousness itself. That causes the wave form to collapse, that somehow subatomic particles and even whole atoms in some experiments require human consciousness for it to snap into reality.
Now, obviously, this starts to head down. Some philosophical rabbit holes with some people saying that you know consciousness, might be an intrinsic quality of the universe, maybe even a fundamental force of the universe, with others going to the extreme of actually saying that our consciousness creates the universe and it’s.
At this end, where you find biocentrism now I don’t know whether or not consciousness creates the universe, but I feel pretty sure that what I just said created some all-caps comments down below so before you guys get too far into it.
Tizzy. Let’s, get that whoo-whoo alarm out of the way. This is to put it lightly, not accepted mainstream science, and I have my own opinions about it. I’ll. Talk about that a little bit later, but for now let’s.
Just let’s. Just talk about it. Let’s, just put it out there, let’s, follow its assertion, see where it leads and and then discuss, and this article could also kind of serve as a book review. I actually did read the book that this idea is based off of I’ve, been reading this for a while.
I want to make sure and get it all down so yeah I’ve, been planning this article for some time now. So the guy behind biocentrism and the author of this book is the guy named Robert Lanza, who was actually a bit of a pioneer in stem-cell research.
His team was the first to clone early stage human embryos and the first to create stem cells using somatic cell nuclear transfer, something I actually talked about in my cloning article. This is a big deal.
The ability to create stem cells, open the door to therapies for all kinds of different conditions and save countless lie, and we’re just crashing the surface in over the years. He was mentored by people like BF Skinner and Jonas Salk, the guy who cured polio.
So he & # 39. S definitely got some bona fides in the world of stem cell therapy and research. So he’s, not just known for biocentrism. He’s, also known for his his work with stem cells as well. Do his stem cell bona fides, give him any kind of authority on this subject matter.
You can discuss that in the comments, but the basic gist of biocentrism is, as i said before, if consciousness causes the particles waveform to collapse and appear in real 3d space, then consciousness actually creates the universe.
So the book breaks down biocentrism into seven core principles and they are as follows: first principle: what we perceive as reality as a process affected by our consciousness, an external reality if it existed, would, by definition, have to exist in space, but this is meaningless because space And time are not absolute realities, but rather are tools of the human and animal mind they talk about.
How relativity shows that time and space can speed up slow down and contract and whatnot relative to the observer, depending on how fast that observer is traveling. The same observer that collapses waveforms, so their argument is that since time and space are subjective, they are constructs of our own minds.
Second principle: our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. There are different sizes that same coin and cannot be divorced from one another. Now this is basically what I was saying earlier that our brain actually constructs the conscious experience that we perceive this takes a little bit further and says that it not only just collects sensory information.
It actually creates the thing it’s, sensing third principle, the behavior of subatomic particles. Indeed, all particles and objects are inextricably linked to the presence of an observer without the presence of a conscious observer.
They best exist in an undetermined state of probability. Waves again, basically what I was saying earlier about the wave form collapsing. Fourth principle: without consciousness matter exists in an undetermined state of probability, in a universe that could have preceded consciousness, existed in a probability state in the chapter on this article.
They basically talk really in-depth about the double slit experiment and all the different variations of the double slit experiment that followed that sort of proved the whole observer effect and they basically expand this phenomenon from particles and subatomic particles into the macro world and show that it’s working at that level as well.
You know again reinforcing the idea that consciousness creates the universe and the other way around fifth principle: the structure of the universe is explainable. Only through biocentrism, the universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe and not the other way around.
The universe is simply the complete spatio temporal logic of the self. Here they look at the fundamental constants of the universe and talking about how it kind of is like a Goldilocks zone that makes life possible the Boltzmann constant that fine-structure constant the speed of light, the particular masses of the different particles of the atom.
There are dozens of different fundamental constants if they have been just a little bit different, just ever so slightly different, the entire universe. As we know it would not exist. So they make the argument that, through these constants, the universe is fine-tuned for life, which would make sense if life and consciousness was what created the universe.
In the first place. There’s, some paradoxes going on here, but let’s. Just go with it for now. Six principle time does not have a real existence outside of animal stands perception it’s, the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
You hear they’ll talk about how time is actually symmetrical and most physics that whatever forces are working on an object. It would work the same either going either way in time. Then he brings up xenos arrow paradox and how the different trajectories of the arrow, or only probability States until it hits the target, and then you know it can be measured and they use relativity to show that time.
Change is dependent on the speed of the observer. Basically, meaning it’s, just a tool we use in our minds to measure entropy and the seventh principle. Space like time is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality.
We carry space and time around with us like Turtles with shells. Thus there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur, independent of life. Here they talk about quantum entanglement and the ability for particles to share information over vast distances.
Instantaneously kind of shows that space is just sort of a construct and also how, with relativity the faster you get to the speed of light, the more space compresses to the point that, if you’re, actually traveling the speed of light, the universe would Be flat so they proposed these seven principles of biocentrism and then spend a couple of chapters talking about what this means to our lives and what this means to our deaths.
They kind of mentioned that, if you know we create reality, then we can never not really be a part of that real. They talk about the conservation of energy and how energy is never goes away, it just kind of transforms, and so, if you have this consciousness, that creates the universe and that consciousness can’t really die there’s actually a whole of The book that dives into those subjects called beyond biocentrism.
I have not read that one yet but yeah. It goes there, something they didn’t talk about in the book, but I thought was an interesting take on. It is how this could play into simulation theory. You know the universe was a simulation created in a giant computer.
One of the ways that the computer could save memory and energy was to only render things when they’re being looked at. You know in the first-person computer game the game doesn’t render the entire you know world in that game.
At the same time, it just renders what’s on screen? What’s in front of the player? So in essence, this would work the same way like right now. I’m upstairs and downstairs there’s, nobody in my kitchen, so according to biocentrism at this moment my kitchen doesn’t exist.
But if say I left the kitchen sink running, then the probability waveform would contain the possibility of that sink overflowing. And when I went downstairs and looked at my kitchen, the probability wave would collapse and I would see the sink overflowing and then I would curse now that of course, strains believability.
But in fairness, that’s only because it runs counter to our entire experience of life. Now, on the surface, this whole idea sounds crazy, but if you dig a little bit deeper, it still sounds crazy, but defenders about centrism would argue that it’s all based on very verifiable, a repeated quantum experiments and behavior in the quantum world.
You know things in the quantum world are crazy, they do run counter to our everyday experience in life and, if all of our years of sciencing have taught us anything, is that just because something appears a certain way, doesn’t mean that it actually Is a certain way, but I can’t, feel the biocentrism is sort of an example of reductio ad absurdum.
You know, ironically, he mentioned Zeno’s, paradox in his book, which is the classic example of reductio ad absurdum, which I talked about in a article that I did on Zeno’s paradox, which is why I know what that term means At all in logic, reductio ad absurdum is a way of disproving a statement by showing that it neva tably leads to an absurd or ridiculous conclusion.
I feel like this sort of takes facts like the wave-particle duality and then just extends it further and further. Like you know, if this is true, then that must be true in it that’s. True then, this must be true over and over again until you get to, you know a fairly absurd conclusion.
You know one of the main criticisms of biocentrism is that it’s unfalsifiable, you know you, you can & # 39. T prove that something doesn’t exist. If you’re not allowed to observe the thing to show whether or not it exists.
You know take my example about the kitchen that I just said a second ago right now I can & # 39. T prove that my kitchen exists. You know I could put a camera down there, but that would be observation.
I could call someone to go. Look at it but again observation or if I set my dog down to the kitchen, would that count? Is it just human consciousness? Could it be any consciousness animal plant bacteria? You know when speaking of the observer effect, there are many different interpretations of the observer effect and this just kind of takes one of them and just runs with it like Forrest Gump with depression.
You know someone once described to me the observer effect. This way they say. Basically, if you looked at a baseball in flight, you know there would be photons bouncing off of that ball from the Sun. That would have to be photons for you to be able to see it and those photons in part a bit of momentum onto the ball.
Now it’s, so small compared to the ball, then it’s immeasurable, but it does exist as I just get smaller, though the force of those photons becomes larger relative to the size of that object. Until you get down to about the size of an atom, and at that point, if you’ve bounced a photon off of it, it would actually change its state.
You know, so you have to ask what constitutes an observation. Is it the light bouncing off of the particle? Is it the light entering the camera or the sensor? Is it when it gets impacted into computer memory? Is it when the computer processes it and puts it up on the display? Is it when the photons from the display hit my eyes? Is it from when my brain processes that visually and, in my you know, cortex? Where does this actually happen? We don’t really know another criticism state that this is basically trying to take.
The physics of the quantum world and impart them on to the macro world. You know the duality of physics having a different set of physics for the quantum world versus the you know. Macro world has always been this thorn in the side of physicists everywhere and so to just kind of casually suppose that quantum reality is actually going on in macro reality, even though it goes against.
All of our observations to the contrary is problematic to me, and my final quibble is when they argue that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I don’t know how you can say that when 99.99999, infinity percent of the universe would kill us immediately.
In fact, there’s only one planet in the entire universe that we know of the supports life right now. You know until we find life in other places and spread out throughout the entire universe. That claim is spurious at best to me, of course, that misses the crux of the argument, which is basically that at the fundamental constants and forces of the universe had been a little bit different.
Then life would not be allowed to exist, but if they were different and it created a different universe, it might create a different kind of life life. That would then look around and say hey. This was created just for us.
It’s like looking at a glove and saying wow. Our hands were made perfectly to fit these gloves. Science has always questioned and challenged our privileged position in the universe, but this puts us right back in the center of the universe, not just as its purpose but as its creator.
So do I find it interesting? Yes, I find it interesting. I’m, not gon na say whether or not I think it’s right or wrong. You guys can debate that down in the comments I will say I’m having a little bit of trouble, taking it all too seriously, but I do find it interesting now.
Obviously, this is a subject that you’re, passionate about and you feel like. I misinterpreted some of the things in the book and you want to correct me. Please go ahead and do so in the comments. If you think it’s, a bunch of gobbledygook, then you can talk about that as well.
And while you’re at it, tell me what a gobbledygook is and if you think the subject is totally below me and I should be ashamed for even talking about it, then you know shut up. And if you like topics like this and you want to dive a little bit deeper, there are a couple of series that I could recommend you check out on curiosity stream.
The first is a article called consciousness. It’s, an interview between Deepak Chopra and Stuart Hameroff, who, with Roger Penrose, created the Orrico art theory of consciousness, that basically argues that our brains process consciousness at the quantum scale.
This gets a little metaphysical, but they go deep in a interesting topics. Regarding non consciousness and how that could work within our current scientific understanding or if that’s woowoo for you, you can check out a series called sex death in the meaning of life here.
Famed evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins takes is much more grounded approach and applies it to similar concepts and and creates a compelling view of life our world in our place in it. And these are just two of thousands of articles that you can find on curiosity stream, which I have called the Netflix of science documentaries.
I stand by that statement. There are documentaries covering futurism space, cosmology, nature, biology and medicine. Basically, anything that makes your nerd senses tingle and if you want free access for one month, you can sign up at curiosity stream, comm / Joe Scott seriously.
If you haven’t checked out, curiosity stream definitely go check it out, especially if you like this channel, you’ll, absolutely love it. You can get one month for free and it does support the channel.
So yeah wins all around. Alright, big thanks to curiosity stream for supporting this channel and a huge shout out to my answer: files on patreon that are doing awesome things talking to each other. We got a thing going guys that’s, really cool.
We’ve got some cool people. I want to shout out real quick. I got ta murder some names here. We got Jacob Mae Nicole Tom money yuck. I’m, going with it Quentin King Pierre Scott Wayne Price Thomas O’Dwyer Damian Christopher Lee Jeffrey Lee Hinton Connor Y guard, Patrick Aucoin, Dominican, Juan Chris meet Sima Wesley Smith, Gillis into May nailed it Samuel Decker, Jaime hernández and Benjamin Nolan, thank you guys so much if you would like to join them, get access to cool perks, early access to articles and access to me and livestreams exclusive patreon live streams.
You can go to patreon.com/scishow answers with Joe, please like and share this article. If you liked it – and if this is your first time here – maybe check out this article, Google thinks you’ll like it.
There are other articles in the sidebar that may pop up with my face on it and if you like those do subscribe, I’ll, come back with articles every Monday and every Thursday all right, I’m gon na stop recording.
Now I’m gon na leave this room at which point will vanish right. We’ll, see thanks again for watching you guys go out, have an eye-opening week and I’ll, see you on Monday hope you guys take care.