Speaking with the authority of a distinguished scientific career, Robert Lanza presents the case for abandoning the "dumb universe" paradigm and going beyond the illusion of our individual separatism. In a presentation that inspires optimism for the dawn of a new age of science, he explains the impossibility of a universe created from randomness alone, and describes how this idea has led to our alienation from nature. "Life and awareness are indispensable cosmic attributes," he says. With a biocentric worldview, science makes sense.
The article Lanza refers to:
On decoherence in quantum gravity
Though I can sympathise with the general ideas discussed, I felt a jarring sense of disconnect at each use of the term "biocentrism". Now the definition apparently relates to "life". But to me the word has connotations, biocentrism -> biology -> organic chemistry. Here I get stuck. Organic chemistry as a central principal underlying the whole universe, including the particles of the atoms from which biology is built, is a nonsense, it is a self-contradiction.
Methinks some other term is needed, one less (potentially) matter-centric. (One which is often mentioned hereabouts is 'consciousness'. There may be better candidates, it seems to me that some sort of benevolence or positivity is needed too, something which may not be implied by the term 'consciousness').
I have the same reaction to that word, Typoz.
(2018-06-25, 03:41 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]Though I can sympathise with the general ideas discussed, I felt a jarring sense of disconnect at each use of the term "biocentrism".
Coincidentally enough, I read this ebook last week (which is available online for free at some sort of education website) for the first time, despite it being quite a popular book for a while now.
I liked it, generally! I pretty much ignored the label "biocentrism" myself, it's the ideas that matter.....I can't blame him for
"object-ifying" his message, he is a scientist after all, and trying to appeal to a certain crowd!
