Hot Best Seller

Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death

Availability: Ready to download

Biocentrism shocked the world with a radical rethinking of the nature of reality. But that was just the beginning. In Beyond Biocentrism, acclaimed biologist Robert Lanza, one of TIME Magazine’s "100 Most Influential People in 2014," and leading astronomer Bob Berman, take the reader on an intellectual thrill-ride as they re-examine everything we thought we knew about life, Biocentrism shocked the world with a radical rethinking of the nature of reality. But that was just the beginning. In Beyond Biocentrism, acclaimed biologist Robert Lanza, one of TIME Magazine’s "100 Most Influential People in 2014," and leading astronomer Bob Berman, take the reader on an intellectual thrill-ride as they re-examine everything we thought we knew about life, death, the universe, and the nature of reality itself. The first step is acknowledging that our existing model of reality is looking increasingly creaky in the face of recent scientific discoveries. Science tells us with some precision that the universe is 26.8 percent dark matter, 68.3 percent dark energy, and only 4.9 percent ordinary matter, but must confess that it doesn’t really know what dark matter is and knows even less about dark energy. Science is increasingly pointing toward an infinite universe but has no ability to explain what that really means. Concepts such as time, space, and even causality are increasingly being demonstrated as meaningless. All of science is based on information passing through our consciousness but science hasn’t the foggiest idea what consciousness is, and it can’t explain the linkage between subatomic states and observation by conscious observers. Science describes life as an random occurrence in a dead universe but has no real understanding of how life began or why the universe appears to be exquisitely designed for the emergence of life. The biocentrism theory isn’t a rejection of science. Quite the opposite. Biocentrism challenges us to fully accept the implications of the latest scientific findings in fields ranging from plant biology and cosmology to quantum entanglement and consciousness. By listening to what the science is telling us, it becomes increasingly clear that life and consciousness are fundamental to any true understanding of the universe. This forces a fundamental rethinking of everything we thought we knew about life, death, and our place in the universe.

*advertisement

Compare

Biocentrism shocked the world with a radical rethinking of the nature of reality. But that was just the beginning. In Beyond Biocentrism, acclaimed biologist Robert Lanza, one of TIME Magazine’s "100 Most Influential People in 2014," and leading astronomer Bob Berman, take the reader on an intellectual thrill-ride as they re-examine everything we thought we knew about life, Biocentrism shocked the world with a radical rethinking of the nature of reality. But that was just the beginning. In Beyond Biocentrism, acclaimed biologist Robert Lanza, one of TIME Magazine’s "100 Most Influential People in 2014," and leading astronomer Bob Berman, take the reader on an intellectual thrill-ride as they re-examine everything we thought we knew about life, death, the universe, and the nature of reality itself. The first step is acknowledging that our existing model of reality is looking increasingly creaky in the face of recent scientific discoveries. Science tells us with some precision that the universe is 26.8 percent dark matter, 68.3 percent dark energy, and only 4.9 percent ordinary matter, but must confess that it doesn’t really know what dark matter is and knows even less about dark energy. Science is increasingly pointing toward an infinite universe but has no ability to explain what that really means. Concepts such as time, space, and even causality are increasingly being demonstrated as meaningless. All of science is based on information passing through our consciousness but science hasn’t the foggiest idea what consciousness is, and it can’t explain the linkage between subatomic states and observation by conscious observers. Science describes life as an random occurrence in a dead universe but has no real understanding of how life began or why the universe appears to be exquisitely designed for the emergence of life. The biocentrism theory isn’t a rejection of science. Quite the opposite. Biocentrism challenges us to fully accept the implications of the latest scientific findings in fields ranging from plant biology and cosmology to quantum entanglement and consciousness. By listening to what the science is telling us, it becomes increasingly clear that life and consciousness are fundamental to any true understanding of the universe. This forces a fundamental rethinking of everything we thought we knew about life, death, and our place in the universe.

30 review for Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death

  1. 5 out of 5

    Rama

    Biocentrism is a way of defining the nature of physical reality Biocentrism is a concept that suggests the consciousness creates the universe and not the cosmos creating life and consciousness. Consequently life (biology) is primal to understanding physical reality that is normally described by the laws of physics operating in space and time. This idea is not new, in fact Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism proposed this simple concept through the sacred scriptures of Upanishads and Brahma-sutras tha Biocentrism is a way of defining the nature of physical reality Biocentrism is a concept that suggests the consciousness creates the universe and not the cosmos creating life and consciousness. Consequently life (biology) is primal to understanding physical reality that is normally described by the laws of physics operating in space and time. This idea is not new, in fact Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism proposed this simple concept through the sacred scriptures of Upanishads and Brahma-sutras that existed in in the Hindu literature since sixth century B.C.E. In fact the authors briefly discuss Vedanta but do not elaborate to any significant length. The Buddhist doctrine also believes in the ultimate reality as being the “Pure Consciousness.” The idea that consciousness creates reality is also a unique feature of quantum physics. What we observe in quantum physics experiments is dependent on the observer and it involves our consciousness. If we do not observe, quantum physics states that matter is suspended in an undetermined state of probability and all possible realities are possible. Besides there is no such thing as past or future according to the laws of physics, since laws are equally applicable, going from past to future or future to past. Both relativistic physics ad quantum physics is unequivocal about this reality. The authors observe that the consciousness and cosmos are one and the same because there is no universe without perception. In this life-centered view, space is created by mind’ algorithms, and the cosmos is outside of time and there is no death or birth, and seeing space is a word that symbolizes nothing meaningful. They conclude that spacetime and the cosmos is infinite. But here is the real problem; infinity is a concept, a mathematical abstraction and it is different from infinity in physics or cosmology. The space and time are not infinite and infinity cannot exist in reality. Physicists have struggled to marry quantum mechanics with classical gravity for decades, and they run into trouble because the calculations yield infinity, which according to physics and reality is a nonsensical result. In quantum mechanics, space and time is a unified concept as four-dimensional background where matter dances in its presence to create gravity and the classical reality. Some physicists, who think outside the “box,” suggest that space is real and time is an illusion; and others argue that time is real and space is an illusion. I have rated two stars since the authors have not proposed anything new in this book. Most of these ideas are already discussed in their 2010 book published under the title, “Biocentrism: How life and consciousness are the keys to the understanding of the universe.” Secondly the idea being proposed that the universe and spacetime are infinite is unreal and not possible in any form of realty. Cosmology proposes that there are 10100 universes, but that number is not infinite, it is just large. Finally this book is purported to discuss the concept of death, the role of plant consciousness, and if machines becomes conscious. But it does not go into any depth but makes few observations and draws conclusions. The author also argues that death does not exist, but do not explain what exactly does death means to the body, and if there is a soul that transmigrates upon death. Another misleading fact is that the authors refer to mind instead consciousness; according many neurobiologists they are not the same.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Stacy

    This was a quite interesting and thought provoking book. I did not agree with all the author said, but he made many good points. The author, Robert Lanza, is not quack; he "is one of the most respected scientists in the world-- a U.S. News & World Report cover story called him a "genius" and "renegade thinker". He is currently chief scientific officer at Ocata Therapeutics, and professor at Wake Forrest University School of Medicine." And co-author Bob Berman is notable too being "the longti This was a quite interesting and thought provoking book. I did not agree with all the author said, but he made many good points. The author, Robert Lanza, is not quack; he "is one of the most respected scientists in the world-- a U.S. News & World Report cover story called him a "genius" and "renegade thinker". He is currently chief scientific officer at Ocata Therapeutics, and professor at Wake Forrest University School of Medicine." And co-author Bob Berman is notable too being "the longtime science editor of the Old Farmer's Almanac, and contributing editor of Astronomy magazine. He produces and narrates the weekly Strange Universe segment on WAMC Northeast Public Radio." So, given their credentials, I thought it was worth reading what they have to say. Although I disagreed with many things (though that is my own opinion), they cited much research and made many refreshing statements. Here are a few: "There is another problem with lazily letting evolution be the explanation for virtually everything that concerns life and its changes.....Evolution needs to add the observer to the equation. Indeed, Niels Bohr, the great Nobel-winning physicist, said, "When we measure something we are forcing an undetermined, undefined world to assume an experimental value. We are not "measuring the world, we are creating it." The evolutionists are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They think we, the observer, are a mindless accident, debris left over from an explosion that appeared out of nowhere one day. Loren Eiseley, the great naturalist, once said that scientists "have not always been able to see that an old theory, given a hairsbreadth twist, might open an entirely new vista to the human reason." The theory of evolution turns out to be the perfect case in hand.....The real problem with reliance on chance to explain what is otherwise unexplainable is that it far overstates the power of random events. For example, astronomers certainly hope to find life elsewhere, and would automatically assume that any alien life form's existence would have initially arisen through random physical or chemical processes. Using this assumption, exobiologists might then attempt to solve the issue of life's genesis in that remote star system. But our point is that the random supposition is simply not any kind of useful hypothesis. Since the random business is given far more potency than it deserved, both in the popular imagination and among scientists, we'd be more likely to make progress by candidly saying, "This is a mystery"-- and then researchers might begin to tackle it from scratch with a clean slate." That is just a sample, and in no way is the book coming from the point of any faith-based stance. It is just two scientists questioning and pointing out that a lot of the modern "pseudo-science" that the public has been conditioned to accept without question leaves a lot to be desired, and actually poses more problems from a scientific point of view than it deserves. I highly recommend this book to those interested in science, and reading the thoughts of two highly respected men in the scientific community whose perspective is much different than the norm. I did not give it a higher rating because of the points I happened to disagree with, but all in all, I think the book is entirely worth reading. I won the book in a giveaway. My thanks to the author and publisher for the opportunity to read it!

  3. 5 out of 5

    Ian

    I heard an interview with the authors on the CBC Radio show Ideas, and felt this was right up my alley! In a very tiny nutshell, Biocentrism is a theory espoused by Lanza and based on overwhelming 20th Century physics, that the living observer is THE necessary ingredient, the bedrock foundation of how consciousness makes our universe tick. Contrary to the dated view that the universe is just a happy accident that exploded out of nowhere with the right physical parameters for life to arise as an a I heard an interview with the authors on the CBC Radio show Ideas, and felt this was right up my alley! In a very tiny nutshell, Biocentrism is a theory espoused by Lanza and based on overwhelming 20th Century physics, that the living observer is THE necessary ingredient, the bedrock foundation of how consciousness makes our universe tick. Contrary to the dated view that the universe is just a happy accident that exploded out of nowhere with the right physical parameters for life to arise as an after-effect, the authors point out how the essence of quantum mechanics indicates that the universe requires consciousness or observation to make itself happen. As Einstein rethought our ideas of time and space, making them relativistic rather than absolute, and as Werner Heisenberg and others in the 1930-50s rethought our certainty of position and momentum as only probabilities, Lanza and Berman take these thoughts to a further level that has meaning for everyday life. One where science meshes with Eastern philosophy and that ultimate question: who is the me who lives in my mind, believing that he has a past, present and future? There is only the eternal now. Always "has been" and always "will be". Such thoughts are pretty tough for the average physicist, let alone the average person, so the book takes readers on quite the mind-bending ride at times. Somewhat familiar with relativistic theory and quantum mechanics, I got the gist of what the authors were trying to say; however, I sometimes wish they would go just a bit further and provide some extra examples of what they were explaining. I found that I was often on the verge of an "ah-ha!" moment, feeling I was sort of getting it, but by then the authors had moved on to something else. Perhaps there is more of this in the first book, as this one is trying to go "Beyond Biocentrism" to point out the ramifications this thinking could have on both science and the everyday lives of us all. In summary, though, I feel this line of thinking needs to be brought to everyone's attention, for it has the potential to change humanity.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Daniel R.

    An unfortunate case of a brilliant scientist thinking they have found the answer in another area of science to which they have little to no expertise. There is a big difference between unknowable versus currently unknown which the authors seem not to grasp. Likewise their focus on the double slit experiment ignores the fact that interaction with other matter (aka detector) before the slit dictates the collapse of the wave function. There is no testable hypothesis presented in the book only pompo An unfortunate case of a brilliant scientist thinking they have found the answer in another area of science to which they have little to no expertise. There is a big difference between unknowable versus currently unknown which the authors seem not to grasp. Likewise their focus on the double slit experiment ignores the fact that interaction with other matter (aka detector) before the slit dictates the collapse of the wave function. There is no testable hypothesis presented in the book only pompous pseudoscience.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Andras Fuchs

    In this very informative and often funny book the well respected authors are closing the gap between science and spirituality with the help of quantum physics. If you are trying to connect the dots between the mechanical understanding of our Universe and the teachings of many (mostly eastern) spiritual teachings, this book is for you. Spoiler: After reading the book you might be able to let go of the constrains of time and space, accept the fact that our consciousness affects everything around u In this very informative and often funny book the well respected authors are closing the gap between science and spirituality with the help of quantum physics. If you are trying to connect the dots between the mechanical understanding of our Universe and the teachings of many (mostly eastern) spiritual teachings, this book is for you. Spoiler: After reading the book you might be able to let go of the constrains of time and space, accept the fact that our consciousness affects everything around us and believe that we are all one. It's a lot to take in, but the hard facts of our most recent experiments in quantum physics support these concepts, so it's time :) to change our thinking about the world around us to reflect these new finding.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Owlseyes on notre dame, it's so strange a 15-hour blaze and...

    http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/bioc...

  7. 4 out of 5

    Melissa

    DNF

  8. 4 out of 5

    Charlie_70

    The book would have probably benefited from being edited somewhat differently but as far as the pure scientific knowledge imparted to general audiences, I think it could easily be the best nonfiction book of 2016, even if the year has three more quarters to go (but let's look at it outside of the construct of time haha)

  9. 5 out of 5

    Harry

    Outstanding!! Very thought provocative...a most profound book...

  10. 4 out of 5

    Lynn Romine

    What a joke The assumption that nothing exists outside our brain is the most stupid theory I have ever read. I am truly sorry I purchased this book.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Ruchira Khanna

    The authors have given excellent examples to understand the theory behind it, however; there were sometimes I felt lost as the text would get sidelined to what he was trying to say in the first place. Quantum theory could have been explained in simple words as done in Deepak Chopra's books... Overall an interesting read, and it coincided with the Vedantas.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Marc Frey

    This book changes everything. Everything you think or believe about what’s life, death and everything else in between and beyond. It’s just disturbing and enlightening at same time.

  13. 4 out of 5

    James VanSteel

    "Our point, again, is that our biocentric conclusions that there is no death, no time, no space, and instead a single living entity, which precludes a stand-apart dead universe abiding separately from life and consciousness, is a science-based reality, but it's also the conclusion that anyone would arrive at on their own if they merely thought things through, or quietly contemplated what was going on inside their minds." Co-authors Robert Lanza and Bob Berman have crafted a breathless and easily "Our point, again, is that our biocentric conclusions that there is no death, no time, no space, and instead a single living entity, which precludes a stand-apart dead universe abiding separately from life and consciousness, is a science-based reality, but it's also the conclusion that anyone would arrive at on their own if they merely thought things through, or quietly contemplated what was going on inside their minds." Co-authors Robert Lanza and Bob Berman have crafted a breathless and easily digestible (if not universally accessible) 200-page manifesto on capital B - Being. A follow up to "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Nature of Reality", they lay a foundation for incredible conclusions by arranging a series of explanations of quantum and neurological phenomena that demonstrate that the universe is less intuitive/logical than we usually care to admit. Also that the Common Sense immutables of time/space, non-duality, temporal causality, and subject-object boundaries are more conventions and heuristics of human minds rather than independent realities. These progressive "gotchas" are meant to build a single panpsychic monism that is absolutely certain to be totally True, "if [you] merely thought things through". Now the arguments are compelling, and the assertions, anecdotes, quotes, and regular name dropping of Newton, Einstein, Schrodinger, and Parmenides do add a sense of authority (and inevitability) to the final conclusions that reality has no (!) existence outside of a sort of eastern spiritualism lite solipsism. My issue is not with the science, or even the deeply personal and powerful re-contextualization that such investigations can and do bring about in the reader. I myself felt objectively (subjectively?) altered in my perception of time and space while reading many parts of the book. My issue is with the shallowness of its presentation and the substitution of true reflection on the meaning of these conclusions for or lives and society for a cult-of-science pamphlet tone. It summarily ignores and even ridicules most of the spiritual, religious, and philosophical corollaries to its conclusions and does not acknowledge any alternative interpretations to its own presuppositions or the fact that this 2016 publication is not the first, most comprehensive, nor most important articulation of any of these ideas. Still gets a 4/5, 3.5 but that's not given S an option, for the effectiveness of its project but gets knocked for myopic and self-serious proclamations being interjected every third paragraph.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Stacy G. Kilgore

    Occasionally entertaining but wholly unconvincing Seems like a strange book for the authors to write. It is a book clearly intended to persuade "others" of the veracity of biocentrism. But, according to biocentrism, there's no such thing as "others" since we are all one (per the author's religious experience when he was 20 years old when he realized there is no "me" nor "you" but rather we are all one). If you are a biocentrist, why try to persuade anyone of anything? Also strikes me as a rather Occasionally entertaining but wholly unconvincing Seems like a strange book for the authors to write. It is a book clearly intended to persuade "others" of the veracity of biocentrism. But, according to biocentrism, there's no such thing as "others" since we are all one (per the author's religious experience when he was 20 years old when he realized there is no "me" nor "you" but rather we are all one). If you are a biocentrist, why try to persuade anyone of anything? Also strikes me as a rather strange exercise to employ science to prove that time and space are illusions (i.e., they are only mental constructs). Is science ever conducted outside the context of space and time? Aren't space and time axioms of science?

  15. 5 out of 5

    Antonio Vena

    Il piacere di riflettere e leggere anche questo saggio di Lanza è semplicemente immenso. Mai sciocco o banale, in questo secondo volume diventa ancora più chiaro, scorrevole, reader friendly. Una volta conclusa la lettura interi brani stimoleranno ulteriore curiosità e riflessione sulla vita e la coscienza. Di libri del cavolo, magari belli, possibilmente scritti benissimo se ne trovano tanti. Questo Oltre il biocentrismo è una continua serie di immagini e suggestioni che arrivano per rimanere.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Sigma

    This book took me a while to read. Each chapter gave me new insights and perspectives on thoughts I've always had, making me stop every few chapters to mull over them for a few days before continuing. While this book had me nodding along with a lot of what the authors had to say, I'm apprehensive to take it as a firm approval of my worldview. I'm aware that the authors' biases align strongly with mine, so while I greatly enjoyed this book, I plan to continue reading other works on similar subjec This book took me a while to read. Each chapter gave me new insights and perspectives on thoughts I've always had, making me stop every few chapters to mull over them for a few days before continuing. While this book had me nodding along with a lot of what the authors had to say, I'm apprehensive to take it as a firm approval of my worldview. I'm aware that the authors' biases align strongly with mine, so while I greatly enjoyed this book, I plan to continue reading other works on similar subjects to get a more rounded approach.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Andre Chiasson

    A remarkable book I had read the previous book based on an article shared on Facebook. I have been interested in science, Quantum Physics, consciousness etc for some time and books that tie these fields together are inherently interesting to me. We'll written, logically presented. The science is there but not overwhelming if you stick with it. The illusion of death chapter is the piece de resistance.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Dmitrij

    Very informative. And... Yes, unconventional. Enjoyed that immensely. Our "materialistic" view of the world is quite outdated. Surprised? Read this one. Scientist are long gone from the staff we have learnt way back about our "objective" universe. By the way: no such thing ever existed. Go figure. :)))

  19. 5 out of 5

    Annie

    This was a very clearly laid out thesis for his premise (except for his too hurried explanation of the two slit experiment, which is so fascinating, it show be studied carefully elsewhere). This book will change your mind about many things you thought were a given, like sight and hearing, the gravcity of Jupiter, and especially the moon.....

  20. 5 out of 5

    Christopher Williams

    Few books I can consider truly 'thought provoking' on this level. It paints a radically-different picture of reality itself. The science has enough backing to prop up given hypotheses. Suffice to say, if you do wonder about the true nature of our universe, this one is worth a read. If nothing else, you'll get a meta-cognitive smack upside the head!

  21. 5 out of 5

    David Zachariason

    Mind blowing I can't wait to read this book again. A great companion to the author's previous book, it's a new, yet old, way of thinking about ourselves and the universe. You don't need to be a physicist to understand t h e ideas and concepts in this book.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Paul

    This is a book I've been waiting for for decades. There are things invisible to the human eye that science dismisses out of hand, but that the author makes a case for in this book.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Joe Cross

    Deepak Chopra loved this book. Nuff said.

  24. 5 out of 5

    Akhil Jain

    My fav quotes (not a review): -Page 24 | "The period is basically determined by the length of the chain, a property called isochronism. It turned out, a string or chain 39 inches long produces a back-and-forth period of exactly 2 seconds. It wasn’t long before this principle was utilized in grandfather clocks, whose long metal rods, just over 6 feet, ticked off near-perfect seconds." -Page 25 | "one must go 87 percent of lightspeed to feel time slow by half its normal rate," -Page 43 | "“A new scienti My fav quotes (not a review): -Page 24 | "The period is basically determined by the length of the chain, a property called isochronism. It turned out, a string or chain 39 inches long produces a back-and-forth period of exactly 2 seconds. It wasn’t long before this principle was utilized in grandfather clocks, whose long metal rods, just over 6 feet, ticked off near-perfect seconds." -Page 25 | "one must go 87 percent of lightspeed to feel time slow by half its normal rate," -Page 43 | "“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,” he said presciently, “but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”" -Page 43 | "“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,” he said presciently, “but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”" -Page 119 "Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. —Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (1954)" -Page 149 "Consider the elements chlorine and sodium. Chlorine is a poison, and a major component of some of the horrible gases used in the First World War. Sodium is hydro-antagonistic— toss some in a lake and you get an explosion. If you’re a water-containing life form handling either element, you’re dealing with a pretty brutal item. Studying their structures, melting points, atomic weights, and all the rest could give no hint of what you’d have if you combined these two elements. But bingo: Let an atom of one bond with an atom of the other, and you get sodium chloride— common table salt. Now, no longer does an explosion rattle the neighborhood when this new compound meets water. Precisely the opposite happens. As part of salt it readily dissolves, leaving the water as transparent and unruffled as ever. As for that chlorine, now instead of a poison you have a substance vital to life. If all the sodium chloride could be suddenly removed from your body, you’d quickly die." -Page 157 "When Woody Allen was asked his opinion of death, he said, “I’m strongly against it.” If instead you are anachronistic enough to be Sunday school religious, your scenario will find your soul journeying to heaven or hell, where you will remain forever; or else purgatory, which is kind of like a dentist’s waiting room. If Eastern religion is your thing, you assume you’ll instead wake up in a baby’s body, destined in a few short years to once again memorize the multiplication table." -Page 165 "“Name the colors, blind the eye,” goes an old Chinese proverb. If you only “see” the hues you’ve assigned labels to, you’re missing the entire range of color sensations. Logic alone creates these illusions and they extend everywhere."

  25. 4 out of 5

    Chris Via

    Halfway through the book, I made a marginal note: "This seems dangerously close to solipsism; why hasn't he picked up on this?" And two pages later, I read: "Obviously I can clap my hands, but I cannot wiggle your toes" (121). I smiled, relieved, and continued reading. This little anecdote of my reading experience sums up two major components of the book: (1) the everyday, irreverent writing (he never uses the word solipsism, for example); and (2) the consistent preemption of counterarguments. A Halfway through the book, I made a marginal note: "This seems dangerously close to solipsism; why hasn't he picked up on this?" And two pages later, I read: "Obviously I can clap my hands, but I cannot wiggle your toes" (121). I smiled, relieved, and continued reading. This little anecdote of my reading experience sums up two major components of the book: (1) the everyday, irreverent writing (he never uses the word solipsism, for example); and (2) the consistent preemption of counterarguments. At first, I was wary of the book--its title seemed like New Age mumbo jumbo cooked up out of some academic dissertation--but then I read up on Robert Lanza (quite a CV!). The tenets of biocentrism challenged my view of reality and stimulated a cavalcade of thoughts (this is a good thing). Do I still have lots of questions? Naturally. With such a paradigm shift in conceiving the world "around me," it will take some time and perhaps another read through this book until I feel I understand fully the framework that has been put before me. If your tastes are like mine, there's a lot to love here, but I would recommend that one come to the table with at least the basic arguments of quantum theory, evolutionary biology, space-time, relativity, and consciousness (especially through Chalmers and Dennett) first.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Gaojun

    Beyond Biocentrism attempts to cohere the discoveries in quantum physics with those of classical physics via consciousness, claiming that consciousness is what creates reality and not the other way around. All matter, or waves of energy, exist in probabilistic states until directly observed, which implies that the observer dictates how that energy will behave. The book provides countless examples of past and present experiments that have demonstrated these observations and takes the idea further Beyond Biocentrism attempts to cohere the discoveries in quantum physics with those of classical physics via consciousness, claiming that consciousness is what creates reality and not the other way around. All matter, or waves of energy, exist in probabilistic states until directly observed, which implies that the observer dictates how that energy will behave. The book provides countless examples of past and present experiments that have demonstrated these observations and takes the idea further to explain how this phenomenon ties into our existence and the meaning of life. Grasping these concepts demands a radically different way of thinking from what humans are accustomed, which Robert Lanza states numerous times throughout the book. I found it quite difficult to grasp myself. Despite the difficult concept of biocentrism, there are loads of interesting explanations of science experiments that helped spawn and support this idea. The concept of an eternal universe is not new. The book draws parallels between Ancient Greek philosophers Parmenides and Zeno, the Dao De Jing, ancient Buddhism, the idea that God is eternal, and that of consciousness in biocentrism. It is an interesting book which uses the leading discoveries in science in attempt to explain reality.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Mohan

    While technically this is more informative that talks of quantum weirdness and the implications of relativity on space and time, the later parts of the book cause confusion when the authors try to link these physics concepts with esoteric concepts like mind, consciousness etc. The authors equate their biocentrism with advaita of Indian Vedantic school, forgetting the fact that advaita doesn’t stand the scrutiny of logic and scriptural validity and is often inconsistent and at most times self con While technically this is more informative that talks of quantum weirdness and the implications of relativity on space and time, the later parts of the book cause confusion when the authors try to link these physics concepts with esoteric concepts like mind, consciousness etc. The authors equate their biocentrism with advaita of Indian Vedantic school, forgetting the fact that advaita doesn’t stand the scrutiny of logic and scriptural validity and is often inconsistent and at most times self contradictory. While the authors looked up to advaita or Zeno they nevertheless did not look up to the criticisms of these schools and how they don’t stand logical scrutiny. The same inconsistencies creep into the authors’ narration of their biocentrism. To drive home a point: If every object we see and experience is in the mind and is illusory, then so is the authors book and their biocentrism concept and my experience of reading the book too an illusion, which is just my imagination and the authors, their book doesn’t exist in reality and so is my experience of reading their book....and reviewing it !!!!

  28. 5 out of 5

    Christopher Buchanan

    I was worried this would be little more than a rehash. The first few chapters, of course, basically are. However, I feel like they do a somewhat better job of explaining things than the first time around. Although, that could of course just be the benefit of having been through it once before. The rest of the book extrapolates on the principals introduced in the first book and even treks a bit off into less empirical territory and ventures into some supposition. I don't mind that. You can't call I was worried this would be little more than a rehash. The first few chapters, of course, basically are. However, I feel like they do a somewhat better job of explaining things than the first time around. Although, that could of course just be the benefit of having been through it once before. The rest of the book extrapolates on the principals introduced in the first book and even treks a bit off into less empirical territory and ventures into some supposition. I don't mind that. You can't call it science, and the authors freely admit that, but what of it? It's not as if adherents of some of the more abstract areas of physics and cosmology aren't very guilty of the same thing. But yeah, take it or leave it as you will, but it's a damn interesting theory at the very least and while I'm not sure how much I believe it, it's steeped in about as much science and bullshit as anything else out there so why the fuck not?

  29. 4 out of 5

    Scott

    This appears to be a modern-day rehashing of ideas that have existed for centuries, albeit with an attempt to tie into it some of modern day science's quantum strangeness. As you read, the book feels profound, but I left feeling wholly unconvinced. And then the thought occurs: so what? If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt I would be highly disappointed. What purpose? What meaning is there in it? None, unless one is attempting to drag in some nihilistic eastern philosophy that we're all o This appears to be a modern-day rehashing of ideas that have existed for centuries, albeit with an attempt to tie into it some of modern day science's quantum strangeness. As you read, the book feels profound, but I left feeling wholly unconvinced. And then the thought occurs: so what? If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt I would be highly disappointed. What purpose? What meaning is there in it? None, unless one is attempting to drag in some nihilistic eastern philosophy that we're all one with the universe or some such. That idea has been discussed to death so there's no need to go into that. Christian literature has logically debated the point such that it's become totally unconvincing. Anyway, just a thought. So to sum up I wasn't convinced, and even if it were true, so what?

  30. 5 out of 5

    Bill Guerrant

    The strength of this fascinating book is its engagement with quantum mechanics and theoretical physics/cosmology. The authors do a fine job of describing (in terms most readers will be able to understand) the current state of scientific knowledge (or more often, lack thereof) on the ultimate issues. I did not find their advocacy of "biocentrism" to be compelling, perhaps because they seem to assume a familiarity with their first book, which I have not read. I am sympathetic to their arguments, h The strength of this fascinating book is its engagement with quantum mechanics and theoretical physics/cosmology. The authors do a fine job of describing (in terms most readers will be able to understand) the current state of scientific knowledge (or more often, lack thereof) on the ultimate issues. I did not find their advocacy of "biocentrism" to be compelling, perhaps because they seem to assume a familiarity with their first book, which I have not read. I am sympathetic to their arguments, however, though I have come to believe that a telic appreciation of evolution may be a better conclusion--and one which wouldn't require the wholesale rejection of classical physics. In any event, this is one of the most interesting and thought-provoking books I've ever read and I highly recommend it, though perhaps it would be better to read their earlier book first.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.