It make total sense to me in so many ways. Non locality, remote viewing, telepathy and lucid dreaming...The eyes are the projectors of your reality...they don't see.
@@justicebait you’d have to ask a blind person. As far as I know they lucid dream even if blind from birth. The issue is they can’t describe what they are experiencing in visual terms because they have nothing to compare normal visual senses with. Lmao please get informed on different types of blindness as well because it’s not just an eye disorder.
Even as an atheist, I agree with this view on the world. It is very logical and explains things in a way no other theory could. I need to get the book he wrote.
Technus Knight I'm not sure if he's right, but hopefully more research can be done on the theory. Even if he isn't, he has my respect regardless. He has accomplished some impressive scientific feats.
RuthParodies Believe in God? Well, I was an atheist when I wrote this, but I have since converted to deism after some major thinking. So, I do believe in God now.
R.L. got it. Thanks for articulating the perspective and enduring the ridicules and attacks. Physical life experiences can be a lot better under this model, but for now, most of human population still want to experience anxiety, pains, fears... so love them and let them experience.
If my refrigerator isn't there at night when I go to bed, and reappears only when I observe it again in the morning, then why do I get an electric bill for the entire time? Huh huh huh!?
your refrigerator is but part of the universe and all within it brought into existence or made possible by the unified consciousness...while you're in bed, others are not: the cockroach crawling across the floor for example...for an internal consistent universe therefore the refrigerator exists along with your electric bill
I do not understand how my dog can steal foods from a no-longer-existing kitchen. And why does the animals conscience make itself vomit on the carpet in the middle of the night?
Buddhism has already uncovered all of this! It is absolutely grounded in direct experience. The only thing that seems to be different with Biocentrism is that there doesn't seem to be any emphasis on the transformation of suffering in the world. Lanza has presented all of the right stuff here about non-duality, interpenetration, etc. but what do we do with all of that wisdom? He doesn't seem to have any ideas on that. It isn't about religion. It is about our hearts.
By being conscious, interacting with surrounding waves of possibilities, in every millisecond I'm turning waves into particles - creating reality. We can't avoid wave-particles resolution.
Momentum is not "the summation of many frames". Momentum is primary and frames are secondary. Momentum happens and we post hoc artificially divide it into as many frames as we like. Planck's constants are handy tools but not fundamental, not necessities, we are not stuck with them. It's "life continuing" that is fundamental.
Dr. Lanza’s book on “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the ...” is wonderful and thought provoking for average reader and even scientists. This illustrate how blind the science is. As it has been rightly pointed out at the beginning, this view is not totally new to the eastern world, where such a stand has been taken by several religious teachings. Especially the Buddhism (especially Theravada Buddhism) takes such a strong stand and extensively analyze these and even more deeper issues about the truth of the life. It very well discusses how material is connected to the consciousness and springs in a life. These are extensively discussed in Theravada Buddhism prevalent in Sri Lanka, Mianmar, Thailand and India, and may be slightly different in Mahayana Buddhism which is prevalent in countries like China and Japan. I really recommend a glance into the deeper teachings of Buddhism for anybody who is more interested in these.
Part 1: Robert Lanza: The Theory of Biocentrism, Part 1 (ruclips.net/video/zI_F4nOKDSM/видео.html) Illusion #1: 3:00 We do not control anything, nor does he control his body. It occurs spontaneously and he assumes he has control after the fact that it has happened all by itself due to his beliefs blinding him from this direct observation. Illusion #2: 6:40 "Reality is a process that involves your consciousness." A more accurate statement is that Reality IS consciousness, and your consciousness is reality in process. You are not a part of reality, but its whole, expressed as a perceivable portion through what you are presently aware. Illusion #3: 8:40 All of experience is not "just information occurring inside your mind," as if he equates that to happening inside of the body. The brain is an antennae and the body is a vessel that limits the relative perceptions to be led into the appearance that our experiences happen within the body, but upon closer observation, all experience IS mind and occurs as "knowing" in the light of conscious awareness. It is always happening in one place, at one time, in one space, that is at the core of consciousness itself, as consciousness. Illusion #4: 10:40 You exist regardless as to anything "out there," and all of that "out there," is an organization of consciousness that is a direct reflection of your inner state of consciousness that is infinitely vast, but presently non-physical in your current orientation. The continuity of your existence can be observed directly and it is the only aspect that can be proven, because the theory of the big bang is just that. A theory of illogical thinking that lacks real observation. Illusion #5: 11:50 "The universe and all of its parameters simply reflects the spacial-temporal logic of the animal observer." God..this one is so far off. Reflection is correct, but only in a relative stance to the individual perceiver that is a microcosm of the whole. From the whole's point of view, it is one unchanging infinite potential that reflects nothing, but it is all that is. The reflection occurs as an illusion for practical purposes within it. Next, the "spacial-temporal logic" is totally a man made contraption that is passed down from generation to generation as a non-validated belief system. Time and space can not be proven to exist, because they do not exist. We use a mental approximation of these ideas and project their apparent existence for practical relations, but with the right observation, they can easily be proven to not exist by any individual. Finally, the notion of an "animal observer" is completely flawed, because the animal is not the observer, the awareness that exists independent of the animal's senses, is the observer. The observer exists independent of the senses; this is why you can experience your dreams, yet all of your physical senses are turned off. This is why people can have experiences after death and come back and share those perspectives in words, even though their brain was technically dead while away. Illusion #6: 13:35 "The bigger problem is the life contains consciousness." Again, totally backwards logic. Consciousness contains life and that life expresses itself as Oneself through beings of form and non-form. There are no problems, which is the primary reason that theories like this go in circles leading to no where. You can't build a solution by beginning with a problem based mindset, just as you can't solve a problem from the perspective that created the problem to begin with. Illusion #7: 14:15 "Science cannot confirm how consciousness arrives from matter. Our understanding of this is virtually null." It doesn't come from matter. Matter is a slower vibrational frequency of thought and it appears denser in relativity to the observer that experiences it. Matter is thought and it is mind as consciousness. This makes 100% more sense as soon as you personally prove to yourself that gravity does not exist. Gravity does not cause the Earth to pull objects down towards it, the Law of Buoyancy does. There is a reason why it is called the “Theory of Gravity, “ and not the law of gravity. It is a mind-made abstraction that is not of reality, just like this theory of biocentrism. Take out the bio, and he would be so much closer. Illusion #8: 17:00 "Undeniably it is the biological creature that makes the observations and creates the theories;" this is *not so.* The theories are created by excessive thinking and not enough conscious observing. The observations are made by Awareness, which exists independent of the organism *and its thoughts*. Any person can prove this right now. Watch your thoughts, wait for them to disappear or see the gap in between. Who is that that is still watching without thought? That is you. This can be easily proven by any individual. The thoughts create thoughts and the observer experiences observations. Part 2 : Robert Lanza: The Theory of Biocentrism, Part 2 (ruclips.net/video/Yw55BsToVZM/видео.html) Illusion #9: 12:30 "Time is simply the animal sense that animates the still frames sorta speak of the spacial world. It is our tool of perception." He has assumed that animals perceive time and space based on the same limiting factors as his present human belief system and that such perceptions are "animal based." They are not animal based, but based on his beliefs that have not been verified directly in his experience, and thus he has imposed them upon the nature of other beings, or on our animalistic aspect of this present organization of consciousness. He has also mistaken "time and space" as inherent factors of our "tool of perception," when in actuality, these are ideas of belief that are limiting our tool of perception. They are not "the tool" of perception, but might be more accurately expressed as tools of belief, in their own rights. Illusion #10: 14:10 "The problem lies in our failure to accept the evidence." Again, there is no problem. Anything a person says is not evidence, it is information. Real evidence is called experience and it is gained through knowledge. Knowledge is that which is discovered through knowing an experience directly via our personal awareness with it; it can not be told by any person. Robert is sharing his opinion, not his experience. He technically can not share his experience, only his theories, hence why this is claimed as a "theory" of Biocentrism, instead of Reality itself. The walls of space and time are an illusion : True, except that they are not walls, but beliefs. This has the same conclusions as non-duality, but knows nothing practical about the experiences of non-duality, thus it is presently pseudo-non-duality. There are too many errors in the logic and he has jumped to conclusions, because his basis for the origin of Awareness is inaccurate, thus everything else is misunderstood by affect. This is all theory and not his experience, thus it is practically useless. People should not believe blindly, just because it sounds nice to the non-experienced.The truth of reality is non-duality, but his explanations lack any personal experience.
Question is that this seems to be specifically on visual perception, but what about material form? The bus is not there, unless you look at it what about the mass of the butter and is it in a state of potential and then the probability of it being better is crystallised by consciousness and does this affect form as well as ?
As referenced by him this has been stated in Hinduism in the upanishads many centuries ago..this is the central message of the mandukya upanishad that describes the 3, states of consciousness - waking, dream and deep sleep to explain consciousness..
I was having a lovely long sleep until this big bang happened and now I'm stuck on this planet working in a crappy job watching videos like this to see if it continues!
About 2500 years ago Lord Buddha said to his followers that this whole universe is contained inside our body. In his core buddhist principals he has explained this more extensively
Here we have a world-renowned scientist presenting his sound findings based on numerous famous proven experiments, and a bunch of nobodies refuting it *whilst* bashing him just because it is incomprehensible to their existing knowledge. Hmm... tough one! -______-
+rockey akbar Lanza may be mentioning experimental results but he shows no understanding of quantum theory and provides no evidence that it can be used to build a useful model of consciousness.
+Good Piano Im conscious I can't prove that but I know it .. outside of that no scientist can prove 100 % anything objectively exists, there is a nobel peace prize if you can by the way..
+Good Piano When I say there is proof all around us , I mean look at life around us, the forests,birds and animals there is consciousness all around us and I myself am part of the universe non locally according to quantum mechanics therefore I am the universe and the Universe is I . I am conscious therefore the universe is conscious .
Try this: 3 humans A, B and C wathing the same movie. A is highly enthusiast by the movie theme. B finds the movie boring, C falls asleep. After 20 minutes, shutdown the movie. Ask each individual how much time they felt as passed? 😄
Whilst I am getting a lot from from this I struggle with the idea for eaxample that i start my dishwasher before I go to bed. then whilst i am not observing it, it catches fire and destroys my house, so how does the theory of non existence unless the object is being observed work ? any answers would be helpful
I was about to comment the same thing, or microwaving some oatmeal and leaving. Then on return, the oatmeal is cooked... But other than that I love these videos.
YES,THERE IS AN EXPLANATION.IF YOU LISTEN CLOSELY TO WHAT ROBERT LANZA (AND OTHERS) HAVE FOUND OUT ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS HAVE FOUND OUT HERE'S THE EXPLANATIONS.:TO BEGIN WITH PARTICLES ARE CAPEABLE OF FILLING IN A PAST HISTORY FOR AN EVENT.ALSO AS ROBERT LANZA HAS JUST SAID EVEN JUST THE OBSERVER'S KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING IS ENOGH TO COLLAPSE THE WAVE LENGTH.ALSO EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE CONSCIOSNESS OF JUST ONE ANT,A DOG,CAT OR ANY OTHER CONSCIOUSNESS IN YOUR KITCHEN AT THE TIME THEY ALSO CAN COLLAPSE THE WAVE FUNCTION.
There are experiments to suggest that time is not a closed linear system, but rather is open and illusory, and observing it now will determine what will happen in the future. The whole universe is like a dice game, according to some theories
other peoples consciousness doesn't matterto ur reality. reality is like all numbers ,,,, which mathematical form you use will bring you the numbers you read .. If you choose the numbers after each three places from 1 then you will get 4. 8..12..... In life all the probabilities are given and exsist . Your reality will be determined by what you observed and act. Nothing is new or you created it. Just you choosing the probability
Life/consciousness is only able to catch the probabilities according to Newton's laws. That's why we think only Newton's laws are real and others are absurd
So what we don't see, or don't pay attention to, is not there at all? I can imagine things disappearing as not looking or thinking about it. But all in the mind, but not in solid matter. Can anyone explain to me then, how for example, a random blind person can bounce against a kitchen wall or can find food on a table, which is supposed not to be there when "we" are not looking ? This is not a question to be funny. This really puzzles me.
Salma Ezz What if my brain has lost all connections with ALL the physical senses (can't see, hear, smell, feel , experience gravity, acceleration, electromagnetism ...etc). What if this happened to everyone? And not just to everyone but all biological organisms in the universe. I guess that the universe would then disappear LOL.
Jamie Anderson My thoughts exactly. So nothing exists without observation? Wouldn't that make consciousness godlike? So are we all a bunch of gods creating everything in existence with our consciousness? Same for the animals and insects. They too our little gods creating everything with their consciousness. Why can't I will gold bars into my hands with my powers of consciousness?
Jody Mullis I've tried to make gold like that too... we must be doing something wrong. Anyhoo, gots to haul ass back to the lab for my daily chore of thinking a few dozen universes into existence, maybe get me some Aurum that way.. Might try to enlist the help of some friendly blow flies and crickets and next door's cat, but it gets a bit tiring having to keep on reminding them to focus.
Jody Mullis Haha! Could be that. Or could be his only motivation is to make money selling books, getting speaker fees, and maybe the proceeds of online ads linked to his websites. His "biocentrism" does include the promise of life after death - that alone is enough to sucker people in, especially if they don't believe in God but like the idea of what they think is science supporting their wish for immortality.
¡Magnífico! Somos gotitas de Conciencia individuales en un océano de #ConcienciaUniversal. Del SER UNIversal Consciente o #ConcienciaUniversal emanó el Universo en sus diversos niveles de frecuencia vibratoria del SER Consciente, Sabio y Poderoso (Energía), CONCIENCIA-ENERGÍA Vibratoria del SER UNIversal. (Se puede Configurar RUclips en el vídeo, para que aparezcan los subtítulos en ESPAÑOL o cualquier idioma).
I’m having trouble understanding a key aspect here. I was hoping he’d explain it but he never did. If something doesn’t exist unless it’s being observed, or may exist or behave in a different way, then how can different people see the same thing the same way? Using his kitchen example, I know what my kitchen looks like, someone I work with that’s never been to my house or even knows I own a house, comes over without me being there and walks in the door he sees my kitchen the way I know it to be. Or as another example, 2 or more people may be on a road trip across the country, they e never been to a certain state, city or town yet when they make a turn into a road they all see the same building at the same height and width in the same color. Obviously it exists as it is whether they observed it prior or not. Please explain if you can, thanks in advance.
I think because particles are in the same position for all observers but color may be different. For example lets say your kitchen cabinets are brown and you recognize them as brown. The other person will also recognize them as brown. Now you both see the cabinets as brown but his brown could be your red or your brown could be his blue but would never know because your both hardwired to believe your seeing the same thing as one another. I probably didn’t explain that as well as I could but their are some sources on how people perceive color differently and how we could unlock colors that we have never seen before. Very interesting.
@@theproGAMAS just happened to check my email when this popped up. Thanks for your reply. I understand what you’re saying and it makes sense but a lot about this topic, as a whole, is still a bit scattered for me to follow completely lol. Anyway, have a great day friend.
How do we create a book we haven't read before by observing it? Clearly our mind couldn't know what is contained in the words of the book. So where do these words come from if we are sopposedly creating them with our observational consciousness?
Brilliant save one minor point -- Dr. Lanza's analogy of the uncertainty principle with the camera observed arrow, essentially Zeno's paradox as Dr. Lanza himself explains. There is an immediate answer, but a couple of steps further on, Dr. Lanza's point can still be made -- if anything, more powerfully. The immediate answer is to be found in the Lorenz-Fitzgerald contractions. Specifically, the freeze-frame arrows velocity will be recorded in the arrows spatial contraction in the direction of movement (if not knowable to the naked eye, theoretically by that eye aided by sufficiiently sensitive equipment, certainly). However, when one accounts for Zeno's runner's and Achilles paradoxes by the information jumps proferred by quantum mechanics, one runs into a problem of the relativistiic light-speed limit constradicting that instantaneous transport (i.e., this is the Einstein-Rosen-Podalsky (EPR) paradox in a nutshell. Well, alright, it doesn't travel through space, but simply skips over it. However, then it loses that contraction information, rebirthing Dr. Lanza's original point. Developments in physics since Dr. Lanza's talk here indicate that in fact, the two quantum particles (at least their information) are in "wormhole" / "hyperspace" sense, int the same location always. However, above this is the idea, out of the holographic principle, that spacetime itself only exists as a perceptual illusion of the intricate continuous entanglement in quatum field theory -- which it needs to be admitted, is nothing bui abstract informtion perceived by consciousness. All this, too, supports Prof. Donal Hoffman's Multimodal User Interface theory and in fact Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR), once the semantics are deeply clarified. As to "the gaps" in material science -- ultimately these are consciousness and Infinity. Numbers have no freewill, but the infinitely large and small -- which are one and the same -- are not mere "numbers". The ultimate name of the game is freewill purpose coming out of absolute, intrinsic paradox. This abyss of infinity that so subliminally terrified from the Greek philosophy on, became the mathematical foundation (technically in terms of infinite and altering recursion) of a faith above reason -- as it has to be (and not below, per the accusation of superstition), in what we could best term from our cloudy mentality, endless consciousness.
Now this is philosophy at it's best. From the Old Greeks, to Kant and on...I'm missing him quoting those people, though. This ideas didn't just showed up from nowhere and certanly not only from physicists (he is only quoting those). Nothing new really, but today we know some more new facts and his interpretation is very appealing and clear. Overall amazing lecture.
I love the accents where people say words likes "idear" and "phenomener". My grandmother from Northern Ireland says "idear." This stuff has been blowing my mind recently. Couple this science with the countless millions of anecdotes of "paranormal" experiences that fall outside of the term "hallucination" and we live in one really fucked up and exciting universe.
Except, every observer sees the particles of a kitchen in teh same location and are able to interact w/ it in the location the particles are in. Different ppl don’t see your kitchen in a different orientation so the result is, the particles do exist absent of your individual consciousness interacting it, no?
Robert I found your talk fascinating as I have experience what you are speaking about in deep meditation. As the mind slows in meditation the witness experience the movie of life they have been emerged in - it slow to still picture and then objects, then atoms, then nothingness. As the witness stays in the space of emptiness samadhi consciousness is revealed. The experience of non duality and love emerge as all conditioning disappears. The witness realises the movies they were emerged in is not truth and there is an awakening or uncovering of the pure consciousness, love, peace and oneness that they are and always have been. Thank you
Also there would be a past or historical framework that would make things more stable and acquire independence. There is a principal of precedence in quantum mechanics, that is consistent with the theory of morphic resonance, to allow macroscopic objects to exist independent of observation as we create our environment and aspects within it. Niche construction and constructional selection make this possible as well as a history of interactions with seemingly inanimate things, constraints in how things are structured, function and other properties arise from this history or dynamic non-linear formative multi-causation(historical and environmental scaffolding and entrenchement). Though retrocausality/supercausality or syntropy to certain degrees, levels, and context would be possibilities as well( quantum synchronization/entanglement/ coherence)
Is this "biocentrism" or "anthrocentrism" (not the same as anthropomorphism)? Was there nothing before humanity (and it's ability to perceive the world and the universe)? According to the view presented, shouldn't it all cease to exist the instant we die?
He's suggesting that the world we see now is defined consciousness. Constant mention of "the tool of perception", refers to the quantify of objects and the very meaning of time. The through understanding of so-called "illusion" would be at first hard for the public just as how Newton challenged the very world. However, in short, the world we observe today could be defined as the fusion of global consciousness (without the limitation of time or space, as stated in quantum physics) is the central thought behind, not defined individually.
the senses send impulses only because something already exists... we perceive it in a certain way but our perception is our perception and the thing stays the same regardless of what we think it might be
Bashar (Darryl Anka) spells these concepts out with total clarity.He tells us the Bashar consciousness is an advanced (future???) version of Darryl. Spooky until you hear him talk in exactly the same way as R.L. without the scientific background. Sadhguru from the Ishar foundation comes from the same state of awareness. Am I seeing what they have created?...That is the definition of belief. Are they confirming what I already know? Thats for you to decide, and will be in synch. with your own state of consciousness (which is you affair...literally!!!)
Fascinating! Still trying to comprehend this, though I've heard of a lot of it before. But I do know that he means "John Donne," not "John Doe," the famous British poet.
liselle sloan yes, he doesn’t sound educated. Mispronounced a lot. I love that poem. He was calling Stephen Hawking “Stephen Hawkins” in one video it was cringe worthy. At least his “Biocentrism” gambit has garnered some attention for him and spread good ideas so I give him credit for that!
I've got a question: technology has developed Artifcial Intelligent. Once scientists come out consciousness in its AI, can this AI perceive biocentrism?
Here's what I don't get: if the butter only exists because we perceive it in our mind, what about all the other forms consciousness also present for whom the butter is relevant? He says our kitchen ceases to exist when we leave it: but do the cockroaches disappear, too? The bacteria in my sponge? Or does their perception continue the non-existant existence of my kitchen even while I'm away? Biocentrism seems to ascribe a physics of de-facto consciousness to life, but I don't think we can delineate where that starts or stops if we start to bring the quantum world into things. So then..... even without us, does the butter ever _really_ have the opportunity to cease being butter?
We observe the light passing through the slits via a screen on the posterior aspect of the plate. The wave nature of the light causes the waves to interfere creating dark and bright bands on the screen, a result which wouldn’t be expected in classical mechanics.
All these modalities are forms of observation. When you taste something, you are observing the texture, the sourness or sweetness, bitterness, etc.. same idea for all the senses. That's why they are called senses
So in the kitchen example, aren’t u saying the kitchen is there but it doesn’t ‘light up’ or ‘exist’ the way we think bc ofc it’s needs our eyes etc to exist to see it our way. I’m sure that there’s other dimensions etc besides just three D. So I understand the concept but wrapping ur brain around abt the possibilities of our existence explanation. Fascinating. It’s much like our dreams. When we’re dreaming we think it’s real. Maybe that’s what dreams are. A fourth girth or sixth dimension. 🤯🤯
It's theoretical that consciousness is absent without a human actor, right? When we step out of the room we assume observation leaves with us. Perhaps we are just agents of will, in a universe whose *fabric* is consciousness?
i certainly believe this phenomenon but have one challenge. If the external world only exists by us observing it by engaging our consciousness then does not the act of observing meaning that what we are observing has to be outside of ourselves. and if so then this must have some reality of its own?
+hamish whiting no-self is just as much an illusion as ourself. Also the idea that no-self is just as much an illusion as ourself is an illusion. And that, in turn, is an illusion. The theory of Biocentrism is also an illusion - in other words the notion that anyone has ever spoken or written about such a concept is an illusion. Also the idea that the theory of Biocentrism is an illusion is an illusion.
Once the partial is observed it stays fixed in its location. the observation moves it to a set location then its form is then a interpretation of based off of the observers life experience. My stove is a white this is what I see, the stove is off-white this is what someone else thinks it is. Both are correct as they are personal interpretations braced on the fixed form after the original observation
I'm walking along a mountain side while unbeknownst to me a rock above me on the cliff has lost its position due to gravity and wear. It tumbles down falling on my head, killing me instantly without me ever observing the falling rock. My conscience never made an observation from above. How then did I die?
I have a doubt. As regards the esquizofrenic, he said they experience reality in a different way and even see people, hear them, etc and they are real to them, by saying that he tried to reinforce his theory that everything occurs in the mind. However I think esquizofrenic can see someone is stabbing them, for instance, feel it, see the blood but cannot die from that injury. Or they can see they are being bitten by a poisonous snake and feel like dying but cannot actually die and that is a difference with "reality"(the one the rest of us experience) So, up to which extent is reality a phenomenon happening only in our minds?
if we are to believe biocentrism then the universe is what it seems to be or detected to be solely as a by-product of consciousness of life forms. It borrows heavily from quantum mechanics in the sense of existence of state being possible only when being observed. However, I haven't heard biocentrism then explains where life and consciousness come from?
Ok, so say i go to bed but leave a video camera recording in my Kitchen overnight. What will i see on the tape the next day? Anything? Ok, so this is a silly / over-simplfied example, but i think there would just be too many thought experiments that question this theory. I think at the end of the day, the laws that govern either the conventionally conceived universe or the biocentrically conceived universe are identical, so what does the extra layer of complication (in the biocentric view) gain us?
@@jamescarter4836 Sri often translated to Lord in English its a term of endearment in South Asian cultures and is equivalent to the English word Sir,Mister. It has nothing to do with what YOU are thinking of(such as Lord as in a God). lol
Bottom line: Consciousness is the ultimate factor of reality. We believe and see certain things because we (humans) have the same cognitive hormones/apparatus/organs, but another consciousness, built completely different than us experiences something completely different.
what if you use a telescope to look at galaxies that are not visible with the naked eye? how do i visualize things i,ve never seen? we are here and have mass ,many of the galaxies are no longer there ,just light heading our way,,,lanza,s theory is just like chunk loading on minecraft
So we need a brain to actually imagine/make up the whole universe ourselves. But how is it that there is a brain, just randomly floating around somewhere. Because if everything you see exists because you make it up yourself, you have to make up the brain to even be able to make up things with a brain.
I'm on board with a lot of his points, but isn't evolution entirely dependant on there being a definite external environment to react to? Life seems to be ongoing narrative/conversation between multiple parts intrinsically linked but containing individual characteristics and expressions, creating the illusion of separation. Perhaps consciousness inevitably arose as an evolutionary trait to aid in socialisation/procreation by way of rumination - better adaptability through more complex thoughts, understanding and reactions to the ever changing environment around us. Why did lifeforms develop eyes (light wave receptors), ears (sound wave receptors) and other sensory faculties if not to better communicate with the world around us which has been shaping us (and us it) for millennia? The genetic propriety for life seems to be: Adapt & Survive. Thus we evolve to develop more "efficient" and "useful" parts better suited to our immediate environment. The Cambrian explosion was triggered by a sudden yet dramatic enough change in the environment giving rise to more complex lifeforms as they adapted and changed to the new circumstances. I believe there is an external universe and other lifeforms exist out-with Earth. It seems a natural progression given the right conditions/the building blocks for life are available. Intelligent lifeforms develop because the universe is governed by intelligence - seemingly mathematical laws deriving from an unknown origin. Maybe there doesn't have to be an origin? Maybe it just IS. But that concept goes against our logical, meaning seeking minds. Idk, in any case it is a fascinating contemplation.
The two can be mutually exclusive. He still believes in evolution. He is also a physician. This is just the very big picture. Theories that somehow might lead somewhere bc all else is man made or false. His theories don’t seem to be very fallible at least on the surface. His unifying theory doesn’t change anything as it relates to medicine.
guys, Vipassana deep insight meditiation might be what you seek...metaphysical relations can be experienced and somewhat understood practising it, but certain metaphysical questions are unhelpful and indeterminate and He recommends should be set aside and focus be on ethical and spiritual training.. :)
I think there’s a reality out there but each of us has a different perception of it. Each of us experience the world differently. I also tend to think that our consciousness will likely transfer to another body after death (could be any conscious being). The other likeliness will be total non-existence. I don’t think we make the world, we only perceive it differently. That’s my humble opinion.
Sorunda a lot like Bishop barkley. I Wonder what dreams would be in this theory. And what would unteatherd conssiusness be like. Our feelings and memory need the Brain to function
I feel there is some mix between terms in how he see things. The fact that we have subjective experiences and that they blind us from part of the world is nothing new to science. What quantum physics show is that observations does effect the system. You can't observe without effecting the system. Still it doesn't take away the fact that things can exist outside of us. It may be more things like a massive mix of quantum fields interacting very fast and constantly, but that would still be an outside world. I personally have studied theoretical physics and math and I do think I see the potential things out there in a very mathematical way. I guess it is a personal bias in a way. Although pure consciousness seem to need an explanation. Why is there something rather than nothing can't be avoided no matter where you start. If you start with mathematical descriptions of manifolds and quantum fields it may give you some results. Although why those descriptions would work and be everything don't seem to add up. We could just be a mathematical simulation. Starting with consciousness seem more tricky as it seem a much more complex concept. Also it is likely that things are eternal in some way. If everything need to be caused then there can be no absolute beginning. If everything effect something then there can be no end. A closed loop of cause and effect could work, but also require an explanation. Of course a static universe may also work. Why change seem to occur is very difficult to explain though. It can just be an illusion. Time seem to move on way though based on entropy. At least from our perspective. Either way you go there is no escaping the fact that our human minds can't really grasp it all. Being humble and admit that is certainly the way to go.
I got his book and it's truly life changing you will never see life and death the same way, what a amazing men
Just got into this guy. He's on the right track - genius and teller off the truth.
"We are what we think. All that we are arises in our thoughts, and with our thoughts we make the world." (Dhammapada)
this is bizarrely comforting
Very interesting, and it makes so much sense with ancient spirituality
Finally the second part!! I have to wait 2 years for this
It make total sense to me in so many ways. Non locality, remote viewing, telepathy and lucid dreaming...The eyes are the projectors of your reality...they don't see.
How about in the absence of the eyes and the rest of senses!
@@martinche4796 you’ll have to explain lucid dreaming then. No eyes... no senses... full blown experiences. What the hell is that?
@@LS-qu7yc what if you were blind? Lmao
@@justicebait you’d have to ask a blind person. As far as I know they lucid dream even if blind from birth. The issue is they can’t describe what they are experiencing in visual terms because they have nothing to compare normal visual senses with. Lmao please get informed on different types of blindness as well because it’s not just an eye disorder.
Explain digital viewing. We are all viewing this video that was captured.
Even as an atheist, I agree with this view on the world. It is very logical and explains things in a way no other theory could. I need to get the book he wrote.
yeah it takes a while to rap it around your head!
Technus Knight I'm not sure if he's right, but hopefully more research can be done on the theory. Even if he isn't, he has my respect regardless. He has accomplished some impressive scientific feats.
HE'S RIGHT.PLEASE GOOGLE:PROFESSOR ANDREW TRUSCOTT TO READ ABOUT THE PROOF ROBERT LANZA IS RIGHT.
Then why not believe? Honest curiosity..
RuthParodies Believe in God? Well, I was an atheist when I wrote this, but I have since converted to deism after some major thinking. So, I do believe in God now.
R.L. got it. Thanks for articulating the perspective and enduring the ridicules and attacks. Physical life experiences can be a lot better under this model, but for now, most of human population still want to experience anxiety, pains, fears... so love them and let them experience.
If my refrigerator isn't there at night when I go to bed, and reappears only when I observe it again in the morning, then why do I get an electric bill for the entire time? Huh huh huh!?
I wish I could like this more than once!
Lol thanks for making me laugh!
Your refrigerator's light is off when the door is closed, and it is on when the door is open...Therefore Enlightenment is found within.
your refrigerator is but part of the universe and all within it brought into existence or made possible by the unified consciousness...while you're in bed, others are not: the cockroach crawling across the floor for example...for an internal consistent universe therefore the refrigerator exists along with your electric bill
I do not understand how my dog can steal foods from a no-longer-existing kitchen. And why does the animals conscience make itself vomit on the carpet in the middle of the night?
Buddhism has already uncovered all of this! It is absolutely grounded in direct experience. The only thing that seems to be different with Biocentrism is that there doesn't seem to be any emphasis on the transformation of suffering in the world. Lanza has presented all of the right stuff here about non-duality, interpenetration, etc. but what do we do with all of that wisdom? He doesn't seem to have any ideas on that. It isn't about religion. It is about our hearts.
By being conscious, interacting with surrounding waves of possibilities, in every millisecond I'm turning waves into particles - creating reality. We can't avoid wave-particles resolution.
Absolutely fascinating. Made my heart beat faster. Love this.
Momentum is not "the summation of many frames". Momentum is primary and frames are secondary. Momentum happens and we post hoc artificially divide it into as many frames as we like. Planck's constants are handy tools but not fundamental, not necessities, we are not stuck with them. It's "life continuing" that is fundamental.
Dr. Lanza’s book on “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the ...” is wonderful and thought provoking for average reader and even scientists. This illustrate how blind the science is. As it has been rightly pointed out at the beginning, this view is not totally new to the eastern world, where such a stand has been taken by several religious teachings. Especially the Buddhism (especially Theravada Buddhism) takes such a strong stand and extensively analyze these and even more deeper issues about the truth of the life. It very well discusses how material is connected to the consciousness and springs in a life. These are extensively discussed in Theravada Buddhism prevalent in Sri Lanka, Mianmar, Thailand and India, and may be slightly different in Mahayana Buddhism which is prevalent in countries like China and Japan.
I really recommend a glance into the deeper teachings of Buddhism for anybody who is more interested in these.
I'd definitely recommend reading his book "Biocentrism" .. Genius
It was a very good and mind boggling read. I recommend it as well.
Part 1: Robert Lanza: The Theory of Biocentrism, Part 1 (ruclips.net/video/zI_F4nOKDSM/видео.html)
Illusion #1: 3:00 We do not control anything, nor does he control his body. It occurs spontaneously and he assumes he has control after the fact that it has happened all by itself due to his beliefs blinding him from this direct observation.
Illusion #2: 6:40 "Reality is a process that involves your consciousness." A more accurate statement is that Reality IS consciousness, and your consciousness is reality in process. You are not a part of reality, but its whole, expressed as a perceivable portion through what you are presently aware.
Illusion #3: 8:40 All of experience is not "just information occurring inside your mind," as if he equates that to happening inside of the body. The brain is an antennae and the body is a vessel that limits the relative perceptions to be led into the appearance that our experiences happen within the body, but upon closer observation, all experience IS mind and occurs as "knowing" in the light of conscious awareness. It is always happening in one place, at one time, in one space, that is at the core of consciousness itself, as consciousness.
Illusion #4: 10:40 You exist regardless as to anything "out there," and all of that "out there," is an organization of consciousness that is a direct reflection of your inner state of consciousness that is infinitely vast, but presently non-physical in your current orientation. The continuity of your existence can be observed directly and it is the only aspect that can be proven, because the theory of the big bang is just that. A theory of illogical thinking that lacks real observation.
Illusion #5: 11:50 "The universe and all of its parameters simply reflects the spacial-temporal logic of the animal observer." God..this one is so far off. Reflection is correct, but only in a relative stance to the individual perceiver that is a microcosm of the whole. From the whole's point of view, it is one unchanging infinite potential that reflects nothing, but it is all that is. The reflection occurs as an illusion for practical purposes within it. Next, the "spacial-temporal logic" is totally a man made contraption that is passed down from generation to generation as a non-validated belief system. Time and space can not be proven to exist, because they do not exist. We use a mental approximation of these ideas and project their apparent existence for practical relations, but with the right observation, they can easily be proven to not exist by any individual. Finally, the notion of an "animal observer" is completely flawed, because the animal is not the observer, the awareness that exists independent of the animal's senses, is the observer. The observer exists independent of the senses; this is why you can experience your dreams, yet all of your physical senses are turned off. This is why people can have experiences after death and come back and share those perspectives in words, even though their brain was technically dead while away.
Illusion #6: 13:35 "The bigger problem is the life contains consciousness." Again, totally backwards logic. Consciousness contains life and that life expresses itself as Oneself through beings of form and non-form. There are no problems, which is the primary reason that theories like this go in circles leading to no where. You can't build a solution by beginning with a problem based mindset, just as you can't solve a problem from the perspective that created the problem to begin with.
Illusion #7: 14:15 "Science cannot confirm how consciousness arrives from matter. Our understanding of this is virtually null." It doesn't come from matter. Matter is a slower vibrational frequency of thought and it appears denser in relativity to the observer that experiences it. Matter is thought and it is mind as consciousness. This makes 100% more sense as soon as you personally prove to yourself that gravity does not exist. Gravity does not cause the Earth to pull objects down towards it, the Law of Buoyancy does. There is a reason why it is called the “Theory of Gravity, “ and not the law of gravity. It is a mind-made abstraction that is not of reality, just like this theory of biocentrism. Take out the bio, and he would be so much closer.
Illusion #8: 17:00 "Undeniably it is the biological creature that makes the observations and creates the theories;" this is *not so.* The theories are created by excessive thinking and not enough conscious observing. The observations are made by Awareness, which exists independent of the organism *and its thoughts*. Any person can prove this right now. Watch your thoughts, wait for them to disappear or see the gap in between. Who is that that is still watching without thought? That is you. This can be easily proven by any individual. The thoughts create thoughts and the observer experiences observations.
Part 2 : Robert Lanza: The Theory of Biocentrism, Part 2 (ruclips.net/video/Yw55BsToVZM/видео.html)
Illusion #9: 12:30 "Time is simply the animal sense that animates the still frames sorta speak of the spacial world. It is our tool of perception." He has assumed that animals perceive time and space based on the same limiting factors as his present human belief system and that such perceptions are "animal based." They are not animal based, but based on his beliefs that have not been verified directly in his experience, and thus he has imposed them upon the nature of other beings, or on our animalistic aspect of this present organization of consciousness. He has also mistaken "time and space" as inherent factors of our "tool of perception," when in actuality, these are ideas of belief that are limiting our tool of perception. They are not "the tool" of perception, but might be more accurately expressed as tools of belief, in their own rights.
Illusion #10: 14:10 "The problem lies in our failure to accept the evidence." Again, there is no problem. Anything a person says is not evidence, it is information. Real evidence is called experience and it is gained through knowledge. Knowledge is that which is discovered through knowing an experience directly via our personal awareness with it; it can not be told by any person. Robert is sharing his opinion, not his experience. He technically can not share his experience, only his theories, hence why this is claimed as a "theory" of Biocentrism, instead of Reality itself.
The walls of space and time are an illusion : True, except that they are not walls, but beliefs.
This has the same conclusions as non-duality, but knows nothing practical about the experiences of non-duality, thus it is presently pseudo-non-duality. There are too many errors in the logic and he has jumped to conclusions, because his basis for the origin of Awareness is inaccurate, thus everything else is misunderstood by affect. This is all theory and not his experience, thus it is practically useless. People should not believe blindly, just because it sounds nice to the non-experienced.The truth of reality is non-duality, but his explanations lack any personal experience.
He is exactly right finally someone understands
Not just someone; the top scientist in his field. That makes this model more astounding.
Question is that this seems to be specifically on visual perception, but what about material form? The bus is not there, unless you look at it what about the mass of the butter and is it in a state of potential and then the probability of it being better is crystallised by consciousness and does this affect form as well as ?
Great thinking that appears to fit well with Integral Theory and Wilber’s different perspectives and stages of human development. Thank you
Great comment 👍
This guy needs to go to Joe Rogan's podcast and talk about this and DMT
As referenced by him this has been stated in Hinduism in the upanishads many centuries ago..this is the central message of the mandukya upanishad that describes the 3, states of consciousness - waking, dream and deep sleep to explain consciousness..
I just ordered the book and waiting for delivery. Let's see.
His book came today
The Grand Biocentric Design; How Life Creates Reality
I feel like I’ve been waiting for this information my Whole Life 🤩🤔🦋🌏
Well the Buddhists have been saying as much for thousands of years . . . :)
These are what I've been looking for. Excellent!
I was having a lovely long sleep until this big bang happened and now I'm stuck on this planet working in a crappy job watching videos like this to see if it continues!
About 2500 years ago Lord Buddha said to his followers that this whole universe is contained inside our body. In his core buddhist principals he has explained this more extensively
The most brilliant thing I have ever heard
Here we have a world-renowned scientist presenting his sound findings based on numerous famous proven experiments, and a bunch of nobodies refuting it *whilst* bashing him just because it is incomprehensible to their existing knowledge. Hmm... tough one! -______-
+rockey akbar Lanza may be mentioning experimental results but he shows no understanding of quantum theory and provides no evidence that it can be used to build a useful model of consciousness.
+Good Piano There is as much evidence for Mutiverse as there is for Biocentrism, i.e. zero.
+pibroch there is evidence all around us , the universe is conscious
+Good Piano Im conscious I can't prove that but I know it ..
outside of that no scientist can prove 100 % anything objectively exists, there is a nobel peace prize if you can by the way..
+Good Piano When I say there is proof all around us , I mean look at life around us, the forests,birds and animals there is consciousness all around us and I myself am part of the universe non locally according to quantum mechanics therefore I am the universe and the Universe is I .
I am conscious therefore the universe is conscious .
Try this: 3 humans A, B and C wathing the same movie. A is highly enthusiast by the movie theme. B finds the movie boring, C falls asleep. After 20 minutes, shutdown the movie. Ask each individual how much time they felt as passed? 😄
Whilst I am getting a lot from from this I struggle with the idea for eaxample that i start my dishwasher before I go to bed. then whilst i am not observing it, it catches fire and destroys my house, so how does the theory of non existence unless the object is being observed work ? any answers would be helpful
I was about to comment the same thing, or microwaving some oatmeal and leaving. Then on return, the oatmeal is cooked... But other than that I love these videos.
YES,THERE IS AN EXPLANATION.IF YOU LISTEN CLOSELY TO WHAT ROBERT LANZA (AND OTHERS) HAVE FOUND OUT ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS HAVE FOUND OUT HERE'S THE EXPLANATIONS.:TO BEGIN WITH PARTICLES ARE CAPEABLE OF FILLING IN A PAST HISTORY FOR AN EVENT.ALSO AS ROBERT LANZA HAS JUST SAID EVEN JUST THE OBSERVER'S KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING IS ENOGH TO COLLAPSE THE WAVE LENGTH.ALSO EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE CONSCIOSNESS OF JUST ONE ANT,A DOG,CAT OR ANY OTHER CONSCIOUSNESS IN YOUR KITCHEN AT THE TIME THEY ALSO CAN COLLAPSE THE WAVE FUNCTION.
There are experiments to suggest that time is not a closed linear system, but rather is open and illusory, and observing it now will determine what will happen in the future. The whole universe is like a dice game, according to some theories
other peoples consciousness doesn't matterto ur reality.
reality is like all numbers ,,,, which mathematical form you use will bring you the numbers you read .. If you choose the numbers after each three places from 1 then you will get 4. 8..12.....
In life all the probabilities are given and
exsist . Your reality will be determined by what you observed and act. Nothing is new or you created it. Just you choosing the probability
Life/consciousness is only able to catch the probabilities according to Newton's laws. That's why we think only Newton's laws are real and others are absurd
So what we don't see, or don't pay attention to, is not there at all? I can imagine things disappearing as not looking or thinking about it. But all in the mind, but not in solid matter. Can anyone explain to me then, how for example, a random blind person can bounce against a kitchen wall or can find food on a table, which is supposed not to be there when "we" are not looking ? This is not a question to be funny. This really puzzles me.
I don't like being on camera either, but .. .. calm down.. deep breath.. you have great information!
Yes we are all ONE.
What if I'm blind and can't visually observe ? The world doesn't exist untill I touch it ?
Salma Ezz What if my brain has lost all connections with ALL the physical senses (can't see, hear, smell, feel , experience gravity, acceleration, electromagnetism ...etc). What if this happened to everyone? And not just to everyone but all biological organisms in the universe. I guess that the universe would then disappear LOL.
Jamie Anderson My thoughts exactly. So nothing exists without observation? Wouldn't that make consciousness godlike? So are we all a bunch of gods creating everything in existence with our consciousness? Same for the animals and insects. They too our little gods creating everything with their consciousness. Why can't I will gold bars into my hands with my powers of consciousness?
Jody Mullis I've tried to make gold like that too... we must be doing something wrong. Anyhoo, gots to haul ass back to the lab for my daily chore of thinking a few dozen universes into existence, maybe get me some Aurum that way.. Might try to enlist the help of some friendly blow flies and crickets and next door's cat, but it gets a bit tiring having to keep on reminding them to focus.
pibroch I'm thinking that Mr. Lanza is breathing too much fumes in the lab.
Jody Mullis Haha! Could be that. Or could be his only motivation is to make money selling books, getting speaker fees, and maybe the proceeds of online ads linked to his websites. His "biocentrism" does include the promise of life after death - that alone is enough to sucker people in, especially if they don't believe in God but like the idea of what they think is science supporting their wish for immortality.
¡Magnífico! Somos gotitas de Conciencia individuales en un océano de #ConcienciaUniversal. Del SER UNIversal Consciente o #ConcienciaUniversal emanó el Universo en sus diversos niveles de frecuencia vibratoria del SER Consciente, Sabio y Poderoso (Energía), CONCIENCIA-ENERGÍA Vibratoria del SER UNIversal.
(Se puede Configurar RUclips en el vídeo, para que aparezcan los subtítulos en ESPAÑOL o cualquier idioma).
Exactly. You Got it !!!!
I’m having trouble understanding a key aspect here. I was hoping he’d explain it but he never did. If something doesn’t exist unless it’s being observed, or may exist or behave in a different way, then how can different people see the same thing the same way? Using his kitchen example, I know what my kitchen looks like, someone I work with that’s never been to my house or even knows I own a house, comes over without me being there and walks in the door he sees my kitchen the way I know it to be. Or as another example, 2 or more people may be on a road trip across the country, they e never been to a certain state, city or town yet when they make a turn into a road they all see the same building at the same height and width in the same color. Obviously it exists as it is whether they observed it prior or not. Please explain if you can, thanks in advance.
I think because particles are in the same position for all observers but color may be different. For example lets say your kitchen cabinets are brown and you recognize them as brown. The other person will also recognize them as brown. Now you both see the cabinets as brown but his brown could be your red or your brown could be his blue but would never know because your both hardwired to believe your seeing the same thing as one another. I probably didn’t explain that as well as I could but their are some sources on how people perceive color differently and how we could unlock colors that we have never seen before. Very interesting.
@@theproGAMAS just happened to check my email when this popped up. Thanks for your reply. I understand what you’re saying and it makes sense but a lot about this topic, as a whole, is still a bit scattered for me to follow completely lol. Anyway, have a great day friend.
"Time is a perception of thought," not a feature of the external world. Wow! That helps so many things fall into place.
~♥~
We are not merely individuals but an organism through which totality functions.
How do we create a book we haven't read before by observing it? Clearly our mind couldn't know what is contained in the words of the book. So where do these words come from if we are sopposedly creating them with our observational consciousness?
Brilliant save one minor point -- Dr. Lanza's analogy of the uncertainty principle with the camera observed arrow, essentially Zeno's paradox as Dr. Lanza himself explains. There is an immediate answer, but a couple of steps further on, Dr. Lanza's point can still be made -- if anything, more powerfully. The immediate answer is to be found in the Lorenz-Fitzgerald contractions. Specifically, the freeze-frame arrows velocity will be recorded in the arrows spatial contraction in the direction of movement (if not knowable to the naked eye, theoretically by that eye aided by sufficiiently sensitive equipment, certainly). However, when one accounts for Zeno's runner's and Achilles paradoxes by the information jumps proferred by quantum mechanics, one runs into a problem of the relativistiic light-speed limit constradicting that instantaneous transport (i.e., this is the Einstein-Rosen-Podalsky (EPR) paradox in a nutshell. Well, alright, it doesn't travel through space, but simply skips over it. However, then it loses that contraction information, rebirthing Dr. Lanza's original point. Developments in physics since Dr. Lanza's talk here indicate that in fact, the two quantum particles (at least their information) are in "wormhole" / "hyperspace" sense, int the same location always. However, above this is the idea, out of the holographic principle, that spacetime itself only exists as a perceptual illusion of the intricate continuous entanglement in quatum field theory -- which it needs to be admitted, is nothing bui abstract informtion perceived by consciousness. All this, too, supports Prof. Donal Hoffman's Multimodal User Interface theory and in fact Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR), once the semantics are deeply clarified. As to "the gaps" in material science -- ultimately these are consciousness and Infinity. Numbers have no freewill, but the infinitely large and small -- which are one and the same -- are not mere "numbers". The ultimate name of the game is freewill purpose coming out of absolute, intrinsic paradox. This abyss of infinity that so subliminally terrified from the Greek philosophy on, became the mathematical foundation (technically in terms of infinite and altering recursion) of a faith above reason -- as it has to be (and not below, per the accusation of superstition), in what we could best term from our cloudy mentality, endless consciousness.
Now this is philosophy at it's best. From the Old Greeks, to Kant and on...I'm missing him quoting those people, though. This ideas didn't just showed up from nowhere and certanly not only from physicists (he is only quoting those). Nothing new really, but today we know some more new facts and his interpretation is very appealing and clear. Overall amazing lecture.
I love the accents where people say words likes "idear" and "phenomener". My grandmother from Northern Ireland says "idear."
This stuff has been blowing my mind recently. Couple this science with the countless millions of anecdotes of "paranormal" experiences that fall outside of the term "hallucination" and we live in one really fucked up and exciting universe.
Sincerely may I ask, how does a blind and deaf person view the universe ?
(No kitchen ?)
(edited: changed mute to deaf)
Except, every observer sees the particles of a kitchen in teh same location and are able to interact w/ it in the location the particles are in.
Different ppl don’t see your kitchen in a different orientation so the result is, the particles do exist absent of your individual consciousness interacting it, no?
Robert I found your talk fascinating as I have experience what you are speaking about in deep meditation. As the mind slows in meditation the witness experience the movie of life they have been emerged in - it slow to still picture and then objects, then atoms, then nothingness. As the witness stays in the space of emptiness samadhi consciousness is revealed. The experience of non duality and love emerge as all conditioning disappears. The witness realises the movies they were emerged in is not truth and there is an awakening or uncovering of the pure consciousness, love, peace and oneness that they are and always have been. Thank you
I can swear that time slowed down during his lecture !! 5 mins felt like 30 lol !! Theory PROVEN !!
Also there would be a past or historical framework that would make things more stable and acquire independence. There is a principal of precedence in quantum mechanics, that is consistent with the theory of morphic resonance, to allow macroscopic objects to exist independent of observation as we create our environment and aspects within it. Niche construction and constructional selection make this possible as well as a history of interactions with seemingly inanimate things, constraints in how things are structured, function and other properties arise from this history or dynamic non-linear formative multi-causation(historical and environmental scaffolding and entrenchement). Though retrocausality/supercausality or syntropy to certain degrees, levels, and context would be possibilities as well( quantum synchronization/entanglement/ coherence)
Is this "biocentrism" or "anthrocentrism" (not the same as anthropomorphism)? Was there nothing before humanity (and it's ability to perceive the world and the universe)? According to the view presented, shouldn't it all cease to exist the instant we die?
He's suggesting that the world we see now is defined consciousness. Constant mention of "the tool of perception", refers to the quantify of objects and the very meaning of time. The through understanding of so-called "illusion" would be at first hard for the public just as how Newton challenged the very world.
However, in short, the world we observe today could be defined as the fusion of global consciousness (without the limitation of time or space, as stated in quantum physics) is the central thought behind, not defined individually.
the senses send impulses only because something already exists... we perceive it in a certain way but our perception is our perception and the thing stays the same regardless of what we think it might be
you nailed it! well done.
Spot on! Science hit the nail. Finally. As far as I understood this the Buddha already explained this 2.500 years ago.
Bashar (Darryl Anka) spells these concepts out with total clarity.He tells us the Bashar consciousness is an advanced (future???) version of Darryl. Spooky until you hear him talk in exactly the same way as R.L. without the scientific background. Sadhguru from the Ishar foundation comes from the same state of awareness.
Am I seeing what they have created?...That is the definition of belief. Are they confirming what I already know? Thats for you to decide, and will be in synch. with your own state of consciousness (which is you affair...literally!!!)
Thanks a lot for sharing this great video!!
Fascinating! Still trying to comprehend this, though I've heard of a lot of it before. But I do know that he means "John Donne," not "John Doe," the famous British poet.
liselle sloan yes, he doesn’t sound educated. Mispronounced a lot. I love that poem. He was calling Stephen Hawking “Stephen Hawkins” in one video it was cringe worthy. At least his “Biocentrism” gambit has garnered some attention for him and spread good ideas so I give him credit for that!
Hi Liselle sloan
@@spiralsun1 you're a fool. He's a Harvard graduate, has an MD, and was mentored by Jonas Salk. Fulbright scholar.....and so on.
I've got a question: technology has developed Artifcial Intelligent. Once scientists come out consciousness in its AI, can this AI perceive biocentrism?
Awareness manifests reality, our communal reality. Everything is aware at it’s own level. This shared projection is thus afforded continuity.
Buddhism has been saying this all along. The Heart Sutra famously states, "Form is emptiness (śūnyatā), emptiness is form."
Here's what I don't get: if the butter only exists because we perceive it in our mind, what about all the other forms consciousness also present for whom the butter is relevant? He says our kitchen ceases to exist when we leave it: but do the cockroaches disappear, too? The bacteria in my sponge? Or does their perception continue the non-existant existence of my kitchen even while I'm away? Biocentrism seems to ascribe a physics of de-facto consciousness to life, but I don't think we can delineate where that starts or stops if we start to bring the quantum world into things. So then..... even without us, does the butter ever _really_ have the opportunity to cease being butter?
OK - so on that double slit experiment - if you don't observe it the results are waves - but - how would you know that if you don't observe it?!
We observe the light passing through the slits via a screen on the posterior aspect of the plate. The wave nature of the light causes the waves to interfere creating dark and bright bands on the screen, a result which wouldn’t be expected in classical mechanics.
It's not just observation. its hearing and touch and smell and taste.
All these modalities are forms of observation. When you taste something, you are observing the texture, the sourness or sweetness, bitterness, etc.. same idea for all the senses. That's why they are called senses
So in the kitchen example, aren’t u saying the kitchen is there but it doesn’t ‘light up’ or ‘exist’ the way we think bc ofc it’s needs our eyes etc to exist to see it our way. I’m sure that there’s other dimensions etc besides just three D. So I understand the concept but wrapping ur brain around abt the possibilities of our existence explanation. Fascinating. It’s much like our dreams. When we’re dreaming we think it’s real. Maybe that’s what dreams are. A fourth girth or sixth dimension. 🤯🤯
I am so grateful for this post
At what point did we begin consuming our creations?
It's theoretical that consciousness is absent without a human actor, right? When we step out of the room we assume observation leaves with us. Perhaps we are just agents of will, in a universe whose *fabric* is consciousness?
i certainly believe this phenomenon but have one challenge. If the external world only exists by us observing it by engaging our consciousness then does not the act of observing meaning that what we are observing has to be outside of ourselves. and if so then this must have some reality of its own?
+Ronan Rooney Ourself is an illusion , there is no self..
+hamish whiting no-self is just as much an illusion as ourself. Also the idea that no-self is just as much an illusion as ourself is an illusion. And that, in turn, is an illusion. The theory of Biocentrism is also an illusion - in other words the notion that anyone has ever spoken or written about such a concept is an illusion. Also the idea that the theory of Biocentrism is an illusion is an illusion.
Once the partial is observed it stays fixed in its location. the observation moves it to a set location then its form is then a interpretation of based off of the observers life experience. My stove is a white this is what I see, the stove is off-white this is what someone else thinks it is. Both are correct as they are personal interpretations braced on the fixed form after the original observation
I tried to look at my kitchen by suddenly turning my head back. It was there. But I have sprained my neck now.
😂😂
I'm walking along a mountain side while unbeknownst to me a rock above me on the cliff has lost its position due to gravity and wear. It tumbles down falling on my head, killing me instantly without me ever observing the falling rock. My conscience never made an observation from above. How then did I die?
The bug on the tree next to you watched the boulder loosen and fall on your head.
I have a doubt. As regards the esquizofrenic, he said they experience reality in a different way and even see people, hear them, etc and they are real to them, by saying that he tried to reinforce his theory that everything occurs in the mind. However I think esquizofrenic can see someone is stabbing them, for instance, feel it, see the blood but cannot die from that injury. Or they can see they are being bitten by a poisonous snake and feel like dying but cannot actually die and that is a difference with "reality"(the one the rest of us experience) So, up to which extent is reality a phenomenon happening only in our minds?
if we are to believe biocentrism then the universe is what it seems to be or detected to be solely as a by-product of consciousness of life forms. It borrows heavily from quantum mechanics in the sense of existence of state being possible only when being observed. However, I haven't heard biocentrism then explains where life and consciousness come from?
Lisa romano on RUclips channel recommended this article 👍👌👏😀
Wow! I like this point of view. It makes sense.
Can it be that there is another me at the other side of the universe or multiverse who is doing the absolute opposite what I'm doing now.
yes of course
Ok, so say i go to bed but leave a video camera recording in my Kitchen overnight. What will i see on the tape the next day? Anything? Ok, so this is a silly / over-simplfied example, but i think there would just be too many thought experiments that question this theory. I think at the end of the day, the laws that govern either the conventionally conceived universe or the biocentrically conceived universe are identical, so what does the extra layer of complication (in the biocentric view) gain us?
"We are in It, and It is in Us." (Alan Watts)
this was being told 2500 years ago by lord Buddha... just have a look
True! Nothing new, but this totally destroys all religions.
A buddhists wouldn't put lord in front of his name.
Buddhism isn't technically a religion
@@jamescarter4836 Sri often translated to Lord in English its a term of endearment in South Asian cultures and is equivalent to the English word Sir,Mister. It has nothing to do with what YOU are thinking of(such as Lord as in a God). lol
If matter disappeare into waves .why do we need food water etc if it's all an illusion???
Bottom line: Consciousness is the ultimate factor of reality. We believe and see certain things because we (humans) have the same cognitive hormones/apparatus/organs, but another consciousness, built completely different than us experiences something completely different.
what if you use a telescope to look at galaxies that are not visible with the naked eye? how do i visualize things i,ve never seen? we are here and have mass ,many of the galaxies are no longer there ,just light heading our way,,,lanza,s theory is just like chunk loading on minecraft
where is part 1?
watch?v=zI_F4nOKDSM
Kurzgesagt recently made a video called "The egg" it basically covers this topic in an easier flow.
ruclips.net/video/h6fcK_fRYaI/видео.html
Everytime I try to explain this to someone I get stuck after two sentences hahahaha
Cause u didn't get it just like me🤣
So we need a brain to actually imagine/make up the whole universe ourselves.
But how is it that there is a brain, just randomly floating around somewhere. Because if everything you see exists because you make it up yourself, you have to make up the brain to even be able to make up things with a brain.
remember that consciousness creates matter...
Brain =/= consciousness
Is he saying we are living alone?
pahticles
hugeman BIG ..
Bo(aa)ston.. (:)
From Bwaston?
I love listening to this while i eat fast food
I feel u😫😫😫😂😂😂
I'm on board with a lot of his points, but isn't evolution entirely dependant on there being a definite external environment to react to?
Life seems to be ongoing narrative/conversation between multiple parts intrinsically linked but containing individual characteristics and expressions, creating the illusion of separation.
Perhaps consciousness inevitably arose as an evolutionary trait to aid in socialisation/procreation by way of rumination - better adaptability through more complex thoughts, understanding and reactions to the ever changing environment around us.
Why did lifeforms develop eyes (light wave receptors), ears (sound wave receptors) and other sensory faculties if not to better communicate with the world around us which has been shaping us (and us it) for millennia?
The genetic propriety for life seems to be: Adapt & Survive. Thus we evolve to develop more "efficient" and "useful" parts better suited to our immediate environment.
The Cambrian explosion was triggered by a sudden yet dramatic enough change in the environment giving rise to more complex lifeforms as they adapted and changed to the new circumstances.
I believe there is an external universe and other lifeforms exist out-with Earth. It seems a natural progression given the right conditions/the building blocks for life are available.
Intelligent lifeforms develop because the universe is governed by intelligence - seemingly mathematical laws deriving from an unknown origin.
Maybe there doesn't have to be an origin? Maybe it just IS. But that concept goes against our logical, meaning seeking minds.
Idk, in any case it is a fascinating contemplation.
The two can be mutually exclusive. He still believes in evolution. He is also a physician. This is just the very big picture. Theories that somehow might lead somewhere bc all else is man made or false. His theories don’t seem to be very fallible at least on the surface. His unifying theory doesn’t change anything as it relates to medicine.
Excellent talk!
if he's wrong and we die and then there is nothing then at least we will be at peace and no pain anyway. This is freaking me out.
I hope this is the case and thankyou for sharing
Even though I can't quite agree to his theory but I would really love to talk to him about all these things...
guys, Vipassana deep insight meditiation might be what you seek...metaphysical relations can be experienced and somewhat understood practising it, but certain metaphysical questions are unhelpful and indeterminate and He recommends should be set aside and focus be on ethical and spiritual training.. :)
Genius💜
I think there’s a reality out there but each of us has a different perception of it. Each of us experience the world differently. I also tend to think that our consciousness will likely transfer to another body after death (could be any conscious being). The other likeliness will be total non-existence. I don’t think we make the world, we only perceive it differently. That’s my humble opinion.
Sorunda a lot like Bishop barkley. I Wonder what dreams would be in this theory. And what would unteatherd conssiusness be like. Our feelings and memory need the Brain to function
I feel there is some mix between terms in how he see things. The fact that we have subjective experiences and that they blind us from part of the world is nothing new to science. What quantum physics show is that observations does effect the system. You can't observe without effecting the system.
Still it doesn't take away the fact that things can exist outside of us. It may be more things like a massive mix of quantum fields interacting very fast and constantly, but that would still be an outside world.
I personally have studied theoretical physics and math and I do think I see the potential things out there in a very mathematical way. I guess it is a personal bias in a way. Although pure consciousness seem to need an explanation. Why is there something rather than nothing can't be avoided no matter where you start.
If you start with mathematical descriptions of manifolds and quantum fields it may give you some results. Although why those descriptions would work and be everything don't seem to add up. We could just be a mathematical simulation.
Starting with consciousness seem more tricky as it seem a much more complex concept.
Also it is likely that things are eternal in some way. If everything need to be caused then there can be no absolute beginning.
If everything effect something then there can be no end. A closed loop of cause and effect could work, but also require an explanation. Of course a static universe may also work. Why change seem to occur is very difficult to explain though. It can just be an illusion. Time seem to move on way though based on entropy. At least from our perspective.
Either way you go there is no escaping the fact that our human minds can't really grasp it all. Being humble and admit that is certainly the way to go.
Ballsy! Keep up the good work!
Gexcellent absolutely excellent speechless thank you kind sir
A review of my security camera footage indicates that my kitchen was intact the whole time I was away
It had to be there, it was being observed for the entire duration