What do you think?
Rate this book
Beyond Biocentrism
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 listener on an intellectual thrill ride as they reexamine 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 a 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.
MP3 CD
First published June 28, 2016
527 people are currently reading
3912 people want to read
About the author
Robert Lanza
33 books360 followersROBERT LANZA, MD, is one of the most respected scientists in the world. He is head of Astellas Global Regenerative Medicine, Chief Scientific Officer of the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and adjunct professor at Wake Forest School of Medicine. TIME magazine recognized him as one of the “100 Most Influential People in the World,” and Prospect magazine named him one of the Top 50 “World Thinkers” in 2015. He is credited with several hundred publications and inventions, and more than 30 scientific books, including the definitive references in the field of stem cells and regenerative medicine. A former Fulbright Scholar, he studied with polio pioneer Jonas Salk and Nobel Laureates Gerald Edelman and Rodney Porter. Lanza was part of the team that cloned the world’s first human embryo, as well as the first to successfully generate stem cells from adults using somatic-cell nuclear transfer (therapeutic cloning).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 196 reviews
May 11, 2022
Outstanding!! Very thought provocative...a most profound book...
May 20, 2017
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.
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.
October 28, 2019
"La mente no es un elemento scundario en un universo material, sino que es una con él. Somos más que nuestro cuerpo individual, internos incluso cuando morimos. Este es el preludio indispensable de la inmortalidad"
December 6, 2018
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.
April 22, 2016
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.
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.
November 29, 2016
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.
March 21, 2018
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!
October 18, 2019
Conciousness is the lost piece in the puzzle of cosmology and how this world works! - based on totally scientific proofs : The total world we perceive goes through our mind as Rene Descarte found many yeras ago... Now quantom theories has improved significantly to give a deep insight that everything could be just a probability in this world and when, as an observer, start looking at them they get existence! It says that this is the observer, or our consciousness, that created whole this world and nothing exist out of the observer's mind... It continues that maybe even the dark energy that we don't have any clue about its features, is nothing just a consciousness!... This thought is a revolutionary one and could spot a turning point for human to revise the scientific theories and formula with the new parameter as "consciousness“.. I really enjoyed it and it was what I was looking for in years!
January 10, 2017
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.
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.
April 14, 2018
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!
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!
Want to read
October 15, 2019February 6, 2017
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.
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.
dnf
March 3, 2018DNF
June 21, 2020
I read this book in my quest to better understand consciousness. It is proving a challenge to rate and review it, I liked it for it's strengths and mourned it's weaknesses.
Strengths:
- Clear explanation of wave-particle duality (for light and matter), and how from the perspective of the very small (e.g. with quantum entanglement), space, time and space-time can become obsolete
- The explanation of the centrality of the observer to insights in quantum theory. A fact that can be taken to undermine physical monoism as a theory of consciousness.
- The chapter debating consciousness in plants
Weaknesses:
- I am still not sure what exactly the Biocentrism hypothesis is...
- Use of the oft-employed approach of disproving a notion (with your own argument or someone elses), and then leaving your own hypothesis in it's place without subjecting it to the same intellectual rigour
-No citations and likley cherrypicking
Based on this book I am certainly not convinced Biocentrism is the Grand Unifying Theory, which I think was the intention of the authors
Strengths:
- Clear explanation of wave-particle duality (for light and matter), and how from the perspective of the very small (e.g. with quantum entanglement), space, time and space-time can become obsolete
- The explanation of the centrality of the observer to insights in quantum theory. A fact that can be taken to undermine physical monoism as a theory of consciousness.
- The chapter debating consciousness in plants
Weaknesses:
- I am still not sure what exactly the Biocentrism hypothesis is...
- Use of the oft-employed approach of disproving a notion (with your own argument or someone elses), and then leaving your own hypothesis in it's place without subjecting it to the same intellectual rigour
-No citations and likley cherrypicking
Based on this book I am certainly not convinced Biocentrism is the Grand Unifying Theory, which I think was the intention of the authors
May 6, 2020
I received a review copy of this from the publisher through BookSirens. I requested it because it was listed under the Science category (more on that later, too), and the description told me it ran counter to my understanding of, well, everything... The world is clearly much simpler if one only reads what fits one’s confirmation bias, but also narrower. I will read Coulter, Beck, Tolle, various New Age,... once... to offer me a different perspective, though I often have to take mental showers afterwards. Plus one shouldn’t diss without actual knowledge, right? Well... I am not Lanza and Berman's target audience...
These types of books present challenges. They sound like they make sense. They’re cleverly bathed in real science. That does pose those challenges...”Is the science the authors pose as contrasts correct?” For this book, the answer is, well, yes and no; and sometimes it is misrepresented, whether deliberately or genuinely misunderstood is another challenge to unravel. I'm leaning toward the former, given the misinterpretations are too fitting of the "theory". As to theory, and I see this more as the hypothesis rather than a scientific theory, for in this case, no scientific theory is presented (just a lot of untestable statements.) Robert Anton Wilson’s Quantum Psychology comes to mind. Anything by Deepak Chopra. And the logic? Clever. But flawed.
Now...I have to address something that is a huge problem I have with this book: the authors make a lot of statements as fact (a lot), yet provide not one reference or citation - mentioning “In 2011, researchers published a study in Nature suggesting quantum behavior extends into the everyday realm.” Omitting the actual reference to check is lazy, potentially deceptive, and near worthless. I can only assume that they want the reader to take what they say, in, on faith. And that is maddeningly frustrating. Though the burden of proof is on the claimant, they provide essentially none, so it’s up to the reader to try to track down support or refutation. Or not. I have to keep jumping out, try to track down a credible source for whatever they are saying and read enough for four or five more books in order to confirm what they are saying does have a source, whether they’ve presented it correctly, interpreted it correctly (meaning how it is commonly accepted and understood), and then research whether their counter claims have any merit. (And offering a hint at a study suggesting quantum interactions at a macro level is not the same as demonstrating that quantum interactions occur at a macro level. )
Anyway, up front is the Introduction epigraph, a quote by Cicero. Me being me, I tried to find the source. I could find none. Cicero is easily searched, and said some similar things (in Latin, of course), but I could not find any credible source. This book and quotes from it showed up, so those don’t count. Not a good way to start a book.
I have 73 highlights and notes; 73 because I decided enough was enough. I spent far too much time tracking down their non-existent references. And I don't want to spend any more time to sort out and compile those notes of mine into the response I would normally give a book such as this because I have other reading to do and I expect my time more wasted than not. When the authors make statements like "After all, we can take the known proteins, minerals, water, and everything else that an animal body contains and whirl it in a blender till the cows come home and still not have life." We see that as a derivative misrepresentation - it didn’t happen like that and they know it. Lanza certainly should, given his pedigree. They think there is "something fishy about the universe popping out of nothingness." I suggest they read Lawrence Krauss’s A Universe from Nothing. It could happen. And it did. They drip snark throughout, using derivative terms like "magic" in a derogatory way, and follow the previous quoted statement with "And not just because in everyday experience we do not observe kittens or lawn furniture magically materializing." Curious, they later in the book extrapolate an extremely short-lived experiment in which microscopic diamonds were entangled (no reference, had to look that up too) throughout extremely specific conditions that could hardly occur in nature to such happening on a macro scale throughout the universe. Per the article in Nature, "All the necessary conditions are satisfied only very rarely during the experiment. 'They have to perform an astronomical number of attempts to get a very finite number of desired outcomes,' says [Andrew] Cleland" [a specialist in the quantum behaviour of nanometre-scale objects at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who thought the experiment "clever and convincing".] Neither the kittens popping or that extrapolation of large-scale entanglement should be taken seriously.
On quantum theory, the authors say "It’s amazing that this breakaway from classical physics is still relatively unknown by the public, even if most people do equate quantum theory with strangeness."
Here’s a problem with their extrapolation: classical physics describes quite well a significant part of the universe. Relativistic physics describes classical physics well when under high speed in accelerated frames. Quantum theory is not a breakaway from either on macro levels, but describes quantum level behaviors where classical physics cannot apply and relativistic physics breaks down. Different equations for different conditions; classical physics is close enough for everyday life.
The authors mention people looking to Eastern religions for answer science supposedly does not provide: "But the quest itself was noble. If a person seeks knowledge of reality and one’s nature and one’s place in the universe, what if she has no spiritual calling? What if she solely demands fact-based evidence? Can these deep issues be tackled decisively by science alone?" It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that out "place" is on this planet, and yes science has all of the answers ... I'll thank James Morrow for "we just don’t have all the science."
Zeno's paradoxes make a return (I didn't and won't read the first book, but I understand they repeated much) and they offer this head-scratcher: "The paradoxes can actually be solved by biocentrism. By seeing that time and space are not actual commodities like coconuts, biocentrism says they cannot be divided in half again and again to produce such conundrums." How? Never mind. They never say. But I ask...They do realize that calculus solves them, right?
On the universe
More on the universe
These types of books present challenges. They sound like they make sense. They’re cleverly bathed in real science. That does pose those challenges...”Is the science the authors pose as contrasts correct?” For this book, the answer is, well, yes and no; and sometimes it is misrepresented, whether deliberately or genuinely misunderstood is another challenge to unravel. I'm leaning toward the former, given the misinterpretations are too fitting of the "theory". As to theory, and I see this more as the hypothesis rather than a scientific theory, for in this case, no scientific theory is presented (just a lot of untestable statements.) Robert Anton Wilson’s Quantum Psychology comes to mind. Anything by Deepak Chopra. And the logic? Clever. But flawed.
Now...I have to address something that is a huge problem I have with this book: the authors make a lot of statements as fact (a lot), yet provide not one reference or citation - mentioning “In 2011, researchers published a study in Nature suggesting quantum behavior extends into the everyday realm.” Omitting the actual reference to check is lazy, potentially deceptive, and near worthless. I can only assume that they want the reader to take what they say, in, on faith. And that is maddeningly frustrating. Though the burden of proof is on the claimant, they provide essentially none, so it’s up to the reader to try to track down support or refutation. Or not. I have to keep jumping out, try to track down a credible source for whatever they are saying and read enough for four or five more books in order to confirm what they are saying does have a source, whether they’ve presented it correctly, interpreted it correctly (meaning how it is commonly accepted and understood), and then research whether their counter claims have any merit. (And offering a hint at a study suggesting quantum interactions at a macro level is not the same as demonstrating that quantum interactions occur at a macro level. )
Anyway, up front is the Introduction epigraph, a quote by Cicero. Me being me, I tried to find the source. I could find none. Cicero is easily searched, and said some similar things (in Latin, of course), but I could not find any credible source. This book and quotes from it showed up, so those don’t count. Not a good way to start a book.
I have 73 highlights and notes; 73 because I decided enough was enough. I spent far too much time tracking down their non-existent references. And I don't want to spend any more time to sort out and compile those notes of mine into the response I would normally give a book such as this because I have other reading to do and I expect my time more wasted than not. When the authors make statements like "After all, we can take the known proteins, minerals, water, and everything else that an animal body contains and whirl it in a blender till the cows come home and still not have life." We see that as a derivative misrepresentation - it didn’t happen like that and they know it. Lanza certainly should, given his pedigree. They think there is "something fishy about the universe popping out of nothingness." I suggest they read Lawrence Krauss’s A Universe from Nothing. It could happen. And it did. They drip snark throughout, using derivative terms like "magic" in a derogatory way, and follow the previous quoted statement with "And not just because in everyday experience we do not observe kittens or lawn furniture magically materializing." Curious, they later in the book extrapolate an extremely short-lived experiment in which microscopic diamonds were entangled (no reference, had to look that up too) throughout extremely specific conditions that could hardly occur in nature to such happening on a macro scale throughout the universe. Per the article in Nature, "All the necessary conditions are satisfied only very rarely during the experiment. 'They have to perform an astronomical number of attempts to get a very finite number of desired outcomes,' says [Andrew] Cleland" [a specialist in the quantum behaviour of nanometre-scale objects at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who thought the experiment "clever and convincing".] Neither the kittens popping or that extrapolation of large-scale entanglement should be taken seriously.
On quantum theory, the authors say "It’s amazing that this breakaway from classical physics is still relatively unknown by the public, even if most people do equate quantum theory with strangeness."
Here’s a problem with their extrapolation: classical physics describes quite well a significant part of the universe. Relativistic physics describes classical physics well when under high speed in accelerated frames. Quantum theory is not a breakaway from either on macro levels, but describes quantum level behaviors where classical physics cannot apply and relativistic physics breaks down. Different equations for different conditions; classical physics is close enough for everyday life.
The authors mention people looking to Eastern religions for answer science supposedly does not provide: "But the quest itself was noble. If a person seeks knowledge of reality and one’s nature and one’s place in the universe, what if she has no spiritual calling? What if she solely demands fact-based evidence? Can these deep issues be tackled decisively by science alone?" It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that out "place" is on this planet, and yes science has all of the answers ... I'll thank James Morrow for "we just don’t have all the science."
Zeno's paradoxes make a return (I didn't and won't read the first book, but I understand they repeated much) and they offer this head-scratcher: "The paradoxes can actually be solved by biocentrism. By seeing that time and space are not actual commodities like coconuts, biocentrism says they cannot be divided in half again and again to produce such conundrums." How? Never mind. They never say. But I ask...They do realize that calculus solves them, right?
On the universe
Finally, in trying to answer the old questions about the size of the universe—now known to include consciousness and to be correlative with ourselves—we can only experience futility in any effort to “picture” an entity with no fixed dimensions. So in addition to the cosmos existing outside of time, and having no death or birth, and seeing that space is a word that symbolizes nothing meaningful, we have arrived at yet another revelation: The universe is sizeless.Only for those without imagination or sufficient math. The universe is not sizeless. If you have a hard time wrapping your head around “space” because of an old definition, the stop calling it space...call it “universe”. The universe will have a death ... when all the fuel is used and the distances are so great due to the expansion, there will be "dead" matter.. And science has evidence of its “birth”. It does not exist outside of time, rather with time. Time may not have existed prior to the Big Bang...whether it did or not is immaterial as we cannot go outside the universe or our timestream...neither of which the authors say exist, because biocentrism.
More on the universe
This is an extremely unlikely universe. So unlikely that even the most die-hard classical, randomness-believing, atheism-proselytizing physicists concede that the cosmos is insanely improbable in terms of life-friendliness. The combined existence of all the life-friendly values of all its physical constants and values defy the odds of one in several hundred million,>/blockquote>This is a failed argument and easily dismissed. Just because something is improbable, doesn’t mean it is impossible, obviously, because it happened!! There is a lot of that in this book. The authors don't consider that there may be trillions or more universes in which none of these factors align, or align in such a way as to bring about life different than we understand.
On evolutionNatural selection works because some random mutation conferred an advantage that let the animal better survive to procreate. But an eye—any eye, even the earliest ones—required not just a single mutation that created a light-sensitive cell, but also a nerve system or some other modality to carry such sensations to a brain or brain precursor, so the information could be utilized in some way, such as locomotion toward or away from the light source. Sight also requires a “perceiving” cell structure in which to form an image, even if it’s just a crude sensation of brightness. In short, even primitive vision involves far more than a single genetic mutation. No matter if the earliest eyes lacked the sophisticated elements of current animal vision, with their marvelous supporting cast of muscles for focus and adjustable pupil diameter; various types of color-sensing retina cells; lens; optic nerve; and an amphitheater of billions of specialized neurons and synapses to actually create image perception. It’s quite an elaborate architecture that today’s animals enjoy. But even the first, crudest version would require some structure to be the least bit useful. A single mutation would accomplish nothing. It would confer no benefit, and thus there'd be nothing advantageous to pass on to the kids. And what are the chances for a profusion of simultaneous, independent, but interdependently necessary mutations occurring in a single animal?This is a specious dismissal. An argument of something not making sense to them so it couldn’t have happened is the logical fallacy Argument from Incredulity, perhaps even Argumentum ex Silentio, and Hoyle’s Fallacy for sure.
They argue long about perceptions along lines of "Colors are created by us." No, colors are named by us. They exist because of our evolved visual system translates the various frequencies into the spectra. Some people have fewer cones, and some animals have none. The characteristics of the radiation do not change. And on the eye, "Despite acknowledging the direction that light travels, nearly everyone thinks that they look 'at' things, that their visual world coincides spatially with an external realm!" Semantics. And cheap theater. Can one not “look up” to someone shorter? Please, gentlemen.
The authors sayAs Nobel-winning physicist Richard Feynman once remarked, “I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics . . . Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will go ‘down the drain’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped.” But biocentrism makes sense of it all for the first time, because the mind is not secondary to a material universe. Rather, it is one with it. We are more than our individual bodies, eternal even when we die. This is the indispensable prelude to immortality.I almost stopped right there. This “biocentrism makes sense of it all for the first time” is the definition of crank. Feynman may have a start of a point, but QT can’t address relativistic matter; it doesn’t address gravity (but that’s okay...gravity wouldn’t exist according to the authors unless I observe it, right?) They quote Feynman a few times, but they leave off one important quote:Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.The "biocentrism explains" is the guess. But there is no experiment. (Sidebar: several times I observed that the authors use the word "inarguable" a lot, but I would argue that most of the time their conclusions are quite arguable!)
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.
So the bottom line appears to be that the universe never existed until humans evolved enough of a consciousness to interpret the perceptions. Hmmm. This is not biocentric, rather anthropocentric and akin to religion.
This is a book with a label of “science“. For the most part, that is true, because there is a lot of science in this book. And, for the largest part, the authors convey that well. (That gives them an extra star.) They do, however, have a generous interpretation to fit their guess. And yes, theirs is a guess. Perhaps this book was never intended to explain anything about their conjecture, but then its value in supporting that conjecture is quite limited. It does have value for some science history.
I’ve concluded that “Beyond” something means that this book doesn’t present the theory, whatever it is. As such, saying “biocentrism explains” something without actually explaining how is meaningless - its a God of the Gaps argument. Any theory that does not provide precise predictions that can be tested and validated... falsified ... is useless as a theory. And not scientific. The authors mention biocentrism 42 times in the body text, which as the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is a convenient (if just contrived by me) coincidence to a theory that if I understand anything they’ve not said, is the basis for everything. "Because we said so" is ... as unsatisfying as when your parent said it.
July 5, 2016
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?
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?
August 28, 2019
Biocentrism is an intriguing scientific theory out forth by Dr. Robert Lanza. The theory states that the universe is created by consciousness and that all matter exists in a quantum state. That might sound pretty wild and go over one’s head, trust me, it went over mine. I had heard of the theory and was curious to explore it further. While I’m not 100% sold on all elements of this theory, it is intriguing to consider how quantum theory could potentially play a role in our existence and also might help answer some of the most “impossible” questions that humanity has asked through the ages. Definitely worth checking out if you enjoy thinking outside the box from time to time. Fun to ponder!
Read
August 23, 2016This 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.
July 8, 2018
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.
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.
October 29, 2020
Watch a detailed review along with my favorite ideas and takeaways at:
https://youtu.be/r9kDpV8tvMQ
https://youtu.be/r9kDpV8tvMQ
December 30, 2020
A regurgitation of the prequel. Garbage with a price tag of $15 that seems to sell on fancy modern words for the gullible who want to feel like they're dabbing into science by reading about accomplished scientists through the opinions of the authors. Save your cash and go read something written by actual scientists of the trade that are not running around chasing their own tails.
I cannot believe that these people wrote two books that sold enough for them to write an upcoming third. If I could rate them 0 stars, I would.
I cannot believe that these people wrote two books that sold enough for them to write an upcoming third. If I could rate them 0 stars, I would.
August 9, 2021
pretty crazy nothing new open your eyes people
August 17, 2024
Gotta be honest, I didn't understand probably 70% of the science in this--but the whole idea that the world we perceive can only ever be "real" in our own minds is freakishly fascinating.
February 15, 2024
This has been on my TBR since 2018, when I either misunderstood the purpose of this book or underestimated the insanity of the author(s). This book is terrible. A lot of pages devoted to (poorly) convincing you that time doesn't exist, entropy isn't really a thing, space isn't real, and leaning hard into the subjective reality nonsense where with either the right thinking or (as on page 125) genetic engineering you could literally control the universe. But also with a heavy hand of denying there is any external universe at all: it's one thing to say that we are seeing things inside our brains, and quite another to say things like "[t]he silverware on the table might be thought of as being situated in front of us, but its actual location is inside our heads." (pg 125) Er no, they are not in someone's mind. They are actual physical objects that are literally on the table; just because the way we see means we recreate a mental image of those objects inside our skulls does not mean Grandma's silver has physically manifested itself inside our neural tissues. And tampering with that interior circuitry would absolutely not "alter an external universe" (again on page 125--this was my last straw guys), as I'm fairly sure has been proven fairly thoroughly, given we've had a fair number of us humans on the planet who've undergone all manner of brain trauma and circuitry changes. Unless this book's theory also subscribes to the Mandela Effect (and I wouldn't be surprised), the universe has not, in fact, been rewired every time a human on the planet Earth has something alter their brain matter.
Quit reading at the end of chapter 12; quit being interested by the end of chapter 4.
Quit reading at the end of chapter 12; quit being interested by the end of chapter 4.
Read
April 8, 2023Halfway 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.
December 23, 2018
This is the follow-up book to the authors' previous book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe. Biocentrism is a theory proposed by the authors which states that space and time do not exist outside the observer's mind; space and time are merely the mind’s tools and projections for effortlessly putting everything together and don’t exist as external objects independent of life. In other words, consciousness is what creates external reality and without it, the universe does not exist.
Having gone through half of this book (52% as per Kindle), I'm sad to say that there is nothing new in this book. Most of the ideas discussed here were already discussed in the previous book. As such, if you're interested in learning about Biocentrism, read the first book and skip this one.
As a side note, my honest opinion about the theory is this: Although the author used scientific phenomena such as measurement problem in QT, entanglement, double slit experiment, etc to make his theory more "Scientific," his interpretation of the mysteries in these phenomena is just shallow, too rushed, and, with all due respect, naive.
Having gone through half of this book (52% as per Kindle), I'm sad to say that there is nothing new in this book. Most of the ideas discussed here were already discussed in the previous book. As such, if you're interested in learning about Biocentrism, read the first book and skip this one.
As a side note, my honest opinion about the theory is this: Although the author used scientific phenomena such as measurement problem in QT, entanglement, double slit experiment, etc to make his theory more "Scientific," his interpretation of the mysteries in these phenomena is just shallow, too rushed, and, with all due respect, naive.
February 14, 2021
The authors posited that quantum physics revolutionised our understanding of reality. Many examples about the weirdness of quantum physics were given, such as the double slit experiments and entanglement. Those proved that different kinds of observation produced different kinds of results. The authors however extended this to observation creates reality, and without observation small particles of the quantum world exist only in a probabilistic superposition. So did the photon from a galaxy far away exist? Only when we observe it on earth. Time is also weird in the quantum world, as in the observed particle could know before hand what will be observed and behave accordingly. Coupled with Einstein’s theory of relatively where time and space are relative, the authors suggested that all time is meaningless and only exist in our consciousness.
Then the author made a big jump to say that we are all one consciousness, and the universe is one big consciousness. Eastern religion and philosophy are quoted as the wiser truth. I found this argument rather weakly presented.
Nonetheless this book explain weird quantum physics findings very well.
Then the author made a big jump to say that we are all one consciousness, and the universe is one big consciousness. Eastern religion and philosophy are quoted as the wiser truth. I found this argument rather weakly presented.
Nonetheless this book explain weird quantum physics findings very well.
March 20, 2017
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.
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.
January 14, 2020
This sequel to Biocentrism continues to explore the themes presented in the first book, and attempts to draw some conclusions based on Lanza's theories. It doesn't quite get there, but Einstein never quite wrapped up the Theory of Everything either. I find the whole concept of Biocentrism fascinating, and these two books forever changed how I look at the universe. I definitely think Lanza is onto something, and today's physicists need to stop spinning around in circles and step outside the box for just a moment to see things from a new perspective. Occam's Razor, baby.
January 18, 2019
The ghost of Erich von Daniken can rest easy. There are still knowledgeable people peddling nonsense made respectable by adding some science. Don't bother spending money on this book. Have a conversation with your cat instead. You'll get just as much sense.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 196 reviews