Professional Documents
Culture Documents
search... Go
About
Archives
Ajita Kamal
Forums
Our Network
Regional Groups
Indian Skeptic
Contact Us
Popular
Most Discussed
Comments
Community Forums
Nirmukta on Facebook
1 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Nirmukta FB Page
Nirmukta FB Group
Like 4.7k
Indian Atheists
Like 22k
Regional groups
2 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Bangalore Freethinkers
Chennai Freethinkers
Delhi Freethinkers
Hyderabad Freethinkers
Kochi Freethinkers
Kolkata Freethinkers
Mumbai Freethinkers
Pune Freethinkers
Follow us on Twitter
https://twitter.com/Nirmukta
Nirmukta Media
OUT Campaign
In solidarity with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason, Nirmukta members
proudly present OUT Campaign - INDIA.
Indian CSICOP
3 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Naturalism Logos
Editors Note: This article has been cited by P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula and Steven Novella at
Neurologica, and has been reposted at RichardDawkins.net..
It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to
the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of
accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in
from the beginning.
-Steven Weinberg
You are here to enable the divine purpose of the universe to unfold. That is how
important you are.
-Eckhart Tolle
1. Introduction
The impulse to see human life as central to the existence of the universe is manifested in the
mystical traditions of practically all cultures. It is so fundamental to the way pre-scientific people
4 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
viewed reality that it may be, to a certain extent, ingrained in the way our psyche has evolved,
like the need for meaning and the idea of a supernatural God. As science and reason dismantle
the idea of the centrality of human life in the functioning of the objective universe, the emotional
impulse has been to resort to finer and finer misinterpretations of the science involved. Mystical
thinkers use these misrepresentations of science to paint over the gaps in our scientific
understanding of the universe, belittling, in the process, science and its greatest heroes.
In their recent article in The Huffington Post, biologist Robert Lanza and mystic Deepak Chopra
put forward their idea that the universe is itself a product of our
consciousness, and not the other way around as scientists have been telling us. In essence,
these authors are re-inventing idealism, an ancient philosophical concept that fell out of favour
with the advent of the scientific revolution. According to the idealists, the mind creates all of
reality. Many ancient Eastern and Western philosophical schools subscribe to this idealistic
notion of the nature of reality. In the modern context, idealism has been supplemented with a
brand of quantum mysticism and relabeled as biocentrism. According to Chopra and Lanza, this
idea makes Darwins theory of the biological evolution and diversification of life insignificant.
Both these men, although they come from different backgrounds, have independently expressed
these ideas before with some popular success. In the article under discussion their different
styles converge to present a uniquely mystical and bizarre worldview, which we wish to debunk
here.
The scientific background to the biocentrism idea is described in Robert Lanzas book
Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the
Universe, in which Lanza proposes that biology and not physics is the key to understanding the
universe. Vital to his proposal is the idea that the universe does not really exist unless it is being
observed by a conscious observer. To support this idea, Lanza makes a series of claims:
(a) Lanza questions the conventional idea that space and time exist as objective properties of
the universe. In doing this, he argues that space and time are products of human consciousness
and do not exist outside of the observer. Indeed, Lanza concludes that everything we perceive
is created by the act of perception.
The intent behind this argument is to help consolidate the view that subjective experience is all
there is. However, if you dig into what Lanza says it becomes clear that he is positioning the
relativistic nature of reality to make it seem incongruous with its objective existence. His
reasoning relies on a subtle muddling of the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity. Take, for
example, his argument here:
Consider the color and brightness of everything you see out there. On its own, light
doesnt have any color or brightness at all. The unquestionable reality is that nothing
5 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
remotely resembling what you see could be present without your consciousness.
Consider the weather: We step outside and see a blue sky but the cells in our brain
could easily be changed so we see red or green instead. We think it feels hot and
humid, but to a tropical frog it would feel cold and dry. In any case, you get the point.
This logic applies to virtually everything.
Similarly, temperature perception may vary from species to species, since it is a subjective
experience, but the property of matter that causes this subjective experience is objectively real;
temperature is determined by the average kinetic energy of the molecules of matter, and there is
nothing subjective about that. Give a thermometer to a human and to an ass: they would both
record the same value for the temperature at a chosen spot of measurement.
The idea that color is a fact of the natural universe has been described by G. E. Moore as a
naturalistic fallacy. Also, the idea that color is created by an intelligent creator is a
supernaturalistic fallacy. It can be said that the idea that color is created objectively in the
universe by the subjective consciousness of the observer is an anthropic fallacy. The correct
view is that color is the subjective sensory perception by the observer of a certain property of
the universe that the observer is a part of.
Time and space receive similar treatment as color and heat in Lanzas biocentrism. Lanza
reaches the conclusion that time does not exist outside the observer by conflating absolute time
(which does not exist) with objective time (which does). In 2007 Lanza made his argument using
an ancient mathematical riddle known as Zenos Arrow paradox. In essence, Zenos Arrow
paradox involves motion in space-time. Lanza says:
Even time itself is not exempted from biocentrism. Our sense of the forward motion
of time is really the result of an infinite number of decisions that only seem to be a
smooth continuous path. At each moment we are at the edge of a paradox known as
The Arrow, first described 2,500 years ago by the philosopher Zeno of Elea. Starting
6 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
logically with the premise that nothing can be in two places at once, he reasoned that
an arrow is only in one place during any given instance of its flight. But if it is in only
one place, it must be at rest. The arrow must then be at rest at every moment of its
flight. Logically, motion is impossible. But is motion impossible? Or rather, is this
analogy proof that the forward motion of time is not a feature of the external world
but a projection of something within us? Time is not an absolute reality but an aspect
of our consciousness.
In a more recent article Lanza brings up the implications of special relativity on Zenos Arrow
paradox. He writes:
In the first case Lanza seems to state that motion is logically impossible (which is a
pre-relativistic view of the paradox) and in the next case he mentions that uncertainty is present
in the system (a post-relativistic model of motion). In both cases, however, Lanzas conclusion is
the same biocentrism is true for time. No matter what the facts about the nature of time, Lanza
concludes that time is not real. His model is unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be a part of
science. What Lanza doesnt let on is that Einsteins special-relativity theory removes the
possibility of absolute time, not of time itself. Zenos Arrow paradox is resolved by replacing the
idea of absolute time with Einsteins relativistic coupling of space and time. Space-time has an
uncertainty in quantum mechanics, but it is not nonexistent. The idea of time as a series of
sequential events that we perceive and put together in our heads is an experiential version of
time. This is the way we have evolved to perceive time. This experiential version of time seems
absolute, because we evolved to perceive it that way. However, in reality time is relative. This is
a fundamental fact of modern physics. Time does exist outside of the observer, but allows us
only a narrow perception of its true nature.
Space is the other property of the universe that Lanza attempts to describe as purely a product
of consciousness. He says Wave your hand through the air. If you take everything away, whats
left? The answer is nothing. So why do we pretend space is a thing. Again, Einsteins theory of
special relativity provides us with objective predictions that we can look for, such as the bending
of space-time. Such events have been observed and verified multiple times. Space is a thing
as far as the objective universe is concerned.
Lanza says Space and time are simply the minds tools for putting everything together. This is
7 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Can Lanza deny all the evidence that, whereas we humans emerged on the scene very recently,
our Earth and the solar system and the universe at large have been there all along? What about
all the objective evidence that life forms have emerged and evolved to greater and greater
complexity, resulting in the emergence of humans at a certain stage in the evolutionary history
of the Earth? What about all the fossil evidence for how biological and other forms of complexity
have been evolving? How can humans arrogate to themselves the power to create objective
reality?
In order to account for why space and time were relative to the observer, Einstein
assigned tortuous mathematical properties to an invisible, intangible entity that
cannot be seen or touched. This folly continues with the advent of quantum
mechanics.
Why should the laws of Nature bother about whether you can touch something or not? The
laws of Nature have been there long before Lanza appeared on the scene. Since he cannot
visualize how the mathematics describes an objective universe outside of experience, Lanza
announces that reality itself does not exist unless created by the act of observation. Some
cheek!
(b) Lanza claims that without an external observer, objects remain in a quantum probabilistic
state. He conflates this observer with consciousness (which he admits to being subjective
experience). Therefore, he claims, without consciousness any possible universe will only exist
as probabilities. The misunderstanding of quantum theory that Lanza is promoting is addressed
8 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
(c) The central argument from Lanza is a hard version of the anthropic principle. Lanza says:
Why, for instance, are the laws of nature exactly balanced for life to exist? There are
over 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it
strains credulity to propose that they are random even if that is exactly what
contemporary physics baldly suggests. These fundamental constants (like the
strength of gravity) are not predicted by any theory all seem to be carefully
chosen, often with great precision, to allow for existence of life. Tweak any of them
and you never existed.
This reveals a total lack of understanding of what the anthropic principle really says. So let us
take a good, detailed, look at this principle.
And the beauty of the anthropic principle is that it tells us, against all intuition, that a
chemical model need only predict that life will arise on one planet in a billion billion to
give us a good and entirely satisfying explanation for the presence of life here.
The anthropic principle was first enunciated by the mathematician Brandon Carter in 1974.
Further elaboration and consolidation came in 1986 in the form of a book The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle by Barrow and Tipler. There are quite a few versions of the principle
doing the rounds. The scientifically acceptable version, also called the weak (or planetary)
version, states that: The particular universe in which we find ourselves possesses the
characteristics necessary for our planet to exist and for life, including human life, to flourish
here.
In particle physics and cosmology, we humans have had to introduce best fit parameters
(fundamental constants) to explain the universe as we see it. Slightly different values for some
of the critical parameters would have led to entirely different histories of the cosmos. Why do
these parameters have the values they have? According to a differently worded form of the
weak version of the anthropic principle stated above: the parameters and the laws of physics
can be taken as fixed; it is simply that we humans have appeared in the universe to ask such
questions at a time when the conditions were just right for our life.
This version suffices to explain quite a few coincidences related to the fact that the conditions
for our evolution and existence on the planet Earth happen to be just right for that purpose. Life
as we know it exists only on planet Earth. Here is a list of favourable necessary conditions for its
existence, courtesy Dawkins (2007):
Availability of liquid water is one of the preconditions for our kind of life. Around a typical
star like our Sun, there is an optimum zone (popularly called the Goldilocks zone), neither
so hot that water would evaporate, nor so cold that water would freeze, such that planets
orbiting in that zone can sustain liquid water. Our Earth is one such planet.
This optimum orbital zone should be circular or nearly circular. Once again, our Earth fulfils
that requirement. A highly elliptical orbit would take the planet sometimes too close to the
9 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Sun, and sometimes too far, during its cycle. That would result in periods when water
either evaporates or freezes. Life needs liquid water all the time.
The location of the planet Jupiter in our Solar system is such that it acts like a massive
gravitational vacuum cleaner, intercepting asteroids that would have been otherwise lethal
to our survival.
Planet Earth has a single relatively large Moon, which serves to stabilize its axis of
rotation.
Our Sun is not a binary star. Binary stars can have planets, but their orbits can get messed
up in all sorts of ways, entailing unstable or varying conditions, inimical for life to evolve
and survive.
Most of the planets of stars in our universe are not in the Goldilocks zones of their parent stars.
This is understandable because, as the above list of favorable conditions shows, the probability
for this to happen must be very low indeed. But howsoever low this probability is, it is not zero:
The proof is that life does indeed exist on Earth.
What we have listed above are just some necessary conditions. They are by no means sufficient
conditions as well. With all the above conditions available on Earth, another highly improbable
set of phenomena occurred, namely the actual origin of life. This origin was a set of highly
improbable (but not impossible) set of chemical events, leading to the emergence of a
mechanism for heredity. This mechanism came in the form of emergence of some kind of
genetic molecules like RNA. This was a highly improbable thing to happen, but our existence
implies that such an event, or a sequence of events, did indeed take place. Once life had
originated, Darwinian evolution of complexity through natural selection (which is not a highly
improbable set of events) did the rest and here we are, discussing such questions.
Like the origin of life, another extremely improbable event (or a set of events) was the
emergence of the sophisticated eukaryotic cell (on which the life of we humans is based). We
invoke the anthropic principle again to say that, no matter how improbable such an event was
statistically, it did indeed happen; otherwise we humans would not be here. The occurrence of
all such one-off highly improbable events can be explained by the anthropic principle.
Before we discuss the cosmological or strong version of the anthropic principle, it is helpful to
recapitulate the basics of quantum theory.
4. Quantum Theory
An elementary particle can exist as a superposition of two or more alternative quantum states.
10 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
This apparent collapse of the wave function does not follow from the mathematics of the
Schrdinger equation, and was, in the early stages of the history of quantum mechanics,
introduced by hand as an additional postulate. That is, one chose to introduce the interpretation
that there is a collapse of the wave function to the state actually detected by the measurement
in the real world, to the exclusion of other states represented in the original wave function. This
(unsatisfactory) dualistic interpretation of quantum mechanics for dealing with the measurement
problem was suggested by Bohr and Heisenberg at a conference in Copenhagen in 1927, and
is known as the Copenhagen interpretation.
Another basic notion in standard quantum mechanics is that of time asymmetry. In classical
mechanics we make the reasonable-looking assumption that, once we have formulated the
Newtonian (or equivalent) equations of motion for a system, the future states are determined by
the initial conditions. In fact, we can not only calculate the future conditions from the initial
conditions, we can even calculate the initial conditions if the future conditions or states are
known. This is time symmetry. In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle destroys the
time symmetry. There can be now a one-to-many relationship between initial and final
conditions. Two identical particles, in identical initial conditions, need not be observed to be in
the same final conditions at a later time.
Multiple universes
Hugh Everett, during the mid-1950s, expressed total dissatisfaction with the Copenhagen
interpretation: The Copenhagen Interpretation is hopelessly incomplete because of its a priori
11 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
reliance on classical physics as well as a philosophic monstrosity with a reality concept for
the macroscopic world and denial of the same for the microcosm. The Copenhagen
interpretation implied that equations of quantum mechanics apply only to the microscopic world,
and cease to be relevant in the macroscopic or real world.
Everett offered a new interpretation, which presaged the modern ideas of quantum
decoherence. Everetts many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is now taken more
seriously, although not entirely in its original form. He simply let the mathematics of the quantum
theory show the way for understanding logically the interface between the microscopic world
and the macroscopic world. He made the observer an integral part of the system being
observed, and introduced a universal wave function that applies comprehensively to the totality
of the system being observed and the observer. This means that even macroscopic objects exist
as quantum superpositions of all allowed quantum states. There is thus no need for the
discontinuity of a wave-function collapse when a measurement is made on the microscopic
quantum system in a macroscopic world.
Everett examined the question: What would things be like if no contributing quantum states to a
superposition of states are banished artificially after seeing the results of an observation? He
proved that the wave function of the observer would then bifurcate at each interaction of the
observer with the system being observed. Suppose an electron can have two possible quantum
states A and B, and its wave function is a linear superposition of these two. The evolution of the
composite or universal wave function describing the electron and the observer would then
contain two branches corresponding to each of the states A and B. Each branch has a copy of
the observer, one which sees state A as a result of the measurement, and the other which sees
state B. In accordance with the all-important principle of linear superposition in quantum
mechanics, the branches do not influence each other, and each embarks on a different future
(or a different universe), independent of the other. The copy of the observer in each universe is
oblivious to the existence of other copies of itself and other universes, although the full reality is
that each possibility has actually happened. This reasoning can be made more abstract and
general by removing the distinction between the observer and the observed, and stating that, at
each interaction among the components of the composite system, the total or universal wave
function would bifurcate as described above, giving rise to multiple universes or many worlds.
12 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Parallel histories
Richard Feynman formulated a different version of the many-worlds idea, and spoke in terms of
multiple or parallel histories of the universe (rather than multiple worlds or universes). This work,
done after World War II, fetched him the Nobel Prize in 1965. Feynman, whose path integrals
are well known in quantum mechanics, suggested that, when a particle goes from a point P to a
point Q in phase space, it does not have just a single unique trajectory or history. [It should be
noted that, although we normally associate the word 'history' only with past events, history in the
present context can refer to both the past and the future. A history is merely a narrative of a time
sequence of event - past, present, or future.] Feynman proposed that every possible path or
trajectory from P to Q in space-time is a candidate history, with an associated probability. The
wave function for every such trajectory has an amplitude and a phase. The path integral for
going from P to Q is obtained as the weighted vector sum, or integration over all such individual
paths or histories. Feynmans rules for assigning the amplitudes and phases for computing the
sum over histories happen to be such that the effects of all except the one actually measured for
a macroscopic object get cancelled out. For sub-microscopic particles, of course, the
cancellation is far from complete, and there are indeed competing histories or parallel universes.
Quantum Darwinism
A different resolution to the problem of interfacing the microscopic quantum description of reality
with macroscopic classical reality is offered by what has been called quantum Darwinism. This
formalism does not require the existence of an observer as a witness of what occurs in the
universe. Instead, the environment is the witness. A selective witness at that, rather like natural
selection in Darwins theory of evolution. The environment determines which quantum properties
are the fittest to survive (and be observed, for example, by humans). Many copies of the fitter
quantum property get created in the entire environment (redundancy). When humans make a
measurement, there is a much greater chance that they would all observe and measure the
fittest solution of the Schrdinger equation, to the exclusion (or near exclusion) of other possible
outcomes of the measurement experiment.
An important result of this approach is that substantial redundancy appears in the QBM model;
i.e., multiple redundant records get made in the environment. As the authors state, this
redundancy accounts for the objectivity and the classicality; the environment is a witness,
holding many copies of the evidence. When humans make a measurement, it is most likely that
they would all interact with one of the stable recorded copies, rather than directly with the actual
13 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
quantum system, and thus observe and measure the classical value, to the exclusion of other
possible outcomes of the measurement experiments.
For this interpretation, let us first understand the difference between fine-grained and coarse-
grained histories of the universe. Completely
Murray Gel-Mann
fine-grained histories of the universe are histories that give as complete a description as
possible of the entire universe at every moment of time. Consider a simplified universe in which
elementary particles have no attributes other than positions and momenta, and in which the
indistinguishability among particles of a given type is ignored. Then, one kind of fine-grained
history of the simplified universe would be one in which the positions of all the particles are
known at all times. Unlike classical mechanics which is deterministic, quantum mechanics is
probabilistic. One might think that we can write down the probability for each possible
fine-grained history. But this is not so. It turns out that the interference terms between
fine-grained histories do not usually cancel out, and we cannot assign probabilities to the
fine-grained histories. One has to resort to coarse-graining to be able to assign probabilities to
the histories. Murray Gell-Mann and coworkers applied this approach to a description of the
quantum-mechanical histories of the universe. It was shown that the interference terms get
cancelled out on coarse-graining. Thus we can work directly with wave functions, rather than
having to work with wave-function amplitudes, and then there is no problem interfacing the
microscopic description with the macroscopic world of measurements etc.
Gell-Mann also emphasized the point that the term many worlds or universes should be
substituted by many alternative histories of the universe, with the further proviso that the many
histories are not equally real; rather they have different probabilities of occurrence.
Some quantum cosmologists like to talk about a so-called anthropic principle that
14 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Much confusion and uncalled-for debate has been engendered by the (scientifically unsound)
strong or cosmological version of the anthropic principle, which is sometimes stated as follows:
Since the universe is compatible with the existence of human beings, the dynamics of the
elementary particles and the initial conditions of the universe must have been such that they
shaped the fundamental laws so as to produce human beings. This is clearly untenable. There
are no grounds for the existence of a principle like this. A scientifically untenable principle is no
principle at all. No wonder, the Nobel laureate Gell-Mann, as quoted above, described it as so
ridiculous as to merit no further discussion.
The chemical elements needed for life were forged in stars, and then flung far into space
through supernova explosions. This required a certain amount of time. Therefore the universe
cannot be younger than the lifetime of stars. The universe cannot be too old either, because
then all the stars would be dead. Thus, life can exist only when the universe has just the age
that we humans measure it to be, and has just the physical constants that we measure them to
be.
It has been calculated that if the laws and fundamental constants of our universe had been even
slightly different from what they are, life as we know it would not have been possible. Rees
(1999), in the book Just Six Numbers, listed six fundamental constants which together
determine the universe as we see it. Their fine-tuned mutual values are such that even a slightly
different set of these six numbers would have been inimical to our emergence and existence.
Consideration of just one of these constants, namely the strength of the strong interaction
(which determines the binding energies of nuclei), is enough to make the point. It is defined as
that fraction of the mass of an atom of hydrogen which is released as energy when hydrogen
atoms fuse to form an atom of helium. Its value is 0.007, which is just right (give or take a small
acceptable range) for any known chemistry to exist, and no chemistry means no life. Our
chemistry is based on reactions among the 90-odd elements. Hydrogen is the simplest among
them, and the first to occur in the periodic table. All the other elements in our universe got
synthesised by fusion of hydrogen atoms. This nuclear fusion depends on the strength of the
strong or nuclear interaction, and also on the ability of a system to overcome the intense
Coulomb repulsion between the fusing nuclei. The creation of intense temperatures is one way
of overcoming the Coulomb repulsion. A small star like our Sun has a temperature high enough
for the production of only helium from hydrogen. The other elements in the periodic table must
have been made in the much hotter interiors of stars larger than our Sun. These big stars may
explode as supernovas, sending their contents as stellar dust clouds, which eventually
condense, creating new stars and planets, including our own Earth. That is how our Earth came
to have the 90-odd elements so crucial to the chemistry of our life. The value 0.007 for the
strong interaction determined the upper limit on the mass number of the elements we have here
15 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
on Earth and elsewhere in our universe. A value of, say, 0.006, would mean that the universe
would contain nothing but hydrogen, making impossible any chemistry whatsoever. And if it
were too large, say 0.008, all the hydrogen would have disappeared by fusing into heavier
elements. No hydrogen would mean no life as we know it; in particular there would be no water
without hydrogen.
Similarly for the other finely-tuned fundamental constants of our universe. Existence of humans
has become possible because the values of the fundamental constants are what they are; had
they been different, we would not exist; that is how the anthropic principle (planetary or
cosmological, weak or strong) should be stated. The weak version is the only valid version of
the principle.
But why does the universe have these values for the fundamental constants, and not some
other set of values? Different physicists and cosmologists have tried to answer this question in
different ways, and the investigations go on. One possibility is that there are multiple universes,
and we are in one just right for our existence. Another idea is based on string theory.
Our universe is believed to have started at the big bang, shown by Hawking and Penrose in the
1970s to be a singularity point is space-time (some physicists disagree with the singularity idea).
The evidence for this seems to be that the universe has been expanding (inflating) ever since
then. It so happens that we have no knowledge of the set of initial boundary conditions at the
moment of the big bang. Moreover, as Hawking and Hertog said in 2006, things could be a little
simpler if one knew that the universe was set going in a particular way in either the finite or
infinite past. Therefore Hawking and coworkers argued that it is not possible to adopt the
bottom up approach to cosmology wherein one starts at the beginning of time, applies the laws
of physics, calculates how the universe would evolve with time, and then just hopes that it would
turn out to be something like the universe we live in. Consequently a top down approach has
been advocated by them (remember, this is just a model), wherein we start with the present and
work our way backwards into the past. According to Hawking and Hertog (2006), there are many
possible histories (corresponding to successive unpredictable bifurcations in phase space), and
the universe has lived them all. Not only that, there is also an anthropic angle to this scenario:
As mentioned above, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose had proved that the moment of the
big bang was a singularity, i.e. a point where gravity must have been so strong as to curve
16 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
space and time in an unimaginably strong way. Under such extreme conditions our present
formulation of general relativity would be inadequate. A proper quantum theory of gravity is still
an elusive proposition. But, as suggested by Hawking and Hertog in 2006, because of the small
size of the universe at and just after the big bang, quantum effects must have been very
important. The origin of the universe must have been a quantum event. This statement has
several weird-looking consequences. The basic idea is to incorporate the consequences of
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle when considering the evolution of the (very small) early
universe, and combine it with Feynmans sum-over-histories approach. This means that, starting
from configuration A, the early universe could go not only to B, but also to other configurations
B, B, etc. (as permitted by the quantum-mechanical uncertainty principle), and one has to do a
sum-over-histories for each of the possibilities AB, AB, AB, And each such branch
corresponds to a different evolution of the universe (with different cosmological and other
fundamental constants), only one or a few of them corresponding to a universe in which we
humans could evolve and survive. This provides a satisfactory answer to the question: why
does the universe have these values for the fundamental constants, and not some other set of
values?.
The statement humans exist in a universe in which their existence is possible is practically a
tautology. How can humans exist in a universe which has values of fundamental constants
which are not compatible with their existence?! Stop joking, Dr. Lanza.
The other possible universes (or histories) also exist, each with a specific probability. Our
observations of the world are determining the history that we see. The fact that we are there and
making observations assigns to ourselves a particular history.
Let A denote the beginning of time (if there is any), and B denote now. The state of the universe
at point B can be broadly specified by recognizing the important aspects of the world around us:
There are three large dimensions in space, the geometry of space is almost flat, the universe is
expanding, etc. The problem is that we have no way of specifying point A. So how do we
perform the various sums over histories? An interesting point of the quantum mechanical
sums-over-histories theory is that the answers come out right when we work with imaginary (or
complex) time, rather than real time. The work of Hawking and Hertog (2006) has shown that
the imaginary-time approach is crucial for understanding the origin of the universe. When the
histories of the universe are added up in imaginary time, time gets transformed into space. It
follows from this work that when the universe was very small, it had four spatial dimensions, and
none for time. In terms of the history of the universe, it means that there is no point A, and that
the universe has no definable starting point or initial boundary conditions. In this no-boundary
scheme of things, we can only start from point B and work our way backwards (the top-down
approach).
This approach also solves the fine-tuning problem of cosmology. Why has the universe a
particular inflation history? Why does the cosmological constant (which determines the rate of
inflation) have the value it has? Why did the early universe have a particular fine-tuned initial
configuration and a specific (fast) initial rate of inflation? In the no-boundary scenario there is no
need to define an initial state. And there is no need for any fine tuning. What is more, the very
fact of inflation, as against no inflation, follows from the theory as the most probable scenario.
17 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
String theory defines a near-infinity of multiple universes. This goes well with the anthropic-
principle idea that, out of the multiple choices for the fundamental constants (including the
cosmological constant) for each such universe, we live in the universe that makes our existence
possible. In the language of string theory, there are multiple pocket universes that branch off
from one another, each branch having a different set of fundamental constants. Naturally, we
are living in one with just the right fundamental constants for our existence.
While many physicists feel uncomfortable with this unconfirmed world view, Hawking and Hertog
(2006) have pointed out that the picture of a never-ending proliferation of pocket universes is
meaningful only from the point of view of an observer outside a universe, and that situation
(observer outside a universe) is impossible. This means that parallel pocket universes can have
no effect on an actual observer inside a particular pocket.
Hawkings work has several other implications as well. For example, in his scheme of things the
string theory landscape is populated by the set of all possible histories. All possible versions of
a universe exist in a state of quantum superposition. When we humans choose to make a
measurement, a subset of histories that share the specific property measured gets selected.
Our version of the history of the universe is determined by that subset of histories. No wonder
the cosmological anthropic principle holds. How can any rational person use the anthropic
principle to justify biocentrism?
Hawking and Hertogs theory can be tested by experiment, although that is not going to be easy.
Its invocation of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle during the early moments of the universe,
and the consequent quantum fluctuations, leads to a prediction of specific fluctuations in the
cosmic microwave background, and in the early spectrum of gravitational waves. These
predicted fluctuations arise because there is an uncertainty in the exact shape of the early
universe, which is influenced, among other things, by other histories with similar geometries.
Unprecedented precision will be required for testing these predictions. In any case, gravitation
waves have not even been detected yet.
In any case, good scientists are having a serious debate about the correct interpretation of the
data available about life and the universe. While this goes on, non-scientists and charlatans
cannot be permitted to twist facts to satisfy the hunger of humans for the feel-good or
18 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
feel-important factor. The scientific method is such that scientists feel good when they are doing
good science.
7. Wolframs Universe
Stephen Wolfram has emphasized the role of computational irreducibility when it comes to trying
to understand our universe. The notion of probability (as opposed to certainty) is inherent in our
worldview if quantum theory is a valid theory. Wolfram argues that this may not be a correct
worldview. He does not rule out the possibility that there really is just a single, definite, rule for
our universe which, in a sense, deterministically specifies how everything in our universe
happens. Things only look probabilistic because of the high degree of complexity involved,
particularly regarding the very structure and connectivity of space and time. It is computational
irreducibility that sometimes makes certain things look incomprehensible or probabilistic, rather
than deterministic. Since we are restricted to doing the computational work within the universe,
we cannot expect to outrun the universe, and derive knowledge any faster than just by
watching what the universe actually does.
Wolfram points out that there is relief from this tyranny of computational irreducibility only in the
patches or islands of computational reducibility. It is in those patches that essentially all of our
current physics lies. In natural science we usually have to be content with making models that
are approximations. Of course, we have to try to make sure that we have managed to capture
all the features that are essential for some particular purpose. But when it comes to finding an
ultimate model for the universe, we must find a precise and exact representation of the universe,
with no approximations. This would amount to reducing all physics to mathematics. But even if
we could do that and know the ultimate rule, we are still going to be confronted with the problem
of computational irreducibility. So, at some level, to know what will happen, we just have to
watch and see history unfold.
One criticism of biocentrism comes from the philosopher Daniel Dennett, who says It looks like
an opposite of a theory, because he doesnt explain how consciousness happens at all. Hes
stopping where the fun begins.
The logic behind this criticism is obvious. Without a descriptive explanation for consciousness
and how it creates the universe, biocentrism is not useful. In essence, Lanza calls for the
abandonment of modern theoretical physics and its replacement with a magical solution. Here
are a few questions that one might ask of the idea:
19 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
How can consciousness create the universe if it doesnt exist? How can the living, biological
creature exist if the universe has not been created yet? It becomes apparent that Lanza is
muddling the meaning of the word consciousness. In one sense he equates it to subjective
experience that is tied to a physical brain. In another, he assigns to consciousness a spatio-
temporal logic that exists outside of physical manifestation. In this case, the above questions
become: 1. What is this spatio-temporal logic?; 2. Why does this spatio-temporal logic exist?
and so on
Lanza trivializes the current debate in the scientific community about the nature of
20 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Neuroscientists have developed theories that might help to explain how separate
pieces of information are integrated in the brain and thus succeed in elucidating how
different attributes of a single perceived object-such as the shape, colour, and smell
of a flower-are merged into a coherent whole. These theories reflect some of the
important work that is occurring in the fields of neuroscience and psychology, but
they are theories of structure and function. They tell us nothing about how the
performance of these functions is accompanied by a conscious experience; and yet
the difficulty in understanding consciousness lies precisely here, in this gap in our
understanding of how a subjective experience emerges from a physical process.
This criticism of the lack of a scientific consensus on the nature of consciousness is empty,
considering that Lanza himself proposes no actual mechanism for consciousness, but still
places it at the centre of his theory of the universe.
There is no need to view consciousness as such a mystery. There are some contemporary
models of consciousness that are quite explanatory, presenting promising avenues for studying
how the brain works. Daniel Dennetts Multiple Drafts Model is one. According to Dennett, there
is nothing mystical about consciousness. It is an illusion created by tricks in the brain. The
biological machinery behind the tricks that create the illusion of consciousness is the product of
successive evolutionary processes, beginning with the development of primitive physiological
reactions to external stimuli. In the context of modern humans, consciousness consists of a
highly dynamic process of information exchange in the brain. Multiple sets of sensory
information, memories and emotional cues are competing with each other at all times in the
brain, but at any one instant only one set of these factors dominates the brain. At the next
instant, another set of slightly different factors are dominant. At all instants, multiple sets of
information are competing with each other for dominance. This creates the illusion of a
continuous stream of thoughts and experiences, leading to the intuition that consciousness
comprises the entirety of the voluntary mental function of the individual. There are other
materialist models, such as Marvin Minskys view of the brain as an emotional machine, that
provide us with ways of approaching the problem from a scientific perspective without resorting
to mysticism.
A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and
space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated
from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.
Albert Einstein
9. Deepak Chopra Finds an Ally for Hijacking and Distorting Scientific Truths
Deepak Chopra, Lanzas coauthor in the article, is known for making bold claims about the
nature of the universe. He peddles a form of new-age Hinduism. Chopras ideas about a
conscious universe are derived from an interpretation of Vedic teachings. He supplements this
new-age Hinduism with ideas from a minority view among physicists that the Copenhagen
21 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Interpretation implies a conscious universe. This view is expounded by Amit Goswamiin his
book The Self-Aware Universe. In turn, Goswami and his peers were influenced by Fritjof
Capras book The Tao of Physics in which the author attempts to reconcile reductionist science
with Eastern mystical philosophies. Much of modern quantum mysticism in the popular culture
can be traced back to Capra. Chopras philosophy is essentially a distillation of Capras work
combined with a popular marketing strategy to sell all kinds of pseudoscientific garbage.
Considering Chopras reputation in the scientific community for making absurd quack claims
about every subject under the sun, one must wonder about the strange pairing between the two
writers. With Lanzas experience in biomedical research, he could not possibly be in agreement
with Chopras brand of holistic healing and quantum mysticism. Rather, it seems likely that this
is an arrangement of convenience. If you look at what drives the two men, a mutually reinforced
disenchantment with Darwins ideas emerges as a strong motive behind the pairing. Both
Chopra and Lanza are disillusioned with a certain perceived implication of Darwinian evolution
on human existence that the meaning of life is inconsequential to the universe. Evolutionary
biology upholds the materialist view of modern science that consciousness is a product of purely
inanimate matter assembling in highly complex states. Such a view is disillusioning to anyone
who craves a more central role for the human ego in determining ones reality. The view that
human life is central to existence is found in most philosophical and religious traditions. This
view is so fundamental to our nature that we can say it is an intuitive reaction to the very
condition of being conscious. It has traditionally been the powerful driving force behind
philosophers, poets, priests, mystics and scholars of history. Darwin dismantled the idea in one
clean stroke. Therefore, Darwin became the enemy. The entire theory of biocentrism is an
attempt to ingrain the idea of human destiny into popular science.
The title of Chopra and Lanzas article is Evolution Reigns, but Darwin Outmoded. This may
mislead you to think that the article is about new discoveries in biological evolution. On reading
the article, however, it becomes apparent that the authors are not talking about biological
evolution at all. It is relevant to note that not once in their article do they say how Darwin has
been outmoded.
There is irony in dismissing the most brilliant and explanatory scientific theory in all of biology as
an over-simplification, by over-simplifying it as a way to connect the dots and understand the
interrelatedness of life on the planet. Contrast this with what Richard Dawkins said: In 1859,
Charles Darwin announced one of the greatest ideas ever to occur to a human mind: cumulative
evolution by natural selection. The irony of Chopra and Lanzas statement is compounded by
the fact that biocentrism does not address biological evolution at all! The authors are simply
interested in belittling the uncomfortable implications of evolutionary theory, while not actually
saying anything about the theory itself! We can safely assume that Lanza and Chopra are more
concerned with the implications of Darwinian evolution on the nature of the human ego, and not
on the theory of evolution by natural selection.
22 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Interestingly, Chopra has demonstrated his dislike and ignorance of biological evolution multiple
times. Here are some prize quotations from the woo-master himself (skip these if you feel an
aneurysm coming):
To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow
through a junk yard and produce a jet plane.
How does nature take creative leaps? In the fossil record there are repeated gaps
that no missing link can fill. The most glaring is the leap by which inorganic
molecules turned into DNA. For billions of years after the Big Bang, no other
molecule replicated itself. No other molecule was remotely as complicated. No other
molecule has the capacity to string billions of pieces of information that remain
self-sustaining despite countless transformations into all the life forms that DNA has
produced.
If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive
mutationsthose that lead to new speciesand so few negative ones? Random
chance should produce useless mutations thousands of times more often than
positive ones.
If design doesnt imply intelligence, why are we so intelligent? The human body is
composed of cells that evolved from one-celled blue-green algae, yet that algae is
still around. Why did DNA pursue the path of greater and greater intelligence when it
could have perfectly survived in one-celled plants and animals, as in fact it did?
Why do forms replicate themselves without apparent need? The helix or spiral
shape found in the shell of the chambered nautilus, the centre of sunflowers, spiral
galaxies, and DNA itself seems to be such a replication. It is mathematically elegant
and appears to be a design that was suited for hundreds of totally unrelated
functions in nature.
What happens when simple molecules come into contact with life? Oxygen is a
simple molecule in the atmosphere, but once it enters our lungs, it becomes part of
the cellular machinery, and far from wandering about randomly, it precisely joins itself
with other simple molecules, and together they perform cellular tasks, such as
protein-building, whose precision is millions of times greater than anything else seen
in nature. If the oxygen doesnt change physicallyand it doesntwhat invisible
change causes it to acquire intelligence the instant it contacts life?
How can whole systems appear all at once? The leap from reptile to bird is proven
by the fossil record. Yet this apparent step in evolution has many simultaneous parts.
It would seem that Nature, to our embarrassment, simply struck upon a good idea,
not a simple mutation. If you look at how a bird is constructed, with hollow bones,
toes elongated into wing bones, feet adapted to clutching branches instead of
running, etc., none of the mutations by themselves give an advantage to survival, but
23 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
taken altogether, they are a brilliant creative leap. Nature takes such leaps all the
time, and our attempt to reduce them to bits of a jigsaw puzzle that just happened to
fall into place to form a beautifully designed picture seems faulty on the face of it.
Why do we insist that we are allowed to have brilliant ideas while Nature isnt?
Darwins iron law was that evolution is linked to survival, but it was long ago pointed
out that survival of the fittest is a tautology. Some mutations survive, and therefore
we call them fittest. Yet there is no obvious reason why the dodo, kiwi, and other
flightless birds are more fit; they just survived for a while. DNA itself isnt fit at all;
unlike a molecule of iron or hydrogen, DNA will blow away into dust if left outside on
a sunny day or if attacked by pathogens, x-rays, solar radiation, and mutations like
cancer. The key to survival is more than fighting to see which organism is fittest.
How did symbiotic cooperation develop? Certain flowers, for example, require
exactly one kind of insect to pollinate them. A flower might have a very deep calyx,
or throat, for example than only an insect with a tremendously long tongue can
reach. Both these adaptations are very complex, and they serve no outside use.
Nature was getting along very well without this symbiosis, as evident in the
thousands of flowers and insects that persist without it. So how did numerous
generations pass this symbiosis along if it is so specialized?
Finally, why are life forms beautiful? Beauty is everywhere in Nature, yet it serves
no obvious purpose. Once a bird of paradise has evolved its incredibly gorgeous
plumage, we can say that it is useful to attract mates. But doesnt it also attract
predators, for we simultaneously say that camouflaged creatures like the chameleon
survive by not being conspicuous. In other words, exact opposites are rationalized by
the same logic. This is no logic at all. Non-beautiful creatures have survived for
millions of years, so have gorgeous ones. The notion that this is random seems
weak on the face of it.
Now comes the kicker. All these quotes that demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of
biology, let alone the theory of evolution by natural selection, are from one single article as
compiled by P. Z. Myers in his blog post in 2005. Since then, Chopra has continued to spout his
ignorance of evolution over and over.
Chopras brand of mysticism gets its claimed legitimacy from science and its virulence from
discrediting sciences core principles. He continues this practice through his association with
Robert Lanza. Both Chopra and Lanza seem to be disillusioned by the perceived emptiness of a
non-directional evolutionary reality. Chopra has invested much time and effort in promoting the
idea that consciousness in a property of the universe itself. He finds in Lanza a keen mind with
24 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
an inclination towards a similar dislike for a perceived lack of anthropocentric meaning in the
nature of biological life as described by Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection.
10. Conclusions
(a) Space and time exist, even though they are relative and not absolute.
(b) Modern quantum theory, long after the now-discredited Copenhagen interpretation, is
consistent with the idea of an objective universe that exists without a conscious observer.
(c) Lanza and Chopra misunderstand and misuse the anthropic principle.
(d) The biocentrism approach does not provide any new information about the nature of
consciousness, and relies on ignoring recent advances in understanding consciousness from a
scientific perspective.
(e) Both authors show thinly-veiled disdain for Darwin, while not actually addressing his science
in the article. Chopra has demonstrated his utter ignorance of evolution multiple times.
Modern physics is a vast and multi-layered web that stretches over the entire deck of cards. All
other natural sciences all truths that exist in the material world- are interrelated, held together
by the mathematical reality of physics. Fundamental theories in physics are supported by
multiple lines of evidence from many different scientific disciplines, developed and tested over
decades. Clearly, those who propose new theories that purport to redefine fundamental
assumptions or paradigms in physics have their work cut out for them. Our contention is that the
theory of biocentrism, if analysed properly, does not hold up to scrutiny. It is not the paradigm
change that it claims to be. It is also our view that one can find much meaning, beauty and
purpose in a naturalistic view of the universe, without having to resort to mystical notions of
reality.
Dr. Vinod Kumar Wadhawanis a Raja Ramanna Fellow at theBhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai and an
Associate Editor of the journalPHASE TRANSITIONS.
25 Like 2k Tweet 51
Related posts:
25 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
4. Jaggi Vasudev Doesnt Understand Science (or the Nature of the Universe)
5. A Response to Dr. B.M. Hegde
6. Derren Browns Crowd Experiment: A Response from two Social Psychologists
Tags:
biocentrism Chopra consciousness Darwin Deepak evolution Lanza Quantum Robert theory
uncertainty
Dr. Vinod Wadhawan is a scientist, rationalist, author, and blogger. He has written books on
ferroic materials, smart structures, complexity science, and symmetry. More information about
him is available at his website. Since October 2011 he has been writing at The Vinod
Wadhawan Blog, which celebrates the spirit of science and the scientific method.
509 Comments
Tweak
June 15, 2013 8:46 pm
You do realise that by subscribing to this particular brand of methaysical direct, though
representational, realism, you fall pry to exactly the same issues your critising.
sunny
June 23, 2013 11:02 pm
science must be befuddled by the fact of consciousnes, which is totally apart from energy,
and therefore matter itself. conscious must have come first, as energy and matter, by
scientific definition, cannot be eternal.
Joe Isuzu
June 24, 2013 11:35 pm
Science as a methodology has to have the ability to build upon existing knowledge
by adding new and better information and reassigning values. If it cant be adjusted,
26 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
its not science. Scientists may for a while be befuddled, as opposed to science
itself, but thats the exciting part of asking the question why opposite to assigning
an assumption through ignorance.
You say consciousness is totally apart from energy. All you need to do now is have a
definition of consciousness that everyone can agree upon (which hasnt happened
yet), define what YOU mean by energy, what the source of the energy is, and why it
doesnt have matter.
multisenserealism
June 24, 2013 11:55 pm
thats the exciting part of asking the question why opposite to assigning an
assumption through ignorance
Ignorance can also take the form of discarding an ordinary fact because it
seems to disagree with successful theories. The simple reality of participating
directly in ones own life consciously, in feeling something simple like pain or
pleasure, is incomprehensible to physics, which tries to disqualify the fact with
extraordinary prejudice. What is meant be force, or charge surely what
these words are no less exotic, vague, and metaphysicsl than consciousness.
Joe Isuzu
June 25, 2013 9:09 pm
Its not fallacious because the writer had already offered a subjective
judgement that consciousness is apart from energy. I was asking in the
writer to justify their statement in context to the writers own standard by
offering an empirical qualifier other than because I say it is. The writer
was not, as you suggested, approaching it with the purpose of finding an
answer with a methodology. The writer was offering a conclusion. I was
27 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Force and Charge are not exotic, vague nor mystical. They can be
completely qualified in context with math.
multisenserealism
June 25, 2013 9:35 pm
Force and Charge are not exotic, vague nor mystical. They can be
completely qualified in context with math.
But math is not qualified in any other context except its own. To
assert charge is no less mystical than to assert spirit. Where did
charge come from? What is it made out of? How does it regulate
itself? To me, the idea that disembodied forces and charges haunt
the emptiness of an unconscious universe is profoundly mysterious
and makes no sense other than as a mathematical abstraction.
Joe Isuzu
June 25, 2013 9:53 pm
multisenserealism
The two things are unrelated I agree. One is science and one isnt.
But math is not qualified in any other context except its own
Not sure about that. Ill have to ponder what youve said. But it
certainly can be appreciated in trying to find a unified theory of
everything. Spiritualists try to use a subjective, unqualified,
argument from ignorance to explain something, that for now, they
wouldnt even be arguing about except for the math.
28 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Tokh
June 27, 2013 9:22 pm
I find none of the recent post here even so much as comprehensible so lets get down to
basics, like, for instance how come the moon has not crashed on to the earth and the
earth together with the other planets etc. not crashed on to the Sun, when gravity is all
about the force of attraction that is as a result of the curvature of space so then what is the
force of repulsion other than the so called centripetal force that was once believed to be
what countered the force of gravity but now never ever mentioned as as gravity is due to
the curvature of space it is presumably also a repulsive force for other wise all heavenly
bodies would be crashing on to themselves and each other.
Captain Mandrake
June 29, 2013 8:50 am
Tokh,
I find none of the recent post here even so much as comprehensible so lets get
down to basics, like, for instance how come the moon has not crashed on to the
earth and the earth together with the other planets etc. not crashed on to the Sun
Unfortunately that is the only part of your post that is comprehensible. The rest of the
post is difficult to follow. I understand that you talk about gravity, centripetal force and
curvature of space, but what is not clear is the specific issue you are raising in your
post.
Anyway if you are wondering why is that moon does not crash into the earth or why
doesnt earth crashed into the sun then you can find the answer in high school text
books (probably around 9 or 10 grade level). Thanks to the internet you can also find
it here on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYiS9ObD3u4 ).
Now if your question is about the way eartha motion is explained then yes there are
two ways to explain it.
1) Motion of earth around the sun can be explained by centripetal force (gravity in
this case) keeping the earth in a orbit around the sun. This is similar to the
centripetal force supplied by you on a ball that you are spinning with a thread
attached to it.
2) Motion of earth can also be explained in a different way. The mass of the sun
curves the spacetime. And earth travel in a straight line in that curved spacetime.
This write-up (http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/education/lithos/litho-spacetime.pdf
) explains how and why this explanation came about.
Now what really is your question? Can you be more specific? Also please explain
29 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
why are you raising this question in the comment thread in an article debunking the
notion of a conscious universe?
Joe Isuzu
June 29, 2013 10:05 pm
Captain Oh My Captain,
youre much more patient than I in this instance.
Great response.
Joe Isuzu
June 29, 2013 10:21 pm
Silly footnote,
how come the moon has not crashed on to the earth
Because its moving away.
Gravitational coupling between the Moon and the tidal bulge nearest the
Moon acts as a torque on the Earths rotation, draining angular
momentum and rotational kinetic energy from the Earths spin. In turn,
angular momentum is added to the Moons orbit, accelerating it, which
lifts the Moon into a higher orbit with a longer period. As a result, the
distance between the Earth and Moon is increasing, and the Earths spin
slowing down.
In fewer words: it is the tides.
To show the right sign, one must show that the orbital angular momentum
of the Moon actually increases with the radius despite the decreasing
velocity as the function of the radius For a 1/r potential, mv2m/r says
v1/r, so the angular momentum L=rp=mrv=mr/rr which increases
with r. Lubo Motl
In addition I found this better link by googling.
Captain Mandrake
June 30, 2013 10:55 am
30 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Dadster
June 30, 2013 1:54 pm
Capt mandrake and Joe, together you seem to gang up to become the sole
apostles of science .
But, scientific minds are supposed to be open and not dogmatic in their blind
faith , not even that faith is in the completeness of material science itself . What
others here are telling is to open up minds to the existence of energies that
transcends matter that have significant influence on matter and in shaping the
defining characteristics of material entities . Like the Goedels incompleteness
theorem , you cannot explain everything happening to matter or of every event
within material horizons by resorting to materialism only or by remaining within
the region of matter only or , rather without transcending into regions that lie
beyond matter. These energies might not be quantifiable and measurable or
even observable by human instruments , devices but only fall into the abstract
region of their awareness and its really a blissful experience to feel the
power of it . These energies in cosmos ( different from individual universes nd
collective multiverses ) is whats termed as
Cosmic Consciousness . Our awareness. is a subset of this postulated
Cosmic Consciousness and its because of that, that we become aware of
such transcendental energies . Materialists who remain closed in like nuns in
their cloisters will never get that feeling of transcendental bliss . Material
Science is valid within matter- related transactions like a correction to two
decimals are valid for a banker , but here we are talking of Consciousness
which is not an emergent phenomena as materialists want to believe it.
Materialists have so far not been able to create a single live cell from raw
matter ( or raw inorganic chemicals ) . Today Quantum science points into
directions that transcends pure matter . The higher material science climbs up
the more loose- ends they are finding many of them they couldnt tie up without
approximations (ala bankers ) . Feynmans Diagrams have quiggly lines which
cannot be straightened up . The logic of Biology or life sciences still remain
outside physics and chemistry or mathematics, despite the best efforts of
physicists who try to explain by quantizing continuities but continuities remain
as continuities and operates without getting descretized . Its time for human-
kind to step out of the paradigmns of physical sciences and seek out new ways
of thinking to get into grips with the continuities of Conscioisness that refuses
to be confined
to desecrate matter . Perhaps physics is finding it hard to consider Cosmic
Consciousness as the fundamental entity out of which desecrate matter
coagulates or emerges .
Captain Mandrake
June 30, 2013 11:32 pm
31 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Dadster,
multisenserealism
July 1, 2013 12:29 am
Can you prove that any kind of experience can ever count as
verifiable evidence? Verifying evidence is nothing more than
corroborating a particular experience with other experiences, it does
not necessarily apply to the experiential capacity itself. You are not
considering the phenomenon of consciousness objectively or
scientifically you have an expectation of what constitutes
evidence which is rooted in the inspection of material forms and
functions. That expectation is actually misguided since
consciousness is the aesthetic appreciation of forms and the
participation in functions.
Till then people like you should just be publicly mocked and
shamed.
Captain Mandrake
July 1, 2013 2:30 am
Not sure what you mean by it does not necessarily apply to the
experiential capacity itself. Please explain.
32 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
multisenserealism
July 1, 2013 5:38 am
Not sure what you mean by it does not necessarily apply to the
experiential capacity itself. Please explain
The point is that if you understand what consciousness is, then you
will understand that it is not a form or a function. The existence of
awareness on a cosmic scale is only something that we have to
deduce for ourselves, not because its mysterious or profound but
because consciousness is ontologically defined by direct
participation. Its the reason that you cant simply explain what blue
33 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
I would love to see a neuroscientist try to pick out your fMRI from a
group of fMRIs intelligent design clowns and creationist
fundamentalists. Care to place any bets?
Captain Mandrake
July 1, 2013 8:50 am
After all that BS you now admit you do not have any evidence for
this cosmic consciousness. All I see is an attempt at more word
salads to define it into existence. Sorry, not acceptable.
Captain Mandrake
July 1, 2013 9:34 am
multisenserealism
July 1, 2013 6:59 pm
34 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
After all that BS you now admit you do not have any evidence for
this cosmic consciousness. All I see is an attempt at more word
salads to define it into existence. Sorry, not acceptable.
35 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
dadster
July 2, 2013 2:09 am
Till then at least learn to keep your mind open and watch how
consciousness and even basic Life is explained in ways other than
it being emergent from matter .
36 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Lee Nichols
The Essential David Bohm
http://www.quantonics.com/Bohm_EUUaC_Research_Review.html
By the way, its not the role of science to find answers ( thats for
religion which has answers to everything ). Its the bounden duty
and aim of science to ask questions and never to be satisfied with
what might appear as answers that get thrown up occasionally .
Even the questions are questioned in science .
37 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
next lot of scientists are doing it and coming up with phenomena not
explainable by material relationships alone ,they are becoming
aware of awareness or consciousness itself and attempting to
explain Consciousness not with matter but by consciousness itself
as a fundamental entity .
I will stop for now by this quote from Dr.Stuart Hameroff MD, in his
Overview: Could Life And Consciousness Be Related To The
Fundamental Quantum Nature Of The Universe?
Many view the idea of quantum consciousness as unlikely. But I
view it as a speck on the horizon, a paradigm that will eventually
dominate our view of brain, mind and reality. It is the only approach
which seems capable of tying everything together.
dadster.
dadster
July 2, 2013 2:23 am
38 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Till now hard core material scientists were basing their reasoning on
Newtonian causality principles viz, a one-to-one relationship
between cause and effect ; meaning , for one particular cause there
could be only one and only one particular effect and vice verse .But
with the advent of Quantum Electrodynamics , this was one of the
beliefs that has been conclusively upset. For a particular effect
there could be a utterly different causes and, for a particular cause
there could be umpteen number of different effects . In other words
this one-to-one correspondence between cause and effect ceases
to exist.
To make that point clear by an easy example from economics : its
like the causes and reasons how a rich man became rich . Another
person in the same circumstances might have become rich by the
same amount, through acting exactly the opposite manner than that
the other one or by an entirely different way. Verily there are infinite
routes from point A to point B making superimposition possible in
information transmissions.
39 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Yes, that is yet another strange but proven concept, ie the existence
of vacuum energy . Cosmos is seething with dynamic ever vibrating
energy. Quantum fluctuations in vacuum can create energies and
can get immediately destroyed too . But occasionally
spontaneously, unpredictably the energy burped out can create
universes like that of ours for no rhyme or reason , absolutely
randomly.
And , so on and on .
40 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
vacuum when combined with all other events , interacting with other
informations creates relationships that brings forth macro-
phenomena such as life ( or the unquantifiable quality of life or
liveliness ) and, ,quantifiable discrete form of information called
matter , antimatter, along with it electromagnetic and nuclear
energies and , space-time continuum which is our postulations to
make measurements possible.
Matter needs mind to behave like matter , just as life needs matter
to manifest in our dimensions. They both have the same source of
origin but they are not the same . For one thing , life is a continuous
non- measurable, NON- DISCRETISABLE non- quantifiable quality
of cosmos whereas lumpen matter ( ie, matter without the quality
of life ) is discontinuous, discrete , quantifiable and measurable .
>
Unless you had looked up the books by the scientist authors , I had
suggested in my earlier communication , I dont think you will be
able to follow what I say , which they too have said in a better way ,
perhaps.
Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 2:39 am
Dadster,
Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 3:46 am
multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 6:45 am
41 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Thats the problem is that you think that you assume that the
universe is reality and that consciousness emerges from that. I
would go along with that, but it doesnt ultimately make sense.
Reality cannot make consciousness, but consciousness can (and
does) make reality, as you can see when you dream.
Joe Isuzu
July 1, 2013 8:11 pm
scientific minds are supposed to be open and not dogmatic in their blind
faith
Oh that that were so. But scientists are subject to the same prejudices
and presuppositions all of our species is subject too. One of the better
qualities of the scientific method and the competitive nature of science
itself is others are continuing to either prove a posit true or incomplete.
42 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
multisenserealism
July 1, 2013 8:46 pm
Scientists might beat their children too, but that doesnt mean that
such behavior is supposed to be part of science. I think the point
being made is that while critical thinking and open curiosity are both
vital to science, the pursuit of unbiased factual truth is more
important than any defense of any particular truth. If that defense
becomes dogmatic and prejudices, it is the duty of scientists to
break those presuppositions when they can. That is the most
important difference between science and religion. Otherwise
science is simply a belief in disbelief a lazy and cynical faith in the
denial of the authenticity of significance.
Joe Isuzu
July 1, 2013 8:52 pm
multisenserealism
I knew you were going to say that because you denied that in a
previous life time and now you have reach a high plain. You are ,
how so ever, arrogant. How do I know that? I could try to explain it
to you but I can see that you are filled with negative vibrations
closing you off to the truth that I know something that you must
accept because I say so.
Look, after practicing Buddhism for 40+ years, there is much to said
for self reflection. Looking to the connection between the sentient
and insentient, such as the inherent capacity for the enlightenment
of rocks and trees, may give one comfort. Much the same as a
supernatural belief in non-caused god creature who creates a
causal cosmos in order to not only give you life, but make it eternal
as long as you behave within the parameters someone says this
creature says you should. But there is no proof other than
anecdotal.
43 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Joe Isuzu
July 1, 2013 9:00 pm
Multi-
I think the point being made is that while critical thinking and open
curiosity are both vital to science, the pursuit of unbiased factual
truth is more important than any defense of any particular truth.
LOL, its like youre agreeing with me but missing the whole point.
multisenserealism
July 1, 2013 9:28 pm
For some. For others it is the denial of the inherent capacity of all
phenomena to make sense or be sensed which gives them comfort.
Joe Isuzu
July 1, 2013 9:43 pm
Multi-
44 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
I think I understand what youre trying to say. That being said, have
you ever thought that the big joke might be that we use our
reasoning capacities to rationalize a meaning to an irrational world
instead of being reasonable? I can appreciate the irony too!
I named my dog Stay. I drive him crazy: Come Stay! Come Stay!
Steven Wright
Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 3:41 am
Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 3:49 am
How do we know you are not lying to us? This is why we ask you to
share your evidence for verification. You do that and scientific
community will take you seriously.
multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 3:51 am
45 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
http://multisenserealism.com/6-panpsychism/
Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 3:55 am
Well, we can take the same line of argument for other BS like the
following.
Ashwin
July 2, 2013 4:55 am
How do we know you are not lying to us? This is why we ask you to
share your evidence for verification. You do that and scientific
community will take you seriously.
Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 6:46 am
46 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Multisenserealism,
However emphatically you assert that you have not proved anything
of that sort. You are no different from ID clowns who also
emphatically assert that science can not possibly explain this that
and other biological phenomena that looks designed.
Ashwin
July 2, 2013 7:46 am
Captain,
multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 3:41 am
47 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Ashwin
July 2, 2013 5:02 am
Dear Multisenserealism,
I can strongly empathize with your zeal for understanding how the
universe works and appreciating the beauty of modern physics on a
conceptual level.
That being said, your blog seems to fall into the folly of postmodern
jargon as evidenced by Alan Sokal.
multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 6:20 am
That being said, your blog seems to fall into the folly of postmodern
jargon as evidenced by Alan Sokal.
Dear Ashwin,
48 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Johh
July 3, 2013 1:27 pm
Hi Mandrake,
Excuse the delay and the error that i intentionally did not correct. I need not
add that its known that errors usually do catch ones attention.
Well Im still not too sure of what made me do that post that you graciously
responded to. Was not aware that this was as you mention, a thread debunking
the notion of a conscious universe.
That said, I am quite stunned by the spurt of posts that appear to have been
triggered from what i happened to have posted underlining my poor
understanding of gravity.
But now it dawns on me after reading a lot on what all has been said about
consciousness here specifically, what if I for the sake of hypothesis and from
the belief that gravity of an object is directly proportional to its mass, state that
gravity is actually the mass of the object. Lets keep in mind also that scientist
have still not found out what gives the sub atomic particles, the building blocks
of all matter, their mass. Adding on to my hypothesis so far let me now say that
gravity is not just mass, gravity is actually consciousness itself if not the basis
or the raw material of all consciousness.
Besides Im aware of the quest and failure to come up with a so called Grand
Unified Theory that would then lead to the theory of everything which by
definition according to me would need to include the reality of life and
consciousness too and for that we would need to find how consciousness
relates with matter.
I must say that in no way do i qualify to be a scientist and neither do i wish to.
Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 7:21 pm
Johh,
I would like to respond to your post. But before that can please clarify
something for me.
Why did you use the term consciousness in that hypothesis of yours.
Why didnt you say **gravity is actually respiration itself** or **gravity is
actually digestion itself**.
You see consciousness is just what your brain does much like respiration
is what your lung does and digestion is what your stomach does. I dont
think science has fully explained any of these phenomena. Just because
there are gaps in our understanding of these phenomena we should not
49 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Ashwin
June 29, 2013 8:56 am
Its actually quite interesting, Tokh. Centripital force doesnt counter gravity in the
situation in which youre describing, the centripetal force IS gravity.
Think about it like this: the Moon is moving tangential to the Earth at its own velocity.
Suddenly, the gravity of the earth pulls the moon inward, which changes the direction
of the velocity. At each instant at which gravity pulls inward, the velocity changes
direction and you thus get circular motion. Read about Uniform Circular Motion on
Wikipedia.
This is a simplification, of course. You can have elliptical orbits which work similarly.
You also talk about the curvature of space. This is a little off it is space-time which
is curved, and that is Einsteins model of gravity, which is more precise. I dont
understand it, though, so I cant explain that model to you. Einstein improves on the
earlier model in that he accounts for the fact that force does not act instantaneously
nothing can, the upper limit for information transfer is the speed of light.
Ashwin
July 2, 2013 6:19 am
Multisenserealism,
we have figured out that anything which does what consciousness does would be
completely superfluous to any physical function.
We have? Why do say that? Evolution has selected for consciousness because it does
increase chances of reproduction.
multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 6:32 am
We have? Why do say that? Evolution has selected for consciousness because it
does increase chances of reproduction.
I say that because we have not found any function in nature which would work better
as a conscious experience than an unconscious process. If it is not necessary for our
50 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Ashwin
July 2, 2013 7:42 am
The ability to sense when a predator is coming after you, the ability to get
yourself towards a mate to pass on your genes, the ability to communicate
these are all derivatives of consciousness.
When you say that consciousness is not useful for humans to function in
nature, you have to define what usefulness means. In evolution, a trait is
considered useful if it helped previous generations of your species find mates.
Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 7:49 am
Ashwin,
I was not thinking about evolution of consciousness at all. All I saw was
similarity in the arguments proposed by cosmic consciousness
proponents and ID proponents. With your explanation it is becoming
more and more clear to me that these two theories (if we call that) are
almost identical. This CC seems to be a subset of ID.
dadster
July 2, 2013 4:36 pm
My dear Captain ,
51 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
The degree and quality of sentience might differ , But that does not
mean their sentience is of lesser quality than that of humans.
But how did some become structured like that, like DNA folding for
example and attained stability and others did not ?
I am not indicating any purpose that nature has .Its all random
happenings for no purpose in the view of those chemicals or from
their frame of reference .
If you had read what I had written earlier you would have by now
known the various differences between life- energy and matter-
energies . But since you obviously had not , i would suggest you
read it or find out in some other way ,yourself .
Matter not endowed with life in it ( like a dead body for example)
,still possesses the same quantity of Electromagnetic energy and
nuclear energy and are subject to gravitational energies too as
before life left that body .
If you think that life comes out of matter spontaneously then why is
it that material scientists are not able to breath life into matter and
make one single living cell so far despite many brave attempts to
achieve that. ?
52 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
So its time now that we change our route of inquiry , question the
questions we were asking , effect some paradigm shift as
Thomas Kuhn: the man who changed the way the world looked at
science
suggested in his seminal book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions.
But its all overhead transmission for you and its better you safely
stay out of it till you become more updated in your physical
sciences before entering the much more complex bio-sciences and
life-sciences
Joe Isuzu
July 2, 2013 8:27 pm
dadster
To hold fast to the fallacy that universe is NOT sentient is hubris.
Now thats what I call the pot calling the kettle black!
CM
With your explanation it is becoming more and more clear to me
that these two theories (if we call that) are almost identical.
Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 8:53 pm
Joe,
53 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Thanks for pointing out the error in my liberal use of the term
theory. One can never be too careful.
Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 3:31 am
Dadster,
**To hold fast to the fallacy that universe is NOT sentient is hubris.**
Let us not forget how this started. You claimed that cosmic
consciousness exists. You were asked to provide verifiable
evidence to back up that claim. So far we have not heard anything
approximating an evidence.
Until you provide verifiable evidence to back up your claim all you
deserve is a nice Hitchslap.
multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 8:27 am
The ability to sense when a predator is coming after you, the ability to
get yourself towards a mate to pass on your genes, the ability to
communicate these are all derivatives of consciousness.
These kinds of ad hoc just-so stories are exactly why your position has
no credibility.
http://1.usa.gov/17Q284f
http://www.thingsgoneright.com/2012/06/18/scientists-confirm-that-plants-
54 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
talk-and-listen-to-each-other-communication-crucial-for-survival/
Ashwin
July 3, 2013 3:01 am
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/03
/14/why-did-consciousness-evolve-and-how-can-we-modify-
it/#.UdNGhuuf8hc
multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 3:37 am
55 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Ashwin
July 2, 2013 7:42 am
Ashmant
July 2, 2013 9:43 am
56 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
5 cents:
Now I will list down some common variables which exist in daily living, and give
it a thought whether they are in our consciousness. I mean to say, lets
evaluate whether we catch up with the plethora of live variables in our world in
terms of our perceptive capability defined as consciousness above. Few
examples:
All these things could be measured via some mathematical model. Agreed. But
please understand, the virus, the tornado, the lightning..they dont model any
attack on you..they strike.So I have all due respect for theoritical constructs
because
they help me ANALYZE what HAPPENED.Its useful surely for designing a
more efficient world. But when the virus enters you, do you notice? Can you
smell it? Can you feel it? Its this INSTANT reaction that the virus seemingly
hasthat it found a host. But youre reading theories on viral diseases
anaware that they got ya already! And, amazingly, the virus is supposedly half
dead.
So, while we humans do have intellectual ability, but our real time
57 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
With view to the initial point, if we call ourselves conscious, then wed have to
say that the environment has to be much more than that.
Joe Isuzu
July 2, 2013 8:41 pm
Ashmat,
The easy problem of consciousness is what we can observe from it.
Without it, we become zombie like. With it we make what appears to be
choices as to what we pay attention to, and even that may be on a
subliminal level do to evolution. Maybe a better way to put it, what we
prioritize to ignore giving more import to something else. If we paid
attention to everything we again would become zombie like, paralyzation
through analyzation.
The hard problem is more of the language we use. Someone may say
that there is a consciousness, the word used, that exists after the brain
dies (again no way to make a prediction or observe a result so it cannot
be in any way construed as a theory) which is the same term as someone
else who also uses consciousness with regards to the Cosmos having a
consciousness and thus us (talk about hubris), or someone who refers to
consciousness as a filter, all using the same term, is a problem because
the term gets assigned different qualities.
multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 9:38 pm
58 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
This is a short essay that I posted this morning which may shed
more light on the issues of this thread:
http://multisenserealism.com/2013/07/02/consciousness-in-black-
and-white/
Joe Isuzu
July 2, 2013 10:17 pm
Multi-
Thats a very confused read of the hard and easy problem of
consciousness.
Cant argue that. And thats one of the problems of arguing the
properties of consciousness.
59 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
and will react to stimuli. The closet thing I guess to that and still be
alive would perhaps be a coma; brain dead/ artificially kept alive.
multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 11:01 pm
I think you are hitting on one of the key weaknesses of the Western
model. If we go full Libet on it (never go full Libet) then choice is
an illusion anyhow. A conscious person cannot turn off their
autonomic system, but that just means that the zombie has certain
programmed reactions which another kind of imaginary zombie
would not have. The difference between the horror zombie and the
philosophical zombie is only a matter of degree. The p-zombie is
only a more sophisticated imposter. If this imposter is sophisticated
enough, then it will not require anything to process autonomic
signals into personal feelings, it will simply produce the behaviors
which are required to fulfill the evolutionary imperatives. It will be a
fully functional automaton. Indeed, if we were not here ourselves
and not able to voluntarily take our own word our own sense of free
will and aesthetic appreciation of our subjective experience, the
concept of subjectivity or experience would seem impossible and
absurd.
Zizek had some cool things to say about zombies. Not to spam links
to my own stuff but my comments on his comments are here if
anyone is interested: http://s33light.org/post/46454957924
Joe Isuzu
July 3, 2013 1:39 am
Multi-
never go full Libet
Never been a consensus on interpretation of results. Close as
anyone ever got was Susan Blackmore arm wrestling Christopher
Hitchens over drinks. Susan won but it cost her a fortune cause she
had to buy and Hitch drank the bar dry.
60 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 1:46 am
Susan won but it cost her a fortune cause she had to buy and Hitch
drank the bar dry.
Ashmant
July 7, 2013 2:10 pm
Were missing one basic point here that our existence is very much
part of the entire picture.The very act of reasoning,proving and
formulating is not something that we have acquired on our own,
independent of the universe.
61 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
So much simply, the very fact that you and I are posting here is
clear evidence of a conscious universe. Consciousness is not a
personal asset.If we keep aside the body, the nervous system, our
education, upbringing and culture, do we still have some conscious
self left, independent of all?If that be the case, then we can be sure
that we are separate from the universe. Otherwise,our very
consciousness of ourselves is nothing but inherited universal
consciousness and sufficient proof.
Joe Isuzu
July 2, 2013 8:49 pm
Ashmant,
I wouldnt even bother answering dadster below because hes begging
the question in every way possible. Like What is YOUR concept of
evolution, or why certain energies he assigns qualities to are not
interested in evolving. Seriously, its the same tactic Chopra uses;
engage me in a pseudo science dialogue giving it credence where non
belong.
dadster
July 2, 2013 4:39 pm
62 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Lets keep this discussion at a mutually courteous level to make it interesting and
meaningful without being proselytizing about it.
Ashwin
July 3, 2013 12:41 am
63 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
giraffes, those with the longest necks will get more nourishment due to the
nature of the fauna in the area, and thus will survive and pass on their
long-necked traits to their offspring. Thus, allele frequencies have been
changed the definition of evolution.
Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 1:05 am
Just for the sake of argument let us say Ashwin was not able to answer
these (dishonestly badly framed) questions. What would that say about
cosmic consciousness? Absolutely nothing. Cosmic consciousness
proponents still have to provide verifiable evidence for its existence which
they refuse to do.
multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 1:48 am
Ashwin
July 3, 2013 8:33 am
1) What is means.
multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 6:59 pm
64 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 10:37 am
65 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Ranganath R
July 3, 2013 6:17 am
With a lot of difficulty I was trying to go thru the comments of one who goes by name of
Multisense Realism (MR). But I still could not figure out what he or she is trying to say
and whether that commenter is in favor of or against Bio-centrism.
While I appreciate and applaud the valor and persistence of Joe, Ashwin and Capt.
Mandrake in responding to the babble of MR, I somehow feel that they are up against a
clone or alter ego of the woo-woo master Deepak Chopra. We might as well re-christen
this character as Cheepak Dopra, the long lost twin of DC in a Kumbh Mela!!!.
I tried to glimpse through MRs blog. it is extremely heavy and dense and hard to make
any sense out of it. Looks like that will put DC to shame.
Some people just wont agree however much you try to argue and reason with them and
all these exchanges end up giving too much of credence to the post-modernist type
nonsense of MR.
multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 6:41 am
A lot of people think that if they use dismissive language like babbling and
nonsense that it is a substitute for actual criticism. Anyone can ridicule, but it takes
a special kind of person to admit that they are incapable of understanding what they
are ridiculing.
I think that Occams Razor demands that when it comes to cosmology, we take
*nothing* for granted, including nothingness. We should not take the easy way out
and arbitrarily decide that the universe without consciousness happens to be just like
it appears to us humans, especially when we know that appearances can be
deceiving. Instead we should insist that everything that exists, every material form,
every sensation and feeling be accounted for and reconciled seamlessly. I think that
66 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Ashwin
July 3, 2013 8:32 am
How about this can you, in one paragraph, summarize your position for us?
Dont take more than a paragraph, but take less if you will. Thanks.
multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 7:08 pm
Position on bio-centrism?
Ashwin
July 3, 2013 9:50 pm
Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 10:04 pm
multisenserealism
67 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
The result is kicking the problem down a level, from the person to
the brain, to the neuron, to ion channels, etc, not realizing that each
level requires the same capacities to receive and respond to
environmental conditions that they are adapted to that a person
has. Whatever we point to to explain consciousness must also have
some kind of awareness in order to bridge the gap between
mechanical behavior and semantic appreciation.
multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 11:37 pm
God of the Gaps is another tired and dorky talking point of the cult
of pseudoskepticism. I am *not* saying that the failure of material
and information science to locate consciousness is proof of
multisense realism. I offer what I think is a comprehensive
integration of consciousness and physics, which so happens to
require that we reverse our most fundamental assumptions about
physics.
68 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
just call the universe a multiverse instead, so that every time a dust
mite takes a dump there is a near-infinity of new universes for each
possible permutation of the event. Its Occam would never stop
vomiting.
Joe Isuzu
July 3, 2013 11:50 pm
Multi-isms
Physics models the universe that we experience, but it does not
model experience itself. Theories which explain public interactions
do so at the expense of private significance.
multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 11:57 pm
Joe Isuzu
July 4, 2013 1:48 am
69 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Ashwin
July 4, 2013 2:17 am
Physics models the universe that we experience, but it does not model
experience itself.
Okay, so you appear to have a problem with the objectivity that science
calls for. You think that physics is incomplete because it does not solve
the hard problem of consciousness. Fine.
The truth is, any of these options could be correct. We dont know. But to
say that any of them are correct, we require proof. To paraphrase a
well-known scientist the beauty of science is that it doesnt claim to have
all the answers. It doesnt seek to describe or explain it builds models
with predictive value, and the only justification for using these models is
that they work. So lets get back to you:
2) If you cant do that, can you at least show me that your assertions are
scientific hypotheses? That is, are they falsifiable? How could I prove you
wrong?
3) What predictive power does your model have? Why should I care?
What empirical realities does it explain? And I dont mean it explains
consciousness. Thats not how science works. Does it explain, for
example, why membrane voltage is dependent as it is on BK channel
conductance in specific neurons? Which physical observables can be
measured by your model?
multisenserealism
70 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
The truth is, any of these options could be correct. We dont know.
You dont know, but I think that I have a pretty good idea, at least
one which I have not found reason to doubt yet.
It depends what you mean by prove. Can you prove that a square
cannot be a circle? Can you prove that an equation cannot solve to
be the color blue? What I have done is found a position which
seems more correct than any other which can be conceived at this
time.
71 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
http://multisenserealism.com/the-competition/
Ashwin
July 4, 2013 7:08 am
Can you prove that a square cannot be a circle? Can you prove that
an equation cannot solve to be the color blue?
Heres the first proof: a circle, by definition, is the set of all points
equidistant from a given center. The set of all points of a square,
however, are not equidistant from any given point. For a square of
side-length l, some points are l/2 away from the center, but others
are l/(sqrt(2)) from the center.
Ashwin
July 4, 2013 7:14 am
72 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 8:10 am
Heres the first proof: a circle, by definition, is the set of all points
equidistant from a given center.
73 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
and how does matter produce it? Hint: Not possible. Qualia can
make itself seem like matter (obviously, because we can dream of
materially realistic worlds) but matter has no plausible to connection
with qualia unless you are proposing one.
Youre saying I admit that I cant solve it, so you must be wrong.
Im not right because you cant solve it, Im right because I can
explain exactly why it is unsolvable. There may be other reasons
why it is unsolvable, but if nobody in the history of the world knows
them then theres not much point in considering them.
Ashwin
July 4, 2013 8:34 am
Ashwin
July 4, 2013 8:38 am
74 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
When it comes to debating the far Right and debating the far Left, at
least the far Right hasnt thrown logic away. But when someone is
trying to tell me that a square is a circle, theres nothing that I can
do.
multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 9:01 am
A geometric object, eh? And what sort of a thing is that? A two year
old can say that she sees a circle. Geometric objects are a
specialized fiction. See the difference? The former = concretely real
phenomenal experience in the universe. The latter =
representational abstraction developed through an academic
tradition.
No, you are arguing with a guy who understands that the
foundations of geometry are no less unfalsifiable and tautological
than what I propose. I asserted that the mutual exclusivity of
squares and circles could not be proved, because I was pointing out
that truth is not contingent on proof, but rather sense. You are
grasping at straws so you give me the straw man that my position is
that squares are circles. If that makes you feel like your perspective
makes sense, then good for you. You gotta do what you gotta do
not to admit youre wrong.
Ashwin
July 5, 2013 3:15 am
A circle is a plane figure contained by one line such that all the
straight lines falling upon it from one point among those lying within
the figure equal one another.
75 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Ashwin
July 5, 2013 3:20 am
multisenserealism
July 5, 2013 8:16 pm
76 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Ranganath R
July 3, 2013 10:19 am
So you are pleading to be respectably criticized and also have the cheek to
claim that you are a special kind of person capable of understanding the
respectable theories that you are ridiculing, but the rest are not special enough
to understand the ridiculous theories that you are not even proposing.
77 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
does not.
The exercises of actual criticism have already done by the moderators and
other skeptics of Nirmukta. But it seems to have no effect on you.
You asked for the uncomplimentary comparison with Deepak Chopra. It is the
ultimate badge any bogus philosopher can be honored with.
multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 7:05 pm
I have no choice but to bully you and be a jerk and then blame you for it.
Every bully, jerk, narcissist.
When we reduce science to a sport, everybody loses. You may think that
name calling is good for science, that it keeps out the riff raff, but have
you actually researched that? Do you know what the effect is on people
when they are dismissed and ridiculed? Do you know the effect that it has
on your own intelligence to be smothered in aggression and resentment?
You are shrinking your brain to match what you are doing to your mind.
Ranganath R
July 4, 2013 11:52 am
Dear mr
78 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
tears!!!
multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 5:46 pm
Do you honestly think that I care about what some random doofus
on the interent cares about me? The only reason the I object to
ridicule is because it distracts from the actual issue which is what
I care about. I do not care to make science into a wrestling match.
Why should it be?
79 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
their own rage and resentment and their left brain dominance will
always turn the story upside down whenever required to preserve
the model. Its compulsive. The challenge is to find tolerance, even
in the face of such empty hostility. That is the way forward. The
Inquisition Era formulations of discourse are obsolete.
dadster
July 5, 2013 7:32 pm
Lets all keep open minds when we deal with science scientifically. We are
NOT proselytizers trying conversions.Are we? Forwarding FOR and
AGAINST views or presenting entirely different views and entering into
discussions upon it,is more to clarify (NOT converting), own ideas as well
as for considering any worth-while views that might pop up through
discussion of the relevent topic without making it personal .To bully or
comments like you dont know anything , so keep quiet or words to that
effect only shows lack of points for arguing ones own points of view.
Bio-centrism is an interesting topic for discussion because of the
interesting sides and views it has,even for ordinary science hobbyists like
us . None of us are Nobel laureates in science or as far as i could make
out , professional scientists even. But all of us are very much interested in
scientific methods and logic even to the extend of being aware of the
limitations of science. Those who believe in the completeness of science
should get open to its limitations and those of us who are aware of the
narrowness of the logic and mathematics of science reasoning are
further exploring the fields of human minds that lie even outside the field
of conventional and orthodox scientific reasoning.Those who believe that
scientific reasoning is inviolate need not feel raped if another doubts such
inviolateness and react emotionally and provocatively and start to call
names . By the way, regarding Euclid, his geometrical theorems are valid
only to planar fields (ie, on plane surfaces only),but does not extend to
stellar vastnesses.Our topic here, like BIO-CENTRIC CONSCIOUSNESS
,is much deeper than both and lies outside the purview of the geometry of
space-time. But without even going to that extened, talking of circle and
square they are of the same class viz,a figure with one hole.
homotopoligcally ( ie, in Homotopy, a branch of mathematics ). For
example, the square and the circle have many properties in common:
they are both one dimensional objects (from a topological point of view)
and both separate the plane into two parts, the part inside and the part
outside.
The very beauty of science and scientific thinking is that the answers in
science have all very limited validity . Its the questions which are more
important including the question whether science as we know it today can
explain all the factors that really influence human survival. Macrocosm
stands on the foundations of microcosm. The science of macrocosm
might not be applicable to the foundations on which it stands. We, the
80 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
material scientists, have so far been focusing our attentions on the child
once its conceived.The child is very different from the twinkle in the eye
of the father when he looked upon the mother. BIO-Centrism is perhaps
point into analyzing that twinkle and those characteristic features of that
twinkle that changes the very nature of the child and its behavior . Till
now that field was let out to psychologists , sociologists and
meta-scientists but now science with inquiring minds are bravely stepping
into the field of qualitative from quantitative . The needed maths is getting
developed . Now we have various types of mathematics like , Relational
databases,Wolframs cellular mathematics ( iterative methods as distinct
from differentiation), maths of chaos ( to express areas of stability out of
chaotic instabilities) , Fractals ( expressing characteristics of fractional
dimensions at all scales ), Category theory which formalizes and
coordinates concepts of other high-level abstractions such as set theory,
field theory, and group theory;.
Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 7:53 am
Ranganath,
This MR is just a pseudoscience peddler that escaped from the Intelligent design
factory.
Trained in repeatedly making the tired old argument from ignorance as demonstrated
by comments below.
No, I am asserting positively that there is no possibility that sentient beings came
about in an insentient universe. I assert that because if you look at the universe that
physics gives us, there is no room for any kind of awareness and no justification for
it.
Also trained in shifting the burden of proof by flipping Occams razor on its head as
demonstrated below.
I think that Occams Razor demands that when it comes to cosmology, we take
*nothing* for granted, including nothingness. We should not take the easy way out
and arbitrarily decide that the universe without consciousness happens to be just like
it appears to us humans, especially when we know that appearances can be
deceiving. Instead we should insist that everything that exists, every material form,
every sensation and feeling be accounted for and reconciled seamlessly.
A framing that sounds very scientific (the guy used the term Occams razor, he must
be scientific, right) but when you strip it down what he says is that we should start by
assigning all possible properties to the Universe with out any evidence. Then we
should go seek evidence for the non-existence of Cosmic properties. If we fail to do
so then we should assume those Cosmic properties should hold notwithstanding the
81 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
lack of evidence.
multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 7:20 pm
but when you strip it down what he says is that we should start by assigning all
possible properties to the Universe with out any evidence
Huh? No. I am saying just the opposite. We must start with no possibilities at
all and add only those that are indispensable. The first thing that must be is
being itself. A capacity for presence. What is presence? It is a feeling, a sense,
an expectation. It is a concrete and participatory orientation. Presence is here
and now a point of view. If that does not exist (or insist, really) then there
can be no universe, no particle, no positions or relations.
Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 7:59 am
Ranganath,
Since you brought up Deepak Chopra here is something I found on the web. A
communication (http://www.michaelshermer.com/2012/07/aunt-millies-
mind/#more-3047 ) between Michael Shermer and Deepak Chopra goes this way.
Ashwin
July 3, 2013 9:55 am
Ranganath,
The problem is that even though the blog is filled with jargon, the author is not
familiar with science. There are small clues to this throughout he thinks that volts
82 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
are a measure of energy, whereas volts is actually proportional to the rate of change
of an electric field with respect to distance.
He then takes E = mc^2 and obfuscates it! What E = mc^2 means is that in an
atomic nucleus, some of the total nuclear mass is converted into nuclear binding
energy. MR feels he has something to add to the discussion and says this:
I dont think that there is actually any bright glowing haze to begin with. If we use
a sense-based model instead, with energy as nothing more or less than the
experience-behavior of things (particles, objects, cells, bodies), so that empty
space cannot in any way contain energy Instead, energy condenses as matter
not through space but through time.
Really?! Empty space cannot contain energy? He simply makes assertions , some
of which are inherently meaningless and some of which are unproven, or worse,
have proof against.
Ashwin
July 3, 2013 9:57 am
E = -dV/dr, where E is the electric field, I switched the variables. A volt itself is
a Joule/Coulomb, so not energy.
Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 5:38 pm
Ashwin,
(Source wikipedia) Voltage is equal to the work done per unit charge
against a static electric field to move the charge between two points.
Ashwin
83 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 7:16 pm
1. Matter
2. Energy
3. Time
4. Space
I stand by my conjecture that empty space cannot contain energy. You are free
to disagree, but what science or even logic do you have that backs it up?
Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 9:44 pm
Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 10:01 pm
Let me elaborate.
84 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
little more. The Hamburger and Fries creates the human who then
enjoys the Significance of that which (that which is a construction
one has to use to explain such concepts) created him/her. So now
we see how Hamburger and Fries seamlessly unites basic concepts
of energy, matter, time, space, entropy, and significance.
multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 12:31 am
Captain Mandrake
July 4, 2013 12:44 am
Well, hamburger and fries actually does a better job than your
motive and sense. It not only united matter, space, time, and energy
but also united entropy and significance as shown in the post
above.
multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 12:50 am
Ok. Ill play along with your sarcasm. How does Hamburger relate
energy to space?
Captain Mandrake
July 4, 2013 1:35 am
Well the hamburger and fries creates the kitchen counter (space)
and the oven heat (energy) in which hamburger and fries are
cooked. It is the hamburger and fries by their very natures relates
85 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 2:20 am
Well the hamburger and fries creates the kitchen counter (space)
and the oven heat (energy) in which hamburger and fries are
cooked.
Then how do you explain that people who dont eat hamburgers
have kitchen counters and ovens that work?
86 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Captain Mandrake
July 4, 2013 5:56 am
**Then how do you explain that people who dont eat hamburgers
have kitchen counters and ovens that work?**
87 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Where did the sense and motive go and where did the container
and attenuation come from?
multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 6:20 am
Once you establish that kitchen counters and ovens emerges from
hamburgers and fries
Can you explain what that Cosmic hamburger and fries is?
Where did the sense and motive go and where did the container
and attenuation come from?
I know you think that youre being witty, but I have had this same
conversations with dozens of others who think and respond exactly
the same way that you do. I cant tell you apart, to be honest. One
long droning bore of smug mediocrity. Whats your theory of
consciousness? Yeah, thats what I thought.
Captain Mandrake
July 4, 2013 6:44 am
88 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
**Can you explain what that Cosmic hamburger and fries is?**
Again its nature and unnature has been explained in the previous
post.
What happened to the sense and motive which was what was
uniting the time, matter, space, energy, entropy and significance,
right?
**I know you think that youre being witty, but I have had this same
conversations with dozens of others who think and respond exactly
the same way that you do. I cant tell you apart, to be honest. One
long droning bore of smug mediocrity.**
And you think you are the first pseudoscience peddler I have
encountered? All using the same of set of tactics argument from
ignorance, shifting the burden of proof, begging the question and
word salad definitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 8:51 am
89 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
No, it wasnt.
Again its nature and unnature has been explained in the previous
post.
No, it wasnt.
What happened to the sense and motive which was what was
uniting the time, matter, space, energy, entropy and significance,
right?
And you think you are the first pseudoscience peddler I have
encountered?
90 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
How would such a phenomenon as what you see before you now
assist the brain in directing the behavior of the body? Why would
the function of the body in its environment be materially different
than the function of a T-cell body in its environment?
The body of knowledge that has been built through the meticulous
process called science has to varying extents explained such
phenomena. Of course there are gaps.
But if these gaps are to be filled we still have to rely on the same
meticulous process called science.
Captain Mandrake
July 4, 2013 10:31 am
91 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
When asked how it predicts you will just back up your claim with a
series of word salad definitions after saying that your claim is
beyond proof. No knowledge is build up on account of your BS
hypothesis.
If I were to say Running is what you leg does much like writing is
what you hand does I do not mean that Running=Writing.
**I am more of a scientist than any dozen of blokes like you will ever
beand Im not even trying.**
multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 11:10 am
When asked how it predicts you will just back up your claim with a
92 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Not at all. Its hard to relate to someone who projects his own lack
of understanding onto others. You dont understand what Im saying
so the only possibility is that I dont understand what Im saying. I
cant help you with that. Im afraid that is a personality issue.
If I were to say Running is what you leg does much like writing is
what you hand does I do not mean that Running=Writing.
it is easy and you do not have to try. The blokes you debate with
are constrained by the scientific method.
93 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Dadster
July 4, 2013 2:10 am
Capt Mandrake,
Can you Produce verifiable evidence for string theory, super string theory ( of course you
can say that you did not make it ).
Both of those theories are constructs of the mind ( you might say , mathematical
constructs ), but not a thing to show on the ground.
Can you produce a shred of evidence to prove that mind is an emergent phenomena?
If you cannot , then keep your mind open to the potential possibility that perhaps after all ,
mind might be a fundamental entity , and, NOT an emergent phenomena.
Scientists having reached a cul-de-sac with matter for explaining cosmic phenomena is
now giving afresh look at Life and Intelligence , mind and awareness from a larger
perspective directly than studying mind through the scaffolding of matter, studying Bio-
sciences and life sciences NOT through the eyes and paradigms of physics ( bio- physics )
and Chemistry ( bio- chemistry ) .
Bio- centrism is one such attempt, a fledgling science full of rich potential and therefore
very exciting .
Yet another option available is to take a re-look into Bergsons 19the century postulation of
lan vital . 19th century detractors of that theory whose time had not come then could
succeed in putting that theory on the back burner,back then .
Finding nuggets of wisdom from previously discarded theories and revitalising them and
finding new meaning and applications is common in science ( examples , Newtons
corpuscular theory of light , Huygens wave theory of light, cosmological constant of
Einstein, to name a few ). For every theory there is a time for it to pick up. Perhaps, now
that hardcore scientists are seeking fresh ground to stand on, mindor,Cosmological
Consciousness is an option the time has come for lan vital to bloom and flourish .
There is much work to do , mathematical as well as experimental , with mind as the central
piece of interest independent of matter. We have to discretise, quantify and assign a
proper unit of measurement to measure Consciousness in the first place.
94 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
intelligence.
If all evidences and proofs are ready to prove Bio- centrism ( or mind- centrism , as distinct
from material- centrism ), then whats the point in discussing about this new find ? Whats
the fun ?
If everything is so clear then what is there to discuss about with you or with others about
Bio- centrism , Captain . No need to also.
We are just toying with new ideas about how to make better sense out of cosmos in its
infinite glory and variety . The fun is in the chase not in the catch . We are partaking in the
process of creation of science . And , Internet communication is making it possible for
non- scientists and amateurs to interact with other non- professional and, if lucky , with
some professional minds too , a facility not available in olden times.
Lets rejoice at the opportunity we get and take it all in the right spirit.
Besides. For science , all answers are just stepping stones to more questions .
Thats the great glory of science.
Dadster.
Dadster
July 4, 2013 11:39 am
When Newton worked out the force of gravity,he helped to set into motion the Industrial
Revolution. When Faraday worked out Electricity and Magnetism , he set into motion the
Electric Age.When Einstein wrote down e = mc^2, he unleashed the nuclear age. Now we
are on the verge of a theory . of Cosmological Consciousness in Cosmic multi
dimensions, the projection of which is Life energy in our dimensions, which may one
day determine the fate of the human species. ( ala Michio Kakku ) .
Joe Isuzu
July 6, 2013 8:23 pm
Lets all keep open minds when we deal with science scientifically. We are NOT
proselytizers trying conversions.Are we?
Actually, lets not forget that this blog is a scientific rebuttal to a spiritualized promulgation
of pseudo scientific.
95 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
multisenserealism
July 6, 2013 9:14 pm
Actually, lets not forget that this blog is a scientific rebuttal to a spiritualized
promulgation of pseudo scientific.
If thats true, then all the more reason to keep open mindsunless the blogs true
purpose is to indulge a confirmation bias of pseudoskepticism. If the rebuttal is
scientific, then it should seek to disprove itself before announcing conclusions on
what it is rebutting.
Joe Isuzu
July 8, 2013 1:17 pm
MR-CW
Awareness of awareness. So you think that a materialistic world view cant
understand what you are trying to convey making you appear to be a pseudo
scientific when they are in fact pseudo skeptical.
It seems that in your effort to unify you dilute the methodology and conflate the
mechanisms of philosophy and science. But you are entitled to believe. I just
dont happen to find what you think of as significant proof compelling.
Jose Drost-Lopez asked and posited very good questions in your interview.
Ajita Kamal
July 14, 2010 2:13 pm
How can you condone discrediting a large number of practising scientists by implying they
are not true scientists, simply because they do not agree with your interpretation of the
universe?
Dr. Wadhawan did not use the phase true scientists. You are the one using it. The reason
why those scientists are wrong is not simply because they do not agree with your
interpretation of the universe as you falsely claim, but because of the various reasons that
96 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
we have listed in the article. Please address the arguments put forth instead of making
silly generalizations.
SThoreau
November 8, 2012 8:38 am
Captain Mandrake,
To find the answer, you will need to quieten your own mind and see if you have an
existence apart from your mind and intellect. Try it and see, you will know how difficult it is
to do it, especially for people like us who have been taught to analyse objects and never
ourselves which is how our modern education system is. But if you can do it like a true
scientist, then there wont be much of a need to turn to equations and theories for you will
know for yourself. I did cut paste the article, what you present as your own ideas are only
what you understood of the scientists theories and experiments, isnt it? Its not your own.
Unless you start enquiring into your own self, nothing , no knowledge will be first hand
that is ultimately what the Upanishads and Vedas ask one too. Until the day you turn to
look at yourself, all this will look like having arosen from indigestion :).
R Maganti
January 14, 2013 10:10 pm
SThoreau,
You seem to be someone familiar with the scientific and the metaphysical side of things.
What made you to move towards the metaphysical side from the scientific side of things?
Is it to do with the scientific process being iterative and takes many many years to bring
closure to matters of the physical world tnat are observable with our five senses. Some
years ago, I saw a program on TV, which showed how other living creatures in this world
perceive colours and objects.
Previous Comments
Social Media
Subscribe to RSS
Follow us on twitter
Follow us on facebook
Flickr
Youtube
Our Websites
97 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...
Random Posts
About
Archives
Contact Us
About
Archives
Ajita Kamal
Forums
Our Network
Regional Groups
Indian Skeptic
Contact Us
search:
search... Go
98 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM