ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



The universe in your head

Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:30 PM by Alan Boyle


Bruce Rolff / FeaturePics.com
Our consciousness plays a key role in how we perceive space and
time, biomedical researcher Robert Lanza says in "Biocentrism."

Biomedical researcher Robert Lanza has been on the frontier of cloning and stem cell studies for more than a decade, so he's well-acclimated to controversy. But his book "Biocentrism" is generating controversy on a different plane by arguing that our consciousness plays a central role in creating the cosmos.

"By treating space and time as physical things, science picks a completely wrong starting point for understanding the world," Lanza declares.

Any claim that space and time aren't cold, hard, physical things has to raise an eyebrow. Some of the reactions to Lanza's ideas, first set forth two years ago in an essay for The American Scholar, brand them as "pseudo-scientific philosophical claptrap" or "no better than any religion."

Lanza admits that the reviews haven't all been glowing, particularly among some physicists. "Their response has been much how you'd expect priests to respond to stem cell research," he told me Monday.

Other physicists, however, point out that Lanza's view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.

"So what Lanza says in this book is not new," Richard Conn Henry, a physics and astronomy professor at Johns Hopkins University, said in a book review. "Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do not say it - or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private - furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!"

The weird twists in our view of the cosmos are hinted at in the scientific speculation over quantum teleportation, experiments in reverse-time causation, the idea that time has no independent existence, and physicist Stephen Hawkings' suggestion that the universe as we know it is generated through quantum interference involving all possible universes.

Lanza and his co-author, astronomer/columnist Bob Berman, try to assemble all those weird little twists into a larger theory. Rather than laying out the big picture here, I'll let them do it in an exclusive online abridgment:

CLICK HERE TO SAMPLE 'BIOCENTRISM'

The authors contend that their view of the cosmos can help resolve all the head-scratching over unifying the fundamental forces, or coming up with a "theory of everything" that covers the submicroscopic world of quantum effects as well as the grand workings of gravity.

There are potential pitfalls, of course. If you merely accept that reality works the way it does because that's how our senses and neurons are structured to perceive it, you could run the risk of shrugging off the search for deeper, truer descriptions of that reality.

One route would be to write off the still-mysterious aspects of our universe (e.g., what dark energy is, or how consciousness arises) as an expression of the anthropic principle. In effect, you're saying, "It's that way just because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it." Another route would be embracing intelligent design ("God did it").

Neither of those routes can be navigated very well using the scientific method, and Lanza and Berman point that out in their book. However, they don't lay out a detailed road map showing how a "biocentric" view of the universe might affect the course of science - other than to say that neuroscience needs more attention and string theory needs less.

Theoretically, one avenue might be to study how our brain organizes the incoming electrical impulses to create the matrix beyond - and tweak that circuitry in different ways. "With a little genetic engineering, you could probably make anything that's red move, or make a noise instead, or even make you feel hungry or want to have sex," Lanza said.

Lanza acknowledges that the step-by-step, objective approach to solving scientific puzzlers is still the way to go when you're focusing on a specific research project, such as turning the medical promise of embryonic stem cells into reality. He knows he's not making all this up.

"Day to day, yes, I can put x number of ml [milliliters] in a Petri dish, and I can predict exactly what the behavior is going to be," he told me.

But Lanza said quantum effects as basic as the two-slit experiment tell us that there's more to life, the universe and everything than milliliters of solution in a dish. "We have this way that we think of space and time on the street. It's day to day, paying your bills," Lanza said. "But when you look at these experiments, that's not what they're telling us. In fact, they're telling us quite the reverse."

Does all this make a difference in daily life, or how you see the world? Take a look at the free sample of "Biocentrism," and feel free to weigh in with your comments below. And if you're looking for more mind-blowing speculation, check out these archived Cosmic Log items:


Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about my upcoming book, "The Case for Pluto." 

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

A friend of mine once said "All matter has consciousness. It is the degree of consciousness that is different". So human beings are more conscious than plants, plants more than a single celled bacteria, and a bacteria more than a pebble. After we die, information is lost. That's because we return to dust and a "lower level" of consciousness. Pretty mind wrenching, when I first heard it.

But in physics today, it would be heresy to say that inanimate matter has any degree of consciousness.
This guy has his s... together.
I wonder how much time he has spent with Tibetan Bhuddists, or Hopi, Zuni, and Navajo Indians?
One cannot imagine how much more exciting and interesting the Cosmos becomes when there is no reason to attempt contracting the vastness in the name of understanding.
It's also impossible to lose sight of the simple fact that it's all the same place, and we are in it.
Here's the simple version...
http://smythspace.blogspot.com/2007/01/kineticism.html
Gotta love it, eh?
almost forgot to mention the great American Philosopher, Geraldine ( Flip Wilson )...
"What you see, is wht you get!"
Forge Ahead...
Anyone interested in these concepts should indulge themselves in the great science-fiction writer, Philip K. Dick. His Book "Valis" (as well as others) are very much in-tune with the concepts of the illusion of time, the universe being in your mind and so on.

Never be afraid to think omni-directional
It isn't in your head, Lanza, it's in that jackhammer, dynamite, air-conditioner, space-shuttle, and everything else that we do to **efficiently*** satisfy the second law of thermodynamics in an accelerating expanding universe that has an increasing negative pressure component.

But John Wheeler was a very cool guy and a great physicist, as well.  He was also born in the right city... ;)
Anyone familiar with John Archibald Wheeler's Meaning Circuit knows that ths coneption is far from new. We, all of us participants for all time, create the universe by our decisions and actions. The universe, in turn, evelves to create us.
Wheeler needs more credit for this unique and beautiful conception.
consciousness and the cosmos are inseparable, its our self centered identity and auto-biographical and historical sense of self that obscures our ability to perceive that we are not separate from life and the universe itself. Even our language - being structured around the false notion of individually supports this illusion and makes speaking about it problematic.

It is also problematic to say that 'we' are creating the cosmos as we perceive it, because we assume that we know who that 'we' is when we refer to it/ourselves. Neither we, nor the universe are what we believe them to be. Both orthodox religion and industrial based science are dead ends in answering the questions that they both argue being the ultimate authority on.

An unbiased spiritual exploration offers experiences that suggest cosmic unity. It is human delusion and fear that threatens the stability of life on our unique and precious planet. Hopefully people such as Robert Lanza can exert some influence on society or the 'powers' that be, and begin to bring the ship around before our fear and delusion causes irreversible damage to ourselves and the planet.
There are two types of people in this world: Epiphenomenalists and Consciousness Firsters. Epiphenomenalists believe that the mind is merely a product (epiphenomenon) of the brain and its chemistry. It's encouraging to think that Lanza has joined the ranks of the CFers, which include Amit Goswami, PhD, a physics professor and Vedic scholar whose landmark book "The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Physical World" should also be mentioned here.

Anyone who has had a precognitive dream has prima facie evidence of  the primacy of consciousness over physical matter.
25...

There is something formlessly created
Born before Heaven and Earth
So silent!
So ethereal!
Independent and changeless
Circulating and ceaseless
It can be regarded as the mother of the world

I do not know its name
Identifying it, I call it "Tao"
Forced to describe it, I call it great
Great means passing
Passing means receding
Receding means returning

Therefore the Tao is great
Heaven is great
Earth is great
The sovereign is also great
There are four greats in the universe
And the sovereign occupies one of them

Humans follow the laws of Earth
Earth follows the laws of Heaven
Heaven follows the laws of Tao
Tao follows the laws of nature

Lao Tzu.
Tao Te Ching: Annotated & Explained, published by SkyLight Paths in 2006.

It seems the fundamental question "What is reality" has been attempted to discover the answer for owns perception of reality, and various individuals over historical times have been trying to make that discovery; our technology is assisting humanity where before those things that couldn't be comprehended was left to the 'gods' of our creation and perceptions.
This is Hindusim.
In the beginning there was no consciousness and thus no biocentrism.
of course what Lanza says is not new. Buddhists have been saying this for thousands of years now. see this lecture by Dr. Lewis Lancaster's Burke Lecture: Buddhism in a Global Age of Technology ~http://bit.ly/11gTct (don't worry this is pure academia, not woo woo ;))

~C
Magic Mushrooms can show you the same theories, and it's fun!
To someone, somewhere.....At a certain level, this is nearly all religions out there.

Reality is a self-induced illusion of the lack of free will authority and the fear of accountability.
We are analog beings digitally remastered continually to be controlled by absolute logic in a universal analog existance.
Thirty-five years ago, I was lucky enough to have a professor at the University of Guelph, Dr. Helier Robinson, whose lectures and book: Renascent Rationalism had a profound effect on my thinking and turned me into an adherent of Rationalism as a platform for analysis.  His model of real world and perceived world saw the world as an individual interpretation and I believe naturally so.  Rationalism is seen less as the belief system of empiricism and rather a personally responsible analytical state.  I find it a positive and empowering system simply that it demands self-accountability.  To me, though I understand the allure of empiricism as a model which seeks hard rules, we obviously acknowledge observation and conclusion so that we may organize 'the knowledge of conclusion', but we are not challenged in a personal way to understand the vagaries of human perception and the oft damaging power of religious suggestion.
The art of flying is to convince yourself that if you jump off a tall building and think hard enough, you'll miss the earth. This is an old argument made new with math.
The universe has existed for many billions of years before humans or conciousness.  If earthly human sentience were wiped out tomorrow, no loss to the universe.
Lao Tzu a great, even greats Chinese philosopher. I wish I had just little more time to continue study about Taoism...

Anyway, any time Dr. Robert Lanza's name is mentioned, share of Advanced Cell Technology, Inc.
(Public, OTC:ACTC) goes up.
I am therefor you are.
I can relate to Lanza's biocentrism. Just think that if you did  not have any consciousness  neither the universe nor anything else around you has any meaning or significant existence. It is like the reality of the universe to a person under anesthetics it has no meaning or significance. Similarly the universe to a blind man is what is described to him by others. So the universe for a blind person can only  be an idea or concept. By the same token when consciousness dies with the body everything else that it had been aware of dies with it. Hence the whole universe and everything around us do exist in our consciousness or so long as  we are conscious of them. Therefore consciousness, reality, existence are all the makeup of the living brain chemistry and for as long it is functional.
This idea that if we humans think about the universe the act of thinking about it then changes it's basic characterisitics is poppycock - and the evidence that says so is manifest. What the authors have done here is to lump everything we do not fully understand into a unifying theory that has all the hallmarks of a theology. The Native American people (for instance) created a religious answer to what they observed and could not fathom. This is the same principle.

 The light of life was on before man began to think about it. There were rules in the universe and physical principles that ran the clockworks long  before us.  Light that was created by physical processes 4 billion years ago and that has traveled thru space to fall upon the detectors of the Hubble is unsullied by the rise and fall of earth. Or man.
This actually involves a central philosophical problem that philosophers have struggled with since the beginning and that is, essentially, unresolvable. What is interesting is the lack of awareness among some scientists that science itself is based on a single philosophical approach - rationalism - that ultimately is no more based on "truth" than, say, New Age mysticism. It reminds one a bit of the medieval clergy and their certainty about the nature of reality.To quote Wallace Stephens: "The river is moving/The blackbird must be flying."
So this fom of "scientific" Hindusim is accepted by many but Intelligent Design is rejected? Whose consiousness determines the universe?  
The world is like a ride at an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it, you think that it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly coloured, and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question - is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us. They say 'Hey! Don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride.' And we...kill those people. Ha ha ha. 'Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride. SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry. Look at my big bank account and family. This just has to be real.' It's just a ride. But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok. But it doesn't matter because: it's just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings, and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourselves off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. Here's what you can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defence each year, and instead spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, for ever, in peace.
-Bill Hicks
Biocentrism, what utter nonsense! It is the human ego not consciousness that creates this type of mysticism. We believe in (not think about) deities because most cannot come to grips with how insignificant we are in the cosmos.  

Biocentrism is just more philosophic blubbering or mental masterbation. And as I have said many times, philosophy is for those who don't have the inclination or wit to understand the real science of our universe.

How sad that this gets a mention along with the real work of science.
This is all a bit silly.  It has the worst chicken/egg problem imaginable, since the Universe cannot have been created without someone there to watch it.  How did they get there before the Universe?  Where were they standing, so to speak?  Lanza has no answer for that, and I don't expect him to come up with one.

(Interesting that a biologist would spend so much time thinking biology is the answer to all the troubling and fundamental questions of cosmology.  As a computer scientist, I suppose I should posit this is all one big program executing on the most complex computer imaginable.  In both cases, I believe one might detect a bit of bias in the approach.)

Apparently Bob Lanza can't tell the difference between a rock and a brick, where they're placed, or how long they've been there, respectively.  That's just plain silly.  (Note of order:  a Ph.D. outside his or her subject of study is rarely granted any more facility with other topics than you or I.  Don't be cowed by the degree.)

In the universe he suggests, once we pull away the veil of illusion, we should just be able to walk straight up to Mars and find out why all those space probes went awry.  Disbelieving in gravity should be enough to let any of us fly with no mechanical contraptions required.  No one has done that yet.  It wasn't even done before Newton did the math.  General Relativity describes the situation very well, without need of belief, or quantum weirdness.  (I have no problem with quantum weirdness, though.)  When observation conflicts with belief, observation must hold sway.

Cosmic constants aside--if our consciousness creates the universe, why the Hell did we create THIS one?  Seems to me we could have done a lot better.  And he gets us no closer to finding out why the fundamental constants (of which practically all of us are ignorant, and most of which have only been quantified for about 150 years) have the values they do.  It certainly has no hope of explaining why we (or the cavemen which preceded us) decided that light should have a finite speed, nor why the free-space propagation velocity of light is about 300,000km/sec.  Perhaps Bob Lanza would like to organize an experiment in which a bunch of observers decide that light speed should double, and see how that works out.  

(Yes. Perhaps some other intelligent race in the universe decided light should travel at a certain speed--but on what basis?  Surely they weren't born knowing about cosmological constants anymore than our ancestors 100,000 years ago were.)

To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, not only is Bob Lanza not right, he isn't even wrong.
So, we're to believe that the universe suddenly sprang to being with the advent of the first human (or other being) with consciousness?  Complete with the history of all said human (or other being) ancestors?  Who didn't exist until that moment? And really, even then, only existing in some non-existent past?  Riiiight....
This is far beyond my ability to "grok" and so frustratingly fascinating I truly want to understand.

Can someone explain this to us simple, single-cell creatures?

How does it resemble Hinduism, or Native American animist religions?

Inquiring (single-cell, simple) Minds want to know (and understand).
Is this what the Beatles' song NOWHERE MAN is about?

"He's a real nowhere man,
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans
For nobody."

Sounds pretty close.  But it's all too deep for me.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God......

The Word, my friends, is a viable expression of the Will of God....the Great Architect of the Universe, the Creator...who through His Word, spoke the universe into existence, just as I, a mere Earthly architect can "speak" a building into existence long before the first nail is driven.  I design building in my mind long before pencil and paper merge into plans - this is the inner voice - the voice of my will and self awareness.

So yes, consciousness and the universe are one in the same.....just as they have to be to function....for one without the other wouldn't be recognizable by man....
Hey guys! The answer is 42.
Life is so much stranger than fiction.  I'll never understand why people spend so much time watching "housewives of orange county" when the Universe in all of her mystery and beauty is right outside of their window...
Taking this idea a step further, I have already stepped out into this mind-universe because it is all within the mind of God. I center on God as the ultimate observer. The closer we come to knowing God, the more able we are to share in creating the universe or observing it, which may be the same thing.
There is "consciousness" and there is "self_cousciousness".  They are not exactly the same.  It is one thing to be conscious of the tree in front of me.  It is another thing to be "aware" that i am conscious of the tree in front of me. Self-consciousness is the key point of this debate.
Boring!  This is just a restatement of the scientific method - hypothesis, theory, law.  Only now, those with the hypothesis want to skip the next two steps and browbeat younto acepting their hypothesis without the evidence provided by experimentation or obseration.

We've always had philosophers who considered alternate universes and time warps.  Only, now they demand recognition without the proofs.  Aristotle was great for hypothesis, Gallileo did the experiments.
This idea is Scientology.  L. Ron Hubbard talked about this in the 1950s.
I admire Lanza for his bravery in writing this book. Many years ago, the body of work by Jane Roberts (the books of Seth) were published.  In his book, Seth Speaks, Seth states:

"Each individual has access to intuitional knowledge and can gain glimpses of inner reality.  The universe speaks to each of us in this regard. . . .Consciousness creates form.  It is not the other way around. . . .It is only because you are so busily concerned with daily matters that you do not realize that there is a portion of you who knows that its own powers are far superior to those shown by the ordinary self."  

The Yale University Library maintains a comprehensive archive documenting the work and life of Jane Roberts, including published writings, unpublished writings such as journals and personal papers, correspondence and audio recordings of various channeling sessions, including the Seth Material and other recordings. [Wikipedia]

Peace and Love to you all
this seems like kant again... only new in the correlation to quantum mechanics-
George Berkeley wrote about this 300 years ago.  "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
This whole argument is vaguely reminiscent of the first half of Rene Descartes' six discourses during which he says, "Cogito ego sum," or "I think therefore I am."  His agenda was to establish the certainty of the existence of God and the trustworthiness of the senses.  

Robert Lanza justifiably opens the door to a more candid evaluation of how much our inner wiring influences the conclusions we draw.  Naturally, this would draw fire from those who lack a certain degree of introspection and reflexion on the limitations of being human and who simply assume that what we perceive is a reliable representation of external reality, and that is understandable.  

I can recall a philosophy professor in college, who was confronted by a student writhing in the unhappy state of Cartesian anxiety over his own existence.  The student said, full of emotion and worry, "Professor, do I exist?"  The professor responded, "Who's asking?"

We do assume a certain trustworthiness of our senses in daily life.  Without the assurance that our spoons are lifting something bearing gustatory pleasure to our lips we would all go mad at dinner.  Without a dip in the pool on a hot summer's day, we would be rather miserable.  Without the irrationality of professed love and consummated marriage, the human species would die off.

We are irrational in many ways, and the notion that such such a predispostion has no influence on what we observe in scientific endeavors certainly is like swimming against the tide.
The human equivalent of a dog chasing its tail.....
I don't understand how if this is true we are ever surprised by the outcome of experiments. If what we perceive as the universe is the universe than how come there was no cosmological constant for Einstein’s beautiful static universe and why would we be surprised by a replicable study in quantum mechanics that shows that particles can be present in more than one place at a time and change from matter to "waves" of energy? Why wouldn't these types of studies come to be what we expect of them and not something entirely new and difficult to explain?
There was never an endeavor to create "life" a byproduct of the formation of the cosmos. Life is the bastard child of these events. Humanity is destined to destroy itself. Even those that "know" alittle something know nothing. Im a scientist but not an atheist, i dont subscribe mans place to gods will but rather evolution in tune with nature. Lets not forget that life is a fluke & commercialism most assuredly not its drive. Everything you see or "interpret" to see was not here after you it was all here before you. Blue was always blue before humans, reds always red. Mans ego his attempt to either raise god or floor god man wants to be god. In owing to that mans Ego his id will always stop the rest of humanity from progressive movement. YOU DONT CREATE COSMOS YOU ANT IT CREATES YOU. We are made of stuff of stars stuff of stars is not made from us. We are hairless apes who left the trees and kept using tools, better tools replacing the last ones, better people coming after making better tools take the human/god ego out of the mix and you have give & take, life & death. For all mans wealth education status possesions we are nothing more than hairless complex thinking apes who only understand our language and assume it divine. Can we talk with our water cousins whales etc? ... no
so for all we know they already unlocked the secrets to it all and sing it but all we hear is clicks and assume we know better we wil always assume we know better. Simplest terms our sun doesnt have to fear us but we have to fear it why fear the sun if we created it?
This is nothing more than our observance of a universe created by a post-human civilization's simulation...
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
OK, then, if consciousness creates reality, it sure pays to have a positive outlook.
This is Buddhism
Buddhism has long taught that our consciousness created the cosmos...this book is not creating anything new; simply exposing Westerners to a very old theory. I will be disappointed if Lanza is credited with originating this theory.  
 I have come to believe that there is this universe which is the so-called physical realm which is temporary and another universe which is permanent and is the spiritual realm.
 The physical universe depends on the spiritual universe. The two universes mesh together separated by only the plank length. Our perception is from this universe and our consciousness is from the spiritual universe.
 Maybe we are sensing the spiritual universe in dark energy and dark matter.
 There is noway to get around the fact that God created the physical universe, you can argue with a sign-post but it will get you no where, you can deny till you die but it changes nothing.

science is coming closure to indian spirituality though slowly but surely and scientifically.
its a step towards the EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS .
the very acceptance of presence of consciousness and a real controlling factor of life,is encouraging.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1966953

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google