The essay certainly raises eyebrows.  I think Star Wars played a lot on the living universe and "connectedness" idea as "the force". So it's not a new idea. However, Lanza really brings things to the table.  It seems the question "what is consciousness?" will never be adequately answered.

How can a single celled amoeba be "conscious" of bits of food as it displays "intention" to engulf and digest it?  There is fundamentally no difference between it and us when we sense food and eat. The actions are the same and meant for the same purpose.

This Alice in Wonderland approach to the universe is quite problematic.  It's just too crazy to think or believe it's all a dream and things are whatever you make them to be.

If you are ever before a judge however, it's good to know that your defense can be, "your honor, alchohol only exists in your mind and so I was never over the limit and that machine the officer used only was created in line with laws that we only think exist!"

now that we are all on the bandwagon, this will change things. e.g. in This uni. smoking is really, really good for you (an so on, what fun!) "what me worry".

Ok guys, back away from the bong pipe. Are you really listening to what you are saying? Has mankind officially gone off the deep end? Do you really think an individual's consciousness creates reality? Get a grip. To the poster above who said that religion is a dead end for explaining reality, I say you have not thought deeply enough or else you would not have come to that conclusion. Let us suppose, for a moment, that an observer is required for reality, as posited by quantum theory. Let us also suppose, as many do, that it is true that the universe is infinite. Given these statements, we can reduce the argument to a simple syllogism: "If the universe exists infinitely, there must be an infinite, omniscient observer. The universe does exist and is infinite. Therefore an infinite, omniscient observer exists." A further syllogism can be drawn from this: "Only an infinite consciousness can omnisciently observe an infinite universe. Man is finite. Therefore man's consciousness cannot omnisciently observe the infinite universe." A third syllogism follows: "Only an infinite consciousness can sustain an infinite reality. Man is finite. Therefore, Man cannot sustain an infinite reality." Fourthly: "The cosmos is an infinite reality. Man is finite. Man cannot be the cause of the cosmos." This brings us to the final conclusion: "The cosmos is an infinite reality. God is infinite. Therefore, God is the cause of the cosmos." Given the above, if quantum theory reveals to us that an observer is required for reality, then an infinite reality requires an infinite observer. That, dear friends, points us to God. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He is the sustainer of all reality. Religion is, therefore, not a dead end, but rather the beginning to understanding all of reality. Science and religion are not on opposite ends of the spectrum. Rather, science is a tool that God has given to us so that we may be led to Him through deeper study of His creation.

So, I take it, Carlos Castenada was right...?

If what Lanza proposes is true, perhaps I can learn to use "the Force" after all.

Would the Higgs Boson be analogous to "Midichlorians"?

God created the universe and all that's in it and our souls are a direct creation of ourselves by that same God, infinite in being. It's impossible for our finite minds to grasp that which is infinite, we can begin to grasp the material but not that which is not of nature, the spiritual, try to imagine Love as  substance, as a being entirely different than we are yet that's what it is, in the realm of eternity and we have so little of it, him, her, both.

Rakesh Sharma, zero IS a degree. Maybe only because we imbue it with that. There is no such thing as nothing, because to conceive of nothing is to give it existence. Existence may well be a sliding scale. Neither science nor religion like that very much.  Can the box contain itself?

The first flaw in thinking is to believe that something can not come from nothing. The thought that something must come from something else is both true and false. The reality is, as I experienced it, was that only when one discovers complete nothingness, does everything becomes possible. We are limited by our dualistic perspective of reality, we can not have dark without light, existence without nonexistence, consciousness without unconsciousness, etc.  If you move beyond this perspective you find a Unitarian perspective where all exists as One. Duality fades and possibilities become limitless. This is where you can not find separation. So consciousness can not be separate from life. One can not be separate from another. The observer can not be separate from that being observed as it is simply creating the object/thought, etc. and observing it at the same time.
The cause of duality is free will. We have a choice as to what we want to focus on. In our making a choice to focus on one thing we choose not to focus on others. This is an illusion free will causes. It also inhibits us from seeing all, at the same time.
In actuality all forms that are not operating out of free will are much closer to the source or oneness. We choose to see what we are not, so we can begin to search for what we are.
We are beginning to find consciousness in matter or inanimate objects. And it definitely exists there. But again the flaw is in thinking that inanimate matter has less consciousness than animated matter. The truth is that consciousness is consciousness, there are not varying degrees of it only varying perspectives of it. Everything exists to support everything else and by doing so, supports itself. So a chair is a chair because it is useful to the one observing the chair. In reality, inanimate objects have the ability to become whatever is needed in the moment (and I use the term moment lightly).  It is our belief or perception that prevents it from changing. Just as it is our belief/perception in time and space that keeps time and space in place.
So I repeat that it is only when you strip away everything and delve deeply into the endless vastness of nothingness, do you begin to see that nothing is indeed the source of everything. Then you get a glimpse of the oneness that is ALL.
This is simply what I experienced/ perceived/observed during a near death experience. The irony is that in death one finds the source of life.
Thank you for allowing me to share my experience.

Its all crap, really. All this does not exist at all. Did it exist before you were born? Of course not! Prove it! How? By someone elses' word?? Hah! I and only I am the single sole thing that exists. And that goes for all of you as well! That is all that is provable. For anyone. The rest is all crap. Why worry about it anyway? It all goes away when you die.

Reality is very real.  The Universe does not give a crap about our precious consciousness.  All this quantum pseudo-science is just a pathetic attempt to find god, and give us hope for an after-life.

Space might or might not be a “thing,” or a fundamental concept of reality.  But consciousness is most definitely an emergent property, and not a thing in itself (res ipsa).  So how can something that emerges from reality be more real than reality?  You can’t just wave your arms about quantum effects and dark energy here, folks.

The authors “don't lay out a detailed road map showing how a "biocentric" view of the universe might affect the course of science...”  

The reason for that is that it wouldn’t.  You can’t noodle out physical reality by studying the mind.  In fact, science so often goes against common sense---that is, what the mind comes up with---that many scientists say that the purpose of science is to show where the mind is wrong, that if common sense were correct, we wouldn’t need science.

I will admit one instance where biocentrism might be valuable.  Suppose you consider Genesis, especially Genesis 2, to be an account of the creation of human consciousness, rather than an account of the creation of the physical world.  For example, Adam (or, more probably, Eve) creates language by naming things; mankind discovers that his intellect can assess his instincts, and even overrule them.

We can only seek answers to the questions we know how to ask.

The guy's right.  :) And taken to its logical conclusion:

Nothing exists but thought. Look around you. That's what thought "looks like". Matter is the belief that something other than thought exists. Note: matter is a belief (or thought). The brain, usually considered to be the originator of thought, is actually just another thought itself.

Everything can be explained if it is considered that the physical universe with all its particles, waves, dolphins, emotions and hopes is just thought.

Thought determines how matter appears, since matter is thought. If thought is helpful, harmless, fearless, pure, then matter, including body (in the thinker's universe) is going to be harmless, enjoyable, harmonious.

Watch your thought. And remember the adjective 'fearless'.

Perception is fascinating, but it can a bit frightening, especially when we believe it without question, since it tends strongly to favor misdirection and illusion over facts at inopportune times . . .

Science provides clues that are very helpful in making factual sense of perception--which is great--but in the same way that science provides clues, perception is very skilled in creating misdirection and illusion . . .

For example, what we perceive visually actually is a puzzle, the pieces of which are turned upside-down, colorized, and reassembled by a set of neurochemical processes which include a good bit of filling-in-the-blanks, which is something one discovers sooner or later--typically as part of formal training in science--and even when we know the facts, we continue to perceive visually the same way we did before we knew the facts, although perhaps with a tiny bit more disbelief . . .

If we have normal vision and are standing in the middle of a field of red roses on a bright sunny day, we have the very realistic perception that we actually are seeing a broad expanse of red roses, but the reality is that the human eye only perceives red in a small region, so just a fraction of the red roses we see are perceived as they are, with the greater number being arbitrarily colorized based on a set of presumptions, primary of which is that as we looked at different parts of the field of roses and saw only red roses, this maps to all the roses most likely being red all the time, which usually is a reasonable and accurate presumption, except when it is not, which might be a good presumption for roses but probably is not such a good presumption if one is in a field of octupi (because a lot of them can change colors nearly instantly) . . .

As a thought experiment, I think it is interesting to ponder what might happen if one were blindfolded and led to the middle of a field of roses on a bright sunny day; put inside a vertical box; and then after the blindfold was removed, was told to look straight ahead while a curtain at the front of the box slowly was opened . . .

Without having the ability to examine different parts of the field of roses as one sees it from afar and then walks toward it, I wonder how the roses seen by the parts of the eyes with no red receptors will be perceived, especially if the experiment begins with information about the field of roses which does not make the expectation that all the roses in the field are red so likely . . .

In other words, if someone you trusted told you that only 10 percent of the roses in the field are red and that all the other roses are yellow, how would you perceive the roses for which your eyes only see some combination of gray, blue, and green?

And if this appears to be a silly experiment, it might be a little bit less silly when one remembers the fact that both eyes have no visual receptors in the area where the optic nerves exit each eye, such that whatever you perceive in that part of the field of vision truly is an illusion, which is the fill-in-the-blanks aspect . . .

If one journeys back a century or so, another curious bit of information is that Sigmund Freud had the strange idea that people actually are luminescent egg-shaped beings traveling through spacetime, an idea which around fifty or so years ago appeared in some of the books Carlos Castañeda wrote about the adventures of Don Juan, where one might guess that Castañeda got the idea from Freud, or that Freud got the idea from the same source as Castañeda, but perhaps not . . .

On a related note, there is a self-trained amateur physicist (Peter Lynds) in New Zealand who thinks that time is continuous (no gaps or stops) rather than discrete, which if true tends to make most of modern physics a bit goofy, at best . . .

Another interesting bit of information is that when medical researchers do experiments with prototype drugs, there nearly always are cures within the group of patients who are given placebos, to the point that this phenomenon is given a special name, "the placebo effect" . . .

But perhaps more disturbing are the hoops through which medical researchers jump in their attempts to isolate the mind from the chemicals and processes they are testing, such that they have "double blind" tests where only a few people (or perhaps only a machine) actually know(s) which pills, tablets, creams, injections, or whatever are "real" and which ones are "placebos", all toward the goal of proving without doubt that a medicine or process is able to work in a way which truly is independent of the minds of the doctors, nurses, patients, and so forth and so on . . .

As another favorite thought exercise, I try to imagine various devices that could be sent far into outer space, where based on some type of possibly computerized machine, a capsule of penicillin could be dropped onto a petri dish in which some type of bacteria are growing for which penicillin is a bactericide or antibiotic . . .

Would the penicillin actually kill the bacteria if nobody is there to observe it?

How might one design a machine that would have no connection whatsoever, local or at a distance, with any human mind, and could not be influenced by the bacteria, either?

Is this just a variation of the Schrödinger's Cat experiment?

Is there a way to make it work differently so that it is not so quantum?

Intuitively, I think that penicillin and its affect on certain bacteria actually is both real and independent of human and bacterial observation, but proving it is another matter . . .

I like to ponder this stuff, especially late at night during full moon when I am wandering around the back yard in my underpants looking for magic mushrooms, because while it might appear to be a bit strange, the antigravity stuff is out there somewhere, and no matter how skilled it has been so far in keeping well hidden, eventually someone will have an epiphany, and then a lot more stuff will make sense and will appear to be just as obvious from the perspective of common sense and intuition as is the Earth being mostly round and traveling in an elliptical orbit around the Sun . . .

Basically, when you discover where all the antigravity is hiding, then there you are . . .

Lanza's use of the terms for life and consciousness seem to be interchangeable.  But was there not life before mind?  How did this primitive life create, or project, the universe?  Biocentrism is just a little to facile.  A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

Interference could be responsible for everything we observe. Since phase cancelation exists on the quantum level, and the article is straddling the edge of objectivity, then perhaps the big ball of everything which preceded the big bang still exists behind some polarized veil and we continue to radiate away from it. Only when we lose our mass (die) can we glimpse the origin of everything as we travel back to that infinite light at the end the tunnel.

The Emerald Tablet - circa 5000BC, last displayed to the public by Alexander the Great in Egypt 332BC, currently hidden in the Giza desert says:

Truly, without deceit, and most veritable.

That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below to accomplish the miracles of the
One Thing.
And just as all things come from this One Thing,
through the meditation of One Mind, so do all created things originate from this One Thing through Transformation.
Its father is the Sun
Its mother the Moon
The Wind carries it in its belly.
Its nurse is the Earth.
It is the origin of all, the consecration of the Universe. Its inherent Strength is perfected if it is turned into Earth.

Separate the Earth from Heaven,
The Subtle from the Gross,
genly and with great ingenuity.
It rises from Earth to Heaven and descends again to Earth, thereby combining within it the powers of both the Above and Below.

Thus will you obtain the Glory of the Whole Universe.
All Obscurity will be clear to you.
This is the greatest Force of all powers, because it overcomes every Subtle thing and penetrates every Solid thing.

In this way was the Universe created.
From this will come many wonderous Applications,
because this is the Pattern.

Herein have I completely explained the Operation of the Sun.

Another interesting take on these issues is the central theme in Blasphemy (novel) by Douglas Preston.

What a bunch of claptrap.

So the Universe is "bio-centric", is it? Well what about the Universe before life came along? Certainly the Universe existed before life on Earth existed, before even our own Sun existed? Did these things not exist because we weren't there to observe them? Poppycock.

This is just another in a long line of people who think they have it all figured out, but actually are just spouting a bunch of recycled gobblygook. They don't know, I don't know, NOBODY knows how we got here or how the Universe got here, whether life has any meaning beyond what we give it, whether there's a higher power or a completely impersonal Universe... anybody who claims they know the answers to these things are wearing hats that don't fit on their heads (but it might fit on their egos).

Huh? WTF? All I wanted to know was how much gun powder to load into this 9mm casing to make it shoot straight. Now I have to deal with creating the universe. [...]

It delights me to see how history of thinking changes and changes dramatically. Here I read an article on science theories that ressembles 19th century's metaphysics. Philosophy had been silenced for the certainty principle of science, so much more efficient and non-speculative -- but nowadays we see again how human intuition can be so precise sometimes.

And all that is written as bombastic new ideas. Perhaps just new ways of confirming an old, very old one.

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

No.  Anyone who has had an "precognitive dream" has prima facie evidence of the *perception* of precognition.  Nothing more.

An bee dreaming of finding clover is not predicting the future.  Likewise, a person who dreams of a phone call from a friend isn't, either.

We remember the hits and mostly forget the misses.  It's an evolutionarily sound practice.  It does, however, lead to some very silly ideas.

great article

Our scientific understanding of reality is all wrong. Scientists are aware of this already. But, you're wrong many times before you're right, and the scientific process is a systematic, organized approach to discern truth from falsehood that will someday wrench the truth from this vast mystery we're born into.

Nobody has the answer yet. Anyone who claims otherwise is in denial. Our brains may not even be capable of perceiving the designs of the universe. But, we must keep trying.

Ever heard of Seth?

Well if this is indeed true, kind makes us have to re-evaluate certain moral positions, like abortion, capital punishment, etc.

A couple comments:
1) Is there a testable hypothesis in this?  
2) If we--people--created the universe, then we might be the only intelligent life in it.  Of course, one might wish to inquire where (or from Whom) our intelligence came.

I'm skeptical. Even I were to take the biocentric theory seriously, there are some problems with it that would need to be solved. This theory suggests that our reality is a construct of our minds. That the mere act of observing reality influences it on a quantum mechanical level. It seems to me that consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently complex, information processing nervous systems. How would consciousness create all that we observe in our universe, our reality? What is the exact mechanism or mechanisms that would enable a conscious being to create the "Goldilocks" constants of our universe? What would be the nature of this reality creating consciousness that would enable it to influence it on the quantum mechanical level? Why would consciousness be needed to collapse the wave function? I can imagine that an unconscious device that does measurements of quantum mechanical phenomena would do the same thing. Is consciousness really a fundamental property of the universe? If so, how can that be demonstrated scientifically?

I can see where this theory holds ground. If we hadn't a brain, there'd be no perception, in essence nonexistence of the universe. Our conciousness really is what forms it all together. I find this view of the universe rather satisfying, the world and everything around us is really what we make it. If you think deeply into it, you'll find it rather self-empowering. The universe really is just the mass conciousness of every living being put together.

This kind of disputes Immanuel Kant's thing in itself theory. He stated that there is our perception of an object, and another independent existence of the object, it's true nature, what it really is. Isn't what it really is what we make it out to be? Can we prove any other existence than what we can perceive? Perhaps existence is entirely our perception. Interesting stuff.

Read..The Starlight Technique...it's free, on-line, written 12 years ago..complete with clear instruction on how to do the technique and evolve your consciousness consciously. www.starlighttechnique.com go to the bottom of page below picture and click on The Book...takes a moment to load..it's in adobe acrobat pdf... Again, the book is free, so the information is available to everyone including those who are financially challenged. Enjoy your journey.

It is truly amazing how one can write an entire book from misunderstanding one simple principle. When scientists talk about the "observer", all that that really means is that there is a logically consistent viewpoint of the universe. Quantum physics just tells us that we have a choice of viewpoints, for example, the standard example that we can measure either the speed or position of a particle.

An observer can take a pick of viewpoints, but that doesn't mean that any other viewpoint is any less valid. More importantly, no viewpoint needs an observer to be valid. That's all there is to it.

Furthermore, the author cites a number of unsolved problems in our current understanding of physics. Aside from a lot of flowery language in describing these, there's nothing. The reason why I have a problem with this is that his logic would can apply at any time in history to any level that physics was at. He's not presenting any solution to the particular issues that scientists are working on. If we are to accept his arguments, we can dismiss the entire science of physics. This is rampant nonsense.

I think, therefore I ain't??  heh?

Anyway,  isn't the way we perceive the world learned?
Aren't we taught and conditioned to think and perceive? I suppose it's been done that monkeys raised from birth to death in complete isolation pretty much end up insane. Which begs the question, do they perceive their immediate world? I would bet that they act nothing like normally raised monkeys.

I can't imagine what a human would end up like raised in total isolation and taught nothing.

A question for the avowed atheists among us, has consciousness always existed? If so, kind of deflates the atheism position doesn't it?

It is surprising and disappointing that someone who calls himself a scientist engages in mere metaphysical speculation. A claim, no matter how comforting it is to us emotionally, is simply a claim. Anyone can make a speculative claim about consciousness. There's nothing special about that. Where's the evidence to support that claim? Where's the proof? Most of us love this kind of speculation because we can make it support our preconceptions and emotionally-comforting superstitions. But that's not science, and it's certainly not legitimate philosophy. This book tells us more about Dr. Lanza's own inner psychological world and imaginary conceptions than it does about any objective description of the universe.

Maybe I am commenting a bit too prematurely on the subject but its all so very interesting. Most interesting is how so many people and / or cultures just love to put their stamp on stuff and claim things that just maybe un-claimable. My paranoia for such, perhaps comes from the fact that I come from a region of the world (Southern Africa) where we have had our fair share of people claiming our land, produce and even culture, which has subsequently lead to what appears to the so-called logical mind a state of deliberately induced insanity to benefit a greedy few.
So with all due respect I don't think the suffering that we have endured from centuries of plunder and pollution in our region by foreign invaders was born from a figment our imagination. And therefore because of that moment of imagination whose mindset would have been “we must be oppressed for so long” was indeed the reason why we were then oppressed for such a protracted length.
So I agree that if I wished gravity away or imagined it not to be, I should then be able to fly and cruise through the universe at light speed and faster.
If I cannot see the sea has it suddenly abandoned me? And if I cannot feel the rays of the sun does this mean the moon shall never shine again? If everything is relative, I think so is relativity itself.
Faith and belief the 2 main ingredients of formalised religion today, suffer the same Achilles tendon as science. Religion tells you to “just believe” which in effect is faith based and hence the saying “blind faith” and no proof is required to establish facts. On the other hand science will rigorously rely on proof and evidence and based only on that make some sweeping claims. Both suffer the Achilles tendon of claiming that which may or may not necessarily be totally true or false for that matter.
Scientifics or scientific observation at least gives one a chance to stand and observe first, whereas religion goes boldly out and will claim, without a shred of evidence which I think is quite abominable to be honest. In collusion we have as part of the centre of our culture, something called “Hubuntu”, Humanness if you will. Its stanza is “people are people because and by other people”. When applied to western articulation this might be seen as the law of human relativity.
In our culture “Bantu” from Hubuntu the universe is seen in exactly the same way. The stars, moon earth, sun, galaxies and whatever else is all connected and interconnected for what seems an infinite eternity we call Yah / MoYah in English, Existence.  So if there ever was an Achilles tendon to our culture, it was probably that, because we don’t claim it or force any one else to, as so many others do. It is simply our observation and we wish to harm no one with it or by it.
Shalom le kul

My first thought after [or during] reading of Lanza's synopsis online [this site] was the word Bullsh*t! Then I thought deeper, and realized that he hasn't  the foggiest idea about reality or physical science. Then I thought, "is this a joke?"  Then I thought, maybe it is a backdoor attempt by creationists in their longtime quest to undermine science. At no time did I think he was describing reality.  At the most superficial levels, of course our senses color what we see or feel, and of course our brains [however they work] affect our understanding of the universe around us. All of his points are old and have already been countered by physical scientists. Some of his statements are just silly. I was hoping for better when I saw the title. He clearly does not understand what scientific proof involves, given several of his statements.

I think you are all taking what he is saying, as anthropocentrism.  Not biocentrism.
EG....as soon as humans came into existence so did the universe.
But its BIOcentrism he is talking about.
Meaning any conscious biological being brings "stableness" to the quantum reality.
ALL the beings in the universe are "holding it together" per se.  Collectively.
Not just us humans.
Thus more feasible.

But I agree, if he were just talking about only humans, then this would be absolute nonsense.
But as it stands, counting ALL conscious beings across the universe.  Its not so hard to fathom.

If conciousness gives rise to the universe and will is the means by which that conciousness acts on the universe then I will myself rich!!! d;b  Oh, I am Rich.

Humans are NOT RATIONAL BEINGS; We are RATIONALIZING BEINGS!

Re: Byron Raum, Beverly Hills, CA:
You are incorrect.  By the act of observing we affect/effect the outcome of the measurement.  For example the double slit experiment; we can close off one of the holes and get the particle-like result for the photons for one hole, or we can make measurements to determine which hole the photons go through and get a double bump, the result of particles going through two holes.  Or we can not measure and get the interference pattern for waves.  One measurement determines that the photons are particles, the other determines the photons are waves.  They can't be both after observation only before.  This is the duality and the measurement/observation collapses the wave function into one (and only one) result.

I am the message bearer from Timelessness to Time and through the Portal (Goge) in Space / Time to you for whom playing with illusion is a preoccupation, rather than a means to union with the One and Absolute. To these means of transfer, I am deeply dimensional in meaning and serious of mentality. These communications are not illusory. What you are about to receive, you must know whereby you even think — a level that speaks in dim remembrances. This knowledge speaks to you even now as decisions are made sometimes, by you collectively, in stark rebellion. Remember who and what you are. Be concerned, for it is a mission that must be revived from your deepest senses and memories, from a time when physical (virtual) Time was not. These physical realms must be not forgotten in your present form, they must be used as a means to reclaim your Reason!

Words are not your / our only means of communication, we do not speak in a sound related methodology when we are together in coherency. Your dreams know the secret of such interfacing. Ours is passed directly to the mentality of the audience who interlaces the projection within Time and Space. Omegons such as I and the initiates such as you, are carriers of this inherent Truth and should speak only messages that convey the same sincerity of being. Hard will it be, that I somehow must pass on to you who have failed to remember, yet the continuation of wisdom in this Goge Sector is necessary whereby paths are retraced to limitlessness (home).

First, let be known to you, that the data added here to the survey of my relation, known as Claronu (whose name has meaning), is not in any way to interfere with the data he collected. It, and mine, are to serve as your device of memory magnification. His record has been corroborated, by localizations in Timelessness, to be factual and totally complete. Its secret is yours to know, and it is indeed who you are.

The destruction expressed by the Leche, destroyed the Enmayi planet (your old home world) in total. Its ada-son, source of deep space light, called Egog was reduced to its chemical basics by the force of the gargantuan discharge. It is now the fifth planet from Goge as yours once was. As Egog’s fire was snuffed out, so were the lives that resided near its Light giving exchange of broadcasting virtual data for you to utilize in this school of learning. The fourth planet, my virtual home world in this illusion, was rendered atmospherically dead by a rain of Enmayi asteroids; leveled were our civilization’s offerings-in-being to the All. Our hydros resources were lost to the cold of space — though we needed them not to exist, rather to serve esthetic purposes. Most of my relations were converted into the realm of limitless pursuits in the reality of being. Their initiations are now complete at this level.

Few of us escaped, as did your relations (virtually you) who arrived on this Gardened Planet over four million orbits ago. We, Omegons, were here to greet you and help you to build great civilizations in the glorious Valley Regions. There your civilizations survived numerous catastrophes with us for this world dies and reawakens periodically. The Valley Region was highly protective for millions of orbits. It was the most beautiful and sheltered of all areas upon this place of moving landscapes. As your offspring (virtually you) became genetically developed for this atmosphere you ventured out to explore the surface of a world saturated in hydros. During periods of destruction, your mentality, too strong in emotional passion and ignorance of the Alphian ways, destroyed (physically removed) almost all Omegons who helped you. However, we have survived (we do not die) in many places hidden to you, including Time and Space. It is our duty to enlighten you to return to your past glory, with us in our final initiation.

Most of us reside on a moon of the fourth planet, where the churning blast of your weapon, did not touch us. There, we intercepted the jettisoned craft with Claronu’s Enmayi survey intact. Those few of us who survived have returned periodically to our old world and live under its surface. A few hundred of your relatives had earlier made it to the Garden Planet, prior to the accidental ignition of the Leche, on exploration teams sent by Koan and Planca. They had apparently figured on making it a colony of the Enmayi. The resources of the third planet for an Alphian being’s existence are ideal. Claronu was not aware of this happening though scepter’s records show he could have been before transcendence. We have attached this data along with the survey for your use at the time of humanity’s arrival at Omegon initiation to soulular finality and growth. To some of us it is known, that this is the strategy of the One and All for this sector’s total development. It is the Crux of Being.

To Harry H. in Missouri-  Your comment makes the most sense to me-the rest of the comments are more like opinions or criticisms of Mr. Lanza's viewpoint, but yours is the product of thinking with his viewpoint.  Even if Mr. Lanza is right or wrong, no one can go wrong with staying positve!

is it really that there's nothing outside our heads, or that we're frustrated we haven't found any way to get out of them to see what is (or isn't, or might be) out there on its own.  maybe, if consciousness is so vital to reality (re. several comments above) we are the product of some other's thought.  Back to Buddhism, Tao, mysticism, and the circle goes on, and on,....

Space might or might not be a “thing,” or a fundamental concept of reality.  But consciousness is most definitely an emergent property, and not a thing in itself (res ipsa).  So how can something that emerges from reality be more real than reality?  You can’t just wave your arms about quantum effects and dark energy here, folks.

The authors “don't lay out a detailed road map showing how a "biocentric" view of the universe might affect the course of science...”  

The reason for that is that it wouldn’t.  You can’t noodle out physical reality by studying the mind.  In fact, science so often goes against common sense---that is, what the mind comes up with---that many scientists say that the purpose of science is to show where the mind is wrong, that if common sense were correct, we wouldn’t need science.

I will admit one instance where biocentrism might be valuable.  Suppose you consider Genesis, especially Genesis 2, to be an account of the creation of human consciousness, rather than an account of the creation of the physical world.  For example, Adam (or, more probably, Eve) creates language by naming things; mankind discovers that his intellect can assess his instincts, and even overrule them.

Consciousness is the energy that is furthest from yet connected to material form,,it,consciousness,is the energy connected upwards from one and two and three and fourth dimensions...that remains connected to and furthest from material so as to protect itself from at times negative material interactions;there is God

If our conscious minds create our universe, how is it when we go to sleep and turn off our conscious minds we do not dematerialize along with the rest of our mind-created understandings?

If an individual has the power to affect the external world by their mental power of visualization, but they want to manifest something that most of the rest of the world says is not possible - not allowed in their shared reality, is there a conflict, and does it take an extremely powerful mind to manifest it in spite of the opposing beliefs, does it create another universe, or other? I'd like to hear the author discuss this.

Also, if there is an active Intelligence underlying or permeating or overseeing all of this, as I suspect there is, and It does not want us to manifest something, that might introduce some anomalies.

there is a tendency in the west to copy the Hindu religious teachings and give the results their name and take credit for t. Bhagavat Gita has been misused in this manner a number of times...I wish some day the Supreme Hindu Teaching of creator and creation would dawn upon such Scholars of the West and alas it would have been too late...for them...some of the narrations in this article is common knowledge of a street child here in Hindustan....wish and pray some day you guys are bestowed with the true knowledge that give you total freedom and internal bliss....to have fear of some deep knowledge and their way of life and try to propagate wisdom/ that suits you is nothing but hypocracy....and you have exeperienced and seen the consiquances of this attitude in the West, that of taking credit for the Spiritual Teachings of other faith and even attempting to Register Patents...for commercial exploitations...

While I was eager to dig into this book, the authors' derisive tone towards scientific inquiry, lame comparisons, incoherent explanations and clunky syntax served only to make me grateful to msnbc for posting this excerpt.  Thanks, msnbc, for saving me $29.95. I'd have been equally grateful had the excerpt compelled me to purchase the book, but I'm going to pass.

A bit deep but very refreshing.  I found the authors' arguments persuasive and eloquently intuitive. Thanks for posting this.  

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