Robert Lanza: The Theory of Biocentrism, Part 1

[@rstash1]

I'm 79. I fell in love with quantum physics when I was 15. I still don't understand it, but I understand what I don't know. I've experienced a lot. I've seen many odd things. I've read this guy's books. They give a new direction to understanding the real world we exist in. His comments on space and time make sense to me. It will take a lot of time for this idea to crack the belief systems of the scientific community, but I think it will happen. Or maybe not. It doesn't really matter if it is fact.

[@athena3865]

I'm 64 with a science degree in nursing and biology. I am also an NDE. This scientist is spot on.

[@Phoneman635]

Ron, good day, I’m hoping you’re well now in your 82nd year 👍 Rob comes as close as I’ve found a physicist to have come to bringing clarity to this wonderful subject, I have absolutely no doubt but that our consciousness creates our so called ‘out there’ reality, but the years are passing and the message still isn’t gaining wide spread adoption….which is a pity as, were it to do so, we’d have a far happier population overall.

[@danielgoncsarov]

God bless you all, that you are so actively interested in these things in your age.

[@CL03330]

Graceful to meet you all as a science graduates and glad to see the "belief" of biocentrism is across different generation

[@bjlyon615]

Understanding the nature of reality is beyond words and explanation. You just have to experience it. Sometimes I think that language may be the greatest barrier to discovering the truth.

[@gragriz2114]

7 o clock is when people wake up to go to work. Sadly many WANT that to be the only reality. Lm

[@electricdreamer]

This theory is absolutely amazing. Because from one end, I read about Buddhist ideas and Buddha said a long time ago that the world exist only because of our observing. Everything is there only because we're conscious. And the world is merely an illusion. This is the first time I saw a scientist came up with a scholarly theory that agrees with this Buddhist claim. I'd recommend researchers of Biocentricsm also look up some Buddhist texts as possible reference.

[@TheBlues380]

why did he say, "I alone am the honored one"

[@brotaipei1]

Joe Mel ， because I am.

[@Shadowrider50]

+Grant J Robert Lanza is a Doctor of Medicine and has done more in medicine than you ever will, so you can shut up. If you're sick then you've already observed yourself. You have no idea how fucking delicate quantum systems are.

[@ElBlancoPapi]

Very good example I hadn't heard before!! BUT... Until the time that the doctor takes a sample and observes it, you can not be certain that it is a Pathogen....and Many symptoms and afflictions resemble each other, sometimes very closely. But you make a good point... I tend to believe there is external "Information" and we paste our own personal veneer onto everything. We just Interpret sensory signals and we totally design our own particular brand of "Reality!!" If you're a cop, the way you approach life & people will be through the lens of Law, Crime, Justice, etc. It's like they say, to a hammer, the world seems made of nails!! Even though we share experiences, we rarely agree on the specifics of just about everything!!

[@Shadowrider50]

***** "observed directly" doesn't even meaning anything. You have no idea what you're talking about and are just inventing fantasies to satisfy your own mental experiments. Quantum systems are delicate, I say again.

[@lynwillmott3794]

Krishnamurti said " The Observer is the Observed" He said this 60 years ago so its nice to see that this was not simply a philosophical statement - K knew!

[@brettjames9088]

The results of the 2 slit experiment are about 20 years older than that. He knew because it was common knowledge. A Watts directly mentions the experiment and makes the comparison at the same time period. Most eastern philosophers with a western audience were at pains to point it out. Not sure why this guy is given credit. The affect of conscious observation (the measurement problem) is by far the most strangest thing to come out of physics ever imo. How consciousness works (known in neuroscience as "the hard problem") also a great mystery. This guy not the 1st, in fact, not even the 100,000th to put the 2 together. This is a weird con I do not understand why is being promoted as some kind of revolutionary thought by this guy.

[@jamescarter3738]

Einstein said we are the universe subjectively experiencing itself

[@aryangoswami7512]

Actually dear JKM is only translated vedic knowledge And Nondulaity is advait vedant philosophy

[@Nonconceptuality]

Perhaps the most enlightened being to ever walk the planet, Ramana Maharshi, on the nature of reality and the means by which to abide in/as that which is real. As Mr. Lanza states, the Self creates the world, and therefor is ultimate reality. Misinterpreting (via thought) physicality as ultimate reality is the source of all vexation and suffering. I suggest starting at minute 6. Who Am I - Ramana Maharshi Audio Book

[@theproGAMAS]

I always had these thoughts and I had no idea it was an accepted type of thinking. Glad I found this.

[@JamesMandolare]

IT’S ALL ONE! The Big Bang like everything else, is symbolic of the beginning of consciousness as a unified consciousness where all is one. That "nothingness" that existed before the BIG BANG is the still point of refined and perfect consciousness at the center of all being in all the multiverses of Infinite consciousness. For me the symbolic nature of our perception is obviously the key! Synchronicity or meaningful coincidence proves that the world inside the mind is reflected somehow in the chaos of the outside world! It implies that the Youniverse knows what a person is going through and reflects it symbolically in chance happenings that have a particular personal meaning and are symbolically charged to guide, encourage, and inspire. The YOUNIVERSE is a living, thinking, aware being. The meaning of life is that life has meaning. Everything has a sense of inner being! Everything is alive inside just like you and I. We all are the stars that we all are the stars that we all are the stars...! Just a supposition, I may be right or wrong, believe what you will, and write your own song!

[@Josytt]

Try telling a close minded materialist all that, the world unfortunately is not ready to wake up yet. But it will happen, slowly but surly.

[@infiniLor]

@@Josytt ha! 'surly' kinda fits

[@paulleverington3453]

I've always sensed things to be the same as you described. I have no science to prove it...

[@osos3867]

There must be an uncaused cause

[@liskryer2942]

I remember when I was a small girl in the 1950s, that I was convinced that the world around me only excisted, when I was looking at it. So good to be told that I was quite right 🫶 I greatly respekt and admire Robert Lanza 🙏

[@rafaelfreitas8477]

So when someone has an NDE their "essence"(or conscious) goes to another dimension/place and then return? That would explain how they get informations they couldn't know, it's strange to say but I think we are getting close to prove that we have a "soul".

[@johnshannon9656]

If you can understand what this man is saying -- and he's not the first by a long shot -- you have a chance at achieving freedom as a sentient being in your lifetime.

[@elitecoder955]

Its like unlocking a gear in your brain, like the movie arrival your brain starts to think differently

[@spiritfilled5758]

I'm can comprehend what he says, but trying to silky it in daily life is difficult

[@paulfolsom2053]

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley

[@jfreeman2927]

yes they do. you wouldn't be watching this video with interest if "facts" behaved exactly as they are supposed to. Huxley is of another time which relates less and less to the present we experience.

[@rasungod0]

@@jfreeman2927 Facts don't care about your feelings.

[@laurentiumanolescu]

They arent ignored by others just because you ignore it

[@kevnar]

I think, therefore you are.

[@Laismile]

kevnar No, each person has their own mind. You think, therefore you are. And your friend thinks therefore he is.

[@gregoryglavinovich3756]

i never have thought of you before...but i existed before today

[@mochilero-fe6hv]

Does he have a train to catch? He's speaking in such a rush.

[@sethsorsozo9749]

No, thank you.

[@sitarainbow8837]

Kevnar, I love it! I used to say, "I am, therefore I think," but your idea is perfect for this vid. :D ~♥~

[@3DProtoPronto]

So, am I right in thinking that the universe only exists because we are collectively creating it with our own conscience? That the further we look out into deep space the more we will see because we are making it reality?

[@3DProtoPronto]

Yes I see, however there is something that is really bugging me here. If the scientists are correct about the big bang theory, I can only say that consciousness must have also been 'switched on' like a light switch being flicked on at the same time as the big bang, we cant have one with out the other, the universe IS consciousness, and we are merely becoming self aware and questioning everything.?

[@buffhooper7417]

No

[@Sharedcare]

I guess one of the best possible explanations of existence i have heard so far

[@amidoingthisright8611]

And your qualifications are?

[@dariondelrey9176]

Bob Fisher if you look at the comments you can see tge people are very low intellects with great pride and a habit of speaking illogical untruth.

[@Snapmode7]

pleased to meet you I’m not arguing with you I’m just curious , why is it pseudoscience?

[@bettyboossister3918]

Try reading the bible

[@jaspertickler1831]

this guy makes me feel like i'm not alone in these theories

[@naveenM.]

Makes you REALIZE*

[@robertoyelil]

Funny how I have never heard of this guy before... I must have created him just now... :D

[@MrAlipatik]

nope, i created him coz im the only conscious

[@tylerconkle6304]

How the FUCK is he a top scientist... Lol apparently 800k people's brains imagined the same SHIT just now...

[@spiralsun1]

Actually I created him. I wrote this theory in much greater detail about 20 years ago. No one listens.... so I had a popular science version created in 21 other professors and adjuncts. Distributed the concepts to help others. But do they help me? Nope. I would be upset, but they cannot fit it in their brains. I am hopeful that AI some day might be able to understand. Anyway this is cool. My book was “The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God” and I said the EXACT SAME THING as a tiny part of a much larger theory. Anyway maybe I am a little upset since I am currently living in my car. Sucks to be too smart. Too into thinking. 🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️

[@denisnolasco4432]

If you actually follow his theory with even just a bit of understanding of science and the process of science itself you'd be amazed about how this theory will have your brain twisting around not interpreting things as simply as they are being fed to you by science. I'm sure he is wrong I am sure he didn't nail it with this biocentrism thing but bravo for taking many scientists and many others and myself for an awesome trip that has added features to my mind. Great job Robert Lanza and to the awesome team you worked with. There will always be people grabbing their own shit and throwing it at you it's part of setting yourself apart. Haters you all have been checked. Keep making lemonade from your perspective🇭🇳 💪🇭🇳

[@robertoyelil]

Denis Nolasco haters? Now that’s a great leap. No hate here.

[@barbamio]

Finally somebody find a courage to think differently. Thank you Mr. Lanza for giving us alternative to this convoluted Einstainian picture what is what.

[@renjay3743]

Worth consideration. That's all. Be careful what you end up believing or not believing. Accept the present as it appears to you and don't let anything distract you from it. What has been has been realised. What is now is processing. What is yet to come is hearsay.

[@svenland6892]

This is very intriguing. But my only questions would be, if our consciousness creates the world around and the universe, how do we all perceive the same thing? You would think that we are all the same, but we think so differently, so we should perceive everything in whatever way we construct our world/conscious??

[@bettyboossister3918]

No because we are ALL FORCED to follow rules norms and values of society

[@angrobin5004]

Because we belong to the same spices

[@MrWillymtee]

this guys has dropped off the planet since this talk i listened to this when it was months old i remember feeling excited about it .

[@allwanted767]

What you have discovered is great. It is true that consciousness creates the universe and that the universe we live in is two, not three, and that you will not feel in your death. You will complete your life in another universe, but you are dead for them.

[@alone_angel_9067]

6:52 which principle I didn't understood...🤔😥

[@TheProsPerformance]

So if everything is essentially a figment of my consciousness, did I just come up with this theory?

[@willb1405]

no, his theory is just a part of your conscious awareness

[@04dram04]

We are all waves in the one ocean of consciousness. We each have our own experience, and we are all the one.

[@malcolmstaten7202]

StevieG good one

[@TaunellE]

It is. If it's that is true to you.

[@dariondelrey9176]

StevieG this os just liberal assholery 101

[@37Dionysos]

Thanks---so many important empowering points. For me it's ol' Alan Watts tapping on the ceiling: We are in It, and It is in Us. (Add crazy laughter here.)

[@kashourikatsu2543]

"True reality is nothingness"

[@37Dionysos]

@@kashourikatsu2543 What does not exist does not exist.

[@FocusReborn44]

It's pretty much impossible to deny at this point that the first principle of Biocentrism is pretty much a fact. Reality IS a process which involves our consciousness.

[@pibroch]

+FocusReborn No-one even knows what reality is so your comment is nonsense.

[@FocusReborn44]

pibroch What a completely irrelevant response. Did I even mention anything about what reality is or isn't? Read my comment again. I said reality is a process which involves our consciousness. Whatever reality is... it has something to do with consciousness. Please don't make me explain why this is so...

[@pibroch]

+FocusReborn You said: Reality IS a process which involves our consciousness so you clearly did mention something about what reality IS. Source: your original comment. You have not provided any evidence or even a line of argument to support your view that reality has something to do with consciousness. And if your view is so impossible to deny and does not need explaining then why even bother to state it in the first place? Nevertheless I call your bluff and challenge you to offer an explanation.....

[@FocusReborn44]

pibroch Saying that reality is a process which involves our consciousness is only a surface-level, simplified description of the mechanisms and factors involved (reality being both a process and involves consciousness). I haven't specifically defined reality to be anything, only that it is a **process** which involves consciousness. E.g. Photosynthesis is a process which involves carbon dioxide and energy. Does this statement tell you what photosynthesis actually is? No. It's a generalized description. Our everyday perception of sound requires an ear-brain mechanism. There is no objective "sound" outside of us. It's all just pulses of air spreading out into a medium (e.g. water, air, steel etc.) It becomes a sound when those pulses of air register inside the small components of our ear which then interpret them into electrical information which our brain encodes as "sound". Our consciousness is every bit as important in the creation of sound as the pulses of air themselves. This makes them symbiotic in nature, and thus a process. Without consciousness those pulses of air have zero "sound" whatsoever... this is what I meant by "reality being a process which involves consciousness". It's not as radical as you think...

[@pibroch]

+FocusReborn I agree with everything you just said now that you have explained what you meant - I was confused by the words you used initially. It seems to me that you are using the word reality to mean what I would call human perception. (Similarly I often use the word sound to mean the pulses of air, when I am talking science, and to mean the perception of the pulses of air when I am taking about animal perception of these pulses)

[@davidmcleod1760]

So if a tree fall in the woods and I'm not there to here but a friend is, does that friend exist in that place when I phone hom on my phone?

[@satori1312]

This is Buddhism in its purest light!

[@swarsur]

Clearly define consciousness according to your theory . You mention 'biocentrism arriving at the same conclusion as non-duality' around 0:40. What are the these conclusions?

[@MichaelMaitri]

~ The right perception of reality ~ Requires the right perspective ~ The right perspective ~ Requires an expanded awareness ~ An expanded awareness ~ Requires the right mindfulness ~ The right mindfulness ~ Requires a brain and qualia experiences ~

[@CloudyShinobi]

What's your point?

[@10908070605040302]

Samuraisahsah His point is that you cant quench your thirst by thinking about Water, you have to Drink it. Same with feeling the "Right perception of Reality", there is no combination of words that you can read that will make you understand it, you have to try it for yourself !

[@shriswamiramanand]

Well said

[@Lovejoygratitude]

Forgive my ignorance on this subject but could someone please explain how I can bring an object into a room, that’s never been seen before and ask my husband to describe it and he describes it exactly how I see it!

[@DarkRenaissance2012]

This ties almost directly into Bruce Lipton phd 's Biology of Belief findings, which proves that you have the power to create your own world, and your own body...

[@patelien]

Yes, its a shame the WooWoo crowd embraced Lipton.

[@weavingthevaluess]

and so if reality is a creation of consciousness, whats limiting that consciousness from controlling the reality its in? id love for someones input on my questions. thanks.

[@RichardCorral]

There's another universe where he didn't knock his mic out

[@adrianaleman9062]

Spoiler Alert

[@thunderkitty8245]

Our conciousness is an infinite focused line of light creating time and space through a lifetime

[@ElBlancoPapi]

I'm a big believer in Biocentrism, Simulation Theory, and Digital Physics. These things come together in my mind that allows me to better understand reality. However, one thing I just cannot completely reconcile is how multiple people can participate in the same event(s)!! For example, consider a boxing match..... The two fighters are engaged in the same event and resulting causal chains and the referee, spectators, and TV audience at home ALL are participating and acting/reacting on the Same stimuli. To me, this implies Some sort of "Objective Reality" which exists externally to the observers. Solipsism would explain it but I am definitely Not a proponent of that concept!! I am thinking that maybe there is some sort of "Information" for objects and events that is external but we all kinda copy/paste our personal perceptions and ideas onto the "blank slate" of raw Information!! I do Not Know....

[@Shadowrider50]

Check out the p2p simulation hypothesis.

[@shelbytaylor5596]

I feel like the explanation for shared experiences has to be rooted in the fact that our physical organs that allow us to perceive (eyes, retina, brains, etc) are so similar being that we’re all humans. Why else would we come up with a classification system of scientific species based on anatomy and biology other than to explain the differences in living beings’ physical abilities to sense/perceive? If all us humans have nearly identical sensory organs then the probability that we will perceive the same energy/particles/light nearly identically it is very high. I feel like this idea explains how two people can have a conversation and walk away with conflicting feelings/interpretations of that same conversation. Because language is just verbal symbolism, there’s a lot of room for the incredibly subtle differences in our sensory organs to create two slightly different “realities” in each of our minds (i.e. unique perspective).

[@mathewwilson4556]

I imagined this years ago in philosophy class, that nothing is truly as we see it, it is only the minds way of explaining to itself what it sees, but I did not know how to explain what I was thinking. It is a similar idea to this, that truly nothing exists the way we think it does, we are biased to believe what we experience and understand, but it is us writing the definition to the observation itself.

[@jakewells1869]

I'm stoned and I understand it, it's eye opening, it's like there is reality but it only exists if your conscious.

[@batzytoys]

same 4 years later , youre a bad as jake wherever you are in the world. and well whoever you are.

[@lukeread2773]

If the mic falls off his head and no ones paying any attention to his speech anyway, did it really happen?

[@Drunkenprophet23]

1. How do they know what happens to partials that are not observed? Doesn't that knowledge require observation? 2. I didn't hear one piece of evidence presented that points to the universe/reality existing as a result of consciousness rather than independent of consciousness. Can someone tell me what I missed? He said over and over that things do not exist until they are observed. Where is his evidence? 3. 9:05 is he really suggesting schizophrenics are seeing real people? 4. He says that the conditions of the universe are fine tuned for life and if changed at all life would be impossible, setting aside that virtually all of the known universe, except for some of the surface of the planet we live on, is inhospitable for life, how does he know it is even possible for the values of the properties of the universe to be different or that if they were different a different form of life wouldn't exist? This all sounds like poppycock.

[@shortypimpo101]

A brief study of quantum psychics explains that everything is energy (or sub atomic particles) and that same energy takes form when we bring our attention (or focus) on it. So in reality nothing actually exists unless we are focusing on it or forming the energy with our conscious attention.

[@LordZama]

This isn't entirely accurate. The element of quantum mechanics you are referring to is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it proposes that it is impossible to know both the location and momentum of a particle simultaneousy. This is not because the particle itself does not exist prior to observation, but because the act of observing the particle alters it's state (momentum or location).

[@shortypimpo101]

The Captain Right! Since the observation alters the state of the particle we can be more certain the what we want is moving toward us when we bring our attention onto it. I love quantum physics for the sheer fact that we can prove how deliberate creation works, and how we are creators. We may not be able to prove with 100% certainty how this works, but I’m 100% certain and faithful that this is how miracles work. Wether you believe in praying to a God or infinite intelligence, time and time again miracles have worked and prayers have been answered for people. I believe this is how we prove them! Thanks for your response(: You should message me on Instagram! @J_chambs

[@moon8520]

Drunkenprophet23 I've heard this type of mystical “theories” so many times, they're plain based on solipsism and are purely metaphysical, nothing serious. They're just selling ideas to lucrate.

[@SuperNeowiz]

1. Because of the Double-slit experiment. It's been studied and replicated thousands of time. You basically shoot one particle into a tube system with the shape of the Y. At the end the particle can take either one way or the other. Now, you have no way of knowing which way the particle chooses unless you put a small detector in the bifurcation. If you have it on, you can see each time the particle is shot that it either goes one way or the other, and you can see that pattern on the wall where the particle collapses. Strangely, when those detectors are off and you don't know which way it will take, when you see the pattern on the wall right at the exit of the tube you will see a wave pattern that can only be explained if the particle has passed through both exit tubes at the same time. 2. I am totally sure you have heard of the famous experiment known as the Schrödinger's cat. Basically it derives from the same idea that you don't know how something behaves until you observe it. If you put a cat in a box with a 50% chance of releasing a poisonous gas and killing the cat, you don't know for sure if it's either dead or alive until you open the box. So before you force a possibility to collapse in an observation you know for sure that the cat is dead and alive at the same time. So the notion of a cat being alive or dead will only be possible once you open the box, hence that's why the universe behavior is strangely attached to a consciousness making an observation. Same thing with Einstein's relativity, time perception is different depending on the observer, it does not flow the same way for everybody/ everything in the universe. 3. You did not understand him correctly, he is not saying people with schizophrenics are seeing real people, but rather their universe is totally different from yours. They see things as much as real as you do, instead you can't see what they see. Because their brain is creating a totally different universe that you cannot perceive. 4. Because even modern physics do the same as well, ever heard of the famously accepted Multiverse theory? Maths proof that there are multiple universes with different constants and it's based on measures done on the universe and cosmic radiations. This theory is very big and hard to understand and I can't explain it to you completely, but you can investigate it on your own. Also we have simulators which scientists insert different parameters and we can pretty much get different outcomes depending on what values we insert. You have to remember everything we see and experience in this universe is because of our consciousness. Colors do not exist, what we experience as a color is just our brain interpreting what really is just a wave vibrating in a particular frequence.

[@87LHam]

The gravitational constant, G, is what it is because of our observations of the universe. The observations came first and G was derived from those observations. It, therefore, necessarily suits the observable universe. (It's also worth noting that the accepted value of G is an approximation.)

[@87LHam]

I should mention that I do agree that we don't understand consciousness. It will be interesting to see if we can determine what it is (and what that means) from first principles, or whether it will require an entirely new theory.

[@jamiecase7091]

The obvious objection to this as I see it is consensus reality. If reality is a construction of consciousness, how come lots of different people can perceive the same thing? Wouldn't that thing have to exist independently? No. What this means is that we are all parts of one consciousness. The one consciousness creates everything and we, as individual observers see that thing from our own perspective

[@bighorse1974]

People do not perceive exactly the same thing, each person does experience things slightly different, sometimes the difference is so small it goes with out the observer noticing or is not related to others.

[@alloneword154]

Because we are all one consciousness. The universe is aware of itself.

[@flybeep1661]

Jamie Case who's to say that what you perceive is the same to another? How would you know that what each person describes is the same? Think of it like colors. I perceive the color red a certain way, you perceive it also in a certain way. There's no way to know what you perceive is exactly the same as what I perceive. Even trying to describe the color with attributes (darkish/lightish) has the same problem. There's no way to know if everyone does indeed perceive the same thing.

[@SuperNeowiz]

Never heard of people taking psychedelic drugs like lsd or people on the verge of death feeling an strange connection with the universe, a oneness with everything? That's right...

[@speider]

(cont) to observe without intefering in the same way. Think of it as painting a dot on the marble, and then rolling it on a floor coated in an invisible ink that lights up as it comes in contact with the dot. As the marble rolls, the point touches the floor after a full rotation, revealing where the marble is at that point in time, in a dark room, without pushing it. (cont)

[@LemonyEmilyXD]

I think this theory is strongly supported by the concept of time. According to Einstein we all experience time differently. Kant wrote about how time is simply a way that we, as conscious beings, organise the universe. This makes a lot of sense because it is difficult to imagine time in a universe where no conscious being is there to experience it. Time would be meaningless. Equally this would explain our difficulty accepting the face that before the universe, there was no time.

[@MikeLeed]

It's not the act of observation that affects the double-slit experiment, it's the photon that is required for the observer to see that bounces off the experiment apparatus that affects the outcome. Similarly with the heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the position and velocity of the electron cannot be measured simutaneously because the electron is so small and sensitive that any attempt to measure its position requires interaction with it, therefore altering its velocity. An analogy would be a manager asking for current project status, it would be impossible to do so without disturbing the workers.

[@almagallanes5787]

looking at it in another perspective; an electron is a pocket of energy which seems to appear randomly in any location within that energy field of an atomic structure. its position and velocity cannot be measured because it does not travel from one location to another but pops out like a soap bubble anywhere in the structure. no electron is the same at any time.

[@anthonypierce007]

Your wrong... that's why they did the quantum eraser experiment...the tool to observe has nothing to do with the collapse of the photon...conciousness does

[@annblack3146]

I am trying to grasp all this but I will say one thing this guy does not look nearly 60 yrs old.Seems to me he has a clue about how to slow down aging.

[@willb1405]

he eats good real food

[@Kriso4Me]

When your consciousness recognizes the illusion of time, you get a different pace.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Good genes, along with non-destructive lifestyle.

[@omlove3206]

He's SIXTY!!!??? NO WAY!! He looks FORTY. :o

[@aamericuslakota]

I have a problem with this theory based on my understanding of the double slit theory. It isn't conscious observation that changes the particle's behavior, but the photons that interact with said particle at c (speed of light). This causes the particle to take on the behavior of a single particle instead of a wave. It has nothing to do with 'our eyes', which do NOT send out signals, but receive photons coming IN. How would our observation have any effect on anything, when they are sense organs?

[@HakamasMaximus]

Thank you! Spot on! More scientists should follow suit in their quest in understanding life and the universe. Wicked Awesome!!!

[@speider]

Yes, the article speaks of retrocausality, but the reports of the experiment itself doesn't seem to indicate that. Now after having gone through Review A, this seems the predecessor to the 2012 experiment. It's not in conflict, nor does it speak of retrocausality. It's just that the 2012 experiment had 10 years of gradual improvement on it.

[@danielcarr9822]

I'm trying to understand this point of view. Can someone who understand this explain this to me: 'So, if consciousness creates the reality we see, how come everyone sees the same reality'?

[@aheli]

+Daniel Carr I second that. Also if the human race was wiped of the earth would it not still be a Earth left for our dogs to shit on? We do know that when the solar system was newborn, there was no life and thus no form of consciousness on the planet. Does that mean that the planet was not here?

[@believerornot]

+Daniel Carr it doesn't. It's a flawed premise. "No. This is a common misunderstanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and quantum decoherence. The gist of the problem is this: a fundamental notion of Quantum Mechanics is the "measurement". A common quantum mechanics equation looks like this: p^∣ψ⟩=p∣ψ⟩p^∣ψ⟩=p∣ψ⟩ That is, p^p^ is an operator that causes takes a state ∣ψ⟩∣ψ⟩ from one with an indefinite value to one with a definite value pp . In particular, the measurement will now be consistent: take the same measurement twice, and you get the same result; that is, p^2=1p^2=1 . As you can see, consciousness appears nowhere in this equation. Humans appear in the operation when we take measurements. That is, we interact with the system ∣ψ⟩∣ψ⟩ , and in the process it "collapses" into one with a definite value for pp . What that means is that when humans are involved, quantum-mechanical indefinite processes become definite. What it does not mean is that humans are necessary to the process; that's a fallacy called "affirming the consequent": just because A implies B, it does not mean that B implies A. Quantum collapse occurs any time two macro-scale systems interact. Detecting that always means that a human is involved, simply because there's an implicit "you" there: "you detect". You can't interact with a quantum system without interacting it with a macro-scale object, you (or, more directly, your measuring apparatus, which interacts with you). But it still exists, collapsed or uncollapsed, whether you were there or not. It's just that you can't say anything about it until you interact with it, which will always reduce the system from one in an indefinite state of overlapping possibilities to one in a definite state with only one possibility." - Joshua Engel Jun 28, 2011

[@alipiofernandes1]

+Heli Your example is kind of funny, if even the concept of time is only a part of our mind, we have that vision of early earth only make sense to we human. If the Earth don't have a being with awareness, who would call it Earth and say that the sky blue, for example?. I would not say that beings and phenomenon are illusions, but they are like illusion. not they are like nothing, but they are product of our mind.

[@KellyNezat]

No one experiences the same reality. It is impossible. It doesn't exist as an objective fact.

[@danielcarr9822]

Átila I understand what you are saying, and agree but that wasn't what I was asking.

[@420darkmatter]

This is a exercise that reminds me of the saying if a tree falls over in the forest and no human ears are present to hear the event does it still make a sound or is there a sound with nothing to hear it or something like that

[@lizzyh9487]

did he say idear?

[@sofiahy9049]

Lizzy H ya

[@joeloughlin9220]

Lizzy H He is from a place called Boston that he created with his consciousness

[@getknit8334]

He grew up 23 miles south of Boston = Stoughton, MA

[@aamericuslakota]

I'd have to reread Hawking's 'The Grand Design' to answer properly, as this is only a hobby of mine - but from his in depth discussion on this experiment, 'observing' is a matter of trying to catch the particle going through a particular slit. This act changes the particles entire path - which is a fascinating glimpse at the behavior of time. But to observe the particle involves light and other signals let off by recording devices. This is what changes it, not our consciousness.

[@havadd]

reading his book now

[@petermartin5030]

I have 3 doubts here. 1. The quantum observer need not be conscious, it could be a screen. 2. Why should the external world be the same thing to all observers if they independently create it. 3. Parameter tuning of the universe is inevitable when you start from the knowledge that we exist... we wouldnt be here to ask the question if the parameters were different.

[@RandomHeroDK]

mind blowing.

[@speider]

(cont) The problem, or question, is not any longer how can we measure it without interfering, because now we can. The question is are there things except the marble that affects its journey? are there bumps in the floor, and if so, what are they made of? Is the marble magnetic, and does it follow magnetic fields? These are similes, of course, but i hope you get it nonetheless. We observe how it travels as it travels, with no consciousness needed, but we want to learn how to turn on the light.

[@wibolium9639]

I always thought of this as a kid, I would believe that I was the ‘real’ person of the world and that everything else is only created by own mind.

[@gamevidz6319]

Solipsism take a look at that.

[@saldreem1761]

Regardless of the conclusions that Lanza comes to, there is certainly no denying the two basic premises: we perceive the universe only through our senses (and from what we are "told"), therefore our idea of it is stored in all its magnificence in our minds; and we are aware that we can control some things in this perceived universe, but other things seem beyond our control. The last part of the second thing is REALLY interesting. Maybe we can control more than we think just by observing...or by imagining....

[@equilibrium4193]

I'm too stoned to comprehend this shit

[@equilibrium4193]

Kenny Arroyo haha good one, LMFAO

[@rockparkoure]

It's common sense to me

[@stuartlee8519]

ha.take some magic mushrooms. This will help your understanding of reality. .

[@TheHarmonicaMusician]

If reality is the result of consciousness, then what created consciousness? Some supernatural force out there beyond space, time, and consciousness?

[@cosmiccheetah6906]

I very much agree with Lanza. The only thing that remains unclear is his dismissal of the multiverse idea, where we live in one in a gazillion universe amo others, and ours is the lucky one, and he claimed we could do better than that. Why, exactly? Other than that, this is all very convincing.

[@nakedgunmusic]

The multiverse theory exists because there is no other explanation for why a Universe like ours should exist, that can be stable and support life. When you look at the odds of something like this happens with only one Universe, it is funny. So the multiverse theory make it so that since every universe exists, we find ourselves in the one that fits us.

[@mediumdigital9046]

I see no reason at all why multiverse doesn't coexist with Lanza's amazing theory. I take an intuitive crack at explaining and understanding this crucial property of the universe in my Truth Cypher book/podcast kzbin.info/aero/PLjyuGqEHDxIoiDPn3eMHhvx1wLxh6yOjX

[@mralbua53]

Yeah, i agree. i stopped watching at that. This guy mixes the cause with the effect. The perfect conditions are there because we live here and "oh well, what a coincidence". We live here because here are the perfect conditions. This is like saying "Well, why always the protagonist of the movie experiences all the cool shit ?" Because if he didn't he wouldn't be the protagonist. Cause and effect, not the other way around.

[@MsFlyingBeast]

So why do we have to eat?

[@mediumdigital9046]

Armin Makovec we don’t but consensual rules of the simulation dictate we do to preserve the material illusion

[@MonisticIdealism]

_Monistic idealism_ holds that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being. It is _monist_ because it holds that there is only one type of thing in the universe and _idealist_ because it holds that one thing to be consciousness. To see evidence and arguments for this view check out: *The Case for Monistic Idealism*

[@kgmodery]

Thank You Dr. Tough to get a grip on but fascinating

[@coachgnosis]

Part 1: Robert Lanza: The Theory of Biocentrism, Part 1 (kzbin.info/www/bejne/sHrCd2ekhLB3ia8) Illusion #1: 3:00 We do not control anything, nor does he control his body. It occurs spontaneously and he assumes he has control after the fact that it has happened all by itself due to his beliefs blinding him from this direct observation. Illusion #2: 6:40 "Reality is a process that involves your consciousness." A more accurate statement is that Reality IS consciousness, and your consciousness is reality in process. You are not a part of reality, but its whole, expressed as a perceivable portion through what you are presently aware. Illusion #3: 8:40 All of experience is not "just information occurring inside your mind," as if he equates that to happening inside of the body. The brain is an antennae and the body is a vessel that limits the relative perceptions to be led into the appearance that our experiences happen within the body, but upon closer observation, all experience IS mind and occurs as "knowing" in the light of conscious awareness. It is always happening in one place, at one time, in one space, that is at the core of consciousness itself, as consciousness. Illusion #4: 10:40 You exist regardless as to anything "out there," and all of that "out there," is an organization of consciousness that is a direct reflection of your inner state of consciousness that is infinitely vast, but presently non-physical in your current orientation. The continuity of your existence can be observed directly and it is the only aspect that can be proven, because the theory of the big bang is just that. A theory of illogical thinking that lacks real observation. Illusion #5: 11:50 "The universe and all of its parameters simply reflects the spacial-temporal logic of the animal observer." God..this one is so far off. Reflection is correct, but only in a relative stance to the individual perceiver that is a microcosm of the whole. From the whole's point of view, it is one unchanging infinite potential that reflects nothing, but it is all that is. The reflection occurs as an illusion for practical purposes within it. Next, the "spacial-temporal logic" is totally a man made contraption that is passed down from generation to generation as a non-validated belief system. Time and space can not be proven to exist, because they do not exist. We use a mental approximation of these ideas and project their apparent existence for practical relations, but with the right observation, they can easily be proven to not exist by any individual. Finally, the notion of an "animal observer" is completely flawed, because the animal is not the observer, the awareness that exists independent of the animal's senses, is the observer. The observer exists independent of the senses; this is why you can experience your dreams, yet all of your physical senses are turned off. This is why people can have experiences after death and come back and share those perspectives in words, even though their brain was technically dead while away. Illusion #6: 13:35 "The bigger problem is the life contains consciousness." Again, totally backwards logic. Consciousness contains life and that life expresses itself as Oneself through beings of form and non-form. There are no problems, which is the primary reason that theories like this go in circles leading to no where. You can't build a solution by beginning with a problem based mindset, just as you can't solve a problem from the perspective that created the problem to begin with. Illusion #7: 14:15 "Science cannot confirm how consciousness arrives from matter. Our understanding of this is virtually null." It doesn't come from matter. Matter is a slower vibrational frequency of thought and it appears denser in relativity to the observer that experiences it. Matter is thought and it is mind as consciousness. This makes 100% more sense as soon as you personally prove to yourself that gravity does not exist. Gravity does not cause the Earth to pull objects down towards it, the Law of Buoyancy does. There is a reason why it is called the “Theory of Gravity, “ and not the law of gravity. It is a mind-made abstraction that is not of reality, just like this theory of biocentrism. Take out the bio, and he would be so much closer. Illusion #8: 17:00 "Undeniably it is the biological creature that makes the observations and creates the theories;" this is *not so.* The theories are created by excessive thinking and not enough conscious observing. The observations are made by Awareness, which exists independent of the organism *and its thoughts*. Any person can prove this right now. Watch your thoughts, wait for them to disappear or see the gap in between. Who is that that is still watching without thought? That is you. This can be easily proven by any individual. The thoughts create thoughts and the observer experiences observations. Part 2 : Robert Lanza: The Theory of Biocentrism, Part 2 (kzbin.info/www/bejne/j6iYZnWpidSJkK8) Illusion #9: 12:30 "Time is simply the animal sense that animates the still frames sorta speak of the spacial world. It is our tool of perception." He has assumed that animals perceive time and space based on the same limiting factors as his present human belief system and that such perceptions are "animal based." They are not animal based, but based on his beliefs that have not been verified directly in his experience, and thus he has imposed them upon the nature of other beings, or on our animalistic aspect of this present organization of consciousness. He has also mistaken "time and space" as inherent factors of our "tool of perception," when in actuality, these are ideas of belief that are limiting our tool of perception. They are not "the tool" of perception, but might be more accurately expressed as tools of belief, in their own rights. Illusion #10: 14:10 "The problem lies in our failure to accept the evidence." Again, there is no problem. Anything a person says is not evidence, it is information. Real evidence is called experience and it is gained through knowledge. Knowledge is that which is discovered through knowing an experience directly via our personal awareness with it; it can not be told by any person. Robert is sharing his opinion, not his experience. He technically can not share his experience, only his theories, hence why this is claimed as a "theory" of Biocentrism, instead of Reality itself. The walls of space and time are an illusion : True, except that they are not walls, but beliefs. This has the same conclusions as non-duality, but knows nothing practical about the experiences of non-duality, thus it is presently pseudo-non-duality. There are too many errors in the logic and he has jumped to conclusions, because his basis for the origin of Awareness is inaccurate, thus everything else is misunderstood by affect. This is all theory and not his experience, thus it is practically useless. People should not believe blindly, just because it sounds nice to the non-experienced.The truth of reality is non-duality, but his explanations lack any personal experience.

[@t.p.s.musicacademy9301]

I do love this and oddly enough thought this concept since I was a kid. I’ve always thought that the universe is created through our need to experience it. What we “need”...becomes. I do have a quandary though and it is this: how do multiple people create the same (or at-least extremely) similar world about them to experience it together? Why does my creation of a small thicket in a forest match another’s creation of that thicket? Or, as a thought question: is the creat-able works about beginning to lose the possible variations because there are too many minds reflecting on a similar landscape, a landscape that has already been created? And if so, how much control is there over a landscape created? In other words: if one million people reinforce the creation say of a “thicket” at a park, would it more minds to increate that thicket and replace it with a new reality?

[@mariusmihai5036]

just keep it on your side, do not impersonate

[@zof31091]

The point is: there is really no other. Even they are just a figment of the same one consciousness. You and I are. Even you and somebody that has a whole different perspective on life. Individuality and separation are false, there is only one experience. Our Mind creates the illusion of separation. Is your body separate because its made of millions of individual cells?

[@speider]

It doesn't resolve it, depending on what you see the problem to be. Previously, we could only observe photons by interfering with them directly. Think of it as finding a marble in the dark by hitting it with another marble, and registering where they hit. The problem with this is that the event where the marbles hit eachother makes the marble you're measuring change direction and/or velocity. With those instruments, it was impossible not to. The TEM01 mode of the laser makes it possible (cont)

[@speider]

Agreed. Thanks for the civility and discussion/exploration. Good luck on your book, and whatever else you proceed to do in the future :)

[@ilovedjwho]

where is Part 2? it's cut off and i dont see the ending..

[@bigfletch8]

The photon observed is not a particle of illumination. It is "nano" bit of frequency (visual light being 330 to 780 Thz) from the infinite frequency of e.m energy, so even the observation of light is purely a subjective experience. Light exists only "within", so of course, we are creative with the experience.

[@cludo88]

I have a hypothesis for biocentrism, maybe the first observer to observe something creates it all observers thereafter observes the same thing; so i hypothesize that if two observers observe something at exactly the same time relative to each other could we create two different observations based on what each observer observes.

[@georgekuttyantony4079]

i hav something like his in my mind b4 i came to know about him.....OMG i luv his idea.....

[@macienku]

In two slots experiment: How do we know that those particles act different why those are not observed? If not observed so how do we know?

[@173rdherd6]

google the two slit experiment..several videos on youtube.

[@Btakeova]

Holy shit, blowing my mind

[@Leetut]

Me too

[@stauffap]

+Erik Fok It shouldn't. This is unscientific nonsense. He does not understand quantum physics. He's not even a physicist. If you don't understand something, then you should be skeptical. Being blown away is the wrong reaction to something, that you do not actually understand. Especially, when no actual physicist agrees with him. He's alone in the scientific community and for a good reason.

[@stauffap]

Vander766 Well, i'm not an american and i'm sick of people like this guy misrepresenting quantum mechanics. It doesn't matter what i've studied, since i can't prove it on the internet anyway. I've made a claim and people can check it or leave it. They can research what actual physicists say about this kind of nonsense or simply keep believing their fairy-tales. I'm really sick of people misrepresenting quantum mechanics for this kind of new age nonsense. This guy falls into the same category as Deepak Chopra. And it's actually naive people like you, who are the cancer of this world. People, who do not understand something even the slightest bit, who have no education in higher math and yet are flabbergasted by an explanation, that they do not even understand the slightest bit. People like you who get their quantum mechanics from a medicinal doctor like Lanza without checking what actual physicists have to say.

[@stauffap]

***** So how how are you going to learn more about the world if not by empiricism? Do you have a better method, that actually works? How does that method work?

[@stauffap]

***** "ll insults, no substance. His position and skepticism are obviously going to clash with the view of physicists who are obsessed with the empirical and objective world." You wrote that. And i was asking questions regarding that statement. Are you afraid of answering those questions?

[@viktorjefferson5406]

I read a book written 2015 years ago talking about the eternal life. The soul and the spirit are two different things, the soul is personal, the spirit is universal. The shock is when we find out we are all the same here on Earth.

[@athena3865]

Scientists are now discovering that colors are actually feelings. I find this particularly interesting, as my grandmother when dying, said not to tell anyone, but the flowers she could see were singing. This was 1993.

[@speider]

I'm glad that you wrestle with the problems, but not in any way being enjoyed if it affects your personal life in a negative way that you wrestle with them. To me, that seems to suggest that you think critically, which i see as a virtue. Lastly, if you are interested in human consciousness, i highly recommend youtube videos of neuroscientist VS Ramachandran, and if you don't mind an outspoken atheist, Sam Harris. I hope i get to talk to you again in the future. Best of luck. :)

[@drugstorerecords]

reverse-engineering our own existence. fucking amazing. incredible time to be alive!

[@speider]

Maybe a weird question, but how would you know whether or not it was meant?

[@MrAlipatik]

8:44 yeah dreams are so realistic that i even dream of sleeping in a dream and wake up 2 times.. Reality is just one big humongous communal dream!!!

[@DoreenBellDotan]

This is ancient, authentic Judaism. As soon as we understand that consciousness is a function of our willful development of our ability to Love and appreciate Joy, we've started our way on a much higher level of Being.

[@stefankoenig4234]

So how do you know that you're not massively schizophrenic and living in a hallucination or dream?

[@johnshannon9656]

You don't...and you are...

[@IronIsSolace]

part 2?

[@CrowsDescend]

So true. We create our reality.

[@InvestigadorTJ]

So my question is what if we all close our eyes without seen what's around us and I mean all close our eyes would that affect consciousness and what would happen?

[@nillyfrickers]

Please Dr Lanza take up Joe Rogans invite onto his podcast.

[@ANA1961maria]

¿Cómo podría encontrar videos de Robert Lanza en español? Gracias.

[@Yeant]

This guy. this guy gets it.

[@technusknight5074]

The problem here is that we need to figure out what is conspicuousness...and does it have a physical location or is it a process built from words and metaphors which is understood by julian jaynes the bicameral mind

[@KeifusMathews3]

Well, I hope this is true because I will need to find the love of my life” Tricia Roberts” in the next life ad hope we can find each other forever, I will be searching for you, my dear.

[@RRFTB]

Love this. Godspeed brother.

[@KeifusMathews3]

@@RRFTB Merry Christmas to you and yours. Still searching...lol

[@yolyberry]

can it be possible to see all that information in a power point. could be in your background or in a video.I learn better with visuals

[@kevinortega11]

This was mind blowing.

[@pepperman8687]

Ive done a lot of research on the nature of reality and this guy makes the most sense to me.

[@andrewparrott226]

His views on reality are very interesting, but I can't stand when people talk about the Goldilocks Principle. People say it's proof of god that our universe is so perfectly tailored to us, when in actuality, the only reason we're on this planet and not a trillion others is because we CAN survive on this one. The planet was not molded to us. We molded to the planet.

[@shadyxx92]

He says that the whole universe itself has the right values for atoms to exist. it is so. which would then mean that there has to be a multiverse and we don't know that yet

[@kfizzle3920]

+Nick Giroux Look up the anthropic principle. It's exactly what you just said: The universe was not created a certain way to support life, but instead life exists because the universe is a certain way, and we just got lucky in living in a universe that can support life

[@go2mark1313]

good luck with that

[@BeeJayRaps]

Biocentrism is an interesting concept, but I feel consciousness is irrelevant to fundamental truths. Perhaps we don't perceive everything 100% accurately, but implying that the universe is dependent on living beings for interpretation is incredible. I'm open-minded to new ideas and would be willing to further read into proof or critiques.

[@gregjustsitting]

when we enter a building,,, no actually the building enters "I" the head is a container for awareness,,, no actually the awareness contains the head and so on, and so on the truth should set us free no matter what it is called

[@olamotor925]

Joe Rogan Experience #812 - Russell Brand

[@notjaketyler]

#POWERFUL by the way...hands down one of my fav JRE episodes ever. Been waiting to see Russell on forever.

[@Hermetic_]

Yep...I came because of that episide

[@omlove3206]

OO thanks!! I have not seen this and will search it out. :)

[@Josytt]

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but there's a lot better content out there than a joe rogan interview with russell bland

[@dslkjvoxicuyhgl4554]

I can't stomach Russel Brand. As soon as he starts talking my mind feels like it needs a shower as bad as a victim does.

[@Nicole-jw3hc]

I don’t understand this. How can everything only be there because we see it but everyone else around us sees the same thing? Put 20 people in 1 room with a table and 4 chairs, and ask them to write down what they see in the room. They will all write down the same thing. So this guy is saying things only exist because we observe them. The table and chairs would still be in that room even if those 20 people never entered the room. When I walk into that room the next day, the table and chairs will still be there. I’m so confused. Someone help me understand.

[@deveryhenderson8335]

He’s not saying it that’s just how it is. That’s the whole point. What we see isn’t what is actually there. Do you understand?

[@deveryhenderson8335]

My major was neuroscience but I have an MD. I happen to also have a masters of science in Neuroscience. This might be new way of thinking. Our MOA for (CNS) neurotransmission remains saltitory conduction and with it ion channel opening and closing to drive up/down membrane potential and, when required, achieve depolarization and with it threshold and action potential generation to open ion channels for sodium influx and then potassium Efflux to bring membrane voltage back down. We can see it happen on imaging like functional MRI but we don’t know how what I mentioned actually leads to the formation of our reality. We can even identify “grid cells” in hippocampal circuitry (specifically projections from entorhinal cortex onto CA1 class cells. These Grid cells possess multiple firing locations which define a triangular array covering the entire surface of an open two-dimensional environment. With all of that, we still don’t know how these mechanisms actually lead to our reality generated around us. This gives us something….let it be anything but we need to move forward and attempt to unify our theories. This is a fascinating and intellectually stimulating theory. It could be something.

[@ritakane5973]

I agree with you. This makes no sense. Besides, understanding this stuff won’t change our lives in any way so what good is it

[@rbolo29]

So if reality is a process of consciousness and we live in a custom made Universe; then is this proving God?

[@georgekochikonas2443]

yes

[@georgekochikonas2443]

and no

[@intheair1987]

Why is he talking about the 2 slit experiment? I thought it was collapsed by the observer effect which the equipment used to observe the going-through emits some kind of photon or things that collapsed the wave function, and not consciousness. Or is this still debatable?