Você está na página 1de 98

Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

search... Go

About
Archives
Ajita Kamal
Forums
Our Network
Regional Groups
Indian Skeptic
Contact Us

Science & Philosophy


Pseudoscience & Religion
Humor & Creative Arts
Freethought Activism

Popular
Most Discussed
Comments

1. The Status Of Women As Depicted By Manu In The Manusmriti


2. Know Your Gurus Part II
3. Hall of Shame: On a Hindutva Apologist's Recent Lectures at IIT Madras
4. Cow's Excreta as Medicine: Insult to Humanity
5. Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza's Notion of a
Conscious Universe
6. How Much Do YOU Pay Your Domestic Worker? Take the Survey
7. Deconstructing the Inanity of Brahman and the Vedantic Worldview

Community Forums

I proposed my discovery to develop new powertrains to NASA. January 17, 2014


Building a FAQ on Privilege and Intersectionality January 13, 2014
What's wrong with the Indian party system? January 12, 2014
Theoretical minimum January 1, 2014
Freethought.... ha ha ha..... December 13, 2013

Nirmukta on Facebook

1 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Nirmukta FB Page

Nirmukta FB Group
Like 4.7k

Indian Atheists
Like 22k

Regional groups

2 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Bangalore Freethinkers
Chennai Freethinkers
Delhi Freethinkers
Hyderabad Freethinkers
Kochi Freethinkers
Kolkata Freethinkers
Mumbai Freethinkers
Pune Freethinkers

Follow us on Twitter

https://twitter.com/Nirmukta

Nirmukta Media

OUT Campaign

In solidarity with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason, Nirmukta members
proudly present OUT Campaign - INDIA.

Translations available in:

Hindi, Telugu, Kannada, Tamil, Bengali and Marathi

Indian CSICOP

3 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Indian Committee For Scientific Investigation Of Claims Of The Paranormal.

Naturalism Logos

You are here: Home Science & Philosophy Naturalism

Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to


Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanzas Notion
of a Conscious Universe
Written by Vinod Wadhawan December 14, 2009 1:53 am 509 comments

Co-authored with Ajita Kamal

Editors Note: This article has been cited by P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula and Steven Novella at
Neurologica, and has been reposted at RichardDawkins.net..

It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to
the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of
accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in
from the beginning.

-Steven Weinberg

You are here to enable the divine purpose of the universe to unfold. That is how
important you are.

-Eckhart Tolle

1. Introduction

The impulse to see human life as central to the existence of the universe is manifested in the
mystical traditions of practically all cultures. It is so fundamental to the way pre-scientific people

4 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

viewed reality that it may be, to a certain extent, ingrained in the way our psyche has evolved,
like the need for meaning and the idea of a supernatural God. As science and reason dismantle
the idea of the centrality of human life in the functioning of the objective universe, the emotional
impulse has been to resort to finer and finer misinterpretations of the science involved. Mystical
thinkers use these misrepresentations of science to paint over the gaps in our scientific
understanding of the universe, belittling, in the process, science and its greatest heroes.

In their recent article in The Huffington Post, biologist Robert Lanza and mystic Deepak Chopra

put forward their idea that the universe is itself a product of our
consciousness, and not the other way around as scientists have been telling us. In essence,
these authors are re-inventing idealism, an ancient philosophical concept that fell out of favour
with the advent of the scientific revolution. According to the idealists, the mind creates all of
reality. Many ancient Eastern and Western philosophical schools subscribe to this idealistic
notion of the nature of reality. In the modern context, idealism has been supplemented with a
brand of quantum mysticism and relabeled as biocentrism. According to Chopra and Lanza, this
idea makes Darwins theory of the biological evolution and diversification of life insignificant.
Both these men, although they come from different backgrounds, have independently expressed
these ideas before with some popular success. In the article under discussion their different
styles converge to present a uniquely mystical and bizarre worldview, which we wish to debunk
here.

2. Biocentrism Misinterprets Several Scientifically Testable Truths

The scientific background to the biocentrism idea is described in Robert Lanzas book
Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the
Universe, in which Lanza proposes that biology and not physics is the key to understanding the
universe. Vital to his proposal is the idea that the universe does not really exist unless it is being
observed by a conscious observer. To support this idea, Lanza makes a series of claims:

(a) Lanza questions the conventional idea that space and time exist as objective properties of
the universe. In doing this, he argues that space and time are products of human consciousness
and do not exist outside of the observer. Indeed, Lanza concludes that everything we perceive
is created by the act of perception.

The intent behind this argument is to help consolidate the view that subjective experience is all
there is. However, if you dig into what Lanza says it becomes clear that he is positioning the
relativistic nature of reality to make it seem incongruous with its objective existence. His
reasoning relies on a subtle muddling of the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity. Take, for
example, his argument here:

Consider the color and brightness of everything you see out there. On its own, light
doesnt have any color or brightness at all. The unquestionable reality is that nothing

5 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

remotely resembling what you see could be present without your consciousness.
Consider the weather: We step outside and see a blue sky but the cells in our brain
could easily be changed so we see red or green instead. We think it feels hot and
humid, but to a tropical frog it would feel cold and dry. In any case, you get the point.
This logic applies to virtually everything.

There is only some partial truth to Lanzas claims.


Color is an experiential truth that is, it is a descriptive phenomenon that lies outside of
objective reality. No physicist will deny this. However, the physical properties of light that are
responsible for color are characteristics of the natural universe. Therefore, the sensory
experience of color is subjective, but the properties of light responsible for that sensory
experience are objectively true. The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself; it
creates a subjective experience or a representation of the phenomenon.

Similarly, temperature perception may vary from species to species, since it is a subjective
experience, but the property of matter that causes this subjective experience is objectively real;
temperature is determined by the average kinetic energy of the molecules of matter, and there is
nothing subjective about that. Give a thermometer to a human and to an ass: they would both
record the same value for the temperature at a chosen spot of measurement.

The idea that color is a fact of the natural universe has been described by G. E. Moore as a
naturalistic fallacy. Also, the idea that color is created by an intelligent creator is a
supernaturalistic fallacy. It can be said that the idea that color is created objectively in the
universe by the subjective consciousness of the observer is an anthropic fallacy. The correct
view is that color is the subjective sensory perception by the observer of a certain property of
the universe that the observer is a part of.

Time and space receive similar treatment as color and heat in Lanzas biocentrism. Lanza
reaches the conclusion that time does not exist outside the observer by conflating absolute time
(which does not exist) with objective time (which does). In 2007 Lanza made his argument using
an ancient mathematical riddle known as Zenos Arrow paradox. In essence, Zenos Arrow
paradox involves motion in space-time. Lanza says:

Even time itself is not exempted from biocentrism. Our sense of the forward motion
of time is really the result of an infinite number of decisions that only seem to be a
smooth continuous path. At each moment we are at the edge of a paradox known as
The Arrow, first described 2,500 years ago by the philosopher Zeno of Elea. Starting

6 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

logically with the premise that nothing can be in two places at once, he reasoned that
an arrow is only in one place during any given instance of its flight. But if it is in only
one place, it must be at rest. The arrow must then be at rest at every moment of its
flight. Logically, motion is impossible. But is motion impossible? Or rather, is this
analogy proof that the forward motion of time is not a feature of the external world
but a projection of something within us? Time is not an absolute reality but an aspect
of our consciousness.

In a more recent article Lanza brings up the implications of special relativity on Zenos Arrow
paradox. He writes:

Consider a film of an archery tournament. An archer shoots an arrow and the


camera follows its trajectory. Suddenly the projector stops on a single frame you
stare at the image of an arrow in mid-flight. The pause enables you to know the
position of the arrow with great accuracy, but its going nowhere; its velocity is no
longer known. This is the fuzziness described by in the uncertainty principle:
sharpness in one parameter induces blurriness in the other. All of this makes perfect
sense from a biocentric perspective. Everything we perceive is actively being
reconstructed inside our heads. Time is simply the summation of the frames
occurring inside the mind. But change doesnt mean there is an actual invisible
matrix called time in which changes occur. That is just our own way of making
sense of things.

In the first case Lanza seems to state that motion is logically impossible (which is a
pre-relativistic view of the paradox) and in the next case he mentions that uncertainty is present
in the system (a post-relativistic model of motion). In both cases, however, Lanzas conclusion is
the same biocentrism is true for time. No matter what the facts about the nature of time, Lanza
concludes that time is not real. His model is unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be a part of
science. What Lanza doesnt let on is that Einsteins special-relativity theory removes the
possibility of absolute time, not of time itself. Zenos Arrow paradox is resolved by replacing the
idea of absolute time with Einsteins relativistic coupling of space and time. Space-time has an
uncertainty in quantum mechanics, but it is not nonexistent. The idea of time as a series of
sequential events that we perceive and put together in our heads is an experiential version of
time. This is the way we have evolved to perceive time. This experiential version of time seems
absolute, because we evolved to perceive it that way. However, in reality time is relative. This is
a fundamental fact of modern physics. Time does exist outside of the observer, but allows us
only a narrow perception of its true nature.

Space is the other property of the universe that Lanza attempts to describe as purely a product
of consciousness. He says Wave your hand through the air. If you take everything away, whats
left? The answer is nothing. So why do we pretend space is a thing. Again, Einsteins theory of
special relativity provides us with objective predictions that we can look for, such as the bending
of space-time. Such events have been observed and verified multiple times. Space is a thing
as far as the objective universe is concerned.

Lanza says Space and time are simply the minds tools for putting everything together. This is

7 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

true , but there is a difference between being the


minds tools and being created by the mind itself. In the first instance the conscious perception
of space and time is an experiential trick that the mind uses to make sense of the objective
universe, and in the other space and time are actual physical manifestations of the mind. The
former is tested and true while the latter is an idealistic notion that is not supported by science.
The experiential conception of space and time is different from objective space and time that
comprise the universe. This difference is similar to how color is different from photon frequency.
The former is subjective while the latter is objective.

Can Lanza deny all the evidence that, whereas we humans emerged on the scene very recently,
our Earth and the solar system and the universe at large have been there all along? What about
all the objective evidence that life forms have emerged and evolved to greater and greater
complexity, resulting in the emergence of humans at a certain stage in the evolutionary history
of the Earth? What about all the fossil evidence for how biological and other forms of complexity
have been evolving? How can humans arrogate to themselves the power to create objective
reality?

Much of Lanzas idealism arises from a distrust/incomprehension of mathematics. He writes:

In order to account for why space and time were relative to the observer, Einstein
assigned tortuous mathematical properties to an invisible, intangible entity that
cannot be seen or touched. This folly continues with the advent of quantum
mechanics.

Why should the laws of Nature bother about whether you can touch something or not? The
laws of Nature have been there long before Lanza appeared on the scene. Since he cannot
visualize how the mathematics describes an objective universe outside of experience, Lanza
announces that reality itself does not exist unless created by the act of observation. Some
cheek!

(b) Lanza claims that without an external observer, objects remain in a quantum probabilistic
state. He conflates this observer with consciousness (which he admits to being subjective
experience). Therefore, he claims, without consciousness any possible universe will only exist
as probabilities. The misunderstanding of quantum theory that Lanza is promoting is addressed

8 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

further in the article in the section on quantum theory (Section 4.).

(c) The central argument from Lanza is a hard version of the anthropic principle. Lanza says:

Why, for instance, are the laws of nature exactly balanced for life to exist? There are
over 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it
strains credulity to propose that they are random even if that is exactly what
contemporary physics baldly suggests. These fundamental constants (like the
strength of gravity) are not predicted by any theory all seem to be carefully
chosen, often with great precision, to allow for existence of life. Tweak any of them
and you never existed.

This reveals a total lack of understanding of what the anthropic principle really says. So let us
take a good, detailed, look at this principle.

3. The Planetary Anthropic Principle

And the beauty of the anthropic principle is that it tells us, against all intuition, that a
chemical model need only predict that life will arise on one planet in a billion billion to
give us a good and entirely satisfying explanation for the presence of life here.

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2007)

The anthropic principle was first enunciated by the mathematician Brandon Carter in 1974.
Further elaboration and consolidation came in 1986 in the form of a book The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle by Barrow and Tipler. There are quite a few versions of the principle
doing the rounds. The scientifically acceptable version, also called the weak (or planetary)
version, states that: The particular universe in which we find ourselves possesses the
characteristics necessary for our planet to exist and for life, including human life, to flourish
here.

In particle physics and cosmology, we humans have had to introduce best fit parameters
(fundamental constants) to explain the universe as we see it. Slightly different values for some
of the critical parameters would have led to entirely different histories of the cosmos. Why do
these parameters have the values they have? According to a differently worded form of the
weak version of the anthropic principle stated above: the parameters and the laws of physics
can be taken as fixed; it is simply that we humans have appeared in the universe to ask such
questions at a time when the conditions were just right for our life.

This version suffices to explain quite a few coincidences related to the fact that the conditions
for our evolution and existence on the planet Earth happen to be just right for that purpose. Life
as we know it exists only on planet Earth. Here is a list of favourable necessary conditions for its
existence, courtesy Dawkins (2007):

Availability of liquid water is one of the preconditions for our kind of life. Around a typical
star like our Sun, there is an optimum zone (popularly called the Goldilocks zone), neither
so hot that water would evaporate, nor so cold that water would freeze, such that planets
orbiting in that zone can sustain liquid water. Our Earth is one such planet.
This optimum orbital zone should be circular or nearly circular. Once again, our Earth fulfils
that requirement. A highly elliptical orbit would take the planet sometimes too close to the

9 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Sun, and sometimes too far, during its cycle. That would result in periods when water
either evaporates or freezes. Life needs liquid water all the time.
The location of the planet Jupiter in our Solar system is such that it acts like a massive
gravitational vacuum cleaner, intercepting asteroids that would have been otherwise lethal
to our survival.
Planet Earth has a single relatively large Moon, which serves to stabilize its axis of
rotation.
Our Sun is not a binary star. Binary stars can have planets, but their orbits can get messed
up in all sorts of ways, entailing unstable or varying conditions, inimical for life to evolve
and survive.

Most of the planets of stars in our universe are not in the Goldilocks zones of their parent stars.
This is understandable because, as the above list of favorable conditions shows, the probability
for this to happen must be very low indeed. But howsoever low this probability is, it is not zero:
The proof is that life does indeed exist on Earth.

What we have listed above are just some necessary conditions. They are by no means sufficient
conditions as well. With all the above conditions available on Earth, another highly improbable
set of phenomena occurred, namely the actual origin of life. This origin was a set of highly
improbable (but not impossible) set of chemical events, leading to the emergence of a
mechanism for heredity. This mechanism came in the form of emergence of some kind of
genetic molecules like RNA. This was a highly improbable thing to happen, but our existence
implies that such an event, or a sequence of events, did indeed take place. Once life had
originated, Darwinian evolution of complexity through natural selection (which is not a highly
improbable set of events) did the rest and here we are, discussing such questions.

Like the origin of life, another extremely improbable event (or a set of events) was the
emergence of the sophisticated eukaryotic cell (on which the life of we humans is based). We
invoke the anthropic principle again to say that, no matter how improbable such an event was
statistically, it did indeed happen; otherwise we humans would not be here. The occurrence of
all such one-off highly improbable events can be explained by the anthropic principle.

Before we discuss the cosmological or strong version of the anthropic principle, it is helpful to
recapitulate the basics of quantum theory.

4. Quantum Theory

In conventional quantum mechanics we use wave functions, , to represent quantum states.


The wave function plays a role somewhat similar to that of trajectories in classical mechanics.
The Schrdinger equation describes how the wave function of a quantum system evolves with
time. This equation predicts a smooth and deterministic time-evolution of the wave function, with
no discontinuities or randomness. Just as trajectories in classical mechanics describe the
evolution of a system in phase space from one time step to the next, the Schrdinger equation
transforms the wave function at time t0 (corresponding to a specific point in phase space) to its
value (t) at another time t. The physical interpretation of the wave function is that ||2is the
probability of occurrence of the state of the system at a given point in phase space.

An elementary particle can exist as a superposition of two or more alternative quantum states.

10 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Suppose its energy can take two values, E1 and E2.


Let u1 and u2 denote the corresponding wave functions. The quantum interpretation is that the
system exists in both the states, with u12and u22 as the respective probabilities. Thus we move
from a pure state to a mixture or ensemble of states. What is more, something striking happens
when we humans observe such a system, say an electron, with an instrument. At the moment of
observation, the wave function appears to collapse into only one of the possible alternative
states, the superposition of which was described by the wave function before the event of
measurement. That is, a quantum state becomes decoherent when measured or monitored by
the environment. This amounts to the introduction of a discontinuity in the smooth evolution of
the wave function with time.

This apparent collapse of the wave function does not follow from the mathematics of the
Schrdinger equation, and was, in the early stages of the history of quantum mechanics,
introduced by hand as an additional postulate. That is, one chose to introduce the interpretation
that there is a collapse of the wave function to the state actually detected by the measurement
in the real world, to the exclusion of other states represented in the original wave function. This
(unsatisfactory) dualistic interpretation of quantum mechanics for dealing with the measurement
problem was suggested by Bohr and Heisenberg at a conference in Copenhagen in 1927, and
is known as the Copenhagen interpretation.

Another basic notion in standard quantum mechanics is that of time asymmetry. In classical
mechanics we make the reasonable-looking assumption that, once we have formulated the
Newtonian (or equivalent) equations of motion for a system, the future states are determined by
the initial conditions. In fact, we can not only calculate the future conditions from the initial
conditions, we can even calculate the initial conditions if the future conditions or states are
known. This is time symmetry. In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle destroys the
time symmetry. There can be now a one-to-many relationship between initial and final
conditions. Two identical particles, in identical initial conditions, need not be observed to be in
the same final conditions at a later time.

Multiple universes

Hugh Everett, during the mid-1950s, expressed total dissatisfaction with the Copenhagen
interpretation: The Copenhagen Interpretation is hopelessly incomplete because of its a priori

11 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

reliance on classical physics as well as a philosophic monstrosity with a reality concept for
the macroscopic world and denial of the same for the microcosm. The Copenhagen
interpretation implied that equations of quantum mechanics apply only to the microscopic world,
and cease to be relevant in the macroscopic or real world.

Everett offered a new interpretation, which presaged the modern ideas of quantum
decoherence. Everetts many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is now taken more
seriously, although not entirely in its original form. He simply let the mathematics of the quantum
theory show the way for understanding logically the interface between the microscopic world
and the macroscopic world. He made the observer an integral part of the system being
observed, and introduced a universal wave function that applies comprehensively to the totality
of the system being observed and the observer. This means that even macroscopic objects exist
as quantum superpositions of all allowed quantum states. There is thus no need for the
discontinuity of a wave-function collapse when a measurement is made on the microscopic
quantum system in a macroscopic world.

Wave function bifurcation

Everett examined the question: What would things be like if no contributing quantum states to a
superposition of states are banished artificially after seeing the results of an observation? He
proved that the wave function of the observer would then bifurcate at each interaction of the
observer with the system being observed. Suppose an electron can have two possible quantum
states A and B, and its wave function is a linear superposition of these two. The evolution of the
composite or universal wave function describing the electron and the observer would then
contain two branches corresponding to each of the states A and B. Each branch has a copy of
the observer, one which sees state A as a result of the measurement, and the other which sees
state B. In accordance with the all-important principle of linear superposition in quantum
mechanics, the branches do not influence each other, and each embarks on a different future
(or a different universe), independent of the other. The copy of the observer in each universe is
oblivious to the existence of other copies of itself and other universes, although the full reality is
that each possibility has actually happened. This reasoning can be made more abstract and
general by removing the distinction between the observer and the observed, and stating that, at
each interaction among the components of the composite system, the total or universal wave
function would bifurcate as described above, giving rise to multiple universes or many worlds.

12 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

A modern and somewhat different version of this interpretation of quantum mechanics


introduces the term quantum decoherence to rationalise how the branches become
independent, and how each turns out to represent our classical or macroscopic reality. Quantum
computing is now a reality, and it is based on such understanding of quantum mechanics.

Parallel histories

Richard Feynman formulated a different version of the many-worlds idea, and spoke in terms of
multiple or parallel histories of the universe (rather than multiple worlds or universes). This work,
done after World War II, fetched him the Nobel Prize in 1965. Feynman, whose path integrals
are well known in quantum mechanics, suggested that, when a particle goes from a point P to a
point Q in phase space, it does not have just a single unique trajectory or history. [It should be
noted that, although we normally associate the word 'history' only with past events, history in the
present context can refer to both the past and the future. A history is merely a narrative of a time
sequence of event - past, present, or future.] Feynman proposed that every possible path or
trajectory from P to Q in space-time is a candidate history, with an associated probability. The
wave function for every such trajectory has an amplitude and a phase. The path integral for
going from P to Q is obtained as the weighted vector sum, or integration over all such individual
paths or histories. Feynmans rules for assigning the amplitudes and phases for computing the
sum over histories happen to be such that the effects of all except the one actually measured for
a macroscopic object get cancelled out. For sub-microscopic particles, of course, the
cancellation is far from complete, and there are indeed competing histories or parallel universes.

Quantum Darwinism

A different resolution to the problem of interfacing the microscopic quantum description of reality
with macroscopic classical reality is offered by what has been called quantum Darwinism. This
formalism does not require the existence of an observer as a witness of what occurs in the
universe. Instead, the environment is the witness. A selective witness at that, rather like natural
selection in Darwins theory of evolution. The environment determines which quantum properties
are the fittest to survive (and be observed, for example, by humans). Many copies of the fitter
quantum property get created in the entire environment (redundancy). When humans make a
measurement, there is a much greater chance that they would all observe and measure the
fittest solution of the Schrdinger equation, to the exclusion (or near exclusion) of other possible
outcomes of the measurement experiment.

In a computer experiment, Blume-Kohout and Zurek (2007) demonstrated quantum Darwinism


(http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0704.3615) in zero-temperature quantum Brownian motion (QBM). A
harmonic oscillator system (S) is made to evolve in contact with a bath () of harmonic
oscillators. The question asked is: How much information about S can an observer extract from
the bath ? consists of subenvironments i; i = 1, 2, 3, Each observer has exclusive access
to a fragment F consisting of m subenvironments. The so-called mutual information entropy is
calculated from the quantum mutual information between S and F.

An important result of this approach is that substantial redundancy appears in the QBM model;
i.e., multiple redundant records get made in the environment. As the authors state, this
redundancy accounts for the objectivity and the classicality; the environment is a witness,
holding many copies of the evidence. When humans make a measurement, it is most likely that
they would all interact with one of the stable recorded copies, rather than directly with the actual

13 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

quantum system, and thus observe and measure the classical value, to the exclusion of other
possible outcomes of the measurement experiments.

Gell-Manns coarse-graining interpretation of quantum mechanics

For this interpretation, let us first understand the difference between fine-grained and coarse-
grained histories of the universe. Completely

Murray Gel-Mann

fine-grained histories of the universe are histories that give as complete a description as
possible of the entire universe at every moment of time. Consider a simplified universe in which
elementary particles have no attributes other than positions and momenta, and in which the
indistinguishability among particles of a given type is ignored. Then, one kind of fine-grained
history of the simplified universe would be one in which the positions of all the particles are
known at all times. Unlike classical mechanics which is deterministic, quantum mechanics is
probabilistic. One might think that we can write down the probability for each possible
fine-grained history. But this is not so. It turns out that the interference terms between
fine-grained histories do not usually cancel out, and we cannot assign probabilities to the
fine-grained histories. One has to resort to coarse-graining to be able to assign probabilities to
the histories. Murray Gell-Mann and coworkers applied this approach to a description of the
quantum-mechanical histories of the universe. It was shown that the interference terms get
cancelled out on coarse-graining. Thus we can work directly with wave functions, rather than
having to work with wave-function amplitudes, and then there is no problem interfacing the
microscopic description with the macroscopic world of measurements etc.

Gell-Mann also emphasized the point that the term many worlds or universes should be
substituted by many alternative histories of the universe, with the further proviso that the many
histories are not equally real; rather they have different probabilities of occurrence.

5. The Cosmological Anthropic Principle

Some quantum cosmologists like to talk about a so-called anthropic principle that

14 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

requires conditions in the universe to be compatible with the existence of human


beings. A weak form of the principle states merely that the particular branch history
on which we find ourselves possesses the characteristics necessary for our planet to
exist and for life, including human life, to flourish here. In that form, the anthropic
principle is obvious. In its strongest form, however, such a principle will supposedly
apply to the dynamics of the elementary particles and the initial conditions of the
universe, somehow shaping those fundamental laws so as to produce human
beings. That idea seems to me so ridiculous as to merit no further discussion.

Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar

Much confusion and uncalled-for debate has been engendered by the (scientifically unsound)
strong or cosmological version of the anthropic principle, which is sometimes stated as follows:
Since the universe is compatible with the existence of human beings, the dynamics of the
elementary particles and the initial conditions of the universe must have been such that they
shaped the fundamental laws so as to produce human beings. This is clearly untenable. There
are no grounds for the existence of a principle like this. A scientifically untenable principle is no
principle at all. No wonder, the Nobel laureate Gell-Mann, as quoted above, described it as so
ridiculous as to merit no further discussion.

The chemical elements needed for life were forged in stars, and then flung far into space
through supernova explosions. This required a certain amount of time. Therefore the universe
cannot be younger than the lifetime of stars. The universe cannot be too old either, because
then all the stars would be dead. Thus, life can exist only when the universe has just the age
that we humans measure it to be, and has just the physical constants that we measure them to
be.

It has been calculated that if the laws and fundamental constants of our universe had been even
slightly different from what they are, life as we know it would not have been possible. Rees
(1999), in the book Just Six Numbers, listed six fundamental constants which together
determine the universe as we see it. Their fine-tuned mutual values are such that even a slightly
different set of these six numbers would have been inimical to our emergence and existence.
Consideration of just one of these constants, namely the strength of the strong interaction
(which determines the binding energies of nuclei), is enough to make the point. It is defined as
that fraction of the mass of an atom of hydrogen which is released as energy when hydrogen
atoms fuse to form an atom of helium. Its value is 0.007, which is just right (give or take a small
acceptable range) for any known chemistry to exist, and no chemistry means no life. Our
chemistry is based on reactions among the 90-odd elements. Hydrogen is the simplest among
them, and the first to occur in the periodic table. All the other elements in our universe got
synthesised by fusion of hydrogen atoms. This nuclear fusion depends on the strength of the
strong or nuclear interaction, and also on the ability of a system to overcome the intense
Coulomb repulsion between the fusing nuclei. The creation of intense temperatures is one way
of overcoming the Coulomb repulsion. A small star like our Sun has a temperature high enough
for the production of only helium from hydrogen. The other elements in the periodic table must
have been made in the much hotter interiors of stars larger than our Sun. These big stars may
explode as supernovas, sending their contents as stellar dust clouds, which eventually
condense, creating new stars and planets, including our own Earth. That is how our Earth came
to have the 90-odd elements so crucial to the chemistry of our life. The value 0.007 for the
strong interaction determined the upper limit on the mass number of the elements we have here

15 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

on Earth and elsewhere in our universe. A value of, say, 0.006, would mean that the universe
would contain nothing but hydrogen, making impossible any chemistry whatsoever. And if it
were too large, say 0.008, all the hydrogen would have disappeared by fusing into heavier
elements. No hydrogen would mean no life as we know it; in particular there would be no water
without hydrogen.

Similarly for the other finely-tuned fundamental constants of our universe. Existence of humans
has become possible because the values of the fundamental constants are what they are; had
they been different, we would not exist; that is how the anthropic principle (planetary or
cosmological, weak or strong) should be stated. The weak version is the only valid version of
the principle.

But why does the universe have these values for the fundamental constants, and not some
other set of values? Different physicists and cosmologists have tried to answer this question in
different ways, and the investigations go on. One possibility is that there are multiple universes,
and we are in one just right for our existence. Another idea is based on string theory.

6. String Theory and the Anthropic Principle

A string is a fundamental 1-dimensional object, postulated to replace the concept of


structureless elementary particles. Different vibrational modes of a string give rise to the various
elementary particles (including the graviton). String theory aims to unite quantum mechanics
and the general theory of relativity, and is thus expected to be a unified theory of everything.
When this theory makes sufficient headway, the six fundamental constants identified by Rees
will turn out to be inter-related, and not free to have any arbitrary values. But this still begs the
question asked above: Why this particular set of fundamental constants, and not another?
Hawking (1988) asked an even deeper question: Even if there is only one possible unified
theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and
makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a
mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the
model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

Our universe is believed to have started at the big bang, shown by Hawking and Penrose in the
1970s to be a singularity point is space-time (some physicists disagree with the singularity idea).
The evidence for this seems to be that the universe has been expanding (inflating) ever since
then. It so happens that we have no knowledge of the set of initial boundary conditions at the
moment of the big bang. Moreover, as Hawking and Hertog said in 2006, things could be a little
simpler if one knew that the universe was set going in a particular way in either the finite or
infinite past. Therefore Hawking and coworkers argued that it is not possible to adopt the
bottom up approach to cosmology wherein one starts at the beginning of time, applies the laws
of physics, calculates how the universe would evolve with time, and then just hopes that it would
turn out to be something like the universe we live in. Consequently a top down approach has
been advocated by them (remember, this is just a model), wherein we start with the present and
work our way backwards into the past. According to Hawking and Hertog (2006), there are many
possible histories (corresponding to successive unpredictable bifurcations in phase space), and
the universe has lived them all. Not only that, there is also an anthropic angle to this scenario:

As mentioned above, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose had proved that the moment of the
big bang was a singularity, i.e. a point where gravity must have been so strong as to curve

16 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

space and time in an unimaginably strong way. Under such extreme conditions our present
formulation of general relativity would be inadequate. A proper quantum theory of gravity is still
an elusive proposition. But, as suggested by Hawking and Hertog in 2006, because of the small
size of the universe at and just after the big bang, quantum effects must have been very
important. The origin of the universe must have been a quantum event. This statement has
several weird-looking consequences. The basic idea is to incorporate the consequences of
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle when considering the evolution of the (very small) early
universe, and combine it with Feynmans sum-over-histories approach. This means that, starting
from configuration A, the early universe could go not only to B, but also to other configurations
B, B, etc. (as permitted by the quantum-mechanical uncertainty principle), and one has to do a
sum-over-histories for each of the possibilities AB, AB, AB, And each such branch
corresponds to a different evolution of the universe (with different cosmological and other
fundamental constants), only one or a few of them corresponding to a universe in which we
humans could evolve and survive. This provides a satisfactory answer to the question: why
does the universe have these values for the fundamental constants, and not some other set of
values?.

The statement humans exist in a universe in which their existence is possible is practically a
tautology. How can humans exist in a universe which has values of fundamental constants
which are not compatible with their existence?! Stop joking, Dr. Lanza.

The other possible universes (or histories) also exist, each with a specific probability. Our
observations of the world are determining the history that we see. The fact that we are there and
making observations assigns to ourselves a particular history.

Let A denote the beginning of time (if there is any), and B denote now. The state of the universe
at point B can be broadly specified by recognizing the important aspects of the world around us:
There are three large dimensions in space, the geometry of space is almost flat, the universe is
expanding, etc. The problem is that we have no way of specifying point A. So how do we
perform the various sums over histories? An interesting point of the quantum mechanical
sums-over-histories theory is that the answers come out right when we work with imaginary (or
complex) time, rather than real time. The work of Hawking and Hertog (2006) has shown that
the imaginary-time approach is crucial for understanding the origin of the universe. When the
histories of the universe are added up in imaginary time, time gets transformed into space. It
follows from this work that when the universe was very small, it had four spatial dimensions, and
none for time. In terms of the history of the universe, it means that there is no point A, and that
the universe has no definable starting point or initial boundary conditions. In this no-boundary
scheme of things, we can only start from point B and work our way backwards (the top-down
approach).

This approach also solves the fine-tuning problem of cosmology. Why has the universe a
particular inflation history? Why does the cosmological constant (which determines the rate of
inflation) have the value it has? Why did the early universe have a particular fine-tuned initial
configuration and a specific (fast) initial rate of inflation? In the no-boundary scenario there is no
need to define an initial state. And there is no need for any fine tuning. What is more, the very
fact of inflation, as against no inflation, follows from the theory as the most probable scenario.

17 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Artistic Rendition of the Multiverse. Source:


Nature

String theory defines a near-infinity of multiple universes. This goes well with the anthropic-
principle idea that, out of the multiple choices for the fundamental constants (including the
cosmological constant) for each such universe, we live in the universe that makes our existence
possible. In the language of string theory, there are multiple pocket universes that branch off
from one another, each branch having a different set of fundamental constants. Naturally, we
are living in one with just the right fundamental constants for our existence.

While many physicists feel uncomfortable with this unconfirmed world view, Hawking and Hertog
(2006) have pointed out that the picture of a never-ending proliferation of pocket universes is
meaningful only from the point of view of an observer outside a universe, and that situation
(observer outside a universe) is impossible. This means that parallel pocket universes can have
no effect on an actual observer inside a particular pocket.

Hawkings work has several other implications as well. For example, in his scheme of things the
string theory landscape is populated by the set of all possible histories. All possible versions of
a universe exist in a state of quantum superposition. When we humans choose to make a
measurement, a subset of histories that share the specific property measured gets selected.
Our version of the history of the universe is determined by that subset of histories. No wonder
the cosmological anthropic principle holds. How can any rational person use the anthropic
principle to justify biocentrism?

Hawking and Hertogs theory can be tested by experiment, although that is not going to be easy.
Its invocation of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle during the early moments of the universe,
and the consequent quantum fluctuations, leads to a prediction of specific fluctuations in the
cosmic microwave background, and in the early spectrum of gravitational waves. These
predicted fluctuations arise because there is an uncertainty in the exact shape of the early
universe, which is influenced, among other things, by other histories with similar geometries.
Unprecedented precision will be required for testing these predictions. In any case, gravitation
waves have not even been detected yet.

In any case, good scientists are having a serious debate about the correct interpretation of the
data available about life and the universe. While this goes on, non-scientists and charlatans
cannot be permitted to twist facts to satisfy the hunger of humans for the feel-good or

18 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

feel-important factor. The scientific method is such that scientists feel good when they are doing
good science.

7. Wolframs Universe

Stephen Wolfram has emphasized the role of computational irreducibility when it comes to trying
to understand our universe. The notion of probability (as opposed to certainty) is inherent in our
worldview if quantum theory is a valid theory. Wolfram argues that this may not be a correct
worldview. He does not rule out the possibility that there really is just a single, definite, rule for
our universe which, in a sense, deterministically specifies how everything in our universe
happens. Things only look probabilistic because of the high degree of complexity involved,
particularly regarding the very structure and connectivity of space and time. It is computational
irreducibility that sometimes makes certain things look incomprehensible or probabilistic, rather
than deterministic. Since we are restricted to doing the computational work within the universe,
we cannot expect to outrun the universe, and derive knowledge any faster than just by
watching what the universe actually does.

Wolfram points out that there is relief from this tyranny of computational irreducibility only in the
patches or islands of computational reducibility. It is in those patches that essentially all of our
current physics lies. In natural science we usually have to be content with making models that
are approximations. Of course, we have to try to make sure that we have managed to capture
all the features that are essential for some particular purpose. But when it comes to finding an
ultimate model for the universe, we must find a precise and exact representation of the universe,
with no approximations. This would amount to reducing all physics to mathematics. But even if
we could do that and know the ultimate rule, we are still going to be confronted with the problem
of computational irreducibility. So, at some level, to know what will happen, we just have to
watch and see history unfold.

8. The Nature of Consciousness

One criticism of biocentrism comes from the philosopher Daniel Dennett, who says It looks like
an opposite of a theory, because he doesnt explain how consciousness happens at all. Hes
stopping where the fun begins.

The logic behind this criticism is obvious. Without a descriptive explanation for consciousness
and how it creates the universe, biocentrism is not useful. In essence, Lanza calls for the
abandonment of modern theoretical physics and its replacement with a magical solution. Here
are a few questions that one might ask of the idea:

1. What is this consciousness?


2. Why does this consciousness exist?
3. What is the nature of the interaction between this consciousness and the universe?
4. Is the problem of infinite regression applicable to consciousness itself?
5. Even if Lanzas interpretation of the anthropic principle is a valid argument against modern
theoretical physics, does the biocentric model of consciousness create a bigger
ontological problem than the one it attempts to solve?

Consider this statement by Lanza:

Consciousness cannot exist without a living, biological creature to embody its

19 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

perceptive powers of creation.

How can consciousness create the universe if it doesnt exist? How can the living, biological
creature exist if the universe has not been created yet? It becomes apparent that Lanza is
muddling the meaning of the word consciousness. In one sense he equates it to subjective
experience that is tied to a physical brain. In another, he assigns to consciousness a spatio-
temporal logic that exists outside of physical manifestation. In this case, the above questions
become: 1. What is this spatio-temporal logic?; 2. Why does this spatio-temporal logic exist?
and so on

Daniel Dennetts criticism of biocentrism centres on Lanzas non-explanation of the nature of


consciousness. In fact, even from a biological

The Cartesian Theater

perspective Lanzas conception of consciousness is unclear. For example, he consistently


equates consciousness with subjective experience while stressing its independence from the
objective universe (see Lanzas quote below). This is an appeal to the widespread but
erroneous intuition towards Cartesian Dualism. In this view, consciousness (subjective
experience) belongs to a different plane of reality than the one on which the material universe is
constructed. Lanza requires this general definition of consciousness to construct his theory of
biocentrism. He uses it in the same way that Descartes used it as a semantic tool to
deconstruct reality. In fact, Lanzas theory of biocentrism is a sophisticated non-explanation for
the brain in a vat problem that plagued philosophers for centuries. However, instead of
subscribing to Cartesian Dualism, he attempts a Cartesian Monism by invoking quantum
mechanics. To be exact, his view is Monistic Idealism - the idea that consciousness is
everything- but the Cartesian bias is an essential element in his arguments.

In a dualistic or idealistic context, Lanzas definition of consciousness as subjective experience


may be acceptable. However, Lanzas definition is incomplete from a scientific perspective. The
truth is that there are difficulties in analysing consciousness empirically. In scientific terms,
consciousness is a hard problem, meaning that its complete subjective nature places it beyond
direct objective study. Lanza exploits this difficulty to deny science any understanding of
consciousness.

Lanza trivializes the current debate in the scientific community about the nature of

20 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

consciousness when he says:

Neuroscientists have developed theories that might help to explain how separate
pieces of information are integrated in the brain and thus succeed in elucidating how
different attributes of a single perceived object-such as the shape, colour, and smell
of a flower-are merged into a coherent whole. These theories reflect some of the
important work that is occurring in the fields of neuroscience and psychology, but
they are theories of structure and function. They tell us nothing about how the
performance of these functions is accompanied by a conscious experience; and yet
the difficulty in understanding consciousness lies precisely here, in this gap in our
understanding of how a subjective experience emerges from a physical process.

This criticism of the lack of a scientific consensus on the nature of consciousness is empty,
considering that Lanza himself proposes no actual mechanism for consciousness, but still
places it at the centre of his theory of the universe.

There is no need to view consciousness as such a mystery. There are some contemporary
models of consciousness that are quite explanatory, presenting promising avenues for studying
how the brain works. Daniel Dennetts Multiple Drafts Model is one. According to Dennett, there
is nothing mystical about consciousness. It is an illusion created by tricks in the brain. The
biological machinery behind the tricks that create the illusion of consciousness is the product of
successive evolutionary processes, beginning with the development of primitive physiological
reactions to external stimuli. In the context of modern humans, consciousness consists of a
highly dynamic process of information exchange in the brain. Multiple sets of sensory
information, memories and emotional cues are competing with each other at all times in the
brain, but at any one instant only one set of these factors dominates the brain. At the next
instant, another set of slightly different factors are dominant. At all instants, multiple sets of
information are competing with each other for dominance. This creates the illusion of a
continuous stream of thoughts and experiences, leading to the intuition that consciousness
comprises the entirety of the voluntary mental function of the individual. There are other
materialist models, such as Marvin Minskys view of the brain as an emotional machine, that
provide us with ways of approaching the problem from a scientific perspective without resorting
to mysticism.

Consciousness is not something that requires a restructuring of objective reality. It is a


subjective illusion on one level, and the mechanistic outcome of evolutionary processes on
another.

A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and
space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated
from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.

Albert Einstein

9. Deepak Chopra Finds an Ally for Hijacking and Distorting Scientific Truths

Deepak Chopra, Lanzas coauthor in the article, is known for making bold claims about the
nature of the universe. He peddles a form of new-age Hinduism. Chopras ideas about a
conscious universe are derived from an interpretation of Vedic teachings. He supplements this
new-age Hinduism with ideas from a minority view among physicists that the Copenhagen

21 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Interpretation implies a conscious universe. This view is expounded by Amit Goswamiin his
book The Self-Aware Universe. In turn, Goswami and his peers were influenced by Fritjof
Capras book The Tao of Physics in which the author attempts to reconcile reductionist science
with Eastern mystical philosophies. Much of modern quantum mysticism in the popular culture
can be traced back to Capra. Chopras philosophy is essentially a distillation of Capras work
combined with a popular marketing strategy to sell all kinds of pseudoscientific garbage.

Considering Chopras reputation in the scientific community for making absurd quack claims
about every subject under the sun, one must wonder about the strange pairing between the two
writers. With Lanzas experience in biomedical research, he could not possibly be in agreement
with Chopras brand of holistic healing and quantum mysticism. Rather, it seems likely that this
is an arrangement of convenience. If you look at what drives the two men, a mutually reinforced
disenchantment with Darwins ideas emerges as a strong motive behind the pairing. Both
Chopra and Lanza are disillusioned with a certain perceived implication of Darwinian evolution
on human existence that the meaning of life is inconsequential to the universe. Evolutionary
biology upholds the materialist view of modern science that consciousness is a product of purely
inanimate matter assembling in highly complex states. Such a view is disillusioning to anyone
who craves a more central role for the human ego in determining ones reality. The view that
human life is central to existence is found in most philosophical and religious traditions. This
view is so fundamental to our nature that we can say it is an intuitive reaction to the very
condition of being conscious. It has traditionally been the powerful driving force behind
philosophers, poets, priests, mystics and scholars of history. Darwin dismantled the idea in one
clean stroke. Therefore, Darwin became the enemy. The entire theory of biocentrism is an
attempt to ingrain the idea of human destiny into popular science.

The title of Chopra and Lanzas article is Evolution Reigns, but Darwin Outmoded. This may
mislead you to think that the article is about new discoveries in biological evolution. On reading
the article, however, it becomes apparent that the authors are not talking about biological
evolution at all. It is relevant to note that not once in their article do they say how Darwin has
been outmoded.

Towards the end of their article, Chopra and Lanza say:

Darwins theory of evolution is an enormous over-simplification. Its helpful if you


want to connect the dots and understand the interrelatedness of life on the planet
and its simple enough to teach to children between recess and lunch. But it fails to
capture the driving force and whats really going on.

There is irony in dismissing the most brilliant and explanatory scientific theory in all of biology as
an over-simplification, by over-simplifying it as a way to connect the dots and understand the
interrelatedness of life on the planet. Contrast this with what Richard Dawkins said: In 1859,
Charles Darwin announced one of the greatest ideas ever to occur to a human mind: cumulative
evolution by natural selection. The irony of Chopra and Lanzas statement is compounded by
the fact that biocentrism does not address biological evolution at all! The authors are simply
interested in belittling the uncomfortable implications of evolutionary theory, while not actually
saying anything about the theory itself! We can safely assume that Lanza and Chopra are more
concerned with the implications of Darwinian evolution on the nature of the human ego, and not
on the theory of evolution by natural selection.

22 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Interestingly, Chopra has demonstrated his dislike and ignorance of biological evolution multiple
times. Here are some prize quotations from the woo-master himself (skip these if you feel an
aneurysm coming):

To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow
through a junk yard and produce a jet plane.

How does nature take creative leaps? In the fossil record there are repeated gaps
that no missing link can fill. The most glaring is the leap by which inorganic
molecules turned into DNA. For billions of years after the Big Bang, no other
molecule replicated itself. No other molecule was remotely as complicated. No other
molecule has the capacity to string billions of pieces of information that remain
self-sustaining despite countless transformations into all the life forms that DNA has
produced.

If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive
mutationsthose that lead to new speciesand so few negative ones? Random
chance should produce useless mutations thousands of times more often than
positive ones.

Evolutionary biology is stuck with regard to simultaneous mutations. One kind of


primordial skin cell, for example, mutated into scales, fur, and feathers. These are
hugely different adaptations, and each is tremendously complex. How could one kind
of cell take three different routs purely at random?

If design doesnt imply intelligence, why are we so intelligent? The human body is
composed of cells that evolved from one-celled blue-green algae, yet that algae is
still around. Why did DNA pursue the path of greater and greater intelligence when it
could have perfectly survived in one-celled plants and animals, as in fact it did?

Why do forms replicate themselves without apparent need? The helix or spiral
shape found in the shell of the chambered nautilus, the centre of sunflowers, spiral
galaxies, and DNA itself seems to be such a replication. It is mathematically elegant
and appears to be a design that was suited for hundreds of totally unrelated
functions in nature.

What happens when simple molecules come into contact with life? Oxygen is a
simple molecule in the atmosphere, but once it enters our lungs, it becomes part of
the cellular machinery, and far from wandering about randomly, it precisely joins itself
with other simple molecules, and together they perform cellular tasks, such as
protein-building, whose precision is millions of times greater than anything else seen
in nature. If the oxygen doesnt change physicallyand it doesntwhat invisible
change causes it to acquire intelligence the instant it contacts life?

How can whole systems appear all at once? The leap from reptile to bird is proven
by the fossil record. Yet this apparent step in evolution has many simultaneous parts.
It would seem that Nature, to our embarrassment, simply struck upon a good idea,
not a simple mutation. If you look at how a bird is constructed, with hollow bones,
toes elongated into wing bones, feet adapted to clutching branches instead of
running, etc., none of the mutations by themselves give an advantage to survival, but

23 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

taken altogether, they are a brilliant creative leap. Nature takes such leaps all the
time, and our attempt to reduce them to bits of a jigsaw puzzle that just happened to
fall into place to form a beautifully designed picture seems faulty on the face of it.
Why do we insist that we are allowed to have brilliant ideas while Nature isnt?

Darwins iron law was that evolution is linked to survival, but it was long ago pointed
out that survival of the fittest is a tautology. Some mutations survive, and therefore
we call them fittest. Yet there is no obvious reason why the dodo, kiwi, and other
flightless birds are more fit; they just survived for a while. DNA itself isnt fit at all;
unlike a molecule of iron or hydrogen, DNA will blow away into dust if left outside on
a sunny day or if attacked by pathogens, x-rays, solar radiation, and mutations like
cancer. The key to survival is more than fighting to see which organism is fittest.

Competition itself is suspect, for we see just as many examples in Nature of


cooperation. Bees cooperate, obviously, to the point that when a honey bee stings
an enemy, it acts to save the whole hive. At the moment of stinging, a honeybee
dies. In what way is this a survival mechanism, given that the bee doesnt survive at
all? For that matter, since a mutation can only survive by breedingsurvival is
basically a simplified term for passing along gene mutations from one generation to
the next-how did bees develop drones in the hive, that is, bees who cannot and
never do have sex?

How did symbiotic cooperation develop? Certain flowers, for example, require
exactly one kind of insect to pollinate them. A flower might have a very deep calyx,
or throat, for example than only an insect with a tremendously long tongue can
reach. Both these adaptations are very complex, and they serve no outside use.
Nature was getting along very well without this symbiosis, as evident in the
thousands of flowers and insects that persist without it. So how did numerous
generations pass this symbiosis along if it is so specialized?

Finally, why are life forms beautiful? Beauty is everywhere in Nature, yet it serves
no obvious purpose. Once a bird of paradise has evolved its incredibly gorgeous
plumage, we can say that it is useful to attract mates. But doesnt it also attract
predators, for we simultaneously say that camouflaged creatures like the chameleon
survive by not being conspicuous. In other words, exact opposites are rationalized by
the same logic. This is no logic at all. Non-beautiful creatures have survived for
millions of years, so have gorgeous ones. The notion that this is random seems
weak on the face of it.

Now comes the kicker. All these quotes that demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of
biology, let alone the theory of evolution by natural selection, are from one single article as
compiled by P. Z. Myers in his blog post in 2005. Since then, Chopra has continued to spout his
ignorance of evolution over and over.

Chopras brand of mysticism gets its claimed legitimacy from science and its virulence from
discrediting sciences core principles. He continues this practice through his association with
Robert Lanza. Both Chopra and Lanza seem to be disillusioned by the perceived emptiness of a
non-directional evolutionary reality. Chopra has invested much time and effort in promoting the
idea that consciousness in a property of the universe itself. He finds in Lanza a keen mind with

24 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

an inclination towards a similar dislike for a perceived lack of anthropocentric meaning in the
nature of biological life as described by Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection.

10. Conclusions

Let us recapitulate the main points:

(a) Space and time exist, even though they are relative and not absolute.

(b) Modern quantum theory, long after the now-discredited Copenhagen interpretation, is
consistent with the idea of an objective universe that exists without a conscious observer.

(c) Lanza and Chopra misunderstand and misuse the anthropic principle.

(d) The biocentrism approach does not provide any new information about the nature of
consciousness, and relies on ignoring recent advances in understanding consciousness from a
scientific perspective.

(e) Both authors show thinly-veiled disdain for Darwin, while not actually addressing his science
in the article. Chopra has demonstrated his utter ignorance of evolution multiple times.

Modern physics is a vast and multi-layered web that stretches over the entire deck of cards. All
other natural sciences all truths that exist in the material world- are interrelated, held together
by the mathematical reality of physics. Fundamental theories in physics are supported by
multiple lines of evidence from many different scientific disciplines, developed and tested over
decades. Clearly, those who propose new theories that purport to redefine fundamental
assumptions or paradigms in physics have their work cut out for them. Our contention is that the
theory of biocentrism, if analysed properly, does not hold up to scrutiny. It is not the paradigm
change that it claims to be. It is also our view that one can find much meaning, beauty and
purpose in a naturalistic view of the universe, without having to resort to mystical notions of
reality.

Dr. Vinod Kumar Wadhawanis a Raja Ramanna Fellow at theBhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai and an
Associate Editor of the journalPHASE TRANSITIONS.

25 Like 2k Tweet 51

Share This Article:

Related posts:

1. Deepak Chopra: A New Age Shaman (Watch Video)


2. Deepak Chopra And His New-Age Claptrap
3. Are You A Freethinker? Naturalism, Life and Meaning in a Causal Universe

25 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

4. Jaggi Vasudev Doesnt Understand Science (or the Nature of the Universe)
5. A Response to Dr. B.M. Hegde
6. Derren Browns Crowd Experiment: A Response from two Social Psychologists

Tags:

biocentrism Chopra consciousness Darwin Deepak evolution Lanza Quantum Robert theory
uncertainty

This post was written by:

Vinod Wadhawan - who has written 36 posts on Nirmukta.

Dr. Vinod Wadhawan is a scientist, rationalist, author, and blogger. He has written books on
ferroic materials, smart structures, complexity science, and symmetry. More information about
him is available at his website. Since October 2011 he has been writing at The Vinod
Wadhawan Blog, which celebrates the spirit of science and the scientific method.

509 Comments

Tweak
June 15, 2013 8:46 pm

You do realise that by subscribing to this particular brand of methaysical direct, though
representational, realism, you fall pry to exactly the same issues your critising.

sunny
June 23, 2013 11:02 pm

science must be befuddled by the fact of consciousnes, which is totally apart from energy,
and therefore matter itself. conscious must have come first, as energy and matter, by
scientific definition, cannot be eternal.

Joe Isuzu
June 24, 2013 11:35 pm

Science as a methodology has to have the ability to build upon existing knowledge
by adding new and better information and reassigning values. If it cant be adjusted,

26 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

its not science. Scientists may for a while be befuddled, as opposed to science
itself, but thats the exciting part of asking the question why opposite to assigning
an assumption through ignorance.
You say consciousness is totally apart from energy. All you need to do now is have a
definition of consciousness that everyone can agree upon (which hasnt happened
yet), define what YOU mean by energy, what the source of the energy is, and why it
doesnt have matter.

by scientific definition, cannot be eternal

It seems you abuse many words meaning.

multisenserealism
June 24, 2013 11:55 pm

All you need to do now is have a definition of consciousness that everyone


can agree upon (which hasnt happened yet)

This is a fallacy. We dont have to have a definition of breathing that everyone


can agree upon to be able to approach it scientifically. Do plants breathe? does
breathing happen to an animal, or to their lungs, or cells, or molecules?
Linguistic formalism is not an argument against a physical phenomenon.

thats the exciting part of asking the question why opposite to assigning an
assumption through ignorance

Ignorance can also take the form of discarding an ordinary fact because it
seems to disagree with successful theories. The simple reality of participating
directly in ones own life consciously, in feeling something simple like pain or
pleasure, is incomprehensible to physics, which tries to disqualify the fact with
extraordinary prejudice. What is meant be force, or charge surely what
these words are no less exotic, vague, and metaphysicsl than consciousness.

Joe Isuzu
June 25, 2013 9:09 pm

This is a fallacy. We dont have to have a definition of breathing that


everyone can agree upon to be able to approach it scientifically.

Its not fallacious because the writer had already offered a subjective
judgement that consciousness is apart from energy. I was asking in the
writer to justify their statement in context to the writers own standard by
offering an empirical qualifier other than because I say it is. The writer
was not, as you suggested, approaching it with the purpose of finding an
answer with a methodology. The writer was offering a conclusion. I was

27 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

challenging the writer to show how they came to it.

Force and Charge are not exotic, vague nor mystical. They can be
completely qualified in context with math.

multisenserealism
June 25, 2013 9:35 pm

Im not disagreeing with your asking the writer to justify their


statement, Im disagreeing that this justification requires the writer
to come up with a definition of consciousness that everyone can
agree upon. The two things are unrelated.

The writer was not, as you suggested, approaching it with the


purpose of finding an answer with a methodology

I didnt suggest anything about the writer at all. Im suggesting that


linguistic formalism is irrelevant to understanding nature
scientifically.

Force and Charge are not exotic, vague nor mystical. They can be
completely qualified in context with math.

But math is not qualified in any other context except its own. To
assert charge is no less mystical than to assert spirit. Where did
charge come from? What is it made out of? How does it regulate
itself? To me, the idea that disembodied forces and charges haunt
the emptiness of an unconscious universe is profoundly mysterious
and makes no sense other than as a mathematical abstraction.

Joe Isuzu
June 25, 2013 9:53 pm

multisenserealism

The two things are unrelated I agree. One is science and one isnt.

But math is not qualified in any other context except its own

Not sure about that. Ill have to ponder what youve said. But it
certainly can be appreciated in trying to find a unified theory of
everything. Spiritualists try to use a subjective, unqualified,
argument from ignorance to explain something, that for now, they
wouldnt even be arguing about except for the math.

28 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Tokh
June 27, 2013 9:22 pm

I find none of the recent post here even so much as comprehensible so lets get down to
basics, like, for instance how come the moon has not crashed on to the earth and the
earth together with the other planets etc. not crashed on to the Sun, when gravity is all
about the force of attraction that is as a result of the curvature of space so then what is the
force of repulsion other than the so called centripetal force that was once believed to be
what countered the force of gravity but now never ever mentioned as as gravity is due to
the curvature of space it is presumably also a repulsive force for other wise all heavenly
bodies would be crashing on to themselves and each other.

Captain Mandrake
June 29, 2013 8:50 am

Tokh,

I find none of the recent post here even so much as comprehensible so lets get
down to basics, like, for instance how come the moon has not crashed on to the
earth and the earth together with the other planets etc. not crashed on to the Sun

Unfortunately that is the only part of your post that is comprehensible. The rest of the
post is difficult to follow. I understand that you talk about gravity, centripetal force and
curvature of space, but what is not clear is the specific issue you are raising in your
post.

Anyway if you are wondering why is that moon does not crash into the earth or why
doesnt earth crashed into the sun then you can find the answer in high school text
books (probably around 9 or 10 grade level). Thanks to the internet you can also find
it here on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYiS9ObD3u4 ).

Now if your question is about the way eartha motion is explained then yes there are
two ways to explain it.

1) Motion of earth around the sun can be explained by centripetal force (gravity in
this case) keeping the earth in a orbit around the sun. This is similar to the
centripetal force supplied by you on a ball that you are spinning with a thread
attached to it.

2) Motion of earth can also be explained in a different way. The mass of the sun
curves the spacetime. And earth travel in a straight line in that curved spacetime.
This write-up (http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/education/lithos/litho-spacetime.pdf
) explains how and why this explanation came about.

Now what really is your question? Can you be more specific? Also please explain

29 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

why are you raising this question in the comment thread in an article debunking the
notion of a conscious universe?

Joe Isuzu
June 29, 2013 10:05 pm

Captain Oh My Captain,
youre much more patient than I in this instance.
Great response.

Joe Isuzu
June 29, 2013 10:21 pm

Silly footnote,
how come the moon has not crashed on to the earth
Because its moving away.
Gravitational coupling between the Moon and the tidal bulge nearest the
Moon acts as a torque on the Earths rotation, draining angular
momentum and rotational kinetic energy from the Earths spin. In turn,
angular momentum is added to the Moons orbit, accelerating it, which
lifts the Moon into a higher orbit with a longer period. As a result, the
distance between the Earth and Moon is increasing, and the Earths spin
slowing down.
In fewer words: it is the tides.

Edit: I am copying from a comment:

To show the right sign, one must show that the orbital angular momentum
of the Moon actually increases with the radius despite the decreasing
velocity as the function of the radius For a 1/r potential, mv2m/r says
v1/r, so the angular momentum L=rp=mrv=mr/rr which increases
with r. Lubo Motl
In addition I found this better link by googling.

Captain Mandrake
June 30, 2013 10:55 am

Thanks Joe. These science doubters and pseudoscience peddlers give


one an opportunity to brush up on simple scientific concepts. I should
thank them as well.

I enjoy your posts as well.

30 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Dadster
June 30, 2013 1:54 pm

Capt mandrake and Joe, together you seem to gang up to become the sole
apostles of science .
But, scientific minds are supposed to be open and not dogmatic in their blind
faith , not even that faith is in the completeness of material science itself . What
others here are telling is to open up minds to the existence of energies that
transcends matter that have significant influence on matter and in shaping the
defining characteristics of material entities . Like the Goedels incompleteness
theorem , you cannot explain everything happening to matter or of every event
within material horizons by resorting to materialism only or by remaining within
the region of matter only or , rather without transcending into regions that lie
beyond matter. These energies might not be quantifiable and measurable or
even observable by human instruments , devices but only fall into the abstract
region of their awareness and its really a blissful experience to feel the
power of it . These energies in cosmos ( different from individual universes nd
collective multiverses ) is whats termed as
Cosmic Consciousness . Our awareness. is a subset of this postulated
Cosmic Consciousness and its because of that, that we become aware of
such transcendental energies . Materialists who remain closed in like nuns in
their cloisters will never get that feeling of transcendental bliss . Material
Science is valid within matter- related transactions like a correction to two
decimals are valid for a banker , but here we are talking of Consciousness
which is not an emergent phenomena as materialists want to believe it.
Materialists have so far not been able to create a single live cell from raw
matter ( or raw inorganic chemicals ) . Today Quantum science points into
directions that transcends pure matter . The higher material science climbs up
the more loose- ends they are finding many of them they couldnt tie up without
approximations (ala bankers ) . Feynmans Diagrams have quiggly lines which
cannot be straightened up . The logic of Biology or life sciences still remain
outside physics and chemistry or mathematics, despite the best efforts of
physicists who try to explain by quantizing continuities but continuities remain
as continuities and operates without getting descretized . Its time for human-
kind to step out of the paradigmns of physical sciences and seek out new ways
of thinking to get into grips with the continuities of Conscioisness that refuses
to be confined
to desecrate matter . Perhaps physics is finding it hard to consider Cosmic
Consciousness as the fundamental entity out of which desecrate matter
coagulates or emerges .

Captain Mandrake
June 30, 2013 11:32 pm

31 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Dadster,

There is no conspiracy against your pet claim about cosmic


consciousness. All you have to do is provide verifiable evidence to back
up your claim. Your blissful experience or your word salad definitions do
not count as verifiable evidence. If and when you have something more
than that the scientific community might take you seriously. Till then
people like you should just be publicly mocked and shamed.

multisenserealism
July 1, 2013 12:29 am

Your blissful experience or your word salad definitions do not count


as verifiable evidence

Can you prove that any kind of experience can ever count as
verifiable evidence? Verifying evidence is nothing more than
corroborating a particular experience with other experiences, it does
not necessarily apply to the experiential capacity itself. You are not
considering the phenomenon of consciousness objectively or
scientifically you have an expectation of what constitutes
evidence which is rooted in the inspection of material forms and
functions. That expectation is actually misguided since
consciousness is the aesthetic appreciation of forms and the
participation in functions.

Till then people like you should just be publicly mocked and
shamed.

Is your vision of mocking and shaming as a part of scientific


discourse limited to mere verbal lashings or will it be necessary, do
you think, to escalate this tradition to a homoerotic-fraternal kind of
hazing? Maybe if we can humiliate enough people who disagree
with us, then nobody else will speak up and we can be right
forever!

Captain Mandrake
July 1, 2013 2:30 am

Verifying evidence is nothing more than corroborating a particular


experience with other experiences, it does not necessarily apply
to the experiential capacity itself.

Not sure what you mean by it does not necessarily apply to the
experiential capacity itself. Please explain.

32 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

For the record, no one is questioning whether Dadster has the


capacity to experience. He is a sentient being with a brain. So yes
he has the capacity to experience.

To make thing clear let me restate what scientific community


expects from you if you are to be taken seriously. If you are
proposing that a cosmic consciousness exists then you will have to
provide verifiable evidence for its existence.

consciousness is the aesthetic appreciation of forms and the


participation in functions.

Such word salad definitions does nothing to convince us of the


existence of this cosmic consciousness.

Is your vision of mocking and shaming as a part of scientific


discourse limited to mere verbal lashings or will it be necessary, do
you think, to escalate this tradition to a homoerotic-fraternal kind of
hazing?

It is funny how you insist on making evidence-free propositions and


still think that you are taking part in a scientific discourse. You are
no different from creationists and intelligent design clowns. You
should expect to be mocked.

multisenserealism
July 1, 2013 5:38 am

Not sure what you mean by it does not necessarily apply to the
experiential capacity itself. Please explain

I mean that evidence is about satisfying an expectation within


consciousness that some mental proposition should be made
evident to the senses; to be brought into awareness in some
publicly accessible sensory context. There is no other evidence
beyond that. This means that insisting that consciousness as a
whole be treated as if it were a phenomenon within consciousness
is a failed premise. Its like trying to put North into a compass.

Such word salad definitions does nothing to convince us of the


existence of this cosmic consciousness.

The point is that if you understand what consciousness is, then you
will understand that it is not a form or a function. The existence of
awareness on a cosmic scale is only something that we have to
deduce for ourselves, not because its mysterious or profound but
because consciousness is ontologically defined by direct
participation. Its the reason that you cant simply explain what blue

33 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

looks like to someone who is blind.

Once you understand these details about consciousness, it makes


no more sense that awareness could emerge from some particular
function or at some special level of complexity. It also makes sense,
once you stop taking consciousness for granted, that nothing can
actually exist in any way without some experience of detection
again, if it could, then everything would, and we could not have this
conversation.

You are no different from creationists and intelligent design clowns.


You should expect to be mocked.

I would love to see a neuroscientist try to pick out your fMRI from a
group of fMRIs intelligent design clowns and creationist
fundamentalists. Care to place any bets?

Captain Mandrake
July 1, 2013 8:50 am

No one doubts consciousness exists or that it is mysterious.


Consciousness is something that your brain does. The discussion
was about cosmic consciousness.

The existence of awareness on a cosmic scale is only something


that we have to deduce for ourselves, not because its mysterious
or profound but because consciousness is ontologically defined by
direct participation

After all that BS you now admit you do not have any evidence for
this cosmic consciousness. All I see is an attempt at more word
salads to define it into existence. Sorry, not acceptable.

Captain Mandrake
July 1, 2013 9:34 am

No one doubts consciousness exists or that it is mysterious.

Meant to say there is nothing mysterious about consciousness.


Apologize for the confusion.

multisenserealism
July 1, 2013 6:59 pm

34 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

No one doubts consciousness exists or that it is mysterious.


Consciousness is something that your brain does. The discussion
was about cosmic consciousness.

If consciousness was something that your brain does then we


would not be having this conversation. Your brain does a lot of
things, produce and metabolize neurotransmitters, generate electric
current all functional behaviors of forms on various scales. None
of these, nor all of these put together are consciousness. In the
same way, what we see of the cosmos from our scale and
perspective when we look outside of our bodies is not
consciousness. Cosmic consciousness is simply the existence of
sense in the first place the capacity for anything to feel like
something, to be somewhere, to identify any phenomenon and to
imitate it or respond to it sensibly. The evidence for this is
everywhere. The only place that it is not is to your cognitive sense
when you configure your knowledge in a particular way which
makes it appear that the universe could be senseless. That is a
powerful perspective, and has done a lot of good for civilization, but
it fails spectacularly when applied to consciousness/sense
/awareness/cosmos itself.

After all that BS you now admit you do not have any evidence for
this cosmic consciousness. All I see is an attempt at more word
salads to define it into existence. Sorry, not acceptable.

Thats not what I said. I DO have evidence for an Absolute inertial


frame of awareness it is evident to me. I cannot export my
understanding to you however because you are projecting
powerfully hostile biases against it. This doesnt work. It doesnt
bother me, I understand completely. I would have reacted the same
way only a few years ago had I heard someone yammering on
about absolute inertial frames of self-nesting sensory-motor
relativity. All that I said is that if you want to progress to this
understanding, you will have to change your mind first, because it is
only within your mind, your personal awareness, that any kind of
understanding of consciousness, local or universal, is possible.
Again not because its maaagic, but because privacy is actually
the root of publicity. Youve got it switched around the wrong way
(as does all of Western science). Its like one of those ambiguous
images. All I can do is to explain to you that the vase in the middle
is not the only image thats there, there are also two faces in profile
flanking the vase, but you have to stop looking at the vase to see
them. Many people like yourself, who are very knowledgeable and
talented in left brain STEM disciplines and steeped in Western
conditioning are not neurologically capable of doing this. Its not
your fault. You might be able to see the other side if you
experimented with meditation, psychedelics, or have a brain
trauma, etc. Your lens is so clear that you wont know its there until

35 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

it cracks. Its up to you. Remain in your cognitive Kansas and


harvest the wheat of the status quo, or invite the cyclone and have
a look at Oz.

dadster
July 2, 2013 2:09 am

My dear Captain, This sixteenth century tactics ( ie, threatening with


public ridicule or worse for want of countering with rational reasons
), was exactly what happened to Galileo Galilei, who was made to
recant truth and still was placed under house arrest .
Dogmatists like you people with closed mindset who masquerade
as scientists still walk among us in 21 st century too and have not
learnt from experiences over ages.
You ask your heroes, the physical scientists to create life , or even a
single live cell , from raw inorganic chemicals in their labs and tell
me when that happens and, then you people might be taken a little
more seriously .

Till then at least learn to keep your mind open and watch how
consciousness and even basic Life is explained in ways other than
it being emergent from matter .

Many hard core real physical scientists have come across


phenomena such asQuantum Entanglement which cannot be
explained in any physical way.And they , being real scientific
minded people , have not closed their minds to understanding what
life energy is all about . A type of energy which was once called
elan vital hypothesized by French philosopher Henri Bergson in
his 1907 giving an explanation for evolution and development of
organisms, which Bergson linked closely with consciousness.
Since material science had not developed to its present stage when
it has, by encountering quantum field , met with strange phenomena
that transcends normal material universe such as messages being
transmitted instantaneously ( speedier than light speed ) , therefore
Bergsons philosophy had powerful detractors at that time .
Since then lots of research papers have come out on
Consciousness .which if you are a scientist of any denomination
might like to go though , if not done already .One that immediately
comes to my mind is,
Doug Renselles Research Review
of
David Bohms 1980 Paper
The Enfolding-Unfolding Universe and Consciousness
in
Chapter 3
of

36 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Lee Nichols
The Essential David Bohm

http://www.quantonics.com/Bohm_EUUaC_Research_Review.html

If you have the time ,convenience, patience ,and have a scientific


mind, your reading this and other David B ohms books might help
you to open up your clogged mind .

And, it will help you further to read research papers , indicated by


the Austrian born American Physicist , Fritjof Capra in his book The
Tao of Physics .
A time has arrived that in whichever way material science turns now
it meets with mysticism , through mathematical formalism : I quote
a few quotes from Capra.
If physics leads us today to a world view which is essentially
mystical, it returns, in a way, to its beginning, 2,500 years ago.
This time, however, it is not only based on intuition, but also on
experiments of great precision and sophistication, and on a rigorous
and consistent mathematical formalism.
Fritjof Capra

Subatomic particles do not exist but rather show tendencies to


exist, and atomic events do not occur with certainty at definite
times and in definite ways, but rather show tendencies to occur.
Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics

Science stands at cross roads today . Scientists, therefore, are


responsible for their research, not only intellectually but also
morally. This responsibility has become an important issue in many
of todays sciences, but especially so in physics, in which the
results of quantum mechanics and relativity theory have opened up
two very different paths for physicists to pursue. They may lead us
to put it in extreme terms to the Buddha or to the Bomb, and it is
up to each of us to decide which path to take.
Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point: Science, Society, And The
Rising Culture

So dear Captain , learn to keep your mind open to the exciting


possibilities thats coming up and read up more on post Newtonian
and post Einstenian science of matter without getting stuck with
whatever you had been learning.

By the way, its not the role of science to find answers ( thats for
religion which has answers to everything ). Its the bounden duty
and aim of science to ask questions and never to be satisfied with
what might appear as answers that get thrown up occasionally .
Even the questions are questioned in science .

Personally, I am past that age to do active science in labs , but the

37 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

next lot of scientists are doing it and coming up with phenomena not
explainable by material relationships alone ,they are becoming
aware of awareness or consciousness itself and attempting to
explain Consciousness not with matter but by consciousness itself
as a fundamental entity .

But whats the use , if you mulishly stick with certainties ,


discreteness and with the outdated principle of causation refusing to
look beyond , out of the box, to strive , to seek and to find ?

There are plenty of authentic resources available on the net, if you


are willing to learn about the exciting events happening in the field
of science ( NOT NECESSARILY IN THE FIELD OF MATERIAL
SCIENCE ALONE , BUT OUT THERE IN BIO-SCIENCE AND IN
LIFE SCIENCES ALSO ), in which consciousness as a fundamental
entity is actively and vigorously researched .

Renowned theoretical physicist Lee Smolins 190 pages book ,


Trouble With Physics ( copy righted 2006 ), throws valuable
insight into the fundamental nature of Consciousness . He boldly
confesses up front in his preface itself , i quote, the story I will tell
could be read by some as a tragedy . To put it bluntlyand to give
away the punch line we have failed .
After going through the development of material science from the
past to the present he concludes his preface with the words The
truth lies in a direction that requires a radical rethinking of our basic
ideas about space, time and the quantum field Unquote.

I will stop for now by this quote from Dr.Stuart Hameroff MD, in his
Overview: Could Life And Consciousness Be Related To The
Fundamental Quantum Nature Of The Universe?
Many view the idea of quantum consciousness as unlikely. But I
view it as a speck on the horizon, a paradigm that will eventually
dominate our view of brain, mind and reality. It is the only approach
which seems capable of tying everything together.

Try to update yourself on Science , captain, and then come back .

dadster.

dadster
July 2, 2013 2:23 am

Author: Captain Mandrake


> Comment:
> No one doubts consciousness exists or that it is mysterious.
Consciousness is something that your brain does. The discussion

38 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

was about cosmic consciousness.

Response from dadster.



Captain, We are indeed discussing about Cosmic Consciousness
only . What our psychologists like Freud deal with is the mind with
reference to individual minds . The consciousness corresponding to
that concept is consciousness in a lower dimension .

CC, Cosmic Consciousness ( the word consciousness seems to


cause the mix up ) , that we are talking of is dimensionally different
from just human mind.CC is the universal mind encompassing a
different concept impelling the very sentience of all animals,plants,
microbes and of all sentient living beings in their infinite variety .
The other consciousness of the psychologists is the
anthropomorphise variance of CC. Perhaps, the term , Cosmic
awareness might be a better term to indicate what we discuss .

Till now hard core material scientists were basing their reasoning on
Newtonian causality principles viz, a one-to-one relationship
between cause and effect ; meaning , for one particular cause there
could be only one and only one particular effect and vice verse .But
with the advent of Quantum Electrodynamics , this was one of the
beliefs that has been conclusively upset. For a particular effect
there could be a utterly different causes and, for a particular cause
there could be umpteen number of different effects . In other words
this one-to-one correspondence between cause and effect ceases
to exist.
To make that point clear by an easy example from economics : its
like the causes and reasons how a rich man became rich . Another
person in the same circumstances might have become rich by the
same amount, through acting exactly the opposite manner than that
the other one or by an entirely different way. Verily there are infinite
routes from point A to point B making superimposition possible in
information transmissions.

A second belief to fall is that there has to be a cause or a reason for


an event to occur. This condition is neither mandated nor obtained
in quantum field.Events can occur spontaneously without cause or
reason unexpectedly , unpredictably or effects could be placed on
hold or in limbo, till observation- time comes. Or, events could be
made to happen by constant, consistent and continuous
observation ; or, in other words the very act of observation can
make events to occur . These postulations are supported by the
mathematics of indeterminate chaos theories too besides through
observations themselves and, to boot, to a high degree of accuracy.
Quantum science is the most successful theory that science has
produced so far.

39 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

A third sacred theory to fall was that information cannot be


transmitted at super luminal speeds and that the speed of light is
the upper ceiling limit of message-passing speeds . In experimental
observations of quantum science this principle of the constancy of
the speed of light has often been violated that constancy of speed
of light has been modified to fit in this observed fact. In the
phenomena of quantum entanglement ( which is put into practical
applications in the design of quantum computers) , we come across
situations where we have to stipulate advance information waves
that travel instantaneously carrying information much faster than the
stipulated constant velocity of light . The practical effect on the
ground of this phenomena is that the future can influence the
present and , by extension, can even change the past resulting in
the occurrence of multiple universes !

Another sacred principle of classic physics which had to be


overthrown in quantum science is the principle of conservation of
energy . In quantum events energy can be created and destroyed .
The sacrosanct principle of entropy of thermodynamics does not
hold good . Events / entities can self- organise and remain
organised for ever like an electron for example which has no decay
. Even proton decay is doubtful.Besides the big bang that created
our universe was a quantum event which occurred spontaneously
spurting out energy out of quantum vacuum .

Yes, that is yet another strange but proven concept, ie the existence
of vacuum energy . Cosmos is seething with dynamic ever vibrating
energy. Quantum fluctuations in vacuum can create energies and
can get immediately destroyed too . But occasionally
spontaneously, unpredictably the energy burped out can create
universes like that of ours for no rhyme or reason , absolutely
randomly.

And , so on and on .

Where does Cosmic Consciousness come in


-

into all this ?


-
A good question.
Firstly the finding that even human intentions can create events and
even matter ( which is an event ) ; and, the fact that intention
involves information, will , awareness it would mean that matter(
which is a type of event ) , is after all a derivative of awareness (
consciousness ), created out of awarenessat cosmic dimensions.

And , this awareness though it might be a chaotic random type of


awareness to begin with , resident in the energy of quantum

40 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

vacuum when combined with all other events , interacting with other
informations creates relationships that brings forth macro-
phenomena such as life ( or the unquantifiable quality of life or
liveliness ) and, ,quantifiable discrete form of information called
matter , antimatter, along with it electromagnetic and nuclear
energies and , space-time continuum which is our postulations to
make measurements possible.

Matter needs mind to behave like matter , just as life needs matter
to manifest in our dimensions. They both have the same source of
origin but they are not the same . For one thing , life is a continuous
non- measurable, NON- DISCRETISABLE non- quantifiable quality
of cosmos whereas lumpen matter ( ie, matter without the quality
of life ) is discontinuous, discrete , quantifiable and measurable .
>
Unless you had looked up the books by the scientist authors , I had
suggested in my earlier communication , I dont think you will be
able to follow what I say , which they too have said in a better way ,
perhaps.

Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 2:39 am

Dadster,

Oh, please stop comparing yourself to Gallilio. He produced


evidence for his claims. You have not. So yes you deserve the
same ridicule the scientific community heaps on creationists and
intelligent design clowns.

Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 3:46 am

**Remain in your cognitive Kansas and harvest the wheat of the


status quo, or invite the cyclone and have a look at Oz.**

However dreary and dry Kansas may be it is still the reality.


However comfortable the magical land of Oz might be it is still a
fantasy. Unfortunately it is this comfort seeking magical thinking that
allows for cosmic consciousness and intelligent design.

multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 6:45 am

41 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

However dreary and dry Kansas may be it is still the reality.


However comfortable the magical land of Oz might be it is still a
fantasy. Unfortunately it is this comfort seeking magical thinking that
allows for cosmic consciousness and intelligent design.

Thats the problem is that you think that you assume that the
universe is reality and that consciousness emerges from that. I
would go along with that, but it doesnt ultimately make sense.
Reality cannot make consciousness, but consciousness can (and
does) make reality, as you can see when you dream.

Intelligent design is naive because it assumes that the sense of the


universe is a human sense, with cognitive quality attention and
humanlike intents. Thats just because by default we vastly
underestimate the range of experiences which make up the
universe and how narrow our personal experience really is. Cosmic
consciousness too can go off the rails into oversigifying the
subjective-ideal kinds of experience. I dont make that mistake. Im
not promoting an ideology feel-good wishful thinking. My view is an
impartial comparison of models through a super-model of
perceptual relativity. I have no agenda in developing this other than
my own curiosity and desire to share what I have found with others.

My view finds fault with both Western mechanemorphism and


Eastern anthropomorphism. I understand exactly why they are so
seductive and why each camp fails to integrate the other, and, most
importantly, why that illustrates the relation of consciousness to
matter perfectlynot as metaphor, but as ontology. The universe is
an experience, and only part of that experience is reality. Private
experience without public realism is fantasy, but public realism
without experience isnothing whatsoever.

Joe Isuzu
July 1, 2013 8:11 pm

scientific minds are supposed to be open and not dogmatic in their blind
faith

Oh that that were so. But scientists are subject to the same prejudices
and presuppositions all of our species is subject too. One of the better
qualities of the scientific method and the competitive nature of science
itself is others are continuing to either prove a posit true or incomplete.

Today Quantum science points into directions that transcends pure


matter .

That is simply NOT TRUE especially in your context of Cosmic

42 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Consciousness. Your analogies are jumping back and forth between


species.

multisenserealism
July 1, 2013 8:46 pm

But scientists are subject to the same prejudices and


presuppositions all of our species is subject too.

Scientists might beat their children too, but that doesnt mean that
such behavior is supposed to be part of science. I think the point
being made is that while critical thinking and open curiosity are both
vital to science, the pursuit of unbiased factual truth is more
important than any defense of any particular truth. If that defense
becomes dogmatic and prejudices, it is the duty of scientists to
break those presuppositions when they can. That is the most
important difference between science and religion. Otherwise
science is simply a belief in disbelief a lazy and cynical faith in the
denial of the authenticity of significance.

Joe Isuzu
July 1, 2013 8:52 pm

multisenserealism

If consciousness was something that your brain does then we


would not be having this conversation.

I knew you were going to say that because you denied that in a
previous life time and now you have reach a high plain. You are ,
how so ever, arrogant. How do I know that? I could try to explain it
to you but I can see that you are filled with negative vibrations
closing you off to the truth that I know something that you must
accept because I say so.

Look, after practicing Buddhism for 40+ years, there is much to said
for self reflection. Looking to the connection between the sentient
and insentient, such as the inherent capacity for the enlightenment
of rocks and trees, may give one comfort. Much the same as a
supernatural belief in non-caused god creature who creates a
causal cosmos in order to not only give you life, but make it eternal
as long as you behave within the parameters someone says this
creature says you should. But there is no proof other than
anecdotal.

43 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

I DO have evidence for an Absolute inertial frame of awareness it


is evident to me. is not science. Its personal.

Joe Isuzu
July 1, 2013 9:00 pm

Multi-
I think the point being made is that while critical thinking and open
curiosity are both vital to science, the pursuit of unbiased factual
truth is more important than any defense of any particular truth.

LOL, its like youre agreeing with me but missing the whole point.

multisenserealism
July 1, 2013 9:28 pm

Looking to the connection between the sentient and insentient,


such as the inherent capacity for the enlightenment of rocks and
trees, may give one comfort.

For some. For others it is the denial of the inherent capacity of all
phenomena to make sense or be sensed which gives them comfort.

My views are not about comfort at all. For me it is a hypothesis


deduced from the information that we have. Sentience makes no
sense in an insentient universe. No matter which way you slice it,
there is no plausible grounds for inclusion of something like
awareness in a universe of forms which function perfectly well
without them. Its not some sentimental longing that I have for
consciousness to be important, I could care less whether I am a
machine or whether machines are like me from a distant
perspective, but the former cannot be true and the latter can easily
be true. Physics can reduce an experience to the characteristics of
a machine, but it cannot add experiential characteristics to an
unconscious mechanism. Once you understand that, you can
outgrow the idea of complexity as mechina ex anima and see the
promissory materialism that hardliners turn to for the hand waving
rationalization that it is.

Joe Isuzu
July 1, 2013 9:43 pm

Multi-

44 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

For me it is a hypothesis deduced from the information that we


have.
Thank you for calling it a hypothesis at least, lol!

I think I understand what youre trying to say. That being said, have
you ever thought that the big joke might be that we use our
reasoning capacities to rationalize a meaning to an irrational world
instead of being reasonable? I can appreciate the irony too!

I named my dog Stay. I drive him crazy: Come Stay! Come Stay!
Steven Wright

Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 3:41 am

**Sentience makes no sense in an insentient universe. No matter


which way you slice it, there is no plausible grounds for inclusion of
something like awareness in a universe of forms which function
perfectly well without them.**

Interesting framing. But this is just one big argument from


ignorance. You do not know how sentient beings came about in an
insentient universe, so cosmic consciousness must exist. And you
do not want to be put in the same category as intelligent design
clowns. Hilarious!

Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 3:49 am

**I DO have evidence for an Absolute inertial frame of awareness


it is evident to me**

How do we know you are not lying to us? This is why we ask you to
share your evidence for verification. You do that and scientific
community will take you seriously.

multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 3:51 am

Captain Mandrake: You do not know how sentient beings came


about in an insentient universe,

No, I am asserting positively that there is no possibility that sentient

45 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

beings came about in an insentient universe. I assert that because


if you look at the universe that physics gives us, there is no room for
any kind of awareness and no justification for it. Its not that we
havent figured out how it works yet, its that we have figured out that
anything which does what consciousness does would be completely
superfluous to any physical function.

Besides, the brain is panpsychic already

http://multisenserealism.com/6-panpsychism/

Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 3:55 am

**Sentience makes no sense in an insentient universe**

Well, we can take the same line of argument for other BS like the
following.

Digestion makes no sense in an universe that does not digest.

Respiration makes no sense in an universe that does not respire.

So following multisenserealisms line of reasoning (if you can call


that) we should now believe in cosmic digestion and cosmic
respiration.

Ashwin
July 2, 2013 4:55 am

How do we know you are not lying to us? This is why we ask you to
share your evidence for verification. You do that and scientific
community will take you seriously.

Captain, even in a solipsistic framework, what he says wouldnt fly.


His Absolute inertial frame of awareness isnt something that he
can observe and know to be true, its something that has to be
deduced, and he simply hasnt done it. So its not a question of
whether hes lying or not he has to prove it to himself first!

Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 6:46 am

46 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Multisenserealism,

**No, I am asserting positively that there is no possibility that


sentient beings came about in an insentient universe. I assert that
because if you look at the universe that physics gives us, there is
no room for any kind of awareness and no justification for it.**

However emphatically you assert that you have not proved anything
of that sort. You are no different from ID clowns who also
emphatically assert that science can not possibly explain this that
and other biological phenomena that looks designed.

Even if (can not be too careful with dishonest pseudoscience


peddlers like you.) what you (and ID clowns) assert is true (which
has not been demonstrated by you or the ID clowns) you have not
proved that this Cosmic Consciousness (Intelligent designer in the
case of ID clowns) in fact explains the awareness/consciousness
(apparent design in biological systems).

In short this is just one big argument from ignorance.

Remember you were talking about something called a fMRI


machine. I do not know what this machine does. But if it can spot an
argument from ignorance then it will raise the same red flag on you
and the ID clowns as is examines your brains.

Ashwin
July 2, 2013 7:46 am

Captain,

I frankly dont know what multisenserealism is trying to say Im not


sure if he knows either.

If you go to his blog, it reads like a technobabble generator .

multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 3:41 am

Dadster, take a look at my hypothesis sometime


http://multisenserealism.com.

I think that I may have made some significant breakthroughs, at least


conceptually, in defining the nature of awareness and matter. Even the
implications of QM do not really meet us halfway. What is required is a
model of physics which fully commits to sensory-motor participation as

47 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

the ground of being and source of all Laws/forces.

Ashwin
July 2, 2013 5:02 am

Dear Multisenserealism,

I can strongly empathize with your zeal for understanding how the
universe works and appreciating the beauty of modern physics on a
conceptual level.

That being said, your blog seems to fall into the folly of postmodern
jargon as evidenced by Alan Sokal.

If you are truly interested, I encourage you to go and get a degree


in theoretical physics and do some research people with a zeal for
understanding the universe, I feel, should be encouraged to go this
route. But Im afraid you arent making many meaningful
hypotheses on your webpage.

multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 6:20 am

That being said, your blog seems to fall into the folly of postmodern
jargon as evidenced by Alan Sokal.

Dear Ashwin,

The postmodern jargon meme is a popular talking point in the cult


of mechanism. Its a red herring. Although neologisms can certainly
be annoying, and I think even more so to those who are more
comfortable thinking in mathematical terms than linguistic, there is
no justification to claim hat ideas are not meaningful simply
because you find their manner of expression distasteful.

There are a lot of these kinds of memes designed to protect people


from having to consider any new viewpoints. Lists of excuses to
disqualify and rationalize prejudice. Buzzwords to label certain
scientists, philosophers, and entire categories of inquiry as heresy.
Its not surprising though, this is exactly what my hypothesis
suggests. The psychological momentum on both ends of the
spectrum the spiritual fundamentalists and scientific
fundamentalists, is toward pathologies of fear and aggression. It
makes sense extreme focus and specialization comes at the cost
of extreme intolerance.

48 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Johh
July 3, 2013 1:27 pm

Hi Mandrake,
Excuse the delay and the error that i intentionally did not correct. I need not
add that its known that errors usually do catch ones attention.
Well Im still not too sure of what made me do that post that you graciously
responded to. Was not aware that this was as you mention, a thread debunking
the notion of a conscious universe.
That said, I am quite stunned by the spurt of posts that appear to have been
triggered from what i happened to have posted underlining my poor
understanding of gravity.
But now it dawns on me after reading a lot on what all has been said about
consciousness here specifically, what if I for the sake of hypothesis and from
the belief that gravity of an object is directly proportional to its mass, state that
gravity is actually the mass of the object. Lets keep in mind also that scientist
have still not found out what gives the sub atomic particles, the building blocks
of all matter, their mass. Adding on to my hypothesis so far let me now say that
gravity is not just mass, gravity is actually consciousness itself if not the basis
or the raw material of all consciousness.
Besides Im aware of the quest and failure to come up with a so called Grand
Unified Theory that would then lead to the theory of everything which by
definition according to me would need to include the reality of life and
consciousness too and for that we would need to find how consciousness
relates with matter.
I must say that in no way do i qualify to be a scientist and neither do i wish to.

Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 7:21 pm

Johh,

I would like to respond to your post. But before that can please clarify
something for me.

**gravity is actually consciousness itself**

Why did you use the term consciousness in that hypothesis of yours.
Why didnt you say **gravity is actually respiration itself** or **gravity is
actually digestion itself**.

You see consciousness is just what your brain does much like respiration
is what your lung does and digestion is what your stomach does. I dont
think science has fully explained any of these phenomena. Just because
there are gaps in our understanding of these phenomena we should not

49 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

corrupt our current understanding of physics by saying *gravity is


consciousness*, *strong nuclear force is respiration*, and *weak nuclear
force is digestion* and so on. Hope this helps.

Ashwin
June 29, 2013 8:56 am

Its actually quite interesting, Tokh. Centripital force doesnt counter gravity in the
situation in which youre describing, the centripetal force IS gravity.

Think about it like this: the Moon is moving tangential to the Earth at its own velocity.
Suddenly, the gravity of the earth pulls the moon inward, which changes the direction
of the velocity. At each instant at which gravity pulls inward, the velocity changes
direction and you thus get circular motion. Read about Uniform Circular Motion on
Wikipedia.

This is a simplification, of course. You can have elliptical orbits which work similarly.

You also talk about the curvature of space. This is a little off it is space-time which
is curved, and that is Einsteins model of gravity, which is more precise. I dont
understand it, though, so I cant explain that model to you. Einstein improves on the
earlier model in that he accounts for the fact that force does not act instantaneously
nothing can, the upper limit for information transfer is the speed of light.

Ashwin
July 2, 2013 6:19 am

Multisenserealism,

we have figured out that anything which does what consciousness does would be
completely superfluous to any physical function.

We have? Why do say that? Evolution has selected for consciousness because it does
increase chances of reproduction.

multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 6:32 am

We have? Why do say that? Evolution has selected for consciousness because it
does increase chances of reproduction.

I say that because we have not found any function in nature which would work better
as a conscious experience than an unconscious process. If it is not necessary for our

50 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

immune system to develop consciousness to perform the survival-critical function of


identifying and neutralizing billions of pathogens, then it doesnt make sense that the
modest wanderings of an unremarkable hominid would demand the construction of a
hallucinatory inner universe.

Human consciousness is a human quality of experience. Evolution has certainly


shaped those qualities but experience itself is not something that relates to evolution
at all. If you look at the efficiency of the unconscious processes which are assumed
to run everything else in the universe, including those processes which generate
human consciousness itself, it should be obvious that no important task would be
improved by this kind of imaginary aesthetic presentation which consciousness is
(wrongly) assumed to be.

Ashwin
July 2, 2013 7:42 am

The ability to sense when a predator is coming after you, the ability to get
yourself towards a mate to pass on your genes, the ability to communicate
these are all derivatives of consciousness.

When you say that consciousness is not useful for humans to function in
nature, you have to define what usefulness means. In evolution, a trait is
considered useful if it helped previous generations of your species find mates.

Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 7:49 am

Ashwin,

I was not thinking about evolution of consciousness at all. All I saw was
similarity in the arguments proposed by cosmic consciousness
proponents and ID proponents. With your explanation it is becoming
more and more clear to me that these two theories (if we call that) are
almost identical. This CC seems to be a subset of ID.

dadster
July 2, 2013 4:36 pm

My dear Captain ,

To hold fast to the fallacy that universe is NOT sentient is hubris.


Are you familiar with the theory of Gaia ? or the theory of cellular
mathematics ?

51 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

The degree and quality of sentience might differ , But that does not
mean their sentience is of lesser quality than that of humans.

What do you think gives characteristic properties like valency, and


affinity for chemical reactions to chemicals .You might say its the
electromagnetic properties of their atomic structure to behave in a
particular way depending on temperature-pressure conditions etc .

But how did some become structured like that, like DNA folding for
example and attained stability and others did not ?

I am not indicating any purpose that nature has .Its all random
happenings for no purpose in the view of those chemicals or from
their frame of reference .

Purpose enters from the mind of life-forms including of humans and


when humans quantify and measure it . Microbial actions are
purposeful and NOT random.
The purpose being survival . The fundamental characteristic quality
of all life forms is that they are endowed with the instinct of survival
( survival of self and of their respective species also ) ,which instinct
no lumpen matter-forms have.

If you had read what I had written earlier you would have by now
known the various differences between life- energy and matter-
energies . But since you obviously had not , i would suggest you
read it or find out in some other way ,yourself .

Life energies as distinct from electromagnetic and nuclear energies


energize matter to make it come alive.

Matter not endowed with life in it ( like a dead body for example)
,still possesses the same quantity of Electromagnetic energy and
nuclear energy and are subject to gravitational energies too as
before life left that body .

Or , in other words ,everything that has Electromagnetic , nuclear


and gravitational energies are not possessed with life-energy
although life -energy manifests in our dimensions through matter as
its physical structure or scaffolding only.

If you think that life comes out of matter spontaneously then why is
it that material scientists are not able to breath life into matter and
make one single living cell so far despite many brave attempts to
achieve that. ?

Why is it that life is not automatically coming into the mix of


chemicals or raw chemical inorganic materials under any artificially
created temperature pressure or environmental conditions ? Even
Craig Venter has not been able to do it despite trying hard for it and

52 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

we were all waiting for it to happen .

So its time now that we change our route of inquiry , question the
questions we were asking , effect some paradigm shift as
Thomas Kuhn: the man who changed the way the world looked at
science
suggested in his seminal book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions.

Biology and life -sciences were following the paradigms of physical


material sciences till now. It has not reached with it anywhere near
understanding life-energy.
Hence its time that Life-scientists strike out on their own freeing
themselves from the yokes of physical material scientists and seek
new paths and approaches in understanding life-energy directly
from life itself instead of going through the physical structure
through which life manifests in our dimensions.

Hence this discussion on BIO-CENTRISM .

But its all overhead transmission for you and its better you safely
stay out of it till you become more updated in your physical
sciences before entering the much more complex bio-sciences and
life-sciences

Joe Isuzu
July 2, 2013 8:27 pm

dadster
To hold fast to the fallacy that universe is NOT sentient is hubris.
Now thats what I call the pot calling the kettle black!
CM
With your explanation it is becoming more and more clear to me
that these two theories (if we call that) are almost identical.

They cannot be called theories within the parameters of science.


They are conjectures and at best unverifiable hypothesis. A theory
needs to be able to be falsified; make a prediction based upon
observable evidence or mathematical proofs. Calling evolution a
theory is a compliment. Calling ID a theory is pseudo science.

Captain Mandrake
July 2, 2013 8:53 pm

Joe,

53 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Thanks for pointing out the error in my liberal use of the term
theory. One can never be too careful.

Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 3:31 am

Dadster,

**To hold fast to the fallacy that universe is NOT sentient is hubris.**

HAHA! What was that? A clumsy attempt at shifting the burden of


proof?

Let us not forget how this started. You claimed that cosmic
consciousness exists. You were asked to provide verifiable
evidence to back up that claim. So far we have not heard anything
approximating an evidence.

Until you provide verifiable evidence to back up your claim all you
deserve is a nice Hitchslap.

Christopher Hitchens That which can be asserted without


evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 8:27 am

The ability to sense when a predator is coming after you, the ability to
get yourself towards a mate to pass on your genes, the ability to
communicate these are all derivatives of consciousness.

These kinds of ad hoc just-so stories are exactly why your position has
no credibility.

Shark *embryos* sense when a predator is coming after them:


http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/09/shark-embryo-
use-electric-sense-to-avoid-danger-by-freezing/

Any sexually reproducing organism knows how to get towards a mate to


reproduce.

Bacteria and plants communicate.

http://1.usa.gov/17Q284f

http://www.thingsgoneright.com/2012/06/18/scientists-confirm-that-plants-

54 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

talk-and-listen-to-each-other-communication-crucial-for-survival/

If your justification of consciousness is that it allows these rudimentary


biological functions, then you have to explain how it is that humans are so
impaired that they require a solipsistic phantasm projection where every
other organism requires only functioning genes. More importantly, why
does a solipsistic phantasm improve the effectiveness of ordinary
Bayesian computations and other quantitative modeling and compression
schemas? From your answer I can see that you have not given this issue
much thought. You take consciousness for granted, and then reverse
engineer it to some appearance of utility which matches our human
experience of its utility, but you dont see the circularity of the logic. Sure,
in the real world, real humans benefit from consciousness, but that is only
because consciousness does what matter cannot do. Consciousness is
what matter cannot create not because its magic, but because it is
perception itself, and its ancestors as more primitive forms of sensory-
motive participation, are the true progenitors of matter.

Ashwin
July 3, 2013 3:01 am

Consciousness allows us to do these things better .

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/03
/14/why-did-consciousness-evolve-and-how-can-we-modify-
it/#.UdNGhuuf8hc

multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 3:37 am

Consciousness allows us to do these things better.

No, it doesnt. It only seems that way because we are conscious. If


our immune system could argue, it would say that unconsciousness
is certainly superior to consciousness in every way.

Once you have conflated your own sense of human consciousness


with the principle of awareness in general, it is very hard to
separate the success of the human species from that misguided
equivalence. Humans have a high quality of consciousness, so we
have an advantage in more cases than disadvantages. That is not
to say that an unconscious creature could not behave in exactly the
same ways as we do, simply by making computations and without
having some kind of presentation of those computations.

55 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

It doesnt even have to be about consciousness. Lets make it easy.


A computer can drive a car without installing a TV screen inside the
CPU to project images on. The computer need not render its
detections of the outside world graphically. It certainly would not
invent graphics or geometry to do such a thing, and we know that
computers dont do that already. If they did we wouldnt need video
monitors, we could just tap right into the computations themselves
and look at them, or taste them, or listen to them. But it isnt like
that. Information processing is anesthetic and abstract. It has *no
possible* means or motives to actualize itself aesthetically or
concretely.

So yes, richer, deeper aesthetic qualities correlate to deeper


quantitative nestings, but while you can derive quantites as a base
level quality, no degree of computational complexity, in and of itself,
will ever have need of a single quality. Computation is one
dimensional binary. Survival only benefits by more sophisticated
programming, not by any kind of qualitative experience. Why feel
pain when you can simply have a physical mechanism which
enforces the behavioral logic which we associate with pain? In the
end, the idea that pain can cause behavior change is circular. Why
do we change our behavior because something hurts? Well,
because if it hurts that means it is threatening our health. How do
we know that that sensation of hurting means anything at all? Well,
its hardwired into our brain. So why does our brain need to tell itself
what the message means directly instead of converting it to an
unexplained hurt and then converting it back into a receiver of hurt
who changes the behavior which could have been changed in the
first place directly by the brain? Pain hurts because hurt is painful.
Theres no getting under it. Theres no reason why some signal
should be felt as anything at all its simply information to be
classified with a high priority in the processing queue, nothing more.
To suggest that consciousness offers more than unconsciousness
demands that we see unconsciousness from this other vantage
point. From a more neutral, scientific view however, it is clear that
consciousness is functionally inert and redundant.

Ashwin
July 2, 2013 7:42 am

Or survive long enough to pass on their genes.

Ashmant
July 2, 2013 9:43 am

56 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

5 cents:

Please let me know if we dont agree on the below:

Consciousness : In consciousness, we perceive, comprehend, react, sense,


relate to our environment. With me? A simple analogy, youre walking by the
river bank and see a tree log. Apparently, youre conscious and hence know
about the log, the riverbed, the time of the day..yada yada. Cool?The log
apparently knows none of this. Which leads to the below point:

Unconsciousness: Its when perception, reaction, locational knowledge, time


flow sense are apparently suspended. Are you with me? Essentially, we
recognize unconsciousness with the lack of the above sensibilties.Rito?

Now I will list down some common variables which exist in daily living, and give
it a thought whether they are in our consciousness. I mean to say, lets
evaluate whether we catch up with the plethora of live variables in our world in
terms of our perceptive capability defined as consciousness above. Few
examples:

1.The rotation and revolution of the planet


2.Virus outbreak
3.Natural calamities
4.The automatic breathing and blood pumping mechanism that doesnt need
your effort
5.The goings on of a termite colony
6.The millions of electrons who actually dont know that with a given voltage
and resistance, a certain no of them have to reach form point A to point B given
we have a closed circuit. They dont go on strike, argue on the internet or try to
save the world. They simply do what is to be done. How often do we see that
kind of efficiency in our conscious species members?
7.So many logic gates go on and off with each data storage and create this
website, the internet,all your security records, financial records. I mean,how do
they not make any error in correct data storage? No A ever becomes a K.
What you store is what you get back. In contrast, most humans wont be able
to breathe without making on or the other amazingly stupid error. Hats off to
our consciousness

All these things could be measured via some mathematical model. Agreed. But
please understand, the virus, the tornado, the lightning..they dont model any
attack on you..they strike.So I have all due respect for theoritical constructs
because
they help me ANALYZE what HAPPENED.Its useful surely for designing a
more efficient world. But when the virus enters you, do you notice? Can you
smell it? Can you feel it? Its this INSTANT reaction that the virus seemingly
hasthat it found a host. But youre reading theories on viral diseases
anaware that they got ya already! And, amazingly, the virus is supposedly half
dead.

So, while we humans do have intellectual ability, but our real time

57 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

understanding of and harmony with our environment is so minimal, while the


same unconscious environment is operating with much much higher alacrity,
diversity, balance, accuracy,law adherence than us improvised chimps.

With view to the initial point, if we call ourselves conscious, then wed have to
say that the environment has to be much more than that.

Chill and be conscious of your chillness

Joe Isuzu
July 2, 2013 8:41 pm

Ashmat,
The easy problem of consciousness is what we can observe from it.
Without it, we become zombie like. With it we make what appears to be
choices as to what we pay attention to, and even that may be on a
subliminal level do to evolution. Maybe a better way to put it, what we
prioritize to ignore giving more import to something else. If we paid
attention to everything we again would become zombie like, paralyzation
through analyzation.
The hard problem is more of the language we use. Someone may say
that there is a consciousness, the word used, that exists after the brain
dies (again no way to make a prediction or observe a result so it cannot
be in any way construed as a theory) which is the same term as someone
else who also uses consciousness with regards to the Cosmos having a
consciousness and thus us (talk about hubris), or someone who refers to
consciousness as a filter, all using the same term, is a problem because
the term gets assigned different qualities.

multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 9:38 pm

Thats a very confused read of the hard and easy problem of


consciousness.

The easy problem of consciousness is what we can observe from


it

We observe everything from consciousness. There is nothing that


we dont observe from consciousness. I assume you are talking
about those aspects of consciousness which we infer from the
behavior of others.

Without it, we become zombie like.

58 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Now you jump to the interior view, since zombie-like has no


meaning in the context of behavior. A conscious person can act like
a zombie if they want. There isnt much of a connection between
either of those views and the Easy problem. The Easy problem of
consciousness is simply the challenge of understanding the
functions of the brain which relate to being awake, feeling, thinking,
etc. Its facetious of course because it is anything but Easy to
understand the complexity of the brains function, but Chalmers
point was to express that at least this kind of engineering problem
has a definite end which is solvable by degree. We have only to
keep plugging away for long enough and we will someday be able
to engineer something which imitates the function of a brain.

The Hard problem is to explain why there is any difference between


a sophisticated zombie and a person at all. Why would the function
of the brain, its processing of information, give rise to anything like
an experience? The Easy problem can be solved completely and
the Hard problem will still remain untouched.

The questions of Cosmic Consciousness and life after death need


not be related to either the Easy or the Hard problem. It is perfectly
ok to hypothesize that the universe is panpsychic without assuming
a universal entity or a personal afterlife. I think that those questions
are more of a distraction. The first thing that must be done is to
understand awareness itself, as a phenomenon.

This is a short essay that I posted this morning which may shed
more light on the issues of this thread:

http://multisenserealism.com/2013/07/02/consciousness-in-black-
and-white/

Joe Isuzu
July 2, 2013 10:17 pm

Multi-
Thats a very confused read of the hard and easy problem of
consciousness.

Cant argue that. And thats one of the problems of arguing the
properties of consciousness.

As far as a conscious person choosing to act zombie like, I agree


that is perhaps a bad analogy because we need to define what a
zombie would act like. But lets say, for arguments sake, a zombie
has no choice as to what to pay attention to being a strictly reactive
entity. A conscious person cannot turn off their autonomic system

59 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

and will react to stimuli. The closet thing I guess to that and still be
alive would perhaps be a coma; brain dead/ artificially kept alive.

My daughter sent me a short video taken by a helicopter of the


Thanksgiving Xmas sales at Wall Mart with people rushing through
the parking lot with the caption Zombie Apocalypse.

multisenserealism
July 2, 2013 11:01 pm

But lets say, for arguments sake, a zombie has no choice as to


what to pay attention to being a strictly reactive entity. A conscious
person cannot turn off their autonomic system and will react to
stimuli.

I think you are hitting on one of the key weaknesses of the Western
model. If we go full Libet on it (never go full Libet) then choice is
an illusion anyhow. A conscious person cannot turn off their
autonomic system, but that just means that the zombie has certain
programmed reactions which another kind of imaginary zombie
would not have. The difference between the horror zombie and the
philosophical zombie is only a matter of degree. The p-zombie is
only a more sophisticated imposter. If this imposter is sophisticated
enough, then it will not require anything to process autonomic
signals into personal feelings, it will simply produce the behaviors
which are required to fulfill the evolutionary imperatives. It will be a
fully functional automaton. Indeed, if we were not here ourselves
and not able to voluntarily take our own word our own sense of free
will and aesthetic appreciation of our subjective experience, the
concept of subjectivity or experience would seem impossible and
absurd.

Zizek had some cool things to say about zombies. Not to spam links
to my own stuff but my comments on his comments are here if
anyone is interested: http://s33light.org/post/46454957924

Joe Isuzu
July 3, 2013 1:39 am

Multi-
never go full Libet
Never been a consensus on interpretation of results. Close as
anyone ever got was Susan Blackmore arm wrestling Christopher
Hitchens over drinks. Susan won but it cost her a fortune cause she
had to buy and Hitch drank the bar dry.

60 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 1:46 am

Susan won but it cost her a fortune cause she had to buy and Hitch
drank the bar dry.

Haha, that deserves to be Shel Silverstein song


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVfE_-ZJAxc

(Beware of bein the rollerwhen theres nothin left to roll.)

Ashmant
July 7, 2013 2:10 pm

Were missing one basic point here that our existence is very much
part of the entire picture.The very act of reasoning,proving and
formulating is not something that we have acquired on our own,
independent of the universe.

Any evidence about anything requires someone to interpret and test


the evidence.This also requires a pre defined mathematical/physical
framework under which the evidence can be verified.The very
individual and the framework are parts of the whole here. So the
very fact that we are discussing this here presuppose that we are
conscious, which is not something that we developed independently
of the universe.Even Cristopher Hitchens would have no evidence
of independent thinking, if he were to keep aside his brain(a product
of evolution),birth (we didnt independently decide to be born as
humans did we? Do we have any proof if yes?), education(scientific
or otherwise, which comprises of the collective body of knowledge
till date about the universe that keeps moving on)or discoveries( we
have never truly produced anything, only used the behaviour of the
universe to put together tools with predictable behaviour using
enquiry and knowledge that we never produced either). What we
call US is a collage of these sensibilities across time. Where are we
apart from this?

One question is whether we can produce any evidence at all.The


universe is full of many radiations probably more complex than our
brain waves. But it may not make any sense to us because of the
limitations of our models, not that of the universe. Please let me
know what would be evidence for us. Gamma rays? Supernovas?
Dark matter? Its that our understanding of consciousness is limited
by our human form and hence involves communication,self identity,
memory and recognition, while much much more significant

61 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

happenings in the universe dont take up such a form.Demanding


the goings on of the universe to take human understandable
formats is like religious traditions where Gods invariably have
human form for our convenience of belief.In reality, the universe is
not bound by our limitations.

So much simply, the very fact that you and I are posting here is
clear evidence of a conscious universe. Consciousness is not a
personal asset.If we keep aside the body, the nervous system, our
education, upbringing and culture, do we still have some conscious
self left, independent of all?If that be the case, then we can be sure
that we are separate from the universe. Otherwise,our very
consciousness of ourselves is nothing but inherited universal
consciousness and sufficient proof.

Some people had valid points related to the term consciousness


itself.We need to understand that if we want a universe talking to
us, visiting Nirmukta, going to the grocery store for us to believe it to
be a sentinent thing, then thats not a notch better than searching
Santa Claus. Another thing was WRT CC and ID.Intelligent design
would require intelligence and design as separate parts of the
creation process. This is nothing but a projection of our way of
working onto the universe.The universe is one solid undivided thing
where intelligence,design,creation,destruction are all one single
process.

The universe simply IS.To put it in our context is a futile exercise


because in reality it is US who are in its context in our life,
awareness, death and recycling.

Joe Isuzu
July 2, 2013 8:49 pm

Ashmant,
I wouldnt even bother answering dadster below because hes begging
the question in every way possible. Like What is YOUR concept of
evolution, or why certain energies he assigns qualities to are not
interested in evolving. Seriously, its the same tactic Chopra uses;
engage me in a pseudo science dialogue giving it credence where non
belong.

dadster
July 2, 2013 4:39 pm

Evolution has selected for consciousness because it does increase chances of

62 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

reproduction. Ashwins response .

And Ashwin, respecting your views , may I ask you ,

1. what is your concept of evolution?


2. why only matter infused with life ( a type of fundamental energy ), is interested in
evolving and why matter infused with electromagnetic and nuclear energies only (ie,
matter without life in it ) , is not interested in evolving ?
3. Or, according to you, is lumpen matter ( ie matter without bio-life energy in it ) also
interested in evolution and in reproduction?
and, if so how do they do it ?And, if they do,then it would mean that lumpen matter
also has selected to be conscious ( self-aware?) .Was that what you wanted to say
? Or, you want to say that lumpen matter dont evolve as it has not selected self-
awareness ( consciousness ) ?
4. And, lastly,why is anything in nature or in Cosmos interested at all in evolving in
time ?
in all fairness to you I should warn you that If you find any reason for it then you will
be falling into the abysmal pit of Creationists and the Intelligent designers which
makes things more complex , because nature / cosmos which operates
spontaneously and randomly ( as per the well established and well respected
Quantum theory ) will then betray a purpose ,an anthropomorphism , which
becomes self-contradictory then , one mode that science and maths dont want to fall
into.

Lets keep this discussion at a mutually courteous level to make it interesting and
meaningful without being proselytizing about it.

Instead of categorically responding to these 4 queries , if you respond in a general


manner , brushing away the questions sweepingly, i would be highly disappointed
with you, which i expect you wont make me.

Ashwin
July 3, 2013 12:41 am

1) Evolution is the gradual change in allele frequencies from generation to


generation. Those alleles which increase the chances of survival or
reproduction are passed on.

2) This question presupposes some things which must be acknowledged.


There is no such thing as life-energy. This used to be a widely held belief,
well into the 19th century I belief it was called vitalism. Wohlers synthesis of
urea showed that there is no such thing. Most matter does not evolve because
it does not reproduce. Reproduction is the key here.

3) No. See above.

4) We shouldnt anthropomorphize things. Thus, I wont say that organisms are


interested in evolving. It simply happens. In a hypothetical population of

63 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

giraffes, those with the longest necks will get more nourishment due to the
nature of the fauna in the area, and thus will survive and pass on their
long-necked traits to their offspring. Thus, allele frequencies have been
changed the definition of evolution.

Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 1:05 am

Just for the sake of argument let us say Ashwin was not able to answer
these (dishonestly badly framed) questions. What would that say about
cosmic consciousness? Absolutely nothing. Cosmic consciousness
proponents still have to provide verifiable evidence for its existence which
they refuse to do.

Christopher Hitchens That which can be asserted without evidence,


can be dismissed without evidence.

multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 1:48 am

4) We shouldnt anthropomorphize things.

I agree. We shouldnt mechanemorphize ourselves either.

Ashwin
July 3, 2013 8:33 am

What does that mean? Mechanamorphize? I could probably guess, but


Id rather hear from you:

1) What is means.

2) Why we shouldnt mechanamorphize ourselves.

multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 6:59 pm

Anthropomorphize = To attribute human form or personality to


things not human

Mechanemorphize = to attribute machine form or impersonality to

64 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

things not mechanical.

We shouldnt mechanemorphize ourselves because only the public


facing aspects of {the total phenomenon that we are] are
mechanistic. My understanding is that it makes more sense to
consider that consciousness uses mechanism for differentiation and
extension, but that machines do not use consciousness (why would
they?).

If you examine the nature of mechanism carefully, you should see


that the essence of mechanism is unconsciousness. What is an
automaton? What does it mean to automate a process? It means
that we squeeze out all requirements for our participation. It
happens without us.

Why is that important? Because a machine will serve whatever


master that it is constructed to serve. It will do the same thing over
and over until it breaks, because it cant tell the difference and it
cant care. The machine itself {the totality of the phenomenon that is
the machine} has no presence as a whole which is independent of
our expectations of it. Outside of our uses of it, it is only an
assembly of unrelated parts.

Natural phenomena are not assembled unconsciously, they are


spun off and broken out from larger wholes. They are conceived
through fusion and fission of their own sense and motive. As a
result, the awareness of something like a human being, which is
self-elaborated to an almost perverse degree, has a footprint in
many different levels of awareness and interaction. While the public
effect of what we are seems mechanistic to us, the private affect of
who we are does not seem that way. If we were to recreate the
universe and we wanted to recreate it faithfully, we would have to
include this non-mechanistic experience, as it is the primary
experience of the universe for all participants in the universe.

To say that someone is robotic, or acting like a machine is to say


that they are impersonal, cold, relentless, unfeeling. These
meanings are not there by accident, they are universal intuitions.

multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 10:37 am

Let me ask you a few questions.

1. Do you understand now what is meant by mechanemorphism?

2. Do you understand why is an unscientific bias in absolute terms?

65 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

3. Do you have an argument which would persuade a neutral party


why mechanemorphism deserves more consideration than
anthropomorphism as a default ontological assumption?

Ranganath R
July 3, 2013 6:17 am

With a lot of difficulty I was trying to go thru the comments of one who goes by name of
Multisense Realism (MR). But I still could not figure out what he or she is trying to say
and whether that commenter is in favor of or against Bio-centrism.

While I appreciate and applaud the valor and persistence of Joe, Ashwin and Capt.
Mandrake in responding to the babble of MR, I somehow feel that they are up against a
clone or alter ego of the woo-woo master Deepak Chopra. We might as well re-christen
this character as Cheepak Dopra, the long lost twin of DC in a Kumbh Mela!!!.

I tried to glimpse through MRs blog. it is extremely heavy and dense and hard to make
any sense out of it. Looks like that will put DC to shame.

Some people just wont agree however much you try to argue and reason with them and
all these exchanges end up giving too much of credence to the post-modernist type
nonsense of MR.

multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 6:41 am

A lot of people think that if they use dismissive language like babbling and
nonsense that it is a substitute for actual criticism. Anyone can ridicule, but it takes
a special kind of person to admit that they are incapable of understanding what they
are ridiculing.

As far as bio-centrism is concerned, I dont assume that awareness is limited to


biological organisms. In the proper context, any phenomenon can be be understood
as representing an experience of some kind. To understand what consciousness is,
we should first consider what consciouslessness would be. What scientific law really
allows us to expect that any particle can exist without some capacity for particles to
be defined or detected. What function can we expect can exist without any sense of
memory which collects each instant into a coherent sequence?

I think that Occams Razor demands that when it comes to cosmology, we take
*nothing* for granted, including nothingness. We should not take the easy way out
and arbitrarily decide that the universe without consciousness happens to be just like
it appears to us humans, especially when we know that appearances can be
deceiving. Instead we should insist that everything that exists, every material form,
every sensation and feeling be accounted for and reconciled seamlessly. I think that

66 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

my view does just that.

Ashwin
July 3, 2013 8:32 am

How about this can you, in one paragraph, summarize your position for us?
Dont take more than a paragraph, but take less if you will. Thanks.

multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 7:08 pm

Position on bio-centrism?

Bio-centrism is a step in the right direction but ultimately falls short. To


understand the nature of consciousness and life, we have to go beyond
the particular experience that we have as human beings and model the
nature of experience in general scientifically. That model must interface
seamlessly with physics. My model does those things, so I am excited to
share it with those who are interested.

Ashwin
July 3, 2013 9:50 pm

Why does physics not model the universe scientifically?

Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 10:04 pm

That model must interface seamlessly with physics. My model does


those things, so I am excited to share it with those who are
interested.

So what? God of the Gaps is also a model that seamlessly


interfaces the body of knowledge with the body of unknowledge (I
too know to make up words) but explains nothing. Much like your
bullshit model.

multisenserealism

67 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

July 3, 2013 11:23 pm

Why does physics not model the universe scientifically?

Physics models the universe that we experience, but it does not


model experience itself. Theories which explain public interactions
do so at the expense of private significance. This is part of how
perceptual relativity works. What we pay attention to changes the
significance of what we dont pay attention to. Contemporary
physics has not discovered the correlation between relativity-
perception and entropy-significance yet, so its model is only
half-scientific when it comes to modeling experience. It tries to treat
feeling and being as if it were doing and knowing, which is a
category error.

The result is kicking the problem down a level, from the person to
the brain, to the neuron, to ion channels, etc, not realizing that each
level requires the same capacities to receive and respond to
environmental conditions that they are adapted to that a person
has. Whatever we point to to explain consciousness must also have
some kind of awareness in order to bridge the gap between
mechanical behavior and semantic appreciation.

multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 11:37 pm

So what? God of the Gaps is also a model that seamlessly


interfaces the body of knowledge with the body of unknowledge

God of the Gaps is another tired and dorky talking point of the cult
of pseudoskepticism. I am *not* saying that the failure of material
and information science to locate consciousness is proof of
multisense realism. I offer what I think is a comprehensive
integration of consciousness and physics, which so happens to
require that we reverse our most fundamental assumptions about
physics.

Its a conjecture, of course, but I think that it is a superior conjecture


to fumbling around in the darkness of absolute vacuums filled with
energy, particles which are waves, spacetime which curves,
superstrings in 26 compactified dimensions these concepts are
bogus. Brilliant, and useful for some purposes, but they make my
simple assertions that physics is a category of sensory-motor
participation seem rock solid by comparison.

You couldnt make up a more Emperors New Clothes seeming


model if you tried. Quantum behavior doesnt make sense? Lets

68 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

just call the universe a multiverse instead, so that every time a dust
mite takes a dump there is a near-infinity of new universes for each
possible permutation of the event. Its Occam would never stop
vomiting.

Joe Isuzu
July 3, 2013 11:50 pm

Multi-isms
Physics models the universe that we experience, but it does not
model experience itself. Theories which explain public interactions
do so at the expense of private significance.

I told myself to stay out of the hyperbole but this is absolute


gibberish as what its explanation is probably going to be also.
Worthy of the Random Chopra Generator
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 11:57 pm

I told myself to stay out of the hyperbole but this is absolute


gibberish as what its explanation is probably going to be also.

I need to make a glossary of these dorky buzzwords. Its always


gibberish this and nonsensical that. Either you are interested in
understanding what I mean or you arent. I am quite happy to
explain anything that people find unclear, and I understand perfectly
why it should seem unclear to them. New ideas are provocative.
Get used to it.

Joe Isuzu
July 4, 2013 1:48 am

Either you are interested in understanding what I mean or you


arent.

The cosmos is rooted in descriptions of photons


The Higgs boson is beyond self-righteous neural networks
Your desire is the continuity of the expansion of brightness
The mind gives rise to unbridled destiny
Quantum physics requires an abundance of creativity
Death comprehends subjective self-knowledge

69 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Ashwin
July 4, 2013 2:17 am

Physics models the universe that we experience, but it does not model
experience itself.

Okay, so you appear to have a problem with the objectivity that science
calls for. You think that physics is incomplete because it does not solve
the hard problem of consciousness. Fine.

Yes, it is true that we have no idea what consciousness is. Most


physicists and a handful of philosophers assume that physical laws will
someday explain it. Others philosophers say that its an inappropriate
question. Others say that there is something metaphysical about
consciousness that physics cannot hope to touch.

The truth is, any of these options could be correct. We dont know. But to
say that any of them are correct, we require proof. To paraphrase a
well-known scientist the beauty of science is that it doesnt claim to have
all the answers. It doesnt seek to describe or explain it builds models
with predictive value, and the only justification for using these models is
that they work. So lets get back to you:

1) Can you prove to me that your position is correct?

2) If you cant do that, can you at least show me that your assertions are
scientific hypotheses? That is, are they falsifiable? How could I prove you
wrong?

3) What predictive power does your model have? Why should I care?
What empirical realities does it explain? And I dont mean it explains
consciousness. Thats not how science works. Does it explain, for
example, why membrane voltage is dependent as it is on BK channel
conductance in specific neurons? Which physical observables can be
measured by your model?

Finally, you say this:

Contemporary physics has not discovered the correlation between


relativity-perception and entropy-significance yet

What is entropy-significance? It appears to be jargon. Entropy can be


used in two ways one in information theory, and the other in thermal
physics. What the heck is entropy-significance?

multisenserealism

70 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

July 4, 2013 3:10 am

The truth is, any of these options could be correct. We dont know.

You dont know, but I think that I have a pretty good idea, at least
one which I have not found reason to doubt yet.

1) Can you prove to me that your position is correct?

It depends what you mean by prove. Can you prove that a square
cannot be a circle? Can you prove that an equation cannot solve to
be the color blue? What I have done is found a position which
seems more correct than any other which can be conceived at this
time.

2) If you cant do that, can you at least show me that your


assertions are scientific hypotheses? That is, are they falsifiable?
How could I prove you wrong?

Prove me wrong by explaining what use matter would have for


experience. Prove me wrong by showing that energy exists
independently of a detector made of matter. Prove me wrong by
locating a place in the brain where electrical activity is transduced
into flavors and memories. I would not say that what I have is a
hypothesis, it is a conjecture, and it is a broad one. That is its
strength though. The whole point is to explain the entirety of
existence in the simplest way that makes sense and doesnt leave
anything out. Im not offering an answer, Im offering a treasure map
and a compass.

3) What predictive power does your model have?

It predicts everything that physics does not. Order, life, qualia,


meaning, wholeness, etc.

What empirical realities does it explain? And I dont mean it


explains consciousness.

It explains the relation between experience, information, and


physics.

Does it explain, for example, why membrane voltage is dependent


as it is on BK channel conductance in specific neurons? Which
physical observables can be measured by your model?

In the right hands I would think that a lot of physical observables


can be interpreted in a more meaningful way with MSR which could
yield medical advances and social improvements. MSR doesnt
change public physics, it gives a framework to integrate the public

71 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

with the private ranges of physics.

http://multisenserealism.com/the-competition/

What the heck is entropy-significance?

Entropy-significance, like space-time, is a term that Im using to


show the unity of the phenomenon. Entropy is signal degradation, a
loss of discernment. Discernment is the capacity to signify, it is
sense. You cannot have one without the other, as you cannot have
up except as a contrast to down. Entropy presumes a pre-existing
condition of sensory composition, an expectation of perceptual
coherence.

Ashwin
July 4, 2013 7:08 am

Can you prove that a square cannot be a circle? Can you prove that
an equation cannot solve to be the color blue?

Heres the first proof: a circle, by definition, is the set of all points
equidistant from a given center. The set of all points of a square,
however, are not equidistant from any given point. For a square of
side-length l, some points are l/2 away from the center, but others
are l/(sqrt(2)) from the center.

Therefore, a square cannot be a circle, QED.

This is what I mean by a proof.

The second claim to be proven or disproven doesnt make much


sense. I could certainly solve an equation in which one of the
variables is wavelength, and the wavelength corresponds to blue.

Ashwin
July 4, 2013 7:14 am

Prove me wrong by explaining what use matter would have for


experience.

What is use? This is deliberately vague. Matter doesnt need


qualia to exist, that would be Idealism.

Prove me wrong by showing that energy exists independently of a


detector made of matter.

72 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

This claim itself is unprovable and unfalsibiable. By saying your


claim can be falsified by an unfalsifiable claim, youre only passing
the buck to this claim.

Prove me wrong by locating a place in the brain where electrical


activity is transduced into flavors and memories.

This is an argument from ignorance. I just said I cant solve the


mind-body problem. Youre saying that Oh well, if you cant solve it,
then I must be right.

multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 8:10 am

Heres the first proof: a circle, by definition, is the set of all points
equidistant from a given center.

Thats a quantitative definition of a circle. A circle is also a visual


presence which contains no points at all and the center would only
be inferred. The geometric definition that you are using assumes
the concept of centers, distance, equality, and sets, which are all no
less tautologically defined than the circle itself. These concepts are
all mutually interdependent and rely ultimately on intuition and
perceptual experience. The irreconcilability of your two definitions
only reiterate the irreconcilability of circles and squares that we
visualize. That reiteration doesnt prove anything, other than that
the precision of mathematics agrees with itself.

The second claim to be proven or disproven doesnt make much


sense. I could certainly solve an equation in which one of the
variables is wavelength, and the wavelength corresponds to blue.

The wavelength only corresponds to blue if you can see the


wavelength as blue. There is nothing blue about any wavelength,
nor can there be anything blue about an equation. You say it
doesnt make sense because you have no answer for it. The fact
that quantity can never translate into a feeling or sensation is so
abundantly clear that it would be shameful if you tried to deny it.
The only option is the to pull the doesnt make much sense card.
Thats the point, it cant make sense. There is no bridge from
numbers to colors, but there is a bridge from colors to numbers
(count them, measure them with instruments). Good luck turning
those measurements into color.

What is use? This is deliberately vague. Matter doesnt need


qualia to exist, that would be Idealism.

Exactly. Matter doesnt need qualia to exist. So why is there qualia

73 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

and how does matter produce it? Hint: Not possible. Qualia can
make itself seem like matter (obviously, because we can dream of
materially realistic worlds) but matter has no plausible to connection
with qualia unless you are proposing one.

This claim itself is unprovable and unfalsibiable. By saying your


claim can be falsified by an unfalsifiable claim, youre only passing
the buck to this claim.

It doesnt have to be unprovable. We could live in a universe where


people transfer from material states to energy states, and we
coexist with disembodied energy beings. My conjecture is a better
way of explaining the peculiar nature of energy than science
currently employs. Physics claims of the existence of charge,
force, and law are no less falsifiable.

This is an argument from ignorance. I just said I cant solve the


mind-body problem. Youre saying that Oh well, if you cant solve it,
then I must be right.

Youre saying I admit that I cant solve it, so you must be wrong.

Im not right because you cant solve it, Im right because I can
explain exactly why it is unsolvable. There may be other reasons
why it is unsolvable, but if nobody in the history of the world knows
them then theres not much point in considering them.

Ashwin
July 4, 2013 8:34 am

Well, it looks like Ranganath was right.

A circle is not a visual presence. It is a geometric object. If I


continue talking to you, Im going to forget all the math and science
I learned. Better stop.

Ranganath and Captain Mandrake caught on quite early. I was late


to the game. Enjoy your postmodern fantasies and technobabble.

Ashwin
July 4, 2013 8:38 am

Im arguing with a guy who thinks that a square is a circle. Its


impossible to argue with someone whos thrown logic itself out the
window.

74 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

When it comes to debating the far Right and debating the far Left, at
least the far Right hasnt thrown logic away. But when someone is
trying to tell me that a square is a circle, theres nothing that I can
do.

multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 9:01 am

A circle is not a visual presence. It is a geometric object. If I


continue talking to you, Im going to forget all the math and science
I learned. Better stop.

A geometric object, eh? And what sort of a thing is that? A two year
old can say that she sees a circle. Geometric objects are a
specialized fiction. See the difference? The former = concretely real
phenomenal experience in the universe. The latter =
representational abstraction developed through an academic
tradition.

Im arguing with a guy who thinks that a square is a circle. Its


impossible to argue with someone whos thrown logic itself out the
window.

No, you are arguing with a guy who understands that the
foundations of geometry are no less unfalsifiable and tautological
than what I propose. I asserted that the mutual exclusivity of
squares and circles could not be proved, because I was pointing out
that truth is not contingent on proof, but rather sense. You are
grasping at straws so you give me the straw man that my position is
that squares are circles. If that makes you feel like your perspective
makes sense, then good for you. You gotta do what you gotta do
not to admit youre wrong.

Ashwin
July 5, 2013 3:15 am

By definition a square is not a circle. Theres no point proving or


disproving definitions, they are axiomatic.

From Book I of Euclid:

A circle is a plane figure contained by one line such that all the
straight lines falling upon it from one point among those lying within
the figure equal one another.

75 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Of quadrilateral figures, a square is that which is both equilateral


and right-angled.

Want another reason why a square isnt a circle? A circle isnt a


quadrilateral. It has infinite sides. Or how about another reason?
There are no right angles in a circle. Sheesh.

Ashwin
July 5, 2013 3:20 am

Im surprised you havent cited Godels Incompleteness Theorems


yet to tell us why my inference is wrong because it assumes a
particular type of logic!

multisenserealism
July 5, 2013 8:16 pm

By definition a square is not a circle. Theres no point proving or


disproving definitions, they are axiomatic.

Exactly, but it is intellectual sense which is providing those


definitions and axioms, which are abstracted from visual and tactile
sense. Visual and tactile sense presents a circle as a direct
experience. Logical sense defines a circle indirectly, through axioms
and ideas which relate circularity to other spatial observables.
Circularity cannot be represented as an odor or sound (except
metaphorically through time as a rhythm or cycle of repeating
sensations).

Want another reason why a square isnt a circle? A circle isnt a


quadrilateral. It has infinite sides. Or how about another reason?
There are no right angles in a circle. Sheesh.

Again, quadrilateral and angles are a posteriori descriptions of a


sensory phenomenon which a synthetic a prori. Reducing circularity
and rectilinearity to numbers of sides and degree of angularity only
defines the same phenomenon in more generic terms. It still doesnt
explain what makes one thing seem inarguably different from the
other. If anything, the quantified description obscures the more
starkly apparent aesthetic difference between curves and angles by
making hypothetical numbers of sides of a circle more relevant than
the simple sense of absolute radial symmetry which it embodies.

Im surprised you havent cited Godels Incompleteness Theorems


yet to tell us why my inference is wrong because it assumes a

76 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

particular type of logic!

Godel is just the beginning. I would place Godel at the gateway to


the Postmodern/Existential stage of worldviews. I see your view as
being one stage more primitive than that, and mine as being three
stages more advanced than yours.

[Developmental Stage: transcendental voyeur (localizing motive) -


what is observed/transcended]

Archaic/shamanic: Natural spirits (magic) alienates objectivity with


direct animism
Classical/polytheistic: Named supernatural deities (prayer)
alienates physicality with empathetic identification
Post-Classical/monotheistic: Absolute supernatural deity (religious
devotion) alienates morality with indirect identification
Enlightenment/dualistic: Impersonal deity (reason) alienates
animism with mechanistic observation
Modern/scientific: Impersonal forces and laws* (engineering)
alienates subjectivity with abstract formulation
Post-modern/existential: Pure probability** (computation)
alienates subjective-objective dualism with quantum reconciliation
Integral/holistic: Re-enchanted information (signifying pattern)
alienates impersonal perspectives with quantized qualia.
Multisense/Ouroboran: Sensory perception (motive participation)
alienates alienation with qualia-quanta reconciliation.

*evacuated sense and motive


**evacuated physics

Each stage involves a stepping out of the previous system. The


Integral/holistic stage steps out of all systems by considering them
information. The Multisense/Ouroboran stage steps out of {the
system of stepping out of systems} by considering system-making
and system-breaking as the final and absolute reconciliation of
private unity (time) and public multiplicity (space).

Ranganath R
July 3, 2013 10:19 am

So you are pleading to be respectably criticized and also have the cheek to
claim that you are a special kind of person capable of understanding the
respectable theories that you are ridiculing, but the rest are not special enough
to understand the ridiculous theories that you are not even proposing.

You have already lost Ashwins challenge of paraphrasing your position on


bio-centrism. Even a paraphrase needs to make sense which obviously yours

77 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

does not.

The exercises of actual criticism have already done by the moderators and
other skeptics of Nirmukta. But it seems to have no effect on you.

The use of dismissive language is unavoidable since some like me cannot be


as gracious and indulgent towards incoherent rants (however copious and
verbose they may be) as Ashwin has been been.

You asked for the uncomplimentary comparison with Deepak Chopra. It is the
ultimate badge any bogus philosopher can be honored with.

multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 7:05 pm

The use of dismissive language is unavoidable

I have no choice but to bully you and be a jerk and then blame you for it.
Every bully, jerk, narcissist.

When we reduce science to a sport, everybody loses. You may think that
name calling is good for science, that it keeps out the riff raff, but have
you actually researched that? Do you know what the effect is on people
when they are dismissed and ridiculed? Do you know the effect that it has
on your own intelligence to be smothered in aggression and resentment?
You are shrinking your brain to match what you are doing to your mind.

Ranganath R
July 4, 2013 11:52 am

Dear mr

This aggrieved response is another species of the Special


Pleading fallacies.

Far from being ridiculed you want to be acknowledged as an


Einstein of the future and fear that our dismissive language will
nip in the bud someone waiting on the cusp of genius!!

Jargon cannot to get you to Einstein or any scientific recognition or


even mention. You can compete with Deepak Chopra and make
him go blue or red in the face. We will galdly nominate you for that
grand faux trophy.

If your putative genius withers under the onslaught of skeptical


newbies like us, we stand ever ready to shed pails of crocodile

78 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

tears!!!

multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 5:46 pm

This aggrieved response is another species of the Special


Pleading fallacies.

No. Special pleading is about ignoring counterevidence in a debate,


not about welcoming ad hominem attacks.

Far from being ridiculed you want to be acknowledged as an


Einstein of the future and fear that our dismissive language will
nip in the bud someone waiting on the cusp of genius!!

Do you honestly think that I care about what some random doofus
on the interent cares about me? The only reason the I object to
ridicule is because it distracts from the actual issue which is what
I care about. I do not care to make science into a wrestling match.
Why should it be?

Otherwise, I am completely fine to start a thread somewhere we


insult each other personally. I enjoy being beating up on bullies who
think they are intelligent. Im being polite not because you deserve
it, but because its a more scientific way to approach debate. Keeps
the blood flowing to more evolved parts of the brain and away from
the Limbic system. If you cant consider theories and conjectures
without reaching for the succor of your reptilian brain, then all I can
say is that I am not surprised.

If your putative genius withers under the onslaught of skeptical


newbies like us, we stand ever ready to shed pails of crocodile
tears!!!

Ideally, I want to strive to treat people that I debate with as friends


of friends, or distant family members. We should not be afraid to
question each other, to expect clarification and persuasion, but
there is no advantage to being rude. When we dismiss, insult, and
belittle others personally, it demonstrates that you are expressing
aggression and egotistical judgments rather than explaining and
expanding your perspective or entertaining those of another fellow
human being.

Sometimes you have a cousin or an uncle who is just a bloated


asshat, and no matter how reasonable you try to be, they will try to
shout you down and put their fingers in their ears. They will justify
their own actions at the expense of others, of reason, of decency
because they are programmed to do so. They arent able to curb

79 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

their own rage and resentment and their left brain dominance will
always turn the story upside down whenever required to preserve
the model. Its compulsive. The challenge is to find tolerance, even
in the face of such empty hostility. That is the way forward. The
Inquisition Era formulations of discourse are obsolete.

dadster
July 5, 2013 7:32 pm

Lets all keep open minds when we deal with science scientifically. We are
NOT proselytizers trying conversions.Are we? Forwarding FOR and
AGAINST views or presenting entirely different views and entering into
discussions upon it,is more to clarify (NOT converting), own ideas as well
as for considering any worth-while views that might pop up through
discussion of the relevent topic without making it personal .To bully or
comments like you dont know anything , so keep quiet or words to that
effect only shows lack of points for arguing ones own points of view.
Bio-centrism is an interesting topic for discussion because of the
interesting sides and views it has,even for ordinary science hobbyists like
us . None of us are Nobel laureates in science or as far as i could make
out , professional scientists even. But all of us are very much interested in
scientific methods and logic even to the extend of being aware of the
limitations of science. Those who believe in the completeness of science
should get open to its limitations and those of us who are aware of the
narrowness of the logic and mathematics of science reasoning are
further exploring the fields of human minds that lie even outside the field
of conventional and orthodox scientific reasoning.Those who believe that
scientific reasoning is inviolate need not feel raped if another doubts such
inviolateness and react emotionally and provocatively and start to call
names . By the way, regarding Euclid, his geometrical theorems are valid
only to planar fields (ie, on plane surfaces only),but does not extend to
stellar vastnesses.Our topic here, like BIO-CENTRIC CONSCIOUSNESS
,is much deeper than both and lies outside the purview of the geometry of
space-time. But without even going to that extened, talking of circle and
square they are of the same class viz,a figure with one hole.
homotopoligcally ( ie, in Homotopy, a branch of mathematics ). For
example, the square and the circle have many properties in common:
they are both one dimensional objects (from a topological point of view)
and both separate the plane into two parts, the part inside and the part
outside.
The very beauty of science and scientific thinking is that the answers in
science have all very limited validity . Its the questions which are more
important including the question whether science as we know it today can
explain all the factors that really influence human survival. Macrocosm
stands on the foundations of microcosm. The science of macrocosm
might not be applicable to the foundations on which it stands. We, the

80 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

material scientists, have so far been focusing our attentions on the child
once its conceived.The child is very different from the twinkle in the eye
of the father when he looked upon the mother. BIO-Centrism is perhaps
point into analyzing that twinkle and those characteristic features of that
twinkle that changes the very nature of the child and its behavior . Till
now that field was let out to psychologists , sociologists and
meta-scientists but now science with inquiring minds are bravely stepping
into the field of qualitative from quantitative . The needed maths is getting
developed . Now we have various types of mathematics like , Relational
databases,Wolframs cellular mathematics ( iterative methods as distinct
from differentiation), maths of chaos ( to express areas of stability out of
chaotic instabilities) , Fractals ( expressing characteristics of fractional
dimensions at all scales ), Category theory which formalizes and
coordinates concepts of other high-level abstractions such as set theory,
field theory, and group theory;.

Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 7:53 am

Ranganath,

This MR is just a pseudoscience peddler that escaped from the Intelligent design
factory.

Trained in repeatedly making the tired old argument from ignorance as demonstrated
by comments below.

No, I am asserting positively that there is no possibility that sentient beings came
about in an insentient universe. I assert that because if you look at the universe that
physics gives us, there is no room for any kind of awareness and no justification for
it.

Also trained in shifting the burden of proof by flipping Occams razor on its head as
demonstrated below.

I think that Occams Razor demands that when it comes to cosmology, we take
*nothing* for granted, including nothingness. We should not take the easy way out
and arbitrarily decide that the universe without consciousness happens to be just like
it appears to us humans, especially when we know that appearances can be
deceiving. Instead we should insist that everything that exists, every material form,
every sensation and feeling be accounted for and reconciled seamlessly.

A framing that sounds very scientific (the guy used the term Occams razor, he must
be scientific, right) but when you strip it down what he says is that we should start by
assigning all possible properties to the Universe with out any evidence. Then we
should go seek evidence for the non-existence of Cosmic properties. If we fail to do
so then we should assume those Cosmic properties should hold notwithstanding the

81 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

lack of evidence.

And this clown expects not to be mocked.

multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 7:20 pm

but when you strip it down what he says is that we should start by assigning all
possible properties to the Universe with out any evidence

Huh? No. I am saying just the opposite. We must start with no possibilities at
all and add only those that are indispensable. The first thing that must be is
being itself. A capacity for presence. What is presence? It is a feeling, a sense,
an expectation. It is a concrete and participatory orientation. Presence is here
and now a point of view. If that does not exist (or insist, really) then there
can be no universe, no particle, no positions or relations.

Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 7:59 am

Ranganath,

Since you brought up Deepak Chopra here is something I found on the web. A
communication (http://www.michaelshermer.com/2012/07/aunt-millies-
mind/#more-3047 ) between Michael Shermer and Deepak Chopra goes this way.

The idea that subjective experience is a result of electrochemical activity remains a


hypothesis, Chopra elaborated in an e-mail. It is as much of a speculation as the
idea that consciousness is fundamental and that it causes brain activity and creates
the properties and objects of the material world. Where is Aunt Millies mind when
her brain dies of Alzheimers? I countered to Chopra. Aunt Millie was an
impermanent pattern of behavior of the universe and returned to the potential
she emerged from, Chopra rejoined.

The comic factor is too much.

Ashwin
July 3, 2013 9:55 am

Ranganath,

The problem is that even though the blog is filled with jargon, the author is not
familiar with science. There are small clues to this throughout he thinks that volts

82 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

are a measure of energy, whereas volts is actually proportional to the rate of change
of an electric field with respect to distance.

He then takes E = mc^2 and obfuscates it! What E = mc^2 means is that in an
atomic nucleus, some of the total nuclear mass is converted into nuclear binding
energy. MR feels he has something to add to the discussion and says this:

I dont think that there is actually any bright glowing haze to begin with. If we use
a sense-based model instead, with energy as nothing more or less than the
experience-behavior of things (particles, objects, cells, bodies), so that empty
space cannot in any way contain energy Instead, energy condenses as matter
not through space but through time.

Really?! Empty space cannot contain energy? He simply makes assertions , some
of which are inherently meaningless and some of which are unproven, or worse,
have proof against.

Science is not an armchair subject. That is metaphysics It is clear that MR does


not know science. I would encourage him/her to learn it, however, since he/she
seems interested in it.

Ashwin
July 3, 2013 9:57 am

Sorry I mixed up the definition of voltage I caught myself right after I


posted word to the wise dont post before you go to sleep

E = -dV/dr, where E is the electric field, I switched the variables. A volt itself is
a Joule/Coulomb, so not energy.

Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 5:38 pm

Ashwin,

A volt itself is a Joule/Coulomb, so not energy.

I believe this is a better definition.

(Source wikipedia) Voltage is equal to the work done per unit charge
against a static electric field to move the charge between two points.

Ashwin

83 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

July 3, 2013 9:23 pm

That works you get W = qV.

multisenserealism
July 3, 2013 7:16 pm

An electric field is not energy?

If you had to pick one, do volts relate to

1. Matter
2. Energy
3. Time
4. Space

Which one would be the most accurate?

I am not writing a course on electricity, I am showing how the basic concepts of


energy, matter, time, space, entropy, and significance are united by what I call
sense and motive.

I stand by my conjecture that empty space cannot contain energy. You are free
to disagree, but what science or even logic do you have that backs it up?

Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 9:44 pm

I am showing how the basic concepts of energy, matter, time, space,


entropy, and significance are united by what I call sense and motive.

Makes as much sense as I am showing how the basic concepts of


energy, matter, time, space, entropy, and significance are united by what I
call hamburger and fries.

Captain Mandrake
July 3, 2013 10:01 pm

Let me elaborate.

Energy (heat to cook), Matter (meat, potato, flour), Space (kitchen


counter area), Time (duration to cook), Entropy (the mess in the
kitchen) emerges out of Hamburger and Fries is obvious. Less
obvious is how Significance emerges. You just have to use logic a

84 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

little more. The Hamburger and Fries creates the human who then
enjoys the Significance of that which (that which is a construction
one has to use to explain such concepts) created him/her. So now
we see how Hamburger and Fries seamlessly unites basic concepts
of energy, matter, time, space, entropy, and significance.

multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 12:31 am

Makes as much sense as [...] hamburger and fries.

Energy is the motive of matter through the sense of time.

Matter is the sense of energy across the sense of space.

Energy is not a hamburger. Space is not fries. So no, your


statement does not make as much sense.

Captain Mandrake
July 4, 2013 12:44 am

Well, hamburger and fries actually does a better job than your
motive and sense. It not only united matter, space, time, and energy
but also united entropy and significance as shown in the post
above.

multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 12:50 am

So now we see how Hamburger and Fries seamlessly unites basic


concepts of energy, matter, time, space, entropy, and significance.

Ok. Ill play along with your sarcasm. How does Hamburger relate
energy to space?

Captain Mandrake
July 4, 2013 1:35 am

Well the hamburger and fries creates the kitchen counter (space)
and the oven heat (energy) in which hamburger and fries are
cooked. It is the hamburger and fries by their very natures relates

85 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

the space and energy. Ah the beauty of word salad definitions.

Now please explain how entropy and significance are related by


motive and sense?

BTW, what do mean by motive? Whenever I see a pseudoscience


peddler like you I have the desire (ie motive) to spit (only
metaphorically for I am a peaceful guy) on them. Is that what you
mean by motive? Or do you just have to massacre the language
further to come up with someother meaning for this word?

multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 2:20 am

Well the hamburger and fries creates the kitchen counter (space)
and the oven heat (energy) in which hamburger and fries are
cooked.

Then how do you explain that people who dont eat hamburgers
have kitchen counters and ovens that work?

It is the hamburger and fries by their very natures relates the


space and energy.

What do you claim that their natures are?

Now please explain how entropy and significance are related by


motive and sense?

Significance is the container of entropy. Entropy is the attenuation


of significance.

This means that when our thermometer can no longer discern a


difference, when we sense that its sensitivity to temperature
differences(or thermal affect) is decreasing, then we say that there
is an increase in thermodynamic entropy.

Same thing with information entropy. In a Shannon entropy


scenario, the letter e would have a higher information entropy than
the letter q if you were trying to predict which letter comes next in a
message. When the information entropy is high, there is not much
compression that can be done, and the motive power or effect of
the compression schema is reduced toward zero.

The big take away is that significance is an aesthetic resource


which becomes increasing anesthetic as it transitions to entropy.
Significance in a rich context like human experience is multiplied
over millions of years of history. That history is embodied on

86 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

different scales, our bodies, organs, cells, genes, molecules, but


those embodiments are ultimately signifiers tokens or pointers
which allow consciousness to recover history as condensed/iconic
representations.

Loschmidts paradox might be helpful to you in understanding how


entropy can only be derived as a lack of significance, and not the
other way around. The universe from nothing view fails because
nothing can come from nothing unless what you started with was
not actually nothing, but included lots of smuggled in sensory-motor
presumptions like fluctuation and probability logic, the possibility of
order and memory, etc. The only cosmology that makes sense is
the opposite a universe from the diffraction of everythingness
rather than an accumulation from nothingness.

Captain Mandrake
July 4, 2013 5:56 am

**Then how do you explain that people who dont eat hamburgers
have kitchen counters and ovens that work?**

Simple. Once you establish that kitchen counters and ovens


emerges from hamburgers and fries it must be obvious how to
explain the kitchen counters and ovens of people who do not eat
hamburgers and fries. Cosmic hamburger and fries to the rescue of
course. You see Occams razor demands that the Universe that
creates hamburger and fries should also have those properties.
That is a far simpler explanation than a Universe with out such
properties and yet ends up producing hamburgers and fries. So
now that we have established that Cosmic hamburger and fries
must exist it should be easy to explain how ovens and kitchen
counters become functional by participation as Cosmic hamburger
and fries gets cooked.

**What do you claim that their natures are?**

Ofcourse that is derived from the Cosmic hamburger and fries.


Uniting time, matter, energy, entropy, significance, insignificance
and several other things explained and unexplained (it would be
Hubris to think otherwise) are some of the parts of their nature and
(of course) unnature.

**Now please explain how entropy and significance are related by


motive and sense?

Significance is the container of entropy. Entropy is the attenuation


of significance.**

87 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Where did the sense and motive go and where did the container
and attenuation come from?

**The big take away is that significance is an aesthetic resource


which becomes increasing anesthetic as it transitions to entropy.**

Allow me to add a few more to that piece of wisdom.

The Higgs boson regulates your own external reality


Perception is the ground of humble brightness
The invisible requires cosmic marvel
The web of life is reborn in boundless excellence
Culture influences irrational energy
Experiential truth expresses ephemeral creativity

multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 6:20 am

Once you establish that kitchen counters and ovens emerges from
hamburgers and fries

Then get back to me when you establish that.

Ofcourse that is derived from the Cosmic hamburger and fries

Can you explain what that Cosmic hamburger and fries is?

Where did the sense and motive go and where did the container
and attenuation come from?

The container and attenuation are descriptions of the relation


between significance and entropy. An analogy would be that the
container of temperature is heat, and the attenuation of heat is cold.

Allow me to add a few more to that piece of wisdom.

I know you think that youre being witty, but I have had this same
conversations with dozens of others who think and respond exactly
the same way that you do. I cant tell you apart, to be honest. One
long droning bore of smug mediocrity. Whats your theory of
consciousness? Yeah, thats what I thought.

Captain Mandrake
July 4, 2013 6:44 am

**Then get back to me when you establish that.**

88 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Which was already established in the first post where I united


matter, energy, time, space, entropy and significance with the
hamburger and fries.

**Can you explain what that Cosmic hamburger and fries is?**

Again its nature and unnature has been explained in the previous
post.

**The container and attenuation are descriptions of the relation


between significance and entropy. An analogy would be that the
container of temperature is heat, and the attenuation of heat is
cold.**

What happened to the sense and motive which was what was
uniting the time, matter, space, energy, entropy and significance,
right?

**I know you think that youre being witty, but I have had this same
conversations with dozens of others who think and respond exactly
the same way that you do. I cant tell you apart, to be honest. One
long droning bore of smug mediocrity.**

And you think you are the first pseudoscience peddler I have
encountered? All using the same of set of tactics argument from
ignorance, shifting the burden of proof, begging the question and
word salad definitions.

**Whats your theory of consciousness? Yeah, thats what I


thought.**

Consciousness is what your brain does much like respiration is


what your lung does and like digestion is what your stomach does.
The body of knowledge that has been built through the meticulous
process called science has to varying extents explained such
phenomena. Of course there are gaps. Not sure if these gaps will
be completely filled. But if these gaps are to be filled we still have to
rely on the same meticulous process called science. Your bullshit
synthesizer of a blog has no place in the scientific enterprise. It
might do a world of good to you if you familiarize yourself with it. So
here is the link again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 8:51 am

Which was already established in the first post

89 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

No, it wasnt.

Again its nature and unnature has been explained in the previous
post.

No, it wasnt.

What happened to the sense and motive which was what was
uniting the time, matter, space, energy, entropy and significance,
right?

Significance is the product of sense, motive, and time. Entropy is


the erosion of sense and motive across space.

Its all there in my thesis (http://multisenserealism.com/thesis/):


** { (() t) ( (Hd) ) }

Totality/Singularity is the superset or equal to ((the high and low


aesthetic range of private sense-motive presentations) escalating
logarithmically in significance through time) is
orthomodular/perpendicular to (public mass-energy
representations) reducing deterministically by (the relation of
entropy, distance, and thermodynamic irreversibility and gravity).

I just put that in in case anyone is interested. I dont expect you to


take it seriously.

And you think you are the first pseudoscience peddler I have
encountered?

Haha. I like how Im a peddler. Am I selling something? I have a


solution for the Hard Problem of Consciousness. I share it for
people who are interested. Thats pretty much it. Dont flatter
yourself to think that I would care whether you believe me or not. I
dont need anyone to buy my wares.

All using the same of set of tactics argument from ignorance,


shifting the burden of proof, begging the question and word salad
definitions.

Cool, all the most popular pseudoscience buzzwords in the same


sentence. These are all rhetorical constraints which will have to be
reframed for any serious solution to the hard problem. Logical
arguments are a tiny subset of consciousness. Consciousness is
beyond all proof, and no proof is necessary.

Consciousness is what your brain does much like respiration is


what your lung does and like digestion is what your stomach does.

So why dont lungs and digestion have subjective experiences?

90 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

How would such a phenomenon as what you see before you now
assist the brain in directing the behavior of the body? Why would
the function of the body in its environment be materially different
than the function of a T-cell body in its environment?

The body of knowledge that has been built through the meticulous
process called science has to varying extents explained such
phenomena. Of course there are gaps.

Haha. Its all gaps. Science has found no evidence of


consciousness at all. All we have is some intuitive correlations to
our own unproven, unfalsifiable experiences.

Not sure if these gaps will be completely filled.

Science wont fill them if it does not extend its considerations


beyond traditional ranges.

But if these gaps are to be filled we still have to rely on the same
meticulous process called science.

Nobody is arguing against that, but hypothesis is not meticulous.


Somebody has to come up with a hypothesis first before the next
round of methodical research can begin.

Your bullshit synthesizer of a blog has no place in the scientific


enterprise.

You have no place speaking for the scientific enterprise. I am more


of a scientist than any dozen of blokes like you will ever beand
Im not even trying.

Captain Mandrake
July 4, 2013 10:31 am

**Consciousness is beyond all proof, and no proof is necessary.**

And you claim to be scientist.

**Science wont fill them if it does not extend its considerations


beyond traditional ranges.**

By beyond traditional ranges you mean that scientific method has to


relax its requirement for things like proof and falsifiable hypothesis.

**Nobody is arguing against that, but hypothesis is not meticulous.


Somebody has to come up with a hypothesis first before the next
round of methodical research can begin.**

91 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Yes, and your non-falsifiable hypothesis are useless. This is the


problem with your God of the gaps arguments like the following.

**It predicts everything that physics does not.**

When asked how it predicts you will just back up your claim with a
series of word salad definitions after saying that your claim is
beyond proof. No knowledge is build up on account of your BS
hypothesis.

**Significance is the product of sense, motive, and time. Entropy is


the erosion of sense and motive across space.**

More word salads.

**So why dont lungs and digestion have subjective experiences? **

That is why I said Consciousness is what your brain does much


like respiration is what your lung does and like digestion is what
your stomach does. I did not say
Consciousness=Respiration=Digestion.

If I were to say Running is what you leg does much like writing is
what you hand does I do not mean that Running=Writing.

**I am more of a scientist than any dozen of blokes like you will ever
beand Im not even trying.**

Exactly. When you claim that your hypothesis is beyond proof it is


easy and you do not have to try. The blokes you debate with are
constrained by the scientific method.

multisenserealism
July 4, 2013 11:10 am

And you claim to be scientist.

I claim to understand consciousness scientifically.

By beyond traditional ranges you mean that scientific method has


to relax its requirement for things like proof and falsifiable
hypothesis.

No, by beyond traditional ranges I mean that the scientific method


has to tighten its requirements for itself. Science should examine
public phenomena more subjectively, and subjective phenomena
more objectively, and it should examine itself more philosophically.

When asked how it predicts you will just back up your claim with a

92 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

series of word salad definitions after saying that your claim is


beyond proof. No knowledge is build up on account of your BS
hypothesis.

My claim is not beyond proof, the phenomena which my claim


relates to is beyond proof. Big difference. Im not asking anyone to
take my word for it. I am asking that you think for yourself. Examine
the propositions and see if you can see any reason why it doesnt
work other than your own prejudices against it, and against all
unfamiliar ideas from outside of institutional channels.

**Significance is the product of sense, motive, and time. Entropy is


the erosion of sense and motive across space.**

More word salads.

Not at all. Its hard to relate to someone who projects his own lack
of understanding onto others. You dont understand what Im saying
so the only possibility is that I dont understand what Im saying. I
cant help you with that. Im afraid that is a personality issue.

That is why I said Consciousness is what your brain does much


like respiration is what your lung does and like digestion is what
your stomach does. I did not say
Consciousness=Respiration=Digestion.

But consciousness is nothing like what any organ does. All an


organ can do is metabolize substances into other substances,
contract and relax, etc. There is no process in the brain which
warrants that a dimension of subjective experience be attached to
it. Thats what all the fuss is about for the last few thousand years.
Dualism exists for a reason. The hard problem, the explanatory
gap, the symbol grounding problem, and the binding problem are all
considered unsolvable by people who understand them.

If I were to say Running is what you leg does much like writing is
what you hand does I do not mean that Running=Writing.

Obviously, but again, we can see what respiration is and what


digestion is, but what we see in the brain is not consciousness.
What we see is generic regionalized patterns of meaningless
physiological activity.

Exactly. When you claim that your hypothesis is beyond proof

False accusation. See above.

it is easy and you do not have to try. The blokes you debate with
are constrained by the scientific method.

93 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

I dont constrain anyone to any method. My intention is to debate


with free thinking people who can consider ideas on their own
merits without consulting rule books and dictionaries.

Dadster
July 4, 2013 2:10 am

Capt Mandrake,

Can you Produce verifiable evidence for string theory, super string theory ( of course you
can say that you did not make it ).
Both of those theories are constructs of the mind ( you might say , mathematical
constructs ), but not a thing to show on the ground.

The postulations of quarks is another such one , a construct of the mind .

Can you produce a shred of evidence to prove that mind is an emergent phenomena?

If you cannot , then keep your mind open to the potential possibility that perhaps after all ,
mind might be a fundamental entity , and, NOT an emergent phenomena.

Scientists having reached a cul-de-sac with matter for explaining cosmic phenomena is
now giving afresh look at Life and Intelligence , mind and awareness from a larger
perspective directly than studying mind through the scaffolding of matter, studying Bio-
sciences and life sciences NOT through the eyes and paradigms of physics ( bio- physics )
and Chemistry ( bio- chemistry ) .

Bio- centrism is one such attempt, a fledgling science full of rich potential and therefore
very exciting .

Yet another option available is to take a re-look into Bergsons 19the century postulation of
lan vital . 19th century detractors of that theory whose time had not come then could
succeed in putting that theory on the back burner,back then .

Finding nuggets of wisdom from previously discarded theories and revitalising them and
finding new meaning and applications is common in science ( examples , Newtons
corpuscular theory of light , Huygens wave theory of light, cosmological constant of
Einstein, to name a few ). For every theory there is a time for it to pick up. Perhaps, now
that hardcore scientists are seeking fresh ground to stand on, mindor,Cosmological
Consciousness is an option the time has come for lan vital to bloom and flourish .

There is much work to do , mathematical as well as experimental , with mind as the central
piece of interest independent of matter. We have to discretise, quantify and assign a
proper unit of measurement to measure Consciousness in the first place.

Cosmos, to us bio- intelligence, is a bundle of relationships between various energies,


mind and matter being just two among them. There are various unknown and unknowable
ones too spread and scattered over dimensions that are transcendental to us bio-

94 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

intelligence.

If all evidences and proofs are ready to prove Bio- centrism ( or mind- centrism , as distinct
from material- centrism ), then whats the point in discussing about this new find ? Whats
the fun ?

If everything is so clear then what is there to discuss about with you or with others about
Bio- centrism , Captain . No need to also.

We are just toying with new ideas about how to make better sense out of cosmos in its
infinite glory and variety . The fun is in the chase not in the catch . We are partaking in the
process of creation of science . And , Internet communication is making it possible for
non- scientists and amateurs to interact with other non- professional and, if lucky , with
some professional minds too , a facility not available in olden times.

Lets rejoice at the opportunity we get and take it all in the right spirit.

Besides. For science , all answers are just stepping stones to more questions .
Thats the great glory of science.

Dadster.

Dadster
July 4, 2013 11:39 am

When Newton worked out the force of gravity,he helped to set into motion the Industrial
Revolution. When Faraday worked out Electricity and Magnetism , he set into motion the
Electric Age.When Einstein wrote down e = mc^2, he unleashed the nuclear age. Now we
are on the verge of a theory . of Cosmological Consciousness in Cosmic multi
dimensions, the projection of which is Life energy in our dimensions, which may one
day determine the fate of the human species. ( ala Michio Kakku ) .

Joe Isuzu
July 6, 2013 8:23 pm

Lets all keep open minds when we deal with science scientifically. We are NOT
proselytizers trying conversions.Are we?

Actually, lets not forget that this blog is a scientific rebuttal to a spiritualized promulgation
of pseudo scientific.

Biocentrism Demystified-A Response to Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanzas Notion of a


Conscious Universe

95 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

multisenserealism
July 6, 2013 9:14 pm

Actually, lets not forget that this blog is a scientific rebuttal to a spiritualized
promulgation of pseudo scientific.

If thats true, then all the more reason to keep open mindsunless the blogs true
purpose is to indulge a confirmation bias of pseudoskepticism. If the rebuttal is
scientific, then it should seek to disprove itself before announcing conclusions on
what it is rebutting.

Joe Isuzu
July 8, 2013 1:17 pm

MR-CW
Awareness of awareness. So you think that a materialistic world view cant
understand what you are trying to convey making you appear to be a pseudo
scientific when they are in fact pseudo skeptical.

anthropomorphism and mechanemorphism are a clue as to the template of the


underlying nature of nature that it is in fact an aesthetic agenda from which
human subjectivity is directly descended.

I have heard it referred to as an illusion, an emergent property,


epiphenomena, or even a spandrel (evolutionary side effect which plays no role
in further developments).

It seems that in your effort to unify you dilute the methodology and conflate the
mechanisms of philosophy and science. But you are entitled to believe. I just
dont happen to find what you think of as significant proof compelling.

Jose Drost-Lopez asked and posited very good questions in your interview.

Ajita Kamal
July 14, 2010 2:13 pm

How can you condone discrediting a large number of practising scientists by implying they
are not true scientists, simply because they do not agree with your interpretation of the
universe?

Dr. Wadhawan did not use the phase true scientists. You are the one using it. The reason
why those scientists are wrong is not simply because they do not agree with your
interpretation of the universe as you falsely claim, but because of the various reasons that

96 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

we have listed in the article. Please address the arguments put forth instead of making
silly generalizations.

SThoreau
November 8, 2012 8:38 am

Captain Mandrake,

To find the answer, you will need to quieten your own mind and see if you have an
existence apart from your mind and intellect. Try it and see, you will know how difficult it is
to do it, especially for people like us who have been taught to analyse objects and never
ourselves which is how our modern education system is. But if you can do it like a true
scientist, then there wont be much of a need to turn to equations and theories for you will
know for yourself. I did cut paste the article, what you present as your own ideas are only
what you understood of the scientists theories and experiments, isnt it? Its not your own.
Unless you start enquiring into your own self, nothing , no knowledge will be first hand
that is ultimately what the Upanishads and Vedas ask one too. Until the day you turn to
look at yourself, all this will look like having arosen from indigestion :).

All the best

R Maganti
January 14, 2013 10:10 pm

SThoreau,
You seem to be someone familiar with the scientific and the metaphysical side of things.
What made you to move towards the metaphysical side from the scientific side of things?
Is it to do with the scientific process being iterative and takes many many years to bring
closure to matters of the physical world tnat are observable with our five senses. Some
years ago, I saw a program on TV, which showed how other living creatures in this world
perceive colours and objects.

Previous Comments

Social Media

Subscribe to RSS
Follow us on twitter
Follow us on facebook
Flickr
Youtube

Our Websites

97 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and... http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-res...

Nirmukta on Freethought Blogs


Nirmukta Forums
Indian Atheists

Random Posts

Shrimad Bhagavata Purana - A Portrayal Of Fantacies And Idiosyncrasies


God And The Gospel Of Globalisation: Against All Hope, Secularism Remains A Myth
Karen Armstrong's 'The Case For God' (or) Why Science Makes My Head Hurt
I That I Protect : A Poem by Nalini Hebbar
Forum for Atheists from Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Philippines

About
Archives
Contact Us

About
Archives
Ajita Kamal
Forums
Our Network
Regional Groups
Indian Skeptic
Contact Us

search:
search... Go

Copyright 2014 Nirmukta. All Rights Reserved

98 of 98 1/17/14 12:07 PM

Você também pode gostar