Why there almost certainly is No God!!

GirlyMan

Member
Re: Biocentrism

This book is a mindfuck, plain and simple. I really don't know where to start this discussion, but a few questions for Girly:


How would you sum up the message of this book in a few sentences?
I guess if I had to I would say:
Time and space are perception only. Consciousness is king.

But, what does this really mean for my life? I guess I am having trouble extrapolating his points into something more useful or meaningful. I also found the writing style just slightly above horrible, and I think that makes it more difficult for me to relate personally to it.

That's it? I mean, what about the shared consciousness and fate issues that are alluded to?

My bad. It sounded like you were asking for a synopsis and an action plan. Your summary is as good as any and I gave you the only action plan I know. ... But now it sounds like you want to look at the wiring and plumbing to see if they are up to code. That could be fun.
 
Last edited:
Yes, exactly. I could probably read the book 2-3 more times and still not completely understand all of it. I'm not sure if that is because of my attention span, intelligence level, his writing style, or the logic behind it.

I don't really know where to start. What were your thoughts on the book?
 

ergomaniac

Member
to me. and i havent read the book. it means that...
wow. where to start. what you see is what you get. everybody is different. some people sense different things. different animals sense differently. like really. what is real. and we have so many machines to detect what our senses cant. and some others can. or cant. and what else is there. ask a blind man about color. or a deaf man about music.
chemistry. physics. biology. there is information thats being transmited. interpreted. and then being acted upon. theres alot of communication going on at much smaller level. that which i call me is just a tool. my ego. a sense of self. and i am concscious of that fact. do atoms talk to one another. do electrons talk to a nucleus. is there comunication that far down. and how far down does it go. vibrating strings. dark matter. the god particle. ive read this recently. it has to be in all of us. in everything.
why am i here. and for what. sometimes i think its just so the observer can observe. observe what. itself. or a variation there of. and humans are complex. there are much simpler animals. like atoms the bigger and more complex the less stable. so like, why. why am i here. and for what. idk. but it seems to me were all in this together. for better or worse. because, excellent human perfomance is applicable. EVERYWHERE!
 
Last edited:

zkt

Member
Re: Biocentrism

This book is a mindfuck, plain and simple. I really don't know where to start this discussion, but a few questions for Girly:


How would you sum up the message of this book in a few sentences?
I guess if I had to I would say:
Time and space are perception only. Consciousness is king.

But, what does this really mean for my life? I guess I am having trouble extrapolating his points into something more useful or meaningful. I also found the writing style just slightly above horrible, and I think that makes it more difficult for me to relate personally to it.

Is this what you`re talking about?

Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe
by Robert Lanza, Bob Berman

Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe by Robert Lanza, Bob Berman (Used, New, Out-of-Print) - Alibris
 

zkt

Member
Yup. That's it.



Don't think you really need to. Looks like you already pretty much got the gist of it.

Maybe so but I bought the book anyway.
I did a lot of acid back in the day. One of my ideas was that things exist as they are, or appear to be, if you like, because we all think they are so. This is kinda easy to apply to sociatal and cultural values and belief systems, but to apply it to actual physcial objects lies in the realm of insanity. Or is it quantum mechanics? I feel like one of my fish in a 10 gallon tank looking this screen trying to understand wtf is going on out there.
 

GirlyMan

Member
Maybe so but I bought the book anyway.

You'll enjoy it, even though as Cubbie points out he ain't the greatest science writer out there.

I like reading book reviews in addition to books. Here's one from a physics prof at my alma mater: Richard Conn Henry on Biocentrism.

I think I like this part the best, "And what is their underlying thesis? They present it as a long list of Principles of Biocentrism that have no individual value, in my opinion––but the heart of it, collectively, is correct. On page 15 they say 'the animal observer creates reality and not the other way around.' That is the essence of the entire book, and that is factually correct. It is an elementary conclusion from quantum mechanics. ... So what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!"

Thanks a lot you bunch of pussies. ... Check your testosterone.

I feel like one of my fish in a 10 gallon tank looking this screen trying to understand wtf is going on out there.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFHqSGowi6s]Whale Speak[Finding Nemo]?‏[/ame]
 
Last edited:

zkt

Member
You'll enjoy it, even though as Cubbie points out he ain't the greatest science writer out there.

I like reading book reviews in addition to books. Here's one from a physics prof at my alma mater: Richard Conn Henry on Biocentrism.

I think I like this part the best, "And what is their underlying thesis? They present it as a long list of Principles of Biocentrism that have no individual value, in my opinion––but the heart of it, collectively, is correct. On page 15 they say 'the animal observer creates reality and not the other way around.' That is the essence of the entire book, and that is factually correct. It is an elementary conclusion from quantum mechanics. ... So what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!"

Thanks a lot you bunch of pussies. ... Check your testosterone.



Whale Speak[Finding Nemo]?‏

Thats a beautiful scene from Nemo. Watching it brought back fond memories and sure as hell puts things in proper perspective.

I was assuming that Lanza had his physics down pat. Doesnt seem that way;

"Let me be so very unkind as to start off this review by laughing out loud at Robert Lanza and
Bob Berman: their Appendix 1, entitled “The Lorentz Transformation,” features a single
equation (which is reproduced below, with the correct version for comparision):
?T = t 1 ? v2 / c2 (Biocentrism version)
?T = ?t 1? v2 / c2(corrected version)

Not that I remember much of the mathematics but it would be nice if ya could take for granted that he knows wtf he is talking about. Still look forward to reading it.
 

GirlyMan

Member
I was assuming that Lanza had his physics down pat. Doesnt seem that way;

Looks like Dude is working stem cells and cloning at his day job. Guess I can see how that could fuck you up. ;)

Not that I remember much of the mathematics but it would be nice if ya could take for granted that he knows wtf he is talking about. Still look forward to reading it.

"Like me, you at first (perhaps) think that their problem is merely that of having chosen a bad
typesetter: but, no––they go on to say 't should be multiplied by the meat-and-potatoes of the
Lorentz transformation, which is the square root of 1, from which we subtract…' -Richard Conn Henry reviewing Biocentrism

I still think that's gotta be just some sort of joke to see if I was paying attention. ... Unless they're trying to mindfuck me the way they did with the square root of -1, or the way they did when they told me there were more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are natural numbers, or the way they did when they told me a logical system cannot be both consistent and complete, ... jesus christ there are a lot of mindfucks out there. :confused:
 

zkt

Member
Looks like Dude is working stem cells and cloning at his day job. Guess I can see how that could fuck you up. ;)



"Like me, you at first (perhaps) think that their problem is merely that of having chosen a bad
typesetter: but, no––they go on to say 't should be multiplied by the meat-and-potatoes of the
Lorentz transformation, which is the square root of 1, from which we subtract…' -Richard Conn Henry reviewing Biocentrism

I still think that's gotta be just some sort of joke to see if I was paying attention. ... Unless they're trying to mindfuck me the way they did with the square root of -1, or the way they did when they told me there were more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are natural numbers, or the way they did when they told me a logical system cannot be both consistent and complete, ... jesus christ there are a lot of mindfucks out there. :confused:

Dude appears to be a fukin genius as well as an MD. He thinks a lot about the big picture if that Huffington post sidebar is any indication. Maybe he was just mindfucking the audience after all.
IMHO this book should be read in conjunction with a good supply of glaucoma medicine so as to insure proper reflection upon the authors meaning. After all some say the concept of God originated with the ingestion of medicinal plants.
 

Sponsored Links

Latest posts

Top