We Never Really Die: The Science behind Eternal Consciousness

[SonOfTheGods]

I believed this for years- and was pretty sure I invented it

It is the core of LoneMan Pai™, but with different terminology

Read more: http://lonemanpai.com/thread/674/never-die-science-eternal-consciousnes#ixzz3gvAh6w43
______________________


We Never Really Die: The Science behind Eternal Consciousness
July 17, 2015

thespiritscience.net/2015/07/17/we-never-really-die-the-science-behind-eternal-consciousness/

A book called “Biocentrism: How life and consciousness are the keys to understanding the true nature and the universe” stirred the Internet, stating that life does not end when the body dies, but it lasts forever.

The author of this book, scientist Dr. Robert Lanza, who the New York Times pronounced as the third most important living scientist, believes that this is entirely possible.
Beyond time and space

Lanza is an expert in regenerative medicine and scientific director of the Company for advanced cell technology. Before he became famous for his research on stem cells, he was known for the successful experiments of cloning endangered species.


However, the scientist has recently started to deal with physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. This interesting mix created the theory of biocentrism, which the professor now engaged. Biocentrism teaches that life and consciousness are the basis of the universe and that consciousness creates the material universe, and not vice versa.

Lanza indicates the structure of the universe and how that the laws and constants of the forces of the universe are tuned for life, suggesting that intelligence existed before matter.

He also claims that space and time are not objects or things, but tools of our animal understanding. Lanza says that we actually carry space and time with us as turtles wear their armor, meaning that we exist even outside of time and space.

The theory suggests that the death of awareness is not possible, but is only a thought because people identify themselves with their body. They believe that the body will disappear sooner or later and that their consciousness will die with the body.

If the body creates awareness, then awareness dies along with the body, but if the body receives consciousness in the same way as cable TV signal reception, it is clear that consciousness continues to exist when it leaves its physical shell. In fact, consciousness exists outside the boundaries of time and space. It can be anywhere: in the body and outside the body. In other words, it is not local in the same manner as quantum structures.

Lanza also believes that there are several simultaneous universes. In one universe, the body is dead while in another one it still exists, absorbing the consciousness that moved to this universe. This means that a person who dies does not end up in heaven or hell, but in a similar world that was once inhabited, but is alive again. It so happens again and again.
Multiple Universes

This interesting theory has many supporters, including many well-known scientists. These are physicists and astrophysicists who agree about the existence of parallel worlds and that indicate the possible existence of multiple universes. They claim that there are no physical laws that prevent the existence of parallel worlds.multiverse-4

Science fiction author, HG Wales in 1895, first presented this idea. 62 years later, Dr. Hugh Everett developed it, and the core assumption is that the universe is divided to countless similar parts at any time, and that this happens with every so incurred universe. In one of these universes you are reading this article and in another one you might be watching TV.

The initiating factors of this universe division are our actions, says Everett. If we make a choice, the universe is immediately divided into two universes with different outcomes.

Andrei Linde, a scientist with the Lebedev Institute of Physics, developed the theory of multiple universes back in the 80s. He is now a professor at Stanford University. Linde explained that the universe is composed of many blown spheres, which increase similar spheres, which then produce spheres in even greater numbers, and so on to infinity. These spheres are completely separate and independent from each other, but represent different parts of the same physical universe.


The fact that our universe is not unique is supported by data obtained with the Planck telescope.

Scientists are using this data to create the most accurate map of the cosmic radiation that has existed since the foundation of the universe. They also discovered that the universe has a lot of dark holes.

Theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton from the University of North Carolina claims that the anomalies in the area are due to the fact that the surrounding universes affect our universe, and that those dark holes are the direct result.
The scientific explanation for the Soul

So there are many places or many universes in which our soul can be moved after death, accordinw the theory of neo-biocentrism. Is there a scientific theory of consciousness that supports this claim? According to Dr. Stuart Hameroff, near-death experience occurs when the quantum information that inhabits the nervous system leaves the body and scatters in the universe.

He argues that awareness is in the microtubules of the brain cells, which are the primary site of the quantum processing.

After death, this information goes out of the body, together with consciousness. He believes that our experience of consciousness result of quantum gravity effects in these microtubules.


Reference:

www.robertlanza.com/biocentrism-how-life-and-consciousness-are-the-keys-to-understanding-the-true-nature-of-the-universe/

Edited July 25, 2015 by SonOfTheGods

[Karl]

When did science become conjecture ?

 

Theory, test.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Interesting theory, but why then is it that neurological things can affect consciousness? IMO idealism (such as the above theory - consciousness having primacy over matter) doesn't stand up to neuroscience, but materialism doesn't stand up to the hard problem.

 

My current view is that the mental and physical components of existence are ontologically equal, interacting in some way not yet understood. The whole area is very interesting and I'm sure in however long it takes to start proper inter-disciplinary research we'll be looking back on the current theories as incredibly backward.

[SonOfTheGods]

http://www.robertlanza.com/biocentrism-how-life-and-consciousness-are-the-keys-to-understanding-the-true-nature-of-the-universe/

The book, "Biocentrism", has the science behind it

 

 

 

Dr. Robert Lanza selected for the 2014 TIME 100 list of the hundred most influential people in the world, along with Pope Francis, Robert Redford, and other artists, pioneers, leaders, titans and icons.

 

 

Every now and then, a simple yet radical idea shakes the very foundations of knowledge. The startling discovery that the world was not flat challenged and ultimately changed the way people perceived themselves and their relationships with the world. “If the earth were really round,” it was argued, “Then the people at the bottom would fall off.” For most humans of the 15th century, the notion of Earth as ball of rock was nonsense. The whole of Western natural philosophy is undergoing a sea change again, forced upon us by the experimental findings of quantum theory. At the same time, these findings have increased our doubt and uncertainty about traditional physical explanations of the universe’s genesis and structure.

Biocentrism completes this shift in worldview, turning the planet upside down again with the revolutionary view that life creates the universe instead of the other way around. In this new paradigm, life is not just an accidental byproduct of the laws of physics.

Biocentrism takes the reader on a seemingly improbable but ultimately inescapable journey through a foreign universe—our own—from the viewpoints of an acclaimed biologist and a leading astronomer. Switching perspective from physics to biology unlocks the cages in which Western science has unwittingly managed to confine itself. Biocentrism shatters the reader’s ideas of life, time and space, and even death. At the same time, it releases us from the dull worldview that life is merely the activity of an admixture of carbon and a few other elements; it suggests the exhilarating possibility that life is fundamentally immortal.

Biocentrism awakens in readers a new sense of possibility and is full of so many shocking new perspectives that the reader will never see reality the same way again.

From the Back Cover

Praise for Robert Lanza’s essay “A New Theory of the Universe,” on which Biocentrism is based:

Like “A Brief History of Time” it is indeed stimulating and brings biology into the whole. Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. Almost every society of mankind has explained the mystery of our surroundings and being by invoking a god or group of gods. Scientists work to acquire objective answers from the infinity of space or the inner machinery of the atom. Lanza proposes a biocentrist theory which ascribes the answer to the observer rather than the observed. The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole. The book will appeal to an audience of many different disciplines because it is a new way of looking at the old problem of our existence. Most importantly, it makes you think.” —E. Donnall Thomas, 1990 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology and Medicine

“It is genuinely an exciting piece of work…. The idea that consciousness creates reality has quantum support … and also coheres with some of the things biology and neuroscience are telling us about the structures of our being. Just as we now know that the sun doesn’t really move but we do (we are the active agents), so [it is] suggesting that we are the entities that give meaning to the particular configuration of all possible outcomes we call reality.” —Ronald Green, director of Dartmouth College’s Ethics Institute

“Robert Lanza, a world-renowned scientist who has spanned many fields from drug delivery to stem cells to preventing animal extinction, and clearly one of the most brilliant minds of our times, has done it again. ‘A New Theory of the Universe’ takes into account all the knowledge we have gained over the last few centuries … placing in perspective our biologic limitations that have impeded our understanding of greater truths surrounding our existence and the universe around us. This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come.” —Anthony Atala, internationally recognized scientist and director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

From the Paperback

“An extraordinary mind . . . Having interviewed some of the most brilliant minds in the scientific world, I found Dr. Robert Lanza’s insights into the nature of consciousness original and exciting. His theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient traditions of the world which say that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence.” —Deepak Chopra, Bestselling Author (heralded by Time magazine as one of the top heroes and icons of the century).

“This is a brave new book. Instead of placing life as an accidental byproduct, the authors place life at the apex of universal existence and purpose. It is a very thrilling and disturbing read. While the proposals made in Biocentrism seem radical and counter-intuitive at first, a bit of reflection will soon make the images clearer and place us on the pathway to a better and more commonsensical mindset” —Michael Gooch, Author of Wingtips and Spurs

“. . . both interesting and worth the effort of reading it . . . From the way Lanza chooses to present his arguments, it’ss clear he has a solid grasp on esoteric disciplines . . . His style is conversational and his sense of wonder is as infectious as it is delightful.” —Midwest Book Review

From Other Scientists

“It’s a masterpiece — truly a magnificent essay. Bob Lanza is to be congratulated for a fresh and highly erudite look at the question of how perception and consciousness shape reality and common experience. His monograph combines a deep understanding and broad insight into 20^th century physics and modern biological science; in so doing, he forces a reappraisal of this hoary epistemological dilemma. Not all will agree with the proposition he advances, but most will find his writing eminently readable and his arguments both convincing and challenging. Bravo” —Michael Lysaght, Professor of Medical Science and Engineering, Brown University and Director of Brown’s Center for Biomedical Engineering

“As an astrophysicist, I focus my attention on objects that are very large and very far away, ignoring the whole issue of consciousness as a critical part of the Universe. Reading Robert Lanza’s work is a wake-up call to all of us that even on the grandest scale we still depend on our minds to experience reality. Issues of “quantum weirdness” do have a place in the macroscopic world. Time and space do depend on perception. We can go about our daily lives and continue to study the physical Universe as if it exists as an objective reality (because the probabilities allow that degree of confidence), but we do so with a better awareness of an underlying biological component, thanks to Dr. Lanza.” —David Thompson, Astrophysicist, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

“Biomedical researcher Robert Lanza has been on the frontier of cloning and stem cell studies for more than a decade, so he’s well-acclimated to controversy. But his book Biocentrism is generating controversy on a different plane by arguing that our consciousness plays a central role in creating the cosmos. ‘By treating space and time as physical things, science picks a completely wrong starting point for understanding the world,’ Lanza declares. Any claim that space and time aren’t cold, hard, physical things has to raise an eyebrow. . .Other physicists point out that Lanza’s view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.” —Alan Boyle, Science Editor, MSNBC

“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!’” —Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University

“One of the most interesting books to cross my desk this summer was Biocentrism, written by Dr. Robert Lanza, who is probably best known for his groundbreaking work with stem cells. The book is an out-and-out challenge to modern physics. I found the attack on physics to be pretty compelling” —Eric Berger, Science Editor, Houston Chronicle

“Now that I have spent a fair amount of time the last few months doing a bit of writing, reading and thinking about this, and enjoying it and watching it come into better focus,
And as I go deeper into my Zen practice,
And as I am about half way through re-reading Biocentrism,
My conclusion about the book Biocentrism is:
Holy shit, that’s a really great book! —Ralph Levinson, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2015 by SonOfTheGods

[Karl]

They never believed the earth was flat that's a myth.

 

So, here's a thought. How do we know we aren't already in this state of disembodied consciousness in a multiverse already ?

Edited July 25, 2015 by Karl

[SonOfTheGods]

Short excerpt from this book:
 

At night, you click off the light,
walk through the door, and leave for the bedroom. Of course it’s
there, unseen, all through the night. Right?
But consider: the refrigerator, stove, and everything else are composed
of a shimmering swarm of matter/energy. Quantum theory, to
which we will devote two full chapters, tells us that not a single one
of those subatomic particles actually exists in a definite place. Rather,
they merely exist as a range of probabilities that are unmanifest. In
the presence of an observer—that is, when you go back in to get a
drink of water—each one’s wave function collapses and it assumes
an actual position, a physical reality. Until then, it’s merely a swarm
of possibilities. And wait, if that seems too far out, then forget quantum
madness and stay with everyday science, which comes to a similar
conclusion because the shapes, colors, and forms known as your
kitchen are seen as they are solely because photons of light from the
overhead bulb bounce off the various objects and then interact with
your brain through a complex set of retinal and neural intermediaries.
This is undeniable—it’s basic seventh-grade science. The problem
is, light doesn’t have any color nor any visual characteristics at
all, as we shall see in the next chapter. So while you may think that
the kitchen as you remember it was “there” in your absence, the reality
is that nothing remotely resembling what you can imagine could
be present when a consciousness is not interacting. (If this seems
impossible, stay tuned: this is one of the easiest, most demonstrable
aspects of biocentrism.)

This also answers where's the other sock

Edited July 25, 2015 by SonOfTheGods

[Aeran]

Interesting theory, but why then is it that neurological things can affect consciousness?

 

Good old Phineas Gage Why do embedded youtube links refuse to load for me because I haven't installed the latest flash player onto my computer? Why can I can mess around with the resolution and color settings of my monitor and the appearance of this webpage on my particular screen will alter radically, despite the not a single thing changing about thedaobums.com itself? Why does the speed at which this website runs depend on my modem as much as the server on which it is hosted? And so on.

 

If consciousness isn't an emergent property of the brain but instead something which is accessed and filtered by the brain, in much the same way that my computer accesses and filters the internet, then it makes sense that altering the the brain will alter the message which comes through.

 

From a more traditionally spiritual point of view, there's the classic "as above, so below" axiom. Mind influences energy influences matter, but this also flows in the opposite direction.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Aeran

[Karl]

Short excerpt from this book:

 

 

 

This also answers where's the other sock

 

This guy says he is a scientist ?

 

I think his reality is his need to make money selling books full of complete gibberish that people are desperate to buy. Maybe get a research grant backed by all the hoopla he created by writing the book.

 

He expounds the theory that things aren't things. Yes, 7th grade science says that we see colour where no colour exists, but that's a conclusion with no point to it. It only matters what we can actually determine Not what we cannot. If I have no way of detecting or proving there is a green goblin right in front of me, then for all intents and purposes it may as well not exist, even if it did-I have no method to prove its existence. So, therefore why go around looking for imaginary, they will be infinite in number and complexity.

 

 

 

 

[Aeran]

He expounds the theory that things aren't things. Yes, 7th grade science says that we see colour where no colour exists, but that's a conclusion with no point to it. It only matters what we can actually determine Not what we cannot. If I have no way of detecting or proving there is a green goblin right in front of me, then for all intents and purposes it may as well not exist, even if it did-I have no method to prove its existence. So, therefore why go around looking for imaginary, they will be infinite in number and complexity.

 

What if the goblin just existed on another layer (for lack of a better term - remember that even mainstream science has come to accept that it's likely that what we can innately perceive is only a small percentage of the entirety of reality) of our reality, one which could be perceived through great effort and practice, but was generally ignored because it isn't immediately tangible?

 

It's easier to hold onto your preconceived notions of reality and call the people who do go to that effort crazy than to question your worldview (especially when your career, reputation and income are based on that worldview).

 

I've never heard of Lanza, but he's not alone, there are accredited scientists all over the world publishing peer reviewed research which demonstrates that reality is absolutely nothing like the physical, 3-dimensional, linear, Newtonian construction which the general public believe to be the "scientific" understanding of the world (which ironically is discredited even by cutting edge science which is accepted by the mainstream scientific canon), including phenomena generally written off as "supernatural" (a meaningless phrase in itself) such as direct mind-matter and mind-mind interaction, precognition, separation of the awareness from the physical body, and so on.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Aeran

[Bud Jetsun]

If one follows the repeatable scientific process steps, you arrive at the conclusion there is only an indeterminate flux, which gives rise to nothing until the moment of perception by a conciousness. Then it's location and emergy are determined by the choice of how that conciousness chose to look.

 

To call oneself a 'scientist' today precludes belief in a concrete deterministic material world, as the evidence simply doesn't support it.

 

That previous misconception was brought about as an artifact of perception limitations.

 

With improved tools to perceive, much like the first microscope causing scientific community uproar at the existence of tiny animals living in the water, the realization 'matters' natural state is non-concrete and indeterminate will also take some time to integrate into improved reality models. Until then like anything new it's met with scoffs.

 

This guy isn't saying remotely new for those who have followed modern QM research and pondered the implications.

 

With unlimited Love

-Bud

[Karl]

What if the goblin just existed on another layer (for lack of a better term - remember that even mainstream science has come to accept that it's likely that what we can innately perceive is only a small percentage of the entirety of reality) of our reality, one which could be perceived through great effort and practice, but was generally ignored because it isn't immediately tangible?

 

It's easier to hold onto your preconceived notions of reality and call the people who do go to that effort crazy than to question your worldview (especially when your career, reputation and income are based on that worldview).

 

I've never heard of Lanza, but he's not alone, there are accredited scientists all over the world publishing peer reviewed research which demonstrates that reality is absolutely nothing like the physical, 3-dimensional, linear, Newtonian construction which the general public believe to be the "scientific" understanding of the world (which ironically is discredited even by cutting edge science which is accepted by the mainstream scientific canon), including phenomena generally written off as "supernatural" (a meaningless phrase in itself) such as direct mind-matter and mind-mind interaction, precognition, separation of the awareness from the physical body, and so on.

 

The problem isn't one of 'another layer'. There isn't anything revolutionary in accepting that we cannot yet see the mechanics of things, but it's when we begin mixing voodoo with hard science.

 

The final arbiter is conscious awareness and the logic to define what reality by external sensing. If we then start saying that everything is driven by, or even interacts ( in a positive no mechanical sense ) conscious awareness, then we throw our ability to decide reality out of the window. In affect everything and anything can and does exist and nothing we thought we knew existed actually does. Our entire world becomes a big probability machine where nothing is ever determined. X does not come before Y. No [X is not Y] exists at the same time and the same space as [All X is Y.]

 

I cannot logically deduce that man is immortal, or consciousness is some ephemeral, inter dimensional reality in a quasi real universe. It's complete madness. Most of this is based on the new age belief that has sprung up around the double split experiment. I don't think there is any mystery to the QS experiment at all. To me the particle is energy and therefore it's energy can pass through both slits simultaneously ( imagine a firefly emitting light in which the firefly passes through one slit, but the light from the firefly passes through both ). Energy react with itself. The universe of things exists because of nodal resonance and frequency harmonics and not because of consciousness.

 

Consciousness has come into being in order to grasp the nature of the universe of things. Life does not evolve where there is no- thing. It's completely illogical to assume that it's the reverse. Lose consciousness and we are no longer conscious. Implying that the world suddenly winks out of existence at the moment we become unconscious is an exercise in superstition and not science. We just don't have this experience and we have direct access to self, because we are that, the ultimate backstop.

 

I think we are getting onto unstable ground if we think passive conscious awareness is actually also both creating and being aware in the same space/time. That simultaneously its creator and receiver, then what the hell is the point in our power to reason ? Might as well chuck our minds and bodies away right now. It's just another cult ideology in which we will continue to live out our lives on some heavenly plane. It's better to shelve that, back up and start looking elsewhere because this is a dead end.

[Nikolai1]

This biocentrism is just idealism with another name. All we need do is give it it's rightful place alongside the materialism of the scientists, accept the validity of them both, and find the truth beyond all the words. For 99% of the population, who are instinctive materialists, this biocentrism needs to be heard, accepted and then swiftly rejected before it sinks in and we get stuck there.

[SonOfTheGods]

This biocentrism is just idealism with another name. All we need do is give it it's rightful place alongside the materialism of the scientists, accept the validity of them both, and find the truth beyond all the words. For 99% of the population, who are instinctive materialists, this biocentrism needs to be heard, accepted and then swiftly rejected before it sinks in and we get stuck there.

 

Obviously then, you know the truth- so please, do share

[Karl]

Obviously then, you know the truth- so please, do share

 

No, no. It's up to you to provide the hard evidence, it's not the responsibility of those living in the real world of things to disprove these theories.

[SonOfTheGods]

This biocentrism is just idealism with another name. All we need do is give it it's rightful place alongside the materialism of the scientists, accept the validity of them both, and find the truth beyond all the words. For 99% of the population, who are instinctive materialists, this biocentrism needs to be heard, accepted and then swiftly rejected before it sinks in and we get stuck there.

 

Ok, I see the problem here:

 

It's the narrow-mindednessof the non-Christians that are the main problem.

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/38944-the-christian-tribe/?p=637358

[SonOfTheGods]

No, no. It's up to you to provide the hard evidence, it's not the responsibility of those living in the real world of things to disprove these theories.

 

"Real World" is subjective -especially in a discussion about Biocentrism

 

The author has a book on it, with much greater detail than a simple reply I can produce

 

That being said, I doubt you would enjoy it-

 

 I'm a big believer in grounding and so rather than incorporate esoteric exercise I simply go and do some chores

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/38925-carl-jung-and-eastern-thought/?p=637620

[Karl]

"Real World" is subjective -especially in a discussion about Biocentrism

 

The author has a book on it, with much greater detail than a simple reply I can produce

 

That being said, I doubt you would enjoy it-

 

 

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/38925-carl-jung-and-eastern-thought/?p=637620]http://thedaobums.com/topic/38925-carl-jung-and-eastern-thought/?p=637620[/url]

If you think the real world is subjective then your entire discussion is null and void. If you cannot know what is true in the world then your arguments can never have validity because you depend on objective reasoning in order to argue. You have essentially disqualified yourself from further discussion.

 

Are you unable to see this obvious double bind ?

Edited July 26, 2015 by Karl

[SonOfTheGods]

If you think the real world is subjective then your entire discussion is null and void. If you cannot know what is true in the world then your arguments can never have validity because you depend on objective reasoning in order to argue. You have essentially disqualified yourself from further discussion.

 

Are you unable to see this obvious double bind ?

 

Maybe you should re-read everything I posted about Biocentrism, everything is true (or not) depending on the beholder.

 

For some reason only beknownst to you- you do not want the concept Biocentrism to be valid

 

You're also arguing against concepts you do not know (because you haven't read the book)

 

So who is really the one "disqualified"..?

[SonOfTheGods]

Biocentrism:

The demotion of time from an actual reality to a mere subjective
experience, a fiction, or even social convention, is central to biocentrism.
Its ultimate unreality, except as an aid and mutually agreed upon
convenience in everyday life, is yet one more piece of evidence
that calls into serious doubt the “external universe” mindset.

[SonOfTheGods]

Everything prior to this moment is the past, gone

forever. But this subjective feeling of living on the forward edge of

time is a persistent illusion, a trick of our attempts to create an intelligible

organizational pattern for nature in which one calendar day

follows upon another, that spring precedes summer, and that years

pass. Time in a biocentric universe is not sequential—however much

our habitual perceptions dictate that it is.

[Karl]

Well...if you deny that reality is subjective then you deny the reality of yourself as a subject that experiences it....Reality can be subjective without compromising objectivity; it would only reequire that different subjects contribute to the rendering of reality in a way that is a compromise.

Reality is reality. Keep the subjective inside and not outside.

 

It reminds of that money Python sketch 'only the true messiah would deny he was the true messiah'

 

Question begging epithet.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Karl

[Karl]

Maybe you should re-read everything I posted about Biocentrism, everything is true (or not) depending on the beholder.

 

For some reason only beknownst to you- you do not want the concept Biocentrism to be valid

 

You're also arguing against concepts you do not know (because you haven't read the book)

 

So who is really the one "disqualified"..?

 

First. How do you know that anything is unequivocally true and real in the world ?

 

Forget concepts for a moment. Think it through. How can you be certain of anything ?

 

If you say 'I cannot be certain of anything'. Then by simple implication you have no position from which to argue that biocentrism is true.

 

Does this make sense ? Why would I listen to a man who says he doesn't know anything is true ( subjectivity ) and then tells me that something he believes is true ?

 

It's like a person saying that every word they say is a lie, but that I should believe what they say.

 

In a theory in which consciousness and reasoning are the actual components of proof, is completely lost.

 

I don't know how to make that anymore clear.

 

Bio centrism is untrue, simply because deductive logic easily uncovers the fallacy and that's game over. If you wish to make an inductive argument then you must do so by providing proof, or then I must simply believe every fairytale and fiction ever written.

 

It is not about belief, it is about proof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SonOfTheGods]

First. How do you know that anything is unequivocally true and real in the world ? Forget concepts for a moment. Think it through. How can you be certain of anything ? If you say 'I cannot be certain of anything'. Then by simple implication you have no position from which to argue that biocentrism is true. Does this make sense ? Why would I listen to a man who says he doesn't know anything is true ( subjectivity ) and then tells me that something he believes is true ? It's like a person saying that every word they say is a lie, but that I should believe what they say. In a theory in which consciousness and reasoning are the actual components of proof, is completely lost. I don't know how to make that anymore clear. Bio centrism is untrue, simply because deductive logic easily uncovers the fallacy and that's game over. If you wish to make an inductive argument then you must do so by providing proof, or then I must simply believe every fairytale and fiction ever written. It is not about belief, it is about proof.

 

The title of this thread is called:

 

We Never Really Die: The Science behind Eternal Consciousness

 

You would have to die, to provide the proof that there is no eternal consciousness.

 

That is according to your own quote- "game over"

[Karl]

The title of this thread is called:

 

We Never Really Die: The Science behind Eternal Consciousness

 

You would have to die, to provide the proof that there is no eternal consciousness.

 

That is according to your own quote- "game over"

 

There is no science. This is just argument ad ignorantum.

 

We never die, but then you say you would have to die to obtain the proof of never dying ? That's definitely question begging.

 

It begins with a logical fallacy and so the 'science' can be safely ignored. There is never any way of proving it, there is no advantage to positing it.

 

I think you turn into a lemon Popsicle and live on a distant moon. My proof is that everything is subjective and so I need not offer any proof. If you ask for proof I will tell you I can't provide it because you have to die first.

 

Mental.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nikolai1]

Every then is also a now.

 

Every object is also a subjective perception.

 

If you can see this and never fall on one of the horns, then you have found somewhere else to go. You do not have to setttle on horn and insist it is the truth.

 

The place you have found to go to, that is the truth. The place where everything material is also ideal, where all things in time are also eternal.

 

Biocentrism is simply the other horn in the dilemma that most don't know exists. I encourage anyone to read the book, but make sure you hold something back. Don't fall for it!