General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDr. Robert Lanza, considered one of the leading scientists in the word...
(bio link below article excerpt)
Beyond time and space
Lanza is an expert in regenerative medicine and scientific director of Advanced Cell Technology Company. Before he has been known for his extensive research which dealt with stem cells, he was also famous for several successful experiments on cloning endangered animal species.
But not so long ago, the scientist became involved with physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. This explosive mixture has given birth to the new theory of biocentrism, which the professor has been preaching ever since. Biocentrism teaches that life and consciousness are fundamental to the universe. It is consciousness that creates the material universe, not the other way around.
Lanza points to the structure of the universe itself, and that the laws, forces, and constants of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life, implying intelligence existed prior to matter. He also claims that space and time are not objects or things, but rather tools of our animal understanding. Lanza says that we carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. meaning that when the shell comes off (space and time), we still exist.
The theory implies that death of consciousness simply does not exist. It only exists as a thought because people identify themselves with their body. They believe that the body is going to perish, sooner or later, thinking their consciousness will disappear too. If the body generates consciousness, then consciousness dies when the body dies. But if the body receives consciousness in the same way that a cable box receives satellite signals, then of course consciousness does not end at the death of the physical vehicle. In fact, consciousness exists outside of constraints of time and space. It is able to be anywhere: in the human body and outside of it. In other words, it is non-local in the same sense that quantum objects are non-local.
Much more at link.
Who is Dr. Lanza? Read his bio before you label him as a "woo theorist." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/
postulater
(5,075 posts)Just sayin.
Looks interesting though.
GeorgeGist
(25,326 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)ProgressSaves
(123 posts)Spirituality has no place in science.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You need a satellite receiver for that.
Marr
(20,317 posts)And that "biocentric" thing is essentially the anthropic principle, turned upside-down and mixed with religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)1. I want magic to exist.
2. I don't understand quantum.
3. Therefore, quantum means magic could exist.
The Magistrate
(95,264 posts)sir pball
(4,766 posts)However, it's very very unlikely that we'll ever witness Magic - speaking with a small bit of authority (the requisite undergraduate-level courses and two semesters of first-year grad classes, to kill time senior year) on QM...literally anything is possible, it's just a matter of how probable it is. And magic is pretty freakin' improbable.
longship
(40,416 posts)Noteriety is not a valid argument for truth. In science, the only authority is nature.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Scientists normally defer to other experts when discussing topics outside their primary field. When they don't do that, things can go awry.
A prime example, "Vitamin C and the Common Cold" by Linus Pauling. Nope. Vitamin C does not do anything for the common cold.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I had read some things by/about Dr. Lanza some time ago, and lost them along the way (maybe when my system died 2 years ago?).
Good to have his ideas back in my life and at my fingertips...his "woo theories" fit very happily with my personal world view.
1monster
(11,012 posts)crystalized their beliefs (either religiously or not religiously) are so quick to find fault with something that doesn't fit into thier belief system.
He's a doctor. He's outside of his field. He's not a scientist.... etc., etc.
And yet the man is a scientist. His work has been in what once would have been considered not possible outside the relms of sci-fi. But because his work in the past was in cloning, stem cells, and regeneration, some believe that he is unqualified to take on another dicipline. I think the man has proved that he has the wherewithall to study and research in any dicipline he chooses.
Whether he's right or whether he's wrong in his concluisons is something we can't know at this point, but I believe we will someday have a definitive answer... probably not any time really soon, though.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)view of the everything. People are so invested and embedded in the physics view of everything, they can't get past their own prejudice.
Just looked up his biography and realized that he lives in the Mass town right next door to where I used to live. Small world, lol. I remember reading that before...I also remember thinking he was really hot I'm now thinking it has been some years since I first read about him.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Quantum mechanics could not be more out of his speciality. Being able to work in quantum requires years of study in and a good grasp of differential, integral, multivariable, complex, vector and tensor calculus, differential equations, linear and abstract algebra, classic Newtonian mechanics, and electromagnetism.
When scientists with credentials outside even the majority of those disciplines begin "dabbling" in quantum mechanics, their conclusions are going to be off since they don't have a firm grasp of the basic underlying concepts of the discipline.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Besides, sometimes great scientists end up being cranks as well. Linus Pauling went nutso-cookoo about megadosing Vitamin C. Peter Duesberg spent how many years trying to argue that AIDS and HIV had nothing to do with each other?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)He's not entitled to say that quantum mechanics "proves" anything, unless he has worked out a proof mathematically, and without falsifiable hypotheses, whatever he's selling hardly qualifies as a theory.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)* Scientific Materialists
Ain't human nature wonderful?
LukeFL
(594 posts)If sandy hook school? Every time I see that last name it reminds me of that guy
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)No. He is not.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)Good for him for making the leap. Probably his work with 'stem cells' got him thinking about the nature of consciousness. And like a true scientist he explored the issues...
.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)no matter if he's a PhD or a cab driver. His theory carries no more weight than mine because we're both still living, IMO.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,050 posts)Orrex
(63,259 posts)[font size=10]SCIENCE, DAMN YOU![/font]
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Here we go again in an article that would make Deepak Chopra proud, Robert Lanza over at the HuffPo has written a mystery-mongering piece about biocentrism. Lanza asks the question Why are you here? This is one of those cosmological questions that borders on metaphysics, like why is there something rather than nothing? These are interesting questions, but one needs to tread carefully along a tightrope of logic amid a chasm of philosophy and ideology. Lanza dives right off the cliff into the chasm. He sets up the question:
Even setting aside the issue of being here and now, the probability of random physical laws and events leading to this point is less than 1 out of 100,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, equivalent to winning every lottery there ever was.
The lottery reference is appropriate, because Lanza is committing the lottery fallacy. In fact, his entire article is one giant lottery fallacy. This fallacy comes from reasoning backwards about probability and asking the wrong question. If John Smith wins the superball lottery with odds of 100 million to one against, this should not be considered a cosmically unlikely event that requires a special explanation. The wrong question to ask is what were the odds of John Smith winning? The correct question is what were the odds of anyone winning (pretty good, it turns out).
Likewise, Lanza is asking the wrong question what are the odds that we would end up existing here and now with the universe in the state in which we find it? This is as important to us as the odds of winning the lottery are to John Smith, but this is a highly egocentric view of probability. The universe, it turns out, does not care about John Smiths financial situation, nor our existence. The appropriate question is what are the odds that anything would exist? It turns out that the odds are 100%, since we exist.
Yet Lanza is trying to spin this logical fallacy into a theory of everything which he calls biocentrism. This is really just a repackaging of the anthropic principle (so its not even original BS). So-called weak anthropic principles states that the universe must have the properties necessary for intelligent life because we exist in any universe where there is an entity capable of asking the question, the physical laws must be compatible with such an entity. This is ultimately an unremarkable circular argument and thats kind of the point. The fact that the laws of the universe allow for our existence is necessary and unremarkable.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/robert-lanzas-quantum-woo/
snip
Another tactic that believers resort to, other than pseudohistory, is pseudoscience. This is remarkably popular, especially among the New Agey set, and the usual science that gets mangled is physics. The quantum is usually involved, too. Im sure he wouldnt want to be an exception, so when Robert Lanza asks in the Huffington Post (you already know what kind of fluff youre going to get from the information given just this far), Does Death Exist? New Theory Says No, you can count on yet more nonsense.
Lanza has respectable credentials as a stem cell biologist, but hes also the author of one of those all-encompassing, total-explanation-of-the-universe, crackpot theories, which is his, and which belongs entirely to him, called biocentrism. We know this because his tag line in the article is Robert Lanza, MD is considered one of the leading scientists in the world. He is the author of Biocentrism, a book that lays out his theory of everything. Ive noticed that leading scientists tend not to have to introduce themselves by declaring that they are a leading scientist, but thats another issue.
Lanza recently lost a sister in an accident, and most of his article seems to be a kind of emotional denial, that this tragedy cannot have happened and his sister really is alive and well somewhere. I feel for him Ive also lost a sister, and wish I could see her again but this is not a reason to believe death doesnt happen. Ive stubbed my toe and wished with some urgency that it hadnt happened, but the universe is never obliging about erasing my mistakes.
But then Lanza goes on to babble about quantum physics and many-worlds theory.
Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling the Who am I?- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesnt go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?
Consider an experiment that was recently published in the journal Science showing that scientists could retroactively change something that had happened in the past. Particles had to decide how to behave when they hit a beam splitter. Later on, the experimenter could turn a second switch on or off. It turns out that what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle did in the past. Regardless of the choice you, the observer, make, it is you who will experience the outcomes that will result. The linkages between these various histories and universes transcend our ordinary classical ideas of space and time. Think of the 20-watts of energy as simply holo-projecting either this or that result onto a screen. Whether you turn the second beam splitter on or off, its still the same battery or agent responsible for the projection.
I have heard that first argument so many times, and it is facile and dishonest. We are not just energy. We are a pattern of energy and matter, a very specific and precise arrangement of molecules in movement. That can be destroyed. When youve built a pretty sand castle and the tide comes in and washes it away, the grains of sand are still all there, but what youve lost is the arrangement that you worked to generate, and which you appreciated. Reducing a complex functional order to nothing but the constituent parts is an insult to the work. If I were to walk into the Louvre and set fire to the Mona Lisa, and afterwards take a drive down to Chartres and blow up the cathedral, would anyone defend my actions by saying, well, science says matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore, Rabid Myers did no harm, and well all just enjoy viewing the ashes and rubble from now on? No. Thats crazy talk.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/10/the-dead-are-dead/
I dont know if I need to get out the infamous paper bag oreven worsethe Doctor Doom mask out yet. As you may recall (if you are a long time reader, anyway) is that the mind-numbing stupidity of certain MDs has driven me to want to hide my face in utter shame at the embarrassment caused by my fellow physicians. Most frequently, it has been everyones not-so-favorite creationist neurosurgeon with dualist tendencies, Dr. Michael Egnor. So bad was he that I compared him one time to Deepak Chopra.
Damned if P.Z. hasnt led me to another highly embarrassing physician woo-meister. Worse, its not just a physician woo-meister, but apparently a reasonably well-respected physician-scientist; that is, when he isnt laying down swaths of napalm-grade burning stupid woo that easily rivals that of Deepak Chopra. So break out the Doctor Doom mask yet again, its time to take a look at just how much nonsense a physician can lay down.
Guess where he is. Thats right, his name is Dr. Robert Lanza, and hes got a blogging gig atwhere else?The Huffington Post. The first post of his that got my attention is entitled What Happens When You Die? Evidence Suggests Time Simply Reboots.
I take that back. Dr. Lanza might be able to out-woo the master himself. At least its a diversion. Ive been a bit too serious lately.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/06/15/dr-lanza-and-biocentrism-time-to-get-out/
Woo.
Sid
opiate69
(10,129 posts)LibertyLover
(4,788 posts)according to my office-provided copy of the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) , "claque" means a group of sycophants, from claquer, French for to clap or people who were hired to clap at performances.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)LibertyLover
(4,788 posts)carry on.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Nonsense is nonsense.
Why would it matter who spouted it?
Issac Newton spent much of his late life on crackpot stuff that nobody in the world thinks is valid.
And so what?
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Having a medical degree doesn't make you an expert on physics. I have friends and acquaintances with PhDs in Physics, but no way in hell would I let perform surgery on me.
Now, as to what he's saying...interesting philosophical theory, but there's no scientific proof that his theories are true. There's not even a centuries old book for his philosophy like most religions have, just the articles and books he's written in the last decade.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Warpy
(111,411 posts)and there's nothing wrong with that.
A disbeliever would be someone like Hawking.
The only problem I see with a believer like Dr. Lanza is that it puts automatic cutoff points into his head. He would tend to doubt the bizarre as inconsistent with a guiding intelligence.
However, it needs to be pointed out he's a cell biologist, not a cosmologist.
"Scientist" is a poor definition. All are not created equal.
Archae
(46,368 posts)It doesn't mean shit that this guy has umpty-dozen degrees in one science.
He is pushing woo. Woo that he has no way to show any evidence for.
One scientist got fooled into seeing "N-rays."
Another was suckered by the "Piltdown Man' hoax.
Look at the list of contributors to "Answers in Genesis," the creationist web site.
You'll find credentialed people who say the universe is 6,000 years old like the "Bible says."
bhikkhu
(10,725 posts)pretty clear if you spend some time reading biographies.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)that cannot be tested at the present time. Hell, in has just been in the past couple of hundred years that we have been able to test the theories of scientists of centuries ago. Until it is tested and evidence is found it is just a hypothesis, but there is nothing wrong with that. It's an interesting hypothesis.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Grandpa Simpson is that old character in the animated show who tells odd, rambling stories. We cant bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell em stories that dont go anywhere like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on em. Give me five bees for a quarter, youd say. That sort of thing.
Grandpa has been hired by the Huffington post, and is writing stuff under the pen name of Robert Lanza. For instance, hes got a fascinatingly weird tale up titled What Happens When You Die? Evidence Suggests Time Simply Reboots. Now if you or I were writing something with that title, wed probably write something about what happens after we die, or about time, or maybe wed get really ambitious and write about some evidence linking the two. Not Grandpa Lanza! No, we learn that when he was a boy, his hobby was killing small mammals by torture, until one day a blacksmith destroyed his trap and gave him a new mission in life. Ill give you 50 cents for every dragonfly you catch, the old man said, and when the excited Little Lanza had caught one, the blacksmith made a model dragonfly out of iron rods. Oh, and he fixed a squeaky chimney cap by blowing it away with a shotgun. But its not dead! Hes sure its squeaking somewhere.
Someone needs to explain to Grandpa Lanza that the plural of anecdote is not data. And neither is the plural of senile rambling.
Sid
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Dash87
(3,220 posts)Someone no doubt knows more about it than I do here, but Lanza says that 'light behaves differently when you're looking at it,' or something like that. Well, from my understanding, that's not true. The experiment never said such a thing. I think they were talking about perspective, or something like that, and when viewing the slits, how to better control the experiment. Light doesn't suddenly go from having properties of simple matter to wave form just by looking at it.
Anyways, that's my limited understanding. I could be wrong.