Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death
- Downloads：7279
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-07-23 06:54:50
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Robert Lanza
- ISBN：194295221X
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Biocentrism shocked the world with a radical rethinking of the nature of reality。
But that was just the beginning。
In Beyond Biocentrism， acclaimed biologist Robert Lanza， one of TIME Magazine’s "100 Most Influential People in 2014，" and leading astronomer Bob Berman， take the reader on an intellectual thrill-ride as they re-examine everything we thought we knew about life， death， the universe， and the nature of reality itself。
The first step is acknowledging that our existing model of reality is looking increasingly creaky in the face of recent scientific discoveries。 Science tells us with some precision that the universe is 26。8 percent dark matter， 68。3 percent dark energy， and only 4。9 percent ordinary matter， but must confess that it doesn’t really know what dark matter is and knows even less about dark energy。 Science is increasingly pointing toward an infinite universe but has no ability to explain what that really means。 Concepts such as time， space， and even causality are increasingly being demonstrated as meaningless。
All of science is based on information passing through our consciousness but science hasn’t the foggiest idea what consciousness is， and it can’t explain the linkage between subatomic states and observation by conscious observers。 Science describes life as an random occurrence in a dead universe but has no real understanding of how life began or why the universe appears to be exquisitely designed for the emergence of life。
The biocentrism theory isn’t a rejection of science。 Quite the opposite。 Biocentrism challenges us to fully accept the implications of the latest scientific findings in fields ranging from plant biology and cosmology to quantum entanglement and consciousness。
By listening to what the science is telling us， it becomes increasingly clear that life and consciousness are fundamental to any true understanding of the universe。 This forces a fundamental rethinking of everything we thought we knew about life， death， and our place in the universe。
But that was just the beginning。
In Beyond Biocentrism， acclaimed biologist Robert Lanza， one of TIME Magazine’s "100 Most Influential People in 2014，" and leading astronomer Bob Berman， take the reader on an intellectual thrill-ride as they re-examine everything we thought we knew about life， death， the universe， and the nature of reality itself。
The first step is acknowledging that our existing model of reality is looking increasingly creaky in the face of recent scientific discoveries。 Science tells us with some precision that the universe is 26。8 percent dark matter， 68。3 percent dark energy， and only 4。9 percent ordinary matter， but must confess that it doesn’t really know what dark matter is and knows even less about dark energy。 Science is increasingly pointing toward an infinite universe but has no ability to explain what that really means。 Concepts such as time， space， and even causality are increasingly being demonstrated as meaningless。
All of science is based on information passing through our consciousness but science hasn’t the foggiest idea what consciousness is， and it can’t explain the linkage between subatomic states and observation by conscious observers。 Science describes life as an random occurrence in a dead universe but has no real understanding of how life began or why the universe appears to be exquisitely designed for the emergence of life。
The biocentrism theory isn’t a rejection of science。 Quite the opposite。 Biocentrism challenges us to fully accept the implications of the latest scientific findings in fields ranging from plant biology and cosmology to quantum entanglement and consciousness。
By listening to what the science is telling us， it becomes increasingly clear that life and consciousness are fundamental to any true understanding of the universe。 This forces a fundamental rethinking of everything we thought we knew about life， death， and our place in the universe。
Reviews
Saradhik Sai
，
Such a good book
Estrella Moran
，
One of my favorite books I highly recommend it
Shubham Wagh
，
best book
J。P。 Cawood
，
Wow， this book made me dream of new possibilities as I continue to question and examine the nature of reality。 A must read for anyone who wonders what time/space/consciousness really is。
Nemo Lockeheart
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 Another wonderful book by Robert Lanza-scientific and philosophical。 Do I agree with everything he said in the book？ In a sense， yes。 Like many other scientists， Robert wants to find a Grand Theory of Everything， and his take looks promising。 A way to not only unify science， but also religious beliefs， and philosophy。 Reality as we see it is nothing more but an illusion constructed by our consciousness to help us navigate in this world。Birth and death are part of the illusion。 Nothing is truly r Another wonderful book by Robert Lanza-scientific and philosophical。 Do I agree with everything he said in the book？ In a sense， yes。 Like many other scientists， Robert wants to find a Grand Theory of Everything， and his take looks promising。 A way to not only unify science， but also religious beliefs， and philosophy。 Reality as we see it is nothing more but an illusion constructed by our consciousness to help us navigate in this world。Birth and death are part of the illusion。 Nothing is truly real without an observer， nothing is with a beginning， nor an end。 。。。more
Lisa
，
Um， what？？ The authors lost me at chapter 4。 It started it out great， saw lots of Bob Berman in the writing， love his articles in Astronomy magazine。 I'm not a fan of philosophical discussions， I'm too much of a black and white thinker， plus all the quantum mechanics， physics gobbley-gook bored me。 Um， what？？ The authors lost me at chapter 4。 It started it out great， saw lots of Bob Berman in the writing， love his articles in Astronomy magazine。 I'm not a fan of philosophical discussions， I'm too much of a black and white thinker， plus all the quantum mechanics， physics gobbley-gook bored me。 。。。more
Elliot Julian
，
Most of us find it scary to admit that the base of our existence （time） is in fact not real and merely an illusion/ tool of measurement。 This book covers a vast variety of philosophical theories on quantum mechanics， as well as cold hard scientific facts。 It taps into numerous topics， such as: isochrism， string theory， religion， the sagnac effect， anti-nothingness， neurological tweeking ， and so much more。 SPOILERS AHEAD！_____________________________The author takes an interesting approach on ho Most of us find it scary to admit that the base of our existence （time） is in fact not real and merely an illusion/ tool of measurement。 This book covers a vast variety of philosophical theories on quantum mechanics， as well as cold hard scientific facts。 It taps into numerous topics， such as: isochrism， string theory， religion， the sagnac effect， anti-nothingness， neurological tweeking ， and so much more。 SPOILERS AHEAD！_____________________________The author takes an interesting approach on how we are separate from our bodies and how our brains are but calculating automatic algorithms that thus make us experience the 3D world that surrounds us。 If we acknowledge that the universe is beyond time， without birth or death， predictability， and meaning — most of our current collective fundamentals of the universe are disprovable。 The fact our universe is fine tuned to perfection for life to exist at all may very well conclude randomness doesn’t exist。 I can’t disagree it’s not absolutely eerie how perfectly structured everything seems， and how staged life can feel at times。 From the moons effects on our planet， to the earth only ever being hit by celestial objects never big enough to destroy it。The book makes it a point to disprove randomness/probability; but isn’t the fact our planet does sustain life and plenty surrounding planets don’t， the definition of probability？ “Applying Occam’s razor—the theory that the simplest explanation is usually the best—we find that biocentrism offers an obvious alternative explanation for our undeniably improbable life-friendly universe。 Namely， that it’s life-friendly because it’s a life-created reality！”_____________________________SPOILERS END！ This book absolutely has a lot of reliable theories backing up it’s conclusion; but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t still clash with other equally probable theories。 Although a very engaging and thought-provoking read， I did find it a bit biased/contradictory。 3/5 ⭐️ 。。。more
Philip
，
Picked up this work via an online recommendation and I wish at the time the recommender had told me this was a sequel to a previous work。 With that in mind， any criticisms I have of this work could simply be the result of not being well informed on the topics already covered in Lanza's original book。 However， as a layperson entering Lanza's world at the mid-point of his story， I have to say that I found his explanations of scientific ideas to be pretty lackluster。 He tries to cover quite a bit o Picked up this work via an online recommendation and I wish at the time the recommender had told me this was a sequel to a previous work。 With that in mind， any criticisms I have of this work could simply be the result of not being well informed on the topics already covered in Lanza's original book。 However， as a layperson entering Lanza's world at the mid-point of his story， I have to say that I found his explanations of scientific ideas to be pretty lackluster。 He tries to cover quite a bit of ground in 200 pages and so the introduction of a topic， his explanation of that topic， and then finally his expansion on that idea may only cover a few paragraphs， leaving the whole work to feel rushed。 I really felt that this could have used a few more pages to give a more comprehensive coverage of the concepts he uses to further his viewpoints as well as to give a little more breathing room to the issues he wishes to explore。 I'm sure this book would be more useful to someone already familiar with the basic concepts of physics， which makes Lanza's quick explanations of concepts useless and therefore passible to the non-layperson， but for myself I definitely felt like I was only understanding the very gist of what was going on。 This in turn provides an unstable foundation upon which Lanza tries to build up his idea of Biocentrism within the mind of the reader。 For example， on page 174， Lanza has a throwaway paragraph the crux of which being "Intuitiveness is real， and usually reliable。"， an idea which he uses to build up his following conclusions。 However， after reading a work like "Thinking， Fast and Slow"， I can say without doubt that the reality is usually the opposite， our intuition is deeply flawed and can be easily manipulated， thus I'm left feeling less than enthusiastic about how confident Lanza is in his conclusions。 One technical point I'm also unhappy with is the lack of a list of references。 Most works of a scientific nature， even popular science stuff， will include some sort of bibliography， and it's nice to see at the end of the work all the academic sources an author used to write it。 Usually， when one checks the bibliography and sees a bunch of academic journals they feel much more confident in the validity of the things they've just learned， rather than the opposite of thinking you've just wasted your time when you see a long list of magazine articles and defunct website links。 So， it's kind of disappointing Lanza has failed to include his sources， when his introduction of concepts like Quantum Mechanics has gotten me interested in further reading on the topic。 Overall， I felt like this book was an appetizer to further reading of physics concepts that I previously had no interest in。 I'm sure to a person already well-versed in the ideas Lanza presents， his conclusions are interesting and surprising， but to me they really didn't have much effect other than confusion or boredom。 Even though I found this work interesting， I don't think I'd recommend this to other readers。 。。。more
Sharolyn Stauffer
，
I read part of a book on biocentrism a few years ago， but got trapped up in the physics language。 This made more sense， even though it is mind boggling。 There is so much weirdness out there when it comes to observing the universe， but biocentrism and the quantum theory with it essentially makes sense to me when it comes to consciousness being everything， and nothing existing without that。 Spiritually， it also means there is no death， which is what I also inherently believe。
Omar Ahmad
，
"According to biocentrism， we cannot fathom anything outside the spatiotemporal logic comprising the mind’s algorithms。 If you ask how that came to be， whether it had a birth， or all such imponderables， you’re back to the Being of Parmenides and the mystics。 If it can be apprehended directly in 'enlightened' states， so be it。 But in the science and logic business， if we want to know what to make of such unexplorable meadows， there’s no reason it must be either titillating or depressing。 The anci "According to biocentrism， we cannot fathom anything outside the spatiotemporal logic comprising the mind’s algorithms。 If you ask how that came to be， whether it had a birth， or all such imponderables， you’re back to the Being of Parmenides and the mystics。 If it can be apprehended directly in 'enlightened' states， so be it。 But in the science and logic business， if we want to know what to make of such unexplorable meadows， there’s no reason it must be either titillating or depressing。 The ancient Greeks weren’t bothered at all; they generally found futility amusing。 If something lay clearly beyond their ken， they’d laugh and pour another glass of wine。The first illusion-busting step involves tossing out today’s dead universe paradigm， which is as antiquated as all those turtles that once supposedly supported the flat Earth beneath our feet。 Even then we may still be teased by things ungraspable via the matrix of logical symbolism， the medium of language。The second illusion-busting step is to toss out the “I” feeling。 Even if we grasp that this “me，” ourselves， is what creates the framework of time and space， that’s probably not enough to impart the full， exuberant experience of unity。 Indeed， as our powerful technological instruments extend both our perceptions and our illusions （as when we use our telescopes）， we’re filled with awe at the universe’s vastness but also invariably feel even smaller and less consequential。 Thus， modern science knowledge rarely helps us get closer to what’s really going on when it comes to the Whole Picture。It’s a vast realm， that of visual phantoms and optical illusions。 Ours is a funny old universe， with real things that cannot be seen， like love and neutrinos and dark matter。 Yet， conversely， it also has dramatic-looking entities that lack any physical existence at all。 We’ve awakened in a hall of mirrors。Enchanting indeed are their countless reflections。 Still， by penetrating the veil of appearances， biocentrism opens an entire new world of possibilities。"#Consciousness #TheoryOfEverything #HumanCentric #RealityIsWeird #QuantumMechanics #Space #Time #Causality #Life #Mind #Mystery #Entanglement 。。。more
Reginald Mcnuffin
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 So many things wrong with this book。 The lack of proper footnoting gives the game away。 The other telltale sign is the chapter that attempts to undermine evolutionary theory but is just laughable。 Btw， speakers don't work on digital inputs， only analogue。 That's what a DAC does。 Sloppy， like the rest of the thinking in the book。 So many things wrong with this book。 The lack of proper footnoting gives the game away。 The other telltale sign is the chapter that attempts to undermine evolutionary theory but is just laughable。 Btw， speakers don't work on digital inputs， only analogue。 That's what a DAC does。 Sloppy， like the rest of the thinking in the book。 。。。more
Kenneth Bachmann
，
This was not the first book by this author about biocentrism， so the fact that after finishing the book I am not altogether certain about what is meant by "biocentrism" may just mean that I need to go back in read one or more of his prior books。 Basically， it seems as though among his main points are:1。 time and space are illusions; creations of our brains to help us make sense of our surroundings;2。 there really are no individual selves。 That， too， is an illusion。 There is just one self， and th This was not the first book by this author about biocentrism， so the fact that after finishing the book I am not altogether certain about what is meant by "biocentrism" may just mean that I need to go back in read one or more of his prior books。 Basically， it seems as though among his main points are:1。 time and space are illusions; creations of our brains to help us make sense of our surroundings;2。 there really are no individual selves。 That， too， is an illusion。 There is just one self， and that self encompasses everything。 This statement aligns with a lot of Eastern thinking， i。e。 nature is us and we are nature， and we don't stand apart from nature。 Also， if there is just one self， it must be eternal and therefore we all are also eternal。3。 the idea that the universe and all creation are all the products of random events is ridiculous。4。 the self creates everything （I guess）。Lanza's grasp and knowledge of science seems to be quite good， and his explanations of various scientific findings seem to be pretty satisfying。 However， while there is some decent logic in how he gets to his conclusions from scientific facts， there is no precision。 That is， there are no mathematical models that provide any opportunity to challenge or falsify his claims。 That is the book's key weakness。All-in-all it's a decent read。 It's only about 200 pages， and can be read in a day or two。 And it is well written。 I've listened to a 3 year old You Tube of his on the same topic。 It's about 19 minutes。 Of the two， I recommend the book， because he's not a very good speaker or reader， but he does write very well。 。。。more
Kiyo
，
The combination of sciences is what our future holds。 This book brings it all to life。
Daniel
，
The authors posited that quantum physics revolutionised our understanding of reality。 Many examples about the weirdness of quantum physics were given， such as the double slit experiments and entanglement。 Those proved that different kinds of observation produced different kinds of results。 The authors however extended this to observation creates reality， and without observation small particles of the quantum world exist only in a probabilistic superposition。 So did the photon from a galaxy far a The authors posited that quantum physics revolutionised our understanding of reality。 Many examples about the weirdness of quantum physics were given， such as the double slit experiments and entanglement。 Those proved that different kinds of observation produced different kinds of results。 The authors however extended this to observation creates reality， and without observation small particles of the quantum world exist only in a probabilistic superposition。 So did the photon from a galaxy far away exist？ Only when we observe it on earth。 Time is also weird in the quantum world， as in the observed particle could know before hand what will be observed and behave accordingly。 Coupled with Einstein’s theory of relatively where time and space are relative， the authors suggested that all time is meaningless and only exist in our consciousness。 Then the author made a big jump to say that we are all one consciousness， and the universe is one big consciousness。 Eastern religion and philosophy are quoted as the wiser truth。 I found this argument rather weakly presented。 Nonetheless this book explain weird quantum physics findings very well。 。。。more
Mike & Martin
，
A good book， but doesn't really advance things from the first book。 A good book， but doesn't really advance things from the first book。 。。。more
Mike
，
This is a bit of a rehash of his first book on Biocentrism。 We impose order on the universe， hell， we create the universe， maybe with the help of dogs， cats and dolphins （oh！ and trees）， and we can't die。 All very interesting but utterly unproven。 Seems to make sense but who knows？ This is a bit of a rehash of his first book on Biocentrism。 We impose order on the universe， hell， we create the universe， maybe with the help of dogs， cats and dolphins （oh！ and trees）， and we can't die。 All very interesting but utterly unproven。 Seems to make sense but who knows？ 。。。more
Bianca A。
，
A regurgitation of the prequel。 Garbage with a price tag of $15 that seems to sell on fancy modern words for the gullible who want to feel like they're dabbing into science by reading about accomplished scientists through the opinions of the authors。 Save your cash and go read something written by actual scientists of the trade that are not running around chasing their own tails。I cannot believe that these people wrote two books that sold enough for them to write an upcoming third。 If I could ra A regurgitation of the prequel。 Garbage with a price tag of $15 that seems to sell on fancy modern words for the gullible who want to feel like they're dabbing into science by reading about accomplished scientists through the opinions of the authors。 Save your cash and go read something written by actual scientists of the trade that are not running around chasing their own tails。I cannot believe that these people wrote two books that sold enough for them to write an upcoming third。 If I could rate them 0 stars， I would。 。。。more
Troy Neeriemer
，
There is no time， therefore I didn’t actually read this book。 Or did I？
Luke Rigby
，
This is the only non-fiction book I read in the last fortnight （a 20% rate is well under my norm， but I will blame the three Mark Lawrence Books I read as the reason）。 With a subject matter on the concept of quantum reality and the foundation of our consciousness， which I will note I only a theory， this is an incredibly insightful book in general。 The detail in very top-level， making it easier to read but I will also note for you， that Lanza is arguing for the quantum-based consciousness causali This is the only non-fiction book I read in the last fortnight （a 20% rate is well under my norm， but I will blame the three Mark Lawrence Books I read as the reason）。 With a subject matter on the concept of quantum reality and the foundation of our consciousness， which I will note I only a theory， this is an incredibly insightful book in general。 The detail in very top-level， making it easier to read but I will also note for you， that Lanza is arguing for the quantum-based consciousness causality and does miss out an argument from an interlocuter。 Overall， not bad in my opinion。 Check out my newsletter which contains all my book reviews plus much， much more:https://lukerigby709。wixsite。com/luke。。。 。。。more
Jeremy
，
I have the book and the audio book。 I have listened to the audio book 5 times。 Quantum Theory is weird， strange， mind bending， and society as we know it revolves around it。 In my opinion this book bridges the gap between science and spirituality。 I have told people before the more I learn about science the more spiritual I become， and this book explains why。 I have his new book， and look forward to go further down the rabbit hole。
Alexandra Rizzi
，
This book broke my brain:） I probably should not be reading the third one （which comes out today）， but I ordered it already。 And， truthfully， this subject is really fascinating。 Seriously， though。 If you're into 'outside the box' thinking， this is for you。 R。L。 has a humorous way of bringing across some heavy-duty concepts。 This is not a large book （199 pages only） and he does repeat himself， frequently。 Given the not so common subject， that's a good thing （unless you have a Ph。D。 in physics）。 T This book broke my brain:） I probably should not be reading the third one （which comes out today）， but I ordered it already。 And， truthfully， this subject is really fascinating。 Seriously， though。 If you're into 'outside the box' thinking， this is for you。 R。L。 has a humorous way of bringing across some heavy-duty concepts。 This is not a large book （199 pages only） and he does repeat himself， frequently。 Given the not so common subject， that's a good thing （unless you have a Ph。D。 in physics）。 That said， I'm not sure I can get behind the theory。 Some principals I get; the idea that all 'of this' is mere chance， or how the human eye perceives and our brain translates it into what we see。 The difficult part for me is that there doesn't seem to be anything of us 'here'。 Where is our brain located？ Do we have several levels of brains？ One in this dimension （for a lack of a better word）， another brain in another dimension？ It literally gave me a headache。 The thing that bugged me most was the interchangeable using of the words 'consciousness'， 'awareness' and 'knowledge'。 These three are distinctly different。 While I get what he's saying， they are on different levels and given the subject matter， should be used accordingly。 There is （or was， he died in 2001） a German physicist， Burkhard Heim， that created a theory of humans and the universe， called 'the 12 dimensions of Burkhard Heim'。 There is little of him available online， but it might be beneficial if R。L。 could look into his work。 Heim's theory includes 'awareness' as well as the idea of 'psycho-somatic illnesses'。 Heim was fascinated with very much the same questions as R。L。 is。Overall， I recommend this book， if only to broaden your horizon。 。。。more
Michał Węgrzyn
，
Stephan Hawking meets Sam Harris。 Super interesting take on the role of consciousness in what is our reality。 If you like this sort of topics， definitely a worthy title。
Joseph L。
，
Watch a detailed review along with my favorite ideas and takeaways at:https://youtu。be/r9kDpV8tvMQ Watch a detailed review along with my favorite ideas and takeaways at:https://youtu。be/r9kDpV8tvMQ 。。。more
Logicwins
，
This book is worth reading just to get your mind around how bizarre quantum mechanics truly are and what the implications might be。 Pretty quick read and interesting。
David
，
The chicken came along and laid the egg from which she hatched。 In their first book， Lanza and Berman presented Biocentrism， a view that accounts for some of the anomalies of physics。 This book takes the argument further。 The science is solid， but I question the validity of the authors’ conclusions。 The scientific argument begins with with a hard nut that physicists have tried to crack for nearly one hundred years。 Things are not as they seem。 The model of an atom one first encountered in elemen The chicken came along and laid the egg from which she hatched。 In their first book， Lanza and Berman presented Biocentrism， a view that accounts for some of the anomalies of physics。 This book takes the argument further。 The science is solid， but I question the validity of the authors’ conclusions。 The scientific argument begins with with a hard nut that physicists have tried to crack for nearly one hundred years。 Things are not as they seem。 The model of an atom one first encountered in elementary school is not realistic。 In reality， electrons don’t cross atomic nucleuses in neat orbits。 In reality， they’re everywhere at once。 Electrons exist in a superposition of all possible locations until interfered with。 As soon as a measurement is taken， the electron’s “wave function” collapses and it shows itself。 Since observation is required to determine an electron’s position， the role of consciousness plays a key part in how the universe operates。 Hence， life itself， steers the universe’s unfolding。 While the authors’ argument is novel， the science is not。 I don’t question that the authors are on to something。 I only question that something’s implications。 Let’s skip over the science and go directly to conclusions: “What is not in doubt even in these early research stages is that the observer is correlative with the cosmos。 That time does not exist。 And perhaps the most cheerful takeaway from biocentrism: Since there’s no self-existing space-time matrix in which energy can dissipate， it’s impossible for you to ‘go’ anywhere。 In a nutshell， death is illusory。 。。。 Consciousness and awareness never began， and will never end。” And yet， when one sleeps can one be said to be conscious？ For that matter， how can there be a “when” if time is illusory？ Backing up a bit， the authors note that logic and science are not the only methods of gaining knowledge。 Intuitions arise from neither and are generally correct。 Upon seeing a corpse， intuition tells us that the body’s former occupant has departed。 But where did it go？ Here’s the explanation: “The feeling of “me，” of consciousness itself， could be considered a 23-watt energy cloud， which is the brain’s energy consumption in producing our sense of ‘being’ and its myriad sensory manifestations。 Energy， as we learned in high school physics， is never lost。 It can change form but it never dissipates or disappears。 So what happens when those brain cells die？” The answer is that death is an illusion。 One can’t die because， “neither space nor time are real in any sense except as appearances or tools of the mind。” In the first appendix we learn the difference between mind and brain。 “The brain is a physical object occupying a specific location。 It exists as a spatio-temporal construction 。。。 。” Other objects like tables must also be constructions， yet you can’t crowd those constructions into brains。 Paradoxical。 Space isn’t real， but you still have to watch where you place things。 Luckily we don’t have to worry about where one places one’s mind。 “But the mind has no location。 It is everywhere you observe， smell， or hear anything。” I can’t quite wrap my own mind around this。 Maybe with more explanation。 The authors are releasing another book in November。 I can barely wait。 。。。more
Ben
，
I read this book in my quest to better understand consciousness。 It is proving a challenge to rate and review it， I liked it for it's strengths and mourned it's weaknesses。 Strengths:- Clear explanation of wave-particle duality （for light and matter）， and how from the perspective of the very small （e。g。 with quantum entanglement）， space， time and space-time can become obsolete - The explanation of the centrality of the observer to insights in quantum theory。 A fact that can be taken to undermine I read this book in my quest to better understand consciousness。 It is proving a challenge to rate and review it， I liked it for it's strengths and mourned it's weaknesses。 Strengths:- Clear explanation of wave-particle duality （for light and matter）， and how from the perspective of the very small （e。g。 with quantum entanglement）， space， time and space-time can become obsolete - The explanation of the centrality of the observer to insights in quantum theory。 A fact that can be taken to undermine physical monoism as a theory of consciousness。 - The chapter debating consciousness in plantsWeaknesses:- I am still not sure what exactly the Biocentrism hypothesis is。。。 - Use of the oft-employed approach of disproving a notion （with your own argument or someone elses）， and then leaving your own hypothesis in it's place without subjecting it to the same intellectual rigour-No citations and likley cherrypicking Based on this book I am certainly not convinced Biocentrism is the Grand Unifying Theory， which I think was the intention of the authors 。。。more
Shiva Somadev
，
This is the second book on "Biocentrism" by Robert Lanza。 Unfortunately， I didn't have a chance yet to read this book， but I briefly scrolled through his first book and watched quite a few YouTube videos with him。 At the core of Biocentrism science is the plausible and harmoniously resonating with many ancient Scriptures idea that Consciousness （Life） creates the appearance of the solid Universe， not the other way around。 In this sense， this book coming from the scientist （biologist） is a very g This is the second book on "Biocentrism" by Robert Lanza。 Unfortunately， I didn't have a chance yet to read this book， but I briefly scrolled through his first book and watched quite a few YouTube videos with him。 At the core of Biocentrism science is the plausible and harmoniously resonating with many ancient Scriptures idea that Consciousness （Life） creates the appearance of the solid Universe， not the other way around。 In this sense， this book coming from the scientist （biologist） is a very good step forward in the scientific world。 Robert Lanza convincingly refutes the long established ideas of classical physics Biocentrism harmoniously resonates with my own understanding backed up by the research in Quantum Mechanics and Idealistic philosophy。 Although Lanza proposes the idea that it is Consciousness and not Space-time that is fundamental， he doesn't go deep enough to try to explain of what this Consciousness or as he uses term "Life" is。 Although， I find this book intriguing and worth reading， even for the sake of backing up our knowledge with the scientific views， as also to see the tendency of pioneering science of moving towards the Highest Truth which can be found in ancient Scriptures， I see clearly that there is no possibility exist to arrive at Truth by means of logical reasoning。 As Reality - the Source of Consciousness is the very Self of all， the only way to fully Know the Ultimate Truth is to fully Know our Self。 There are simply no other ways around exists。 To know the Source of Consciousness one must investigate， inquire， dive into this very source， which means Self-investigation， self-inquiry， self-remembering。。。 Only God can Know God， not finite， limited mind and logic。 It is also more beneficial to receive the pointers towards the Ultimate Reality and most importantly the methods by which the Highest Reality can be Directly Experienced from someone who had Direct Experiences of the Highest Realms。 I bet， you will find far deeper and more precise explanations about the True Nature of Reality from my own book "Journey into the Heart of Reality" I am posting below the review which resonated the most with me and expresses the similar issues。4。0 out of 5 starsVerified PurchaseReviewed in the United States on May 9， 2016Vine Customer Review of Free ProductVerified PurchaseWHOSE MIND？Sometimes it feels like my whole life has been a quest for truth。 My mother is a devout Methodist while my father is agnostic （not that he really admits as much to my mother）。 While there are aspects of Christianity that I admire， I grew up knowing that I didn’t buy the whole package。 In my teens and young adult years I looked to Eastern religion （Buddhism and Taoism most notably） and science for answers， but， while I’ve often felt like I’m on the verge of a great understanding， I’ve never really found what I’ve been looking for。 In my older adult years I have largely abandoned the process。 Partially because I’m too busy taking care of kids and putting food on the table， but partially because I’ve started to get the feeling that the quest is pointless。So I was intrigued when I saw this book。 Basically， we’re told， everything we “know” is wrong。 I don’t find that much of a leap。 At various points I found this book intriguing， exciting， challenging， fulfilling， baffling， irritating and exasperating。 Any book that can do all that is probably well worth reading， even if you’re not fully on board with all of the conclusions。The first half of the book is devoted to deconstructing what we think we know about the world。 We delve into quantum theory， relativity and other theories to show that time and space don’t exist， at least not as we commonly perceive them。 Contrary to what we “know” with science （not to mention what we feel in our guts）， “spooky action at a distance” is not only possible， it’s quite common。 Science is so focused on “objectivity” that it leaves a gaping hole in our knowledge – a hole that can only be filled by losing “objectivity”。 That is， to really understand and make sense of what science has been telling us， we have to look to the observer – our own subjective sense。 The authors take us through experiments like the double slit experiment， as well as looking at entangled twin particles that seem to know and replicate what the other is doing even if the other is galaxies away。Next we delve into deconstructing the “dumb random universe” theory。 Simply by looking at the chances that 10 books arranged randomly on a shelf would happen to end up in alphabetical order （a probability of about 1 in 3。5 million） we can see that it stretches credibility to believe that everything in our universe has ended up the way it is simply by random chance。 The chances that a galaxy like ours would randomly have a solar system with a planet that is perfectly suited for life would simply happen because of particles randomly bumping into each other is so astronomical as to be impossible。 The authors demolish the idea of string theory （the idea of multiple universes） as being a “theory of everything” and， hence， a theory of nothing。 And in any case， even if this dumb random universe theory were correct， no one has yet given a satisfactory explanation as to how consciousness as arisen out of all of this randomness。The later part of the book develops the authors’ answer to these dilemmas。 We have been， in fact， starting backward， trying to arrive at consciousness by studying physics and biology。 We should， rather start with consciousness and then the universe makes sense。 There is， according to the authors， no “out there” out there。 Everything happens in our minds， so it is our minds that we need to start with。 In other words， thousands of years of exploration， observation and science have led us back to where the ancient Hindus started thousands of years ago。I’ll have to admit first off that I am no scientific expert， so I did not follow all of the science in this book。 A large part of science is being able to get your head around it – to be able to visualize， even roughly， what the theories and equations are pointing to。 I admit I was often rather lost in this way。 The authors develop their argument step-by-step， brick-by-brick in a seemingly incontrovertible way。 But perhaps because I can’t get my head around it all， I remain skeptical。 For one thing， I have to question their sources。 Dr。 Lanza is a medical doctor， and I have a hard time believing he also has a deep and thorough knowledge of theoretical physics – those are rather big fields for any one person to master。 Berman seems to be more of a science generalist who came to the field because of his own “enlightenment” experience。 Many of the references seem to come from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and other layman’s magazines。 Not to disparage those publications but， being as they are written for the lay audience， they are of necessity rather simplified。 My field is psychology and I have read both academic journals and popular publications like PSYCHOLOGY TODAY。 I can tell you that the latter is wildly simplified， often to the point of error。But in any case， my real issue is that biocentrism doesn’t really solve or explain anything more than any other scientific or religious approach。 It just raises more question – many of which are the same as any religion。 If everything boils down to consciousness， whence did consciousness come from？ Again， we’re back to an unexplainable first cause。 Furthermore， whose consciousness？ The authors frequently use the words “our mind”。 Is this meant to imply a collective consciousness？ I suppose so if we’re all part of some overarching consciousness and divisions and dualities are all illusions。 （If not， we’re back to Descartes “I think， therefore I am” because I can only verify my own consciousness – perhaps I’m dreaming and making up everything else。）If there really are no dualities and all is illusion， how did these illusions come to be？ Did we each split ourselves off from this overarching consciousness？ Or did this consciousness split us off？ And in either case， why？ What are we “here” for？ And what happens after “death” （which doesn’t really exist）？ Do we rejoin the larger consciousness？ Will we retain any individual sense of ourselves as separate， or will we just merge into the larger whole （which， for all practical purposes is annihilation）？ Biocentrism doesn’t answer these fundamental questions any better than “God did it” or “turtles all the way down”。Moreover， if everything is consciousness and everything else is illusion， that renders life itself meaningless。 If there is no death， then it doesn’t matter that people are dying of hunger or war or lack of medical care – they are just rejoining this larger consciousness sooner。 In fact， we should all just lay down and die。 What difference does suffering and evil and oppression make anyway？ While I don’t buy into any of the Western religions， I do admire them for struggling with the meaning of life and death， good and evil， struggle and altruism。Nonetheless， I am very glad I read this book and I have passed it on to other people and look forward to discussion on the issues raised。 I was， as noted， very challenged by this book and it has opened up new possibilities。 The book is well written and intriguing， and， despite my skepticism， not easily brushed off or dismissed。 Incidentally， I have not read the first book。 I would like to go back and see if that book answers any of the questions raised here。 Whether you agree， disagree， or simply remain skeptical， I recommend reading this book for some very satisfying food for thought 。。。more
Luke Stannard
，
Epic。 This made my brain do funny things。 I like the way it steps outside of current science to critique the way we think。 Conscious-first theories of the environment are becoming more popular ways to explain physics。 This does a great job of showing how the human mind is biased to its own perception and how that allows us to create our own reality。 I think he went off the deep end a bit with the death theorizing at the end but the rest is a strong critique of science and refreshing for consciou Epic。 This made my brain do funny things。 I like the way it steps outside of current science to critique the way we think。 Conscious-first theories of the environment are becoming more popular ways to explain physics。 This does a great job of showing how the human mind is biased to its own perception and how that allows us to create our own reality。 I think he went off the deep end a bit with the death theorizing at the end but the rest is a strong critique of science and refreshing for conscious-first theorists。 。。。more
Chris
，
This book contains the best layman's descriptions of many of the quantum theory experiments （e。g。 double-slit） I've read， but it goes downhill from there。 The conclusions that the author draws quickly depart from anything bolstered by scientific inquiry and stay in the realm of thought experiment， speculation， and just "I really want it to be this way。" He dismisses as "anachronistic" any sort of monotheistic beliefs， while displaying an almost comical lack of understanding of them。 A bit of int This book contains the best layman's descriptions of many of the quantum theory experiments （e。g。 double-slit） I've read， but it goes downhill from there。 The conclusions that the author draws quickly depart from anything bolstered by scientific inquiry and stay in the realm of thought experiment， speculation， and just "I really want it to be this way。" He dismisses as "anachronistic" any sort of monotheistic beliefs， while displaying an almost comical lack of understanding of them。 A bit of introspection on the author's part would reveal that his beliefs require just as much faith as any that touch on the supernatural。I've been fascinated by quantum theory for a long time， but this book takes massive quantum leaps in arriving at its conclusions。 I had to battle for months to get thorough it， swearing time after time that I was done with it， then feeling that I just had to force my way through。 I rather wish I'd given up。 。。。more
Ali
，