When I was a young engineering student at the University of Toronto, we all had to take a required philosophy course. In one session the lecturer embarked upon the classical question, “If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” I could hardly resist not getting up and leaving the class. Is this the nonsense that philosophers occupy themselves with? If the tree falls, all of our scientific evidence tells us that there will be pressure waves emitted in the air. If a person or other sentient being is there, this will be detected as sound, if not the pressure waves will still be emitted. End of story.
Not so, biocentrism asserts that without the sentient observer the event did not really happen. Really? Yes, really. Nothing exists unless it is perceived. For you see, consciousness is the lens through which all reality is known. Therefore, if consciousness is not present, there is no reality. To me this sounds like cosmic narcissism. If I, or some other sentient representative, is not there, then the event did not happen (or to be kind, no one can prove that it really did happen). In other words, me and my consciousness rule supreme. I dare not accept the possibility that there is a greater objective reality out there unless my consciousness (as transmitted through my senses?) can confirm its existence. Pardon me if I excuse this a philosophical nonsense.
Now, to be fair, I, like Emerson the transcendentalist, am in awe of human consciousness. Quakers regularly speak of the Light within. To me as with many others, it seems clear that we are more then just our physical body and our rational mind. There is something more mysterious here. One can call it the soul, the spirit, consciousness or the enduring light within.
Dr. Robert Lanza in his book Biocentrism has tried to fathom this inner reality and make it into a new school of thought that can unlock the mysteries of the universe, or if you will, according to the subtitle of this book, “…the key to understanding the true nature of the universe”. I fear they have not attained their goal. This still remains an illusive mystery, as do many aspects of our inner life and of the expansive outer world.
Part of the new system of biocentrism is the denial of the objective reality of both time and space unless it is perceived by us. This may seem to be an astounding claim but that seems to be what they are claiming (p.159, Biocentrism):
- “Time does not have a real existence outside of the animal-sense perception.” (Underlining mine)
- “Space like time is not an object or thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality”.
I would like to enquire how these biocentrists live. Do they show up for time for scheduled appointments? Do they fondly recall past experiences? Do they ever plan for future events? If they do, are they not acknowledging the reality of a time continuum?
In terms of spatial reality, do they own houses or plots of land? Do they have a favourite room? Do they have favourite locations, or vacation spots? If so, they are acknowledging spatial reality even though in some strange way, at the same time denying spatial reality. Maybe I am not getting something here, but that is what they seem to be saying.
If consciousness is energy and energy does not die but only transforms itself, as science asserts, (one could even question this) then we, (i.e. our consciousness) does not die and in fact we are eternal. Here biocentrism slips into religion. This is an ancient quest and yearning of mankind, as exhibited for example by the resurrection and reincarnation myths.
Biocentrism is trying to analyze ancient mysteries using quantum mechanics theory, physics and medical knowledge. After reading this book, I have the distinct impression that the mystery remains – and I am not willing to give up on the reality of such practical constructs as time, space and the endless pursuit of balanced and logical reasoning.
Rebellious Seeker
Ottawa, January 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment