The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself

[burnt]

What makes you think that rocks are not conscious? Because they don't move? They have no legs nor arms.

We are the most conscious because we are the most complex. As things become more complex, they have a higher degree of consciousness. I can't explain how I know this nor car I properly explain it but I know it and I believe it wholeheartedly. I just hope I can learn more so that I can understand this better.

That makes NO sense. Consciousness is not necessarily a result of "complexity'. Complex systems can be completely unconscious.

Rocks aren't conscious. Its that simple. They display NONE of the characteristics we normally associate with consciousness.

Jesus fucking christ people are you seriously that deluded that I have to actually debate that rocks are not conscious?!

Its so fucked up I really can't even stand it anymore its so pathetic how much these discussions have degraded into discussions about conscious rocks.

 

[Saidin]

What would a definition of consciousness be, if we could expand it a bit beyond conventional thinking? Anything that interacts with the envrionment? If that is the case, then the entire universe is conscious from the smallest atom to the most advanced life form, because everything in existence interacts with its environment.

Does something have to be alive in order to be conscious? What then becomes the definition of life, and where does consciousness come into play along that continum? The middle, the end, or perhaps it exists at the very beginning and is present along the entire spectrum.

Organisms without nervous systems are not conscious like organisms with nervous systems are. Bacteria are not conscious.

You cannot justify this statement with any facts or evidence, therefore you cannot claim it with such conviction. In fact you do not know, and could not know, whether bacteria or any organism is conscious or not.

Evidence that the universe is aware of itself does not exist.

The fact that you are alive and contemplating the universe is all the evidence you need that the universe is aware of itself. The evidence is everywhere, it is self evident. Just because you cannot, or choose not to understand that doesn't negate the reality.

IF you want to discuss such things you need to understand biochemistry. I am not going to bother answering this. Explanations and theories about the origin of life are easily available to read and none involve intelligent universes or gods.

Ahh, the old I wont bother discussing this because you wouldn't understand argument. Why all of a sudden is the need for a degree in biochemistry necessary to discuss the origins of life? I've read plenty of theories and explanations for the orgin of life, and they are ALL lacking. Obviously there is not one theory or explanation that is the truth, well because, we still have no idea about how life began. So to say there is no point to discuss this is not based upon my lack of biochemical knowledge, but more centered on the inability to provide a coherent theory and back it up with proof.

If you can make a biochemical argument for the origins of life, please educate me. I am facinated and wish to learn more.

Rock's aren't conscious. What makes you think rocks are conscious? If the universe was made for life why is it so empty? Your statements wring together poetically sounding scientific concepts but at their heart don't describe anything.

Rocks are conscious because atoms are conscious, fractals within fractals. The universe IS made for life, otherwise life wouldn't exist.

What we are discussing here are abstract concepts, ones that may or may not have any verifyable proof in the future. Just becuaswe you cannot concieve of the "heart" of my argument does not make it less valid. I do not have the ability to describe my understanding in abstract symools such as mathematicians use, therefore I have to use what is available to me which is the ability to find pieces of information from a variety of sources and piece them together into a whole. Then try to describe it, and the problem is always language when it comes to these ideas. Its like trying to describe hyperspace or an experience, its there, but there are just no words or concepts that allow it to be explained in a direct way.

I post these threads and ideas because they are interesting to me and I feel there are clues to be found within to help construct the whole picutre. I love having my worldview challenged, which is why I engage in debate here in order to learn and grow. I hope others can provide proof to help me better understand the nature of the world we live in. I want someone to prove me wrong, or at least make a good argument in a counter positiion so I can weigh both sides and have a better understanding through knowledge.

What do you mean the universe is so empty?

 

[amor_fati]

How can a word (consciousness) developed to describe a function of the brain be applied to something without one? The word doesn't have any meaning apart from what we've ascribed it. Anthropomorphizing nonliving matter...I can see the fascination in speculating on the possible consciousness of single cells or even computers for that matter, but rocks?

It is not a bad thing that we project that what is us, onto whatever we experience. As long as we know we do that. And know that we can’t do anything without doing that. You are now part of the deal. Solipsism is not a dead end. On the contrary, it is a good axiom to build on. Realizing the boundaries of personal perception does not make reality less real or significant. Instead it puts you in middle. You are all over it. You have to give meaning to life by figuring how to deal with this subjective reality. What a responsibility…

Assuming one takes it to its ultimate logical conclusion of nihilism (ubiquitous meaninglessness, absurdity) and manages to sublimate this into a more trajectory-oriented perspective, rather than getting caught up in the concept as a matter of faith. It's a great phase for every philosopher to pass through to burn off spiritual fat, but for what, if not to make way for spiritual muscle?


So I can't determine whether the world is real or illusory due to the limits of perspective cognition, so what? The sun's still going to come up tomorrow, whether I want it to or not, and when I look at someone looking at me, I have every indication that they see me. This world is as real as it can possibly be, because we have absolutely nothing to compare it to. And for those who postulate a beyond, "why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world?"

 

[TheHappiestLittleNug]

So thats what chicken vs. egg was all about... I was wondering what the big deal was.

The ocean of nothing came first, of course :!:

 

[gibran2]

What makes you think that rocks are not conscious? Because they don't move? They have no legs nor arms.

We are the most conscious because we are the most complex. As things become more complex, they have a higher degree of consciousness. I can't explain how I know this nor car I properly explain it but I know it and I believe it wholeheartedly. I just hope I can learn more so that I can understand this better.

That makes NO sense. Consciousness is not necessarily a result of "complexity'. Complex systems can be completely unconscious.

Rocks aren't conscious. Its that simple. They display NONE of the characteristics we normally associate with consciousness.

Jesus fucking christ people are you seriously that deluded that I have to actually debate that rocks are not conscious?!

Its so fucked up I really can't even stand it anymore its so pathetic how much these discussions have degraded into discussions about conscious rocks.

Awareness and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness is not easy to define, and has yet to be satisfactorily defined.

Computer algorithms, along with sensory apparatus (camera, microphone, etc.), can be written to provide a computer with awareness of it’s environment. A recent DARPA challenge had autonomous vehicles driving through city traffic. Complex, aware, yet not conscious.

I wonder how a strict materialist defines consciousness. After all, we’re just a collection of atoms in a particular arrangement. A materialist would argue that atoms are not conscious, yet when you arrange a collection of atoms in a particular way, voilà, we suddenly have consciousness.

It seems ridiculous to say that a rock is conscious, but it doesn’t seem ridiculous to say that a person is, even though they are made of the same constituents.

Science cannot explain consciousness.

 

[clouds]

Very well written griban2

I would like to add this link, its called The Future of Mind Science by John Horgan.
It's very interesting, its relates very much to the tone of this thread.

I read it when I was lurking THE HEFFTER REVIEW OF PSYCHEDELIC RESEARCH, VOL 2 (2001)

 

[gibran2]

Very well written griban2

I would like to add this link, its called The Future of Mind Science by John Horgan.
It's very interesting, its relates very much to the tone of this thread.

I read it when I was lurking THE HEFFTER REVIEW OF PSYCHEDELIC RESEARCH, VOL 2 (2001)

Thanks for the compliment and especially thanks for the link. An excellent read.

Here’s my favorite quote:

I suspect that the more intelligent or aware or enlightened we become—whether
through drugs or meditation or genetic engineering or artificial intelligence—the more we will be astonished, awestruck, dumbfounded by consciousness, and life, and the whole universe, regardless of the power of our scientific explanations. Wittgenstein captured this notion when he wrote, “Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.”

 

[Ginkgo]

Jesus fucking christ people are you seriously that deluded that I have to actually debate that rocks are not conscious?!

Its so fucked up I really can't even stand it anymore its so pathetic how much these discussions have degraded into discussions about conscious rocks.

While I do agree with you that the notion of conscious rocks is ludicrous, I really don't see why you must speak the way you do. What does it accomplish other than spreading negativity?

By the way, gibran2, excellent post!

 

[○]

Very well written griban2

I would like to add this link, its called The Future of Mind Science by John Horgan.
It's very interesting, its relates very much to the tone of this thread.

I read it when I was lurking THE HEFFTER REVIEW OF PSYCHEDELIC RESEARCH, VOL 2 (2001)

Thanks for the compliment and especially thanks for the link. An excellent read.

Here’s my favorite quote:

I suspect that the more intelligent or aware or enlightened we become—whether
through drugs or meditation or genetic engineering or artificial intelligence—the more we will be astonished, awestruck, dumbfounded by consciousness, and life, and the whole universe, regardless of the power of our scientific explanations. Wittgenstein captured this notion when he wrote, “Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.”

Very nice quote gibran.

And yes calling people "stupid" And words/phrases such as.."jesus fucking christ"..."deluded"..... man c'mon don't need that.

Lets be respectful of peoples perspectives...ideas etc. Everyone is DIFFERENT and some things may agree or disagree but no need for the hostility.

 

[Saidin]

And for those who postulate a beyond, "why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world?"

Because beyond lies your true personal evolution, and comes not from besmirching this world, but by learning all its lessons both good and bad. When you have learned your lessons and find balance, peace follows.

 

[amor_fati]

The idea that one would postulate a beyond denotes psychological imperative that must be analyzed prior to ever seriously considering the idea. Firstly, that someone would find this world so unsatisfactory that it would be somehow unjust for there to not be an alternative; perhaps they have damn good reason for feeling this way, but that doesn't make it true. Secondly, beyond what? We hardly know the world we exist in, as it is, so where is this limit beyond which there is transcension, enlightenment, or everlasting peace and harmony? Thirdly that the speculation of a beyond generally fits conveniently preconceived idealistic notions and is often constrained by vain human notions of inhabited realms (heaven, hyperspace) or emotional satiation (peace, balance, enlightenment) or even by co-opting scientific concepts (evolution).

The world appears revolting when contrasted with this holy shining nothing we call the beyond. When you hold peace and balance in such high esteem that they comprise you sense the beyond, your good will undoubtedly be all that heightens that sense, and your bad will be all at odds with it. So you imagine a state in which the bad is eradicated from your life and only the good remains after having suffered the pollution of your sense of the good with what you consider to be bad. This waiting period can never be quite good enough when compared to what's believed to come; thus does the concept of "beyond" besmirch the world.

 

[gibran2]

…The world appears revolting when contrasted with this holy shining nothing we call the beyond.

…This waiting period can never be quite good enough when compared to what's believed to come; thus does the concept of "beyond" besmirch the world.

I think you can only view things that way if you see the world – this reality – as somehow separate from the “beyond”. Loving this world and everything in it, and believing in a “beyond” of which this world is a part, are not mutually exclusive.

Does believing that your hand is part of a larger whole body in any way diminish the value of your hand?

I believe that this reality is part of a larger reality, and this belief doesn’t in any way “besmirch” this world.

 

[amor_fati]

I think you can only view things that way if you see the world – this reality – as somehow separate from the “beyond”. Loving this world and everything in it, and believing in a “beyond” of which this world is a part, are not mutually exclusive.

Just to be clear, the beyond in this context implies a stratification in value: That it is somehow better than the immediate reality. Heaven, Hell, and the Earth are all part of god's creation, but for the Christian, there's no question as to which is the better. Buddhism has a rather clear dichotomy of Samsara and Moksha, and while these are often depicted as comprising a whole, again, there is no question as to which state is most desirable. You can love your partner but still be holding out for the ideal, possibly believing he/she is somehow capable of achieving this ideal. But if this ideal is your own machination and represents something you have never encountered, but would like to, that ideal's not likely to ever be achieved. This ideal is the seed of malcontentedness, and though your intentions may be well and the effects subtle, your esteem of your partner will be perpetually diminished in contrast to your unreasonable expectations.

Does believing that your hand is part of a larger whole body in any way diminish the value of your hand?

You can get by well enough without a hand, but god forbid you lose your head. Anthropomorphizing the immediate world as a mere function and appendage of the beyond would be diminishing, indeed. The world is comprised of many hands, many heads and many bodies and everything else that those may interact with.

I believe that this reality is part of a larger reality, and this belief doesn’t in any way “besmirch” this world.

So you say, but it's advisable to remain critical of one's own beliefs if truth is truly sought.

 

[Saidin]

Ahh, the classic death anxiety argument against something more than a purely materialistic world view. I get so tired of hearing this because when stated it assumed to explain everything away as a simple psychological abberation. I have contemplated and postulated thoroughly the death anxiety possibility, and have rejected it.

You are describing your own subjective perspective of the "beyond" and equating it to all others. If we come at it from particular religious perspectives that separate man and heaven, then yes you have a stratification in value and that value is purely speculative. One would do well to guard against this. If you restrain/inhibit yourself from anything in this life (the only thing we can be truly sure of) in hopes of something better, then you have missed the point. IF there is something more than this life, then this life has particular significance, which is not to spend it pining for what is assumed to come. Or maybe it is for some people. Who am I to judge what one should or should not do with their life?

We are here to experience in the good and the bad, but once again these are relative terms that apply individually. What is bad for one is good for another, so each path is different. When you find balance there are no more value judgements, and the good and bad become two sides of the same coin.

There is no esteem for a state of understanding when it is value neutral.

So you say, but it's advisable to remain critical of one's own beliefs if truth is truly sought.

Very true and well said

 

[amor_fati]

Ahh, the classic death anxiety argument against something more than a purely materialistic world view. I get so tired of hearing this because when stated it assumed to explain everything away as a simple psychological abberation. I have contemplated and postulated thoroughly the death anxiety possibility, and have rejected it.

That wasn't what I was getting at, at all. I'm speaking more of anxiety over life more-so than death. Also, it is vain to assume that a human-being's conception of the world supercedes the inner workings of their mind. It is prudent to consider the origin of an idea prior to considering the idea, itself.

You are describing your own subjective perspective of the "beyond" and equating it to all others. If we come at it from particular religious perspectives that separate man and heaven, then yes you have a stratification in value and that value is purely speculative. One would do well to guard against this.

The word, "beyond," can refer to relative spatial orientation, but in the manner that it's being used in this thread, it also means 'greater than'--whether greater means more true, more agreeable, more interesting, more whole, or what have you. The examples from religious beliefs were intended to aim at establishing a comprehensive and pluralistic basis for the general usage of the term; after all, in this context, we owe its origins to these religious traditions. In any any case, if you have some lukewarm value-neutral concept of the beyond, I'd sure like to hear it.

If you restrain/inhibit yourself from anything in this life (the only thing we can be truly sure of) in hopes of something better, then you have missed the point.

I don't know what that point would be, and I'm sure that you don't either. I'm not saying that this restraint is in any way conscious, just the inevitable result of pining over a hypothetical world or perspective exceeding your own.

IF there is something more than this life, then this life has particular significance, which is not to spend it pining for what is assumed to come.

Of course I agree with the latter, but I fail to see how the former can be a prerequisite. At best, this life will seem precious, in the manner that children seem precious for the short time they remain children, but this preciousness distracts from the real implications of adolescence; besides that, most adults are not so far removed from children as they would care to think. But more likely, if there is something more to this life, then the currently inferior state is something "in the way of" or masking our greater potential. Again I refer to children, but as incapable, inexperienced, and underdeveloped, and this view is made grossly apparent by the way in which we raise children to feel: That they can't wait to grow up. Call it a fractal representation of our greater cosmic concerns, if you will.

We are here to experience in the good and the bad...

What instills this purpose? What is the origin of this purpose? And how did you come to this conclusion?

What is bad for one is good for another, so each path is different. When you find balance there are no more value judgements, and the good and bad become two sides of the same coin.

There is no esteem for a state of understanding when it is value neutral.

Every aspect of life is a value judgment, to include esteem of shedding those values. You have a trajectory, you have chosen one path over another. Where one may choose chaos, perpetual imbalance, suffering, you have chosen the opposite--reconciliation. You have accepted the passage through Samsara, but only as a means to Moksha.

 

[Saidin]

We are here to experience in the good and the bad...

What instills this purpose? What is the origin of this purpose? And how did you come to this conclusion?

I had to spend a couple days thinking on this, which I thank you for very much. I realized that I had given your initial comments a cursory glance which was insufficient for the depth of ideas contained in your statements.

The luke-warm value neutral concept is this. There is no difference between here and the "beyond". It is right here with us at this very moment, there is no separation. Heaven isn't out there, separate from us. It is right here within us, but the vast majority cannot see it. No point pining for something you already have. No need to pass though anything.

Life instills this purpose.

The origin is the $13.7 Billion dollar question. Some call it God, some Brahman, some The Implicate, some Nirvana, some Moksha, some All That Is, some Origin, some I AM, some Quantum Fluctuation in the Aether, etc. Here language fails us, because we are trying to describe something ineffible. According to the Biocentric Theory, life itself in the origin of this purpose, creating an environment in which it can live, reproduce and grow (evolve).

I came to this conclusion through years of research, meditation, and contemplation...I have remembered who I am.

I don't know what that point would be, and I'm sure that you don't either. I'm not saying that this restraint is in any way conscious, just the inevitable result of pining over a hypothetical world or perspective exceeding your own.

The point is to love your life. Don't know how to put it any simpler.

 

[amor_fati]

The luke-warm value neutral concept is this. There is no difference between here and the "beyond". It is right here with us at this very moment, there is no separation. Heaven isn't out there, separate from us. It is right here within us, but the vast majority cannot see it. No point pining for something you already have. No need to pass though anything.

Theory of Forms survives today, largely within the beliefs of Christendom. This is made clear by the trinity, wherein the "father" is the superior principle, everpresent by the "holy spirit," and made manifest by the "son." Figures like the Christ and the Buddha are commonly believed to occupy a higher realm of being, distinct from our own as "enlightenment" or "truth," though they are illustrated as walking among us as vague spiritual singularities. Perhaps the Buddha did represent some higher state of being, but I would have to posit a higher earthly state, not a heavenly one, not one with a patent on "truth."

Life instills this purpose.

What sort of life? My life doesn't, and most lives don't seem to. Sounds a bit idealistic to me.

The origin[...]Here language fails us, because we are trying to describe something ineffible. According to the Biocentric Theory, life itself in the origin of this purpose, creating an environment in which it can live, reproduce and grow (evolve).

Biocentrism is solipsism with a new spin. It's not necessarily wrong until one erroneously begins deriving purpose from it. But its damaging when used as a cop-out for evading philosophical and scientific rigor.

The point is to love your life. Don't know how to put it any simpler.

So why would this require anything extraneous to life, such as "purpose" or "the beyond," and how is this point somehow implicit? I would prescribe a love of life to anyone (hence my moniker), but I have no basis for this other than that of health--improving the functions of being, expanding capability.

 

[MooshyPeaches]

Really good thread ^__^ keep it going keep contemplating and questioning for answers. You all are the universe becoming aware of itself

 

[amor_fati]

Really good thread ^__^ keep it going keep contemplating and questioning for answers. You all are the universe becoming aware of itself

That's a breed of biocentrism I can tolerate and even embrace; one that doesn't assert itself as truth but merely pondering over the phenomenon of an otherwise cold, dead universe turning out the conditions for incubating sentience.

 

[Saidin]

Theory of Forms survives today, largely within the beliefs of Christendom. This is made clear by the trinity, wherein the "father" is the superior principle, everpresent by the "holy spirit," and made manifest by the "son." Figures like the Christ and the Buddha are commonly believed to occupy a higher realm of being, distinct from our own as "enlightenment" or "truth," though they are illustrated as walking among us as vague spiritual singularities. Perhaps the Buddha did represent some higher state of being, but I would have to posit a higher earthly state, not a heavenly one, not one with a patent on "truth."

You are creating a division which does not exist in the context in which I am speaking. You have now taken here and beyond and split it into three parts now...we are going backwards. Christ and Buddha are allegories of a perfected state of being through knowledge and understanding, not agents of the divine. They are no more divine than you or I, and to treat them as such is disengenious to the self and gives your power away.

What sort of life? My life doesn't, and most lives don't seem to. Sounds a bit idealistic to me.

Your life is not a series of events that follow one after anohter in frames of plank time? No two being the same and after each moment you are different than the one before as you have grown? We take our experiences and give them subjective value makers to indicate to ourselves what we are, and what we are not. This is how reality works in every single environoment we have ever studied.

Biocentrism is solipsism with a new spin. It's not necessarily wrong until one erroneously begins deriving purpose from it. But its damaging when used as a cop-out for evading philosophical and scientific rigor.

How is Biochentrism a cop-out for evading philosophical and scientific rigor? There are some indications that it may answer some of the questions that have perplexed scientists for ages. It is based on scientific methodology, and its merits will rise or fall in accordance with future experiements to validate its precepts or not.

So why would this require anything extraneous to life, such as "purpose" or "the beyond," and how is this point somehow implicit? I would prescribe a love of life to anyone (hence my moniker), but I have no basis for this other than that of health--improving the functions of being, expanding capability.

So acting in a way that improves the functions of being and expanding capability is not a purpose? An improved function of bieng and expanded capability enables one to grow faster, learn and understand more, to evolve. This is not purpose? Love encourages growth and expansion, fear contaction and regression. Love works with evolution, fear against it. Seems pretty purposefull to me. But you are right, this does not need anything extraneous to life, nor does it preclude it.

Really good thread ^__^ keep it going keep contemplating and questioning for answers. You all are the universe becoming aware of itself

That's a breed of biocentrism I can tolerate and even embrace; one that doesn't assert itself as truth but merely pondering over the phenomenon of an otherwise cold, dead universe turning out the conditions for incubating sentience.

How is this theory different than any other that purports to explain the "truth"? Where in the article was this theory claimed as the one and only truth? You have totally misunderstood the paradigm behind the theory. The Universe doesn't create life, life creates the Universe. Did you even read the article?