http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/do-we-have-a-soul-a-scien_b_850804.html
I'm biased to believe it, I would like an outside point of view
meh...supposition based on personal opinion.
This is similar to what casparov believes. Still need to have some serious evidence to buy it.
Yeah, not much meat, but I think this guy is worth reading, I never heard of Heisenberg until now
My evaluation, he's got to much damned time on his hands sitting around contemplating his navel and has proven nothing. Bottom line, slow news cycle.
Okay how about his theory of a biocentric universe?
Meh..people with to much time to sit around thinking of frivolous unanswerable questions with ideas that are neither provable nor disprovable. Godidit.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 13, 2014, 11:00:04 PM
Meh..people with to much time to sit around thinking of frivolous unanswerable questions with ideas that are neither provable nor disprovable. Godidit.
I'm preaching the gospel of the toothfairysm religion in the thinking atheist site. I know you are the founder prophet of our religion but I'm the highest priest of our religion. I don't get it , theist trolls in the thinking atheist site don't buy our doctrine but they believe in biggest horse crap called Christianity.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 13, 2014, 10:39:02 PM
Okay how about his theory of a biocentric universe?
A snowflake who thinks that snowflakes produce winters.
Huffington Post reporting on science again. Enough said.
Lanza.... is that the asshole that tried saying that other scientists were immediately on board with how when you die, your soul goes to a different universe?
Edit: Yup. The guy is a crock of shit. http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/scientists-claim-that-quantum-theory-proves-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-at-death/
Sounds like quite the quantum woo peddler. And behind all the sciency-sounding disinformation? The assertion that "life does not end when the body dies, and it can last forever". The very same self-centered wishful thinking of the faithful the world over. Perhaps it is true that all religion is one. But one what?
I think the perspective of a biocentric universe is interesting although I'm not sure what practical applications it would have.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 13, 2014, 10:20:56 PM
Yeah, not much meat, but I think this guy is worth reading, I never heard of Heisenberg until now
Heisenburg is interesting, but your author does not understand the impllications of the observer effect. For starters, the thing doing the observing doesn't have to have consciousness: the same thing happens when a computer does it.
There is not even a definition of soul by science that would fit his opinion. Strawman fallacy. He's not even a neurologist much less a physicist or cosmologist, he is just another Deepak Chopra that doesn't understand quantum mechanics. He's a medical doctor that works with material bodies for Christ sakes! He's using appeal to authority fallacy of being a scientist to seem legitimate when he is not an expert, or scientist in the field he speaks of. He's not even a theologian. :wall: Solitary
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 14, 2014, 12:45:00 AM
Lanza.... is that the asshole that tried saying that other scientists were immediately on board with how when you die, your soul goes to a different universe?
Edit: Yup. The guy is a crock of shit. http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/scientists-claim-that-quantum-theory-proves-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-at-death/
Thank you! Solitary
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 13, 2014, 10:07:15 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/do-we-have-a-soul-a-scien_b_850804.html
I'm biased to believe it, I would like an outside point of view
I would also like to ask you to evaluate this, the first 41 minutes makes his point, the rest it to deal with possible objections.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcqd3Q7X_1A
When I get to it, I'm very busy and don't have an hour to give up
Lanza believes that his pet theory, biocentrism, is a scientific theory... sure, and I have bridge to sell, wanna buy?
QuoteThe reception to biocentrism has been mixed.[20] Physician and Nobel laureate E. Donnall Thomas said of biocentrism, "Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole."[17] However, some physicists have commented that biocentrism currently does not make testable predictions.[17] Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss stated, “It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science."[17] Daniel Dennett said that he did not believe that the idea meets the criteria of a theory in philosophy.[17] In USA Today Online, theoretical physicist and science writer David Lindley asserted that Lanza’s concept was a "vague, inarticulate metaphor" and stated that "I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what? I [also] take issue with his views about physics."[21] Stephen P. Smith conducted a review of the book, asserting that Lanza is actually describing a form of idealism. Smith found Lanza's claim that time is an illusion to be unfounded since the premise was that time was not understood fully. He concludes that, while lacking in scientific and philosophical rigor, "Lanza has a colloquial style that is typical of good popular books, and his book can be understood by non-experts".[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe
In USA Today Online, theoretical physicist and science writer David Lindley asserted that Lanza’s concept was a "vague, inarticulate metaphor" and stated that "I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what?
That is basically my thought as well. I'm also leery when material evidence, in this case quantum physics, is use to support a metaphysical concept, such as a soul, collective unconscious or however else one might describe it. Still, I find the perspective that the creation of the physical world by our consciousness is more "real" than the physical world to be an interesting one. Just as the physical structure of our brains shape our thoughts, our thoughts shape the physical structures of our brains. It's a symbiosis that results in that which we believe ourselves to be.
Quote from: Solitary on May 14, 2014, 12:20:16 PM
Thank you! Solitary
Yeah I made a thread with the link I shared in this thread with him. Not sure if everyone saw it, but I knew that name sounded familiar. Especially in the context of "soul science"...
Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 14, 2014, 01:29:38 PM
I would also like to ask you to evaluate this, the first 41 minutes makes his point, the rest it to deal with possible objections.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcqd3Q7X_1A
Can you summarize this video of what his point is? I'll watch it later, but I don't have 40 min right now.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 14, 2014, 03:01:12 PM
Can you summarize this video of what his point is? I'll watch it later, but I don't have 40 min right now.
We know enough about fundamental particle physics to know what can and can't exist, and to know what types of things we don't know about (known unknowns). We know about everything in physics that affects our daily lives. The things we don't know about either have a very short lifespan, or are too weakly interacting to make a difference to us. This means that there can't be anything more to our brains than the physical part of it, ie no soul, no afterlife, etc.
In fact, positing dualism of any sort would mean that our understanding of physics is wrong, because it would mean that there would be something else that could interact with our physical brain. We would have detected such a thing by now, but we haven't, and since we know what the "known knowns" and "known unknowns" are, we can be certain that we won't come across anything that would support dualism.
He explains it much better than I do.
http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2010/11/15/biocentrism-is-creationism-for-hippies/
QuoteA recent article in The Huffington Post had me fuming this morning. It was written by Robert Lanza, who pioneered a theory called Biocentrism. If you aren’t familiar with it, in a nutshell, the idea is our consciousness creates the physical reality we see around us. Without someone to observe the Universe, it simply doesn’t exist. What’s used to prove this fucking nonsense? Why, it’s quantum mechanics, of course!
Here’s the deal: if your wacky theory is based on the strangeness of Quantum physics, you’ve already lost the debate. This is a metaphysical black hole where crackpot theories go to die in obscurity. In the tiny world of atoms, subatomic particles often act in surprising, and sometimes counter-intuitive ways. Electrons, for instance, don’t orbit around the nucleus of an atom the same way a planet orbits around a star (that’s just a model we use to visualize it); instead, it exists in a kind of “probability waveâ€, which collapses whenever it encounters an “observer†(when we try to measure its position and momentum we end up determining both).
This strange and wonderful quality of quantum physics makes the theory open to every would-be theorist. Enter Biocentrism: since we are technically observers, then it must mean the simple act of being conscious “creates†the reality around us. The basic principles are as follows:
1. Reality is the product of our consciousness.
2. Time doesn’t exist outside our own perception
3. The structure of the universe can only be understood through “biocentrismâ€. The Universe is fine-tuned for our existence, ergo it must have been created through our perception.
Like any good bullshit theory, it offers nothing in the way of falsifiability. Why should it? According to it’s founder, Robert Lanza, it’s far more irrational to think that our existence, and that of the Universe, is due to simple “chanceâ€.
A. africanus, A. garhi, A. sediba, A. aethiopicus, A. robustus, A. boisei, Homo habilis, H. georgicus, and H. erectus â€" among other hominid species â€" all went extinct. Even the Neanderthals went extinct. But alas, not us! Indeed, we happen to be the only species of Hominina that made it… The story of evolution reads just like “The Story of the Three Bears,†In the nursery tale, a little girl named Goldilocks enters a home occupied by three bears and tries different bowls of porridge; some are too hot, some are too cold. She also tries different chairs and beds, and every time, the third is “just right.†For 13.7 billion years we, too, have had chronic good luck. Virtually everything has been “just right.â€
Well, I don’t think 99% of all the species who have ever existed and got bitch-slapped by evolution would agree with you there Robby. And sure, most other Hominid species have gone extinct, but what’s to say we won’t either? Will anyone care about your dumb ideas when this hairless ape eventually goes the way of the dodo? Will the Universe end because we aren’t in it anymore? I feel like a fucking moron even asking these pointless questions!
What will happen if humans go extinct? Is that even possible?
That guy or gal, did good evaluating Lanza but I think her last point is interesting, will humans go extinct?
I want to say no, but I can't say that with certainty
I love these types of arguments that attempt to make it out that science is Science, like, you know, The Science, instead of what it actually is, and attempts to make it out like it has some inherent shortcomings.
Take this statement for example, straight out of the article:
"The current scientific paradigm doesn't recognize this spiritual dimension of life"
First off, science is not Science. Science is a process. Second, it is called a paradigm in that sentence in a way as to hint to the reader that it is a paradigm in the sense that it is dogmatic. "This paradigm does not recognize this aspect", as if to say, this dogmatic view rejects this particular point.
I propose the following edit as a bare minimum:
"The current scientific paradigm doesn't recognize this spiritual dimension of life because there is no evidence"
A better, more honest way to say that would be:
There is no evidence of a spiritual dimension to form a coherent hypothesis to which to apply the scientific process in order to then form a scientific theory based on the observable, testable, falsifiable evidence and findings.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 14, 2014, 04:33:48 PM
What will happen if humans go extinct? Is that even possible?
That guy or gal, did good evaluating Lanza but I think her last point is interesting, will humans go extinct?
I want to say no, but I can't say that with certainty
Humans will go extinct eventually. Our sun will change states and our planet will no longer be able to sustain life (or maybe even be completely destroyed). IF we have the technology to travel to distant planets, we may be able to settle there for a time, but that sun will change states eventually as well, forcing us to move on. There will come a time when we simply have nowhere to go and the last remaining humans will starve to death on a ship in the cold, emptiness of space.
(Or maybe we build a self sustaining ship one day?)
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 14, 2014, 04:33:48 PM
What will happen if humans go extinct? Is that even possible?
That guy or gal, did good evaluating Lanza but I think her last point is interesting, will humans go extinct?
I want to say no, but I can't say that with certainty
Yes it is very possible.
The same way neanderthals went extinct from a more capable and adaptable species, we may go to a more capable and adaptable species. That scenario might be a little less possible, but what is the most possible is we might just wipe ourselves out from overpopulation... or some massive war...
Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 14, 2014, 01:29:38 PM
I would also like to ask you to evaluate this, the first 41 minutes makes his point, the rest it to deal with possible objections.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcqd3Q7X_1A
\
Thank you for a very interesting presentation! Solitary
Well, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, the bad news is that humans will probably not survive a severe climate change event. The good news is, our planet will.
I don't get it. If you are a Christian or a theist of any kind, why does it even bother you for one second the prospect of total human extinction? That would be a GOOD thing, since it would basically instantaneously elevate those qualified straight into heaven.
Because stewardship, its a belief that everything in my life is under my temporary control, and that I must use these resources to better my community. So in short, yes i believe in an afterlife but I'm not careless.
Quote from: Shol'va on May 14, 2014, 06:10:08 PM
Well, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, the bad news is that humans will probably not survive a severe climate change event. The good news is, our planet will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8HP1WzbDk
Carlin said it too.
Interesting! Great minds think alike :)
I had to check myself though, just now, to make sure I wasn't pulling that memory straight out of my ass. DeGrasse, did in fact also say that.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 14, 2014, 07:01:52 PM
Because stewardship, its a belief that everything in my life is under my temporary control, and that I must use these resources to better my community. So in short, yes i believe in an afterlife but I'm not careless.
That is called servant leadership and good for you that you take on that view.
Unfortunately it can't be said for all Christians, and many others should take a cue from you.
There are plenty that genuinely believe we cannot screw this planet up because it is under divine protection. There are plenty that also interpret stewardship as dominion over the earth as in "I can dominate this earth to my will"
Quote from: Shol'va on May 14, 2014, 08:16:57 PM
Interesting! Great minds think alike :)
I had to check myself though, just now, to make sure I wasn't pulling that memory straight out of my ass. DeGrasse, did in fact also say that.
Lol even if you pulled it out of your ass, it would still be true.
Lanza is mainly focusing on consciousness and I feel he is giving it more weight than it deserve. He propose the consciousness in a spiritual level rather than in a evolutionary level. He has a lot of unwitting believers and, in my opinion, that is what gives him the weight he has. New york times allegedly, name him as one of the most three important scientists alive. boooooo....
I got to the "fine-tuned laws" and almost puked. But then Carlin made me all better :)
Just a bunch of Chopra-like crap. Nothing to make a fuss about. I got more ambitious things to attend to - nose picking, farting, struggling not to faint from the fart etc.
Lanza gives no description of a soul. What IS it, exactly? What is it made of? Where does it reside? Is it part of the brain? How does it retain our personality, thoughts, and memories after the brain dies? What happens to it after death? I don't know how a discussion about souls is even possible without some kind of definition being applied to "soul."
And that's what he's so good at. Chopra style bull smeared in quantum babble he has no idea about.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 13, 2014, 10:20:56 PM
I never heard of Heisenberg until now
You need to get out more.
(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120926233649/breakingbad/images/1/11/Heisenberg_sketch.jpg)
Quote from: Johan on May 15, 2014, 08:16:45 PM
You need to get out more.
(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120926233649/breakingbad/images/1/11/Heisenberg_sketch.jpg)
A side note to Heisenberg: in the 1940's, several plans were devised to kill Heisenberg as he was heading the research into building a nuclear bomb for Germany. But none were really executed until 1944, when an agent went to Zurich, where Heisenberg were to give a talk. But after listening to his talk, the agent reported: "If I am right in my understanding of his true role in the German bomb program, we were trying to kill the one man most responsible for insuring that there would be no German bomb." He added, "this ought to be a caution to anyone contemplating assassination as an instrument of policy."
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 14, 2014, 04:33:48 PMWhat will happen if humans go extinct?
To the Earth, a dying out of domesticated species, and a flourishing of wild ones, particularly large carnivores. A gradual reclamation of its cities into the surrounding wilderness. Dams would overflow and burst. To the cosmos, absolutely nothing.
QuoteIs that even possible?
Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk). Very much so. A nuclear exchange, disease, climate change, and a large asteroid impact could each do the trick.
QuoteThat guy or gal, did good evaluating Lanza but I think her last point is interesting, will humans go extinct?
Unknown. The vast majority of species that have ever lived are extinct. The human race is very atypical, with a (so-far) incredibly successful combo of intelligence and tool-making. But on a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
It's bullshit.
8o what does this have to do with science or scientific evidence? Sorry but I don't follow.
Huffingtonpost is a religious so called news site. I don't put much merit in it.