Evaluate this

[Solitary]

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

[Drummer Guy]

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

[Contemporary Protestant]

When I get to it, I'm very busy and don't have an hour to give up

[josephpalazzo]

Lanza believes that his pet theory, biocentrism, is a scientific theory... sure, and I have bridge to sell, wanna buy?

The 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

[GSOgymrat]

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.

[PickelledEggs]

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"...

[PickelledEggs]

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.

[Drummer Guy]

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.

[stromboli]

http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2010/11/15/biocentrism-is-creationism-for-hippies/

A 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 wave”, 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 “biocentrism”. 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 “chance”.

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.”

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!

[Contemporary Protestant]

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

[Shol'va]

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.

[Drummer Guy]

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?)

[PickelledEggs]

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...

[Solitary]

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

[Shol'va]

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.