Talk:Biocentric universe

Older Concepts of Biocentrism Needs to be added for history purpose

Could write some deeper history of older concepts of Biocentrism from india to china to the ancient buddhist-Greeks who paved the way for such famous philosophers as plato who explored the mind, i shall leave a link bellow and hope that you can build a bride linking europe and asia via famous greek scholars work on indo-greek joint venture with the established Greek scholar Prof,Nicholas Kazanas, the Indians along with the greeks worked together to created the worlds first early learning center for human understanding on the mind and consciousnessindogreek(talk)06:01,16november2013(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.161.217 (talk)

References

Falsifiability, superposition; claims of afterlife

Critics have questioned whether the theory is falsifiable. Lanza has claimed that future experiments, such as [ones on] scaled-up quantum superposition, will either support or contradict the theory.

Scaled-up quantum superposition experiments can no longer be called "future." Such experiments have been performed. The article should be updated to account for their results.

One more thing. It's come to my attention that the biocentric universe hypothesis, along with the multiverse hypothesis, has been used to justify ideas of afterlife, particularly by Lanza himself. Would be great to have some reliable sources to quote both the yeas and the nays on this. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've followed some of his writings on this. It seems they were a series of wildly speculative blog posts, and as far as I know, no secondary sources took notice. -Jordgette [talk] 19:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It does appear to be a part of Lanza's thoughts, however this page can only cover what is supportable by third-party sources, as Jordgette has pointed out. Jeremy112233 21:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Chopra's quote.

I suggest its deletion. Even though the quote may be authentic and some may consider him authoritative, the quote, especially its last sentence, is tautological. Perhaps a more appropriate elaboration would be the reception of Lanza's concepts within the New Age discourses. Tytire (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Tytire.

Chopra is a very well known person in this area, and his views on biocentrism are entirely appropriate here.Josophie (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is this not clearly tagged as pseudo science?

You are obviously a newbie to this page. This topic has been extensively discussed (and debated) over and over for years. It’s been put to rest by consensus opinion again and again. You may personally disagree, but calling something “woo” and pseudoscience” does not make it so.Josophie (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No one has found a reliable source to quote this stuff as the woo it is?

1. Based upon philosophy -- which has proven unrelated to genuine science, measurement and analysis

Not so. In fact, Lanza and Podolsky (a theoretical physicist) just published a scientific paper in Annalen der Physik (which published Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity), one of the oldest and most renowned physics journals in the world, which provides scientific support for biocentrism (in fact, the paper cites Lanza’s American Scholar paper that introduced the concept of biocentrism)Josophie (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Misleading extrapolation of the observer effect -- which is an issue of our tools/techniques interfering and not consciousness

Incorrect -- that is a not a consensus view in the physics communityJosophie (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

1. And if one insists on conscious, then certainly non-human, as the universe existed prior to humanity -- so this is a backdoor to a meta-mind or other New Age one-in-all universe thing

You obviously did not take the time to understand the theory. BTW Numerous Nobel physicists have also come to the conclusion that consciousness is relevant to understanding reality. If you check out the current paper in Annalen der Physik, you will see that the example involves the evolution of the early universeJosophie (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Deepak Chopra -- mystic, if anything

What does Chopra have to do with this?Josophie (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

So fine, so long as it is NOT taught in a Science class WurmWoode^T 04:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not pseudoscience because it makes no claims that are presently inconsistent with experiment. However, if experiments someday do distinguish biocentrism as a legitimate interpretation of the ultimate nature of reality, then it likely will be taught in a science class. And by the way, philosophy is not unrelated to science; there exists a field of academic study known as the philosophy of science. -Jordgette [talk] 06:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are being disengenuious, if not insincere.

Please respect other editor’s opinions. No one would ever accuse Jordgette of being disengenuious or insincere.Josophie (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait, what? You address none of my points, and draw the fallacy of a strawman, somehow, "no claims" -- you got a new definition of "hypothesis"?

You jumped on the buzzword "science" while ignoring "measurement and analysis", the tools of Science.

So, as philosophy, this is NOT part of Science education, just like Creationism and ID, this is the stuff of Art/Lit majors, the kids who for various reasons do not cope with serious "maths", calculus and statistics, choosing, for the sake of rethoric, "easy conversation", or armchair science.

And, "no claims", wait, what, "biology BEFORE physics", and that is not a claim? So why is Lanza waiting for the "scaling up" of quantum physics?

And, Lanza ignores the small fact, as demonstrated by all occurances of brain disease/injury/alteration (drugs, environment), that "normal" consciousness ceases, as it is an emergant property of the physical brain. Look at anyone you know personally having suffered a stroke. Or just an astronaut in training who has passed out on a centrifuge test, and experienced an OOBE, going "towards the light", "family and friends", all the while the video recording shows them clearly unconcious, cocked awkwardly, and safely strapped down, merely drooling.WurmWoode^T 08:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

To use your own term, these “strawman” arguments. These points were all clearly addressed in a scientific fashion in Lanza and Berman’s newest book “Beyond Biocentrism.” It is beyond the scope of this page to academically refute all your claims.Josophie (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not appropriate content for the lede, and sourced to a blog. That blog is not a good enough source for that kind of content, so I am removing it. Please discuss here before re-adding to avoid edit warring. Howeverland (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC) — Howeverland (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jeremy112233 (talk • contribs).

Regarding the External Link that was added, please see point one of Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered, also for the usefulness of the source, please see prior discussions regarding it’s WP:RS status on this talk page. Please also remember that a Lede is to summarize the body of the page, not for original content. Howeverland (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC) — Howeverland (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jeremy112233 (talk • contribs). As a compromise, let's leave the external link for now. We could also move the Lede content lower down to comply with lede, but the source is still questionable. Let's discuss here instead of warring on the page. Howeverland (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC) — Howeverland (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jeremy112233 (talk • contribs).

independent sourcing

This artilcle is overwhelmingly sourced to things written by Berman and Lanza. Per every content policy in WP this article should be sourced to independent (i.e. third party) secondary sources, that we simply summarize here. I have tagged the article accordingly. Hopefully everybody can agree that this article needs to have source quality raised. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you are spot on here, third-party sources do exist for this and it's a problem they haven't been utilized properly. 99.225.191.131 (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

possible sources

Sources

Moved here from the article body

• The Daily Press
• The Big Think
• Morning News USA
• The Independent
• The Daily Mail
• GeekWire
• The Albany Times-Union
• The Epoch Times
• El Confidential
• Guardian Liberty News
• Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

-- 01:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for moving these to a more appropriate place! Pinging User:Mike Agricola, User:Unscintillating, User:Jordgette, User:Sidelight12, User:Aarghdvaark, User:29sh00, User:HtownCat, User:Vanished User 1004. There is a deletion debate that you voted on, or for an article you contributed to significantly, that may be of interest to you: Biocentric universe. You may also have opinions on the above sources and their use, which would be very helpful. Grump International (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC) — Grump International (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jeremy112233 (talk • contribs).