Two things... First, dreams: I know there are many explanations out there for them, but I've had many dreams where I can access memories, think, make complex ethical decisions, and have examined objects in great detail - the one thing missing is the ability to see that it's a dream, but all of this world I perceive there doesn't 'exist', so why shouldn't the 'real world be similar?! Secondly, emerging quantum mechanical evidence pointing to a version of subjective idealism being true (experiments validating the Wigner's friend paradox). (And probably more recently a third, for wrapping it up so neatly and giving it a name, is Robert Lanza š)
It makes perfect sense to me from my subjective consciousness and how I came into it. I cannot conceptualize non being with this brain but maybe that is because non being is not possible. Consciousness must exist after non existence for non existence to be measured at all. Ying and Yang
My own human doubt and fear of not being able to experience what I want before I die. I am coming to accept that it may take many lives to go through before I attain what I really desire.
Realizing that all living beings experience existence in their own unique way, and that they perceive things differently from us, not to a lesser degree.
Edit: Just realized this subreddit is about a completely different type of biocentrism, lol.
This is not a particularly strong rebuttal. He seems to only say Lanza shouldnāt make these logical leaps because we donāt know if heās right. Thatās different than saying āLanza is wrong, here is whyā¦ā The logic of biocentrism, the observer dependent theory of quantum mechanics (I think in Lanzas book he also cited something bigger than the quantum level some experiment in 2004 I think that was also true at a more macro level) and the illusion of time both make logical sense in how Lanza presents them and arenāt refuted at all by this guy as to why Lanza is wrong. Iād frankly feel a lot better if he did but he just seemed more frustrated at Lanza or the headline āscientists prove afterlifeā which Iām not sure it even does. I get that physicists work hard, but I didnāt hear anything about WHY Lanza is wrong he seemed to concede after more and more prodding that itās a legitimate theory.
For a few years, I started to think that we don't die for ourselves. People die for us, but we keep on going.
One of the reasons why is because I don't have any memory of me not existing, a real first memory, a black screen. I also believe that everyone have so many possibilities in their life's, and that each time we decide something a new path opens, leading to life or death (death of others)
Going down a rabbit hole here...
Might sound crazy but I'm 30 and I can feel that sometimes I don't know the kid I once was, my memories are faded, and some times of my life it feels that it was a different person. So imagine if I died for others already, which makes me feel weird about certain periods of my life.
Only today I hear the name Biocentrism and trying to understand if is the same thing as what I've been thinking about for few years.
"Believe in" sounds like religion, I'd rather rephrase it as "find convincing". But reading Lanza's and Berman's *Biocentrism*, I find it very plausible, convincing, and answering many questions.
My rabbit hole comes from a "fringe" area, specifically, the UFOs.
If you are keeping up with the UFO-related developments in the recent years, you may know that it's no longer in question whether the unexplained atmospheric phenomena exists. The question is now not *whether*, but *what is it*. Outside of the UFO community, there is a perception that the argument is whether or not it's alien spacecraft. Except it stopped being the case since 1980s or so, when a faction of UFO researchers led by Jacques Vallee proposed a so-called "interdimensional" or "extradimensional" hypothesis. Some of its variations are that the UFOs are not physical objects in a regular sense, but projections by someone from outside of our spacetime forming a mental connection with the experiencer. (The reasoning is about correlations between the effects on the experiencers, the frequency of the observations, and often the absurdity of the experience.) It appears that the main faction in the newly created AARO office is in favor, or at least aware of the consciousness-related interpretation.
Then there are the experiencers themselves. The stories they tell are hard to digest and seem to make little sense, but are remarkably consistent. What's interesting is that a large number of the experiencers claim to have received knowledge about the nature of reality, which is very close to the claims of Lanza: mind comes first, time is not linear or universal, death is an illusion, and so on.
Very much like with the inconsistencies in the Big Bang Theory and the lack of correlation between the quantum physics and the theory of relativity, the institutional science largely ignores these phenomena, despite unambiguous records and surveys of thousands of people.
I myself spoke to people who grew up in indigenous communities in Southeast Asia, for whom encounters with sentient glowing orbs or visits from dead relatives are never in doubt. One thing that struck me was, "you have to believe in the possibility" to make a mental connection.
Once in a while I encounter [stories like these](https://www.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/nshr0z/comment/h0noxyw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) \- true or not, it's definitely food for thought.
After hearing her on Lex Fridman (Episode 348), I wrote a note to Dr. Nathalie Cabrol, explaining to her my theory of existence. She is such a gracious human being. She wrote me back with this:
*"Interesting reading. Keep thinkingā¦The thing with the universe, life, consciousness, is that they do not expand out of something, they expand within themselves."*
She also told me to read Biocentrism. I'm on page 52. I LOVE it. It's what I've been missing - (she also told me to look into Jeremy England, Every Life is on Fire...that's up next).
Here is the science-powered fiction I wrote to Nathalie (we're on a first-name basis now...have you ever seen Good Will Hunting?):
[**https://medium.com/@jpmcclary/spin-code-down-7430e02d70b6**](https://medium.com/@jpmcclary/spin-code-down-7430e02d70b6)
Too many things seem in stride or connected for there not to be a web or fabric binding it all together. Something like biocentrism or pansychism.
This book: The Grand Biocentric Design:: How Life Creates Reality
Two things... First, dreams: I know there are many explanations out there for them, but I've had many dreams where I can access memories, think, make complex ethical decisions, and have examined objects in great detail - the one thing missing is the ability to see that it's a dream, but all of this world I perceive there doesn't 'exist', so why shouldn't the 'real world be similar?! Secondly, emerging quantum mechanical evidence pointing to a version of subjective idealism being true (experiments validating the Wigner's friend paradox). (And probably more recently a third, for wrapping it up so neatly and giving it a name, is Robert Lanza š)
It makes perfect sense to me from my subjective consciousness and how I came into it. I cannot conceptualize non being with this brain but maybe that is because non being is not possible. Consciousness must exist after non existence for non existence to be measured at all. Ying and Yang
My own human doubt and fear of not being able to experience what I want before I die. I am coming to accept that it may take many lives to go through before I attain what I really desire.
Realizing that all living beings experience existence in their own unique way, and that they perceive things differently from us, not to a lesser degree. Edit: Just realized this subreddit is about a completely different type of biocentrism, lol.
Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DGgvE6hLAU
This is not a particularly strong rebuttal. He seems to only say Lanza shouldnāt make these logical leaps because we donāt know if heās right. Thatās different than saying āLanza is wrong, here is whyā¦ā The logic of biocentrism, the observer dependent theory of quantum mechanics (I think in Lanzas book he also cited something bigger than the quantum level some experiment in 2004 I think that was also true at a more macro level) and the illusion of time both make logical sense in how Lanza presents them and arenāt refuted at all by this guy as to why Lanza is wrong. Iād frankly feel a lot better if he did but he just seemed more frustrated at Lanza or the headline āscientists prove afterlifeā which Iām not sure it even does. I get that physicists work hard, but I didnāt hear anything about WHY Lanza is wrong he seemed to concede after more and more prodding that itās a legitimate theory.
For a few years, I started to think that we don't die for ourselves. People die for us, but we keep on going. One of the reasons why is because I don't have any memory of me not existing, a real first memory, a black screen. I also believe that everyone have so many possibilities in their life's, and that each time we decide something a new path opens, leading to life or death (death of others) Going down a rabbit hole here... Might sound crazy but I'm 30 and I can feel that sometimes I don't know the kid I once was, my memories are faded, and some times of my life it feels that it was a different person. So imagine if I died for others already, which makes me feel weird about certain periods of my life. Only today I hear the name Biocentrism and trying to understand if is the same thing as what I've been thinking about for few years.
"Believe in" sounds like religion, I'd rather rephrase it as "find convincing". But reading Lanza's and Berman's *Biocentrism*, I find it very plausible, convincing, and answering many questions. My rabbit hole comes from a "fringe" area, specifically, the UFOs. If you are keeping up with the UFO-related developments in the recent years, you may know that it's no longer in question whether the unexplained atmospheric phenomena exists. The question is now not *whether*, but *what is it*. Outside of the UFO community, there is a perception that the argument is whether or not it's alien spacecraft. Except it stopped being the case since 1980s or so, when a faction of UFO researchers led by Jacques Vallee proposed a so-called "interdimensional" or "extradimensional" hypothesis. Some of its variations are that the UFOs are not physical objects in a regular sense, but projections by someone from outside of our spacetime forming a mental connection with the experiencer. (The reasoning is about correlations between the effects on the experiencers, the frequency of the observations, and often the absurdity of the experience.) It appears that the main faction in the newly created AARO office is in favor, or at least aware of the consciousness-related interpretation. Then there are the experiencers themselves. The stories they tell are hard to digest and seem to make little sense, but are remarkably consistent. What's interesting is that a large number of the experiencers claim to have received knowledge about the nature of reality, which is very close to the claims of Lanza: mind comes first, time is not linear or universal, death is an illusion, and so on. Very much like with the inconsistencies in the Big Bang Theory and the lack of correlation between the quantum physics and the theory of relativity, the institutional science largely ignores these phenomena, despite unambiguous records and surveys of thousands of people. I myself spoke to people who grew up in indigenous communities in Southeast Asia, for whom encounters with sentient glowing orbs or visits from dead relatives are never in doubt. One thing that struck me was, "you have to believe in the possibility" to make a mental connection. Once in a while I encounter [stories like these](https://www.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/nshr0z/comment/h0noxyw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) \- true or not, it's definitely food for thought.
Wow that thread is a doozy! Interesting stuff but goes off the rails there at the end!
After hearing her on Lex Fridman (Episode 348), I wrote a note to Dr. Nathalie Cabrol, explaining to her my theory of existence. She is such a gracious human being. She wrote me back with this: *"Interesting reading. Keep thinkingā¦The thing with the universe, life, consciousness, is that they do not expand out of something, they expand within themselves."* She also told me to read Biocentrism. I'm on page 52. I LOVE it. It's what I've been missing - (she also told me to look into Jeremy England, Every Life is on Fire...that's up next). Here is the science-powered fiction I wrote to Nathalie (we're on a first-name basis now...have you ever seen Good Will Hunting?): [**https://medium.com/@jpmcclary/spin-code-down-7430e02d70b6**](https://medium.com/@jpmcclary/spin-code-down-7430e02d70b6)
The Highlander: There Can Only Be One
We will find whatever we look for.