Is this leavening of truth? WARNING! This one will require a little more time and concentration.
In an earlier blog I mentioned Biocentrism, and its intriguing similarities to Mary Baker Eddy's Divine Science - and I promised to get back to it after reading the book - by Dr. Robert Lanza, a world-renowned scientist. The seven principles of Biocentrism are in bold below - my comments not in bold:
1. What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An “external” reality, if it existed, would - by definition - have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human or animal mind.
? – our consciousness – or Consciousness – where comes possessive? Principle as Consciousness and our consciousness as idea – inextricably connected as one. Matter is illusion as reality. Human or animal mind = mortal mind – means of conveying an illusive “mechanism”
2. Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.
Internal - Soul outside the physical body; that which “perceives” idea not dependent upon “physical” perception – spirit, soul, life External - physical senses. No such thing as objectivity - How do we explain the unreliability of perception – probability waves even when “perceived?” Cannot be divorced from one another – both intertwined in consciousness?
3. The behavior of subatomic particles - indeed all articles and objects-are inextricably linked to the presence of an observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.
Observer, meaning consciousness? Internal fine tunes, External tries to “physicalize”, but because of its erroneous premise, never gets close to understanding, just endless theories.
4. Without consciousness, “Matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.
Matter as reality is a mistake, “sometimes beautiful but always erroneous.” Its fundamental characteristics limitation and temporal.
5. The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrsm. The universe fine-tunes for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. “The universe” is simply the complete spatio-temporal of the self. Life – could it not also be love, spirit, soul, mind, principle, truth?
Surely your concept of fine-tuning for life has a moral quality or motive - Love, Soul, Principle
6. Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
“TIME. Mortal measurements; limits, in which are summed up all human acts, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, knowledge; matter; error; that which begins before, and continues after, what is termed death, until the mortal disappears and spiritual perfection appears.”(Science and Health)
7. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and nodes not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.
“The infinite has no beginning. This word beginning is employed to signify the only, — that is, the eternal verity and unity of God and man, including the universe. The creative Principle — Life, Truth, and Love — is God. The universe reflects God. There is but one creator and one creation. This creation consists of the unfolding of spiritual ideas and their identities, which are embraced in the infinite Mind and forever reflected. These ideas range from the infinitesimal to infinity, and the highest ideas are the sons and daughters of God. ” (Science and Health)
In addition, I sent the following to Dr. Lanza (leading questions to Science and Health):
Robert,
I am intrigued with Biocentrism. Perhaps this is territory you have already considered, but let me ask these 3 questions anyway:
1. You speak of the fine-tuning – considering the magnificence of it all, could we not see love as life – a motive behind it all?
2. Since you regard matter as the outcome of consciousness, how/why do you expect to prove it or find explanation through the perception, empirical evidence? It would seem like the dog trying to catching his tail, no?
3. Is there any room for mistakes in your theory – any explanations for them? Where the fine-tuning seems to have missed the mark – like in self-destructive behavior?
Andrew