It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Biocentrism, and why we may be alone.

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 08:52 AM

The biocentric universe theory proposes a radical change in the way we view the world and our place in it. Most of us have been taught that the universe is a collection of absolute, defined particles "out there" — atoms and molecules that have been around far longer than us or even the Earth — and that billions of years ago, some of these bits of matter came together to create the first life forms.

The biocentric theory considers these ideas to be unfounded assumptions, not supported by any empirical evidence. Instead, it proposes that the structure we observe in the universe is actually generated on our receiving end, not pre-existing "out there," and that this structure has in fact been evolving along with life on Earth. This explains how the universe could have an extremely simple beginning, while today appearing to be so incredibly vast and complex, as well as seeming to be precisely "fine-tuned" for the existence of matter (and life) — without requiring multiple universes, astonishingly good luck, or intelligent creators or other complex entities. The theory was proposed by the pioneering stem-cell biologist Robert Lanza, based on ideas by the physicist John Archibald Wheeler, who coined the terms "black hole" and "wormhole."

edit on 13-2-2011 by FOXMULDER147 because: (no reason given)

Posting URL Links: Please read!Starting a New Thread? Please read!
Do not start threads with simply videos and copy and paste from external sources!

Next time...the thread will be trashed!

edit on February 13th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:10 AM
Sorry pal, i just dont buy it, the evidence for ET is everywhere.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:14 AM
reply to post by rogertom

There is plenty of evidence that the UFO phenomenon is legit, but the ET hypothesis isn't the only hypothesis. The true nature of ET is not biological. Its psychical and mystical. That doesn't make it any less real.

edit on 13-2-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:29 AM
Sounds like the latest attempt to promote intelligent design.The authors found on the link deny it but their dogma says otherwise.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:38 AM
Lots of BS in those videos. They try to sound smart, but they simply dont make any sense.

They ignore evidence that doesnt fit them.... pretty lame

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by rogertom
Sorry pal, i just dont buy it, the evidence for ET is everywhere.

I'm not advocating this theory; I'm just putting it out there.

Of course, Biocentrism doesn't exclude the possibility of 'aliens' (there is always Panspermia, or the idea that aliens started life on Earth).

What it is actually suggesting is that if aliens exist, we must be biologically related to them.
edit on 13-2-2011 by FOXMULDER147 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:49 AM
At it's core, the idea is very interesting.
And likely. At it's core.

I do not think that the main idea precludes the possibility of extra-terrestrial civilizations.
I understand it as a concioussnes-geared evolution of the universe. Not just humans...
But that's MY understanding of this core idea.
edit on 13/2/2011 by drakus because: It was decided so.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:02 PM

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

What it is actually suggesting is that if aliens exist, we must be biologically related to them.

And psychically related. The archetypes of the collective unconscious will be in their psyche just as they are in ours.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

What about this:

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:47 PM
I've rolled around some ideas like this.

That we may be alone, and we may be a function of the universe itself. We're the Universe's frontal cortex.

That there may have been millions of attempts to gel into what we are, but we're the first that has survived this far.

That intelligence is a necessary outcome of a complex system.

That if we die off, or kill ourselves off, or get smucked by an asteroid, or by a stray virus, that there are several other species here that are primed to move into the niche we occupy.

We are not an "other" in the universe. We ARE the universe. We are and of the Universe.

We are a natural outcome. Just the same way that my finger is part of me, but the thing that makes me "me" is the set of cells and connections inside my skull.

The complex system required to incubate intelligence and self-awareness is increasing in complexity to support that outcome. Just as we are not amoebas, but to get to us there had to be amoebas.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:04 PM
Thanks for bringing this up, I think it's an interesting idea. However,

Things in the real world follow the set of physical laws that we’ve discovered; internal consistency rules our universe. No experiment has ever demonstrated otherwise. “Real” objects do not arbitrarily appear and disappear, and do not instantaneously jump across space. If a person witnesses such an event, it is a phenomenon unique to that individual — a hallucination of some kind — which would not hold up to empirical tests.


What about quantum mechanics? We have just scratched the surface on what laws govern matter and energy at the quantum level. Quantum entanglement (spooky action at a distance) for example. Also, from the same source

(...) universal course of events is perfectly consistent.

Again, not according to quantum mechanics. As interesting an idea this may be it's pseudo-science.

Article: Biocentrism Demystified at
edit on 13-2-2011 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:47 AM
Very poor mystical ideas supposedly with some type of scientific theory behind it. The main reason we don't see anything? Could we see the moons around Jupiter without a telescope? Can we tell if there are bacteria on Mars yet?

It is our technological sensory limitations, nothing more to it.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:14 AM
I like the way they deny the current hipothesis because of it lacking of empirical proof while their theory lacks of proof as well.
edit on 14-2-2011 by Spinotoror because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

Within the framework of biocentrism, I do wonder if there was or is another way in which life might have come into being, thereby creating alternate universes. If this is true then I think it is legitimate to say we are alone within our created universe (i.e. the universe as created by human consciousness); however, I can't be certain that this idea aligns with Dr. Lanza's theory. If there is another form of consciousness out there then I'm guessing such alien consciousness possesses the know-how to interact within our created universe.

I ... under biocentrism I imagine that our universe is maybe a subset of a larger set. I won't invoke infinities here because it is too abstract in this context, I think. It would be too much like saying, "A point-like thing of infinite mass and zero volume." Sure, that's as clear as the sound of a lunch bell
But biocentrism is a very, very interesting idea. It has that feel of elegance which, I think, ought to be given serious consideration within the scientific community.

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 02:40 PM
In dreams.
Wake up and taste the strawberry ice cream.

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 03:50 PM
This is the most idiotic theory of all. Mostly because the world 'out there' may be way different than a theory like this is able to explain to claim how all is fromthe Earth. Even astronomers will tell you life of any kind might exist out there due to the adaptivity of some organisms.

Don't even wanna read about such nonsense theory, only the biggest morons can believe life only exists on Earth, and we talk about microbial even.

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

You give Fox a bad name. Since ET is already here, how could we be alone.

new topics

top topics


log in