David McClintock - Objections to Biocentrism

Stephen,

Always with affection, regard and respect,

you might read what follows to the group tomorrow.

I strongly do not like the Bio-centric view. Here's why:

Bio-centrism makes specific claims:

– that the conscious observer influences everything in the universe

– that the conscious observer is a biological observer

– that the universe is

as a direct result of biological observers.

On his presentation of the double-slit experiment, Robert Lanza states a whopping falsehood,

that a conscious observer is required. Not true.

By the double-slit experiments, it is demonstrated that

no conscious observer,

nor any biological observer at all is required

to alter states between apparent wave behavior and particle behavior.

And so it goes...

Bio-centrism is neither required nor sufficient

to explain natural phenomena through appeals to external gods, willful spirits

nor the existence of us biologicals.

(Personally, I would not put the existence nor the fate of the universe I hands of humans.)

Fortunately, we do not have to. What is charming about science is how self-corrective it is.

That does not mean one cannot or should not debunk some ideas when formed as unprovable.

A listing of what the ignorant do not know is huge. The list of what scientists do not know is also very long. But at least they chip away at ignorance.

As for Robert Lanza, there must be other groups in San Miguel comprised of folks who never read Spinoza (1632 to 1677).

As Hegel once noted: "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."

(Spinoza asked: How do we know we are not dreaming or in a dream? And came up with the answer that it really doesn’t matter. It is unprovable, and it is a futile dead-end to pursue. So we live the lives we have and move on.)

From Abrahamic ideas we have passed through

-- the anthropomorphic view (what is of interest is what "serves" man who has god-given "dominion" over nature - at least until there is an earthquake that kills everybody in their churches...)

-- the bio-centric view that everything is the way it is because we are "conscious observers" that change and actually made the universe...

So just what is a provable experiment

that would show the validity of the bio-centric view?

Is it a dream?

If one likes unprovable ideas, if one enjoys the sincere certainty of true believers, let me offer a better equally unprovable counter hypothesis:

The Simulation Hypothesis states we are "really" living inside a computer simulation.

(Google it.)

So of course(!!!) everything is tailored to... us! We are characters in a play, not “real.”

But it is such a great simulation, it sure feels real.

It is not a necessary condition for that simulation to be driven by anything like consciousness.

The computer managing the simulation can be an unconscious device.

Metaphorically, you’re just a piece of film in its projector. Enjoy your simulated popcorn.

Sadly, the Simulation Hypothesis is a box.

The Bio-centric Hypothesis is also a box.

From inside those boxes,

can you state an experiment to prove or disprove either hypothesis?

What is powerfully predictive about the bio-centric view?

How is the bio-centric view superior to the Simulation Hypothesis?

You can you prove one view versus the other view?

Does it matter? Yes, because both hypotheses try to explain everything by putting us inside a closed box.

That dead ends as profoundly anti-science either because they have “the answer" or because there is no point inquiring further. What if invisible distant green aliens are quite conscious and manipulating everything? And we are just along for the unintended ride? How would you know until you found the little green invisible aliens? What would you study tomorrow?

Why are we watching this in a Science and Technology group? There must be groups in San Miguel who enjoy Cum-Ba-Yah much more that topics on science and technology. Why are we watching this here? Scientists are not immune to becoming nut cases like poor Niki Tesla or Robert Lanza, bless his heart.

Here we used to pretend to be interested in science. Perhaps many pf you may agree our most serious ills are social. For example, To paraphrase the dreadful title of the talk it is proposed to show:

Are dictionaries an example

– of bio-centrism,

– of revolution,

– or have dictionaries been a Dud?

You Be The Judge!

We have gone from Beowulf, through Shakespeare and Emily Brontë to “covfefe !”

Perhaps Spelling Bees should be prohibited, and dictionaries banned as “Fake Spelling?”

No thank you.

I do observe and do not doubt "covfefe" is the direct result of a bio-ego-centric.

But let’s get real. An idea does not have scientific merit

depending on its unproven "likelihood"

nor of how "appealing" it is.

What is worthy about science is how counter-intuitive it is.

What is fascinating about science is how powerfully predictive it is.

Meanwhile, excuse me, but there is so much else of interest

that has had incredibly useful results.

Psst! Re-read Spinoza.