Biocosm & The Biocentric Universe
by nullasalusI don't recall this being discussed either at Telic Thoughts or Uncommon Descent, so submitted for everyone's attention is the May 2009 cover story for Discover Magazine: The Biocentric Universe Theory.
Or as I like to call it, the "All major sides in the ID debate are wrong" theory.
A pertinent quote:
The final option is biocentrism, which holds that the universe is created by life and not the other way around. This is an explanation for and extension of the participatory anthropic principle described by the physicist John Wheeler, a disciple of Einstein’s who coined the terms wormhole and black hole.
Short and highly skeptical summary: "Quantum woo." No universe without consciousness, and consciousness is fundamental to reality itself. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman are not, to my knowledge, unique in proposing this idea – readers may recall that Andrei Linde was quoted as hinting along similar lines back during the "God or the Multiverse" story in Discover magazine.
Another "All bets are off" theory comes in the form of James N. Gardner's Biocosm, with the long subtitle "The New Scientific Theory of Evolution : Intelligent Life Is the Architect of the Universe".
Again, I haven't read Gardner's book either, but the difference seems to be that while Lanza is suggesting that consciousness itself is a fundamental constituent of reality itself (Shades of Berkeley's idealism), Gardner's suggestion is more of a "Ray Kurzweil to the Nth power" perspective. Our universe was designed by a designer whose universe was designed by a designer whose universe was designed by a designer whose universe was…
Well, you get the idea.
I find both of the ideas interesting, if only because they upend the usual options in the ID debate – and that's enough to catch my attention even if I'm skeptical of the proposals. If Lanza is right, then the standard materialist view of the universe never gets off the ground. Consciousness and mental properties are not things that result from the machinations of the universe – they are fundamental, and you can't have a universe without them. Enter idealism, or panpsychism, or panentheism.
More interesting to me is Gardner's take. Even if his proposal is unfalsifiable or inadequately supported, it still serves to highlight a problem that can pop up in cosmologies where the universe is eternal or extreme (infinite?) in number. Eternity and infinity doesn't only give mindless nature (if there is such a thing, of course) as many chances as it needs to create and orchestrate life – it gives actual minds just as many chances to do the same. And since we're dealing with an eternal regress anyway, we end up with a quandary similar though not identical to Lanza's. This before noting that Lanza and Gardner's ideas are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
So there you have two outlier positions in the great ID debate: On the one hand, the idea that consciousness and the mental are fundamental and bedrock constituents of reality. On the other, the idea that design and designers are the eternal and infinite – design and designers are everywhere, and will always be everywhere, because they are the means by which nature continues.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:08 am
nullasalus:
In a recent thread a link pointed to an argument made by Peter Williams that a mind preexists the development of a brain. Your link indicates that physical phenomenon can be cited to support the position that preexistence is a rational rather than a whimsical argument.
I'd be interested in getting the reaction of Heddle or Olegt, two trained physicists, to the comment that quantum mechanics "makes some of the most persuasive arguments that conscious perception is integral to the workings of the universe."
Comment by Bradford — May 13, 2009 @ 11:08 am
May 13th, 2009 at 11:54 am
a mind creates a brain – working within the constraints of existing physical reality. Creativity, limited to existing reality, is nevertheless due to mind, not accident.
bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — May 13, 2009 @ 11:54 am
May 13th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
This appears to be a loony vaguely bonkers thought-experiment in Cosmology. Even if it were true, what relevance would it have to evolution?
If you want to accept this wildly speculative conjecture you first have to buy into the multiple-universes hypothesis which is also unproven conjecture. The whole think is a wonky tower of unhinged speculation.
Nothing to see here… move on!
Comment by hblavatsky — May 13, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 12:07 am
As near as I can tell, no – Gardner's "Biocosm" theory doesn't seem to require any multiverse hypothesis (at least none of the ones traditionally entertained). In fact, judging at a glance from an article of his up at Kurzweilai.net (I had a feeling those guys would love this) he finds the idea of a multiverse unsatisfactory. He's opting for a past-eternal and future-eternal universe. The kicker is that, far from life and intelligence being accidental, Gardner is arguing it's downright central – life and intelligence advances to achieve greater and greater things (and, apparently, humans would not be alone in this) until finally they are able to affect the cosmos itself. At which point they make sure that the design continues on. An eternal regress of designers, in other words.
Now, I think both of these ideas are 'out there'. Then again, what idea isn't, really? At least these guys are taking things from an interesting perspective.
And, hblavatsky, I do not think we've interacted before. So hello! And in my threads, I like to keep the bullshit name-calling and insulting games to a minimum. Criticize the ideas presented all you like, but keep the criticisms polite and on topic. As others can attest, I'm unfair about this and also an internet despot.
Comment by nullasalus — May 14, 2009 @ 12:07 am
May 14th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
hblavatsky wrote:
Well, to someone who thinks that Haldane's dilemma has somehow magically been solved, it wouldn't have relevance.
Otherwise, it provides much needed direction for the variation needed to drive evolution.
Comment by angryoldfatman — May 14, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
A strange coincidence – this video just showed up in my "Recommended for You" Youtube selections. I believe it's on-topic.
Comment by angryoldfatman — May 14, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
May 14th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
angryoldfatman,
Or puts the lie to the claim that "matter" and nature is dead, purposeless, aimless stuff.
If Lanza is correct, consciousness is as or more basic and fundamental than matter/'nature'. No consciousness, no universe. Or maybe idealism is correct, in which case – no matter, or at least it's radically different from the common perception.
If Gardner is correct, then nature (in whole or in part) is the result of an actual design process. There's no point at which the mindless / purposeless precedes design, because the past is an eternal chain of very powerful designers. It's like Aristotle meets Ray Kurzweil.
But, if nothing else, they're thought-provoking.
Comment by nullasalus — May 14, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Stephen Hawkins lives, in spite of an almost useless body. Does his powerful mind play a role in his survival?
bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — May 15, 2009 @ 11:12 am
May 17th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I'll risk being cyberflogged with a digital wet noodle for engaging in naked self-promotion, because I think (hope? believe?) that this will be of genuine interest to readers of this thread.
I've explored lines of thought similar to those of "Biocosm" and congealed (yech) it all at http://www.starlarvae.org
HERE I refer specifically to Gardner's books: "An important conceptual difference is that Gardner presents the universe as inherently lifeless, with the interstellar spread of biology causing the universe to "come alive." The star larvae hypothesis takes the universe to be an organism/ecosystem, alive from the beginning. Nonetheless, Gardner's books provide a valuable supplement to the star larvae hypothesis by providing many corroborating references."
Comment by heresiarch — May 17, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
May 17th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Heresiarch,
Welcome – I don't believe I've seen you around here before, but I vaguely recall coming across your web page here and there. It looks like your book is advocating an idea along the lines of hylozoism?
This quote stood out to me.
Comment by nullasalus — May 17, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
May 20th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Hylozoism. What a word, like a sneeze.
I suppose it's applicable. Basically I'm arguing for a return to the ancient conception of the universe, that it is an organism, not a mechanism. This conception turns a lot of modern notions on their heads, because it implies that history is developmental, that historical progress is real, and that history is teleological, because history is subsumed under the umbrella of nature's ontogeny. The conception covers natural history and human — technological — history.
Comment by heresiarch — May 20, 2009 @ 5:35 pm