Take a photo of a barcode or cover
jamesv_reads 's review for:
"Our point, again, is that our biocentric conclusions that there is no death, no time, no space, and instead a single living entity, which precludes a stand-apart dead universe abiding separately from life and consciousness, is a science-based reality, but it's also the conclusion that anyone would arrive at on their own if they merely thought things through, or quietly contemplated what was going on inside their minds."
Co-authors Robert Lanza and Bob Berman have crafted a breathless and easily digestible (if not universally accessible) 200-page manifesto on capital B - Being. A follow up to "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Nature of Reality", they lay a foundation for incredible conclusions by arranging a series of explanations of quantum and neurological phenomena that demonstrate that the universe is less intuitive/logical than we usually care to admit. Also that the Common Sense immutables of time/space, non-duality, temporal causality, and subject-object boundaries are more conventions and heuristics of human minds rather than independent realities. These progressive "gotchas" are meant to build a single panpsychic monism that is absolutely certain to be totally True, "if [you] merely thought things through".
Now the arguments are compelling, and the assertions, anecdotes, quotes, and regular name dropping of Newton, Einstein, Schrodinger, and Parmenides do add a sense of authority (and inevitability) to the final conclusions that reality has no (!) existence outside of a sort of eastern spiritualism lite solipsism.
My issue is not with the science, or even the deeply personal and powerful re-contextualization that such investigations can and do bring about in the reader. I myself felt objectively (subjectively?) altered in my perception of time and space while reading many parts of the book.
My issue is with the shallowness of its presentation and the substitution of true reflection on the meaning of these conclusions for or lives and society for a cult-of-science pamphlet tone. It summarily ignores and even ridicules most of the spiritual, religious, and philosophical corollaries to its conclusions and does not acknowledge any alternative interpretations to its own presuppositions or the fact that this 2016 publication is not the first, most comprehensive, nor most important articulation of any of these ideas.
3.5 for the effectiveness of its project despite myopic and self-serious proclamations being interjected every third paragraph.
Co-authors Robert Lanza and Bob Berman have crafted a breathless and easily digestible (if not universally accessible) 200-page manifesto on capital B - Being. A follow up to "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Nature of Reality", they lay a foundation for incredible conclusions by arranging a series of explanations of quantum and neurological phenomena that demonstrate that the universe is less intuitive/logical than we usually care to admit. Also that the Common Sense immutables of time/space, non-duality, temporal causality, and subject-object boundaries are more conventions and heuristics of human minds rather than independent realities. These progressive "gotchas" are meant to build a single panpsychic monism that is absolutely certain to be totally True, "if [you] merely thought things through".
Now the arguments are compelling, and the assertions, anecdotes, quotes, and regular name dropping of Newton, Einstein, Schrodinger, and Parmenides do add a sense of authority (and inevitability) to the final conclusions that reality has no (!) existence outside of a sort of eastern spiritualism lite solipsism.
My issue is not with the science, or even the deeply personal and powerful re-contextualization that such investigations can and do bring about in the reader. I myself felt objectively (subjectively?) altered in my perception of time and space while reading many parts of the book.
My issue is with the shallowness of its presentation and the substitution of true reflection on the meaning of these conclusions for or lives and society for a cult-of-science pamphlet tone. It summarily ignores and even ridicules most of the spiritual, religious, and philosophical corollaries to its conclusions and does not acknowledge any alternative interpretations to its own presuppositions or the fact that this 2016 publication is not the first, most comprehensive, nor most important articulation of any of these ideas.
3.5 for the effectiveness of its project despite myopic and self-serious proclamations being interjected every third paragraph.