Very good read. And interestingly, it reflects some things I've myself said, and have heard some theologians say in regards to evolution and religion.

Interesting, nonetheless.

Interesting. This person is really trying to avoid intelligent design, even though it answers a lot of questions.

500, or even 1500 years ago or more, about the same percentage of educated (or, frankly, observant) people thought the Earth was flat as do today -- read: practically no one. What an embarrassing claim.

How this guy's academic papers get taken seriously is a mystery to me.

That said:

Actually, quite the opposite. Biocentrism posits that life and especially consciousness have primacy, and "create the universe," and are its primary objective. It's yet another person trying to suggest that the paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics can be expanded to a macro, or super-macro level, a trend Schrodinger ridiculed with his famous thought experiment about the cat.

One of his big supporters is Deepak Choprah, and the whole "What the Bleep Do We Know" crowd, if that also helps.

Even the ancient Greeks found that Logos and Mythos were mutually exclusive (yet each valuable in its own regard). Intelligent design is yet another misguided attempt to join the two.

My point for this kind of thought is "pick a friggin' lane." If this helps:

Rev 3:16
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Robert Lanza
He gets taken seriously because he is a pretty smart guy.

The "Picking a lane", type of thinking, would seem to narrow ones boundaries. I think it was Einsteins failure to not be able to accept the randomness of Quantum Mechanics.

So Drogue Loop Quantum Gravity or String Theory?

I hear you, and funny sitcom link, but "Pretty smart" in our time just isn't going to cut it, when invoking scientific journals.

Not when the guy's argument is limited to trying to equate Anthro-centric ideals with verifiable theory.

I know Lanza's work, and that of many that would have it "verify" their cockamamie spiritual programming.

His point in this article is that our experiences shape the Universe.

Yet we must show our work, and I've seen little of his.

The jury's out on what will be the next step of theoretical physics, String Theory (which I like), or otherwise, and that's a matter for more-mathematical minds than mine.

But aiming backwards, and trying to establish some Romantic-era connection with "what makes us conscious, or 'important'" ignores the possibility (or likelihood) that the progressions of the Universe have nothing at all to to with our biology, and its evolution, and much less its primacy in the Universe's existence.

As far as we've come, our collective intelligence may be nothing but a curious artifact for ages we can't imagine. I have no problem with this idea.

Lanza may be completely right. He just hasn't taken great pains to prove his point in that realm, which is either the mark of a distracted, or lazy man, or one who'd rather keep his findings to himself.

His degree and his work has been in cellular Human medicine, which is no small thing.

However, I don't look upon him as a leader in Physics theory, especially given his goofy associations.

Well stated drogue, I can respect that.

Do you say his "goofy associations" because of his association with Deepak?

I don't know much about his associations.

Excellent