Talk:Robert Lanza

Needs Update

Almost no research is mentioned since 2012, which seems odd for someone of his prominence. Books published more recently seem to be theory not research. Can anyone (inc Lanza himself) provide more recent research citations, particularly in regard to stem cells, curing macular degeneration, and other breakthroughs? Surely something new after 9 years? Martindo (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Request For Comment Robert Lanza

Should the section Robert_Lanza#Biocentrism on Robert Lanza be:

1. revised, as proposed below
2. left the same
3. changed in the same other way.

Please note I have a conflict of interest, disclosed below in the discussion. Sapphire41359 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• A. I have a conflict of interest because I have a personal connection to Lanza and he has asked me to review this page for problems. I am unpaid. Please note that after reviewing the issues, I am offering the proposal (below) in order to correct mistakes and improve this section. First, the theory is not accurately summarized so the subsequent criticism and support of it does not have the proper context. I am offering a correction to the summary. Second, most of the support and criticism improperly comes from blogs and self-published sources, including the Forbes contributor platforms. I did not include blogs and an email comment. Instead, I left in criticism and support only from what I believe to be reliable sources, at least for opinion in the criticism/support paragraph. Third, I have tried to shorten this section relative to its importance based on actual reliable sources while preserving a balance of criticism and support. I tried to keep in mind that this is a biography about his life, including the popular press about his work, not a full-length article about this theory. Popular press coverage seems appropriate since this a biography of his life, not a full article about the theory. Thank you. Sapphire41359 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Please note that I have substantially revised this proposal based on the feedback of the editors below and at the suggestion of Guy Macon. The revised proposal is in the Discussion section. Sapphire41359 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

In 2007, Lanza published, “A New Theory of the Universe,” in The American Scholar, an essay in which he proposed his theory of biocentrism. He argues that the grand theories offered by physicists to explain the ‘origins of everything’ fall short, because they do not take into account the essential role that biology plays in creating a conscious perception of physical reality. Lanza engages theories such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and Einstein’s spacetime hypothesis to support his argument showing how both ideas depend upon our “animal sense perception” to exist.Lanza subsequently published several books that further developed his concept of biocentrism including a 2016 book, Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death, and a third, The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality, published in 2020.

Lanza’s biocentrism hypothesis met with a mixed reception.In a review of his book ' 'Biocentrism' ' , Johns Hopkins physicist Richard Conn Henry comments that the Lanza’s theory that the “animal observer creates reality” is “factually correct”, if not novel, and worth exploring because it’s what physicists “only whisper… in private.” Physicist Stephen P. Smith wrote that the ' 'Biocentrism' ' “is not rigorous scientific treatment, but the science he refers to is rigorous” and accessible to non-experts. Critics of Lanza’s hypothesis center on “scientific over-simplification” and he “accepts gut feeling over ‘complex’ and therefore not possible fundamental mathematics.” In an October 2020 review, Kirkus said his co-authored 2020 book, The Grand Biocentric Design, tries to move from hypothesis to hard science by linking the theory to “observable, replicable experiments” but it will not be persuasive to everyone, although it is “thought-provoking.”

References

• Oppose I have to say, I'm not a fan of the proposed revision, and I think this verges on being an ill-formed RfC thanks to the vagueness of option C ("changed in some other way"). A blog post by Steven Novella is, per WP:SPS, a better source than an unsigned book review in Kirkus (who may or may not have bothered to find anyone with any relevant expertise to write a review for them). The Forbes item used in the current text is marked as "staff", rather than "contributor", so WP:FORBESCON does not apply. (The multiple uses of it should be consolidated, though.) Nor is there a reason to omit the commentary by David Lindley, who is qualified to provide an expert view. As for the new sources offered, there's no indication that the Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research is a reliable source; in fact, looking over what it has published, it seems to be total dreck (Pitch Inverted Songs as Affirmation of Panpsychism!). The Journal of Scientific Exploration is also extremely dubious. Wikipedia articles are not written to provide "a balance of criticism and support"; that way lies false balance and the golden mean fallacy. Instead, our policy is to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The current text is closer to this ideal than the proposed replacement would be. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A note on sources. My aim was to find all usable sources, whether critical or positive, and omit sources that don’t pass the test of WP:RS, including sources that were supportive of Lanza’s hypothesis.

1) The Forbes column is labeled “Former Staff” and has the “Follow” blue button at the bottom of the column which appears only on content within the Forbes Contributor network. So it is not allowed under WP:FORBESCON, since we do not know if it was vetted at all. The author of this column is a journalist, not a subject matter expert in physics. The same Forbes source is used three different times in the criticism section, paragraph two: for quotes from E. Donnal Thomas in sentence two and three; Lawrence Krauss in sentence four and five; and Daniel Dennett in sentences eight, nine and ten. The first of these statements is positive and two are negative.

If we really want to use the source, then there are additional positive comments that should be added from it:

 [Michael Lysaght, director of Brown University's Center for Biomedical, who] says that he thinks the essay is "a masterpiece," says that he views it more as a work of philosophy than of science, as well. "I don't think he's convinced me my desk and chair are not really there. I do think he has laid down enough of a challenge." 

2) After further close review, I agree the Kirkus Review source can’t be used because it is labelled “Kirkus Indie” on the bottom. As per, [1], Kirkus Indie should not be used.

3) The hyperlink for the citation on the first sentence of the second paragraph does not work on the article or proposal. Here it is again with corrected citation: Lanza’s biocentrism hypothesis met with a mixed reception.

4.) The David Lindley quote is an online comment/email responding to a USA Today article. It is misrepresented on Wikipedia as “In USA Today Online, as though it is its own article or column. On the website, it is published without any header or branding from USA Today, but there is a description saying it was a private email published online with permission - but clearly not as an article or column. It does not even have a date. It is impossible to even know what the email is responding to since there is no link to the USA Today article and after an extensive search, I cannot find it on Google, ProQuest, archives.org or USAToday.com. Especially out of the context of the main article, it does not qualify under WP: RS. Maybe someone else can find it. At a minimum, the quote should be identified as it is described on the source: “e-mail message” to the author of a USA Today article (citation missing) or an online comment to an article (citation missing).

5) The Journal of Scientific Exploration has been discussed multiple times on RS noticeboards and the general consensus is that it can be used as a RS for the opinions of its authors, but not for scientific fact.” [2]) The source is used here as an opinion from an author, the well-respected physicist Richard Conn Henry, not to establish facts, so it is usable. In any case, the same quote from the same physicist is used by the NBC Science editor in an article on NBC News. So we can add NBC to back the statement with an additional citation showing it is reputable enough to be used by a very mainstream source.

In a review of his book Biocentrism, Johns Hopkins physicist Richard Conn Henry comments that the Lanza’s theory that the “animal observer creates reality” is “factually correct”, if not novel, and worth exploring because it’s what physicists “only whisper… in private.”

Alternatively, we can quote or add a paraphrase of the following sentence from the NBC science editor: “Other physicists, however, point out that Lanza's view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.”

6) The Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research is a peer reviewed journal published since 2010. See the JCER’s Editorial Pages [3] and [4]. There has never been any challenge to its use according to a search of the RSP noticeboard archives WP:RSPMISSING In any case, this is a book review used for opinion of the author, a physics professor, not to establish facts, so falls it does not need to pass the highest bar for WP: RS when used for fact.Sapphire41359 (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Herper is marked as "former staff" because he left Forbes for Stat in 2019 [5]. At the time of the item in question (2007), he was on the Forbes staff, and so WP:FORBESCON does not apply. As for quoting more opinions from it... Why would we want to quote the opinion of a biomedical engineer about the foundations of theoretical physics? At least with Dennett, we can say that he's a philosopher of consciousness and thus has professional expertise on something pertinent. There's no problem with USA Today printing an e-mail from Lindley; he sent something, and they found it worth distributing. At worst, it's equivalent to an op-ed. On the other hand, a consensus about the Journal of Scientific Exploration that's nearly a decade old (2012) could well be too stale to be applicable. Even assuming it to still be valid, we'd need evidence of work in the relevant field [that] has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Looking over his CV, I'm not seeing that, just ordinary astro-stuff in ordinary journals and the occasional (ahem) eccentric item in Journal of Scientific Exploration. Language like "the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed" is so vague that it means absolutely nothing, and we should not propagate that. The Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research is a garbage pile in the shape of a journal. It would be unsurprising if it had not been discussed at RSN, because it's so obviously bad that discussion would not have been necessary. It deserves neither our time nor our respect. XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose with prejudice due to WP:REDFLAG wording: "Lanza engages theories such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and Einstein’s spacetime hypothesis to support his argument showing how both ideas depend upon our “animal sense perception” to exist." The uncertainty principle isn't so much a "theory" as it is a "principle". How does Lanza engage with it? Well, he doesn't engage with it in any way that independent sources have noticed. So, no, we can't trumpet this engagement in Wikipedia. How does Lanza engage with "Einstein's spacetime hypothesis"? Again, no independent source seems available to explain this, nor why this is being considered a "hypothesis" when really spacetime is an outcome of certain principles upon which special and general relativity were built. I believe that we may be looking at an issue where there are ideas which have not been noticed enough to be included here. jps (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:GEVAL, WP:PARITY and the excellent previous comments. Adding: because they do not take into account the essential role that biology plays in creating a conscious perception of physical reality yes and no, in any case that's more for psychology and neurology to assess as far as the brain and mind are concerned. Animal observer creates reality one's own, perhaps. If one's perception altered actual reality, magic would happen and work, based on transformation of impressions, enhanced perception by technological means (including electronics and psychedelics) or neurological disorders and damage, events like births and deaths, etc. The above proposes appealing to popular scientists and discoveries and interpret that to suggest conclusions they do not support. It is also difficult to disconnect biocentrism from the BLP article, considering that it is what Lanza writes on. —PaleoNeonate – 00:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this suggestion, but think that Sapphire41359 can create a new suggestion that will be acceptable. Writing a good encyclopedia article is hard. In my opinion if Sapphire41359 takes the above comments to heart and tries again with a new suggested version that addresses these problems, there is a good chance that it will be accepted (or possibly accepted after a few more tweaks). I encourage Sapphire41359 not to give up after one try. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the rationale above. Sea Ane (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• As suggested by User:Guy Macon, I’ve created a revised proposed draft below. It removes the sentence about Heisenberg and Einstein, as suggested. I have taken to heart that suggestion this entire passage should be minimized because there isn’t much discussion outside of articles in mainstream media. That's true, but the coverage of the scientific merits that has been in the mainstream media is more balanced than the Wikipedia section. There’s an article from Wired UK, two from NBC News and one from Forbes. Respected scientists like Nobel-laureate E. Donnall Thomas [6], physicist Richard Conn Henry [7], and former Brown University professor Michael Lysaght [8]) take the theory seriously. So the section should not be weighted heavily toward criticism -- although it should be included as it is legitimate too. But please keep in mind that Lanza is one of the leading biologists in the world [9], so his ideas on the role of biology in the theory of the universe are rooted in a serious scientific background. This is a theory that blends biology and physics - so critiques from recognized experts in both fields are valid. I have kept the first existing positive critique in paragraph and the first existing negative critique. I don’t think we need more than that.

• Oppose - it's fine for noted scientists, philosophers, and others to be cited to their blogs, we know their opinions to be relevant, considered, and noteworthy. The emasculated text is not more accurate, it's just shorn of meaning and lacking in breadth and balance. That is called making a decently neutral section worse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• oppose per all above editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose in line with all the "oppose" votes by different editors above. Idealigic (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This RfC is moot in light of the proposal and discussion in the immediately following section so I have withdrawn the request. Sapphire41359 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Revised Proposal

I am withdrawing this proposal and will start a discussion of narrower requests in a new section below Sapphire41359 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In 2007, Lanza published, “A New Theory of the Universe,” in The American Scholar, an essay in which he proposed his theory of biocentrism. He argues that the grand theories offered by physicists to explain the ‘origins of everything’ fall short, because they do not take into account the essential role that biology plays in creating a conscious perception of physical reality. Lanza’s biocentrism hypothesis met with a mixed reception,with one physicist in 2007 saying it contained “no scientific breakthroughs about anything” and “may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science” while other scientists said his view is “fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.” Lanza published three books that subsequently developed his theory of biocentrism: Biocentrism: Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death, and The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality.

References

Discussion

• Comment "one physicist" rejected the theory wile "other scientists" supported it? Evidence, please. I think the record shows that the vast majority of scientists and other commentators who have examined the theory have either rejected or ridiculed it. The idea that consciousness creates everything and that the was nothing in the billions of years before there was consciousness is a completely WP:FRINGE view that has been rejected by mainstream science. I don't think any proposal that shoots for WP:FALSEBALANCE as the above proposalsn does will ever get a single editor to support it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment He argues that the grand theories offered by physicists to explain the ‘origins of everything’ fall short What are these "grand theories"? Is he referring to grand unified theory? If so, they absolutely do not fall short because they do not take into account the essential role that biology plays in creating a conscious perception of physical reality. They fall short because there hasn't been observational confirmation of the theory yet. jps (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment One aspect of this entire issue I think needs to be addressed and has not. Lanza appears to have published this theory in a literary magazine. Now, I have a good friend who is an author and English professor, so I do understand that being published in some literary magazines is definitely a BFD in that field (and American Scholar seems relatively prestigious), she's certainly been thrilled when she gets published in magazines like this. But these magazines are primarily focused on literature, on fiction or sometimes non-fiction like memoirs and life stories. American Scholar seems more the place to publish, say, a short story from Liu Cixin's The Three-Body Problem (novel) than a place to publish an actual physical or mathematical solution to the Three-Body Problem. Lanza has also written several popular books through non-academic publishers. But I think that we do need to recognize and acknowledge that Lanza does not appear to have published his "biocentrism" in any peer-reviewed journals or academic press, and no other researchers have cited his work on biocentrism (compare to his unrelated biomedical research, for example).
  Now, obviously we don't need strict peer-reviewed sources to cite that he has come up with this theory, his own books are fine for citing the assertion that he has written about this and believes this, because it is essentially a self-citation, so that's fine. But at the same time, we do need to recognize that there really isn't much that we can cite in support of his theory. We can cite that he has written these things, but realistically we also have to mention that this is just not a real scholarly or scientific theory. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Excellent point. The counter is that lately Lanza has been collaborating with serious physicists on peer-reviewed journal articles. I think that can be mentioned in the text, but one of the things I noticed in reading those articles is that they do not mention biocentrism. I hope that Lanza continues to investigate ideas that interest him in whatever way he wants, but the expansive claims of biocentrism being a theory of everything with the attendant explanatory power a physicist (for example) might expect from such an enterprise do not seem supported by reliable sources. Moreover, it is not at all clear to me how this particular proposal is more developed than other consciousness causes collapse/anthropic principle proposals which have been popular with various people (including some of the people who positively reviewed Lanza's forays), but suffer from some very severe critiques by many actual quantum physicists. That there are enough mysteries left in interpretations of quantum mechanics to allow for this kind of wild speculation is perhaps interesting from a philosophy/sociology of science perspective, but it just means that Lanza has either wittingly or unwittingly discovered a niche he can fit into without being completely drummed out. (Unlike, for example, another medical doctor I know of who used his expertise in medical imaging to claim he could debunk the cosmic microwave background.) jps (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - everything I wrote about the first proposal applies also to this sadly emasculated version. This is exactly the direction the article must not go in, it's utterly unacceptable to cut out all the bits that one or two people connected to the subject don't find comfortable, including the trenchant criticism from all the famous scientists and philosophers. Wikipedia is uncensored and must maintain balance and freedom to say what is out there, whoever doesn't like it. WP:NPOV doesn't mean being bland and cosy, it means describing all the opposing viewpoints clearly and fairly. That's what the article did before these proposals, and that must be maintained. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose In addition to the points raised above, there's the problem that statements like Lanza published three books that subsequently developed his theory of biocentrism presume that Lanza actually developed his theory, rather than adding new vague statements on top of his old ones. Calling biocentrism a theory in the scientific sense is something we can't do in wiki-voice. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Some sources

First, some unreliable sources. Unreliable sources may be useful on a talk page -- never in an article -- to help the Wikipedia editor to gain insight about a topic, but they often range from opinions to outright lies. Unreliable sources (especially using Wikipedia as a source) may also contain links to reliable sources that we can use.

While I think a selection of excerpts from reliable sources and works by Lanza is useful (and which I have greatly expanded below User:Guy Macon’s list below), I don’t believe it’s a good idea to fill Wikipedia Talk with excerpts from unreliable sources. I also think the list is heavily slanted toward armchair critics. But as long as it’s going to be up, I’ve added more unreliable sources, including quotations from well-regarded scientists. I’ve also added more excerpts from Lanza’s central works and from reliable sources. (I think these are the most useful so I put them on top of my section.) These sources are below the long list posted by Guy Macon, and a short discussion on unreliable sourcing. Please note my COI, disclosed above in the RfC.Sapphire41359 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• What do physicists think about Robert Lanza's theory of Biocentrism? --Quora

"After 15 seconds perusal of his website, my crackpot alarm is blaring."

• Book review: 'Biocentrism' by Robert Lanza --the !n(tro)verted yogi

"There’s a major challenge to biocentrism that results from the fact that we are fairly certain that the universe is 13+ billion years old and our planet didn’t come into existence until about 9 billion years after that (i.e. Earth is about 4.5 billion-years-old.) Even if one assumes the conscious life grew up elsewhere before us, it’s hard to imagine it having happened instantaneously with the beginning of the universe. Lanza’s end run around this can be found in his sixth and seventh principles of biocentrism which state that time and space are illusory in the absence of an observer. Of course, this raises questions of how this could be so and why we might believe it is so — because 'it’s essential to my case' isn’t a good reason to believe anything."

• In shedding our shells --Editorial in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

"Lanza also says consciousness is what creates the universe rather than the other way around... Hmm, wait just a second here. Where have I read that same pronouncement? Something about in the beginning was the Word?"

• Arguments for life after death from Robert Lanza --International Skeptics Forum

"I had the time to check out the actual Science article. It is an interesting article involving the known dual wave and particle properties of light. But it does not come anywhere near, nor is it in any way relevant, to the bizarre interpretation made by Lanza. Another example of 'Quantum is spooky! So I can prove anything I want if I use the word quantum!' "

• OMG Lanza --The Skeptics Society Forum

"The core of Lanza’s argument rests on a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics...Lanza argues that nothing exists without an observer, and actually cites the double-slit experiments for support. [He confuses] 'observer' with 'consciousness' (actually his entire premise rests upon this fallacy). This is wrong. The results of the experiment depend not at all on the presence or absence of an observer or a consciousness. What matters is whether or not there is a detector in each slit, detecting the presence of the photon as it passes through the slit. In other words, if the photon has to interact with any particle of matter, then the probability wave must collapse and it behaves like a particle. If the photon is not detected, however, then it continues to travel as a wave until it hits the film or photon detector on the other side of the slit, at which point the wave function collapses. The only thing that matters is whether or not the photons are detected or interacted with in any way prior to or after passing through the slits. This has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness or an observer. This is the common misunderstanding of the quantum gurus."

• A Critique of Robert Lanza --Morten Tolboll (PDF Version)

"It is sad to see a mainstream scientist like Lanza give in to such rank pseudoscience, and then use his credentials to sell that pseudoscience to the public. Take a look again at his website... notice how he places his picture alongside Darwin and Einstein. Meanwhile, biocentrism is not even science. It is bad philosophy"

• Biocentrism: Robert Lanza’s Controversial View of the Universe --Sam Woolfe

"Lanza asserts that time and space do not exist. In an interview with Wired magazine, he says: 'There is something very unusual about them [space and time]. We can’t put them in a marmalade jar and take them back to the lab for analysis. Space and time are forms of animal sense perception. Space and time are not objects or things — they are forms of animal sense perception. This is a very challenging concept for the physicists out there because it would contradict Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, which states that time is embedded in the fabric of the cosmos."

• (Added 15 June 2021) A Biotech Provocateur Takes On Physics --Forbes

"E. Donnall Thomas, a Nobel Laureate and former director of clinical research at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Institute, praises the paper in the release. 'Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work,' Thomas wrote. 'The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole.' But many physicists who were sent the essay were underwhelmed. Several said that the work should be published in a scientific journal. All said Lanza's theory needs to make clear predictions of experimental results, so that it can be tested. Lanza believes experiments already in progress or recently completed could validate his idea, but many scientists disagree. 'This looks like a philosophical essay,' wrote Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics at Case-Western Reserve University. 'There are no scientific breakthroughs about anything, as far as I can see. It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance, as if it will change anything about science.' "

---

Next, some primary sources written by Robert Lanza

• Biocentrism Wiki --Robert Lanza

Here, Lanza grabs a deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocentric universe (2nd nomination)) Wikipedia article and in a clear case of copyright infringement slaps a "© 2021 Robert Lanza. All rights reserved." on it, and calls it a wiki! Extra points for misusing Wikipedia's trademarked logo.

• Robert Lanza: The Theory of Biocentrism, Part 1 --Youtube

Part one of Robert Lanza's talk on Biocentrism at the Science and Nonduality Conference 2010

• Robert Lanza: The Theory of Biocentrism, Part 2 --Youtube

Part two of Robert Lanza's talk on Biocentrism at the Science and Nonduality Conference 2010

• The Impossibility of Being Dead --Robert Lanza, writing in Psychology Today

"Sure, that dead dog in the road isn’t going to get back up and again put his muddy paws on your pants. But in terms of awareness, you’ll never not experienced consciousness and its myriad sense impressions, nor will this parade ever cease. You can count on that. To help understand this, let’s take a look at the mind-twisting thought experiment called quantum suicide, which can be used to explain why death has no true reality. We’ll see that life has a nonlinear dimensionality, like a perennial flower that always blooms."

• Do You Only Live Once? Experiments Suggest Life Not One-Time Deal -- Robert Lanza, writing in the Huffington Post

"Although our individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the 'me' feeling is just energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn't go away at death. One of the surest principles of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed... A series of landmark experiments show that measurements an observer makes can influence events that have already happened in the past..."

• What Happens When You Die? Evidence Suggests Time Simply Reboots --Robert Lanza, writing in the Huffington Post

"Without consciousness, space and time are nothing; in reality you can take any time -- whether past or future -- as your new frame of reference. Death is a reboot that leads to all potentialities. That's the reality that the experiments mandate."

• A New Theory of the Universe --Robert Lanza, writing in The American Scholar

"The urgent and primary questions of the universe have been undertaken by those physicists who are trying to explain the origins of everything with grand unified theories. But as exciting and glamorous as these theories are, they are an evasion, if not a reversal, of the central mystery of knowledge: that the laws of the world were somehow created to produce the observer. And more important than this, that the observer in a significant sense creates reality and not the other way around. Recognition of this insight leads to a single theory that unifies our understanding of the world."

---

Finally, some sources that I believe we can use per WP:PARITY:

• Through Me, the Universe: A Stroll through the Curious Solipsism of Biocentrism --Skeptical Inquirer

"And it is at this point that things go from a misguided but intriguing romp to an out-and-out farce, as biocentrism holds some set opinions about the consequences of its “mind creates reality” mantra that run histrionically off the rails. Since we create reality, time, and space by observing them with our conscious minds, the idea of there being something before or after us is absurd, and therefore, Lanza holds, we cannot die. In what is a perhaps not entirely rigorous statement, he offers, 'The mathematical possibility of your consciousness ending is zero.' You will stay conscious and connected to everything, forever, the culminating moment of a philosophy that, more than once, relies on, 'It just doesn’t feel right for this not to be true' as its central motivating device."

• The Nobel disease --Skeptics Dictionary

"The MD disease: an affliction of certain medical doctors that causes them to embrace strange or scientifically unsound ideas, even outright pseudoscience... Examples of the MD disease include: Robert Lanza (biocentrism)"

• Nice debunking of biocentrism --Science Blogs

"Robert Lanza and Deepak Chopra (just the fact that he is associated with it should discredit it right there) have been peddling this bizarre notion of Biocentrism, the idea that the universe is the product of human awareness — it's a kind of upscale version of The Secret, gussied up with more science vocabulary. "

• Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza’s Notion of a Conscious Universe --Nirmukta

"As science and reason dismantle the idea of the centrality of human life in the functioning of the objective universe, the emotional impulse has been to resort to finer and finer misinterpretations of the science involved. Mystical thinkers use these misrepresentations of science to paint over the gaps in our scientific understanding of the universe, belittling, in the process, science and its greatest heroes. In their recent article in The Huffington Post, biologist Robert Lanza and mystic Deepak Chopra put forward their idea that the universe is itself a product of our consciousness, and not the other way around as scientists have been telling us. In essence, these authors are re-inventing idealism, an ancient philosophical concept that fell out of favour with the advent of the scientific revolution. According to the idealists, the mind creates all of reality."

• One of the Leading Scientists in the World? --Center for Genetics and Society

"ACT's extraordinary publicity coup in 2001, when they claimed to have cloned a human embryo, though it failed to develop beyond the six-cell stage. The news of "this ludicrous, outrageous, failed experiment " was published in an obscure on-line journal (from which three board members resigned as a result, one saying it was "of little or no scientific value"), simultaneously with a feature Lanza and colleagues themselves wrote in Scientific American and the US News & World Report story. Biocentrism may have been intended as Lanza's ticket out of ACT, as well as being the final formulation of ideas he has been mulling for two decades. But it doesn't seem to have worked. His ideas were ridiculed in 1992 and called "kind of dopey " in Wired in 2007, when he published an article in American Scholar , but he finished the book and promoted it with blog posts and articles , some co-written with Deepak Chopra . More ridicule and debunking followed, and the publisher's press page is notably short on serious reviews, though it lists some rather strange references "

• "Biocentrism": is it woo? --Jerry Coyne (subject-matter expert)

"No observer is there when we leave a sand castle on the beach and return to find it effaced by the tides, no observer is there when you forget to take the cake out of the oven and it burns. Are these phenomena, then, 'created' by consciousness? If so, how; and why are they 'created' in a predictable way? Lanza’s big mistake, it seems to me, is to say that a combination of the 'observer' effect (which doesn’t apply on the macro level) and the fact that reality is filtered through evolved neurons, together suggest that reality does not exist. If it doesn’t, it’s curious that the illusory reality we create with our consciousness—and Lanza includes 'death' as such an illusion—certainly behave in ways that are predictable and perceived identically by different people, changing in expected directions even when no observer is around."

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, First, thank you for your encouraging words to not give up after one try. In fact I am working on this right now, as you suggested. It is much shorter.

I agree that longer excerpts from reliable sources and from Lanza’s work might prove very useful. But I think using unreliable sources -- and then only choosing unreliable sources that are attacks on Lanza - is not a good idea and not in keeping with how decisions on Wikipedia should be made. It seems like an end-run around the policy that the Talk page discussion should be limited to the merits of the Wikipedia matters at hand, and not fall into a discussion about the substance of the article itself.

I’d suggest you delete all the unreliable sources from this section, so I don’t have to go to the trouble of creating an equally long or longer list of unreliable sources (many with comments from well-regarded scientists) that frame Biocentrism as a highly credible or proactive or masterful theory, etc. What is the point of having two long lists of unreliable sources that oppose each other? Any controversial theory widely discussed in the mass media is going to attract a wealth of comments from armchair critics -- there’s a reason why these types of comments are excluded from Wikipedia. Plus, there is a preponderance of reaction to his initial essay 14 years ago (when the mainstream media covered it) and none, that can I tell, that reacts to his recent books and peer-reviewed journal articles, written with physicists, that rely much more on difficult mathematics. These are naturally much harder for armchair critics to address.

Then I can focus on completing a list of missing, germane excerpts from Lanza's work (your section two) and missing germane excerpts from reliable sources.

In any case, thank you for keeping an open mind about a redraft of the proposal. Sapphire41359 (talk).

I believe that my listing of sources complies with both the letter and spirit of WP:TPG and WP:TALKDD. If anyone agrees with Sapphire41359 and thinks that the list is not appropriate, now would be a good time to speak up.

Not all of the unreliable sources I listed were critical. I picked six representative unreliable sources, one of which was very favorable: In shedding our shells. Then I followed this with seven sources that were written by Lanza himself, and thus of course support Lanza's theories.

I challenge you to do what you claim you can do: create a list of five unreliable/opinion sources that "frame Biocentrism as a highly credible or proactive or masterful theory, etc." And to be fair, please add one negative unreliable/opinion source to match the one positive unreliable source I found. I don't think you can do it. I couldn't find more than the one. There are many that are favorable towards Lanza but the support for biocentrism is close to zero. You will find a similar situation with Linus Pauling (vitamin C) and William Shockley (race & IQ). Many sources acknowledging the good work they have done in their own field while rejecting their fringe theories in areas they have no expertise in.

Finally, I just fixed a bad link in the above list. The most likely reason you didn't find it (and the reason you missed the positive comments in one of the sources) was that you didn't bother to open and read the links.   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think your list and analysis are fairly close to my own, Guy. Good work. jps (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Please note that with each iteration of Lanza’s books and papers, his theories bring together more data and precision, reflecting developments in advancements in quantum theory and physics. Lanza’s most recent paper [[10] is co-authored with Andrei Barvinsky, one of the world’s leading theorists in quantum gravity and quantum cosmology, from the Theory Department, Lebedev Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia. [11] This process of continuing challenges and refinement is how science moves forward. Sapphire41359 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are also a lot of a lot of wacko ideas have been developed in this fashion which I can point to if you would like. The point is, however, that we are unable to tell what kind of proposal biocentrism is. Long and the short of this matter is that it is irresponsible for us try to evaluate this idea as anything beyond WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional Reliable Sources Excerpts

• A Biotech Provocateur Takes On Physics - Forbes (2007)

“Now Lanza is advancing what he says is a new theory of the universe, an idea to which he says he has devoted his entire life. He believes his thoughts could revolutionize physics, the study of the mind and artificial intelligence. At its most basic, his idea is that much of what physics has observed is not actually physical, but a creation of the mind. The world, as we perceive it, is real to us, but we are actually sensing an underlying informational framework. To make things more complicated, the act of perceiving this information changes it, putting biological consciousness at the center of the universe.”

“E. Donnall Thomas, a Nobel Laureate and former director of clinical research at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Institute, praises the paper: "Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work," Thomas wrote. "The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole."”

“Arthur Zajonc, physicist from Amherst College: "I do think the issue for me that he's raising is an interesting one.””

• Theory of every-living-thing - MSNBC (2007)

“As physicists learn more about the constants that govern how the universe works - including the cosmological constant that appears to govern how fast the universe is expanding - they're starting to come around to the view that we've benefited from an astronomical stroke of luck that arranged things just right for life and consciousness to develop. Lanza, however, sees it a different way: that we observe these features in the universe because we are biologically built to see things in this particular way. ...Many physicists may well protest that the "create-your-own-reality" mantra does nothing to reconcile the micro world of quantum mechanics with the macro world of general relativity - the stated aim of the quest for the theory of everything. But as far as Lanza is concerned, the contradictions and weirdnesses that arise from the quantum world serve as signals that a new approach is needed, with more weight given to the role of observers.”

• Will Biology Solve the Universe? - Wired (2007)

“Lanza says scientists will establish a unified theory only if they radically rethink their understanding of space and time using a "biocentric" approach. His article is essentially a biological and philosophical response to Hawking's A Brief History of Time, in which he questions how we interpret the big bang, the existence of space and time, as well as many other theories -- assertions that might ruffle the feathers of some physical scientists.”

• The universe in your head - NBC News (2009)

“Lanza admits that the reviews haven't all been glowing, particularly among some physicists. "Their response has been much how you'd expect priests to respond to stem cell research," he told me Monday.”

“Other physicists, however, point out that Lanza's view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.”

• Book Review of Biocentrism - Richard Conn Henry, Academy Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University (2009)

“And what is their underlying thesis? They present it as a long list of Principles of Biocentrism that have no individual value, in my opinion––but the heart of it, collectively, is correct. On page 15 they say “the animal observer creates reality and not the other way around.” That is the essence of the entire book, and that is factually correct. It is an elementary conclusion from quantum mechanics.”

“So what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private– –furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!””

• Review of Robert Lanza & Bob Berman's Book: Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe - Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, review written by Stephen P. Smith, Physics Department at the University of California, Davis. (2010)

“Lanza’s book is not a rigorous scientific treatment, but the science he refers to is rigorous. Neither is his book a comprehensive philosophical development. Rather, Lanza has a colloquial style that is typical of good popular books, and his book can be understood by non-experts. This is a very important book for the right audience.”

• Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death - Booklist (2016)

“Wandering between textbook, philosophical meditation, and strident manifesto, the book synthesizes physics, botany, The Bhagavad Gita, quantum entanglement, and other seemingly disparate topics into an amalgam that’s as provocative as it is woolly-headed. A clear inspiration is Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time (1988), a superior but denser and less casual book. Science-minded readers open to philosophy with a New Age bent will find more to like here.”

Additional Unreliable Sources Excerpts

• RobertLanzaBiocentrism.com - Endorsements of Biocentrism (n.d.)

David Thompson, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, said that Robert Lanza’s “work is a wake-up call.”

Anthony Atala is a renowned scientist and W.H. Boyce Professor, Chair, and Director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine: “[Biocentrism] takes into account all the knowledge we have gained over the last few centuries; placing in perspective our biologic limitations that have impeded our understanding of greater truths surrounding our existence and the universe around us. This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come.”

In his book “The Unobservable Universe,” physicist Scott M. Tyson wrote that “The views that Dr. Lanza presented in this book changed my thinking in ways from which there could never be retreat. Before I had actually finished reading the book, it was abundantly obvious to me that Dr. Lanza’s writings provided me with the pieces of perspective that I had been desperately seeking. Everything I had learned and everything I thought I knew just exploded in my mind and, as possibilities first erupted and then settled down, a completely new understanding emerged. The information I had accumulated in my mind hadn’t changed, but the way I viewed it did –in a really big way.”

• How Life Creates The Universe - Biocentrism Book Review - Warrior.do (n.d.)

“a mind-bending adventure that attempts to explain how consciousness creates the universe as we know it today.”

• Robert Lanza - Certified Consumer Reviews (n.d.)

“Understanding this simple yet revolutionary idea more fully yields answers to several major puzzles of mainstream science. It offers a new way of understanding everything from the microworld to the forces, constants, and laws that shape the entire universe.”

• Robert Lanza doesn't seem to be kidding - Wired Blog (2007)

“Thing is, I have a lot of respect for Lanza. His biology is really interesting and cutting edge, and I find it admirable that he's trying to tackle the problems on the border of physics and philosophy. They're the fundamental stuff of reality, and they are what we should all spend some time thinking about—addled by dorm-room smoke or not. What bothers me is that he seems to have been a little lazy about it, and for a scientist of his caliber...that's just weird.” (Negative review)

• Midwest Book Review: Reviewer's Bookwatch, July 2009 - Stephen J. Hage (2009)

“What makes this book both interesting and worth the effort of reading it; is the unique perspective Lanza brings to the subject matter as a physician. Physicians are, by definition, intellectual chimeras because the discipline of medicine is an amalgam of hard science, healing, philosophy, metaphysics and ethics. Each physician must decide what to take and use from that intellectual palette and the decisions they make, in that regard, to a large extent define who they are, how they practice and what kind(s) of relationships they cultivate with patients and colleagues. I know this because I worked with physicians for most of my adult life in hospitals.”

• Book Spotlight: Biocentrism - SciGuy - Eric Berger (2009)

“The book is an out-and-out challenge to modern physics, and its inability to reconcile the fundamental forces of nature and make sense of our universe. Lanza believes that is because physicists fail to take consciousness into account as part of their theories.”

“As a result he proposes a new theory, biocentrism, that says the universe cannot exist without life and consciousness. The book basically has three components: the attack on physics, the explanation of biocentrism and details about Lanza’s personal life.”

“I found the attack on physics to be pretty compelling, I’m not yet sure what to make of Lanza’s theories. But they’re certainly worth debate.”

• Robert Lanza's Theory of Biocentrism and the Afterlife - Matt Feshbach (2013)

“I found it to be amazing and refreshing to see this kind of a direction and discovery in the field of science.”

• Biocentrism Explains Why There's No Time and No Death - Robby Berman (2016)

“Of course, not everyone buys biocentrism, but it’s an interesting system, and an extrapolation of other revered thinkers’ thoughts. It’s comforting, too. Now it just needs to be right.”

• Hot Off the Presses - The-Scientist.com (2016)

“Given the pace of research not only in basic biology, but in neuroscience, cosmology, and theoretical physics, it’s conceivable…”

• Biocentricism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe - Josh Wulf (2017)

“After reading a lot on relativity, quantum mechanics, and consciousness, this is the first book where I felt that the author had a solid grasp of all three and was able to bring something to the conversation.”

• Biocentrism – Robert Lanza -Systems Community of Inquiry (2018)

This is a good synopsis of Lanza’s theories, books, and papers through 2018. (Does not include 2020 book and 2021 peer-reviewed article.)

• Book review: 'Biocentrism' by Robert Lanza -- the !n(tro)verted yogi (2018)

“I should point out that these digressions are the main reason for my mediocre rating of this book, and not disenchantment with the case for biocentrism. (I think we know too little about consciousness and about it’s odd interactions at the quantum level to draw any firm conclusions in that regard.)”

“I found this book to be fascinating – even some of the digressions were interesting, though not helpful to discussion of the topic at hand. It’s a thought-provoking work. I have no idea whether it will prove to have merit as a description of how the world works. I’ll leave it to readers to determine whether they think it is a sound interpretation of observed reality or a physics-envy based attack on the stronghold of physics as the heart of science or an attempt to reduce the fear of death in a way consistent with science (i.e. time as we perceive it being an illusion makes us all immortal.) If you are interested in the big questions of why the universe exists and what is the nature of reality, you may want to give this book a read – not that it’ll answer all your questions, but it will provide an alternative to mainstream views that you may find useful.”

• Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death - CBC Radio Ideas (2018)

“But this model not only fails to fully address the conundrum of consciousness. It also fails to answer other puzzling questions: what was there before the Big Bang? Why does the universe seem exquisitely designed for the emergence of life? Why is there something instead of nothing? This is where Dr. Lanza's biocentric theory of the universe comes in, to show us the inherent flaw in the standard explanation for origins of the universe.”

• Biocentrism – Is seeing believing…or creating? - Nina Burrowes (2018)

“Lanza’s starting premise is that conscious awareness remains one of the greatest mysteries of science. It is the basis of everything because we experience everything through our perception and yet, it’s still a complete mystery to us. Lanza makes some bold suggestions using data from experiments in quantum physics to explain the biocentric understanding of human consciousness.”

• Separating scientists from their beliefs is vitally important - Robert Lea (2018)

“The cover of ‘Biocentricism’ is littered with praise for Lanza’s achievements in his field, he even appears credited as ‘Robert Lanza, MD’. But this is all just slight of hand. None of it qualifies him to discuss quantum mechanics…. Part of the reason I believe Lanza’s theories on quantum physics are excepted without too much question by some people is a result of the ‘doctor/scientist’ trope perpetuated by the media. How often do we see in popular fiction an expert on one area of science called to solve an issue in a radically different field?” (Negative review)

• Quantasia Blog - The book Biocentrism by R. Lanza - Claudia Vece (2018)

“Robert Lanza, writes the fascinating theory “Biocentrism: a New Theory of the Universe” based on Biocentrism in which he exposes the revolutionary vision of life that creates the universe instead of the contrary, attributing the responsibility of creation to the observer rather than the observed. The idea that consciousness creates reality is supported by quantum physics, is consistent with aspects of biology and neuroscience and takes into account all the knowledge we have acquired over the last few centuries.”

“This theory is also consistent with the most ancient traditions of the world which affirm that consciousness conceives, governs and becomes a physical world. Lanza therefore suggests that we are the ones giving meanings to the particular configuration of all the possible results that we call reality.”

• GRAND BIOCENTRIC DESIGN - Kirkus Indie Reviews (2020)

“Not all readers will be persuaded by the authors’ case, but its notions are exciting ones, and they do a sound job of linking them to observable, replicable experiments. Fans of revolutionary science—or just big, cerebral questions—will enjoy this ambitious work. A thought-provoking dispatch from the frontier of physics.”

• Is reality created by our consciousness? - ScoopCube (2021)

“awareness is the driving force behind the existence of the universe. He therefore thinks that reality flows from our own mind. According to the authors, the physical world we live in is not something that is separate from us. Instead, it would be created by our minds when we observe it. As one of the emblematic figures of the biocentrism theory, Lanza considers, according to Big Think, that “space and time are a by-product of the ‘vortex of information’ in our head that is woven into a coherent experience by our minds”.”

• Reality, Consciousness and a theory called Biocentrism - Recknsense (2021)

“I like to think I follow the science and steer away from the ‘woo’ theories. But this is quite a compelling book and there is no denying some of the ‘spooky’ science that the authors detail. There is no explanation in many cases. In a typical quantum scientist response, we have to ‘shut up and calculate’ as many attempt to shut down the wilder theories.”

Additional works by Lanza and co-authors

• Lanza, Robert; Berman, Bob Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe (2009).

“Currently, the disciplines of biology, physics, cosmology, and all their sub-branches are generally practiced by those with little knowledge of the others. It may take a multi-disciplinary approach to achieve tangible results...”

• Lanza, Robert; Berman, Bob. Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death (2016).

What we “see” is a complex construction generated in our head. One of the best proofs of this is the neurological phenomenon called “blindsight.” These patients are blind due to injuries or lesions in the striate cortex of the brain. Although blind, they can navigate an obstacle course and even recognize fearful faces.

• Dmitriy Podolskiy and Robert Lanza, On decoherence in quantum gravity. Ann. Phys. (2016)

Abstract: “It was previously argued that the phenomenon of quantum gravitational decoherence described by the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is responsible for the emergence of the arrow of time. Here we show that the characteristic spatio-temporal scales of quantum gravitational decoherence are typically logarithmically larger than a characteristic curvature radius R-1/2 of the background space-time. This largeness is a direct consequence of the fact that gravity is a non-renormalizable theory, and the corresponding effective field theory is nearly decoupled from matter degrees of freedom in the physical limit Mp-->infinity. Therefore, as such, quantum gravitational decoherence is too ineffective to guarantee the emergence of the arrow of time and the “quantum-to-classical” transition to happen at scales of physical interest. We argue that the emergence of the arrow of time is directly related to the nature and properties of physical observer.”

• Lanza, Robert; Pavsic, Matej; Berman, Bob. The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality (2020).

“Now, if we follow the logic of Parisi and Sourlas—where a system in spacetime with dimensionality of D + 2 with disorder present roughly translates to a system in spacetime with dimensionality D without disorder—we see that quantum gravity in four spacetime dimensions, in the presence of a large number of observers (disorder), is in fact the same as quantum gravity in a spacetime with two fewer dimensions.”

• Dmitriy Podolskiy, Andrei O. Barvinsky and Robert Lanza, “Parisi-Sourlas-like dimensional reduction of quantum gravity in the presence of observers” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (2021)

Abstract: “We show that in the presence of disorder induced by random networks of observers measuring covariant quantities (such as scalar curvature) (3+1)-dimensional quantum gravity exhibits an effective dimensional reduction at large spatio-temporal scales, which is analogous to the Parisi-Sourlas phenomenon observed for quantum field theories in random external fields. After averaging over disorder associated with observer networks, statistical properties of the latter determine both the value of gravitational constant and the effective cosmological constant in the model. Focusing on the dynamics of infrared degrees of freedom we find that the upper critical dimension of the effective theory is lifted from Dcr = 1 + 1 to Dcr = 3 + 1 dimensions.”

I look forward to more discussion.Sapphire41359 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I spent quite a bit of time compiling an excerpts source list in the same style as yours. As requested, some of the excerpts are negative. I pasted them all at the very bottom, but I think it would be more fair if we combined them into a single list with mine immediately following yours. I wanted to see what you thought about that. I also think you’ll find the source list provides a pretty compelling argument that this is not a fringe theory, which is why these lists should be combined. His latest journal articles from 2020 and 2021 are co-authored with world renowned physicists and are in prestigious journals -- it is natural for a scientific theory to evolve and become more refined over time. The 2007 article had the most general statement of the theory, As the science becomes more complex, the armchair critics can no longer weigh in based on their reading of mass media columns about the theories. It is also natural that a theory that challenges some mainstream physics will attract criticism from some physicists -- an exchange of ideas between scientists is not the same thing as a fringe theory. Please especially look at the quality of the journals publishing Lanza’s actual work -- from 2007 through the present. These are not fringe journals. I think the new proposed draft is balanced correctly. Do you think the right place to discuss the new proposed draft is in the RfC, where I placed it, or should it be here? Or a new section? Sapphire41359 (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

His latest journal articles from 2020 and 2021 are co-authored with world renowned physicists and are in prestigious journals This is great, but these journal articles co-authored with Podolskiy do not actually mention "biocentrism" as a specific proposal in them. They are much more focused on certain "perhaps relevant but perhaps not" case studies. jps (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. In addition, "world renowned" and "prestigious" seem excessive praise. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: where is the the right place to post, I don't think it matters. Everyone concerned appears to be keeping up with everything written anywhere on this talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Narrower Discussion/Proposed Edits

Can editors address some narrow, discrete issues rather than the proposal for a rewrite which I made above. Please note COI disclosure above.

1. I think the article at least needs an actual description of the theory which it now lacks. It is very difficult to follow what the 199-word criticism refers to absent a description of the theory (which has now been discussed in three books and two peer-reviewed physics journals.) The description in the current second sentence of the Wikipedia page is incomplete and does not represent the theory:

"The essay proposed Lanza's idea of a biocentric universe, which places biology above the other sciences."

Here is a proposed second sentence with independent reliable sourcing:

Biocentrism proposes that consciousness is the basis for understanding the existence of the universe. The theory “proposes that the physical world that we perceive is not something that's separate from us but rather created by our minds as we observe it.”

I propose this as a starting point for discussion. Note that I have linked "conscious perception" to the article about observer effect (physics) because the two are closely related and the theory makes much more sense in relation to physics in this context.

2. I also think that it would be helpful to include the two recent papers in peer-reviewed physics journals, written with well-regarded physicists. This was suggested by jps above. Both papers discuss Lanza’s biocentrism theory. The first paper references the original article in The American Scholar -- it is somewhat difficult to find because the reference only contains the title of the American Scholar and the word “biocentrism” is only in the subtitle of the original article. The original American Scholar article is in reference 41 here. ("the “brainless” observer does not experience time and/or decoherence of any degrees of freedom (as was earlier suggested in 41)." In the second paper the authors refer to their previous paper from the Annelen der Physik (which explicitly relies on biocentrism) as reference 49. The second paper has recent press coverage by a science journalist in an independent media source. [12]

There is an extended discussion of theory underlying biocentrism in the Introduction:

We deem these observations generally interesting also because the described setup, quantum gravity with disorder, represents a rare case in theoretical physics when the presence of observers drastically changes behavior of observable quantities themselves not only at microscopic scales but also in the infrared limit, at very large spatio-temporal scales. Namely, in the absence of observers the background of the 3 + 1-dimensional quantum gravity remains unspecified. Once observers are introduced, coupled to the observable gravitational degrees of freedom and integrated out, the effective background of theory becomes de-Sitter like. Rather than being a fundamental constant of the theory, the characteristic curvature of effective cosmological constant is determined by the intrinsic properties of “observers” such as the strength of their coupling to gravity and distribution of observation events across the fluctuating spacetime. Physical observers thus play a critically important role for our conclusions implying a necessity of proper description of observer, observation event and interaction between observers and the observed physical system for theoretical controllability of the very physical setups being probed."

To the extent that editors think that because the papers don’t use the word “biocentrism” in the body of the texts (even though the underlying principles are discussed) that they shouldn’t be included in this section, then I propose just changing the subsection title to “Biocentrism and related papers” to account for the ongoing peer-reviewed publications of a well-known scientist, all on closely related topics. These papers are useful in allowing more academic readers to evaluate the theory and Lanza’s credentials.

3. Finally, since it seems editors would rather work to improve the current version than substitute it, I’d propose adding a new third sentence to the second paragraph from a renowned physicist, Richard Conn Henry. (From Wikipedia: “Richard Conn Henry (born 7 March 1940[1]) is an Academy Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, author of one book and over 200 publications on the topics of astrophysics and various forms of astronomy including optical, radio, ultraviolet, and X-ray.”) The quality of the source is secondary to the very high quality of the expert in this case.

In a review of his book ' 'Biocentrism' ' , Johns Hopkins physicist Richard Conn Henry comments that the Lanza’s theory that the “animal observer creates reality” is “factually correct”, if not novel, and worth exploring because it’s what physicists “only whisper… in private.”

The arguments against including positive quotes have been that they haven’t come from qualified physicists. It’s not an applicable argument with this physicist. Sapphire41359 (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding (3), it seems wise to note that Henry says the individual principles of the biocentric model "have no individual value" rather than selectively quoting the praise. Also, the bit about whispering in private is meaningless. Urve 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Biocentrism description

Here I critique Sapphire41359's first proposal

Biocentrism proposes that consciousness is the basis for understanding the existence of the universe.

This is a pretty anodyne statement here that doesn't seem to add much except for the WP:ASTONISHing and hidden claim that the observer effect is based on consciousness (the observer effect can actually function without any consciousness whatsoever). If that's actually the claim that Lanza is making here, then it's related to consciousness causes collapse ideas which are maligned but, more importantly, I don't see third-party sources identifying that clearly. There is a reading of this sentence that is almost tautological. Understanding anything likely requires "consciousness". However, I imagine what is intended here is something a bit more expansive, so we will have to explain that. We have sources which talk about the primacy of biology in Lanza's proposal. We don't have sources that talk about consciousness explaining the observer effect. Unless you can find one that does so.

The theory “proposes that the physical world that we perceive is not something that's separate from us but rather created by our minds as we observe it.”

Yuck, not particularly enthused by what is being proposed here. There is, of course, an old form of solipsism and related philosophical arguments that would align with the text itself. That's not precisely what Lanza is saying, I think. Moreover, I'm not a big fan of these sources. Paul Ratner seems to have simply accepted everything Lanza has to say at face value and not gone looking for other sources. BigThink doesn't really have a good editorial policy, after all. The Alan Boyle blog is similarly no good -- perhaps even worse from an editorial perspective though I appreciate that at the time he asked for feedback (would have been better if he had actually sought it out). Finally, I cannot get access to the Eckelbecker article.

In short, to me, this isn't that promising as an improvement.

jps (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Published papers

We already link to The American Scholar piece, so I'm not sure what is being asked in that case. As for the Annelen der Physik article, I'm not opposed to mentioning that he collaborated on that, but even the quoted piece doesn't so much as define what an observer is beyond what is typically meant in QM -- that is any process which causes wavefunction collapse. Now wavefunction collapse is still debated and is mysterious, but there is nothing to preference consciousness in this mystery either in the paper itself or in general. That the paper was published seems to be a testament to the authors explicitly not drawing such conclusions. So, aside from a brief mention such as "Lanza has collaborated with physicists to publish a paper on quantum mechanics." I'm not convinced much more deserves inclusion here.

jps (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

JSE review

We typically do not accept stuff published in Journal of Scientific Exploration. I'm sorry. jps (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)