Biocentrism and BF

[WSA]

This is admittedly a half-baked and "out there" point to consider, and I'm sure it will draw more than its share of "Woo!" responses here, but I wanted to open up this topic for consideration. 

 

If you've not ever encountered the theory of Biocentrism, and its chief proponent, Robert Lanza, I'd encourage you to read up on it. The idea is a fascinating one, and he is right on one of his chief observations, in my opinion: Something about this theory of time/space/perception rings "true" to me. If you've ever tried to wrap your head around quantum theory (especially the duality of matter as particle AND wave forms) this will be right in your wheelhouse.  His writings have triggered in my mind a number of thoughts about our favorite crypto-critter that I wanted to lob out there for discussion and consideration.

 

One thing that has always intrigued me about the sighting reports is a...I don't know..."disconnect?" between the two putative species when we come into close proximity. The reaction/demeanor of the BF has been described many times, or I would characterize it as, disinterested, nonchalant, and even "cool". When you look at the PGF, you can't help but note an overall under-reaction by the subject.  Almost as if Patty recognizes "something", but she does not react as I would expect another two-legged creature to react to another one, especially not one encountered unexpectedly.  There are many of what I would consider credible encounter reports of the animal looking right at the witness, but giving no noticeable reaction whatsoever until they just turn and walk (and it is almost always at a walk). I've always found this to be a fascinating fact.   

 

Although I completely understand the current lack of ability to confirm/refute this hypothesis, let me just throw out the theory that BF, fundamentally, perceives the world, and us, in a manner that would not only be incomprehensible to us, it also creates an inner-species barrier that prevents them from even perceiving us as we at least think we are to them.

 

How's that for a problem? 

A primer on the theory of biocentrism: 

 

[MindSquatch]

This subject really isn't that complicated, just seems like it is because of how we were raised and educated. Say you and a Sasquatch are out in nature looking at the same Aspen Tree. What do you see when observing that tree, is it just another tree to you? Or is the tree much more than just a tree. That Sasquatch probably doesn't see that very same tree the same way you do. When that Sasquatch looks at that tree, he or she doesn't even have a name for what that tree is or for even being a tree in the first place. Plus while looking at the tree, it sees the tree in the moment without time associated with it. This right here would put the Sasquatch in a higher consciousness level when it observes this world. So when Patty turns and looks at Roger, she sees more than just a person there with a camera pointed at her. When Patty sees Roger, she sees him just like when she looks at a aspen tree.

I created a name just for this subject some years ago and is the title of my book. It's taking the essence that flows into this world from consciousness and turning that sweet golden essence that oozes from that same aspen tree and turning it into words, not a easy task to do. Basically, Humankind destroys the the Child within at a early age and becomes blind in seeing that sweet golden essence oozing from nature. The Sasquatches on the other hand, have never distance themselves from consciousness, they can truly see that essence. In doing so in a world without time or names for things, just being in the moment, they see the world not as we humans see it. 

[gigantor]

2 hours ago, WSA said:

Although I completely understand the current lack of ability to confirm/refute this hypothesis

 

We do collect a data point in the SSR which may be relevant...

 

[Arvedis]

It is hard, if not impossible, to quantify emotion in the response of an animal unless there is something physical happening. Of course BF is more than a simple animal but it certainly has animal instincts and many other parallels. It is not uncommon for an animal to not care about human existence and go about their business. I have read about all kinds of reactions from BF in human proximity. Everything from incredulous expressions, angry (or even "evil"), to curious, sad or almost immature like they are looking for a playmate and react like they have been let down when the human screams or takes off running.  It seems most of the time, BF is just cautiously observant and doesn't feel obligated to interact or show it's motivations in any way.

 

I like the metaphysical and scientific underpinnings of the topic. It is unfortunate we cannot study it with any real accuracy.

[WSA]

Great data Gigantor.  Yes, "indifferent" sums up what I'm talking about quite handily.

 

>>>MindSquatch.  Yes, exactly. Not that a BF would necessarily have to have a different consciousness and perception than us, but I think we tend to project our own consciousness on them when we wouldn't do that for, say, a salamander. The theory of Biocentrism emphasizes that our perception of our reality is uniquely peculiar to what we take in through our senses, and our senses are a product of the organ locked into the vault of our skulls, and that  we must get away from the idea that this  reality (including space and time) exists independently of that perception. If you accept this premise, then it seems rash to assume another bi-pedal species (or any other species for that matter) perceives us in agreement with our own viewpoint merely because it is morphologically similar to us.

 

Does this help to explain the reaction by Sasquatch that is noted more than any other?  Maybe their biocentric perception doesn't even register us as a sentient being at all. We might be a wavy shadowy line, or a mote of sunlight, or a high pitched frequency on the edge of their range of hearing, or a pulsing orb, or anything not really worthy of alarm or even heightened attention.

 

I've had this discussion with people before on the subject of dogs and their perception of time. I've encountered people who will argue that it is abusive to a dog to have it to pass long periods of time alone. I am of the mind that dogs just know what is in front of them, and are like all animals who have not constructed the consciousness of time. All a dog is likely to know is a distinction between "owner here" and "owner not here", or "food in dish" and "no food in dish", how much human-time passes between these events is not something they can perceive. Don't get me wrong though, a dog needs activities and stimulation, and leaving an animal deprived of those is a cruelty, but the passage of time, in and of itself, is not of a concern to them all, I've always believed. What am I to my dog too? Maybe I am just an amorphous ball of scent that somehow has a mechanical ability to scratch its ears and emit pleasing/displeasing sounds under appropriate stimulation.  Perhaps I'm invisible but for all of these traits that identify me to it?  Maybe I pop in and out of my dog's space/time in startling and unpredictable ways. Have you ever wondered what an automobile is to a dog? Is seems to be one thing when you open the door to offer it a ride, and another when one passes in the street and it evokes an entirely opposite reaction.  That is the biocentristic view on display. What my dog thinks a car is, and what it is to me are two way different things, obviously. If two organism who do share the same physical space, and even have an affinity (I think) for each other can differ on something so basic, what could we predict a BF would see/hear/smell/think about us? 

 

Like my dog, all I can really conclude about a BF is how they interact when they unexpectedly come into our presence.  It is just a weird, weird reaction, most of the time.

 

  

Edited August 30, 2018 by WSA

[norseman]

He sounds like this guy? Does physics prove we are all in a simulation?

 

 

[WSA]

In my opinion Norse, he is right up against what his revelation means, but can't get past that last hurdle to question the existence of an objective reality outside of our own construction. Math is the biggest way we avoid that realization, even when the mathematical evidence the gentleman noted screams "it is US" behind these patterns we think are sourced by some "other" thing. So, I guess you could say, "We have met the Matrix and we is it"

 

The quest to find a singular unified explanation "outside" our biocentric view leads us to unsatisfying and incomplete things like string theory, that always are one or two equations away from coming up with the grail.One principal tenant of Lanza's theory is the fact that all of the forces of the universe, like gravity, weak forces, etc., are calibrated right in the sweet-spot for the universe (and us) to exist. Now what are the chances of that just happening, and doesn't it make much more sense that WE are the ones responsible for making that so?  Is it more probable that the "Matrix" of browser code he describes was set in motion by the Big Bang, or that string theorists are projecting it on the universe, and by doing so, are disproving their own theories?    

 

Yes, I know, not an easy concept.  

[norseman]

This is my own mountain man logic but I think they are both wrong. Sure....our perception of the universe around us is skewed by our own current knowledge and understanding.

 

But unlike a Chipmunk that just grabs the acorn because its there? We split atoms..... a Human eye cannot see an atom. And we use that technology for weapons and energy. So we harness something we cannot see, touch or smell. Man made objects like plastics or alloy metals is not just found in nature as well.

 

Put it this way. If everything around us was simply a construct of what our own minds can observe? We would still be in the cave flaking rocks. Just like the Chipmunk gathering acorns. And if another species arose very different from us.... say a intelligent octopus species, then our technology like atomic energy would not be available to them because they think different from us!? Atomic energy is either real or its not. If its real which I think it is. Its available to any species that has the intelligence to harness it.

 

Its not there because of us.....its there in spite of us. In fact without the sun? We would not exist at all....

 

 

 

 

[WSA]

I certainly agree with you Norse, but that is not really what the theory of biocentrism disputes, at least as I understand it to be. 

 

It is not as if the human mind, or presumably a BF's either, is manifesting matter...at least not in the sense I think you mean. 

 

The take-off point for Lanza's theory is how quantum particles are perceived by us, and if you are familiar with the two-slit experiments on light waves, and Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" you know what I mean. There is a fundamental contradiction between how we think matter should behave in an objectively observable and provable world, and what quantum experiments show to be true. It has been demonstrated over and over. The mere observation of a light wave will make it exhibit properties of a particle. Not only that, this observation will cause changes in other entangled waves BEFORE that observation is made.  This elephant in the room of the unified theory is something humans have been trying in vain to grasp as long as it has been known. Lanza's news is that the only explanation that makes sense of how it can happen is that the whole kit-and-kaboodle is a construct of our perception, and of course a change in our perception will work fundamental changes in the way matter behaves, seemingly in contradiction of time as we know and describe it.

 

So the idea that we are manipulating sub-atomic particles is very true, according to Lanza, but not in only the way you describe!

[norseman]

I understand, but reject it.

 

It cannot be a construct of our own perception.

 

Humans themselves have different perceptions.... Does the experiment change based on which scientist is viewing it? Of course not. 

 

There is something else there at work that we just do not fully understand at this point.

[WSA]

I ageee. I think what that thing is, is consciousness. That can be a constant for animals who share a similar brain structure. Wouldn’t you think so?  So, sharing the same consciousness could explain the consensus of what is.  Do we agree what the color blue is? With very little variation for humans, we do. In other words, our consciousness of blue is in agreement. Now substitute “gravity” or “time” or “space” for “blue”. 

[gigantor]

I understand it, but like Norseman, also reject it.

 

The problem is trying to apply Quantum Behavior, which are observations of the very very very small, to the macro scale.

 

Quantum entanglement and superposition are real, but at the quantum level. It has never been observed at a higher scale.

[WSA]

Actually, that is what I thought too Gigantor, and that belief, which has been somewhat of a convenient and comfortable “out” has been disproved, some have posited. And that makes perfect sense. How could particles that comprise matter behave under a set of rules different from the matter itself? Your gut will probably give you the answer without you actually knowing for sure. 

 

Google “How big can entanglement get” and be prepared to have this idea challenged. Like “atomically large” entanglement. 

[NCBFr]

13 hours ago, WSA said:

This is admittedly a half-baked and "out there" point to consider, and I'm sure it will draw more than its share of "Woo!" responses here, but I wanted to open up this topic for consideration. 

 

If you've not ever encountered the theory of Biocentrism, and its chief proponent, Robert Lanza, I'd encourage you to read up on it. The idea is a fascinating one, and he is right on one of his chief observations, in my opinion: Something about this theory of time/space/perception rings "true" to me. If you've ever tried to wrap your head around quantum theory (especially the duality of matter as particle AND wave forms) this will be right in your wheelhouse.  His writings have triggered in my mind a number of thoughts about our favorite crypto-critter that I wanted to lob out there for discussion and consideration.

 

One thing that has always intrigued me about the sighting reports is a...I don't know..."disconnect?" between the two putative species when we come into close proximity. The reaction/demeanor of the BF has been described many times, or I would characterize it as, disinterested, nonchalant, and even "cool". When you look at the PGF, you can't help but note an overall under-reaction by the subject.  Almost as if Patty recognizes "something", but she does not react as I would expect another two-legged creature to react to another one, especially not one encountered unexpectedly.  There are many of what I would consider credible encounter reports of the animal looking right at the witness, but giving no noticeable reaction whatsoever until they just turn and walk (and it is almost always at a walk). I've always found this to be a fascinating fact.   

 

Although I completely understand the current lack of ability to confirm/refute this hypothesis, let me just throw out the theory that BF, fundamentally, perceives the world, and us, in a manner that would not only be incomprehensible to us, it also creates an inner-species barrier that prevents them from even perceiving us as we at least think we are to them.

 

How's that for a problem? 

A primer on the theory of biocentrism: 

 

 

It is 7 AM and 5 deer walk in to my back yard and start eating grass.  I happen to walk out on my deck and look at them.  They freeze, stare at me, and start to think (think is probably not the right term) do I stay or do I go (think Clash song here),  I look at them, wish they were dead because they eat my wives expensive shrubs but dont have the energy to deal with them because my daughter needs a ride to go to school and I got a call in 30 minutes.  I scratch myself and walk back in without another thought.  I wonder what the deer that I want dead really think?  

 

I honestly tried to listen to the Lanza speech but gagged on the NYT endorsement and could not make it much further after 2-3 really stupid statements in the first minute.  PS - Mariners for eternity knew the earth was not flat and planes with big rubber tires do not have their electronics fried on the ground (and air for that matter) except in the most rare of all circumstances.  I think he has watched The Matrix a few times to many.

[norseman]

8 minutes ago, NCBFr said:

 

It is 7 AM and 5 deer walk in to my back yard and start eating grass.  I happen to walk out on my deck and look at them.  They freeze, stare at me, and start to think (think is probably not the right term) do I stay or do I go (think Clash song here),  I look at them, wish they were dead because they eat my wives expensive shrubs but dont have the energy to deal with them because my daughter needs a ride to go to school and I got a call in 30 minutes.  I scratch myself and walk back in without another thought.  I wonder what the deer that I want dead really think?  

 

I honestly tried to listen to the Lanza speech but gagged on the NYT endorsement and could not make it much further after 2-3 really stupid statements in the first minute.  PS - Mariners for eternity knew the earth was not flat and planes with big rubber tires do not have their electronics fried on the ground (and air for that matter) except in the most rare of all circumstances.  I think he has watched The Matrix a few times to many.

 

They think...... “MAN! ....these humans have the BEST tasting shrubs in the neighborhood! OH OH! Here he comes..... (munch munch) just dont make eye contact! Kids......just ignore he is there! He will scratch himself and walk away, he always does!”