Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Sometimes it feels like my whole life has been a quest for truth. My mother is a devout Methodist while my father is agnostic (not that he really admits as much to my mother). While there are aspects of Christianity that I admire, I grew up knowing that I didn’t buy the whole package. In my teens and young adult years I looked to Eastern religion (Buddhism and Taoism most notably) and science for answers, but, while I’ve often felt like I’m on the verge of a great understanding, I’ve never really found what I’ve been looking for. In my older adult years I have largely abandoned the process. Partially because I’m too busy taking care of kids and putting food on the table, but partially because I’ve started to get the feeling that the quest is pointless. So I was intrigued when I saw this book. Basically, we’re told, everything we “know” is wrong. I don’t find that much of a leap. At various points I found this book intriguing, exciting, challenging, fulfilling, baffling, irritating and exasperating. Any book that can do all that is probably well worth reading, even if you’re not fully on board with all of the conclusions. The first half of the book is devoted to deconstructing what we think we know about the world. We delve into quantum theory, relativity and other theories to show that time and space don’t exist, at least not as we commonly perceive them. Contrary to what we “know” with science (not to mention what we feel in our guts), “spooky action at a distance” is not only possible, it’s quite common. Science is so focused on “objectivity” that it leaves a gaping hole in our knowledge – a hole that can only be filled by losing “objectivity”. That is, to really understand and make sense of what science has been telling us, we have to look to the observer – our own subjective sense. The authors take us through experiments like the double slit experiment, as well as looking at entangled twin particles that seem to know and replicate what the other is doing even if the other is galaxies away. Next we delve into deconstructing the “dumb random universe” theory. Simply by looking at the chances that 10 books arranged randomly on a shelf would happen to end up in alphabetical order (a probability of about 1 in 3.5 million) we can see that it stretches credibility to believe that everything in our universe has ended up the way it is simply by random chance. The chances that a galaxy like ours would randomly have a solar system with a planet that is perfectly suited for life would simply happen because of particles randomly bumping into each other is so astronomical as to be impossible. The authors demolish the idea of string theory (the idea of multiple universes) as being a “theory of everything” and, hence, a theory of nothing. And in any case, even if this dumb random universe theory were correct, no one has yet given a satisfactory explanation as to how consciousness as arisen out of all of this randomness. The later part of the book develops the authors’ answer to these dilemmas. We have been, in fact, starting backward, trying to arrive at consciousness by studying physics and biology. We should, rather start with consciousness and then the universe makes sense. There is, according to the authors, no “out there” out there. Everything happens in our minds, so it is our minds that we need to start with. In other words, thousands of years of exploration, observation and science have led us back to where the ancient Hindus started thousands of years ago. I’ll have to admit first off that I am no scientific expert, so I did not follow all of the science in this book. A large part of science is being able to get your head around it – to be able to visualize, even roughly, what the theories and equations are pointing to. I admit I was often rather lost in this way. The authors develop their argument step-by-step, brick-by-brick in a seemingly incontrovertible way. But perhaps because I can’t get my head around it all, I remain skeptical. For one thing, I have to question their sources. Dr. Lanza is a medical doctor, and I have a hard time believing he also has a deep and thorough knowledge of theoretical physics – those are rather big fields for any one person to master. Berman seems to be more of a science generalist who came to the field because of his own “enlightenment” experience. Many of the references seem to come from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and other layman’s magazines. Not to disparage those publications but, being as they are written for the lay audience, they are of necessity rather simplified. My field is psychology and I have read both academic journals and popular publications like PSYCHOLOGY TODAY. I can tell you that the latter is wildly simplified, often to the point of error. But in any case, my real issue is that biocentrism doesn’t really solve or explain anything more than any other scientific or religious approach. It just raises more question – many of which are the same as any religion. If everything boils down to consciousness, whence did consciousness come from? Again, we’re back to an unexplainable first cause. Furthermore, whose consciousness? The authors frequently use the words “our mind”. Is this meant to imply a collective consciousness? I suppose so if we’re all part of some overarching consciousness and divisions and dualities are all illusions. (If not, we’re back to Descartes “I think, therefore I am” because I can only verify my own consciousness – perhaps I’m dreaming and making up everything else.) If there really are no dualities and all is illusion, how did these illusions come to be? Did we each split ourselves off from this overarching consciousness? Or did this consciousness split us off? And in either case, why? What are we “here” for? And what happens after “death” (which doesn’t really exist)? Do we rejoin the larger consciousness? Will we retain any individual sense of ourselves as separate, or will we just merge into the larger whole (which, for all practical purposes is annihilation)? Biocentrism doesn’t answer these fundamental questions any better than “God did it” or “turtles all the way down”. Moreover, if everything is consciousness and everything else is illusion, that renders life itself meaningless. If there is no death, then it doesn’t matter that people are dying of hunger or war or lack of medical care – they are just rejoining this larger consciousness sooner. In fact, we should all just lay down and die. What difference does suffering and evil and oppression make anyway? While I don’t buy into any of the Western religions, I do admire them for struggling with the meaning of life and death, good and evil, struggle and altruism. Nonetheless, I am very glad I read this book and I have passed it on to other people and look forward to discussion on the issues raised. I was, as noted, very challenged by this book and it has opened up new possibilities. The book is well written and intriguing, and, despite my skepticism, not easily brushed off or dismissed. Incidentally, I have not read the first book. I would like to go back and see if that book answers any of the questions raised here. Whether you agree, disagree, or simply remain skeptical, I recommend reading this book for some very satisfying food for thought.