Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Currently, the disciplines of biology and physics, and all their sub-branches are
generally practiced by those with little knowledge of the others. Without
symbiosis between them, attempts to unify the universe will remain a dead
end.
Robert Lanza
http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/
Este ceva asemanator cu ceea ce sustine si Prof. Dr. Dumitru Constantin Dulcan.
Robert Lanza, cercetator la Advanced Cell Technology, a dovedit prin fizica cuantica
(http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/is-death-an-illusion-evidence-suggests-death-isntthe-end/ ) faptul ca moartea nu exista. Cand trupul isi termina bateriile, mai raman 20 de wati de energie
informationala.
O noua teorie stiintifica demonstreaza ca moartea trupului nu este punctul terminus al calatoriei sufletului,
asa cum, de altfel, sustineau si stramosii nostri, dacii.
Multiversul ne asteapta
Prin observatii ce tin de fizica cuantica s-a ajuns la notiunea de lumi multiple sau multivers, in loc de
univers. Noua teorie care demonstreaza ca moartea nu exista are la baza conceptul de biocentrism.
Adica, exista un numar infinit de universuri si tot ceea ce este posibil sa se intample are loc in unele dintre
acestea. Iar ceea ce nu este posibil sa se intample este doar moartea! Toate aceste multiple universuri exista
simultan si, indiferent ce se intampla intr-unul dintre acestea, actiunea se continua intr-un altul.
Un experiment, publicat recent in Science, arata comportamentul unei particule ce trebuia sa treaca
simultan prin doua separatoare de fascicule. Particula a trecut prin primul separator de fascicule. Cat timp
aceasta a petrecut in separator, un Observator oarecare se poate decide sa actioneze comutatorul celui de-al
doilea separator, pornindu-l sau oprindu-l. Ceea ce Observatorul a decis la acel moment, a determinat
particula sa se comporte intr-un anume fel, sa treaca mai departe sau sa mai astepte. Indiferent de alegerea
pe care a facut-o Observatorul, particula este cea care experimenteaza optiunile. Ideea e ca manifestarea
energiei transcede ideea clasica de timp si spatiu. Ganditi-va la cei 20 de wati de energie ca la un
holoproiector, care afiseaza rezultatele experimentului pe un ecran. Indiferent daca Observatorul a oprit sau a
pornit al doilea separator de fascicule, holoproiectorul ramane activat de aceeasi baterie de 20 de wati.
Conform Biocentrismului, spatiul si timpul sunt doar instrumente pe care creierul uman, bateria de 20 de
wati, le foloseste ca sa aranjeze intr-o forma accesibila informatiile primite. Mintea are nevoie de ele.
Bateria nu, doar le proceseaza la un moment dat, dar functionarea ei categoric nu depinde de timp si spatiu.
Legatura Cer-Pamant
Vorba lui Einstein:Oamenii ca mine stiu ca diferenta intre trecut, prezent si viitor nu este decat o iluzie
perpetuata de incapatanarea umana. Orice se intampla cu trupul uman, bateria este cea care va
experimenta trecerea prin al doilea separator de fascicule. Aici intervine Multiversul. Intr-un univers, trupul
poate sa moara, dar simultan, in alt univers, el poate continua sa traiasca. Practic, ceea ce au descoperit
cercetatorii acum, in trecut se numea Pomul vietii, a carui filosofie se regaseste in toate culturile antice. Este
Thorul, legatura Cer Pamant, care constituie calea prin care fantana nemuritoare de energie, bateria de
20 de wati purtatoare de infoenergie sare dintr-un univers in altul. In stiinta, Thorul poarta denumirea de
Podul Einstein-Rosen. De fapt, sunt mai multe poduri, fiecare catre alt univers, care uneste gaurile negre.
Conform acestei teorii, universul in care ne aflam noi se afla in interiorul unei gauri negre, care exista in
interiorul altui univers si tot asa. Cine este Observatorul care alege sa ne comute la un moment dat, acordand
bateriei energoinformationale sa experimenteze si alte universuri? Rugaciunea Tatal nostru contine
esenta acestei teorii: Tatal nostru care esti in ceruri ()/ Faca-se voia Ta, precum in Cer, asa si pe Pamant!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201111/is-death-illusion-evidence-suggests-death-isn-tthe-end
By Robert Lanza
After the death of his old friend, Albert Einstein said Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little
ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us know that the distinction between past, present and future
is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
New evidence continues to suggest that Einstein was right death isan illusion.
Our classical way of thinking is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent
existence. But a long list of experiments shows just the opposite. We think life is just the activity of carbon and
an admixture of molecules we live awhile and then rot into the ground.
We believe in death because weve been taught we die. Also, of course, because we associate ourselves with
our body and we know bodies die. End of story. But biocentrism a new theory of everything tells us death
may not be the terminal event we think. Amazingly, if you add life and consciousness to the equation, you can
explain some of the biggest puzzles of science. For instance, it becomes clear why space and time and even
the properties of matter itself depend on the observer. It also becomes clear why the laws, forces, and
constants of the universe appear to be exquisitely fine-tuned for the existence of life.
Until we recognize the universe in our heads, attempts to understand reality will remain a road to nowhere.
Consider the weather outside: You see a blue sky, but the cells in your brain could be changed so the sky
looks green or red. In fact, with a little genetic engineering we could probably make everything that is red
vibrate or make a noise, or even make you want to have sex like with some birds. You think its bright out, but
your brain circuits could be changed so it looks dark out. You think it feels hot and humid, but to a tropical frog
it would feel cold and dry. This logic applies to virtually everything. Bottom line: What you see could not be
present without your consciousness.
In truth, you cant see anything through the bone that surrounds your brain. Your eyes are not portals to the
world. Everything you see and experience right now even your body is a whirl of information occurring in
your mind. According to biocentrism, space and time arent the hard, cold objects we think. Wave your hand
through the air if you take everything away, whats left? Nothing. The same thing applies for time. Space and
time are simply the tools for putting everything together.
Consider the famous two-slit experiment. When scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier,
the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other. But if you dont watch, it acts like a
wave and can go through both slits at the same time. So how can a particle change its behavior depending on
whether you watch it or not? The answer is simple reality is a process that involves your consciousness.
Or consider Heisenbergs famous uncertainty principle. If there is really a world out there with particles just
bouncing around, then we should be able to measure all their properties. But you cant. For instance, a
particles exact location and momentum cant be known at the same time. So why should it matter to a
particle what you decide to measure? And how can pairs of entangled particles be instantaneously connected
on opposite sides of the galaxy as if space and time dont exist? Again, the answer is simple: because theyre
not just out there space and time are simply tools of our mind.
Death doesnt exist in a timeless, spaceless world. Immortality doesnt mean a perpetual existence in time, but
resides outside of time altogether.
6
When plotted on a graph (in which number of hits is vertical, and position on the detector screen horizontal)
the expected result for a barrage of particles is to indeed have more hits in the middle and fewer near the
edges, which produces a curve like this:
But thats not the result we actually get. When experiments like this are performed and they have been
done thousands of times during the past century we find that the bits of light instead create a curious
pattern:
In theory, those smaller side peaks around the main one should be symmetrical. In practice, were dealing
with probabilities and individual bits of light, so the result usually deviates a bit from the ideal. Anyway, the
big question here is: Why this pattern?
Turns out, its exactly what wed expect if light is made of waves, not particles. Waves collide and interfere
with each other, causing ripples. If you toss two pebbles into a pond at the same time, the waves of each meet
each other and produce places of higher-than-normal, or lower-than-normal water-rises. Some waves
reinforce each other, or, if ones crest meets anothers trough, they cancel out at that spot.
So this early 20th-century result of an interference pattern, which can only be caused by waves, showed
physicists that light is a wave, or at least acts that way when this experiment is performed. The fascinating
thing is that when solid physical bodies like electrons were used, they got exactly the same result. Solid
10
11
Now we repeat the experiment, shooting photons through the slits one at a time, except this time we know
which slot each photon goes through. Now theresults dramatically change. Even though QWPs do not alter
photons except for harmlessly shifting their polarities (later we prove that this change in results is not caused
by the QWPs), now we no longer get the interference pattern. Now the curve suddenly changes to what wed
expect if the photons were particles:
12
Somethings happened. Turns out, the mere act of measurement, of learning the path of each photon,
destroyed the photons freedom to remain blurry and undefined and take both paths until it reached the
barriers. Its wave function must have collapsed at our measuring device, the QWPs, as it instantly chose to
become a particle and go through one slit or the other. Its wave nature was lost as soon as it lost its blurry
probabilistic not-quite-real state. But why should the photon have chosen to collapse its wave-function? How
did it know that we, the observer, could learn which slit it went through?
Countless attempts to get around this, by the greatest minds of the past century, have all failed. Our
knowledge of the photon or electron path alone caused it to become a definite entity ahead of the previous time.
Of course physicists also wondered whether this bizarre behavior might be caused by some interaction
between the which-way QWP detector or various other devices that have been tried, and the photon. But
no. Totally different which-way detectors have been built, none of which in any way disturbs the photon. Yet
we always lose the interference pattern. The bottom line conclusion, reached after many years, is that its
simply not possible to gain which-way information and the interference pattern caused by energy-waves.
Were back to QTs complementarity that you can measure and learn just one of a pair of characteristics, but
never both at the same time. If you fully learn about one, you will know nothing about the other. And just in
case youre suspicious of the quarter wave plates, let it be said when used in all other contexts, including
double slit experiments but without information-providing polarization-detecting barriers at the end, the mere
act of changing a photons polarization never has the slightest effect on the creation of an interference
pattern.
Okay, lets try something else. In nature, as we saw in the last chapter, there are entangled particles or bits
of light (or matter) that were born together and therefore share a wave function according to QT. They can
fly apart even across the width of the galaxy and yet they still retain this connection, this knowledge of
each other. If one is meddled with in any way so that it loses its anythings possible nature and has to
instantly decide to materialize with, say, a vertical polarization, its twin will instantaneously then materialize
too, and with a horizontal polarity. If one becomes an electron with an up spin, the twin will too, but with a
down spin. Theyre eternally linked in a complementary way.
So now lets use a device which shoots off entangled twins in different directions. Experimenters can create
the entangled photons by using a special crystal called beta-barium borate (BBO). Inside the crystal, an
energetic violet photon from a laser is converted to two red photons, each with half the energy (twice the
wavelength) of the original, so theres no net gain or loss of energy. The two outbound entangled photons are
sent off in different directions. Well call their paths direction p and s.
13
Well set up our original experiment with no which-way information measured. Except now, we add a
coincidence counter. The role of the coincidence counter is to prevent us from learning the polarity of the
photons at detector S unless a photon also hits detector P. One twin goes through the slits (call this photon s)
while the other merely barrels ahead to a second detector. Only when both detectors register hits at about
the same time do we know that both twins have completed their journeys. Only then does something register
on our equipment. The resulting pattern at detector S is our familiar interference pattern:
This makes sense. We havent learned which slit any particular photon or electron has taken. So the objects
have remained probability waves.
But lets now get tricky. First well restore those QWPs so we can get which-way information for photons
traveling along path S.
14
So far so good. But now lets destroy our ability to measure the which-way paths of the s photons, but without
interfering with them in any way . We can do this by placing a polarizing window in the path of the other photon P, far
away. This plate will stop the second detector from registering coincidences. Itll measure only some of the
photons, and effectively scramble up the double-signals. Since a coincidence-counter is essential here in
delivering information about the completion of the twins journeys, it has now been rendered thoroughly
unreliable. The entire apparatus will now be uselessly unable to let us learn which slit individual photons take
when they travel along path S because we wont be able to compare them with their twins since nothing
registers unless the coincidence counter allows it to. And lets be clear: Weve left the QWPs in place for
photon S. All weve done is to meddle with the p photons path in a way that removes our ability to use the
coincidence counter to gain which-way knowledge. (The set-up, to review, delivers information to us, registers
hits, only when polarity is measured at detector S AND the coincidence counter tells us that either a
matching or non-matching polarity has been simultaneously registered by the twin photon at detector P). The
result:
Theyre waves again. The interference pattern is back. The physical places on the back screen where the
photons or electrons taking path s hit have now changed. Yet we did nothing to these photons paths, from their
creation at the crystal all the way to the final detector. We even left the QWPs in place. All we did was meddle
with the twin photon far away so that it destroyed our ability to learn information. The only change was in our
minds. How could photons taking path S possibly know that we put that other polarizer in place somewhere
else, far from their own paths? And QT tells us that wed get this same result even if we placed the
information-ruiner at the other end of the universe.
(Also, by the way, this proves that it wasnt those QWP plates that were causing the photons to change from
waves to particles, and to alter the impact points on the detector. We now get an interference pattern even
15
17
BenBella Books
18
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31393080/#.UTIIlqKjx1E
This abridgment is based on "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the
Universe," by Robert Lanza with Bob Berman, published by BenBella Books.
The 21st century is predicted to be the Century of Biology, a shift from the previous century dominated by physics. It seems
fitting, then, to begin the century by turning the universe outside-in and unifying the foundations of science, not with
imaginary strings that occupy equally imaginary unseen dimensions, but with a much simpler idea that is rife with so many
shocking new perspectives that we are unlikely ever to see reality the same way again.
In the past few decades, major puzzles of mainstream science have forced a re-evaluation of the nature of the universe that
goes far beyond anything we could have imagined. A more accurate understanding of the world requires that we consider it
biologically centered. Its a simple but amazing concept that Biocentrism attempts to clarify: Life creates the universe,
instead of the other way around. Understanding this more fully yields answers to several long-held puzzles. This new model
combining physics and biology instead of keeping them separate, and putting observers firmly into the equation is
called biocentrism. Its necessity is driven in part by the ongoing attempts to create an overarching view, a theory of
everything. Such efforts have now stretched for decades, without much success except as a way of financially facilitating the
careers of theoreticians and graduate students.
Could the long-sought Theory of Everything be merely missing a component that was too close for us to have noticed? Some
of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been mapped or the idea that we are close to
understanding the Big Bang rests in our innate human desire for completeness and totality. But most of these
comprehensive theories fail to take into account one crucial factor: We are creating them. It is the biological creature that
fashions the stories, that makes the observations, and that gives names to things. And therein lies the great expanse of our
oversight, that science has not confronted the one thing that is at once most familiar and most mysterious consciousness.
As Emerson wrote in Experience, an essay that confronted the facile positivism of his age: We have learned that we do not
see directly, but mediately, and that we have no means of correcting these colored and distorting lenses which we are, or of
computing the amount of their errors. Perhaps these subject-lenses have a creative power; perhaps there are no objects.
Muddy universe
For several centuries, starting roughly with the Renaissance, a single mindset about the construct of the
cosmos has dominated scientific thought. This model has brought us untold insights into the nature of the
universe, and countless applications that have transformed every aspect of our lives. But this model failing
us now in a myriad of ways may be reaching the end of its useful life.
The old model proposes that the universe was until rather recently a lifeless collection of particles bouncing
against each other, and obeying predetermined rules that were mysterious in their origin. The universe is
presented as a watch that somehow wound itself and that, allowing for a degree of quantum randomness, will
unwind in a semi-predictable way.
There are many problems with the current paradigm some obvious, others rarely mentioned but just as
fundamental. But the overarching problem involves life, since its initial arising is still a scientifically unknown
process, even if the way it then changed forms can be apprehended using Darwinian mechanisms. The bigger
problem is that life contains consciousness, which, to say the least, is poorly understood.
Consciousness is not just an issue for biologists; its a problem for physics. There is nothing in modern physics
that explains how a group of molecules in a brain creates consciousness. The beauty of a sunset, the taste of a
delicious meal, these are all mysteries to science which can sometimes pin down where in the brain the
sensations arise, but not how and why there is any subjective personal experience to begin with. And, whats
worse, nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter. Our understanding of this most
basic phenomenon is virtually nil. Interestingly, most models of physics do not even recognize this as a
problem.
19
A scientific swamp
Then, too, in the last few decades there has been considerable discussion of a basic paradox in the
construction of the universe. Why are the laws of physics exactly balanced for animal life to exist? There are
over 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it strains credulity to propose
that they are random even if that is exactly what standard contemporary physics baldly suggests. These
fundamental constants of the universe constants that are not predicted by any theory all seem to be
carefully chosen, often with great precision, to allow for existence of life and consciousness (yes,
consciousness raises its annoying head yet another time). We have absolutely no reasonable explanation for
this.
When it comes right down to it, todays science is amazingly good at figuring out how the parts work. What
eludes us is the big picture. We provide interim answers, we create exquisite new technologies from our everexpanding knowledge of physical processes. We do badly in just one area, which unfortunately encompasses
all the bottom-line issues: What is the nature of this thing we call reality, the universe as a whole?
Any honest metaphorical summary of the current state of explaining the cosmos as a whole is: a swamp. And
this particular Everglade is one where the alligators of common sense must be evaded at every turn.
Some scientists insist that a Theory of Everything is just around the corner, and then well essentially know it
all. Any day now. It hasnt happened, and it may not happen until we better understand a critical component
of the cosmos a component that has been shunted it out of the way because science doesnt know what to
do with it. This, consciousness, is not a small item. It is not like anything else. Indeed, it is nothing like anything
else. Consciousness is awareness, or perception, which in an utter mystery has somehow arisen from
molecules and goo. How did inert, random bits of carbon ever morph into that Japanese guy who always wins
the hot dog eating contest?
In short, the attempt to explain the nature of the universe, its origins, its parameters, and what is really going
on, requires an understanding of how the observer our presence plays a role. At first this may seem
impossibly difficult, since much of awareness or consciousness and certainly its origins are still mysterious. But
as we shall see, we can use what we know, and what we are increasingly discovering, to formulate models of
the cosmos that make sense of things for the first time.
20
how and, more importantly, where such a particle will be located remains dependent upon the very
act of observation. This is perhaps most vivid in the famous two-hole experiment, which has been
performed so many times, with so many variations, its conclusively proven that if one watches a
subatomic particle or a bit of light pass through slits on a barrier, it behaves like a particle and creates
solid-looking hits behind the individual slits on the final barrier that measures the impacts. Like a tiny
bullet, it logically passes through one or the other hole. But if the scientists do not observe the
trajectory of the particle, then it exhibits the behavior of waves that allow it pass through both holes
at the same time.
Since then, the list of paradoxes and intractable problems has continued to grow, starting with those
accompanying the Big Bang (for instance, how could the entire universe indeed, the laws of nature
themselves pop out of nothingness?) to experiments during the past decade that show separate
particles can influence each other instantaneously over great distances as if theyre endowed with
a kind of ESP. It works with light, too: When born-together pairs of photons are created in a special
kind of crystal, observing one member instantly influences the behavior the other even if they are
separated by enormous distances. They are intimately linked in a manner suggesting theres no space
between them, and no time influencing their behavior.
These and similar experiments have befuddled scientists for decades. Some of the greatest physicists
have described them as impossible to intuit. How can quantum physics be so impervious to
metaphor, visualization, and language? Amazingly, if we accept a life-created reality at face value, it
all becomes simple and straightforward to understand.
Take the seemingly undeniable logic that your kitchen is always present, its contents assuming all
their familiar shapes and colors whether or not you are in it. But consider: The shapes, colors, and
forms known as your kitchen are seen as they are solely because photons of light from the overhead
bulb bounce off the various objects and then interact with your brain through a complex set of
retinal and neural intermediaries. But on its own, light doesnt have any color, nor any brightness, nor
any visual characteristics at all. Its merely an electrical and magnetic phenomenon. So while you may
think that the kitchen as you remember it was there in your absence, the unquestionable reality is
that nothing remotely resembling what you can imagine could be present when a consciousness is
not interacting.
Quantum physics comes to a similar conclusion. At night you click off the lights and leave for the
bedroom. Of course the kitchen is there, unseen, all through the night. Right? But, in fact, the
refrigerator, stove and everything else are composed of a shimmering swarm of matter/energy. The
results of quantum physics, such as the two-slit experiment, tell us that not a single one of those
subatomic particles actually occupies a definite place. Rather, they exist as a range of possibilities
as waves of probability as the German physicist Max Born demonstrated back in 1926. They are
statistical predictions nothing but a likely outcome. In fact, outside of that idea, nothing is there! If
they are not being observed, they cannot be thought of as having any real existence either
duration or a position in space. It is only in the presence of an observer that is, when you go back
in to get a drink of water that the mind sets the scaffolding of these particles in place. Until it
actually lays down the threads (somewhere in the haze of probabilities that represent the objects
range of possible values) they cannot be thought of as being either here or there, or having an actual
position, a physical reality.
21
Indeed, it is here that biocentrism suggests a very different view of reality. Most people, in and out of
the sciences, imagine the external world to exist on its own, with an appearance that more-or-less
resembles what we ourselves see. Human or animal eyes, according to this view, are merely clear
windows that accurately let in the world. If our personal window ceases to exist, as in death, or is
painted black and opaque, as in blindness, that doesnt in any way alter the continued existence of
the external reality or its supposed actual appearance. A tree is still there, the moon still shines,
whether or not we are cognizing them. They have an independent existence. True, a dog may see an
autumn maple solely in shades of gray, and an eagle may perceive much greater detail among its
leaves, but most creatures basically apprehend the same visually real object, which persists even
if no eyes were upon it.
This Is it really there? issue is ancient, and of course predates biocentrism. Biocentrism,
however, explainswhy one view and not the other may be correct. The converse is equally true: Once
one fully understands that there is no independent external universe outside of biological existence,
the rest more or less falls into place.
Where is the universe?
And exactly where is that fridge? Where is the universe even located? Start with everything that is
currently being perceived the page you are looking at, for example. Language and custom say that
it all lies outside us in the external world. Yet weve already seen that nothing can be perceived that
is not already interacting with our consciousness. Since the perceived images are experientially real
and not imaginary, it must be physically happening in some location. Human physiology texts answer
this without ambiguity. Although the eye and retina gather photons that deliver their payloads of bits
of the electromagnetic force, these are channeled through heavy-duty cables straight back until
the actual perception of images themselves physically occur in the back of the brain, augmented by other
nearby locations, in special sections that are as vast and labyrinthine as the hallways of the Milky
Way. This, according to human physiology texts, is where the actual colors, shapes, and movement
happen. This is where they are perceived or cognized.
If you try to consciously access that luminous, energy-filled, visual part of the brain, its easy. Youre
already effortlessly perceiving it with every glance you take. Custom says that what we see is out
there, outside ourselves, and such a viewpoint is fine and necessary in terms of language and utility,
as in please pass the butter thats over there. But make no mistake: The butter itself exists only
within the mind. It is the only place visual (and tactile and olfactory) images are perceived and hence
located. Explained in the language of biology, the brain turns impulses from our senses into an order
and a sequence. As photons of light bounce off the butter, various combinations of wavelengths
enter our eye and deliver the force to trillions of atoms arranged into an exquisite design of cells that
rapidly fire in permutations too vast for any computer to calculate. Then, in the brain, this
information, which as we previously saw has no color by itself, appears as a yellow block of butter.
Even its smell and texture are experienced in the mind alone. The butter is not out there except
by the convention of language. The same is true for all perceived objects, including the brain, cells,
and even the electromagnetic events we detect with our instruments.
Some may imagine that there are two worlds, one out there and a separate one inside the skull.
But the two worlds model is a myth. As we have seen, only one visual reality is extant; it is the one
that requires consciousness in order to manifest. As Nobel physicist John Wheeler once said, No
phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.
22
A major handicap in adopting this new viewpoint is that language was created to work exclusively
through symbolism, and to divide nature into parts and actions. Even if well acquainted with the
limitations and vagaries of language, we must be especially on guard against dismissing biocentrism
too quickly if it doesnt at first glance seem compatible with customary verbal constructions. The
challenge here, alas, is to peer not just behind habitual ways of thinking, but to go beyond some of
the tools of the thinking process itself, to grasp the universe in a way that is at the same time simpler
and more demanding than what we are accustomed to.
Gone for keeps
Quantum mechanics describes the tiny world of the atom and its constituents, and their behavior,
with stunning if probabilistic accuracy. But quantum mechanics in many ways threatens our absolute
notions of space and time. When studying subatomic particles, the observer appears to alter and
determine what is perceived. The presence and methodology of the experimenter is hopelessly
entangled with whatever he is attempting to observe, and what results he gets.
In 1964, Irish physicist John Bell proposed an experiment that could show if separate particles can
influence each other instantaneously over great distances. First it is necessary to create two bits of
matter or light that share the same wave function using a special kind of crystal (so-called
entangled particles). Now, since quantum theory tells us that everything in nature has a particle
nature and a wave nature, and that the objects behavior exists only as probabilities, no small object
actually assumes a particular place or motion until its wave function collapses. What accomplishes
this collapse? Messing with it in any way. Hitting it with a bit of light in order to take its picture
would instantly do the job. But it became increasingly clear that any possible way the experimenter
could take a look at the object would collapse the wave function. As more sophisticated
experiments were devised it became obvious that mere knowledge in the experimenters mind is
sufficient to cause the wave function to collapse.
That was freaky, but it got worse. If the wave function of an entangled particle collapses, so will the
others even if they are separated by the width of the universe. This means that if one particle is
observed to have an up spin the act of observation causes the other to instantly go from being a
mere probability wave to an actual particle with the opposite spin. They are intimately linked, and in
a way that acts as if theres no space between them, and no time influencing their behavior.
Experiments from 1997 to 2007 have shown that this is indeed the case, as if tiny objects created
together are endowed with a kind of ESP. They truly seem to prove that Einsteins insistence on
locality meaning that nothing can influence anything else at superluminal speeds is wrong.
Rather, the entities we observe are floating in a field a field of mind, biocentrism maintains that
is not limited by the external spacetime Einstein theorized a century ago.
No one should imagine that when biocentrism points to quantum theory as one major area of
support, it is just a single aspect of quantum phenomena. Bells Theorem of 1964, shown
experimentally to be true over and over in the intervening years, does more than merely demolish all
vestiges of Einsteins hopes that locality can be maintained.
Before Bell, it was still considered possible (though increasingly iffy) that local realism an objective
independent universe could be the truth. Before Bell, many still clung to the millennia-old
assumption that physical states exist before they are measured. Before Bell, it was still widely
believed that particles have definite attributes and values independent of the act of measuring. And,
finally, thanks to Einsteins demonstrations that no information can travel faster than light, it was
23
assumed that if observers are sufficiently far apart, a measurement by one has no effect on the
measurement by the other.
All of the above are now finished for keeps.
As we saw earlier, the profound influence of the observer is also clear in the famous two-hole
experiment, which in turn goes straight to the core of quantum physics. If one watches a subatomic
particle or a bit of light pass through slits on a barrier, it behaves like a particle and logically passes
through one or the other hole. But if the scientists do not observe the trajectory of the particle, then
it exhibits the behavior of waves that retain the right to exhibit all possibilities, including going
through both holes at the same time and then creating the kind of rippling pattern that only waves
produce.
These waves of probability are not waves of material, but rather statistical predictions. Outside of
that idea, the wave is not there. From the beginning, Copenhagen adherents realized that nothing is
real unless its perceived. This makes perfect sense if biocentrism is reality; otherwise its a total
enigma.
At present, the implications of these experiments are conveniently downplayed in the public mind
because, until recently, quantum behavior was limited to the microscopic world. However, this has
no basis in reason, and more importantly, it is starting to be challenged in laboratories around the
world. New experiments carried out with huge molecules called Buckyballs show that quantum
reality extends into the macroscopic world we live in. In 2005, KHC03 crystals exhibited quantum
entanglement ridges a half-inch high visible signs of behavior nudging into everyday levels of
discernment.An exciting new experiment has just been proposed (so-called scaled-up
superposition) that would take this even further.
Goldilocks universe
The world appears to be designed for life, not just at the microscope scale of the atom, but at the
level of the universe itself. Scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that
make it appear as if everything it contains from atoms to stars was tailor-made just for us. If the
Big Bang had been one part in a million more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the
galaxies and life to develop. Result: no us. If the strong nuclear force were decreased two percent,
atomic nuclei wouldnt hold together, and plain-vanilla hydrogen would be the only kind of atom in
the universe. If the gravitational force were decreased by a hair, stars including the sun would
not ignite. In fact, all of the universe's forces and constants are just perfectly set up for atomic
interactions, the existence of atoms and elements, planets, liquid water and life. Tweak any of them
and you never existed. Many are calling this revelation the Goldilocks Principle, because the
cosmos is not too this or too that, but rather just right for life.
At the moment, there are only four explanations for this mystery. One is to argue for incredible
coincidence. Another is to say, "God did that," which explains nothing even if it is true. The third is to
invoke the anthropic principles reasoning that we must find these conditions if we are alive,
because, what else could we find? The final option is biocentrism pure and simple, which explains
how the universe is created by life. Obviously, no universe that doesnt allow for life could possibly
exist; the universe and its parameters simply reflect the spatio-temporal logic of animal existence.
No matter which logic one adopts, one has to come to terms with the fact that we are living in a very
peculiar cosmos. Biocentrism fits very neatly into the late physicist John Wheelers participatory
universe belief in which observers are required to bring the universe into existence. In short, you
24
either have an astonishingly improbable coincidence revolving around the fact that the cosmos could
have any properties but happens to have exactly the right ones for life, or else you have exactly what
must be seen if indeed the cosmos is biocentric.
No time to lose
Since quantum theory increasingly casts doubts about the existence of time as we know it, lets head
straight into this surprisingly ancient scientific issue. As irrelevant as it might first appear, the
presence or absence of time is an important factor in any fundamental look into the nature of the
cosmos.
The reality of time has long been questioned by an odd alliance of philosophers and physicists. The
former argue that the past exists only as ideas in the mind, which themselves are solely
neuroelectrical events occurring strictly in the present moment. Physicists, for their part, find that all
working models from Newtons laws through quantum mechanics have no need for time. When
people speak of time, theyre usually referring to change. But change is not the same thing as time.
To measure anythings position precisely, at any given instant, is to lock-in on one static frame of
its motion, as in a film. Conversely, as soon as you observe movement or momentum you cant
isolate a frame because momentum is the summation of many frames. Sharpness in one
parameter induces blurriness in the other. To understand this, consider for a moment that you are
watching a film of an archery tournament. An archer shoots and the arrow flies. The camera follows
the arrows trajectory from the archers bow toward the target. Suddenly the projector stops on a
single frame of a stilled arrow. You stare at the image of an arrow in mid-flight, something you
obviously could not do at a real tournament. The pause in the film enables you to know the position
of the arrow with great accuracy its just beyond the grandstand, 20 feet above the ground. But
you have lost all information about its momentum. It is going nowhere; its velocity is zero. Its path,
its trajectory, is no longer known. It is uncertain.
It soon becomes apparent that such uncertainty is actually built into the fabric of reality. This makes
perfect sense from a biocentric perspective: Time is the animal sense that animates events the still
frames of the spatial world. Everything you perceive even this page is actively and
repeatedly being reconstructed inside your head in an organized whirl of information. Time can be
defined as the summation of spatial states; the same thing measured with our scientific instruments
is called momentum. The weaving together of these frames occurs in the mind. So whats real? We
confront a here-and-now. If the next image is different from the last, then it is different, period.
We can award that change with the word time but that doesnt mean theres an actual invisible
entity that forms a matrix or grid in which changes occur. Thats just our own way of making sense of
things, our tool of perception. We watch our loved ones age and die, and assume an external entity
called time is responsible for the crime.
The demotion of time from an actual reality to a mere subjective experience, a social convention, is
evidence against the external universe mindset, because the latter requires a space and time
gridwork. In biocentrism, space and time are forms of animal understanding period. They are
tools of the mind, and thus do not exist as external objects independent of life.
When we feel poignantly that time has elapsed, as when loved ones die, it constitutes the human
perceptions of the passage and existence of time. Our babies turn into adults. We age. They age. We
all grow old together. That to us is time. It belongs with us.
25
Space-out
There is a peculiar intangibility about space, as well. We cannot pick it up and bring it the laboratory.
This is because, like time, space is neither physical nor fundamentally real. It is a mode of
interpretation and understanding part of an animals mental software that molds sensations
into multidimensional objects.
In modern everyday life, however, weve come to regard space as sort of a vast container that has no
walls. In it, we cognize separate objects that were first learned and identified. These patterns are
blocked out by the thinking mind within boundaries of color, shape or utility. Human language and
ideation alone decide where the boundaries of one object end and another begins.
Multiple illusions and processes routinely impart a false view of space. Shall we count the ways?
1. Empty space is in fact not empty.
2. Distances between objects can and do mutate depending on a multitude of conditions like gravity
and speed, so that no bedrock distance exists anywhere, between anything and anything else.
3. Quantum theory casts serious doubt about whether even distant individual items are truly
separated at all, and
4. We see separations between objects only because we have been conditioned and trained,
through language and convention, to draw boundaries.
Now, space and time illusions are certainly harmless. A problem only arises because, by treating
space as something physical, existing in itself, science imparts a completely wrong starting point for
investigations into the nature of reality. In reality there can be no break between the observer and
the observed. If the two are split, the reality is gone. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing.
Space and time are forms of our animal sense perception. We carry them around with us like turtles
with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur
independent of life.
Where do we go from here?
Biocentrism offers a springboard to make sense of aspects of biological and physical science which
are currently insensible. Natural areas of biocentric research include the realm of brain-architecture,
neuroscience, and the nature of consciousness itself. Another is the ongoing research into artificial
intelligence. Though still in its infancy, few doubt that this century, in which computer power and
capabilities keep expanding geometrically, will eventually bring researchers to confront the problem
in a serious way. A thinking device will need the same kind of algorithms for employing time and
developing a sense of space that we enjoy.
Finally, one must consider the endless ongoing attempts at creating grand unified theories.
Currently such efforts in physics have typically stretched for decades without much success.
Incorporating the living universe and allowing the observer into the equation as the late John
Wheeler insists is necessary will at minimum produce a fascinating amalgam of the living and nonliving in a way that should make everything work better. It should provide stronger bases for solving
some of the problems associated with quantum physics and the Big Bang. Accepting space and time
as forms of animal sense perception (as biologic), rather than as external physical objects, offers a
new way of understanding everything from the microworld (for instance, the reason for Heisenbergs
uncertainty principle and the two-hole experiment) to the forces, constants, and laws that shape the
universe.
26
Biomedical researcher Robert Lanza has been on the frontier of cloning and stem cell studies for more
than a decade, so he's well-acclimated to controversy. But his book "Biocentrism" is generating
controversy on a different plane by arguing that our consciousness plays a central role in creating the
cosmos.
"By treating space and time as physical things, science picks a completely wrong starting point for
understanding the world," Lanza declares.
Any claim that space and time aren't cold, hard, physical things has to raise an eyebrow. Some of the reactions
to Lanza's ideas, first set forth two years ago in an essay for The American Scholar, brand them as "pseudoscientific philosophical claptrap" or "no better than any religion."
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.
"So what Lanza says in this book is not new," Richard Conn Henry, a physics and astronomy professor at Johns
Hopkins University, said in a book review. "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!"
The weird twists in our view of the cosmos are hinted at in the scientific speculation over quantum
teleportation, experiments in reverse-time causation, the idea that time has no independent existence, and
physicist Stephen Hawkings' suggestion that the universe as we know it is generated through quantum
interference involving all possible universes.
Lanza and his co-author, astronomer/columnist Bob Berman, try to assemble all those weird little twists into a
larger theory. Rather than laying out the big picture here, I'll let them do it in an exclusive online abridgment:
CLICK HERE TO SAMPLE 'BIOCENTRISM'
27
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to
be friendly, ask me about my upcoming book, "The Case for Pluto."
28
Earthshaking Information About Mars To Come From NASA In A Few Weeks (redOrbit)
Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (Mother Nature Network)
EU to investigate Chinese solar-panel glass (Financial Times)
Here's What Futurist Ray Kurzweil Thinks Life Will Be Like In The Next 20 Years (PRESIDENT&CEO)
Immortality and Lifes Purpose (Random Rationality)
BAE Systems 155-mm Long Range Land Attack Projectile Aces Live Fire Tests (dlvr.it)
About Biocentrism
Book Biocentrism
29
BIOCENTRISM
How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe
Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work.
Nobel Prize Winner E. Donnall Thomas,referring to Lanzas A New Theory of the Universe
30
The Biocentric Universe Theory: Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presents a radical new view of the universe and everything in it.
Discover Magazine
A New Theory of the Universe: Biocentrism builds on quantum physics by adding life to the equation.
A new theory asserts that biology, not physics, will be the key to unlocking the deepest mysteries of the universe.
WIRED.com
Theory of every-living-thing
31
The quest to unify all of physics into a the theory of everything has inspired a host of ideas. Now a pioneer in the field of stem cell research has weighed in with an
essay that brings biology and consciousness into the mix.
How biology is central to constructing a more complete and unified theory of the Universe
The Scientist
32
Is "life as we don't know it" closer than we think? Are microbes behind the world's biggest extinctions? Is most
of our morality bound up in hidden "dark morals"? Blow your mind with six flights of scientific fancy from
the Origins Symposium, presented by Arizona State University.
The weekend forum, organized to inaugurate ASU's Origins Initiative, focused on the beginnings of life, the
universe and everything - including consciousness and culture. Among the luminaries in attendance were
biologist Richard Dawkins, neuroscientist Steven Pinker, anthropologist Donald Johanson and a basketball
team's worth of Nobel laureates. (On Saturday I almost got lost as I wandered around The Boulders resort with
two of the nicest Nobelists you ever did meet, Frank Wilczek and John Mather.)
Physicist Stephen Hawking sent his regrets, due to a chest infection that put him in the hospital in California but he also sent an audiovisual presentation that will be played at tonight's conference-closer. (Hawking went
through a similar medical episode more than three years ago.)
Some of the weekend's presentations delved into the science world's best-known unknowns: What will we
find at the Large Hadron Collider? What's the nature of dark energy and dark matter? How
doesconsciousness arise? The experts also discussed some lesser-known unknowns that were no less intriguing.
During the conference sessions, I sent out enough Twitter tweets to confound a canary, but for those who
weren't able to follow along in real time, here are six of my favorite mind-blowers:
Greenhouse extinctions
It's pretty well accepted that a cosmic impact, involving a monster asteroid or comet, set off the extinction
event that led to the dinosaurs' demise 65 million years ago. But what about the other extinctions - including
the world's biggest die-off, which occurred about 250 million years ago? In arecently published book as well as
another soon-to-be-published book, Ward suggests that marauding microbes are among the prime suspects.
He calls this idea the "Medea hypothesis" - a moniker that mirrors James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesisand evokes
the mother from Greek mythology who killed her own children. "Life is rather like Medea - a very nasty mother,
not a good mother," Ward says.
One "Medea" scenario involves a rapid rise in carbon dioxide, usually from volcanic eruptions. That sets off a
greenhouse effect, which reduces ocean circulation, which leads to oxygen-deprived dead zones, which
encourage the rise of sulfur-reducing bacteria, which belch up hydrogen sulfide, which kills off species in the sea
and on land.
The idea has been rather controversial, but it's worth thinking about - what with CO2 levels on the rise
and hydrogen sulfide belching up off the coast of Namibia.
34
Dark morality
University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt blows my mind with his theory of dark morality - which is a
social-science parallel to dark energy and dark matter. When it comes to morals, everyone agrees that we
should whenever possible avoid harming people and provide care for the needy. The same goes for issues of
fairness and reciprocity ("Do unto others...") Haidt calls these "visible morals," analogous to the 4 percent of
the universe that we can see.
But those represent just the tip of the iceberg: Most of the mechanics of morality have to do with three "dark
morals": in-group loyalty, respect for authority, and issues of purity and sanctity. This is what accounts for
qualities such as patriotism, conformism and taboos about food and sex. (Haidt drew a laugh when he noted
that conservatives tend to focus on sex, while "liberals are getting increasingly concerned with food.")
Haidt's online research, conducted through YourMorals.org, indicates that liberals put a high value on morality
having to do with harm and care, fairness and reciprocity - but not on the dark morals. The more conservative
you are, the likelier you are to value all five moral dimensions roughly equally, as shown in the graph
accompanying this blog posting from Ethan Zuckerman.
Conservatives might be on the smarter track, at least if you size up things the way Charles Darwin did more
than a century ago. In Chapter 5 of "The Descent of Man," Darwin delves deeply into the role of morality in
natural selection:
"... When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being
equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready
to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other."
"The kind of morality Darwin is talking about here is dark morality," Haidt said.
For still more mind-blowing ideas, tune in to today's Webcast of the Origins Symposium's public sessions.
Update for 1:50 a.m. ET April 7: I've revised the reference to Darwin's views to remove the implication that
Haidt himself specifically said conservatives were on the right track. Haidt only implied that the kinds of moral
values that Darwin cited in "The Descent of Man" included the kinds of values given more weight by
conservatives than by liberals.
Explore related topics: science
35
RECEPTION TO BIOCENTRISM BY
SCIENTISTS & SCHOLARS
Robert Lanzas work is a wake-up call to all of us
David Thompson, Astrophysicist, NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center
The heart of [biocentrism], collectively, is correctSo 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 itor if we do say it, we only whisper it,
and in privatefuriously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no! Bless Robert
Lanza for creating this book, and bless Bob Berman for not dissuading friend Robert from going ahead with
itLanzas remarkable personal story is woven into the book, and is uplifting. You should enjoy this book, and
it should help you on your personal journey to understanding.
Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University
It is genuinely an exciting piece of workand coheres with some of the things biology and neuroscience are
telling us about the structures of our being. Just as we now know that the sun doesnt really move but we do
(we are the active agents), so it is suggesting that we are the entities that give meaning to the particular
configuration of all possible outcomes we call reality.
Ronald Green, Eunice & Julian Cohen Professor and Director, Ethics Institute, Dartmouth College
[Biocentrism] takes into account all the knowledge we have gained over the last few centuriesplacing 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.
Anthony Atala, renowned scientist, W.H. Boyce Professor, Chair, and Director of the Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Having interviewed some of the most brilliant minds in the scientific world, I found Dr. Robert Lanzas insights
into the nature of consciousness original and exciting. His theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most
ancient traditions of the world which say that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical
world.
Deepak Chopra, Bestselling Author, one of the top heroes and icons of the century
Its a masterpiececombines a deep understanding and broad insight into 20th century physics and modern
biological science; in so doing, he forces a reappraisal of this hoary epistemological dilemmaBravo
Michael Lysaght, Professor and Director, Center for Biomedical Engineering, Brown University
Now that I have spent a fair amount of time the last few months doing a bit of writing, reading and thinking
about this, and enjoying it and watching it come into better focus, And as I go deeper into my Zen practice,
And as I am about half way through re-reading Biocentrism, My conclusion about the book Biocentrism is:
Holy shit, thats a really great book!
Ralph Levinson, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles
36
I downloaded a digital copy of [Biocentrism] in the privacy of my home, where no one could observe my
buying or reading such a New Agey sort of cosmology book. Now, mind you, my motivation was not all that
pure. It was my intention to read the book so I could more effectively refute it like a dedicated physicist was
expected to. I consider myself to be firmly and exclusively entrenched in the cosmology camp embodied by
the likes of Stephen Hawking, Lisa Randall, Brain Greene, and Edward Witten. After all, you know what Julius
Caesar said: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I needed to know what the other camps were
thinking so I could better defend my position. It became necessary to penetrate the biocentrism camp.
The book had the completely opposite effect on me. 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. Lanzas 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 hadnt changed, but the way I viewed it did in a really big way.
37
ROBERT LANZA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza
Robert Lanza
Born
Residence
Clinton, Massachusetts
Citizenship
United States
Institutions
Alma mater
University of Pennsylvania
Known for
Influences
Robert Paul Lanza (born 11 February 1956) is an American Doctor of Medicine, scientist, Chief Scientific Officer of Advanced Cell
Technology(ACT)[1] and Adjunct Professor at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
Biography
Robert Paul Lanza was born in Boston, Massachusetts, and grew up south of there, in Stoughton, Massachusetts.
Lanza "altered the genetics of chickens in his basement", and came to the attention of Harvard Medical
School researchers when he appeared at the university with his results.Jonas Salk, B. F. Skinner, and Christiaan
Barnard mentored Lanza over the next ten years.[2] Lanza attended the University of Pennsylvania, receiving BA and
MD degrees. There, he was a Benjamin Franklin Scholar and a University Scholar. Lanza was a Fulbright Scholar.
He currently resides in Clinton, Massachusetts.
38
Scientific work
Stem cell research
Lanza was part of the team that cloned the world's first early stage human embryos for the purpose of
generating embryonic stem cells.[3][4] Lanza demonstrated that techniques used in preimplantation genetic
diagnosis could be used to generate embryonic stem cells without embryonic destruction.[5]
In 2001, he was also the first to clone an endangered species (a Gaur),[6] and in 2003, he cloned an endangered
wild ox (a Banteng)[7] from the frozen skin cells of an animal that had died at the San Diego Zoo nearly a quarter-ofa-century earlier.
Lanza and his colleagues were the first to demonstrate that nuclear transplantation could be used to reverse
the aging process[8] and to generate immune-compatible tissues, including the first organ grown in the
laboratory from cloned cells.[9]
Lanza showed that it is feasible to generate functional oxygen-carrying red blood cells from human embryonic
stem cells under conditions suitable for clinical scale-up. The blood cells could potentially serve as a source of
universal blood.[10][11]
His team discovered how to generate functional hemangioblasts (a population of "ambulance" cells[12]) from
human embryonic stem cells. In animals, these cells quickly repaired vascular damage, cutting the death rate
after a heart attack in half and restoring the blood flow to ischemic limbs that might otherwise have required
amputation.[13]
Recently, Lanza and a team led by Kwang-Soo Kim at Harvard University reported a safe method for generating
induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells.[14] Human iPS cells were created from skin cells by direct delivery of
proteins, thus eliminating the harmful risks associated with genetic and chemical manipulation. This new
method provides a potentially safe source of patient-specific stem cells for translation into the clinic. [15] Lanza
and Advanced Cell Technology expect to start the process for regulatory approval of what experts said would
be the first human trial involving induced plutipotent (iPS) stem cells created by reprogramming adult cells
back to an embryonic-like state. They want to test blood-clotting particles, called platelets, made from such
reprogrammed cells. Platelets don't carry the risk of genetic defects because they don't have DNA.[16]
Clinical trials for blindness
Lanzas team at Advanced Cell Technology has succeeded in getting stem cells to grow into retinal cells.[17] With this
technology, some forms of blindness may be curable,[18] includingmacular degeneration and Stargardt disease, currently
untreatable eye diseases that cause blindness in teenagers, young adults, and the elderly.
Advanced Cell Technology has received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for human trials using
human embryonic stem cells to treat degenerative eye diseases.[19][20] This treatment for eye disease uses stem cells
to re-create a type of cell in the retina that supports the photoreceptor cells needed for vision. These cells, called
retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), are often the first to die off in age-related macular degeneration and other
eye diseases, which in turn leads to loss of vision. Several years ago, Lanzas team found that human
39
Dr. Lanza and his colleagues at UCLAs Jules Stein Eye Institute published the first-ever report of the medical
use of human embryonic stem cells transplanted into human patients.[26] The researchers initiated two
prospective clinical studies to establish the safety and tolerability of subretinal transplantation of hESC-derived
retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) in patients with Stargardts macular dystrophy and dry age-related macular
degeneration.
After surgery, evidence confirmed cells had attached and continued to persist during the study. The
researchers did not identify any signs of hyperproliferation, tumorigenicity, or ectopic tissue formation in
either patient.
The patients who received the human embryonic stem cell transplants say their lives have been transformed
by the experimental procedure.[27] During the 4-month observation period neither patient lost vision. Best
corrected visual acuity improved from hand motions to 20/800 (and improved from 0 to 5 letters on the Early
Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] visual acuity chart) in the study eye of the patient with
Stargardts macular dystrophy, and vision also seemed to improve in the patient with dry age-related macular
degeneration.[26] One of the patients no longer needs a large magnifying glass to read and can reportedly
thread a needle, and the other has begun to go shopping on her own.[28] The future therapeutic goal of these
studies will be to treat patients earlier in the disease processes, potentially increasing the likelihood of visual
rescue.[26]
Biocentrism
Main article: Biocentrism (cosmology)
In 2007, Lanza's article titled "A New Theory of the Universe" appeared in The American Scholar.[29] The essay
addressed Lanza's theory, biocentrism, which places biology above the other sciences.[30][31][32] Lanza's book "How
Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Universe" followed in 2009.[33] Reception to Lanza's
theory has been mixed.[34]
Publications
Lanza has authored and co-edited books on topics involving tissue engineering, cloning, stem cells, and world health.
40
1984 Heart Transplantation: The Present Status of Orthotopic and Heterotopic Heart
Transplantation ISBN 0-85200-862-7
1985 Medical Science and the Advancement of World Health ISBN 0-03-071734-5
1994 Pancreatic Islet Transplantation: Volume I Procurement of Pancreatic Islets ISBN 1-57059-133-4
1994 Pancreatic Islet Transplantation: Volume II Immunomodulation of Pancreatic Islets ISBN 1-57059134-2
1994 Pancreatic Islet Transplantation: Volume III Immunoisolation of Pancreatic Islets ISBN 1-57059-135-0
1996 One World: The Health and Survival of the Human Species in the 21st Century ISBN 0-929173-33-3
1996 Yearbook of Cell and Tissue Transplantation ISBN 0-7923-3844-8
1997 Principles of Tissue Engineering ISBN 1-57059-342-6
1999 Cell Encapsulation Technology and Therapeutics ISBN 0-8176-4010
2000 Xeno: The Promise of Transplanting Animal Organs into Humans ISBN 0-19-512833-8
2000 Principles of Tissue Engineering, Second Edition ISBN 0-12-436630-9
2002 Methods of Tissue Engineering ISBN 0-12-436636-8
2002 Principles of Cloning ISBN 0-12-174597-X
2004 Handbook of Stem Cells: Volume 1 Embryonic Stem Cells ISBN 0-12-436642-2
2004 Handbook of Stem Cells: Volume 2 Adult and Fetal Stem Cells ISBN 0-12-436644-9
2006 Essentials of Stem Cell Biology ISBN 0-12-088442-9
2006 Methods in Enzymology: Volume 418 Embryonic Stem Cells ISBN 0-12-373648-X
2006 Methods in Enzymology: Volume 419 Adult Stem Cells ISBN 0-12-373650-1
2006 Methods in Enzymology: Volume 420 Stem Cell Tools and Other Experimental Protocols ISBN 0-12373651-X
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
^ "Advanced Cell Technology Senior Executive Officers". Advanced Cell Technology. Retrieved 201205-03.
^ Fischer, Joannie (2001-11-25). "The First Clone". US News and World Report: 19. Retrieved 200808-20
^ Cibelli, Jose B.; Lanza, Robert P.; West, Michael D.; Ezzell, Carol (2001-11-24). "The First Human
Cloned Embryo". Scientific American: 14. Retrieved 2008-08-20
^ "Wired 12.01: Seven Days of Creation". Wired.com. 2009-01-04. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ Nature. "Access : Human embryonic stem cell lines derived from single blastomeres". Nature.
Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ "Cloning Noah's Ark: Scientific American". Sciam.com. 2000-11-19. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ "Wild Cows Cloned". NPR. 2003-04-08. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
^ "Extension of Cell Life-Span and Telomere Length in Animals Cloned from Senescent Somatic
Cells". Science. 28 April 2000.
41
37.
38.
39.
42
External links
Authority control
VIAF: 84864906
43
http://theamericanscholar.org/a-new-theory-of-the-universe/#.UTHQGaKjx1E
Loren Eiseley
The world is not, on the whole, the place we have learned about in our school books. This point was
hammered home one recent night as I crossed the causeway of the small island where I live. The pond was
dark and still. Several strange glowing objects caught my attention on the side of the road, and I squatted
down to observe one of them with my flashlight. The creature turned out to be a glowworm, the luminous
larva of the European beetle Lampyris noctiluca. Its segmented little oval body was primitivelike some
trilobite that had just crawled out of the Cambrian Sea 500 million years ago. There we were, the beetle and I,
two living objects that had entered into each others world. It ceased emitting its greenish light, and I, for my
part, turned off my flashlight.
I wondered if our interaction was different from that of any other two objects in the universe. Was this
primitive little grub just another collection of atomsproteins and molecules spinning away like the planets
round the sun? Had science reduced life to the level of a mechanists logic, or was this wingless beetle, by
virtue of being a living creature, creating its own physical reality?
The laws of physics and chemistry can explain the biology of living systems, and I can recite in detail the
chemical foundations and cellular organization of animal cells: oxidation, biophysical metabolism, all the
carbohydrates and amino acid patterns. But there was more to this luminous little bug than the sum of its
biochemical functions. A full understanding of life cannot be found by looking at cells and molecules through a
microscope. We have yet to learn that physical existence cannot be divorced from the animal life and
structures that coordinate sense perception and experience. Indeed, it seems likely that this creature was the
center of its own sphere of reality just as I was the center of mine.
Although the beetle did not move, it had sensory cells that transmitted messages to the cells in its brain.
Perhaps the creature was too primitive to collect data and pinpoint my location in space. Or maybe my
existence in its universe was limited to the perception of some huge and hairy shadow stabilizing a flashlight in
the air. I dont know. But as I stood up and left, I am sure that I dispersed into the haze of probability
surrounding the glowworms little world.
Our science fails to recognize those special properties of life that make it fundamental to material reality. This
view of the worldbiocentrismrevolves around the way a subjective experience, which we call
consciousness, relates to a physical process. It is a vast mystery and one that I have pursued my entire life. The
conclusions I have drawn place biology above the other sciences in the attempt to solve one of natures
biggest puzzles, the theory of everything that other disciplines have been pursuing for the last century. Such a
44
46
measurable. They exist. Theyre real. And thatreality has been reinforced every day of our lives.
Most of us live without thinking abstractly about time and space. They are such an integral part of our lives
that examination of them is as unnatural as an examination of walking or breathing. In fact, many people feel
silly talking about time and space in an abstract, analytical way. The question Does time exist? can seem like
so much philosophical babble. After all, the clock ticks, the years pass, we age and die. Isnt time the only thing
we can be certain of? Equally inconsonant is the question of whether or not space exists. Obviously space
exists, we might answer, because we live in it. We move through it, drive through it, build in it, measure it.
Time and space are easy to talk and think about. Find yourself short of either or bothlate for work, standing
in a stalled subway car packed with ridersand issues of time and space are obvious: Its crowded and Im
uncomfortable and my boss is going to kill me for being late. But time and space as our source of
comprehension and consciousness is an abstraction. Our day-to-day experiences indicate nothing of this
reality to us. Rather, life has taught us that time and space are external and eternal realities. They bound all
experiences and are more fundamental than life itself. They are above and beyond human experience.
As animals, we are organized, wired, to think this way. We use dates and places to define our experiences to
ourselves and to others. History describes the past by placing people and events in time and space. Scientific
theories of the big bang, geology, and evolution are steeped in the logic of time and space. They are essential
to our every movement and moment. To place ourselves as the creatorsof time and space, not as the subjects
of it, goes against our common sense, life experience, and education. It takes a radical shift of perspective for
any of us to entertain the idea that space and time are animal sense perceptions, because the implications are
so startling.
Yet we all know that space and time are not thingsobjects that you can see, feel, taste, touch, or smell. They
are intangible, like gravity. In fact they are modes of interpretation and understanding, part of the animal logic
that molds sensations into multidimensional objects.
We live on the edge of time, where tomorrow hasnt happened yet. Everything before this moment is part of
the history of the universe, gone forever. Or so we believe.
Think for a minute about time flowing forward into the future and how extraordinary it is that we are here,
alive on the edge of all time. Imagine all the days and hours that have passed since the beginning of time. Now
stack them like chairs on top of each other, and seat yourself on the very top. Science has no real explanation
for why were here, for why we exist now. According to the current physiocentric worldview, its just an
accident, a one-in-a-gazillion chance that I am here and that you are there. The statistical probability of being
on top of time or infinity is so small as to be meaningless. Yet this is generally how the human mind conceives
time.
In classical science, humans place all things in time and space on a continuum. The universe is 15 to 20 billion
years old; the earth five or six. Homo erectusappeared four million years ago, but he took three-and-a-half
million years to discover fire, and another 490,000 to invent agriculture. And so forth. Time in a mechanistic
universe (as described by Newton and Einstein and Darwin) is an arrow upon which events are notched. But
imagine, instead, that reality is like a sound recording. Listening to an old phonograph doesnt alter the record
itself, and depending on where the needle is placed, you hear a certain piece of music. This is what we call the
present. The music before and after the song you are hearing is what we call the past and the future. Imagine,
in like manner, that every moment and day endures in nature always. The record does not go away. All nows
(all the songs on the record) exist simultaneously, although we can only experience the world (or the record)
piece by piece. If we could access all lifethe whole recordwe could experience it non-sequentially. We
could know our children as toddlers, as teenagers, as senior citizensall now. In the end, even Einstein
47
used to design and build much of the technology that drives modern societytransistors, lasers, and even
wireless communication. But quantum mechanics in many ways threatens not only our essential and absolute
notions of space and time, but indeed, all Newtonian-Darwinian conceptions of order and secure prediction.
I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics, said Nobel physicist Richard Feynman.
Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, But how can it be like that? because you will go
down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. The reason scientists go down the
drain is that they refuse to accept the immediate and obvious implications of the experimental findings of
quantum theory. Biocentrism is the only humanly comprehensible explanation for how the world can be the
way it is. But, as the Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg admits, Its an unpleasant thing to bring
people into the basic laws of physics.
In order to account for why space and time were relative to the observer, Einstein assigned tortuous
mathematical properties to an invisible, intangible entity that cannot be seen or touched. This folly continues
with the advent of quantum mechanics. Despite the central role of the observer in this theoryextending it
from space and time to the very properties of matter itselfscientists still dismiss the observer as an
inconvenience to their theories. It has been proven experimentally that when studying subatomic particles,
the observer actually alters and determines what is perceived. The work of the observer is hopelessly
entangled in that which he is attempting to observe. An electron turns out to be both a particle and a wave.
But how and where such a particle will be located remains entirely dependent upon the very act of
observation.
Pre-quantum physicists thought that they could determine the trajectory of individual particles with complete
certainty. They assumed that the behavior of particles would be predictable if everything were known at the
outsetthat there was no limit to the accuracy with which they could measure the physical properties of a
particle. But Werner Heisenbergs uncertainty principle showed that this is not the case. You can know either
the velocity of a particle or its location but not both. If you know one, you cannot know the other. Heisenberg
compared this to the little man and woman in a weather house, an old folk art device that functions as a
hygrometer, indicating the airs humidity. The two figures ride opposite each other on a balance bar. If one
comes out, Heisenberg said, the other goes in.
Consider for a moment that you are watching a film of an archery tournament, with the Zenos arrow paradox
in mind. An archer shoots, and the arrow flies. The camera follows the arrows trajectory from the archers
bow toward the target. Suddenly the projector stops on a single frame of a stilled arrow. You stare at the
image of an arrow in midflight. The pause in the film enables you to know the position of the arrowits just
48
49
50
the level of the universe itself. In cosmology, scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of
traits that make it appear as if everything it containsfrom atoms to starswas tailor-made for us. Many are
calling this revelation the Goldilocks principle, because the cosmos is not too this or too that, but just right for
life. Others are calling it the anthropic principle, because the universe appears to be human centered. And still
others are calling it intelligent design, because they believe its no accident that the heavens are so ideally
suited for us. By any name, the discovery is causing a huge commotion within the astrophysics community and
beyond.
At the moment, the only attempt at an explanation holds that God made the universe. But there is another
explanation based on science. To understand the mystery, we need to reexamine the everyday world we live
in. As unimaginable as it may seem to us, the logic of quantum physics is inescapable. Every morning we open
our front door to bring in the paper or to go to work. We open the door to rain, snow, or trees swaying in the
breeze. We think the world churns along whether we happen to open the door or not. Quantum mechanics
tells us it doesnt.
The trees and snow evaporate when were sleeping. The kitchen disappears when were in the bathroom.
When you turn from one room to the next, when your animal senses no longer perceive the sounds of the
dishwasher, the ticking clock, the smell of a chicken roastingthe kitchen and all its seemingly discrete bits
dissolve into nothingnessor into waves of probability. The universe bursts into existence from life, not the
other way around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We generate
spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence. Our planet is comprised of billions of spheres of reality,
generated by each individual human and perhaps even by each animal.
Imagine again youre on the stalled subway car worried about being late for work. The engineers get the thing
running again and most of the other commuters soon disembark. What is your universe at the moment? The
screeching sound of metal wheels against metal tracks. Your fellow passengers. The ads for Rogaine and tech
schools. What is not your universe? Everything outside your range of perception does not exist. Now suppose
that Im with you on the train. My individual sphere of reality intersects with yours. We two human beings
with nearly identical perception tools are experiencing the same harsh lighting and uncomfortable sounds.
You get the idea. But how can this really be? You wake up every morning and your dresser is still across the
room from your comfortable spot in the bed. You put on the same pair of jeans and favorite shirt and shuffle
to the kitchen in slippers to make coffee. How can anyone in his right mind possibly suggest that the great
world out there is constructed in our heads?
To more fully grasp a universe of still arrows and disappearing moons, lets turn to modern electronics. You
know from experience that something in the black box of a DVD player turns an inanimate disc into a movie.
The electronics in the DVD converts and animates the information on the disc into a 3-D show. Likewise your
51
the solar system itself condensed out of a giant swirling gas cloud. Science has sought to extend the physical
world beyond the time of our own emergence. It has found our footsteps wandering backward until on some
far shore they were transmuted into a trail of mud. The cosmologists picked up the story of the molten earth
and carried its evolution backward in time to the insensate past: from minerals by degrees back through the
lower forms of matterof nuclei and quarksand beyond them to the big bang. It seems only natural that life
and the world of the inorganic must separate at some point.
We consider physics a kind of magic and do not seem at all fazed when we hear that the universeindeed the
laws of nature themselvesjust appeared for no reason one day. From the dinosaurs to the big bang is an
enormous distance. Perhaps we should remember the experiments of Francesco Redi, Lazzaro Spallanzani,
and Louis Pasteurbasic biological experiments that put to rest the theory of spontaneous generation, the
belief that life had arisen spontaneously from dead matter (as, for instance, maggots from rotting meat and
mice from bundles of old clothes)and not make the same mistake for the origin of the universe itself. We
are wont to imagine time extending all the way back to the big bang, before lifes early beginning in the seas.
But before matter can exist, it has to be observed by a consciousness.
Physical reality begins and ends with the animal observer. All other times and places, all other objects and
events are products of the imagination, and serve only to unite knowledge into a logical whole. We are
pleased with such books as Newtons Principia, or Darwins Origin of Species. But they instill a complacency in
the reader. Darwin spoke of the possibility that life emerged from inorganic matter in some warm little
pond. Trying to trace life down through simpler stages is one thing, but assuming it arose spontaneously from
nonliving matter wants for the rigor and attention of the quantum theorist.
Neuroscientists believe that the problem of consciousness can someday be solved once we understand all the
synaptic connections in the brain. The tools of neuroscience, wrote philosopher and author David Chalmers
(Scientific American, December 1995) cannot provide a full account of conscious experience, although they
have much to offer. . . . Consciousness might be explained by a new kind of theory. Indeed, in a 1983 National
Academy Report, the Research Briefing Panel on Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence stated that the
questions to which it concerned itself reflect a single underlying great scientific mystery, on par with
understanding the evolution of the universe, the origin of life, or the nature of elementary particles.
52
53
54
Forward-Looking Statements
Statements in this news release regarding future financial and operating results, future growth in research and
development programs, potential applications of our technology, opportunities for the company and any
other statements about the future expectations, beliefs, goals, plans, or prospects expressed by management
constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995. Any statements that are not statements of historical fact (including statements containing the words
will, believes, plans, anticipates, expects, estimates, and similar expressions) should also be
considered to be forward-looking statements. There are a number of important factors that could cause actual
results or events to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements, including:
limited operating history, need for future capital, risks inherent in the development and commercialization of
potential products, protection of our intellectual property, and economic conditions generally. Additional
information on potential factors that could affect our results and other risks and uncertainties are detailed
from time to time in the companys periodic reports, including the report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2011. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, opinions, and expectations of the
companys management at the time they are made, and the company does not assume any obligation to
update its forward-looking statements if those beliefs, opinions, expectations, or other circumstances should
change. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, opinions, and expectations of the companys
management at the time they are made, and the company does not assume any obligation to update its
forward-looking statements if those beliefs, opinions, expectations, or other circumstances should change.
There can be no assurance that the Companys clinical trials will be successful.
Contact:
Investors:
CEOcast, Inc., James Young, 212-732-4300
Press:
ACT Corporate Communications, Bill Douglass, 646-450-3615
or:
Russo Partners, Martina Schwarzkopf, Ph.D., 212-845-4292
UCLA:
Jules Stein Eye Institute:
Elaine Schmidt, eschmidt@mednet.ucla.edu, 310-794-2272
55
Other Links:
PRESS RELEASES
ACT IN THE NEWS
SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
CHAIRMAN'S BLOG
VIDEO GALLERY
FREQUENTLY REQUESTED INFO
COMPANY FACT SHEET
SENIOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS' BIOS
SOCIAL MEDIA
MEDIA CONTACTS
Scientific Papers
http://www.advancedcell.com/investors/act-scientific-papers/
56
http://www.ceruldinnoi.ro/pages/Dumitru_Constantin_Dulcan.htm
Profesorul universitar dr. Dumitru Constantin-Dulcan este medic neurolog si psihiatru de
excelenta, autor a numeroase monografii, tratate si carti de inalta valoare stiintifica, dar si
eseistica, cu ample deschideri spre Filosofia Stiintei. Cartea sa, Inteligenta materiei, un bestseller care a facut voga, a fost distinsa cu premiul "Vasile Conta" al Academiei Romane (1992).
Omul de stiinta roman Dumitru Constantin-Dulcan este membru al unor prestigioase societati
stiintifice nationale si internationale, autor de brevete de inventii inregistrate la OSIM, titular al
unor cursuri universitare importante, precum si detinatorul a numeroase premii stiintifice si
literare. A studiat, lucrat si calatorit in spatiul occidental (Europa, SUA, Canada, Australia), dar si
in cel oriental (China, Japonia, India).
"Constiintei noastre i s-a dat in primire un creier si creierului un trup" - spune Dumitru
Constantin-Dulcan.
Religia" mea este o cutare i o trire a esenei ultime a Universului i nu are nimic comun cu
modul istoric n care s-au implicat instituiile sale reprezentative. Ele pot persista sau pot s
dispar n funcie de vntul istoriei i de capacitatea lor de adaptare, de remodelare, de
actualizare, dar esena de dincolo de mruntele orgolii i ambiii omeneti, va fi etern.
Pledez pentru eternitatea acestei esene.
57
Diminea de var
- Domnule doctor, v propun s pornim pe firul biografiei. ntreaga dvs. via ai dedicat-o studiului. Ce v-a
condus spre ceea ce suntei astzi? Ai simit fascinaia pentru cunoatere de mic?
- De foarte mic. mi amintesc o diminea de var din satul meu argeean, Mrghia. Eram copil. Dormisem pe
prisp i m-am trezit cu faa spre rsrit. Cerul avea o culoare nnebunitor de frumoas i, privindu-l, mi se
prea c mi se adreseaz, c vrea s-mi spun, uite, exist! Existam, dar nu tiam ce sens are viaa. Eram prea
mic ca s-mi pot rspunde. Dar mi-am propus atunci s aflu. tiu c pare de necrezut, dar de la vrsta aceea,
mi-am fcut, pas cu pas, un program de instruire pe care nu l-am mai abandonat niciodat.
- Ai studiat medicina. De ce, dintre toate disciplinele, ai ales tocmai neurologia?
- Era parte din planul fcut n copilrie. Am intuit de mic c medicina mi poate oferi ceea ce eu nu puteam afla
doar din cri. Iar neurologia m ajuta s descifrez complexitatea creierului uman. Creierul e cel care deine
misterul ntregii noastre existene. nelegnd creierul, nelegem n bun parte funcionalitatea organismului
viu. Dup absolvirea Medicinei, am urmat ns i cursuri serale de iniiere muzical, de istoria culturii i
civilizaiei. Am citit fizic, matematic, istoria religiilor i filosofie. coala mi impunea concepia ei materialist,
religiile mi spuneau c exist un Dumnezeu. N-aveam dect o finalitate n toate cutrile mele: s aflu cine are
dreptate i s rspund ntrebrii din copilrie: cine sunt eu? Dup ce am terminat facultatea, cutnd s vd
dac e adevrat ce postuleaz tiina, cum c lumea anorganic (pietrele, apa) face la un moment dat saltul
spre lumea organic (spre viu), ntr-o sear a anului 1976, am avut revelaia rspunsului. Dac nu introducem
n aceast ecuaie o raiune de dincolo de noi, pietrele niciodat n-or s ajung Adam i Eva
.Exist o inteligen a materiei
Premiul de Excelen "Excelsior" oferit de cotidianul Argeul 2009
- O revelaie care a dus, patru ani mai trziu, la apariia "Inteligenei materiei". Cartea a fcut vlv la vremea ei prin teoriile pe care le propunea. I-ai putea rezuma coninutul pentru cititorii revistei noastre?
- Dac ar trebui s rezum ntr-o fraz ce am scris n cartea asta, a spune aa: exist o inteligen a materiei.
Orice manifestare din univers, ncepnd de la macrocosmos i pn la microcosmos, are ca substrat o
inteligen. De pild, doi atomi de hidrogen i unul de oxigen vor da ntotdeauna o molecul de ap, nu
altceva. Pn i particulele, cuantele, au un rudiment de inteligen al lor. Exact asta ncerc s art n cele
peste 300 de pagini ale crii, survolnd toate sursele de informaie accesibile, de la tiin la religie, de la
58
59
60
Cei care doresc s comande crile d-lui Dumitru Constantin Dulcan o pot face
pe www.edituraeikon.ro, la tel. 0364/11.72.46,0728.084.803 sau pe email mailto:%20eikondifuzare@yahoo.com
62
63
65
66
68
70
http://www.cartiprivate.ro/ - Crti private - un site foarte util, veti vedea: pentru a cuta crti sau a valorifica crtile proprii
71
72
Viktor E. Frankl
Viktor Frankl on Youth in Search of Meaning 1972
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6itOBLVQA&feature=related
Frankl Resources of Survival '87
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-v7J9bHA50&feature=related
Viktor Frankl "Man Alive"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX4eaMUiIw0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpN2D_tGsiY&feature=related
Interview with Dr. Viktor Frankl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EIxGrIc_6g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnWETfCaBmo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSSftFde5vo&feature=related
Logotheory & Logotherapy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTNpx8mFKas&feature=player_embedded
Ultimate Meaning and Religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaQH-xACGK4&feature=related
73
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odAsHCPKFwQ&feature=related
Un art de l'attention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL9x3JhIosQ&feature=related
Sur le chemin de ma vie. Rencontre avec Marie-Andre Michaud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbznZiSSxkg&feature=related
Dieu ? C'est qui ? C'est quoi ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTil5b_WvK4&feature=related
Si aici o secventa cu
despre SECTE...!!!
Omul este iremediabil religios...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqccW_JikD8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGHHpNtbp1w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3oBxe7_Q2U&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chQ1WLcQ9pA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBnkQmRM3CQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHnSYGJExeY&feature=related
Anthony de Mello
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkbRHqqVYEU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILlxWMfHVZ4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OQzaow_sjU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB4OZGVccm8&feature=related
74