I havent actually read his book, but as he's described it, I thought that he was just sharing his view on subjectivism.

Biocentrism, as Robert Lanza says, is:

..."the view that life creates the universe instead of the other way around. In this new paradigm, life is not just an accidental byproduct of the laws of physics."

Isn't this just what subjectivism or solipsism say?

That only one's own mind is sure to exist?

If nothing outside the mind can be proven, then everything that is is inside the mind. And therefore the universe is just what you make of it because you can't have concepts outside of our own perception of them?

So what he's saying is that the universe we see is created by our body.

Which I think is just subjectivism. How else could this description of Biocentrism be read?

  • 4
    It is a weird use of "centrism" (compare to antropocentrism), but no, it has nothing to do with subjectivism or solipsism. What it says is not that just one's mind exists but rather that the "basic stuff" of the universe is more like what we know as "life", or perhaps "mind", than what we know as physical matter. Similar positions are panpsychism and vitalism
    – Conifold
    Commented Dec 16, 2016 at 5:23
  • Is this not the same? If only ones mind exist then all is just you because it cant be anything else even physical matter Commented Dec 16, 2016 at 6:27
  • Mind doesn't have to be your own, there are plenty of other minds and lifeforms around, but physical matter might just be derivative from them, or an illusion, or a degenerated version of "mind stuff" on this view.
    – Conifold
    Commented Dec 16, 2016 at 21:07
  • 1
    "Biocentrism" has an established use in philosophy, and it is not this one. It is a position in environmental ethics opposed to anthropocentrism, and similar to biotic egalitarianism. (building here on @conifold's comment) Commented Apr 15, 2017 at 13:13
  • Isn't solipsism the theory or idea that only I exist ? In which case there is no universe, only me. Also 'subjectivism' has no single meaning but it does normally allow for the existence of other subjects than one. It doesn't assume that only I exist.
    – Geoffrey Thomas
    Commented Nov 11, 2017 at 21:59

2 Answers 2


Read the book. Deepak Chopra thinks it's "original & exciting"... It's a quick read - he basically states "there is no independent external universe outside of biological existence" and spends 200+ pages soliciting agreement. So yeah, you could say it's a kind of subjectivism, but maybe more of a biological solpisism rather than his individual solipsism.

It's a really terrible book.


I think biocentrism means that the world we are subject to is a projection from consiousness and is a product of it. Simply the universe does not exist and is meaningles if there's not an awareness that it can be a subject of or a product of. The world is contained and within that consiousness and every interaction with its projection of our physical bodies and the space and matter and energy the consious observes is purely down to its own creation. Shared consiousness from percieved inhabitants of that biocentrism result in change of the whole consiousness and it's projection as interaction from its subjective parts on the whole which enables it's subjects to view the same projection in proximity to each other as we appear to do and the observed changes from interaction with the projection are conveyed to all from the whole consiousness the subjects are a part of. This leads to determination we indulge in of that projection would be best observed not through study of that projection but study in the nature of consioussness as the projection is a product of it. Everything thus is merely an abstraction that such is like the perception of consioussness and it's intangible nature we naturally percieve, and personally I relate this intangibility to the spiritual and our subjective consious is part of a spiritual whole and the projection of the world enables that spiritual whole observation of its parts which the subjects within that projection are. The percieved physical nature of the world is simply abstraction as is the information exchange within the projection it's subjects are a part of, but conveys observation to the whole and understanding of it parts by the creation of the projection as a means and is it's purpose.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .