Posts Tagged Consciousness
It’s a question often asked by atheists, and a good one too, but they use it as an excuse to set themselves out on the sidelines yelling at those who try to make the world a better place.
God didn’t create our paradise, he created a paradise, the beautiful Earth, and gave it to us. We have the responsibility for the Earth, and it’s not better than we make it. It’s so to speak our apprenticeship what we do with ourselves and the Earth, we are a unity.
Suffering, the short story
Why do people suffer as they do? The short answer is that they have created the situation themselves, that they had acted in a way so they needed to experience the situation seen from the other side. As everywhere else, there are exceptions.
It’s not God or gods who punish the sinners, we create the situation ourselves.
We should of course help each other, it’s not punishment, it’s teaching, and being helped and being a helper is part of the teaching, Love is the primary goal of the teaching on Earth.
If we have Hell in our inner when we die, it follows us into the afterlife and when born again, the new life is created based on our inner.
If Vishnu/God had been the only creator, mankind would have been a beautiful creation, a beautiful robot, acting as the gods decreed, but Shiva/Lucifer gave man the ego so we became independent. We were still only animals with egotism, we weren’t truly independent, we acted fully following the rules of Karma.
Prometheus/Lucifer stealing the fire of knowledge
from the gods to give to humankind.
At a certain time where the body was ready, the outer gods died and was reborn into the inner of man. Man got a soul with an I, the I AM entered the body. The I was like a rider taming a horse, the ego. Now humanity began changing from tribe mentality to individuals.
This is where we are now. The karma you see is where the bodies with their ego have brought them, their soul have a strong fight getting the body and ego out of the misery.
Life, Death and Compassion
The Earth has a beautiful geography kept alive through movements in the underground, earthquakes and volcanic activity, giving new minerals for plant life to work on.
The Earth is covered with a diverse flora transforming the Earth to a place for life to live and a varied fauna lives in this garden of Earth.
The Earth is beautiful, but Earth has no compassion, every being fight for their place, although so wisely that it makes room for all.
Life dies in this struggle for a place in the world, or they die when earthquakes or fires roams the land, creating new worlds and new life.
Death is no exception, it’s a path out when life has no purpose any more.
To create compassion something new had to happen, and out of the animals was the best suitable selected for developing a being having compassion.
It’s of course a painful process. To develop compassion we need to give the animal an ego, a stepping stone to something higher, but in the process egotism gives many problems.
Is compassion worth the painful process?
God is not a magician, he can’t create something as precious as love by a magical invocation, it has to be created by individual beings who develop love in freedom. And we can’t develop love in a paradise, we can only develop love where people are depending on each other to live.
We are in the last third of that process, and we are in a situation where things are going to change for the better.
Materialism is the last great teaching, we should understand that material things is not making us happy, that it’s really slavery for all.
All development happens through correcting errors.
Errors are build into the system. Just look at nature, there is always exceptions that are corrected. Karma is the mechanism behind the process, orchestrated by the Zodiac.
So of course there are injustice, but they become corrected sooner or later. Black magic is a way to make it later.
The strongest power on Earth is karma. Black magic is manipulating the power of karma, using karmic beings, and in some cases being used by something much worse. It’s really nasty.
The Creators – the Logoi
All creation is defined through three powers, called the three Logoi, but each religion have their own names for them.
They are also called Father, Mother and Son, but each are both genders.
Their work in the creation can be seen through the Fibonacci series, everything from the smallest to galaxies are formed after the Fibonacci series. It also describes sexual reproduction and the development through reincarnation.
It says the new is the result of the two previous instances/incarnations. Creation equal form + idea.
We also have it described in Hegel’s synthesis = thesis + antithesis.
This is the most optimal and simple algorithm for creation where there is only one god.
The Logoi is different consciousnesses in God, every being in God act God’s will, they don’t think independently about what they do, they can’t modify the creation if something goes wrong, so the correction is build into the creation. Or so it was!
In the Bible God sees at the end of the day that the creation is good, it was not possible while creating. The beings of God is to him as our organs is to us, we really don’t know what they do until they fail.
Our creation is different from earlier, except the prototype(s) in whose picture we are created. When we are fully developed we can instantly correct new creation where it goes wrong, and thereby avoid pain.
It is said that this creation is the most painful of all as it’s the most complicated. To create individuals is complicated.
It is said that God before he started, asked the potentially created humanity if it was worth it and we answered yes. First then started the creation.
A friend of mine have just made me aware of the physicist Amit Goswami:
Quantum physics, as well as a number of other modern sciences, he feels, is demonstrating that the essential unity underlying all of reality is a fact which can be experimentally verified. Because of the enormous implications he sees in this scientific confirmation of the spiritual, Goswami is ardently devoted to explaining his theory to as many people as possible in order to help bring about what he feels is a much needed paradigm shift. He feels that because science is now capable of validating mysticism, much that before required a leap of faith can now be empirically proven and, hence, the materialist paradigm which has dominated scientific and philosophical thought for over two hundred years can finally be called into question.
Consider instead the possibility that the entire story only existed as an abstract potential—a cosmic dream among countless other cosmic dreams—until, in that dream, life somehow evolved to the point that a conscious, sentient being came into existence. At that moment, solely because of the conscious observation of that individual, the entire universe, including all of the history leading up to that point, suddenly came into being. Until that moment, nothing had actually ever happened. In that moment, fifteen billion years happened. If this sounds like nothing more than a complicated backdrop for a science fiction story or a secular version of one of the world’s great creation myths, hold on to your hat. According to physicist Amit Goswami, the above description is a scientifically viable explanation of how the universe came into being.
Goswami is convinced, along with a number of others who subscribe to the same view, that the universe, in order to exist, requires a conscious sentient being to be aware of it. Without an observer, he claims, it only exists as a possibility. And as they say in the world of science, Goswami has done his math. Marshalling evidence from recent research in cognitive psychology, biology, parapsychology and quantum physics, and leaning heavily on the ancient mystical traditions of the world, Goswami is building a case for a new paradigm that he calls “monistic idealism,” the view that consciousness, not matter, is the foundation of everything that is.
He is not the only one, Martin Rees:
“In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it.”
From the interview (it’s simply filled with Goodies):
WIE: In your book The Self-Aware Universe you speak about the need for a paradigm shift. Could you talk a bit about how you conceive of that shift? From what to what?
Amit Goswami: The current worldview has it that everything is made of matter, and everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of matter, the basic constituents—building blocks—of matter. And cause arises from the interactions of these basic building blocks or elementary particles; elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make cells, and cells make brain. But all the way, the ultimate cause is always the interactions between the elementary particles. This is the belief—all cause moves from the elementary particles. This is what we call “upward causation.” So in this view, what human beings—you and I—think of as our free will does not really exist. It is only an epiphenomenon or secondary phenomenon, secondary to the causal power of matter. And any causal power that we seem to be able to exert on matter is just an illusion. This is the current paradigm.
Now, the opposite view is that everything starts with consciousness. That is, consciousness is the ground of all being. In this view, consciousness imposes “downward causation.” In other words, our free will is real. When we act in the world we really are acting with causal power. This view does not deny that matter also has causal potency—it does not deny that there is causal power from elementary particles upward, so there is upward causation—but in addition it insists that there is also downward causation. It shows up in our creativity and acts of free will, or when we make moral decisions. In those occasions we are actually witnessing downward causation by consciousness.
WIE: In your book you refer to this new paradigm as “monistic idealism.” And you also suggest that science seems to be verifying what a lot of mystics have said throughout history—that science’s current findings seem to be parallel to the essence of the perennial spiritual teaching.
AG: It is the spiritual teaching. It is not just parallel. The idea that consciousness is the ground of being is the basis of all spiritual traditions, as it is for the philosophy of monistic idealism—although I have given it a somewhat new name. The reason for my choice of the name is that, in the West, there is a philosophy called “idealism” which is opposed to the philosophy of “material realism,” which holds that only matter is real. Idealism says no, consciousness is the only real thing. But in the West that kind of idealism has usually meant something that is really dualism—that is, consciousness and matter are separate. So, by monistic idealism, I made it clear that, no, I don’t mean that dualistic kind of Western idealism, but really a monistic idealism, which has existed in the West, but only in the esoteric spiritual traditions. Whereas in the East this is the mainstream philosophy. In Buddhism, or in Hinduism where it is called Vedanta, or in Taoism, this is the philosophy of everyone. But in the West this is a very esoteric tradition, only known and adhered to by very astute philosophers, the people who have really delved deeply into the nature of reality.
AG: Yes, it is. Henry Stapp, who is a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, says this quite explicitly in one of his papers written in 1977, that things outside of space and time affect things inside space and time. There’s just no question that that happens in the realm of quantum physics when you are dealing with quantum objects. Now of course, the crux of the matter is, the surprising thing is, that we are always dealing with quantum objects because it turns out that quantum physics is the physics of every object. Whether it’s submicroscopic or it’s macroscopic, quantum physics is the only physics we’ve got. So although it’s more apparent for photons, for electrons, for the submicroscopic objects, our belief is that all reality, all manifest reality, all matter, is governed by the same laws. And if that is so, then this experiment is telling us that we should change our worldview because we, too, are quantum objects.
AG: We all hope so. Now this is called the “quantum measurement paradox.” It is a paradox because who are we to do this conversion? Because after all, in the materialist paradigm we don’t have any causal efficacy. We are nothing but the brain, which is made up of atoms and elementary particles. So how can a brain which is made up of atoms and elementary particles convert a possibility wave that it itself is? It itself is made up of the possibility waves of atoms and elementary particles, so it cannot convert its own possibility wave into actuality. This is called a paradox. Now in the new view, consciousness is the ground of being. So who converts possibility into actuality? Consciousness does, because consciousness does not obey quantum physics. Consciousness is not made of material. Consciousness is transcendent. Do you see the paradigm-changing view right here—how consciousness can be said to create the material world? The material world of quantum physics is just possibility. It is consciousness, through the conversion of possibility into actuality, that creates what we see manifest. In other words, consciousness creates the manifest world.
AG: I mean that literally. This is what quantum physics demands. In fact, in quantum physics this is called “delayed choice.” And I have added to this concept the concept of “self-reference.” Actually the concept of delayed choice is very old. It is due to a very famous physicist named John Wheeler, but Wheeler did not see the entire thing correctly, in my opinion. He left out self-reference. The question always arises, “The universe is supposed to have existed for fifteen billion years, so if it takes consciousness to convert possibility into actuality, then how could the universe be around for so long?” Because there was no consciousness, no sentient being, biological being, carbon based being, in that primordial fireball which is supposed to have created the universe, the big bang. But this other way of looking at things says that the universe remained in possibility until there was self-referential quantum measurement—so that is the new concept. An observer’s looking is essential in order to manifest possibility into actuality, and so only when the observer looks, only then does the entire thing become manifest—including time. So all of past time, in that respect, becomes manifest right at that moment when the first sentient being looks.
It turns out that this idea, in a very clever, very subtle way, has been around in cosmology and astronomy under the guise of a principle called the “anthropic principle.” That is, the idea has been growing among astronomers—cosmologists anyway—that the universe has a purpose. It is so fine-tuned, there are so many coincidences, that it seems very likely that the universe is doing something purposive, as if the universe is growing in such a way that a sentient being will arise at some point.
Connie: We think science and spirituality are mutually exclusive but lately it seems that the two ideas are moving closer together.
Amit: The division happened because of a quirk of history: that classical physics was discovered before quantum physics. If quantum physics had been discovered first we would not have these separations between science and spirituality. Carl Popper coined the phrase “promissory materialism.” Materialism will always remain promissory in those areas of spirit, soul, mind, meaning and what life is all about. Science based on materiality will never make total sense. It fits some questions that have a reductive tendency. Some things we do are materially oriented. If you need a job you learn a skill. But on the other hand if you want to be happy, to think money or work will make us happy is foolhardy. One becomes happy by connecting with wholeness. This wisdom has escaped most scientists.
I am finding a shift among budding scientists who want to find real answers to questions like happiness, soul, reincarnation and the meaning of life. All those questions that science thought it could never answer. It’s clear that if we continue our present direction, the decline of the stock market and business ethics are just a few of the symptoms of the disease, which is leaving spirit, ethics and values out of the equation. If you understand reincarnational philosophy, you’ll know that we come back again and again if we are unethical. No one would ever dare to be unethical. You do come back and you have to answer for those propensities. So there’s no sense in building bad karma, bad propensities.
Amit Goswami: Amit Goswami is a theoretical nuclear physicist and member of The University of Oregon Institute for Theoretical Physics since 1968, teaching physics for 32 years. After a period of distress and frustration in his private and professional life starting at the age 38, his research interests shifted to quantum cosmology, quantum measurement theory, and applications of quantum mechanics to the mind-body problem. He became best known as one of the interviewed scientific experts featured in the 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know!?. He is the author of six books including the successful textbook, “Quantum Mechanics.” Amit is a pioneer of science within consciousness “science based on the primacy of consciousness” which is developed in his books “The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World” and “Science and Spirituality.” He has also authored “Quantum Creativity” and “A Quantum Physicist’s Guide to Enlightenment,” “The Visionary Window” and “Physics of the Soul,” and the upcoming “Integral Medicine.” Amit gives workshops in the United States, Brazil, Sweden, and India on the subjects of quantum creativity, quantum healing, physics of the soul, and science and spirituality.
Also read-worthy The Universe, Quantum Physics, and Consciousness by Subhash Kak, Ph.D.
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)
I have had some discussions with engineers who had Intelligent Machines as their religion, and interestingly it’s the Atheists who dreams about thinking machines.
With background in the current computer technology I will analyze the feasibility of intelligent machines from three different scientific approaches: The Mathematical, the Physical, and the Biological.
It’s interesting that the believers in Intelligent Machines ignores the evidence, especially the stringent Mathematical evidence, this is also the reason I call them believers as they ignore facts, dreaming of a future with god-like machines a lot wiser and knowledgeable than man.
It is possible to have a complete and consistent list of axioms that cannot be produced by a computer program (that is, the list is not Computably Enumerable).
The incompleteness theorems also implies that not all mathematical questions are computable.
It states simply that there are problems which man can solve and machines can’t.
What he proves is that there are things in a system, like our physical world, that can’t be done within the system itself, which can only be done from something outside that system, but man breaks this barrier where computers can’t, and that means that man depend on something outside the physical world, like soul and spirit.
Roger Penrose shows with examples why they cant think in: “The Large, the Small and the Human Mind“.
In this Hard Talk interview about the recurring big bang Roger Penrose touches the problem.
When you look out into the room, you are sitting in, you have a picture or really a video of everything at once and constantly. It means that this view of your surroundings, and your thoughts about it, are in your Consciousness. Seen from a computational view it is really fantastic, and Computer Science today can only dream of something that seems to be Conscious! Even with future technologies as Quantum Computing is it a question if we can make Conscious Computers at all.
Computers are something called Von Neumann Machines, which again is defined through the theoretical Turing Machine, and Turing Machines can only work on one bit at a time, which is only a small part of the information necessary to make a single point on a computer or television screen.
The consequence is that Computers can only have a part of a point of a picture in what we can call their ‘consciousness’ at a time, and that is not enough to even contain the color information of a point. What they have calculated in one instance is forgotten in the next. It’s only when we see the result on the screen or on paper that it becomes conscious through our consciousness, that is, we see the screen as a whole, extracts the relevant information in all its complexity, and understands it’s implications.
A computer cannot be Intelligent however big and speedy it is.
Erich Harth in ‘Windows on the Mind’, 1982:
The brain presents two seemingly irreconcilable aspects: It is a material body, exhibiting all the physical properties of matter, and it possesses a set of faculties and attributes, collectively called mind, that are not found in any other physical system.
In his book “The Creative Loop,..” he elaborates further on how the physical mind functions, and why it’s superior to any known devices.
The book by Erich Harth’s “The Creative Loop, How the Brain Makes a Mind” gives an intelligent description of the physical working of our brain.
No Theory of a Conscious Machine yet
There have been talked about thinking machines for forty years, but there have not been a single theory for building one yet. There are a lot of programs running on super computers which can simulate some aspects of the mind, but the programs have nothing to do with real intelligence.
Computers are good at those things where we are bad, that is remembering and calculations, but they can’t think.
With the knowledge we have to-day, if it had been possible to program consciousness into our current computers, we would have done it by now.
It may be possible to make thinking computers if its build on Quantum Computing, as the numbers of bits in the computer’s processing unit can be increased considerable above the one bit we have today, caused by entanglement, but I don’t think that it’s enough to create consciousness, but it is a requirement.
Hubert Dreyfus: What Computers Can’t Do: The Limits of Artificial Intelligence.
Quantum Consciousness: A Discussion between Stuart Hameroff and Alwyn Scott.
Tarjei Straume on the Technological Singularity.