On 17 May 2007 02:50:04 -0700, Anandavala
anandavala.info> wrote:
>> Ok, thanks. I just put up a very short outline suggestive of the
>> approach I'd take if I were to write my "Metaphysics for Hardheads"
>> book :)
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
>>
>> As you can see, I'd draw on the work of regression psychoanalysts
>> such as Graham Farrant, Roger Woolger and many others ....
>> plus scientific research into reincarnation such as that of Ian
>> Ian Stevenson and others ... to begin making the case that
>> conscious energy (as I gradually describe it) is fundamental
>> and the basis of everything. I thnk it's importat too to point
>> out and stress that some "virtually brainless" hydranencephalics
>> have normal and even high IQs. Here's a link to that >
item:http://www.supraconsciousnessnetwork.org/ch14p10.htm
>>
>> I'd begin thusly to challenge widely held beliefs in mainstream
>> science and encourage the reader to examine his own
>> beliefs and assumptions ... while building up the case for
>> my premise that there is nothing that is not a form of
>> conscious energy of its own kind ... and that physical
>> reality is essentially a illusion ... while a beautiful,
>> delightful, purposeful and meaningful illusion once
>> one understands that it is a illusion.
>Wonderful stuff Art - "Everything is a form of Conscious Energy"!!!!
Hey, Im really glad you think so!
>Mystics have been talking about this throughout all cultures for
>thousands of years. It is very promising that people like you and I
>and others (even some mainstream scientists) are starting to come to
>this understanding - it shows that the naive realist beliefs are
>starting to finally be recognised as beliefs rather than just obvious
>facts about the way things are. That is the only way to overcome naive
>realism.
Yes, it is a matter of belief alteration.
>It is the nature of naive realism that naive realists don't recognise
>their beliefs as being beliefs - they think they are just obvious
>facts about the way things are. As soon as they become aware that they
>are beliefs and start to question them it ceases to be 'naive'
>realism.
>
>It is naive belief that keeps us from understanding reality - and
>despite what many people think mysticism is a path of deep skepticism
>and rational enquiry. These subjects are most definitely amenable to
>rational discussion and exploration and the modern world really needs
>to get skeptical and rational!
Exactly. There's something we engineers do that we call "what ifs",
which are a part of worst case analysis of our designs. We go through
a process of "what if this" and "what if that" in order to harden our
designs and make them more reliable and/or safer to use.
Well, there's another kind of "what if" process that's very important
I think. What if my belief in such and such is wrong and something
else is actually right? This requires considerable open mindedness,
humility and true skepticism ... qualities that are rare in most human
beings, I'm afraid. To use my own phrasing of something you try
to convey, I think, I'd say that the kind of open mindedness required
is at the opposite end of the spectrum of gullibility. Open minded
skepticism begins with doubt of your current beliefs and a willingness
to be open to a "eureka".
>Just one detail that might be worth considering - I'm sure you already
>know this but I'll just clarify it. Consciousness and intelligence are
>quite different but related things. The case of the hydranencephalics
>shows that consciousness is not solely located in the brain but is
>instead a function of the whole organism - this understanding is
>represented in Vedanta and Yoga by the concept of nadis (lowest level
>channels of consciousness) and chakras (nexus points of the nadis
>where levels of higher level consciousness arise).
Yes, I'm familiar with this subject of the chakras but I didn't want
to get into that arena in my short synopsis.
>But aside from this, consciousness (in the sense that it is universal)
>is a very low-level phenomenon that underlies intelligence but
>intelligence is a very high level phenomenon that arises when the low-
>level consciousness is woven into vastly complex structures such as a
>human being. Hence I refer to the universal consciousness as proto-
>awareness just to make this point clear. This leads to what some call
>protpanexperientialism.
>
>Just as simple forms interact to create complex forms (this is the
>outer aspect of systems) - so too the inner aspects interact to create
>more complex inner aspects. So particles create bodies and proto-
>awareness creates intelligence.
>
>Whilst proto-awareness definitely underlies intelligence and all our
>high-level conscious phenomena, in the universal case even a single
>particle has proto-awareness otherwise it could not be aware of other
>particles and interact with them - but a particle has no intelligence
>nor self awareness. It is aware of the virtual particle interactions
>by which it participates with other particles but it is not aware of
>its awareness, nor is it aware that it is aware that it is aware.
>Neither can it think about its awareness or about the phenomena of
>which it is aware. It only has what I call "direct awareness" because
>it lacks the internal feedback loops to be able to be aware of
>anything else. An example of this is a video camera that is aware of
>the flow of light-signals into its circuitry (otherwise it couldn't
>process the incoming signals) but it has no means of being aware that
>it is aware nor can it think about what it is aware of. It is only
>directly aware. Only beings with complex internal feedback loops have
>both direct awareness and high level awareness.
Now that you bring up this issue, I think my synopsis would be
improved if I expanded on what I mean by kinds or types of
(gestalt) consciousness.
I disagree with you concerning the notion of self awareness.
If Roger Woolger is to be believed, the fetal infant considers itself
to be a part of the mother even at the time of conception. This
"considering itself to be something or other" is what I would call
self awareness. In psychoanalytic terms, it lacks what's called
an ego, or sense of being a separate or independent self.
This ego or outer ego, BTW, has been allowed to become a
tyrant in humans and a prime stumbling block to our inner
core of spiritual awareness. Both our Western religions and our
science worship now result in major blockages to our spiritual core.
So do our academic communities. Simpler forms of life and inanimate
matter are (presumably) free of such blockages.
I imagine a cell in a tree having a similar point of view as the
fetal infant. It considers itelf to be a part of the tree. The overall
tree gestalt consciouness considers itself to be a tree (in a
obviously non verbal way).
I imagine a subatomic particle considering itself to be a part
of the universe, but it also knows what it is in its own way.
At the macroscopic level of all the molecules of a rock, there
is rock gestalt consiousness.
You see, since consciousness is God-stuff I'm not inclined to
sell it short, so to speak. A subatomic particle is likely to be
far more brilliantly aware of what it is than most humans are.
>So in my opinion the case of the hydranencephalics has profound
>implications on the nature of high level consciousness but it doesn't
>directly impact on the subject of universal consciousness.
>In my mind a good way to overcome our unquestioned beliefs and realise
>the universality of consciousness or proto-awareness is to challenge
>naive realism. I.e. that slip of the mind that happens when we confuse
>the objects of consciousness with external objects. It is like the
>case of a VR simulation where there are no ontological objects but
>just a complex dance of computation, so too in our reality there are
>no ontological objects but only a complex dance of proto-awareness.
>
>What quantum physicists are discovering with "wavefunctions" is
>essentially the dance of cosmic consciousness. When physicists stop
>being instrumentalist and start taking quantum physics seriously this
>could lead us directly to an intellectual understanding of universal
>consciousness. But the real understanding arises when we each go
>'within' and realise that our own consciousness (at its lowest levels)
>is in fact the universal consciousness and this consciousness animates
>ALL things.
>
>I'm very interested to see what else you have to say on this subject -
>you have some very promising leads. For example, on the real meaning
>of the word 'psychic', i.e. you say "cellular consciousness is
>'psychic'". At the lowest level consciousness is a single unified
>'dance' that permeates and binds all 'things'. It is only at the level
>of high level intelligence that consciousness is separate and
>individual. When we get to know our deepest levels of consciousness we
>tap into the 'psychic' oneness where there is no separation and no
>distance between things. On that level we are all One. That
>realisation alone has the power to totally change this world for the
>better.
I don't consider humans to be partiularly intelligent. I don't know if
I had my article about zombies up when you checked out my web site,
but it's the second article here:
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg/time.html
AI already is far more intelligent in certain respects
(logical/mathematical reasoning and creativity primarily) than humans.
Human intelligence will soon seem insignificant compared to machine
intelligence.
>Best Wishes :)
>John
Same to you, John.
I'm honored :)
I've been accumulating some links lately, and I do plan to expand my
web pages as ideas for articles arise in my mind. Concerning
scientific testing of so-called paranormal phenomena, I've long
been impressed with the work of Helmut Schmidt:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/retro.html
In a different vein, my page now contains a link to a current
Canadian philosopher, William Steager, for those interested
in a "heavier" or more formal analysis of panpsychism:
http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~seager/
Here's something lighter that I enjoyed concerning the
parallels between Einstein and Budda :)
http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha/
I particularly like the last Budda quote where he likens
all the noise (I'll call it) to a raft crossing a river. Once
you're enlightened (get to the other side of the river)
you no longer have any use for the raft (all the noise).
I'll drink to that :)
Art
