Thomas Campbell: unifying physics and consciousness

[tryptographer]

He does not mention DMT, but I can relate to much he's saying - except I think it's more 'organic' than digital. It's 18 parts, a bit dry now and then but here's part 8 which struck me most:
[YOUTUBE]

 

[MagikVenom]

Sweet8)


Edit its 6am still 5 more segments I am not going to make it

VERY interesting but to much speculation he could have condensed it a bit. I did enjoy watching thanks for posting.

UTUBE needs to do some condensing as well 18 10min segments....................WTF
now thats insanity.

8)
MV

 

[balaganist]

Yes, the way he describes all conciousness being connected and a part of one... and about sub- and super-systems. Definitely clicked with me.

 

[burnt]

This guy is another one of these blithering universal consciousness quantum mystic deceivers.

The big bang is not an infinite regression about origin (if its correct). There is no before on the big bang space and time begins at the big bang. Not an infinite regression. We could also add in issues about the arrow of time but lets not go there, maybe everything's more circular who knows but it also makes his comment meaningless. Its simple enough to say he is wrong on this point if something like a big bang happened. Using god or some kind of universal consciousness seems more like it would create such an infinite regression the big bang avoids that.

All his comments about bacteria are pretty much wrong. Bacteria aren't aware or conscious at all. They are little chemical machines that fit the criteria of what we call life. Not all life is necessarily conscious. Cells don't learn they respond chemically. Yes cells can remembering events and respond differently but its all biochemical machines doing it all.

Concerning entropy yes life can lower entropy inside itself but it doesn't lower the entropy of the system. The entropy of a system always increases. That's the direction time is moving. Life and consciousness don't violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Consciousness is subject to objective analysis. It is being studied objectively and some good discoveries and progress is being made concerning this issue.

His entire basis of his argument is that consciousness is the root of all things. I feel that's a baseless belief just like god. Its a belief and maybe it can be true but it seems highly unlikely because for such a thing to exist it would have to violate its own natural laws. My life and consciousness is not connected to whats going on in another galaxy. All that I know about that other galaxy is that light is coming from it and based on that we can see and learn a lot about it. That information is not instantaneously arriving at my consciousness. It is not part of my consciousness. I wouldn't ever know it existed unless we were able to design telescopes and other devices to do so.

I only watched one of his videos but I bet his is basing his consciousness is the root of all things on some kind of quantum fact or idea he has about that kind of thing. If that is his base see my end of spirituality thread where I attempt to debunk that kind of stuff. One author and scientist who has done a good job and debunking this stuff is Victor Stenger. Check out his website or articles.

Wow ok watching his next video makes it even worse. Nothing de-evolves. You yourself don't evolve yes you change but evolution concerns changes of species in time. He is claiming that non physical reality interact with physical reality. If that is true then non physical reality is detectable and is then therefore within the realm of study. There is currently no evidence for a non physical reality. All seemingly paranormal phenomenon are explainable even if each one has never been specifically thoroughly investigated. None has so far required any non physical explanation.

 

[Bancopuma]

I haven't seen these vids, and agree with what you are saying burnt.

However, on the subject of the existence of a non physical reality, I'm not going to argue for or against that, but just because something can't be detected by the current tools of science, doesn't mean it doesn't exist;

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Science is very good at mapping and measuring the physical universe we observe we inhabit, but I think one needs to be careful about drawing conclusions about what is and isn't 'out there' (or in there...or both). Take dark matter for example. I can't remember where I heard this, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to physicists, there is something like 90% more mass out in the universe than is currently observed...thus, if this is true, the vast majority of the universe we inhabit remains largely unknown and unexplored by science.

 

[Morphane]

I just spent the entire evening going through these videos, and it was interesting no doubt.

I really distrust and dislike New Age charlantry, and he does touch upon healings, astral travel and other paranormal ideas that made me cringe, but for the most part what he said resonated. (I also cynically note he has a book to sell. They've always got something they want you to buy. He could provide a free PDF of his book if he was purely interested in getting his ideas out there.)

Clearly he is tapping into innerspace/hyperspace through some method, and experiencing something of what a person on DMT would. I'm not aware of meditation being so powerful as to allow experiences equal to psychedelics though - i.e interaction with entities, travel to other dimensions, etc. So is he taking some kind of drug as well?

His description of reality as being basically digital is similar to what I read in a book written by Paul Davies - The Mind of God. I've also seen videos on YouTube suggesting our existence might be a virtual reality.

So many other points he raised that connected to other things I have come to understand.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the purpose of physical existence is so this primal conscious can learn. That we are students. What could the Godhead or higher beings than us learn from incarnating as organisms? What could I learn from becoming a frog for instance? I'm much more comfortable with the idea of the Godhead merely playing hide and seek. That creation is just a form of play, not something it needs to do to learn. I don't know though. I've read some Near Death Experiences that match with what he says.

@ Burnt: I don't remember him mentioning the big bang. I thought the regression he was talking about was more like the way matter gets smaller and smaller, or bigger and bigger.

All his comments about bacteria are pretty much wrong. Bacteria aren't aware or conscious at all. They are little chemical machines that fit the criteria of what we call life. Not all life is necessarily conscious. Cells don't learn they respond chemically. Yes cells can remembering events and respond differently but its all biochemical machines doing it all.

He wasn't suggesting they were conscious like we are. Just that they had a very limited awareness - enough to interact with an environment. It seemed just an analogy if anything.

His entire basis of his argument is that consciousness is the root of all things. I feel that's a baseless belief just like god. Its a belief and maybe it can be true but it seems highly unlikely because for such a thing to exist it would have to violate its own natural laws. My life and consciousness is not connected to whats going on in another galaxy. All that I know about that other galaxy is that light is coming from it and based on that we can see and learn a lot about it. That information is not instantaneously arriving at my consciousness. It is not part of my consciousness. I wouldn't ever know it existed unless we were able to design telescopes and other devices to do so.

Later he says that to get outside the box you need an assumption that can't be proved. It's a theory man. A model. He uses an example of an imaginary intelligent bacteria living in a stomach - it cannot know where its food comes from. It could never know about rain, sunlight, farmers, plows etc. In the same way, we can't know what it outside our universe, so an assumption is necessary. All scientific theories begin as assumptions.

 

[tryptographer]

Sorry about Campbell's longwindedness and the large amount of time this takes...

Morphane, good point about the bacteria, it's just an analogy. Not a bad one either, I sometimes feel like a bacterium or an ant myself, popping up its head in hyperspace and catching a glimpse of totally impossible things. I just don't think I can imagine or 'hallucinate' these huge 100% coherent worlds and hypercomplex things with my stupid little brain
Also, there is plenty of well documented evidence that NDEs are real. People can have intense life-changing experiences without brain activity, being dead for 90 minutes or even more.

Subjective DMT experiences convinced me that my brain matter doesn't actually generate consciousness, it's rather like a receiver or antenna. I know I can't prove that to the outer world but that's not the point of firsthand experiences. But that doesn't mean it's invalid! Nobody can prove they dream, yet we accept dreaming is a real phenomenon because we experience them subjectively and tell each other about it.
Witnesses are teken seriously in court (at least, they should be), why not here.

Ken Wilber wrote some interesting stuff about this, his four quadrants. Sadly, he degenerated into another cult leader...

The physical world is just as mysterious and 'spiritual' as anything. Through science, we discovered the huge scale and complexity of the universe - much more interesting and terrifying than the old world views and religions with their simplistic 'snap with the fingers' omnipotent god. I love matter!

I dislike new age stuff too, but I think Campbell is a bit more solid. He was trained by Robert Monroe under lab conditions and went at great length getting reproducible results and retrieving information that would have been impossible to get otherwise. Being a practical nuts & bolts guy, he needed hard proof himself. Burnt, I hear you think 'they all say that'

What is so unscientific about the idea that matter is not all there is? Matter is not even solid, the idea of 'solid stuff' is an fabrication!

 

[burnt]

@ Burnt: I don't remember him mentioning the big bang. I thought the regression he was talking about was more like the way matter gets smaller and smaller, or bigger and bigger.

He was referring to any question about origins as an infinite regression I was saying the big bang which is a hypothesis about origins avoids an infinite regression.

Its difficult to way how small matter gets we may have found the smallest pieces even if strings are found to be the smallest pieces its finite. Same goes for large we can only see so far.

He wasn't suggesting they were conscious like we are. Just that they had a very limited awareness - enough to interact with an environment. It seemed just an analogy if anything.

True he was making an analogy. When he implied that bacteria have awareness I was assuming that he implied they were conscious. I think self awareness is an aspect of consciousness.

Anyway about his analogy I feel its a poor one. A bacteria has no way of knowing that its in an intestine and its life depends on a human eating because it simply has no senses or system to integrate that information. Furthermore it has no need to know that evolution didn't make bacteria capable of doing that because they can function just fine metabolizing away and when they die its no big deal they already made a billion replicates. They don't think about anything. The only reason they can actively interact with their environment is because of the biochemical machines that make bacteria up. A rock doesn't actively interact with its environment, i'd say it passively does, but that along with many other reasons is why a rock is not life.

We as humans do have a limit. Its called our senses. But because of our brains and instrumentation we can observe things and discover things that are senses would normally not show us. But there is still some limit to what we can know and sense. But that doesn't mean what we don't know automatically requires some universal consciousness to make it all make sense. So I don't really see the limits of human discovery and knowledge as analogous to that of a bacteria because we have senses and brains and can make things to find things beyond the limits of our body. Like seeing out into space for example we couldn't do that without telescopes (deeper space I mean not just looking at the sky).

. In the same way, we can't know what it outside our universe, so an assumption is necessary. All scientific theories begin as assumptions.

If anything outside our known universe interacts with our known universe it is in principle somewhat knowable. If it doesn't have any interaction what so ever then no its not. We can still make assumptions or guesses about whats out there as many people have done. Modern cosmology suggests that our universe is just one pocket in a vast multiverse that just so happens to have laws that make life possible. But that doesn't mean anything in those other pockets will ever have any effect on our universe anymore they are too far away, but if they exist there may be evidence within the history of our universe, which is where they got the idea in the first place, from the past.

It doesn't mean there is a spiritual realm. My problem is his argument goes like "We don't know whats beyond the universe, so I will make something up and then I will use that to justify and explain paranormal/spiritual beliefs". Thats a very flawed methodology that I don't consider scientific. On the other hand cosmology is making logical inferences about whats outside the known universe based on the history of our universe. Of course they don't know how correct they are yet but in principle we can learn more about it.

Science is very good at mapping and measuring the physical universe we observe we inhabit, but I think one needs to be careful about drawing conclusions about what is and isn't 'out there' (or in there...or both). Take dark matter for example. I can't remember where I heard this, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to physicists, there is something like 90% more mass out in the universe than is currently observed...thus, if this is true, the vast majority of the universe we inhabit remains largely unknown and unexplored by science.

Well dark matter does interact with other matter through gravity thats why we know it exists. It doesn't interact with photons which makes it much different then normal matter thats why they gave it a new name dark matter. It is studiable however because it interacts with matter, it is matter its just a different kind. Its not outside science.

But the important part of the above statement is that anything that interacts with matter can in principle be studied. So if there is a spirit realm or whatever this guy is claiming that is interacting with normal matter it is in principle detectable via its effect on normal matter. No such thing has ever been detected that implies this spiritual stuff he is claiming about universal consciousness.

I admit I haven't watched this guys whole video but I feel like I have listened to too many people like him who at the end of the day just waste peoples time generate confusion and make money selling spirituality as science which its not.

 

[polytrip]

The big bang as a theory, does not avoid the problem of infinite regression. The only theory's that could do that are theories that are circular in some way.
This is the reason i like the idea about a cyclic universe; With a cyclic model, you only have to answer one impossible question, wich is 'why is there something instead of nothing?', and without a cyclic universe you have to answer one more question wich is impossible to answer, wich is 'if innitialy, there was nothing (including time), why did that change?' (wich brings forth even more impossible questions like 'how could nothingness change if there was no time?')

I see a risk here, of starting the whole 'end of spiritualism' debate over again.
Maybe we could avoid that by saying that every search towards the basic things, in the end appeals to spiritual questions or feelings as well, and that you (even very rational scientists) can hardly speak about things like the big bang without appealing to questions on the existence of a god, a universal counsciousness, spiritual force or anything simmilar.
Yet all those spiritual notions are not equal to factual knowledge. they cannot and should not be treated as equal. And this (the whole 'end of spiritualism' thread actually proofs this) holds true from BOTH angles.
In the end, the whole 'end of...' discussion can be viewed in many ways and one way of looking at it, is that it's a debate about what is more valuable: spirituality or factual knowledge.
That discussion sort of proofs that treating both as equal, in the end is something neither the ones who choose spirituality, and neither the ones who choose science, aprove.

 

[burnt]

The big bang as a theory, does not avoid the problem of infinite regression. The only theory's that could do that are theories that are circular in some way.
This is the reason i like the idea about a cyclic universe; With a cyclic model, you only have to answer one impossible question, wich is 'why is there something instead of nothing?', and without a cyclic universe you have to answer one more question wich is impossible to answer, wich is 'if innitialy, there was nothing (including time), why did that change?' (wich brings forth even more impossible questions like 'how could nothingness change if there was no time?')

Sure it can in the Hartle-Hawking model it does. http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v28/i12/p2960_1

Although this model might not be correct I dunno but its one way to avoid such kinds of regressions. I think it also involves a mirror universe where time moves in the opposite direction.

The initial state of the universe could have been done of complete chaos as proposed by Vilenkin. This involves the chaos non physical state (nothing) coming into being spontaneously via quantum tunneling which happens without cause.

Neither theory may be correct but both are valid within the known laws of physics.

These questions are not impossible and valid hypothesis have been proposed.

I see a risk here, of starting the whole 'end of spiritualism' debate over again.
Maybe we could avoid that by saying that every search towards the basic things, in the end appeals to spiritual questions or feelings as well, and that you (even very rational scientists) can hardly speak about things like the big bang without appealing to questions on the existence of a god, a universal counsciousness, spiritual force or anything simmilar.

Both of the above scenarios as well as cyclic universe model do not involve god, a universal consciousness, nor spiritual forces. They are valid searches for answers to these questions. Of course proving them beyond a shadow of doubt may be impossible. But neither requires any violation of the laws of nature while god, a universal consciousness, and spiritual forces so far do involve violations in the laws of nature at least in the ways they are typically presented. Not always though. I am not suggesting that you are implying these theories suggest god but just pointing out that they don't have any need for a god or spiritual forces.

Yet all those spiritual notions are not equal to factual knowledge. they cannot and should not be treated as equal. And this (the whole 'end of spiritualism' thread actually proofs this) holds true from BOTH angles.
In the end, the whole 'end of...' discussion can be viewed in many ways and one way of looking at it, is that it's a debate about what is more valuable: spirituality or factual knowledge.
That discussion sort of proofs that treating both as equal, in the end is something neither the ones who choose spirituality, and neither the ones who choose science, aprove.

I guess my entire point is that spiritual knowledge is not equal to factual knowledge. I think I have good reason for refusing to accept spiritual knowledge as truthful. Although it can lead to ideas about truths which can be subject to scientific analysis.

 

[polytrip]

there are a view things of wich it would be strange if you couldn't imagine them to trigger spiritual sensations.

Quantum events happening without cause, for instance.
How could this not sparkle human imagination.

from a logical point of view, something happening with no cause is equivalent to something happening with a cause that lies beyond our powers of comprehension or observation. Both statements have the same consequences. If something happens randomly or because god wants it to happen, doesn't matter to the mathematical models. The same mathematical formula's apply, because you're dealing with the same levels of uncertainty and the same observations.

another such thing is the instant creation of space and time, with the big bang.

This means that before the big bang there was no space and time as we know it. It would be strange if this would not lead to speculation about realms outside our known space and time.
The big bang happened, from our point of view, everywhere, instead of a certain location. But this brings forth questions about the place of 'everywhere'.
You might as well say, that 'everywhere' is inside of god's head or on the harddisk of the programmer from 'the matrix'.

Such speculations are only natural. And they serve a purpose, i belief. Even the greatest scientists in history fell for such speculations that blur with scientific knowledge; isaac newton firmly believed in alchemy, for instance.
The point you and i, and i think most reasonable people agree on, is that it would be a great mistake to treat those spiritual or fantastic notions as equal to factual knowledge.
That is also what sets Newton apart from any random charlatan: he knew he could not do that. It is possible that he tried to devellop systems to get alchemy within the realm of science, but as long as these attempts failed, they stayed outside.

 

[burnt]

Cool points.

Quantum events happening without cause, for instance.
How could this not sparkle human imagination.

from a logical point of view, something happening with no cause is equivalent to something happening with a cause that lies beyond our powers of comprehension or observation. Both statements have the same consequences. If something happens randomly or because god wants it to happen, doesn't matter to the mathematical models. The same mathematical formula's apply, because you're dealing with the same levels of uncertainty and the same observations.

Yep and this is exactly why Einstein hated quantum mechanics. So far all attempts to make it deterministic have failed. It appears that quantum events really do happen without cause in an in-deterministic fashion. On the macroscale of course its more predictable (radioactive decay etc).

another such thing is the instant creation of space and time, with the big bang.

This means that before the big bang there was no space and time as we know it. It would be strange if this would not lead to speculation about realms outside our known space and time.
The big bang happened, from our point of view, everywhere, instead of a certain location. But this brings forth questions about the place of 'everywhere'.
You might as well say, that 'everywhere' is inside of god's head or on the harddisk of the programmer from 'the matrix'.

True. I don't even know how to begin thinking about something outside space and time. That's why mathematics becomes useful. People have described mathematically these kinds of things but its impossible to translate completely into language. One can really only use analogies and such.

I guess my only objection to guys like this Mr. Campbell is he thinks it must be consciousness. That consciousness can be the only answer. I don't see how he can arrive at that conclusion. Sure its ok to speculate but it really generates lots of confusion and gets them to believe in all kinds of nonsense. Even if the original speculation was valid and a good question at first. I have nothing against speculation and fun ideas except when those ideas lead to all the wackyness and tarot card flipping psychic scams.

Such speculations are only natural. And they serve a purpose, i belief. Even the greatest scientists in history fell for such speculations that blur with scientific knowledge; isaac newton firmly believed in alchemy, for instance.
The point you and i, and i think most reasonable people agree on, is that it would be a great mistake to treat those spiritual or fantastic notions as equal to factual knowledge.
That is also what sets Newton apart from any random charlatan: he knew he could not do that. It is possible that he tried to devellop systems to get alchemy within the realm of science, but as long as these attempts failed, they stayed outside.

I agree it serves a very important purpose to speculate even wildly speculate. Thats what revolutions come from. But not all wild speculation leads to revolutions the vast majority don't. Newton did get a bit wacky sometimes but in a way alchemy came true with nuclear chemistry. Stars make new elements from other elements. The whole living forever thing though is where alchemy was too wacky.

So yea I guess alchemy is a good example. We have been able to transmute some elements using nuclear reactions and the sun does it all the time. We also learned a lot about chemistry from these alchemical pursuits. So that turned out to be true. But some of the other baggage was fortunately dropped and found to be nonsense or useless.

 

[dread]

found to be nonsense or useless.

so far.

 

[polytrip]

i agree by the way, that this very much looks like charlatanism.
But i don't know how literally this is all meant.
You never actually hear him say things like "all i'm saying is pure speculation", but maybe they just didn't record that.

 

[MindInfoRreality]

burnt, you may need to expand your ideas/possibilities of what consciousness is, it is one thing we arent even to sure of how to define, even you said that self-awareness is just an aspect of it, and if its true that none of us rly know how to *catagorize* it then how can we prove or disprove the extents of consciousness

For instance, in the midst of a dream(after the fact you realize this complex you have had) you cannot, without proper preperation(like meditation or knowledgeably taking psychedelics, tell if it is your true reality or what.
But, guess what it is, it is a probable existence of some sort of event/passage of time that could/did not happen that you simply imagined up while in a deep sleep. it did not take any voluntary 'conscious' effort to dream that up....
(based on what we think of dreams)you had a few chemical releases in your brain, your brain actively reproduced your recent experiences in a virtual type of world, but guess what you experienced that substantial possibility(say...what it would have been like if you had went through your day(s) or woke up one day with the idea that you could possibly be wrong, please, take no offense, i only want to see you accomplish more than me - the ideal idea of an argument isnt to disprove the other side, its to learn/accept/reinvestigate/confirm/reject with sincerity from where the other person is coming from, if you dont understand why they argue for what they do you will not understand everything they are saying...and i dont like to miss a beat so i stay constantly aware of what you are to find out what i am.)

and trust me many ppl have dreams as another conscious being, they are aware of the state they are in and still even more, that they are in some way different. i believe consciousness is like a mathematical equation, one like a fractal, (given it would prob dif per animal/world/physical realm) where its universal for all but different for each viewpoint viewing itself and other viewpoints, just like a subset - of another subset, maybe, because (*analogy*) all the possible dogs' conscious states(including its experiences) could be a subset just like all humans conscious possibilities is subset along side of it............... within a whole fractal of consciousness (seem to resemble anything?)

 

[MindInfoRreality]

But now i am going to address some ideas he brought up (because i have to agree he takes some leeps, atleast from my current understanding of a few finite systems)
like...
evolution.
where/how does it fit within our conscious understanding? (ive addressed this myself but never with the approach he has, though overall he resonated with me as Morphane put it)

Campbell says that consciousness HAS filled every niche (i think the has makes it an irrational statement - but then i can take it further and come to another 'flaw' in what he was saying), but if the dimensions of time are infinite, couldn't then cosnciousness be an infinite set given the infinite circumstances?

Plus, he says that free will leads to the growth of the conscious self (this makes sense to me, although later he says that you cannot learn without restrictions and i think he means the lamen term meaning simply educating based on your surroundings AND what your surroundings are about - basically just learning that there are restrictions, idk)
BUT to examine some possibilities of this idea further using some physical knowledge and possibly to explain what he is refering to:
...Our pineal glands are *thought* to emit an ectromagnetic field around themselves as to block out external forces acting on our ''sacred'(lol) pineal aqueous solution' so that it can invert into a wave.....and explore the metaphysical realms.
Therefore by taking away these physical restraints, does it allow this part of our functioning minds to grow and learn?
.................and on that note, doesn't dreaming help people organize their experiences in which they can learn from the act of it?
.........................and again, what about dreaming/taking a hit of DMT/meditating outside the restraints of gravity(i.e. in space), would it then change our experience?

 

[burnt]

Dreams aren't real though. I don't know exactly what you are trying to say about dreams. Sorry I am having a hard time following. We don't know exactly what dreams are for but they certainly seem a way to reset and reprocess information and we can become aware of that process.

i believe consciousness is like a mathematical equation, one like a fractal, (given it would prob dif per animal/world/physical realm) where its universal for all but different for each viewpoint viewing itself and other viewpoints, just like a subset - of another subset, maybe, because (*analogy*) all the possible dogs' conscious states(including its experiences) could be a subset just like all humans conscious possibilities is subset along side of it............... within a whole fractal of consciousness (seem to resemble anything?)

Well consciousness is not universal if we look at from the material perspective (whether its wrong or right if its not right then I want evidence). A tree isn't conscious in the way that we are. It doesn't feel anything. It can respond chemically to all kinds of situations but thats much different then being self aware. Certain animals have certain aspects of consciousness but not as complex as us and other primates. Perhaps dolphins and other sea creatures have also.

Anyway aspects of consciousness can be deleted by damaging areas of the brain. This is well known. So how is that it is then universal? Consciousness has many aspects and the sum of those we call consciousness. It involves many processes such as visual perception, thinking, etcetc.

evolution.
where/how does it fit within our conscious understanding? (ive addressed this myself but never with the approach he has, though overall he resonated with me as Morphane put it)

It doesn't need to fit in with our conscious understanding. We consciously can understand evolution because we noticed it and now have tremendous evidence for that process.

Campbell says that consciousness HAS filled every niche (i think the has makes it an irrational statement - but then i can take it further and come to another 'flaw' in what he was saying), but if the dimensions of time are infinite, couldn't then cosnciousness be an infinite set given the infinite circumstances?

This is why I think Campbell is an idiot. Consciousness has not filled every niche. I don't think a fungus growing on my strawberries is very conscious. From a biochemical perspective its not either. It can respond chemically to different stimuli but its not self aware its not thinking. It has no way to do that.

...Our pineal glands are *thought* to emit an ectromagnetic field around themselves as to block out external forces acting on our ''sacred'(lol) pineal aqueous solution' so that it can invert into a wave.....and explore the metaphysical realms.
Therefore by taking away these physical restraints, does it allow this part of our functioning minds to grow and learn?

Who came up with this idea? I don't buy it. The pineal gland appears to be involved in cycle regulation mainly sleep. It could be an ancient organ that was once like an eye in that it could tell dark and light for sleep and awake. Its not some magical link to another universe I really don't understand why people think that.



I could have completely missed what you were saying and if so my bad. I am replying because you addressed some questions towards me.

burnt, you may need to expand your ideas/possibilities of what consciousness is, it is one thing we arent even to sure of how to define, even you said that self-awareness is just an aspect of it, and if its true that none of us rly know how to *catagorize* it then how can we prove or disprove the extents of consciousness

Like I said above consciousness has many aspects. Different organisms and different brains under different conditions and with different structural make ups and or damage have more or less of those aspects. The tough part is explaining how brain activity gives rise to the sensation of "feeling". That's what can't really be explained so far.

 

[MindInfoRreality]

for one, i think that the strucutre of our brain patterns (and the possibilities of the path of remergence as well as initial and restrucuture of our memory(used loosely)) has alot to do with our consciousness and the rise of the individual, obvious but very simple in practice, although beyond our understanding in terms of 'geometry'.

All that i can confirm according to my views is that the net total of possibilities(which he represents by NDE's) is the collectiveness of the conscious.
And although bacterium cannot think, they still take actions, this to me is the most basic form of conscious that we can only perceive as intent..we are more advanced in the idea that we KNOW what we are doing, and this is where i believe our definitions diverge...the act of doing IS in fact an act of consciousness.....consciousness seems to be more like a transfer of energy, a transfer we 'see' only in contrast to the background of what we dont see.

Just think for a second that everything is and can be represented in terms of a fractal, idk it seems that every action has its own infinite regression..and you can expand that into other 'worlds' as he insists he has visited.

I just think that everything is simply connected cuz everything has that possibility of happening, i mean ive heard many times scientists or ppl quoting them say that whatever can happen, will or has happened...and you would need other realms with other restrictions for this.

But THEN if you look at our perception->thought->emotion/feeling->intent->physical action->reaction->perception cyclic reality, it appears as if our dreamstate follows a certain pattern of the same structured possibilities, in which would be apart of the whole.

It is very hard to write down, but i do think that, if i could, even if it wasnt right that anyone would agree with me that it has a potential to be even just a peice of the whole 'truth'.

and the evolution thing really did bother me, you cant just assume that our consciousness is evolving and not only but moreso to have it as a basis for your theory. w/e he is trying to say is deff not a complete 'answer' but i do think that it brings up some good points to consider, its just that you can take it in many dif directions and arrive at what he's saying many different ways.

 

[ibeing897]

Well consciousness is not universal if we look at from the material perspective (whether its wrong or right if its not right then I want evidence). A tree isn't conscious in the way that we are. It doesn't feel anything. It can respond chemically to all kinds of situations but thats much different then being self aware. Certain animals have certain aspects of consciousness but not as complex as us and other primates. Perhaps dolphins and other sea creatures have also.

Anyway aspects of consciousness can be deleted by damaging areas of the brain. This is well known. So how is that it is then universal? Consciousness has many aspects and the sum of those we call consciousness. It involves many processes such as visual perception, thinking, etcetc.

I agreed totally about the mechanical nature of consciousness but I wouldn't necessarily jump to any conclusions about how sentient any particular living creature is, I mean you can certainly tell what data they are processing via which senses they possess, but how a living creature experiences those senses is a complete mystery... I mean, I honestly see no reason why a rock can't be conscious at some level, obviously it's got no senses, but we don't know if this is even a requirement for consciousness... who knows? There is a question that often pops up with regards to "spirits" and how those spirits experience anything when they've lost their mechanical sensors, but this is the kind of thing that shocked me about DMT, SWIM has experienced a sense of pure consciousness, perhaps it was all ones senses collapsing together, perhaps its what's left when your senses are gone, I cant explain it but now I can imagine a rock being aware in some sense, crazy, probably not true, but very hard to disprove... I mean the idea that all objects are "aware" and then groups of objects become "aware" and so on, that theory actually explains consciousness to some extent and it's been pondered by a lot of smart people... the evidence is not there but again, it's incredibly difficult to disprove.

 

[burnt]

^^Yes I certainly can't claim to know what its like to be another kind of organism and describe what there consciousness is like. But I mean it looks like dogs are happy and sad sometimes just little things like that point to some kind of emotion going on in them. Then there is all the brain data too but yes we can't know for sure and I am fine with that.

I don't think a rock is conscious or a bacteria. But that's my definition of consciousness. I don't think a bacteria having a chemical response to a stimuli is enough for consciousness. I call that a life like response. Its not a conscious response. We as human can do both non conscious life like responses and conscious responses to stimuli. Bacteria can't do the conscious like ones. There is a difference here.

There is also a difference between a rock and a bacteria. The rock doesn't have life like characteristics so how could it even begin to be conscious?

Don't get me wrong I do think other forms of conscious could evolve from non brain like structures I just think there are differences here. Self awareness is something we have that bacteria certainly don't for example.

the act of doing IS in fact an act of consciousness.....consciousness seems to be more like a transfer of energy, a transfer we 'see' only in contrast to the background of what we dont see.

there is a difference between just doing something as a response and doing something with intent. life responds, it can even respond differently without any intent capabilities. consciousness can respond with intent it can think about its intentions. bacteria just can't do that.

Just think for a second that everything is and can be represented in terms of a fractal, idk it seems that every action has its own infinite regression..and you can expand that into other 'worlds' as he insists he has visited.

well no. you can turn anything into a fractal using math and computer images and even our minds (when your tripping for example) but that doesn't mean everything is a fractal. fractals are a property of chaotic systems not all systems are chaotic. everything in nature is NOT a fractal but all kinds of images can be turned into fractals.

I just think that everything is simply connected cuz everything has that possibility of happening, i mean ive heard many times scientists or ppl quoting them say that whatever can happen, will or has happened...and you would need other realms with other restrictions for this.

as long as whatever happens doesn't violate the laws of nature then yes anything within that can happen. unless the laws of nature could change (and maybe they do and maybe in other universes they are different we dont know).

and the evolution thing really did bother me, you cant just assume that our consciousness is evolving and not only but moreso to have it as a basis for your theory. w/e he is trying to say is deff not a complete 'answer' but i do think that it brings up some good points to consider, its just that you can take it in many dif directions and arrive at what he's saying many different ways.

what did i say about evolution that is incorrect?


No offense but I think this Campbell guy is completely full of crap and I can't stand people like him who somehow get paid for their drivel while most real scientists work their asses off day in and day out struggling to get funding.