“Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown. There is only one thing, and that which seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception, the Indian maya, as in a gallery of mirrors.� – Schrödinger

table of contents:

chapter one: re-discovering the mind:

sir william crookes – generalist deemed weird:
psychology today – august 1980:
aryabhata:
darwinism evolving:
mircae eliade:
the human singularity:
wholistics:

chapter two: in pursuit of alchemists today:

joseph campbell:
carl jung:
craig venter:
albert einstein:
brian josephson and dr. why:

chapter three: solid state physicists:

affinity:
the secret language of stone:
the acts of creation:
water crystals respond:
diving rods:

chapter four: the ancient sages:

the arab encyclopedia says:
alchemists, ‘smiths’ and peryllats:
mungo man:
singing of the spheres:
leonardo da vinci:
rosicrucians and martinists etc.:

chapter five: harmonics, the logos and string theory:

pythagoras knew:
tesla too:
chaos science:
r. buckminster fuller:
richard feynman:

chapter six: the far-out side of physics:

the quark and the jaguar:
jung and peter sturrock address ufo’s:
dreams and dreamers:
gaian science:
psychiatry and mysticism:

chapter seven: intelligent design:

anaxagoras:
william dembski:
velikovsky:
paracelsus:
arthur koestler:
geomancy:

chapter eight: bio-physics:

gazzaniga and eddelman:
laszlo and silvertooth:
dr. milan ryzl:
padre pio and pythagoras:
bio-physics:
bio ram – oak ridges:
black budget:

chapter nine: astro-physics and geo-physics:

royal astronomer martin rees:
social engineering 101:
geo-physical ‘anomalies’?
magnetism - planetary:
pavlita generators:
hypnotism or animal magnetism:

chapter ten: the ‘global de-ifying thrust of spirituality’:

mysteries, alternative and ‘possibility-thinking’:
saint augustine:
allies:
debunking and the ‘amazing’ randi:
karma:

Hey Robert the Bruce,

could you perhaps explain that quote by Schrodinger?
I'm interested into understanding what it means.

Thanks,
Ebola

“Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown. There is only one thing, and that which seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception, the Indian maya, as in a gallery of mirrors.� – Schrödinger

I think this means that all the talk about anomalous or truthful science is a bunch of you know what from the ego of man. We are 'connected' and our real self is not our ego. I am also of the opinion that he sees something I think is the nature of reality about the personality that some insist continues in such things as past-life regressions. Yes, perhaps through limbo and obsessions some things stay in this materially focussed frame of reference (I have performed exorcisms) but when we are reborn all those memories of other lives are memories of a collective oversoul not anything like an individual soul. Maya and samsara or the 'busy-mind' do indeed deceive as he says - and though a few will gain great insight into the plural they will still be far from totally informed. Thus we must be open to all possibilities.

I agree with what Schrodinger says, literally. Consciousness; there is only One. Our plurality, our individuality, is an illusion generated by ignorance, small-mindedness, and ego.

Thanks X.

I think part of the reason we have the illusion of plurality is because we assume consciousness to be continuously 'on'. If I am continuously 'on', and you are continuously 'on', how can there be One when my experience is clearly disjoint from yours?

If we simply think of all consciousnesses as time-division multiplexed, then it is easy to believe that there is only One awareness that experiences the plurality of conscious states cycally in a temporally disjoint fashion (think of a particular 'movie' as a particular 'consciousness', with all movies interlaced such that between any two frames of one movie one frame of every other movie is 'played'). The illusion is due to a particular consciousness not detecting this 'on/off' action and, for whatever reason, assume 'on' is the only state of consciousness. The possibility I am suggestiong sounds quite bizarre, in that the ratio of 'off' time to 'on' time is a quite large like 10^50 or something. I don't think the idea is without merit, though, as there appears to be evidence in neuroscience of the basic idea of consciousness as not being temporally continuous.

Dan says

If I am continuously 'on', and you are continuously 'on', how can there be One when my experience is clearly dijoint from yours?


I say

There is only ego that separates us as all the posts from wise people and the likes of Schrodinger do tell us.

that doesn't make sense, RTB. It sounds like a platitude. I, however, am offering (or at least trying to offer) a sensible explanation. Do you have any comments on my explanation?

Dear Dan

Yes, and you have intuited or stated same in your posts under conscious sponge. The origin of consciousness is not ever going to be fully known unless you really think you are God as you said rather than part of it (Which you said 'it' is not what you call it - lol.)

I could refer to Sri Aurobindo or Lahiri Sarman (! = The Sarmoung Brotherhood of Gurdjieff) Marahsi, Yogananda and Vivekananda but I have done it with Physicists, Microbiologists, Chemists, Psycho-Linguists, Solid State and Applied Material Scientists in many threads. The words of Teilhard, Fuller, Jung, Campbell, Eliade, Heisenberg, Morowitz, Capra, Robins, Emotu, Tiller, Laszlo, Castaneda, Wigner, and in part the words of lesser lights in this understanding including Einstein, Green, Kaku, Chopra, Puthoff, Dyer, Tegmark, and a thousand others I have quoted all say much the same thing. Jesus said it in a saying likely not his - 'Be Still and know, that I AM (YHVH).'

And as my friend Laurent aptly states - which is like Tesla's non-force info packets we spole of.

Inherent to wave mechanics are the mechanisms of wave superposition and
parallel and non-linear information processing. And these mechanisms, which
are also affected and regulated by the laws of thermodynamics, are
responsible for information growth and the evolution of biological matter.
Information begets information.

The Intro to this book begins with this:

Our reason (philosophy), should concern our 'selves' with the field of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of three entities: the ‘individual being’, the universe or what we call reality and what lies beyond the universe. Metaphysics is the study of how and why the ‘individual being’, the universe, and what lies beyond the universe interact with each other. Metaphysics is the study of whether or not all three, or for that matter if any of the three, exist. Metaphysics is the study of how and why the three interact, if in fact they do exist. Metaphysics is the pondering over the questions: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? It could be argued that Descartes was one of its more prominent figures with his initiation of the concept of ‘knowing’, of existing, when he said ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ (I think, therefore I am). Or, as Popeye said "I yam wut I Yam".


There are many people who are secure in the knowledge that all is right with the world and they feel good about how they personally think about themselves and their soul. I confess I have a lot of confidence but I am not so certain about what the human experience really entails. I see so much more all the time. The opening of each door seems to lead to there being more doors and more books to write therefore. The people who are sure of god being in heaven or those who have bought the ‘world of seems to be’ may not like this honest expression of what might be real; but they should know that most of the physicists sense there is a lot more than even they know. I love the quantum physicists for all the wondrous soulful things they seem to be able to explain better than me in so many ways. I can hope that a few readers will be those who do not believe in the soul and that after reading this they will be less certain but I do not encourage belief or the closure of possibilities it brings.


In fact I do not think of the soul as continuing beyond this event horizon or material body with anything that ego or personality contains although I do think some of the elemental energy in a limbo state can impact on these reported re-incarnations with something like that until the person grows or harmonizes enough to move on. Religious I am not, for certain; mystic I can be at times I suppose; but mostly I observe like the alchemists who developed the scientific method.

I guess what I am asking you, RTB, is whether or not you can offer a rational comment on how to solve the 'one/many' problem instead of deferring to authority. It is nice that so many authorities agree that there is One and that the many are really just One, but what is not nice is that this idea is not rationally explained (as far as I have seen). I only want to know if you can offer a rational idea of how One is the reality in light of the apparent reality of 'many'. I am not interested in a deluge of references to authorities who offer only 'educated' platitudes.

Rational? Is that missing from the work of philosophers like Satre who said 'Love is absent space'. No - what is missing is an appeal to reductive and gradualistic paradigm ego or the need for POWER above all else. But that need for power actually produces less power and plentitude.

I tell you this - you do not know consciousness or it's origin and you can find the best explanations in ancient writings and disciplines like the Sutras. It works!

Is what works rational? Not necessarily. Rational and religion or the anthropomorphing urge of ego is everywhere evident in non-cooperative mindsets.

Here is the way I could say it off the top of my head.

In the beginning there was energy in many dimensions. These dimensions gradually got in touch at some distance with information carried on attractive forces like gravity. These contacts grew and pathways formed - see my article called Affinity under those google links or here. The pathways became lattices and vectors and valences of these energies which began to design ways to form new harmonizing potentials.

Laws of behavior and some kind of design began to actualize or manifest and over trillions of years a lot of knowledge and ways of creating became the way of the world or universes.

Consciousness came later and the soul is an outgrowth of this collective which directs us through the structures and lattices (helical and otherwise - time has a helical structure and seven layers too) in the likes of DNA.

I do not see a sensible explanation as to how One can be the reality in light of the apparent multiplicity of Many. All you have to do is explain how Me and You can be the same One in light of the fact that I do not experience being You.

the question is very simple

You are comprised of many - some of those many are in your body are they not?

As Above, SO Below is the operating law (there are just three).

more platitudes

try again

Name-calling and ridiculous labels such as your assertions about all the wise people using platitudes is mere puffery and Denial borne of fear and a need for power that is engrained in your nature.

It is really simple - you are made up of many conscious particles just as the universe is - nothing but common sense - - requires no platitudes but it does require that you listen to your 'selves'.

You are not aware of your parts. Not even the most adept person I have known would dare claim such a monstrous arrogance. Just one chakra center can allow an adept to achieve great things - eg. Kundalini. And each chakra is made up of many other parts that also have awareness.

perhaps we are not in agreement as to what constitutes 'parts'. I say a 'part' of my consciousness is a perception. For example, I simultaneously perceive sight (which itself has 'parts'), hearing (also internally divided into 'parts'), feelings (too internally diverse in terms of 'parts')etc.... My perceptions at any instant are my 'parts' at that instant.

Again I would like to ask you: How can I and You be One in light of the fact that I do not experience being You. (or, in terms of 'perception', How can I and You be One in light of the fact that I do not perceive being You?)

Your ego is not my ego. SO what?

The point is - your 'parts' are an analogy or metaphor of the complexity that is reflected in the greater cosmos - thus the Law of the Magi stands in good stead.

the point is - you aren't explaining anything.

Perhaps I should explain what I am trying to get you to think about:
I am saying that perception is a fundamental property of being (verb), not an emergent property. Perception can be a multifaceted state, composed of elemental 'percepts' that are unified in the sense that 'Being'(noun, singular) is aware of all 'percepts' simultaneously. There can only be as many states of perception at a given instant as there are beings (noun, plural) at that instant. One (being(noun)) perceives as a single experience, as one is aware of everything that one perceives. One cannot perceive without being aware of the perception.

The apparent dichotomy lies in the fact of disjoint consciousnesses. By my definition, there can be no disjunction of the awareness of percepts; i.e., I am by definition aware of all that I perceive. If I am continuously perceiving, and do not perceive being (verb) RTB (who is also assumed to be continuously perceiving), then how can being RTB be perceived at all? Answer: only if another 'being'(noun) exists, which is in contradiction to the assertion that there is only One Being.

I have given a resolution to the dichotomy by explaining a division in time rather than the ordinary (and contradictory, in the case of One Being) instantaneous division. In my system, there is only one state of perception at any given instant, but this state cycles through all existing 'consciousness' states in a virtually disjoint fashion. Thus 'being' is in a constant cyclic progression of perception, acting out each 'consciousness' individually and discontinuously in an interlaced fashion.


do you see the relationship betwen perception and being differently than I have described? If so, how? If not, then how can you explain the fact that I do not perceive being you?

Semantics and convention (Remember your use of that word elsewhere?) will lead to your semi-dysfunctional grasping for straws, but not to much more than what Jung meant in referring to 'nichts als' reductivism; which he owes a lot of credit to William James and the book Pragmatism (another word you intimated you understood elsewhere). The efficient management of ideas is the goal of elites and social engineers who have removed from the majority of people their ability to conceptualize (Beyond intuition and things not rational and thus they do not operate much upon in their usual and routine existence.) their soulful connectiveness. Yet there are times when you almost get it - I think. Now you say:

I am by definition aware of all that I perceive

Whose definiton? Why define it? Besides that is not the point - the point is being aware of that which you do not perceive, as much as it is being able to sense that which is obvious.

Thus the words I wrote about Metaphysics in the Intro to my book Mystical Physicists {See above} which are pretty much agreed upon by most philosophers. We must question and seek beyond what we are conscious of and then we find many more doors and techniques of perception (to use your word). You also put 'Being' in quotes and thus we could go to the Hegelian Dialectic Thread to have a more on point conversation that other readers might be able to follow. Plato's 'nous' and all the rest is a labryinth not easily traced through the art of 'social engineers'.

But again I re-iterate. The issue of you and me or our egos and the conscious responses we act upon in our purely physcial state is not important to understanding much more than 'the world of seems to be' which is the nature of Hobbes and 'recognition' and power needs that are holding you back. You need not be what C. S. Lewis called 'the beast with red cheeks' as he sold out to publish in support of religion (social engineers) as did Machiavelli who broke from his better writings when he sold out to his patrons the De Medicis. In his book Il Principe he advised them to 'appeal to base human urges' and they have indeed done this to great advantage (for themselves).

The stuff about 'One Being' is nonsense. I mean it makes no sense and is circuitous. I am not a believer (in anything) and certainly not in 'One Being' as those words of yours would suggest. And herein lies the nature of disagreement that appears to separate us and yet probably does not. I quote you again.

If I am continuously perceiving, and do not perceive being (verb) RTB (who is also assumed to be continuously perceiving), then how can being RTB be perceived at all? Answer: only if another 'being'(noun) exists, which is in contradiction to the assertion that there is only One Being.

I have given a resolution to the dichotomy by explaining a division in time rather than the ordinary (and contradictory, in the case of One Being) instantaneous division. In my system, there is only one state of perception at any given instant, but this state cycles through all existing 'consciousness' states in a virtually disjoint fashion. Thus 'being' is in a constant cyclic progression of perception, acting out each 'consciousness' individually and discontinuously in an interlaced fashion.


do you see the relationship betwen perception and being differently than I have described? If so, how? If not, then how can you explain the fact that I do not perceive being you?

This final sentence is almost humorous and suggests you actually believe what you think I am saying. Again - for emphasis I quote it.

If so, how? If not, then how can you explain the fact that I do not perceive being you?

Simply you and I are like the atoms which make up the nervous system and organs or bones were are not in tune with. Thus the Dictum of Hermes does work - As Above, SO Below.

Nils Bohr said - 'There may be great truths which have an opposite which is also true. Trivial truths have an opposite that is merely fallacious.' (Or words to that effect.)

There is one part of your above comments which I like and wonder (Probably I am interpreting more to it than it deserves.) if it is in line with what I am saying - I refer to these words.

there is only one state of perception at any given instant, {But I do disagree because this is the 'One Being' nonsense.} but this state cycles through all existing 'consciousness' states in a virtually disjoint fashion. Thus 'being' is in a constant cyclic progression of perception, acting out each 'consciousness' individually and discontinuously in an interlaced fashion.

QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Oct 17, 11:53 PM)
Now you say:

I am by definition aware of all that I perceive

Whose definiton? Why define it?

To perceive is to be aware of perceptions; to be aware of perceptions is to perceive. There is no perception without a perceiver.

God I hope you don't inclucate such NONsense to students of yours.


QUOTE
You also put 'Being' in quotes and thus we could go to the Hegelian Dialectic Thread to have a more on point conversation that other readers might be able to follow.

there's no need for extended debates on the meaning of this word, as it should be most obvious. I could use the word 'perceiver' or 'subject' without loss of meaning.

You really need a course in Semiotics to get up to speed on these points. 'Being' and 'Beingness' is also further explored by Heidegger under the Hegelian influence - I will go get one of my pieces on him. YOu will not read it either probably.



QUOTE
The stuff about 'One Being' is nonsense. I mean it makes no sense and is circuitous. I am not a believer ... in 'One Being' as those words of yours would suggest.

Then I have misunderstood you. I say that One is fundamentally a 'subject'; i.e., that 'awareness' is a fundamental property of One. I can only conclude that your idea of One does not imply the existence of a 'subject' (for you, One must truly be an It), thus 'subjects' can be understood as emergent phenomenon in the form of perceptive homunculi and can be created and (presumably) destroyed. This sounds like the ordinary 'soul' idea.


I found the following statement to be rather contrary to the available evidence:
QUOTE
I am not a believer (in anything)

Not in anything, eh? Not in aliens, hyperdimensions, government conspiracies, brain crystal transceivers, souls, the One, collective consciousness, string theory, etc etc etc....?

Every one of those words or 'beliefs' is you projecting. For example - I believe there is life on other planets in universe or what is called ET but I show all such people how all that has transpired on earth requires no 'alien influence' but you do not read (are you capable of comprehension?).

You separate souls from the One - I do not do that and I am very open to multi-dimensional personalities as should be clear. The hierarchy is not truly known to me or others as I see it - so how could I 'believe'?

Brain crystal amplification is a proven fact that conforms to my actual DOing. String Theory or M-branes and many other physical sciences and scientists whom I quote are exploring - thus no firm or closed belief.

Government conspiracies - get real! You don't even know what government is. And hyperdimensions is not a firm fixed belief even as Kaku sees it in Hyperspace - I think.

Thus again we have mere 'projection' from a closed mind.

Your thinking is just plain inconsistent, RTB. Although you clearly have an extensive memory full of the thoughts of other people (both credible and incredible), you appear quite incapable of any significant original thought yourself. As soon as any ideas of substance enter discussion, you revert to 'authoritative' mantras and other mindless defensive patterns.



ugh

By my subjective experience I mean what it is like to be me, that nobody else can know for sure. We can get ideas of what it is like to be someone else, and we call that empathy, but the direct experience of another's subjectivity is denied us.

In the substrate theory, all matter has a consciousness property that emerges under the right (necessary) brain/chemical conditions. However, the atoms in my brain are not necessarily in communication with the atoms in your brain. However, if our consciousnesses arise through common mechanisms, then it seems to me to be reasonable to expect that empathy is reliable and our experiences are fundamentally similar. That is, when I taste sugar, it has a similar sensation (qualium) to what you experience when you taste sugar.

I think the idea of a perceiver may be an illusion, and perception just is. But if you must ask "who" is perceiving, then by the identity theorem of mechanism, we are the same, that is "one." At least, that is my subjective impression, which I have said above is not scientifically reliable. But it's all I have.

OK, got me: perceiver = you.

If the identity theorem is true, then yes.

Another example of the identity theorem: protons don't have serial numbers. They are all identical. If we have no way to tell them apart, then any distinction between them, other than their location and energy, is immaterial. We could switch any two protons and there would be no way to tell they were switched.

I would say that there is both a 'soft' and 'hard' interpretation of the identity theorem. A 'soft' interpretation would say that, even if particles are observably indistinguishable in terms of their intrinsic properties, they may still be uniquely identifiable entities. Since protons are fermions, no two protons can occupy the same quantum state and thus are uniquely identifiable in those terms.

A 'hard' interpretation would say that they are, in fact, the same entity. 'Proton' is then a fundamental property of the universe (a field), and is not itself localizable. Whatever is localized (the objects we ordinarily call 'protons') is emergent from the 'proton' field.

I tend to think in terms of a 'soft' interpretation when it comes to describing physical structures like protons.


My question to you is, do you tend toward a 'soft' or 'hard' interpretation of 'perceiver' under the identity theorem?

Soft. Otherwise nobody would fear death.

a 'soft' perceiver is emergent, and can be created and destroyed.

The way I see it in this case, 'perception' is a property of an emergent structure (so that it is itself an emergent phenomenon), not of the substrate from which the structure emerges. Whatever is the substrate, there is no need to attribute a universal 'perceptive' property to it because any such property is unrelated to emergent 'perceptive' properties attributed to emergent structures.


how is the need to fear death evidence of the emergent nature of 'who'?

I suppose if we weren't emergent we would feel more immortal. Maybe not.

don't worry, there is no free lunch even if we are immortal. For, what good is immortality if the state of that immortality is not felt as good? If we do not 'take care of the house', we risk the entropic descent into suffering.

A further problem is, if immortality is true and we do our best to take care of the house, is there any guarantee that we can fully transcend suffering?

I have to play the game and I have to like it. Or do I? I guess we take what we get.

you don't have to play any game or like what you are dealt, but you can't escape existing so it is in your interest to try.

Yes, indeed it is. That's why I'm a John Kerry partisan! Hope is on the way.

I would say that, even if you can't strictly reason why, you strongly 'intuit' the necessity of trying for the good of the whole. Why should one care about the present and future state of the whole, if one's immediate state is satisfactory and one expects to eventually be able to check out anyway?

That is a central question. That's why my intuition is that the identity theorem applies. Otherwise, life is meaningless.

I say that this intuition is the origin of morality.

I agree. Empathy is the basis of ethics.

And just how do you think purpose or meaning is demonstrated through identity or the ego?