Is Consciousness More than the Brain?

No truly coherent cosmology can fail to address human consciousness. As Wal Thornhill has written, “A real cosmology must be a broad and coherent natural philosophy. It may always be incomplete, based on our limitations, but to be valid there can be no exceptions in our experience. In particular, cosmology must address issues of life and the human condition. Therefore it must be a truly interdisciplinary pursuit.”

Today, perhaps the ultimate unsolved mystery of human life is: how and why does consciousness exist? Although some scientific literature still acknowledges that the question remains open, the overwhelming consensus among neuroscientists today is that the brain alone creates conscious experience. However, for decades, acclaimed scientists around the world have conducted research into consciousness that provides a very different picture. One of the most remarkable of these researchers is Dr. Gary Schwartz, professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery at the University of Arizona and director of its Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health. We asked Dr. Gary Schwartz for his thoughts on the mystery of consciousness.

See also:
Planetary Consciousness
Out of Body Experiences
Robert Lanza on theory of Biocentrism
Science Set Free

The Biggest Error Ever Made in the Name of Science

Mistaking the _image_ of a process for the _cause_ of the process is the biggest error ever made in the name of science. This video shows how this error has gripped Western thinking when it comes to the relationship between mind and brain. It also shows how reality is much simpler than the contrived worldview derived from the error. The video is an excerpt from Bernardo’s Science and Non-Duality (SAND) Europe 2013 presentation.

See also:
Why Materialism Is Baloney
Robert Lanza on theory of Biocentrism
Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
From a materialistic point of view
The momentum for change


Weltschmerz (from the German, meaning world-pain or world-weariness) is a term coined by the German author Jean Paul Richter and denotes the kind of feeling experienced by someone who understands that physical reality can never satisfy the demands of the mind. This kind of world view was widespread among several romantic authors such as Lord Byron, Giacomo Leopardi, François-René de Chateaubriand, Alfred de Musset, Nikolaus Lenau, Hermann Hesse, and Heinrich Heine. It is also used to denote the feeling of sadness when thinking about the evils of the world.

The modern meaning of Weltschmerz in the German language is the psychological pain caused by sadness that can occur when realizing that someone’s own weaknesses are caused by the inappropriateness and cruelty of the world and (physical and social) circumstances. Weltschmerz in this meaning can cause depression, resignation and escapism, and can become a mental problem (compare to Hikikomori).

See also:
Consensus Reality and the Idealistic Approach

Reality is created in a Consensus Agreement of all Participants

The idealistic worldview considers consciousness as the base of the reality, which generates dynamically space and time in order to communicate. It is not consciousness what represents an epiphenomena of the brain chemistry, but instead the apparent locality of “objects” or objective reality is the phenomenon which is the real mystery. Quantum mechanics has discovered that every particle is everywhere (nonlocal) in the universe at the same time, as long it is not observed by a conscious being. The act of observation collapses the wave to a particle or the wave remains a wave if the necessary information lacks. So locality is a information, nothing else …?

If Idealism is true, if the primacy of consciousness is true, then why are objects so real? Why does this reality act so stable and not fuzzy like a dream?

The solution lies in the fact that our reality is created in a consensus agreement of all participants. Every observer views reality from a slightly different angle and this contributes to the stability of our reality. Like biodiversity enables a well working ecosystem, so the different observers provides a stabilized framework.

To whom belongs this dream?

On the level of individual created reality, inside our dreams, there is no other observer except the dreamer himself. Therefore this kind of reality is fuzzy, always changing, not stable. But the reality of the wake state, what we know as “physical reality“, is the stabilized reality created together by the collective consciousness.

Can you imagine what would happen if we would agree on a different kind of physical law, all together, everybody in one consensus reality? Would this law begin to exercise power over every individual? From the point of view of biocentrism, idealism and the theory of morphic fields, such a scenario is not just fantasy.

When things went wrong
Creating a reality in a consensus reality has a huge problem: when the majority of the participants has the wrong worldview, reality becomes a trap and not a place where life is beautiful. Long time ago the first human pair decided to make their own thing, rebelling against God. The result was catastrophically for every human. Fortunately every reality which is created based on lies and illusion has a short shelf life (compared to the eternity) and it will perish sooner or later. Every reality has the tendency to decompose, with exception of the one reality which is based on the eternal truth (not affected by entropy). We are approaching now with quick pace the end of the evaluation period of this old system.

… in the context of eternity whatever is imperfect is considered inexistent or corrupt, not worthy to continue to exist forever …

This reality, created in a consensus of people which do not love the truth and questions heavens authority, will fade away and make place for a new reality, a kingdom ruled by God. Can you now imagine what this means? Some physical laws will be altered and eternal life will be possible again. Being thankful means to be completely aware of the truth.

Further readings:
An alternative way to express ZERO
Fractal Cosmology
Consensus Reality and the Idealistic Approach

Morphic Fields are like Electromagnetic Fields

Sheldrake’s metaphors suggest that the morphic fields are objective, autonomous realities. As such, they are supposed to be like electromagnetic fields, but of a different nature.

Electromagnetic fields are abstract and invisible, detectable only by their ability to interact with particular arrangements of matter, like ionized gases or magnetically polarized metals. Similarly, morphic fields, which are equally abstract and invisible, are detectable only by their ability to resonate with particular arrangements of matter under particular circumstances, like those of embryonic development or electrochemical activity in the brain.

Sheldrake thus places his views on a firmly realist ground: Morphic fields exist objectively in nature as part of it, next to other objective parts of nature like atoms and fields of other types. In other works, Sheldrake also suggests that mind itself is a kind of field centered in the brain but extending beyond the brain, much like the electromagnetic field of a magnet is centered in the magnet but extends beyond it. Here again, Sheldrake’s metaphors seem to be underpinned by a realist assumption: Minds are objective and causally-effective fields just like electromagnetic fields. As such, mind-fields are a part of nature, but not the very medium of all reality, as idealism entails.


Quantum Consciousness and Quantum Mind

Continue reading

Do you really believe in Homeopathy?

Skeptic Person:”You believe in Homeopathy?”

Me:”No. Homeopathy is not a religion, it’s science, a therapy method based on a universal principle.”

Skeptic Person:”But you take homeopathic remedies.”

Me:”Well, yes. It works even if you don’t believe that it works.”

Skeptic Person:”In my opinion it is just a placebo. Unconsciously you believe that it works, therefore it works.”

Mmmh, I got really no time and delight in convincing him in something that is so obvious for me and million other people who knows for experience that homeopathy indeed works.

Me:”It works for animals, bacteria, … do they believe?”

Skeptic Person:”No … but there is no scientific proof that water has a memory …”

Oh here we are again: The legend of “No scientific proof”

Me:”Sure, scientific proofs exist, thousands of scientific proofs, done in laboratory, under strict conditions, double-blind, double-double-triple-blind, …”

Skeptic Person:”So if (IF … THEN … ELSE) … if science proved that it works, why is it not recognized in mainstream medicine?”

Oh dear, … no but he is right. It’s a good question!

Me:”Let me ask you first a question. Then maybe you will understand on your own the reason why it is not accepted in mainstream. What is the difference between a person who believes in a meaning of life and a person who don’t?”

Skeptic Person:”Most people who believe that life has a meaning believe also in God, a creator, or at least in some force. In contrast people who don’t believe that life has an meaning are in some kind lost, without hope.”

Me:”What do you think, whom of this people is more adhere to the golden rule*?”

* Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

Skeptic Person:”Who believes that life has a meaning, right?!”

Me:”And why should people who don’t believe in a meaning of life not take the golden rule into account?”

Skeptic Person:”Because a person who has hope has the natural desire to share his hope. Therefore who has no hope will not consider the golden rule.”

Me:”Ok, now just another question and you will see how the big picture looks like. Is homeopathy a materialistic science?”

In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.

Scientific ‘Materialism’ is often synonymous with, and has so far been described, as being a reductive materialism. In recent years, Paul and Patricia Churchland have advocated a radically contrasting position (at least, in regards to certain hypotheses); eliminativist materialism holds that some mental phenomena simply do not exist at all, and that talk of those mental phenomena reflects a totally spurious “folk psychology” and Introspection illusion.

Skeptic Person:”It seems to be a kind of idealism.”

You should know that we have talked about the difference between materialism and idealism. So he knew the difference at the time we talked about homeopathy.

Me:”And on what kind of science is the mainstream medicine based?”

Skeptic Person:”Materialism … ah now I understand!”

Me:”We are living in a material world, right?”

Skeptic Person:”Ok I got the point. It’s the same thing as with the free energy research. …”

… we talked for another half hour and and we met again the next month. Surprisingly he was now convinced about homeopathy and he desired to know more about the memory of water. I was very curious and asked him what part exactly of our conversation changed his mind about homeopathy and he answered with a smile:”None of it. I made a self proving.”

Collective unconscious

Collective unconscious is a term of analytical psychology, coined by Carl Jung. It is proposed to be a part of the unconscious mind, expressed in humanity and all life forms with nervous systems, and describes how the structure of the psyche autonomously organizes experience. Jung distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious, in that the personal unconscious is a personal reservoir of experience unique to each individual, while the collective unconscious collects and organizes those personal experiences in a similar way with each member of a particular species.

Jung’s definitions

My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.

Jung linked the collective unconscious to ‘what Freud called “archaic remnants” – mental forms whose presence cannot be explained by anything in the individual’s own life and which seem to be aboriginal, innate, and inherited shapes of the human mind’.

Archetypes and collective representations
Jung considered that ‘the shadow‘ and the anima/animus differ from the other archetypes in the fact that their content is more directly related to the individual’s personal situation’, and less to the collective unconscious: by contrast, ‘the collective unconscious is personified as a Wise Old Man’.

Jung also made reference to contents of this category of the unconscious psyche as being similar to Levy-Bruhl’s use of collective representations or “représentations collectives,” Mythological “motifs,” Hubert and Mauss’s “categories of the imagination,” and Adolf Bastian’s “primordial thoughts.”

A iceberg is a good analogy for the difference between the individual unconscious and the collective unconscious. The "tip of the iceberg" above the surface of the water is the individual consciousness, which is full aware. The ice which is underwater is the individuals unconscious. But what really is interesting: All icebergs float in the same ocean. The ocean water is the collective unconscious.

Minimal/maximal interpretations
In a minimalist interpretation (or materialistic interpretation) of what would then appear as ‘Jung’s much misunderstood idea of the collective unconscious’, his idea was ‘simply that certain structures and predispositions of the unconscious are common to all of us…[on] an inherited, species-specific, genetic basis’. Thus ‘one could as easily speak of the “collective arm” – meaning the basic pattern of bones and muscles which all human arms share in common’.

Others point out however that ‘there does seem to be a basic ambiguity in Jung’s various descriptions of the Collective Unconscious. Sometimes he seems to regard the predisposition to experience certain images as understandable in terms of some genetic model’ – as with the collective arm. However, Jung was ‘also at pains to stress the numinous quality of these experiences, and there can be no doubt that he was attracted to the idea that the archetypes afford evidence of some communion with some divine or world mind‘ (idealistic interpretation), and perhaps ‘his popularity as a thinker derives precisely from this’ – the maximal interpretation.

Marie-Louise von Franz accepted that ‘it is naturally very tempting to identify the hypothesis of the collective unconscious historically and regressively with the ancient idea of an all-extensive world-soul’.