Posted by Roberta Grimes • February 09, 2016 • 24 Comments
Afterlife Research, Human Nature, Understanding Reality
People tell me that my approach to scientific cluelessness has been too harsh. I’ve got to cut these people more slack! Fair enough. The fact that almost a century has passed as we waited for scientists to realize that the study of matter is a dead-end game may not be reason enough for me to be calling modern science a failed belief-system that has wasted what could have been a productive century.
My problem with science has been less the fact that it ran off the rails in about 1910 when scientific gatekeepers adopted materialism as a “fundamental dogma.” No, it’s more the fact that even today, scientists continue to hold to materialism, despite the fact that we long ago learned that in reality nothing whatsoever is solid! Reality turns out to be energy-based. And materialism implies solidity, right? Or else, what does “matter” even mean?
The base of all of reality is an energy-like potentiality that we might think of as consciousness, since human consciousness turns out to be a part of it. The great quantum physicist, Max Planck, told us all of this decades ago! In 1931 he said, ”I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
He said in 1944, “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
Planck’s insight that consciousness must pre-exist matter is the greatest scientific discovery in history. But since it refutes the fundamental scientific dogma of materialism, to this day it must be ignored by anyone who hopes for a scientific career. Even in the twenty-first century, if you want to study consciousness as a scientist you must find a way to reduce it to mathematics and study it as a “state of matter.”
So scientists are beginning to do just that. According to the subtitle of a recent post in a prominent physics blog, “A new way of thinking about consciousness is sweeping through science like wildfire. Now physicists are using it to formulate the problem of consciousness in concrete mathematical terms for the first time.”
Of course, as Max Planck knew, consciousness invents math. It’s not the other way around! In the greater reality that we enter at death – which is to say, in most of reality – mathematics turns out to be irrelevant to a physics that seems to be entirely consciousness-based. So, am I wrong to say that the use of numbers to try to study consciousness might be called the very definition of insanity? Dear friends, if anyone still doubts that science’s problem is that it has become a belief-system, please indulge me and read this post! Or in case you worry that reading it might make you as sad as it has made me, I will quote a bit of it for you here.
“Max Tegmark, a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, sets out the fundamental problems that this new way of thinking raises. He shows how these problems can be formulated in terms of quantum mechanics and information theory. And he explains how thinking about consciousness in this way leads to precise questions about the nature of reality that the scientific process of experiment might help to tease apart.
“Tegmark’s approach is to think of consciousness as a state of matter, like a solid, a liquid or a gas. ‘I conjecture that consciousness can be understood as yet another state of matter. Just as there are many types of liquids, there are many types of consciousness,’ he says.”
So his theory is that first we must come up with numbers that can define the shape of a living energy inherently without size or form, and then we can subject it to the “scientific process of experiment.” Good luck with that! The article goes on:
“Take for example, the idea that the information in a conscious system must be unified. That means the system must contain error-correcting codes that allow any subset of up to half the information to be reconstructed from the rest.
“Tegmark points out that any information stored in a special network known as a Hopfield neural net automatically has this error-correcting facility. However, he calculates that a Hopfield net about the size of the human brain with 10^11 neurons, can only store 37 bits of integrated information.
“‘This leaves us with an integration paradox: why does the information content of our conscious experience appear to be vastly larger than 37 bits?’ asks Tegmark.
“That’s a question that many scientists might end up pondering in detail. For Tegmark, this paradox suggests that his mathematical formulation of consciousness is missing a vital ingredient. ‘This strongly implies that the integration principle must be supplemented by at least one additional principle,’ he says. Suggestions please in the comments section!”
Oops! This new way of studying consciousness has come up against the dogma-based problem that it must of course include the certainty that human consciousness is generated by our brains. Max Planck’s discovery that consciousness pre-exists matter seems to make that impossible, but scientists still soldier on:
“At the beginning of the 20th century, a group of young physicists embarked on a quest to explain a few strange but seemingly small anomalies in our understanding of the universe. In deriving the new theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, they ended up changing the way we comprehend the cosmos. These physicists, at least some of them, are now household names.
“Could it be that a similar revolution is currently underway at the beginning of the 21st century?”
Oh, yes indeed. There is a revolution now underway that within the next couple of decades will sweep away the scientific dogma of materialism and will at last unify all of physics in a theory of everything that is consciousness-based. It likely would have happened by the middle of the previous century, but science’s fundamental dogma of materialism entirely shut off such areas of inquiry. Thanks in part to some of the same “household names” alluded to in the cited blog post, many of whom have continued to do their work in etheric laboratories, the ill-fated detour of science into materialism is about to end. Now things really are going to change!
24 thoughts on “Material Consciousness?”
You haven’t been too hard. Fundamentalists on both sides (science and Christianity) have been selling us short and pulling the wool over our eyes for centuries.
Jesus wasn’t exactly kind to those who deliberately deceived the people.
Of course you’re right, dear Brian! I’ve got to get past my unfortunate tendency to want to make everybody happy. Thank you for reminding me that we work for Jesus, don’t we? And when it comes to proclaiming the truth, He never gives an inch!
This is a stunning blog entry, Roberta. We need more people shaming the entire scientific field for their lack of courage. I do like, however that there is hope on the horizon!
Bless you, dear Pavel – thank you! One wonderful thing about doing this work is that I have made so many precious friends, like you and Brian and the Michaels and so many others. And the tide of history is becoming a flood in the right direction in our lifetime, which is a glorious thing to see. As my beautiful spirit guide, Thomas, says: “Together we prevail!”
You’re right-on with all of this, Roberta. As I’ve said before, the materialists control the main funding in mainstream scientific research. I ran across an article the other day with interviews with seven “big shot” Ph.D. neuroscientists working with AI(Artificial Intelligence). They all began with the unproven assumption(but stating it as “fact”) that the brain is creating consciousness. They all gave various predictions as to when an AI robot will achieve “human consciousness.” Of course, we know that will never happen. They’ll just get more and more sophisticated and faster programmed calculating machines. And, very likely, something disastrous just may occur. (That discussion is for another time)
There’s a new batch of materialists out there. They’re even more deluded. They say that consciousness and self-awareness are illusions and don’t even exist and that this illusion serves no useful evolutionary purpose. Essentially, they’re denying their own existence! Astoundingly, this cockeyed notion has gained some adherents.
I don’t mean to paint a completely negative picture. As you’ve pointed out in your books, blogs and podcasts, as have many others, there are plenty of afterlife and positive consciousness research going on around the world. I could recount much of it, but won’t take up any more space or time.
Thanks for another stimulating blog!
Thank you so much, dear Michael! All quite wonderful points. What I have increasing trouble understanding is why they are unable to see the fundamental absurdities of their own positions! Or if they lack sufficient perspective to do that with their own work, why on earth are they unable to read each other’s work and perceive that it’s nonsensical? Why can’t even one of them do that, very bright and well-trained scientists that they are? I guess it’s this thought more than anything else that makes me angry, since on some level they must know that they are working within a failed belief-system! And the suffering being caused in the world now by that belief-system is incalculable.
When I was in grade school I was the kid staring out the window, clueless as to the goings on in the classroom, which meant I never got very good grades. In my imaginary daydream world, however, I learned many things that the boring classroom could never have taught me. I’m glad I was a dreamer.
For as long as I can remember I’ve contemplated the concept of consciousness. I’m quite convinced that the human brain, that wet device of the scientist, is incapable of such as concept. It reminds me of 1st graders explaining how the world works. It’s cute, but it’s nonsense.
I too tried to examine consciousness, but not with the scientific method. Instead I tried creating an alternate universe of my own, though the writing of fiction, where I could examine the process in the act of creation. It was going to be a short story. Three novels and a few short stories later I’m still learning.
I started by creating a setting and putting a character in it, but as soon as I began the characterization, the character morphed into someone else, and other characters appeared, out of nowhere, and began a conversation that spanned 12,000 years of history, all in my mind.
My concepts of consciousness are make believe, since they came from fiction, but I’m happy with them since they are as good, if not superior, to anything else I’ve seen.
I glad to see that you too are a seeker regarding the mystery of consciousness, and grateful that you are sharing your insights. Thank you for your thoughts.
Thank you for your thoughts as well, Gary! The evidence is strong that we have access to just a small part of our eternal minds while we are in material bodies, so I am coming to the conclusion that it may in fact be very difficult to actually study consciousness from this level of reality with any degree of completeness. That doesn’t trouble you or me, nor apparently does it trouble materialists, who cheerfully assume that if it doesn’t arise from matter then it is not real. Max Planck tells is that “there is no matter as such,” and that consciousness has to pre-exist matter because it is where matter comes from. You would think that enormous insight by a scientific hero would give the materialists pause, would you not? But, no. Human arrogance is indeed a wonder to behold!
I find it interesting that you frequently quote-mine Max Planck in support of your world view and that you end you blog post with a picture of Einstein.
Yet both clearly stated, with the benefit of having completed a lifetime of research, that they did not believe in a personal, Christian God.
Since you enjoy quoting Planck, you might find this surprising:
2.) J. L. Heilbron (1986). The Dilemmas of an Upright Man: Max Planck and the Fortunes of German Science. Harvard University Press. p. 198. ISBN 9780674004399. “Six months before his death from a stroke on 4 October 1947, a rumor started that Planck had converted to Catholicism. An engineer applied to him for the reason that had brought him to such a step. The reply was not useful to missionaries. He had always been deeply religious, Planck said, but he did not believe in “a personal God, let alone a Christian God.” A God without qualities, a religion without trappings, life without compartments, knowledge without divisions — in brief, a worldview without extremes — have little appeal to prophets and promoters.”
Believing in the grandeur of nature, having reverence for the universe, and experiencing wonder, even if couched in the language of God is not the same as the religious world view you promote and attribute to these scientists.
Quantum physics is complicated, mystifying, counter-intuitive, and essentially impossible for non-physicists to fully grasp. You act as if some physicists attempts to interpret what should really be described in mathematical formulas in simple English makes it appropriate to assume you can summarize its findings in simplistic statements. Why don’t you run your posts by a real physicist and see if you’ve captured the current understanding of quantum physics and cosmology?
There are indeed theistic scientists out there, such as Francis Collins. Please stop appropriating the research of non-theists as if they, in fact, believed in your personal God.
Oh dear Michael, it is amazing to me how confidently you respond without first even attempting to understand what is being said to you! Very briefly:
1) Insofar as afterlife researchers have been able to determine, there is no “personal Christian God.” So the fact that these illustrious physicists and I do not believe in such a thing seems to make our views congruent and not at odds, does it not?
2) I am emphatically not religious. I speak in favor of no religion, and least of all Catholicism! You could not possibly have read very much of what I have written here and elsewhere and still consider your statement that these illustrious physicists were not religious to be even relevant to anything that I have said.
I am an equal-opportunity abuser, dear. I have as much to say against the clueless belief-system of Christianity as I have to say against the equally clueless belief-system of materialist science. My whole point is that both are wrong because both are based in dogmas and neither is anymore the open-minded pursuit of the truth. So to whom, exactly, do you believe that you are speaking? And what relevant point are you attempting to make?
I thought my point was clear, but if not perhaps I should better define terms.
Let’s agree that you are not religious and not a Christian (in part because, according to your book, you don’t find much of the Bible, or Christian dogma, to be reliable.)
That said, it seems to be that:
(1) You believe God exists
(2) You believe God has desires, goals for the world, beliefs about virtue and vice (e.g. the importance of love)
(3) You believe that God cares in particular what happens to human beings
(4) You believe God sometimes listens to people when they attempt to communicate with him, and that at times intervenes in the world and human affairs as a result, such as when he speaks to book writers
I define a God who has desires and who intervenes in human affairs as a “personal God.”
By contrast, a definition of “impersonal God” would be God as “Ground of Being”, that which inspires awe and wonder, a synonym for nature or the laws of the universe, a God which set the world in motion then permanently retired, etc.
Whether or not you call yourself religious, if you believe something like the tenets above I think it is reasonable to say you perceive a personal God. (If you don’t believe those things, I am curious how you think souls evolved unguided from the Big Bang.)
Planck and Einstein stated very clearly they did not believe in a personal God. Their’s was much more the impersonal God of Spinoza.
So my point is, that before confidently attacking science, and claiming your attack is supported by Planck and by inference Einstein, you should understand they don’t have the same basic beliefs as you do. You are clearly just taking them out of context.
My dear Michael, I believe NONE of what you assume that I believe about a “personal God,” which looks suspiciously like the Christian God to me. Evidence overwhelmingly suggests that none of the Christian beliefs is grounded in fact, and that the God that you define above and ascribe to me does not actually exist. Not surprising, really, when those who invented Christianity could not possibly have had any kind of understanding about what actually is going on!
For that matter, the “impersonal God” that you define above does not exist, either. It has been developed during the last century or so as a beliefs-based way for materialist science to integrate what some of the greatest scientists – Planck included – have said about discoveries that seem discomfiting to scientists who are stuck in a dualist fiction. That dualist fiction – “material” and “spiritual” – is nonsense, of course. There is ONE reality, and anyone who is actually trying to understand that reality has to let go of both belief-systems, take it all back to ground, and actually try now to understand reality using twenty-first-century evidence and tools and also, frankly, some common sense.
What is certain now is that the early Christians were wrong. Modern materialist scientists are wrong as well. Max Planck is right. The dead who communicate with us agree with him. I agree with him, too. Apparently you do not?
I am delighted that you want to engage with me, dear! I always love to find a comment from you; I am coming to think of you as a friend. But our problem in trying to have what could be a very productive discussion is that you do not actually read what I write, but rather you assume a great deal about my positions and then rush through your assumptions to argue with that misguided Roberta who exists only in your mind….
How fascinating. I didn’t know you were an atheist.
Of course, if you abandon God as a magical explanation for unknown phenomena (God of the gaps), you take on the burden of having to explain the world we inhabit using naturalistic explanations. One interesting question, then, is where did souls come from?
Christians generally explain the existence of souls as having been implanted at some point by God.
Since you reject this explanation, what alternative do you offer? Your interpretation of quantum physics seems to require the existence of a mind for even the existence of matter. For example, you quote:
“We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
The problem for this explanation is, how does a mind “boot strap” itself into existence? In the early universe there were no minds, no consciousness, no agents. What served, then, as the “matrix of all matter?”
My dear friend, every religion, including Christianity, is a man-made belief-system. As such, none of the terms associated with religions – “God,” “soul,” “atheism,” and what-else-have-you – can have any place in a discussion that is focused on our attempts to understand what actually is going on. For that matter, the materialist dogma that has hobbled modern science has the same problem: it is arbitrarily man-made, and therefore it shuts down rather than spurring the open-minded pursuit of the truth.
Until you can wipe your mind of ALL belief-systems, and share with the seekers here an honest twenty-first-century attempt to build an understanding of reality that is based upon reason applied to all the available evidence, then we are going to be talking in circles. I could make an attempt to answer just this one small question, but you seem at the moment to be lost in a confusion of beliefs-based ideas and terms so my answer would only inspire many more questions that would lead us in pointless circles and have no bearing upon a shared open-minded pursuit of the truth. Our exchange – which I do enjoy! – would begin to bore visitors.
Therefore, dear, please do a bit of reading. I suggest that you read:
(a) R. Craig Hogan’s Your Eternal Self, and
(b) Kuttner and Rosenblum’s Quantum Enigma.
The last time I looked, both of these books were available for free on the Internet. I have spent decades doing this research, so these two books are only a small sample of what I have read and investigated, but they are good introductions. And if you want to read a quarter-century-old classic that is still entirely relevant now, you might also read Michael Talbot’s masterful The Holographic Universe.
Dear Michael, when you have put away EVERY man-made belief-system, and have done some preliminary reading so we can discuss these matters in a more productive way, then I will be happy to answer your remaining questions!
I take you answer to mean that you do not, in fact, have an explanation for how a soul could evolve without a God. Based on my preliminary reading of the two books you mention, the authors do not either.
I have never seen a coherent, evidence based hypothesis of how souls evolved from nothing without the intervention of God. I don’t think you have one, in which case you might just admit it.
I think your readers would be quite interested in how you think souls evolved without God, rather than your repeating your criticism of “materialistic dogmatic science.” The lack of a good explanation for this should surely count as evidence against the existence of souls.
Since you mentioned again books on quantum physics, the existence of strange quantum effects doesn’t imply any specific theory about the world. I often see people defend some point of view by mentioning an odd aspect of quantum theory they have come across in the lay press. But you can’t say “telepathy is true because of quantum weirdness.” You have to demonstrate that telepathy is true, then explain the link to quantum effects.
Dear Michael, you cannot conceivably have done ANY thoughtful reading or deliberation in a day and a half! I have spent considerable effort in trying to help you, but yet you are unwilling to help yourself? At one point I thought you were a genuine seeker. I am coming now reluctantly to conclude that you may be just another intellectually lazy and at the same time intellectually arrogant fellow who has found what I say discomfiting. This is a type, dear. Such men don’t want to learn, they don’t want to grow, but they simply want to find a way to dismiss ideas that challenge their worldview. This sort of non-thinker may exist in female form, but every one of them I have encountered has been male. And what I have learned is that no matter how much effort I put into helping them, they are unable to learn anything whatsoever. In truth, their whole effort is devoted to NOT learning. If this is you, dear, it saddens me to say it, but please stop wasting our time! How can you expect to find in less than two days answers that it takes everyone else years to earn through patient work and thoughtful effort?
Yes, there are good evidence-based answers for all of your questions, and those answers are continuing to develop in exciting ways. But because mainstream science has reduced itself to a dogma-based belief-system, there is NO one book or school of thought that can pull together a gigantic amount of data and give you a snap answer to each of your questions. You are reduced to having to learn from hobbyists whose curiosity has led us to find the answers for ourselves over decades, and whose compassion for a world being so badly misled by both mainstream Christianity and mainstream science has led us to devote what should be our retirement years to teaching others what we have learned.
On the chance that your question about the evolution of souls is an actual question, and not a hopeful attempt at a “gotcha,” I will give you the same answer that I give to genuine seekers who have cared enough about learning the truth that they have been willing to devote more than two days to their own enlightenment. What I will say here is based in what the dead have been telling us consistently for more than a century, and is supported by information from other sources (including the work of my beloved buddy, Dr. Planck). The information given below is generally accepted by every leader in the burgeoning field of afterlife studies. It is theory, yes, but in the same way that gravity is a theory:
1) There is no Christian God, no “soul,” no “evolution of souls,” and nothing whatsoever that relates to religions, all of which are man-made. So I won’t be using religious terms here, and I ask that you also not use them. Every religious term brings with it imprecise baggage, so using the words of religion only clouds our thinking.
2) The only thing that actually exists is an energy-like potentiality without size or form, infinitely creative, infinitely powerful, alive in the sense that your mind is alive, highly emotional and therefore probably in some sense self-aware. This is the “mind” that dear Max tells us must pre-exist matter and brings matter into being. It not only pre-exists matter, but it includes matter, since everything that we believe exists other than Mind is an artifact of it and has no independent reality.
So the only thing that independently exists is what we label and experience as consciousness.
3) There is a natural hierarchy of this highly emotional consciousness energy, with love (or consciousness’s affinity for itself) as the highest in vibration, and with all the negative and divisive energies (anger, hatred, grief, fear, etc.) toward the lower and slower end of the range. Mikey Morgan, who is among the most advanced beings to have communicated with us, uses religious terms sometimes because he is speaking to religious people. He defines “God” as “the absolute unity of pure love, which is all that exists.”
4) Each human mind is a part of that infinitely powerful potentiality, and we never leave it. Your brain is a two-way radio in the head of a meat-robot (more or less like Jake’s blue body in the movie “Avatar”). Your brain receives direction from your mind and transmits information back to it, which is why you believe that you are in a body.
5) The present consensus in this field is that the universe exists as an illusion in eternal mind and is held in suspension by it as a place for us to experience consciousness growth away from negativity and toward ever more perfect love. WHY we have a need to do this when we remain part of that unity of pure love is something that researchers debate; it remains our great unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) question. I think the best answer comes from “A Course in Miracles,” and it is too long to give you here; it took me a year of intensive work to tease it out from the “Course.” Go and spend your own year in a good “Course” study group if you are curious, dear.
So “the evolution of souls” is just another crackpot religious idea. There is no such thing as an independent soul, and certainly no need for us to evolve; but rather, what appears to happen here to those who are making best use of their time in bodies is a process of remembering. My next book, “The Fun of Growing Forever,” is going to be about how to make that process easier, more effective, and of course more Fun.
Now it’s your turn, dear Michael. If you are the sort of intellectual Neanderthal that I am sadly coming to suspect that you might be, then you will call what I have said here some variant of “hogwash” and crawl back into your cave. If you are in fact a seeker, then you will take at least a week to respond, and you will come back with questions and/or challenges to this or that detail of what I have said. Since you don’t want to bother with reading much, just send me an email through this site and I will be happy to send you a PDF of “The Fun of Dying.” It pulls a lot of this together, It is written in simple terms for beginners, and – unlike the more serious stuff – you can read it in an evening.
Over to you.
I thought I would end our ongoing conversation on a more constructive note.
I assume you are sincere in your beliefs, and reflect those beliefs in what you write about. I thought it would be interesting to engage with you on some specific points (rather than your entire philosophy). However, that seems that is less interesting to you, or you don’t think you can discuss specific points without addressing an overall worldview, or perhaps you have trouble imagining that somebody who finds traditional science compelling can have sincere questions.
I’ve felt some of your responses to be patronizing, and have been frustrated by an ability to move ahead on specific questions.
So perhaps this is not the right forum to explore these questions, or you are not the right counter-party. You clearly have many readers who are quite happy with the direction you are taking your blog.
Best of luck.
You are right, dear. You might read my most recent blog post for a better explanation, but the plain fact is that neither Christianity nor materialist science is a constructive way any longer in which to study reality, so there really is no way for me to answer your questions unless I first teach you something of what afterlife researchers have learned is actually going on. If I could answer one of your questions all by itself in a rational and constructive way without first giving you at least a little education, then of course I would do so!
I am sorry if I have come off as patronizing, but you have done some of that yourself, dear. You cannot imagine how frustrating it is to be trying to answer questions that assume that if I am not talking from a scientific perspective, then I must be talking from a Christian one. In fact, it was our exchange here that inspired my latest blog post, and I certainly thank you for that!
If you ever want to know more about what actually is going on from the perspective of our studies of the greater reality, of course I always will be here for you. Meanwhile, dear, be well!
Perhaps I might ask one last question, which studiously avoids the use of any labels.
One aspect of useful theories about reality is that they make non-trivial predictions. For example, as you know 100 years ago Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves, and recently their detection was confirmed.
Does your theory of reality lend itself to any predictions which might be objectively confirmed / dis-confirmed? I would think that if much of the scientific consensus were wrong, then many contingent predictions would turn out to be false, and we would notice that. (I am thinking of predictions more inter-subjectively testable than people will talk to the dead, or have NDEs, or hear voices, etc.)
I know you made a type of prediction that machines would replace mediums quite soon, but since there is no consensus on the reality of mediums, the same problem would likely apply to digital mediums.
Anyway, to be honest I don’t expect you to provide any concrete predictions, but if you did I would certainly be pleasantly surprised.
Dear Michael, the only reason there is no “consensus” on mediums is that modern materialist science is a belief-system and not actually a science at the moment. If you refuse to investigate some phenomenon in any serious way, you ought not to be surprised that you can’t demonstrate its validity! That is true of many so-called “paranormal” phenomena. The truth of them has been demonstrated repeatedly, with odds against chance sometimes in the millions to one, but still mainstream scientists continue to scrunch their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears and whistle loudly whenever these phenomena are mentioned.
Frankly, after having spent a lifetime expecting that at any moment, sanity in science will prevail, I am bored with it all now. The journey to the next stage of human development is going to be led by laypeople, with scientists eventually dragged along, kicking and screaming.
Here is a non-trivial prediction for you! I won’t be on this level by then to collect on whatever bet we might be making, but you can be sure I will be grinning from ear to ear in the bleacher seats!
Prediction: In some fourth grade somewhere, there is right now a pigtailed future physicist who, before the end of this century, will collect the Nobel Prize in Physics for at last re-uniting all of physics with her Consciousness Theory of Everything.
Mark my words….
So do you drive a car, speak on phones, participate in air travel? Live in a heated home with electricity?
All made possible by scientists who mistakenly studied matter, when everyone knows there is only energy!
Oh my dear Kaye, I am so grateful to you for commenting as you have done! Of course, either you are choosing to be deliberately thick and obstructionist, or you simply skimmed my post without reading enough of it to understand what I was saying. Since I assume that you are a person of good will, I prefer to think that your problem is the second alternative and not the first. So I will answer your question sincerely.
Dear, the problem that we face is not that scientists “mistakenly studied matter.” The consciousness energy which is the only thing that exists is where matter originates, as Max Planck informed us a century ago, so it encompasses all of matter as well as every form of energy. Our problem is rather that at about the same time as Planck was speaking wisdom, the scientific gatekeepers – the university departments and the peer-reviewed journals – chose to adopt “materialism” as science’s “fundamental dogma.” (And yes, back then you could find those words in print – they were pretty open about what they were doing.) Apparently they chose to establish this dogma at the time purely so they would not have to investigate the flood of very good evidence of what is mistakenly called the paranormal that was then flooding into the mainstream.
In other words, a hundred years ago mainstream science turned itself from what had been (at least in theory) an open-minded study of reality into a closed system that felt entitled to pick and choose which areas of reality it would be willing to study. And of course, dear, all the phenomena that you describe – driving, phones, flying, heating, and electricity – have energy as essential components, don’t they? So what scientists were doing was not actually limiting themselves to studying only matter. What they were doing was limiting themselves and their successors to being blind to certain aspects of reality that are turning out now to be crucial in order for anyone to actually understand what is going on. That is the tragedy, dear Kaye. And every day it makes poorer every human life.
We say that when we die we lose consciousness, that dying is a state that is inconsistent with life. Actually, the truth is that when we die, we enter the whole of consciousness once again. This means this physical life isn’t all there is, of course. We are conscious of our life, but we were conscious of everything before we began this life. It’s like we are a drop of water, and when we die we drop into the massive ocean of consciousness and once again become part of it.
Actually, Wayne, the biggest shock for many who die – as they report it to us from the afterlife levels – is their discovery that dying is actually waking up! Some who die in their sleep will simply wake up in the beautiful and solid afterlife, surrounded by loved ones; but for many who are at least semi-conscious as they leave their bodies there is the thrill of meeting again loved ones they had thought they had lost and then the beyond-amazing transition to the afterlife realities. Soon after we return home, too, we merge again with our greater minds – we leave behind as much as 90% of our vast eternal minds before we are born – and when we are back in our greater minds we immediately feel that we are brilliant and we know everything! But if you are implying that we will lose our individuality after death, apparently that never happens in all of eternity. We are part of the Whole. The Whole is us! And we never lose our awareness.