Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
FRINGE SCIENCE
>
Is the brain the origin of our consciousness? OR is the brain merely a receiver?
The brain is a receiver. I doubt that our consciousness is even near our brains or body. That's my personal point of view. I believe the brain is also a broadcasting transmitter. I draw these conclusions from personal experiences.
The consciousness exists without a medium. The brain is a buffer that slows down the energy to a speed in which we can comprehend and form thoughts about the pieces of it individually, thus allowing us to seemingly explore the one energy in a more lateral way.
James wrote: "“I don't believe that consciousness is generated by the brain. I believe that the brain is more of a reciever of consciousness.” Indeed, the brain, is a "fluctuating receiver" without stop.―Graham Hancock"
The human brain, like other species, is manly a "fluctuating receiver" without the stop button. DeBranco
I see the majority of people here think that the brain is a receiver of consciousness. I can share my own humble opinion.I'm an AI enthusiast and I'm trying to develop human-like AI. I believe that human consciousness can be viewed as a generative model (in AI jargon). The brain receives information from the world and some information in the brain is congenital. Based on both congenital and obtained through different senses information, the brain generates its representation of the world. So, in my opinion, consciousness is a product of the brain.
However, I also believe that the brain can somehow receive and transmit information to other brains. I don't think that this process takes place by means of electromagnetic fields. Perhaps, some other physical phenomena are involved.
"I have found such an exceptional video, where a human energy structure is shown, and as well the process of appearing of thoughts https://allatra.tv/en/video/energo-ko... . About working of our consciousness, it is well explained it book ALLATRA by Anastasia Novykh. One may make the following conclusions: 1. Consciousness is an energy-information field structure, located outside the brain (the scientists – N.P. Bechtereva, Ch.S. Sherrington, W.G. Penfield, J. C. Eccles)
2. A human in its usual mode of perception can observe only products of consciousness' activities, presented by emotions, thoughts, active states, such as, for example, aggression, alpha-significance, offense, disappointment, loneliness and so on, but not the field of consciousness itself.
3. Consciousness is not a product of brain activity. It is proved by demonstration of consciousness activities when a person is in a state of coma and anesthetized, as well as an ability to percept without five senses and so on.
4. A brain is a unit for receiving and transmission of information, which it receives from a human filed structure - consciousness, and consciousness receives it from the invisible outer world.. "
Krishna wrote: "well everything in universe is scattered.....mass is present everywhere......so is energy.....so why r we thinking that consciousness is concentrated in one place only?....... maybe it is concentra..."Krishna wrote: "well everything in universe is scattered.....mass is present everywhere......so is energy.....so why r we thinking that consciousness is concentrated in one place only?....... maybe it is concentra..." "so why do we exist in a remote part of space with no one to 'obverse' us? It's an assumption! 'consciousness' does not need an 'object' to continue' and we do not know, if our consciousness, is connected with other galaxies, via long and short magnetic fields, as a receiver for info? What did Albert Einstein said- "energy can not be created, nor destroyed" !
What is consciousness? Sir Roger Penrose speculates https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ReEP...Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.
Consciousness and psychedelics | Peter Sjostedt-H | TEDxTruro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8PS...
Consciousness is the Originator of Everything in existence therefore the brain is a product of consciousness.
Consciousness, is a product of (time). The brain is only an organ and a receiver. The question is, what is "time" by definition?JD.
There group poll on this thread's subject is now complete.It asked members: Is Consciousness A Product Of The Brain? OR Is The Brain The Receiver Of Consciousness?
Here are the voting results:
49.9% voted: The brain is the receiver of consciousness
37.3% voted: Consciousness is a product of the brain
12.9% voted: Not Sure
Check out the comments section beneath the poll for comments posted during the voting period: https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...
What really happens when you Die | End-of-life-phenomena • At Home with Peter Fenwick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78SkT...Peter Fenwick (born 25 May 1935) is a neuropsychiatrist and neurophysiologist who is known for his pioneering studies of end-of-life phenomena.
In this interview he talks about near-death-experiences (NDE), death-bed-visitors and how we can achieve a good death.
NDE research is at the cutting edge of consciousness research and offers a convincing model for the understanding of what happens when we die. Peter Fenwick describes the different transitional phases of the dying process and highlights the importance of letting go at the end of ones life.
He offers fascinating insights into common phenomena at the end of life, such as premonitions, seeing a light, death-bed-visions and coincidences.
In his opinion everybody should know about death and the dying process, because it is a normal part of living.
Peter has also written a book called The Art of Dying...
I ran across this today. William James addressed this topic over 100 years ago.https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/bl...
Good link thanks Jim. Collective consciousness (or even unconsciousness) versus materialism. I understand that many people here prefer the spiritual possibilities of a greater force permeating the universe and impacting on how we live and gain meaning from life. But Science, particularly evolutionary and genetic Science has increasingly confirmed materialism. Sexual reproduction, the most basic incarnation of the material paradigm ensures that each individual is a unique entity hell bent on the survival of it's personal 'genetic code'.
The concept of consciousness as an external force and the body as a "receiver" has very ancient roots; it is more or less the basis of Hindu theology. Hinduism teaches that each of us is an Atman which springs from a single divine source, or Brahman. The latter is something like a unitive Great Consciousness, and its Atmans go around deceiving themselves, thinking they are separate beings made of flesh, which is likened to a dream or illusion.I apply the Buddhist perspective, which is a revision of the Hindu perspective. Buddhism teaches that there is neither Brahman nor Atman--a concept called the Non-self or Anatman. Everything exists in mutual dependence on everything else. You cannot have matter and energy without consciousness, and you cannot have consciousness without matter and energy. Consciousness does not originate in the brain and is not received by the brain. Consciousness is everywhere, but brains are specialized to express consciousness in a higher degree than other organs or substances.
This is not part of any particular divine plan because there is no omnipotent Creator. Instead, all things are in perpetual flux between creation and destruction. Suffering is caused by our desire to resist change, and by our ignorance of the fact that creation and destruction are more or less the same thing.
Does Consciousness Exist Outside of the Brain? https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/bl...Is consciousness actually a property of the universe like gravity or light?
James, awesome article. I think it’s an interesting idea that the brain is a filter for consciousness outside of us as the article suggests. I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record, but Harold W Percival spoke about similar concepts in his books “Thinking and Destiny” as well as “Man, Woman, and Child” except he called consciousness “The Driver”. The driver comes to a child after it’s born and leaves when the body dies-it’s a take on re-incarnation, but not in a religious sense.
B. wrote: "James, awesome article. I think it’s an interesting idea that the brain is a filter for consciousness outside of us as the article suggests. I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record, but Harold W ..."Never read anything of Percival, but I agree consciousness must surely be (even tho I don't know for sure!) beyond the brain. It could even be the brain filters so much that it reduces our consciousness.
James wrote: "B. wrote: "James, awesome article. I think it’s an interesting idea that the brain is a filter for consciousness outside of us as the article suggests. I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record, bu..."It is not a subject I have studied but from these comments and the article James threaded I would say that what is being called 'conscious' is probably something else. According to a dictionary conscious or consiousness is the awareness of the brain outside of itself. So accordingly, consiousness as we talk of it is a funcion of the brain. If on death the brain ceases to exist or work then that particular consciousness must also not exist but existensial properties that the consiousness of the brain recognised would, of course, not be affected by one death. I think propnents of these concepts should find another word for what they are calling 'consciousness'.
That is a good question. I believe it is a receiver of consciousness in the sense that it can become conscious. Though the desire to wake up from a world that is filled of dreams is frightening; or at least can be. It feels though it is more a producer of the subconscious. Consciousness I feel is as much about choice and for us to produce consciousness we need to understand the underlying comprehension of decision and what it is based on. Becoming sentient is something I strive for, oddly enough I believe it starts in are stomach. In other words when we nourish ourselves with life we become life, then our eyes become open to possibility.
The Holographic Universe This is a good book to start the research about your question, and is strange but i´m thinking in this type of focus right now....
Angelo wrote: "That is a good question. I believe it is a receiver of consciousness in the sense that it can become conscious. Though the desire to wake up from a world that is filled of dreams is frightening; or..."Decisions? An important part of awareness. But who makes them? We are a soup of our ancestors' genes. How much of what we are only belongs to us? Our consciousness is not totally ours. My upcoming book 'The Girl of Drovers' Hill' explores this theme.
James wrote: "B. wrote: "James, awesome article. I think it’s an interesting idea that the brain is a filter for consciousness outside of us as the article suggests. I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record, bu..."That is exactly what I've been thinking. Our brain reduces our consciousness or limits the things we can see hear smell etc. And there are ways, or so I've heard, that we can sometimes override the system to see more. Oh btw I have 4 months today my friend and feel better than ever because I work on it 21 hours a week. 7 days a week 3 hours a night of my own accord :)
Angelo wrote: "Becoming sentient is something I strive for"It might be some time before AI becomes sentient...if ever...
Food for thought... Wikipedia summary: In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia". This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts about something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness... I think our mechanical evolution is leading to sentience a lot faster than we are prepared to deal with it. I am reminded of Frankenstein's monster here.
At around the 39.30 minute mark onwards of this MetaHuman doco (I've timecoded the right spot in this link https://youtu.be/4QAFi3NhOLE?t=2385) some scientists say that transhumanism and AI fantasies won't become a reality because consciousness does not exist or originate from the brain, but rather outside the brain (i.e. consciousness is non-local not local)
Your comment about what some scientists are speculating about the nature of the Oversoul (the universe is a massive "soul"...a being of awareness is a surprise for me. Not that the Oversoul exists (the universe exists, so...) but that some scientists are finally considering the possibility of it being aware. (I'm assuming here that they are thinking in these terms, although the condition of 'awareness' would be an artifact of the aggregation of aliveness, I would suggest. The fact is, as living beings, we are aware, and react to our environment and each other. So it's not hard for me to accept the possibility of that existing exterior to the presence of a living body.As the Tibetan monks have said, "As in the Greater--so in the lesser!" In the same way that all living beings are made up of billions of smaller living beings...consciousness could therefore arise like a mist, an essence or perfume, from within each cell and coagulates in a cloud. It "emanates" -- such that all life emanates a cloud of awareness. That cloud is actually visible if you either have the right "Ghosthunter" equipment to film it or look at it through a lens, or it is visible to the "naked eye" for some people -- the real "ghost hunters". Some (I would say most ) people are frightened of ghosts...because they don't expect to see one, and the sight of one is deeply disturbing, as well as potentially threatening, I think.
I have a certain degree of "psi" awareness, and I have no desire, and no intention to engage in "ghost-stalking" in a haunted house. I'm disturbed at a visceral level by the notion of a disembodied spirit passing by me, maybe leaving something of itself "behind" where I could become "infected".
Basically, I think there is awareness at levels of being that is essentially ineffable unless one's senses are acute enough to perceive it. A possible artifact of consciousness that a sensitive could detect is the "intention" of a living essence. "Evil ghosts" could be the common folk conception of such an "artifact of awareness". In that case, could there also be such a thing "evil or benign ghosts". I'm not eager to meet either kind, as it's impossible to know what their intent is.
Mind as Receiver? A Buddhist and “All-Ancient-Culture’s” View on the Brain and Man’s Composition
Part I of V
I would like to show here, very briefly philosophically and scientifically, then more in depth from historical traditions, that the brain is an electromagnetic receiver-transmuter and not “origin point creator” of any real grade of consciousness in man at all (real consciousness being something that can exist even outside the biological machine, that is, “the body;” or as more than it’s sum parts while in it).
The reason it is hard for us to be sure even one way or another whether consciousness arises from the matter of the brain or acts upon it - as it would seem would be easy to determine - is only because, though we are capable of super-conscious, unconditioned, self-aware states on even a cosmic and self-increasing level and outside the body, we are usually hypnotically asleep to such states identified to an automaton illusory consciousness in our psyche that, like the 5 senses, automatically electro-magnetically responds to both “unique to it’s sense” internal akashic frequencies as a homing pigeon and external matters reactively and reflexively like a muscle all on it’s own mixing the two just as one of the new pre-wired, pre-programmed car computers on auto-pilot today do with satellite gps and sensors for outside objects mixing the data from both and responding. Gurdjieff said such somnambulistic simulacra consciousness is the result of something called the formatory apparatus or secretarial computational head brain. The only time more than such faux consciousness is in us is when we intentionally participate in our own processes by adding conscious observation upon them or bring about a non-identified, divided or double conscious state called self-remembering akin to de ja vue, stage fright, out of body experiences and other such fairly accurate descriptive labels. Only then is a real I, real will, real consciousness, “co-I-In-psio-ous-ness” in us (“coincidental I operating it’s science in us” – as perhaps the word originally signified). Otherwise our consciousness arises from only the akashic record containing all past memories and reactions of ours in us, and to externals, usually a hypnotic mixing back and forth of auto-awareness shifting onto both, of the brains own accord. So, though half our faux consciousness is outside the body in akashic memory rolls and all externals are only indirectly the cause of this ever becoming auto-conscious, the two authentic states of consciousness (self-consciousness and cosmic consciousness) are usually not present in us in the pre-conscious preening state we are usually in.
Gurdjieff claims we have no real I but because our pre-conscious is identified with the biological machine it thinks it is I, hypnotically supplying this illusion in us, but this is just lower ego or false personality to be done away with by gaining real I through conscious observation of the psycho-material self machine and by Self-Remembering with doubled and increasing consciousness.
Buddha says the main way he woke up was realizing his samsaric consciousness is an illusion and it is not I becoming but it becoming; he says this illusion arises because our identification to the body – which he says is just a wagon train with many parts [Milindapanha, 28] and not a whole – causes us to think we are a one conscious I when we are not; but he says we can become such through training in Vipassana (gnostic knowledge gained only by increasing and concentrating consciousness upon the workings of the self like camera flashes on the passing system – the exact opposite of getting lost in it’s thought about itself which is psycho-analysis and only increases identification).
So, as we see, Gurdjieff and Buddha are saying no different from each other and this is what I am not trying to persuade or dissuade anyone from here but merely propounding and lightly admonishing all contrary to this.
This way of seeing hopefully shows people why we have ambivalence about the brain consciousness question when it seems it should be easy to answer. And in this way equally but only fragmentarily are the materialist reductionists right and the spiritualists right, for we are half in matter and half out. But mainly present man is under a deep materialist reductionist obsession and error lately in thinking that only sees himself as no more than matter, including his sacred consciousness, so let’s dispose of that notion first before gaining the both sides balanced viewpoint.
Philosophical Proofs
First of all philosophically if we dispose of the fancy jargon “Ockham’s Razor” for what is really just a childish mindset prevalent in many minds that should be called laziness we are already over half way to seeing the mind as receiver/transmuter. What “simplest answer” thinking should really be called rather is sense based overly materiolotrous “one moment at a time” formatory reductionism. If one were just recently born and were to see a person before they lost their tongue in an accident had speech and words then after they did not; simplest most materially provable deductive answer, Ockham’s Razor, would be to say then the tongue muscle must have been the origination point of all their speech and words, that is the solution, maybe they pop out of it’s salivary glands or something. Such thinking based on one momentary causational incident in time though, just before and after, and based on just material conductives, the tongue muscle, is formatory, reductionistic and literally and scientifically, as we shall see, materialistically thick or thick headed as the english would say. It is not enough. Yet we allow it when thinking about the sacred consciousness saying it just arises from some grey conductive matter in the skull, case closed. The mind is a tuning fork that must be tuned fine and right not course to even see the science of itself - much less of matter and how it works, it’s origins behind and within all such. We understand this in the lab in making sure tools are clean and right but not with the mind for some reason - or lack of reason. Why does it get a free pass?
People can agree with Einstein the greatest laws in science are sometimes elegantly simplistic – or I prefer to say compactly and multi-valently symbolic - but they are not excuses to engage in half comprehensive thinking about everything as “visible materialist only” proof finders engage in. We all can and should look for visible proofs for everything but also be tuning the instrument doing the proof finding and so have the ability to comprehend the non-visible proofs in the visible equally too – the latter half we have lost the psionic gnosis or science of, it is clear among man; though the noumenal substructure in our minds is still inherent and easily perceptible to any who wish. Skeptics and discerners are not nearly skeptical and discerning enough it seems or they would turn such gaze of theirs back on the loss of this faculty of mind in themselves and in so many. This is not a matter of blind faith or trust in getting such instrumentive faculty back either but of experimenting the concentration with self control of the mind, withdrawing from the senses and auto-thought, to get it and go beyond Ockham’s Razor lazy reductionist thick headed non-shamanic thinking to more comprehensive phenomenal and noumenal whole understandings - as the multiverse we live in is quite a bit of both symbiotically. When we do it becomes clear the brain is merely a receiver/transmuter for consciousness and self consciousness, such lies principally outside the biological machine and it’s grey matter head apparatus and it’s psyche identified with it’s material body self and it’s senses, usually identified hypnotically within the biological machine. All ancient traditions teach the necessity of withdrawing from the senses to percieve more clearly as we shall see.
Part IIMetaphysical, Structural Psychology Proofs
So much for the philosophical, “getting to straight thinking,” overview of this. Metaphysically it would be too long to go into here but I believe one day a more proper structural psychology also will reveal what processes are really going on in us. For the present modern viewpoint most adopt does not allow metaphysical understanding in anymore. In short overview of what a more corrected psychology would look like for a moment though: one might hope to see the cthonic automatic impressions of the day entering into dream state and daydreaming will one day be be called the collective murky unconscious frequencies and will be seen as quite contradistinctive to the sacred subconscious in humans where symbolic and higher thought lie and where we will find clear consciousness, self-conscious awareness originating there from outside the body (out of body experiences and de ja vue being examples) and apart from the preconscious samsaric hypnotized lower consciousness in the body. There we will see rather where it is actuating through an astral effluvium essence that has a zone around it on earth called per zone ality by the founders of our language; the latter being identified with the body unlike essence at times. Consciousness itself will be seen to originate as a non-automatic frequency electro-magnetically stimulating inside it the head brain receiver/transmuter of it’s body for itself at times. All the while in this ongoing process in us the preconscious state we walk around in in our undeveloped life force psyche’s ratiocentrates automatic impression taking, memories, thoughts and old impressions, all of which it clumsily recalls and combines using all such like a car’s computer on autopilot with it’s crude animal reasoning process in it and in the head brain called the formatory apparatus, will be seen as the delimiting hypnotic low grade preening preconscious state of one’s automatic lower I. This latter can be called our interpreted experiences and interactions of our somatic self that is an artifice within One’s Subconscious and Self Conscious, Conscious I, the latter being usually identified and lost following the processess of the auto-self in somnambulism except when consciousness and self-consciousness is intentionally added non-automatically in frequency and transmutation of impressions within it or when higher divine centers in one communicate on their own into one’s essence there on into the auto preconscious and/or dream state we as mostly machines possess in us. If this is too heady for now disregard it but once this viewpoint is adopted there will no longer be random speculation about where consciousness arises, how it works, where to increase it and how to make it more lucid and unhypnotic thereby entering into enlightened self consciousness (unburied conscience) and cosmic consciousness - the two upper states (and destiny of man).
Scientific Proofs
As for scientific proofs of the argument man’s real consciousness is more than grey matter firing please refer to Morcan’s notes in the Underground Knowledge Site of his on Goodreads; he has quite successfully demonstrated so much in good convincing detail; at least to my satisfaction. One example is of a man who lost 90% of his brain and was still able to be cognizant and self conscious.
Also a friend of mine recommended looking at Sheldrake’s electronic oscillations he shows goes on in the brain wave frequencies showing a non-temporal origin point for both Conscious Actualization (giving rise to such nodes) and that much of such comes too from a field of frequency groups we different groups of beings tap into also in different ways that is akashic or etheric, like for example birds migrating and all turning in unison in the sky and so on as an example of a non-visible group think pattern. These groups of frequencies are, yes, called the Akashic record in many systems and Santanas by Buddha. They can be locally stored in our three lower centers: thinking, emotional and physis etheric centers; and they can be race memory where our manas is or be tuned in to group think according to astral type and collective ideology.
But on to the historical, which is my specialty, what have all world cultures going back to the ancients said on this question?
One last clarification of thinking before going into that though.
Dismantling the “Matter-Only Fundamentalist Ism”
First, looking at this basically, we are all materialists for we live in matter and see and believe in matter. How could we not? We are like divers in diving bell suits surrounded by all kinds of grades of it. But we are not all of us this weird “materialist only” camp anymore than we would all feel the need to be in a “left hand only exists” camp when there is left and right hands on each of us, at least many of us are convinced. Yes, we are pretty convinced we have both a right hand and a left hand and don’t need philosophical convincing for that. What am I joking at? Just that nothing visually makes sense if there are no unseen emotions and thoughts and energy fields and magnetism and over-arching laws and mathematic rhythms and finer than visible dark matter energies swirling behind all active matter, that all that we are swimming through in the visible field which is churned by all such.
For the visible field, like left and right hands, is made up of the visible and the “invisible forces that stir it all,” both equally, one cannot and should not drop one out for the other for some half adopted ism any more than only believing in a left hand or only a right, it is absurd. If only “easily weighable and proven to be visible” matter in the universe is true then how much does a thought weigh and what kind of matter is it made out of that we can see? How about your love for your wife? Do philosophers need neck braces cause they have so many thoughts? So then is thought or emotional love unprovable since it’s weight is immaterial and we don’t see the color of matter they are? No, that is ridiculous thinking. These things are fine and invisible, celestial to pre Barakah, faster vibrating matter with bio-chemical reactive components clicking in the biological machine in relation to them, not easily weighable, but not “all” directly visible or directly provable by only the senses (unless one awakes and impressions increase in intensity enough to see their auric fields of movement as Christ speaks of in Thomas the Contender but that is another matter. Whole books have been written by Doctor’s on Gurdjieff’s teaching about the transformation of impressions or waking state usually not in the human psycho-kinetic machine).
All this is just simple reasoning disproving the ”visible, testable matter-only is true” origin theory alongside of Morcan’s science he shows disproving such.
But let’s put the final psychic nail in the coffin of the “materialist only” folks theory here by taking a look at it on the historic perspective too, as to if anyone has ever believed such really before or shown such ideas to be true in history all the way back - and then up till now.
Only 1800’s to 1950’s – The Atheist Reductionists
As a historian I can say no culture on any part of the globe at any point in time until the 1800’s has ever believed man and his consciousness “strictly only” arose from the mud (and then the grey matter in his brain for the latter), or proven such.
Even then in the 1800’s it was just some Western Europeans until they funded the atheist skeptic communists (Bolshevik Marxists especially and primarily, the other communist groups weren’t atheist reductuionists then in Russia or the East so much) to gain attractive full power over the true communists in the east thereby causing all in the east to wag their tail at such mass murderer atheists like Radek by adopting their half sided ideologies that folk such as Ai WeiWei can clearly show repressed and destroyed much the culture in China over time (likewise in all cultures that wagged their tail and adopted such fake communist virus - for it was the atheists who saw all culture before them as silly and outdated not the cultural communal tolstoyan communists). This is a bit simplistic but mainly obvious to any historian, see seven years in Thibet to get a feel for this zeitgeist..perhaps there are also good movies out there on the complete co-opting and reversal of originally holy russian communalist movements by this one group.
Part III“Grey Matter Origin of Consciousness” Theory: Missing in All Ancient Cultures:
A: Missing from even a basic worldview they might have taught that would imply such
What before the 1800’s though? There are some Hittite and Canaanite texts that mention “Ulikhemmu” born up from the stones and the mud; but then he battles with the “god ancestors of man” with top down origins. There are hints in texts we have left of Democritus (not truly the first Atomist but that’s another story) only he speaks within a worldview there is no evidence he was censured by that speaks of gods and portents and divine fates he does not anywhere discount. Finally there are vague hints of man’s origins from the mud in chthonic mother (mater earth) religions of old but this always involves her symbiotic interaction with, as Plato says, the Divine Heavenly Ancestors in every Myth around the world, Ouranos: Father Sky etc, not just “all came only from her, especially the mind and consciousness and thoughts as merely of the brain matter.”
So not only is there missing the clear teaching “consciousness comes from the grey matter of the brain only” anywhere but even the only world view that might allow such an implication to be believed was always accomodated with, also, a top down divine ancestor devolution too alongside it in every culture one looks. This needs to be clear and is what the modern scientist Cremo shows as does Lady Hahn, Gurdjieff, Evola, Tolkien in his non-metaphoric similitudes, most all world cultures ancient lore and much of western paganism and occultism. Never has man, till some limited Western European circles in the 1800’s, believed in the materialist “only” bottom up notion for both man’s origin and consciousness.
So not only is such teaching missing from history and culture but also let us add here it is so much more than that, it is clearly and directly and destructively antithetical to what we do know all cultures did teach that was quite otherwise before (destructive toward such psychologically, philosphically, metaphysically, cosmologically and historically, especially to their framework which is like kicking in their lungs that allowed all such to once breathe fuller). Again bottom up Evolution is not destructive to all such, “only” bottom up Evolution is though (reductionist dogmatism).
Before showing all world culture teachings speak of quite a different perspective than what such ideology attempts to purport (and could the American Indians and Hindu’s have been genocided if we all then would have seen their teachings as holy sources of wisdom from divine ancestors for all man to spend centuries learning from at last rather than “beneath we enlightened scientific modern culture braving on our new generations resource capabilities now alas?”) we should remember one last positive thing first though, one thing before we go into all culture’s teachings to the contrary of such notion:
Most People Culturally By the 60’s Abandoned Such Absurd Notion
By the 1960’s a large portion of world cultures’ populus returned back anyways to their more culturally rooted, enlightened and elaborate traditions on “origin matters” that do not teach such underlying ill informed philosophy which in some circles in science still linger - a philosophy, by the way, not necessary for science to operate, either then or now. An open minded desire for cosmic consciousness arose among not just the hippies in America but even in such places as Iran and so on in the 60’s for possible astrological tonative reasons.
Why then do any of us need to go back to believing the WWI and WWII era materialist reductionist mentality? Need we even go into all world teachings showing otherwise? Can’t we just stop believing such an unproven theory now?
Need We Believe the “Materialist Only One’s” Cause they are Smarter than All Previous Generations?
Well the main reason proponents of material origin only for man and mind argue we should believe them even though no one till the 1800’s would have, and many after the 1960’s don’t, and most - other than Western Europeans and Bolshevik communists - even didn’t in the interim heyday period fabricated by them, is because all before them were more or less ignorant savages per they. That is their reason for trusting they fare and are wiser than we. And how do they prove they are more enlightened now, moreso than all heretofore discountable savages in reasoning? By scientific progress as a track record proven among them mainly.
Mystics Created the Modern Era and Most it’s Scientific Breakthroughs
But who created 90% of modernities scientific progress, the breakthroughs and inventions and technology we all live and thrive in today?
One need only see the ever so mystical Bacon, Newton, Sheldrake and Cremo (consolidators on the theory end), Tesla and Parsons (among several dozen others of even more Alchemic and Neo-Platonic background) to see how little “non-mystical scientists” have actually contributed in such brief period of theirs of this dogmatic almost inquisitorial strange half formed ideology of theirs wherein it has briefly and unwisely predominated in some circles in the West (mostly just from 1817-1960).
Almost all from satellites to electricity to magnetism (MRI) to microwave to rockets to laws of science were discovered or created by mystics. And such they are returning back into the hands of again with the likes of Sheldrake and Cremo.
While the materialist only dogma thrived it not only produced few scientists of great discovery and aid from their camps but was clearly and destructively in education, culture and politics massicating all world cultures details. For it was the principal political zeitgeist behind most of late 1800’s to early 1900’s Capitalists and Communists hatred of all Cultures and their teachings indigenous flourishing, being the influence one sees in their “ministries and institutes” that was so meticulously antagonistically anti-buddhist (see thibet wars), anti-hindu (see lord curzon toward the religious), anti-new age (look at western education, the utter onslaught), and anti-sufic - being the materialist dogmatist anti-culture-wisdom cultus that it was.
How Consciousness works Meta-Physically in the Lower Half of Man
Enough. On to all cultures teaching now then on consciousness not being produced by visible matter and that’s it (ie. from the grey matter, from the mud etc.).
First, that such mud up notion is interdynamically related to beinghood descending upon earth and going through what Ovid calls Metamorphoses in descent (or the modern genius scientist Sheldrake calls Morphic Resonance); yes, such is found in many myth’s, ok, but without contradiction between the two is the main point here.
One see’s a top down and bottom up simultaneous and symbiotic approach, what I call “double evolution.” “Bi” means dual in many languages and is even inherent to the word Bi-ology which implies half spirit world in it, half matter, both making the bi-os. How the noumenal half was forgotten from the phenomenal half in biologies definitions of today is beyond me. Oddly it appears contradictory to the modern bicameral mind though that there could be both a devolution of divine ancestors (fallen transcendent pre-adamites) and evolution of mother earth simulacra (producing vehicle abode bodies for such) all at once and both slowly over time but with punctuated moments in the equilibrium where such was sped up and organized by higher conscious proponents. But such was the teaching and this implies consciousness in an abode body and not just built out of it. Plato taught the first symbolic gods after the unnameable one’s were Father Ouranos Heavens and Mother Gaia earth combining and from whence came all, as mentioned. Near all Myths say this as a great truth. A Double Evolution, with different chapters to it, is at the root of all cultural teaching.
Before showing this let’s just be once more clear: the “mud up postulation” “is” in cultural teachings, but not “only” Mud up - and never that consciousness “only” comes from the grey matter of the head - that’s just hardly even a consideration in any literature up until the reductionists stole we mystic alchemists inventions and started calling themselves somehow enlightened scientists with such ninny hammer ideas (I speak of the theft of Bacon, Galileo’s and Newton’s gnostic neo platonist schools they were part of, also Tesla and Parsons etc. etc.).
Part IVAlso before showing the mud up god down double evolution teaching in all cultures and religions let’s show what each culture called the body.
In the New Age started by Lady Hahn then Orage in the West (for didn’t Orage, an initial Theosophist, start the famous “New Age” Review in the 1920’s where we get the term from?) it is clearly taught the body is just a biological machine and vehicle or carriage (for they use the old Hindu analogy teaching it is merely such - See Ouspensky for all of this, one of Orage’s teachers).
St Francis of Assisi called the body “the Ass” we merely ride on.
Buddha in the Pali texts says the body is just a bunch of organs we should look at as bags that move things around and do things and is not us in consciousness but we must disidentify from it to gain at least the celestial realm of Yima if not the extinctive noumenal realm where isness and issuance all originates from beyond existence and where our eternal I is (which he did not teach the annihilation of, but that is another matter).
Both Hinduism and Buddhism teach the Kama Rupa or ghost body drives with the Chi/Prana/Life force the “Rupa” which means shell and is their word for the material body. They call it a shell!
Egyptian religion of old taught the Kaba uses the Ankh or Ba force to move the Chat which means shell vehicle again and body in Egyptian terminology here too.
Oldest spellings in the English language on the body spell it bodhe and make it linguistically similar to it’s other word “abodhe” as in inhabiting place. What then is doing the bodhing or abodhing (for old english uses both words for inhabiting something)?
The above etymology can be no coincidence when the Bhagivad Gita teaches beings are literally indivisible flames on the top end of their triangle but “bi-ings” on the bottom who on each dimensional level of the universe, on each cosmos level, have both an outer abode body (they call it, phenomenally, where they live on the outer field) and an inner I noumenally where they live in the inner field.
The Hebraic religion teaches the Coach Ha Guph uses the Nepshesh life breath in the body to operate through the shell vehicle which is what “Guph” means - their word for the body (and where we get the word goof - someone who is just a shell; a walking life force and no mind or spirit was called by Jews and Armenians and in Buddhist texts also: a Nebish, which comes from Nephesh, it is just a variant pronunciation of it).
In the 1,300 year long school of Pythagoras - all western science, math and music theory mostly originates from – it taught the shade self in the thumia (upper soul) drives through the lower soul of desires (epithumia) and psuche/anima and physis the material aspect of the psu-che called the (p)So-ma, the body. The Greeks word for slave is Somata, so obviously Soma is closely philologically tied in with the notion of such being a derivative functioning of something for something, a butler to a maestro.
In the New Testament it speaks of the star essences of different light glory that dwell in the psuche life force that moves the soma called the tabernacle as in mere dwelling vessel, their name for the body itself (sarks wrongly interpreted as merely flesh is not just an equivalent to body, soma, in the New Testament - it is their word for Buddha’s samsaric identified preconscious walking around state of the automaton self).
Upper Half Too
Now all of these cultures and their teachings showing the lower half of man is metaphysical, the body including it’s head to be a mere shell vessel machine for the conscious self that is pervaded at times and degrees by the life force animating soul in the shell body; all these also speak of several aspects to the higher half of man even beyond all this - further confirming man’s mind and energic centers and consciousness are not created by matter in his brain at all. They come from and return to a meta-physical source.
The New Testament speaks of the Pneuma Spirit Breath born from above not by the earth and which comes and goes as it pleases and fills those with gnosis through the gnos but is not in the deannyoic minded ones who are mere psychicoi (lower animating soul people with ratiocentric memory roll minds only).
Pythagoreanism, on all above the lower half of man already described, speaks of the Eidolan, and of the upper impassable part of the soul and the Manes self then the Dae-Monae or Tutelary Spirit then the Agathodaemon or good holy guardian angel self or spirit.
Hebraism speaks of the Tzelem robe of light at the level of Yetzirat or Foundation beginning above the upper soul or Neschamah. Begond this is the Chaya/Ruachs then the Jeshida Spirit Eternal self.
Zoroastrianism speaks of the Fravashi light body.
Egyptian teachings speak of the Ka above the Kaba then the Seb or Akhu above that then the Chebi beyond, then the Atmu eternal self.
Buddhism and Hinduism speak of the lingha sarira astral self then the dual manas then the Buddhi then the eternal Atman Master I, all this beyond the psyche or anima and the shell body Rupa, but one’s essential star body or monad all is in is called a Jiva which is a sort of higher vehicle than the lower carriage body Rupa. In the Zeppelin version of In My Time of Dying you will notice he slips in this word Jiva saying not just Jesus, Jeana, Djinna, Chi or Shiva when he says “take my body home” but oh my Jiva – there is a sexual but also trans-sexual energy theme throughout “Physical Graffiti.”.
New Age, 4th Way and Theosophy in the West teach we have a causal abode body at the level of Atman, a Mental Body at the level of Buddhi, an Astral or Kesjdan body on the planetary level and a mere psychic or lower undeveloped soul in the biological machine that is half formed, preconscious and identified to the senses. I feel such teaching uniquely adapted for our era is the most clear and shows we are beings in potential co-existing on all levels of the Cosmos but only latently and negligibly on the mid level blocking us from our already perfect Higher Mental Center and Higher Emotional Center at the highest essential starry level ever trying to get through to us but passive and being blocked in us. Thus we are incomplete microcosms randomly reflecting the Macrocosm instead of doing so in a self disciplined, ordered way, we are half finished experiments until we transform impressions in us completing the perfect higher latent in us with the miraculous and initially fairly perfect self healing biological machine.
Part VMore Than Matter Where Comes the Consciousness in All Traditions
Now what teachings in all cultures show we as consciousness are more than just our bodies and their brains and did not only arise from the mud?
North and South American Indians
The Mandan indians teach we have 4 bodies of different finer matter to us and they most certainly were not taught by any recent western new age bloke of the 20th century.
The Sonoran Indians who taught Castaneda (and this is confirmed by Ichazo who knew of them but didn’t even have great love for Castaneda) taught one, per Castaneda their student, how to leave the body astrally so that one’s shamanic self could travel. Lilly the scientist who trained under Ichazo frequently did this using floating sensory deprivation tanks to activate this.
All Indian tribes teach we came from divine star people god ancestors and also mother earth was making alongside such long punctuated history her own simulacra in anticipation, sometimes failed sometimes good vesselled earth creatures for such.
Northern Lore
Iolo Morganwg, one of the last individuals connected to druidic texts fragmentarily at least revealing their old religion, spoke of the fae realm the ancients lived more among that is here interpenetrating ours like a mist and translated texts speaking on this. Their goal as druids was to awaken this in us and return to such through the Faé-tcha body. The exact same was taught, per Drower, by the Mandean Essenes Christ’s family the Disposynoi Mari’ites were said to be among per Mani and Epiphanius born in the 1st Century. See their book she translated called the Light Adam Self.
Buddha
“There is the common and there is the excellent, and there is a higher escape beyond this perception of the senses.” – Majjhia Nikava 7
Then he speaks of what the state of the enlightened one consists of:
“As one who is detached he experiences every kind of perception or sensation or feeling.” – Majjhia Nikaya 140
Then in the Anguttara Nikaya 3.63 it is recorded Buddha said he could dwell without difficulty in one of the four jhana (4 states of consciousness Ouspensky also speaks of) walking or standing, sitting or lying.
These 4 states, by the way, are real dream self I consciousness while sleeping, samsaric simulacra becoming consciousness (walking around every day state), Self Consciousness and Cosmic Consciousness.
Hinduism
If consciousness arises from grey matter of the brain and ceases when it does, how could a self that is supposed to escape reincarnations of mortal coils exist and exit consciously as Hinduism teaches? It would have to have an eventual consciousness seperate from it’s incarnations if it truly does escape as is shown as a central clear goal throughout all Hindic texts, for how is mere annihilation escape from incarnations – such would be the victory of the final entrapment of incarnations rather. Such is not the liberation Hinduism teaches, everyhwere Hinduism teaches of those who finally escape incarnations as being super-conscious like the celestial gods and their realm, called Yima’s realm, rather. Or they enter on into the realms of Atman where causality is finally possible and not dissolved as some strangely teach (nowhere is such viewpoint taught in Hindic Texts of old). So one can and must attain to super-consciousness beyond the body of one’s life and to teach otherwise makes most Hindu scriptures false.
In Guadapana’s Upanishad the Mandukya it teaches the true self is equally more real and more present than the more samsaric (illusory) dream state consciousness and the more samsaric (illusory) pre-conscious every day life semi-un-consciousness it dually resides in, it is neither those and more than them in a place called the third world of man called the tri-une or truth, between the internal and external (as Gurdjieff taught also calling it “the third and real world of man,”, where he says true consciousness can non-automatically be activated transforming impressions in both states – see Life is Real When I Am).
Hebraism
Everywhere Kabballah shows the many layers of reality beyond material formation that the human being latently has within him and can activate and enter in to.
Christianity
Paul speaks of not being sure whether he was in the body or out when he was taken up to a third heaven which implies there is a fourth or more where one would have consciousness apart from the body and he even says there are some becoming perfect among themselves who are called the epiouranoi which means seven heavenlies. Everywhere in the New Testament wherever the word Heaven is in new translations there in the Greek it is always plural “Heavens” more accurately.
Also, though this must be elaborated elsewhere, it can be conclusively proven all the 12 disciples were the self same heads of mystic initiatic gnostic schools in the early part of the 1st century AD for they are mentioned each by name as such by the next generation take-over artists who condemned them: Thoma (Thomas) and his assistant Bardeisan heads of the Syrian gnostics who went into India; and Simon Peter the Magi (the real Peter) and his adept Basilides, Jude Didymus, Andrew and his daughters “fell into gnosticism” and the donatists come from them etc. Thus all the gnostic scriptures are true apostolic Christianity and are clear proofs we are divine spirit beings fallen into matter, even as all world ancient myth speaks of our divine ancestors, and that we must return to such pleroma and are prisoners here in matter until we do. They all speak of the 7 Heavens with 22 main parts and 33 subparts as one clearly sees in the Pistis Sophia and in Hebraists Sepher Yetzira.
All of this is a lie if the “brain creates consciousness” tenet is true.
Islam
The whole point to Hegira is that Muhammed was taken in astral body upon his Manes self and higher emotions, that called a flying horse (archaic symbol for higher emotional center). Also the Koran speaks of 7 Heavens as do the collected sayings in the Hadith.
By discounting the spirit and upper soul and astral body and higher energic centers and saying consciousness and mind is the result of synapses in the brain one destroys all world religions, myths, archaic history, their cosmological structure, their psychological structure and their metaphysical structure.
One could write an entire book on how all cultural traditions teach a gradual top-down devolutional entrapment of consciousness in matter alongside Mother Earth’s misgivings and givings (thereby fairly directly proving they could not have taught consciousness arose from mere matter bouncing in the brain) but this will be reserved for a different work for now.
End of Part VSpecific Ancient Quotes showing Consciousness is More than Firing Synapses in the Brain
Let’s close though with perhaps some very direct quotes from the world traditions on where Consciousness comes from, as a final honing in on this matter of historical proofs that the brain is merely a reciever/transmuter for much more than itself.
Hellenistic Thought
In the Corpus Hermeticum 1:1 it is written: “alone amongst the beings that live on the earth, man is twofold, mortal in the body, immortal in essence…superior to sleep he is dominated by sleep.”
Buddhism
In the Udana 8.1-3 Buddha says “There is, O Disciples, an unborn, not become, not compounded, not constructed. If there were not this unborn, not become, not compounded, not constructed, no escape could be seen here from that which is born, become, constructed, compounded. But since there is an unborn, not become, not compounded, not constructed, so an escape is possible from what is born, become, compounded, constructed.”
Buddha’s enlightenment which he calls Bodhi, is described by him as not being a natural but super-natural illumination (Mahavaga (Vin.), 1.1.2; Majjh., 34)
North American Indian
In Frank Waters Book of the Hopi, fully praised and approved by generations of the Hopi Elders, he shows they teach it is precisely because beings on earth in a certain previous world stage lost connection to the Creator, and to organic harmony intrinsic within creation, that such earth period destroyed itself and was destroyed. How was such connection lost? It says the beings then lost use of their Topkapi which he says means top-head and it’s ability to tonally vibrate in frequency from and toward the Creator as a sort of almost song like beauty in it. Hari Krishna teaches the same calling such faculty “the top knot.”
This is not just some outdated ancient notion but quite “pre-scient.” For High initiates of the greater sensitivity of man in our age have also noted this loss going on, I mean those such as Elliott Smith, for example, who taught “A distorted reality is now a necessity to be free” – that is to say man’s present consensual normative mass reality is so patently false and filled with buffers in it’s low lying vibrational resonance that now in order to change frequency of the brain to connect to higher mind it is necessary to have a “distorted reality” – only distorted though in reference to the masses innacurate mass manufactured reality. Also, further confirming such, he spoke of this throughout many of his songs, in his song with the chorus “This is not my life, it’s just a fond farewell to a friend” he talks about his beingness in him that will “take you out any open door” and that on the one hand is “disconnecting from the missing link” (ape self) while on the other, going the other direction psychologically, it is manifestationally dealing with things as a transmuter: “I can deal with some psychic pain if it will slow down my higher brain.”
Norse
In the Elder Edda Thor, when speaking to the malicious comptrolling Riverman, says Consciousness is not just the ever changing river but that which wades and waits amidst all such and fight breaks out between the two.
Also, a fight breaks out between him and the Evites or Hivites when he takes their cauldron which symbolizes the bounty of the earth mother and turns it upside down using it as a headcap, which he does, he says, to symbolize we through mind are assimilating microcosms of the macrocosmic universe beyond and within us. This so enrages them they begin to try to kill him.
Christianity
Christ is purported to say in the New Testament unless one is born from above and not iust of woman he does not have the fire of Spirit in him. And elsewhere he says he came to envelope (“baptize”) people not just in earthly water but the fire of Spirit from heaven ascending and descending, Pneuma. Finally in “The Lord’s Prayer” as it is called he uses a word that is clearly not the Greek word for sustenance (and wrongly translated as such by most) when he says “give us this season the provender of our super-substantial own (epi-ousion amin) doubling (dos) in similitude amidst our seasons (simeron).” And when his disciples asking Christ in meditation (that is, in his transforming his impressions - which are a kind of food per Egyptian writings Gurdjieff claimed to find) why he was not hungry and didn’t need food he said “I have food you know not of.”
Hinduism
In part II of the Upanishads it says “Atman, the Spirit of Seership, is never born and never dies…beyond times gone and to come: he does not die when the body dies…concealed in the heart of each being is the Atman, the Spirit, the Self…who else but myself can know that god of joys and of sorrows? When the wise [those whose Atman actualizes in the Most High] realize the Omnipresent Spirit that rests invisible in the visible and permanent in the impermanent, then they go beyond samsara…not even through deep knowledge is the Atman reached unless evil ways are abandoned and there is rest from the senses, concentration in the mind and still wholeness in one’s heart…[part III] know the Atman as the lord of the chariot, and the body as the chariot itself.”
Hey P.D., I'm still to read the essay you've written above, but I plan to when I get time to (and actually looking forward to it)
Watch "Consciousness and the Observer Effect | Dean Radin Ph.D | IONS" on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB_2Q...
It seems too biased on something rather than nothing
The Mind-Evolution Problem: The Difficulty of Fitting Consciousness in an Evolutionary Framework https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/...Consciousness is one of the last biological phenomena about which we do not have a solid idea as to how and when it appeared and evolved in evolution. The conclusion of the above discussion is that in order to identify the adaptive value of consciousness, the relationships between the brain, behavior, and consciousness must be understood. Thus, the question of how the mind emerged in evolution (the mind-evolution problem) is tightly linked with the question of how the mind emerges from the brain (the mind-body problem). It seems that the evolution of consciousness cannot be resolved without first solving the “hard problem” (Chalmers, 1995). Until then, I argue that strong claims about the evolution of consciousness based on the evolution of cognition are premature and unfalsifiable.
The Science of Near-Death Experiences https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...Empirically investigating brushes with the afterlife
The Mysterious Disappearance of Consciousness https://iai.tv/articles/the-mysteriou...What makes materialists deny the undeniable?
Just for the sake of a good discussion, and because I believe it, the materialist version of consciousness seems the best fit. Take for example our conscious belief in freewill. Much of the available evidence points to the conclusion that many of our actions are governed only by genes, hormones and neurons which in turn are ruled by deterministic impulses and random events such as sub–atomic accidents in the brain. This all points towards one conclusion – absolute freewill does not exist. We are not only shaped by thousands of years of natural selection; these same genetic impulses also determine how we live our lives. It is only from our social and cultural domains that any sort of free agency exists. From this perspective, ‘freewill is whatever it is that gives us moral responsibility’. Therefore, it appears that while our genetic makeup is primarily deterministic, our culturally evolved environments have created and encouraged a degree of free agency.
@Tony Sunderland I have discussed this thoroughly in my new release
The YOU beyond you.
I suggest you read it and let me know what you think
Hi Ramzi, congratulations on your book, looks very interesting. Sounds as if you believe in nurture over nature.
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Holographic Universe (other topics)The Syntellect Hypothesis: Five Paradigms of the Mind's Evolution (other topics)
The Art of Dying (other topics)
Magic of Reading: May your grandest dreams appear! (other topics)
The Biology Of Belief: Unleashing The Power Of Consciousness, Matter And Miracles (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Graham Hancock (other topics)Bruce H. Lipton (other topics)
Bruce H. Lipton (other topics)
Graham Hancock (other topics)
Nassim Haramein (other topics)
More...
It asks members: Is Consciousness A Product Of The Brain? OR Is The Brain The Receiver Of Consciousness?
Vote and have your say at the poll here: https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...