Science And Nonduality

[Anna Konstantaki]

2015 A.H. Almaan (A. Hameed Ali), a spiritual teacher and author, integral theorist, mystic (not that titles matter this much but hey... Maybe he can be a metasource for research?+ he is the guy on the right side of the screen). He  facilitated 5 scientists to make a conversation on how close science is to understanding consciousness. 

4 theories on consciouness were suggested.  As far as I got it, they are quite confident about being close to understanding. 

 There is chance of course that this is just nice comedy... But do you think it´s possible to make a mathematical theory about consciouness  which will enrich its understanding for the nondualist, spiritual practisioner? Or do you think this is eternal tapping in the dark? Will this, even if it succeeds have something more to offer rather than direct experience?

(bald guy from the left): Stuart Hameroff, anesthiologist and professor at University of Arizona, known for his studies of consciouness

(next to Stuart): Julia Mossbridge, cognitive neuroscientist 

(first from the left next to Stuart): Donald Hoffman, cognitive scientist and author

(guy in the middle): Henry Stapp, mathematical physicist, known for his work on quantum mechanics

(bearded guy on the right next to Henry): Chris Fields, interdisciplinary information scientist (physics and cognitive neuroscience)

 

[Will Bigger]

Let's consider the notion of time. According to general relativity, all moments past, present, and future are gemotric figures in a sea of figures, all with motion. Yet the human organism doesn't perceive this; it perceives time as a kind of linear path (the common spiritual aphorism  "only the present moment is real" applies to the human subjective reality, not objective or "God-head" reality). Why? Why is there this arbitrarily linear path, when in reality there is just a sea of time and space? Doesn't it seem a little strange that we have a linear experience when linearity doesn't exist? Using human terms, it's almost as if consciousness is choosing to view this extremely small slice of an infinite pie, in a linear fashion, to experience some sort of story (ego). 

That's one way to bring science and spirituality together. Others include but are not limited to: research into psychedelics showing that the brain is more "unified" under their effects (meaning "all is one" subjectively), studies in parapsychology showing statistically significant effects of the human mind on the "outside" world, Peter Russell's explanation of light as a product of consciousness ( YouTube "the reality of consciousness"), near-death experience research ( there's a fantastic article on the website Salon about this).

"Upon Besso's death in 1955, Einstein wrote a letter of condolence to the Besso family—less than a month before his own death—which contained the following quote "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."'

Edited February 5, 2017 by Will Bigger

[jse]

4 hours ago, Will Bigger said:

Peter Russell's explanation of light as a product of consciousness

The Primacy of Consciousness - Peter Russell

[Nahm]

I love this topic. The trouble with it though is that we often switch between what we think and what we think someone else or the population thinks. Consciousness is only experienced by one person and each one person never gets (in this life) to experience anything but that. Consciousness is always exactly what you understand it to be. The same is true for another person who completely disagrees with you. It's like a failsafe that ensures forwardness.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Phil

[Anna Konstantaki]

Guys! We got an update... [Also: I am sorry for spreading misinformation-turns out Mossbridge is a psychologist who does (cognitive neuro?)-science and not a cognitive neuroscientist but I guess you can forgive me that  ]. So...

 

[Spiral]

Consciousness exist regardless of time and space, yet contains all possible universes , timelines and objects. Yet is infinity small in regards to size.

Q:You know what else has all these prosperity in science?  A:"Things" that resides in the 10th dimension.

 

 

 

[Anna Konstantaki]

@Spiral Yes, I know... The tenth contains them all. All infinities in one. Peak of knowing. Peak of consciousness. Everything. Enlightenment. Yep... But the conversation (and that is what makes it so fascinating) is about the human potential of understanding consciousness, of the limits of understanding itself. Nothing but talking about the ways, the levels of the graspability of "god". Yes, it is about what consciousness is but it is an on stage inquiry about what we can know at all. It´s great minds doing some philosophy really...

I guess the problem is finding out if human experience/human consciousness has any accuracy about the cosmic consciousness. The question is if the human consciousness is the same as the cosmic one or if it is contained in the cosmic one. How does human experience and human senses or even symbols/language alter it, distort it? To what degree does it matter that we are the observer? Or actually: Is there a way, can we develop a way in which we are not the observer but can still observe and therefore understand? Will we one day be able to understand this as any other earthly lifeform? Or non earthly life form? So em... Is enlightenment possible in ways beyond the limits human mind and body tools have? How deep/different can the experience of the absolute be? Do we really become everything when we feel we become everything? I guess... I guess the discussion is really about in what ways can we be god. Because that there is cosmic consciousness and that we can have, even if just humanely, access to it, is something they seem to agree about. It´s like... It´s like agreeing on the existence of god but not trusting or not thinking it is enough to be enlightened as a human... They want to expand. Expand our intelligence. It is so crazy to watch. This craving for more and more, for expansion, expansion and ever more expansion...

[Nahm]

@Anna Konstantaki a mathematical theory is made by the consciousness. "Solving" expands the consciousness. There will always be larger and smaller things. They are made by observance. 

[Anna Konstantaki]

"This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one"

-no!