artnat Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Reaction to anecdotes of transcendent episodes range from dismissive characterizations as psychotic events to conviction that they are authentic testaments to a direct experience with God- the professional skeptics which include the science orthodoxy favoring the first view with experiencers (which includes some scientists) convinced of the latter. The advent of theoretical quantum physics has created an ontology by which such events are considered in scientific discussion particularly in regards to the fields of quantum mind and consciousness. Some years ago I experienced what can fairly be described as a classical transcendent episode (spontaneously triggered by an ecstatic sexual orgasm). Features included a transport in a plasma-like stream of energy- a confrontation with an omnipotent consciousness to choose between returning or accepting death and continuing- annihilation of my corporal and ego selfness- union with a cosmic consciousness of light, bliss and love- and finally returning through a filimentous cord winding down to where it was attached to the top of the head of my "sleeping" body. At the time I was agnostic and totally naive about metaphysical or paranormal events but in an attempt to integrate the experience, researched those subjects plus concepts in Vedantic mysticism. I discovered enough corallary in these various sources to confirm that I had experienced an archetypal mystical event uncontaminated by any of the infinite variety of religious metaphores or occult artifacts that often arise in accounts of this nature. Only recently have I attempted to analyize my experience in any scientific sense but am discovering an ontology of quantum theory that can theoretically explain many of the noumenal features in my transcendent episode by googling terms such as quantum consciousness, conscious universe, etc. An account of my transcendent episode along with a discussion with links to mostly quantum electromagnetism theorists including Daniel R. Hankins, Gottfried Leibniz, Peter Russell, Susan Pockett, Dean Radin, Fred H. Thaheld, Richard P. Feynman, Johnjoe McFadden, Karl Simanonok and others can be found at: http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/mysticalexp.html What follows is a synopsis of features in my account which may be tenatively explained by a synthesis of quantum theory emerging from fields of cosmology, electrodynamics, nueroproton and consciousness research. It takes about eight minutes for light to go from our Sun to Earth. That is a reasonable approximation of both my remembered impression of time and the phenomenal (approximate) time that it took for me to first launch into the stream of energy and become joined with cosmic entirity. (My ecstacy occurred around 11pm and after I completed my journey I had no memory of time beyond then until awaking around 8am but assumed the major portion of the total passage of time was spent in unconscious sleep after my journey had ended.) Another phenomenal light source is our next nearest star Proxima Centauri but its light takes over 4 years to reach us. Of course one can theorize an infinite number of options for metaphysical signals to exceed light speed applying scenarios involving wormholes, multiverses, entanglement and other quantum processes that completely ignore the rules of spacetime separation. However, if we stay within conventional concepts of time and accept Einstein's Special Relativity theory that information events don't exceed the speed of light, we have a startling coincidence that suggests both the "real" time and the remembered time are a good match to the time frame for a trip from Earth to our Sun at light speed. One could argue that if my consciousness (neurophoton field) traveled at the speed of light that I should have no remembered sense of time during my transport- which I had. It suggests that a field of information can retain a coherent sense of time even at light speed. In describing my feelings building up to and at the moment of being launched on my journey I use the term "electric" three times. Is this an intuitively accurate description of my bodily sensations as my consciousness became transformed from an explicate to an implicate state? While in a state of cosmic consciousness, my memory was that there was "an outer limit" and that "other similar systems were out there". This clearly evokes a model of our Sun as the phenomenal element which I directly experienced with an interconnection to a conscious matrix involving other stars. Could such a simplistic and unoriginal notion- our Sun along with the heavenly spectacle- a holy reality, a core belief in the religions of civilizations going back thousands of years, be reclaimed by modern science by a holistic scientific theory. Through a process of intuitive extrapolation of literally hundreds of sources, I have composited a most-likely scenario which explains my transcendence as an orchestration by an omnipotent consciousness manifested in the electromagnetic spectrum emitted by our Sun and universe via entanglement with our neurophoton fields. Up to this point, my nature as an open-minded skeptic has prevented me from seriously addressing the most inexplicable feature of my account but the time has come to face it squarely and risk alienating readers who will consider this noumenon beyond the pale of metaphysics that has any scientific credibility. The coherent "intelligence" that was directly conveyed to me that- "TO CONTINUE- I MUST AGREE TO DIE!" and which I took as an offer for me to choose between returning to life or accepting permanent death and continuing my journey- came from a cosmic consciousness orchestrating my destiny but at that moment, offering me free will. Other than that moment, my entire journey was deterministic- as on my return where I received the "message" that "I WAS RETURNING- THAT MY DEATH WAS TEMPORARY!" There is the additional issue of my "asking" (praying) that I be permitted to remember and the possibility that my prayer was answered and the subsequent "trickster" manner in which I was provided reassurance that revealing the details of my "TEST" for continuing my journey would be OK. These are features which deserve to be interpreted as mere religious artifacts except that they were experienced by someone who was explicitly anti-religious, non-spiritual and utterly naive regarding mystical knowledge. Although I have since become open-minded to some of the ontologies that involve a synthesis of quantum science and Eastern mysticism I am most skeptical of the notion of reincarnation. However if one views the features of my journey as a model of a transcendent reality it is undeniable that a mechanism is provided for an egoless essence to be extracted from a resovoir of cosmic consciousness and injected into a phenomenal embryonic mind. Arthur C. Clarke ended "2001" with a metaphor which approximated just such a scenario. One could even hypothesize there could be a vestage of a previous ego that persists in the newly conceived mind which could account for many accounts in India of reincarnation. The conclusions I presently draw from the entire experience is that cosmic consciousness is a reality. That we cannot ever define its nature although we can understand much of its anatomy and how we are phenomenally and spiritually implicated. When we die, our ego and selfhood are annihilated and we join cosmic consciousness like a drop in an ocean of bliss, light and love but holographicaly experience that totality. I have no opinion as to whether that totality includes awareness of the unfolding of a phenomenal universe. I do believe in the possibility that in time "our unremembered self" can reincarnate in an embryonic human life. I realize the challenge in developing a coherent hypothsis out of such ephemeral evidence but hoped the forum might generate more scientifically sophisticated insights than my uneducated efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 BINGO! EDIT: i suppose i should put some comment in here as well. You haven't said anything but, "i had a hallucination, i think there is a god. i think this god might be the universe" There are a lot of buzzwords in there that so not mean anything in science, or anywhere else. take "neurophoton field" as an example, this is nonsense. neuro- something in relation to neurons, photon a particle of light, and field can mean a lot of things. this doesn't add up to anything let alone conciousness, we have no idea how it works yet you claim that quantum physics explains it all. quantum physics explains a lot of things like how stuff interacts but it doesn't explain the source of conciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artnat Posted June 21, 2006 Author Share Posted June 21, 2006 Please note that my discussion is framed as a question- not a claim, and that I provided a number of links to scientific and metaphysics thought that tend to support my speculations. I had assumed, obviously incorrectly, that all readers would be aware of the literature regarding the authenticity of classical transcendent episodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Evidence for a conscious universe? No. However, this would be a Freudian's playground.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Reaction to anecdotes of transcendent episodes range from dismissive characterizations as psychotic events to conviction that they are authentic testaments to a direct experience with God- the professional skeptics which include the science orthodoxy favoring the first view with experiencers (which includes some scientists) convinced of the latter. I had one of these episodes (i.e. I felt like something, substantially smarter than myself, talked to me). After awhile I grew increasingly skeptical that it was anything meaningful besides the meaning I derived from the experience, which I believe stands on its own. I was inebriated on multiple substances at the time. I believe that explains the origin of my feelings. It was a bizarre, wonderful, indescribable experience, but in the end I believe it all took place in my head. The advent of theoretical quantum physics has created an ontology by which such events are considered in scientific discussion particularly in regards to the fields of quantum mind and consciousness. There is evidence of intelligence manifesting in one place, and one place only: brains. (although it's growing increasingly arguable that intelligence, in a weak or narrow sense, is being developed inside of computers) There is no evidence of intelligence behind quantum events. Those attempting to argue so include brilliant and highly credible quantum physicists, including Roger Penrose, author of one of the most comprehensive physics books out there, The Road to Reality. However, when Penrose's arguments for quantum consciousness were peer reviewed by those who work in fields dealing in the scientific study of consciousness, including cognitive scientists and neurophysiologists (both of whom Penrose thoroughly derides at the beginning of his book on the subject of quantum consciousness, Shadows of the Mind), his arguments are thoroughly obliterated. It becomes quite clear that while Penrose is a brilliant physicist, he has gross misconceptions about the ways in which the brain and consciousness operate. Furthermore, he attempts to make mathematical arguments against the computability of consciousness, which were shown to hinge on a terrible fallacy by mathematicians. That's about all I have to say on this issue. I'm not completely convinced that my experience did not involve some sort of non-local connection to an intelligence greater than my own. However, I find the much more reasonable explanation to be I was intoxicated and the experience was a direct result of that intoxication. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Please note that my discussion is framed as a question- not a claim, and that I provided a number of links to scientific and metaphysics thought that tend to support my speculations. I had assumed, obviously incorrectly, that all readers would be aware of the literature regarding the authenticity of classical transcendent episodes. There as authentic as far as subjective experiences are authentic. As Bascule said, it's better to put these experiences down to the state you were in at the time, hallucinations can convince you of practically anything. That said, I'm probably the only person on here (bar one or two if IIRC) that feels that consciousness is not confined solely to the brain. However there is no compelling evidence (as yet) that supports this, as already stated, but that doesn't mean it can be dismissed altogether. If you want my advice (take it or leave it) is not to jump in at the deep end with quantum explanations of the mind and such, if your are uneducated, then go back to basics, and keep your experience as a pleasant thought...if you are serious about going down the scientific route. Though I wouldn't personally spend years of study to try and prove a subjective experience, it would be hard to let go if it ends in dissapointment. The way I see it, is self awareness is the pinnacle of the evolution of the universe (as far as we know) and will be the cherry on the theoretical cake, once it's been explained...if ever. I think there are other problems in nature that need clarifying before we can attempt to answer self-awareness, but it's certainly going to be very interesting to see how reality reveals itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artnat Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 A fact of transcendent events is that they cannot be proved falsifiable. Of course it can be reasonably argued that they are hallucinations, artifacts of brain biochemical dysfunction or manifestations of entanglement with a supreme consciousness. Of course drugs can generate hallucinatory features that vaguely compare to some feature of a transcendent experience. In regards to the hallucination hypothesis- the probability of finding a commonality in the composition among say one thousand hallucination scenarios is very low. In contrast, there is a high probability in the same number of transcendent accounts that share an archetypal scenario in common. It is a scenario that appears over and over in both historic and contemporary literature of Taoist, Buddhist, Vedantic and Gnostic mysticism. None of this is proof but simply should incline one to consider the possibility that such experiences are insight to a higher reality. There are equal uncertainties regarding quantum theory and the relationship between brain and consciousness. Is human consciousness required to conclude quantum measurement? How do neuroreceptors communicate? What certainty is there in any of the fundamental philosophical questions that intrude in the interpretation of relativity or quantum theory? Determinism, non-duality, qualia, zombies, free will, gluons, dark matter, multiverses, the composition of photons- ad infinitum -all issues science cannot either prove or falsify. As to judging the relative importance or worthwhileness of such an inquiry that is undeniably a subjective call utterly dependent on individual priorities at any moment in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Determinism, non-duality, qualia, zombies, free will, gluons, dark matter, multiverses, the composition of photons- ad infinitum -all issues science cannot either prove or falsify gluons: we KNOW these exist, they have been observed in particle colliders and are the carriers for the strong force. is falsifiable(if we didn't find a particle then it would be falsified) dark matter: so called because we're just not sure what it is. it could turn out to be cold hydrogen inbetween the stars and galaxies. it is falsifyable if we find an effect that explains dark matter away(gen relativity might do this). photons are elementary particles, although they could be considered to be a composed of an lectrical field and a magnetic field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 the probability of finding a commonality in the composition among say one thousand hallucination scenarios is very low. Says who? Hallucinations with similar causes will likely be similar in structure. Like the whole "tunnel of light" thing at near death experiences, which they've found has a completely mundane physiological cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyrisch Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 It really does sound like you had a very involved dream. It started late one night (albeit triggered by a sexual orgasm, but) and ended when you woke up the next morning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 It really does sound like you had a very involved dream. It started late one night (albeit triggered by a sexual orgasm, but) and ended when you woke up the next morning... Some form of sexual narcolepsy? could also have been a minor stroke or anurism caused by a spike in blood pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artnat Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 Says who? Hallucinations with similar causes will likely be similar in structure. Like the whole "tunnel of light" thing at near death experiences, which they've found has a completely mundane physiological cause. This is an example of circular reasoning in that you arbitrarily identify NDE episodes as hallucinations rather than transcendent events- then claim the artifact of the "tunnel of light" which frequently appears in such experiences confirms that hallucinations share a level of commonality with transcendent experiences? Also to suggest that "they"ve found" a completely mundane physiological cause for NDEs is a selective misrepresentation of the contradicting body of hypotheses that continue to address the currently unresolved mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artnat Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 I'll grant that the fact of a gluon has been experienced in physicalist terms but not as to certainty about its nature. I see you agree that dark matter is still a mystery. To describe protons as particles of course is to deny them the property of waves and ignore the uncertainty principle. Now we've only got an endless number of other paradoxes to solve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 This is an example of circular reasoning in that you arbitrarily identify NDE episodes as hallucinations rather than transcendent events- then claim the artifact of the "tunnel of light" which frequently appears in such experiences confirms that hallucinations share a level of commonality with transcendent experiences? Also to suggest that "they"ve found" a completely mundane physiological cause for NDEs is a selective misrepresentation of the contradicting body of hypotheses that continue to address the currently unresolved mystery. No, I was responding to your claim that common denominators among many episodes of hallucination is unlikely, when in fact it's all but inevitable given similar causes. The same could be said about dreams and mental illnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 We are part of the Universe. We are conscious. Therefore, the universe is, in some locations, conscious. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I am not sure this is quite what he meant, but that raises a question really... what did this question mean: by "Conscious Universe" -- do you mean the universe has an intention by doing things? That implies on a sort of an entity to the universe... is that what you meant, artnat? ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I am not sure this is quite what he meant' date=' but that raises a question really... what did this question mean: by "Conscious Universe" -- do you mean the universe has an intention by doing things? That implies on a sort of an entity to the universe... is that what you meant, artnat? ~moo[/quote'] Through our and potentially innumerable other species the universe has become conscious. As to the collective nature of that consciousness, I would guess, if I had to guess, that each species has a choice to make as it evolves as to the collective versus individual nature of their consciousness. On this planet, we long ago began to store our thoughts, memories and experiences into oral histories preserved in stories which were passed down to a collective community. Later, these thoughts and experiences were stored on paper in vast libraries. The internet is an completely new phenomena which I have little doubt is a brief precursor to some difficult decisions we will make as a species. Sooner rather than later, I believe we will have some profound decisions to make as to the nature of human consciousness. Perhaps still later, we will have equally profound decisions to make regarding the collective nature of interspecies' consciousness. We express the desire to maintain our individuality today as the "right of privacy." We speak of the right to be left alone within certain spheres of our individual lives - our decisions about a life partner, our rights of expression, association and reproduction. I have no idea how meaningful these distinctions will become as our species progresses or digresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 It's not that I don't agree with you, Jim (my sig shows that I do), I just don't want to blur the distinction between consciousness as a spreading phenomenon within the universe, and the universe itself being conscious. I think there would still be a distinction to be made even if consciousness eventually incorporates all matter and energy into itself as a single entity. So... how do we reverse entropy, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artnat Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 I am not sure this is quite what he meant' date=' but that raises a question really... what did this question mean: by "Conscious Universe" -- do you mean the universe has an intention by doing things? That implies on a sort of an entity to the universe... is that what you meant, artnat? ~moo[/quote'] To directly answer your question- if I take my transcendent experience literally the unavoidable conclusion is that an omniscient conscious universe may intervene to provide enlightenment yet also allow free will. I agonize that this will be misinterpreted to confirm the existence of a God whose nature or intention we can know and I reject any religious dogma, which makes this claim. My conclusions are elaborated on at: http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/implicate.html As suggested, the internet facilitates discussion with much more efficiency and cohesion by linking to resources which expand on any idea. My website at: http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/cosmicmodel.html presents my current effort to explore the possibilities of synthesizing quantum consciousness and electromagnetic theory to examine my transcendent experience from both a scientific and pseudo-scientific perspective- includes links to my resources. In a related website at: http://beyondmaya.awardspace.com I've approached the subject of cosmic consciousness via the pros and cons over evidence currently being debated among the scientific, metaphysics and philosophical communities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Dude. http://www.timecube.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 It's not that I don't agree with you' date=' Jim (my sig shows that I do), I just don't want to blur the distinction between consciousness as a spreading phenomenon within the universe, and the universe itself being conscious. I think there would still be a distinction to be made even if consciousness eventually incorporates all matter and energy into itself as a single entity.[/quote'] I completely agree with you there, and it sums up my views on the matter aswell. I just don't see the universe ITSELF as conscious.. but life within it (hopefully more than just us in here as a spread of consciousness. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Sisyphus what the heck is that site you braught I'm staring at it for an hour... O.o ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 To directly answer your question- if I take my transcendent experience literally the unavoidable conclusion is that an omniscient conscious universe may intervene to provide enlightenment yet also allow free will. I agonize that this will be misinterpreted to confirm the existence of a God whose nature or intention we can know and I reject any religious dogma' date=' which makes this claim. My conclusions are elaborated on at: http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/implicate.html[/quote'] This won't be "misinterpreted" as you calling the universe "god", it IS you calling the universe God. You might not ask to worship this god of yours, but since you just described the universe as omniscient, and that it may "intervene" -- you ARE calling it a diety. Which is fine.. I just disagree. The idea that the universe is conscious enough to control / intervene in our lives or ways of thought is something I seriously doubt. The fact that ancient cultures worshipped celestrial objects, even the fact they maintained impressive physics knowledge to their time, doesn't mean the universe is conscious. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artnat Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 This won't be "misinterpreted" as you calling the universe "god"' date=' it IS you calling the universe God. You might not ask to worship this god of yours, but since you just described the universe as omniscient, and that it may "intervene" -- you ARE calling it a diety. Which is fine.. I just disagree. The idea that the universe is conscious enough to control / intervene in our lives or ways of thought is something I seriously doubt. The fact that ancient cultures worshipped celestrial objects, even the fact they maintained impressive physics knowledge to their time, doesn't mean the universe is conscious. ~moo[/quote'] We have here an example of how the choice of words can push ideas on either side of *Occam's razor edge. My omnicient consciousness intervenes only to allow enlightenment viz. discovery of truth and not to intervene in our affairs or destiny in which we have free will. *figuratively: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I completely lost you. How is saying "higher power /nature - is omniscience and has intention" not a definition of a diety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now