IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« Catastrophe | Main | »

Comments

Thank you, Michael! And the photographic additions are great. Good to know that Leibniz had stellar handwriting. :)

Matt, I haven't gone into the entire discussion in depth. But to be frank, what I do see makes me feel that your basic premise is far-fetched.

"Thus there is nothing fallow, nothing sterile, nothing dead in the universe."

I agree with this. But information is not alive. And if you stretch the meaning of "information" so that it somehow becomes alive, then it bears no resemblance at all to what we normally call information. So why use the word?

"Thus God alone is the primary unity or original simple substance, of which all created or derivative Monads are products and have their birth, so to speak, through continual fulgurations of the Divinity from moment to moment, limited by the receptivity of the created being, of whose essence it is to have limits."

I like this! (Though admittedly, it's been at least a week since I used "fulguration" in a sentence.)

Its emphasis on "God as primary unity," and God's created beings as limited, could have come right from own mouth.

So Leibniz speaks of the core essence of the universe as God. Are you telling me that Leibniz equates God with information? I don't see it.

Leibniz was a Christian, so presumably, he prayed. Are you saying that when he prayed, he believed, in his heart of hearts, that he was praying to information?

Great stuff Matt - have you seen the Monad chapter in Beyond Physicalism?

On #78, I'm not sure how the holographic universe comes into play? My understanding is this is typically held to mean Leibniz thought a pre-established harmony existed between the mental and physical such that you think about moving something and then move it because God planned it all out beforehand.

Leibniz was one of Art's past lives?

Thanks Michael for another insightful and thought provoking post. The Bruce Siegal quote above- "Bottom line: I think life/consciousness/love is central to both the universe and my own being, not some abstract, bloodless, nebulous, concept like "information." -really resonates with me. I am finally reading (and greatly enjoying!) a book that I've bumped into throughout my life- William James "The Varieties of Religious Experience". Last week I was struck by a quote from a Mystical Experiencer in James's book- "Knowledge and Love are One, and the measure is suffering". Love and Knowledge being ONE had a nice "ring" to it but it's true meaning somehow eluded me. The day after encountering the quote I watched the Movie "The Visitor" with Richard Jenkins (highly recommended!) While watching the film I suddenly thought- this story really articulates how Love and Knowledge are one! In the film the lead character Walter develops an unlikely quick/deep/profound connection with several people. His Knowledge/Love of these people(and an awareness of their suffering) create dramatic changes in his life. Needless to say it was a striking coincidence to encounter the James quote, then the film and now to see your blog entry on "Information" having a connotation problem. I couldn't agree more! :)

"This is a kind of Copernican Revolution in reverse, in which information does not revolve around the mind, but the mind revolves around the information; or rather, the mind is a relationship among infinite non-local modes of experiencing awareness."

Matt, I get that! And Bruce, I believe information and love are the same thing (except we don't readily see it that way because we compartmentalise everything).

When I had my 'mystical' experience at the age of nine, I felt suddenly dipped into a warm and loving sea of knowledge that I recognised immediately and which I can only describe as the feeling that one hundred-thousand or more years of learning came back to me in a flash. Everything fitted into place, both at the intellectual and feeling level and I got, as a culmination, the message that was important to me at that moment in time.

It's a message that I've never forgotten and, in essence, it was this: Don't allow the behaviour of other to twist your essential self into a resentful and negatively reactive human being. That is the only big mistake that you can make in this life.

In short, it meant let it all wash right over your head. See it, feel it, then let it go. The understanding, the learning, is what matters. Beneath it all you must keep a clean heart.

That's it in a nutshell. But then I so so like brevity. :)

Ps. The sea of knowledge was like a loving hand that reached out to catch me as I was about to fall into some kind of mental/emotional abyss. Had I gone down the thinking path that I was travelling at the moment of intervention I believe my personality and character might be very different today. It was a stitch in time.

Bruce wrote,

||I agree with this. But information is not alive. And if you stretch the meaning of "information" so that it somehow becomes alive, then it bears no resemblance at all to what we normally call information. So why use the word?||

I'm saying that we should *not* use the word! I'm saying that what we have been calling "information" in the contexts of these discussions is actually something else! Or, to put it another way, the definition and connotation of the term "information" is too limiting. We need to use a bigger concept, perhaps that of "entelechy."

SPatel wrote,

||Great stuff Matt - have you seen the Monad chapter in Beyond Physicalism?||

No, what's that? I'm interested.

||On #78, I'm not sure how the holographic universe comes into play? My understanding is this is typically held to mean Leibniz thought a pre-established harmony existed between the mental and physical such that you think about moving something and then move it because God planned it all out beforehand.||

I think your understanding is correct. However, I think we can take Leibniz's concept and give it a bit of twist and make it relevant in the 21st century.

Today, the common understanding of matter among materialists (which tends to be pre-quantum mechanics in outlook, though that's another issue) is that of "stuff" bouncing off other "stuff." This is the mechanics that made sense to Descartes and Newton back in the day. The spirit, being immaterial, couldn't push the body in any way; hence, the mind-body problem.

We know now, however, that matter doesn't behave like that anyway. The gravitational constant, the spins and charges of the subatomic particles, and so on, appear to be made-up rules. Arbitrary "laws." These relationship of such rules to the concept of a pre-ordained harmony should be clear. Leibniz was saying, in essence, "Let's skip this 'bodies' and 'extension' guff and go right to the heart of the matter." Fiat reality is what it is. The holographic universe then comes into play when we say that things are only superficially connected by physical "laws" and govern more by interrelationships between units of mental content.

Matt, Another excellent post. I think your idea is correct provided that we allow that the information units (IUs) are imbued with life itself. They are living things.

SPatel - "have you seen the Monad chapter in Beyond Physicalism?"

Matt - "No, what's that? I'm interested."

http://goo.gl/72fyQ4

Bruce - "I watched this knowing, the whole time, that nothing meaningful or even very entertaining was likely to happen."

Hey, I own a copy of "Robot Monster" on DVD. I can relate.

http://goo.gl/bQ6PHp

"We need to use a bigger concept, perhaps that of "entelechy.""

Ok! Matt, you and I see things exactly the same. I have nothing to argue with you about. Time to find a new blog at which to hang out and make trouble ;-)

Matt said:

"I'm saying that what we have been calling "information" in the contexts of these discussions is actually something else!"

OK, I get it. This article is for people who've been tempted to take "information" too seriously. As you know, that hasn't been my tendency, so it's not really addressed to someone like me, except insofar as it might introduce me to Leibniz's viewpoint.

What you've written is sort of a wake-up call for information theorists. :)

In regard to Leibniz's viewpoint, I resonate strongly with at least part of what he says.

As you and I have discussed, though, I have a strong preference for language that makes it easy to talk to the average person. So I'm less excited by words like entelechy and monad than you. (I have made a commitment, though, to use fulguration at least once a week in conversation.)

I can't help but notice that when Leibniz wants to talk about what is *most* fundamental, his language gets very simple indeed:

"Thus God alone is the primary unity or original simple substance"

Now that I'm comfortable with.

Instead of *wake-up* call for information theorists, make that "a little friendly coaching." :)

Matt - Michael linked to the book. I wish I could give an appropriate summary but honestly the chapter on Monadology was one of the most difficult for me to grasp. I'll take another stab at it.

In other news, found an article by Hammeroff that suggests the Holographic Mind theory of Pribram is, in fact, correct:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/is-your-brain-really-a-co_b_7756700.html

I enjoyed his note about the mind-as-computer hypothesis - practically a religion to some materialist fanatics - is beginning to see rubber isn't going to meet road -->

"For example, beginning more modestly, a world-wide consortium has simulated the already-known 302 neuron 'brain' of a simple round worm called C elegans. The biological worm is fairly active, swimming nimbly and purposefully, but the simulated C elegans just lies there, with no functional behavior. Something is missing. Funding agencies are getting nervous. Bring in the 'P.R. guys..."

Michael said:

"Hey, I own a copy of "Robot Monster" on DVD."

Can I borrow it? Lifetime is all reruns this week.

no one wrote,

||Matt, Another excellent post. I think your idea is correct provided that we allow that the information units (IUs) are imbued with life itself. They are living things.||

And so it is!

@ Matt

OK, I've done it again.

As I've mentioned, I'm on vacation, so I have more time than usual to reflect and correspond. And for at least the second time in the past few days, I've written a post in the morning that I've regretted later in the day.

This is time it's my previous post to you.

Here's the thing. While it does state my viewpoint, it's also a bit sarcastic and belittling. I really dislike that way of relating. You deserve better. I'm sorry.

Writing posts on a forum like this is an interesting practice. It's a conversation in slow motion, where I get to observe myself after the fact, learn something, and practice behaving appropriately.

And the fact is, I like myself better when I'm speaking as a friend and equal.

Tonight's (Tuesday's) "Coast to Coast AM show will feature:

"A graduate of Northwestern Medical School, Dr. Bill Miller has been a physician in academic and private practice for over 30 years. Combining his unique observations about patterns of disease from medicine with current scientific discoveries in many other fields, Dr. Miller will discuss how our cells and microbes have elemental cognition and a previously unappreciated capacity for discrimination and awareness and may even be a large part of who we are and how we think and act."

Thanks, Julie Baxter, for writing something I needed at the moment:
"It's a message that I've never forgotten and, in essence, it was this: Don't allow the behaviour of other to twist your essential self into a resentful and negatively reactive human being. That is the only big mistake that you can make in this life.

"In short, it meant let it all wash right over your head. See it, feel it, then let it go. The understanding, the learning, is what matters. Beneath it all you must keep a clean heart."

However, I implore anyone here who's vulnerable to a big stock market drop to get out now. The seven fat years are over. "First loss, best loss." I predict the Dow will dip below 13,500 before year-end--and that 2016 will be a down year. The house of cards is built too high (too much leverage and interdependence=fragility), there are many winds rising to knock it down, and central banks are out of ammo.

Pleased to be of some help, Roger. :)

The message was multi-layered and simultaneously relayed with different nuances. For instance, it also contained a message to the effect of, 'don't ever feel like this (like I was feeling at the time), you don't ever need to. Later in life you will have almost everything you ever wanted and those things will just come to you'. The message was that these events were somehow contingent upon my maintaining a sense of innocence and trust in the future and in forces greater than me. I was made to feel that I was special and very loved and protected. And there was much, much more.

While I put all this into words here, it didn't arrive in words, as such. It was all conveyed in a split second, like a wave, a signal, passing through my head. It was something that I recognised instantly and it stopped me in my tracks. I feel I could go on translating it forever without ever exhausting the content. Even so, it's quite stressful trying to put it into words.

Bruce,

I didn't find your posts offensive at all!

||As you and I have discussed, though, I have a strong preference for language that makes it easy to talk to the average person. So I'm less excited by words like entelechy and monad than you.||

Leibniz was writing to philosophers and scientists, and that's what I'm doing here as well (in this case, the intellectuals of this blog, for that's how I think of you). I am not trying to "popularize" here. The Higgs boson is hard to understand as well.

This is brain-busting, worldview-upturning stuff. It's *especially* hard to wrap one's head around mental content as being "external" to the mind (or at least, not limited to being stuck in the neurons, never to exit--but even neuronal patterns are external to our minds, since our minds are relationships between mental content).

||What you've written is sort of a wake-up call for information theorists. :)||

I think it's a big twist on that way of seeing things, though not a negation. It's somewhat similar to "my" twist on the transmission hypothesis: it's not totally wrong but by no means tenable as is.

Julie wrote:
"It was something that I recognised instantly and it stopped me in my tracks. I feel I could go on translating it forever without ever exhausting the content. Even so, it's quite stressful trying to put it into words."

I've had the feeling, so I only needed a reminder. Thanks again.

Julie said:

||And Bruce, I believe information and love are the same thing (except we don't readily see it that way because we compartmentalise everything).||

Julie, I agree with that.

Here's a thought I have along those lines, one that also seems pertinent to the beautiful mystical experience you described.

We don't truly know someone, until we love them.

And the reverse is equally true: if we really, really, get to know someone (or something) we will love that person or thing.

So in their ultimate form, knowledge and love are the same.

Matt said:

||I'm saying that we should *not* use the word! I'm saying that what we have been calling "information" in the contexts of these discussions is actually something else!||

This is the point I've been making here for a while. So I guess I should be happy. What threw me in reading your essay, now that I think about it, was the title:

"Did Leibniz anticipate an information-based reality?"

Not a good title, it seems to me, for someone whose main point is that we should avoid using the word!

Better might have been:

Did Leibnitz grasp what information theorists are missing?

Matt said:

"I am not trying to "popularize" here."

Call me crazy, but I don't have a distaste for philosophical terminology just because it reaches fewer people. I prefer simple language because it speaks not just to the mind but to the heart.

I think that makes it more powerful, more meaningful, and closer to the truth.

Bruce wrote,

||Not a good title, it seems to me, for someone whose main point is that we should avoid using the word!||

One has to start with the concept people know and go from there. Also, I don't think information theorists necessarily believe in an information-based reality.

||Call me crazy, but I don't have a distaste for philosophical terminology just because it reaches fewer people. I prefer simple language because it speaks not just to the mind but to the heart.

I think that makes it more powerful, more meaningful, and closer to the truth.||

I think the overall language used by Leibniz is pretty clear, especially since it is 201 years old. I hope my own language is also clear.

But some stuff is pretty hard to understand, especially if it goes against the current paradigm. It's very easy for us to imagine a heliocentric solar system now, but I'm sure back in the day it was *extremely* hard for people even to picture it in their minds. Easier for astronomers, but quite hard for average people who were used to thinking of the earth as unimaginably large and the sun and moon as being those smallish disks in the sky.

"Call me crazy, but I don't have a distaste for philosophical terminology just because it reaches fewer people. I prefer simple language because it speaks not just to the mind but to the heart.

I think that makes it more powerful, more meaningful, and closer to the truth."

Hear, hear. I hate the kind of dry, academic, long-winded pontifications we had to wade through at university. Anything that can't be put into a few simple words isn't worth saying.

I think I must be of a Zen disposition: give me the bottom line and I'll work out the rest for myself. :)

Like all terminology philosophical jargon has some use, though a lot of it in modern times is used to make a materialist feel smarter while denying the obvious gap between nonconscious matter & the immaterial aspects of the mental.

That said, I can see where Matt is trying to with utilizing this vocab. Like Whitehead creating new terms, absorbing new vocab helps us avoid assuming we know things - see the materialist who insists on thinking of souls as substances like atoms...or insisting matter is like what matter was assumed to be before the advent of quantum mechanics and its apparent mockery of Order, Time, Causality, and Distance.

@Bruce: "in their ultimate form, knowledge and love are the same."

That would make a wonderful Zen-like aphorism. :)

"Anything that can't be put into a few simple words isn't worth saying." - Julie

Unfortunately most of the big truths of science, art, psychology, etc. can't be put into a few simple words. Try compressing quantum mechanics into a few simple words, or the meaning of Shakespeare, or how to design a Saturn V rocket, or what antibodies do.

Life is complicated.

It is indeed, Michael. But if Einstein felt that things should and can be simplified wherever possible then I see no reason why I shouldn't either. :)

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Einstein

That aside, I disagree with you in as much as most things in science, art and psychology can, in fact, be put in fairly simple language. And as far as QM is concerned, whatever the language it's still a little understood, mind-blowing concept.

Julie,
I too prefer theses that use somewhat common easily understandable words. I think that if one has to make up words to explain a new concept then those words obfuscate the meaning of what is being said especially when that jargon is part of a philosophical dissertation. While I don't think a few simple words are able to explain everything, I agree that less is more and coining new words makes me think that those who do that really don't have a clear concept of what they are trying to say. - AOD

Einstein said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." This is the principle of Occam's Razor. J.B.S. Haldane said "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." Since our physical Universe is a subset of something else, viz. the topic of conversation here, the encasing principle (the Mind of God or perhaps several nested eggs or layers) of the Universe is, I think necessarily, fairly complex. I think the Afterlife is a passage to the next higher layer.

Exactly, AOD! Never use a big word where a small one will do. It's one of the basic rules of grammar. Otherwise one becomes intoxicated with the exuberance of one's own verbosity. ;)

“Like Whitehead creating new terms, absorbing new vocab helps us avoid assuming we know things - …”

I agree with your whole post, SPatel – well said.

“Life is complicated”

I agree. There is a great line in the rock group The Who’s mid-60s hit ‘Substitute’: “The simple things you see are all complicated” – a great catch line I think!

For me, much that comes over in our culture as elegantly simple and spontaneous is, in fact, highly contrived and the result of a great deal of hard work. I recall reading that Karl Marx once said that the reason he wrote such longs books was because he “didn’t have the time to write short books”. So perhaps when initially discussing new and difficult ideas (especially on a blog when we also have day jobs!) complex language is unavoidable.

Finally, with regards to Einstein’s comments concerning making it as simple as you can but not simpler, I’ve always taken that as meaning something different. For me, Einstein was warning against the excessive use of Occam’s Razor; in other word warning against seeking a false or unearned simplicity. For me, if the complexity is there it has to be called out (or, if ignored, done so knowingly).

Yes indeed Julie. When I say that 'the feces collides with the oscillator' it loses some of it's punch, doesn't it! - AOD

Julie,
I just heard a brilliant apparently highly-educated commenter on National Public Radio say "At this moment in time". Now can anyone think of a simpler way to say this?

Mmmm?

How about--- 'NOW'? ;^} - AOD

"Finally, with regards to Einstein’s comments concerning making it as simple as you can but not simpler, I’ve always taken that as meaning something different. For me, Einstein was warning against the excessive use of Occam’s Razor; in other word warning against seeking a false or unearned simplicity. For me, if the complexity is there it has to be called out (or, if ignored, done so knowingly)." - Simon

Einstein *hated* academia - probably as much as I do - and the long-winded, jargon-riddled, dry-as-dust pontificating that it accommodates. It's a language often used either as a tool to impress or to bamboozle. I can no longer be bothered trying to sift the wheat from the chaff.

The most useful piece of knowledge that I gained from my university days came form my first-year tutor who spoke thusly, "Bear in mind that you are now playing the academic game. That, in essence, is what it is - a means to a place in the world and the tools with which to make a living".

Given a few more weeks I would have figured that for myself. But it was reassuring to hear a seasoned old academic offer that warning.

Einstein got only a third-class degree because he attended so few lectures. Anyone care to guess why? :)

Considering all the time and effort Matt put into this post, I hope we can continue with a discussion of his substantive points, rather than getting sidetracked into a conversation about the words we use. (I admit I've contributed to this detour myself.)

Whether you like Leibniz' terminology or not, do you think monadology advances our understanding or is it a false trail?

Discuss.

Sorry, Michael, but I'm not at university and am not obliged to attend lectures.

Toodle pip, old chap.

(My apologies for the brevity.)

"Whether you like Leibniz' terminology or not, do you think monadology advances our understanding or is it a false trail?"

It's definitely worth exploring further. That each monad holds within an intuitive understanding of all reality has a few potential offerings for cognition:

-Humans are really good at separating the background from the important factors in a situation. This suggests a kind of suppression in general, though not at the level of Monads.

-Yet when we add in Psi, as noted in Beyond Physicalism things like Remote Viewing, Knowing the past of a person or object by touch, and even Precognition make sense. Obviously this raises the predestiny question though if we think of all timelines existing in potential with only one timeline experienced things don't seem as worrisome. (For the record I don't buy space and time as total illusions.)

-If Hammeroff is right, our brains hold a kind of fractal pattern that suggests Pribram's Holonomic-Brain theory is correct. Yet Hameroff & Penrose's own Orch-OR suggests the brain evokes a latent consciousness-potential. So could "God" be the total consciousness of reality, the Monad of Monads?

Have to go through it again, but those are some thoughts that arose on first consideration.

OK,I'll bite. I don't see information being alive. Maybe it's just that consciousness generates information. But I'll also be the first to admit that maybe Leibniz' ideas are over my head.

Although I did have something happen to me today that maybe relates to it, or is synchronicity, or just coincidence. I was doing something sad - calling to make sure that my father's memorial stone had been engraved - something that takes months to get someone to do, at least here. During the call, I had to state his name of course. Luckily, it had finally been done. Just a few minutes later, I was reading an article about a cop behaving badly. I wasn't really that interested in the article, but read anyway. Two paragraphs in, there's my father's name exactly - a name shared exactly by the cop in the article, who was laying down the law on the misbehaving cop. It's not a really unusual name, but not common either. I've never before come across the first-and-last-name combination together.

Here's another one. I was studying international relations in college, which of course centered on U.S. foreign policy. Immediately after class, I called my friend to get together. I must have mixed up the number, because the "person" I reached was "The Pentagon" (that's how they answer).

It's as if sometimes similar information gets entangled, or the results are supposed to be random, but somehow something goes wrong.

Michael said:

"rather than getting sidetracked into a conversation about the words we use."

Matt's post is largely *about* the words we use.

For one thing, he has said that one of his main points is: don't use the word "information." It's a red herring. (And I agree with him.)

But beyond that, he's introducing us to a whole new/old vocabulary—monad, entelechy, and so forth. That's the heart of his essay, right? He's sharing his excitement for talking about the universe using that specific language—Leibniz's language.

So no—I don't see how discussing the words we use is getting sidetracked.

"do you think monadology advances our understanding or is it a false trail?"

I'll put it this way: Leibniz does seem to be expressing some basic truths. (I mentioned a few earlier.) It would take more work than I care to put in, though, to see if I really feel comfortable with his overall viewpoint.

"I'll put it this way: Leibniz does seem to be expressing some basic truths. (I mentioned a few earlier.) It would take more work than I care to put in, though, to see if I really feel comfortable with his overall viewpoint. " - Bruce

Is that because you just don't find the theory to be useful to you in your daily life?

I like Matt's/Libniz's theory. It has begun to make a lot of sense to me - especially with the clarification that "information" isn't being used in the normal sense and that these units are imbued with life.

However, I can see where someone might say, "OK, great. What do I do with that?". Whereas, if we look at some uplifting NDE story someone could say, "I get it, it's all about love. Now I know what I need to try to do every day; exude more love".

Personally, I see what Matt wrote as being useful b/c it explains *how* anything like personal survival beyond the physical is possible. It gets to the mechanics of the thing.

Bruce wrote,

||Matt's post is largely *about* the words we use.

For one thing, he has said that one of his main points is: don't use the word "information." It's a red herring. (And I agree with him.)

But beyond that, he's introducing us to a whole new/old vocabulary—monad, entelechy, and so forth.||

I think those are the only really new words here, and they are synonyms.

In this case, the whole point is to use a word unladen with preconceptions; otherwise, we get into surface-level arguments as we have in the past, along the lines of, "Information can't be XYZ--it's just that stuff in my computer!"


I was a philosophy major in college. I gotta say, the language being used here (by Leibniz and myself, I hope) and even the concepts involved are not very complicated. Try reading Hegel sometime. Here's the *first* paragraph of Phenomenology of Mind:

||§ 90. THE knowledge, which is at the start or immediately our object, can be nothing else than just that which is immediate knowledge, knowledge of the immediate, of what is. We have, in dealing with it, to proceed, too, in an immediate way, to accept what is given, not altering anything in it as it is presented before us, and keeping mere apprehension free from conceptual comprehension.||

And it really, really gets worse from there. And no, I don't think Hegel really has a lot to offer.

"69. Thus there is nothing fallow, nothing sterile, nothing dead in the universe, no chaos, no confusion save in appearance, somewhat as it might appear to be in a pond at a distance, in which one would see a confused movement and, as it were, a swarming of fish in the pond, without separately distinguishing the fish themselves."

Im reluctant to respond and have more questions than opinions. I'm pretty intimidated by the nature of his work and Matt's ability to understand it well. No doubt a remnant of his philosophy background, but superior analyical reasoning, critical thinking and intelligence all come to mind when I read this.

Here goes though, in my personal opinion, the above goes to the interconnected web of the universe that is often described by NDEers. And why would anything ever be "dead"? If we are all made of atoms, atoms are made of stuff that's smaller ... And those are made of stuff that's smaller... It doesn't seem like there is a solid anything. We get smaller and smaller until we're reduced to vibrations. As 'no one' pointed out with an article or research in terms of radio signals, something is out there. We can't put it to a solid substance, but it's something. And it's more than 'physical'. An energy if you will. And there's no way it can die. A part of us is definitely eternal, but the hard part is figuring out what comes together when a body - an arrangement of those vibrations - dies and never comes back to conscious 'physical' life.

Do we just rearrange ourselves and have vibrations come together in another form? Are we only conscious because the right vibrations came together to form us and everything that makes us, us? Randomly? What new vibrations pick up where we leave off? I'm with this guy, and think this post is fascinating, but practically, I'm trying to put it all together and figure out what it means when no body exists to filter this conscious being through. When I die, I won't experience the same, but how will I experience anything? What other experiences are there after this and what does it mean to be alive in the next world, without our bodies? What's it like without the 5 senses? What is it that is "related" to the entire universe when we die? Maybe these questions can't be answered because the 5 senses always have done a poor job of seeing, hearing, touching the other realms.

In answer to Michael's question, I certainly wouldn't disregard this material. It's pushing me to further understanding.

Consciousness is so different in kind from what we normally experience as matter that there is no way to really describe consciousness if you are stuck in materialist thinking. Consciousness is completely different from matter. And from what I've read in near death experience descriptions it comes from a completely different dimension or plane than matter. The terminology that near death experiencers use to describe the physics of where they went sounds an awful lot like how Michael Talbot describes the physics of holographic film.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)