IMG_1216 BW small
Blog powered by Typepad

« Stemming diabetes | Main | The tomb »


Hi Michael,

Interesting reading. I'm sympathetic to this kind of idealism, but hm, I'm not sure whether it's true. There's seems to be some kind of problem when we cross the border between the quantum world and the world of classical physics, something to do with the Planck scale. At least that's what Michael Shermer says in the debate with Deepak Chopra. Anyway, I'm going to read Quantum Enigma by Rosenblum, recommended by Dean Radin, to see whether this quantum stuff really allows for an idealistic world view. It seems that very few people have really understood the implications of quantum mecanics.
Another interesting book along these lines is Consciousness and Berkeley's Metaphysics by Peter B Lloyd. A bit heavy and technical, but good. It has a sequel, dealing with parapsychology, which may be a good read if you can find it.
Lloyd's point seems to be that with Berkeley's metaphysics matter is entirely illusory. Don't ask me to explain it, but is has to do with simple semantics. In all, with this model it doesn't matter whether or not something exists at the quantum level.

Both idealism and realism are incoherent. I think a transcendental idealist interpretation makes the most sense.

By the way, an idealist Johns Hopkins physicist reviewed Quantum Enigma. Here is the link:

He also wrote an idealist article in the science journal Nature. I have no idea how this made it past the materialists:


superb stuff. Thanks!

I will be blogging on the links you posted soon!

Could it be that even consciousness is an illusion with the definition of illusion being: an error in our perception of reality. Maybe the only permanent reality is an infinite awareness and this infinite awareness expresses itself through a phenomenon we know as consciousness. I wonder if the debate between idealism and realism are not just two sides of the same illusionary coin.

From my point of view at this time consciousness is an effect of this infinite awareness and not as most believe that awareness is an attribute of consciousness. Does Kant’s transcendental idealism hint at this relationship between awareness and consciousness?

I don't know how one would distinguish between awareness and consciousness. They seem like the same thing to me.

As you can imagine it is very difficult to explain the difference between consciousness and awareness. The world teaches them as synonyms.

Consciousness is the ability to have a perception of other whereas awareness, especially pure awareness, is a realization rather than a perception of other. I discovered this difference during my years of research into the origin of ignorance.

Ask yourself how can infinite perfection with an awareness of self as “that that is” (oneness) express itself without the creation and manifestation of entities that have a perception of self as separate from others. That perception of other is illusionary, but substantial. I have found one website (listed below) that I think does a pretty good job of explaining this subtle but profound difference between consciousness and awareness.

I think one can do a much better job of explaining consciousness then awareness because I am not sure we can ever fully explain or define pure awareness. As soon as we try to define it we limit it. To define pure awareness would be the same as defining that that is, which I suspect, is impossible to do. The mystics during their mystical experiences give us hints and clues at this difference.

It is my belief at this time that consciousness evolves until it reaches a point of pure awareness. Without consciousness there is no journey towards pure awareness.

I wrote an entry about the limitations of thought in understanding awareness on my blog.

This is an excellent series of debates between scientists from both ends of the spectrum:

What is Consciousness?

Do Brains Make Minds?

Strange Physics of The Mind?

Can Science Seek The Soul?

What is Parapsychology?

Can ESP Affect Our Lives?

Perfect pure infinite awareness is that that is (isness) whereas consciousness is the creative manifestation of that isness. If consciousness were a perfect manifestation of this infinite isness there would be no expression of it’s being which is perfect awareness. Stated another way: all life forms we know of cease to exist.

Most call this “isness” God but consciousness on its journey back to perfect awareness has made this isness in its image, which is natural and predictable. Any being with less than perfect intelligence (awareness) will error in its perception of reality and in its egotism make God in its image. Again without some degree of egoism there is no expression of this perfect-infinite awareness.

As conscious beings I suspect we evolve in our quality and quantity of consciousness with quality being our level or degree of our perception of reality, which is intelligence (awareness) and we evolve in our level of intellectual capability (mental capacity), which is the quantity of our consciousness.

Here's an excerpt from Science and the Paranormal: Altered States of Reality, by the late Arthur J. Ellison.

I've noticed that a lot of students of the paranormal are named "Arthur". Arthur Conan Doyle, Arthur Ford, Arthur Koestler, Arthur Ellison, Arthur Findlay, and Arthur Balfour. Growing up I didn't find it to be all that common of a name, but now that I've developed an interest in the paranormal and life after death I see and read it all over. I've actually grown to appreciate it a whole lot more in my old age. It's a great name with a lot of history. - Arthur

The comments to this entry are closed.