Seebee

As far as I'm concerned I know it now! But the rest of humanity, we'll see... Anyway, Teilhard was on the wrong lines. Dawkins is on the wrong lines, Deepak Chopra is on the wrong lines, everybody that thinks consciousness is either emergent (from brain functionality, or intelligence) or is somehow part of the fabric of the universe cannot be right. I would send you a link which would logically prove this point, but I'm going to keep you on tenterhooks for just a little longer. I have a picture of 'reality' (which the whole of humanity will have at some point in the future) which is radically different from the one we see at the moment. It incorporates a vision of quantum physics put forward by an eminent ex-professor of physics. But it unfortunately needs you to understand all of it before I can progress to consciousness. Should I dive in there first (as I have tried before) I fear you will end up thinking something like "Ah well, it sounds nice but..." and then give up. I (and you) have to be sure that you grasp and feel the fundamental physics bit first. Should you be unable to do this then we will both know that further work is not going to be fruitful. Now I know that this sounds a bit like a cop-out. I know it sounds like I'm saying "If you can't grasp one of the most difficult areas of science, then I can't tell you any more". I do know how it sounds, but I have no alternative, I'm afraid. I have tried before and just reached a point of disappointment when the other party says "No, it's just too difficult for me to take in". What I have to explain actually makes quantum mechanics far easier to understand than it is currently, but it takes someone with an intuitive feel for physics to take it in. In synopsis I can say that I know that the feature of consciousness is separate from intelligence. It is also unique to the individual; it is like (or is) the individual's soul. It is something which is separate from the material body and as such it is theoretically possible for it to survive death. Note where I use the word "theory" and where I don't. When I say "is" I am talking of logic only, not even theory, just a verbal or mathematical description. I have sent you a course description (to your private email). If you are still interested we will eventually get to the bit about consciousness. If you can wait (~3 months) I will eventually have a blog on the whole subject of the emergent physics and its implications for where mankind sees itself in relation to the Higher Source. It's all such a big change from what we (via science) are used to, that it will take a long time for it to be accepted by the scientific community, let alone permeate into popular culture. But it will. How do I know? Intuition, along with the backing of the sayings of Einstein, who was never able to give us the equations during his lifetime, but which are now there and show him to have been right to stick to his guns all along. Phew, a longer post than I thought. Love and peace Carl

"Religion may talk of life that goes on after physicality, and it's a nice notion, but it goes against what we currently know of how consciousness forms and is maintained. As far as we know, once the brain is gone, so is the person." We (scientists, neuro-scientists...) simply have no idea how consciousness is formed. In the words of Professor Richard Dawkins when replying to a question about the subject in which he would most like to see advancement: "...Consciousness, which I think is immensely difficult, and I think it's difficult to even formulate the question, and I don't know what the answer is." If we do not know how it is even formed we simply cannot allow ourselves the freedom to say that it is an emergent feature of the brain. Personally speaking I have very strong theoretical reasons for postulating that it is NOT derived from features of the material brain, but is in fact something completely separate and is only 'fed' by data neurons etc. This theoretical reasoning is then backed up by other strong objective evidence (frm rigorous scientific tests) which allows for only one of two possibilities: that individual consciousness survives death, or that some universal cosmic record (of people's lives) is somewhere/somehow maintained and can under certain circumstances be accessed. I know which one I think is more likely! Seebee