⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️Tim’s intricate analysis of the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ is the exact kind of exquisite/insightful detail that characterises him as a philosopher. This work is truly genius and serves so fantastically as a modern yet timeless narrative of the crazy miracle we’re part of. It feels as though Tim has been ruthless with his own work this past year and it seems to have paid off and benefited his understanding so greatly...this stuff isn’t just extraordinarily clever, it touches that place of truth deep within my being...an intuitive sense of simple understanding. When academic brilliance can make you feel such a deep love and self-recognition, you know you’ve got your hands on a really terrific philosopher. Well done Tim.
Tim seems like he has adopted the sankya phosophy which is called dualistic. Swami Sarvapriyananda is a non dualistic advaita vedanta, but he has made videos describing the many different schools of hindu philosophy.
TIM! What a wonderful person you are! Who else in the spiritual teacher community have I found in my 30 years of spiritual searching has the self effacing and brutal honesty to throw out even their most fundamental ideas under scrutiny? Precisely no one - and I thank you for for that. It can’t be stated how much this sort of honesty is lacking in our field. So many people unilaterally accept the ideas of non duality without question - in part because everyone else is spouting the same stuff. I’ve been trying to almost force the understanding of everything existing within consciousness for years - but not quite being able to grasp it. Nice to know I haven’t necessarily been completely stupid and spiritually ‘inferior’ for not getting. it. I’ve never been willing to take on anything like that until I can 100% verify it myself. Unfortunately a lot of people in the advaita community are very adamant and unrelenting about their ideas & it’s tempting to accept that they must all be right and end up feeling like a bit of a plumb for not ‘getting’ it.
I contemplated this consciousness and objectivity this morning. They are not two but one Being. And depending on where you place attention is what you experience. NeoAdvaita makes the mistake of dismissing one of them in order to keep the idea of oneness. Like a magnet with a north and south pole. They say, only the north pole is real and the south pole doesn't really exist. I was thinking that the body is not just " an object in consciousness" ; it is also a subject in it own right. Objectivity is in consciousness and consciousness is in objectivity. And we have the ability to notice both xx🤗❣️
This theory is brilliant, it answers contradictions and open questions for example why do we have to live this human life to gain experience, if we come from the One which already has all the knowledge in it...why does the one want to experience itself if he already knows itself). What I don't understand is how consciousness can arise from being. If being has no qualities (it's the ground), so how can so many zillions of information originate one from the other, starting from this ground. Isn't it what the scientific paradigm says, that consciousness arose from unconsciousness? And secondly, the universal love that we experience in an expanded state of consciousness or in an NDE, is (not only but) also a feeling: how can that be intrinsic into the being in relation to itself...what if the being wouldn't love itself? Because relation and attraction (yin yang, magnetic etc.) doesn't imply a feeling of love.
Glad the ideas touched you. Great questions. "how consciousness can arise from being." What is evolving is the one in relationship with itself. Reading and responding to itself on all levels of emergence. It takes nearly 14 billion years to learn how to do that consciously ... all interactions before that are by definition unconscious. Why is what I call the 'Big Love' that comes with oneness a feeling? Because it is through the embodied individual that the Oneness of Being knows itself as all One. So it is felt in the individual. There's much more to say of course, Alexandri. If you'd like to explore this with me online check out this timfreke.com/ICU.aspx Big love Tim
Hmmm. It seems to me that people who have been exploring spirituality for a long time seem to end up with alot of very fixed concepts. It was interesting that the people who were supposed to be asking questions of Tim's views really used it to restate what they thought.
I thoroughly enjoyed listening to you share these ideas. It seems to me that placing pure consciousness or cosmic consciousness at the beginning is placing a very big thing without explanation at the beginning. It does seem akin to placing god at the beginning. Which is just explaining a mystery with a mystery. I like the concept of the universe as being the one in relationship with itself. That is much more than simple oneness. It seems to me that it explains our experience in a much fuller and in a more complete manner. Thank you for showing us a way out of this conundrum.
Thanks Tim for illucidating a very complex topic.. I've always believed this yet never really spoken it out in the way you put it.. I've always believed that the energy hum, the dos operating system from which all arises is an evolving system which only evolves because singular individual consciousness arises from this something that is being and becoming.. What people believe is consciousness is actually millions of singular pieces of information clumping together forming a memory construct that as it evolves and adds to its information it becomes an individual with many memories.. All these many memories are us and its us caring for and sometimes destroying each other is what people call God! What that dos operating system is and how it began to split into an alternating current of particle or wave is the greatest mystery of all!
Thanks for sharing your response Shelley. If you're interested in looking at these ideas with me in person check out my little online community of explorers timfreke.com/ICU.aspx
I'm not sure why there is a need to dismiss consciousness as a/the fundamental ground of Being. It isn't by definition 'smuggling God in at the beginning' (in the sense of God as the omniscient creator) . Consciousness can be fundamental And evolving/developing . (ie baby>child>adult ) I do concur on the semantic issues with 'consciousness'. One might understand the 'unconscious' as : 'consciousness we are as yet unaware of'. (a bit of a mouthful. - I blame Freud)
You are right. Idealism doesn't necessary lead to smuggling God back in, but it often does, because once the ground is conscious it often then has intentions etc. Not everyone does this though. My essential point is that Idealism is not given in our experience as has often been claimed (including by me). And that we should take as the ground the simplest quality possible that everything shares ... and that isn't consciousness it is Being. So that consciousness can be seen as an emergent quality ... which it does seem to be from a common senes perspective.
The Jesus Mysteries, Jesus and the Goddess, and for a very good laugh The Gospel of the Second Coming are great books in my history and current experience, though I admit I sometimes was irritated by the use of "Consciousness" as a metaphor for the ground. The All in relationship to the All is very good. The mystery is "how did it come about?", and even more "How did it start to come about?" I see both the All ever Being, and also the process of the creation becoming more elaborate and able to give more information back to the All. I suspect that this process is how the All can be in relationship with itself, for otherwise there would be nothing but the All for it to have a relationship with.
I’m liking this. As I listen I keep thinking of Kant and Schopenhauer, the limits of knowledge, and the difference between appearance and, presumably, reality.
Ego ( personal self-image separate from others) = default mode network cerebral cortex. Deep sense of emotional/psychic being = limbic system. Feeling of being, basic bodily functions, breathing, digesting, defecating = brain-stem.
Thank you Tim. What do you call information? Is it the same as being? Because information is information for a consciousness, one could even say it is the same thing as consciousness. For how could being be informational without being conscious? In any case, what you are saying is quite close to what Bergson says in Matter and Memory and in Creative Evolution.
I see information as what discriminates the potentiality of Being into emergent qualities. I see existence as the One in relationship with itself ... so at every level there are informational systems reading each other ... subjects and objects. This will evolve into conscious reading of the informational ecology ... and then into consciousness of the processing system itself, which is psyche. (Thanks for the note about Bergson. I haven't looked at him for many years, so I'll go back and take a look.)
I do agree with your view as I have always questioned Consciousness as the ultimate source of all. My answer is that the ultimate truth and source is no thing. It simply cannot be and all things are process from there.
I agree in that the ground is formless Joseph. But I am unconvinced we need to think of it as the 'source'. Rather I suggest what exists is the process ... the becoming ... of which formless Being is the ground (the foundational quality). Formless Being is something that pre-existed which started becoming one day. Because if that were the case it would need to have qualities such as intention or some causal power and it wouldn't be formless.
@@TimFreke1 I agree Tim but I must clarify my viewpoint in that I currently view the source of all as this Nothingness which has no existence in matter, energy, space or time. As such it is entirely void of qualities, but I like where you are heading. Even formless being is in the existence mode and I really do view it as a constant event.
Surely there is no foundation as emergence could be endless how do you know there is a foundation of being? There are theories in physics saying that black holes create universes and it’s endless. Maybe there was never a beginning point but is infinitely endless in emergence. How else could the process of emergence being in the first place? It must always have been. What are your thoughts on this?
Always inspiring listening to you, Tim. But I must agree with several of those who intervened. We use a too anthropomorphic notion of human waking consciousness. Considering consciousness and Creativity, purpose and intentionality as prior to matter has more explanatory power. They emerge in matter but don't need the Big bang, etc. And I can't see the point by positing information and processes as fundamental. It seems to me less explanatory than positing consciousness as fundamental. One can explain the former by the latter but not the other way around. After all, if we like it or not, one knows intimately what consciousness is experientially, whereas information is a mental abstract concept for a spatial and/or temporal stream of distinct perceptions. And perceptions need consciousness first. Emergentism works better seeing consciousness emerging in (or throuh) matter rather than making it emerge from it and/or its processes. At any rate, thanks for these stimulating discussions.
OK. Sorry I wasn't clear enough Marco. You say "if we like it or not, one knows intimately what consciousness is experientially, whereas information is a mental abstract concept for a spatial and/or temporal stream of distinct perceptions. And perceptions need consciousness first." I suggest this view is conceptually laden. It is not given in experience, it is an interpretation of experience (as is my new view and all other views). It is hard to see at first, because we it is hard to see our own conceptual assumptions. It took me decades but when I did see the obviousness of this, it was profound in my experience.I make the points differently here so this may help you really get what I am pointing out. czcams.com/video/NKXM2hHUESs/video.html If you get the shift it may not have the profound affect on you that did in me, but you may find it very interesting.
@@TimFreke1 Tim, by saying that "consciousness is an activity" you seem to imply that there can be no conscious presence without activity. Assuming activity as prior to consciousness then rises the question where from this activity comes from in the first place? A semantic replacement of "activity" with "processes" or "information" does not explain if, why and how these processes supposedly give rise to consciousness experiences? (and BTW, it also suggests another premise, namely that space-time to be a necessary condition for consciousness to exist.) My understanding of your interpretation is also reinforced by your distinction between phenomena IN consciousness vs. sensory experience OF something. Of course sensations are NOT IN consciousness, but I don't see this as an argument against its fundamental character unless one assumes that there can be no consciousness without an object/phenomenon to be conscious OF. I feel this to be a reification and an unwarranted premise as well. If you let this premise fall and reconsider it from the standpoint of consciousness that can have experiences but must not necessarily, then I don't see inconsistencies.
@Marco Masi Glad to hear you agree that sensation don't exist in consciousness as this is a widespread view. I am suggesting that exists is process. This is a process philosophy like Whitehead. So existence is 'the one in relationship with itself' in the process of realising ever more emergent potentialities. Information is a concept that we can use to define the evolution of emergent qualities. Every Information system is in a subjective relationship with the objective whole. That subjective reading of information will evolve into conscious reading of the environment as outlined in my talk with the arising of life and an agenda to survive etc, which makes some information very important and most of it irrelevant.
@@TimFreke1 That's fine. There is essentially no problem with Whitehead theoretical framework, but the question of what is more fundamental remains. The process or consciousness? I can't see how consciousness could emerge from the process, as you seem to imply. Whereas, the other way around works much better: the process itself IS an expression in a phenomenal spatial and temporal manifestation of consciousness. Even though I'm not a fan of information-theoretical approaches to consciousness (they don't seem to me as having much explanatory power), I nevertheless have no problem to posit "the subjective reading of information evolving into conscious reading of the environment in the process of realising ever more emergent potentialities". Provided, however, that one does not posit the process or the reading as a prior explanatory primitive for consciousness. Because also the subjective reading of information presupposes already a conscious reading, otherwise it would not be subjective. At the end of the story we won't get rid of consciousness as fundamental. It will always lurk at the bottom of all our concepts. I consider myself a 'spiritual emergentist' as well. But the question is from what, where and how is spirit supposed to "emerge"? Consciousness emerging **in (or 'through')** matter and **by means of** informational processes rather than being an occurrence of matter and processes is a more consistent perspective.
@@marcomasi2066 OK - I think I need to just clarify what I mean by 'subjective' for you to get what I am saying. How about this .... Lets' say there are 2 information systems and that 'x is reading y' .. where reading means x is taking in information for y and processing it. In this statement 'x' is the subject of the sentence and 'y' the object. Nothing is implied about x being conscious or otherwise.
My ideas are certainly resonate with some aspects of Shaivism .. but there are other influences as well that tell the same basic story. But the story needs a major update for the 21st century to move it on from the mythological to the trans-scientific
@@TimFreke1 yes, Non-dual Shaivism, free of mythology but in its essential structure, is very much in alignment with the most current paradigms of neuro science and quantum physics. The term , ‘svatanrya,” is key. Freedom to evolve and create within any possible reality tunnel such as yours and yet also free from all of them.
Tim, there is an idea that “God”, the oneness destroyed itself to experience that destruction and reconstruction - because it could. We are part of the process of reconstruction of “God”, the oneness - James Joyce alluded to the process of existence was creating God.
The issue here is that we start with God ... and whenever we do that we are solving the mystery of the universe with an even bigger mystery ... so we really haven't got anywhere. What intrigues me about what I am exploring is that explains where God comes from, because the universes is evolving into God in the sense of a transcendent being of love.
@@TimFreke1 hi Tim, thanks for the reply. I wouldn’t so much frame it as an issue rather as another form of exploration of the concept :-) The expansion/evolution into and creation of God could be one of many contractions and expansions - just like the Big Bounce Theory . I admit that the thought experiment that this is the first and only time the universe has evolved into god is useful. If evolution is the universe attempting to explore and create every facet of itself, universes themselves and therefore “God” itself evolves into every facet that it can. This universe/God is only one expression of that . It explodes into and out of every direction and dimension at once expressing and evolving. Once created, God itself evolves and I imagine seeks to understand its new evolved self. Which leads me to conclude God is the process, not the destination or for that matter, the source. I think I’ve just thought myself round to your way of thinking 😆 What therefore is human purpose? Is it to provide information and understanding back into that process?
@@stevemccann7719 I love lots of that. I agree if this universe is not the first but is born from previous universes we can see the old Hindu idea of God arising as the universe and the coming back into God in a new evolutionary light. So God is in this sense perhaps source, process and destination. I like the Hindu notion of Brahman Nirguna and Brahman Sanguna .. God without qualities (Being) and God with qualities (All).
@@stevemccann7719 Human purpose for me comes from the very nature of existence ... which is the One in relationship with itself, realising itself in ever more emergent ways. So here we are arising because of that process .. the universe conscious of itself ... and we can consciously choose to experience existence in more emergent ways, which enriches both ourselves and the whole of which we are an integral part.
Hey, Tim. After having watched this, I see that my questions still stand: 1) What does it mean for a thing to have its own perspective (which involves some degree of mind) on the whole, and to be able to sense and intelligently process external information, but not have any degree of mind or consciousness? Your previous answer: "Intelligent processing is ubiquitous", doesn't answer the question. And we aren't talking about meta-consciousness here, but just what it means to have a perspective at all. You say that basic bits of matter have their own perspective on the whole, and are able to sense and intelligently process external information, but that they are utterly unconscious and without mind. This sounds nonsensical, because in order for a thing to have a perspective, there must be something that it is like to be the thing, and, as we know, some degree of mind or consciousness is required for this. So, "What does it mean for a thing to have its own perspective on the whole, and to be able to sense and intelligently process and respond to external information, and to learn in the process, but not have any degree of mind or consciousness?" It seems to me that if you want to remove any degree of mind or consciousness from a thing, then you are going to have to also remove the existence and possibility of a perspective. 2) You say that all of existence, no matter if there is only 1 universe or many, emerged from the ever-present Ground, namely, Infinite Potentiality. This implies that Infinite Potentiality was before the evolutionary process of existence was, and therefore, that there was a beginning to the evolutionary process of existence, and a means by which (the how question) Infinite Potentiality began actualizing itself. So, how did Infinite Potential begin the process of actualizing itself? 3) Tim, as you acknowledge from time to time, there are degrees of consciousness. Since you acknowledge this, it shouldn't be an issue for you to understand that saying that something is conscious isn't necessarily saying that it is meta-conscious. As one of your questioners put it (I'm paraphrasing) "Consciousness seems hierarchical, with higher and lower degrees. The lower levels may seem unconscious from the perspective of the higher levels, but the lower actually do possess consciousness to some degree, just not meta-consciousness. Therefore, it isn't true that there is no consciousness in the lower, as you assert." Every time you speak against the idea of there being consciousness in things like elementary particles, you attack the idea of things like elementary particles having conscious thoughts and feelings and intentions and so on, that is, you attack the argument that such things possess, or are, meta-conscious. You do this despite the fact that you know perfectly well the distinction between meta-consciousness and consciousness (As was made crystal clear in your talk with Bernardo). You will then conclude on this basis, "So, things like elementary particles aren't conscious (referring to meta-consciousness) but they possess subjectivity. Such things have their own unique perspective on the whole, and intelligence by which they learn.", which is effectively saying that they are conscious but not meta-conscious. You also seem to do two contradictory things when you get pressed on this: 1) you will insist that you do mean to say that things like subatomic particles don't possess any type or degree of consciousness at all; 2) and other times you will suggest (like you did at the end of this video) that you acknowledge that there is consciousness, but the word 'subjectivity' is simply, in your opinion, a better word to use. When #1 is the case, then you run into trouble having to explain what in the world you are talking about when you talk about the possibility of subjectivity and having a perspective but without any degree of consciousness or mind. When #2 is the case, then you seem to be making things unnecessarily confusing. In this instance, why not, instead, just use the already established, and perfectly accurate and sensible, distinction between meta-consciousness and lesser degrees of consciousness? When you describe something as having subjectivity and its own perspective, naturally you are positing some degree of consciousness or mind; for there can be no perspective, no subjectivity, without mind or consciousness. There are other issues contained in what you have here presented, but let's just stick with these for now.
Thanks for you message. Too much to discuss on CZcams but let me offer you something back … see below. But first ... what is the secret to using paragraphs on these comments? I've been trying to do so in my responses without success!
1 You say “ in order for a thing to have a perspective, there must be something that it is like to be the thing, and, as we know, some degree of mind or consciousness is required for this” I suggest this is simply not true. Mind (eg conceptual processing) and conscious (eg the knowledge of being) only emerge many billion of years into the evolutionary process. Before that there are information systems interacting (or we could describe them as ‘intelligence systems’ in the AI way of using this term). And in this interaction each system is reading and processing the informational ecology. This is a transjective relationship in which every system is both subject and object.
2 I suggest we can understand every universe or genealogy of universes as have a beginning but the process of realisation of potentiality itself as being eternal. Eg One possibility is to imagine infinite lines of potentiality being realised each of which is a timestream, but they are not temporally related so we can’t say they happen before or after each other. Thus realisation is always happening in an eternal way. (Just a wild speculation of course, but shows there are ways out of the - what is the source and how did it start issue. Which by the way Idealism can’t answer satisfactorily anyway without introducing all sorts of extra qualities to consciousness - usually ‘intentionality’.
3 I think the conscious/meta-conscious distinction is conceptually confusing because it takes the term ‘conscious’ and applies it to things which aren’t actually conscious in the common sense meaning of the word. I did this myself for years. This view sees my unconscious mental processes as conscious … what? I suggest ’subjectivity’ as a better word in order to avoid the conceptual confusion. So we can talk about conscious and unconscious subjectivity … which is a great description of how I am taking in and processing information right now. My new ideas about this I feel leads to a clearer worldview, because when we use the word ‘consciousness’ for something that is actually unconscious we easily end up slipping in all sorts of other stuff qualities such as intentionality … and then we’re back to a more philosophical version of the creator God really, with all of the metaphysical problems that come with that.
@@TimFreke1 Lol, I can't help you there. And you're welcome. Thank you so much for continuing to engage with me! I can't tell you how much I respect that.
Many so called philosophers are just philosiphologists. Tim is a TRUE philosopher and his teachings have shaped how I understand my place in the Universe I sense that what Tim explores here rings true on a deep level. He has a way of looking at things from a fresh perspective - something any true philosopher does.
So death is death? And in a sense death is death even within non-dual teaching, because the 'ego' as such is thought to be an illusion anyway. My true self is considered to be non-differentiating. Haven't you just exchanged the word consciousness for being? What's missing is any sense of removing the fear of death that many feel of course. My chosen spiritual path is ACIM, and in any sense, nothing would change, as the course is clear that words are symbols of symbols. It is a myth designed to lead a human being to be able to live with peace and happiness. Yet I am this body and this body will die, I am the 'ego' and this will die. Will there be an existence beyond physical death. What I am hearing is that the fantastical notional world is an epiphenomenal fact and will just stop with its death?
I didn't have time to talk about the immortality of the soul Mark, but if you look at my book Soul Story it explores this in detail. For a brief intro see my TEDx talk at Berkley. czcams.com/video/YXuDaMkcjvY/video.html
The concepts of Being and Consciousness are distinct. Being has only the quality of existing. Consciousness has the qualities of existing and being conscious of existing ... or at least of being conscious of something . So Being is nondual and consciousness requires subject/object.
How do you think about David Bohms suggestion (I have to interpret it to keep it brief because it is answers spread out to questions in a book) that the ground has an endless potential for transformation and it first emerges as wholeness and then particularises itself and then at some point (perhaps the enlightenment definition fits here) it also dissolves back into itself - but he says it is not just like a circle going back and forth or around and around and then it's finished, rather it's like a spiral, after each dissolution somethething more is added, it emerges again and comes back on another level and at some point the particular has to go back to contact the ground yet again. So he says the whole and the particular are evolving together, both need each other in a spiralling movement. He doesnt adress wether the ground is just being or just conscious or both or neither, or if he does I just cannot grasp what is part of the holomovement or beyond that he describes. But I think it's interesting, especially because of your emphasis on 'both' a deep I and a personal self rather than either or neither, which made an impression on me. So, in my interpretation of Bohms view they evolve together in a spiral-like movement. The emergence of something absolutely new could be said to be due to the contact with the ground, while the development of the past into something more is also new in the sense of being a process. Well, thx for reading. Sincerely, Leif
Hello @TimFreke1. According to your philosophy, can I affect God or the One through my actions? Can I make Him kinder or more evil as He is realizing the potentiality through my life? And does my individual soul exist to continue with separate identity after my physical death or does it get merged with the one?
I would suggest that the psyche or soul has evolved so that it can survive the death of the body. I don’t think our actions will make good kinder or less kind. But when we come into communion with God, we certainly become full of love.
@@Thinkerts that’s a big question to answer in the comment section on CZcams, my friend. I think your life really matters because you are an evolving soul and your life is that opportunity to evolve hard as it can be sometimes Take a look at my website, Tim freke.com, and consider becoming a guest of my online community if you want to go deeper with this. Or better, still come to one of my Retreat and see what you experience
Hello again I enjoyed watching this episode, although, unless I'm missing something, I still fail to see how what you're saying is anything different to what esoteric/occult philosophy teaches. The 'ground' from which the One or Monad (the beginning of any system in creation) emerges has been given many titles over the centuries such as Ain Soph, Chaos, the Deep etc. The Secret Doctrine calls it Space & Darkness & calls it the unconscious. The Rig Veda calls it Being (sat) & non-Being (asat). It is represented by the circle because it signifies potential Being which knows itself NOT & only becomes conscious of itself when it differentiates into the triad & beyond. The Rig Veda explains that from Purusha (cosmic self), purusha was born. The chicken & egg emerge from each other. Time is relative & is an aspect of the universe of maya so you could very well have a supreme conscious God/Mind in the 'beginning' but the emerging process form the unconscious Darkness just happened to take 'billions or trillions of years' as we would perceive it. As God arises or awakens however the journey is seen as like a dream since it now enters the one reality of its own presence. This is the case when moving from plane to the next...a soul emerging consciously on a higher plane after death will remember the material plane as a dream like experience & mental in nature.
My view is most certainly essentially the same as those found in the 'perennial philosophy'. The project in my book Soul Story was to create an understanding of existence that brought esoteric philosophy into the 21st century by making it congruent with our modern scientific understanding. My more recent ideas about consciousness is a continuation of that project, which has meant abandoning an idea found at the foundation of much esoteric philosophy that consciousness is primary. So although my work is a continuation of esoteric thinking and seeks to explain the same spiritual experiences, I would now disagree with many ideas you mention above.
This is new material that builds on my latest book Soul Story. You can get it here but it will be cheaper on Amazon 😀 timfreke.com/Product/215/Soul%20Story I am right now working on create a new type of audiobook to explore these new ideas in a systematic way, but that's turned into a big project taking longer than i thought. If you'd like to explore the ideas now with me in person check out my little online community of life-explorers timfreke.com/ICU.aspx
Hey Tim! Loved the presentation, very insightful! I was wondering if you yourself have engaged in the contemplative meditation practices and reached a direct experience of the state of non-duality? The reason I'm asking is that a lot of the people that claim to have experienced that also claim that it's practically impossible to conceptually explain it and one must have the direct realization themselves to "get it".
I have experienced the non-dual state and explored many practises to deepen it for many years. Can we talk about it? I think it is impossible to really talk about anything without shared experience. To use the classic example from an old teaching story 'how would describe the taste of a mango to someone who'd never tasted anything sweet?' Communication relies on shared experience. The challenge is to find a bridge for those who've not experienced these deep spiritual states so that understanding can lead to experience. But the experience is always a surprise and more of a WOW than anticipated it seems to me.
Very interesting discussion Tim, thank you for this. Some of the ideas remind me of Eckhart Tolle’s teaching, he teaches the evolving of consciousness and the idea of the universe learning to witness itself. This is a view that I held first but one of the issues I have with it, which may be a somewhat shallow idea, is perhaps this idea of consciousness evolving is somewhat an unconscious ego driven view. I’m more conscious than a monkey or I’m more conscious than someone who hasn’t awoken. I’m not sure something I’m playing around with myself, perhaps it’s not ego driven due to our dualistic nature of being a human-being, the duality of being a human and being itself. So in other words what’s true is true even if ego is involved. Anyway hearing you discuss your ideas was great! Thanks
Glad the talk was interesting Mike. I suggest the ego in the sense of an evolving individual identity is the foundation upon which we can realise oneness and become unividuals: 'individuals conscious of unity'. Most of the evolutionary process has been unconscious. The universe is only beginning to become conscious. The issue you are raising sounds like one 'spiritual elitism' ... eg the tendency towards the idea 'I am more evolved than you.' I hate that and find it meaningless. Monkeys are more evolved that me in lots of ways ... getting around in trees for one. I am more evolved than monkeys I suspect in terms of imagination/psyche. I expect I am more evolved than you around those areas I have spent my life, and you are more evolved than me around those areas where you have spent your life. But all of us (monkeys included) can continual to evolve and realise new levels of emergence.
Interesting for sure but proceed with caution. Correct or not a lot of these things tim says are easy to be misunderstood, adding to the confusion evident in the QA section.
It is confusing at first I completely agree. I found it very disorientating when these realisations started coming into my mind to challenge the way i had been thinking for a very long time. But it has become exhilarating and has opened up my experience of awakening (and life generally) in a really wonderful way.
Tim, I am happy that you attempted to correct your interpretation of consciousness. It makes me aware that you’re in search of the truth as a good scientific mind should do. However, you had misunderstood Rupert Spira's words. What Rupert usually ask is if you have ever had any experience out of your own experience. He is always really precise with his words. He uses consciousness as a synonym of experience and as the field where all the experiences take place. He also used the metaphor of a screen to explain it. All that happened at the screen it’s made of screen. Everything that I experience is made of my own experience. The matter is a concept that attempts to explain the idea that there’s something out of your experience, but that’s impossible because nothing can be experienced out of your own experience. So everything is made of the same substance. what is perceived and what it’s being perceiving: “consciousness”. Consciousness is treated by Rupert carefully and he’s constantly repeating that it’s not an “object” of the experience, he never uses it as a “noun”. If you are aware of your existence, how you can conclude that being is the primary quality?. Being aware of your being is therefore explaining that whatever is being aware is the main quality of existence. Rupert insists to explore its nature in your own experience. I would suggest first understand well its teaching before claiming they’re mistaken.
Yes. That is exactly what I understand Rupert to be saying and is pretty much identical to myself in books such as Lucid Living and it is I would now say wrong. I don't think you've understood my critique yet Enrique.
Eloquent Tim -thanks. As well as envisioning this blossoming of complexity, diversity and inter-connectedness in which consciousness arises through evolution in the physical domain all as a discrete process, i was wondering if you had wondered on an inverse principle of simultaneous involution that creates a dynamic exchange , communication to complete an undivided whole or unity, it would seem an elegant solution and logical. As the physical domain becomes more refined, elevated informationally and moves as if towards an attractor /culmination could you see that the 'heavenly' realms which exist in greater subtlety could be informing the physical domain through higher energetics say of inspiration, intuition etc descending or being bestowed from 'above'. The physical symbol of that would be sun, star radiation, and so forth bathing the earth. So that 'heavenly' realms are also discrete entities yet intrinsically connected to the denser realms, the physical universe as an echo or reflection, perhaps a physical version or outpicturing of the higher dimensions. O So our consciousness might be the evolved movement of these informational inter connections but also a receiver and valve for higher input. All these domains are ultimately in-formation so likewise subject to transformation and this whole movement spirals in-out and returns to Source in an endless cycle. The infinite expressing itself through an infinite number of finite forms.
I would see it like your sun metaphor Jeff. It does support life on earth, but itself has evolved, as has everything. I think 'involution' in this sense is an unnecessary idea that prevents the elegance of the vision i am exploring ... which simply put is ... existence is the realisation of potentiality in ever more emergent ways. The concept of 'involution' as i understand it is an attempt to combine modern evolutionary theory with a traditional understanding of 'emanation'. I think there may be room to do this at the foundations of emergence with the 'emanation' of the archetypal structures of relationship we study with maths ... eg I think Lao Tzu's idea that the 1 becomes 2 and the 2 becomes 3, which leads to the 10 thousand things ... can still do work. But Aurobindo's idea of involution does work for me.
@@TimFreke1 Hi Tim, yes i am thinking more in terms of Classical Chinese thinking, who share a v similar view to your own. Perhaps involution is implicit from the outset.... as the immanent field of potentiality acting as the fertile ground of being, seeding the arising of all that is in a continual expression of novelty. I do think the Source is the utmost simplicity that is not 'in need' of evolution other than this is its nature. I do admire your vision Tim thank you.
@@jeffdocherty OK - so you're meaning what is also called 'emanation'. The 1 becomes 2 becomes 3 becomes 10,000 things as Lao Tzu says. Yes. I think this applies to the very foundation of emergence. I am dealing with this in my forthcoming philosophy project that I hope will be on youtube this year. Big love Tim
hi tim are we all just trying to define everything in words while forgetting the dao that can be named is not the dao. we can experience it, as i have, but all words to describe never quite get their and from my experience never will. we need maps but again remember the map is not the territory.
Yes... I am a big fan of Mystery. The map is never the territory, but to understand and navigate the territory we need the best map we can manage. We can both be conscious of Mystery and do our best to evolve our understanding. Our experience is profoundly affected by our understanding. We are processing everything that happens to us all the time.
@@TimFreke1 totally agree, the other oddity that came to mind is the more one discovers the more one realizes what one does not know a la socrates what wonderful paradoxical and challenging world we live, best wishes for new discoveries in 2021 :-] thanks for what you do, real good faith conversation are needed for our strange times
If we explore my hypothesis that all qualities emerge in one process of evolution then what would be the simplest quality at the ground of that process? I suggest being which I imagine with an analogy from physics to be like a field that can be informed by information to create all forms through the evolutionary process. The field of being has the potential to be informed but it is not doing this or making it happen. So in itself it has no qualities other than being. And this can be informed by information which currently in physics is seen as the most fundamental level of the evolutionary process. So to answer your question directly, I suggest being doesn’t come from anywhere being simply is (by definition). The ground of everything is the potentiality for anything.
@@TimFreke1 Information is fundamental? That doesn't make sense. Information for who? Seems just like Counciousness with a plan or Matter with laws. Couldn't you just interchange these ideas/names?
@@Krod4321 Can I invite you to attend one of my online sessions to discuss this because trying to do this in the comments section feels hopeless and your questions are very good. To understand information as fundamental check out digital physics - these are not my ideas these come from physicists. I see the philosophy I’m exploring as Unidual. In other words it posits that the nature of reality is always the one in relationship with itself. The one being the field of being snd the relationship evolving information. I don’t think we can get simpler than that. Because as you rightly fully say we can just say where did that come from? So the most we can hope for is to get to the very simplest ground that we have to assume.
Hi Tim, where your ideas differ from the process-relational theory of Whitehead or other process thinkers like Bergson, Ilya Prigogine, Schelling, Hegel? I am dealing with this thinkers for years and when i heard your thoughts it was like ... ok, very cool but its absolutly nothing new in it.
I'm not claiming these ideas are new to the world ... only new to me. And I am extremely grateful to all the thinkers you mention who thought these ideas already and made it easier for me. Having said that, Hegel and others are Idealists, and that is the very idea I am rejecting in this talk ... so may be worth giving it another listen? 😀
@@TimFreke1 It depends on how you read Hegel. I define process-thinkers when they postulated difference, process or relations first and identity secondary. From this point of view Hegel is definitely a process thinker. At the core of his thinking is movement, emergence and relations. As in your thinking if i have understood you correctly.
Yep. I can get what you’re saying about Hegel and agree completely. The new element for me in my own recent work is the way of integrated consciousness into that picture of an emergent universe. This has been a break with the non-dual conception of consciousness as the ground I adopted previously. And it is this which is being promoted while widely as an alternative to materialism at the moment
@@wolkenkuckucksheim555 PS If you ever read my latest book Soul Story I'd be fascinated to know where you feel what I am exploring resonates or not with the thinkers you mention. Always helpful to get an outside perspective.
This sounds kind of similar to Andrew Gallimore’s book Alien Information Theory. He basically talks about how our universe and other universes are constructed by a fundamental code of information to allow conscious intelligences to emerge. Kind of like farming consciousness lol Cool book, but to me, sounds more like escapism. He mentions “using DMT to completely exit this reality” I agree with consciousness being an emergent property but there has to be that boundary between living and fulfilling your life but also finding a potential deeper aspect to our being. I don’t personally believe we emerged to “exit reality”. Kind of sounds like a fucked up game. You don’t choose to be conscious, you were artificially created into it. Ehhh sorry not buying that Andrew lol Sounds like more drug induced. If we were an emergent consciousness designed to evolve into a higher reality, we shouldn’t need to the extended use of an exogenous molecule to do so.
WHAT DO I MEAN BY ‘SUBJECTIVITY”? I can see that some folks are having trouble with what I mean by ‘subjectivity’ because they feel it must entail some sort of consciousness. So apologies where I’ve not been clear enough … and perhaps this will help convey how I am using the word, which will help you better evaluate the ideas I am exploring more. Take the sentence 'x is reading y' ... where x and y are information systems interacting, eg receiving and processing information. In this sentence 'x' is the subject and 'y' is the object. It could be turned around... 'y is reading x’. Now 'y' is the subject and 'x' is the object. This is the simplest form of subjectivity and objectivity which forms the transjective relationship. No consciousness is implied. Hope that help?
That doesn't clear things up, no. That's vague. All you said is: X exists, and Y exists. X and Y are information systems (what's that?). X can read Y, and Y can read X (what does that mean, that they can "read" each other? they can sense?). X and Y are both subjects (what do you mean that they are subjects? that they each have an individual identity, a subjective experience, are both experiencers who have a perspective of their own?). X and Y are both utterly unconscious (so then what do you mean that they both have subjectivity?). You could at this point say: "What I mean to say is that because both X and Y can sense their environment, because they can sense and receive and process and respond to environmental stimuli, we can infer that they have subjectivity, meaning we can infer that they have their own perspective on the environment in which they live and move and have their being." Ahh, ok. But wait, you said that X and Y are utterly without any degree of consciousness or mind, so how is it possible for a thing to have its own subjective experience and perspective on the environment AND ALSO be completely void of any degree of mind or consciousness? You mentioned artificial intelligence (AI) in one of your other posts. I have something to add: Artificial intelligence is created and programmed by living, intelligent and creative human minds, Tim. Thus, no, you don't have an example of an information processing system that exists independently from any sort or degree of mind or consciousness or life. Now for a helpful distinction: -If something has subjectivity and a perspective of its own whereby it can sense and process and intelligently respond to its environment, then it is definitely implied that it has some degree of mind, or, is conscious to some degree, and, is alive to some degree. -If, on the other hand, something is sensing and processing and intelligently responding to its environment BUT IS WITHOUT SUBJECTIVITY AND A PERSPECTIVE OF ITS OWN, like artificial intelligence, then it has been made or designed by an intelligent mind to function the way that it does, or, it is a thing that is simply receptive to, and thus is merely being determined in its functioning and behavior by, principles or 'laws' that have come from something above it, namely, an intelligent mind. To speak of a thing as "having a perspective of its own" but also as being utterly dead, mindless, and unconscious is nonsense.
@@TimFreke1 Tim, don't make it seem like I am merely being picky about words and because of this missing your meaning. Not cool. You know I've been following you every step of the way, and we have been evaluating your ideas and meaning the whole time, and naturally that is going to focus on the words you use to convey your ideas and meaning, especially when they don't seem to make any sense. It is clear what you mean by subjectivity: having a perspective on the whole of which one is a part; or, having a perspective on the environment in which one exists. You've said this again and again in your videos. So, when you say "a water molecule has subjectivity" it means that the water molecule has its own perspective. What is required for a thing to have its own perspective? That it have some degree of mind or consciousness. If you want to assert that the water molecule has its own perspective but doesn't have any degree of mind or consciousness, then you are going to have to explain to us how in the world a thing can have a perspective but no degree of mind or consciousness. This is the situation you are in, clearly. You can't get out of it by saying "Look, in this sentence: "X reads Y", X is the subject". Uhh, yeah. And in this sentence "The computer is not a subject" the computer is the subject. This doesn't mean that in the real world the computer possess subjectivity as you mean it when you speak of elementary particles: that they have their own perspective. So now you want to distance yourself from subjectivity as meaning "having a perspective on the whole", because of what that obviously entails, and instead, you want to focus on the idea of a thing that can merely sense and respond to its environment, but that doesn't have its own perspective. Ok. So, since we have, through an analysis of your meaning of the word 'subjectivity' moved farther away from what it really means to have subjectivity, and are now talking about something like a machine that merely senses and responds to its environment but without a perspective, why continue with the word 'subjectivity'? How, after all this, could you possibly still think that it is a clear way of talking about the matter?
@@evoLveAllone I didn't mean it was just about words (or about you). Only that I felt you needed to find a word for the concept I am exploring that works for you, because then you'd at least get what I am saying, and could respond to that. I'm going to have to leave our discussion there as from each of your comments I can see I have failed to convey the idea to you. Sorry about that.
@@TimFreke1 Yeah, you did shift to making it seem like I was stuck on words and failing to comprehend your meaning, which isn't true. I've understood you every step of the way, it seems to me, and I think that you have just failed to uphold a coherent position. I'm fine with ending our engagement here, though. Thanks for taking the time to get into it with me, sir. I respect that. I hope we can pick things up again in the future. Until then!
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️Tim’s intricate analysis of the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ is the exact kind of exquisite/insightful detail that characterises him as a philosopher. This work is truly genius and serves so fantastically as a modern yet timeless narrative of the crazy miracle we’re part of. It feels as though Tim has been ruthless with his own work this past year and it seems to have paid off and benefited his understanding so greatly...this stuff isn’t just extraordinarily clever, it touches that place of truth deep within my being...an intuitive sense of simple understanding. When academic brilliance can make you feel such a deep love and self-recognition, you know you’ve got your hands on a really terrific philosopher. Well done Tim.
Thanks Aaron. You've bought a big smile to my face and a warm feeling in my heart. Makes all the hard work worthwhile.
It would be illuminating to see Tim Freke interview Swami Sarvapriyananda!
Tim seems like he has adopted the sankya phosophy which is called dualistic. Swami Sarvapriyananda is a non dualistic advaita vedanta, but he has made videos describing the many different schools of hindu philosophy.
@@joshuamitchell1733 I subscribe to truth beyond tradition, it makes sense to do that...
TIM! What a wonderful person you are! Who else in the spiritual teacher community have I found in my 30 years of spiritual searching has the self effacing and brutal honesty to throw out even their most fundamental ideas under scrutiny? Precisely no one - and I thank you for for that. It can’t be stated how much this sort of honesty is lacking in our field. So many people unilaterally accept the ideas of non duality without question - in part because everyone else is spouting the same stuff. I’ve been trying to almost force the understanding of everything existing within consciousness for years - but not quite being able to grasp it. Nice to know I haven’t necessarily been completely stupid and spiritually ‘inferior’ for not getting. it. I’ve never been willing to take on anything like that until I can 100% verify it myself. Unfortunately a lot of people in the advaita community are very adamant and unrelenting about their ideas & it’s tempting to accept that they must all be right and end up feeling like a bit of a plumb for not ‘getting’ it.
Thank you for this message. Really appreciated.
Tim Freke ❤️
I contemplated this consciousness and objectivity this morning. They are not two but one Being. And depending on where you place attention is what you experience. NeoAdvaita makes the mistake of dismissing one of them in order to keep the idea of oneness. Like a magnet with a north and south pole. They say, only the north pole is real and the south pole doesn't really exist. I was thinking that the body is not just " an object in consciousness" ; it is also a subject in it own right. Objectivity is in consciousness and consciousness is in objectivity. And we have the ability to notice both xx🤗❣️
Love the magnet analogy David.
This theory is brilliant, it answers contradictions and open questions for example why do we have to live this human life to gain experience, if we come from the One which already has all the knowledge in it...why does the one want to experience itself if he already knows itself).
What I don't understand is how consciousness can arise from being. If being has no qualities (it's the ground), so how can so many zillions of information originate one from the other, starting from this ground.
Isn't it what the scientific paradigm says, that consciousness arose from unconsciousness?
And secondly, the universal love that we experience in an expanded state of consciousness or in an NDE, is (not only but) also a feeling: how can that be intrinsic into the being in relation to itself...what if the being wouldn't love itself? Because relation and
attraction (yin yang, magnetic etc.) doesn't imply a feeling of love.
Glad the ideas touched you. Great questions.
"how consciousness can arise from being." What is evolving is the one in relationship with itself. Reading and responding to itself on all levels of emergence. It takes nearly 14 billion years to learn how to do that consciously ... all interactions before that are by definition unconscious.
Why is what I call the 'Big Love' that comes with oneness a feeling? Because it is through the embodied individual that the Oneness of Being knows itself as all One. So it is felt in the individual.
There's much more to say of course, Alexandri. If you'd like to explore this with me online check out this timfreke.com/ICU.aspx
Big love Tim
Hmmm. It seems to me that people who have been exploring spirituality for a long time seem to end up with alot of very fixed concepts. It was interesting that the people who were supposed to be asking questions of Tim's views really used it to restate what they thought.
I thoroughly enjoyed listening to you share these ideas. It seems to me that placing pure consciousness or cosmic consciousness at the beginning is placing a very big thing without explanation at the beginning. It does seem akin to placing god at the beginning. Which is just explaining a mystery with a mystery. I like the concept of the universe as being the one in relationship with itself. That is much more than simple oneness. It seems to me that it explains our experience in a much fuller and in a more complete manner. Thank you for showing us a way out of this conundrum.
Thanks Tim for illucidating a very complex topic.. I've always believed this yet never really spoken it out in the way you put it.. I've always believed that the energy hum, the dos operating system from which all arises is an evolving system which only evolves because singular individual consciousness arises from this something that is being and becoming.. What people believe is consciousness is actually millions of singular pieces of information clumping together forming a memory construct that as it evolves and adds to its information it becomes an individual with many memories.. All these many memories are us and its us caring for and sometimes destroying each other is what people call God! What that dos operating system is and how it began to split into an alternating current of particle or wave is the greatest mystery of all!
Thanks for sharing your response Shelley. If you're interested in looking at these ideas with me in person check out my little online community of explorers timfreke.com/ICU.aspx
That was great.
Now... just condense this into a 3 minute music video, so we can sell it to the kids before we end up in a ""camp"" for wrongthink.
Thank you Tim, this is beautifully and brialliantly expressed
I'm not sure why there is a need to dismiss consciousness as a/the fundamental ground of Being. It isn't by definition 'smuggling God in at the beginning' (in the sense of God as the omniscient creator) .
Consciousness can be fundamental And evolving/developing . (ie baby>child>adult )
I do concur on the semantic issues with 'consciousness'. One might understand the 'unconscious' as : 'consciousness we are as yet unaware of'. (a bit of a mouthful. - I blame Freud)
You are right. Idealism doesn't necessary lead to smuggling God back in, but it often does, because once the ground is conscious it often then has intentions etc. Not everyone does this though. My essential point is that Idealism is not given in our experience as has often been claimed (including by me). And that we should take as the ground the simplest quality possible that everything shares ... and that isn't consciousness it is Being. So that consciousness can be seen as an emergent quality ... which it does seem to be from a common senes perspective.
Emergent transfection of the conscious beingness. Great concept Tim
The Jesus Mysteries, Jesus and the Goddess, and for a very good laugh The Gospel of the Second Coming are great books in my history and current experience, though I admit I sometimes was irritated by the use of "Consciousness" as a metaphor for the ground. The All in relationship to the All is very good. The mystery is "how did it come about?", and even more "How did it start to come about?" I see both the All ever Being, and also the process of the creation becoming more elaborate and able to give more information back to the All. I suspect that this process is how the All can be in relationship with itself, for otherwise there would be nothing but the All for it to have a relationship with.
I’m liking this. As I listen I keep thinking of Kant and Schopenhauer, the limits of knowledge, and the difference between appearance and, presumably, reality.
Ego ( personal self-image separate from others) = default mode network cerebral cortex.
Deep sense of emotional/psychic being = limbic system.
Feeling of being, basic bodily functions, breathing, digesting, defecating = brain-stem.
What a wonderful rabbit hole!
Thank you Tim. What do you call information? Is it the same as being? Because information is information for a consciousness, one could even say it is the same thing as consciousness. For how could being be informational without being conscious?
In any case, what you are saying is quite close to what Bergson says in Matter and Memory and in Creative Evolution.
I see information as what discriminates the potentiality of Being into emergent qualities. I see existence as the One in relationship with itself ... so at every level there are informational systems reading each other ... subjects and objects. This will evolve into conscious reading of the informational ecology ... and then into consciousness of the processing system itself, which is psyche. (Thanks for the note about Bergson. I haven't looked at him for many years, so I'll go back and take a look.)
I do agree with your view as I have always questioned Consciousness as the ultimate source of all. My answer is that the ultimate truth and source is no thing. It simply cannot be and all things are process from there.
I agree in that the ground is formless Joseph. But I am unconvinced we need to think of it as the 'source'. Rather I suggest what exists is the process ... the becoming ... of which formless Being is the ground (the foundational quality). Formless Being is something that pre-existed which started becoming one day. Because if that were the case it would need to have qualities such as intention or some causal power and it wouldn't be formless.
@@TimFreke1 I agree Tim but I must clarify my viewpoint in that I currently view the source of all as this Nothingness which has no existence in matter, energy, space or time. As such it is entirely void of qualities, but I like where you are heading. Even formless being is in the existence mode and I really do view it as a constant event.
Surely there is no foundation as emergence could be endless how do you know there is a foundation of being? There are theories in physics saying that black holes create universes and it’s endless. Maybe there was never a beginning point but is infinitely endless in emergence. How else could the process of emergence being in the first place? It must always have been. What are your thoughts on this?
Always inspiring listening to you, Tim. But I must agree with several of those who intervened. We use a too anthropomorphic notion of human waking consciousness. Considering consciousness and Creativity, purpose and intentionality as prior to matter has more explanatory power. They emerge in matter but don't need the Big bang, etc. And I can't see the point by positing information and processes as fundamental. It seems to me less explanatory than positing consciousness as fundamental. One can explain the former by the latter but not the other way around. After all, if we like it or not, one knows intimately what consciousness is experientially, whereas information is a mental abstract concept for a spatial and/or temporal stream of distinct perceptions. And perceptions need consciousness first. Emergentism works better seeing consciousness emerging in (or throuh) matter rather than making it emerge from it and/or its processes.
At any rate, thanks for these stimulating discussions.
OK. Sorry I wasn't clear enough Marco. You say "if we like it or not, one knows intimately what consciousness is experientially, whereas information is a mental abstract concept for a spatial and/or temporal stream of distinct perceptions. And perceptions need consciousness first." I suggest this view is conceptually laden. It is not given in experience, it is an interpretation of experience (as is my new view and all other views). It is hard to see at first, because we it is hard to see our own conceptual assumptions. It took me decades but when I did see the obviousness of this, it was profound in my experience.I make the points differently here so this may help you really get what I am pointing out. czcams.com/video/NKXM2hHUESs/video.html If you get the shift it may not have the profound affect on you that did in me, but you may find it very interesting.
@@TimFreke1 Tim, by saying that "consciousness is an activity" you seem to imply that there can be no conscious presence without activity. Assuming activity as prior to consciousness then rises the question where from this activity comes from in the first place? A semantic replacement of "activity" with "processes" or "information" does not explain if, why and how these processes supposedly give rise to consciousness experiences? (and BTW, it also suggests another premise, namely that space-time to be a necessary condition for consciousness to exist.) My understanding of your interpretation is also reinforced by your distinction between phenomena IN consciousness vs. sensory experience OF something. Of course sensations are NOT IN consciousness, but I don't see this as an argument against its fundamental character unless one assumes that there can be no consciousness without an object/phenomenon to be conscious OF. I feel this to be a reification and an unwarranted premise as well. If you let this premise fall and reconsider it from the standpoint of consciousness that can have experiences but must not necessarily, then I don't see inconsistencies.
@Marco Masi Glad to hear you agree that sensation don't exist in consciousness as this is a widespread view. I am suggesting that exists is process. This is a process philosophy like Whitehead. So existence is 'the one in relationship with itself' in the process of realising ever more emergent potentialities. Information is a concept that we can use to define the evolution of emergent qualities. Every Information system is in a subjective relationship with the objective whole. That subjective reading of information will evolve into conscious reading of the environment as outlined in my talk with the arising of life and an agenda to survive etc, which makes some information very important and most of it irrelevant.
@@TimFreke1 That's fine. There is essentially no problem with Whitehead theoretical framework, but the question of what is more fundamental remains. The process or consciousness? I can't see how consciousness could emerge from the process, as you seem to imply. Whereas, the other way around works much better: the process itself IS an expression in a phenomenal spatial and temporal manifestation of consciousness. Even though I'm not a fan of information-theoretical approaches to consciousness (they don't seem to me as having much explanatory power), I nevertheless have no problem to posit "the subjective reading of information evolving into conscious reading of the environment in the process of realising ever more emergent potentialities". Provided, however, that one does not posit the process or the reading as a prior explanatory primitive for consciousness. Because also the subjective reading of information presupposes already a conscious reading, otherwise it would not be subjective. At the end of the story we won't get rid of consciousness as fundamental. It will always lurk at the bottom of all our concepts.
I consider myself a 'spiritual emergentist' as well. But the question is from what, where and how is spirit supposed to "emerge"? Consciousness emerging **in (or 'through')** matter and **by means of** informational processes rather than being an occurrence of matter and processes is a more consistent perspective.
@@marcomasi2066 OK - I think I need to just clarify what I mean by 'subjective' for you to get what I am saying. How about this .... Lets' say there are 2 information systems and that 'x is reading y' .. where reading means x is taking in information for y and processing it. In this statement 'x' is the subject of the sentence and 'y' the object. Nothing is implied about x being conscious or otherwise.
Tim is rediscovering Kashmir Shaivism. .. Prakasha and Vimarsha - the play of Consciousness Being Becoming.
My ideas are certainly resonate with some aspects of Shaivism .. but there are other influences as well that tell the same basic story. But the story needs a major update for the 21st century to move it on from the mythological to the trans-scientific
@@TimFreke1 yes, Non-dual Shaivism, free of mythology but in its essential structure, is very much in alignment with the most current paradigms of neuro science and quantum physics. The term , ‘svatanrya,” is key. Freedom to evolve and create within any possible reality tunnel such as yours and yet also free from all of them.
Tim, there is an idea that “God”, the oneness destroyed itself to experience that destruction and reconstruction - because it could. We are part of the process of reconstruction of “God”, the oneness - James Joyce alluded to the process of existence was creating God.
The issue here is that we start with God ... and whenever we do that we are solving the mystery of the universe with an even bigger mystery ... so we really haven't got anywhere. What intrigues me about what I am exploring is that explains where God comes from, because the universes is evolving into God in the sense of a transcendent being of love.
@@TimFreke1 hi Tim, thanks for the reply. I wouldn’t so much frame it as an issue rather as another form of exploration of the concept :-) The expansion/evolution into and creation of God could be one of many contractions and expansions - just like the Big Bounce Theory . I admit that the thought experiment that this is the first and only time the universe has evolved into god is useful. If evolution is the universe attempting to explore and create every facet of itself, universes themselves and therefore “God” itself evolves into every facet that it can. This universe/God is only one expression of that . It explodes into and out of every direction and dimension at once expressing and evolving. Once created, God itself evolves and I imagine seeks to understand its new evolved self. Which leads me to conclude God is the process, not the destination or for that matter, the source. I think I’ve just thought myself round to your way of thinking 😆 What therefore is human purpose? Is it to provide information and understanding back into that process?
@@stevemccann7719 I love lots of that. I agree if this universe is not the first but is born from previous universes we can see the old Hindu idea of God arising as the universe and the coming back into God in a new evolutionary light. So God is in this sense perhaps source, process and destination. I like the Hindu notion of Brahman Nirguna and Brahman Sanguna .. God without qualities (Being) and God with qualities (All).
@@stevemccann7719 Human purpose for me comes from the very nature of existence ... which is the One in relationship with itself, realising itself in ever more emergent ways. So here we are arising because of that process .. the universe conscious of itself ... and we can consciously choose to experience existence in more emergent ways, which enriches both ourselves and the whole of which we are an integral part.
@@TimFreke1 beautiful, thank you.
Hey, Tim. After having watched this, I see that my questions still stand:
1) What does it mean for a thing to have its own perspective (which involves some degree of mind) on the whole, and to be able to sense and intelligently process external information, but not have any degree of mind or consciousness? Your previous answer: "Intelligent processing is ubiquitous", doesn't answer the question. And we aren't talking about meta-consciousness here, but just what it means to have a perspective at all. You say that basic bits of matter have their own perspective on the whole, and are able to sense and intelligently process external information, but that they are utterly unconscious and without mind. This sounds nonsensical, because in order for a thing to have a perspective, there must be something that it is like to be the thing, and, as we know, some degree of mind or consciousness is required for this. So, "What does it mean for a thing to have its own perspective on the whole, and to be able to sense and intelligently process and respond to external information, and to learn in the process, but not have any degree of mind or consciousness?" It seems to me that if you want to remove any degree of mind or consciousness from a thing, then you are going to have to also remove the existence and possibility of a perspective.
2) You say that all of existence, no matter if there is only 1 universe or many, emerged from the ever-present Ground, namely, Infinite Potentiality. This implies that Infinite Potentiality was before the evolutionary process of existence was, and therefore, that there was a beginning to the evolutionary process of existence, and a means by which (the how question) Infinite Potentiality began actualizing itself. So, how did Infinite Potential begin the process of actualizing itself?
3) Tim, as you acknowledge from time to time, there are degrees of consciousness. Since you acknowledge this, it shouldn't be an issue for you to understand that saying that something is conscious isn't necessarily saying that it is meta-conscious. As one of your questioners put it (I'm paraphrasing) "Consciousness seems hierarchical, with higher and lower degrees. The lower levels may seem unconscious from the perspective of the higher levels, but the lower actually do possess consciousness to some degree, just not meta-consciousness. Therefore, it isn't true that there is no consciousness in the lower, as you assert." Every time you speak against the idea of there being consciousness in things like elementary particles, you attack the idea of things like elementary particles having conscious thoughts and feelings and intentions and so on, that is, you attack the argument that such things possess, or are, meta-conscious. You do this despite the fact that you know perfectly well the distinction between meta-consciousness and consciousness (As was made crystal clear in your talk with Bernardo). You will then conclude on this basis, "So, things like elementary particles aren't conscious (referring to meta-consciousness) but they possess subjectivity. Such things have their own unique perspective on the whole, and intelligence by which they learn.", which is effectively saying that they are conscious but not meta-conscious. You also seem to do two contradictory things when you get pressed on this: 1) you will insist that you do mean to say that things like subatomic particles don't possess any type or degree of consciousness at all; 2) and other times you will suggest (like you did at the end of this video) that you acknowledge that there is consciousness, but the word 'subjectivity' is simply, in your opinion, a better word to use. When #1 is the case, then you run into trouble having to explain what in the world you are talking about when you talk about the possibility of subjectivity and having a perspective but without any degree of consciousness or mind. When #2 is the case, then you seem to be making things unnecessarily confusing. In this instance, why not, instead, just use the already established, and perfectly accurate and sensible, distinction between meta-consciousness and lesser degrees of consciousness? When you describe something as having subjectivity and its own perspective, naturally you are positing some degree of consciousness or mind; for there can be no perspective, no subjectivity, without mind or consciousness.
There are other issues contained in what you have here presented, but let's just stick with these for now.
Thanks for you message. Too much to discuss on CZcams but let me offer you something back … see below. But first ... what is the secret to using paragraphs on these comments? I've been trying to do so in my responses without success!
1 You say “ in order for a thing to have a perspective, there must be something that it is like to be the thing, and, as we know, some degree of mind or consciousness is required for this” I suggest this is simply not true. Mind (eg conceptual processing) and conscious (eg the knowledge of being) only emerge many billion of years into the evolutionary process. Before that there are information systems interacting (or we could describe them as ‘intelligence systems’ in the AI way of using this term). And in this interaction each system is reading and processing the informational ecology. This is a transjective relationship in which every system is both subject and object.
2 I suggest we can understand every universe or genealogy of universes as have a beginning but the process of realisation of potentiality itself as being eternal. Eg One possibility is to imagine infinite lines of potentiality being realised each of which is a timestream, but they are not temporally related so we can’t say they happen before or after each other. Thus realisation is always happening in an eternal way. (Just a wild speculation of course, but shows there are ways out of the - what is the source and how did it start issue. Which by the way Idealism can’t answer satisfactorily anyway without introducing all sorts of extra qualities to consciousness - usually ‘intentionality’.
3 I think the conscious/meta-conscious distinction is conceptually confusing because it takes the term ‘conscious’ and applies it to things which aren’t actually conscious in the common sense meaning of the word. I did this myself for years. This view sees my unconscious mental processes as conscious … what? I suggest ’subjectivity’ as a better word in order to avoid the conceptual confusion. So we can talk about conscious and unconscious subjectivity … which is a great description of how I am taking in and processing information right now. My new ideas about this I feel leads to a clearer worldview, because when we use the word ‘consciousness’ for something that is actually unconscious we easily end up slipping in all sorts of other stuff qualities such as intentionality … and then we’re back to a more philosophical version of the creator God really, with all of the metaphysical problems that come with that.
@@TimFreke1 Lol, I can't help you there. And you're welcome. Thank you so much for continuing to engage with me! I can't tell you how much I respect that.
Many so called philosophers are just philosiphologists. Tim is a TRUE philosopher and his teachings have shaped how I understand my place in the Universe
I sense that what Tim explores here rings true on a deep level. He has a way of looking at things from a fresh perspective - something any true philosopher does.
Thank you Sinjun
So death is death? And in a sense death is death even within non-dual teaching, because the 'ego' as such is thought to be an illusion anyway. My true self is considered to be non-differentiating. Haven't you just exchanged the word consciousness for being? What's missing is any sense of removing the fear of death that many feel of course. My chosen spiritual path is ACIM, and in any sense, nothing would change, as the course is clear that words are symbols of symbols. It is a myth designed to lead a human being to be able to live with peace and happiness. Yet I am this body and this body will die, I am the 'ego' and this will die. Will there be an existence beyond physical death. What I am hearing is that the fantastical notional world is an epiphenomenal fact and will just stop with its death?
I didn't have time to talk about the immortality of the soul Mark, but if you look at my book Soul Story it explores this in detail. For a brief intro see my TEDx talk at Berkley. czcams.com/video/YXuDaMkcjvY/video.html
The concepts of Being and Consciousness are distinct. Being has only the quality of existing. Consciousness has the qualities of existing and being conscious of existing ... or at least of being conscious of something . So Being is nondual and consciousness requires subject/object.
@@TimFreke1 does soul story come from your new perspective?
@@markharris4659 Yes ... but the view of consciousness as attention is since writing the book.
How do you think about David Bohms suggestion (I have to interpret it to keep it brief because it is answers spread out to questions in a book) that the ground has an endless potential for transformation and it first emerges as wholeness and then particularises itself and then at some point (perhaps the enlightenment definition fits here) it also dissolves back into itself - but he says it is not just like a circle going back and forth or around and around and then it's finished, rather it's like a spiral, after each dissolution somethething more is added, it emerges again and comes back on another level and at some point the particular has to go back to contact the ground yet again. So he says the whole and the particular are evolving together, both need each other in a spiralling movement.
He doesnt adress wether the ground is just being or just conscious or both or neither, or if he does I just cannot grasp what is part of the holomovement or beyond that he describes.
But I think it's interesting, especially because of your emphasis on 'both' a deep I and a personal self rather than either or neither, which made an impression on me. So, in my interpretation of Bohms view they evolve together in a spiral-like movement. The emergence of something absolutely new could be said to be due to the contact with the ground, while the development of the past into something more is also new in the sense of being a process.
Well, thx for reading. Sincerely, Leif
Life and consciousness are infinite, there is always a different point of view...
Without Mystery there is no human existence.
Hello @TimFreke1. According to your philosophy, can I affect God or the One through my actions? Can I make Him kinder or more evil as He is realizing the potentiality through my life? And does my individual soul exist to continue with separate identity after my physical death or does it get merged with the one?
I would suggest that the psyche or soul has evolved so that it can survive the death of the body. I don’t think our actions will make good kinder or less kind. But when we come into communion with God, we certainly become full of love.
@@TimFreke1 Then how does my life matter? How can one consider his/her suffering meaningful? There is nothing wrong in ending this life willingly.
@@Thinkerts that’s a big question to answer in the comment section on CZcams, my friend. I think your life really matters because you are an evolving soul and your life is that opportunity to evolve hard as it can be sometimes Take a look at my website, Tim freke.com, and consider becoming a guest of my online community if you want to go deeper with this. Or better, still come to one of my Retreat and see what you experience
Hello again I enjoyed watching this episode, although, unless I'm missing something, I still fail to see how what you're saying is anything different to what esoteric/occult philosophy teaches. The 'ground' from which the One or Monad (the beginning of any system in creation) emerges has been given many titles over the centuries such as Ain Soph, Chaos, the Deep etc. The Secret Doctrine calls it Space & Darkness & calls it the unconscious. The Rig Veda calls it Being (sat) & non-Being (asat). It is represented by the circle because it signifies potential Being which knows itself NOT & only becomes conscious of itself when it differentiates into the triad & beyond. The Rig Veda explains that from Purusha (cosmic self), purusha was born. The chicken & egg emerge from each other. Time is relative & is an aspect of the universe of maya so you could very well have a supreme conscious God/Mind in the 'beginning' but the emerging process form the unconscious Darkness just happened to take 'billions or trillions of years' as we would perceive it. As God arises or awakens however the journey is seen as like a dream since it now enters the one reality of its own presence. This is the case when moving from plane to the next...a soul emerging consciously on a higher plane after death will remember the material plane as a dream like experience & mental in nature.
My view is most certainly essentially the same as those found in the 'perennial philosophy'. The project in my book Soul Story was to create an understanding of existence that brought esoteric philosophy into the 21st century by making it congruent with our modern scientific understanding. My more recent ideas about consciousness is a continuation of that project, which has meant abandoning an idea found at the foundation of much esoteric philosophy that consciousness is primary. So although my work is a continuation of esoteric thinking and seeks to explain the same spiritual experiences, I would now disagree with many ideas you mention above.
Hi Tim. Thanks for this. Are you writing a book on this? Which of your books would recommend?
This is new material that builds on my latest book Soul Story. You can get it here but it will be cheaper on Amazon 😀 timfreke.com/Product/215/Soul%20Story I am right now working on create a new type of audiobook to explore these new ideas in a systematic way, but that's turned into a big project taking longer than i thought. If you'd like to explore the ideas now with me in person check out my little online community of life-explorers timfreke.com/ICU.aspx
Hey Tim! Loved the presentation, very insightful! I was wondering if you yourself have engaged in the contemplative meditation practices and reached a direct experience of the state of non-duality? The reason I'm asking is that a lot of the people that claim to have experienced that also claim that it's practically impossible to conceptually explain it and one must have the direct realization themselves to "get it".
I have experienced the non-dual state and explored many practises to deepen it for many years. Can we talk about it? I think it is impossible to really talk about anything without shared experience. To use the classic example from an old teaching story 'how would describe the taste of a mango to someone who'd never tasted anything sweet?' Communication relies on shared experience. The challenge is to find a bridge for those who've not experienced these deep spiritual states so that understanding can lead to experience. But the experience is always a surprise and more of a WOW than anticipated it seems to me.
Hello Tim,
Have a look at buddhist notion of emptiness (sunyata). It will take you even further, by liberating being.
I know it well ♥️🙏
PS I think I just read an email from you? In which case I have just recommended you this video, that you have already clearly watched! 🙃
Very interesting discussion Tim, thank you for this. Some of the ideas remind me of Eckhart Tolle’s teaching, he teaches the evolving of consciousness and the idea of the universe learning to witness itself. This is a view that I held first but one of the issues I have with it, which may be a somewhat shallow idea, is perhaps this idea of consciousness evolving is somewhat an unconscious ego driven view. I’m more conscious than a monkey or I’m more conscious than someone who hasn’t awoken. I’m not sure something I’m playing around with myself, perhaps it’s not ego driven due to our dualistic nature of being a human-being, the duality of being a human and being itself. So in other words what’s true is true even if ego is involved. Anyway hearing you discuss your ideas was great! Thanks
Glad the talk was interesting Mike. I suggest the ego in the sense of an evolving individual identity is the foundation upon which we can realise oneness and become unividuals: 'individuals conscious of unity'. Most of the evolutionary process has been unconscious. The universe is only beginning to become conscious. The issue you are raising sounds like one 'spiritual elitism' ... eg the tendency towards the idea 'I am more evolved than you.' I hate that and find it meaningless. Monkeys are more evolved that me in lots of ways ... getting around in trees for one. I am more evolved than monkeys I suspect in terms of imagination/psyche. I expect I am more evolved than you around those areas I have spent my life, and you are more evolved than me around those areas where you have spent your life. But all of us (monkeys included) can continual to evolve and realise new levels of emergence.
Interesting for sure but proceed with caution. Correct or not a lot of these things tim says are easy to be misunderstood, adding to the confusion evident in the QA section.
I thought there were many missing linking bits? Now as I write that I'm not sure what was missing lol. I felt uneasy listening to it tbh.
It is confusing at first I completely agree. I found it very disorientating when these realisations started coming into my mind to challenge the way i had been thinking for a very long time. But it has become exhilarating and has opened up my experience of awakening (and life generally) in a really wonderful way.
Tim, I am happy that you attempted to correct your interpretation of consciousness. It makes me aware that you’re in search of the truth as a good scientific mind should do. However, you had misunderstood Rupert Spira's words. What Rupert usually ask is if you have ever had any experience out of your own experience. He is always really precise with his words. He uses consciousness as a synonym of experience and as the field where all the experiences take place. He also used the metaphor of a screen to explain it. All that happened at the screen it’s made of screen. Everything that I experience is made of my own experience. The matter is a concept that attempts to explain the idea that there’s something out of your experience, but that’s impossible because nothing can be experienced out of your own experience. So everything is made of the same substance. what is perceived and what it’s being perceiving: “consciousness”. Consciousness is treated by Rupert carefully and he’s constantly repeating that it’s not an “object” of the experience, he never uses it as a “noun”. If you are aware of your existence, how you can conclude that being is the primary quality?. Being aware of your being is therefore explaining that whatever is being aware is the main quality of existence. Rupert insists to explore its nature in your own experience. I would suggest first understand well its teaching before claiming they’re mistaken.
Yes. That is exactly what I understand Rupert to be saying and is pretty much identical to myself in books such as Lucid Living and it is I would now say wrong. I don't think you've understood my critique yet Enrique.
Eloquent Tim -thanks. As well as envisioning this blossoming of complexity, diversity and inter-connectedness in which consciousness arises through evolution in the physical domain all as a discrete process, i was wondering if you had wondered on an inverse principle of simultaneous involution that creates a dynamic exchange , communication to complete an undivided whole or unity, it would seem an elegant solution and logical.
As the physical domain becomes more refined, elevated informationally and moves as if towards an attractor /culmination could you see that the 'heavenly' realms which exist in greater subtlety could be informing the physical domain through higher energetics say of inspiration, intuition etc descending or being bestowed from 'above'. The physical symbol of that would be sun, star radiation, and so forth bathing the earth. So that 'heavenly' realms are also discrete entities yet intrinsically connected to the denser realms, the physical universe as an echo or reflection, perhaps a physical version or outpicturing of the higher dimensions. O
So our consciousness might be the evolved movement of these informational inter connections but also a receiver and valve for higher input. All these domains are ultimately in-formation so likewise subject to transformation and this whole movement spirals in-out and returns to Source in an endless cycle. The infinite expressing itself through an infinite number of finite forms.
I would see it like your sun metaphor Jeff. It does support life on earth, but itself has evolved, as has everything. I think 'involution' in this sense is an unnecessary idea that prevents the elegance of the vision i am exploring ... which simply put is ... existence is the realisation of potentiality in ever more emergent ways.
The concept of 'involution' as i understand it is an attempt to combine modern evolutionary theory with a traditional understanding of 'emanation'. I think there may be room to do this at the foundations of emergence with the 'emanation' of the archetypal structures of relationship we study with maths ... eg I think Lao Tzu's idea that the 1 becomes 2 and the 2 becomes 3, which leads to the 10 thousand things ... can still do work. But Aurobindo's idea of involution does work for me.
@@TimFreke1 Hi Tim, yes i am thinking more in terms of Classical Chinese thinking, who share a v similar view to your own. Perhaps involution is implicit from the outset.... as the immanent field of potentiality acting as the fertile ground of being, seeding the arising of all that is in a continual expression of novelty. I do think the Source is the utmost simplicity that is not 'in need' of evolution other than this is its nature.
I do admire your vision Tim thank you.
@@jeffdocherty OK - so you're meaning what is also called 'emanation'. The 1 becomes 2 becomes 3 becomes 10,000 things as Lao Tzu says. Yes. I think this applies to the very foundation of emergence. I am dealing with this in my forthcoming philosophy project that I hope will be on youtube this year. Big love Tim
hi tim are we all just trying to define everything in words while forgetting the dao that can be named is not the dao. we can experience it, as i have, but all words to describe never quite get their and from my experience never will. we need maps but again remember the map is not the territory.
Yes... I am a big fan of Mystery. The map is never the territory, but to understand and navigate the territory we need the best map we can manage. We can both be conscious of Mystery and do our best to evolve our understanding. Our experience is profoundly affected by our understanding. We are processing everything that happens to us all the time.
@@TimFreke1 totally agree, the other oddity that came to mind is the more one discovers the more one realizes what one does not know a la socrates what wonderful paradoxical and challenging world we live, best wishes for new discoveries in 2021 :-] thanks for what you do, real good faith conversation are needed for our strange times
Tim, are you aware of Biocentrism?
Yes. I heard Robert Lanza speak at a conference I was also speaking at, but haven't studied the book because it didn't really make sense to me.
Where does Being come from? And where does it get it's potentiality to create this?
If we explore my hypothesis that all qualities emerge in one process of evolution then what would be the simplest quality at the ground of that process? I suggest being which I imagine with an analogy from physics to be like a field that can be informed by information to create all forms through the evolutionary process. The field of being has the potential to be informed but it is not doing this or making it happen. So in itself it has no qualities other than being. And this can be informed by information which currently in physics is seen as the most fundamental level of the evolutionary process.
So to answer your question directly, I suggest being doesn’t come from anywhere being simply is (by definition). The ground of everything is the potentiality for anything.
@@TimFreke1 Where are the Qualities and information coming from?
@@TimFreke1 Information is fundamental? That doesn't make sense. Information for who? Seems just like Counciousness with a plan or Matter with laws. Couldn't you just interchange these ideas/names?
@@Krod4321 Can I invite you to attend one of my online sessions to discuss this because trying to do this in the comments section feels hopeless and your questions are very good.
To understand information as fundamental check out digital physics - these are not my ideas these come from physicists.
I see the philosophy I’m exploring as Unidual. In other words it posits that the nature of reality is always the one in relationship with itself. The one being the field of being snd the relationship evolving information.
I don’t think we can get simpler than that. Because as you rightly fully say we can just say where did that come from?
So the most we can hope for is to get to the very simplest ground that we have to assume.
@@TimFreke1 Where do I find more information on your online meetings?
Hi Tim, where your ideas differ from the process-relational theory of Whitehead or other process thinkers like Bergson, Ilya Prigogine, Schelling, Hegel? I am dealing with this thinkers for years and when i heard your thoughts it was like ... ok, very cool but its absolutly nothing new in it.
I'm not claiming these ideas are new to the world ... only new to me. And I am extremely grateful to all the thinkers you mention who thought these ideas already and made it easier for me. Having said that, Hegel and others are Idealists, and that is the very idea I am rejecting in this talk ... so may be worth giving it another listen? 😀
@@TimFreke1 It depends on how you read Hegel. I define process-thinkers when they postulated difference, process or relations first and identity secondary. From this point of view Hegel is definitely a process thinker. At the core of his thinking is movement, emergence and relations. As in your thinking if i have understood you correctly.
Yep. I can get what you’re saying about Hegel and agree completely. The new element for me in my own recent work is the way of integrated consciousness into that picture of an emergent universe. This has been a break with the non-dual conception of consciousness as the ground I adopted previously. And it is this which is being promoted while widely as an alternative to materialism at the moment
@@wolkenkuckucksheim555 PS If you ever read my latest book Soul Story I'd be fascinated to know where you feel what I am exploring resonates or not with the thinkers you mention. Always helpful to get an outside perspective.
@@TimFreke1 Yes, i will probably read it. :)
Are mushrooms a good example of “unividual” soul?
Not sure ... but eating the right mushrooms can definitely reveal the unividual experience of oneness with all.
This sounds kind of similar to Andrew Gallimore’s book Alien Information Theory.
He basically talks about how our universe and other universes are constructed by a fundamental code of information to allow conscious intelligences to emerge.
Kind of like farming consciousness lol
Cool book, but to me, sounds more like escapism. He mentions “using DMT to completely exit this reality”
I agree with consciousness being an emergent property but there has to be that boundary between living and fulfilling your life but also finding a potential deeper aspect to our being. I don’t personally believe we emerged to “exit reality”. Kind of sounds like a fucked up game. You don’t choose to be conscious, you were artificially created into it. Ehhh sorry not buying that Andrew lol
Sounds like more drug induced. If we were an emergent consciousness designed to evolve into a higher reality, we shouldn’t need to the extended use of an exogenous molecule to do so.
WHAT DO I MEAN BY ‘SUBJECTIVITY”? I can see that some folks are having trouble with what I mean by ‘subjectivity’ because they feel it must entail some sort of consciousness. So apologies where I’ve not been clear enough … and perhaps this will help convey how I am using the word, which will help you better evaluate the ideas I am exploring more.
Take the sentence 'x is reading y' ... where x and y are information systems interacting, eg receiving and processing information. In this sentence 'x' is the subject and 'y' is the object. It could be turned around... 'y is reading x’. Now 'y' is the subject and 'x' is the object. This is the simplest form of subjectivity and objectivity which forms the transjective relationship. No consciousness is implied.
Hope that help?
That doesn't clear things up, no. That's vague. All you said is: X exists, and Y exists. X and Y are information systems (what's that?). X can read Y, and Y can read X (what does that mean, that they can "read" each other? they can sense?). X and Y are both subjects (what do you mean that they are subjects? that they each have an individual identity, a subjective experience, are both experiencers who have a perspective of their own?). X and Y are both utterly unconscious (so then what do you mean that they both have subjectivity?).
You could at this point say: "What I mean to say is that because both X and Y can sense their environment, because they can sense and receive and process and respond to environmental stimuli, we can infer that they have subjectivity, meaning we can infer that they have their own perspective on the environment in which they live and move and have their being." Ahh, ok. But wait, you said that X and Y are utterly without any degree of consciousness or mind, so how is it possible for a thing to have its own subjective experience and perspective on the environment AND ALSO be completely void of any degree of mind or consciousness?
You mentioned artificial intelligence (AI) in one of your other posts. I have something to add: Artificial intelligence is created and programmed by living, intelligent and creative human minds, Tim. Thus, no, you don't have an example of an information processing system that exists independently from any sort or degree of mind or consciousness or life.
Now for a helpful distinction:
-If something has subjectivity and a perspective of its own whereby it can sense and process and intelligently respond to its environment, then it is definitely implied that it has some degree of mind, or, is conscious to some degree, and, is alive to some degree.
-If, on the other hand, something is sensing and processing and intelligently responding to its environment BUT IS WITHOUT SUBJECTIVITY AND A PERSPECTIVE OF ITS OWN, like artificial intelligence, then it has been made or designed by an intelligent mind to function the way that it does, or, it is a thing that is simply receptive to, and thus is merely being determined in its functioning and behavior by, principles or 'laws' that have come from something above it, namely, an intelligent mind.
To speak of a thing as "having a perspective of its own" but also as being utterly dead, mindless, and unconscious is nonsense.
@@evoLveAllone See my other response where you posted the same comment.
@@TimFreke1 Tim, don't make it seem like I am merely being picky about words and because of this missing your meaning. Not cool. You know I've been following you every step of the way, and we have been evaluating your ideas and meaning the whole time, and naturally that is going to focus on the words you use to convey your ideas and meaning, especially when they don't seem to make any sense.
It is clear what you mean by subjectivity: having a perspective on the whole of which one is a part; or, having a perspective on the environment in which one exists. You've said this again and again in your videos. So, when you say "a water molecule has subjectivity" it means that the water molecule has its own perspective. What is required for a thing to have its own perspective? That it have some degree of mind or consciousness. If you want to assert that the water molecule has its own perspective but doesn't have any degree of mind or consciousness, then you are going to have to explain to us how in the world a thing can have a perspective but no degree of mind or consciousness.
This is the situation you are in, clearly. You can't get out of it by saying "Look, in this sentence: "X reads Y", X is the subject". Uhh, yeah. And in this sentence "The computer is not a subject" the computer is the subject. This doesn't mean that in the real world the computer possess subjectivity as you mean it when you speak of elementary particles: that they have their own perspective.
So now you want to distance yourself from subjectivity as meaning "having a perspective on the whole", because of what that obviously entails, and instead, you want to focus on the idea of a thing that can merely sense and respond to its environment, but that doesn't have its own perspective. Ok. So, since we have, through an analysis of your meaning of the word 'subjectivity' moved farther away from what it really means to have subjectivity, and are now talking about something like a machine that merely senses and responds to its environment but without a perspective, why continue with the word 'subjectivity'? How, after all this, could you possibly still think that it is a clear way of talking about the matter?
@@evoLveAllone I didn't mean it was just about words (or about you). Only that I felt you needed to find a word for the concept I am exploring that works for you, because then you'd at least get what I am saying, and could respond to that. I'm going to have to leave our discussion there as from each of your comments I can see I have failed to convey the idea to you. Sorry about that.
@@TimFreke1 Yeah, you did shift to making it seem like I was stuck on words and failing to comprehend your meaning, which isn't true. I've understood you every step of the way, it seems to me, and I think that you have just failed to uphold a coherent position. I'm fine with ending our engagement here, though. Thanks for taking the time to get into it with me, sir. I respect that. I hope we can pick things up again in the future. Until then!
Paradox is ‘God’