Vitruvian Lines – Part 7: The Consciousness Question

Unknown, Think, Contemplate, ThoughtEach of us knows what consciousness is, but to explain it or – even more challenging – to explain its source or the processes involved in it, remains notoriously difficult.  Regardless of those problems, consciousness is clearly at the very heart of the issues we are examining here.  By good fortune and synchronicity I have been drawn to some research that provides answers that fit neatly with the information which has gone before.

For most, in the last few centuries, Cartesian rationality and materialism have taken over from religion.  Science is the dieu de jour and the human being is entire unto itself – a wysiwyg evolved structure in which all can be explained by neurons firing and passing messages around the brain and nervous system.

Despite concerted efforts over many decades, though, scientists remain unable to explain the phenomena of self-awareness and self-reflection in terms of the way brains are known to function.  This is key to our understanding of the nature of autistic perception and the way it differs from that of other members of the population.

It has long been argued that autists and those who carry the ‘dys-‘ labels (dyslexic, dyspraxic, dysfluent etc.) have brains that are differently structured to those of the rest of us.  If that were the case, though, it wouldn’t explain how the whole of humanity starts physical life with autistic perception, while the majority loose or suppress this way of being to take on the maturation/socialisation norms of their culture with a minority retaining their open, no-limits, creative thought.

In other words, if all human experience could be explained in terms of neural information processing, Joseph Chilton Pearce’s theory of A-Thinking would be wrong.  Since important aspects of consciousness cannot be explained by what the brain does, though, we can look elsewhere for an explanation.  We could obviously look to religion, myth, tradition and spirituality for alternative answers, but for now, let’s stay with science.

 

Very basically, because of the prevailing materialist world view, in which the body is seen as a highly complex machine, mainstream science would dearly love to discover a biological origin for consciousness – some process going on within the brain.  The alternative would be an external source, and that, of course, would not suit the model as it currently stands.

Science has been largely unable to provide answers to these problems.  However, a September 2017 article in the peer-reviewed journal NeuroQuantology sheds some light.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, Dr Dirk Meijer, a professor at the University of Groningen has combined neuroscience with quantum theory to propose the source of consciousness as a field surrounding the brain, but in a ‘fourth spatial dimension’.  This Consciousness (highly reminiscent of Ervin Laszlo’s   Akashic Field)  could pick up information from anywhere, he suggests, and transmit it instantaneously into brain tissue – the whole brain, not just certain areas – by a process called Quantum Wave Resonance, a wave pattern that encompasses all neurons.  He proposes that this mental field “is instrumental in high-speed conscious and subconscious information processing” (source: Consciousness in the Universe is Scale Invariant and Implies an Event Horizon of the Human Brain Dirk K.F. Meijer and Hans J.H. Geesink).

Fractal, Render, 3D, HoneycombThe paper goes on to suggest that this holographic structured consciousness is part of a universal system of nesting energy fields.  In other words, everyone and everything that possesses consciousness has one of these, and each of them has contact with all the others.

The following quote shows the enormous repercussions of Dr Meijer’s theory:

“The presence of a field-receptive resonant workspace, associated with, but not reducible to, our brain, may provide an interpretation framework for widely reported, but poorly understood transpersonal conscious states and algorithmic origin of life.” (ibid.)

In other words, each individual ‘mental field’, aka Consciousness, would be able to access all other fields.  This could allow for and explain the existence, so long marginalised by mainstream science, of remote viewing, telepathy, precognition, dowsing, channelling and the like (which means that he has a hypothetical scientific explanation for the non-logical abilities and skills of some ‘square fillers’).

This field, he says, must have certain characteristics in order to be able to perform this function. It must:

a) be instantaneous – a gradual “diffusion” of information through the system … would work too slowly;

b) be capable of receiving every type of information from the environment (electromagnetic, acoustic, thermal, chemical, mechanical, gravitational);

c) select information at fractal levels for different biological orders of magnitude;

d) incorporate information of various parts of the organism and the whole configuration at the same time;

e) be protected against an excess of information and apply some kind of information quality control;

f) ensure minimal loss and distortion of information.

Point (e) above is particularly interesting in light of what we have already discovered.  The ‘excess of information’ that would come from this limitless source, with one person’s consciousness being able to draw on everyone else’s as well as all other information emanating from anywhere in the cosmos is clearly more than any one individual would need or be able to process.

Temple, Columnar, Painting, MuralWe need a system to restrict the flow.  Could it be that the neurotypical maturation/socialisation process does exactly that?  As they grow up, children learn to block out information deemed unnecessary in their culture.  There are many stories of kids being told firmly that the invisible friends they are chatting to don’t exist.  By the age of three or four, they are learning to divide their worlds into ‘real’ and ‘pretend’.  Do those divisions have more to do with society’s norms than any factual basis?

It follows then that those who choose NOT to take on that socialisation process in its entirety have far more leeway than the rest of the population with regard to what they can perceive.  I wanted to make that point here, to tie it in to Dr Meijer’s research, but the ideas behind it will become much clearer when we look at the final piece of this framework.

 

 

Viewing the Future – Probably

It’s exactly a year since Will – my friend and remote viewing partner – started experimenting with viewing future events.

The strange but accurate scene Will viewed a week ahead.

To recap, briefly:  I’d asked him if he could view where I would be at a specific time, six days ahead of the date when the viewing took place.  I already knew where I would be, having a planned appointment, so it was a good chance for us to test out his viewing skills ahead of time.  Sure enough, he came up with several very specific features of the room I’d be in and the surrounding area.

Buoyed up by our success, we tried a second viewing the next week, in which, again, I was quite certain where I would be and – once more – he nailed it.  Obviously we were delighted with this proof that remote viewing seemed to work equally well for past, present and future events.  Nevertheless, it raised some interesting questions.

What if I had changed my mind in the intervening days and decided not to go where I had originally planned to be?  What if some misadventure had befallen me on my journey, preventing me from reaching my destination?  Was he viewing my intention, rather than my future reality?  Conversely, was it perhaps some kind of quantum effect?  Was he – in effect – peering into the box where Schrodinger’s unfortunate cat was suspended between possible outcomes and, by becoming the observer, collapsing the wave of probability and determining which would play out?

In short, once he had done the viewing, was my future then set in stone?  Clearly it wasn’t.  Obviously there would not be some supernatural force propelling me to the location he had viewed me in, if I decided to stay in bed that morning.  I still had free choice.  In which case, how was his viewing so accurate, given that the event was yet to take place?

We thought long and hard about all the ramifications and Will finally concluded that remote viewing must be connected to probability.  He felt that what he was seeing was the most probable place I would be on the target date and time.

Recently, I had been mulling over these ideas in my mind, wondering how we could refine our understanding of the processes involved.  By synchronicity, we hit upon the perfect test for his theory.

Train, Station, Tracks, CopenhagenI’d arranged to meet someone at a specific time and destination.  My journey involved two train rides, with a change at the massive Birmingham New Street Station during rush hour.  Because of that, I’d factored in a 25 minute transfer time at New Street.  However, there I was, on my first train, finding that it was running 20 minutes late and my transfer time was shrinking rapidly.

The odds of making my connection seemed to be about 50:50.  My train might or might not make up some time on the journey.  I might or might not locate and reach my next platform quickly.  There might or might not be delays caused by crowding on the escalators.  My second train might or might not also be delayed.

Instinctively, I messaged Will and told him I was unsure as to whether or not I would make a train connection and asked if he could view where I would be at 6:40 that evening – a short while after my final train was due to arrive.  If he saw me at my destination, I could relax, knowing I’d make it.  If he saw me on a train, though, I’d know it was likely I would miss my connection and be on a later one.

Tunnel, Corridor, Brick, The DarknessA few minutes later, he got back to me.  His viewing was unlike any we’d experienced.  He saw  ‘a long narrow dark area with rows of things along the side’.  There were no colours or identifying features, and we were both unsure what it meant.

In fact, I did make the rail connection.  My train arrived a little early, so that by 6:40 I was in my host’s home.  It had two adjoining rooms, with a narrow passageway through them and items of furniture to each side.  But one could argue that a train carriage is laid out in the same way.  He’d turned on the light when we got in, so it wasn’t dark.  Nor would a train carriage be.  Curious.

A day or two later, I was on another rail journey.  I decided to ask Will if he could view where I was.  This time his response was that I was on a train.  He saw it travelling through mountains and even told me the colour of the seats and the train’s livery.  All correct.  He was clearly still an expert at this.

So why the mysterious dark space in the other viewing?

Boats, Shoes, Fashion, Black And WhiteTo me it seems Will’s idea that probability is involved has been vindicated.  I’d asked him to view a future that was hanging in the balance.  The outcome depended on several factors, all beyond my control, and there was an equal chance that I would/would not catch the second train.  In that circumstance, it seems, Will was unable to pick up a clear indication of where I would be.  The long dark area could represent an uncertain future.  The items at the sides might be the two possibilities ranged along it.  Maybe, even, he was seeing both possible scenarios at once, superimposed on each other and thus darkening and obscuring his view.

Plenty to think about there, and I see it leading to more interesting experiments in the future – probably.