Saturday, July 22, 2023

The Consciousness Model

 

There are excellent (not flaky) reasons to believe that consciousness does not derive from processes of the brain. There are insurmountable logical problems with that idea. But to cut a long story short the alternative picture, popularly proposed, is that the consciousness is the 'first cause' to the material world. The idea being, that the consciousness(es) creates the material world as a kind of collective dream. Hence, the material world a simulation.

This is a speculative hypothesis that may or may not be right. It looks absurd on the immediate face of it, yet it's fair to say that it's no more radical than the idea of anything existing at all - and existence, from a strictly logical outlook, is self-evident yet mad...

The fact of existence suggests that something can give birth to itself out of nothing, which is more magic than magic. Magic at least respects some kind of [incomprehensible] cause-to-effect. Existence suggests an effect with no cause at all. Yet here it is - and here we are. That's "mad".

The popular assertion from people who assert that consciousness comes first and is the be-all, is that the brain does not create consciousness but filters it. Filters? This doesn't make good sense to me. I think what is more likely, is that the brain focuses consciousness. Think of it like this...

When you're watching a movie, you may be so absorbed in the screen that you forget where you are - you forget the room you are in. When you finish the movie, you then feel like you've "woken up" to the room you were always in. The movie had focused your conscious attention - not filtered it.

I suggest that this is how the brain/mind works. The consciousness is based in the field behind the brain (to be clear, I'm talking about the same field responsible for magnetic forces, and [as best as we can know] the same field responsible for matter as we know it. Matter is a vibration within the field). So, for a given lifetime, we log on to our brain just like we log on to a TV to watch a movie...

The brain is, in effect, a read-write terminal that read-writes the outside material world (and builds internal models of the outside world, that then allow us to run simulations. We call it thinking) and also read-writes from the consciousness itself. So basically, the brain is an extremely sophisticated 2-way bio-electric eBook. But ultimately only a book.

It's interesting to note, that people who have near death experiences (NDE's) consistently report that when they die (temporarily) it's like waking up and 'going home' - and from their experiences they say that this life (this material life) is the comparative dream. It's like my example of 'waking up' from a movie you were absorbed in. NDE people also report having a "wider consciousness" and being far more capable of clear thought and lucid perception; again, just like waking up from a prior zone, immersed in your TV.

NDE people also suggest that incarnating (focusing) to a material brain leads to deep amnesia. This relates to the greater reality that we're supposedly more truly based in. Again, like when you're absorbed into a narrow focus on something, you can't remember outside things because your mind is zoned-out of all memory not associated with your current brain activity, that naturally holds you captive for the time. 

To me, this is a more plausible model than claiming material is not really there and consciousness is primary. Though that might ultimately be the case, we can't know. For the sake of hypothesis though, I think it's better to see the consciousness as based within the field, and focused to the brain for a given lifetime. The model is robust and explains a lot, including much psychic phenomena.

A final note. I have not explained the consciousness itself. That's because I can't - no one can. Though real, it's totally incomprehensible in itself. We can only observe its relationship to the brain - not understand what it actually is.


Thursday, July 13, 2023

Security: A better argument for a World Government

 

Robert F. Kennedy impressed me a short while ago, when he spoke about the threat of terrorist states in the modern technological age. He expressed that we can't afford to have dangerous rouge states in this modern world - which is true. But what he did not express was the fact that you don't, or soon won't, need a whole nation to build weapons of mass destruction.

Technical plans for fabricating atomic bombs, for example, can always be leaked and downloaded, and advanced malicious devices can be developed easily using virtual prototyping and 3d printing, etc.

Nuclear is just one demon. For example, there's biological and chemical potentials of course, and cheap auto-targeting laser technology that can destroy 100 eyeballs per-seconds. Add to this, tiny grenade-drones and EMP (electromagnetic pulse) bombs that can take any city back to the stoneage in a couple of hours overnight. And, everything and anything else that can be thought of and developed by a small collection of individuals.

My point is, the terror problem can only grow because technology will only get better - and cheaper. So we have to be realistic. It may only be a matter of time until a sub-extremist group, with a little money and godly dedication, does untold damage.

The only reason why Isis, for example, hadn't murdered millions with a nuke (or other) is because they couldn't. But this will change. Indeed, consider also if France's parliament becomes dominated over time by Muslim extremists. They would then inherit control of France's already established nuclear capacity. My point is, the vulnerabilities are great and can only grow. 

I'm not scaremongering - it's just logical.

I argue this is one of the better reasons to embrace advanced (meaning intrusive, yes) global surveillance systems, and to maybe develop a global government to a degree, so to enforce it. 

I believe we need to lay a powerful defensive foundation to resist the threat of terrorism. Our growing technological status demands this. Indeed, if we did not have our intelligence systems today, then we could only guess as to what kind of carnage we would be looking at already.

Has the ever-growing threat of technology-driven terror been realised by our military deep states? Of course it has. It's plain. Maybe this is why there's a shift on the political level towards a kind of global control system? Maybe the Pentagon's models have indicated that we simply must have these systems now? We can wonder.

Andrew Atkin - July, 2023