Quantum-Consciousness

Quantum Consciousness v Definable Reality: Can We Really Trust What We Experience Within The Realm Of So-Called Reality?

Submitted by Terence Blackett

quantum science

“Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.”

The present can never be properly understood without correct information concerning the past. Those who have been taught falsified history or who have had their minds filled with the twisted interpretations of events gone by, stagger like the blind with a darkened mind.” (B. G. Wilkinson)

Nikola Tesla believed that: “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena; it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” It would be interesting to see how many also shares the same opinion!

Man has mapped the genome. We have plotted charts to the stars and sent crafts to outer galaxies. We have developed AI technologies and have written code & algorithms which have created a parallel world we call ‘cyberspace’, run on a Delphic, arcane ‘Matrix’ called the World-Wide-Web (www.).

Cutting-edge science having crossed an abstruse Rubicon into another time-space continuum we call hyper-reality – where the lines between quantum quirks, human consciousness & subconsciousness seem forever blurred.

So in a 2016 post-materialist world, the evolutionary trajectory of quantum science seeks to provide answers as variations in discovery shows us new ways of thinking about the natural/material and supernatural world around us – as we grapple with what is observable reality and what is empirically definable reality, given the almost sibylline task of working out the challenges which will greet us in the future.

Presently, many are asking: – “Can we trust anything that is around us?”

The answer may be much deeper than just a categorical ‘Yes’ or ‘No’!

In 1953, Watson & Crick identified the structure of DNA molecules, revealing that DNA information determines who we basically are, but since the 1980s, it has been hypothesized that there is a 2nd layer of information on top of the existing genetic code consisting of DNA mechanical properties.

On the heels of radical breakthroughs in genetic research, theoretical physicist Helmut Schiessel et al have now provided us with strong evidence that this 2nd layer of information does indeed exists – given that our DNA mechanics, in addition to the genetic information in our DNA, determines who we are. Schiessel simulated many DNA sequences and found a correlation between mechanical cues and the way DNA is actually folded.

Yet what is still commonly overlooked in the mainstream scientific community is the fact that matter (protons, electrons, photons etc.) – actually, anything that has mass is not the only definable reality. So profound questions are being asked by theoretical physicists, quantum biologists, cosmologists and others as to how we can arrive at a better understanding of non-physical matter, when our focus is so intent on conventional approaches to science?

Sadly, science is still trying to catch up with the BIBLE* in discovering that “Consciousness Creates Reality” in its broadest sense yet in its minutest terms – for “as a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”

The 1918 Nobel Prize winner, theoretical physicist and quantum theory creator, Max Planck suggests: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

But what is quantum consciousness as defined within the construct of definable reality? And can definable reality ever hope to unlock the primordiality of quantum consciousness? Is that a shot too far into the dark, in an involuted quest for the ‘God Particle’ – knowing that to unravel the mysteries of time & space, as well as our own place in the universal matrix, calls for human ingenuity and quantum consciousness which we currently do not possess?

Thought provoking?

Past conversations on Barbados Underground with Double-Slit theory advocates like Chris Halsall has created rambunctious debate over this mysterious foundational principal within quantum science and how the mechanics which can be empirically defined, within the realm of observable reality, given that this experiment is a very popular way of determining how consciousness and our physical material world are somehow symbiotically intertwined.

As a result, there has been vociferous arguments regarding the post-materialist paradigm of quantum science, i.e. and the mechanics surrounding consciousness and definable reality that has created a form of double jeopardy for many scientists and lay-persons in trying to make sense of the illusory world around us, as well as the “spiritual” nexus, we called quantum reality. It is almost like asking a child to explain God and how He thinks on any given day.

Thus the approaches to understanding the enigmatic complexities of quantum science – we find for example researchers in the field of psychoneuroimmunology indicate that our thoughts and emotions can markedly affect the activity of our physiological systems (e.g., immune, endocrine & cardiovascular systems) which directly connected to our brain provides that super-computer with the power to operate and harnesses all the cerebral algorithms of spatial time and quantum consciousness.

When looking at the question of ‘time’ for example, quantum science research posits time within the contextual framework of how we see, understand and measure it – however, according to physicist Andrew Truscott – most observable phenomena, if that is what we want to call it, suggest that “reality does not exist unless we are looking at it” for in the meta-spiritual world of subatomic quantum physics, definable or macroscopic reality – scientists have proven that what happens to particles in the past is only decided when they are observed and measured in the future for until such time, reality is just an abstraction.

It is therefore becoming increasingly difficult for modern medical science to dismiss the concept of quantum biology given that according to Erwin Schrodinger in his book – “What is Life” suggested that the macroscopic order of life was based on order at its quantum level. Yet if Schrodinger were alive today in 2016, he would appreciate that the fascinating world of quantum reality, if at all possible to define, is really an ordered state of quantum spirituality, where the architectural framework of Newtonian physics and thermodynamics, immersed in the Freemasonry concept of Ordo ab Chao (‘Order out of Chaos’) has been turned on its head to reveal a whole new world of wonder and intrigue – all of it based on this ‘abstraction theory’ called ‘time’.

No wonder our grandparents reminded us that ‘time’ is a great healer – this I know only too well!

To plot the recent history of this concept of quantum consciousness as a definable scientific reality and whether as human beings we can really “TRUST” anything within the gambit of observable phenomena, based on our five senses is still a work in progress – as human intelligence, development and spiritual ascendency remains ‘Under Construction’.

In 1989, Sir Roger Penrose Nobel candidate, mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher, proposed a connection between the mind and quantum mechanics in his book ‘The Emperor’s New Mind’. He claimed that consciousness is created by quantum mechanical operations carried out in the brain cells by means of objective reduction. According to Penrose, the place in the brain where quantum mechanical operations take place is in the microtubules found in concentration in the brain cells.

Interestingly, while no reference was made to Penrose’s claims in the main neuroscience journals and they attracted no attention there, they attracted the attention of one Stuart Hameroff. Hameroff who was Emeritus professor of Anaesthesiology and Psychology at the University of Arizona – had devoted a large part of ten years to understanding how the microtubules could act like a computer network inside the brain cells (2001). Hameroff had previously seen each brain cell as a key, but now with the microtubules in the cell performing the function of a key.

As with Penrose’s work, Hameroff’s ideas also attracted little attention from other neuroscientists – and although Hameroff had a theory of consciousness that involved microtubules, he did not know which quantum mechanical events were at the base of it (Hameroff & Penrose 2003).

Penrose also had a quantum mechanical theory of consciousness, but he had no suitable biological basis for it. Then in 1992, Hameroff arranged a meeting with Penrose. After talking for two hours, they produced a theory on how consciousness could arise by quantum mechanics from the microtubules in the brain cells.

This Penrose-Hameroff theory became one of the main foundations of the quantum mechanical theory of consciousness. Penrose says of these theories “I am 90% sure that these claims are basically correct – at a good guess maybe 80% are correct.” (NeuroQuantology 2010; 2: 120‐136)

Regrettably, of all the facets of human life to adequately explain, far less to intellectually grapple with, is the most controversial area of religion and spirituality, given the vast field of purported speculatory knowledge – much of it based on mysticism, human formulations and creative cerebral engineering.

For example, according to Nestorius, (I will assume most know who he is), Jesus was born a mere human being – a man-child to Mary, and only subsequently after, became imbued with a Divine Nature.

In opposition to this theory, Eutyches inverted the assertion to the opposite extreme, opining that human nature and divine nature were inextricably combined into the single nature of Christ: that of the Incarnate Word. This would imply that Jesus’ human body was essentially different from other human bodies – a theological concept called Eutychianism.

On the other hand, there is the Christological position that Christ has only one nature (Divine) – placing his physiological dimensions into the realm of “Holy Flesh” – a concept we call Monophysitism.

Then there is the doctrine that declares that Christ operated with but ‘one will’, although He had two distinct natures – an epistemological position termed Monotheletism.

Then finally, there’s the view proposed by Apollinaris of Laodicea (390 AD) that Jesus had a human body and lower soul (the seat of the emotions) but a ‘Divine Mind’ or (Consciousness). Apollinaris further taught that the souls of men were propagated by other souls, as well as their bodies – a teaching known as Apollinarianism.

All these variant concepts have roots within the primordial world of quantum spirituality – and etched to one degree or another into the fabric of Christianity and whether right or wrong, the arguments and debates will continue ad infinitum.

Again, in classical theism, proponents argue that God is outside of time, and His knowledge does not change. While in traditional theism He interposes His will within the affairs of men. Yet within the traditional framework, we have witnessed a long historical set of causes and effects which have multiplied human suffering and woe.

For example to name a few:

• Preoccupation with physical appetites

• Rapid advances in technology

• Uniformitarian philosophies

• Inordinate devotion to pleasure and comfort

• No concern for God in either belief or conduct

• Disregard for the sacredness for the ‘marriage relationship’

• Rejection of the Inspired Word of God

• Population explosion

• Corruption throughout society

• Preoccupation with ‘Illicit sexual activity’

• Widespread thoughts and words of blasphemy

• Organized Satanic* activity

• Promotion of systems and movements of abnormal depravity

So today, finding God within the corollary of science seem antithetical to common reasoning for most academic purists who when listening to Stuart Hameroff’s epistemological position will infer to some degree that his exegesis on ‘God in a nutshell’ (to use Trey Smith’s YouTube Handle’s description as a point of reference) place the ‘Imagery’ of God outside of the classical or traditional abstract conventional paradigms in which most believe He exist – to the obvious chagrin and derision of men like Richard Dawkins et al.

For Dawkins & Co. believe something is inherently wrong with Scripture that posits this concept of Order out of Chaos theory – where for example, in the doctrine of “Manifest Destiny” that propelled American Puritans westward from England in the 1600’s – wanting ‘No King or Pope’ to rule over them, but where men could have ‘Liberty of Conscience’ in matters of the soul, but then in the Civil War, they became enveloped in religious controversy, where most Southerners believed they were on the winning side of a theological argument that said: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)

This too is a subject for another day!

Dawkins like his contemporary, retired physicist Victor Stenger in his landmark book: “Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos, and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness” literally rips to shred any idea of a Divine Intelligence at the Apex of quantum spirituality and tries to vociferously debunk solid research findings in areas of quantum mechanics – questions which postulate pre-given answers that would attest to a Divine Nature and order of things seen and unseen.

It was then left to David Scharf in the Journal NeuroQuantology, March 2010, Vol. 8, Issue 1, p. 77‐100 to categorically ‘debunk’ the “debunkers” like Stenger et al by proving that his methodological orthodoxy given: “his own reasoning was characterized by unremitting carelessness….Moreover, there is a method to his carelessness – it enables him to systematically avoid addressing the tough arguments of his opponents. Hence, we find him frequently setting up a straw man by misrepresenting the debate as a simple matter of science and reason versus superstition. Once having defined this as the issue, all he needs to do is assume the attitude of an outraged scientist and heap on the ridicule. But if he had done his homework and taken the trouble to really understand the science and logic supporting quantum spirituality, he would have discovered that it is harder to dismiss than he had imagined. Indeed, the more carefully – and yes, critically – one considers the issues, the more one finds quantum spirituality to be eminently worthy of serious consideration, as a plausible and measured approach to the most long‐standing and intractable questions at the basis of science.”

In conclusion, can we really trust anything or anyone as our construction of reality is dependent on a myriad of factors – most of which seem outside the plausible realm of human explanation or reason and to which most find solace in a form of almost utter denial and obfuscation. For many good religious folk are remiss or simply cannot quantify or qualify evolutionary theory within the narrative of Hoffmanian ontological reasoning – as most still believe that ‘Evolutionary Science’ and Christianity are diametrically opposing opposites.

Permit me to disagree!

More on that position in another piece…

Betrand Russell in his book “Problems of Philosophy” (1959) solidifies the argument very succinctly: “in daily life, we assume as certain many things which, on a closer scrutiny, are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only a great amount of thought enables us to know what it is that we really may believe. In the search for certainty, it is natural to begin with our present experiences, and in some sense; no doubt, knowledge is to be derived from them. But any statement as to what it is that our immediate experiences make us know is very likely to be wrong. It seems to me that I am now sitting in a chair, at a table of a certain shape, on which I see sheets of paper with writing or print. By turning my head I see out of the window buildings and clouds and the sun. I believe that the sun is about ninety-three million miles from the earth; that it is a hot globe many times bigger than the earth; that, owing to the earth’s rotation, it rises every morning, and will continue to do so for an indefinite time in the future. I believe that, if any other normal person comes into my room, he will see the same chairs and tables and books and papers as I see, and that the table which I see is the same as the table which I feel pressing against my arm. All this seems to be so evident as to be hardly worth stating, except in answer to a man who doubts whether I know anything. Yet all this may be reasonably doubted, and all of it requires much careful discussion before we can be sure that we have stated it in a form that is wholly true.”

The Scriptures is an incessant reminder that we shall ‘KNOW’ the ‘TRUTH’ and the ‘TRUTH’ shall set us free. Whether or not we choose to believe that or not is a matter of individual conscience, perspective and/or indoctrination at the deepest quantum levels of our being.

One thing is sure – you are as much, as what you ‘think’, as you are what you believe!

On that note – Maranatha!

Tags: ,

81 Comments on “Quantum Consciousness v Definable Reality: Can We Really Trust What We Experience Within The Realm Of So-Called Reality?”

  1. Bush Tea July 1, 2016 at 5:12 PM #

    LOL @ AC
    …..he may even be GOD
    +++++++++++++++++++
    Ha ha ha …you forgot ‘mathematics’. Dribbler thinks that Bushie was a teacher….🙂
    LOL
    shiite!!!

    NO AC not GOD… just an ADOPTED child…. we don’t want to raise Zoe’s pressure just yet…
    (But BBE likes Bushie bad as shiite though…LOL)

    Like

  2. ac July 1, 2016 at 6:34 PM #

    Hopi not to ignore your question What is Time unfortunately i cannot answered that question from a scientific perspective but as lay person i can address the question using a measure of philosophy Time is an unstoppable force of nature that cannot seen or touch or heard. it has no gravity or density. .Scientist over the years has fashioned time into movements by using varying degrees of measurement for which the mind can comprehend

    Like

  3. Robert Lucas July 2, 2016 at 5:02 PM #

    It was obvious from the outset where the writer was going. He is making a claim for creationism in an indirect manner. The preamble could have been shortened if he had gotten to the point and made a direct pitch for creationism.

    Robert D. Lucas, PH.D.

    Like

  4. David July 2, 2016 at 5:08 PM #

    It always comes full circle with the religious and the Atheist in opposing corners.

    Divine intervention or Big Bang and so it will be until the end of times.

    Like

  5. ac July 3, 2016 at 7:32 AM #

    Good morning and Happy Sunday to all those who have a philosophical belief that there is a God and those who are avoid atheists and believes that there is nothing of such existence. All things being equal have a happy Sunday

    Like

  6. Hopi July 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM #

    2..AC……….I see you. Happy Sunday to u too. “Avoid atheist?” or avowed/avid atheist? which one?

    2…Bushtea….. Ur answer seems fallacious. When do you and these christian scientists purport that end will come?

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: