in the cosmology section, and in trying to find more info about it I came across his video lectures (here's part 1 ), which are quite fascinating. I can agree with much or even most of what he proposes, especially the assumption that consciousness is fundamental.The one point though that I vehemently disagree on is, of course, that "love" thing. In this respect he definitely gets way too new-agey and overlooks the scientific fact that destructive behaviors are a huge driver of evolution, not only in the realm of biology in form of natural selection which is based on ruthless competition and predators and prey continually having to outsmart each other, but also in human technology. Nuclear power for instance was originally developed in WW2 in order to produce atomic bombs, but it is to this day indispensable for powering space probes and Mars rovers, and also rockets used for space travel are derived from missiles used in war.
Today I watched part two
of his lecture, which is also over 2 hours. I have felt for as long as I can think that physical "reality" is an illusion, so I can relate quite well to his virtual reality metaphor (although I'm not familiar with the particular computer games he mentions since I've always considered such games a waste of time - when there's so much to learn and to do in the "virtual reality" we're already in).Being familiar with the concept of the Holographic Universe and thereby the proposal that spacetime might be pixelated, I remember such 3D pixels are called voxels. I think that was according to Leonard Susskind in his book The Black Hole War
, which I also own - voxels presumably being short for "volume pixels"? - a voxel would be one cubic Planck length in size (about 1^-35 m) and could hold one bit of information.Again, my criticism of Tom Campbell's theory is only that it is way too anthropocentric. When he was talking about the well-known question of whether a falling tree in a forest makes a sound when there's nobody there to hear it I was already thinking, what about the other trees that are there?! Then he went on to mention squirrels as being conscious enough to count - sure, they are mammals, thereby pretty similar to humans. But trees don't have enough "decision space" to be considered conscious? He should definitely watch David Attenborough's "The Secret Life of Plants"!
I definitely consider a complex, multicellular life form such as a tree as conscious. You may argue that trees have no ears to hear - but then, what is sound actually? It's pressure waves in a medium (such as air) which causes our ear drums to vibrate,and that's what gives us the sensation of sound. Such vibrations can likewise be picked up by leaves or even by the trunk of a tree.
By the way, sharks (my totem & alter ego) have no externally visible ears either, but they do have inner ears and have excellent hearing.
Another point I disagree on is that we supposedly "de-evolve" through fear. To me, fear is just one of those challenges we have to tackle on our paths in order to grow. How could we possibly grow if everything was just loving and sweet and compassionate? (Sharks like me have very little use for such fluff.)
We are consciousness, and consciousness is fundamental. But we are definitely NOT "one"! We may once have been one, as we all have sprung from the same source, but in my opinion the whole purpose of the game is individuation. As I have laid out in an earlier post, we all have grown from the same substrate, but the goal is to separate and become more differentiated, just as the goal for a child is to become an independent individual, instead of "merging" back with her or his parents.
I'll still have to watch part 3 of the lecture.
No comments:
Post a Comment