not knowing

It all comes down to this question: is consciousness a side effect of our biological brain, or is there a part of consciousness that operates independently from the biological brain. Or is all of consciousness operating from outside our biological brain? I prefer the position in the middle, not entirely this, not entirely that.

I  follow my freedom of not knowing. This leaves both possibilities open to be used by my reasoning consciousness, not closing myself from one or the other. Eyes and hands wide open, heart reaching out.

Follows a youtube video from Rupert Sheldrake on dogmatic scientism …

Re-uploaded as TED have decided to censor Rupert and remove this video from the TEDx youtube channel. Here is more on the matter:

On a personal note, and related to the video on the subject “the sense of being stared at”: walking many meters behind and looking with genuine lust at the back of interesting members of the opposite sex, often makes them turn their head and look at me (nobody ever does that unless I try out vocal experiments on dying elephants). But it doesn’t work when I try it as an experiment, since then ‘attraction’ is not genuine.


18 thoughts on “not knowing

  1. Good Morning Sweet Bert0001,

    Since you choose to follow my blog to show my appreciation here is a personalized affirmation written to celebrate you, created by me;

    I, Bert0001, am a thoughtful man in search of contentment. My life’s journey has brought me to where I am today so that I may love myself unconditionally, as that may be my life’s highest calling, to love me just as I am today. I love each perfect cell in my body knowing that with trillions of cells cooperating in my body I am a whole person made of cooperative parts. It is exciting to know that I am more than the sum of my parts, that I have a spark of the infinite intelligence and consciousness as do all human beings. I am a sacred child of the Universe and the Universe is loved each time I love myself.

    I, Stephanie, am enjoying getting to know you through your use of words, sentences and phrases. Your curious nature is a joy to witness. Thank you for sharing your truth through this blog. I Love You. :~)

  2. Telepathy is a known reality. In my writings I refer to tests done in Russia in the 1930s or so. I have also made other references to it obvious existence. Sitting on the wall, as stated by the author of that video (?), is a sensible place to be if in doubt because there is always the chance that one will fall on the wise side after, of course, critical analysis.

    • I wouldn’t allow too much credibility to any soviet research under Stalin’s rule. But there are recent research papers pointing indeed into the direction of certain types of telepathic communication. But I prefer to look at my dog, waiting for Mrs. bert, as soon as she steps down the bus, whenever that is.

      • I am not sure whether it was during Stalin’s time (where, incidentally, the problem was really with the man and not his scientists) but, although I like your example of your dog, I prefer that of the mother saying, about the absent child, “John is in trouble!” and goes looking for him and finds him in trouble or danger.
        N.B. The Russian test in question is described in my book.

  3. I’ve had a long on-going discussion with someone who holds science will prove that there is no “self” consciousness, no “free-will” or “choice” – only “millions of miles of dendrite synaptical circuits branching out from billions of neurons, allowing a brain experience ‘mind’ with synaptically stimulated firings called ‘thought’. In their point of view, they aren’t responsible for anything because of. Personally, I’m with you on the middle way and openness, without too much gullibility regarding snake oil salesmen.

    • How can one prove that there is no consciousness. I am conscious. I can even scientifically quantify this as a boolean TRUE.
      I’m less positive about free will. My own private inward search has brought me a view that is indeed telling me that there is desire and will, but the freedom of that will has to be questioned. A real saint has no free will, since he only wants to do what is ‘good’ for the listener. Any other sinner is deprived of his free will through his past generating his desire and his opinions. There is space for freedom, but it is not really a large space. As a mother, you will also only do what you think is good for your children. How free is that will?
      Any materialistic point of view cannot allow ethics, and is digging its own grave.

  4. Sheldrake’s latest book is Science Set Free. It examines the prevailing climate of scientific dogma that limits science and holds us back from finding truth. Gone are the days when maverick scientists funded and pursued their own research.

    • Scientific dogma has always existed. It takes profound thinkers to challenge any academic status quo. Look a Wegener and his tectonic movements. Einstein wasn’t a real scientist either.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s