Thanks so much for interviewing Tom Campbell, His MBT resonates with me and i want to thank him for posting all his conferences on you tube for us to enjoy. i like his down to earth scientific outlook that he does his best to explain it in a way that i can understand. Cheers to you Tom and Rick for doing this
larz hillbot Someone recommended I check out Tom after my recent video. Sounds like he's really going in the right direction! Tying together consciousness with science, the subjective and the objective. Good stuff.
Great job you guy's... I know its just the tip of the ice burg . really enjoyed Ricks questions to Tom... Tom was just getting started... he can talk for hours.... Thanks for releasing Tom to the Gas Pump World.....
this is so healing. thank you so much. i now get it, the science, the spirit, the honestly "i don't know mystical feeling", the fantasy, the deep feeling of love and it's all good. thank you tom, thank you rick, thank you eckhart, thank you "the secret", thank you god, thank you life!
This was my favorite, to date. Not only does he have the traditional look of Santa, he really brings out a big bounty of practical knowledge, gifts. Well done.
Rick, your interviews in general are far more engaging, informative and interesting when you have read the author's material and have specific questions. As you are beginning to interview more and because some authors have written so much, it may not be always possible for you to read all of that. In lieu of that, I suggest the following: 1. Let readers submit the questions for upcoming interviews, in the same way, that they interact on the forum discussion for each interview. This means that you should create the interview page for a guest about 2-3 weeks prior to the interview and have a forum open to submit questions. This can ease your work considerably and can potentially make your interviews even more engaging. 2. You might eve consider having some general, common spiritual questions that apply to most teachers and seekers. Example of such questions would be: A. What is the cause of suffering? B. How to end or reduce suffering? C. What is Consciousness? D. What happens to the Consciousness under General Anesthesia? E. What is our true nature? F. What is Awakening? G. What is Enlightenment? H. Why there are so many conflicts among humans? How to reduce/eliminate it? I. Why is there so much pain in love relationships? How to end/reduce them? J. Is there an individual soul? K. Is there re-incarnation? L. Is there free will?
Kwistenbiebel200 >>I'm sure you wouldn't an outsider to tell you how to do your job? I think I would generally welcome it and consider it with an open mind. It seems that Rick too has a similar open-minded approach and is willing to hear all perspectives.
Kwistenbiebel200 >>It is a little patronizing I am not sure why it appears that way to you. That is not my intention and that is not how it reads to me. I personally think that having a forum to submit and discuss potential questions prior to the interview can really make the interviews more engaging, ease Rick's workload and can ultimately benefit him. I also think that some general questions regarding suffering, end of suffering, consciousness, awakening at times can be more useful that spending too much time on the personal history of the speaker.
Those are the easy questions, so you get easy answers, but they won't help. A. What is the cause of suffering? Our low quality of conciousness, the need to learn compassion, our inability to accept. B. How to end or reduce suffering? Embrace suffering, see it as it is, a way to learn compassion. C. What is Consciousness? Living, non physical, digital information. D. What happens to the Consciousness under General Anesthesia? Consciousness is not impacted by Anesthesia, the virtual body is, and it's just slightly more limited or constrained. E. What is our true nature? We are conciousness, living digital information. F. What is Awakening? As in spirtual awakening, it's simply being aware of the (or a) larger reality. G. What is Enlightenment? A metaphor for a low entropy consciousness. H. Why there are so many conflicts among humans? How to reduce/eliminate it? We are hi-entropy consciousness. Reduce it by lowering your own entropy. I. Why is there so much pain in love relationships? How to end/reduce them? There is no pain in love relationships, you mean need relationships, relationships based on fear, ego, desires, needs, wants... these can be painfull. Love means to care about others, so love is how you reduce/end pain. J. Is there an individual soul? As a metaphor yes. Tom calls this an Individuated Unit of Consciousness (IUOC). K. Is there re-incarnation? Yes, consciousness transcends physical/virtual existence. L. Is there free will? Yes, Free will is the ability to make choices from within your decision space. As you may see, it's not the answers that are valuable... answers are the easy part of the process..
TOA you can ask these questions which are answered by shaunDMA and what you will realize is that there are plenty more where they come from within you. Tom Campbell will also give you answers that are logical and easily interpreted but they don't really don't do you any good unless you use them as a tool for your own answering of answers from your own experiences. Other words take what shaunDMA has said and prove him right or wrong by yourself. There is no time to start but now.
Non-duality says there is only One consciousness and we are THAT. Tom says we are individuated units or subsets of a larger consciousness system. That is clearly a radically different view or model of reality. I would have liked to hear more discussion about the differences between the two models. I guess I am hungry for a real debate, a no holds barred Smackdown of the Gurus type of show. All there seems to be out there is endless videos of people preaching to their respective choirs.
Hi David, listen again to 27:00 to 27:30 - what Tom is advocating is not radically different from many non-dual paradigms. Elsewhere, Tom mentions that we are individuated units of consciousness, but that that is just a way of dividing things up; fundamentally it is all one thing. For nonduality, or any conceptual frame, to say that there is only one consciousness - it of course depends on what that conceptual frame is getting at. For instance, we can say that there is only one consciousness (meaning, one overarching and all-pervasive life-system that is aware), which in my opinion/experience is true. However, if we begin to apply that to the world of the relative, it gets a bit problematic, as we are all still individually accountable for our decisions and actions. If it were relatively (vs. absolutely) true that there were all one consciousness, this would mean that all other youtubers could be held as personally responsible for my postings as they would be for their own. Or it would mean that if I went out and beat up an old lady, that both of us should get arrested, as should the police officer and the judge, as all of us would be equally responsible. Hence, it is useful to have distinctions such as individuated units of consciousness because that is how things seem to actually function.
Ironing out, so to speak, all the "gurus" of the world, and nailing down their fundamental points etc, is not likely to accomplish what you think it might. IMO, the closer you get to what you can measure, the further you get from "truth." "Facts" do not necessary equate to "truth." Facts are just a description, or a definition, they do not describe the "why." They only bring up more "why's." "Truth," on the other hand, creates the MEANING, the substance for what holds facts together. An EFFECT does not create a substance. The substance will ALWAYS be subjective. For example, an "electron" is an effect. The substance for what that electron is, is a probability. If you study Campbell's work, he talks about how we live in a SUBJECTIVE reality. That subjectivity only needs to be consistent with other people / minds, when NECESSARY. In other words, if you look at a forest, and someone else looks at the same forest, you are actually looking at two different forests. They are "rendered" as if in a video game as a "forest." Nothing specific is needed to be rendered until you actually meet the other person, and start discussing with him/her about specific things you saw in the forest. So what evidence is there to support this? QUANTUM PHYSICS. Campbell's most important point, is that quantum physics is not just a physics of the quantum world (the very small), but rather the fundamental way reality operates. What you observe is custom tailored for YOU, and that reality only becomes consistent with other people, when it needs to be. I was not a part of Tom Campbell's choir, and then I saw him speak for ten minutes on TH-cam about something that caught my eye, from then on, I was hooked, and he has been a voice who has made so much about science and truth so much more clear to me, by both verifying much of what I already believed, and also clearing up so much confusion I had, all while leaving everything extremely OPEN ENDED. Tom Campbell's TOE not only demonstrates a detailed scientific explanation for everything in a concise way, but it also leaves it open-ended enough to fit with any interpretation one might have. Therefore, if you try and have him debate someone, you will only find more consistency, not less, although the words and definitions both sides use, might need to evolve.
There is Tom's metaphor of bump on a sheet, or the ripple of a manifold. The unity of a sheet is has more solidity than the more subtle individuation of a bump, so in this, we are more sheet, more One or non-dual, than separate or individuated. The oneness is part of the highest fractal fundamental/real plumbing, and the subtle duality of individuation is just how the territory is roped off for interaction purposes. The importance of this in my mind is that it explains the link between Tom's large science and agape. Love, the compassion we observe and the feedback we experience, beyond that which can be explained through various Darwinian models, in the extreme, love of enemy, love of other species, this is explained by the model that under the hood we are more sheet than bump on the sheet. Love is simply a more effective application of large selfishness. Love is only perceived as self sacrificing, if you view it from the smaller world view of materialism.
kroeran I disagree with him about "love." I think "empathy" is a more effective word to describe something that removes entropy. "Love," as I understand it, does not always remove entropy. In fact, it can increase it dramatically. For example, you might harm another because they harmed someone you loved. Much blood has been spilled throughout history, in the name of love. Therefore, I don't see how "love" has negentropy as its primary mover. However, "empathy," means you can understand and feel what the other feels. For example, you can have empathy for Hitler, but not necessarily love. Your empathy might make you feel the sensation of love, but that does not mean you truly love Hitler.
So did he answer the question how constant speed of light is derived from theory of consciousness? I half way and bit lost and getting bit skeptical...
This chat inspires a vision of Consciousness wondering/wandering about in this self-perpetuating virtual-reality dream in which every imaginable scenario is being played out, ultimately unconditional, but including this microcosm of the infinite Dreamscape, this earth-bound realm of the masters of self-imposed conditions and limitations, wherein, perchance, 'triggers' await to 'awaken' itself, because only as a dream-person could that particular happenstance be experienced. Why? Who knows, but I've heard that there are 'higher' metaphysical entities lining up for tickets to get into this corporeal horror-show/amusement park, just for the exquisite longings and sufferings of it all ... and why the hell not?
if you begin from the point of view of the wonderful life we imagine for ourselves as teenagers, or in comparison to famous people we see on TV, things can appear to be a disappointment. If rather, and more logically, you begin from the presumption of the void, that that anything at all exists, is a miracle, and life itself, let alone your life, is beyond amazing, even if brief and hard, I think one is on more solid ground.
kroeran With respect, you've missed the point. The Void IS the One Consciousness as this Self-perpetuating Dream ... I am That ... That is All That Is. So what else would so-called 'solid ground' be? No need to project disappointment into that.
Snow: Sorry, I am using void "small v" in the sense of literal "absence of anything", physical and non physical. I would agree that that word in this context is unnecessarily confusing, equally confusing as the term "solid ground", which I mean philosophically. Curiously, the concept parallels Zero Base Budgeting, this idea of comparing your life, existence, to the more expected outcome of nothing existing at all. Often such things are a trick upon oneself, profitable philosophical white lies, but I think in this case, it is actually more accurate. That anything exists at all should come as as surprise to anyone thinking it through deeply.
kroeran With the subject/object fusion of phenomenon and noumenon realized as not-two, devoid of any confusion, then nothing exists but itself, and thus could only be a surprise party of the one and only no-one ... a blissful marriage indeed.
That the world that surrounds us is a virtual reality (Sankara's "jagat mithya" - "this world is an appearance") is not altogether unknown to science. It forms the centerpiece of some neuroscience proposal regarding brain mechanisms of consciousness, for which see in particular Chris Frith's "Making up the mind" and my own chapter entitled "Body and world as phenomenal contents of the brain’s reality model" in the book "The Unity of Mind, Brain and World: Current Perspectives on a Science of Consciousness" edited by Pereira & Lehmann for the Cambridge University Press.
You sound like someone who would enjoy Eben Alexander (NDE neurosurgeon) or Brian Weiss (past life regressing psychiatrist). Lots of books and youtubes from those guys. I don't think the VR model is Campbellian "New Art", its more that Tom claims, as most associated with TMI the institution, to have actually mapped this greater reality, using the phenomena/tool of "OBE", under the specific discipline of being a trained physicist. And he asserts, based on his research, that the VR model is the best explanation of the data. For regular folks, you first have to get past the "is this guy nuts or what" threshold, by either meeting him at an event or applying his techniques, checking out his assertions regarding the state of physics. David Chalmers, cognitive scientist, is an exciting promoter of the VR hypothesis, pure pleasure to listen to.
Rick, this was a great interview I really like how you do thorough background research for each of your interviewees, and ask really penetrating and thought-provoking questions. To add to what Tom said about the upcoming conference in Portugal, it will actually be from 22-24 May (not March), 2015. The conference is called The First International Congress of Conscientiology. (conscientiology = consciousness+ology). Details are here: icc.iacworld.org. We will have a number of researchers and other presenters from various fields, including philosophy, psychology, medicine, neuroscience, parapsychology, engineering, physics, mathematics, and more. Although there is not yet a final list of presenters yet, confirmed speakers include: Brenda Dunne, former manager of the historic Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory and president of International Consciousness Research Laboratories (USA, co-author of Margins of Reality); NASA’s Tom Campbell, nuclear physicist (USA, author of My Big TOE); Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi, PhD (Switzerland, author of The Observer Effect: The Quantum Mystery Demystified), Ulisse di Copo, PhD and Antonella Vannini, PhD (Italy, authors of Syntropy: The Energy of Life), Chantal Toporow, PhD (USA, representative of the Society for Scientific Exploration), and Wagner Alegretti, electrical engineer, ( Brazil, senior researcher with the International Academy of Consciousness). The Swiss neuroscientist Olaf Blanke will represent the more conventional view, thus enriching the debate. Additional multidisciplinary speakers, who will be selected from over 50 entries from researchers worldwide, will represent a number of institutions and perspectives, from near-death experiences to measurable effects of the mind on physical systems. The event is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC and will have participants from around the world. Simultaneous translation at IAC’s Event Hall will further facilitate communication.
When a man finds a pearl on a spot of beach, his experience walking to that spot, and from that spot, is not of much consequence, though it is perplexing that one would gratuitously comment on it.
kroeran Are you sure of that :-) If someone is looking for water in a desert, it might be good to describe where water is found and also where water is not found. This information can save someone a lot of time and effort and in this hypothetical case, can even save a life.
TOA: the issue is referring to any of Tom's material as "boring". It is upsetting for those of us who have man crushes on Tom to hear him or his material put down in any way. If a man in the desert is pointing you to the oasis, one should not make disparaging comments on his cloak. ; - ) I am probably being over sensitive and controlling. The hope is that you can take this as friendly sparring.
kroeran You know about people having difference of opinion, taste, likes and dislikes - don't you? Further, I called it "dull". I didn't call it "boring". Further, I said, "I found it dull". That statement acknowledges the possibility that others might find it interesting and useful. Does everyone has the same taste and viewpoint as mine? Probably not.
Let's say this is *a 1.2 on the new -3 to +3 scale. Disclaimers at the end of the comment.* This gets *a huge thumb up for originality and non-conformism !* And despite Rick's desperate attempt to reconcile Tom's view with his own perennialist wishful thinking it is obvious that this here *flies in the face of all orthodox and traditional spiritual paths* because he says that the "larger consciousness system" which is the data base of all universes, *Campbell's "creator"*, so to speak, *is* 1. *finite*, 2. *not perfect or flawless*, 3. *struggling to survive by lowering entropy*. Therefore - if this were the ultimate reality - we would be dealing with a very, very problematic situation since the creator would be conditioned, a sentient and erring being like anyone else and not free "him"self and therefore incapable of liberating us from the plight of existence for good. You won't be surprised that buddhists would *not* take refuge in this larger consciousness system since it stands for almost everything that buddhism is trying to terminate. Yet, of course, Rick is aggressively ignoring the contradiction to his world view to maintain his wishful thinking at 47:22 *right after this man fundamentally, directly, and radically contradicted all well known descriptions of spiritual reality !* And therefore, as usual, Rick misses the single most important opportunity to make this interview more interesting. Also, this guy gets a +0.5 for cosmological contributions even despite the fact that he mostly has to point to his other material and doesn't really elaborate too much here. But it is obvious that once he starts he would have needed at least a 4 hour interview without this agreement orgy. So far this would have to be a 2.5 then, but we don't hear much (earns the interview a -1.0) on how he derives at his subjective "data" (mostly OOBEs I think), and I wonder if he keeps making proper double blind tests or some such to see how reliable his data gathering is. Nowhere does this interview make it plausible how he can speak of his cosmology with any confidence at all or how he differs much from a speculative thinker. Another drawback is that given the fact that he could not go in depth, it was too much rambling about the usual agreement orgy for the feel good effect - and insofar *far too long*: - another -0.3. : 2.5 - 1 - 0.3 = 1.2 *Time is probably better spent by going directly to Campbell's channel.* _About the rating: anything below and including 0 means by and large a waste of time, and anything below 0 is not only worthless but damaging to the world. For comparison, on that scale, Francis Bennett would be a +2 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative + 2 - 2.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 2.0 ratings as a matter of principle._ *General Disclaimer:* the rating _pertains to an interview, not to the interviewee_. If the rating is high it means merely and exclusively that I consider the interview to be of high value relative to the stated purpose of the channel, and that it is therefore no waste of time to listen to the interview. It would _not_ imply that whatever the interviewee speaks is the truth (as if I was the arbiter over that) or that you should follow him/her or accept whatever that person offers. _That is particularly in need of emphasis if that would be an expensive enterprise_ !
Awesome! On an individual level I am learning about Form & Content. I am responsible for seeing the Content of what ever happens in Form as purposed for Love. I was just talking last night with my husband about the Government and Capitalism... the only thing I could say about my political view was - I as an individual can only work on improving my ability to love by responding to any circumstance from love where attack is never warranted and forgiving is the rule not the exception. Correction is loving and moves us forward. Condemnation and punishment are blocks and tend to get us stuck. How does that look? It does not look fearful or frightening.
Tom says that consciousness is information. Consider that Wikipedia which prides itself as being the expositor of quality information, does not allow any information about Tom on it's pages. I am not sure of the details about how Wikipedia operates but I consider it a significant reflection on how brainwashed people are by what they deem as science. In fact the science model they are "living in" is in fact the Victorian model which believed in an objective solid reality "out there" which we, as objective observers, were at last able to grasp through science. Nevertheless any activists out there should investigate this. I consider it nothing short of at best bigoted censorship, at worst mental violence.
make love, not war! ; - ) I did a lot of work on Tom's wiki page getting it launched. The thing is, under the lens of normal importance in the world, Tom does not tick any boxes. His information is not curated by an important institution, formally peer reviewed or sponsored by a big publisher. In the small world of everyday small thinking....he is a nobody....not worthy of mention. Further, similar to the TED talk mindset of the Newtonian presumption (see Sheldrake banned TED talks), he is likely perceived as some form of huckster, in their minds, which is a rational position to take, for those: not informed of bleeding edge physics; not yet disabused of the Newtonian presumption by some subjective exposure to PSI or institutions such as PEARS, IONS, TMI; or for those who have not invested more than a superficial amount of energy in the question "is this guy nuts or what" (ITGNOW)?; not aware of how the MBTOE "group" operates, which is non-profit. So they believe they are doing moral "Gods work" by protecting people from his information and the legitimacy of a wiki page. Bob Monroe, TMI, IONS appear to be wiki worthy, presumably because they have more material, bricks and mortar gravitas.
kroeran Wow thank you for that feedback which makes clearer what I already suspected. Whereas I know little about Tom it seems you are long involved with his work and I take my hat off to you for your efforts on getting a wiki launched. It seems significant to me that Tom's page was kicked off wiki while there is abundant "trash" on wiki. For example an ex-colleague put his own page up there describing himself as a movie maker and describing all the movies he has made. Since none of us have ever been able to see the movies we conclude that all this exists in his mind. He may suffer from some form of mental illness but nevertheless his wiki remains up as does all sorts of other nonsense. Yet Tom's is removed. It seems significant to me. I am of the opinion that what we most fear is thought itself- well of the free variety anyway. All good things to you - you are obviously a warrior like Tom.
"Consider that Wikipedia which prides itself as being the expositor of quality information, does not allow any information about Tom on it's pages" It's a democracy where the majority rules. There's no guarantee of quality.
MrToby9999 Thanks for response. I am not sure how Wikipedia operates. Are you sure it is a democracy? Or does it operate according to the whims a fancies of certain people who have more say in the deletion and alteration of articles?
As a scientist I have two big problems with this. First he says that particles are just probability functions and are not real. Calling particles just probability functions is like saying bullets are just algebra because we use algebra predict the behavior of bullets. Second his claim that particles don't exist and that the data will prove this, is wrong. Recent experiments have shown that particles exist without question. I understand that his view is attractive to Buddhists, but it isn't science. He uses his faith to redefine science, which is not intellectually proper.
Great interview! My belief is that 'consciousness', which may be considered interchangeable with 'energy', is the fundamental constituent of the universe, and consequently all that exists. Consciousness, energy, truth, God -- all are attempts to label that which cannot be labeled, i.e., absolute truth. The idea of information being fundamental also makes sense. Perhaps information is the raw material, and consciousness is the field which organizes and gives form to what would otherwise be random data. In that sense, maybe information and consciousness, which emerged from this chaotic 'nothingness' of information to create and provide meaning to reality (as we know it), are in fact the original '0' and '1' from which the code of existence is written. If that were the case, however, it is still difficult if not impossible to argue for one as being 'more' fundamental than the other, since isn't the dualistic concept of binary code predicated on the fact that 0 and 1 are simply two ways of expressing the 'same thing'?
like one wise man said "REality may not be' Real' in the sense you figured it was, but by Gosh it is real enough" , real enough for us to work on/ from. STill, its amazing to me, how the bhuddists were onto this notion, thousands of years ago, .. is VR real enough to learn from ? heck, lots of folks use Virt. Reality training simulators to learn more from all the time, so why not? Does consciousness, have to be flesh and bone? its already not, its ALWAYS been so much MORe tHAN THAT, so no worries, eh mate? its just life to learn from. Thanks so much for gettin' TOM CAMBELL on this program.
I love Buddhism however even Buddha never intended that we just believe what he says but that doesn't mean that we stop thinking for ourselves. Buddhism is just wrong sometimes and we have to move on not get stuck in a rut.
Dealing with fear can be approached by exercising your free will to some degree and capacity, based on your choices to do so. The "dealing" of fear, is "wishy-washy" to the observer who may choose to view that particular action of "dealing" in that manner. Dealing with fear as an over-simplification is analogous to an approach of dealing with fear to that degree.
Sejus Mai You are not at fault nor am I at fault here. It requires both of us becoming more familiar with each other's approach to understanding how you,or I or even how Dr. Campbell "deals" with sharing viewpoints and perspectives as to how you or I or anyone else perceive reality, based on experiences that you, I or anyone else may have. :)
Richard Ty Trevino you are not making sence with your comments. All i said was his explanation for dealing with fear is to wishy washy for me. To me the info he gives may sound good in theory but in practicality its of no value.
I do not make sense to you with my comments because your inability to make sense of my comments is how you can only assert Dr. Thomas Campbell's work is impractical and of no value. Not only is his work fundamentally and effectively practical and of great value, if one fully comprehends the totality of his work, then one would be able to immediately intuit that your inability to find value in his work is due to a great degree of fear and ego you have yet to deal with. Hence why commenting with you further ends here.
meditation (TM) math 6 : 6 silent prayer kundalini john 3 : 14 10 : 30 luke 2 : 35 ajna çakra math 6 : 22 rev 7 : 3 9 : 4 not alone john 14 : 2 shanti :-) caduceus : straight line sushumna the two snake like lines : ida pingala the pair of wings : ajna çakra seen in meditation that symbol has nothing to do with DNA or reptilians :-)
Thanks so much for interviewing Tom Campbell, His MBT resonates with me and i want to thank him for posting all his conferences on you tube for us to enjoy. i like his down to earth scientific outlook that he does his best to explain it in a way that i can understand. Cheers to you Tom and Rick for doing this
larz hillbot Someone recommended I check out Tom after my recent video. Sounds like he's really going in the right direction! Tying together consciousness with science, the subjective and the objective. Good stuff.
The arrival of Tom in my world has really opened new frontiers of wonder and deepend my self reflection... what a wonderful guest! Thank You.
Great job you guy's... I know its just the tip of the ice burg . really enjoyed Ricks questions to Tom... Tom was just getting started... he can talk for hours.... Thanks for releasing Tom to the Gas Pump World.....
It's time to have Tom back on, Pinning him down ro 2 hours is helpfui, these more direct explanations keeps you from getting lost jn the words,❤
Thanks for getting Tom Campbell, great interview
this is so healing. thank you so much. i now get it, the science, the spirit, the honestly "i don't know mystical feeling", the fantasy, the deep feeling of love and it's all good. thank you tom, thank you rick, thank you eckhart, thank you "the secret", thank you god, thank you life!
This was my favorite, to date. Not only does he have the traditional look of Santa, he really brings out a big bounty of practical knowledge, gifts. Well done.
I like the way this guy is talking!
love your videos. you have poignant questions and are great host and source of information
Hi! For an alternative view feel free see the video below! Is duality formed out of the nonduality of one universal process?
The place to start is at the bottom. Thanks for that. Patience is the ability to start from the bottom.
Excellent interview!
Rick, your interviews in general are far more engaging, informative and interesting when you have read the author's material and have specific questions. As you are beginning to interview more and because some authors have written so much, it may not be always possible for you to read all of that. In lieu of that, I suggest the following:
1. Let readers submit the questions for upcoming interviews, in the same way, that they interact on the forum discussion for each interview. This means that you should create the interview page for a guest about 2-3 weeks prior to the interview and have a forum open to submit questions.
This can ease your work considerably and can potentially make your interviews even more engaging.
2. You might eve consider having some general, common spiritual questions that apply to most teachers and seekers. Example of such questions would be:
A. What is the cause of suffering?
B. How to end or reduce suffering?
C. What is Consciousness?
D. What happens to the Consciousness under General Anesthesia?
E. What is our true nature?
F. What is Awakening?
G. What is Enlightenment?
H. Why there are so many conflicts among humans? How to reduce/eliminate it?
I. Why is there so much pain in love relationships? How to end/reduce them?
J. Is there an individual soul?
K. Is there re-incarnation?
L. Is there free will?
Kwistenbiebel200
>>I'm sure you wouldn't an outsider to tell you how to do your job?
I think I would generally welcome it and consider it with an open mind.
It seems that Rick too has a similar open-minded approach and is willing to hear all perspectives.
Kwistenbiebel200
>>It is a little patronizing
I am not sure why it appears that way to you. That is not my intention and that is not how it reads to me.
I personally think that having a forum to submit and discuss potential questions prior to the interview can really make the interviews more engaging, ease Rick's workload and can ultimately benefit him.
I also think that some general questions regarding suffering, end of suffering, consciousness, awakening at times can be more useful that spending too much time on the personal history of the speaker.
TOA (Transmission of Awakening) You should start your own Podcast and interview Tom personally. Good questions.
Those are the easy questions, so you get easy answers, but they won't help.
A. What is the cause of suffering?
Our low quality of conciousness, the need to learn compassion, our inability to accept.
B. How to end or reduce suffering?
Embrace suffering, see it as it is, a way to learn compassion.
C. What is Consciousness?
Living, non physical, digital information.
D. What happens to the Consciousness under General Anesthesia?
Consciousness is not impacted by Anesthesia, the virtual body is, and it's just slightly more limited or constrained.
E. What is our true nature?
We are conciousness, living digital information.
F. What is Awakening?
As in spirtual awakening, it's simply being aware of the (or a) larger reality.
G. What is Enlightenment?
A metaphor for a low entropy consciousness.
H. Why there are so many conflicts among humans? How to reduce/eliminate it?
We are hi-entropy consciousness. Reduce it by lowering your own entropy.
I. Why is there so much pain in love relationships? How to end/reduce them?
There is no pain in love relationships, you mean need relationships, relationships based on fear, ego, desires, needs, wants... these can be painfull. Love means to care about others, so love is how you reduce/end pain.
J. Is there an individual soul?
As a metaphor yes. Tom calls this an Individuated Unit of Consciousness (IUOC).
K. Is there re-incarnation?
Yes, consciousness transcends physical/virtual existence.
L. Is there free will?
Yes, Free will is the ability to make choices from within your decision space.
As you may see, it's not the answers that are valuable... answers are the easy part of the process..
TOA you can ask these questions which are answered by shaunDMA and what you will realize is that there are plenty more where they come from within you. Tom Campbell will also give you answers that are logical and easily interpreted but they don't really don't do you any good unless you use them as a tool for your own answering of answers from your own experiences. Other words take what shaunDMA has said and prove him right or wrong by yourself. There is no time to start but now.
@ 1:43 I recommend the 5th veda..."yad ihasti tad anyatra yan nehasti na tat kvacit"
Whatever is here is elsewhere; whatever is not here is nowhere.
YEAH! Tom Campbell's on the show!!! woo! :D
You got to bring back Tom for a Batgap 2!!!!!!!!!!!
Fantastic talk! very credible, Tom's talk is routed in science & reality. No wishy washy woo woo stuff here!
I saw the opposite. Lots of nonsense coming from him and ppl buy into it. My goodness!
Any news on the Science and Nonduality event? Will Tom be speaking there?
Non-duality says there is only One consciousness and we are THAT. Tom says we are individuated units or subsets of a larger consciousness system. That is clearly a radically different view or model of reality. I would have liked to hear more discussion about the differences between the two models. I guess I am hungry for a real debate, a no holds barred Smackdown of the Gurus type of show. All there seems to be out there is endless videos of people preaching to their respective choirs.
9QQaqqq a
Hi David, listen again to 27:00 to 27:30 - what Tom is advocating is not radically different from many non-dual paradigms. Elsewhere, Tom mentions that we are individuated units of consciousness, but that that is just a way of dividing things up; fundamentally it is all one thing. For nonduality, or any conceptual frame, to say that there is only one consciousness - it of course depends on what that conceptual frame is getting at. For instance, we can say that there is only one consciousness (meaning, one overarching and all-pervasive life-system that is aware), which in my opinion/experience is true. However, if we begin to apply that to the world of the relative, it gets a bit problematic, as we are all still individually accountable for our decisions and actions. If it were relatively (vs. absolutely) true that there were all one consciousness, this would mean that all other youtubers could be held as personally responsible for my postings as they would be for their own. Or it would mean that if I went out and beat up an old lady, that both of us should get arrested, as should the police officer and the judge, as all of us would be equally responsible. Hence, it is useful to have distinctions such as individuated units of consciousness because that is how things seem to actually function.
Ironing out, so to speak, all the "gurus" of the world, and nailing down their fundamental points etc, is not likely to accomplish what you think it might.
IMO, the closer you get to what you can measure, the further you get from "truth."
"Facts" do not necessary equate to "truth." Facts are just a description, or a definition, they do not describe the "why." They only bring up more "why's."
"Truth," on the other hand, creates the MEANING, the substance for what holds facts together.
An EFFECT does not create a substance. The substance will ALWAYS be subjective.
For example, an "electron" is an effect. The substance for what that electron is, is a probability.
If you study Campbell's work, he talks about how we live in a SUBJECTIVE reality. That subjectivity only needs to be consistent with other people / minds, when NECESSARY.
In other words, if you look at a forest, and someone else looks at the same forest, you are actually looking at two different forests. They are "rendered" as if in a video game as a "forest." Nothing specific is needed to be rendered until you actually meet the other person, and start discussing with him/her about specific things you saw in the forest.
So what evidence is there to support this? QUANTUM PHYSICS.
Campbell's most important point, is that quantum physics is not just a physics of the quantum world (the very small), but rather the fundamental way reality operates.
What you observe is custom tailored for YOU, and that reality only becomes consistent with other people, when it needs to be.
I was not a part of Tom Campbell's choir, and then I saw him speak for ten minutes on TH-cam about something that caught my eye, from then on, I was hooked, and he has been a voice who has made so much about science and truth so much more clear to me, by both verifying much of what I already believed, and also clearing up so much confusion I had, all while leaving everything extremely OPEN ENDED.
Tom Campbell's TOE not only demonstrates a detailed scientific explanation for everything in a concise way, but it also leaves it open-ended enough to fit with any interpretation one might have. Therefore, if you try and have him debate someone, you will only find more consistency, not less, although the words and definitions both sides use, might need to evolve.
There is Tom's metaphor of bump on a sheet, or the ripple of a manifold. The unity of a sheet is has more solidity than the more subtle individuation of a bump, so in this, we are more sheet, more One or non-dual, than separate or individuated. The oneness is part of the highest fractal fundamental/real plumbing, and the subtle duality of individuation is just how the territory is roped off for interaction purposes.
The importance of this in my mind is that it explains the link between Tom's large science and agape. Love, the compassion we observe and the feedback we experience, beyond that which can be explained through various Darwinian models, in the extreme, love of enemy, love of other species, this is explained by the model that under the hood we are more sheet than bump on the sheet.
Love is simply a more effective application of large selfishness. Love is only perceived as self sacrificing, if you view it from the smaller world view of materialism.
kroeran I disagree with him about "love." I think "empathy" is a more effective word to describe something that removes entropy.
"Love," as I understand it, does not always remove entropy. In fact, it can increase it dramatically. For example, you might harm another because they harmed someone you loved.
Much blood has been spilled throughout history, in the name of love.
Therefore, I don't see how "love" has negentropy as its primary mover.
However, "empathy," means you can understand and feel what the other feels. For example, you can have empathy for Hitler, but not necessarily love.
Your empathy might make you feel the sensation of love, but that does not mean you truly love Hitler.
Great Interview!
Thank you so much ,for this :good harts .Blessings
@Ken Vass In case you've not seen it already, Rick had John on: John Hagelin, Ph.D. - Buddha at the Gas Pump Interview
Marvelous. Thanks so much.
great stuff! thank you!
So did he answer the question how constant speed of light is derived from theory of consciousness? I half way and bit lost and getting bit skeptical...
Now you're talking...is not Teal Swan thing rsrs but a clever guy as Tom....wonderful!
This chat inspires a vision of Consciousness wondering/wandering about in this self-perpetuating virtual-reality dream in which every imaginable scenario is being played out, ultimately unconditional, but including this microcosm of the infinite Dreamscape, this earth-bound realm of the masters of self-imposed conditions and limitations, wherein, perchance, 'triggers' await to 'awaken' itself, because only as a dream-person could that particular happenstance be experienced. Why? Who knows, but I've heard that there are 'higher' metaphysical entities lining up for tickets to get into this corporeal horror-show/amusement park, just for the exquisite longings and sufferings of it all ... and why the hell not?
if you begin from the point of view of the wonderful life we imagine for ourselves as teenagers, or in comparison to famous people we see on TV, things can appear to be a disappointment. If rather, and more logically, you begin from the presumption of the void, that that anything at all exists, is a miracle, and life itself, let alone your life, is beyond amazing, even if brief and hard, I think one is on more solid ground.
kroeran
With respect, you've missed the point. The Void IS the One Consciousness as this Self-perpetuating Dream ... I am That ... That is All That Is. So what else would so-called 'solid ground' be? No need to project disappointment into that.
Snow: Sorry, I am using void "small v" in the sense of literal "absence of anything", physical and non physical. I would agree that that word in this context is unnecessarily confusing, equally confusing as the term "solid ground", which I mean philosophically. Curiously, the concept parallels Zero Base Budgeting, this idea of comparing your life, existence, to the more expected outcome of nothing existing at all. Often such things are a trick upon oneself, profitable philosophical white lies, but I think in this case, it is actually more accurate. That anything exists at all should come as as surprise to anyone thinking it through deeply.
kroeran
With the subject/object fusion of phenomenon and noumenon realized as not-two, devoid of any confusion, then nothing exists but itself, and thus could only be a surprise party of the one and only no-one ... a blissful marriage indeed.
Uncle Tom is THEEE Man!!!
That the world that surrounds us is a virtual reality (Sankara's "jagat mithya" - "this world is an appearance") is not altogether unknown to science. It forms the centerpiece of some neuroscience proposal regarding brain mechanisms of consciousness, for which see in particular Chris Frith's "Making up the mind" and my own chapter entitled "Body and world as phenomenal contents of the brain’s reality model" in the book "The Unity of Mind, Brain and World: Current Perspectives on a Science of Consciousness" edited by Pereira & Lehmann for the Cambridge University Press.
You sound like someone who would enjoy Eben Alexander (NDE neurosurgeon) or Brian Weiss (past life regressing psychiatrist). Lots of books and youtubes from those guys. I don't think the VR model is Campbellian "New Art", its more that Tom claims, as most associated with TMI the institution, to have actually mapped this greater reality, using the phenomena/tool of "OBE", under the specific discipline of being a trained physicist. And he asserts, based on his research, that the VR model is the best explanation of the data.
For regular folks, you first have to get past the "is this guy nuts or what" threshold, by either meeting him at an event or applying his techniques, checking out his assertions regarding the state of physics. David Chalmers, cognitive scientist, is an exciting promoter of the VR hypothesis, pure pleasure to listen to.
Rick, this was a great interview I really like how you do thorough background research for each of your interviewees, and ask really penetrating and thought-provoking questions. To add to what Tom said about the upcoming conference in Portugal, it will actually be from 22-24 May (not March), 2015. The conference is called The First International Congress of Conscientiology. (conscientiology = consciousness+ology). Details are here: icc.iacworld.org. We will have a number of researchers and other presenters from various fields, including philosophy, psychology, medicine, neuroscience, parapsychology, engineering, physics, mathematics, and more. Although there is not yet a final list of presenters yet, confirmed speakers include:
Brenda Dunne, former manager of the historic Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory and president of International Consciousness Research Laboratories (USA, co-author of Margins of Reality);
NASA’s Tom Campbell, nuclear physicist (USA, author of My Big TOE);
Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi, PhD (Switzerland, author of The Observer Effect: The Quantum Mystery Demystified),
Ulisse di Copo, PhD and Antonella Vannini, PhD (Italy, authors of Syntropy: The Energy of Life), Chantal Toporow, PhD (USA, representative of the Society for Scientific Exploration), and
Wagner Alegretti, electrical engineer, ( Brazil, senior researcher with the International Academy of Consciousness).
The Swiss neuroscientist Olaf Blanke will represent the more conventional view, thus enriching the debate.
Additional multidisciplinary speakers, who will be selected from over 50 entries from researchers worldwide, will represent a number of institutions and perspectives, from near-death experiences to measurable effects of the mind on physical systems. The event is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC and will have participants from around the world. Simultaneous translation at IAC’s Event Hall will further facilitate communication.
omg this guy is amazing
For me, the interesting things start at 1:34:10.
I found the part before that kind of dull.
When a man finds a pearl on a spot of beach, his experience walking to that spot, and from that spot, is not of much consequence, though it is perplexing that one would gratuitously comment on it.
kroeran
Are you sure of that :-)
If someone is looking for water in a desert, it might be good to describe where water is found and also where water is not found. This information can save someone a lot of time and effort and in this hypothetical case, can even save a life.
TOA: the issue is referring to any of Tom's material as "boring". It is upsetting for those of us who have man crushes on Tom to hear him or his material put down in any way. If a man in the desert is pointing you to the oasis, one should not make disparaging comments on his cloak. ; - ) I am probably being over sensitive and controlling. The hope is that you can take this as friendly sparring.
kroeran
You know about people having difference of opinion, taste, likes and dislikes - don't you?
Further, I called it "dull". I didn't call it "boring". Further, I said, "I found it dull". That statement acknowledges the possibility that others might find it interesting and useful. Does everyone has the same taste and viewpoint as mine? Probably not.
Let's say this is *a 1.2 on the new -3 to +3 scale. Disclaimers at the end of the comment.*
This gets *a huge thumb up for originality and non-conformism !* And despite Rick's desperate attempt to reconcile Tom's view with his own perennialist wishful thinking it is obvious that this here *flies in the face of all orthodox and traditional spiritual paths* because he says that the "larger consciousness system" which is the data base of all universes, *Campbell's "creator"*, so to speak, *is*
1. *finite*,
2. *not perfect or flawless*,
3. *struggling to survive by lowering entropy*.
Therefore - if this were the ultimate reality - we would be dealing with a very, very problematic situation since the creator would be conditioned, a sentient and erring being like anyone else and not free "him"self and therefore incapable of liberating us from the plight of existence for good. You won't be surprised that buddhists would *not* take refuge in this larger consciousness system since it stands for almost everything that buddhism is trying to terminate.
Yet, of course, Rick is aggressively ignoring the contradiction to his world view to maintain his wishful thinking at
47:22
*right after this man fundamentally, directly, and radically contradicted all well known descriptions of spiritual reality !* And therefore, as usual, Rick misses the single most important opportunity to make this interview more interesting.
Also, this guy gets a +0.5 for cosmological contributions even despite the fact that he mostly has to point to his other material and doesn't really elaborate too much here. But it is obvious that once he starts he would have needed at least a 4 hour interview without this agreement orgy.
So far this would have to be a 2.5 then, but we don't hear much (earns the interview a -1.0) on how he derives at his subjective "data" (mostly OOBEs I think), and I wonder if he keeps making proper double blind tests or some such to see how reliable his data gathering is. Nowhere does this interview make it plausible how he can speak of his cosmology with any confidence at all or how he differs much from a speculative thinker.
Another drawback is that given the fact that he could not go in depth, it was too much rambling about the usual agreement orgy for the feel good effect - and insofar *far too long*: - another -0.3. :
2.5 - 1 - 0.3 = 1.2
*Time is probably better spent by going directly to Campbell's channel.*
_About the rating: anything below and including 0 means by and large a waste of time, and anything below 0 is not only worthless but damaging to the world. For comparison, on that scale, Francis Bennett would be a +2 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative + 2 - 2.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 2.0 ratings as a matter of principle._
*General Disclaimer:* the rating _pertains to an interview, not to the interviewee_. If the rating is high it means merely and exclusively that I consider the interview to be of high value relative to the stated purpose of the channel, and that it is therefore no waste of time to listen to the interview. It would _not_ imply that whatever the interviewee speaks is the truth (as if I was the arbiter over that) or that you should follow him/her or accept whatever that person offers. _That is particularly in need of emphasis if that would be an expensive enterprise_ !
Awesome! On an individual level I am learning about Form & Content. I am responsible for seeing the Content of what ever happens in Form as purposed for Love. I was just talking last night with my husband about the Government and Capitalism... the only thing I could say about my political view was - I as an individual can only work on improving my ability to love by responding to any circumstance from love where attack is never warranted and forgiving is the rule not the exception. Correction is loving and moves us forward. Condemnation and punishment are blocks and tend to get us stuck. How does that look? It does not look fearful or frightening.
Tom says that consciousness is information. Consider that Wikipedia which prides itself as being the expositor of quality information, does not allow any information about Tom on it's pages. I am not sure of the details about how Wikipedia operates but I consider it a significant reflection on how brainwashed people are by what they deem as science. In fact the science model they are "living in" is in fact the Victorian model which believed in an objective solid reality "out there" which we, as objective observers, were at last able to grasp through science. Nevertheless any activists out there should investigate this. I consider it nothing short of at best bigoted censorship, at worst mental violence.
make love, not war! ; - )
I did a lot of work on Tom's wiki page getting it launched. The thing is, under the lens of normal importance in the world, Tom does not tick any boxes. His information is not curated by an important institution, formally peer reviewed or sponsored by a big publisher.
In the small world of everyday small thinking....he is a nobody....not worthy of mention.
Further, similar to the TED talk mindset of the Newtonian presumption (see Sheldrake banned TED talks), he is likely perceived as some form of huckster, in their minds, which is a rational position to take, for those: not informed of bleeding edge physics; not yet disabused of the Newtonian presumption by some subjective exposure to PSI or institutions such as PEARS, IONS, TMI; or for those who have not invested more than a superficial amount of energy in the question "is this guy nuts or what" (ITGNOW)?; not aware of how the MBTOE "group" operates, which is non-profit.
So they believe they are doing moral "Gods work" by protecting people from his information and the legitimacy of a wiki page.
Bob Monroe, TMI, IONS appear to be wiki worthy, presumably because they have more material, bricks and mortar gravitas.
kroeran Wow thank you for that feedback which makes clearer what I already suspected. Whereas I know little about Tom it seems you are long involved with his work and I take my hat off to you for your efforts on getting a wiki launched. It seems significant to me that Tom's page was kicked off wiki while there is abundant "trash" on wiki. For example an ex-colleague put his own page up there describing himself as a movie maker and describing all the movies he has made. Since none of us have ever been able to see the movies we conclude that all this exists in his mind. He may suffer from some form of mental illness but nevertheless his wiki remains up as does all sorts of other nonsense. Yet Tom's is removed. It seems significant to me. I am of the opinion that what we most fear is thought itself- well of the free variety anyway. All good things to you - you are obviously a warrior like Tom.
"Consider that Wikipedia which prides itself as being the expositor of quality information, does not allow any information about Tom on it's pages"
It's a democracy where the majority rules. There's no guarantee of quality.
MrToby9999 Thanks for response. I am not sure how Wikipedia operates. Are you sure it is a democracy? Or does it operate according to the whims a fancies of certain people who have more say in the deletion and alteration of articles?
I love it
As a scientist I have two big problems with this. First he says that particles are just probability functions and are not real. Calling particles just probability functions is like saying bullets are just algebra because we use algebra predict the behavior of bullets.
Second his claim that particles don't exist and that the data will prove this, is wrong. Recent experiments have shown that particles exist without question.
I understand that his view is attractive to Buddhists, but it isn't science. He uses his faith to redefine science, which is not intellectually proper.
Great interview! My belief is that 'consciousness', which may be considered interchangeable with 'energy', is the fundamental constituent of the universe, and consequently all that exists. Consciousness, energy, truth, God -- all are attempts to label that which cannot be labeled, i.e., absolute truth.
The idea of information being fundamental also makes sense. Perhaps information is the raw material, and consciousness is the field which organizes and gives form to what would otherwise be random data. In that sense, maybe information and consciousness, which emerged from this chaotic 'nothingness' of information to create and provide meaning to reality (as we know it), are in fact the original '0' and '1' from which the code of existence is written.
If that were the case, however, it is still difficult if not impossible to argue for one as being 'more' fundamental than the other, since isn't the dualistic concept of binary code predicated on the fact that 0 and 1 are simply two ways of expressing the 'same thing'?
like one wise man said "REality may not be' Real' in the sense you figured it was, but by Gosh it is real enough" , real enough for us to work on/ from. STill, its amazing to me, how the bhuddists were onto this notion, thousands of years ago, ..
is VR real enough to learn from ? heck, lots of folks use Virt. Reality training simulators to learn more from all the time, so why not? Does consciousness, have to be flesh and bone? its already not, its ALWAYS been so much MORe tHAN THAT, so no worries, eh mate? its just life to learn from. Thanks so much for gettin' TOM CAMBELL on this program.
I wonder if "not real" is the most profitable label to put on it. Better might be "not the whole story".
I love Buddhism however even Buddha never intended that we just believe what he says but that doesn't mean that we stop thinking for ourselves. Buddhism is just wrong sometimes and we have to move on not get stuck in a rut.
Can anyone prove this guy is a physicist? Point me to his credentials or peer reviewed papers?
That's exactly what it is. 17:30
JOIN TOM CAMPBELL IN A LIVE VIDEO CHAT ROOM THE 19th for Australia 18th
for USA DETAILS HERE
mybigtoeaustralia.weebly.com/live-video-chat-events.html
Interesting interview. But i feel his understanding of how to deal with fear is over simplified and wishy washy.
Dealing with fear can be approached by exercising your free will to some degree and capacity, based on your choices to do so. The "dealing" of fear, is "wishy-washy" to the observer who may choose to view that particular action of "dealing" in that manner. Dealing with fear as an over-simplification is analogous to an approach of dealing with fear to that degree.
Richard Ty Trevino i haven't a clue what you just said. It maybe my fault though so iam not meaning to funny
Sejus Mai You are not at fault nor am I at fault here. It requires both of us becoming more familiar with each other's approach to understanding how you,or I or even how Dr. Campbell "deals" with sharing viewpoints and perspectives as to how you or I or anyone else perceive reality, based on experiences that you, I or anyone else may have. :)
Richard Ty Trevino you are not making sence with your comments. All i said was his explanation for dealing with fear is to wishy washy for me. To me the info he gives may sound good in theory but in practicality its of no value.
I do not make sense to you with my comments because your inability to make sense of my comments is how you can only assert Dr. Thomas Campbell's work is impractical and of no value. Not only is his work fundamentally and effectively practical and of great value, if one fully comprehends the totality of his work, then one would be able to immediately intuit that your inability to find value in his work is due to a great degree of fear and ego you have yet to deal with. Hence why commenting with you further ends here.
meditation (TM) math 6 : 6 silent prayer
kundalini john 3 : 14 10 : 30 luke 2 : 35
ajna çakra math 6 : 22 rev 7 : 3 9 : 4
not alone john 14 : 2 shanti :-)
caduceus : straight line sushumna
the two snake like lines : ida pingala
the pair of wings : ajna çakra seen in meditation
that symbol has nothing to do with DNA or reptilians :-)
i like this guy
he just needs a santa hat ¦;¬]
why do we confuse ourselves with this thinking , you make no sense just stick to
the basics. Jesus lives
Great interview. Many thanks.