That was BRILLIANT!. I'm 67, and have read an awful lot on this subject - for the first time I understand the simplicity of Consciousness. I have spent far too many years with a logical mind trying to understand. I will watch this several more times. Thanks.
I did a deep thought experiment very simple in its context but gave me a profound answer how a living thing can become non living without any change to its own consciousness .I think only Mr Spira could understand .
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates). Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality). The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Form is dual to formlessness.
Scientists don't "stick" to their theory. That's a rather typical thing to say if you are on a (spiritual) quest doing 2 things that are in my view not the right things to do: 1. generalising science as if it is 1 thing (it's millions of people....) 2. criticizing science as a whole as if there is certain truths that all scientists stubbornly don't ask questions about... he actually does the same thing with religion, Rupert seems good in generalising. I've actually asked this question once to Rupert after a talk. He said: the proof is with the people that say it is emergent.. strange answer. Why is it not with the people that say everything is consciousness? How do memories emerge? We don't exactly know. Are my memories everywhere? Probably not. Sure, perhaps consciousness is some yet to be discovered fundamental property of reality. Perhaps. I'm open to that possibility. Or perhaps it does emerge from a weird phenomenon or interaction of our neural networks with the world around us. Also open to that. Shall we keep all options open, until somebody finds some real evidence, and not generalise and try to convince others of our worldviews?
All I know is that I am, but I cannot feel myself, I cannot taste myself, I cannot smell myself, I cannot see myself and I cannot hear myself. When I try to do one of these things I am trying to split myself. When I split myself into two, a third one appears to observe those two. And a fourth one is right here talking about those three, and so ad infinitum. If I could split myself, the sense of 'I am' would disappear. Would I become a 'we'?
Here is one more reason I believe the self is infinite: the self is like a fundamental music note. A fundamental note has infinite harmonics. This way, the self has infinite other selves around it. Doctors call it 'multiple personalities'; I call it 'parallel minds'. The 'inner voice'? It's just one of the harmonics. That hammering thought? One harmonic trying to talk to you. That new idea?... The one that insists on think about that interesting girl/boy?... But a question remains: who is the self that is in charge right now? Is it the fundamental note or just a harmonic? This is like asking: which of the integer numbers is the most important? To me it the number zero, because it is the sum of all the others. So, the fundamental self must be the sum of all the selves, but, sometimes, +5 is in charge. Other times -5 takes over and your behaviour changes.
It's all information, from the extreemly, primitive to extraordinary complicated. The interpertization of the information is where the ability of consciousness evolves, from. The ability to interpret information is, by definition, consciousness. As soon as information emerged, the process of intelligence gathering began as well. The interpretation of the intelligence gathering is what I hypothesize is consciousness.
The material phenomenon of consciousness is based on the memory of previous experience, the process from the reduplication of chromosomes to the irreversible loss of the ability to self-regulate the cyclic processes of life support. Consequently, creation is a material phenomenon of the realization of the total function of the system of self-organization, self-regulation and adaptation of a material entity, the manifestations of which are available to the reception of this creature at various stages of the sequence of changing the metamorphoses of its existence. The change of metamorphoses of existence is carried out by the cyclic energy of the closed surface of the Möbius strip splitting in the dynamics of accumulation of specialized functions, lined up in a hierarchy by the response time of the total open thermodynamic system of self-organizing criticality.
Awareness comes from within, not from without, awareness has as little to do with knowledge as a hen lays an egg. Awareness takes a lot of practice and life wisdom, unfortunately few are able to hold awareness consciously
This type of tomato throwing isn't needed in the pursuit of truth within philosophy of mind. You can show issues with materialism without the weird sniping. Clearly the problem with materialism is an actual issue within the framework, not how you think people have it as a dogma.
@@jmike2039 look, don't accuse me of tomato throwing and weird sniping by doing the same thing yourself. If you have a counter argument then state it. Don't waste my time.
@@jmike2039 go back and read it again. I don't have to reformat it to satisfy you. Have the balls to state your case before trying to pull this down into the gutter of pedantry. What is your argument?
The logical fallacy that Rupert makes is that a limitation of language (our inability to describe awareness and assign it attributes) is something other than just a limitation of language. We can use this same approach for any subjective experience. Please describe ‘redness’ and what it is to experience redness. You can’t. That doesn’t mean that red is an inherent and eternal aspect, it’s just the experience of our minds (via our visual machinery) meeting the world.
@@TigerDragonStorm No, he's right. The trick here is mostly verbal. Because we are physical, our language is constructed according to the physical. Up, over, behind, down. So we are hard-wired to imagine things from a certain perspective. So any time we make something a noun, we imagine looking at it from an outside perspective. And this is what he does with consciousness. But there's no rational reason to suppose the consciousness that gives us experience and perspective, wouldn't also produce awareness of ourselves.
That’s not that appropriate. We can describe ‘redness’ to use visual image(apple,blood,etc…) but we can not describe ‘awareness’ by any means because it is not objective. It is only can be described by using itself. ‘Redness’ isn’t equal to ‘awareness’ except for abstractness of its definition.
I say consciousness is an emerging process, but that consciousness does not emerge directly from the matter that is making up your brain and nervous system but from the combined sum of what all the different parts are doing as the different regions keep communicating. I was sedated at the hospital when I was subjected to some severe pain during a procedure. At first, I didn't understand because all the pain still remained, even though I wasn't there to feel it anymore. but at the same time, I still was. Then my cognitive functions, one by one, began to slip apart until I ceased to exist. You could say that I forgot myself as the observer fell asleep and ceased. Have you ever seen the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey when they deactivate the HAL-9000 computer? I could relate a bit to that, as the bird's-eye view you have of yourself becomes more and more tangible the more of yourself you lose and is the last to cease when there's no longer enough cooperation and communication for consciousness to emerge. The final transition isn't that things go dark but rather that you no longer can reason or even get scared as you slowly forget reality and fade into nothingness.
Well said, nicely explained. First of all do we fully understand the subject? was my ? as I watched the video and stopped to comment seeing some sense here. Its what we define vs how we choose to define that changes the whole narrative or belief. Re-cognition is perceiving as in aka "awareness" while we are awake or rarely at times in dreams we know we are dreaming. But cognition? Is it not happening 2/7? Cognition is the non-verbal 7th sense. Without this body and its parts can we be in a state of cognition? In deep sleep we just wake up to switch of the alarm just before it starts ringing! We are amazed at our automatic prowess! OR the first time sometimes we get a shot or an answer right, we might say it is luck or coincidence. In my search and experience all I can say is that this body is the unconscious mind and it is mostly non verbal and yes "fate" is scientific and "luck" is programmable to some extent. Thinking is verbal AI (all languages are part of AI) but feeling is natural intelligence, the body feels as the mind thinks and the mind thinks (if it has a language) when the body feels. WE feel hungry and we think to cook or to order food home? But a dog that feels hungry does it think like a man? My question is do feelings exist even without this body? Maybe as a collective consciousness in space, probably a reason why we feel fearful while visiting certain morbid places?! True Answers are needed and, we need a Jesus or some Ghost who walks or a great soul to return back and converse with us. Else all the stuff told is only theory. Under deep sedation we loose all pain or sensation and go in nothingness, till we wake up after surgery. That practical experience of yours as described is what made me stop by and add some of my nothingness or everythingness herein! Love Peace and Joy to all! Namaste.
I had 2 NDE's and it was totally clear that we are Pure Awareness/Consciousness and that it and it's not an it, does not arise from the brain/body/mind. There was no time, everything was simultaneous. All things could be said to be IN Awareness. I like to use the metaphor of a prism. Think of light being refracted through a prism and then making the assumption that the prism creates the different colours/wavelengths of light. The colours ARE the totality of light, not separate but refraction allows them to be seen as separate. Awareness/Consciousness could be said to "refract" through the brain/body/mind. In reality, there is no separation.
Just as I read your words a picture of a prism splitting white light into colors shows up to the right. "Why is the speed of light what it is?" by Arvin Ash. - A little piece of synchronicity, as Jung would say.
I never found a person who could elaborate the "Simultaneous" thing..what does it mean?.. Im in future and past at the same time? Please explain I have plenty of time.. I can wait 😂
@LifesInsight No Sir, you got me wrong.. That wasn't in sarcastic way.. The notion of it.. That I have plenty of time… which I physically may not ..but then I realized the depth of the confusion its creating.. Made me laugh.. Just imagine this… I said I have plenty of time…but the moment I said that.. There is a clock running towards my end.. But the 5D perspective says I have plenty of it. ..but during a particular moment… both perspective are not able to fit each other.. That's the confusion no one is able to clarify… if future is already happening… why are we putting effort to make a decision in this moment.. And 5d conscious people ask to stay in the moment… which is a request to make or change cetrain decision making… which creates another doubt.. When they know everything is happening already.. Why are they trying to change something in this moment?… do you get my point.
I don't see any evidence for ANY explanation of consciousness. I see This happening. (Reality/consciousness) Part of that happening is a mind attempting to codify it in language. It is uncomfortable to not know something so pervasive. Some solutions make the mind more comfortable than others. When something happens to contradict our view, it is uncomfortable. We shift opinions/guesses until one is comfortable enough for our mind. This is our "belief" but it is JUST A THOUGHT. Ans chosen out of comfort. If someone introduces a challenge our views shift until we again are comfortable with them. God, Oneness, Consciousness blah blah blah. All thoughts. When I had the nondual thing happen, the "veil lifted", insight, whatever worda you choose, I didn't know it had words. I called it "Bare Reality" This seems as good as anything else. And it was ovious that I was never what I had thought and that others are not what they think. And it was obvious where religion comes from. But, I didn't see a reason and still don't to call it God. It is all thought. This happening cannot be conveyed in thought. Like you cannot fit the sea into a tin can that drifts about in it. I don't dispute Ruperts interpretation. I don't share it. But I can't see how either has the leg up of evidence on the other. They are thoughts. All thought had the same ontological status. It exists as thought. That is all it can be.
You cant see or feel consciousness, and you cant think about it either. Because it has no shape. You can be conscious of body and mind. They have shape, even your thoughts have shape. But your awareness of yourself have no shape, so as he says its infinite. And our minds and body and definitively finite, so they cant contain consciousness.
Yes I found a way to know love as never before. I don’t formulate questions very well so over the years I have not asked Rupert many. But it has not seemed necessary as one simply has to wait until he answers the unasked. But the first time I listened to Rupert it was clear that I was hearing Truth and only then did I realize how much that meant to me.
Nah. I've had 100 friends talking about this at parties and coffee houses who were better at talking about consciousness than this guy. He just talks in circles about simple truths, Making things needlessly more complicated.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates). Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Form is dual to formlessness.
he is so brilliant in explaining ----------- A husband says to his wife: "Why does our dog always get good food, and I have to eat up all sorts of garbage left after everyone?" The wife replies: "Darling, but you can't explain it to the dog!" ))))))))))
Haven't we all had the experience of the emerging of consciousness? As a baby we are born but our brains are not fully developed. We can't remember being born or make sense of the world around us but by a few years our brains have grown and made sense of all it's inputs and becomes conscious.
We gain consciousness early in the womb, the thing is just that our brains aren’t developed so we have no memory storage, we have no way to know what that moment was like. His point however was really that in order to experience, there must be awareness. So in order to witness/experience consciousness arising from matter, there would have to be something conscious. Also that you can describe what you are aware of, but cannot describe the awareness itself, it has no form to be described, it is just aware. With that, it is not restricted to limitations of form and must exist outside form since it has none. In other words, it exists outside of this 4 dimensional realm where everything has form. Which therein answers the question of consciousness being eternal, if it exists outside of our 4 dimensions, it is not restricted by time, it can exist at all points of time and can freely move through all 4 dimensions and is hence omnipresent and eternal. It was there at the beginning and it will be there to witness the end.
What if consciousness emerged within us around week 20 in the womb? We would have WITNESSED the emergence of consciousness but we don't currently REMEMBER it. His reasoning failed to mention this obvious possibility.
Wow that was a great explanation from Rupert and much appreciated questioning from the other chap, I don't have that questioning ability so it's good someone else does so we can learn from it too :)
Really disappointed with this. Of course, if we have no evidence for the theory that consciousness is an emergent property, we can't subscribe to it with any certainty. But that doesn't mean that we are free to just make something up - as you appear to be doing. You are just saying that, therefore, the opposite must be true. Your evidence is no more compelling for your position. At this point we have solved nothing - we just don't know yet. I was impressed with the younger man's intellectual honesty however.
Parallels here to the Tree of Knowledge metaphor and Plato's cave. When our attention is lopsidedly focused in the rational mind, in language, we're dwelling in a shadow world where words and ideas are proxies for reality. So we can formulate questions endlessly--that's what our rational minds do--but the answer to our questions about reality won't come in language, but in direct awareness that has no expression in words.
Emergent = synthesis! Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates). Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality). The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Form is dual to formlessness. "Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell.
Rupert, I do not know how i found you but I'm grateful. You have obviously found enlightenment. Your patience in your discussions is a beautiful thing to witness. Not sure why you continue to help others and share with us, but I'm truly grateful you do.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates). Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality). The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Form is dual to formlessness.
Well haven’t we all experienced consciousness emerging? We may not be able to remember but we were nonexistent at one point and then we existed. Our own localized conscious experience must’ve had a beginning, but it was so early on in our lives that we don’t have the capacity to remember it. Same with the disappearance of consciousness, we’ll all die at some point and feel the consciousness dwindle away. People with NDEs claim that they felt themselves slipping and then there was a period of “nothingness” until they were brought back to life. Others claim to have visions of an afterlife as well but even those people claim that there was an experience of leaving this plane of existence. I’m not saying I’m correct and these guys are wrong, these are just the immediate questions that pop into my head. Granted, I’m only 3 minutes in but I had to get my thoughts out haha. If anyone has any rebuttals to my comment I’d love to hear it. I’m simply hear you battle with my own sense of the world🙏
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates). Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality). The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Form is dual to formlessness.
One doesn't have to "feel" consciousness "emerging" for it to be emergent, how silly. The constructed sense of "self" is what experiences awareness. Awareness (consciousness) existed before the "self" was created, as infants and before, but there was no "I" constructed to experience it. That's why "we" are not aware of ourselves as infants -- because the "we" that we consider ourselves to be literally didn't exist yet!
Dear Rupert, I'm going to use a phrase that I once heard you use in relation to a university professor who was speaking at the Science and Nonduality Conference. As the professor shared his views about the nature of consciousness, you stated that you could feel your "saber begin to rattle." I interpetted that to mean that is was all you could do to hold yourself back. I believe that I witnessed that rattling again--in a most delightful--and insightful--way! :-) Bravo, my dear guru. You are one to whom I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for helping to awaken my being to its true Self. God bless. 🙏🏻
Consciousness is what we are. It is what human beings are at a particular time of evolution. Human mind / brain is million years old and consciousness too is that old. This consciousness is what is reincarnated. humans are not individually reborn but as a collective mind as consciousness. So it goes on with new additions from every new born lives from birth to death. What we read, experiences that we gather become part of the consciousness. Every human being lives in a particular culture, it could be western, eastern, Asian , African. So human conditioning too is part of consciousness. All our desires, fears, jealousy, anger, hatred, love, that occupies our mind is part of the consciousness. It is the part of the stream every human being lives in through million years.
I loved how Rupert guided him back to just 'be' to know and be aware that he IS indeed consciousness and that consciousness by itself is not a separate phenomenon. It is rather the source of all phenomenon. The hard problem is only as long as we dwell in the thoughts, emotions and feelings. From the place of looking, there is no problem. Here, there are no ideas, concepts and definitely no problems whatsoever. There is no time here either and so the question of eternity doesn't arise. 🙏
I like the way you express this -- to take it a little further can I suggest that consciousness creates the noumena, and through our senses we perceive the phenomena ? I take the idea from Kant´s work on the noumenon and the phenomenon, which I found very helpful.
@@kerryburns6041 , thanks much for your kind words. I have not read Kant's work, but have read a book or two by Ramesh Balsekar, a disciple of Nisargadatta Maharaj. Ramesh indeed refers to consciousness itself as noumenal. And as you mentioned, the noumenon experiences the phenomenon (external world) through the senses and mind.
@@anandakumarsanthinathan4740 I think you put it perfectly, describing the way consciousness explores itself through infinite manifestations, including you and I. Greetings from Andalucia.
The universe is in the form of a brain cell, and is electrical in nature. This electricity and form creates an either, throughout the universe, that is something akin to pure conciousness. Conciousness being broadcast much like a radio signal. Our brains, collections of electric brain cells each mimicking the form of the universe, are similar to a radio antenna. Each of us, with our own unique antennas, are tuned to a certain small bandwidth of that master conciousness. This "radio signal", if you will, together with our free will of action, makes us who we are. Our bodies, actions, and experiences are individual, but our conciousness is shared. This may not be true of course, but i believe its a compelling theory.
I am an anesthesiologist. Every day I wink consciousness off and on for numerous patients. I believe I am seeing something that could represent an emergent phenomenon in our recovery rooms. The patient is the only one who does not witness unconsciousness. It is almost as if the for the patient....they do not "go away", nor does the Universe. There is a timelessness in that. I am new to Rupert. I feel he is is on to something. Something profound, fundamental. But I need further evidence than our sensation that awareness is not emergent from our "meat" brain.
Rupert's answer, to my understanding at least, would be to consider wakefulness, dream state and deep sleep. The consciousness is present in all three states. The "truest" state of consciousness is deep sleep because it is a formless void. Dream states project the world of forms onto the screen of awareness that the person experiences as a dream. Wakefulness is a state where the person experiences the world of forms through the 5 senses and through the mind. If you approach these questions from the perspective of awareness/consciousness rather than from the materialist end of the telescope, new insights will avail themselves to you. If you listen to more of Rupert's talks, he explains it all a lot better than I just did.
@@lordmacaulay8739 In our jobs as anesthesiologists, I can not get past the feeling that we are definitely witnessing something astounding. That spiritual spark of awareness that winks on as the "meat" body reanimates in the PACU will never get old to me. It is such a privilege, almost feels like God is smiling along with us. Of course... then some of the patients start to vomit....takes some of the charm away 😉
Materialism and their brain 🧠 claims have been totally and absolutely debunked shown to be falsehood by God in God-Consciousness. The brain doesn't produce shit. Consciousness is God. Consciousness never goes off. It goes Super-On at death.
My "conceptual" response to your question is as someone above mentioned.. Rupert's "lineage" (if he even claims such a thing) derives from 'Advaita Vedanta' and in this tradition there are 4 states or "modes" of consciousness - 1 waking, 2 dreaming, 3 dreamless sleep, and 4 pure boundless or fundamental consciousness - aka "Brahman" which is formless universal awareness. The 3rd state of "dreamless sleep" is akin to being under anesthesia and is a dull state of "awareness without objects." Its still a state of awareness (consciousness) but it is a state of "awareness with no reference" and so nothing to "notice" and compare itself to. The 4th state of "pure awareness" is different in that it is a state of "self-awareness" in which there is a "knowing of knowing" that is bright in comparison to the "darkness" of the 3rd state. The 4th state is the only "real" state of being because it is the source and most fundamental level of experiencing (aka "reality"). My next response is to your "request" of needing more evidence... The evidence for the non-emergence of consciousness from matter is found in your immediate experience. Investigate and dig deeply into THIS - what is it that is aware of these words? Your consciousness you say? Ok, what is it that is aware of your consciousness? What is it that is presently knowing your awareness of being present? What is it that is aware of your being aware? What ever "answer" you come to will not be correct if it is an "answer." Answers require a separation between the question and the answer, or in this case between awareness and what that awareness is aware of. Awareness is always "prior to" that duality. As Rupert said "Awareness is not a form, not an object," and therefore cannot APPEAR as an answer to the question of "evidence." Awareness is THIS - the immediacy of knowing "awareness," prior to its appearance as a concept. Dig into that..repeatedly. The fact of you experiencing "being" is the evidence you're seeking but is not something you can "pick up"
@2:20 I and many people feel as if our consciousness is emerging from our chemical process. What I haven't seen is a consciousness being present without brains and a body. The consciousness I do have doesn't seem to go back further than the age of one so I have no memories of experiences before awareness some time after birth.
When you force the mind to stop wriggling away from the truth, it can only point to the truth. Hold the mind to its own questions, then it must point to the truth of reality.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates). Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality). The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Form is dual to formlessness.
I do not understand why can something without form not come into existence or stop existing? for example a thought can come and go. it has no form but it doesn't need to be eternal because of that.
Awareness doesn't require a rational process. This is SO profound and probably the reason nonduality is so alien to western paradigms. As an engineer, I find awareness is far closer to poetry, rather than science. Let yourself sink into consciousness until you only know peace and love, once you get there, revisiting that coherent state becomes so familiar and nurturing. 😌
How does he expose the absurdity of Transhumanism? AFAIK, Transhumanism is the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology. How does he refute that? It seems if he's suggesting that consciousness is eternal, then the human race can easily evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations.
@@lindsaycoffey3327 I think perhaps the term transhumanism is misunderstood and conflated with humanism and perhaps materialism...or....???transgender??? Who knows? Maybe trans just sounds scary and wicked.
The fact that consciousness can leave the body and then return shows it is not part of the body / physical brain. It doesn't require oxygen or anything else physical. However there seems to be two different ways consciousness can emerge: firstly that which happens during extreme trauma, when consciousness comes out of and rises above the body, the other when consciousness leaves the physical plane completely during the latter stages of advanced meditation. When it leaves completely it expands to the point of infinity. And yes the feeling at this point is of overwhelming LOVE and brightness. Both Buddhism and Hinduism agree on this fundamental point.
what facts ? no such thing exists. consciousness is a abstract concept its not in the physical plane to begin with so it can't leave it. we know now the brain can create powerful DMT like drugs with massive trauma or when near death so we have no reason to still believe all this NDE nonsense.
Experience is not a priori the be-all and end-all of truth. In fact experience is a very limited form of knowing. Science in fact is on the right track of understanding consciousness we're just not there yet. Rupert is the one preaching the religion: consciousness being formless.. it's a dogmatic statement that doesn't explain consciousness in the slightest bit. Sometimes we can not even trust our senses and experience. They lie to us or present us with false information.
This is why Sanatan Dharma is not a religion. It describes the Advait (Non-dual) nature of reality. This is very well described in Vedanta (the Upanishads).
It's not emergent but it's certainly a profound embodied shift cognitively and physicaly when insight lifts the veil. Then one continually slips back into patterns and the dropping back into presence becomes more a familiar relief. That's how it's experienced well non experienced here.❤👀🙏namaste. I love saying the word emergent though...
But it is still just consciousness that becomes aware of the profound embodied shift. Sometimes we think our experience is consciousness because we are so absorbed in our experience, but that can be a loss of (higher) consciousness.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates). Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality). The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Form is dual to formlessness.
I have a hard time explaining consciousness. I also have a hard time accepting that materialism is the explanation. But why is it that when we destroy parts of the brain, consciousness is affected? When we destroy all of it, the person seems to have no consciousness at all. There seems to be a strong relationship between consciousness and the brain.
And does our consciousness actually do anything for us or is it just epiphenomenal and is just something we can watch, but it has no effect on what we do?
@seantrader2422 Interesting. Is your idea that the consciousness the brain is receiving is natural/ material/physical or is it unnatural/supernatural and nonmaterial? Anyways. So in your analogy, the brain is a receiver and if the receiver is broken, the radio waves that come in either aren't processed at all or aren't processed correctly or the apparatus that ultimately produces the music is broken....like the wires to the speaker or the speaker itself. So the brain is more akin to the eye that sees/receives light waves/photons. The eye processes light into nerve signals that go to the brain. That process is all physical right? Light hits retina and nerve impulses are initiated. Those nerve pulses go to the brain where brains cells receive them. All still physical, so far, right? So let's take that physical event of seeing and incorporate that into the idea that the brain is a receiver of consciousness. Best I can tell, physical light is focused by the lens in the eye and hits the rods and cones. They somehow are stimulated by those light waves/photons and caused to produce physical nerve impulses. Those nerve impulses go to the brain via the optic nerves where brain cells are stimulated by those impulses and some sort of chemical reaction takes place. So far it is still physical, right? But if you're right, that chemical reaction isn't really consciousness. The consciousness is coming in from the outside like radio waves hitting an antenna and being processed by a receiver. But somehow, that consciousness knows that you just saw red. There has to be an interface. How does that consciousness you're receiving know to produce the qualia of the color red? Can the brain send out signals to the consciousness generator and tell it that the eyes are seeing red? The radio is a passive receiver and doesn't send out signals to the radio station. It could....they make two-way radios that send signals to the radio station. But we can detect that signal and know how the radio could or does communicate to the radio station. If the brain itself is somehow communicating TO whatever is sending us our consciousness we should be able to detect that signal. Or if that modification of the consciousness we are receiving happens in the brain, that means the brain produces something that informs the consciousness it is receiving of what you're experiencing. Then it seems we should be able to detect that, because at the stage where we are in our description of the process...ie nerve impulses going to the brain cells and triggering reactions, all that's happening is physical and theoretically measurable. We know that there are chemical reactions and perhaps some impulses that fluctuate when brain cells receive nerve impulses. Those are measurable, at least in principle. But then, that ongoing physical; reaction has to somehow convert to send a signal/message/something to, or incorporate that new 'I just saw red' info into the consciousness that the brain is receiving. What does the brain produce that tells the consciousness you're receiving that you just saw red and what part of the brain produces it? It seems they should be able to detect something that is unexplained if that signal is going to a part of the brain that does something we can't detect...ie the part of the brain that communicates with consciousness. And that has to be a two way process unless our consciousness doesn't really do anything for us. Doesn't our consciousness give us our ability to think iteratively...ie actvely ponder things and 'decide' what to do next? So somehow there are physical signals going TO the part of the brain that processes consciousness and there are physical signals leaving that part so that physical nerve pulses can tell our muscles what to do after we make decisions. Those should be detectable, at least in theory.
@@rizdekd3912 thats a lot to unpack but I’ll tell you what I think. I think consciousness is the radio signal or frequency and we are radios that tune into that frequency and each of us have our own station and vibrational frequency. Everything we perceive is only 5% of what is actually around us. Because we are limited by our senses. Idk if consciousness is a natural force or an artificial one. I can almost see us being in a sort of simulated reality. We live in a light matrix. We are a reflection of the higher dimensions with higher levels of consciousness. Its like how if you shine a light through a diamond it admits the light out through the other side of it projecting the light itself. I think we are that projection thats coming from source consciousness. So if source consciousness is projecting this light matrix around us then everything within this reality comes from the same source. Its all a projection of source consciousness The idea of being separate from people is an illusion. We are all different points of focus from source consciousness and we are all having our own separate experiences. Consciousness or the creater wants to experience life. Its why we behave like a hive mind with a lot of things especially when being influenced by the media. Its why 99.99% of atoms are made up of empty space. Nothing is really here just vibrations and frequencies and light. Thats what we truly are. We are light beings This is why we are always bombarded by stay that puts everyone at a lower frequency. All the negativity on the news, the doom and gloom, war, how we should be afraid. Fear is the biggest weapon used against us. It makes us think we aren’t powerful or strong. Everything in reality is meant to manipulate us into believing we have no power while the elites know the truth about reality. That this is a light matrix or some sort of simulated reality. When you know how the game operates its pretty easy to create a control system around everyone without em even realizing it. We all have our purpose here. When we die its only the beginning. But thats what I think reality is. Their is other lower dimensions that are evil as well. Its what the elites tap into that level of frequency to get the help from these demons or whatever you want to call them. Its why we are all kept in a low vibrational state too. To make it easier for these beings to enter our realm. Why elites do crazy rituals because it helps em tap into the frequency of the evil dimensions. Reality isn’t what everyone thinks it is.
The brain is “placenta to consciousness”. Consciousness in One. Not separate. The brain is separate. I have primary progressive aphasia. I witnessing my brain breaking down. I recognize, my brain is not me. I’m blessed.
"Have you ever had that experience of consciousness emerging or arising?" The answer is obvious: Yes. All humans - without serious brain damage/malfunction - experience this when they are awake. Occam's razor and all that: In order to NOT assume that consciousness is "just" (but certainly NOT "simply") an emerging phenomenon of the brain - it's extraordinarily complicated/complex functions, which to date haven't been understood completely on a microscopic level, let alone with regard to the "operating system" == the 'mind' and so on.. -, there would have to be some sort of evidence that anything other than the brain is involved. Which would have to be accessible by (natural) science! Subjective experience and the manifold projections of our mind into the world outside are NOT a (scientifically) useful basis for a dualistic approach to explanation.
I love Rupert Spira, a greater teacher you will never find. This video proves that sometimes the most complex questions have the simplest of answers. ❤
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates). Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality). The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Form is dual to formlessness.
@@hyperduality2838 Exactly! I like your thought processes they echo mine completely. Consciousness itself is the Cosmos and it creates itself through us. We are 5th dimensional creator beings outside of time, space & so called matter. In fact there is no matter or linear time, at least in this universe. 😀
@@lindsaycoffey3327 Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason. Mathematicians create new concepts from their perceptions or observations all the time, "concepts are dual to percepts", so mathematicians and hence scientists are using duality to create new concepts. Subgroups are dual to subfields -- the Galois Correspondence. Addition is dual to subtraction (additive inverses) -- abstract algebra. Integration (summations, syntropy) is dual to differentiation (differences, entropy). Syntropy (convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. The force of gravity is empirical proof that duality is real. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Truth is actually a dual concept. Generalization (waves, the non ego) is dual to localization (particles or the ego) -- wave/particle duality. The are patterns of duality hardwired into physics, mathematics & philosophy which can be used to make new laws of physics. The localized ego or Id comes from the non localized ego or Id or the generalized ego. Science and scientific thinking requires duality -- the positive is dual to the negative (electric charge, numbers) The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Deductive inference (mathematics) is dual to inductive inference (physics or empirical reasoning) -- Immanuel Kant.
@@C.m.129 It depends what you mean by energy? What do you think when you ask if it's "energy"? I had 2 NDE's and it was Pure Awareness, almost like pure light, but not a thing, not form. It's difficult to use language to try to convey. There is no separation. It was everything and nothing, simultaneously.
''Consciousness'' does not appear to be as transcendental/omnipresent as the speaker seemingly suggests/postulates. Why? For, --hundreds of people who are brought under full anesthetics daily, in hospitals around the world, experience first the disappearance of their consciousness and then they become conscious again (alas, not all of them!) after, say, a few hours; --moreover, the phenomenon of being unconscious and conscious again of a patient can be related with changes in the physical brain and/or the body of the patient and that can be observed from outside too. So, --although there is much to investigate and learn about consciousness as an emergent phenomenon in brains/bodies, it is possible to do so fruitfully within the framework of the physical (and/or medical/psychological/information/cognitive, etc.) sciences of today, without having to introduce transcendental hypotheses*. *(By the way, metaphysically speaking, the basis of nondual reality is Emptyness and the basis of nonduality is Brahman; Brahman = Emptyness. N.B. the Emptyness of Emptyness.)
This is an excellent description of consciousness. No matter how much I seek I cannot find my consciousness; it seems to be beyond limits and constraints. It is simply 'there' when I turn my attention inwards. However, one thing that I find incredibly difficult to understand (in reality, one of many things) is this idea of a 'universal consciousness' which has no 'parts'. I know Rupert talks about reality being a "single, infinite, indivisible whole", but why can I not enter into the mind of another person and experience what they experience? Why, if we are part of this "indivisible whole", do I not acquire the knowledge of another person when they study? There seems to be a barrier between one mind and another. There appears to be a clear and distinct division between 'individual' minds. I'm familiar with the story of a drop of water not understand what an ocean is until it is returned to the ocean, but in this story we're talking about matter. Mind, consciousness is, to my experience, immaterial. Why, at the moment of death, doesn't my mind return to the "indivisible whole", and if it does, why does it not understand its true nature and not 'fall' back into a state which appears fragmented?
You actually do have access to every thought and idea. Anytime you get an idea or thought, its just you downloading that information because your vibrational energy and frequency was aligned with that idea or thoughts frequency. We are nothing but light and frequency and vibrations interacting with one another. Its why objects are solid because each object has its own frequency or vibration to it. We feel things as solid because our vibration does not match the vibration of a chair for example. If your vibration did match that chair, you would fall right through it Its like how the superhero the Flash is able to phase through solid objects by vibrating himself to match the frequency of that said object
@@RedemptionInChrist. So why don't two objects made of the same material fall through each other? I'll have to revise my physics, but I'm pretty sure photons have no mass. People have mass. How do you account for this? I can't see how we have access to every though and idea. This would completely render the idea of cause and effect invalid.
@@stephenowen5229 it can be the same material but doesn’t mean its vibrational frequency is identical. Because its still its own separate object even if its the same material. Well id say even people don’t have mass. Atoms are made up of 99.99 percent empty space.
@@RedemptionInChrist. People don't have mass? How much do you weigh? Can you give me an example of objects that have the same 'vibrational frequency'. If I have understood correctly, you are asserting that different objects have different vibrational frequencies. Am I correct?
Oh isn’t consciousness a tough one to explain…better invoke universality, oneness, eternity and love then! Mystic tosh. Emergence doesn’t NOT mean being able to see or “experience” something “emerge” from something else. It simply means that the system - in this case consciousness - is too complex to be explained by the simple interactions of its constituent quarks and atoms. That’s all it means. It’s about complexity, not about experience ! Geology, though complex, is not an emergent phenomenon because it can be explained from the subatomic level down. Biology on the other hand, IS an emergent phenomenon because it CAN’T be explained from the subatomic level down. Darwinian evolution too. Therefore asserting that consciousness is not emergent because we can’t "experience it emerging" from matter is a profound misunderstanding of what “emergence” actually means (as well as being highly simplistic). It forgets millions of years of incremental evolution. Amphibians never "experienced" the emergence of their webbed feet in the same way that humans never experienced the emergence of their consciousness. Spira's contention that investigating consciousness as an emergent phenomenon is a fruitless inquiry because you require it in order to investigate it is a good evocation of the hard problem of consciousness. But that's ALL it is. It does not prove or disprove anything. It advocates and predicts nothing. The rest of the video is just quasi-mystical fuzz riddled with leaps of logic ("if something has no form then it must be limitless and eternal".... WTF ?) and hidden assumptions. Get this man in a room with Sabine Hossenfelder. She'd had him for breakfast.
I love the approach of Francis Lucille to this question. Science can’t neither prove nor disprove that consciousness is an emerging property of matter. Once you recognize this fact, then you have to decide what is better for us: the materialistic approach that brings suffering in the individual and conflict in the world or the non dual approach that brings happiness in the individual and peace in the world. Just a matter of pragmatism
I’m not sure that you do have to decide. We don’t know either way, that’s the truth. I think remaining agnostic is enough. It’s the certainty in the opposite assumption that causes the suffering.
We have tried the materialist model and have experienced the sense of lack and fear long enough. As you say, it makes sense to try the universal model and see how it fits. In my experience, to live according to the universal model, one reality, keeps affirming that it is the better path.
You make a good point. Once we have stabilized our experience of non-dual reality there’s no going back. When the inherent wisdom have been awakened you can no longer “unsee” the reality of unity. The only time choice is an option is at the beginning of the path towards awakening. Once you have had experiences of the non-dual unity you will never return to the darkness of clinging to form. There will be a process to uproot your old habits but that process will only have a timespan in relation to your present state of form and clinging to form. In reality, there is no timespan or a process that takes us from point A to point B.
The word "consciousness" itself needs some definition so that we are even talking about the same concept. So let's say it is: "That which is aware", "that which observes", "that which knows", "that which understands", "that which reasons", "that which is SELF AWARE", "that which forms concepts such as these previous ones". After this is agreed that these are the typical "attributes" of "Consciousness", then it is OK to ask "what is the source of this???? Did it "magically" arise from "matter"??? Or did all "knowable" phenomena including the composition of matter, and its behaviours arise from "Consciousness"??? The question needs precise definition in order to be even contemplated. It is kind of like asking the question "does God exist", without precisely defining what you mean by the word "God". Quantum physics is sort of indicating that "consciousness" somehow creates the "experience" of Time and Space in a way that we don't fully understand. So maybe the starting question should be "what is the nature of observation and experience"???. Because at the dream level of consciousness the observations and experiences indicates that the dream level of "consciousness" creates both the experience of Time and Space. That these are not fixed at all.
I"m utterly shocked by this talk. Here the experience of Consciousness is addressed in such a way that the effect on the body actually sent shivers down the spine for real, I just felt it, I'm flabbergasted by how the concept was conveyed. Thanks Rupert you're a phenomenal teacher
It has been said, when the pupil is ready, the teacher comes. I am so happy to have found someone who thinks as I have for some time, who validates the conclusions I have reached after a lifetime of thinking and study. It's interesting to me, that logical analysis does lead to a grasping of the whole beyond logic and that this is where many Eastern ancient thought patterns like Daoism come to also. I found your questions to the young man fit my thought, my answers came easily, because now it's all so obvious and clear. Thanks you for your work.
I don't think I understand the mystery being proposed here... Every 7 billion person on this planet experience consciousness gradually arising, or emerging, from toddlers' brains. Everywhere. Everyday. Anyone can go to the zoo and experience rudimentary and/or varying levels of consciouness, or awareness, in everything from parrots to great apes... How is that not a hard, concrete observation of consciouness emerging from brain cells??
@@HAL_NlNETH0USAND What do you mean by „real questions“? Which „real questions“ are you referring to? Mostly teachers, who have a deeper understanding of something know the better questions to ask or the better process to go through, and all Rupert did here was exactly that and staying with the very questioning of the questioner, the man, and helping him to bring him onto the „right“ discovery track rather than drifting away to questions that seem like questions but are all better answered through another question, by far. And that is exactly what Rupert did in helpin the inquiry of the man. I hope this helps! 😄
@@HAL_NlNETH0USAND By the way, I just saw another comment that captured this pretty well: „When you stop the mind from wiggling away from the truth, it can only point to the truth. Force the mind to hold to its own questions, and it will point to the truth.“ Meaning what Rupert Spira did here was holding or staying focused to the very questions of the man while not wiggling away from the truth found in the discovery process he helps or guides him trough here.
@@easytriops5951The person Rupert was talking to in this video was not an experienced thinker or educated on the topic. He did not have the skill set to challenge Rupert's points. This is not a done deal by any means. It may be true that consciousness is fundamental or it may not. Rupert talks like he just proved it was. But the approach he took here has some major flaws. Just because we can't witness consciousness starting or ending (because consciousness is the basis of that awareness) doesn't in any way mean or prove it doesn't begin and end. Rupert's logic is seriously flawed. Again, he may or may not be right, but this line of reasoning doesn't prove a thing. The questioner in this video just didn't have the understanding and skill to dismantle Rupert's reasoning. When talking to untrained people it's easy to appear right.
A profound realization of which few are willing to accept and live by. People are attached to their little egos, their so called amazing ideas and the most unrealistic of all expectations.
That’d be an interesting question. I suppose it’s a bit tricky still as you don’t see the moment consciousness is apparent in your child and how that comes to be. I’d like to hear Rupert’s thoughts on it though 🙂
@@masondnatube No, but I did see the moment when consciousness was not apparent in my child, because he wasn't created yet, so consciousness must have come into being along with the physical development. Rupert's take on this topic would be very interesting.
You are aware of awareness. What in you is experiencing the awareness that your child hast? I can't say that I am experiencing the awareness of my daughter, love.❤
Yeah that was my thought too. Plus just because you've never seen consciousness appearing out of matter does not preclude that that is indeed how consciousness manifests. The thing to get - is that matter does not exist. The hard problem of consciousness goes away when you see that time and space are mental projections and not real. Time and space are not fundamental. Consciousness is. Search for Bernardo Kastrup - he's totally got this and explains it very well.
Modern research on Near Death Experience by Raymond moody, reincarnation memories by Ian Stevenson/Jim trucker and past lives regression by Brian Weiss all independently but coincidentally show that our consciousness survive death, we live many lives and our thoughts and actions matter in the hereafter. So be kind and helpful to others, be virtuous, meditate and cultivate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Cheers.
Those guys you mention are all caught up in living the human dream world. Why are they? Because everyone else is too! They are simply responding to what they see around them - to what they perceive as reality.
Do away with the word 'mind' then & just use the words 'awareness' or 'consciousness'. I understand what is meant, but mind can so easily be coupled or confused with the brain.
My first is when I was three years old that was when I know for sure it's a firm in my mind that I remembered things that were happening around me before that I cannot. At 3 years old I witnessed the emergence of my consciousness because I started becoming aware of my surroundings
You started forming memories at that age but you were always conscious before that, think about this; how would you survive as a baby before 3 years old if you werent conscious? It doesnt make sense does it? Just like how you dont remember every single moment of yesterday only fragments but youre 100% sure you were conscious. Lastly, if consciousness emerged you would have to tell me what that looks like, what does consciousness 1 vs consciousness 2 look like? Is there a difference between the two? For something to emerge there has to be a differentation made, but our experience as toddlers is that all of a sudden we are conscious, not that there is a sudden increase in something we call consciousness.
In a manner, yes. Often consciousness and awareness are used synonymously, but it's useful to make this one distinction. Consciousness is the awareness of the processes of the mind-body. Awareness is entirely separate from the mind-body. When we sleep, we lose consciousness, but not awareness because the mind is altered. Awareness is not. When we die we lose consciousness but not awareness because the mind-body is essentially ended.
@@nicksharma8238 Yes and no. First thing I would say is that NDE's and dreams are very much related. In both circumstances we experience higher levels of reality. Interestingly, we can return to physical life from both states with one being far more frequent. That said, in deep sleep often all or nearly all levels of association with form is severed as in deep meditation. In NDE's there is sometimes reported an experience of the void which be akin to deep sleep and deep meditation; however, individuals or individual souls inevitable return to higher levels of form where they can make the next step in their journey of form (sometimes returning to Earth).
@@davidalbro2009 Also, it is said that we're conscious during deep sleep but because there are no objects it isn't possible to remember it. But when our awareness is refined to some degree we can experience deep sleep--just not remember it.
Problem is you have explain what Consciousness is, before you can say you've had a feeling of it 'emerging'. Maybe the question is better put if we can say are there states felt, or imagined, which your language hasn't been able to describe? Hume adumbrated what's at stake: '' For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.”
I read the title. I sigh. I roll my eyes. I know where this will be going. Not that it does not have a point. The known behavioral repertoire of subatomic particles is insufficient to explain consciousness as an "emergent" property at the macroscopic level. Some scientists will argue, "yes, it is" and that "There is no 'hard' problem." But those scientists are full of it. They have no credible explanation of "where the magic begins". With only atoms and electrical impulses at the building block level, no configuration or organization seems capable of spawning consciousness, any more than a configuration of wooden blocks. We are missing something in our understanding. But what we are missing is not "dualism", "souls" or the superstitions of religion. It is equally obvious that our consciousness begins as part of a material-world process, during pregnancy, and that our consciousness is heavily influenced by and dependent upon our material brains. So it makes more sense to imagine consciousness as a yet-to-be-understood phenomenon of the material world, than as some kind of mysterious, transcendent, nonmaterial, alternate reality. Maybe it is only linguistics, but one can certainly argue that anything capable of interacting with the material world, that has dependency on the material world, IS the "material world". Lack of completion in science should not be exploited for purposes of subtly promoting a religious agenda.
I had a dream where all the contents of reality were gone yet I was aware of my existence. Just a glimpse for me but I think this is what Rupert is trying to convey.
A friend who has cancer said to me this week...I think I'm going to die soon. I was silent for what seemed a long long pause and then I said. That's impossible. There is no death. She said,.you know deep down I know that. And that's part of the journey. We - as formless eternal consiosnous - are here to experience form including the death experience. But we - as formless eternal consiosnous - can never actually die. That's impossible. It's just the death experience . Then we move on to further experience.
Consciousness has various levels. I went thru childhood totally unaware of the world around me. At some point... age 11.. something woke me up a little. Later... mid 20s, it happened again. When I look around, I think many people are totally oblivious, just running through trained/learned routines. I feel free. One aside ... I have never really been materialistic. I need some 'stuff' but I feel no real attachment to it. EDIT: I'm over 60 and have never owned a TV. Think about that.
A friend who has cancer said to me this week...I think I'm going to die soon. I was silent for what seemed a long long pause and then I said. That's impossible. There is no death. She said,.you know deep down I know that. And that's part of the journey. We - as formless eternal consiosnous - are here to experience form including the death experience. But we - as formless eternal consiosnous - can never actually die. That's impossible. It's just the death experience . Then we move on to further experience.
Yes, consciousness emerged as an embryo develops into fetus and eventually into a baby and a child. It starts out not conscious and then at some point consciousness emerges. What else would you call it? And I assume when people die their consciousness disappears. When I am put under anesthesia, I am not conscious. Then when I come out, my consciousness remeerges. I have felt it return.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates). Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality). The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Form is dual to formlessness.
As the mind "awakens" from a deep coma, first time or not, isn't this emerging consciousness? Otherwise, as many theologians believe, the human mind is but a subset of the mind of God … including consciousness.
This guy is a total dufus; he doesn't explain what he means by his terms, and apparently does not understand how science works or what understanding is. He is fixated on "consciousness emerging from matter" defining an emergent property, and if anyone has "seen" such a thing. What a morass of ill-defined concepts. Does he mean has anyone seen consciousness walk out of a rock, or a cup of sugar? It doesn't even make sense. Every sentence is full of unstated assumptions and undefined terms. He throws around phrases like "Let's be scientific", but he clearly has no idea what that even means. He is so far from making any concrete sensible statements there's no point in even attempting a detailed critique.
Well technically conscious is definitely there in your dream when you sleep. And consciousness is there when you wake up. So, your question is consciousness is not present in deep sleep. Now, if lack of consciousness, or death as you say, which is a fair point, death is the end of consciousness, people fear death, isn’t it odd we are not terrified of sleep, knowing we will renter deep sleep and effectively die. Yet we love deep sleep. So, would it not be more your experience that you lose consciousness of forms (thoughts, images etc) during deep sleep, hence it’s impossible to recall anything in memory of deep sleep. But, that isn’t really proof of losing consciousness, that’s proof of losing consciousness of things.
@@jjjos I think Rupert says that, in deep sleep, the mind is at rest hence there are no perceptions. Consciousness is always present: in the waking state, dream state, and deep sleep.
@@brigitteh4825 well consciousness is definitely present as a disturbance will still wake you from deep sleep. But, perhaps an anaesthetic would be a better example. But even then the biological functions are performing so consciousness is obviously present. But the mind is quiescent. So what about death? Is that the ultimate end of consciousness? well it’s impossible to really say of course, but I’d say only to the personal form in which consciousness is residing temporarily. Consciousness is everywhere after all, and if you remove the personal connections to your version of consciousness, when you see consciousness as non personal, and it is non personal, as it is in all animals etc so it’s not personal, then we have to conclude consciousness is uniform (wrong word really) but it’s without form, it’s the same in essence, it’s not defined with attributes, so where would it go. People go, animals go, but we can’t say consciousness goes, only it’s seeming temporary shape goes, but that’s not essential to it, I don’t think anything I’ve said is too wacky, seems a fair analysis I’d say.
Id love to hear a real conversation about this- not a one sided, didactic lesson. I agree that its crazy to believe consciousness arrives out of matter with no evidence of it, but this still isn't a proper debate... or even conversation. More of a series of talking points and socratic- like questioning. Many aspects of the brain don't map onto lived experience, so that isn't the only means of proof. (Chemicals vs emotions, for example). I don't know who the other speaker is, but if this were to be taken seriously, a proper conversation with a neuroscientist would be helpful. Not sure what this proves at all. Definitely a straw man scenario. Too bad because its a great subject and I too get frustrated with the scientific consensus. But that wasn't presented here.
@@billhawkins192 Consciousness is the Spirit of Love. God is Love. It is the Love and Consideration a person has for oneself And another. Some people don’t have it. If you have to ask..maybe you don’t have it.
@@billhawkins192 You asked! I gave you my Truth. If you don’t like it..I am sorry. I don’t know you. I said..Maybe? Some people do not have a spirit of Love and your question didn’t sound favorable at all to what I said. I think you are the judgmental one. God Bless You.
Wrong from the start. Emergence is not a "blossoming into" that Rupert thinks it is, rather, an emergent property is one that exists at one level of organization that is absent at some other level of organization. If the Time Square billboard spelled out "Eat at Joe's" that message is emergent - it does not exist at the level of the individual light bulbs and circuitry.
I own the answers and because of that I refuse to teach it to the world. You are not worthy. The power I wield can never be in the hands of the public.
Science is a group of individuals who have a common sense of experience so that they can agree on what’s been happening since the beginning of time. Or to put it another way, they agree that what they “observe” is consistent therefore it is “real.” But as we all know, science is only todays best guess. Ive heard it best described as “once man agrees on how something is measured it becomes real.” No matter how good the telescope we always need to see further and no matter how good the microscope we need to see closer. It doesn’t end because its our nature, persistent- cyclic- seeking, usually driven by fear.
'Has anybody ever observed consciousness arising from matter?'. Yes, Rupert, it can be observed in the growth of every human being during transition from fertilized egg to screaming baby.
Someone said what about anesthesia or sleep. But, perhaps that is no memory, not consciousness itself. Vedanta claims consciousness is aware of mind and its contents.
I would go further back. Consciousness is a side effect of life. From the first organism would have had some sense of eat this, mate with that and very little else. Through the many millions of years of evolution and growth of organisms, some of us anxious apes consider ourselves the top of the consciousness tree. Contemplating our place in the universe. Meanwhile, I suspect the universe looks at us and metaphorically shakes its head. Life is more complex than we dare to dream. We still have much to learn. Also, I am an idiot. If you listen to me, you are falling for the same trick. I fall for it all the time. Consciousness perceiving itself is prone to leading itself up the garden path. I should get out more.
I don't think that consciousness would seem to have rigid form if it was an emergent property. The problem with consciousness is that you can only ever observe our own consciousness. You can't observe consciousness emerging from matter, thus you can't prove it. You can't observe consciousness in any other living being than your self either and you can't really prove that anyone but you is consciousness.
As much as I'd like consciousness to have some extra dimension not accounted for by materialism, one nagging, inconvenient fact keeps hitting me in the face: there is zero hard evidence of any example or demonstration of consciousness that is not also associated with a very specific type of physical / material infrastructure -- a nervous system.
*Consciousness involves two Components; 1. An Analytical process involving the brain, and 2. AWARENESS which is NOT a human component but is "LIFE The Real Self"... Your human body doesn't even know it exists ! The PROOF: Hold your hand out in front of you and examine it to see IF it knows it exists or knows you ??? Of course it doesn't because it is NOT LIFE or Living !*
What would witness consciousness emerging ? it is the very property of consciousness itself to create the experience of being witness of consciousness and also being consciousness of world
Consciousness is not emerging but maybe it's not necessary that it emerge and arise from the brain? Consciousness is just in each brain like vision . I don't understand why it should be just a fonction who birth with the life and die with the death ...
That was BRILLIANT!. I'm 67, and have read an awful lot on this subject - for the first time I understand the simplicity of Consciousness. I have spent far too many years with a logical mind trying to understand. I will watch this several more times. Thanks.
ش م٣صقحي😊
٩٩أح٩آ٣٣احآحلحح عععخ، عه٨
I did a deep thought experiment very simple in its context but gave me a profound answer how a living thing can become non living without any change to its own consciousness .I think only Mr Spira could understand .
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat.
Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat).
Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates).
Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality).
The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Form is dual to formlessness.
Scientists don't "stick" to their theory. That's a rather typical thing to say if you are on a (spiritual) quest doing 2 things that are in my view not the right things to do: 1. generalising science as if it is 1 thing (it's millions of people....) 2. criticizing science as a whole as if there is certain truths that all scientists stubbornly don't ask questions about... he actually does the same thing with religion, Rupert seems good in generalising.
I've actually asked this question once to Rupert after a talk. He said: the proof is with the people that say it is emergent.. strange answer. Why is it not with the people that say everything is consciousness?
How do memories emerge? We don't exactly know. Are my memories everywhere? Probably not.
Sure, perhaps consciousness is some yet to be discovered fundamental property of reality. Perhaps. I'm open to that possibility. Or perhaps it does emerge from a weird phenomenon or interaction of our neural networks with the world around us. Also open to that. Shall we keep all options open, until somebody finds some real evidence, and not generalise and try to convince others of our worldviews?
All I know is that I am, but I cannot feel myself, I cannot taste myself, I cannot smell myself, I cannot see myself and I cannot hear myself. When I try to do one of these things I am trying to split myself. When I split myself into two, a third one appears to observe those two. And a fourth one is right here talking about those three, and so ad infinitum. If I could split myself, the sense of 'I am' would disappear. Would I become a 'we'?
Here is one more reason I believe the self is infinite: the self is like a fundamental music note. A fundamental note has infinite harmonics. This way, the self has infinite other selves around it. Doctors call it 'multiple personalities'; I call it 'parallel minds'. The 'inner voice'? It's just one of the harmonics. That hammering thought? One harmonic trying to talk to you. That new idea?... The one that insists on think about that interesting girl/boy?...
But a question remains: who is the self that is in charge right now? Is it the fundamental note or just a harmonic? This is like asking: which of the integer numbers is the most important? To me it the number zero, because it is the sum of all the others. So, the fundamental self must be the sum of all the selves, but, sometimes, +5 is in charge. Other times -5 takes over and your behaviour changes.
I have had the experience of the emergence of consciousness.
It's all information, from the extreemly, primitive to extraordinary complicated. The interpertization of the information is where the ability of consciousness evolves, from. The ability to interpret information is, by definition, consciousness. As soon as information emerged, the process of intelligence gathering began as well. The interpretation of the intelligence gathering is what I hypothesize is consciousness.
What does the state of sleep do to awareness? What is the subconscious mind? What is an hallucination?
The material phenomenon of consciousness is based on the memory of previous experience, the process from the reduplication of chromosomes to the irreversible loss of the ability to self-regulate the cyclic processes of life support. Consequently, creation is a material phenomenon of the realization of the total function of the system of self-organization, self-regulation and adaptation of a material entity, the manifestations of which are available to the reception of this creature at various stages of the sequence of changing the metamorphoses of its existence. The change of metamorphoses of existence is carried out by the cyclic energy of the closed surface of the Möbius strip splitting in the dynamics of accumulation of specialized functions, lined up in a hierarchy by the response time of the total open thermodynamic system of self-organizing criticality.
Awareness comes from within, not from without, awareness has as little to do with knowledge as a hen lays an egg. Awareness takes a lot of practice and life wisdom, unfortunately few are able to hold awareness consciously
The problem is that Materialism is the equivalent of a religion, so deep in the modern culture that people don't even know they are following it.
10 years ago i would have been laughing at you for saying such 'a ridiculous thing'...but i am glad i evolved. You are absolutely right.
This type of tomato throwing isn't needed in the pursuit of truth within philosophy of mind. You can show issues with materialism without the weird sniping. Clearly the problem with materialism is an actual issue within the framework, not how you think people have it as a dogma.
@@jmike2039 look, don't accuse me of tomato throwing and weird sniping by doing the same thing yourself. If you have a counter argument then state it. Don't waste my time.
@@KaiTakApproach you never gave an argument. What's the first premise?
@@jmike2039 go back and read it again. I don't have to reformat it to satisfy you. Have the balls to state your case before trying to pull this down into the gutter of pedantry. What is your argument?
The absence of otherness is love:
The logical fallacy that Rupert makes is that a limitation of language (our inability to describe awareness and assign it attributes) is something other than just a limitation of language. We can use this same approach for any subjective experience. Please describe ‘redness’ and what it is to experience redness. You can’t. That doesn’t mean that red is an inherent and eternal aspect, it’s just the experience of our minds (via our visual machinery) meeting the world.
Your logical fallacy is using a false equivalence.
@@TigerDragonStorm No, he's right. The trick here is mostly verbal. Because we are physical, our language is constructed according to the physical. Up, over, behind, down. So we are hard-wired to imagine things from a certain perspective. So any time we make something a noun, we imagine looking at it from an outside perspective. And this is what he does with consciousness. But there's no rational reason to suppose the consciousness that gives us experience and perspective, wouldn't also produce awareness of ourselves.
There's no rational reason for many things in the quantum realm.
That’s not that appropriate. We can describe ‘redness’ to use visual image(apple,blood,etc…) but we can not describe ‘awareness’ by any means because it is not objective. It is only can be described by using itself. ‘Redness’ isn’t equal to ‘awareness’ except for abstractness of its definition.
You fail to realize that you're a cockroach.
That's the issue...
I say consciousness is an emerging process, but that consciousness does not emerge directly from the matter that is making up your brain and nervous system but from the combined sum of what all the different parts are doing as the different regions keep communicating.
I was sedated at the hospital when I was subjected to some severe pain during a procedure.
At first, I didn't understand because all the pain still remained, even though I wasn't there to feel it anymore. but at the same time, I still was.
Then my cognitive functions, one by one, began to slip apart until I ceased to exist. You could say that I forgot myself as the observer fell asleep and ceased.
Have you ever seen the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey when they deactivate the HAL-9000 computer?
I could relate a bit to that, as the bird's-eye view you have of yourself becomes more and more tangible the more of yourself you lose and is the last to cease when there's no longer enough cooperation and communication for consciousness to emerge.
The final transition isn't that things go dark but rather that you no longer can reason or even get scared as you slowly forget reality and fade into nothingness.
Well said, nicely explained. First of all do we fully understand the subject? was my ? as I watched the video and stopped to comment seeing some sense here. Its what we define vs how we choose to define that changes the whole narrative or belief. Re-cognition is perceiving as in aka "awareness" while we are awake or rarely at times in dreams we know we are dreaming. But cognition? Is it not happening 2/7? Cognition is the non-verbal 7th sense. Without this body and its parts can we be in a state of cognition? In deep sleep we just wake up to switch of the alarm just before it starts ringing! We are amazed at our automatic prowess! OR the first time sometimes we get a shot or an answer right, we might say it is luck or coincidence. In my search and experience all I can say is that this body is the unconscious mind and it is mostly non verbal and yes "fate" is scientific and "luck" is programmable to some extent. Thinking is verbal AI (all languages are part of AI) but feeling is natural intelligence, the body feels as the mind thinks and the mind thinks (if it has a language) when the body feels. WE feel hungry and we think to cook or to order food home? But a dog that feels hungry does it think like a man? My question is do feelings exist even without this body? Maybe as a collective consciousness in space, probably a reason why we feel fearful while visiting certain morbid places?! True Answers are needed and, we need a Jesus or some Ghost who walks or a great soul to return back and converse with us. Else all the stuff told is only theory. Under deep sedation we loose all pain or sensation and go in nothingness, till we wake up after surgery. That practical experience of yours as described is what made me stop by and add some of my nothingness or everythingness herein! Love Peace and Joy to all! Namaste.
@@vkj108 Thank you for your input.
I had 2 NDE's and it was totally clear that we are Pure Awareness/Consciousness and that it and it's not an it, does not arise from the brain/body/mind. There was no time, everything was simultaneous. All things could be said to be IN Awareness. I like to use the metaphor of a prism. Think of light being refracted through a prism and then making the assumption that the prism creates the different colours/wavelengths of light. The colours ARE the totality of light, not separate but refraction allows them to be seen as separate. Awareness/Consciousness could be said to "refract" through the brain/body/mind. In reality, there is no separation.
NDEs are the ultimate evidence of who are are!
@@plumeria66 No proof that they exist. None whatsoever.
Just as I read your words a picture of a prism splitting white light into colors shows up to the right. "Why is the speed of light what it is?" by Arvin Ash. - A little piece of synchronicity, as Jung would say.
I never found a person who could elaborate the "Simultaneous" thing..what does it mean?.. Im in future and past at the same time? Please explain I have plenty of time.. I can wait 😂
@LifesInsight No Sir, you got me wrong.. That wasn't in sarcastic way.. The notion of it.. That I have plenty of time… which I physically may not ..but then I realized the depth of the confusion its creating.. Made me laugh.. Just imagine this… I said I have plenty of time…but the moment I said that.. There is a clock running towards my end.. But the 5D perspective says I have plenty of it. ..but during a particular moment… both perspective are not able to fit each other.. That's the confusion no one is able to clarify… if future is already happening… why are we putting effort to make a decision in this moment.. And 5d conscious people ask to stay in the moment… which is a request to make or change cetrain decision making… which creates another doubt.. When they know everything is happening already.. Why are they trying to change something in this moment?… do you get my point.
Rupert really peaked on this one.
I don't see any evidence for ANY explanation of consciousness.
I see This happening. (Reality/consciousness) Part of that happening is a mind attempting to codify it in language. It is uncomfortable to not know something so pervasive.
Some solutions make the mind more comfortable than others. When something happens to contradict our view, it is uncomfortable. We shift opinions/guesses until one is comfortable enough for our mind. This is our "belief" but it is JUST A THOUGHT. Ans chosen out of comfort. If someone introduces a challenge our views shift until we again are comfortable with them.
God, Oneness, Consciousness blah blah blah. All thoughts.
When I had the nondual thing happen, the "veil lifted", insight, whatever worda you choose, I didn't know it had words. I called it "Bare Reality"
This seems as good as anything else. And it was ovious that I was never what I had thought and that others are not what they think. And it was obvious where religion comes from. But, I didn't see a reason and still don't to call it God.
It is all thought. This happening cannot be conveyed in thought. Like you cannot fit the sea into a tin can that drifts about in it.
I don't dispute Ruperts interpretation. I don't share it. But I can't see how either has the leg up of evidence on the other.
They are thoughts. All thought had the same ontological status. It exists as thought. That is all it can be.
You cant see or feel consciousness, and you cant think about it either. Because it has no shape. You can be conscious of body and mind. They have shape, even your thoughts have shape. But your awareness of yourself have no shape, so as he says its infinite. And our minds and body and definitively finite, so they cant contain consciousness.
I love Rupert, he is so brilliant in explaining Nonduality...
Yes I found a way to know love as never before. I don’t formulate questions very well so over the years I have not asked Rupert many. But it has not seemed necessary as one simply has to wait until he answers the unasked. But the first time I listened to Rupert it was clear that I was hearing Truth and only then did I realize how much that meant to me.
Nah. I've had 100 friends talking about this at parties and coffee houses who were better at talking about consciousness than this guy. He just talks in circles about simple truths, Making things needlessly more complicated.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat.
Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat).
Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates).
Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Form is dual to formlessness.
@@cakep4271 Nah
he is so brilliant in explaining
-----------
A husband says to his wife: "Why does our dog always get good food, and I have to eat up all sorts of garbage left after everyone?" The wife replies: "Darling, but you can't explain it to the dog!" ))))))))))
Haven't we all had the experience of the emerging of consciousness? As a baby we are born but our brains are not fully developed. We can't remember being born or make sense of the world around us but by a few years our brains have grown and made sense of all it's inputs and becomes conscious.
Remembering would be to be conscious of thoughts, but babies are conscious of the stimuli comming from 5 senses (and also emltional)
What you are talking about is not experiencing the emerging consciousness as he is talking about.
We gain consciousness early in the womb, the thing is just that our brains aren’t developed so we have no memory storage, we have no way to know what that moment was like.
His point however was really that in order to experience, there must be awareness. So in order to witness/experience consciousness arising from matter, there would have to be something conscious. Also that you can describe what you are aware of, but cannot describe the awareness itself, it has no form to be described, it is just aware. With that, it is not restricted to limitations of form and must exist outside form since it has none. In other words, it exists outside of this 4 dimensional realm where everything has form. Which therein answers the question of consciousness being eternal, if it exists outside of our 4 dimensions, it is not restricted by time, it can exist at all points of time and can freely move through all 4 dimensions and is hence omnipresent and eternal. It was there at the beginning and it will be there to witness the end.
It's consciousness "modification", increasing sophistication or expansion... but it is not actual emergence.
@seanmcdonald5365 I remember being aware in the womb.
What if consciousness emerged within us around week 20 in the womb? We would have WITNESSED the emergence of consciousness but we don't currently REMEMBER it. His reasoning failed to mention this obvious possibility.
That is a very hypothetical question and no well put
Wow that was a great explanation from Rupert and much appreciated questioning from the other chap, I don't have that questioning ability so it's good someone else does so we can learn from it too :)
Really disappointed with this. Of course, if we have no evidence for the theory that consciousness is an emergent property, we can't subscribe to it with any certainty. But that doesn't mean that we are free to just make something up - as you appear to be doing. You are just saying that, therefore, the opposite must be true. Your evidence is no more compelling for your position. At this point we have solved nothing - we just don't know yet. I was impressed with the younger man's intellectual honesty however.
Parallels here to the Tree of Knowledge metaphor and Plato's cave. When our attention is lopsidedly focused in the rational mind, in language, we're dwelling in a shadow world where words and ideas are proxies for reality. So we can formulate questions endlessly--that's what our rational minds do--but the answer to our questions about reality won't come in language, but in direct awareness that has no expression in words.
Emergent = synthesis!
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat.
Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat).
Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates).
Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality).
The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Form is dual to formlessness.
"Physics is what we know, metaphysics is what we do not know" -- Bertrand Russell.
Rupert, I do not know how i found you but I'm grateful. You have obviously found enlightenment. Your patience in your discussions is a beautiful thing to witness. Not sure why you continue to help others and share with us, but I'm truly grateful you do.
I think he does because helping others is a gift from God worth more than all the gems and precious metals in the Cosmos.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat.
Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat).
Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates).
Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality).
The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Form is dual to formlessness.
@@hyperduality2838 WTF? You are lost in your own mind that is connecting misunderstood ideas.
If there is just one there are no others, that's why.
@@BlacksmithTWD Correct 👍 One consciousness, split into a myriad of lifeforms. An infinity of eternal souls.
Well haven’t we all experienced consciousness emerging? We may not be able to remember but we were nonexistent at one point and then we existed. Our own localized conscious experience must’ve had a beginning, but it was so early on in our lives that we don’t have the capacity to remember it. Same with the disappearance of consciousness, we’ll all die at some point and feel the consciousness dwindle away. People with NDEs claim that they felt themselves slipping and then there was a period of “nothingness” until they were brought back to life. Others claim to have visions of an afterlife as well but even those people claim that there was an experience of leaving this plane of existence.
I’m not saying I’m correct and these guys are wrong, these are just the immediate questions that pop into my head. Granted, I’m only 3 minutes in but I had to get my thoughts out haha. If anyone has any rebuttals to my comment I’d love to hear it. I’m simply hear you battle with my own sense of the world🙏
It is awareness that is aware that it is aware.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat.
Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat).
Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates).
Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality).
The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Form is dual to formlessness.
One doesn't have to "feel" consciousness "emerging" for it to be emergent, how silly.
The constructed sense of "self" is what experiences awareness. Awareness (consciousness) existed before the "self" was created, as infants and before, but there was no "I" constructed to experience it. That's why "we" are not aware of ourselves as infants -- because the "we" that we consider ourselves to be literally didn't exist yet!
We appreciate your contribution. With Love, Rupert's team
Dear Rupert, I'm going to use a phrase that I once heard you use in relation to a university professor who was speaking at the Science and Nonduality Conference. As the professor shared his views about the nature of consciousness, you stated that you could feel your "saber begin to rattle." I interpetted that to mean that is was all you could do to hold yourself back. I believe that I witnessed that rattling again--in a most delightful--and insightful--way! :-) Bravo, my dear guru. You are one to whom I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for helping to awaken my being to its true Self. God bless. 🙏🏻
Consciousness is what we are. It is what human beings are at a particular time of evolution. Human mind / brain is million years old and consciousness too is that old. This consciousness is what is reincarnated. humans are not individually reborn but as a collective mind as consciousness. So it goes on with new additions from every new born lives from birth to death. What we read, experiences that we gather become part of the consciousness. Every human being lives in a particular culture, it could be western, eastern, Asian , African. So human conditioning too is part of consciousness. All our desires, fears, jealousy, anger, hatred, love, that occupies our mind is part of the consciousness. It is the part of the stream every human being lives in through million years.
I loved how Rupert guided him back to just 'be' to know and be aware that he IS indeed consciousness and that consciousness by itself is not a separate phenomenon. It is rather the source of all phenomenon. The hard problem is only as long as we dwell in the thoughts, emotions and feelings. From the place of looking, there is no problem. Here, there are no ideas, concepts and definitely no problems whatsoever. There is no time here either and so the question of eternity doesn't arise. 🙏
I like the way you express this -- to take it a little further can I suggest that consciousness creates the noumena, and through our senses we perceive the phenomena ? I take the idea from Kant´s work on the noumenon and the phenomenon, which I found very helpful.
@@kerryburns6041 , thanks much for your kind words. I have not read Kant's work, but have read a book or two by Ramesh Balsekar, a disciple of Nisargadatta Maharaj. Ramesh indeed refers to consciousness itself as noumenal. And as you mentioned, the noumenon experiences the phenomenon (external world) through the senses and mind.
@@anandakumarsanthinathan4740 I think you put it perfectly, describing the way consciousness explores itself through infinite manifestations, including you and I. Greetings from Andalucia.
Yep, there's consciousness and there are also the contents of consciousness. One is always, the other transitory,
The universe is in the form of a brain cell, and is electrical in nature. This electricity and form creates an either, throughout the universe, that is something akin to pure conciousness. Conciousness being broadcast much like a radio signal. Our brains, collections of electric brain cells each mimicking the form of the universe, are similar to a radio antenna. Each of us, with our own unique antennas, are tuned to a certain small bandwidth of that master conciousness. This "radio signal", if you will, together with our free will of action, makes us who we are. Our bodies, actions, and experiences are individual, but our conciousness is shared. This may not be true of course, but i believe its a compelling theory.
I am an anesthesiologist. Every day I wink consciousness off and on for numerous patients. I believe I am seeing something that could represent an emergent phenomenon in our recovery rooms. The patient is the only one who does not witness unconsciousness. It is almost as if the for the patient....they do not "go away", nor does the Universe. There is a timelessness in that. I am new to Rupert. I feel he is is on to something. Something profound, fundamental. But I need further evidence than our sensation that awareness is not emergent from our "meat" brain.
Rupert's answer, to my understanding at least, would be to consider wakefulness, dream state and deep sleep.
The consciousness is present in all three states. The "truest" state of consciousness is deep sleep because it is a formless void. Dream states project the world of forms onto the screen of awareness that the person experiences as a dream. Wakefulness is a state where the person experiences the world of forms through the 5 senses and through the mind.
If you approach these questions from the perspective of awareness/consciousness rather than from the materialist end of the telescope, new insights will avail themselves to you.
If you listen to more of Rupert's talks, he explains it all a lot better than I just did.
@@holycannoli64 Thank you. As an aside, I suspect memory formation may be fundamental to the sensation of "I".
@@lordmacaulay8739 In our jobs as anesthesiologists, I can not get past the feeling that we are definitely witnessing something astounding. That spiritual spark of awareness that winks on as the "meat" body reanimates in the PACU will never get old to me. It is such a privilege, almost feels like God is smiling along with us. Of course... then some of the patients start to vomit....takes some of the charm away 😉
Materialism and their brain 🧠 claims have been totally and absolutely debunked shown to be falsehood by God in God-Consciousness.
The brain doesn't produce shit. Consciousness is God.
Consciousness never goes off.
It goes Super-On at death.
My "conceptual" response to your question is as someone above mentioned..
Rupert's "lineage" (if he even claims such a thing) derives from 'Advaita Vedanta' and in this tradition there are 4 states or "modes" of consciousness - 1 waking, 2 dreaming, 3 dreamless sleep, and 4 pure boundless or fundamental consciousness - aka "Brahman" which is formless universal awareness.
The 3rd state of "dreamless sleep" is akin to being under anesthesia and is a dull state of "awareness without objects." Its still a state of awareness (consciousness) but it is a state of "awareness with no reference" and so nothing to "notice" and compare itself to. The 4th state of "pure awareness" is different in that it is a state of "self-awareness" in which there is a "knowing of knowing" that is bright in comparison to the "darkness" of the 3rd state. The 4th state is the only "real" state of being because it is the source and most fundamental level of experiencing (aka "reality").
My next response is to your "request" of needing more evidence...
The evidence for the non-emergence of consciousness from matter is found in your immediate experience. Investigate and dig deeply into THIS - what is it that is aware of these words? Your consciousness you say? Ok, what is it that is aware of your consciousness? What is it that is presently knowing your awareness of being present? What is it that is aware of your being aware?
What ever "answer" you come to will not be correct if it is an "answer."
Answers require a separation between the question and the answer, or in this case between awareness and what that awareness is aware of. Awareness is always "prior to" that duality. As Rupert said "Awareness is not a form, not an object," and therefore cannot APPEAR as an answer to the question of "evidence."
Awareness is THIS - the immediacy of knowing "awareness," prior to its appearance as a concept.
Dig into that..repeatedly. The fact of you experiencing "being" is the evidence you're seeking but is not something you can "pick up"
@2:20 I and many people feel as if our consciousness is emerging from our chemical process. What I haven't seen is a consciousness being present without brains and a body. The consciousness I do have doesn't seem to go back further than the age of one so I have no memories of experiences before awareness some time after birth.
When you force the mind to stop wriggling away from the truth, it can only point to the truth. Hold the mind to its own questions, then it must point to the truth of reality.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat.
Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat).
Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates).
Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality).
The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Form is dual to formlessness.
I do not understand why can something without form not come into existence or stop existing? for example a thought can come and go. it has no form but it doesn't need to be eternal because of that.
Awareness doesn't require a rational process. This is SO profound and probably the reason nonduality is so alien to western paradigms.
As an engineer, I find awareness is far closer to poetry, rather than science.
Let yourself sink into consciousness until you only know peace and love, once you get there, revisiting that coherent state becomes so familiar and nurturing.
😌
Consciousness is Spirit that's programmed.
Rupert single-handedly exposes the absurdity of Transhumanism with clarity and razor-sharp simplicity. Beautifully explained.
lol
How does he expose the absurdity of Transhumanism? AFAIK, Transhumanism is the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology. How does he refute that? It seems if he's suggesting that consciousness is eternal, then the human race can easily evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations.
@@rizdekd3912 I second that. How is Transhumanism absurd???
@@lindsaycoffey3327 I think perhaps the term transhumanism is misunderstood and conflated with humanism and perhaps materialism...or....???transgender??? Who knows? Maybe trans just sounds scary and wicked.
@@rizdekd3912 Transhumanist concepts like mind uploading and machine sentience are based on a materialistic view of consciousness that Rupert negates.
The fact that consciousness can leave the body and then return shows it is not part of the body / physical brain. It doesn't require oxygen or anything else physical. However there seems to be two different ways consciousness can emerge: firstly that which happens during extreme trauma, when consciousness comes out of and rises above the body, the other when consciousness leaves the physical plane completely during the latter stages of advanced meditation. When it leaves completely it expands to the point of infinity. And yes the feeling at this point is of overwhelming LOVE and brightness. Both Buddhism and Hinduism agree on this fundamental point.
what facts ? no such thing exists. consciousness is a abstract concept its not in the physical plane to begin with so it can't leave it. we know now the brain can create powerful DMT like drugs with massive trauma or when near death so we have no reason to still believe all this NDE nonsense.
a Model of Reality.?....thats silly...Experience is NOT Carl Gustav Jung...
loved it ...razor sharp as always !!!
brain/body is effect, not cause.
"If your theory doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of experience, you don't dig your heals in and just believe your theory, that's called religion"
Experience is not a priori the be-all and end-all of truth. In fact experience is a very limited form of knowing. Science in fact is on the right track of understanding consciousness we're just not there yet. Rupert is the one preaching the religion: consciousness being formless.. it's a dogmatic statement that doesn't explain consciousness in the slightest bit.
Sometimes we can not even trust our senses and experience. They lie to us or present us with false information.
Bong, Rupert lost it there.
heels not heals
This is why Sanatan Dharma is not a religion. It describes the Advait (Non-dual) nature of reality. This is very well described in Vedanta (the Upanishads).
I've had the emergence of the LOSS of consciousness... going under at the hospital. Unconsciousness.
Reminds this one that this body, it’s stories, are a wisp of smoke within the all, consciousness 😊
Thank you. With love, Rupert's team
It's not emergent but it's certainly a profound embodied shift cognitively and physicaly when insight lifts the veil. Then one continually slips back into patterns and the dropping back into presence becomes more a familiar relief. That's how it's experienced well non experienced here.❤👀🙏namaste. I love saying the word emergent though...
@@_JUST_WILhow do you find ‘conscious activity’
But it is still just consciousness that becomes aware of the profound embodied shift. Sometimes we think our experience is consciousness because we are so absorbed in our experience, but that can be a loss of (higher) consciousness.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat.
Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat).
Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates).
Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality).
The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Form is dual to formlessness.
I have a hard time explaining consciousness. I also have a hard time accepting that materialism is the explanation.
But why is it that when we destroy parts of the brain, consciousness is affected? When we destroy all of it, the person seems to have no consciousness at all. There seems to be a strong relationship between consciousness and the brain.
And does our consciousness actually do anything for us or is it just epiphenomenal and is just something we can watch, but it has no effect on what we do?
Its like trying to use a damaged radio to listen to music
@seantrader2422 Interesting. Is your idea that the consciousness the brain is receiving is natural/ material/physical or is it unnatural/supernatural and nonmaterial?
Anyways. So in your analogy, the brain is a receiver and if the receiver is broken, the radio waves that come in either aren't processed at all or aren't processed correctly or the apparatus that ultimately produces the music is broken....like the wires to the speaker or the speaker itself.
So the brain is more akin to the eye that sees/receives light waves/photons. The eye processes light into nerve signals that go to the brain. That process is all physical right? Light hits retina and nerve impulses are initiated. Those nerve pulses go to the brain where brains cells receive them. All still physical, so far, right? So let's take that physical event of seeing and incorporate that into the idea that the brain is a receiver of consciousness.
Best I can tell, physical light is focused by the lens in the eye and hits the rods and cones. They somehow are stimulated by those light waves/photons and caused to produce physical nerve impulses. Those nerve impulses go to the brain via the optic nerves where brain cells are stimulated by those impulses and some sort of chemical reaction takes place. So far it is still physical, right? But if you're right, that chemical reaction isn't really consciousness. The consciousness is coming in from the outside like radio waves hitting an antenna and being processed by a receiver. But somehow, that consciousness knows that you just saw red. There has to be an interface. How does that consciousness you're receiving know to produce the qualia of the color red?
Can the brain send out signals to the consciousness generator and tell it that the eyes are seeing red? The radio is a passive receiver and doesn't send out signals to the radio station. It could....they make two-way radios that send signals to the radio station. But we can detect that signal and know how the radio could or does communicate to the radio station. If the brain itself is somehow communicating TO whatever is sending us our consciousness we should be able to detect that signal.
Or if that modification of the consciousness we are receiving happens in the brain, that means the brain produces something that informs the consciousness it is receiving of what you're experiencing. Then it seems we should be able to detect that, because at the stage where we are in our description of the process...ie nerve impulses going to the brain cells and triggering reactions, all that's happening is physical and theoretically measurable. We know that there are chemical reactions and perhaps some impulses that fluctuate when brain cells receive nerve impulses. Those are measurable, at least in principle. But then, that ongoing physical; reaction has to somehow convert to send a signal/message/something to, or incorporate that new 'I just saw red' info into the consciousness that the brain is receiving. What does the brain produce that tells the consciousness you're receiving that you just saw red and what part of the brain produces it? It seems they should be able to detect something that is unexplained if that signal is going to a part of the brain that does something we can't detect...ie the part of the brain that communicates with consciousness.
And that has to be a two way process unless our consciousness doesn't really do anything for us. Doesn't our consciousness give us our ability to think iteratively...ie actvely ponder things and 'decide' what to do next? So somehow there are physical signals going TO the part of the brain that processes consciousness and there are physical signals leaving that part so that physical nerve pulses can tell our muscles what to do after we make decisions. Those should be detectable, at least in theory.
@@rizdekd3912 thats a lot to unpack but I’ll tell you what I think.
I think consciousness is the radio signal or frequency and we are radios that tune into that frequency and each of us have our own station and vibrational frequency.
Everything we perceive is only 5% of what is actually around us. Because we are limited by our senses.
Idk if consciousness is a natural force or an artificial one. I can almost see us being in a sort of simulated reality. We live in a light matrix. We are a reflection of the higher dimensions with higher levels of consciousness.
Its like how if you shine a light through a diamond it admits the light out through the other side of it projecting the light itself. I think we are that projection thats coming from source consciousness.
So if source consciousness is projecting this light matrix around us then everything within this reality comes from the same source. Its all a projection of source consciousness
The idea of being separate from people is an illusion. We are all different points of focus from source consciousness and we are all having our own separate experiences.
Consciousness or the creater wants to experience life. Its why we behave like a hive mind with a lot of things especially when being influenced by the media.
Its why 99.99% of atoms are made up of empty space. Nothing is really here just vibrations and frequencies and light. Thats what we truly are. We are light beings
This is why we are always bombarded by stay that puts everyone at a lower frequency. All the negativity on the news, the doom and gloom, war, how we should be afraid. Fear is the biggest weapon used against us. It makes us think we aren’t powerful or strong. Everything in reality is meant to manipulate us into believing we have no power while the elites know the truth about reality.
That this is a light matrix or some sort of simulated reality. When you know how the game operates its pretty easy to create a control system around everyone without em even realizing it.
We all have our purpose here. When we die its only the beginning. But thats what I think reality is.
Their is other lower dimensions that are evil as well. Its what the elites tap into that level of frequency to get the help from these demons or whatever you want to call them.
Its why we are all kept in a low vibrational state too. To make it easier for these beings to enter our realm. Why elites do crazy rituals because it helps em tap into the frequency of the evil dimensions.
Reality isn’t what everyone thinks it is.
The brain is “placenta to consciousness”. Consciousness in One. Not separate. The brain is separate. I have primary progressive aphasia. I witnessing my brain breaking down. I recognize, my brain is not me. I’m blessed.
That was so beautiful, thank you!
"Have you ever had that experience of consciousness emerging or arising?"
The answer is obvious: Yes. All humans - without serious brain damage/malfunction - experience this when they are awake.
Occam's razor and all that: In order to NOT assume that consciousness is "just" (but certainly NOT "simply") an emerging phenomenon of the brain - it's extraordinarily complicated/complex functions, which to date haven't been understood completely on a microscopic level, let alone with regard to the "operating system" == the 'mind' and so on.. -, there would have to be some sort of evidence that anything other than the brain is involved. Which would have to be accessible by (natural) science! Subjective experience and the manifold projections of our mind into the world outside are NOT a (scientifically) useful basis for a dualistic approach to explanation.
I love Rupert Spira, a greater teacher you will never find. This video proves that sometimes the most complex questions have the simplest of answers. ❤
You are not separate from Rupert, or Alan or anyone or anything. You too are a great teacher. 🙏
@@aubreyekstrom8919 Why thank you Aubrey 😀 you honour me and likewise. Much love & respect ✊ brother.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat.
Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat).
Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates).
Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality).
The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Form is dual to formlessness.
@@hyperduality2838 Exactly! I like your thought processes they echo mine completely. Consciousness itself is the Cosmos and it creates itself through us. We are 5th dimensional creator beings outside of time, space & so called matter. In fact there is no matter or linear time, at least in this universe. 😀
@@lindsaycoffey3327 Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason.
Mathematicians create new concepts from their perceptions or observations all the time, "concepts are dual to percepts", so mathematicians and hence scientists are using duality to create new concepts.
Subgroups are dual to subfields -- the Galois Correspondence.
Addition is dual to subtraction (additive inverses) -- abstract algebra.
Integration (summations, syntropy) is dual to differentiation (differences, entropy).
Syntropy (convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
The force of gravity is empirical proof that duality is real.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Truth is actually a dual concept.
Generalization (waves, the non ego) is dual to localization (particles or the ego) -- wave/particle duality.
The are patterns of duality hardwired into physics, mathematics & philosophy which can be used to make new laws of physics.
The localized ego or Id comes from the non localized ego or Id or the generalized ego.
Science and scientific thinking requires duality -- the positive is dual to the negative (electric charge, numbers)
The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Deductive inference (mathematics) is dual to inductive inference (physics or empirical reasoning) -- Immanuel Kant.
All of us have had the experience of consciousness emerging, in the womb and early childhood. Maybe sound reasoning has never emerged from this guy.
Is awareness a form of energy?
No, it has no form but all form is in it.
@@annemurphy8074 i'll reformulate. Is awareness energy? As in a type of energy? The energy?
@@C.m.129 problem is that energy is physical so its limited. And consciousness is unlimited. Not even a speed of light is unlimited
@@C.m.129 It depends what you mean by energy? What do you think when you ask if it's "energy"? I had 2 NDE's and it was Pure Awareness, almost like pure light, but not a thing, not form. It's difficult to use language to try to convey. There is no separation. It was everything and nothing, simultaneously.
''Consciousness'' does not appear to be as transcendental/omnipresent as the speaker seemingly suggests/postulates.
Why?
For,
--hundreds of people who are brought under full anesthetics daily, in hospitals around the world, experience first the disappearance of their consciousness and then they become conscious again (alas, not all of them!) after, say, a few hours;
--moreover, the phenomenon of being unconscious and conscious again of a patient can be related with changes in the physical brain and/or the body of the patient and that can be observed from outside too.
So,
--although there is much to investigate and learn about consciousness as an emergent phenomenon in brains/bodies, it is possible to do so fruitfully within the framework of the physical (and/or medical/psychological/information/cognitive, etc.) sciences of today, without having to introduce transcendental hypotheses*.
*(By the way, metaphysically speaking, the basis of nondual reality is Emptyness and the basis of nonduality is Brahman; Brahman = Emptyness.
N.B. the Emptyness of Emptyness.)
This is an excellent description of consciousness. No matter how much I seek I cannot find my consciousness; it seems to be beyond limits and constraints. It is simply 'there' when I turn my attention inwards. However, one thing that I find incredibly difficult to understand (in reality, one of many things) is this idea of a 'universal consciousness' which has no 'parts'. I know Rupert talks about reality being a "single, infinite, indivisible whole", but why can I not enter into the mind of another person and experience what they experience? Why, if we are part of this "indivisible whole", do I not acquire the knowledge of another person when they study? There seems to be a barrier between one mind and another. There appears to be a clear and distinct division between 'individual' minds. I'm familiar with the story of a drop of water not understand what an ocean is until it is returned to the ocean, but in this story we're talking about matter. Mind, consciousness is, to my experience, immaterial.
Why, at the moment of death, doesn't my mind return to the "indivisible whole", and if it does, why does it not understand its true nature and not 'fall' back into a state which appears fragmented?
I agree - I’m new to these thoughts but my consciousness seems to be bound to time and place
You actually do have access to every thought and idea. Anytime you get an idea or thought, its just you downloading that information because your vibrational energy and frequency was aligned with that idea or thoughts frequency. We are nothing but light and frequency and vibrations interacting with one another.
Its why objects are solid because each object has its own frequency or vibration to it. We feel things as solid because our vibration does not match the vibration of a chair for example. If your vibration did match that chair, you would fall right through it
Its like how the superhero the Flash is able to phase through solid objects by vibrating himself to match the frequency of that said object
@@RedemptionInChrist. So why don't two objects made of the same material fall through each other? I'll have to revise my physics, but I'm pretty sure photons have no mass. People have mass. How do you account for this? I can't see how we have access to every though and idea. This would completely render the idea of cause and effect invalid.
@@stephenowen5229 it can be the same material but doesn’t mean its vibrational frequency is identical. Because its still its own separate object even if its the same material.
Well id say even people don’t have mass. Atoms are made up of 99.99 percent empty space.
@@RedemptionInChrist. People don't have mass? How much do you weigh? Can you give me an example of objects that have the same 'vibrational frequency'. If I have understood correctly, you are asserting that different objects have different vibrational frequencies. Am I correct?
Oh isn’t consciousness a tough one to explain…better invoke universality, oneness, eternity and love then! Mystic tosh.
Emergence doesn’t NOT mean being able to see or “experience” something “emerge” from something else. It simply means that the system - in this case consciousness - is too complex to be explained by the simple interactions of its constituent quarks and atoms. That’s all it means. It’s about complexity, not about experience ! Geology, though complex, is not an emergent phenomenon because it can be explained from the subatomic level down. Biology on the other hand, IS an emergent phenomenon because it CAN’T be explained from the subatomic level down. Darwinian evolution too. Therefore asserting that consciousness is not emergent because we can’t "experience it emerging" from matter is a profound misunderstanding of what “emergence” actually means (as well as being highly simplistic). It forgets millions of years of incremental evolution. Amphibians never "experienced" the emergence of their webbed feet in the same way that humans never experienced the emergence of their consciousness.
Spira's contention that investigating consciousness as an emergent phenomenon is a fruitless inquiry because you require it in order to investigate it is a good evocation of the hard problem of consciousness. But that's ALL it is. It does not prove or disprove anything. It advocates and predicts nothing. The rest of the video is just quasi-mystical fuzz riddled with leaps of logic ("if something has no form then it must be limitless and eternal".... WTF ?) and hidden assumptions. Get this man in a room with Sabine Hossenfelder. She'd had him for breakfast.
I love the approach of Francis Lucille to this question. Science can’t neither prove nor disprove that consciousness is an emerging property of matter. Once you recognize this fact, then you have to decide what is better for us: the materialistic approach that brings suffering in the individual and conflict in the world or the non dual approach that brings happiness in the individual and peace in the world. Just a matter of pragmatism
I’m not sure that you do have to decide. We don’t know either way, that’s the truth. I think remaining agnostic is enough. It’s the certainty in the opposite assumption that causes the suffering.
I feel comfortable not knowing.
We have tried the materialist model and have experienced the sense of lack and fear long enough. As you say, it makes sense to try the universal model and see how it fits. In my experience, to live according to the universal model, one reality, keeps affirming that it is the better path.
You make a good point. Once we have stabilized our experience of non-dual reality there’s no going back. When the inherent wisdom have been awakened you can no longer “unsee” the reality of unity. The only time choice is an option is at the beginning of the path towards awakening. Once you have had experiences of the non-dual unity you will never return to the darkness of clinging to form. There will be a process to uproot your old habits but that process will only have a timespan in relation to your present state of form and clinging to form. In reality, there is no timespan or a process that takes us from point A to point B.
If its not your experience..that's ok as well..
The word "consciousness" itself needs some definition so that we are even talking about the same concept. So let's say it is: "That which is aware", "that which observes", "that which knows", "that which understands", "that which reasons", "that which is SELF AWARE", "that which forms concepts such as these previous ones". After this is agreed that these are the typical "attributes" of "Consciousness", then it is OK to ask "what is the source of this???? Did it "magically" arise from "matter"??? Or did all "knowable" phenomena including the composition of matter, and its behaviours arise from "Consciousness"??? The question needs precise definition in order to be even contemplated. It is kind of like asking the question "does God exist", without precisely defining what you mean by the word "God". Quantum physics is sort of indicating that "consciousness" somehow creates the "experience" of Time and Space in a way that we don't fully understand. So maybe the starting question should be "what is the nature of observation and experience"???. Because at the dream level of consciousness the observations and experiences indicates that the dream level of "consciousness" creates both the experience of Time and Space. That these are not fixed at all.
I"m utterly shocked by this talk. Here the experience of Consciousness is addressed in such a way that the effect on the body actually sent shivers down the spine for real, I just felt it, I'm flabbergasted by how the concept was conveyed. Thanks Rupert you're a phenomenal teacher
So little evidence for consciousness emerging from nervous systems? Really? Your position just doesn't hold any ground. YOUR position is irrational.
It has been said, when the pupil is ready, the teacher comes. I am so happy to have found someone who thinks as I have for some time, who validates the conclusions I have reached after a lifetime of thinking and study. It's interesting to me, that logical analysis does lead to a grasping of the whole beyond logic and that this is where many Eastern ancient thought patterns like Daoism come to also. I found your questions to the young man fit my thought, my answers came easily, because now it's all so obvious and clear. Thanks you for your work.
I don't think I understand the mystery being proposed here... Every 7 billion person on this planet experience consciousness gradually arising, or emerging, from toddlers' brains. Everywhere. Everyday. Anyone can go to the zoo and experience rudimentary and/or varying levels of consciouness, or awareness, in everything from parrots to great apes... How is that not a hard, concrete observation of consciouness emerging from brain cells??
I love Rupert's response to this direct question and the process he goes through
He immediately interrupted the discussion when the other person started asking the real questions.
@@HAL_NlNETH0USAND What do you mean by „real questions“? Which „real questions“ are you referring to? Mostly teachers, who have a deeper understanding of something know the better questions to ask or the better process to go through, and all Rupert did here was exactly that and staying with the very questioning of the questioner, the man, and helping him to bring him onto the „right“ discovery track rather than drifting away to questions that seem like questions but are all better answered through another question, by far. And that is exactly what Rupert did in helpin the inquiry of the man. I hope this helps! 😄
@@HAL_NlNETH0USAND By the way, I just saw another comment that captured this pretty well: „When you stop the mind from wiggling away from the truth, it can only point to the truth. Force the mind to hold to its own questions, and it will point to the truth.“
Meaning what Rupert Spira did here was holding or staying focused to the very questions of the man while not wiggling away from the truth found in the discovery process he helps or guides him trough here.
@@easytriops5951The person Rupert was talking to in this video was not an experienced thinker or educated on the topic. He did not have the skill set to challenge Rupert's points. This is not a done deal by any means. It may be true that consciousness is fundamental or it may not. Rupert talks like he just proved it was. But the approach he took here has some major flaws. Just because we can't witness consciousness starting or ending (because consciousness is the basis of that awareness) doesn't in any way mean or prove it doesn't begin and end. Rupert's logic is seriously flawed. Again, he may or may not be right, but this line of reasoning doesn't prove a thing. The questioner in this video just didn't have the understanding and skill to dismantle Rupert's reasoning. When talking to untrained people it's easy to appear right.
@@1Sparrow1 Respectfully, and curiously, can you dismantle his reasoning and point out his flaws then?
A profound realization of which few are willing to accept and live by. People are attached to their little egos, their so called amazing ideas and the most unrealistic of all expectations.
I had the experience of consciousness emerging from matter when I co-created a child.
That’d be an interesting question. I suppose it’s a bit tricky still as you don’t see the moment consciousness is apparent in your child and how that comes to be. I’d like to hear Rupert’s thoughts on it though 🙂
@@masondnatube No, but I did see the moment when consciousness was not apparent in my child, because he wasn't created yet, so consciousness must have come into being along with the physical development. Rupert's take on this topic would be very interesting.
It appeared that way to your finite mind because time is how finite mind understands the world of forms.
You are aware of awareness.
What in you is experiencing the awareness that your child hast?
I can't say that I am experiencing the awareness of my daughter, love.❤
Yeah that was my thought too. Plus just because you've never seen consciousness appearing out of matter does not preclude that that is indeed how consciousness manifests. The thing to get - is that matter does not exist. The hard problem of consciousness goes away when you see that time and space are mental projections and not real. Time and space are not fundamental. Consciousness is. Search for Bernardo Kastrup - he's totally got this and explains it very well.
Modern research on Near Death Experience by Raymond moody, reincarnation memories by Ian Stevenson/Jim trucker and past lives regression by Brian Weiss all independently but coincidentally show that our consciousness survive death, we live many lives and our thoughts and actions matter in the hereafter.
So be kind and helpful to others, be virtuous, meditate and cultivate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Cheers.
Absolutely brilliant and clear. If only Fauci, Gates, Trump and Biden had a brain to understand this too. 😂😂
Those guys you mention are all caught up in living the human dream world. Why are they? Because everyone else is too! They are simply responding to what they see around them - to what they perceive as reality.
Trump has a brain
Do away with the word 'mind' then & just use the words 'awareness' or 'consciousness'. I understand what is meant, but mind can so easily be coupled or confused with the brain.
@@mikefoster5277 for sure Mike But if only! All the best.
@@jddr555 oh, I wasn't aware of his singularity
Q - What does the DHAMMAPADA tell us via CHAPTER ONE?
"A well thatched roof, keeps the rain from flooding in."
My first is when I was three years old that was when I know for sure it's a firm in my mind that I remembered things that were happening around me before that I cannot. At 3 years old I witnessed the emergence of my consciousness because I started becoming aware of my surroundings
You started forming memories at that age but you were always conscious before that, think about this; how would you survive as a baby before 3 years old if you werent conscious? It doesnt make sense does it? Just like how you dont remember every single moment of yesterday only fragments but youre 100% sure you were conscious. Lastly, if consciousness emerged you would have to tell me what that looks like, what does consciousness 1 vs consciousness 2 look like? Is there a difference between the two? For something to emerge there has to be a differentation made, but our experience as toddlers is that all of a sudden we are conscious, not that there is a sudden increase in something we call consciousness.
This gentleman is identical to everyone to whom I've had this conversation. Totally confused.
Wait, doesn't consciousness emerge when you wake up in the morning?
In a manner, yes. Often consciousness and awareness are used synonymously, but it's useful to make this one distinction. Consciousness is the awareness of the processes of the mind-body. Awareness is entirely separate from the mind-body. When we sleep, we lose consciousness, but not awareness because the mind is altered. Awareness is not. When we die we lose consciousness but not awareness because the mind-body is essentially ended.
@davidalbro2009 but isn't sleep different than death? Hence NDE's and etc.
@@nicksharma8238 Yes and no.
First thing I would say is that NDE's and dreams are very much related. In both circumstances we experience higher levels of reality. Interestingly, we can return to physical life from both states with one being far more frequent.
That said, in deep sleep often all or nearly all levels of association with form is severed as in deep meditation.
In NDE's there is sometimes reported an experience of the void which be akin to deep sleep and deep meditation; however, individuals or individual souls inevitable return to higher levels of form where they can make the next step in their journey of form (sometimes returning to Earth).
@@davidalbro2009 Also, it is said that we're conscious during deep sleep but because there are no objects it isn't possible to remember it. But when our awareness is refined to some degree we can experience deep sleep--just not remember it.
@@mattskionet True. Memory is a function of the mind-body, not a state of awareness.
Problem is you have explain what Consciousness is, before you can say you've had a feeling of it 'emerging'. Maybe the question is better put if we can say are there states felt, or imagined, which your language hasn't been able to describe? Hume adumbrated what's at stake: '' For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.”
😂 love this Rubert is amazing 💚🙏🏻
I read the title. I sigh. I roll my eyes. I know where this will be going.
Not that it does not have a point. The known behavioral repertoire of subatomic particles is insufficient to explain consciousness as an "emergent" property at the macroscopic level. Some scientists will argue, "yes, it is" and that "There is no 'hard' problem." But those scientists are full of it. They have no credible explanation of "where the magic begins". With only atoms and electrical impulses at the building block level, no configuration or organization seems capable of spawning consciousness, any more than a configuration of wooden blocks.
We are missing something in our understanding. But what we are missing is not "dualism", "souls" or the superstitions of religion. It is equally obvious that our consciousness begins as part of a material-world process, during pregnancy, and that our consciousness is heavily influenced by and dependent upon our material brains. So it makes more sense to imagine consciousness as a yet-to-be-understood phenomenon of the material world, than as some kind of mysterious, transcendent, nonmaterial, alternate reality. Maybe it is only linguistics, but one can certainly argue that anything capable of interacting with the material world, that has dependency on the material world, IS the "material world".
Lack of completion in science should not be exploited for purposes of subtly promoting a religious agenda.
I had a dream where all the contents of reality were gone yet I was aware of my existence. Just a glimpse for me but I think this is what Rupert is trying to convey.
A friend who has cancer said to me this week...I think I'm going to die soon. I was silent for what seemed a long long pause and then I said. That's impossible. There is no death.
She said,.you know deep down I know that.
And that's part of the journey. We - as formless eternal consiosnous - are here to experience form including the death experience. But we - as formless eternal consiosnous - can never actually die. That's impossible. It's just the death experience . Then we move on to further experience.
Consciousness has various levels. I went thru childhood totally unaware of the world around me. At some point... age 11.. something woke me up a little. Later... mid 20s, it happened again. When I look around, I think many people are totally oblivious, just running through trained/learned routines. I feel free. One aside ... I have never really been materialistic. I need some 'stuff' but I feel no real attachment to it. EDIT: I'm over 60 and have never owned a TV. Think about that.
I have very similar experience
A friend who has cancer said to me this week...I think I'm going to die soon. I was silent for what seemed a long long pause and then I said. That's impossible. There is no death.
She said,.you know deep down I know that.
And that's part of the journey. We - as formless eternal consiosnous - are here to experience form including the death experience. But we - as formless eternal consiosnous - can never actually die. That's impossible. It's just the death experience . Then we move on to further experience.
Yes, consciousness emerged as an embryo develops into fetus and eventually into a baby and a child. It starts out not conscious and then at some point consciousness emerges. What else would you call it? And I assume when people die their consciousness disappears. When I am put under anesthesia, I am not conscious. Then when I come out, my consciousness remeerges. I have felt it return.
A profound teaching I am very thankful that I have discovered Rupert and his teachings, and I am actively sharing his videos
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat.
Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat).
Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato (Socrates).
Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) creates or synthesizes reality (non duality).
The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Form is dual to formlessness.
As the mind "awakens" from a deep coma, first time or not, isn't this emerging consciousness? Otherwise, as many theologians believe, the human mind is but a subset of the mind of God … including consciousness.
16:04 Perfectly summarized as our Father in Heaven is perfect and a testament to the truth "The name for the absence of otherness is love"
This guy is a total dufus; he doesn't explain what he means by his terms, and apparently does not understand how science works or what understanding is. He is fixated on "consciousness emerging from matter" defining an emergent property, and if anyone has "seen" such a thing. What a morass of ill-defined concepts. Does he mean has anyone seen consciousness walk out of a rock, or a cup of sugar? It doesn't even make sense. Every sentence is full of unstated assumptions and undefined terms. He throws around phrases like "Let's be scientific", but he clearly has no idea what that even means. He is so far from making any concrete sensible statements there's no point in even attempting a detailed critique.
consciousness emerges when I wake and subsides when I sleep (unconsciousness, death). That is my direct experience.
So what is aware of your experience?
Well technically conscious is definitely there in your dream when you sleep. And consciousness is there when you wake up.
So, your question is consciousness is not present in deep sleep. Now, if lack of consciousness, or death as you say, which is a fair point, death is the end of consciousness, people fear death, isn’t it odd we are not terrified of sleep, knowing we will renter deep sleep and effectively die. Yet we love deep sleep. So, would it not be more your experience that you lose consciousness of forms (thoughts, images etc) during deep sleep, hence it’s impossible to recall anything in memory of deep sleep. But, that isn’t really proof of losing consciousness, that’s proof of losing consciousness of things.
@@jjjos I think Rupert says that, in deep sleep, the mind is at rest hence there are no perceptions. Consciousness is always present: in the waking state, dream state, and deep sleep.
@@brigitteh4825 well consciousness is definitely present as a disturbance will still wake you from deep sleep. But, perhaps an anaesthetic would be a better example. But even then the biological functions are performing so consciousness is obviously present. But the mind is quiescent. So what about death? Is that the ultimate end of consciousness? well it’s impossible to really say of course, but I’d say only to the personal form in which consciousness is residing temporarily. Consciousness is everywhere after all, and if you remove the personal connections to your version of consciousness, when you see consciousness as non personal, and it is non personal, as it is in all animals etc so it’s not personal, then we have to conclude consciousness is uniform (wrong word really) but it’s without form, it’s the same in essence, it’s not defined with attributes, so where would it go. People go, animals go, but we can’t say consciousness goes, only it’s seeming temporary shape goes, but that’s not essential to it, I don’t think anything I’ve said is too wacky, seems a fair analysis I’d say.
Exactly, & of course as Rupert says repeatedly you were never born, you will never die, you are aware that you’re aware thus you are eternal.
Id love to hear a real conversation about this- not a one sided, didactic lesson. I agree that its crazy to believe consciousness arrives out of matter with no evidence of it, but this still isn't a proper debate... or even conversation. More of a series of talking points and socratic- like questioning. Many aspects of the brain don't map onto lived experience, so that isn't the only means of proof. (Chemicals vs emotions, for example). I don't know who the other speaker is, but if this were to be taken seriously, a proper conversation with a neuroscientist would be helpful. Not sure what this proves at all. Definitely a straw man scenario. Too bad because its a great subject and I too get frustrated with the scientific consensus. But that wasn't presented here.
Consciousness is the Spirit of God within us. 😊❤
What does that mean?
@@billhawkins192
Consciousness is the Spirit of Love. God is Love. It is the Love and Consideration a person has for oneself And another. Some people don’t have it. If you have to ask..maybe you don’t have it.
@@kathleenwharton2139 wow, how pious and judgemental for someone so spiritual and enlightened 🤷♂️
@@billhawkins192
You asked! I gave you my Truth. If you don’t like it..I am sorry. I don’t know you. I said..Maybe? Some people do not have a spirit of Love and your question didn’t sound favorable at all to what I said. I think you are the judgmental one. God Bless You.
@@kathleenwharton2139 a belief must stand up to scrutiny for it to have merit..
Wrong from the start. Emergence is not a "blossoming into" that Rupert thinks it is, rather, an emergent property is one that exists at one level of organization that is absent at some other level of organization. If the Time Square billboard spelled out "Eat at Joe's" that message is emergent - it does not exist at the level of the individual light bulbs and circuitry.
I own the answers and because of that I refuse to teach it to the world. You are not worthy. The power I wield can never be in the hands of the public.
Science is a group of individuals who have a common sense of experience so that they can agree on what’s been happening since the beginning of time. Or to put it another way, they agree that what they “observe” is consistent therefore it is “real.” But as we all know, science is only todays best guess. Ive heard it best described as “once man agrees on how something is measured it becomes real.” No matter how good the telescope we always need to see further and no matter how good the microscope we need to see closer. It doesn’t end because its our nature, persistent- cyclic- seeking, usually driven by fear.
'Has anybody ever observed consciousness arising from matter?'. Yes, Rupert, it can be observed in the growth of every human being during transition from fertilized egg to screaming baby.
I also found it fascinating that this simple fact was overlooked.
Someone said what about anesthesia or sleep. But, perhaps that is no memory, not consciousness itself. Vedanta claims consciousness is aware of mind and its contents.
I would go further back. Consciousness is a side effect of life. From the first organism would have had some sense of eat this, mate with that and very little else. Through the many millions of years of evolution and growth of organisms, some of us anxious apes consider ourselves the top of the consciousness tree. Contemplating our place in the universe. Meanwhile, I suspect the universe looks at us and metaphorically shakes its head. Life is more complex than we dare to dream. We still have much to learn. Also, I am an idiot. If you listen to me, you are falling for the same trick. I fall for it all the time. Consciousness perceiving itself is prone to leading itself up the garden path.
I should get out more.
Consciousness is not just self awareness. Consciousness exists even if you are sleeping or in coma.
@@jai6196 No, that is called being unconscious.
It's so simple, that which makes everything known can't be emergent. The very brain itself is in consciousness, else it doesn't exist.
I Am Totality, Experiencing Itself...
Yes!! ❤
Totality and nothingness. The greatest paradox.
I don't think that consciousness would seem to have rigid form if it was an emergent property. The problem with consciousness is that you can only ever observe our own consciousness. You can't observe consciousness emerging from matter, thus you can't prove it. You can't observe consciousness in any other living being than your self either and you can't really prove that anyone but you is consciousness.
As much as I'd like consciousness to have some extra dimension not accounted for by materialism, one nagging, inconvenient fact keeps hitting me in the face: there is zero hard evidence of any example or demonstration of consciousness that is not also associated with a very specific type of physical / material infrastructure -- a nervous system.
*Consciousness involves two Components; 1. An Analytical process involving the brain, and 2. AWARENESS which is NOT a human component but is "LIFE The Real Self"... Your human body doesn't even know it exists ! The PROOF: Hold your hand out in front of you and examine it to see IF it knows it exists or knows you ??? Of course it doesn't because it is NOT LIFE or Living !*
How do they separate awareness from the brain? What about neuroscience and brain injuries? How can someone explain their awareness without a brain?
Rupert, isn’t it so that consciousness emerges in babies at a point during gestation?
But what about quantum physics? That doesn’t stand up to the scrutiny of experience either-?
If I were a scientist and the evidence I presented as proof of my hypothesis was my experience, I would be laughed out of the room.
What would witness consciousness emerging ? it is the very property of consciousness itself to create the experience of being witness of consciousness and also being consciousness of world
Consciousness is not emerging but maybe it's not necessary that it emerge and arise from the brain? Consciousness is just in each brain like vision . I don't understand why it should be just a fonction who birth with the life and die with the death ...