"The refutation of philosophic materialism is as easy as
stepping off the sidewalk. An astonishing amount of professional
nonsense has been written to obscure this fact. Physics has boxed
itself in. Its pronouncements about the constituents of matter and the
so-called laws of motion result in a series of absurdities only a
charlatan could defend." (
The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)
Recently, I was opted into an ongoing email debate about the nature of
consciousness. I have no idea how I got there, but here is an edited
version of what I wrote to the group of scientists and scholars:
Conventional physics posits sub-atomic particles and/or waves as the
basic constituents of all matter in the universe. This would include
the human body and brain.
Nothing in these particles/waves is said to have consciousness,
sentience, awareness, a capacity of knowing, such as you have right now
as you read these words.
Therefore, the brain does not have such consciousness, since it is
entirely composed of particles/waves that have no consciousness.
If there is any consciousness to be found anywhere, it is not in the brain.
Understand: I'm not pushing an esoteric definition of consciousness
here. I'm talking about you sitting there, knowing that you understand
the meaning of these words. I'm talking about the conscious capacity to
grasp meaning.
I'm also talking about the capacity to make choices. Why? Because if
the brain is composed of particles/waves that have absolutely no
freedom, but merely behave according to laws of motion, then, if the
brain is the progenitor of all human action, there is no reason to posit
freedom of choice as a fact.
Therefore, in the view of conventional physics, you are sitting there
reading these words, but you have no consciousness that you understand
them, conscious understanding of meaning is a delusion, and you have no
freedom of choice at all. We are all engaging in gibberish, pretending
to ourselves that we are aware and free, when we are not.
Don't even bother to wonder whether you should respond to what I'm writing; you have no choice.
For a longer treatment of this argument, read my
"Interviewing the astral Albert Einstein about free will."
As a reporter on matters of science and medicine for 30 years, I'm well
versed in scientists' "maybe-could be-possible" statements about issues
around which they are groping:
"Consciousness remains a mystery, yes, but we are getting closer to
answers every day...some illuminating work is coming out of studies of
fish and grasshoppers...mapping the brain will provide a new level of
understanding...it is the job of science to keep pushing back the
curtains of superstition..."
And my favorite: "Of course the brain is the source of consciousness.
The proof of that is the fact that we are conscious; and where else
could awareness be coming from?"
Unassailable logic, if you're a fan of tautologies and circular reasoning.
Do you know what you're reading right now as you sit there? Or is that
conscious knowing simply a grand delusion, by which something inside
your skull 'pretends to be aware'?
Are "knowing" and "understanding meaning" only translatable as "particles in motion?"
Through the aether, I'm attempting to contact the authors and signers of
the US Constitution. I want to inform them that all their mumbo-jumbo
about human freedom was a vain attempt to circumvent the laws of matter
in the universe. What idiots they were. On the other hand, they can
now rest easy. Serenity is never having to worry about the future.
"No one is free. No one ever was. No one ever will be. Don't worry, be happy, as happy as a rock or a sidewalk."
No comments:
Post a Comment