I think it is important as Tom demonstrates to talk to the smaller stations. The trouble or the inclination with the big stations is that they play or have one eye on politics rather than challenge.
What's amazing is Mr Tom Campbell was willing to be interviewed by a channel that only has 269 subscribers .. That says a lot about what kind of a humble and passionate person he is as well as how vast knowledge he has about the nature of reality .. My salute to Mr Tom Campbell .. hand
Great interview, and good to see the interviewer doing their homework, especially when it comes to speaking with someone like Tom! Keep up the good work! :)
I find your explanation of the difference between the way logical thinkers and right-brain intuitive people differ in their ability to read/understand your work interesting. It's fascinating to experience how long it takes to grow in consciousness - pretty much a lifetime! Are you aware of the work of Rudolf Steiner, Mr Campbell?
I would have loved to hear Tom’s answers minus the constant ‘uh huh’ ‘mmm hmm’ from the interviewer. Had to turn it off unfortunately, it was so distracting
This idea stated that conscious can affect the physical works, but the physical world cannot affect conscious is perfectly ridiculous. Every physical action is a modification of consciousness. And yes every act of consciousness, acts on the physical world also. What is the purpose of false dichotomies at the foundation of a "Big Theory of Everything"? Whatever its purpose, the outcome is delusory. The logic is suspect. He published a trilogy of books on the theory of everything, but only after that did he understand the unification of quantum and relativistic physics? This means that he was misrepresenting himself from the beginning! Quite ridiculous, this misguided overlap of "deep truth" with self-delusion. No doubt the beginning of another terrible religious sect that recognizes its members by their embrace of its lunatic shiboleths. But it is certainly the American way to become a self-proclaimed Understander of Everything!
Hi, interesting comment, just a small clarification if I may - "Every physical action is a modification of consciousness." - Would I be right in assuming that you mean a decidedly physical action, and not quantum probabilities that preceded the action? Also, I would love to hear your opinion of David Bohm and his work on the quantum nature of reality....!
@@dragonskinavi It has been some time since I wrote that reaction to this video, so I cannot say that the conversation from here is based on this person's views, but only as a starting point. The question of probabilities and statistical mechanics is a very deep one. But the answers that we find depend so much on our predilections that it is impossible to say whether quantum physics is a scientific theory, or a religious doctrine. But that is because neither religion nor science as institutions can acknowledge their metaphysical basis without losing their claim to a fundamental knowledge which comes from the institutions, rather than from the pursuit of disciplines meant to increase our understanding. So I cannot comment on the supposed distinction between a "decidedly physical action" and a "quantum probability that preceded the action". Consider the word "paradox". Its root meaning is not about chance, or order, but a kind of opinion: δόχα. Common belief or opinion. But only academics think that knowledge of the world submits itself to the vagaries of opinion and belief. And only the religions of sacrificial blood cults think that belief is the ticket not only to understanding the world, but also its creation, creator, and indeed its eternal future. Metaphysically we need as philosophers to recover the work of Kant from the false logic of positivism; the correct word for contradictory assertions is not paradox, but paralogism: logical ambiguity is not the source of revelation for anyone but a sophist. So the framework of quantum paradox is no better than a religious statement of faith in a belief system, one which we cannot properly discuss in the terms of the modern conversation without retracing two centuries of thought.
I think it is important as Tom demonstrates to talk to the smaller stations. The trouble or the inclination with the big stations is that they play or have one eye on politics rather than challenge.
What's amazing is Mr Tom Campbell was willing to be interviewed by a channel that only has 269 subscribers .. That says a lot about what kind of a humble and passionate person he is as well as how vast knowledge he has about the nature of reality .. My salute to Mr Tom Campbell .. hand
Pleased to share this reality with you good sir.
What a journey we are on.
Great interview, and good to see the interviewer doing their homework, especially when it comes to speaking with someone like Tom! Keep up the good work! :)
I find your explanation of the difference between the way logical thinkers and right-brain intuitive people differ in their ability to read/understand your work interesting. It's fascinating to experience how long it takes to grow in consciousness - pretty much a lifetime! Are you aware of the work of Rudolf Steiner, Mr Campbell?
I would have loved to hear Tom’s answers minus the constant ‘uh huh’ ‘mmm hmm’ from the interviewer. Had to turn it off unfortunately, it was so distracting
Thank you for the feedback. Learning along the way.
Very annoying, to be sure.
However, it is a bad habit & and quite unconscious.
Good to hear
Great Stuff minus the dogs
This idea stated that conscious can affect the physical works, but the physical world cannot affect conscious is perfectly ridiculous. Every physical action is a modification of consciousness. And yes every act of consciousness, acts on the physical world also. What is the purpose of false dichotomies at the foundation of a "Big Theory of Everything"? Whatever its purpose, the outcome is delusory. The logic is suspect.
He published a trilogy of books on the theory of everything, but only after that did he understand the unification of quantum and relativistic physics? This means that he was misrepresenting himself from the beginning!
Quite ridiculous, this misguided overlap of "deep truth" with self-delusion. No doubt the beginning of another terrible religious sect that recognizes its members by their embrace of its lunatic shiboleths. But it is certainly the American way to become a self-proclaimed Understander of Everything!
Hi, interesting comment, just a small clarification if I may - "Every physical action is a modification of consciousness." - Would I be right in assuming that you mean a decidedly physical action, and not quantum probabilities that preceded the action? Also, I would love to hear your opinion of David Bohm and his work on the quantum nature of reality....!
@@dragonskinavi It has been some time since I wrote that reaction to this video, so I cannot say that the conversation from here is based on this person's views, but only as a starting point.
The question of probabilities and statistical mechanics is a very deep one. But the answers that we find depend so much on our predilections that it is impossible to say whether quantum physics is a scientific theory, or a religious doctrine. But that is because neither religion nor science as institutions can acknowledge their metaphysical basis without losing their claim to a fundamental knowledge which comes from the institutions, rather than from the pursuit of disciplines meant to increase our understanding.
So I cannot comment on the supposed distinction between a "decidedly physical action" and a "quantum probability that preceded the action".
Consider the word "paradox". Its root meaning is not about chance, or order, but a kind of opinion: δόχα. Common belief or opinion.
But only academics think that knowledge of the world submits itself to the vagaries of opinion and belief. And only the religions of sacrificial blood cults think that belief is the ticket not only to understanding the world, but also its creation, creator, and indeed its eternal future.
Metaphysically we need as philosophers to recover the work of Kant from the false logic of positivism; the correct word for contradictory assertions is not paradox, but paralogism: logical ambiguity is not the source of revelation for anyone but a sophist.
So the framework of quantum paradox is no better than a religious statement of faith in a belief system, one which we cannot properly discuss in the terms of the modern conversation without retracing two centuries of thought.