When I was small, I had this insight that life on earth is like a simulation, an unreal reality, and we are put here with tests to see how we react in it.
When I was young I wrote a paper on the ‘evolution of a soul’. I understood this reality and choose to be here to experience, love and learn so our souls can evolve.. I just assumed everyone aware why we were here. Only to learn later that very few are aware.
I don't think the Nobel Committee will take into account whether you get off on him or not. He should perhaps start by developing a hypothesis, writing a scientific paper or something. That's the usual route. Waffling endlessly for the credulous isn't going to work.
Well I have seen ACTUAL PICTURES (not CGI) of the Earth and it is NOT flat nor round, maybe like a potato shape towards the round spectrum, so you are going to believe what you need to believe but to anyone out there reading these comments do the research for yourselves instead of listening to groups like The Flat Earth Society which need to spread their propaganda because they have an ultimate goal to integrate church and state so their christian beliefs can be taught in the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM! The colonists came here to escape from The Church of England and that is why separation of church and state is first and then the right to bear arms to protect our right to freedom of religion.
Finally someone who crystallized my feelings of late. I've been studying and reading on the primacy of consciousness for a while now but no one summed it up this beautifully. I might have a look at Campbell's book actually. Absolutely loved this video, thank you!
*"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." --Max Planck, the father of quantum theory* *"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." --Max Planck*
Experimenting with apparatus made of what? What are your fingers, and the keys they're hitting, and the phone cables by which you're expressing that? A hallucination of some kind?
It's OK, I know English fairly well. Could you elucidate _what_ is an illusion? All matter? And who or what is suffering/experiencing/creating the illusion? Thanks.
When tom says ''I want you enjoy you,as friends..'' you get the feeling he was trying to say he didnt want to abuse you in a bedroom.Anyway i believe every word he says.Because i like receiving presents at Christmas . . .
Just that DNA is information, so how came the first DNA? And how did the simple cell evolve to more cimplex? So where did the new information come from in the cell?
Search on wikipedia story called "Blind men and an elephant". For me, "My Big Toe" is awesome theory, but I have too much questions, already born and still unborn... how we can get answers for our questions? This "assumption thing" giggles me the most... is "My Big Toe" just one of them, one more assumption? I'll go to look further, I really do like this man and all the talks... so thank you for the videos! I'll try to find Tom's mail address for the questions I have... ♥
thx for the reply, whether or not self destruction is beneficial or not to the consciousness "being" , I am going to assume (as i dont know) that 'it' being a benefit or disadvantage will be dependent on that particular consciousness. If this so called consciousness is not looking to "evolve" as we see it, why could it not destroy itself? what stops it? in the realm tom campbell talks about, (everything is possible) thus i would think complete self destruction is also possible, just a thought!
bert monrow has recording of tom campbell in one of his obe talking to an entity called thor made a bunch of predictions of global cataclysm for 1983 and the world falling apart, so iam goin to call bull on this dude
Indeed the becoming love stuff does sort of leap out of nowhere. He claims his information is drawn from Out of Body exploration, in the clinical way that Bob Monroe's TMI approaches the subject. This makes more sense when you put it in the context of the radical personality changes people have from NDEs. Visiting the other side seems to make people all warm and fuzzy. Check out the youtubes of Dannion Brinkley or make study of NDE personal accounts.
Your right, i don't remember ever not being conscious... on the other hand i also too do not remember 'always' being conscious. ...If consciousness can at some point be anything and everything,, unlimited possibilities.. surely then one of those possibilities is for it to choose to not exist,, to destroy itself, surely at some level the almight conscious can decide if it wishes to even exist in the first place? no? yes? maybe?! :)
we're living (or playing) in a universe with two faces of the same thing ... so, probably, for us is impossible, to live in a low entropy every time ... in this universe ...
Indeed. It was likely a blue joke or a clarification for the under 30 or a segment of the bicoastal crowd who hear everything as sexual innuendo. He has to be vigilant to ensure no one gets the wrong idea regarding sexual or financial exploitation of fans.
So consciousness can't communicate (because we have to create this reality) , consciousness can't interpret data. So we created this. The consciousness that created this VR sucks.
I find him interpreting the mechanics of our biology and its function but I'm a bit skeptical about his grasp on consciousness, especially after reading U G Krishnamurti's book.
In regards to entropy. If you disorder everything to the extreme where there is no longer a thing different than the other, then what you actually have is unity.
Oh, here we are STARTING FROM the problem, Duality, when Creator is ONE, not many minis!!!!!!! Only Mind can truly join, not bodies!!! The mind is in the Mind, not the other way around. This is how I know it to be. Consciousness is NOT THE SOURCE but is able to lead TO the Source as Source is ONE!! If one has consciousness it requires TWO, object and subject. Physics attempts to explain the mechanics of the delusional Matrix, nothing more. The True Kingdom is within. But, this is still interesting! "When you make the two ONE then you shall enter the Kingdom of God".
what i am getting at here, is that you make the assumption "if its evolving" lets say it does not wish to evolve,, therefore can it destroy itself into non existence, or is freedom of will, which i hear is supposed to be a universal law, taken away from it, and thus, it cannot destroy itself.
I believe tom would say we have to establish a new world order in our minds and at the soul level, and then politics will take care of itself. Better laws or governance without better quality of consciousness will not help. This puts the onus back on you and your life, your intent as you go through your day, which is not comfortable for your ego, who is always pointing the finger at some other guy or institution, manufacturing ego-fear to insulate you from reality.
I have felt that God has uses binary code to divide and create. 1 and 0. On or off, there or not. All things exists out of bonsty code, either they are or they arent. I feel he nailed it
The way he explains the creation of order out of entropy sounds exactly like the story of Creation where God divides the sky and the water, the day and the night... etc. I think we're getting somewhere.
Ludmila Marešová ..exactly, just like the Tao The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces.
Order out of Chaos (entropy)... sounds like Lucifer's LIE!!!! How can order come from chaos?!!!!! That is like saying Stillness comes from chaos!!! They BOTH can't be True OR REAL. Sounds to me like it is just hidden CHAOS!!!!!! What is so difficult for us Humans to just admit this "World" IS the very definition of chaos?!! How could a TRUE Creator create UNLIKE ITSELF which to me means True Creator DID NOT create this "world"!!!!!!! It's like in AA where one has to ADMIT the problem BEFORE we can know the solution. "I was wrong about EVERYTHING in this substitute "world"(Forgive me Father for I did not know what I was doing"-JC) but now want to go "Home" to the "world" that WAS ALREADY CREATED FOR ME BEFORE i, ego, "fell" into insanity!!!!!
Recruiter for what? He is not trying to start a religion or cult, and he only takes expenses for speaking, no per diem. Its a lot more complicated when you put this initiative in the context of The Monroe Institute provenance and his professional physics background.
Surely, if true, that would be impossible, which would make it false, which would make it possible, which means it could be true, which, if it were... ;)
kind of dont agree with the society of love vs fear like when there is resource deprived environment or war which is the mother of adaptation which is at the heart of evolution. and in the case of the love society if it just finds optimal equilibrium that is the end of evolution cause theres no need to change as much
"They" love to spout that randomness is death and order is alive. I disagree entirely, we are beings that start random and fully alive, then our society imposes false worth on order, and the truly intellectual break out back into the childlike randomness. This is a large part of Christs potential, his love of the childlike and willingness to competitively fight and die gave the right amount of chaos for beings to not feel confined by constant danger, yet also not confined by boring robotic bland lifestyles that never challenge their mortality at all.
You brought yourself to wisdom and destroyed your bridge. Find another explanation that will lead you back here. Look with your heart not your mind Lucky x
so the big TOE grows...grows toe cheese due to increasing or higher entropy...only love as lower entropy consciousness has the fundamental self-aware potential to evolve or radically pedicure any big Toe
Following retirement he made a shit load of money doing rocket and space related contracts. There is no business model here, including his volunteer support group. You have this belief that OBE is dangerous, but is this based on any primary data? No biggie, rather focus on meditation and paying attention to your intent->decision->action->result->feedback loop in this physical VR.
Obviously well-intended and sincere (contrast with other New Age gurus), but his leap to what he calls "love," a big, amorphous undefined thing is unjustified. The real dynamics happen, not in low entropy or high, but in the middle ground that's energized. Love is a sophomoric quest for life. There were other errors, like his claim of an infant's blank slate at birth, but the worst of it is his effort to make computer-like facts of life. It just ain't that way, good intentions or not.
Right from the start, Campbell produces an unwitting Freudian slip at 00:30 which may show his own true feelings about the validity of his theory. Listen carefully... Body "language" is worth a thousand words. lol
A theory combining the physical and meta-physical. You must be kidding me right? As soon as something can be put into a theory it isn't meta anymore, or the "theory" isn't a theory, as defined by the scientific method, but a load of airy pseudo-religious crap.
Here we have another lack of understanding of scientific terms. Any theory that talks about things which exist outside of this universe is necessarily "metaphysical" in nature. Theories are theories, whether they are physical or metaphysical are simply descriptive of the type of theory. String theory is a metaphysical theory. Many worlds is a metaphysical theory. MBT is a hybrid, completely describing both, where they come from, and how they work.
I wonder if Tom has ever thought how to test this hypothesis. Ah, no, we all interpret the "data stream" very differently, he says, so it's not a testable proposition. It is therefore not a hypothesis or "good science", yet he claims it is. How can it be tested if we all interpret the results differently? (Hint: It's not. it's just more religious shite from back when we were all fucktards.)
mebe84 Hi, those are good points and a good question. First of all, I'm a bit pushed for time and haven't watched this part again or finished watching all the parts (the last of which I won't do unless someone gives me a lot better reason). I'm responding to his general philosophy as I've gleaned from the first few parts of this interview and other sources. Yes, it's fine to interpret evidence in a different way, but I personally put limits on what I bother to spend too long imagining might be true. For instance, we can interpret the whole of science and all human experience thus: There is just me, imagining all of it. Complete solipsism. You don't exist, nothing exists except Mind, which equals me. I can then fill in all sorts of philosophical details to suit. The reason why I can't apparently levitate or make unicorns appear out of thin air is because Mind has certain Limitations that It imposes on Itself (it's good to start using capitals at this point, lol). Etc. I don't close my mind to the possibility, I just find it relatively unconvincing compared with, say, a physicalist view. Besides, it is - as far as I can tell - utterly impossible to prove or disprove. It's not really very testable, is it? The fact that I haven't managed to exercise complete free will is good evidence against it, but as I said, I can invent all sorts of get-outs that make it just seem that way. Similarly, postulating that the world is made up essentially of something called "information" and the world we think we inhabit is a kind of virtual one, is perfectly reasonable, it just doesn't suggest anything testable, AFAICS. And, as I quoted above, he said something about everyone interpreting the data stream differently (which would be a nice get-out to avoid apparent inconsistencies we might otherwise object to). Hence, the scientific method would be impotent, since it depends on the idea that the world is consistent, and hence you and I can repeat experiments and compare notes to discover reality. This may be a mistake of science, but if so, we're left in a world in which nothing can be said to be 'real'. However, it gets worse, if by "evidence" you are referring to a lot of the hogwash Campbell cites - parapsychological experiments and so on (I think he went on about the PEAR "findings" and a few other endlessly-repeated bits of woo). I can't remember off hand what they are, but I've looked into this area in some detail and the whole of "the paranormal" is without a shred of reliable evidence whatsoever. Seriously - I can't tell you the number of times some believer in Mind, God, Other Realms, Aliens, etc., has sent me off to discover the Truth exposed by some study or other, only to find that it was badly designed or executed, or optimistically interpreted. I'm not 100% sure - I am a sceptic - just very confident it's all bull. On the question of whether I have evidence against Tom Campbell's philosophy, that would depend a bit more on what in particular we're talking about. Concepts would need to be defined a bit more strictly. If I contemplate quantum mechanics (the very little I know about it) - or even macro-atomic physics - it's quite reasonable to say something like "At the smallest scale, the world seems to be a void out of which matter - whatever that is - pops in and out of existence", and yes, that vaguely reminds me of the film, The Matrix, but it's quite another to make the sorts of claims I've heard him make. It's no good just accepting something because we allow different interpretations of the world - claims, in my view, should be formulated as testable hypotheses that allow all of us to discern whether they are likely to be true or not. This is where Tom would point to the paranormal, suggesting that it is a kind of window, a way to peel back the apparent and see the invisible order underneath - apparently, it looks just the way it is, and the more we look, the more we discover about how we delude ourselves with our fantasies of mind over matter (with the exeption of placebo, which I believe is matter over matter anyway, since mind isn't a separate substrate of reality, just what the brain does). I recognise Tom as being just like any number of new-age gurus. The teaching is that the world is sorry and bad and hateful because we haven't recognised that we're living in a virtual world, and once we realise that (as the master has realised, God bless him and buy his books), we can shape the world into the peaceful, loving heaven-on-earth we all feel it could and should be. I've a bunch of circumstantial evidence against that. First, it's an idea that has been told and retold for thousands of years, and it seems likely that, if true, it would have transformed us into angels a long time ago. Second, the vast amount of mutually-supporting evidence for evolution through natural selection demonstrates that - like it or not - survival is largely a matter of gobbling up resources in competition with others (including gobbling up others), and life was doing that for about 12 billion years before humans began "interpreting" the world (very wrongly at first). Life itself probably arose from the same fundamental law in physics - what can persist persists. There is co-operation as well. There is emergence of higher order. Humans are, I believe, working towards a better future through history, and hopefully will continue to do so, if we don't ruin the environment first. But everything seems in keeping with what naturalistic science says is there, even if it is still quite mysterious at the quantum level and through the vista of deep time. Sorry for such a long answer, but I like discussing these issues.
mebe84 Yes, I see that we are largely in agreement on the facts, and it is the interpretation that is different. I'd also like to emphasize that I'm not certain about my position; it just makes the most sense to me after quite a lot of research and discussion on consciousness, cognition, artificial intelligence and so on. For a long time I tended towards the dualist or mind-monist positions, but I began to have those views challenged a few years ago. Unlike what you're saying above, I did argue that mind can exist without a brain. Your view makes more sense. But if mind can't exist without a brain, I don't understand how one can consider mind a separate or unique substrate of reality, rather than an emergent property of the brain. Where was mind for the billions of years before brains evolved? Yes, of course, we can distinguish intellectually between the mind and brain, subjective experience and object, but we can distinguish between wetness and water, or blue and sky. We do not conclude that wetness and blue are constituents of nature, just abstractions: concepts and words we apply when matter behaves in identifiable ways. Indeed, if nothing other than the sky was blue, or nothing other than water was wet, we might never have come up with those ideas. It is because we saw that blood and oil and other liquids were wet that we invented the abstract ideas "wet" (adjective) and then the even more concrete-sounding, but imaginary "wetness" (noun). Early humans did the same with mind, I believe, as we evolved the intelligence to recognise our own thinking and that of other humans. Mistaking this noun "mind" for something concrete - existing somewhere in space or time - led to a whole array of mistakes, believing that it continued after death (very comforting), or the modern scientific search for it outside us (brain as receiver of mind waves, OBEs, etc., which so far, as I said, have drawn a blank, a lot of bad research and more than a smattering of downright fraud). I know very little about this science of "simulation theory" - I'd have to look into it more. I welcome any pointers. The reason I emphasized competition over co-operation is that, so far, co-operation in the natural world has always been a strategy to increase the competitive success of the co-operators. It explains the evolution of the social insects, whose survival depends on the colony because most of them are sterile, yet who, as a whole, compete powerfully for local resources. It explains higher animals social behaviours. It explains the co-evolution of flowering plants and pollinators, the combination of prokaryotic cells with the forerunner of mitochondria to form the eukaryotes, combination of bacterium and fungus into algae, and all manner of other combinations and behavioural developments. Human co-operation appears to have caused extreme pressure on the rest of the natural world, from the extinction of megafauna through hunting to the current environmental crisis, where we have mass extinction at least some of which we know we are directly responsible for. It is theoretically possible, I believe, for all the species in a closed system, like the whole world, to evolve a co-operative system where everyone benefits, but these are always unstable systems unless something artificially stops mutation and selective pressure. Look how humans have developed agriculture - vast amounts of the biosphere are pressed into service to feed us and in turn we protect and reproduce the plants and animals we eat - but we're constantly fighting against evolving pests and diseases that eat the crops and invect our livestock, and against bacteria evolving resistance to our antibiotics. Thanks for a stimulating discussion.
mebe84 Yes, that's right (I probably didn't make that very clear) I was saying that I *used* to believe in Mind as separate from matter, or indeed that matter was "maya" (illusion) - I got into all that yoga, vedanta & buddhism stuff in my teens. I grew up and live in the north of England, by the way. Where are you? It was interesting and moving to read about your leaving the Christian faith and its effect on you. Eastern mysticism was my religion most of my adult life, haphazardly mixed with bits of new age philosophy. I also had a long struggle with depression. I don't know if you meant to imply yours was through the change of philosophy, but anyway, mine wasn't, just for the record. I was most depressed while I was hungry for "the Truth", a "seeker". Becoming a materialist/atheist/naturalist a while ago was quite hard too, and I did have a certain amount of emptiness - "hopeless nihilism" would be too strong in my case - but it has brought me greater happiness and a joyous fascination with nature that beats those meditative highs hands down. It might be that I'm getting old, too. After 30 years seeking and searching and fretting about whether I'd get enlightened, or if eastern mysticism made any sense, I've got to a place where I'm comfortable with not knowing the deepest secrets of the universe. I can still contemplate what they might be. I'm still full of wonder. I used to talk about losing the ego, and all my talk was largely egotistical nonsense. I appreciate some of the learning I got through yoga, and the health benefits are great! I think I did misunderstand your position earlier and didn't read carefully enough - sorry - and I'm still not quite sure what it is now, except that you're uncertain as well. It is incredibly easy to misunderstand these issues - and, as you say, we have different understandings of words. "Separate", a "substrate", "concrete" (but not physical)...etc.? I suppose I have begun to try a new philosophy, where I am this body. I have a mind. I don't *have* a body. Of course, I can be both, but there are brains without minds, no minds without brains have ever been noted. Emergent phenomena are a fascinating topic to study. Example: lots of woos told me nobody could explain how birds flock, science can't explain it, it's too fast for normal communication, blah blah. Nope. Someone did more science and showed that flocking behaviour emerges from very simple rules each member applies. Another: Conway's Game of Life. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life I think there's a fine line between enjoying the mysteries of nature, like the awe of learning that slime moulds can "solve mazes", or noting the prevalence of "golden sections" and "fractal" forms in nature, and slipping into fantasies, extrapolating ideas more because they feel exciting and comforting than because they have any rationale or evidence for them. Genius is close to insanity. I like your playlists and just watched one of Paul Stamets. Great to see someone enthusiastic and in love with his subject, but yeah, too many magic mushrooms might just damage your mental capacities rather than provide a door into the mystical realities of the universe, where strands of galaxies are the intelligent mycorrhizal synapses of God's brain, or whatever (he implied something like that). What's more, that maligned thing, reductionism, gives us plenty of evidence that narcotics do seriously damage our mental capacities. Somehow we're supposed to be seeing deeply into reality when we can't recognise our own face in a mirror or count to ten. But there is something wonderful about co-operation, I agree. And about the evolution of complexity, the global ecosystem. I don't feel any need to conclude that God or anything like a god did it, but I have no idea what did. I'm not depressed by the competition. It doesn't seem particularly dark or evil, although it's hard to say it's ethically neutral. It is apparently just the way things are, and it leads to all this amazing symbiosis of ecosystems. But I've always been more interested in what is true than what helps me feel good. Ironically, I think it ends up making me feel better and living better, making better decisions. I watched a couple of shortish vids of George Smoot. I agree, not very convincing, but he rambles, mumbles and is very confusing, and I've little idea how seriously he's proposing the ideas in them (one was just about the structure of the universe, but mentioned "the Designer" quite a bit, and the other one suggested the plausibility of humans living in a simulation). I don't think magic mushrooms are implicated in his case - maybe too many magic markers. ;)
mebe84 Thanks for your kind words too. It's a pleasure to meet someone civil and interesting on youtube who hasn't got an axe to grind. It's taken me a while to get back here. I'd like to be able to split my head sometimes and parallel process life - there aren't enough hours in the day for all the things I want to do. I did a lot of self-medicating with cannabis in my younger days, but never tried anything else and was always a bit scared of other drugs. Nowadays I'm thinking I'd quite like to take something more trippy to see what all the fuss is about. I look forward to checking out some of those links on reset.me - thanks for that - and I'll probably watch more of the videos on your site. I'm intruiged by the idea of psilocybin and other psychoactives as anti-addictive, but I'm somewhat sceptical. I remember the theory was up-and-coming round about when I "retired" from counselling (a lot of my work was addictions counselling), and I watched some documentary about using ayahuasca - lots of throwing up, as I remember. I also used to imagine death being some kind of 'trip', and was concerned to die consciously and in meditation, so as to give myself the greatest chance of Liberation, Nirvana, or maybe just a favourable reincarnation. I still hope I can face death consciously and bravely when it comes (I never liked the idea of dying in my sleep or in some instantaneous, unexpected way). Hopefully not for a good while yet. I've never been to New Orleans, or the States at all. Love to go some day. Stay safe from that breezy weather you get over there!
The praises of spirit over material don't tell you that once you are a spirit you crave to have a body immediately, the reason for this is that physical strength is maintained upon quicker reincarnation. Hardened physical beings have an obvious advantage over wispy spirit and ether.
Seedr0 what do you mean when you say physical strength is maintained upon quicker reincarnation? what is quicker reincarnation? and are you saying that spirit and body are better than just spirit? and if so what happens at death? isn't physical experience meaningless?
Наука
![Finesse2Tymes - Pretty Ricky [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xIoP_mhYRT0/mqdefault.jpg)
When I was small, I had this insight that life on earth is like a simulation, an unreal reality, and we are put here with tests to see how we react in it.
When I was young I wrote a paper on the ‘evolution of a soul’. I understood this reality and choose to be here to experience, love and learn so our souls can evolve.. I just assumed everyone aware why we were here. Only to learn later that very few are aware.
I can't get enough of this guy! He should get a nobel prize
I don't think the Nobel Committee will take into account whether you get off on him or not. He should perhaps start by developing a hypothesis, writing a scientific paper or something. That's the usual route. Waffling endlessly for the credulous isn't going to work.
Yes sir!
+Daniel 12 What should he believe?
Which is????
Well I have seen ACTUAL PICTURES (not CGI) of the Earth and it is NOT flat nor round, maybe like a potato shape towards the round spectrum, so you are going to believe what you need to believe but to anyone out there reading these comments do the research for yourselves instead of listening to groups like The Flat Earth Society which need to spread their propaganda because they have an ultimate goal to integrate church and state so their christian beliefs can be taught in the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM! The colonists came here to escape from The Church of England and that is why separation of church and state is first and then the right to bear arms to protect our right to freedom of religion.
Finally someone who crystallized my feelings of late. I've been studying and reading on the primacy of consciousness for a while now but no one summed it up this beautifully. I might have a look at Campbell's book actually. Absolutely loved this video, thank you!
Watched this part one video probably about 25 times over the course of two months and I still learn something new every time.
These videos changed my perspective and my life. Get ready folks! Thank you Tom! In gratitude🙏
I'm grateful to have run across this data. It is so much clearer now. Thank you!
*"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." --Max Planck, the father of quantum theory*
*"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." --Max Planck*
I wonder if Planck thought nothing existed for several billion years.
lettersquash No, he realized that experiment proved there is no such thing as matter.
Experimenting with apparatus made of what? What are your fingers, and the keys they're hitting, and the phone cables by which you're expressing that? A hallucination of some kind?
lettersquash It's called an illusion. dictionary.com
It's OK, I know English fairly well. Could you elucidate _what_ is an illusion? All matter? And who or what is suffering/experiencing/creating the illusion? Thanks.
Tom is brilliant! Thank you for posting this. ❤️
Dr Campbell has much to offer to one seeking understanding the Psi elements of life! Thank's my good Sir!!
Yes, Tom. It's all about communication and interpretation.
Awesome. Everything he is saying is exactly what the Vedas say. In fact he uses some of the exact same words.
I don't have enough data, must be low on consciousness
Mind blown
Has Tom spoken at all to the relationship between family members and shared characteristics between relatives?
The truth is that everything is a big joke where consciousness experience everything. We will participate in this great celebration that is there!
When tom says ''I want you enjoy you,as friends..'' you get the feeling he was trying to say he didnt want to abuse you in a bedroom.Anyway i believe every word he says.Because i like receiving presents at Christmas . . .
Just that DNA is information, so how came the first DNA? And how did the simple cell evolve to more cimplex?
So where did the new information come from in the cell?
Search on wikipedia story called "Blind men and an elephant".
For me, "My Big Toe" is awesome theory, but I have too much questions, already born and still unborn... how we can get answers for our questions? This "assumption thing" giggles me the most... is "My Big Toe" just one of them, one more assumption? I'll go to look further, I really do like this man and all the talks... so thank you for the videos! I'll try to find Tom's mail address for the questions I have... ♥
❤!!Gratidãooo!!
What's liberation then in context to this theory?
thx for the reply, whether or not self destruction is beneficial or not to the consciousness "being" , I am going to assume (as i dont know) that 'it' being a benefit or disadvantage will be dependent on that particular consciousness. If this so called consciousness is not looking to "evolve" as we see it, why could it not destroy itself? what stops it? in the realm tom campbell talks about, (everything is possible) thus i would think complete self destruction is also possible, just a thought!
Damn. Just like the story of the egg by and weir.
bert monrow has recording of tom campbell in one of his obe talking to an entity called thor made a bunch of predictions of global cataclysm for 1983 and the world falling apart, so iam goin to call bull on this dude
Look the entropy of water. We are these.
My question is Who is the server generating the data stream?
The Son of man!
The God force
Consciousness is ( Cosmic) Intelligence
When and how did Consciousness come into being ? ie. the tree which falls in
the forest - if no one hears it does it make a noise.?
We will never understand God or how God came into being, God has always been. Maybe when we die we will but don't hold your breath now
Indeed the becoming love stuff does sort of leap out of nowhere. He claims his information is drawn from Out of Body exploration, in the clinical way that Bob Monroe's TMI approaches the subject. This makes more sense when you put it in the context of the radical personality changes people have from NDEs. Visiting the other side seems to make people all warm and fuzzy. Check out the youtubes of Dannion Brinkley or make study of NDE personal accounts.
Your right, i don't remember ever not being conscious... on the other hand i also too do not remember 'always' being conscious. ...If consciousness can at some point be anything and everything,, unlimited possibilities.. surely then one of those possibilities is for it to choose to not exist,, to destroy itself, surely at some level the almight conscious can decide if it wishes to even exist in the first place? no? yes? maybe?! :)
we're living (or playing) in a universe with two faces of the same thing ... so, probably, for us is impossible, to live in a low entropy every time ... in this universe ...
Entropy grows?
Indeed. It was likely a blue joke or a clarification for the under 30 or a segment of the bicoastal crowd who hear everything as sexual innuendo. He has to be vigilant to ensure no one gets the wrong idea regarding sexual or financial exploitation of fans.
So consciousness can't communicate (because we have to create this reality) , consciousness can't interpret data. So we created this. The consciousness that created this VR sucks.
This is probably how God would look like.
LOL
I find him interpreting the mechanics of our biology and its function but I'm a bit skeptical about his grasp on consciousness, especially after reading U G Krishnamurti's book.
He's just another snake oil seller making a buck off of the schmucks.
In regards to entropy. If you disorder everything to the extreme where there is no longer a thing different than the other, then what you actually have is unity.
Oh, here we are STARTING FROM the problem, Duality, when Creator is ONE, not many minis!!!!!!! Only Mind can truly join, not bodies!!! The mind is in the Mind, not the other way around. This is how I know it to be.
Consciousness is NOT THE SOURCE but is able to lead TO the Source as Source is ONE!! If one has consciousness it requires TWO, object and subject. Physics attempts to explain the mechanics of the delusional Matrix, nothing more. The True Kingdom is within. But, this is still interesting! "When you make the two ONE then you shall enter the Kingdom of God".
what i am getting at here, is that you make the assumption "if its evolving" lets say it does not wish to evolve,, therefore can it destroy itself into non existence, or is freedom of will, which i hear is supposed to be a universal law, taken away from it, and thus, it cannot destroy itself.
I believe tom would say we have to establish a new world order in our minds and at the soul level, and then politics will take care of itself. Better laws or governance without better quality of consciousness will not help. This puts the onus back on you and your life, your intent as you go through your day, which is not comfortable for your ego, who is always pointing the finger at some other guy or institution, manufacturing ego-fear to insulate you from reality.
@@j92so exactly
This man has too high IQ.
His brain is overthinking🤯
Fear opposite of love?!
Yes there are only two emotions, love and fear. Fear is the opposite of love
I have felt that God has uses binary code to divide and create. 1 and 0. On or off, there or not. All things exists out of bonsty code, either they are or they arent. I feel he nailed it
The way he explains the creation of order out of entropy sounds exactly like the story of Creation where God divides the sky and the water, the day and the night... etc. I think we're getting somewhere.
Ludmila Marešová ..exactly, just like the Tao
The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.
The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang.
They achieve harmony by combining these forces.
Order out of Chaos (entropy)... sounds like Lucifer's LIE!!!! How can order come from chaos?!!!!! That is like saying Stillness comes from chaos!!! They BOTH can't be True OR REAL. Sounds to me like it is just hidden CHAOS!!!!!! What is so difficult for us Humans to just admit this "World" IS the very definition of chaos?!! How could a TRUE Creator create UNLIKE ITSELF which to me means True Creator DID NOT create this "world"!!!!!!! It's like in AA where one has to ADMIT the problem BEFORE we can know the solution. "I was wrong about EVERYTHING in this substitute "world"(Forgive me Father for I did not know what I was doing"-JC) but now want to go "Home" to the "world" that WAS ALREADY CREATED FOR ME BEFORE i, ego, "fell" into insanity!!!!!
@@bestill.4216 someone gets angry if you don't agree😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@bestill.4216 I think you would like Archaix work, he's brilliant. (yt channel)
not really, hes just thinking in response to what a person running a simulation would do
Recruiter for what? He is not trying to start a religion or cult, and he only takes expenses for speaking, no per diem. Its a lot more complicated when you put this initiative in the context of The Monroe Institute provenance and his professional physics background.
So the Beatles had it right, all you need is love.
Well, then they were wrong cause love is there already as an integral part of you as you are in your essence and Consciousness.
Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem proved the theory of everything is impossible
***** looking forward to your journal being reviewed and published.
+swat22camden much comic
How?
Surely, if true, that would be impossible, which would make it false, which would make it possible, which means it could be true, which, if it were... ;)
You speak bullshit
kind of dont agree with the society of love vs fear
like when there is resource deprived environment or war
which is the mother of adaptation which is at the heart of evolution.
and in the case of the love society if it just finds optimal equilibrium that is the end of evolution cause theres no need to change as much
"They" love to spout that randomness is death and order is alive.
I disagree entirely, we are beings that start random and fully alive, then our society imposes false worth on order, and the truly intellectual break out back into the childlike randomness.
This is a large part of Christs potential, his love of the childlike and willingness to competitively fight and die gave the right amount of chaos for beings to not feel confined by constant danger, yet also not confined by boring robotic bland lifestyles that never challenge their mortality at all.
He had me up until he said, 'with freewill.' HA!
This sounds like quackery aimed at pushing book sales.
You brought yourself to wisdom and destroyed your bridge. Find another explanation that will lead you back here. Look with your heart not your mind
Lucky x
He said himself you can buy or its free on Google
Spoken like a person who has no answers
so the big TOE grows...grows toe cheese due to increasing or higher entropy...only love as lower entropy consciousness has the fundamental self-aware potential to evolve or radically pedicure any big Toe
Eeeiiiuuuggg lmao
YEAH TOM, BUT THOSE EARLY SIMPLE CELLS HAD VOLUMES OF ZERO'S AND ONE'S JUST IN ORDER TO EXIST THEMSELVES.
Following retirement he made a shit load of money doing rocket and space related contracts. There is no business model here, including his volunteer support group. You have this belief that OBE is dangerous, but is this based on any primary data? No biggie, rather focus on meditation and paying attention to your intent->decision->action->result->feedback loop in this physical VR.
Obviously well-intended and sincere (contrast with other New Age gurus), but his leap to what he calls "love," a big, amorphous undefined thing is unjustified. The real dynamics happen, not in low entropy or high, but in the middle ground that's energized. Love is a sophomoric quest for life. There were other errors, like his claim of an infant's blank slate at birth, but the worst of it is his effort to make computer-like facts of life. It just ain't that way, good intentions or not.
Love is a sophomoric quest for life (love is a growing thing).
Like you know the answers, keep babbling
complexity is not better. more complex, more interdependent, bigger chance to break down.
I. Refute it thusly.
Right from the start, Campbell produces an unwitting Freudian slip at 00:30 which may show his own true feelings about the validity of his theory. Listen carefully... Body "language" is worth a thousand words. lol
How about releasing the "GAME" and just GO HOME where we belong where there are NO GAMES?!!!!!
Right, you would expect him to be more excited about his findings
whai is this need,of religion?
Its a control system like the second group he speaks about
Deep inside us all is the quest for our source which is God
God is consciousness. All thongs exist out of the God consciousness. God is the source and the cause of all
not for me
can consciousness destroy itself? to become nothing? to become non existant?
Wouldn't that be lovely! Oh to sleep, perchance to dream of nothingness.
Suit yourself, I prefer to live forever
RE-FRESHING.....JUST KEEP ON TALKING !
Because all people want is talk.
LMAOROFF @.31 if you listen there through right at 32 it tells the story of this video when he FARTS lol. Total BS.
I turned the volume up..... OMG ROFLMFAO!! 🤣🤣🤣👍👍👍
Like you have any answers! People are sich idiots, especially the young
A theory combining the physical and meta-physical. You must be kidding me right? As soon as something can be put into a theory it isn't meta anymore, or the "theory" isn't a theory, as defined by the scientific method, but a load of airy pseudo-religious crap.
Here we have another lack of understanding of scientific terms. Any theory that talks about things which exist outside of this universe is necessarily "metaphysical" in nature. Theories are theories, whether they are physical or metaphysical are simply descriptive of the type of theory. String theory is a metaphysical theory. Many worlds is a metaphysical theory. MBT is a hybrid, completely describing both, where they come from, and how they work.
Like you could understand, too funny. When you get the answer please let us know!
Cryptocurrencies will be the key!!! Each of one of us will have its own currency!!! WILL BE GREAT!!!!
Gobbledygook.
Maybe to the idiot
I wonder if Tom has ever thought how to test this hypothesis. Ah, no, we all interpret the "data stream" very differently, he says, so it's not a testable proposition. It is therefore not a hypothesis or "good science", yet he claims it is. How can it be tested if we all interpret the results differently? (Hint: It's not. it's just more religious shite from back when we were all fucktards.)
mebe84
Hi, those are good points and a good question. First of all, I'm a bit pushed for time and haven't watched this part again or finished watching all the parts (the last of which I won't do unless someone gives me a lot better reason). I'm responding to his general philosophy as I've gleaned from the first few parts of this interview and other sources.
Yes, it's fine to interpret evidence in a different way, but I personally put limits on what I bother to spend too long imagining might be true. For instance, we can interpret the whole of science and all human experience thus: There is just me, imagining all of it. Complete solipsism. You don't exist, nothing exists except Mind, which equals me. I can then fill in all sorts of philosophical details to suit. The reason why I can't apparently levitate or make unicorns appear out of thin air is because Mind has certain Limitations that It imposes on Itself (it's good to start using capitals at this point, lol). Etc. I don't close my mind to the possibility, I just find it relatively unconvincing compared with, say, a physicalist view. Besides, it is - as far as I can tell - utterly impossible to prove or disprove. It's not really very testable, is it? The fact that I haven't managed to exercise complete free will is good evidence against it, but as I said, I can invent all sorts of get-outs that make it just seem that way.
Similarly, postulating that the world is made up essentially of something called "information" and the world we think we inhabit is a kind of virtual one, is perfectly reasonable, it just doesn't suggest anything testable, AFAICS. And, as I quoted above, he said something about everyone interpreting the data stream differently (which would be a nice get-out to avoid apparent inconsistencies we might otherwise object to). Hence, the scientific method would be impotent, since it depends on the idea that the world is consistent, and hence you and I can repeat experiments and compare notes to discover reality. This may be a mistake of science, but if so, we're left in a world in which nothing can be said to be 'real'.
However, it gets worse, if by "evidence" you are referring to a lot of the hogwash Campbell cites - parapsychological experiments and so on (I think he went on about the PEAR "findings" and a few other endlessly-repeated bits of woo). I can't remember off hand what they are, but I've looked into this area in some detail and the whole of "the paranormal" is without a shred of reliable evidence whatsoever. Seriously - I can't tell you the number of times some believer in Mind, God, Other Realms, Aliens, etc., has sent me off to discover the Truth exposed by some study or other, only to find that it was badly designed or executed, or optimistically interpreted. I'm not 100% sure - I am a sceptic - just very confident it's all bull.
On the question of whether I have evidence against Tom Campbell's philosophy, that would depend a bit more on what in particular we're talking about. Concepts would need to be defined a bit more strictly. If I contemplate quantum mechanics (the very little I know about it) - or even macro-atomic physics - it's quite reasonable to say something like "At the smallest scale, the world seems to be a void out of which matter - whatever that is - pops in and out of existence", and yes, that vaguely reminds me of the film, The Matrix, but it's quite another to make the sorts of claims I've heard him make. It's no good just accepting something because we allow different interpretations of the world - claims, in my view, should be formulated as testable hypotheses that allow all of us to discern whether they are likely to be true or not. This is where Tom would point to the paranormal, suggesting that it is a kind of window, a way to peel back the apparent and see the invisible order underneath - apparently, it looks just the way it is, and the more we look, the more we discover about how we delude ourselves with our fantasies of mind over matter (with the exeption of placebo, which I believe is matter over matter anyway, since mind isn't a separate substrate of reality, just what the brain does).
I recognise Tom as being just like any number of new-age gurus. The teaching is that the world is sorry and bad and hateful because we haven't recognised that we're living in a virtual world, and once we realise that (as the master has realised, God bless him and buy his books), we can shape the world into the peaceful, loving heaven-on-earth we all feel it could and should be. I've a bunch of circumstantial evidence against that. First, it's an idea that has been told and retold for thousands of years, and it seems likely that, if true, it would have transformed us into angels a long time ago. Second, the vast amount of mutually-supporting evidence for evolution through natural selection demonstrates that - like it or not - survival is largely a matter of gobbling up resources in competition with others (including gobbling up others), and life was doing that for about 12 billion years before humans began "interpreting" the world (very wrongly at first). Life itself probably arose from the same fundamental law in physics - what can persist persists. There is co-operation as well. There is emergence of higher order. Humans are, I believe, working towards a better future through history, and hopefully will continue to do so, if we don't ruin the environment first. But everything seems in keeping with what naturalistic science says is there, even if it is still quite mysterious at the quantum level and through the vista of deep time.
Sorry for such a long answer, but I like discussing these issues.
mebe84
Yes, I see that we are largely in agreement on the facts, and it is the interpretation that is different. I'd also like to emphasize that I'm not certain about my position; it just makes the most sense to me after quite a lot of research and discussion on consciousness, cognition, artificial intelligence and so on. For a long time I tended towards the dualist or mind-monist positions, but I began to have those views challenged a few years ago.
Unlike what you're saying above, I did argue that mind can exist without a brain. Your view makes more sense. But if mind can't exist without a brain, I don't understand how one can consider mind a separate or unique substrate of reality, rather than an emergent property of the brain. Where was mind for the billions of years before brains evolved?
Yes, of course, we can distinguish intellectually between the mind and brain, subjective experience and object, but we can distinguish between wetness and water, or blue and sky. We do not conclude that wetness and blue are constituents of nature, just abstractions: concepts and words we apply when matter behaves in identifiable ways. Indeed, if nothing other than the sky was blue, or nothing other than water was wet, we might never have come up with those ideas. It is because we saw that blood and oil and other liquids were wet that we invented the abstract ideas "wet" (adjective) and then the even more concrete-sounding, but imaginary "wetness" (noun). Early humans did the same with mind, I believe, as we evolved the intelligence to recognise our own thinking and that of other humans.
Mistaking this noun "mind" for something concrete - existing somewhere in space or time - led to a whole array of mistakes, believing that it continued after death (very comforting), or the modern scientific search for it outside us (brain as receiver of mind waves, OBEs, etc., which so far, as I said, have drawn a blank, a lot of bad research and more than a smattering of downright fraud).
I know very little about this science of "simulation theory" - I'd have to look into it more. I welcome any pointers.
The reason I emphasized competition over co-operation is that, so far, co-operation in the natural world has always been a strategy to increase the competitive success of the co-operators. It explains the evolution of the social insects, whose survival depends on the colony because most of them are sterile, yet who, as a whole, compete powerfully for local resources. It explains higher animals social behaviours. It explains the co-evolution of flowering plants and pollinators, the combination of prokaryotic cells with the forerunner of mitochondria to form the eukaryotes, combination of bacterium and fungus into algae, and all manner of other combinations and behavioural developments. Human co-operation appears to have caused extreme pressure on the rest of the natural world, from the extinction of megafauna through hunting to the current environmental crisis, where we have mass extinction at least some of which we know we are directly responsible for. It is theoretically possible, I believe, for all the species in a closed system, like the whole world, to evolve a co-operative system where everyone benefits, but these are always unstable systems unless something artificially stops mutation and selective pressure. Look how humans have developed agriculture - vast amounts of the biosphere are pressed into service to feed us and in turn we protect and reproduce the plants and animals we eat - but we're constantly fighting against evolving pests and diseases that eat the crops and invect our livestock, and against bacteria evolving resistance to our antibiotics.
Thanks for a stimulating discussion.
mebe84
Yes, that's right (I probably didn't make that very clear) I was saying that I *used* to believe in Mind as separate from matter, or indeed that matter was "maya" (illusion) - I got into all that yoga, vedanta & buddhism stuff in my teens. I grew up and live in the north of England, by the way. Where are you?
It was interesting and moving to read about your leaving the Christian faith and its effect on you. Eastern mysticism was my religion most of my adult life, haphazardly mixed with bits of new age philosophy. I also had a long struggle with depression. I don't know if you meant to imply yours was through the change of philosophy, but anyway, mine wasn't, just for the record. I was most depressed while I was hungry for "the Truth", a "seeker".
Becoming a materialist/atheist/naturalist a while ago was quite hard too, and I did have a certain amount of emptiness - "hopeless nihilism" would be too strong in my case - but it has brought me greater happiness and a joyous fascination with nature that beats those meditative highs hands down.
It might be that I'm getting old, too. After 30 years seeking and searching and fretting about whether I'd get enlightened, or if eastern mysticism made any sense, I've got to a place where I'm comfortable with not knowing the deepest secrets of the universe. I can still contemplate what they might be. I'm still full of wonder. I used to talk about losing the ego, and all my talk was largely egotistical nonsense. I appreciate some of the learning I got through yoga, and the health benefits are great!
I think I did misunderstand your position earlier and didn't read carefully enough - sorry - and I'm still not quite sure what it is now, except that you're uncertain as well. It is incredibly easy to misunderstand these issues - and, as you say, we have different understandings of words. "Separate", a "substrate", "concrete" (but not physical)...etc.? I suppose I have begun to try a new philosophy, where I am this body. I have a mind. I don't *have* a body. Of course, I can be both, but there are brains without minds, no minds without brains have ever been noted. Emergent phenomena are a fascinating topic to study. Example: lots of woos told me nobody could explain how birds flock, science can't explain it, it's too fast for normal communication, blah blah. Nope. Someone did more science and showed that flocking behaviour emerges from very simple rules each member applies. Another: Conway's Game of Life. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
I think there's a fine line between enjoying the mysteries of nature, like the awe of learning that slime moulds can "solve mazes", or noting the prevalence of "golden sections" and "fractal" forms in nature, and slipping into fantasies, extrapolating ideas more because they feel exciting and comforting than because they have any rationale or evidence for them. Genius is close to insanity.
I like your playlists and just watched one of Paul Stamets. Great to see someone enthusiastic and in love with his subject, but yeah, too many magic mushrooms might just damage your mental capacities rather than provide a door into the mystical realities of the universe, where strands of galaxies are the intelligent mycorrhizal synapses of God's brain, or whatever (he implied something like that). What's more, that maligned thing, reductionism, gives us plenty of evidence that narcotics do seriously damage our mental capacities. Somehow we're supposed to be seeing deeply into reality when we can't recognise our own face in a mirror or count to ten.
But there is something wonderful about co-operation, I agree. And about the evolution of complexity, the global ecosystem. I don't feel any need to conclude that God or anything like a god did it, but I have no idea what did. I'm not depressed by the competition. It doesn't seem particularly dark or evil, although it's hard to say it's ethically neutral. It is apparently just the way things are, and it leads to all this amazing symbiosis of ecosystems. But I've always been more interested in what is true than what helps me feel good. Ironically, I think it ends up making me feel better and living better, making better decisions.
I watched a couple of shortish vids of George Smoot. I agree, not very convincing, but he rambles, mumbles and is very confusing, and I've little idea how seriously he's proposing the ideas in them (one was just about the structure of the universe, but mentioned "the Designer" quite a bit, and the other one suggested the plausibility of humans living in a simulation). I don't think magic mushrooms are implicated in his case - maybe too many magic markers. ;)
mebe84
Thanks for your kind words too. It's a pleasure to meet someone civil and interesting on youtube who hasn't got an axe to grind. It's taken me a while to get back here. I'd like to be able to split my head sometimes and parallel process life - there aren't enough hours in the day for all the things I want to do. I did a lot of self-medicating with cannabis in my younger days, but never tried anything else and was always a bit scared of other drugs. Nowadays I'm thinking I'd quite like to take something more trippy to see what all the fuss is about.
I look forward to checking out some of those links on reset.me - thanks for that - and I'll probably watch more of the videos on your site. I'm intruiged by the idea of psilocybin and other psychoactives as anti-addictive, but I'm somewhat sceptical. I remember the theory was up-and-coming round about when I "retired" from counselling (a lot of my work was addictions counselling), and I watched some documentary about using ayahuasca - lots of throwing up, as I remember.
I also used to imagine death being some kind of 'trip', and was concerned to die consciously and in meditation, so as to give myself the greatest chance of Liberation, Nirvana, or maybe just a favourable reincarnation. I still hope I can face death consciously and bravely when it comes (I never liked the idea of dying in my sleep or in some instantaneous, unexpected way). Hopefully not for a good while yet.
I've never been to New Orleans, or the States at all. Love to go some day. Stay safe from that breezy weather you get over there!
lettersquash "Woo" "Hogwash"
*sigh*
I really don't like people who use those words.
Sounds like a virus
Maybe I'll jump off the Empire State Building to see if this reality is real. Or maybe jump in front of a train. I'll let you know!!!
The praises of spirit over material don't tell you that once you are a spirit you crave to have a body immediately, the reason for this is that physical strength is maintained upon quicker reincarnation.
Hardened physical beings have an obvious advantage over wispy spirit and ether.
Seedr0 what do you mean when you say physical strength is maintained upon quicker reincarnation? what is quicker reincarnation? and are you saying that spirit and body are better than just spirit? and if so what happens at death? isn't physical experience meaningless?
Does Tom's theory support the idea of reincarnation? If so, how did he come to such a conclusion? Im sooooo very curious.
Try with something less important first - push Tom. ;)
porkyo123 Someone is missing the point.
Tom Campbell or the complete absence of rigor and relevance.
Reason Reason Not sure what you are on about here.