By September 9, 2015 20 Comments Read More →

Mind Before Matter: How Consciousness is Making a Comeback Through Scientific Exploration

Phillip J. Watt, Contributor
Waking Times

A person’s worldview has always been shaped by their culture and period in history. If we grew up in a tribal setting, we would have a remarkably different perspective then in modern society. Well, that’s what we might assume anyway, but as it turns out there are more similarities then we might think.

Back in the tribal days, most indigenous cultures were embedded in spirituality. They had their own unique myths, stories and symbols which captured their spiritual conception of reality, however much of it rested on some very similar ideas that permeate across many of these ancient human societies, as well as some current cultures and disciplines too.

The most notable example is that they understood the material world to be a manifestation of a deeper order, one that is non-physical in nature. They had many words for this, including God, Mind and Spirit, to name but a few. Humanity then transitioned through different stages of ecology, so this idea might first appear to be disproven by our recent journey utilising the scientific method. However, as some of you would know, this conception of reality is making a comeback through our rational investigation of the universe.

The field? Why, quantum physics of course.

In our secular societies, science has reigned supreme in terms of logically describing the way the world works. Yet anybody who looks beyond the lens of the mainstream consensus will know that ‘scientific materialism’ has been the philosophy that has dominated how emerging evidence is interpreted. In fact, this belief has turned out to be unscientific and unproven, which has increasingly brought the credibility of the scientific establishment into question. Simply, their philosophical bias has been exposed.

Materialism has therefore hardened into dogma, particularly for its epic failure in explaining what consciousness is, where the line between a living and non-living entity is, and the peculiar world of quantum physics. In fact, as I explained in a previous article, there are now many scientists who are calling for an end to this hypocrisy so that we can evolve our scientific models of reality into a post-materialist era which embraces consciousness studies at the core of how we investigate the world we live in:

Not all scientists have fallen victim to the materialist rhetoric. For example, in 2014 “A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness” was made by around 100 scientists. Another example in the same year was the creation of a “Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science … to visualize what an emerging scientific view may look like”, which was developed by eight respected scientists, including Rupert Sheldrake. Simply, both groups have called upon the scientific community to face their hypocrisy and transcend their philosophical bias.

What this means is that for the last couple of centuries consciousness was believed to be a manifestation of matter, but that theory is most likely wrong. The new era of science is working with the idea that consciousness is deeply embedded in the fabric of existence. The most infamous example is the double-split experiment, in which a conscious observation collapses wave-like, probabilistic states of a particle into an actual particle of experience. This was originally thought to be reserved for sub-atomic particles, like electrons, which seemed to act like waves or particles depending on whether we’re observing them or not, but more recently molecules have illustrated that they’re a part of this phenomena too.

For a list of experiments which illustrate that mind manifests matter, see here and here.

Another brain-bending possibility that quantum physics explores is that the present moment is actually an amalgamation of the past, present and future. In essence, both the past and the future influence the present. Instead of there being an ever-present now, there is an ever-past-present- future- now, as evidenced by ‘weak measurements’. To quote the theoretical physicist, Dr. Fred Alan Wolf:

“In my view all possible futures are in continual contact with each and every present moment, kind of like the way a piece of a hologram (made from the waves reflecting off all points on an object) contains a whole picture”

Yep, it’s a mind-fuck.

The New Path for Science? Embrace the Comeback of Consciousness

An interview with Dr. Fred Alan Wolf (aka Dr. Quantum)

Dr. Fred Alan Wolf is a physicist, writer, and lecturer who earned his Ph.D. in theoretical physics at UCLA in 1963. He continues to write, lecture throughout the world, and conduct research on the relationship of quantum physics to consciousness.

He is the National Book Award Winning author of “Taking the Quantum Leap”, as well as many other books. He has also starred in feature films, such as Dr. Quantum in “What The Bleep Do We Know”.

The Verdict?

The philosophy that replaces materialism by honouring the inherent mentality of the universe can be called either idealism or panpsychism. As stated in Wikipedia: “Panpsychism agrees with idealism that in a sense everything is mental, but whereas idealism treats most things as mental content or ideas, panpsychism treats them as mind-like, in some sense, and as having their own reality.”

Whatever specific metaphysics speaks to you most, it is undeniable that collectively we need to let consciousness make its destined comeback into humanity’s worldview. This irony shouldn’t be lost on any of us.

The reality is that quantum physics, as well as the (pseudo)science of parapsychology, clearly show in experimental terms why mind or consciousness needs to be reincorporated into our model of the universe, yet the scientific establishment is still stubborn to do so. Why particular scientists, however, continue to disrespect their responsibility to be objective and unbiased is simple to understand; they’re human, and like every human, we’re highly conditioned into ‘believing’ the societal and professional paradigms that we’re emerged in.

But not all scientists have fallen victim to this hypocrisy. As Rupert Sheldrake has explained in an interview for the Redesigning Society series, many of his colleagues understand the picture that dances beyond the farce of a solely material world, it’s just they don’t admit it publicly in fear of it adversely impacting their careers. Simply, that’s the philosophical and political impacts of a human institution at work.

So there are scientists who don’t just ‘say’ they’re engaged in a genuine search for truth, they ‘are’ doing it. Dr. Wolf is one of them. Let’s finish off with one of his provocative quotes:

“We must conclude that an observer lurks somewhere. I like to think of it as the mind of God or the vacuum state of the universe – as capable of making all the observations needed to keep the universe looking more or less as it does. The fact that we can also observe things and see quantum physics consequences, just means that we are sharing God’s mind.”

Please note: This article is part of the Redesigning Society series. Over the past weeks, this series has presented a range of expert perspectives on the current state of societal affairs, as well as the collective changes we desperately need both philosophically and practically. Details of upcoming and past guests and topics can be viewed here. You can subscribe to The Conscious Society Youtube Channel to get early access to each interview in the series. 

About the Author

Phillip J. Watt lives in Australia. He best identifies as a ‘self-help guide’. His written work deals with topics from ideology to society, as well as self-development. Follow him on Facebook or visit his website.

**This article was originally featured at The Mind Unleashed.**

Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with friends and family…

  • Arcanek

    God is a personification of the unknown. The god that can be named is not the true god.

    • BDBinc

      Your god is a personification of the unknown.

      • Arcanek

        Your reading comprehension is as poor as your knowledge of formal logic. I don’t have any god, nor does my statement imply anysuch thing. You don’t even understand your own language. And why haven’t you backed up your false assertions from the other discussion with any proof? You seem to have just ducked the issue again and bailed.

        • BDBinc

          As you can see its your words, so your criticism of your words would be your poor knowledge of formal logic.
          It begs the question how you defined God based on formal logic .Hahaha:) you are too funny tigger.

          You, as know it all, told us what you believe your god is.You tried to define god then you denied god.
          hahahaha god your use of “formal logic” is amusing. It is by using your stellar formal logic skills you believe god is a personification of the unknown? hahahaha
          Talk about false assertions.
          Thanks again “Mr I know it all’ for defining God for us fools.

          • Arcanek

            No, those are not my words. I wrote ‘God is a personification of the unknown.’ How do you equate the unknown with my beliefs? I did not define god based on formal logic. Formal logic has nothing to do with the unknown, you imbecile. And, once again, you bring up the know it all crap that you started. And you have still not quoted where I ever said that, because I didn’y: it was you.

            Also, apparently, ‘the god that can be named is not the true god’ is far beyond your pathetic comprehension. What an imbecile you are.

          • BDBinc

            “God is a personification of the unknown”

            They are your words( you big furry liar).

            Yeah sure tigger OK sure and I’m an imbecile X2 (or however many times you need to name call).

            Apparently you can personify the unknown and then call the personification ‘God’.
            You are too funny for words… and so very clever… WOW tigger -the unknown reduced to the personified… which is God( but you deny God so its not your God. its someone else’s God that you are defining for them (but not naming =ducking assertions) .

          • Arcanek

            ****”God is a personification of the unknown”

            ***They are your words( you big furry liar).

            I know those are my words. You are the one who is having difficulty with words, not me.

            ***Yeah sure tigger OK sure and I’m an imbecile X2 (or however many times you need to name call).

            Let’s see: you call me abig furry liar (because you couldn’t comprehend the bullwinkle reference) yet you object to name calling.

            ***Apparently you can personify the unknown and then call the personification ‘God’.

            You can, but that was not the meaning, which eluded you. Do you speak English? You don’t seem to understand syntax or context. I was merely stating my functional definition of a word. Let me restate this, although I doubt you will get it this time, either: the concept of god is a personification of the unknown. This does not imply that i believe in, nor disbelieve in god.

            ***You are too funny for words… and so very clever… WOW tigger -the unknown reduced to the personified…

            No, your reading skills are those of a freshman in high school. You don’t understand syntax. Try taking a reading is fundamental course.

            *** which is God( but you deny God so its not your God.

            You lost your train of thought here. Apparently, focusing long enough to type causes you to become confused.

            *** its someone else’s God that you are defining for them (but not naming =ducking assertions) .

            Speaking of ducking, why have you still refused to bacl your assertions? And, if you disagree with my definition of god, what is yours? Why are you ducking out on that one?

          • BDBinc

            Thanks Tigger!
            (This time you forgot the word ‘imbecile’ in your wonderfully enlightened comments 😉
            I guess that fundamentally I was not as lucky as you in “bacl” in high school.
            PS Your definition/naming of God Tigger was very funny hahaha.

          • Arcanek

            You still haven’t figured out the bulwinkle regerence, have you? And I see once again, you have just ducked out when you can’t back up a single one of your erroneous ramblings. all you do is ridicule, since you can explain nothing, and have yet to reply with any conunter argument when your errors are pointed out. Probably because it goes right over your head.

          • BDBinc

            You are oh so clever that your “bullwinkle” name calling ridicule and erroneous ramblings went right over my head. So very clever .
            I can not explain anything.
            A fool and imbecile am I.

          • Arcanek

            It’s not that I’m clever. It’s that you’re stupid. But your problem isn’t that you are so stupid. It’s that you’re so proud of it. And once again, you fail to address any of the argument and resort to ridicule.

          • BDBinc

            Yes sure I agree with you ” its not that you are clever ”
            ” Its that I am stupid” and my problem isn’t that I’m “so stupid” its that I am so proud of being so stupid and subject you to ridicule.

            Thank you for your words of wisdom and kindness.

          • Arcanek

            All you have left is sarcasm, the last refuge of the witless. How sad for you.

          • BDBinc

            “All you have left is sarcasm, the last refuge of the witless ” ( & labelled by you an “imbecile, fool, stupid, so stupid, name caller and that I was so stupid but I was ridiculing you” !!?? talk about lack of logic) …
            Now my quoting you and agreeing with you is sarcasm so that you can name call more and argue more with yourself .
            It is sad indeed.

          • Arcanek

            I never said name caller, you just made that up. You didn’t have anything else to retort, And now you try to claim you are agreeing with me?

          • BDBinc

            Read your own quotes back I was agreeing with you and you kept arguing with yourself but mostly insulting. Sad stuff indeed.

          • BDBinc

            Sad for who tigs?
            Its your “witless” unkind words I quoted and your incorrect assumption.

            Oh that you cannot see the irony of your projections.
            I guess with your tendency to projecti its sad for you.

          • Arcanek

            Well, that certainly took you a long time to have a second thought. And i wrote sad for you. Are you not even aware of who that meant? And I’m the witless one in your view? And your comment aboutprojection is nothing more than ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ And it took four days for you to spit that out after your original reply.

          • BDBinc

            But you see its not sad for me that all you could do is insult (and try to argue with yourself).

      • BDBinc

        …watch insults and an argument go on and on about his own words!

Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.