The prevailing scientific paradigm that suggests life’s emergence is a random occurence devoid of meaning is being challenged by cutting-edge findings. Some adults are already benefitting from the insights. From what I can see, the majority remain unaware.
A fabulous and thoughtful piece. The idea that the Universe is a single, gigantic organism, with star dust and all cosmic elements being parts of this organism, aligns with holistic views that propose every part is interconnected and integral to the whole. Whilst this might offer a sense of unity and interconnectedness, such a view may lack practical utility, especially in scientific or empirical terms. It's a philosophical or metaphysical interpretation rather than a framework for scientific exploration or technological advancement. Sadly, I am a fan of the scientific method.
I think you would suggest as a corollary that free will does not exist. I would suggest firstly that the unit of consciousness is not neurocentric but found in a cellular matrix that includes glia cells. Even if free will might be an illusion created by our brain's processing, it is still real. I cannot align with the deterministic view that all events, including human actions, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.
I prefer the idiom "condemned to be sentient" which highlights the existentialist perspective, where consciousness and sentience bring about a recognition of one's existence and the burdens or responsibilities that come with it. This emphasises the inescapable nature of consciousness and its existential weight, resonating with existentialism themes, where humans are seen as fundamentally free and responsible for their choices in an inherently meaningless universe. However, unlike Sartre et al., I think the collective consciousness of the human population replaces the formal structure of religion.
Hello Kevin! thank you and I appreaciate your comment. My stance on free will: I agree with you about the no- free-will idea not being practically useful and routed in reality. As I believe that we are co-creators of reality, I think in broad strokes it is a case of if you believe in free will you have it, if you dont believe you have it - you dont. In what I also have a suspicion of: if you realise that you are co-creating / part of collective consiousness - you obtain much more free will . IF you are stuck in the evolution was a random fluke/ eyes closed/ materialistic world view than the free will thing is there in terms of choosing your reactions to events, but it is then barely or not there when trying to shape events. For that one needs to submit to the divine, collective consiousness or whatever you wanna call it unconditionally, to obtain full free will. it's a paradox. Hope I was clear..
Hi Anna, Thanks for the inciteful and prompt response. I would love to comment on much of it, but now, short on time, I want to talk about an intriguing paradox you raise in your analysis of free will. The act of concluding that "free will does not exist" – if you believe it- is an exercise of free will. I would suggest that in analysing, deliberating, and finally reaching the conclusion that free will is an illusion, you are inherently exercising your ability to choose, think independently, and make decisions based on your reasoning and understanding.
This paradox presents a compelling argument in the debate about the existence of free will. It suggests that the mere act of making a reasoned choice, even to deny the existence of free will, is a demonstration of free will in action. I know this adds a layer of complexity to the discussion, as it challenges the notion that our choices and beliefs are entirely predetermined or the result of external factors beyond our control or, indeed, co-created.
I think the essence of my argument is the inherent contradiction in denying free will through a process that seems to require the exercise of free will. Unless, of course, you think truth is subjective by suggesting that what matters is not whether free will objectively exists but rather what one believes about its existence. This viewpoint has a profound implication that truth, in this context, can be subjective.
Your viewpoint aligns with a more relativistic or subjective approach to truth, emphasising individual perception and belief rather than objective reality. This is reminiscent of a Jordan Petersonesque cop-out. I am not a fan of psychologists or social (sic) scientists. In philosophical terms, this aligns more with perspectives that view truths as constructed or interpreted through individual experiences and beliefs rather than as absolute and unchanging. I am on the fence here as it reminds me of Russell’s "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong," which succinctly captures a fundamental aspect of my philosophical outlook. Although of course, truth exists independent of beliefs.
I would love to comment on your other statements of fact but have run out of steam. I hope my babbling makes some sense.
Kevin, to be clear: I believe in free will and some sort of agency, I am not denying it. What I mean when I said 'The act of concluding that "free will does not exist" – if you believe it' is a pragmatic realying of things that are practical and applied in real life , not theory. In reality - if you believe life just happens to you and you have no control whatsoever, that is how your reality will be for you. I talk about real observable things. There is a truth in every field and subject, a truth that is observable practical and applicable, however many want grand theories and intellectualisation, which in my humble experience takes one away from truth which is the characteristic of the free will or no free will debate. The realness of the answer usually depends on what is the context, who wants to know and why. This is not the same as Jordan Peterson individual perception, which is wrong. Real truth (which is non debatable and not dependent on perception) is only revealed to those with sincirity and seriousness of the question, who *really* need to know , not as a matter of curiosity and entertainment but as a matter of urgency. Everything else, I feel, is speculation and intellectualisation.
I love how your writing includes multitude of references -- exactly what is needed after you sparked my curiosity Anna! Thank you for sharing your thoughts!!
Amazing article ! Being involved in this quest for search and spreading the message in my own way in the business world, I fully relate to your Vision and Mission. It is crucial to help our young generation to think outside of the box, or more precisely within their own box to discover their own genius, light and inner God. Quantum, Neuroscience, Epigenetics and Complexity Theories open the door to new understanding of what was before the ownership of religions and spirituality. At last both realms start converging, and our inner experience stands in the middle. Thank you for your article and for your willingness to help the future generation unlock their full potential.
A fabulous and thoughtful piece. The idea that the Universe is a single, gigantic organism, with star dust and all cosmic elements being parts of this organism, aligns with holistic views that propose every part is interconnected and integral to the whole. Whilst this might offer a sense of unity and interconnectedness, such a view may lack practical utility, especially in scientific or empirical terms. It's a philosophical or metaphysical interpretation rather than a framework for scientific exploration or technological advancement. Sadly, I am a fan of the scientific method.
I think you would suggest as a corollary that free will does not exist. I would suggest firstly that the unit of consciousness is not neurocentric but found in a cellular matrix that includes glia cells. Even if free will might be an illusion created by our brain's processing, it is still real. I cannot align with the deterministic view that all events, including human actions, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.
I prefer the idiom "condemned to be sentient" which highlights the existentialist perspective, where consciousness and sentience bring about a recognition of one's existence and the burdens or responsibilities that come with it. This emphasises the inescapable nature of consciousness and its existential weight, resonating with existentialism themes, where humans are seen as fundamentally free and responsible for their choices in an inherently meaningless universe. However, unlike Sartre et al., I think the collective consciousness of the human population replaces the formal structure of religion.
Hello Kevin! thank you and I appreaciate your comment. My stance on free will: I agree with you about the no- free-will idea not being practically useful and routed in reality. As I believe that we are co-creators of reality, I think in broad strokes it is a case of if you believe in free will you have it, if you dont believe you have it - you dont. In what I also have a suspicion of: if you realise that you are co-creating / part of collective consiousness - you obtain much more free will . IF you are stuck in the evolution was a random fluke/ eyes closed/ materialistic world view than the free will thing is there in terms of choosing your reactions to events, but it is then barely or not there when trying to shape events. For that one needs to submit to the divine, collective consiousness or whatever you wanna call it unconditionally, to obtain full free will. it's a paradox. Hope I was clear..
Hi Anna, Thanks for the inciteful and prompt response. I would love to comment on much of it, but now, short on time, I want to talk about an intriguing paradox you raise in your analysis of free will. The act of concluding that "free will does not exist" – if you believe it- is an exercise of free will. I would suggest that in analysing, deliberating, and finally reaching the conclusion that free will is an illusion, you are inherently exercising your ability to choose, think independently, and make decisions based on your reasoning and understanding.
This paradox presents a compelling argument in the debate about the existence of free will. It suggests that the mere act of making a reasoned choice, even to deny the existence of free will, is a demonstration of free will in action. I know this adds a layer of complexity to the discussion, as it challenges the notion that our choices and beliefs are entirely predetermined or the result of external factors beyond our control or, indeed, co-created.
I think the essence of my argument is the inherent contradiction in denying free will through a process that seems to require the exercise of free will. Unless, of course, you think truth is subjective by suggesting that what matters is not whether free will objectively exists but rather what one believes about its existence. This viewpoint has a profound implication that truth, in this context, can be subjective.
Your viewpoint aligns with a more relativistic or subjective approach to truth, emphasising individual perception and belief rather than objective reality. This is reminiscent of a Jordan Petersonesque cop-out. I am not a fan of psychologists or social (sic) scientists. In philosophical terms, this aligns more with perspectives that view truths as constructed or interpreted through individual experiences and beliefs rather than as absolute and unchanging. I am on the fence here as it reminds me of Russell’s "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong," which succinctly captures a fundamental aspect of my philosophical outlook. Although of course, truth exists independent of beliefs.
I would love to comment on your other statements of fact but have run out of steam. I hope my babbling makes some sense.
Kevin, to be clear: I believe in free will and some sort of agency, I am not denying it. What I mean when I said 'The act of concluding that "free will does not exist" – if you believe it' is a pragmatic realying of things that are practical and applied in real life , not theory. In reality - if you believe life just happens to you and you have no control whatsoever, that is how your reality will be for you. I talk about real observable things. There is a truth in every field and subject, a truth that is observable practical and applicable, however many want grand theories and intellectualisation, which in my humble experience takes one away from truth which is the characteristic of the free will or no free will debate. The realness of the answer usually depends on what is the context, who wants to know and why. This is not the same as Jordan Peterson individual perception, which is wrong. Real truth (which is non debatable and not dependent on perception) is only revealed to those with sincirity and seriousness of the question, who *really* need to know , not as a matter of curiosity and entertainment but as a matter of urgency. Everything else, I feel, is speculation and intellectualisation.
I love how your writing includes multitude of references -- exactly what is needed after you sparked my curiosity Anna! Thank you for sharing your thoughts!!
thank you Svitlana!
Amazing article ! Being involved in this quest for search and spreading the message in my own way in the business world, I fully relate to your Vision and Mission. It is crucial to help our young generation to think outside of the box, or more precisely within their own box to discover their own genius, light and inner God. Quantum, Neuroscience, Epigenetics and Complexity Theories open the door to new understanding of what was before the ownership of religions and spirituality. At last both realms start converging, and our inner experience stands in the middle. Thank you for your article and for your willingness to help the future generation unlock their full potential.
Axel, thank you for your support. I am happy to see more people are realizing the power of this.