RSS

Personal Cosmology

10 May

Following my recent posts filed under Scientific Discussion, I now turn my attention to clarifying my continuing developing cosmological world view. The last year has seen me doing more reading than in probably any year in the last 20 years. There is no doubt in my mind that there has been a purpose for this, though it is a purpose that until I started this blog, wasn’t immediately obvious to me.

It is interesting to read the latest scientific revelations and increasingly they are confirming the general ideas that the wiser sages over time have been asserting, that this thing called life is a primarily illusional thing. The nature of existence is a common pursuit for both science and religion and for a period of time, the idea of keeping any form of religious overtones out of mainstream science was a framework that worked well. However, as with most things in life, the edges are now beginning to blur with our developing technology enabling us to go beyond our limited vision and to observe that which has remained hidden from human eyes.

I have found that studying the latest scientific advances is resulting in a clearer picture for my developing spirituality and I am finding that far from being polar opposites, the developments in science are complementing and adding to my personal cosmology which is becoming both more cohesive and better structured.

My work with Brython is one that started with the desire to find out if there was any native spirituality associated with Britain. I had found that the context of the main religions was not appropriate to me (that is not to say they are not to others, this was a purely personal viewpoint). So I looked into Paganism and for an initial period, this gave me pointers as to the potential that lay within the very broad parameters of that term. Soon after that initial foray, I came across Druidry and this seemed to be “pushing the right buttons” being an ideology specifically linked to Britain. However, the further I studied, the more the realization that this particular path was one that was more subject to personal revelation than to quantified frames of reference. As an engineer by trade, for me to develop any sort of cohesive and relevant spiritual framework, it had to have its basis in more than just subjective experiences.

Fortunately, my attention was drawn to Brython and it’s public forum at Caer Feddwyd and here I found discussion that was based around facts with an idea to reconnect with Britain’s lost spirituality using the proven and speculated results of the likes, but not exclusively, of archaeology and other available scientific areas. This type of interaction suited me because it referenced back to documented evidence and it didn’t exhibit the usual flame wars evidenced elsewhere on Pagan forums where subjective disclosure is treated as fact and is generally not up for either discussion or analysis.

My dealing with Brython therefore, pointed me in a direction whereas I started to read and comprehend scientific disclosure in the likes of biology, physics and even chemistry, areas that as a student did not hold a great fascination for me at that particular period in my life.

The more I have read, the more the pieces of this spiritual jigsaw have fallen into place. I feel that I am now at a stage whereas I can now start to attempt to create a “whole” picture. I don’t believe that this picture will remain static as more revelations from both science and other associated areas will require analysis and the model will require movement to accommodate these new pieces of information. That is part of the beauty of life, it is not static and it would appear to me that part of the purpose of life is to experience and adapt to the changing circumstances and environments.

It soon became clear to me that the animistic viewpoint, one that advances the notion that all materials possess in greater or lesser degrees some degree of consciousness was one that I could relate to from both a subjective and substantiated viewpoint. This possession of the animating force evidenced in living things led me to consider through study of primarily biology, the mechanisms needed to be in place for this transference to take place. People discuss and postulate upon the nature of consciousness, but I would rather establish working mechanisms that provide a means by which to establish if such a thing has the potential to manefest, than to take for granted that it actually does.

This led to the my first post. As I stated, the idea that consciousness is seated primarily in the brain comes about by the illogical conclusion that consciousness only manefests itself through the higher functions of the brain, such as thoughts. Yet, if we look at the processes involved in creating and then maintaining these pathways and the fact that the brain is in a constant state of recycling with a chemical activity that is akin to a boiling vat of chemicals, then if one adopts the materialistic viewpoint that once that synaptive pathway has been created it is there permanently, the documented evidence disputes this. It is known that every part if the brain is recycled regularly therefore it is dismantled and then rebuilt completely. Synaptive pathways are thought to be formed by experiences, so if they are dismantled, the logical position would assume that for that same pathway to be rebuilt, that same experience must have to be experienced again precisely. Groundhog day on a colosal scale!

So, if this is an illogical ideal, then what may constitute a possible answer? One possible answer I would suggest, would be the notion that the cells, being the primary providers of information, may store these experiences like a mini hard drive for the renewal processes of the brain to draw upon and supply the blue print for the reformation of these synaptive pathways. This suggests also that these experiences are not primarily seated within the brain, but become assimilated by the whole biological body. Consciousness may be viewed as the operating system a computer uses to operate the overall system, with the independently operating cells (CPU’s) providing the user information. This information is then processed by consciousness (the operating system) through both user interfaces (I am thinking of this like a computer screen that presents information to the higher functions) and storage of that information (the unconscious aspect of consciousness used to run the programs in the background).

Therefore, I would suggest we have a possible mechanism for the interaction between consciousness and biological body.

In my next post, I then went on to speculate as to a possible delivery method for consciousness by comparing the known attributes of both consciousness and gravity. Quantum mechanics, which is used to qualify a lot of what is termed “new age” ideas, is getting quite specific about how particles seem to possess the ability to pop into and out of reality. People in the know openly state that if you think you know how quantum mechanics work, then you obviously don’t! So whilst being a fascinating subject full of possibilities, I would prefer to base my conclusions on presently quantifiable scenarios when at all possible. This is why I chose to compare attributes instead of potential make up.

Finally, I went on to suggest some potential mechanisms that may explain how the third part of consciousness, that being time, may interact with this process. The most important mechanism here was that of the zipping process of different realities. If the position that all outcomes for all interactions are an actual physical reality somewhere in this or other universes is correct, then the ability of the individual to collapse similar realities at a set rate hints at a possible mechanism for this interaction to take place in. It would appear logical that different rates of collapsing or zipping different realities together would result in different subjective experiences. Further more, if this is the case, then assuming that the rate of zipping or collapse is not a universal constant, different rates may result in different realities. Someone or something that could zip or collapse realities at a different rate to you would experience reality differently from you and may not even be real to you in the normal sense of the word.

Would that mean therefore, that their existence was a reality or not?

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 10, 2010 in Cosmological Worldview

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: