Consciousness is that which has created all knowledge, all understanding, and all wisdom, and the phenomenological realm/domain/space/framework/reality in which all knowing, all understanding, and all wisdom exists/occurs — yet, somehow, the Western mind (supposedly) can't explain what it is. Perhaps we should then pay attention to Eastern minds and (allegedly) extraterrestrial minds? This is how someone who claims to be an extraterrestrial descendant of human DNA describes consciousness and reality:
Everything is made of consciousness. And we are constantly giving birth to the creation of the experience that we are having and that is reality.
Wikipedia, which represents human "knowledge" (epistemology) in the objective reality metaparadigm (ontology), on the other hand, has this definition of consciousness:
Consciousness is the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is. As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."
Western philosophers since the time of Descartes and Locke have struggled to comprehend the nature of consciousness and pin down its essential properties. Issues of concern in the philosophy of consciousness include whether the concept is fundamentally coherent; whether consciousness can ever be explained mechanistically; whether non-human consciousness exists and if so how can it be recognized; how consciousness relates to language; whether consciousness can be understood in a way that does not require a dualistic distinction between mental and physical states or properties; and whether it may ever be possible for computing machines like computers or robots to be conscious, a topic studied in the field of artificial intelligence.
At one time consciousness was viewed with skepticism by many scientists,[who?] but in recent years it has become a significant topic of research in psychology, neuropsychology and neuroscience. The primary focus is on understanding what it means biologically and psychologically for information to be present in consciousness—that is, on determining the neural and psychological correlates of consciousness. The majority of experimental studies assess consciousness by asking human subjects for a verbal report of their experiences (e.g., "tell me if you notice anything when I do this"). Issues of interest include phenomena such as subliminal perception, blindsight, denial of impairment, and altered states of consciousness produced by drugs and alcohol, or spiritual or meditative techniques.
In medicine, consciousness is assessed by observing a patient's arousal and responsiveness, and can be seen as a continuum of states ranging from full alertness and comprehension, through disorientation, delirium, loss of meaningful communication, and finally loss of movement in response to painful stimuli. Issues of practical concern include how the presence of consciousness can be assessed in severely ill, comatose, or anesthetized people, and how to treat conditions in which consciousness is impaired or disrupted.
It is not so mysterious, however, if starting with different ontological assumptions.
The illusion of separation / the objective reality delusion
The Western mind has made the fundamental assumption that 'self' and 'not-self' are two ontologically distinct things that exist, and thus the fundamental epistemological assumption that the experienced reality exists by itself, objectively, independently of the experiencer, rather that within the conscious entity that is experiencing "it".
The following video observes and explains this type of ontology:
Consciousness Mechanics: The Movie
[Published on Aug 8, 2014] More info here: http://iamniverse.com/aboutmovie.html
Introduction – 00:00:53
The Experience of Time – 00:03:10
Parallel Universes – 00:09:45
Reality’s Change Rate – 00:17:44
Fields of Activity – 00:24:25
States of Consciousness – 00:30:00
A Reality of Symbols – 00:37:25
The Mirror Principle – 00:42:35
The Nature of Infinity – 00:48:06
The Spacetime Illusion – 00:52:50
The Herenow Reality – 00:56:26
Existence and Nonexistence – 01:00:11
Axioms of Change – 01:06:11
The Law of Probability – 01:08:55
Continuous Discontinuity – 01:12:10
Dimensional Mirrors – 01:16:30
Trichotomies of Experience – 01:18:35
The Observing Ego – 01:27:35
Interconnectivity – 01:31:41
Cole’s Paradox – 01:34:30
Universality – 01:37:22
No one has been paid to make anything in this video. If you enjoy this movie, please show your support and buy the book here: http://iamniverse.com/store.html
If you liked the movie, you'll LOVE the book! There's much more info, including totally new concepts and new diagrams. Thank you for checking out the movie; it means the universe to me. :)
But all of this is just superstitious nonsense, Western-raised minds uncritically believe. In the West, with the rise of empirical science during the "Enlightenment" ("an era from the 1650s to the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority"), the understanding of the connection to spirit has been lost. In a sense, the West saw spiritual technology replaced by material technology. Recognizing the intellectual trap of the "Enlightenment" and the concurrent scientific revolution ("the emergence of modern science during the early modern period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology (including human anatomy) and chemistry transformed views of society and nature [...], influencing the intellectual social movement known as the Enlightenment"), the Romantics were already warning us about where these scientistic assumptions might lead:
Romanticism (also the Romantic era or the Romantic period) was an artistic, literary, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe toward the end of the 18th century and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature. It was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on historiography, education, and the natural sciences. It had a significant and complex effect on politics, and while for much of the Romantic period it was associated with liberalism and radicalism, its long-term effect on the growth of nationalism was perhaps more significant.
The movement emphasized intense emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as apprehension, horror and terror, and awe—especially that which is experienced in confronting the new aesthetic categories of the sublimity and beauty of nature. It considered folk art and ancient custom to be noble statuses, but also valued spontaneity, as in the musical impromptu. In contrast to the rational and Classicist ideal models, Romanticism revived medievalism and elements of art and narrative perceived to be authentically medieval in an attempt to escape population growth, urban sprawl, and industrialism.
Although the movement was rooted in the German Sturm und Drang movement, which preferred intuition and emotion to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, the events and ideologies of the French Revolution were also proximate factors. Romanticism assigned a high value to the achievements of 'heroic' individualists and artists, whose examples, it maintained, would raise the quality of society. It also promoted the individual imagination as a critical authority allowed of freedom from classical notions of form in art. There was a strong recourse to historical and natural inevitability, a Zeitgeist, in the representation of its ideas. In the second half of the 19th century, Realism was offered as a polar opposite to Romanticism. The decline of Romanticism during this time was associated with multiple processes, including social and political changes and the spread of nationalism.
The "Age of Enlightenment" could be thought of as the age of left brain ego supremacy, while the "romantics" were still in a more balanced state and used the intellect (left brain) to help restore hemispherical balance to the "Enlightened" ones digging their way into the bottomless pit of the scientific method. "Realism was offered as a polar opposite to Romanticism", precisely because, as we explain on The Biggest Picture, reality is actually "anti-realistic":
In analytic philosophy, the term anti-realism describes any position involving either the denial of an objective reality or the denial that verification-transcendent statements are either true or false. This latter construal is sometimes expressed by saying "there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not P". Thus, one may speak of anti-realism with respect to other minds, the past, the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the material world, or even thought. The two construals are clearly distinct but often confused. For example, an "anti-realist" who denies that other minds exist (i. e., a solipsist) is quite different from an "anti-realist" who claims that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not there are unobservable other minds (i. e., a logical behaviorist).
Many advanced researchers, such as Mark Passio, make (or have made) the mistaken assumption that anti-realism (no objective reality) means solipsism (no other minds) — a conflation perhaps resulting from a failure of imagination in regards to beyond-spacetime dimensional scaling.
"Anti-realism" is contrasted with philosophical realism:
Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that some aspect of our reality is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. Realism may be spoken of with respect to other minds, the past, the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the material world, and thought. Realism can also be promoted in an unqualified sense, in which case it asserts the mind-independent existence of a visible world, as opposed to skepticism and solipsism. Philosophers who profess realism state that truth consists in the mind's correspondence to reality.
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality and that every new observation brings us closer to understanding reality. In its Kantian sense, realism is contrasted with idealism. In a contemporary sense, realism is contrasted with anti-realism, primarily in the philosophy of science.
Contrast this antirealism/realism polarity also with the idea of subjectivism:
Subjectivism is the philosophical tenet that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience". In other words, subjectivism is the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth. The success of this position is historically attributed to Descartes and his methodic doubt. Subjectivism accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all measure and law. In extreme forms like Solipsism, it may hold that the nature and existence of every object depends solely on someone's subjective awareness of it. One may consider the qualified empiricism of George Berkeley in this context, given his reliance on God as the prime mover of human perception. Thus, subjectivism.
In his "epistemic principle of methodic doubt", Descartes made the simple observation that every single idea/concept can be doubted, except the fact of one's own existence. As he observed, "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt", or cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am", or better "I am thinking, therefore I exist"). What the "I" is, however, is not addressed by epistemology, but rather by ontology. Ontology preceeds epistemology, because knowledge can be doubted, but existence cannot. Descartes' methodic doubt, known as methodological skepticism, is thus what we employ in The Biggest Picture to arrive at (at least some of) the biggest picture. One ought to choose one's ontological starting point wisely.
Consciousness from the fundamentalist-materialist perspective
If one starts out with the fundamental ontological assumption that matter — call it a particle or a wave — is the fundamental element from which everything emerges, then consciousness can only be approached as an emergent epiphenomenon, rather than as the fundamental (non-physical) element from which energy and matter emerge. A lifetime of indoctrination can prevent the sworn materialist from taking that many epistemological steps backwards, even after the dogmatic nature of the fundamental assumptions of materialist science has been elucidated. As with any faith-based belief system, the individual's ego identifies itself with the belief system, thus a logical deconstruction of the belief system is unconsciously perceived as an attack against the self.
How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp.
Indeed, the Hard Problem is not just hard, but unsurmountable, unsolvable, unapproachable. And this is not at all surprising when examining the preposterous initial assumptions of this ontological tool, which its fanatical modern-day adherents present as "authoritative".
In his attempts at solving the Hard Problem, physicist Peter Russell sums up his findings in his masterpiece presentation The Primacy of Consciousness, in which he masterfully guides the viewer to the inescapable understanding that consciousness is more fundamental than matter:
Peter Russell - The Primacy of Consciousness
Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained [Away]
Compare the above presentation by Peter Russell to this one from Daniel Dennett, author of a book that attempts to explain consciousness from a physicalist (fundamentalist-materialist) perspective:
Dan Dennett: The illusion of consciousness
Philosopher Dan Dennett makes a compelling argument that not only don't we understand our own consciousness, but that half the time our brains are actively fooling us.
The intention of his presentation, he says, is to "shake your confidence that you know your own innnermost minds; that you are yourselves authoritative about your own consciousness". He goes on to say that "teams, armies, batallions" of 100 trillion cells, themselves unconscious, are all that the self is made of, somehow giving rise to the "illusion of consciousness". He says he's sorry if he "imposes some clarity" on the "mystery" of consciousness.
What I wanted to show you, is that scientists, using their from-the-outside third-person methods, can tell you things about your own consciousness that you would never dream of — and that in fact, you are not the authority on your own consciousness that you think you are, and we're really making a lot of progress with coming up with a theory of mind.
A physicalist theory of mind, that is. And only very minor progress, stagnated since the 1920s as they refuse to understand, or integrate the implications of, quantum mechanics.
Note also that Dennett is invited to TED (not TEDx) more than once, while it is unrealistic to expect Peter Russell to be invited. Were he to be, he'd probably receive the same treatment as Rupert Sheldrake, as the fanatical pseudoskeptics would raise their voices demanding that TED not give voice to "pseudoscience" (i.e. non-/un-"authoritative" information).
Daniel Dennett - How are Brains Conscious?
Brains are conscious. The heart is not. What does the brain do that the heart does not do? How does it come to be that brains generate inner subjective experience, the movies of our minds? Why do brains seem to be the only place where such mental magic occurs? Could a complete understanding of physical laws account for consciousness?
Dennett is trying to find an explanation for how the TV box generates the TV channels. In the subjective reality metaparadigm as described by Bashar, the brain is a receiver antenna of higher-frequency information transmitted by the Higher Mind, which it then electrochemically translates into the perception that the Physical Mind experiences. Dennett assumes that the Physical Mind is an epiphenomenological product of the inner workings of the brain, committing the fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this") by assuming that correlation implies causation.
Dennett could expand his understanding by altering his state of consciousness to degrees he likely currently considers "extreme" — the most effective method being an exogenous dose of our frequency neuromodulator, DMT, which unfailingly shatters any physicalist's ontological assumptions in less than 5 minutes.
Mind vs. brain
Though one may feel as if, or make the assumption that the mind is produced by, and thus cointained within, one's head (i.e. the brain), mind phenomena is distinguishable from physical phenomena in that, regardless of its "realness", the relevance is clearly in the experience (mind phenomena), not in the experienced physical phenomena — which, granted physicalism, are really only ever experienced as phenomena (things-as-they-are-perceived), not as noumena (things-as-they-are).
Consciousness researcher Stuart Hameroff explains his understanding of consciousness and that of the more advanced models of the brain within the objective reality metaparadigm:
Stuart Hameroff Interview: Quantum Information and the Brain
[Published on Nov 15, 2014] This interview is featured in the 3DVD set "Science and Nonduality Anthology Vol.2".
If you look at a single neuron in the human brain, says anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, you’ll find that it is much more complicated than a simple on-off switch, the kind that computer scientists are using in their attempts to build artificial intelligence. And even if they could mimic the interconnectedness of the neurons in the human brain, they would be hard-pressed to recreate actual human consciousness. For that, you would need a mechanism that connects you to the fundamental spacetime geometry of the universe.
This universal approach to consciousness depends, in large part, upon quantum mechanics. In classical physics, you see a separation between basic units like protons, neutrons and quarks. But when you view the universe through a quantum lens, the separation, the void, drops away. Underlying everything is the fundamental spacetime geometry that makes it possible for the universe to exhibit consciousness.
Hameroff explains the idea of the "Penrose formulation for objective reduction, which gives rise to consciousness, and which solves the problem of the collapse of the wave function", one of the most advanced theories of mind in the objective reality metaparadigm. Hameroff thinks the Penrose mechanism is needed to connect us to this "fundamental aspect of the universe", and that "the answer is in quantum computation and microtubules inside our neurons". From a physicalist perspective, this would be one of the leading theories as to how consciousness is generated from insentient matter (which, if you are reading this, might begin to look quite like an absurd axiomatic assumption).
The nature of consciousness, energy, and matter
Contrast the above perspective on consciousness (that of physicalism, which is a subset assumption of the objetive reality assumption), to one that starts out with a different ontological assumption — that reality exists within consciousness.
Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.
The nature of matter could hardly be put more succinctly than that. Consciousness is then simply the idea of energy expanded into the (unmeasurable) non-physical. The non-physical informs the physical, which we detect as energy and, at further lower vibration, as solid/crystallized "matter".
Energy and consciousness
Consciousness is energy is matter, at different frequencies, different densities. Consciousness exists beyond energy, just as energy exists beyond matter, i.e. creates (the manifestation of) matter. Non-physical consciousness can be thought of as existing outside of the physical phase spaces it creates — it exists in 6th density and frequencies above that level.
Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics.
The vesica pisces analogy
Consciousness creates a reflection of itself, and in a sense creates a vesica pisces, and that intersection of the reflection and itself has then a different density, and this is what we call energy. And in the energy is the vibration, that is representative of the intention of the consciousness reflecting on itself.
As the author of Teleportation.co.nz writes:
What you are is vibrating consciousness, vibrating energy, you are a resonance, a frequency, a pitch of energy. That is your unique signature vibration and whatever you define that to be, will be the experience that you allow yourself to have, as a reflection back to you. Physical reality doesn’t exist outside of you, it exists inside of you. Physical reality is just an illusion, just a reflection.
Thus the Vesica Piscis is how we create the idea of ourselves: Our senses are constantly reflecting back our seed intention. By realising this, that my reality is not outside myself, I become centered as the creator and experiencer of it. As Bashar points out:
If you see yourself in a mirror, you know it's a reflection, you know you're not over there – it's just an illusion that your image is appearing in the mirror (on the other-side of the room). You know you're not really there.
At this point its futile to prop up the Old orientation, where I passively interact with my reality, based on the ‘reflection’ making me happy, of course the reflection can NEVER make me happy until I am. The Vesica Piscis is the recognition that I am the generator of my own happiness. The to and fro of duality, finally stabilized as a trinity.
This is the activation of the 3rd strand DNA, the etheric intersection from where one can create their physical reality based around their intent-imagination.
Densities (also called "planes of existence" by the Theosophists) are frequency levels of consciousness. Densities can be conceptually related to conceptualizations of dimensionality. Densities are the "content" of the dimensions. According to Bashar, the 3rd and 4th densities are in the 4th dimension (spacetime), while the 5th density is in the 5th dimension.
In the objective reality metaparadigm, density is thought of as a property of matter, while in the subjective reality metaparadigm it is a property of space. As Alan Watts put it, matter arises from energy "through its behavior in restricted spaces; density is a property of space, not of matter".
According to Bashar, beyond 5th density there is no physicality — it's non-physical energy. In 6th density, Bashar says, exists the soul. Beyond 6th density, the next frequency range (level of consciousness) up, in 7th density, exists the oversoul.
To the right is an image provided by Bashar for his 2011-11-05 transmission The 9 Levels of Consciousness.
We have created our own densities chart based on Bashar's chart and have added greater details and a description for each level of consciousness, and added the 1st, 2nd, and 8th densities. Researcher and nonduality teacher Bentinho Massaro also adds thematic labels (noted in green) for each density:
|Frequency level||Physicality||Aspect of self||Description|
|non-physical energy||Galactic consciousness||The galactic consciousness level would be where the Aeons in the Gnostic creation myth would exist — creator gods residing in the galactic core who create experiments in the outer spiral arms of the galaxy.|
|Oversoul||The oversoul is a kind of soul of souls, which extends itself into 25,000-35,000 individuated souls. It is known in Hinduism (Vedanta and Yoga) as Paramatman. The oversoul level of consciousness corresponds to star systems in terms of scale in spacetime, while souls correspond more to stars and planets.|
|Soul||Extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings can have technologies that function at these non-physical levels, which would help explain the alien abduction experiences thousands of people (claim to) have had.|
|quasi-physical energy||Higher Mind||At electromagnetheric frequencies above 333,000 Hz exists non-physical reality, according to Bashar. Below that exists physical energy, which, its vibratory frequency further slowed down, becomes crystallized as matter.|
The Higher Mind is the non-physical 5th-dimensional aspect of self that selects one of an infinite number of possible parallel realities, all of which exist simultaneously in the physical phase space created from non-physical reality. The experience of time is not a 4th-dimensional one (a 3D point moving forward on a deterministic 4D timeline), but rather a shift in the 5th and 6th dimension (the probability space and the phase space).
(love / understanding)
|Template-level Reality||Existing around the 250-300 KHz frequency range, the quasi-physical template level, or blueprint level, of physical reality — also called the astral realm — is the chessboard, so to speak, upon which physical reality is played, and through which the Higher Mind's conceptual realm of the 5th density transmits 5th-dimensional information to the Physical Mind. During sleep, when the ego construct within the Physical Mind is dormant, one's focal point of consciousness raises towards the template-level reality, where experiences are quasi-physical and far fewer collective agreements (such as mass and spacetime processes) apply.|
|Collective Automatic Mind||Jung's collective unconscious and Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphogenetic fields are closely related ideas, derived/postulated from within the objective reality metaparadigm. At this frequency are defined the rules/agreements that allow us to experience each other inside our own (subjective-only) reality tunnel.|
|Individual Automatic Mind||Contains some of the basic repeating patterns that help set the thematic parameters of the incarnational experience, as part of the purpose of the life experience the soul chose to have. In Western philosophy, the idea of an inherent (incarnational/natural) purpose has been termed teleology. Plato and Aristotle explored this idea, as did later Kant, Jung, and Hegel. The master skeptical enquirer Terence McKenna discerned this kind of higher-dimensional energy as "the strange attractor", or "the transcendental object at the end of time".|
(self-awareness / choice)
|Physical Mind||The Physical Mind may manifest ego behavior if the ego, a culturo-linguistic personality construct of unconscious beliefs which falsely believes itself to be in charge of causality, is dominant. The natural state of being is being completely absorbed in the present moment, thus effortlessly allowing the Physical Mind to be guided by the teleological attractor toward destiny/fate (i.e. the themes the free-willed soul chose to explore in the incarnation), thus not concerning itself with how manifestation ought to happen, thus allowing the 5th-dimensional Higher Mind mirror to perform its function unimpeded of designing causal paths for the Physical Mind to experience.|
(growth / movement)
|Metabolic/biological consciousness||From unicellular prokaryota to all eukaryota (and virii, the most abundant type of biological entity), i.e. the biosphere, except homo sapiens and the cetaceans, all these expressions of consciousness are happening in the 2nd density. "Second density will simply be the expression, again, in linear terms, of the idea of consciousness that does not need to think about itself, but simply acts from an ingrained instinct." Bashar says that dolphins and whales (the cetacean nation) are "the same type of soul" as us, meaning a 3rd density sentient being — very "alien" to us but not ET. The cetaceans are the stewards of the sea just as humans are the stewards of the land.|
(beingness / awareness)
|Stone consciousness||The geosphere; those (subatomic/atomic/molecular) processes without the ability to template and reproduce. Bashar explained on 12 April 2014, in a transmission titled The Stone Speakers, how one can communicate with stone consciousness, and how ancient civilizations were able to build structures (including Stonehenge and the pyramids) using various techniques.|
The automatic minds
The automatic minds contain patterns of energy which represent indvidual themes and collective agreements that were made/created "before" the incarnational experience.
The Collective Automatic Mind corresponds to what pioneering experimental biologist Rupert Sheldrake calls morphogenetic fields and which pioneering psychologist Carl Jung called the collective unconscious:
In addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.
The hypothesis of formative causation, which I first proposed in 1981 postulates that organisms are subject to an influence from previous similar organisms by a process called morphic resonance. Through morphic resonance, each member of a species draws upon, and in turn contributes to, a pooled or collective memory. Thus, for example, if animals learn a new skill in one place, similar animals raised under similar conditions should subsequently tend to learn the same thing more readily all over the world. Likewise, people should tend to learn more readily what others have already learnt, even in the absence of any known means of connection or communication. In the human realm, this hypothesis resembles C.G. Jung's postulate of the collective unconscious. The hypothesis also applies in the chemical and physical realms, and predicts, for example, that crystals of new compounds should become easier to crystallize all over the world the more often they are made. There is already circumstantial evidence that this actually happens.
A PubMed abstract summarizes Sheldrake's idea this way:
The hypothesis of formative causation proposed by Rupert Sheldrake in 1981, affirms that morphogenetic fields play a causal role in the development and maintenance of the forms of systems at all levels of complexity and that nature is governed by habits [rather than unchanging laws]. All animals and plants draw upon and contribute to the collective memory of their species. The author suggested that memory is inherent in nature and it is transmitted by a process called morphic resonance and works through fields called morphic fields. The hypothesis of formative causation accounts for the repetition of forms but does not explain how the first example of any given form originally came into being. Despite the advances in molecular biology, morphogenesis continues to elude a molecular explanation and seems to depend on morphogenetic fields. The hypothesis of formative causation interprets many physical and biological phenomena in a way radically different than those proposed by existing theories. According to this hypothesis the conscious self can be thought of as interacting with morphic fields in order to be connected with the external environment and with the state of the body in consciously controlled activity.
The Physical Mind
In the 3rd density is the Physical Mind, the 3rd/4th-dimensional aspect of the human self that perceives that which the Higher Mind conceives. After the higher-frequency information from the Higher Mind is received by the antenna (brain), but before the resulting perception the Physical Mind experiences, both "internal" input (imagination) and "external" input (manifestation) are filtered through the belief systems and definitions within the Physical Mind, which physically correlate to the neurological pathways in the brain. Both the Physical Mind and the Higher Mind experience, but most humans on Earth are experiencing an experience of disconnection between the Physical Mind and the Higher Mind, and their Physical Minds may thus not even be aware of their counterparts' experience of reality in its own realm in the 5th density.
The Physical Mind's perception (state of consciousness) can be altered by altering/disturbing the functioning of the receiver of the higher-frequency (and thus higher-dimensional) conceptual/imaginary information transmitted by the Higher Mind. This receiver, or antenna, is the sensory cortex, or central nervous system, centered in the brain. The most interesting and safe/painless way of exploring altered states of consciousness is with entheogens — particularly with the endogenous frequency neuromodulator, dimethyltryptamine.
The Physical Mind (the perceiver) can be divided into what we have called the "unconscious" mind (which holds beliefs and definitions) and the "subconscious" mind (feelings and emotions), both of which are actually above, not below, the "conscious" thinking (often negative ego-dominated) mind, in terms of causal information flow and vibratory frequency of the electromagnetheric field or "soup" that physical reality is made of. Beliefs generate feelings which generate thoughts, and thoughts (often received from others) create and crystallize beliefs (memetic information).
Bashar Archives :: The Physical Mind and Higher Mind
From Bashar's 2007-06-24 transmission: Beyond the Secret into Abundance.
Let's examine the 3 levels that make up the Physical Mind — unconscious, subconscious, and conscious (beliefs, emotions, and thoughts):
1) Conscious mind (thoughts)
Wikipedia attempts to define "thought":
Thought can refer to the ideas or arrangements of ideas that result from thinking, the act of producing thoughts, or the process of producing thoughts. Although thought is a fundamental human activity familiar to everyone, there is no generally accepted agreement as to what thought is or how it is created. Thoughts are the result or product of either spontaneous or willed acts of thinking.
Because thought underlies many human actions and interactions, understanding its physical and metaphysical origins, processes, and effects has been a longstanding goal of many academic disciplines including psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, artificial intelligence, biology, sociology and cognitive science.
Thinking allows humans to make sense of, interpret, represent or model the world they experience, and to make predictions about that world. It is therefore helpful to an organism with needs, objectives, and desires as it makes plans or otherwise attempts to accomplish those goals.
Bashar says that thoughts are electromagnetic frequencies. Abraham-Hicks points out the nature of thinking:
Are you receiving or are you thinking? And what's the difference? Are you projecting the thought, or are you receiving the thought? And what's the difference? And we would like you for just a little while to stop being so sure that you're thinking all the thoughts, and just listen for a little while and realize that you're receiving the thoughts. Because, really, translating a vibration into a thought has to be what the definition of thinking is. Do you ever think a thought, or are you always in the receptive mode? Are you always in the receptive mode of something? Are you the thinker of thoughts, or are you the adjuster of a vibration that makes you receive the thought?
Bashar's The Voices In Your Head 2014-09-06 transmission describes the archetypal "voices in one's head" one may experience in 3rd density physical reality. Once one realizes that the "voices in one's head" are no more "the self" than the clothes one is wearing or the screen one is reading, a whole new assessment of reality can be created by defining the types of voices, such as the Neutral voice, the Critic and the Deceiver on the negative side, and the Nurturing Mother and Supportive Father on the positive side — along with the "voices" of intuition, archetypes emanating from the Collective Automatic Mind (encoded over time into the Major Arcana of the tarot card deck), higher-dimensional beings, the Higher Self, and the non-physical levels beyond that.
2) Subconscious mind (feelings / emotions)
Feeling is the nominalization of the verb to feel. The word was first used in the English language to describe the physical sensation of touch through either experience or perception. The word is also used to describe experiences other than the physical sensation of touch, such as "a feeling of warmth" and of sentience in general. In Latin, sentire meant to feel, hear or smell. In psychology, the word is usually reserved for the conscious subjective experience of emotion. Phenomenology and heterophenomenology are philosophical approaches that provide some basis for knowledge of feelings. Many schools of psychotherapy depend on the therapist achieving some kind of understanding of the client's feelings, for which methodologies exist. Some theories of interpersonal relationships also have a role for shared feelings or understanding of another person's feelings.
Perception of the physical world does not necessarily result in a universal reaction among receivers (see emotions), but varies depending on one's tendency to handle the situation, how the situation relates to the receiver's past experiences, and any number of other factors. Feelings are also known as a state of consciousness, such as that resulting from emotions, sentiments or desires.
As Bashar points out, one cannot have a feeling about anything without first having a definition. He has used the example of a brontide. Without a definition for the word, brontide induces no feeling at all. A brontide is "a sound like that of distant thunder, some of which may have seismic origins". Now the word brontide induces some kind of feeling, because there is a definition for it.
Abraham Hicks ~ Focus on how you would feel if what you want was already here
Emotion is difficult to define. In everyday speech, it is one's state of mind and instinctive responses, but scientific discourse has drifted to other meanings, but there is no consensus on a definition. Emotion is often intertwined with mood, temperament, personality, disposition, and motivation. On some theories, cognition is an important aspect of emotion. Those acting primarily on emotion may seem as if they are not thinking, but mental processes are still essential, particularly in the interpretation of events. For example, the realization of danger and subsequent arousal of the nervous system (e.g. rapid heartbeat and breathing, sweating, muscle tension) is integral to the experience of fear. Other theories, however, claim that emotion is separate from and can precede cognition.
Emotions are complex. According to some theories, they are a state of feeling that results in physical and psychological changes that influence our behavior. The physiology of emotion is closely linked to arousal of the nervous system with various states and strengths of arousal relating, apparently, to particular emotions. Emotion is also linked to behavioral tendency. Extroverted people are more likely to be social and express their emotions, while introverted people are more likely to be more socially withdrawn and conceal their emotions. Emotion is often the driving force behind motivation, positive or negative. An alternative definition of emotion is a "positive or negative experience that is associated with a particular pattern of physiological activity." According to other theories, emotions are not causal forces but simply syndromes of components, which might include motivation, feeling, behavior, and physiological changes, but no one of these components is the emotion. Nor is the emotion an entity that causes these components
Emotions involve different components, such as subjective experience, cognitive processes, expressive behavior, psychophysiological changes, and instrumental behavior. At one time, academics attempted to identify the emotion with one of the components: William James with a subjective experience, behaviorists with instrumental behavior, psychophysiologists with physiological changes, and so on. More recently, emotion is said to consist of all the components. The different components of emotion are categorized somewhat differently depending on the academic discipline. In psychology and philosophy, emotion typically includes a subjective, conscious experience characterized primarily by psychophysiological expressions, biological reactions, and mental states. A similar multicomponential description of emotion is found in sociology. For example, Peggy Thoits described emotions as involving physiological components, cultural or emotional labels (e.g., anger, surprise etc.), expressive body actions, and the appraisal of situations and contexts.
Research on emotion has increased significantly over the past two decades with many fields contributing including psychology, neuroscience, endocrinology, medicine, history, sociology, and even computer science. The numerous theories that attempt to explain the origin, neurobiology, experience, and function of emotions have only fostered more intense research on this topic. Current areas of research in the concept of emotion include the development of materials that stimulate and elicit emotion. In addition PET scans and fMRI scans help study the affective processes in the brain. It also is influenced by hormones and neurotransmitters such as dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin, oxytocin, cortisol and GABA.
See: Bashar - Emotions Defined playlist.
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.
Emotions are the backbone of all our memories. Therefore, what has the potential to fulfill or to haunt our life is the emotional reading of our memories and not the memories themselves.
Our emotions have a tremendous impact not only on our memory. Emotions are key regulators of the autonomic nervous system, which is actually in charge of the proper functioning of our body and our mind. Stress has been linked to so many serious medical conditions that it's hard to think of any disease in which stress cannot play an aggravating role.
And that's why the mind-control programs are all based on crass emotional manipulation by means of the repetition of lies and the generation of false narratives of hatred against groups, including majority groups (e.g. white people, men, conservatives or small government advocates, cisgendered people, etc).
3) Unconscious mind (beliefs / defintions)
If we really are creating the entirety of our own realities and it really all "comes down" to beliefs and definitions, how come so many people experience a lot of experiences they don't prefer? This is why it is called the unconscious mind, because the beliefs/definitions are hidden "under" the conscious mind — but the unconscious mind is really of higher frequency, closer to the template-level reality (4th density), so when "going down" to uncover unconscious beliefs, one is actually going higher up in frequency, unless one is creating the experience of going down in frequency due to believing that down is where one needs to go. Bashar points out that it is always up.
Above the Physical Mind
Above in frequency to the Physical Mind, with its 3 sublevels that make up one's personality structure, is the template-level reality, or blueprint level, through which the Higher Mind (the conceiver) transmits conceptual (5th-dimensional) information to the Physical Mind for it to experience. The ego construct/structure has convinced the Physical Mind's unconscious that it has to figure out how things need to happen (4th-dimensional causality), when in fact manifestation is fundamentally instantaneous because everything exists here and now (2nd Law of Creation), and thus 4th-dimensional causality is arranged by 5th-dimensional causality. This is what the Law of Attraction attempts to describe, often with purely 4th-dimensional language.
The chess game analogy
In the 2013-06-01 transmission A Game of Chess, Bashar explains with a chess analogy how the levels relate to each other and the Physical Mind (the 4th-dimensional self that contains the ego structure through which it experiences reality):
- the Higher Mind is analogous to the player
- the Template-level reality is analogous to the chess board
- the Collective Automatic Mind is analogous to the general rules of the game
- the Individual Automatic Mind is analogous to the individual rules of the chess piece
- the Physical Mind is analogous to the point of view and behavior/choices of the chess piece
- the Physical Mind's ego construct, or the negative part of it (negative ego), is analogous to unnecessary handicaps placed on the chess piece, to the point that it believes it is the player and thus has to "win" the game (make things happen) on its own
Densities and Ascension
As Gaia and those humans joining her ascend toward the 5th density, Bashar purports to spill the beans as to how the consciousness of (at least some of?) the positive (ascensional) timelines will look like after about 1,000 years of Earth incarnational experiences in the 4th density:
Bashar - Higher 4th density awareness (absolute knowingness, instant response-ability)
From Bashar's transmission: The 5th Law (2013-07-06) [part 4 @ 39min].
Though Bashar may be the most persuasive source for this kind of fundamental information, before Bashar, information about densities was already available from other sources such as RA - Law of One, channeled in/around 1981.
Mind is consciousness which has put on limitations. You are originally unlimited and perfect. Later you take on limitations and become the mind.
You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself.
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.
All differences in this world are of degree, and not of kind, because oneness is the secret of everything.
There is an almost sensual longing for communion with others who have a larger vision. The immense fulfillment of the friendships between those engaged in furthering the evolution of consciousness has a quality almost impossible to describe.
The degree to which your Consciousness expands, is the degree to which you understand yourself and the universe.
The world you perceive is made of consciousness: what you call matter is consciousness itself.
It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of consciousness is the ultimate universal reality.
Consciousness is not measurable with a natural formula. For consciousness this is an absolutely basic conclusion. It cannot be explained from the point of view of something else. What we see in the form of physical bodies and forces is none other than forms and different versions in the structure of space. Plato was the first to envisage the idea of timeless existence and to emphasize it—against reason—as a reality, more [real] than our actual experience…