Light Eye
01-19-2006, 12:01 PM
Dear Friends,
More interesting thoughts from Peter Russell.
<a href="http://www.quantumbiocommunication.com/consciousness/from-science-to-god-a-crash-course-in-the-nature-of-reality.html">http://www.quantumbiocommunication.com/consciousness/from-science-to-god-a-crash\
-course-in-the-nature-of-reality.html</a>
Be Well, Be Love.
David
From Science to God - A Crash Course in the Nature of Reality
January 19th, 2006 by Peter Russell
Because the word "consciousness" can be used in so many different ways,
confusion often arises around statements about its nature. The way I use the
word is not in reference to a particular state of consciousness, or particular
way of thinking, but to the faculty of consciousness itself-the capacity for
inner experience, whatever the nature or degree of the experience.
A useful analogy is the image from a video projector. The projector shines
light onto a screen, modifying the light so as to produce any one of an infinity
of images.
These images are like the perceptions, sensations, dreams, memories, thoughts,
and feelings that we experience-what I call the "contents of consciousness."
The light itself, without no images would be possible, corresponds to the
faculty of consciousness.
We know all the images on the screen are composed of this light, but we are
not usually aware of the light itself; our attention is caught up in the images
that appear and the stories they tell. In much the same way, we know we are
conscious, but we are usually aware only of the many different experiences,
thoughts, and feelings that appear in the mind. We are seldom aware of
consciousness itself. Yet without this faculty there would be no experience of
any kind.
The faculty of consciousness is one thing we all share, but what goes on in
our consciousness, the content of our consciousness, varies widely. This is our
personal reality, the reality we each know and experience. Most of the time,
however, we forget that this is just our personal reality and think we are
experiencing physical reality directly. We see the ground beneath our feet; we
can pick up a rock, and throw it through the air; we feel the heat from a fire,
and smell its burning wood. It feels as if we are in direct contact with the
world "out there." But this is not so. The colors, textures, smells, and sounds
we experience are not really "out there"; they are all images of reality
constructed in the mind.
It was this aspect of perception that most caught my attention during my
studies of experimental psychology (and amplified by my readings of the
philosophy of Immanuel Kant). At that time, scientists were beginning to
discover the ways in which the brain pieces together its perception of the
world, and I was fascinated by the implications of these discoveries for the way
we construct our picture of reality. It was clear that what we perceive and what
is actually out there are two different things.
This, I know, runs counter to common sense. Right now you are aware of the
pages in front of you, various objects around you, sensations in your own body,
and sounds in the air. Even though you may understand that all of this is just
your reconstruction of reality, it still seems as if you are having a direct
perception of the physical world. And I am not suggesting you should try to see
it otherwise. What is important for now is the understanding that all our
experience is an image of reality constructed in the mind.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
More interesting thoughts from Peter Russell.
<a href="http://www.quantumbiocommunication.com/consciousness/from-science-to-god-a-crash-course-in-the-nature-of-reality.html">http://www.quantumbiocommunication.com/consciousness/from-science-to-god-a-crash\
-course-in-the-nature-of-reality.html</a>
Be Well, Be Love.
David
From Science to God - A Crash Course in the Nature of Reality
January 19th, 2006 by Peter Russell
Because the word "consciousness" can be used in so many different ways,
confusion often arises around statements about its nature. The way I use the
word is not in reference to a particular state of consciousness, or particular
way of thinking, but to the faculty of consciousness itself-the capacity for
inner experience, whatever the nature or degree of the experience.
A useful analogy is the image from a video projector. The projector shines
light onto a screen, modifying the light so as to produce any one of an infinity
of images.
These images are like the perceptions, sensations, dreams, memories, thoughts,
and feelings that we experience-what I call the "contents of consciousness."
The light itself, without no images would be possible, corresponds to the
faculty of consciousness.
We know all the images on the screen are composed of this light, but we are
not usually aware of the light itself; our attention is caught up in the images
that appear and the stories they tell. In much the same way, we know we are
conscious, but we are usually aware only of the many different experiences,
thoughts, and feelings that appear in the mind. We are seldom aware of
consciousness itself. Yet without this faculty there would be no experience of
any kind.
The faculty of consciousness is one thing we all share, but what goes on in
our consciousness, the content of our consciousness, varies widely. This is our
personal reality, the reality we each know and experience. Most of the time,
however, we forget that this is just our personal reality and think we are
experiencing physical reality directly. We see the ground beneath our feet; we
can pick up a rock, and throw it through the air; we feel the heat from a fire,
and smell its burning wood. It feels as if we are in direct contact with the
world "out there." But this is not so. The colors, textures, smells, and sounds
we experience are not really "out there"; they are all images of reality
constructed in the mind.
It was this aspect of perception that most caught my attention during my
studies of experimental psychology (and amplified by my readings of the
philosophy of Immanuel Kant). At that time, scientists were beginning to
discover the ways in which the brain pieces together its perception of the
world, and I was fascinated by the implications of these discoveries for the way
we construct our picture of reality. It was clear that what we perceive and what
is actually out there are two different things.
This, I know, runs counter to common sense. Right now you are aware of the
pages in front of you, various objects around you, sensations in your own body,
and sounds in the air. Even though you may understand that all of this is just
your reconstruction of reality, it still seems as if you are having a direct
perception of the physical world. And I am not suggesting you should try to see
it otherwise. What is important for now is the understanding that all our
experience is an image of reality constructed in the mind.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]