C

Caryl Browne

VermillionGoldfish
I thought you expressed very important ideas. There clearly are times when it is more helpful to limit the scope of our inquiries. However, since meaning is context or scale dependent, findings at one level may not apply to a deeper perspective and may even be misleading, obscuring connections into more fundamental levels. This applies not just to the physical and biological sciences; our failure to recognize its relevance to all social interactions is sadly noted in our failure to learn from history!

Thank you for your generous comments. Your essay detailed what, decades ago, led to my realization for the need of a new way of thinking about the world I was experiencing. The most difficult obstacle was my own resistance to seeing what seems so obvious now. Properly understood, the world is a classroom within which we learn, not just what the world is, but who this “You” is who is experiencing the world! A world that seemed devoid of meaning has become central to my pursuit for truth! A universal theology or scientific theory is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary.

Vladimir Rogozhin

Thank you for your meaningful comments. With respect to my statement regarding why the brain cannot answer ontological questions about the universe: The brain, housed in a physical body, is part of the universe and as such, and here I agree with Max Tegmark, is a mathematical structure.

The thrust of my essay is to suggest and support the idea of a new way of thinking about how the universe we (observer) experience came about: from a Unified Mind to a split-dualistic mind. Mind is not part of the universe, it is the Source of our experience, it is not material in nature and, of course, is definitely not the brain as I stated. Within the universe the brain would be seen as processing information generated by mind.

To be sure, these ideas require a much, much deeper and thorough discussion. This essay barely touches the surface of the magnitude of this idea. My old way of thinking never afforded meaningful answers to the personal, social, political, environmental etc. issues confronting me. However, since interpreting my experiences from this framework, the “world” is very meaningful and helpful and I understand my role in it: To be in the world but not of the world.

A paradigm provides the questions for what should be asked, what phenomena should be observed, and how the observations are to be interpreted. Within our current paradigm it is assumed that the human brain, a physical biological organ, is the center of intelligence. Like the universe it is studying, it is a mathematical structure. Despite the astonishing discoveries scientists have made, there remains many unanswered foundational questions, some of which can’t even be asked within this paradigm. Since the brain’s mode of thinking is perception and perception is interpretation based on beliefs, never things as they really are, there must be a state other than perception. While the brain processes information about mathematical structures in the universe, it is not the source of this information. The source is not a mathematical structure within the universe, nor is the scientist, the one observing the universe and without whom nothing would meaningfully exist, a mathematical structure. The Truth cannot be perceived, however, the interpretation of our perceptions can lead us towards, or away from truth, depending on our purpose. This essay will demonstrate why the question of the universe’s ontology can, indeed must be addressed. It is the most important fundamental question profoundly impacting the lives of everyone experiencing the universe. Within the appropriate framework we can explore these questions, bringing us closer to truth.

Download Essay PDF File