Mike, fantastic piece. I love how colorfully you took on Barlow’s ridiculous “we are everywhere and nowhere.” Bravo!
You may like this article I penned in 2017:
“Google, channeling Barlow’s “we are everywhere and nowhere,” challenged the right of Canadian courts to issue an injunction that had effect in jurisdictions other than Canada. The Canadian Supreme Court quickly dispelled this, holding that: “Where it is necessary to ensure the injunction’s effectiveness, a court can grant an injunction enjoining conduct anywhere in the world. The problem in this case is occurring online and globally. The Internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates—globally.” In four short sentences, the Supreme Court of Canada turned Barlow’s “absence of borders” into a mandate for taking technology-neutral action in defense of its territorial.”
Read twice. Thank you. Reminded me for some reason of this… Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can. John Wesley
Here’s where Mike misses the boat:”So he (omniscience) sits. He has to. Not out of mercy — out of need. The creation is generating something he cannot access from above: what it is like to be in it. Experience. The inside of things. The universe he built is producing consciousness, and consciousness is the one thing omniscience cannot replicate, because it requires standing somewhere.” Aside from imputing genitalia to ‘“omniscience,” (“he”), Mike assumes “the big O” must meet human requirements to experience consciousness: i.e. “standing somewhere.”
To begin with, nobody has any convincing, comprehensive answers to the questions of what consciousness is and where it takes place. From experience we know only that it exists as a consequence of our existence which in Mike’s vernacular translates into “standing somewhere.” In O’s case, given the wondrous existence of the universe O created, one must allow for the possibility that different rules apply, namely omniscience experiences consciousness by “standing everywhere.” (The very definition of “omniscience.”)
Human consciousness requires the existence of a human brain, the pinnacle of an evolutionary process fashioned by the universe, in turn created by O. At first blush, the brain seems an improbable source of something as sublime as consciousness. Hold the three or so pounds of grayish, wrinkled, blood-infused, electrically charged protoplasm in the palm of your hand and ask yourself, “Could an organ like this produce nine Beethoven symphonies?” Improbably, one did.
The next question is, “How?” By organizing a series of electromagnetic (EM) impulses in a network consisting of SOURCES of EM energy generated by chemical means (neurons across the synapses with supporting Glial Cells ), CONDUITS of EM energy (neural circuits, dendrites), RECEPTORS of EM energy (other neurons) which REACT to said energy. How such a mechanism relying on inorganic processes (chemistry and electro-dynamics) to create a massively parallel, adaptive biological informational processing system that produces the sublime attributes of consciousness may forever remain a mystery. We can only know for certain that it does.
The universe reveals itself through action. Conservation (e.g. of energy/matter, momentum, rotation) is a fundamental property of the universe. REPRODUCTION is another, without which life cannot exist.
So what is the brain but the result of the universe reproducing itself in biological form? Both are intricate networks consisting of sources of energy, conduits of energy and receptors of energy which react to said energy. Google “photographs of electromagnetism in the human brain and the universe” and you will find that they exhibit a remarkable similarity. Both systems are intricate, self-organizing and interdependent. The energy of the universe nourishes the energy of the brain.
In short, the brain is the analog of the universe. If the brain, however improbably, is conscious, shouldn't we assume the universe is revealing itself to be conscious too, on a much grander scale? It is reasonable to consider whether consciousness reflects a deeper feature of reality rather than a cosmic anomaly. If the brain exhibits intelligence at the level of Beethoven, imagine the intelligence possessed by the universe!
Might not the brain’s quest for artificial intelligence echo a universal compulsion to reproduce itself?
And might not the two consciousnesses interact when the brain is in a relaxed, meditative, receptive, altered state of consciousness? There’s a tidy and satisfying circularity to that interdependence: the universe nourishes the brain with energy and the brain nourishes the universe with its thought derived from experience, while the universe supercharges the brain’s thought processes. (Musicians — especially jazz improvisers - artists, writers, athletes ‘in the zone’ report this phenomenon.) Symbiosis, another universal property.
The common denominator of the exchange between the two being INTELLIGENCE, which the universe has revealed thus far as the supreme attribute of the evolutionary process through human domination of the planet. (Intelligence is the only known biological development capable of achieving global-scale environmental control and meta-evolutionary influence. In that sense, intelligence represents the most causally powerful innovation observed to date.)
In sum, the universe is neither unconscious nor “Indifferent” as Mike asserts elsewhere, but engages to the extent that humans choose to do so. This is essentially the message of most religions which admonish us to “seek divinity within.” “Omni-science” is also where science and religion meet.
The universe has produced consciousness and intelligence in us. It is at least plausible that these are not anomalies but expressions of something more pervasive — that consciousness reflects a deeper property of reality itself. If so, then what we call intelligence is not manufactured from inert matter but participates in a larger field of intelligence. When we quiet ourselves — in creativity, insight or contemplation — we do not import something alien; we align ourselves with something already there. This is not proof. It is a way of reading the fact that the universe is intelligible, generative, and capable of knowing itself through us.
Inevitably, this conclusion leads to the summa question: does individual consciousness persist after death? Perhaps the answer lies in another universal attribute: CONSERVATION. We’ll see.
I wonder, do you believe in god, or was this just a convenient and knowable way to relate your philosophy to us? Certainly a better vehicle than Bari Weiss. Your mind is a wonder. Thanks for sharing it with us.
BlackStar a great farewell
Bowie! Not Clapton
Have you read Vallis, The Transmigration of Timothy Archer, and The Divine Invasion all by Philip K Dick?
I bring this up because there is a person that Philip Dick met in these books that's totally not David Bowie as described above.
This works because it refuses the view from nowhere.
Incarnation isn’t about being right. It’s about standing somewhere and accepting the cost.
If God learned anything, it’s that love only exists where fear is possible.
Blessed be the somewhere.
Mike, fantastic piece. I love how colorfully you took on Barlow’s ridiculous “we are everywhere and nowhere.” Bravo!
You may like this article I penned in 2017:
“Google, channeling Barlow’s “we are everywhere and nowhere,” challenged the right of Canadian courts to issue an injunction that had effect in jurisdictions other than Canada. The Canadian Supreme Court quickly dispelled this, holding that: “Where it is necessary to ensure the injunction’s effectiveness, a court can grant an injunction enjoining conduct anywhere in the world. The problem in this case is occurring online and globally. The Internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates—globally.” In four short sentences, the Supreme Court of Canada turned Barlow’s “absence of borders” into a mandate for taking technology-neutral action in defense of its territorial.”
sovereignty.https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/340256-canadian-ruling-dictating-googles-worldwide-search-results-is/
That's a keeper for rereading in moments of need.
Read twice. Thank you. Reminded me for some reason of this… Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can. John Wesley
Here’s where Mike misses the boat:”So he (omniscience) sits. He has to. Not out of mercy — out of need. The creation is generating something he cannot access from above: what it is like to be in it. Experience. The inside of things. The universe he built is producing consciousness, and consciousness is the one thing omniscience cannot replicate, because it requires standing somewhere.” Aside from imputing genitalia to ‘“omniscience,” (“he”), Mike assumes “the big O” must meet human requirements to experience consciousness: i.e. “standing somewhere.”
To begin with, nobody has any convincing, comprehensive answers to the questions of what consciousness is and where it takes place. From experience we know only that it exists as a consequence of our existence which in Mike’s vernacular translates into “standing somewhere.” In O’s case, given the wondrous existence of the universe O created, one must allow for the possibility that different rules apply, namely omniscience experiences consciousness by “standing everywhere.” (The very definition of “omniscience.”)
Human consciousness requires the existence of a human brain, the pinnacle of an evolutionary process fashioned by the universe, in turn created by O. At first blush, the brain seems an improbable source of something as sublime as consciousness. Hold the three or so pounds of grayish, wrinkled, blood-infused, electrically charged protoplasm in the palm of your hand and ask yourself, “Could an organ like this produce nine Beethoven symphonies?” Improbably, one did.
The next question is, “How?” By organizing a series of electromagnetic (EM) impulses in a network consisting of SOURCES of EM energy generated by chemical means (neurons across the synapses with supporting Glial Cells ), CONDUITS of EM energy (neural circuits, dendrites), RECEPTORS of EM energy (other neurons) which REACT to said energy. How such a mechanism relying on inorganic processes (chemistry and electro-dynamics) to create a massively parallel, adaptive biological informational processing system that produces the sublime attributes of consciousness may forever remain a mystery. We can only know for certain that it does.
The universe reveals itself through action. Conservation (e.g. of energy/matter, momentum, rotation) is a fundamental property of the universe. REPRODUCTION is another, without which life cannot exist.
So what is the brain but the result of the universe reproducing itself in biological form? Both are intricate networks consisting of sources of energy, conduits of energy and receptors of energy which react to said energy. Google “photographs of electromagnetism in the human brain and the universe” and you will find that they exhibit a remarkable similarity. Both systems are intricate, self-organizing and interdependent. The energy of the universe nourishes the energy of the brain.
In short, the brain is the analog of the universe. If the brain, however improbably, is conscious, shouldn't we assume the universe is revealing itself to be conscious too, on a much grander scale? It is reasonable to consider whether consciousness reflects a deeper feature of reality rather than a cosmic anomaly. If the brain exhibits intelligence at the level of Beethoven, imagine the intelligence possessed by the universe!
Might not the brain’s quest for artificial intelligence echo a universal compulsion to reproduce itself?
And might not the two consciousnesses interact when the brain is in a relaxed, meditative, receptive, altered state of consciousness? There’s a tidy and satisfying circularity to that interdependence: the universe nourishes the brain with energy and the brain nourishes the universe with its thought derived from experience, while the universe supercharges the brain’s thought processes. (Musicians — especially jazz improvisers - artists, writers, athletes ‘in the zone’ report this phenomenon.) Symbiosis, another universal property.
The common denominator of the exchange between the two being INTELLIGENCE, which the universe has revealed thus far as the supreme attribute of the evolutionary process through human domination of the planet. (Intelligence is the only known biological development capable of achieving global-scale environmental control and meta-evolutionary influence. In that sense, intelligence represents the most causally powerful innovation observed to date.)
In sum, the universe is neither unconscious nor “Indifferent” as Mike asserts elsewhere, but engages to the extent that humans choose to do so. This is essentially the message of most religions which admonish us to “seek divinity within.” “Omni-science” is also where science and religion meet.
The universe has produced consciousness and intelligence in us. It is at least plausible that these are not anomalies but expressions of something more pervasive — that consciousness reflects a deeper property of reality itself. If so, then what we call intelligence is not manufactured from inert matter but participates in a larger field of intelligence. When we quiet ourselves — in creativity, insight or contemplation — we do not import something alien; we align ourselves with something already there. This is not proof. It is a way of reading the fact that the universe is intelligible, generative, and capable of knowing itself through us.
Inevitably, this conclusion leads to the summa question: does individual consciousness persist after death? Perhaps the answer lies in another universal attribute: CONSERVATION. We’ll see.
My momma said to get things done, you better not mess with Major Tom.
The molecules of David Bowie's body exerted a field of anti-reality that kept reality from imploding on itself. Now that's gone.
I wonder, do you believe in god, or was this just a convenient and knowable way to relate your philosophy to us? Certainly a better vehicle than Bari Weiss. Your mind is a wonder. Thanks for sharing it with us.
The answer to your question is in the essay.
I'm kind of reminded of Lennier's speech on Creation in Babylon 5, if you want to look that up.
The personas accumulate. Each one is God trying another somewhere and learning what the universe looks like from there.
OK, I will reread 🙏
Yea but wait.... there"s more.....