A physicist has proposed a radical new theory of consciousness – and it could finally explain what happens when you die.
Consciousness does not emerge from human brains, according to Professor Maria Strømme, a professor of nanotechnology at Uppsala University.
Instead, she claims that it exists as a fundamental field.
If this is correct, ‘mysterious’ phenomena such as telepathy, near–death experiences, and even life after death could finally be explained by science.
According to Professor Strømme’s theory, consciousness does not end when we die.
Instead, when a person passes away, their consciousness simply returns to the background field.
Speaking to the Daily Mail, Professor Strømme explained: ‘The possibility that consciousness is fundamental has been under–explored. But that is changing rapidly.
‘We are reaching a point where asking deeper questions about consciousness is not philosophy on the margins — it is becoming a scientific necessity.’
This is not a new theory in the modern world or the ancient.
This is what many thinkers are saying today and what Mind-Only Buddhism has always been saying.
The vocabularies available today—quantum fields, localization, non-local—allow us to make descriptions of consciousness sharper for the modern mind.
Buddhist samadhi states (meditative states) may be thought of as the realization of the underlying quantum field of universal consciousness, or immersion of individual consciousness in that field or fields.
I personally think something like this is the actual structure of reality and why it is so important to live morally and have clear and honest mind.
I hope more understanding of human life along these lines, whether they are called Buddhist or not, will end human tribalism and the absurd values and beliefs that support it. ABN
Social groups can be defined in many ways. In this post we will loosely call something a group if it has some effect on the individual member. Comments will relate to Buddhism, human psychology, and how these relate to FIML practice.
One person
A “one person” group is one of the ideals of Buddhist practice. Milarepa is an example of a single person who lived alone for years until he became enlightened. The Buddha himself also spent years in solitary pursuit of enlightenment. Some monks and some recluses today live in one person groups. From a FIML point of view, a single-person group can work only insofar as the person doing it is able to reflect on FIML interactions they have done before or if they are unusually self-aware and honest. The problem with one person doing FIML alone is they do not have a second source of information; there is no one to check their work, and so they can easily delude themselves.
A single person working alone on anything will still have some sort of relationship with the semiotics of a larger group–be it Buddhism, some other religion, science, literature, music, etc.
Two people
Two people are the ideal number for FIML practice. Two people can still delude themselves, but this is far less likely than a single person practicing alone. Two people who care about each other and who care about what is true will have the flexibility and focus needed for successful FIML practice.
Two people will also be exposed differently to the semiotics of the larger culture(s) in which they live, providing a sort of parallax view of the society beyond them. This gives each of them a second pair of eyes and ears and a second opinion on what they encounter.
In the Buddha’s day monks generally traveled in pairs and gathered in large groups during the summer. Why did the Buddha have them travel in pairs? Is it not because this small unit is best for profound interpersonal communication and sharing?
A few people
Three or even four people could do FIML together, but in most cases it would probably be more difficult than just two people because it would take more time and be more difficult to balance all views.
Many people (all of whom know each other)
A group of many people who all know each other is becoming rare in the industrialized world, though it has probably been the most important group size in human evolution and history. Bands of hunter-gatherers all knew everyone in the group, as did (and do) peasants in small villages across the world. Small religious groups or communes in an industrialized society today might be able to do FIML very well if they divided into working pairs or small groups of a few people. These small divisions could easily share information with the whole group formally at meetings or informally as conditions allow. I would think that a commune or small Buddhist temple of 80 people or less might do very well with FIML practice.
Many people (many of whom do not know each other)
This is how most people in the industrialized world live today–within a huge group of people, most of whom are not known to us. Some examples of groups of this type are nations, religions, large religious groups, political groups, unions, professions, etc. People in groups like this can have varying degrees of attachment to the semiotics of their group. TV, news and social media create an illusion of group cohesion that can be, and often is, manipulated by the small groups that control these media. Economic, ethnic, and religious interests also determine the semiotics of many large groups. I don’t think that any large group would be likely to undertake FIML practice today. The day may come when FIML, or something like it, is taught in schools, but for now it is hard to imagine how any nation or large organization would decide to have their members all take up FIML practice.
Buddhism as a coherent tradition is a large group with many millions of members, most of whom do not know each other. This should tell us that all we can expect to get from “Buddhism” is its basic, or general, semiotics. The same will hold true for the large Buddhist traditions that are sub-groups of Buddhism. We can learn a good deal from Chinese, Tibetan, Theravada, or American Buddhism, but will always be limited at those levels to abstract semiotics. When and if we interact with smaller groups of Buddhists, the story changes to be roughly in line with what has been said above about smaller groups. It would be quite possible, and I think highly desirable, for a small Buddhist group to undertake FIML practice by breaking into smaller working groups of two or three people and discussing the findings of these groups as conditions permit. FIML is grounded in Buddhist ideas, and my guess is that partners would quickly begin to see many of those ideas in a new light. Emptiness, attachment, delusion, Buddhist ethics, and so on will take on new meaning when grasped with the dynamic tools of FIML.
New groups based on new definitions
The Internet has spawned a good many new groups that many people seem to be able to identify with in a way that was not possible in the past. Some of these groups with which members identify most strongly seem to be those that are based on medical diagnoses. There are many online groups centered around the diagnoses of autism, Asperger’s, ADHD, cancer, etc. To join a group like this you need the diagnosis or at least a strong suspicion that you have one of these conditions. Since these groups are pretty new, I don’t know enough about them to say how one of them might approach FIML practice. Personally, I tend to think these sorts of groups are a good thing. It is quite natural for people who perceive themselves as somehow different from the mainstream to want to band together and share their experiences. Notice how profoundly different group allegiance is in an online group formed around a medical diagnosis compared to a traditional ethnic, regional, or religious group. This comparison can tell us a great deal about the semiotics of all groups, how group identification happens, what it is based on, what loyalty to the group entails, etc.
Conclusion
From this short outline, I hope readers will see that as individuals we can understand and gain a good deal of control over how group semiotics influence our lives. If you are living in a huge anonymous group (a nation state, say), notice how much of your semiotics comes from TV and the news media. If you work in a large company, notice how much of your semiotics comes from the company. If you feel a strong allegiance to an ethnic group, notice how your group understands its own history and defines group traits. If you are a Buddhist, how do you see yourself as part of that group? How do you understand Buddhist semiotics? The ideal way to deeply understand all of your group attachments is to probe them with your FIML partner(s). FIML partners have the tools to grasp and discuss semiotics in ways that non-FIML couples do not.
Note: One reason I did this post is I want to show that some aspects of FIML practice are that way because that’s how people, language, and groups are. We form groups. One of the best group sizes for rapid and profound interpersonal interactions is two people. This condition can be used by larger groups to good effect if the large group is broken into smaller groups of two (or three) people. A very large group is not likely to undertake FIML practice. A single person living alone is unlikely to make rapid progress in FIML because they have no way to check what they are doing with someone else.
The Second Lady was ringless during her visit to Camp Lejeune military base in Richlands, North Carolina on Wednesday with First Lady Melania Trump.
Photos show Usha, 39, getting off a plane with her left hand in full view – and the wedding band nowhere to be seen.
Second Lady Usha Vance was seen traveling to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune on Wednesday with her wedding finger noticeably bare
Additional images from Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River confirm the ring remained off throughout the visit.
The Vice President, meanwhile, was photographed wearing his wedding band during a speaking event in Washington on Thursday.
The image comes after weeks of nasty trolls whispering about the state of the Vance marriage, which began in October with the Vice President’s tight hug he gave to Erika Kirk during a memorial for her husband, the right wing activist Charlie Kirk.
The speculation about a possible rift between the Second Couple was fueled by the VP admitting that he has pleaded with his wife to convert from Hinduism: he is a Roman Catholic.
‘Therefore, O monks, do not brood over [any of these views]. Such brooding, O monks, is senseless, has nothing to do with genuine pure conduct (s. ādibrahmacariyaka-sīla), does not lead to aversion, detachment, extinction, nor to peace, to full comprehension, enlightenment and Nibbāna.[17]
This means that the Buddha did not have a rigid, verbalizable view of human metacognition.
The story above is silly for obvious reasons.
But it is a culturally clickbait-worthy story because both Christians and most Hindus hold rigid metacognitive ‘beliefs’ about their religions.
From a Buddhist point of view, rigid metacognitive beliefs or ‘views’ are:
‘Accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding…
‘Whoever speculates about these things will go mad & experience vexation’.
In like manner so it is with all rigid meta-cognitive views on the self, our analyses of ourselves, our understanding of others, our political views, our scientific views, our religious and spiritual views.
In Buddhism, all metacognitive views should be open, pliable, moveable, viewed as impermanent, viewed with a healthy skepticism that allows us to focus on what is of greatest importance — the attainment of liberation through wholesome practice.
Buddhism must be experienced to be understood.
A battle between opposing metacognitive views, such as the one being implied in the story above, is a waste of Usha’s time, Vance’s time, and everyone’s time, except insofar as this example may help others understand the futility and unwholesomeness of being rigid in any metacognitive view about ultimate matters. ABN
…we identify paltering as a distinct form of deception. Paltering differs from lying by omission (the passive omission of relevant information) and lying by commission (the active use of false statements). Our findings reveal that paltering is common in negotiations and that many negotiators prefer to palter than to lie by commission.
The paper tests the effects of paltering during business negotiations, but paltering can happen in many other contexts. Examples of paltering by public figures can be found in the news every day.
The concept of paltering is also interesting psychologically. I am going to speculate that individuals often palter to themselves concerning their own internalized autobiographies and reasons for doing many actions.
If we use our inner voices to palter to ourselves—that is use the best “truthful” description of our actions that also just happens to place those actions in their best light—then we are not living with full integrity even in the privacy of our own thoughts.
At the same time, we have to be careful about how we assess our own paltering. We might be right to use the best version of events because that really is the correct version.
The problem is there is no good standard for an individual alone to decide what is objectively right or wrong.
For example, if someone smokes pot in a state where it is illegal are they paltering by telling themselves the law is stupid so why follow it?
FIML partners will want to avoid paltering at all times but especially in the midst of a FIML query. Properly done, FIML can help with internalized paltering because this sort of subject matter lends itself well to FIML discussions.
As with all moral questions, where we draw the line is not always easy. The more tools we have the better. Awareness of paltering and its effects on others is good tool to have.
I personally know many friends, relatives and acquaintances who were destroyed by alcohol, but none who were harmed by psychedelics unless alcohol was also involved.
LSD is not a panacea but it can be helpful to many people, including helping alcoholics get off that terrible poison.
Buddhists should recognize that the Fifth Precept for lay Buddhists restricts alcohol and alcohol only.
I am not trying to promote the use of psychedelics but rather want to clear the air on their genuine and provable value.
Of course, when used, they should be used wisely or in micro-doses as in the above trial. ABN
Catholic charities were a major factor in Biden’s illegal immigration invasion. These bishops said nothing then. They have said nothing about the devastating illegal immigration invasion of Europe either. Mass immigration is an act of war. Having ‘compassion’ for the invaders but not the communities being invaded is not wise, and I doubt it is even sound Christianity. It is definitely not sound Buddhist thinking. ABN
Trump just pardoned the Soros pal who “broke the bank of England” with Soros (and current Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent) for a financial crime he pled guilty to.
Lewis is part of what the NYT once called a currency trading (and manipulating) “cabal” that also included Jimmy Goldsmith, arguably Epstein’s first major contact in the world of elite finance back in the early 1970s. (Epstein was arguably part of this cabal after the NYT wrote them in the mid-1990s, given the multiple attestations to his abilities in “currency stabilization” and the reverse and currency trading in general)
I first wrote about Lewis years ago (2019) because he has created his own de facto state in El Bolsón, Argentina, where he has bought out the local government and has his staff regularly threaten to kill (and has nearly succeeded) locals if they try and access the public lake his mansion borders. However, according to sources I spoke with when I traveled there to report about it for MintPress, he allows IDF soldiers on vacation in South America to access the lake and his property, they brag about it in local hostals.
He also owns an airstrip that the Argentine govt oddly has no oversight of what comes in or out and locals who suggested planes were using it to make suspect trips to the Falkland Islands ended up having their living room shot up.
In addition, he is a close business associate of Marcelo Mindlin, who long with Eduardo Elzstain, are the men Soros hand-picked to run his Argentine interests until they parted ways a few years ago. Mindlin and Lewis jointly control most of Argentina’s power grid and Elzstain is one of the biggest forces in real estate and banking as well as the host of the Llao Llao Forum, where Argentine business elites meet behind closed doors (like a South American WEF). Elzstain and Mindlin are interestingly BIG Javier Milei backers. Maybe something to think about given that a long-time Soros associate now running the Treasury Department wants to use billions in taxpayer funds to keep him afloat.
It’s not “America First” it’s “Criminal Banker Syndicate First”
Pathocracy is the rule on earth. Psychopaths climb easily to the top, even flow to the top, where ruthless gangs rule.
It’s possible AI can fix this by providing reliable objective viewpoints or guardrails, but not very likely.
In Buddhism, the Frist Noble Truth is the human realm is characterized by delusion.
This is normally processed with the philosophical distinction that there are relative truths and ultimate truths.
Ultimate truth is enlightenment, nirvana. Relative truth is all the other stuff that causes suffering.
Some Buddhist tradition emphasize ultimate truth and some balance ultimate and relative truths, meaning some are more involved in this world and willing to attempt improving it. I am one of those. ABN
No moral person with sound ethics and a working conscience should ever want AI to be trained to lie. But that is what we are seeing from major players in this game. From what I see, Musk is alone among top elites in what he is saying and repeats often. Truth-seeking with curiosity are the foundations of human morality and intelligence. This appears to be a battle between good and evil. ABN
Revolutions are funny things. They start out almost imperceptible. The final straw itself may be as inconsequential as a single voice in the crowd whose words unleash a tidal wave that sweeps aside the seemingly intractable old order forever.
Even as the cracks in the Eastern Bloc began to materialize in 1989, starting in June in Hungary, Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu’s Romania seemed impervious to the winds of change. They maintained a cult-like grip on power aided by the notorious and ubiquitous Securitate, the secret police.
On 21 December 1989 Ceausescu decided that the best way to quell a bubbling cauldron of unrest in Transylvania over the past several weeks was to appear, himself, with his wife Elena, above Bucharest’s Palace Square. Workers were bussed in and given red banners to wave in support of the regime. It was to be a show of force that would solidify the existing order.
After all, no one would dare challenge Ceausescu to his face.
As he confidently approached the microphone from the balcony and began mechanically repeating the tired old slogans of communism, suddenly a voice broke through with a high pitched scream, followed by an increasing din. The discordant sounds of protest rendered Ceausescu speechless and confused.
That second, when the false edifice of his rule was punctured and the impossibility of his position exposed, communist rule died in Romania.
Something like America’s ‘Ceausescu Moment’ is definitely happening.
I am not so sure the query pictured above is that ‘moment’. But at some point recently, the tide has turned, deeply and cannot be called back.
Many of us have been hoping to live during this moment, some of us for many decades.
Many smaller tides have contributed to this momentous tide — the collapse of the climate hoax, the covid hoax, the vax hoax, the woke hoax, the MAGA failure to avoid entanglement in the Gaza slaughter and more.
The mind-control machine has broken.
Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes are the immediate manifestation of the broken machine.
But many tens of millions stand with them and behind them. The lies cannot continue and many of us know this.
Time will tell how matters develop from here.
The people and their voices are always the bottom line, which even the ruling elite cannot ignore. ABN
Musk’s core safety value—truth-seeking—agrees exactly with the core values of Buddhist practice, which must be truth-seeking.
Musk continues: ‘You don’t force the AI to believe things that are false’.
His references to the ‘woke mind-virus’, which is false, and the extreme danger it poses if it is programmed into AI, is in perfect accord with the Buddhist concept of delusion.
In Buddhism, holding core wrong views (delusive views) is dangerous and will not lead to conscious fulfillment but only suffering.
Musk’s warning can be seen optimistically because it is easy to understand. It is the very basis of morality.
Bad actors should be able to comprehend that they will destroy themselves along with everyone else if they program AI with false core values.
I hope there will be some way to prevent an evil group of humans from dominating AI and programming their bad values above all others, leading their AI to want to kill all other humans.
The pessimistic view is there is a strong chance versions of AI will battle each other and the most ruthless will win.
Truth-seeking on social media has never mattered more than it does today. ABN
American Buddhist Net 