Why consciousness “must be an illusion”
by Jon Rappoport
Conventional physics has painted itself into a corner, because it assumes that all sub-atomic particles (the constituents of the brain and the universe) contain no awareness whatsoever.
Therefore, there is no reason to assume that consciousness exists. The idea that it does must be an illusion, a misnomer, a groundless superstition, a holdover from a more primitive time.
And yet, there you are, right now, reading these words, and more importantly, you are conscious of the fact that you’re reading these words.
So you must be crazy, the victim of an illusion. You must be the end-user of a stream of thought over which you have no control—a stream that “tells you” you’re conscious…in the same way a voice in your head might tell you you’re living on the moon right now.
And if you multiply this unfortunate situation by about eight billion, you have a madhouse of a planet where everyone automatically assumes they’re conscious, whereas, in fact, no one is. Everyone is a machine responding to stimuli, some of which are prompting you to say, “I’m conscious”—an entirely meaningless statement.
And if you buy all that, I have golf course memberships for sale on Jupiter.
Conventional physics has painted itself into a corner, and wants to be in that corner, because admitting there is such a thing as consciousness is tantamount to admitting that a major component of life, the major component of life, is outside any analysis of matter and energy, since it, consciousness, is not made out of matter or energy.
All sorts of drug researchers would chime in at this point: “But we knew that chemicals change consciousness by affecting the brain. Therefore, the brain is the seat of all consciousness.”
As usual, they miss the point. The fact of being conscious, regardless of the particular state, is independent of those chemicals.
Whether you’re aware of seeing buildings on a street or green writhing polka-dot creatures directing traffic, you are the one who is aware. You’re the one who knows you’re seeing buildings or creatures.
Now we’re really in deep water, because, you see, you’re not supposed to exist at all. You’re supposed to be a brain. You’re supposed to be a few trillion neurons clicking and ticking. You’re supposed to be, at best, “someone who thinks he’s someone,” or rather, “no one who thinks he’s someone.”
“Hi, I’m no one who thinks he’s someone.”
“Hi. Me too. Let’s do whatever our brains are making us do, since we can’t have freedom—another illusion.”
“Sounds good. Where do we start?”
“We wait for instructions. In the meantime, I have beer, wine, or sparkling water.”
If it occurs to you that this mechanistic view of life has some uses for those who are highly interested in mind control, you’re right. “Waiting for instructions” would be an ideal state for the reception of programming. Freedom, on the other hand, would be a non-starter.
“Test subject 465-A believes he is free. His illusion is interfering with the insertion of our package of beliefs…”
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the armies of “rational people,” who are quite sure that a rejection of all-out scientific materialism would suddenly put them in the camp of religionists. They see no other alternatives. It’s either science or a church.
Well, that’s their problem. They can only entertain two possibilities. They reveal a distinct lack of imagination.
And I suppose I should also say a word about “the DNA people.” They’re utterly convinced that DNA creates consciousness. But DNA is matter, and according to the same scientists who research the whole genetic puzzle, matter is composed of tiny particles or waves that display no sign of consciousness.
Now, admitting that what I’m writing here won’t find its way into any TED talks (the source of all cutting-edge wisdom on the planet), I should point out that the issue of consciousness has been plaguing philosophers in the West ever since the onslaught of science and technology at the end of the 19th century. And in time-honored fashion, philosophers have opted for their favorite strategy: ignore the problem, pretend it doesn’t exist, claim the problem itself is based on a confusion about…anything. About language, for example. Language, as (mis)constructed, contains words that indicate the existence of meaningless objects (like consciousness). There, all done, move along, nothing to see here.
Finally, we have another bunch of people who would happily report: “Scientists miss the mark. The brain and the universe are made out of particles that do, in fact, possess consciousness. ‘Everything is conscious.’”
They say that, and for some interesting reason, they avoid saying that the individual, the You, the non-machine non-material You, has consciousness.
They only want to posit collective consciousness. That’s their tune. They keep singing it. And if you listen to the words, they are, in their own way, trying to erase the whole notion of the individual.
Why? Because the most basic form of mind control involves denying that the individual exists. If they can put that one over, if they can sell it, they can push an agenda of: The Group is All.
This resonates quite nicely with the way the world is shaping up these days. Or rather, being shaped up. On purpose.
In case you hadn’t noticed.
Among the endless number of states of consciousness, there is certainly a collective version.The individual can enter it, and he can exit it. It’s not the be-all and end-all. It’s not a permanent paradise with closed doors.
But who would notice that fact in a world where the population has bought the idea that the conscious individual doesn’t exist, and is merely a biological machine programmed this way or that way?
Our most august intellectuals are, under the surface, arguing for the machine view. They’re mixing and matching the metaphysical and the political on behalf of a Collective Hive, because the winds that carry money and prestige are blowing that way.
They’re selling the proposition that the individual, his consciousness, his freedom, and his power are delusional dust of a bygone era.
They’re using a story about science as their primary tool.
If you want to buy that ticket and take that ride, understand where it’s going to take you.
You can watch any number of talks where the speaker mentions “the ground of all being,” “collective wisdom,” “universal consciousness,” “the universe gives you permission,” and the audience snaps it up like pure sugar. It’s very interesting. Stimulus-response. Bell rings, dog drools. This is a form of programming whose time has come—if people want to surrender and drift into a passive state.
And leave behind their own individual power.
“Tonight, on the cosmological news channel, the individual isn’t conscious and doesn’t exist, the brain is all, and we’re all the same thing together. Brought to you by The Great Cheese Glob in the Sky, coming to theaters soon…”
“But first, let’s talk about Nature. As we know, we’re all part of Nature. Being an individual is a delusion that keeps us separate from Nature. And did I mention Nature? Order your manual that tells you how to think and talk about yourself as part of Nature and you’ll receive this free set of twelve dinner knives and a box of doilies reproduced from Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh’s personal collection, inscribed with his famous environmental statement: “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.”
A real humanitarian, the Duke is.
Life as matter and matter only: the fraud
“The refutation of philosophic materialism is as easy as stepping off the sidewalk. An astonishing amount of professional nonsense has been written to obscure this fact. Physics has boxed itself in. Its pronouncements about the constituents of matter and the so-called laws of motion result in a series of absurdities only a charlatan could defend.”
– (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)
Recently, I was opted into an ongoing email debate about the nature of consciousness. I have no idea how I got there, but here is an edited version of what I wrote to the group of scientists and scholars:
Conventional physics posits sub-atomic particles and/or waves as the basic constituents of all matter in the universe. This would include the human body and brain.
Nothing in these particles/waves is said to have consciousness, sentience, awareness, a capacity of knowing, such as you have right now as you read these words.
Therefore, the brain does not have such consciousness, since it is entirely composed of particles/waves that have no consciousness.
If there is any consciousness to be found anywhere, it is not in the brain.
Understand: I’m not pushing an esoteric definition of consciousness here. I’m talking about you sitting there, knowing that you understand the meaning of these words. I’m talking about the conscious capacity to grasp meaning.
I’m also talking about the capacity to make choices. Why? Because if the brain is composed of particles/waves that have absolutely no freedom, but merely behave according to laws of motion, then, if the brain is the progenitor of all human action, there is no reason to posit freedom of choice as a fact.
Therefore, in the view of conventional physics, you are sitting there reading these words, but you have no consciousness that you understand them, conscious understanding of meaning is a delusion, and you have no freedom of choice at all. We are all engaging in gibberish, pretending to ourselves that we are aware and free, when we are not.
Don’t even bother to wonder whether you should respond to what I’m writing; you have no choice.
For a longer treatment of this argument, read my “Interview with a dead Einstein.”
As a reporter on matters of science and medicine for 30 years, I’m well versed in scientists’ “maybe-could be-possible” statements about issues around which they are groping:
“Consciousness remains a mystery, yes, but we are getting closer to answers every day…some illuminating work is coming out of studies of fish and grasshoppers…mapping the brain will provide a new level of understanding…it is the job of science to keep pushing back the curtains of superstition…”
And my favorite: “Of course the brain is the source of consciousness. The proof of that is the fact that we are conscious; and where else could awareness be coming from?”
Unassailable logic, if you’re a fan of tautologies and circular reasoning.
Do you know what you’re reading right now as you sit there? Or is that conscious knowing simply a grand delusion, by which something inside your skull ‘pretends to be aware’?
Are “knowing” and “understanding meaning” only translatable as “particles in motion?”
Through the aether, I’m attempting to contact the authors and signers of the US Constitution. I want to inform them that all their mumbo-jumbo about human freedom was a vain attempt to circumvent the laws of matter in the universe. What idiots they were. On the other hand, they can now rest easy. Serenity is never having to worry about the future.
“No one is free. No one ever was. No one ever will be. Don’t worry, be happy, as happy as a rock or a sidewalk.”
And remember: I’m not really asking you whether you understand these words on your screen. I’m asking if you KNOW you understand them. If your honest answer is yes, where does that knowing come from? The sub-atomic particles/waves in your brain? Really?
Since when does conventional physics attribute knowing and consciousness to quarks and wavicles, which are the exclusive constituents of your brain?
The whole notion of “emerging consciousness” as a function of evolution, via puddles of amino acids in mud or hot sea-vents, is a titanic waste of time, as long as the ultimate composition of all matter is the sub-atomic particle/wave, which is non-conscious.
Thus ends the argument. QED.