WHAT IS LIFE? #15 Tim Freke and Eben Alexander

[@karenslaughing]

Loved how they finished the talk! With respect and So much appreciation and interest in what each other is saying. And why the bashing out of these theories is so vitally important.

[@BBB_2408]

Thank you for your conversation and your books, mr. Tim Freke and mr. Eben Alexander. From Russia with Love :)

[@bob40179]

I really enjoy these discussions Tim. Meaningful discussions are hard to find in this modern world of ours. I often use these to comfort me into sleep.

[@marcomasi2066]

Great to see that someone in the "non-materialist scene" finally got it that in quantum mechanics there isn't anything like the supposed "role of the consciousness of the observer" as one hears almost everywhere. Recognizing this is a great step forward. I liked also the distinctions and clarity of mind, concepts of Tim. Something rare. Having said that (leaving aside QM - I believe it plays a role nevertheless, even though completely different than that), where I don't see any contradiction is conceiving consciousness as fundamental and being there from the beginning and, at the same time, also being emergent and individually growing in matter by a process of evolution. Being myself a 'spiritual emergentist' as well, does not prevent me from taking the two points of view, the top-down and bottom-up processes, the fall and the raising, the idealist and the spiritualist perspective, God as the end and the beginning of the process being all as complementary instead of mutually exclusive. IMO there is no contradiction and this is the paradigm that best explains the evolutionary reality we observe. At any rate, this was one of the best discussions about consciousness, science and reality I have ever listened too. So, it seems that there is hope for humanity. 😊

[@TimFreke1]

Thanks Marco. So pleased you enjoyed our conversation. Great comments.

[@willtheelectrician8184]

Thank you Tim.

[@geoffbowcher3189]

Both these guys have very interesting insights.

[@Seanus32]

'We are born to experience and give God a good ride' - this is my line. I usually just state the first 5 words as the 2nd part is 'tricky' but it works for me.

[@TimFreke1]

Yes ... I know what you mean. The 'good ride' is tricky. We mustn't underplay there very real issue of the terrible suffering of life. I now avoid this sort of line for this reason.

[@Seanus32]

@@TimFreke1 In a paradoxical way, suffering is part of that good ride. I intended it to mean something like a rollercoaster ride. From suffering we can regenerate, enabled by willpower and certain processes and we can sustain that through being careful and disciplined. Those 3 terms again ;) It would be nice to discuss 'consciousness elevators' but here is not the place to do so.

[@annawray2220]

Cor I love how you’ve challenged Eben!

[@normaodenthal8009]

Another wonderful discussion. It’s not turtles, but gardens all the way up and down, in space and time. The microbiome is our internal garden, and the earth is our garden, within the greater garden of the universe. The evolution of consciousness is a journey from the Garden of Eden and unconscious innocence, to the garden of Gethsemane, knowing good and evil, leading to the Resurrection garden and conscious innocence. Another way of looking at the evolution of consciousness is to see it as a process of differentiation, in which the self expands by distancing itself from aspects of its identity. These aspects, which were part of the subject, then become objects of conscious awareness, thereby increasing consciousness by decreasing identification with the objects of consciousness. In a way, it amounts to an expansion of self by self negation, where the dark shadows of the self are dissolved in the increasing light of consciousness. But the evolution is not just individual, it is collective. The mind moves from filter to interface as it expands in us. There is no separation. God is both beginning and end. The Alpha is the Omega.

[@TimFreke1]

Lots of interesting ideas here Norma. Gonna join the ICU philosophy group? kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4XZpoJppsqWbsk

[@nugley]

Ah, Tim, just far enough ahead of the pack to still keep in touch. We paused this in the nugley lounge for comment and conversation, with no shortage of stories and theories. Thanks again!

[@maker2002]

Tim, i hear your point on the bottom up evolution of consciousness- but I have to add that in your theory the 'potentiality' would essentially imply consciousness, because if you were explicitly imply that 'potentiality' is not consciousness then you fall into the same loop as physicalists , which is trying to explain how you boot up consciousness from something which is not conscious. So whatever you may want to call the 'potentiality' in philosophical terms - in terms of science you need to explain whether the underlying 'potentiality' is itself conscious of not (and therefore just unconscious matter).

[@TimFreke1]

Sorry - i saw your comments in reverse order so have already replied to a later one. I disagree with your point here but do think we need to explain the evolution of consciousness which i believe i can.

[@waterwomanknits]

I love these potent discussions based on lived experiences to challenge our understanding. Eben touched on conscious awareness including animals and all sentient beings, as well as mentioned physiology limits of a dog. I often wonder in context of consciousness emerging and limits/differences of various life forms, how it is humans are so 100% certain our awareness is top of universal evolution. Because we can't speak whale, does that mean a whale's consciousness is any less aware of itself or universal mind, or might humans evolve to actually communicate more freely with nonhuman life forms, or perhaps our nature-disconnection culture caused amnesia for past abilities to do so? Another Q I always have is, do you think expansion of emerging consciousness is linear, or could human groups with much greater levels of common good/compassion/advanced intelligence have actually lived before our epoch? Certain anthropologists bring up anomalies along this line, but I have no way to verify any claims from long before I remember.

[@TimFreke1]

I would suggest different lifeforms have specialise in different forms of subjectivity. So that whales and bats have very different subjectivity in ways we can't imagine. Humans have specialised psyche ... imagination. I don't think evolutionary emergence is linear. Things can go backwards and forwards ... but that is always relative to a particular criteria. However, as the past accumulates and more possibilities are realised there is an inevitable tendency towards emergence as more time passes.

[@mkor7]

You're over thinking this, Tim.

[@moesypittounikos]

Boody'ell. Didn't know Tim interviewed Eben😮

[@Lea31706]

Thank you i wanted you to talk about nde

[@johnbrowne8744]

Tim has to interview Bernardo Kastrup now.😊

[@TimFreke1]

working on it John. Rupert Spira has turned me down, which I felt he would.

[@summondadrummin2868]

I think Terrence Mckenna would have had useful things to add to this conversation. Thanks Tim

[@TimFreke1]

Terrence always had something interesting to say in my experience with him!

[@n1m1t0]

Don’t forget the measurement in quantum experiments is done with the intention of observation. Also agree with Eben on other things, thinking gets in the way of higher realizations, it took 14 billion years to develop? What is 14 billion years in terms of eternity! If you start doing the work from Joe Dispenza, Katie Byron, Eckhart Tolle, you see yourself changing, you see how thinking is not the ultimate, insights come from silence that could not have come from thinking.

[@PromoMIAR]

In a nutshell: Eben might want to say "We come into this world" where Tim might prefer to say "We come out of it". A tiny difference in a word but a huge implication. Would that be fair observation? (I'm using an Alan Watts quote there btw)

[@TimFreke1]

Exactly right

[@PromoMIAR]

Great. So one predicament (though I claim nothing & do not need to Die on any Hill either). I'm sure its more epistemologically honestly to say "We come out of this world". I feel that. However I also feel, when talking of Ultimate's/Absolutes or those notions of Prime Movers, that mere "Possibility" (Zero Point) falls short. I'm stuck with the idea that the only thing that might be a precursor to "Content" (or everything) is "Intent". We could (I guess) say its merely a "Force" (possibility) but that suggests something more like a Mind then like anything else we might say. Most welcome any thoughts. (Humbly fumbling in the Dark for a light switch)

[@TimFreke1]

@@PromoMIAR I am now taking a different approach to avoid the issues you raise. This is where my work is focused right now, but too much to say in comment like this unfortunately. I will be posting videos about this in the coming months. In the meantime you may be interested in my online philosophy groups starting January 2020, where i will discussion all of this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4XZpoJppsqWbsk

[@geoffbowcher3189]

@@TimFreke1 I like your emergent mind theory. Do you think that a "gardener" or "computer" model of intelligent energy/force only constructing the basic forms so that it can realize LOVE< FREEDOM .? Are we like ripe fruit? A gardener does not decide, does not judge, but only accepts what the plant gives. Or is the computer model worthy ? Machine builds buts does not know love. It has purpose (meaning),create. But has no feelings, or emotions. So it planted a seed and waited for a while till we came along so it could experience......every ...thing..hate...jealousy...anger....caring...sharing....respect. I find it hard to express myself sometimes. Please forgive my simplistic, words, I admire your work .

[@leaderlaney3236]

Hi tim,it would be great if you could interview tom Campbell or joe dispenza.

[@TimFreke1]

Very good ideas Lee

[@leaderlaney3236]

Also Donald Hoffman

[@exDamascus]

Hi Tim I wonder if you and Eben have explored the writings of Sri Aurobindo, imho the greatest of Indian philosophers. Seems a lot of what you’re discussing - whether consciousness is fundamental or emergent - is something he addresses in great detail. God is both beginning and end, consciousness is fundamental and emergent - involution and then evolution. As you say though enquiry starts in wonder and ends in wonder. Can we ever understand any of it?

[@TimFreke1]

Yes - Aurobindo really pushed things forward. But now I think we can go further. We don't need the involution idea, which is really a way of accommodating old spiritual ideas into a new evolutionary understanding. And yes ... we can deepen our understanding of the Absolute Mystery ... but it remains.

[@tm4tare]

Too many interruptions from the host!Let Eben speak!

[@lexweb100]

Hey Tim, why don't you have Bernado Kastrup as a guest? It would be great!

[@TimFreke1]

It arranged Darin. Planning on filming in the spring. :-)

[@maker2002]

Tim, also to add another point- you made the point that whatever you view in the material will remain the same, like the way you look and the room you are in- that's may only be partially true, if at all. Even if you assume that human beings see of all of material reality the way it is- lived experiences are subjective, for instance someone with Synesthesia may see your room or visualise numbers or hear music very differently than you. I think you suggest that our perception of the material world is 'true' and 'unchangeable' as opposed to the imaginary world which is more malleable- which may not be true in light of emerging theories which range from suggesting that our brains hallucinate our realities to those which theorise that evolution has conditioned us to not see truth at all and only pursue fitness pay-offs (in order words- what we see is not the truth at all). So if these theories are correct, then the material world is as imaginary as any imaginary world.

[@TimFreke1]

My point is simply that we experience 2 very different types of experience - sensory and imaginal - and we can tell them apart. I am not saying we see materiality the 'way it is'. I don't think there is a 'way it is' separate from an observing subject. I certainly don't this our brains are hallucinating reality though and have come to see the concept of 'qualia' as a reductionist error.

[@maker2002]

@@TimFreke1 If you believe that there is no 'way it is' separate from the observer, then for me this is similar to solipsism - which is a philosophy I find very hard to wrap my head around. The differentiation of sensory and imaginary is also very problematic for me- simply because for the brain function anything sensory or imaginary is nothing but information. Also, research on neuroplasticity has shown that information has a physical impact on re-wiring the synaptic connection of neurones. I would imagine that meditation would fall under imaginary not sensory? but meditation has direct impact on grey matter in the brain and therefore a correlational impact on sensory perception. Further, to say that there is no 'way it is' would also hazard your theory, because if one were to assume that for all observers the rule of imaginary v. sensory exists - by your logic your theory becomes the 'way it is', which i think is what you are trying to avoid :)

[@TimFreke1]

@@maker2002 not at all Abhinav. It is because the one is in relationship with itself, so everything is that relationship. The world is independent of me as an observer (eg not solipism uggg!). But always exists in relationship to a subject, because the subjective and objective nature of everything coexists.

[@maker2002]

​@@TimFreke1 We don't disagree on the point of inter-dependent existence of self organising systems (i.e. subject) and objects. But even in Whitehead's theory of process metaphysics (which is what I think what you are alluding to) there are fundamental objects which are beyond space and time, which Whitehead referred to as 'Eternal Objects'. Now you can call Eternal Objects as potentialities, experiences or consciousness (at this point for me its all semantics), but for Whitehead there is a fundamental reality which exists beyond space-time. Even Whitehead's primordial God is someone which is fundamental to the existence of reality of self-organising systems- do you disagree with Whitehead in this regard and does your theory not include this aspect Eternal Objects or a primodial God?

[@TimFreke1]

@@maker2002 My approach is different to Whitehead here. I am interested in accounting for all of existence as one emergent process ... being in the process of becoming.

[@PlatosPodcasts]

Two philosophical aspects of Tim's new idea don't add up for me. 1. The work being done by the word emerge, which begs the question of how something (say consciousness) can come out of nothing (say being without consciousness - which incidentally also begs Kant's point that being is not a predicate). To put it another way, I think Tim relies too much on interpretations of contemporary science that is changing fast. For example, the big bang is definitely out of fashion now, from which everything is supposed to have emerged. My guess is we've passed "peak emergence", in fact. 2. Confusing a positivist understanding of reduction with a metaphysical understanding, which doesn't mean breaking down into simpler parts, but rather perceiving the essence of. (Funnily enough, the older sense is still half remembered in cooking, when you make a reduction that holds the essence.) This is also the theological sense in which God is said to be simple. Dante caught it in the Paradiso when he recalls, in Alasdair Gray's translation: “God by His light creates complexity, yet sees it as one good grand simple shape.”

[@TimFreke1]

I think there are solid responses to all your point Mark, but forgive me I can't make them here. They will be covered in the philosophy project I am working on and hope to release later in the year.

[@mikekonig]

primodial first......THEN comes the "children".and the learning

[@darrenjames6309]

I love how Tim views everything as a process and resists hard 'top down' ideas. Spiritual emergentism makes way more sense and is much kinder than fixed 'creator' stories. Eben seemed to repeat the same old stuff I've heard many times before, I don't agree with him.

[@Acoustic111]

Tim - “The ways of the Creator are not our ways, Mr Deasy said. All history moves toward one great goal, the manifestation of God.” - James Joyce, Ulysses.

[@samrowbotham8914]

"We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning." Jean Baudrillard

[@TimFreke1]

@@samrowbotham8914 I suggest we live in a world in which there is more and more everything - both meaninglessness and meaning. Not sure there is a time in history with more meaning? When would that be?

[@TimFreke1]

Love the Joyce quote. I'd like to know more about what he meant there.

[@alandean2]

Would have liked to have heard more from Eben Alexander. Tim Freke's dogmatism wasn't helpful

[@lindahanahan1772]

It's not about the physical body or brain it's proof of spirit. After a NDE I think we have tore the veil. There is no other explanation for the supernatural experiences I have had. To cast off as coincidences is ridiculous as they were too profound. People tend to think you're crazy lol. I told my family the day my dad was going to pass away two weeks before for example and they still don't believe

[@edwardpetersen4309]

I f consciousness is evolutionary, what is the First Cause?

[@TimFreke1]

Great question. V short answers. I don't think there is a first cause. I suggest existence can be described as 'the one in relationship with itself'. It is 'being in the process of becoming'. There is no first moment or final cause.

[@edwardpetersen4309]

@@TimFreke1 How can there not be a first cause? Even when the universe went from no-thing to only hydrogen it had to be caused. Of course, the perception of time and space itself was created then - as the particles expanded apart from the singularity space was created between them and time was too because it took a period of time to traverse that space. So terms like "first cause" or "preceding the big bang" have no meaning really. Perhaps the qualities of consciousness are not so much evolving as selected from a world of infinite qualities. eg. the Many Worlds Theory of Hugh Everett and Bryce DeWitt.

[@mitchellclare2279]

I understand what Eben Alexander is saying, but I have a hard time understanding what Tim is saying. I'm not saying that Tim is wrong, but he sounds really confusing to me.

[@mitchellclare2279]

I think that maybe the reason a lot of people disagrees with these things is because they don't fully understand and get confused, irritated, or baffled.

[@SarahDale111]

@@mitchellclare2279 I feel the same. I keep trying to get through his talks, but can't for some reason. I get exasperated at him cutting in, like he's over-eager to prove himself right or something. If Eben is speaking from his direct experience, why would Tim suggest he look at it from some other perspective that is not his own, as if his direct experience was wrong? Not that any of it matters. Like Eben said, we are all facets of the same diamond. Why argue?

[@casaamaril]

Too bad intelligence often gets in the way of consciousness, let it flow, let it flow

[@Seanus32]

So, in summary, God is holistic totality (all options are on the table) but is essentially no-thing.

[@TimFreke1]

Essential Being without qualities ... in the process of becoming ever more emergent qualities ... including becoming ever more conscious

[@Seanus32]

​@@TimFreke1 I like the 'without qualities' bit a lot. Muslims can't see that they have detracted from pure IS-ness by assigning attributes to God. Essentially diluting the pureness. I will forever tie God back to being a 3-in-1. Namely, Generator, Enabler and Sustainer. H20 - water, 3. One plus the dual, 3. That scientist chap alluded to the PIM triangle, 3. The Trinity, 3. Muhammad always mentioned 3. I am also a big fan of your focus on the individual. What do you call it again? Forgive me, I'm new to your work.