Thomas Lynn Bradford (1873-1921) Explorer of Consciousness


Thomas Lynn Bradford was just 48 years old when he took his own life. At a time following the mass murder that was WWI, Europeans had lost their belief in a god, and instead had turned toward a number of other philosophies, theologies and theosophy to explain existence and non-existence. As a consequence, Bradford’s death was well documented in the US newspapers of the time, as was the alleged subsequent happenings. Many people in the Western world were interested in spiritualism and the notion of a disembodied after-life, as was Thomas Bradford himself. However, what was different with Bradford was how he was willing to give his life in an empirical experiment to see whether he could communicate from the ‘other side’, with a living collaborator. If he had been proven successful, the world of material science would have been turned upside down, but there are many who think that he was successful, and did communicate if not exactly an after-life, certainly the continuation of conscious awareness.

After placing an advertisement in a local Detroit newspaper, a woman by the name of Ruth Doran came forward and volunteered to be the potential recipient of any post-death message conveyed by Bradford. On the night of the February 5th (around 9pm), 1921, Thomas Bradford returned to his boarding house and is said to have ‘sealed’ the place prior to blowing-out the pilot light on the gas supply. This successfully led to the physical death of Thomas Lynn Bradford. For a time, Bradford became very famous for both the manner and purpose of his self-imposed demise. Many self-proclaimed psychics and mediums dubiously claimed to have communicated with Bradford, with each presenting a narrative that supported their own particular religious or philosophical view of the world. In other words, such individuals were putting words into Bradford’s deceased mouth in the hope of reinforcing this or that view for popularity reasons.

Ruth Doran took a different position, Although she had only recently met Bradford, she often described herself as his ‘friend’. As Bradford was married, there is no indication that he and Doran were romantically involved, but this might not have been completely out of the question. On February 12th, Ruth Doran claimed to have heard Thomas Bradford’s voice which stated:

‘“I am the professor who speaks to you from the Beyond. I have broken through the veil. The help of the living has greatly assisted me.   I simply went to sleep. I woke up and at first did not realize that I had passed on. I find no great change apparent. I expected things to be much different. They are not. Human forms are retained in outline but not in the physical. I have not traveled far. I am still much in the darkness. I see many people. They appear natural.  There is a lightness of responsibility here unlike in life. One feels full of rapture and happiness. Persons of like natures associate. I am associated with other investigators. I do not repent my act.  My present plane is but the first series. I am still investigating the future planes regarding which we in this plane are as ignorant as are earthly beings of the life just beyond human life.’

What I find interesting is that if Thomas Lynn Bradford was of sound mind when he decided to extinguish his own life, and there is no evidence to suggest he wasn’t, then what a brave person he was! This is a man with no wealth who wasn’t very well-known prior to his death, who attempted what might be described as an ’empirical’ experiment into the after-life. It is further interesting to note that his message did not confirm the Judeo-Christian religious view of the after-life, but does seems to be one very similar to numerous spiritualist movements or that view of existence as described by the theosophy movement. Assuming that Bradford’s brain was nolonger functioning, and that his body was in a state of decay, the best that could be said for his life processes was that they were in a ‘dormant’ state. This is an important observation from the position of Cryogenics, where it is possible to ‘freeze the body and brain upon death, and prevent any further tissue damage that would occur as the body structure breaks down through natural decomposition. The next stage in this theoretical process is the defrosting of the corpse and the re-animation of the bodily functions. Again, there is no reason in theory why an intact body cannot be re-activated and brought back to life. Science can deep freeze a recently deceased body (or body parts), and science can defrost the body (or body parts), but as of yet the final stage of restoring life cannot be achieved. My point is this, if one day ‘life’ can be fully restored within a previously dead body, and if the personality of the individual automatically re-emerges and communicates clearly, then it is obvious that there is no after-life, and that all notions of such a journey are the figments of the imagination. At physical death, the life processes become dormant and non-functional – they do not travel as a disembodied entity to some other plane simply because these life process are the product of biological function and not spiritual transmigration. As and when Cryogenics solves the riddle of existence, the theistic religious view will be finally proven wrong. A person cannot simultaneously be in a heavenly and realm and STILL in their bodies. If the body of Thomas Lynn Bradford had been frozen and kept on ice for decades, perhaps if he was defrosted and brought back to life he would say that ‘nothing’ happened when he died, and that he had no awareness or ability to send any message whilst in the dormant state.

Seeing Things When Unconscious


Does the mind exist? The ‘Eliminativists’ suggest that the various modes or theories of psychology are nothing more than modern myths, which are in essence secular versions of theistic religion. The myth follows the schematic that a) the mind exists, b) the mind can be observed, categorised, controlled and manipulated and c) the mind creates or generates the material world. These assumptions mirror the theology of the Judeo-Christian tradition, within which it is a priori accepted that ‘spirit’ creates or generates the ‘material’ world. In the modern sense, the agency of ‘mind’ takes the place of ‘spirit’ or ‘god’, but the inverted interpretation of reality is retained – i.e. mind creates or generates the material world. Psychology is generally opposed by Psychiatry which interprets conscious existence as a combination of chemical reactions in the material (biological) structures that comprise the human brain (although to be far, ‘consciousness’ as a distinct or separate entity cannot be discerned as existing simply by examining the physical structures of the brain). Consciousness is assumed to exist because its presence appears to function through physical behaviour and interaction with the environment. This is why consciousness appears to be the product of human interaction with a material environment. Theistic religion assumes that a ‘spirit’ pre-exists an individual human existence, and that it is ‘imported’ into a being at conception. Upon the physical death of that being, this ‘spirit’ leaves the individual and transitions to other realms of existence. Although it is true that not all forms of psychology accept the pre- and post-existence of consciousness, it is also true that many people easily combine modern notions of ‘mind’ with old notions of ‘spirit’. When the individual mind is equated with spirit, then it is just a matter of simple theological association to generate ideas of ‘out of the body experiences’, and ‘travelling to other realms’ during times of severe physical injury or duress. Although within popular literature it is assumed that people having these experiences are ‘dead’, this is generally medically untrue. People maybe gravely ill or suffering from terrible trauma and injury, but nevertheless they are still alive. This means their ‘living’ brain is continuing to function in less than conducive circumstances, and may well be trying to inwardly compensate for the outer devastation being experienced. Of course, these experiences are random and happen to people with no particular training or ability to discern history, religion or psychology. Many use these experiences as a means to return to religious thinking (i.e. ‘mind generates matter’) within a modern world, and even attempt to co-opt modern science into justifying this inverted viewpoint. It is interesting to note that the people who have these experiences are not even ‘conscious’ in the conventional sense, (that is they are not ‘awake’ and ‘interacting’ with the physical environment). This being the case, why are such experiences assumed to be the product of an independent ‘consciousness’? Why not associate such experiences with the mind’s agency of ‘imagination’? Imagination is limitless and has the ability to generate any number of comforting scenarios in difficult situations. This is particularly true when a person is ‘unconscious’ (i.e. ‘lacking conscious awareness’), when the agency of imagination is momentarily ‘detached’ from external reality (and the limitations) of material existence (and manifesting as ‘dreaming’). What is dreamt in such circumstances might well appear 100% ‘real’ to the experiencer, but this experience does not necessarily suggest that what is apparently seen and heard is real in any objective sense. Believing something is ‘real’ does not equate with that something being ‘real’ within scientific scrutiny, but within theistic religion, having ‘faith’ in something is viewed as making that something ‘real’ – this attitude and approach to interpreting reality is not science and should not be mistaken as such. In the following documentary, whilst everyone involved embraces the religious mind-set, no one questions the socio-economic system within wich they live. The answer to external inequality is to inwardly ‘accept’ this injustice and blame each other individual for not doing this. This selfish (and bourgeois) attitude allows the political and commercial injustices to continue in the face of a compliant population that collaborate with tyranny whilst mistaking this collaboration on the physical plane, for being a manifestation of ‘inner’ freedom on the spiritual plane. This self-imposed ‘stupor’ is nothing less than the abjuration of all social responsibility practised by an economic and religious elite. Finally, many people who advocate these types of theories invariably state that happiness does not come from owning a house, having a family, possessing a job or receiving a good income, and yet it is exactly these attributes that all these people possess. As they are economically secure, and are free of the worries and uncertainties that define most people’s lives, they are ‘free’ to indulge their imaginations to otherwise extraordinary degrees, and make illogical or inconsistent conclusions as a consequence.

Perceptual Development Cannot Be Forced


Who is pulling our strings? Most people remain unaware that they have been conditioned to follow somebody else’s view of reality, mistakenly thinking that they are being ‘free spirited’ and exercising ‘self-determination’. Any attempt to ‘expose’ this conditioning is invariable interpreted as an ‘oppressive’ or ‘draconian’ act, designed to limit ‘free expression’. What is interesting to observe, is how human-beings interpret the cognitive and physical limitations within which they exist, as being completely ‘free’ of any outside influence, when in reality this kind of existence is nothing but a conditioned ‘restriction’ operating within every direction. Those ‘trapped’ in this condition are prepared to ‘fight’ to retain their imprisonment – incorrectly viewing ‘limitation’ as being ‘limitless’ in nature. This demonstrates that ‘freedom’ from conditioning cannot be ‘forced’ upon an individual or group, but must be carefully planned and provided for through a subtle and tolerant ‘learning curve’. This is achieved through the agency of education, and requires a steady but precise exposure of past conditioning, so that a pristine state of mind can be rediscovered that facilitates multi-dimensional perception, and the ability to see different points of view, and select the most correct mode of behaviour in any given situation. If at any time an arbitrary use of ‘force’ is used, those being educated will simply contract around their past conditioning, and adhere its strictures to an ever more fanatical degree. This is why tolerance and wisdom go hand in hand, and do not contradict one another. On the other hand, there does exist a very real need to defend one’s ideas and values against fascism, terrorism and other forms of draconian social interaction and organisation. Although structure is undoubtedly required in one form or another, it must be a structure that simultaneously ‘progresses’ as it ‘frees’. Restricting expression so as to ensure a regressive state of mind, is of no use to the evolution of the individual or group.

The Non-Centre of Human Perception and the Limitations of Linear Logic


Before the ‘Big Bang’, space and time did not exist. Following the ‘Big Bang’, time and space existed simultaneously – everywhere. It is after the ‘Big Bang’ event that human logic and reason came into being (once the human brain had evolved to generate logic and reason). In reality, everything is ‘relative’ to the observer (as Einstein observed), and the Earth is the centre of human perception when the universe is observed (because the Earth is where humanity happens to be), but this does not mean that Earth is the centre of the observable universe. The universe appears to be expanding by 1 light year per year – but in reality it is expanding faster than light can travel (the dark energy at the edge of universe is travelling faster than light). It is probably correct to state that human perception has no definite ‘centre’, and that notions of ‘individuality’ and ‘I-ness’ are merely transitory social-cultural constructs, that have no meaning within universal reality. Linear logic is vitally important for the development and progression of human science and understanding, but prior to the ‘Big Bang’ – during the existence of the ‘initial singularity’ – the conditions that generate and support human logic did not yet exist, and cannot be defined, understood or limited to human logic today. This is why linear logic can be used in a reverse manner, working backwards toward the point of the ‘Bing Bang’ in time and space, but which cannot ‘penetrate’ the ‘Big Bang’ with conventional reason, and directly perceive that state which existed a moment before the ‘Big Bang’. The human brain appears to have evolved to perceive the observable universe in a manner that directly represents the time-space conditions that came into being directly after the ‘Big Bang’ – with the caveat that logic and reason is being used to try to understand that state of reality which immediately preceded the ‘Big Bang’, conditions that cannot be adequately defined (or ‘limited’) by logic and reason. The human brain did not exist during or prior to the ‘Big Bang’, and so did not evolve the perceptual abilities to directly understand this experience. In reality, human logic and reason is being used ‘after the fact’, to understand conditions that are not suited to its own evolutionary (developmental) circumstance. This suggests that Einstein’s theory of general relativity is correct only in the ‘post-Bing Bang’ state (i.e. the universe we all inhabit), but breaks down both during and immediately prior to the ‘Big Bang’. Ironically, it is by the use of logic and reason that this understanding is arrived at, and it could be that a ‘new’ way of using the human brain-mind nexus is just around the next evolutionary corner, as infinity has no discernible ‘centre’.

Virtual Particles and the Science of ‘Nothingness’ (Quantum Field Theory)


Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle was formulated in 1927 – but scientific thinking has not stood still since then. Heisenberg stated that it is impossible to simultaneously accurately fix (or measure) the position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle. This means that it is impossible to simultaneously fix (measure) or define time and energy. In the vacuum state, conventional logic dictates that there should be no sub-atomic particles existing in this quantum state (i.e. exactly zero energy at all times). On occasion, enough energy seems to be present to apparently ‘create’ a virtual sub-atomic particle as if ‘out of nothing’. These entities are known as ‘virtual particles’ and can theoretically possess any mass and move at any speed – even faster than light. This observation implies that virtual particles could travel backwards in time. Virtual particles exist in the interval between the measurements of real (or ‘observable’) particles, and this is why they can only be said to exist when not being observed. If they could be observed, then they would not be virtual particles. However, although some scientists think that virtual particles only exist in theory, since 1947 (Lamb and Rutherford), and in various experiments after this date, the ‘effect’ of vacuum particles upon the material universe has been observed. Furthermore, there is a theory which states that virtual particles may well be directly related to dark energy and the expansion of the universe. The point is that in an apparent vacuum that should possess ‘zero energy’ – small amounts of energy have been observed, and the presence of virtual particles is a mathematical inference from this observation. In other words, there is something there – even though it seems that there is nothing there. Virtual particles appear not to be bound by the laws of physics that govern the macro-universe, but even so, it is believed that their behaviour represents a ‘higher’ scientific understanding not yet realised by the human-mind. This is why sub-atomic particles may appear to both ‘exist’ and ‘non-exist’ at the same moment. This is not a metaphysical statement or position, but is rather a mathematical probability derived from exact calculation. This is simply a matter of observational position in relation to the sub-atomic universe. It seems as if Heisenberg is not saying that virtual particles ‘do not exist’, but rather that their existence lies in the gaps between ‘observable’ sub-atomic particle activity. This could imply that the ‘virtual’ nature of these particles actually represents a ‘gap’ in current human perception, and that when human scientific understanding advances beyond its current state, what was once thought to be ‘virtual’ particles will be understood in a new light. Of course, such a development in human faculties might well render Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle obsolete.

Alchemy and Hermeticism as the Basis of Progressive Civilisation


Alchemy and Hermeticism, in its purest and most logical form, is the nearest Western teaching to that of Chinese transformative Daoism, particularly Alchemy and Hermeticism has many general and specific similarities to the ‘neidan’ teachings found within the Daoist Philosophical School (Daojia). It represents the material and immaterial development of the human-being, and the perfection of consciousness, body and environment. The material and immaterial realms are not different but represent two frequencies of exactly the same energy expression. Indeed, Sir Isaac Newton – the British genius who single-handedly invented modern science – was a very spiritual person, and an argument can be made that his knowledge of Alchemy and Hermeticism led directly to his ability to isolate, observe and measure material reality. Underlying this reality for Newton was a profound spirituality which university-led mainstream science has played-down, and expunged from the observable record. The policy of which was designed to permanently ‘separate’ religion (immateriality), from scientific processes (materiality). Chinese science does not do this, and neither does Alchemy and Hermeticism. Chinese science, of course, even in its most modern and progressive manifestation in the material realm, never loses sight of the ‘immaterial’ basis of human perception. Immateriality represents that world which cannot be perceived with the human senses unaided by technological innovation. In other words, the human senses (and the mind) may not be able to directly perceive everything that exists, but can, through the right kind of psychological and physical training, gain an intuitive understanding of these realities – which with regards to material science – can be confirmed as existing beyond the senses through the use of modern technology (such as the telescope and the microscope). Furthermore, the immaterial mind can envision realities beyond the senses through the use of mathematics and algebra. Even the most hardened materialist scientist has to admit that technology and mathematics has revealed realities beyond the ordinary sensory realm. It is an irony to consider that Newton spent much more of his life studying Alchemy and Hermeticism, than he did material science.

Within the Chinese language, Alchemy and Hermeticism is written as ‘炼金术’ (Lian Jin Shu), or ‘Refining Gold Technique’. Chinese language sources report that alchemy and Hermeticism has existed in many different countries throughout time, including ancient Egypt, ancient India, ancient Greece, Rome, South America, North America, China, Japan, Korea, Persia and the later Islamic civilisation. It is thought that teachings from ancient Egypt are observable in the philosophical works of the Greek philosopher Democritus in the 1st century CE, and that this demonstrates a transmission of the teachings of Alchemy and Hermeticism from ancient (Black) Egypt into the Western minds of the Greeks. This process eventually led to the work of Sir Isaac Newton and the founding of modern science. There is also a school of thought which suggests that perhaps ‘logical thinking’ arrived in ancient Greece from Egypt, and facilitated an outpouring of rational thought the like of which is considered unique in the world. Just as Newton separated Alchemy from material science, some ancient Greeks also separated logic and reason from Alchemy, effectively creating a new tradition of thought and use of the mind. If this is correct, then the entire edifice of Western civilisation rests upon the teachings of Alchemy and Hermeticism. This may even be true for the theology of Judeo-Christianity, which represents a splitting away from an all-embracing original teaching.

There is an ongoing debate as to whether ancient Africa had direct contact with ancient China, with Chinese scholars being very much in favour of this idea. Which way the culture and information flowed is also a matter of great debate. Did China’s ancient developmental culture influence the development of African understanding, or did advanced African thinking influence China’s development? No one is sure, but it is obvious that ancient Africa possessed a rich tapestry of progressive and advanced understandings. Of course, there could well have been an ‘equal’ transmission and appreciation. There are some Chinese scholars who believe that Black African travelers visited and settled in China thousands of years ago, and that their DNA (and culture) is now part of the ‘Chinese’ genotype. Perhaps this is also true of ancient ‘Han’ Chinese people traveling to Africa and settling on that great continent, before integrating with the indigenous population. Whatever the historical case may be, another name for Chinese Alchemy is ‘黄白术’ (Huang Bai Shu), or ‘Yellow White Technique’. This refers to a technical language that talks of ‘smelting’ gold and silver, but this is not to be taken literally, but rather as a ‘coded’ instruction that only a truly initiated master already knows and can explain. Smelting gold and silver refers to specific psychological and physical processes that are transformed through the great heat associated with an intense meditative process. Chinese Alchemy is also referred to as ‘炼丹家’ (Lian Dan Jia), or ‘Cultivation Energy Field Family’. This refers to the three ‘energy centres’ or ‘dan’ that exist in the mind and body, and their opening and transformation through seated meditative practice, and various methods of ‘moving’ meditation (such as through the techniques of profound martial arts practice).

Chinese Language References:黄白术炼金术

The Big Bang Reconsidered (E=MC2)


Einstein’s general theory of relativity has not only been proven correct time and time again, but has had implicit in it, ideas that Einstein himself disagreed with on a personal level. This must be properly understood, as this fact is often misused within popular science, as a means to undermine the genius of Einstein. To be clear – E=MC2 is absolutely correct and is not wrong in any way. As a formula, it contributes to, and does not contradict the thinking behind quantum physics. Therefore, it logically follows that Einstein was entirely ‘correct’ when he worked-out that energy equals mass – times the speed of light (squared). This is exactly the same formula that Heisenberg used to formulated his ‘uncertainty theory’, and which Georges Lemaitre used to mathematically work-out that the universe had a definite beginning. Given that this is the case, why is Einstein often portrayed as ‘wrong’ within popular science? This is because Einstein did not personally agree with many of the implications of his own theory, a fact that demonstrates that Einstein managed to ‘think’ beyond his own limited viewpoints. It some of Einstein’s personal opinions that are at odds with his own formula – and not his formula that is ‘wrong’. Many popular scientific narratives conflate Einstein’s personal opinions with his formula, and give the false impression that his formula (and not his opinions) is at odds with the thinking of quantum theory. This is bad science, and one is left wondering what lies behind this obvious attack on Einstein’s genius.

Einstein believed that the universe existed in a ‘steady state’, and was not the product of a sudden creation event. Lemaitre – using Einstein’s formula – proved that Einstein’s personal opinion was at odds with the mathematical implications of his formula. Einstein checked Lemaitre’s mathematical work and agreed that it did suggest that the universe had a definite beginning. Not only this, but Lamaitre’s work suggested that the universe was expanding, and that it emerged from a tiny cosmic egg (or ‘super atom’). Einstein agreed with Lemaitre’s mathematics, but disagreed with his physics. Edwin Hubble, during the 1920’s, worked out that the universe was huge, that it was expanding, and was billions of years old (although his assessment of 2 billion years was wrong). Hubble’s genius was that he scientifically proved that the universe was billions of light years across, and not just hundreds of thousands of light years, as previously thought. Indeed, Fred Hoyle – like Einstein – believed that the universe was eternal and that it already contained hydrogen and helium. In 1949, Fred Hoyle coined the derogatory term ‘Big Bang’ to refer to what he thought was a religiously premised pseudo-science. The eminent Soviet cosmologist George Gamov disagreed with the strong-willed Hoyle – and instead agreed with Lemaitre’s idea of a ‘Big Bang’. Even within the Soviet scientific system (that produced many great scientists), George Gamov was considered a genius in his own right (being elected at the young age of just 28, to being a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). He was an expert in radioactivity, and nuclear fusion, but despite the privileged life he experienced in the USSR, he decided to defect to the West in the early 1930’s – thus betraying his homeland. Whilst building on Soviet expertise and scientific innovation, Gamov exported his knowledge to the USA, where his contribution to science is acknowledged but played-down (Gamov was of the opinion that all hydrogen and helium was suddenly created during the Big Bang).

Although the universe is now known to be 13.8 billion years old, it is considered not old enough for its heat content to be distributed evenly everywhere – as is the case. This is where Alan Guth’s theory of ‘inflation’ comes into play. He stated that although Einstein was right to assume that nothing could travel faster than light, prior to the creation of the universe, this reality did not yet apply. Just before the Big Bang, when the four forces of nature were still a singularity, a certain uniformity of temperature was locked-in to the entire system, before its rapid expansion or ‘inflation’.  Guth premised that the universe originated from a tiny volume, and when the universe was both young and small, its heat content spread evenly, which was retained as space expanded faster than light. Subsequent photographs of the universe just after the Big Bang have subsequently confirmed that the Big Bang happened. Less than one billionth of a second after the Big Bang, a tiny bubble (smaller than a fraction of an atom) with a very high temperature was formed. This contained as of yet the undifferentiated four forces of nature – gravity, electromagnetism, and weak and strong nuclear forces. This is considered a combined superforce. Gravity suddenly split-off from this superforce as the universe rapidly expanded. As the universe expanded, it cooled, triggering a burst of energy which initiated the hyper-inflation of the universe. At this point (perhaps just a second since its beginning), the superforce collapsed into its four constituent natural forces, and eventually light was emitted. As light slowed down, matter was formed, which was then acted upon by gravity (generating spherical shapes). All this was fore-seen in Einstein’s E=MC2. The Big Bang is very much a work in progress within the realm of human science, and could be displaced if new knowledge is discovered or revealed through further research.

The Case for a Mind-Generated Existence


Everything a human being ‘senses’ is the product of bio-chemical electricity traversing the neural network that connects the brain with the spine, and the spine with the body. The body, of course, serves as a mediation-point between the physical environment and the brain-spine nexus. A very real problem exists in the form of the gathering and interpretation of sensory data. Admittedly, this is not so much of a problem if the existence of an external, material world is taken for granted. However, the existence of an external, material world – as a distinct and separate entity to the mind-body that perceives it – is simply a philosophical interpretation of reality, entirely premised upon the agency of personal ‘choice’.  If a thought community accepts without question the existence of an independent, external world, then it follows that all scientific and philosophical speculation and development will unfold ‘a priori’ from that theoretical location. The issue here, is that this ‘theoretical location’, because it has been selected as the ‘preferred’ model of reality, is raised to the status of concretised ‘certainty’, and is taken to exist as a matter of common-sense. In this model of reality, the notion of ‘materialism’ becomes the ‘new’ orthodoxy, and all advances in scientific understanding are assumed to ‘hang’ from it, like clothing on a washing-line.

The ‘real’ world is assumed to be composed of observable and measurable matter, with the inner world relegated to the status of ‘immeasurable’ and ‘unreliable’ psychological processes and fleeting emotionally. All the mind creates is endless thought-patterns (of varying quality) that traverse its psychological fabric, interspersed with often ‘irrational’ islands of ‘feeling’. This is the status of the ‘modern’ mind, which is viewed very much as an extension of matter, or the accidental by-products of biological responses to physical conditions. Neuroscience, for instance, claims that the human-brain evolved merely as a means for early humans to effectively traverse their evolutionary (physical) environments, and that the ability to ‘think’ and to ‘feel’ are the left-over attributes associated with this successful function. However the edifice of this ‘certainty’ is punctured if the existence of a separate, material world is not taken for granted. In such a scenario, how can it be known that an ‘external’ environment independently exists, when its presence is apparently known only from the ‘inner’ biological processes associated with bodily ‘sensation’? The structure and texture of an apparently external, (material) world is in reality only the product of bio-electrical energy flowing through nerve-fibres throughout the human-body (and brain). Through a process that is still not fully understood, ‘consciousness’ is generated, and from this, the abilities to ‘sense’, ‘cognise’ and ‘interpret’.

In a sense, this model of a bio-chemical, bio-electrically generated world within the brain is an alternative ‘materialist’ interpretation that replaces a concrete ‘external’ world with an equally ‘concrete’ internally generated world. The materialistic goal-posts have been moved. Nothing for certain can be known about any theoretical ‘external’ world, because there is no way of gaining truly ‘independent’ or ‘objective’ information about such a world. As matters stand, humanity is perceiving the inner processes associated with its own biological functionality, and mistaking this ‘subjective’ data for a ‘true’ and ‘genuine’ reflection of an ‘external’ and ‘independently’ functioning world. The human-brain is a physical organ that has apparently ‘evolved’ due to environmental pressure, and yet this entire process cannot be known to reliably exist outside of the mind that perceives it. All of this interpretation exists firmly within the material realm, but relocates ‘reality’ within the human-brain, rather than being external to the human-body. If this is correct, then the human-brain ‘generates’ reality through the agency of ‘perception’, whereby nothing truly exists until it is internally ‘generated’ through the processing of sensory-data. An external world only appears to exist as a necessary means to fit-in to the trap of limited human perception. An independently functioning ‘external’ world cannot be known to reliably ‘exist’ outside of the sensory processes that assume its presence.

What of metaphysics? A brain can generate many different kinds of realities if the concrete (material) world is not a priori assumed to independently exist. These models do not necessarily have to be religious, but the idea of religion is obviously not excluded. A mind does not have to be associated with a god-concept, but neither is there any reason for it not to be. Deciding on a ‘mind’ or a ‘god’ is simply moving the metaphysical goal-posts, as in reality, existence is interpreted as being ‘non-material’ in essence. Of course, religious dogma can get in the way of interpreting reality, just as scientific dogma can hinder in exactly the same manner. Is ‘perception’ responsible for reality, or is material existence the product of a ‘divine will’? When the edifice of a separate (material) reality is rejected, then any and all ideas become of an equal validity in essence, and only differ in practical manifestation. Obviously, a religious or ideological fanaticism is problematic for the over-all survival humanity, but for those stuck in this dogmatic reality, the often violent and intolerant structures afford a certain ‘advantage’ over other fellow human-beings, despite the inherent injustices associated with such mindless violence and bigotry. It must be stressed, however, that just as much destruction has been wreaked upon the world by countries that pursue a strictly ‘scientific’ and ‘materialist’ agenda, as has been inflicted by any religiously minded regime. The point here, is the freedom to place one’s awareness exactly where it is needed to generated the maximum ‘meaningfulness’ for each individual (and communal) existence, free of anger and aggression, whilst being full of love and compassion for the entirety of existence. If a mind-generated existence is not motivated by the highest ideals envisioned by humanity, then what is the point of such a reality?

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle


Prior to the scientific work of Physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976), it was thought that the location and momentum of a particle could be precisely measured in time and space. However, all this changed in 1927, when Heisenberg published his work now known as the ‘Uncertainty Principle’, ‘Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle’, or ‘Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle’. From this point of time onwards, it was understood that the location and momentum of a particle (such as an electron) could not be precisely measured. The scientific universe experienced a paradigm shift which suggested that the world of matter at the atomic or sub-atomic level, could not be ‘known’ through the use of conventional science. Why is this thought to be the case? It is thought to be the case because a particle can not be a) ‘observed’, b) ‘measured’ and c) ‘predicted’. The so-called ‘quantum theory’ of reality suggests that the principles of material science – which rely upon observation, measurement and the prediction related to repeated experimentation – does not, and cannot be applied to low-level physics, despite the fact that such methods continue to function in high-level physics, and remain valid for the macro-world of ordinary, or everyday observable phenomena.

If Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’ is correct, why does the macro-world remain determinate and apparently ‘certain’? In other words, why has logic and reason, (and the development of modern science), all emerged from the apparent ‘certainty’ of the world of observable matter? Today, all school children are taught that an electron is both a ‘particle’ and a ‘wave’. Through the ‘double slit’ experiment (whereby a stream of light is fed through an ever narrowing slit), it can be demonstrated that when the slit is ‘wide’, light behave as if it consisted of particles, but when the slit is narrowed – there is a point where the light beam narrows – but then suddenly expands outwards into a wave-like formation. This being the case, why doesn’t the macro-world experience terminal ‘indeterminacy’? Whilst Louis De Broglie (1892-1987) was re-assessing Albert Einstein’s famous equation of E=MC2, he discovered that a particle wavelength is inversely related to its momentum. Waves are not observable in the macro-world, because Planck’s Constant (h) is so small, and the momentum of macro-objects so large, that any wavelength possessed by a macro-object is infinitesimally small. However, as sub-atomic particles possess very small momentum (again, interpreted through Planck’s Constant) , the wavelengths of sub-atomic particles are more readily observable. Therefore, the material world as it appears to the human senses, manifests as a ‘real’ and ‘constant’ construct. Gravity operating on the ‘mass’ of the macro-world might well generate the conditions for a material world appearing to be ‘stable’ to human perception. Of course, the physical environment is the arena of evolution through natural selection, and so the human senses correspond directly to the sense-objects that they are designed to ‘sense’. As the human brain evolved to make sense of this ‘immediate’ environment, it did not develop the ability to ‘sense’ or ‘see’ the micro-world. The human brain evolved for the purpose of generating meaningful movement through the evolutionary environment – with ‘thought’ being a by-product of this development. Although human-beings have had to develop technology to peer into the sub-atomic world, nevertheless, the human-mind has been able (through mathematics) to ‘infer’ the likelihood of a quantum reality.

The macro-world behaves through strict physical laws – laws which are used everyday in the production and maintenance of advanced and progressive science and technology. Particles are measurable and their location clearly known. Heisenberg mathematically discovered that the micro-world did not behave like this. Albert Einstein contributed greatly to modern science, but did not think quantum reality was correct. Many today state that Albert Einstein was wrong, but I disagree with this. Albert Einstein – being a great scientist – simply tried to prove quantum theory ‘wrong’, as a means to confirm its validity. After-all, his theory of relatively greatly advanced the ‘science’ of quantum understanding. More to the point, despite Heisenberg’s breakthrough, it could be ‘wrong’ because humanity is currently viewing the situation through the rubric of false assumptions and interpretations. How can a material universe be built on an immaterial foundation? Furthermore, quantum theory cannot, and does not explain the existence of the macro-world. As it is the macro-world that humanity exists within, and has built the edifice of its science and spirituality upon, it should be the quantum physicists who should be trying to explain why it is that their view of the world cannot explain material reality. Whatever the case, in reality, Heisenberg arrived at his interesting observation through the practice of a strict material mathematics and science. In the sense of good and reliable research – as Heisenberg would agree – ‘certainty’ of logical methodology is of the greatest importance. It was by observing the nature of material reality that Heisenberg arrived at his famous ‘uncertainty principle’.

The Multi-Frequency Reality of Todd Acamesis


The purpose of this blog is the exercise of freedom of thought in the guise of ‘critical thinking’. Of course, anyone is free to interpret reality through a ‘non-critical’ mind-set, but that is different to the point being made here. People are also free to view reality as a projection of the mind, and use this ‘idealism’ to set the interpretive agenda. Again, this is different to what is being investigated through this ‘Institute of Inner Science’, but it is an interesting alternative to the view that material reality possesses a type of ‘reality’ all of its own. People cannot be ‘forced’ out of the particular reality they inhabit in their mind and body, but their ability to ‘see more’ can be encouraged through progressive education, and dialectical learning. This is the point of this blog. A challenge to all those who adhere to an ‘idealistic’ view of reality, and accept ideas not grounded in material reality, must consider the following facts:

a) If you do not have access to money – you cannot access any service, facility or leisure resource of the society within which you exist.

b) If you do not have access to food – you will eventually die of starvation.

c) If you do not have shelter – you will eventually die of cold (or exposure) to the elements.

d) If you do not have access to medical care – you will eventually die of illness or injury.

e) If you do not have access to legal protection – you will live in a world of oppression.

These issues are practical or material realities – and no amount of positive thought will change these conditioned pathways. Ignoring practical reality is foolish because it is the basis of a core reality (regardless of the mind’s ability to ‘imagine’ or apparently ‘traverse’ to different realities). A demonstration of this material reality can be seen in the ‘Austerity’ measures of sudden and rapid cuts in NHS care and Welfare Support in the UK, initiated by the Tories and LibDems since 2010 (and which is ongoing). Oxford University has recently calculated that as of January, 2015, around 30,000 in the UK died of causes directly related to the material changes generated through this ‘Austerity’ process, which has attacked and destroyed the most vulnerable populations living within British society. In 2016, the Tories and LibDems were found Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity by the United Nations (UN) – for the death of at least 10,000 disabled people (since 2010). The point is that material reality really does matter, and to ignore ts presence or purpose is a foolish use of the human-mind. obviously, those who possess the preferred skin-colour, class, education, gender and financial category, tend to be insulated from the harsher realities of material existence, and are free to use their ‘leisure’ time to exercise the ‘imagination’ capacity of their mind. As usual, think for yourself and make your own decisions. I am not judging Todd Acamesis, nor am I advocating his interpretation of reality, but I am presenting his interesting lecture here, as food for alternative thought strategies.



%d bloggers like this: