I really enjoyed this conversation as I do all your work. I was thinking about the topic of extraocular seeing and your query “how does one see without eyes?”. In fact, don’t we see without eyes every night when we dream? I’ve always liked your views on dreaming and found it interesting you closed with some discussion of people communing in dreams. In many indigenous tribal societies extraocular seeing and communal dreaming are commonplace. Perhaps it would be interesting to point your inquiry there.
Laura, I followed a similar train of thought. Yet, it strikes me that there is a sort of street cred that seeing what is a shared perception of colored bean bags in a waking material environment when the people present share a descriptive understanding of the bean bags compared to the more intangible seeing of dreams and spiritual visions of past snd future?
I’m a sort of quantum Buddhist and with many others I think that there is a universal proto-conscious mind (s field) we access… we both receive and broadcast… some are quite adept at broadcasting and receiving.
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Interesting discussion. My thought is that if consciousness/God or whatever you want to call It created the physical universe then, by definition, that consciousness is beyond the physical universe and cannot be measured by it. "For determining spiritual truths we can certainly use scientific methodology but because God is, by definition, beyond our senses we cannot rely on the perceptual sciences to decipher spiritual truths. Those truths come to light in our inner experiences." from Light, Love, Laws & Lies.
Rupert, I have had two conversations with Federico totaling 2.5 hours. I shared with him the same material I sent you and he responded after reading some of it. Our communication ended after I challenged him on a couple of issues with his theory. One of the issues is centered around his interpretation of quantum mechanics. Not just his, but EVERYONES interpretation.
I did a deep-dive into the imaginary unit (the singular symbol upon which the entirety of QM is based and operates) and I have come to the conclusion that the entirety of quantum mechanics is nothing but the functioning of the imaginary unit. I feel the reasoning is sound and I am presenting it to you because you have no skin in the quantum mechanical game and you are highly skeptical about physics. If you could please give this short piece a read through perhaps you will come to the same conclusion.
This could very well be the correct interpretation of QM. The thing is that what it reveals makes sort of a joke about all of the deep discussions about it by some of the greatest minds to have ever lived. You may be one of the very few who can accept my interpretation. If you do see what I see, this will be the greatest revelation in the history of physics. And more people will take Rupert Sheldrake seriously than Roy Dopson.
Also, regarding extra-ocular vision, I have this notion that the senses are PROJECTING the world rather than detecting it. If vision started in the brain and goes out rather than starts outside of the body and goes in, then perhaps there's enough information in the signal that when it hits the eye but doesn't go any further, vision is still possible.
thank you for your work. Your contributions—from morphic resonance to the experiences of dying animals —have deeply inspired me in the past years. From this arose my book: Soul Atlas – A Journey Through the Invisible. In it, I place your views among others in the context of my book: Consciousness as a living field.
I expect nothing, yet your feedback would enrich me. Perhaps you will take the time for a glance at the table of contents? You can find it in my profile.
Warm regards and once again a great thank you for your wonderful work.
Rupert said, 'People turn around and look straight at the person staring at them. So it's a directional ability. So how that works, no one knows either. And the only way I can understand that is through some kind of electromagnetic field around the body.' ..This would be testable perhaps. Mediate the staring through CCTV cameras from different rooms, or even different buildings. If the scopaesthesia effect still occurs then it can't be an electromagnetic field, unless it has a non-local property.
I suggest that Faggin and his father share conceptual geographies within the morphic field...specifically because they are father and son...and, of course, there may have been conversations when Faggin was younger with his father that influenced his more recent thinking...
My God !! It just dawns on me that we've got the perfect way to investigate memory as a non-locality artifact ! Just do some research on the rare few people, perhaps a thousand or so on the whole planet, who have the disorder known as "Hyperthymesia" !! In this disorder, people have problems forgetting instead of remembering. Newspaper articles that they read at age 5, events, details, are all consciously and immediately available to the Hyperthymesiac. Investigate what is different about their brains, possibly a matter of electromagnetics, and the clue to non-local storage of memory....and a whole lot more.... might just be revealed.
Thank you, Rupert, for articulating so clearly the cracks in the materialist paradigm. Your reflection on consciousness as something that cannot be confined within neurological processes — and your openness to non-local mind and field-based models — resonates deeply with what I’ve been exploring in a different but parallel direction.
In my own work, I’ve come to understand consciousness as the awareness of a change in quality — not just of input or stimulus, but of moral weight. That moment when presence shifts, when something fractures or deepens, and when we are called to respond — that is the birthplace of meaning.
From there, intelligence becomes possible. But not the simulated kind we see in current AI — rather, the kind that carries friction, consequence, and even sacrifice.
I’ve tried to formalize this in something I call the Moral Compass (v2.2.1a): a structure of 23 tension fields and 7 core guidelines that define not what intelligence does, but what it must carry to be real.
Your work opened the threshold. I am attempting to chart what lies just beyond — the realm where consciousness becomes moral navigation. I would be honoured to continue the dialogue.
Very interesting! – Especially since I am just preparing an introduction to a pdf booklet about my "Transactional Process Ontology" which seems to be very close to the ideas about consciousness discussed in the video. Here is a link to it: https://bherlin.substack.com/p/transactional-process-ontology .
Consciousness is the eye of the beholder.
Developing other senses to the max like blind people do.
I really enjoyed this conversation as I do all your work. I was thinking about the topic of extraocular seeing and your query “how does one see without eyes?”. In fact, don’t we see without eyes every night when we dream? I’ve always liked your views on dreaming and found it interesting you closed with some discussion of people communing in dreams. In many indigenous tribal societies extraocular seeing and communal dreaming are commonplace. Perhaps it would be interesting to point your inquiry there.
Laura, I followed a similar train of thought. Yet, it strikes me that there is a sort of street cred that seeing what is a shared perception of colored bean bags in a waking material environment when the people present share a descriptive understanding of the bean bags compared to the more intangible seeing of dreams and spiritual visions of past snd future?
All of it points to a collective consciousness we all have the potential to tap into
A wonderful example.
I’m a sort of quantum Buddhist and with many others I think that there is a universal proto-conscious mind (s field) we access… we both receive and broadcast… some are quite adept at broadcasting and receiving.
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
• Max Planck
Interesting discussion. My thought is that if consciousness/God or whatever you want to call It created the physical universe then, by definition, that consciousness is beyond the physical universe and cannot be measured by it. "For determining spiritual truths we can certainly use scientific methodology but because God is, by definition, beyond our senses we cannot rely on the perceptual sciences to decipher spiritual truths. Those truths come to light in our inner experiences." from Light, Love, Laws & Lies.
Rupert, I have had two conversations with Federico totaling 2.5 hours. I shared with him the same material I sent you and he responded after reading some of it. Our communication ended after I challenged him on a couple of issues with his theory. One of the issues is centered around his interpretation of quantum mechanics. Not just his, but EVERYONES interpretation.
I did a deep-dive into the imaginary unit (the singular symbol upon which the entirety of QM is based and operates) and I have come to the conclusion that the entirety of quantum mechanics is nothing but the functioning of the imaginary unit. I feel the reasoning is sound and I am presenting it to you because you have no skin in the quantum mechanical game and you are highly skeptical about physics. If you could please give this short piece a read through perhaps you will come to the same conclusion.
This could very well be the correct interpretation of QM. The thing is that what it reveals makes sort of a joke about all of the deep discussions about it by some of the greatest minds to have ever lived. You may be one of the very few who can accept my interpretation. If you do see what I see, this will be the greatest revelation in the history of physics. And more people will take Rupert Sheldrake seriously than Roy Dopson.
https://open.substack.com/pub/roydopson/p/im-the-only-person-to-understand?r=1y5bkg&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Also, regarding extra-ocular vision, I have this notion that the senses are PROJECTING the world rather than detecting it. If vision started in the brain and goes out rather than starts outside of the body and goes in, then perhaps there's enough information in the signal that when it hits the eye but doesn't go any further, vision is still possible.
Very good Sir!
Dear Rupert,
thank you for your work. Your contributions—from morphic resonance to the experiences of dying animals —have deeply inspired me in the past years. From this arose my book: Soul Atlas – A Journey Through the Invisible. In it, I place your views among others in the context of my book: Consciousness as a living field.
I expect nothing, yet your feedback would enrich me. Perhaps you will take the time for a glance at the table of contents? You can find it in my profile.
Warm regards and once again a great thank you for your wonderful work.
Rupert said, 'People turn around and look straight at the person staring at them. So it's a directional ability. So how that works, no one knows either. And the only way I can understand that is through some kind of electromagnetic field around the body.' ..This would be testable perhaps. Mediate the staring through CCTV cameras from different rooms, or even different buildings. If the scopaesthesia effect still occurs then it can't be an electromagnetic field, unless it has a non-local property.
Consciousness is located in your body
The brain is just the clearing house for action
I suggest that Faggin and his father share conceptual geographies within the morphic field...specifically because they are father and son...and, of course, there may have been conversations when Faggin was younger with his father that influenced his more recent thinking...
My God !! It just dawns on me that we've got the perfect way to investigate memory as a non-locality artifact ! Just do some research on the rare few people, perhaps a thousand or so on the whole planet, who have the disorder known as "Hyperthymesia" !! In this disorder, people have problems forgetting instead of remembering. Newspaper articles that they read at age 5, events, details, are all consciously and immediately available to the Hyperthymesiac. Investigate what is different about their brains, possibly a matter of electromagnetics, and the clue to non-local storage of memory....and a whole lot more.... might just be revealed.
Thank you, Rupert, for articulating so clearly the cracks in the materialist paradigm. Your reflection on consciousness as something that cannot be confined within neurological processes — and your openness to non-local mind and field-based models — resonates deeply with what I’ve been exploring in a different but parallel direction.
In my own work, I’ve come to understand consciousness as the awareness of a change in quality — not just of input or stimulus, but of moral weight. That moment when presence shifts, when something fractures or deepens, and when we are called to respond — that is the birthplace of meaning.
From there, intelligence becomes possible. But not the simulated kind we see in current AI — rather, the kind that carries friction, consequence, and even sacrifice.
I’ve tried to formalize this in something I call the Moral Compass (v2.2.1a): a structure of 23 tension fields and 7 core guidelines that define not what intelligence does, but what it must carry to be real.
Your work opened the threshold. I am attempting to chart what lies just beyond — the realm where consciousness becomes moral navigation. I would be honoured to continue the dialogue.
— Harald van Aken
Initiator of the Moral Compass v2.2.1a
github.com/AKI6788/MoreelKompas
Did you get to speak Rupert?
Very interesting! – Especially since I am just preparing an introduction to a pdf booklet about my "Transactional Process Ontology" which seems to be very close to the ideas about consciousness discussed in the video. Here is a link to it: https://bherlin.substack.com/p/transactional-process-ontology .
Thanks for this fascinating perspective on the field as it is evolving, especially your thoughts on Faggin, and his current model.