It is becoming more evident these days that it is very likely, given our advanced knowledge of quantum theory, that everything is connected, and what we perceive as separate objective reality is, in fact, a manifestation of a universal oneness to everything that exists, constructed in its various different forms, as the physical universe of objects and others. Our perceptions of the physical world in which we live give us this sense of separateness as a means of navigating through the physical world, and acts as a kind of reference point for that purpose. How else could we exist physically without such reference points?
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that our perceptions of the physical world are designed to function in the way that they do, in order for us to make sense of the world in which we exist physically, and that a larger and more expansive existence functions as the foundation for all things, requiring physical laws to regulate the objective world, while still leaving open our ability to discern what lies at the heart of the totality of the universe.
There are those who would wish to confine our understanding to those physical laws and principles as a means of making sense of the existence of temporal beings in what appears to be an infinite realm outside of our reach in the distant galaxies and in the vastness of space, but it is becoming increasingly clear, even to the materialists and scientists, that there are layers of existence—strata to the content of reality—which are not directly subject to the physical laws which govern the physical universe itself.
Is this an example of cognitive speculation?
…of course…
The beginnings of every innovation and every new practical idea are contained in the exploration of ideas generally. Speculation leads to examination, and examination leads to exploration of what might support that speculation. We must begin somewhere!
The difficultly usually comes when we consider that we are attempting to reach an empirical understanding of a highly subjective experiential awareness. We know all about the way the brain supports our awareness, and how it can enrich the outcome of our computations and our speculations. The support mechanisms of our cognitive processing in our brains have practical applications in assisting us while navigating within the objective temporal world, and informing our awareness through critical thinking and cognitive processing.
This is a fairly straightforward proposition, even though we are still not completely sure how everything works in our brains. We know a lot more now than ever before, but we still have gaps in our knowledge, and must continue to explore.
The full and true nature of reality itself is a wide-open question for most serious thinkers, but we have a fairly solid grasp of the general run of things in broad terms when it comes to the cosmos—the world of the expanding universe—and to the quantum world—that which governs the world of the very small. In broad terms, we have a kind of “gist of what’s happening,” in reality, and we continue to search for explanations and evidence of what constitutes the true nature of both objective and subjective reality.
Even Einstein thought that “imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
It doesn’t just encircle it. It sits at the very heart of all understanding. We must first imagine that something IS possible, before it can be shown to BE possible. It doesn’t take that much effort to appreciate the fact that if one only sets their sights on ways to eliminate what they consider to be impossible, then no matter what they imagine in THAT case, it will focus only on what is NOT possible. When we question whether or not something MIGHT BE possible, that’s when we seek most earnestly. If something actually IS possible, the only way to find out is to explore. Exploration requires speculation at a certain point. It should be a staple of investigations of every kind.
When we develop theories, we are especially compelled to speculate about the subject of the theory, and then to suggest possible resolutions to explain the idea. Whether or not there may ever be an empirical explanation, we can still examine the subject and see how a particular theory might explain what we witness and experience as subjective beings.
The idea of a “non-local” character to consciousness is something that I suggested quite a long time ago, and while it is clearly a challenge to establish anything for certain, reviewing our own experiences with a critical eye could present us with some indication of a non-local nature to our experience of consciousness.
I began this entry with the suggestion that “Everything is connected,” and the evidence is beginning to mount in support of that idea. Reality is not simply and only a physical phenomenon. In order to explain our subjective experience of the world, it seems like we will have to speculate a bit more and investigate and extrapolate. Just because we are exploring doesn’t imply that we will discover anything new necessarily, but we may be able to piece together a picture of reality that leaves an opening for aspects which we are unable to explain empirically.
John's Consciousness 