Following Our Quantum World Path..Rediscovering Reality

Consider that our planet is about 4.3 Billion years old and the fact that homo-sapiens in one form or another have been walking about for nearly 2 million years, isn’t it a bit odd that we have maybe 10,000 years of known history? During the past ten years much has been discovered to refute that notion. While we have written in the past of ancient archeological discovers, we thought it timely to revisit this subject and open up a dialogue for us all to reconnect to current facts.

(John Carlo) Just after the Deluge, at the dawn of the present time cycle, an era the Egyptians called ZEP TEPI, “The First Times”, a mysterious group of “gods” appeared, to initiate the survivors in the rudiments of civilization. From Thoth and Osiris in Egypt, to Quetzacoatal and Viracocha in the Americas, traditions worldwide subscribe the origins of contemporary civilisation to this sophisticated group.
Related The Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean – Full Text Pdf

Despite the misleading popularity of Von Danikan journalism, evidence from around the world, indicates these people were the hi-tech survivors of the previous civilization. Like the nuclear survival bunkers and secret research facilities of our civilization, there were those who arose from the underground “cities of the Gods”, after the dust settled. They were the “pre-diluvian patriarchs”, like Enoch and Methuselah, the “giants and heroes of old”, mentioned in Genesis.

The enigmatic gods of ancient Sumer, Egypt, and India, all hail from the fabulous times before the Flood. Since the declassification of the new ground-penetrating radar 2 years ago, the most staggering data has emerged of complex and labyrinthine underground systems in various parts of the world. At places like Guatemala in the South Americas, tunnels have been mapped under the Mayan pyramid complex at Tikal, which extend a full 800 kilometers to the opposite side of the country. Investigators remarked, it was possible to understand how half a million Mayan Indians escaped the decimation of their culture.

Related Corey Goode CLE 2017 Presentation: ETs and Inner Earth beings | COMPLETE Transcript and Images

In similar fashion, the SIRA radar was deployed in Egypt as early as 1978, mapping an extraordinary subterranean complex beneath the Egyptian pyramids. Arrangements made with President Sadat of Egypt, resulted in three decades of top secret excavations to penetrate the system. At a recent meeting in Australia, one of the key scientists on the Giza project, Dr. Jim Hurtak, showed film footage of work in progress called, CHAMBERS OF THE DEEP. The film reveals the discovery of a vast megalithic metropolis, 15,000 years old, reaching several levels below the Giza plateau.

Related Antarctica and Imprisoned Fallen Angels from the Book of Enoch 

While the rest of the New-Age speculates about a hidden chamber under the left paw of the Sphinx, the legendary “City Of The Gods”, lays sprawled beneath. Complete with hydraulic underground waterways, the film shows massive chambers, the proportions of our largest cathedrals, with enormous statues, the size of the Valley of the Nile, carved in-situ. Researchers, risking their lives with lights and cameras, carefully negotiated rubber dinghies across subterranean rivers and kilometer-wide lakes, to penetrate sealed chambers beyond. Already, remarkable caches of records and artifacts have been found. It is the legacy of a civilization and a technology way beyond our own. Just consider the fact of a technology capable of creating a vast underground city, of which the sphinx and pyramids are merely the surface markers. The project scientist, Dr. Hurtak, likens it to the impact of contact with an advanced extraterrestrial culture. He described it as the discovery of the Fourth Root culture, the so-called Atlantean civilization, destroyed by the last earth tumble. It presents unequivocal evidence that all languages, cultures and religions trace back to a single common source, which Dr. Hurtak refers to as the “Parent Civilization”.

The technology unearthed is way beyond machine technology, as we know it. As Arthur C. Clark once joked, “any technology beyond our own would seem like magic to us.” According to Dr. Hurtak, this was a culture who cracked the genetic code and possessed the keys of the physical spectrum, the “Higher Light Physics” of the ancients… everything old Gilgamesh went searching for in his famous trek to the lost “City of the Gods” to search the tunnels beneath “Mt. Mashu” in the desert lands.

Related The Forbidden Book of Enoch: Lost Bible Passages – Aliens, Noah, ET Intervention, UFO’s, Cataclysm, the Flood, Nephilim

Hurtak refers to a “language of light” and a great priest-scientist of the previous time cycle, named ENOCH, who is associated with the building of the Great Pyramid complex. Hurtak alludes to a grand spiritual science, a science which describes a genetic stairway to the stars. The priest-scientist ENOCH, is a pre-diluvian patriarch, one of the most famous and seminal characters of the previous time cycle. Father of Methuselah and great grandfather of Noah, Enoch is credited in the Bible as architect of the original Zion, the legendary “City of Yahweh”, as well as inventor of the alphabet and calendar. Enoch is also history’s first astronaut, who “is taken aloft by the Lord” and shown “the secrets of earth and heaven”. He returns to earth with the “weights and measures” for all humankind.

Known to the Egyptians as THOTH, the “Lord of Magic and Time” and to the Greeks as HERMES, “messenger of the gods”, he is even remembered in the Celtic tradition as the enigmatic wizard Merlin, who disappears up an apple tree to mythic Avalon, seeking the secret of immortality and vowing to return. As one who attained immortality, the secret of how we “might become as gods”, Thoth/Enoch promises to return at the end of time “with the keys to the gates of the sacred land.”

In the controversial Dead Sea Scrolls, revealing the lost Books Of Enoch removed from the Bible by early religious leaders, Enoch describes a wondrous civilization in the past, who misused the keys of higher knowledge and were unable to save themselves from the last cataclysm. Both literally and figuratively they lost the “keys”, they lost all higher knowledge. Yet, Enoch, along with many traditions, even the Mayan legend of Quetzacoatal, promises a return of this knowledge at “The end of time”, the end of the present time cycle.

Biblical Revelations promise “all will be revealed” at the end of the present world. The extraordinary discoveries in Egypt and other parts of the world, describe not just an advanced technology but, evolutionary path beyond our present state. Careful scientific examination of the world’s key pyramid sites, reveal them to be sophisticated harmonic structures, not only mirroring positions of the planets and stellar systems but, designed to mimic the chakras and harmonic cavities of the human body. Even each stone within the Great Pyramid is harmonically tuned to a specific frequency or musical tone. The sarcophagus in the centre of the Great Pyramid is tuned to the frequency of the human heart beat. Astonishing experiments, conducted by Dr. Hurtak and colleagues at the Great Pyramid and other sites in the South Americas, demonstrate the pyramids to be voice-activated “geophysical computers.”

Intoning specific ancient sounds, the scientific team produced visible standing waves of light, above and within the pyramids and were even able to penetrate, hitherto, inaccessible chambers. Subsequent discoveries indicate the ancient priest-scientists employed some sort of harmonic sound technology within the temple structures. The lost Enochian knowledge reveals the mother tongue as a “language of Light”. Known to the ancients as HIBURU, it is the primal seed language, introduced at the beginning of this time cycle.

Modern research confirms, the most ancient form Hebrew to be a natural language, the alphabetic forms emerging from the phosphene flare patterns of the brain. The same shapes, in fact, born of a spinning vortex. It is a true language of light, coursing through our very nervous system. Encoding the natural waveform geometries of the physical world, Hiburu is a harmonic language, mimicking the waveform properties of light.

The “keys” Enoch speaks of, turn out to be sound keys, keys to be vibratory matrix of reality itself, the mythic “Power of the World”. The Enochian knowledge describes sonic equations, encoded within the ancient mantras and god names, capable of directly affects the nervous system and producing profound effect of healing and higher consciousness states. As the ancient texts declare, “If you would speak with the gods you must first learn the language of the gods.”

DNA, the ancient cabalistic “Tree Of Life” portrayed in the Biblical Torah, is now coming to be viewed as a live vibrating structure, rather than a fixed tape recording. Many modern scientists, regard DNA as a shimmering, waveform configuration, able to be modified by light, radiation, magnetic fields or sonic pulses. The legacy of Thoth/Enoch suggests this “language of Light”, the harmonic science of the ancients, could actually affect DNA. The evidence in Egypt, indicates this was the grand 6,000 year genetic experiment attempted by the Egyptians, the quest for immortality and the stars, a quest described by the great ones of old, a quest initiated by Gilgamesh so very long ago.

Related A Fractal Antenna | DNA In The Electric Universe

We may be on the precipice of an entirely new understanding of both our origins and our destiny in this universe. These scientific and documented discoveries are pointing the way to both the end of our ignorance of our past and the dawning of a new age of man. An age when we more fundamental understand the universe around us and how it operates and more importantly how it  (the universe/reality) responds to light, sound, and frequency manipulation.

Opening your mind to how light and sound can be used in your daily life to heal your body and expand your consciousness can be time well spent.

Understanding the Deep State and Shadow Government

In the 1990’s and early 2000’s there were numerous conspiracy theorists who were writing about a secret government, “the cabal”, “the Khazarian Mafia” that was covertly taking control of governments, banks, and corporations worldwide. They were labeled as paranoid nut jobs by mainstream pundits and the MSM. This being the case, even though several world leaders were warning of the very same reality since the early 1950’s. Dwight Eisenhower’s famous farewell speech in which he said,” In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together”.

President Kennedy also warned of this growing covert control. He spoke clearly of it when he said, “For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.”

Now in 2017, we see this secret oligarchic society openly opposing the will of the people worldwide. We see how 0.1% now controls 96% of the global wealth and we understand how money and power are enslaving the world’s population to the point that education is now considered unnecessary for the masses. Health care is a privilege, and war is for profit, not honor or security. We have been forced to relinquish our rights for so-called “national security”. The Nut Jobs were right all along.

Still, however, many refuse to face this reality so let’s try again and more clearly state exactly what reality is. It is unmistakably clear that our federal government’s national security apparatus faces opposition from an ever-expanding and ever-ramifying network of individuals and groups that are prepared to subvert the Constitution, the rule of law and our national security interests in order to advance their own ideological pre-commitments.

One way to think of this network is a shadow government, a metaphor that has attained a progressively larger public profile over the past several months. This network denotes individuals and groups bound together by a common ideological worldview that takes precedence over norms of democratic governance. To understand this issue more intelligibly, it is useful to define the term shadow government. Several related ideas and concepts undergird this term.

First, the term shadow government issues forth from the notion of a shadow cabinet. The term shadow cabinet originated out of parliamentary forms of government wherein the losing party in an election campaign appoints members of its party to “shadow” officials appointed by the ruling party. Members of the shadow cabinet are selected by party leaders to represent the party’s own political interests, a process that is advanced by publicly critiquing the policy agenda of the party in power.

Second, in our non-parliamentary system, the idea of a shadow government, secret government, or invisible government signifies that real and actual political power resides or ought to reside, not with elected representatives, but with private individuals, government bureaucrats, judges and elites, who exercise power and influence behind the scenes in order to bend the so-called arc of justice to favor their preferences. Power, in this view, is to be wielded by individuals who are linked by an overarching ideological agenda committed to an expansion of the administrative state, grounded in the proclivity of progressives to delegate power to unaccountable experts outside of the scrutiny of democratic institutions. That is, experts exercise power beyond the reach of the Constitution and democratically elected representatives including the President and Congress.

Third, properly appreciated, shadow government supporters maintain that the official elected government is, and ought to be, subservient to its shadow, which holds or ought to hold, true executive power. Shadow government proponents include members of the administrative bureaucracy. They believe that the government, or at least certain levers of government, ought to be secretly controlled by elites who wish to remain secretive about their desire to manipulate policy, that is, until one of their chosen representatives assumes presidential power.

On a global basis, this power elite have been proven to manipulate elections, control monetary systems, launder drug monies for their own drug peddling operations that secretly finance their power and influence over duly elected officials, wage wars and create chaos for financial benefit, and control the MSM to insure all goes without inflaming the victims (us) of their theft of our labor and our blood.

It is vitally important that we all come to grips with this reality. It is not a conspiracy. More importantly, unlike what this oligarchic group would now have us believe, we ARE NOT POWERLESS. Knowledge of the facts and the resolve to act in a socially responsible manner, we can stand up, speak up, and act up. Literally the very freedom of our families and children are at stake here. We act now or we may never again know freedom and prosperity. We may never again have the ability to control our own destinies. Sound over dramatic? Think about it. The facts are staring us right in the face.

Today is International Space Day

On April 12, 1961, the era of human spaceflight began when the Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human to orbit the Earth in the Vostok I spacecraft. The flight lasted 108 minutes. Twenty years later, on the morning of April 12, 1981, two astronauts sat strapped into their seats on the flight deck of Columbia, a radically new spacecraft known as the space shuttle.

In the years following Yuri Gagarin’s first spaceflight, over 500 people from almost 40 countries have flown into space. New opportunities in space were created in the year 2000 when the first crew boarded the International Space Station (ISS), a joint space project involving 15 countries.

Since the start of its operation, the ISS has gradually turned into a huge laboratory in near-Earth space.

In spite of more than 50 years of space exploration, there remains much skepticism and doubt about humankind’s need to invest into space. Why explore space? Every time something amazing is accomplished in space, someone will make the comment “Why spend so much money, time, and effort in space or on Mars or in orbit when there are many equally important issues here on Earth, such as poverty, disease, and famine?’

The space industry is not a financial black hole; no agency launches a bucket with cash into  space. The majority of the money spent on space exploration goes toward the salaries which pay thousands of skilled workers who make each mission successful. This industry creates diverse jobs all over the world, supports scientific research at various universities, and helps people to stay employed. Moreover, rough calculation shows that, on average, the expenses for space exploration cost approximately $5 to every person living on Earth (or 0.05% of world GDP per year).

Space exploration stimulates the creation of many tangible and intangible benefits for humanity.  New devices and services enter the global marketplace as a direct result of innovations within the space industry. Space exploration leads to advances in science and technology; it furthers workforce development and pushes industrial capabilities, thus leading to an overall stimulation of private companies;all of which contributes significantly to the economic progress of space‐faring nations. Space exploration is known to attract young people into careers in science and technology, adding  to the general benefit of society and the economy. 

Exploring space has several intangible effects. Due to its inherent social and philosophical dimensions, delving into the unknown helps us to address the nature and meaning of human life. This leads to more enriched cultures, more inspired citizens, and greater international  understanding as a result of cooperation among space‐faring nations.

To be a human is to be an explorer – reaching into space is but an expansion of a basic human nature ingrained deep within us since the first tribes left the African savanna and spread into Europe and Asia. Our ancestors had a need to explore the unknown. Now, humans have visited or settled every corner of the globe. The instinct to explore is still active, but there are very few outlets. Some people seek out extreme or exotic places to satisfy this need, others look to the skies. It may be an old cliche, but Star Trek had it right: Space is the Final Frontier, and it calls to the Explorer in all of us.

Today it seems even more important to pause and think for a few moments why we haven’t been inspired lately. Now more than ever we need, as a global community, something to dream about. Something to look forward to as our future unfolds. Space exploration is that unifying factor.

 

Do We Really Understand Our Rights?

A concern we have had for some time is how since 9-11 we have willingly give up our sovereign rights for “security”.  Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. “

We have been desensitized  to the erosion of our rights in the name of security. It is important that we understand the dangerous territory we are entering.  It is appropriate that we pause for a moment and think seriously at what we are willingly giving up in the name of security. The effort to have us give up such things as a right to privacy, habeas corpus, illegal search and seizure, due process has been intense in the name of national security. The question we must ask is have we truly benefited from the choices that have been foisted upon us?

 Hey Cristina presented a great discourse on this very subject.

WHAT IS A RIGHT?
What exactly is a right? Is it something that you are born with? Is it something that is a priori? Or is it a man made construct like time? You can ask one hundred individuals what they believe a right is and they will all have slightly distinct and unique perspectives on what it is. I want to use this essay as a way to bring about a discussion on what rights are and whether they actually exist.

A right is a legal, social, or ethical standard that people are entitled to. It is a social normative or idea of what is allowed by people and what is owed to people. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states.”

A right is something that an individual or a group of individuals feel entitled to. They may feel entitled to this because of the laws set before them or because they feel that it is innately understood for all humans to have these rights. What I want to discuss is the different types of rights and whether they are actually rights at all. Here I am going to discuss what natural rights, legal rights, positive rights, and negative rights are and whether they are what we think they are or privileges handed down to us.

NATURAL RIGHTS
Natural rights are rights that are not manmade. They are not given by a governing body. They are what some would call inalienable. The United States declares life and liberty as natural rights (although that remains to be seen).

According to John Locke natural rights have always been. Before there were states or other governing bodies, there was nature and the people of the Earth were all subject to the laws of nature. Those laws created what is known as natural rights. What exactly could be considered a natural right? “The right to live” is considered a natural right, but is it really natural? Does Mother Nature stop hurricanes from running up into cities where thousands or millions of people could be hurt because the inhabitants there have the right to live? No. She doesn’t. Nature is nature and it is bound by no [man-made] laws. So if there is no natural law, there can be no natural rights.

The Earth provides all the necessities to live (if we imagine a world without war mongering governing bodies controlling the resources and flow of energy), but it does not give any individual, whether human, plant, or animal, the right to live. It simply provides the means to live and you, whatever you are (plant, animal, or human) have to work in some form or another to survive. This may mean that you have to open up your leaves every morning to catch the sun’s rays, or it may mean you have to hunt for your food, or it may mean you have to build shelter to stay warm, but whatever it is, you, the individual, has to work to live. It is not a right provided by nature, it is actually a privilege.

LEGAL RIGHTS

Legal rights are easy. They are rights granted by a governing body. They are built into a society by a legal contract. Legal rights do not have to be morally acceptable. They do not, and usually are not, granted to the people of the world. Some countries maintain certain “rights” while others take “rights” away. Individuals are subject to whatever their authoritative ruling body declares as a right. It is something given, not innately possessed.

Legal rights are not rights at all. They are approved actions that the governing body allows the people to do. I think calling a legal right a right is contradictory to the term itself. We have the “right” to marry, but only under the conditions the governing body deems acceptable. We have the “right” to go to public schooling, but only the type of schooling the governing body deems honorable.

So, are legal rights, rights? By definition legal rights can be considered a right. They are written into a social contract that the individual signs (except that we didn’t actually sign any legal contracts with out government so are we therefore entitled to those rights? Read more here.) Is a legal right a right that is innately understood? No. Is it a right that everyone is entitled to? No. Different ruling bodies have different laws in place and they grant those rules or “rights” to the individuals of that land. Are legal rights yours? No. They are given, handed down to you. They are not yours by choice. I would argue that legal rights are not rights at all. They are privileges that the governing body allows the citizens to have. Is it really your right to marry if you can only marry under the conditions set forth by the state? Is it really your right too free speech when we have journalists being blacklisted and harmed for spreading truth the the people? Is it really your right to privacy when the NSA is watching our every move? Are these rights? No. They are not.

POSITIVE RIGHTS

Positive rights are rights that people give to themselves. They are rights the people believe they and others are entitled to. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “ the holder of a positive right is entitled to provision of some good or service.”  Some examples of positive rights:
-education
-healthcare
-housing
-internet access

-food

Positive rights can range from person to person. These are just a few common examples of what people claim they have a right to. Positive rights are typically enforced by a governing body. If we want universal healthcare, the people who believe this is a right would demand that it comes from their governing body. I do agree that IF we have a governing body working FOR us they should provide whatever the people insist on, especially since they are involuntarily taking our tax dollars to provide us with services.

However, I do not believe that positive rights are rights at all, they are privileges. They are ideas or agreements between the people and those who grant the positive rights. The right to life is not completely compatible or intertwined with the right to housing and food, although in some people’s minds these are one in the same. The current society we live in makes it very difficult to imagine different scenarios and this system creates a lot of the problems we face, but let’s say people have the right to live. Most people would say every person has the absolute right to live. They would then conclude that in order for people to have the right to live they must have the right to housing and food and in some cases, education. These are all really beautiful wants, but they are not rights. In order to provide these necessities for the 7 billion people of the planet it would have to be energy taken (either voluntarily or involuntarily) from another person or group of people. Yes, I agree that we should help each other out. If you see a hungry person on the road, buy him some food! If you believe education is important and everyone should have access to it start your own school! Or start your own initiative to educate. Make pamphlets, hold meetings, reach out! If you think everyone is entitled to something then do your best to expend that energy into your community, but do not insist that the government should grant you or anyone these rights. Remember that the government does not actually care about your rights (which is why it took 100 years of the women’s suffrage movement to gain the right to vote).

Positive rights are really beautiful and can be ideal, but they are not rights. They are privileges granted by someone to someone and in a world where freedom is becoming more and more limited we need to find a way to break away from the controlling entities that grant us these “rights” because where one person may gain, another may lose.

I want it to be clear that I do NOT support any governing body giving out rights. I do not think they are capable and trustworthy of such a task. The governing bodies have proven for centuries that they cannot handle the task of protecting the people. Ideally, the whole system would be abolished entirely.

NEGATIVE RIGHTS
A negative right is the right to non interference. It means that the individual has the right to do nothing. An individual is entitled to not help out their neighbor as much as they are entitled to help out their neighbor. Negative rights do not mean they are “bad”, it just means that no one can tell you what to do and that you are capable of deciding what you want in this life and whether you want to do anything about it.

WHO HAS RIGHTS?

Who exactly has rights? Is it me, an individual? The collective? Do children have rights? What about mentally disabled or handicapped peoples? Do animals have rights? Does the Earth have rights? Who has “rights”?

Every person on the Earth seems to believe they have “rights” and maybe they do, but how do we all agree on who has “rights” in our current society? With Big Brother watching our every move (Vault 7) one could argue that rights do not exist. We have been granted the right to privacy, but do we actually receive that right?

How do we solve the clashing of the right of the individual and the right of the collective? When is it morally acceptable to force an individual to obey or follow the demands of what you believe is your right? We believe we have the right to free speech here in the United States, but do we? What about when someone says something that is racist? Do racists lose their right to free speech?

What about when we have a group of people who need more financial assistance than another group of people? Do we invade the rights of one group to provide the rights for another? I do not agree with this form of action. I see why people would think this way, but right’s are not innate. They are given by others to others or to yourself. If everyone has rights, then we cannot rightfully overturn one individual or collectives rights to give rights to another individual or collective.

What about different people? Do children have rights? Do those deemed mentally ill (which is a whole different discussion on why the government might want to label individuals as incapable) have rights? Do handicapped peoples have rights?

Your initial response might be “of course!” Because what kind of a person would say that these people do not have rights? Not anyone with a good moral heart of course! But the truth is, no one has rights. If you believe people have rights, then when is it okay to take freedoms away from children? Why is it okay to yell and physically harm children? Do they not have the right to live in peace? To feel safe?

People labeled with mental disorders are the first individuals to lose their rights in the current political regime. Mental disorders cannot even be biologically pinpointed in many cases and are typically diagnosed based off descriptions found in textbooks. So who is to say who is mentally disabled and who is not? Why are they the first to lose their rights? They are forced into hospitals against their wills, they are told they cannot work in certain places, they are told they cannot own certain things (guns, etc.). Are these individuals less than those not stigmatized with a mental disease label? Do they really deserve less rights (if you still support the idea of rights at this point)?

What about animals? Do they not also have the right to life and liberty? Do you own an animal? Are you holding them captive? Do you eat animals? Aren’t you invading their right to life? So who’s right is it to live? Is it yours or theirs? Where is the line of rights drawn? If your rights interfere with another’s rights are they rights?  Again, this is why I say there are no rights. No one is entitled to anything at all because right’s get messy and they take away from others. This leads me to my next thought.

WHO GRANTS RIGHTS?

If we have rights, then who in this great massive world is granting them? Do you grant yourself rights? Are inalienable rights just supposed to be known (a priori)? Are right’s given as privileges by governing bodies?

If we have rights they have to come from somewhere. If you are religious you may say they come from your god. If you are a statist you may say they come from the state. Maybe you just believe they are there for the taking and no one grants them, but then this get’s really confusing because rights are either given or taken. They are not just floating in the air. If I say that I have the right to have decent housing do I go and take over someone else’s home to acquire my right to housing? Or do I force someone else to build me a suitable house? If it’s a right then I should obtain this right for free, shouldn’t I? If I have to pay for it, whether in monetary or energy wise, then it is not a right because it is something I have to work towards. If I coerce a group of people to build my house I have overstepped their rights in order to achieve my own. If I build my own house I have to invade the rights of the Earth (if you believe the Earth also has rights that is) to gather materials for my housing. In the end energy is always spent, voluntarily or involuntarily, to gain or take rights. Nothing is free and no one and nothing can grant you rights. You either have the capabilities to do something or you don’t.

Some people may argue that rights are innate. We have the right to live, so that means people do not have the right to take my life. Well, someone actually can take your life, unfortunately, so is that a right? Or a privilege?

Rights are privileges granted by someone or something with the power to enforce those rights. I personally love the idea of rights. I love the idea that I would have the right to live in a house without paying rent, or to get all the food I need to eat for the week, but the truth is I do not have these “rights”. I am lucky enough to have the means necessary to harbor these ideologies (aka: rights), but they are not provided for me and they are not provided for people anywhere. Maybe in smaller communities, where governments cease to exist, we would have the means to help those in need, but in this current system we do not even have the ability to grant others or ourselves these “rights”.

CONCLUSION

I hope that I do not give the impression that “rights” are silly. I think there are a lot of good intentions behind rights and why people believe we have them, but in the end I do not think rights exist. I do not think anyone has the right to anything, not even life itself. You were born without choice, but do you come here with inalienable rights? Or do you come here and have your rights protected and granted by governing bodies (who take rights away from others to give it to you)?

If my rights clash with your rights, then who keeps their rights? Someone must gain while someone must lose and even if it’s for a good cause it still doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t a right. All rights are man made ideas and there is no higher authority who grants everyone the same rights. Rights are privileges. They are things that some people are capable of and some are not. Should we help those less capable in achieving what we wish everyone to have? Yes, we should, but again this doesn’t change the fact that they are not rights. It is a privilege to live. It is a privilege to eat. Sadly, not everyone has these privileges. I hope that one day we can create a world where we all have the same privileges. Where everyone has the means to create or have a home, to grow or obtain food, to make or buy clothing, etc. In the end though, these are privileges.

Privileges are not given. They just are. Some people have more privilege than others based on a variety of things (race, gender, place of birth, etc). You do not choose your privileges and we have limited privileges due to the ruling body of government who maintains a monopoly on the privileges given. They maintain control over what “rights” are given and who has “rights” and who does not have “rights”. Without the central government controlling all aspects of education, energy, resources, businesses, protection services, we would have more privileges and we would be more capable of providing what we believe others should have. Unfortunately, we are subject to these rulers which is why it is essential we leave this currently dead end system in it’s place. We can create the world we wish to see here and now. We can help people without the government in place, but we have to unite as a people of the Earth. We have to believe in the power within ourselves. We have to create alternatives to the situations at hand. Agorism is a peaceful means to an end and as much as I would like to get into what agorism is I will just leave you with information for you to discover on your own.

We can discuss what privileges we believe we all should have, but this essay’s main purpose was to discuss whether rights are real or imaginary and whether or not we have them. Let me know what you think about rights and what conclusions you have come to based off your own thoughts.

Inherent Rights

A priori rights—rights that exist from the beginning (inalienable)—are harder to pin down because it requires highly abstract thinking. The more abstract the concepts become, the more they begin to make contact with concepts of divinity, and this is why any lawful system worth its salt defines inalienable rights as coming from the divine. And even within the existing fallacious system, all law traces back to the Vatican and Roman Curia.

To assert that some rights are inherent, without also speaking to their origin, leaves the door open for moral relativism or the idea that what is right or wrong is subject to change, depending on social queues or personal whims. It also opens the door for unequal rights—that some people have more rights than others (like royalty). But these claims are fallacious because part of what makes a lawful system real and valid is that it applies to all people equality, also known as the Golden Rule of Law.

While the origin of inherent rights is a huge concept to unpack here, what can be briefly said is that these rights are “extended” from the Creator because, ultimately, all things are a part of the Creator. Thus, any rights the Creator has, the creature has by extension—because ultimately the creature and Creator are one. However, the creature has to learn through experience how to use these rights properly (or discover what they even are), and this is why life is fraught with the potential for social problems—in the act of solving them (justice) knowledge of how to act without harm is gained.

Rights are NOT Privileges 

If we define a right as a privilege—as the vast majority of institutions do—then yes, it is accurate to say rights, as so defined, do not exist. This is because a right—an inherent capacity to do something—cannot also be a privilege—permission given by someone to do something. Although, as we just discussed, in order to use your rights honorably, you need to work with others.

You have the right to breathe; you don’t have to ask anyone’s permission to breathe. You simply breathe, and if someone tells you that you need their permission, then it is clear they are not understanding reality. To have a right that also requires permission would be a logical fallacy or an inherent contradiction.

But rights and privileges are related to one another because when a person exercises their rights they affect others and those people can choose to agree or disagree, to accept or reject that behavior. But this is more accurately described as consent instead of a privilege.

Introducing a new term to make understanding these things easier, consider then that in order to use your rights honorably, you should notify others whenever possible. Notice, in this sense, is the tool true sovereigns use to develop honorable dealings with their fellows, the thing that allows one to use their rights in a way that respects others.

Conversely, when someone uses their rights without notice, they create controversy, misunderstanding, or potentially, harm. For example, the right to free speech is one that most cultures acknowledge as valid, and yet almost everyone recognizes that using this right needs to be done with respect. The right of free speech is balanced by the recognition of mutual respect, specifically, the recognition that other people have the right to listen to you or not.

Stated more clearly, we all have the right to free speech, but a conversation is a “privilege” because the consent of another must be gained—we can’t have a conversation with someone who refuses to do so. Also, if we lie or intentionally deceive others then using our right of free speech causes harm to others and the world through the proliferation of falsehoods. Thus, there are two sides to the use of one’s rights, and it is up to the individual to learn how to use them wisely. Rights, if used properly, make things better for the person using them and all others.

Therefore, exercising rights—due to the nature of our contractual reality and the fact our actions affect others—is inexorably and forever linked to socialization. Matter of fact, if we consider that all things in the universe are made of consciousness, alive in their own right, then everything we do, including living in our own bodies, is a social enterprise—without other beings, we wouldn’t be able to exercise any rights at all.

From this discussion we can see very clearly that we must each decide what rights are for the entire population of the planet.  There are very concerted efforts to divide us; to polarize our beliefs. We must now stand as individuals, as sovereign beings, and declare our rights as individual human beings. We suspect we ALL share a vision of what those rights should be. It is now time to overcome these artificial divisions that have been foisted upon us and as INDIVIDUALS declare our right as sovereign human beings. We suspect when we perceive this reality, our lives can improve quickly and positively. Stand up!

 

It is Time We All Know the World for What it Truly Is

 George Orwell once said that “in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Since he offered those words decades ago, we have seen deceit become a pervasive and global problem, where the general public really has no clue what is happening around the world. The truth is, we live in a world of secrecy, and many prominent figures throughout history have been trying to tell us this for years. Even President Theodore Roosevelt warned us of the secret government, revealing that “behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

Eisenhower in his farewell speech said: “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.  We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love .“

More people became aware of the world of secrecy when Edward Snowden, a former intelligence contractor, leaked the very first documentation that proved the existence of clandestine black budget operations. These programs go far beyond surveillance and have no oversight from Congress. (You can read more about that topic here.)

To become aware of these hidden truths, one must be curious about our world and capable of thinking critically. It’s hard to know who to trust, especially when it comes to international politics. Examine information and go with what resonates with you; after that, you can look at what different politicians are saying, determine how it fits in with everything you’ve looked at, and connect the dots accordingly.

When it comes to geopolitics, things have become quite clear within the past few years for many, and there is a general consensus among many political leaders and academics that, for a long time, there has been a deliberate manipulation of the opinions of the masses, and that those who manipulate this “unseen mechanism, constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power” of global geopolitics. Our minds are “molded, our tastes formed” and our ideas are “suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” (Edward Bernays)

If the powers that be today find some standard or norm to their advantage, they force everyone else to comply. But if tomorrow these same standards get in their way, they are swift to throw them in the bin, declare them obsolete, and set or try to set new rules.

For years we’ve relied on mainstream media, but more people are starting to realize that it cannot be trusted, especially when it comes to covering major events like 9/11, the so called ‘war on terror,’ and other critical topics. Global corporate media has become a tool of deception and misinformation, and many of us still have yet to wake from our slumber and realize that this source of ‘information’ is simply an elite owned tool meant to push an agenda that has little to do with public interest.

The results of this massive deception and misinformation has foisted upon the American people and through them to our global citizenry a “con” job of epic proportion in the guise of the most recent presidency. While many are beginning to awaken to this fact, many more remain in their slumber as they are basically being stripped of their liberties, their livelihoods, and their dignities as human beings. Now more than ever, we must wake up, take responsibility for where we find ourselves, and most importantly, we must act to restore our principles of freedom, democracy, dignity, and tolerance that are the backbone principles of our founding fathers.

It is not too late. It is not impossible to reverse these ugly and mean-spirited actions that are unfolding. We simply must stand and proclaim “this is NOT who we are!” For the truth is while the majority has been quiet and, frankly, lazy, we still are the majority and we are by nature good, loving, and generous people that cherish freedom, choice, and opportunity for everyone.

Understanding the Quantum World and Our Quantum Nature Part Two Quantum Brain

In the first part of this series we began to understand the “quirky” nature of quantum mechanics in very basic ways. We realize this understanding is hard to get your head around, and even scientists are struggling with understanding the facts they are uncovering. Stated in the simplest manner, quantum mechanics demonstrates that the universe is really made up of sub-atomic particles which behave in ways that redefine how we have traditionally understood physics. Secondly, it appears the universe and all matter and energy in it is connected on this sub-atomic quantum level.

The basic premise is that quantum physics is not only the future of science, but is also the key to understanding consciousness, life, death, God, psychology, and the meaning of life. Quantum physics is an antidote to the moral sterility and mechanistic approach of scientific materialism and is the best and clearest approach to understanding our universe. In short, quantum physics is indeed the theory of everything.

The recent discovery of quantum vibrations inside neurons in the brain supports a controversial theory of consciousness.  If correct, it might lead to new treatments for many different conditions, as claimed in a new review of the evidence by Hameroff and Penrose (2013).  The theory – which implies the brain is connected to the universe at a quantum level – was first proposed in the 1990s, but it suffered extensive criticism.

One major point against it was that the brain was thought to be too “warm, wet and noisy” for coherent quantum processes. Recent evidence, though, from researchers led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay has found the proposed quantum vibrations inside microtubules within brain neurons. These microtubules are components of cell scaffolding – they help provide our cells with their structure – that are around 25µm in length. Other research has also found evidence of quantum coherence in living cells. It has been found in our sense of smell, in the parts of bird’s brains responsible for navigation and in plant photosynthesis.

Hameroff and Penrose explain that their theory suggests: “Consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, ‘proto-conscious’ quantum structure of reality.” They claim that their theory is: “The most rigorous, comprehensive and successfully-tested theory of consciousness ever put forth. From a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.” They also think that the electrical ‘brain waves’ which can be detected by an EEG machine could be a result of these deeper level microtubule vibrations.

The restatement of the theory has produced a flurry of criticism in the journal where it was published, Physics of Life Reviews, but the authors maintain that their theory suggests: “Conscious experience is intrinsically connected to the fine-scale structure of space – time geometry, and that consciousness could be deeply related to the operation of the laws of the universe.”

Deepak Chopra was asked to comment from the viewpoint of Eastern philosophy, which at first glance will seem irrelevant to most physicists. The essence of Eastern philosophy is to approach reality through subjective experience. Science takes the objective world as a given and has excluded subjectivity. On the face of it, the two worldviews face in opposite directions, even though it cannot be denied that our only access to reality is through subjective experience. If there is a reality beyond human awareness, it will remain unknown to us.

The potential for reconciling science and consciousness was first glimpsed during the quantum revolution a century ago when several of the greatest physicists, including Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Planck, and Pauli, surmised that consciousness might be so fundamental that it can’t be gotten around. This line of inquiry proved uncomfortable, however, and although the observer effect and the measurement problem brought consciousness to the fringes of experimentation, the Eastern view that reality is best explained through investigations into human awareness – our vehicle for knowing reality – was steadfastly ignored.

The landscape is changing now. Physics has never come closer to describing the quantum foundation of consciousness than in this article by Penrose and Hameroff. It begins with the brain as a testable locus of the mind, the standard materialist position. But by tracing brain activity to quantum events at the microtubule level, the Orch OR model positions itself at the halfway house between the physicalist perspective and the “spiritual” perspective most purely represented by Vedanta. Vedanta is non-dual theory (Penrose–Hameroff claim that “spiritual” systems are dual), that posits that the cosmos is the play of consciousness, which undergoes transformations into what we perceive as matter and energy. By inserting Platonic values from mathematics, Orch OR, while still accepting the primacy of a world “out there,” opens up a choice.

The choice is between two non-dual explanations for how mind came into being. Vedanta says that mind is innate in creation. To be viable, this brand of monism must show how mind created matter and energy. The challenge from the Penrose–Hameroff side is to show how matter and energy created mind. Of the two, Vedanta, in our view, has the upper hand. Mind creates matter every time we have thoughts that generate unique electrochemical activity in the brain. But no one has credibly shown how molecules learned to think. This article is an optimistic step in a project that is paradoxical when viewed by Vedanta.

The_Awakening_V_Evolution_by_CygX1

The paradox is that Vedanta rejects materialism as unsound while at the same time allowing any model to be valid on its own limited terms. Since all models are created in consciousness, and since consciousness creates reality, the scientific model is a creative use of consciousness – all models, including the religious and philosophical, are equal in this respect. Science isn’t privileged, but neither is Buddhism or Theosophy or aboriginal animism. Vedanta can live with the paradox that all systems of thought are viable and inadequate at the same time. The only privileged thing is consciousness itself.

Orch OR provides a credible, testable model for how mental activity enters the physical world. Take its optimism and turn it around: the mind-brain problem is indeed closer to being solved, not because quantum events give rise to mind but because these events indicate that an invisible agency (consciousness) is producing orderly, intelligent, information-infused activity at the very interface where space-time emerges. The Platonic values of mathematics are undeniable, and once they are admitted into the picture, Vedanta would allow in every other Platonic value (truth, beauty, love). Then “nothing” – pure awareness without qualities – is the only viable explanation left standing for the origin of mind and reality itself.

We are beginning to see how quantum physics affects our understanding of:
– Zen
– Thoughts, feelings, and intuitions
– Dreams
– Karma, death, and reincarnation
– God’s will, evolution, and purpose
– The meaning of dreams
– The spiritualization of economics and business, politics and – -education, and society itself

This goes a long way in explaining our shift into a fourth and fifth dimensional world. It really isn’t that difficult to comprehend when the science defines the esoteric more clearly, is it? Your consciousness really does create your reality, and if we take that one step further; our collective consciousness creates our entire world and how we experience it. The important take away here is that we don’t have to believe, we can know scientifically we are participatory in our creation.

Piercing-the-Veil-711x560Interestingly, this quantum reality is alluded to in the bible, not once, but twice. In Luke 17:6, “if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘be uprooted and planted in the sea,’.  In Matthew 17:20, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

Now that this is beginning to make sound scientific sense, what kind of world are we going to create together?

Understanding the Quantum World and Our Quantum Nature Part One

We are beginning a three part series to help us all understand the true “nature” of the new reality that is currently unfolding. It really isn’t as mysterious as we might think. It is more a matter of our evolution reaching a point where we are beginning to understand the quantum nature of the universe and more importantly the quantum nature of our consciousness.

It is our hope that this series of articles will allow many of our readers to “wrap their head” around what they sense is happening and by that understanding be able to more actively direct their consciousness in such a manner to explore more fully the new reality they find themselves entering. It is a little heady, but this is the real science of our reality.

Philip Ball of the BBC wrote earlier this month an interesting article to get to the first basic understanding of this new reality.   “ I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem.” The American physicist Richard Feynman said this about the notorious puzzles and paradoxes of quantum mechanics, the theory physicists use to describe the tiniest objects in the Universe. But he might as well have been talking about the equally knotty problem of consciousness.

Some scientists think we already understand what consciousness is, or that it is a mere illusion. But many others feel we have not grasped where consciousness comes from at all. The perennial puzzle of consciousness has even led some researchers to invoke quantum physics to explain it. That notion has always been met with skepticism, which is not surprising: it does not sound wise to explain one mystery with another. But such ideas are not obviously absurd, and neither are they arbitrary.

For one thing, the mind seemed, to the great discomfort of physicists, to force its way into early quantum theory. What’s more, quantum computers are predicted to be capable of accomplishing things ordinary computers cannot, which reminds us of how our brains can achieve things that are still beyond artificial intelligence. “Quantum consciousness” is widely derided as mystical woo, but it just will not go away.

What is going on in our brains?

Quantum mechanics is the best theory we have for describing the world at the nuts-and-bolts level of atoms and subatomic particles. Perhaps the most renowned of its mysteries is the fact that the outcome of a quantum experiment can change depending on whether or not we choose to measure some property of the particles involved.

When this “observer effect” was first noticed by the early pioneers of quantum theory, they were deeply troubled. It seemed to undermine the basic assumption behind all science: that there is an objective world out there, irrespective of us. If the way the world behaves depends on how – or if – we look at it, what can “reality” really mean?

Some of those researchers felt forced to conclude that objectivity was an illusion, and that consciousness has to be allowed an active role in quantum theory. To others, that did not make sense. Surely, Albert Einstein once complained, the Moon does not exist only when we look at it!

Today some physicists suspect that, whether or not consciousness influences quantum mechanics, it might in fact arise because of it. They think that quantum theory might be needed to fully understand how the brain works.

Might it be that, just as quantum objects can apparently be in two places at once, so a quantum brain can hold onto two mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time?

These ideas are speculative, and it may turn out that quantum physics has no fundamental role either for or in the workings of the mind. But if nothing else, these possibilities show just how strangely quantum theory forces us to think.

double-slit-experimentThe Famous Double-slit Experiment.

The most famous intrusion of the mind into quantum mechanics comes in the “double-slit experiment”. Imagine shining a beam of light at a screen that contains two closely-spaced parallel slits. Some of the light passes through the slits, whereupon it strikes another screen.

Light can be thought of as a kind of wave, and when waves emerge from two slits like this they can interfere with each other. If their peaks coincide, they reinforce each other, whereas if a peak and a trough coincide, they cancel out. This wave interference is called diffraction, and it produces a series of alternating bright and dark stripes on the back screen, where the light waves are either reinforced or cancelled out.

This experiment was understood to be a characteristic of wave behavior over 200 years ago, well before quantum theory existed. The double slit experiment can also be performed with quantum particles like electrons; tiny charged particles that are components of atoms. In a counter-intuitive twist, these particles can behave like waves. That means they can undergo diffraction when a stream of them passes through the two slits, producing an interference pattern.

Now suppose that the quantum particles are sent through the slits one by one, and their arrival at the screen is likewise seen one by one. Now there is apparently nothing for each particle to interfere with along its route – yet nevertheless the pattern of particle impacts that builds up over time reveals interference bands. The implication seems to be that each particle passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself. This combination of “both paths at once” is known as a superposition state. But here is the really odd thing.

If we place a detector inside or just behind one slit, we can find out whether any given particle goes through it or not. In that case, however, the interference vanishes. Simply by observing a particle’s path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle’s motion – we change the outcome.

The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: “observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position.” In other words, Jordan said, “we ourselves produce the results of measurements.” If that is so, objective reality seems to go out of the window. And it gets even stranger. Particles can be in two states.

If nature seems to be changing its behavior depending on whether we “look” or not, we could try to trick it into showing its hand. To do so, we could measure which path a particle took through the double slits, but only after it has passed through them. By then, it ought to have “decided” whether to take one path or both.

An experiment for doing this was proposed in the 1970s by the American physicist John Wheeler, and this “delayed choice” experiment was performed in the following decade. It uses clever techniques to make measurements on the paths of quantum particles (generally, particles of light, called photons) after they should have chosen whether to take one path or a superposition of two.

It turns out that, just as Bohr confidently predicted, it makes no difference whether we delay the measurement or not. As long as we measure the photon’s path before its arrival at a detector is finally registered, we lose all interference. It is as if nature “knows” not just if we are looking, but if we are planning to look.

Whenever, in these experiments, we discover the path of a quantum particle, its cloud of possible routes “collapses” into a single well-defined state. What’s more, the delayed-choice experiment implies that the sheer act of noticing, rather than any physical disturbance caused by measuring, can cause the collapse. But does this mean that true collapse has only happened when the result of a measurement impinges on our consciousness?

That possibility was admitted in the 1930s by the Hungarian physicist Eugene Wigner. “It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness,” he wrote. “Solipsism may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics.”

Wheeler even entertained the thought that the presence of living beings, which are capable of “noticing”, has transformed what was previously a multitude of possible quantum pasts into one concrete history. In this sense, Wheeler said, we become participants in the evolution of the Universe since its very beginning. In his words, we live in a “participatory universe.”

To this day, physicists do not agree on the best way to interpret these quantum experiments, and to some extent what you make of them is (at the moment) up to you. But one way or another, it is hard to avoid the implication that consciousness and quantum mechanics are somehow linked.

Beginning in the 1980s, the British physicist Roger Penrose suggested that the link might work in the other direction. Whether or not consciousness can affect quantum mechanics, he said, perhaps quantum mechanics is involved in consciousness.

What if, Penrose asked, there are molecular structures in our brains that are able to alter their state in response to a single quantum event. Could not these structures then adopt a super-position state, just like the particles in the double slit experiment? And might those quantum super-positions then show up in the ways neurons are triggered to communicate via electrical signals?

Maybe, says Penrose, our ability to sustain seemingly incompatible mental states is no quirk of perception, but a real quantum effect. After all, the human brain seems able to handle cognitive processes that still far exceed the capabilities of digital computers. Perhaps we can even carry out computational tasks that are impossible on ordinary computers, which use classical digital logic.

Penrose first proposed that quantum effects feature in human cognition in his 1989 book The Emperor’s New Mind. The idea is called Orch-OR, which is short for “orchestrated objective reduction”. The phrase “objective reduction” means that, as Penrose believed, the collapse of quantum interference and superposition is a real, physical process, like the bursting of a bubble.

Orch-OR draws on Penrose’s suggestion that gravity is responsible for the fact that everyday objects, such as chairs and planets, do not display quantum effects. Penrose believes that quantum super-positions become impossible for objects much larger than atoms, because their gravitational effects would then force two incompatible versions of space-time to coexist.

Penrose developed this idea further with American physician Stuart Hameroff. In his 1994 book Shadows of the Mind, he suggested that the structures involved in this quantum cognition might be protein strands called microtubules. These are found in most of our cells, including the neurons in our brains. Penrose and Hameroff argue that vibrations of microtubules can adopt a quantum super-position. But there is no evidence that such a thing is remotely feasible.

It has been suggested that the idea of quantum super-positions in microtubules is supported by experiments described in 2013, but in fact those studies made no mention of quantum effects. Besides, most researchers think that the Orch-OR idea was ruled out by a study published in 2000. Physicist Max Tegmark calculated that quantum super-positions of the molecules involved in neural signaling could not survive for even a fraction of the time needed for such a signal to get anywhere.

Quantum effects such as super-position are easily destroyed, because of a process called decoherence. This is caused by the interactions of a quantum object with its surrounding environment, through which the “quantumness” leaks away. Decoherence is expected to be extremely rapid in warm and wet environments like living cells.

Nerve signals are electrical pulses, caused by the passage of electrically-charged atoms across the walls of nerve cells. If one of these atoms was in a super-position and then collided with a neuron, Tegmark showed that the super-position should decay in less than one billion billionth of a second. It takes at least ten thousand trillion times as long for a neuron to discharge a signal. As a result, ideas about quantum effects in the brain are viewed with great skepticism.

However, Penrose is unmoved by those arguments and stands by the Orch-OR hypothesis. And despite Tegmark’s prediction of ultra-fast decoherence in cells, other researchers have found evidence for quantum effects in living beings. Some argue that quantum mechanics is harnessed by migratory birds that use magnetic navigation, and by green plants when they use sunlight to make sugars in photosynthesis. Besides, the idea that the brain might employ quantum tricks shows no sign of going away. For there is now another, quite different argument for it.

Could Phosphorus Sustain a Quantum State?

In a study published in 2015, physicist Matthew Fisher of the University of California a t Santa Barbara argued that the brain might contain molecules capable of sustaining more robust quantum super-positions. Specifically, he thinks that the nuclei of phosphorus atoms may have this ability.

Phosphorus atoms are everywhere in living cells. They often take the form of phosphate ions, in which one phosphorus atom joins up with four oxygen atoms. Such ions are the basic unit of energy within cells. Much of the cell’s energy is stored in molecules called ATP, which contain a string of three phosphate groups joined to an organic molecule. When one of the phosphates is cut free, energy is released for the cell to use.

Cells have molecular machinery for assembling phosphate ions into groups and cleaving them off again. Fisher suggested a scheme in which two phosphate ions might be placed in a special kind of superposition called an “entangled state”. The phosphorus nuclei have a quantum property called spin, which makes them rather like little magnets with poles pointing in particular directions. In an entangled state, the spin of one phosphorus nucleus depends on that of the other.

Put another way, entangled states are really super-position states involving more than one quantum particle. Fisher says that the quantum-mechanical behavior of these nuclear spins could plausibly resist decoherence on human timescales. He agrees with Tegmark that quantum vibrations, like those postulated by Penrose and Hameroff, will be strongly affected by their surroundings “and will decohere almost immediately”. But nuclear spins do not interact very strongly with their surroundings.

All the same, quantum behavior in the phosphorus nuclear spins would have to be “protected” from decoherence.

Quantum particles can have different spins. This might happen, Fisher says, if the phosphorus atoms are incorporated into larger objects called “Posner molecules”. These are clusters of six phosphate ions, combined with nine calcium ions. There is some evidence that they can exist in living cells, though this is currently far from conclusive. In Posner molecules, Fisher argues, phosphorus spins could resist decoherence for a day or so, even in living cells. That means they could influence how the brain works.

thermal-head-scan

The idea is that Posner molecules can be swallowed up by neurons. Once inside, the Posner molecules could trigger the firing of a signal to another neuron, by falling apart and releasing their calcium ions. Because of entanglement in Posner molecules, two such signals might thus in turn become entangled: a kind of quantum superposition of a “thought”, you might say. “If quantum processing with nuclear spins is in fact present in the brain, it would be an extremely common occurrence, happening pretty much all the time,” Fisher says. He first got this idea when he started thinking about mental illness.

“My entry into the biochemistry of the brain started when I decided three or four years ago to explore how on earth the lithium ion could have such a dramatic effect in treating mental conditions,” Fisher says. Lithium drugs are widely used for treating bipolar disorder. They work, but nobody really knows how.

“I wasn’t looking for a quantum explanation,” Fisher says. But then he came across a paper reporting that lithium drugs had different effects on the behavior of rats, depending on what form – or “isotope” – of lithium was used. On the face of it, that was extremely puzzling. In chemical terms, different isotopes behave almost identically, so if the lithium worked like a conventional drug the isotopes should all have had the same effect.

But Fisher realized that the nuclei of the atoms of different lithium isotopes can have different spins. This quantum property might affect the way lithium drugs act. For example, if lithium substitutes for calcium in Posner molecules, the lithium spins might “feel” and influence those of phosphorus atoms, and so interfere with their entanglement. If this is true, it would help to explain why lithium can treat bipolar disorder.

It does not help that there is now a New Age cottage industry devoted to notions of “quantum consciousness“, claiming that quantum mechanics offers plausible rationales for such things as telepathy and telekinesis. As a result, physicists are often embarrassed to even mention the words “quantum” and “consciousness” in the same sentence.

But setting that aside, the idea has a long history. Ever since the “observer effect” and the mind first insinuated themselves into quantum theory in the early days, it has been devilishly hard to kick them out. A few researchers think we might never manage to do so. We do not understand how thoughts work.

In 2016, Adrian Kent of the University of Cambridge in the UK, one of the most respected “quantum philosophers”, speculated that consciousness might alter the behavior of quantum systems in subtle but detectable ways. Kent is very cautious about this idea. “There is no compelling reason of principle to believe that quantum theory is the right theory in which to try to formulate a theory of consciousness, or that the problems of quantum theory must have anything to do with the problem of consciousness,” he admits. But he says that it is hard to see how a description of consciousness based purely on pre-quantum physics can account for all the features it seems to have.

One particularly puzzling question is how our conscious minds can experience unique sensations, such as the color red or the smell of frying bacon. With the exception of people with visual impairments, we all know what red is like, but we have no way to communicate the sensation and there is nothing in physics that tells us what it should be like. Sensations like this are called “qualia”. We perceive them as unified properties of the outside world, but in fact they are products of our consciousness – and that is hard to explain. Indeed, in 1995 philosopher David Chalmers dubbed it “the hard problem” of consciousness.

“Every line of thought on the relationship of consciousness to physics runs into deep trouble,” says Kent. This has prompted him to suggest that “we could make some progress on understanding the problem of the evolution of consciousness if we supposed that consciousnesses alters (albeit perhaps very slightly and subtly) quantum probabilities.” In other words, the mind could genuinely affect the outcomes of measurements.

It does not, in this view, exactly determine “what is real”. But it might affect the chance that each of the possible actualities permitted by quantum mechanics is the one we do in fact observe, in a way that quantum theory itself cannot predict. Kent says that we might look for such effects experimentally. He even bravely estimates the chances of finding them. “I would give credence of perhaps 15% that something specifically to do with consciousness causes deviations from quantum theory, with perhaps 3% credence that this will be experimentally detectable within the next 50 years,” he says.

So first there does seem to be a real quantum connection to how we consciously perceive the universe around us. We, in fact, alter our reality by how we anticipate we are going “see it”. So for example, if we “anticipate” contact with other civilizations, and our collective consciousness “concurs, that possibility may indeed manifest itself, as it is in the realm of quantum possibilities. Anyway, try to digest this a bit and forgive this rather long and nerdy article, but it is absolutely necessary to understand the power of our minds and how our thoughts alter the universe around us.