What is consciousness?

Most people identify who they are with their physical selves. This is evidenced by how obsessed we are with our bodies. It’s all well and good to take an interest in your appearance, on the grounds that your appearance is what you use to interact with the world around you. But few would deny that the pursuit of beauty has reached epidemic proportions. “Buy this new wondercream to hide those wrinkles!” screams the latest TV advertisement. Young people are constantly bombarded with impossible standards of beauty from the media and are urged to think, “This is what you must be or you are not good enough.” Middle-aged people are encouraged to mask what they are becoming by this gel, that needle, or the other operation. It’s as if the entirety of your personal worth hinges on what you look like.

You can buy into the hypnotic trance sold to you by the media and society, or you can think your way out of it by asking one simple question: “What am I?” First of all, you are not your body. Your body is a machine. It may not be made of metal, but it works on exactly the same principles. Grab any human biology textbook, look at the diagrams, and tell me that’s not a machine. Our bodies are made up of thousands of parts, each one unique in appearance and function, each one serving the whole machine, allowing you to walk, run, dance, talk, whisper, shout, look, listen, smell, pick your nose, and so on. The body is a biological machine. You feel this machine is you, because you are so intimately aware of it and connected to it. If someone kisses you or slaps you on the face, you feel this, not only on your face, but in your emotions. This way, we are lulled into thinking, “My body is me.”

The body is 70% water. Are you, then, 70%, water? If you fill the bathtub with several litres of water, would you say that you’re two thirds of the way to creating a human being? Let’s take it further. In the centre of your chest is a heart that pumps blood around your body. If your heart failed, and you received a heart transplant, are you any less you for having an organ from another person working in your body? No, you still exist. It’s no different from replacing a faulty component in a car engine. If you lose your your legs in a car accident and are in a wheelchair for the rest of your life, you still exist. In fact, a whole lot worse could happen, and you would still be here. Because the body is not you. It is the vehicle you are using to intereact with the physical world.

So, what am I? You know what I’m getting at by now. I am the awareness looking out from behind these eyes. I am the consciousness that is able to say, “I am me.” It seems so obvious to me now, and yet I’ve lived with the false understanding all my life that I am my body. “Body consciousness” seems to be the prevalent way of thinking in the world, because few people question the reality that is handed to them on a platter by the conditioning of human experience.

Okay, so I’ve identified myself as my consciousness. But what is consciousness? Is consciousness the brain? Am I still just a biological machine with the central part of me being my “grey matter”? Is self-awareness nothing more an electrical activity flowing through neurons? The atheist says, “That’s exactly how it is.” The spiritualist says, “No, we have a soul.”

To answer this dilemma, I would use the analogy of comparing the brain to the processor of a computer. Just like a brain, a computer can think. You can program a computer to perform a task, feed it data, and it will work its way through the task and produce results for you at the end. In fact, a computer can think much faster and more reliably than a human brain. It’s like a superbrain. Imagine yourself playing chess against a computer. The game is quite real, because your opponent’s thoughts are quite real. And let’s face it, unless you’re very good at chess, the computer is going to win. But here’s the thing: even though you’re playing chess with a computer, would you ever say that your computer is self-aware? Can your computer use its own volition to say to itself, “I am conscious”? No. It isn’t conscious. And this points to a very important truth that is sadly overlooked by science. Thinking and consciousness are not the same thing. (I’ve heard people use different words for these concepts, and there doesn’t seem to be any consenus. I’ve heard someone refer to “mind” and “consciousness” as the same thing, and referring to the other as “pure awareness.” For my purposes, if I refer to “mind,” I’m referring purely to physical brain-based thought. When I say “consciousness,” I’m referring to self-awareness.)

There’s no doubt that thinking is brain-based. After all, chemical substances affect how you think. Different animals, with different sizes of brains, have different levels of intelligence. People with brain damage have problems thinking correctly. All this makes the atheist rub his hands with glee and claim, “Look. You’re nothing more than a brain. Here’s the proof.” But this is only true if mind and consciousness are identified as one and the same. And the computer analogy shows they are not. Atheists don’t seem to realise that they are essentially reducing themselves to the level of robots. Robots are a facsimile of consciousness, incapable of self-awareness; we’re the real thing.

An important question to ask at this point is: “If consciousness is something that trancends brain-based thought, then does it die when the body dies?” It’s impossible to answer this question on purely rational, empirical grounds. If I say I have an immortal soul, something that transcends physical life and drifts off to who knows where after death, then how exactly do you measure and quantify that and say “Look, here is consciousness” using the science of the physical plane you’re claiming to transcend? Bit of a predicament, eh? If you’re of the strict mindset that dismisses everything outside of empirical investigation as untrue, then this is the point where some of what I say from here on will read like nonsense. You’ve decided never to believe in something you can’t grasp, even though there may be such a thing as the ungraspable. But as I see it, absense of proof does not necessarily mean proof of absense.

People commonly believe in one of two archetypes: you either have an immortal soul or you don’t. But the trouble with archetypes is that they are merely hand-me-down ideas that slip into your thinking without you realising it. I think the truth is far more amazing than the idea that the human race is a collection of disembodied souls floating around in some other realm. In choosing what to believe about the nature of consciousness, my own intuition is my guide, with rationality as its close cousin, providing clues and helping me avoid self-delusion.

When I was a Christian, I had the rather primitive understanding that when I die, my personality floats off into the ether to meet God. But if I identify my consciousness with my personality, I make another mistake. Personality is purely brain-based and this is easily provable. For instance, the personalities of teenagers are dictated by chemical changes in their bodies as they go through puberty. Alternatively, when a teenager drinks a can of Red Bull, you can watch a rapid change of personality unfold – at least temporarily. There are clear differences in the way that men differ from women in how they think, feel and act, and these differences are purely bio-chemical. Furthermore, imagine yourself shipwrecked on a desert island, completely alone. What happens to your personality when there is no one to interact with? It cannot be expressed, so it ceases to be. Yet you don’t cease to exist. I happen to like my personality (others may disagree!), and I feel quite attached to it, but I know it will undergo changes in later years, just as it has undergone changes up till now. Personality is not a constant that equates to consciousness. Science shows that there’s a lot about you that is provably physical in nature, and everything that is physical perishes. A mother who loses her teenage son in an accident will not find that same bubbly, quirky, mischeivous personality waiting for her on the other side, because all those things that made her son the person he was are physical in nature. When you die, say goodbye to your brain and everything you used it for. After death, we’re done with thought and emotion. Do you think you’ll continue to be a man or a woman, psychologically and emotionally, after you shuffle off this mortal coil? Why would you be, when everything that dictated those qualities has turned to dust?

My, doesn’t this cast a new light on our assumptions about what lies beyond death? I am left with the understanding that my awareness trancends physical reality, and yet there’s so much that I think of as me that I’ll be leaving behind. When I die, just what will I be? Because there doesn’t seem to be much left of me to be anything! The horror of this situation is simply a result of identifying who you are with the wrong thing: your personality, your ego, your sense of being a unique individual, different from everyone else around you. “But if I’m not my ego, what’s left?!” you cry. “If all I amount to when I shrug off this body is some bland, unthinking, unfeeling consciousness, then death might as well be oblivion, for all I care.”

Ah, but all is not quite as it seems. There are more pieces to this puzzle. But that’s a story for next time.

The knowledge of what we are is discovered by realising how we’ve been misdirected by our experience. We’ve been conditioned to think, “I am a human being having a spiritual experience,” when the underlying truth of it is “I am a spiritual being having a human experience.”


54 thoughts on “What is consciousness?

  1. Who am I? says:

    I think the question about what consciousness is – is best answered through the question: who am I? The experience of the answer to this question is the answer to what consciousness is.

  2. Research of near death experiences provide evidence of life after death and proof as you say that we are in fact having a human experience within the body.

  3. Evan D. Brown says:

    Mr. Sloan,

    I am very captivated by your articles. However, I am still lost in understanding the conscious mind. Is the conscious mind simply locked into the five senses? When we close our eyes and visualize the psi wheel spinning, are we still consciously aware? Can ESP be expressed only through the subconscious? I have so many questions to ask you!

  4. Darryl Sloan says:

    My view: consciousness is simply tuned into the physical world, like a radio to a station. We’re locked into a limited five-sense brain-centred awareness, but we are much more than that if we could just pull that amnesiac barrier away.

    I go into this and more in a huge amount of detail in the book I’m writing.

    “When we close our eyes and visualize the psi wheel spinning, are we still consciously aware?”

    Yes, of course. Awareness/consciousness is everything. When you quieten the mind by thinking of nothing, you are allowing yourself to become less aware of the five-sense limitions of the body, and you are realigning your awareness just a fraction with the greater consciousness that you really are. In short, that’s mediation. And for whatever reason, this stillness of the mind helps TK to work.

    “Can ESP be expressed only through the subconscious?”

    The subconscious seems to be the key.

  5. Evan D. Brown says:

    Hold on a sec, if ESP is indeed a sixth sense, shouldn’t it be expressed through conscious awareness. When you’ve performed telekinesis on your videos, don’t you indeed “visualize” the psi wheel spinning in your mind’s eye. And if the mind’s eye is indeed a function of conscious awareness, doesn’t that make telekinesis a utility of the conscious mind?

  6. Darryl Sloan says:

    When I visualise the psi wheel spinning, I’m thinking, “Listen to me. Look at what I’m showing you. Do this. Do this.”

    Now, who am I saying that to? It is five-sense brain-restricted consciousness (ego) talking to my subconscious/superconscious/higher self/soul, or whatever label we use for the “me” that is beyond my ego.

    Once I transmit that intention and visualisation, it’s best if empty my mind of thought. That seems to allow the subconscious to come through into the five-sense arena and make TK happen. At that point, all the conscious mind is doing is observing.

    The conscious mind just gets the ball rolling. But it’s the unconscious that does the real work. That’s my theory based on a lot of trials.

    Hope that helps.

  7. Evan D. Brown says:

    Thanks for the insight. So what you’re saying is that the subconscious mind is capable of five-sense perception, but can alter it in a way our conscious mind can’t visualize? For example, our conscious mind creates distance between our body and the psi wheel, therefore perceiving it as an impossible task. Yet, if we create a “subconscious link”, such perception is more flexible and visualizes no distance at all between you and the object, therfore it can move? Thank you for your help. By the way, if you dont mind providing me your email address, I’d like to further our discussion. You have interesting ideas.

  8. Darryl Sloan says:

    “So what you’re saying is that the subconscious mind is capable of five-sense perception”

    I’m not really thinking about this in the same manner as you. Subconscious is probably not even the best word for me to use. It’s a western science archetype based on our brain’s mysterious ability to do things without us being consciously aware of them.

    Think of it like this. There is “you” as an ego, trapped in a body that limits your awareness to five senses, trapped in brain than limits your attention to your five-sense experience and your memories of the past. Beyond that is expanded awareness – sees all, knows all, is all. It the godlike “you” in full awareness of everything. Paradoxically, the two are one. That becomes more sensible the more you can stop identifying yourself as your ego.

    So, when I do my TK visualisations, that’s me communicating with the full me. It’s so hard to get the jigsaw pieces to click, because we’re so entrenched in the view that “my ego is me.” But when it clicks, it’s fabulous.

    So, I (as ego) have no clue what my subconscious/higher self is doing when it makes TK happen. It just does its thing.

    It’s not so different from raising your arm without any knowledge of how consciousness interfaces with brain, and brain interfaces with nerves, and nerves interface with muscles. Lack of knowledge makes no difference to your ability.

    My email address is on the contact page on the blog, but it’s good to keep these discussions public if you can, because it invites input from others.

  9. Evan D. Brown says:

    So, psi energy is a manifestation of our greater selves? And how exactly do you suggest tapping into our greater selves? As I recall earlier you said the potential here is derived from intention. Correct me I’m wrong. Also, do you recommend the site learn-telekinesis-training.com? Or is that just another trick by godspeed09 to keep us hidden from the truth?

  10. Evan D. Brown says:

    btw, i appreciate everything you have explained to me. It’s extremely difficult to grasp at first, and that’s probably because of my consciousness tuned into my “ego” for at least 17 years.

  11. Darryl Sloan says:

    “So, psi energy is a manifestation of our greater selves?”

    Well, everything is a manifestation of your greater self. I can’t even say for sure that what’s going on is some special sort of energy that we might label “psi”. It could equally be that the higher self is manipulating the available energy in the area, since the higher self is everything. There might be nothing to physically detect except the conscious manipulation of air currents. Narrowing down the possibilities to what is actually going on with telekinesis is extremely difficult.

    “And how exactly do you suggest tapping into our greater selves?”

    Your higher self is you, so, what’s the distance between you and you? Nothing. It’s no more complicated than talking to yourself. In practice I use pictures and words.

    Also, do you recommend the site learn-telekinesis-training.com?

    I visited the site once, but when I saw the featured godspeed09 video I walked away. There might be something useful to learn, but since the writer puts credence in this trickster, who knows what errors his writings contain. I’ve got no time to wade through that.

    Flying blind has been my approach to TK and I recommend it.

  12. Evan D. Brown says:

    Thank you very much!! I just have one more question. You mentioned somewhere on your site that the subconscious mind is responsible for irrational fears. Well if we are all one with the subconcious mind, wouldn’t that make our irrational fears the same? Hah, I know I might sound stupid, but I want to explore the realms of my consciousness…

  13. Darryl Sloan says:

    I recommend reading my post “Advertising and mind control.” It will give you a good understanding how phobias relate to the subconscious:


    “if we are all one with the subconcious mind, wouldn’t that make our irrational fears the same?”

    I don’t really understand the question. I think you need to define what you mean by subconscious. We all have an individual subconcsious, which constantly watches our experience of life and aids us by taking the workload off the conscious. Sometimes our experience teaches the subconscious the wrong thing, and that’s where phobias come from.

    Way beyond the subconscious is a single unified consciousness encompasses all minds.

    There are different levels to it. When I do TK, I do it via the subconscious. But I have no idea whether it’s done by my subconscious or by the higher consciousness beyond my subconscious.

  14. Evan D. Brown says:

    Ok that makes sense when you say “unified consciousness emcompasses all minds” in terms of telepathy. So this same force is responsible for telekinesis as well?

  15. Evan D. Brown says:

    Waht do you mean when you say “do it via the subconscious”?

  16. Evan D. Brown says:

    What I meant to ask was: does telekinesis come from the subconscious or this “universal conscious” you refer to? And also, what is the distinction between the subconscious and this “universal conscious”? Very interesting, thank you Mr. Sloan!!

  17. Dean says:

    From my understanding, a good analogy would come from a video game called the sims. Consider yourself to be a sim, and the player at the computer is your subconscious. The sims have desires and thoughts, and left to their own devices they can live their own lives and do a limited number of things on their own. But they can also communicate to the player their needs and wants – and the player is capable of a lot more than the sim is. Like when your sim is wishing for a sofa…. the player plops down a sofa for him.

    In reality you would be both the sim AND the player, but people live their lives only knowing they are that limited single individual. If you can learn to focus and communicate with your subconscious (the player), there’s no telling what you can ultimately do with enough time and practice.

  18. Evan D. Brown says:

    Yes that makes sense. But I would like to know if the subconscious and this “universal consciousness” Darryl refers to are one and the same

  19. Dean says:

    Unless I’m mistaken, the universal consciousness he describes exists outside of space-time and therefore cannot have its own thoughts as we understand them. It is basically omniscience that all of our separate consciousnesses derive from and are part of.

  20. Evan D. Brown says:

    Yes, this topic is very interesting. However, there is another part of me that believes in the influence of “psi energy” Apparently, when the mind is dimmed of all its thoughts, a connection can be made through anything in this universe by sheer intention and visualization. Perhaps this is linked to Infinite Conscious, but I am waiting for a theory on Darryl’s part to continue investigating.

  21. Dean says:

    Remember that we live in the dimension of space-time. If for example you take a rock and disintegrate it at the atomic level – by scattering its sub-atomic particles, you are really only altering the space-time locations of those particles and not truely “destroying” anything. Everything that exists has always existed and will always exist in its most basic form. It is just the space-time location that changes.

    So, in theory, everything that exists has an origin that lies outside of space-time. In a way, Darryl is applying this theory to consciousness. Since everything outside of space-time is devoid of location, if you could gain access to that source, time and distance as we know it would have no meaning (theoretically). That’s the basic idea behind statements such as “everything is one”. From that point, there are all kinds of different theories you could go with.

  22. Evan D. Brown says:

    What exactly do you mean by altering space-time? And how can something exist if we only know it to exist through five-sense perception?

    Also, Mr. Dean, as I’m sure you are very knowledgable, do you believe that the power of intention and visualization can influence the physical world, or maybe that psi energy exists?

    Also, is there a possibility that the existence of psi energy could correlate with Darryl’s theories? I look forward to a brilliant response!!

  23. Evan D. Brown says:

    Btw, I’m only 17 years old and have just begun to explore this material, so don’t be too harsh on me. Thanks!

  24. Dean says:

    1. I personally don’t think we can alter space-time itself. Space-time explained most simply is WHERE a given thing is at a specific time. It makes most sense to me (and Darryl) that there is only the present, and that a true “timeline” that can be traveled in is unlikely. So space-time would mean where something is right at this moment.

    2. Everything we perceive DOES exist in some form. Even things we imagine have physical form as signals in our brains. But as we are limited by our perceptions, we don’t know the true nature of existence, or what else may exist that we are not perceiving. I personally like to think that our perceptions are pretty efficient as far as they have come, but I seriously doubt that we are the pinnacle of existence.

    3. Because of my personal experiences, it seems possible to me that the power of intention and visualization could influence the physical world, but I really don’t know the hows or whys to it. I have plenty of theories but nothing solid to go on.
    If you’re trying to understand the concept, lay your hand on the table and let it go limp. Now, THINK for your finger to move. Visualize it moving. Tell it to move. Even though your brain IS “Telling” it to move in different ways, it won’t do anything until you intentionally send that signal through your brain to make it move. That’s one concept of intent.

    4. I think that our concept of “psi” energy is too diluted by fakers and people just trying to sound insightful. I don’t think that anyone has truly figured it out, but from my experiences, I think it is there in some form.

    5. In correlation to Darryl’s theories, the subconscious could be able to manipulate psi energy. It is even possible that whatever the subconscious is “made” out of could BE psi energy.

    Since you’re 17, my best advice would be to consider the things you’ve learned and try them, but take nothing at face value. If anyone had 100% figured this stuff out yet, it wouldn’t still be so obscure. Think for yourself and feel your way through it. Trial and error.

  25. Evan D. Brown says:

    Ah, I fine example of mind over matter my friend. One philosophy I’ve been leaning on is that this “subconscious link” is formed through intention and visualization, the ability to dim your five-sense brain awareness and become “one” with the object. Because in the subconscious mind, as I believe you stated, there is no such thing as time-space. Everything is interconnected. Perhaps I’m a bit off, correct if you would. And I appreciate the advice.

  26. Dean says:

    Not quite. The subconscious itself would be within space and time, because it would have the ability to think and communicate and manipulate other things in our universe. Remember anything outside of space-time would have to be constant and unchanging. The concept is that the subconscious has access to knowledge that our physical minds don’t. We would have a link to the subconscious and the subconscious in turn would have a link to that greater knowledge.
    Darryl’s concept is that it is the infinite consciousness that exists outside of space and time. I personally don’t follow the same idea, but I’m waiting to see more of his thoughts on the subject.

    If you’re trying to learn more about the subconscious and form a stronger link with it, one avenue you could pursue is lucid dreaming. It is said that you are the most in tune with your subconscious when your mind is unconscious or very close to it.

  27. Darryl Sloan says:

    Yikes! My blog has been hijacked. 🙂 But seriously, go for it, lads.

    I’ll just add something on Evan’s question about whether the subconscious and the unified consciousness are the same thing …

    No. The subconscious is an individual thing. In part, it may be purely mundane in nature, but it’s capable of doing some amazing things. For one, if you’re paralysed through brain damage, the subconscious can rewire your brain for you to cure the paralysis. All the conscious mind has to do is will it to work. Keep trying to move your limbs. And as if my magic (really by some form of higher intelligence, I would theorise) the limbs eventually start to work. The subconscious also appears to act as a kind of conduit through which you can send instructions (psychokinesis) and receive messages (ESP and intuition).

    Don’t take everything I’m saying as fact. I’m no scientist. I’m basicallly theorising with what information and experiences I have.

    The most interesting thing in all of this, which you’ve alluded to, is the weirdness that happens when you stop your mind from thinking. I have so much experience of this no-thought state dramatically aiding my telekinesis results. It seems to be the realignment of awareness with whatever we are beyond brain-based thinking.

  28. Evan D. Brown says:

    Darryl, but you cannot not argue that the power of intention and visualization has some effect on the physical world. What I don’t understand: You said your telekinesis offered the most favorable results when you’ve entered a no-thought state. Please explain, Mr. Sloan 🙂

  29. Evan D. Brown says:

    Also, if this physical world is a construct of our five-sense awareness, how can the subconscious have any influence over it?

  30. Dean says:

    It seems to me that, since the subconscious is not a pure physical form like our mind and body are, it needs stillness of mind to really do its thing when it comes to tk. We visualize and communicate to it what we want it to do – but if our mind is still running and keeps bombarding it with it more thoughts, it will have a hard time focusing on the one thing we wanted it to do.

    I don’t think he ever said the physical world was a construct. He said the way we PERCEIVE the physical world is a construct. So that means the subconscious could influence it.

  31. Darryl Sloan says:

    Dean said, “We visualize and communicate to it what we want it to do – but if our mind is still running and keeps bombarding it with it more thoughts, it will have a hard time focusing on the one thing we wanted it to do.”

    Now that really rings true for me. I recall talking about it in these sort of terms in my “no hands” video, but that is very accurately and clearly put.

    Evan, I think this also answers your query: “Telekinesis offered the most favorable results when you’ve entered a no-thought state. Please explain.”

  32. Evan D. Brown says:

    Hmm, this all very interesting you guys. Somehow I still can’t put together the blocks between the subconscious mind and the phemonenon of telekinesis. But I still appreciate all of your input

  33. Evan D. Brown says:

    I guess it’ll all just come with time and experience, as Darryl pointed out.

  34. Dean says:

    Here’s my thoughts and how they merge with the things Darryl has shared:

    The mind has its own mental consciousness. This is an illusionary consciousness that comes from the signals in our brain. Even computers could someday have this same type of consciousness. The mind can make the statement “I exist”, but this existence is not a “real” consciousness in the way that Darryl describes. Your mind and body are strictly physical and have no organs or functions we know of that could make things like psi and tk possible.

    Then, there is the subconsciousness that Darryl has been talking about. This term could be interchangeable with words such as “spirit”, “soul”, “being”, and so forth. This is the part of you that is potentially capable of things such as tk and psi manipulation. Your mind is liked to your subconscious, so the trick would be learning to communicate with it and get it to do the things you want it to do.

    My suggestion to Darryl would be to make this difference in the types of consciousness a little more clear to avoid some of the confusion we’ve been seeing.

  35. Darryl Sloan says:

    “My suggestion to Darryl would be to make this difference in the types of consciousness a little more clear to avoid some of the confusion we’ve been seeing.”

    Here’s how I personally would define terms:

    I use the words “consciousness,” “awareness,” and “self-awareness” interchangeably. To be conscious is to be aware. To be unconscious is to be not aware.

    When I refer to “mind”, I mean the thinking done by the brain – a purely physical thing.

    When I use the term the “conscious mind”, I’m referring to self-awareness imprisoned by brain-based thinking and five-sense perception.

    “Infinite Consciousness” is the term I use for the full magnitude of what we are beyond the “conscious mind”. Sees all, knows all, is all, past, present and future.

    The term “subconscious mind” or “unconscious mind” relates to our ability to do tasks without the input of the “conscious mind”. How exactly the subconscious mind relates to Infinite Consciousness is a bit of a mystery, but it certainly indicates that there is a greater form of consciousness than the limitations imposed by the conscious mind. So, when I say that the subconscious mind is what performs telekinesis, what I really mean is something beyond the “conscious mind” performs telekinesis. I’m not sure what that specific something is.

  36. Evan D. Brown says:

    Thanks guys. I think I have a etter idea of all this stuff. As soon as I master my relaxation exercises, I will begin my telekinesis training. Darryl, do you have any suggestions for how I should set up my schedule?

  37. Darryl Sloan says:

    I never had much of a strict schedule. Just go with whatever you’re comfortable with.

  38. Dean says:

    *”I use the words “consciousness,” “awareness,” and “self-awareness” interchangeably. To be conscious is to be aware. To be unconscious is to be not aware.”

    That’s still vague. There’s different ways to be aware and not aware. I was wondering if you had more of an actual definition by more specific terms other than just another word that could also be misinterpreted.

    *”When I use the term the “conscious mind”, I’m referring to self-awareness imprisoned by brain-based thinking and five-sense perception.”

    What do you mean by “imprisoned”? Are you meaning that the conscious mind actually comes from someplace else and is trapped inside the physical mind, or by “imprisoned” do you mean it is a product of the mind but limited by the brain and the five senses like its trapped inside its own cage?

    *”“Infinite Consciousness” is the term I use for the full magnitude of what we are beyond the “conscious mind”. Sees all, knows all, is all, past, present and future.”

    It is hard to put something like this into words the human mind can comprehend with any accuracy. For an Infinite Consciousness to exist, it sounds a little misleading to say that it can “see” or perform any kind of action, so it is generally a good idea to avoid verbs when trying to explain something that lies outside of time to the less experienced. To be infinite outside of our constraints of space and time, it would be both the complete collection and the source of all knowledge. It is the cause and effect of consciousness. In those terms it sounds to me like objectified omniscience. At least that’s how it comes across to me from the way you have described it so far… unless you’re going to suggest an alternative to time that could allow things to “happen” in an existence outside of time.

    I understand what you’re talking about otherwise :p

  39. Evan D. Brown says:

    Darryl, whats with James Randi and his committe debunking this stuff?

  40. Darryl Sloan says:

    “It is hard to put something like this into words the human mind can comprehend with any accuracy. For an Infinite Consciousness to exist, it sounds a little misleading to say that it can “see” or perform any kind of action, so it is generally a good idea to avoid verbs when trying to explain something that lies outside of time to the less experienced.”

    I’m aware of the problem. If I say Infinite Consciousness does an action, I’m immediately saying that it’s moving through time, which contradicts there being an ever-present now. Here in time-based reality, I think we’re only going to be able to wrap our heads around eternity to a limited degree, and so it becomes necessary to either speak of Infinite Consciousness in terms we can grasp, or not at all.

  41. Darryl Sloan says:


    What I find interesting about Randi’s Educational Foundation is that disbelievers in psychic phenomena will demand absolute proof from the likes of me, yet place unswerving belief in a single organisation that has a million dollars to defend, and quote its results like it’s the final word on truth. Maybe, just maybe, an organisation with a reputation for debunking and a fortune they wish to preserve, might not be in the best position to offer objectivity.

    That said, I quite like Randi, and I think he does a great job of exposing frauds.

  42. Dean says:

    “I think we’re only going to be able to wrap our heads around eternity to a limited degree, and so it becomes necessary to either speak of Infinite Consciousness in terms we can grasp, or not at all.”

    … Then you’re sacrificing truth and accuracy for the sake of the lowest common denominator. If you’re trying to speak in terms even the greatest simpleton can understand, you run the risk of looking like a simpleton yourself. Look at George W Bush :p. At least, if you’re going to use so inaccurate of a statement, you should immediately follow it up with a clarification so that you’re not hurting yourself in the process. I personally would not be interested in reading something written in such terms to walk a five-year-old through it that offers no greater understanding beyond that.

  43. Darryl Sloan says:

    You talk as if the human intellect knows no bounds, when it’s totally limited to time.

    That’s like saying the goldfish in the bowl should be able to understand the world that’s going on around him outside the glass.

    Are you really so confident that you think you should be able contemplate eternity and compartmentalise everything about it in terms that your brain can understand?

    We are still completely flummoxed by the question of why there should be anything at all in existence, when it seems far more logical that there should be nothing. No cause, no effect, case closed.

    “personally would not be interested in reading something written in such terms to walk a five-year-old through it that offers no greater understanding beyond that.”

    I’m offering the best understanding I’ve got, which is all anyone can do. And actually, I’m far more interested in communicating effectively to regular people than I am in intellectual elitism.

    Speaking of God in human terms is known as an “anthropomorphism”, and there’s nothing infantile about the use of one. It’s a necessary device to convey the essence of what is beyond comprehension.

  44. I think on the contrary, James Randi and his financial backers are the perfect carrot dangling under the nose, for anyone who thinks they really do have a PSI gift.

    You say they’d lose $1M if ever anyone passed their laboratory conditions and showed genuine PSI abilities. But the truth is, that $1M they’d pay out would be like paying a penny for a genuine Picasso painting at a car boot sale.

    The media interest would be through the roof, and books, DVDs, interviews, Films and TV shows would bring in Billions of dollars, if not more.

    It’s like the conspiracy theories about energy sources that would replace oil. Like never ending batteries, self-propulsion (is that the right word I’m thinking of here? units etc.

    The argument is that the oil barons wouldn’t want such things going public, as they’d lose billions of dollars as a result. But the truth is, if someone did genuinely have something that worked in this field, the oil barons and car manufacturers etc, would be trying to buy the rights, rather than killing the inventor to hide it. Such a technology would be worth more than oil ever has been, as oil will run out one day. These new technologies, that some people claim to have, would last forever. It would be a license to print money for ever.

  45. Dean says:

    I’m not saying you understand it or can explain it perfectly. But that doesn’t mean you should just say “well if I can’t explain it perfectly I’ll just use the first thing that comes to mind.”

    You can do better if you try. And if that was your best shot then maybe a little more research could help.

  46. Darryl Sloan says:

    Got to disagree, Paul. There are scientists already experimenting with psychic phenomena and, I hear, achieving results – Dean Radin being a good example. There’s no media explosion. Just the usual struggle to be taken seriously in the scientific community.

    I’ve been doing telekinesis for almost a year now, and if it’s just conventional forces at work, I would have to be a complete moron not to be able to see it at this point. I know what I’m doing is real, after countless tests and clear progression of ability. It’s interesting to have that personal conviction and know of Randi’s unclaimed million. Something smells off, and it ain’t me.

    As for free energy, if I were a scientist who discovered such a thing, I would be very afraid. There’s still a fortune to be made in oil. Many people think that’s what the Iraq war was all about. And just look at how General Motors stomped on the electric car technology in the past. Where’s the money to be made in a device that gives you free energy and stops you needing to pay for anything more. They would sit on an invention like that until the oil fields ran dry, and they would likely kill to suppress it. They certainly had no conscience about Iraq. Rant over. 🙂

  47. Dean says:

    I know someone who invented a simple modification to his car that saved him considerably on gas, but when he tried to patent it he was informed that the government had already invented it and that he would go to jail if he tried to pursue the matter any further.

  48. Evan D. Brown says:

    Darryl, why dont u try out for the million?

  49. Darryl Sloan says:

    Dean, maybe I’m a conspiracy nut, but I can well believe it.

    Evan, I would never win. I’m little more than a beginner at this psychic stuff, and doubtless greater psions than me will have already tried. However, if a genuinely open-minded scientist without an agenda asked me to participate in lab work, I would jump at the chance.

  50. Dean says:

    Assuming they they would even be willing to accept someone with real abilities, you would need enough control over it to use it at will to perform specific tasks. If there is any randomness or uncertainty to it they will automatically reject you. From what I understand, Darryl (or anyone else for that matter) doesn’t have that kind of control over it.

  51. Darryl Sloan says:

    You’re touching here on what I think is probably the key reason why things like telekinesis are dismissed.

    The scientist has a particular goalpost in mind, and if you meet the criteria, the test is scrapped.

    However, if we want to be truly scientific, we should be willing to examine every effect, and carefully study which effects are anomalous to conventional explanation. For instance, placing the psi wheel in an environment where it cannot move by air, heat or static, then generating movement by will. I would hope that sort of stuff would come under close scrunity in a lab situation.

  52. This is the problem with TK. The internet is littered with people claiming to have this skill and that. Youtube is littered with videos, some of which you’ve debunked yourself, even when the footage is actually quite impressive and difficult to prove wrong.

    Many people have tried to prove TK to be real, including Uri Geller himself, who was once very famous for it, even having mainstream TV time in the UK. But upon testing, every single one of these people have fallen flat on their face.

    There’s been talk of scientists taking part in lengthy experimentation, with Government backing and approval. There’s lots of conspiracy theories about the Russians especially, and some CIA involvement, for black ops outfits. But again, there’s never any real evidence, just the rantings of a few disgruntled ex employees or general tin-foil nuts.

    The same goes for free energies. Lots of theories, lots of conspiracy stories, of someone having invented something then being threatened by the Government or men in black, but the same person can either never actually describe their invention, or when they do, it turns out the idea is completely bogus and could never work.

    Mythbusters dedicated at least two shows to free energy, and the results were quite definite. Not one of the ideas even came close to working.

    I guarantee you Darryl. If you have true faith in your PSI skills, even just being able to move the wheel in a steady motion, within an environment as you describe above, where thermodynamics can be proven not to be the cause of the movement, you could go public at any moment. Even if it’s just to one of the crappy papers, like The Sun, The Mirror, etc. They’d LOVE a story like this.

    They still bleet on about Uri Geller, even years after he was ousted as a fake by most people. Paranormal powers sell papers, because a lot of people want to believe. They’re just waiting for a smidgeon of proof that can be relied on.

  53. Dean says:

    “However, if we want to be truly scientific, we should be willing to examine every effect, and carefully study which effects are anomalous to conventional explanation.”

    The problem here is that they’re not trying to STUDY it. They’re waiting from someone to come along and PROVE it. You have to come in and obliterate every doubt they can conceive in order to have a chance. A real scientist would take a small happening and try to figure out what is going on. With these guys you basically have to “checkmate” them so they can’t throw any more doubts at you – and then hope they are willing to accept it.

  54. Totally agree Dean. If something is true it’ll stand up against any scrutiny or doubt.

    Sooner or later, through passing the tests set, there’ll come a point where no-one can argue against it.

    Just look at the theory of evolution. At first it was ridiculed and in fact deemed anti-Christian and outlawed in schools, etc. Now it’s pretty much accepted science, because the facts spoke louder than any doubt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: