Scientists Now Believe That The Universe Itself Is Conscious

[AnthroHeart]

https://awarenessact.com/science-now-bel...-JCHVzy2hM

A new scientific concept has recently come to light, which scientists are calling “panpsychism.” Panpsychism says that the universe could be capable of consciousness, which could change everything.

For quite some time, scientists have been working to understand the universe, where it came from, and why we are here. However, they have often come up short until now. The scientist responsible for such a notion is Gregory Matloff, and his ideas are shocking, to say the least.








This video says that the Universe can think. And much better than we can.

[AnthroHeart]

Since the Universe is conscious and can think, we can ask it certain things.
Like I am asking the Universe to show me its love.
My body can only take so much of it, because it is infinite.
I feel it. Not so lovey-dovey warm fuzzies, but strong, and peaceful, smooth and fluid. But very dense.
I am slowly opening up to accept more of it.

After doing this, and releasing while I took a shower, and then back to feeling the love, it's a breakthrough.
You don't really get the warm feelings until you've broken through.
It feels eternal and strong.

Now I need to take this into the world with me wherever I go.
People who used to annoy me, I feel I could love them almost unconditionally.
I'm slowly opening up to the Love. I can feel where I am blocking it, and what has to loosen up.

I don't know if this is pure Source, or 4th density love I'm feeling.

[RitaJC]

Love this comment on panpsychism by Rupert Spira

[RitaJC]

And the premise that our brains are processing information like a computer might not be true either

[AnthroHeart]

Thanks RitaJC. I liked that talk by Rupert Spira.

He says that there is just consciousness. Nothing else is real.
I would say that there is only Infinity.

I would love to be able to ask him his view on Infinity. I think that would be more fundamental than even consciousness.

Not the infinite nature of all things, because things are not real.

I have read that only experience is real.

I wonder if his view of consciousness is my view on the Field.

Does the Field = consciousness?

[AnthroHeart]

And the premise that our brains are processing information like a computer might not be true either

As I understand it, memories and thoughts are stored in the Field of consciousness/awareness out of which everything manifests.

How would you describe the Akashic Records? I don't know if they are 3D or higher density.

[infinitaylien]

I don't know if this is pure Source, or 4th density love I'm feeling.

I think it would be coming from your higher self or Oversoul, as I believe Ra hints at here:
https://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=37#6

Also Ra points out that intelligent infinity is infinity that became aware, which is The Creator, and is thus consciousness itself as Rupert Spira indicates. This is stated in 13.5, 13.6, and 13.7:
https://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=13#5
Trying to iron out the names of things that are essentially the same between scientists, philosophers, theologians, etc. is an exercise in futility from what I've experienced so far. Just as "the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people’s two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience."

There are some really neat pieces of information to consider in this talk as far as modern science and its understanding of consciousness.

[ada]

That was great, thanks!

[AnthroHeart]

I don't know if this is pure Source, or 4th density love I'm feeling.

I think it would be coming from your higher self or Oversoul, as I believe Ra hints at here:
https://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=37#6

Also Ra points out that intelligent infinity is infinity that became aware, which is The Creator, and is thus consciousness itself as Rupert Spira indicates. This is stated in 13.5, 13.6, and 13.7:
https://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=13#5
Trying to iron out the names of things that are essentially the same between scientists, philosophers, theologians, etc. is an exercise in futility from what I've experienced so far. Just as "the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people’s two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience."

There are some really neat pieces of information to consider in this talk as far as modern science and its understanding of consciousness.

Yes, thank you. I had heard his name before. I've heard about the electric Universe.
I think it said that the sun's energy comes from a Source, and the sun itself is merely a nodepoint where the energy is focused.

[anagogy]

I would love to be able to ask him his view on Infinity. I think that would be more fundamental than even consciousness.

Infinity and consciousness are synonymous from my perspective.

If there was an infinity that was not conscious, what would be there to register its existence?

It might as well not exist in that circumstance. Consciousness 'validates' existence. It is *being*. "I think, therefore I AM." In fact, it is existence itself.

Without the watchingness, there is no watched, and there is no watcher. Both the watcher and watched arise out of 'watchingness'. The 'watchingness' is the thing between the perceiver and the perceived. Both the perceiver and the perceived are created or arise by introducing the illusion or distortion of separation. It is like moving two magnetic poles away from each other (they want to pull back together or 'reunify'). The 'watchingness' starts to believe it is a watcher -- a person or specific identity, and believing in that illusion naturally, and reflexively, validates and vivifies the other illusion (the illusion of 'perceived', the illusion of 'matter' -- the south magnetic pole to the north magnetic polaris of Self).

This is part of the fundamental and cosmic projection of the energy centers/kundalini system.

[Xgebsi]

The universe is an entity, whose consciousness matches ours.

[smiLie]

I was going to reply to this post in Rita's thread, but this one's better.

I like this. I do not believe in anything to be true, except family, and maybe the 3 laws of thermodynamics

Not all laws of thermodynamics are true.

2nd law of thermodynamics is only true for CLOSED systems.

Considering that there are very few closed systems - and also any system that you want to be over unity or to produce power you DON'T want to be closed - 2nd law of thermodynamics fails miserably on everything starting from hydro and nuclear plant to simple solar panels and even to the heat pumps (uhh, heat pumps are such bad boys they produce more than they consume out of the box ,  lots of houses are using heat pumps for heating ).

There's also now several anti-entropy processes (entropy reducing) known that (serious, not british) scientists are studying, and they are not life. A few of them you are very familiar with. There's also gases and Non-equilibrium thermodynamics .

I will also mention Aether, and will leave this simple great video here.

Aether and the chambers of the sun - square earth cosmology