Skip to toolbar

Big Intelligence Primer

Big Intelligence Primer

This content is protected, please login and enroll course to view this content!

4 thoughts on “Big Question: Which came first, the “I” or the “U”?”

  1. I love that movie! It contains very deep truths. You said the question of which came first is a false dichotomy. I think randomness (chance) and determinism (God) are both part of the answer. It looks like the Universe has the capacity to adjust its evolution across time-space (Lagnan’s telic-feedback) through the interaction of a myriad of “participant-observers” which brings about the existential aspect of knowing reality. Do you think there is a “non-local consciousness”? Goswami says something very similar in his “Self Aware Universe” and he also uses Escher drawings to make his point. I see that several people are trying to deal with the current crisis in the physical sciences but maybe they are developing languages useful for specific communities. You are right when you say that science popularizers are filling the gap left by this crisis and in fact mainstream physicists are aware too (Randall’s “Knocking on Heavens’ Door” and Hawkins’ “Grand Design” with his model-dependant reality

    • Mystery Men is probably my favorite film of all times. Glad you appreciate it too 🙂

      The examples you give of dynamics that beg to be explained/incorporated are reasonable. There’s a perspectival problem common among them. In a word, cosmic anthropomorphism.

      I believe we have the capacity to attune and receive on many other frequencies, but discernment around it requires what you might call robust humility. It is very difficult to achieve. People’s egos get in the way, make claims that are untrue, etc. It might be referred to as divine or being a channel. I wouldn’t call it “non-local consciousness” but more like “widely-frequencied perception.” Which I hope would be a useful bit of semantics since I don’t ascribe to consciousness-based cosmology.

      On the matter of the dominant anthropomorphistic and related observer/participant-centric theories, From Cosmology Check (2014) “c: the observer must allow that both accurate and inaccurate observations exist, including the possibility that abstractions may be mis-characterized as observations — called also frail anthropic principle at

  2. I read your “Notes from the underground” and found some very useful points:

    “We are part of a cosmic logic much bigger than ourselves”. I found this conclusion very motivating because I see it as a confirmation that we are part of a universal language. I had forgotten about the SCSPL but your paper made me realize that we are in fact part of the language of reality and we are contributing to the writing of the universe with our own lives. Which takes me to your next conclusion: “a conception of a singular intelligence as a function of multiple experiencers”. In my opinion this statement clearly shows the need to introduce a metaphysical component and the notion of teleology. But more importantly it made me realize that as experiencers our existential process is contributing to the emergence of the universal intelligence.

    When I say I find your language a little too academic I mean that I cannot see the difference between “non-local consciousness” and “widely-frequencied perception” . I also appreciate the idea to break away from the “anthropocentric principle” which opens a whole new horizon to investigate. Maybe you are familiar with the “Sokal Affair” and the concept of “morphogenetic field” which I would think would be somewhat convergent with your ideas but this is precisely why I try to stay away from institutional academics (post-modern or modern). I see new epistemic communities rising in orgs like Foundations of Mind or IONS but I also feel they are becoming institutional in their own way. Anyway, thank you very much for creating this website and sharing your ideas, even if I find it difficult to communicate with you. I also think the term “existential underground” is very appropriate as it captures the situation of people like us.

    • I definitely respect “underground” existential explorations. I even respect the above-ground ones! My awareness is that our collective reality is making it clear to us humans that it’s time to start relating both intelligently and collectively to reality. Until such time as a wider community engages my work, we seem to lack the tools to do so. C’est la vie!

      I notice it’s terribly hard for those who have the experience of “I co-create reality” to understand that one solution created by their beliefs (“if only everyone could take responsibility for their part”) is a short-sighted ego-trip. There is another solution, though it requires getting out of the “I am my own spiritual co-creator” comfort zone. This is where pretty much all institutional spiritual endeavors I’ve seen fall short — when it comes to transforming the whole.

      Langan’s SCSPL is not actual reality. It is a way of describing reality processes using dynamic terms the human intellect can relate to. Langan uses distributed solipsism (via the applied physics of Wheeler) to trick readers into concluding that SCSPL must then BE reality.

      Just to be clear, the second quote you attributed to me in your comment is indeed from my paper. However, from its context you can understand that it is not a conclusion I draw from my own work but a statement paraphrasing Wheeler. With that, I cite how Langan’s use of Wheeler’s physics means that CTMU resonates with western religious monism.

      I find you to be quite thoughtful, intelligent, and generous in your communications, and I thank you! I hope you’ll watch the last short lesson in Basecamp if you haven’t already. I don’t currently have plans for the course beyond that!

Leave a Comment