Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

 

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

Martin Luther King

Today we contemplate the wisdom and courage of Martin Luther King. The quote above was taken from his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

Today’s world could really use a Dr. King, or a Gandhi. A person who could show us a path towards broad acceptance of others outside our “normal” lives.

It is ironic that we continue to tear ourselves apart in a desperate attempt to “unify” ourselves. With each pass we narrow our sights on what can be unified, cutting out an ever larger group who doesn’t fit easily into our vision. What is left is a patchwork of special interests each consumed by their narrow desires.

Examples are everywhere. Some Americans want to close their borders to Muslims because a minority within the Muslim community are a threat. Republicans and Democrats won’t work together because it is inconvenient to tell their constituents why a piece of legislation is for the greater good, instead choosing to tell why they’re defending a constituent’s interest.

We objectify everything! Name people as Democrats, Republicans, NRA member, Liberal, Socialist, Libertarian, Wall Street, Rich, Poor, Black , White, Muslim, Christian, Jewish… The lists go on and on.

Objectification is simple, easy. It accomplishes two goals at the same time. It positions someone how you want to position them, giving you some sense of control over that person. Objectification also allows you to ignore the real, messily complex, person. It is the “You” in another person that is so difficult to see when “You” are covered in labels like an old well-traveled suitcase.

My only point is that You and I are greater when two becomes more than one.

A hard lesson, and an even harder action to accomplish. You and I must work at it tirelessly every day. The car that cuts you off is carrying someone under stress. Can you feel sadness for their predicament while reminding yourself you’ll still arrive around the same time? The hate-filled speech from politicians mirrors divisive currents in our society. Can you do anything to mend these divisions?

Do you have the courage of Dr. King to negotiate, self-purify, and act in the face of injustice? Even a small, tentative gesture can make a difference.

Try today! Even if it is only to forgive that person driving around you.

 

 

 

Dark Matters

Not sure if this normal, but it seems natural. I find myself looking at the world around us through the prism of the world I created in Evolved. Do other authors do this? Maybe it is my way of making subjective sense of recent events in France and the Middle East.

In Evolved there are extra dimensions, textured branes and dark matter in the universe. All of these aspects have an element of the possible based on current scientific theory. In such a rich world there are limitless ways to think about space travel and something greater.

Lately dark matter has been receiving more attention, as particle physicists like Dr. Lisa Randall publish new books on the subject. Dark matter should really be thought of as “transparent matter” since it does not interact with light and therefore we can not detect it directly. Instead scientists have observed its gravitational impact on the cosmos, resulting in fairly strong evidence of its existence.

What is most startling about dark matter is that it is all around us. In fact, about 85% of what surrounds us is likely dark matter. Billions of dark matter particles pass though us every second. Do other laws of physics exist for dark matter? Likely. Does this mean there could be life in the form of dark matter? Makes for fertile writing material, no?

So, getting back to my point. If there is dark matter all around us, in us, and there are likely extra dimensions around us, even in us – are we part of something greater that we do not recognize because our senses are limited?

The events in France had me pondering these questions as everyone was asking, why? Why would a religion willfully and deliberately kill innocent people? In some shallow respects I understand their “eye for an eye” argument. We have killed innocents by dropping imprecise bombs in the Middle East. War is nothing but the escalation of tit-for-tat.

But how does God play into this? Radical Islam seems to suggest a reward system for killing infidels who do not worship the proper God in the proper way, like God moves around and doles out specific prizes.

But, and this is where Evolved comes in, if God is everywhere and in every moment in time, it seems silly to think of God as moving closer. And how does targeted killing of a fellow person possibly get rewarded? I suppose I could turn the question around on the west and find our reasons wanting as well. Are we simply preserving our capitalistic society so we can accumulate more objects using Middle East energy sources? Our materialistic incentive structure drips with blood as well. Maybe we’ve just built up enough buffers (fighting happens overseas with a separate military, and multiple economic transactions exist between oil and our new car) to protect our moralistic compass from disturbance.

What I believe is that God is a constant. God is everywhere, all the time. It is up to us to open up to him, connect. The cardinal sins are simply telling us that these actions close us off from God, distract us from knowing. It really isn’t so complicated. No need to try to control the world around you. Just simply learn to control yourself, and whatever dark matter exists within you.

If science struggles to fully explain only 15% of the matter that surrounds us, all of us should maybe humble ourselves and open up to bigger possibilities.

Metaphysical “Choices” – Consciousness, Part 2

Can a silicon-based machine achieve consciousness? It is becoming an increasingly pressing question as scientists move closer to artificial intelligence. Yet we don’t understand our own consciousness, so how would we know? Maybe it already has happened…

We don’t understand what is consciousness, how consciousness came to exist, or why it exists. Because we don’t understand why it exists, we can’t answer whether it has any causal impact on the world. Aspects of human consciousness include:

• Consciousness appears to offer a more flexible and sophisticated control, at the expense of speed, which is important when encountering novel situations.
• It also appears to enhance social coordination through better understanding of other minded creatures.
• Consciousness may improve the unification and integration of reality, or at least the perception of the reality required for primitive survival.
• It may provide more global access to information within the brain.
• Does it enable free will? Or, just create the illusion of free will?
• Intrinsic motivation seems to be created by consciousness, or at least the perception of will.

Are all of these aspects possible within a silicon consciousness?

Another problem to consider. If consciousness is by definition subjective, then only a machine would know if it is truly conscious. This assumes objective and subjective are completely separate, with which a monism materialist might disagree (arguing the feeling of consciousness is simply the result of billions of neurons firing in a complex system).

Assuming a machine tells you it is conscious, do you believe it? A functionalist would argue “yes” since thoughts, beliefs, and even subjective states are simply functional states. A skeptic who believes there is something non-material about consciousness would simply argue the machine is a zombie, missing the essence of consciousness. Would the “conscious” silicon zombie then try to eat the skeptic’s brain? Maybe the kernel of an idea for my next book…

In an effort to understand consciousness I have been reading “Consciousness: An Introduction,” by Susan Blackmore. It offers a broad arc through research and experiments about consciousness, methodically building a case that there is little evidence supporting a dualist view of consciousness (implying humans have a soul or something other than matter that passes on). I believe she is an atheist, or someone who does not believe there is a God or gods.

Getting back to silicon-based zombies gobbling up human brains. There are several arguments why machine consciousness may ultimately prove different than human consciousness, although each are inconclusive:

1. Neurons could never be replicated by artificial means to replicate the information processing speed within the space and thermodynamic limitations, or the chemical interactions cannot be replicated to sustain the emotional response required of consciousness.
2. Consciousness requires a long period of learning, interacting with its environment. “Biological capacity to produce experiences, and these experiences only when they are felt by some human or animal agent.” (Searle, 1997)
3. Consciousness involves something greater than the parts (Holism), whether that is interpreted as a soul, a physical aspect in our universe we have yet to discover in our reality.
4. Before artificial consciousness could become a reality, a new type of physics is required to explain consciousness, including quantum entanglement and wave function collapse in a complex system.
5. A spectrum exists of consciousness, defined either by self-awareness, ability to imitate another, awareness of time, or intentionality to originate. Silicon may reach low level consciousness, but not high level.

All of this dances around the central issue, which is the gap in our understanding of consciousness. The large bulk of scientific research suggests consciousness is a product of the material activity of our minds (monism/ physicalist). But… the answers you find are determined by the questions you ask, and scientists ask decidedly objective questions. Therefore there is little surprise they arrive at objective answers.

Put differently, if scientists discovered tomorrow a reality beyond what we perceive (either quantum or cosmological), a reality the mechanisms of the mind can utilize, then all the scientific research into consciousness becomes lacking and religious teachings on consciousness again offer guideposts to follow.

In Evolved I take this path because well, science fiction is a wonderful platform to explore what could become main stream in science.

Purging Clutter

“When you keep thinking about sense objects, attachment comes. Attachment breeds desire, the lust of possession that burns to anger. Anger clouds the judgment; you can no longer learn from past mistakes. Lost is the power to choose between what is wise and what is unwise, and your life is utter waste. But when you move amidst the world of sense, free from attachment and aversion alike, there comes the peace in which all sorrows end, and you live in the wisdom of the Self.”

– Bhagavad-Gita-2:62-65

For the past few weeks I have been reading the Bhagavad Gita, an ancient Hindu text composed sometime between fifth and second century BCE. It is one of two texts Mahatma Ghandhi read regularly, the other the Sermon on the Mount. Both texts could take a lifetime of pondering to understand.

I picked up the Gita in my on-going research into world religions. I’ve recently read influential authors in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Native American spirituality; even Atheism. Within each text I continue to look for hints of truths about our existence, links between the religions and science. It has been an enlightening journey.

Perhaps the reading influenced me, or maybe my wife and I simply decided it was time, but we have been spending our spare time cleaning out our house of extraneous objects. For anyone who has cleaned out a closet and felt “lightened,” you’ll understand the underlying motivation.

The goal is to take everything out of every closet, cabinet and off every shelf; clean it properly, and only put back the objects we need or love. We’ve spent about five full days working at it and are over half way. The amount of stuff we have taken to our dump is, well, shameful. Shameful not because we’re getting rid of it. No, shameful because we even had such excessive stuff in the first place.

The impact on us has been tangible, and quite remarkable. Our house has become calmer. Not calmer because of quieter children, but simply more relaxing. My thoughts seem clearer, less cluttered like our house. I use to seek out coffee shops for writing. Now, I’m much happier at home. There are less distractions, my eyes move to nature out the windows more often. Deep breathing comes naturally.

My priorities are different. At a store the sales clerk gleefully announced we had earned a free gift. My wife and I looked at each other and declined it. It was not something we needed. Now purchases are much more about need than desire, a truly liberating feeling in our world of hyperactive marketing and consumerism. Watching commercials has become somewhat baffling.

I’m not going to argue material possessions are evil, or even bad. Let’s be honest, our reality demands certain objects for humanity to exist; even if those are simply food, water and sex. Instead, my experience suggests these objects distract us from a happiness that comes from within. When we are constantly looking outward at objects we miss the point, in my mind.

That said, I find myself still wrestling with the possessions in my life. There are a number of items I simply love having around, from photos of family, to art work, to specific books that have taught me something important. Or what about need? Do we need the good china? What about the regular plates and cutlery? What do we truly need? Where is the line between a true need and a need to fit into our desired societal place?

The thought of removing these items brings up a source of angst within me. Would I be happier without these objects? I simply don’t know. I am not anywhere close to seeking poverty, but this inner tension is likely the next phase of transformation for myself.

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

– Romans 12:2

Is the Separation between the Divine and Us a Continuum or Absolute? Or, Something Else?

One of the benefits of spending the summer out on a lake without a television or accessible road is the chance to read and ponder bigger question (One of the “hardships” is limited access to the internet and thus less opportunity to post). Using the time to consume and process, I recently read two books asking bigger questions. The first, a secular historical perspective on Jesus; the second, a spiritual look at God from a perspective outside religious structure. Very different questions asked, and arguments made.

The first book I read was How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman. Dr. Ehrman is a secular scholar of the Bible with many books to his name. He teaches the history of early Christianity and while his views may have a bias towards an atheist opinion, he provides an insightful view of how the understanding of Jesus evolved. My main takeaway from his book is that many Christians in the first century believed Christ was human who became divine when resurrected. It was later opinions, especially from the Gospel of John (one of the last gospels written), that made Christ divine from the dawn of time. Today most Christians believe Jesus has always been divine and simply entered our world to provide guidance. I had never really considered the question of whether Jesus started out human or was always divine, so the book was quite thought provoking.

I should also mention, this post is really a follow up to an article I wrote for Daily Zen, “Where is God For You?” In the article I ask whether Jesus would consider God “up there,” all around us (including within us), or something else. Ehrman asks a similar question, although does not ask whether God is within us. Instead he assumes there is a difference between mortals and deities. He asks how a mortal becomes a deity, or how a deity descends down into a mortal. It sets up the question of whether the divine realm is a series of levels or whether the divine realm is completely other, separated by an infinite space. In short, from researching quantum physics, cosmology, and neurology for my book Evolved, I have come to believe neither is a fair representation of reality.

Dr. Ehrman does a good job explaining the belief systems at the time of Jesus. Judaism was the only religion that believed in a singular God. Roman culture, similar to Greek mythology, had many gods in a hierarchy and it was believed humans could elevate themselves through actions, or gods would periodically descend to Interact with mortals. The Roman emperor Caesar Augustus was known as the “Son of God”. There was even another commoner, Apollonius, who lived a little later than Jesus, who was a Pythagorean philosopher who worshiped the Roman gods, and was considered a son of god by his followers. Ehrman argues that Jesus was considered completely human during his life. It was only after his death that he began to be considered the “Son of God” in competition with the Roman authority. It was only a few centuries later that Roman society adopted Jesus as a favored religion as a way to promote unification within society.

The time period of Jesus is interesting because there was such a dynamic amount of religious development. Taking a big step back and not getting bogged down in the influences during the first few hundred years of Christianity, religions evolved from many gods to largely a singular God and the perception of the divine realm in the west changed from one with our reality, or at least connected through a continuum, to another separate mortally inaccessible place. Now I doubt the divine realm itself changed much during this period. So the question becomes – why did western society change its perception of the divine realm? More insight? The influence of the teachings by Jesus? A simple winner take all human debate that occurred during the few centuries after Jesus lived? Or, a more convenient man-made way to create social order within a highly regimented Roman Empire seeking a unifying deity?

Sorry, no answers. Ehrman has his agenda as a non-believer, arguing the transformation of Jesus from mortal to God occurred gradually after his death through the work of his disciples once he had departed this world, not during his life and resurrection. My point is that I think Ehrman is asking the wrong questions in his book. He assumes two separate worlds that are subject to different laws of reality. Yet, there are enough cosmological and quantum puzzlements to allow for both worlds to co-exist together.

The second book I read was The Future of God by Deepak Chopra. Dr. Chopra (who is a medical doctor) approaches spirituality from a more integrated reality, assuming God is all around and within us. While his views have a heavy mix of eastern religion, he does not define himself by a religion. Instead, arguing religions are relics of the past that hold us back. For Chopra, the question is not whether the separation between our world and the divine is a continuum or absolute. It is how we train ourselves to experience the divine all around and in us. In short, his arguments fit almost perfectly with the world created in Evolved. A complete shock to me since I wrote Evolved completely based on my research on scientific topics, not through the spiritual.

After seeing what emerged from me through the writing of Evolved, I am more firmly of the opinion that the divine is everywhere, including in You. It is through looking inside ourselves and finding the You in each other that we become closer to God. The teachings of Jesus actually provide wonderful guidance to help us on this journey when looking at God from this perspective. The Franciscan priest Richard Rohr does an incredible job teaching these lessons from this perspective.

But, only one man’s opinion from a singular spiritual path. Each one of us travels our own path, asking different questions, and finding different answers. Therefore I am very interested in hearing other perspectives. So, I keep asking the question – Where is God for You?

Present State

The challenge of Presence is a big part of Evolved. Presence both in the spatial and temporal sense. Mahayana Buddhism talks about Zen through meditation, a way of seeking emptiness for enlightenment. Judaism describes God in one form as Present. There is something special about the present, being present. In our world we tend to live in the past, highlighted by recent neurological studies focused on the time lag between subconscious and conscious thought.

The universe in Evolved is split into two (what we think of as reality and something else) through the interaction of a ten dimensional brane with a field of resistance. The mind of the protagonist, the Evolved, strives to make two back into one.  While writing Evolved I danced around the concept of presence through many re-writes, approaching it from a cosmological, quantum, philosophical, neurological and then psychological angle. When I finally felt like I had wrestled the concept into something that made sense, I read Martin Buber’s “I and Thou” and Richard Rohr’s “Immortal Diamond.” They approached this concept from a religious and spiritual perspective. Their message came together with what I had written like a thunder clap in my head. Richard Rohr discusses Presence from the Christian faith:

In some ways, presence is the “one thing necessary” (Luke 10:42), and perhaps the hardest thing of all. Just try to keep your heart open, your mind without division or resistance, and your body not somewhere else. Such simple presence is the practical, daily task of all mature religion and all spiritual disciplines. Once you are “present and accounted for,” you grow from everything, even the problematic and difficult things. If your presence is wrong, you will not recognize the Real Presence even in the Eucharist. The Presence will be there–it always is–but you won’t be. I love to say that it has been much easier for Jesus to teach bread and wine what it is than to teach humans, who always resist their deepest and simplest identity.

– Richard Rohr

Standing on Giants

Over the summer I plan to go through my sources of inspiration for Evolved. This is partly for my own benefit as I refresh my understanding of various theories. It is also to recognize the brilliant minds that have transformed my life over the past few years. Finally, it will help you understand the road I have traveled to date, and how I arrived at this point.

The path started innocently enough with the thought, “What if humans could adapt to non-organic elements and unlock new capabilities?” This initial idea quickly swept me into chemistry, neurology and psychology, followed almost immediately by cosmology and particle physics. Quantum mechanics and time philosophy took some time to wrap my head around, but boning up on general relativity helped me to understand at least the basics. I’ve always enjoyed moral philosophical debates like “sacrificing the many for the few,” as well as arguments around free will and determinism. One book on chance I read at least five times before it clicked.

When the second draft of the manuscript was complete I took a step back and thought, “there is something more to this.” After showing the draft to a minister at my church, I was blown away that the world I had created was explained almost perfectly by spiritual teaching. Not only that, but Christian, Judaism, and Buddhism belief systems all seemed to explain the supra conscious element I had developed, especially Native American spirituality. Ancient Greek philosophy suddenly sprang into relevance for me. It became clear my mind was wrestling with deeper questions than I had recognized. This realization has been transforming me, urging me on to deeper understandings in all the areas mentioned above.

It has been very cool to go into science and emerge out of spirit. Hope you enjoy the ride.