Prometheus: Further and Shallower

 

Prometheus is the long-awaited ‘prequel’ to Ridley Scott’s Alien films. This movie is paradoxically both entertaining and disappointing, but certainly worth the price of the ticket.

The movie is visually. The spectacular the vast landscapes of an alien world are brought to life, perhaps as no other film ever has, with the possible exception of Avatar. Earth-bound cinematography at the film’s beginning is also exceptional. Grand sweeps of mountains and waterfalls herald the promise of a similar grand vision by the famed director. The viewer will no doubt be aware of the essential plot line. Set towards the end of the twenty-first century, ancient cave paintings found across far-flung civilisations point to a connection with an alien civilisation, seemingly inviting humankind to venture forth and visit them. And ‘now’ that human beings have the technology to span the galaxy, a vehicle is sent to a distant world to investigate, seemingly in the hope to uncover the origins of humanity.

Acting takes backseat in Prometheus to special effects and a promising story-line. Barely a character in the movie becomes anything more than cartoon-character deep.

Many of the characters are so ‘flat’ that their reactions in particular scenes often appear inexplicable and confusing. For example (slight spoiler incoming) when a team searching the landscape of the planet stumble across the remains of a giant humanoid alien, one of the party seems completely disinterested, saying angrily “I’m going back to the ship”. Given that this is, assumedly, the first time human beings have ever laid eyes on alien life, the reaction is bizarre to say the least.

Meredith Vickers (Chalize Theron), with her Aryan good looks, plays the role of a rather robotic executive for Weyland Industries. The robot analogy is clearly played up, given the similarity in appearances with David, the one ‘real’ robot on show.  A heavily made-up Guy Pearce plays her boss. However Pearce’s screen time is minimal, his importance being that he is the expedition founder. Idris Elba portrays the ship's captain Janek. But again, he remains something of a cardboard cut-out.

The other unconvincing and disappointing aspect of the characterisation is the sameness of the human beings on show. Each seems to be shallow, egotistical and untrustworthy. The best science fiction allows us to penetrate the veneer of human surfaces to peer into the soul of mankind. Director Scott did this brilliantly in Bladerunner, where Rutger Hauer’s amazing performance as the replicant (robot) remains a defining performance in the long history of Hollywood robots. Other characters in the film also spring to life.

Having commented on the lack of characterisation in Prometheus, the one redeeming and memorable acting performance is that of Michael Fassbender as the android David. Ironically, without his meticulous acting the film would be devoid of any genuine soul. Like the androids in Alien and Bladerunner, this machine man has depth and complexity, as well as a seemingly mischievous agenda which seemingly transcends his programming. 

 

 David (Michael Fassbender)

The ultimate disappointment of Prometheus is that it fails to address any of the questions that it apparently seeks to answer – the deeper existential and spiritual queries of the human species’ place in the cosmos, or the ‘meaning’ of life. Of course the refusal to answer the questions is not a ‘sin’ in itself, as great science fiction films are notoriously ambiguous in this respect. It is the refusal to address them in any genuine way which disappoints.

In part the problem is that both the aliens and humans depicted are driven by little ‘higher’ motive than profit, sexual gratification and the survival instinct. Where are the deeper mystical and spiritual moments that a narrative that sweeps the galaxy might invite? We don’t get to see any. Instead what we get are essentially neo-Darwinian biological machines in a shit-fight to survive, to destroy ‘the other’. This leads me to wonder whether Scott’s own spiritual vision has stagnated in the three decades since the beautifully crafted Bladerunner was released. Thus in mnay ways Sctt's future fails to transcend what I call "Money and Machine Futures", where technology, money and selfishness dominate at the expense of greater depth of meaning and experience.

This problem is compounded by the dominance of the special effects, which are admittedly very special. They make the movie worth seeing for that reason alone. The aliens – both humanoid and monstrous – are as realistic as any seen on the big screen.

The movie retains elements of the space-horror genre. After all, Alien is probably the greatest of all such movies. It does retain elements of suspense quite well, and there are a few scary moments. But experienced horror film buffs won’t need to worry about covering their eyes (although the young Chinese girl and her boyfriend beside me did seem genuinely horrified at times!)

Prometheus doesn’t live up to the greatness of his previous science fiction films. In some ways, it is almost a parody of them. But that does not mean that it is not worth seeing. It certainly is. Despite its limitations, I stayed gripped for the entire two hours.

I give Prometheus four stars out of five. If this were not a Ridley Scott movie with such high expectations, the movie-goer would leave the cinema thinking “that was a pretty good flick”. But given the weight of expectation on the film and its director, I left feeling just slightly let down.

Marcus

Video & Radio Talks by Marcus T Anthony

Here is a little complilation of some public talks, interviews and videos I have done in recent times. I hope you enjoy them. (If you are interested in inviting me for public talks and interviews, contact me, Marcus: mindfutures-at-gmail-dot-com).

Video Presentations

“Cosmos,Psyche and Our Brilliant Futures.” Talk given at the March 2012 TEDx conference at the University of Science and Technology in Hong Kong.

In this short talk I make several predictions about how I think the way science sees the nature of mind and intelligence will shift in the coming years.

“Deep Futures.” A 2011 talk about Deep Futures, given at the University of Southern Queensland in Australia. 

Here I discuss the need to deepen our view of the future to acknowledge a broader range of human experience, and move beyond Money and Machines futures. The talk includes a discussion of the changing nature of human intelligence, as well as the idea of a non-local intelligence, or Integrated Intelligence. (The first five minutes is an introduction by Dr Luke van der Laan of USQ).

Short videos:

• A review of David Shenk's book The Genius in All of Us. 
• What is Your Bliss?
• Can Intuitive Intelligence be Developed?

Radio Talks

"Discover Your Soul Template." On the H2O Network (New York) with Dia Nunez. In this interview I chat with Dia Nunez about the idea of the Soul Template and what it means for your soul’s journey.

"Deep Futures and Consciousness." On The Morning Brew, Hong Kong's Radio 3 with Phil Wheelan. Here we talk about how we can develop our minds to include more intuitive ways of knowing, and what it means for the future. (Scroll down the page till you see my name, then click).

Choose My New Book Title and Win!

I have been writing my latest book for a year now, and it is all but complete. One thing I am not entirely happy with is the title: Light. Perhaps it's a little bland (click here to read or download the first part of the book). So I'd like to get a little help from you with choosing the final title. 

This is a competition! Everyone who enters will get a free e-copy of the book (in two weeks). The winner will also get a hard copy of the book, plus one hard copy of my other books of choice (Discover Your Soul Template, Extraordinary Mind or Integrated Intelligence). Plus, they will get a credit in the book if you suggest a better title than the ones I've given.

To enter, all you have to say which one of the suggested titles is best OR suggest a better title.The winner will be either 1) The best new title 2) ONE of the people who choose the most commonly selected title of the one's recommended below. In the second scenario, I will just draw the names out of a hat.

Don't forget to either send me your email address, or if you don't want to do that, check here on 22C+ within the next two weeks to see if you have won (mindfutures - at - gmail dot com). There will be a new post on this site to announce the winner, but I'll also announce it in the comments section below, so you should receive an email saying there is a new comment on this post at that time.

The title has to match the theme and style of the novel. You can see a brief introduction to the story below the suggested titles. It is about a university student, Greg Marks, who learns to channel consciousness and read minds. The upside it that he becomes a lot 'brighter' - including academically - and develops incredible intuitive abilities. The key conflict emerges when he is confronted by some very dark 'energy', which is effectively trying to destroy him. He also has a hard time trying to reconcile his newfound abilities with what he is being taught at university. This is why my suggested titles are mostly centred on the idea of an interplay between light and darkness. Clearly, the book is about a spiritual journey.

The book is semi-autobiographical - 20 years of my life condensed into one. Most of the 'paranormal' events described really did happen to me.

I look forward to hearing your suggestions. Leave them in the comments section, below.

Marcus

Suggested Titles

1. Light
2. The Light of Shadows
3. Shadows at the Edge of Light
4. Shadows of the Light 
5. The Light of Darkness
6. The Mind Reader
7. A Darkness Beautiful

 About the book

Something awakens...

There is a doorway between this world and another more mysterious domain. Greg Marks is about to stumble upon the key, and open the door. Unbeknown to him, he is about to discover something wonderful; something terrifying...

    ***

      "How much do you really want to know? How deep do you want to go? If you stuck a camera in someone’s eye that could record everything he said and did, how interested would you be in seeing what the camera reveals? What if that little device could also record the thoughts of that guy? Would that turn you on?
     Or would you turn it off?
   Imagine that you were able to peer right into the guy’s soul, into the dark country within him that even he has never dared venture?
      I am the man who discovered the camera. I just didn't realise that it would cut right into the heart of the universe itself, and flay wide and broad the secrets of the cosmos. All those secrets. 

     Before you call me mad, I have a story to tell."  

    ***

Light is a semi-autobiographical novel which dares to venture into the frontiers of mind and cosmos, detailing many events and experiences which actually happened to the author.

A Profound Simplicity

I simply love the message of Leonard Jacobson. Leonard's message is deceptively simple, but truly profound: embrace the present. If you have a few moments to spare today, I think you would get a lot out of watching at least some of this video, below. I don't know of any spiritual teacher today who is as  wonderful, warm, humble and wise as Leonard. He really does walk the talk. The best thing is that he provides people with very simple tools to transform their lives, and free them from the grip of the "mind" and its illusions.
 

Here is Leonard's latest video webcast. 

Blessings,

Marcus

Review of Sheldrake's 'The Science Delusion'

The Science Delusion is Rupert Sheldrake’s latest book. I found this book to be an excellent and very readable presentation of some of the problems facing frontier science. All in all it is a great read. It’s a definite five stars in my book.

Let me begin with the only major criticism I have with the book: the title. The name “The Science Delusion” is obviously a response to Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. I think it is the title more than anything which has offended many in mainstream science, or those members of the public who have a strong atheistic or skeptical mindset – i.e. those who like to read Dawkins’ books. 

 

 Rupert Sheldrake

An article about Sheldrake’s book in The Guardian online attracted some savage criticism, bordering on hatred. It was clear from many of the comments that many of the critics have never read The Science Delusion or any of Sheldrake’s other books, simply because their criticisms were so far off the mark. One poster simply wrote “What the fuck is this shit, and what is it doing in The Guardian?” Another comment lambasted Sheldrake for being a non-scientist writing about science, and having never conducted experiments. In fact Sheldrake has a PhD in biology from Cambridge, and has designed and conducted some of the most ingenious experiments imaginable. His telephone telepathy experiments are simply ingenious in their simplicity.

My point here is that the title appears to have set up Sheldrake and The Science Delusion as being anti-science. In fact, as Sheldrake himself argues, he is neither. The book simply addresses key issues in the philosophy of science. Its key target is the philosophy of materialism, and the rigid scientism which so often emerges from it. There is nothing that says that science has to conduct itself within a worldview where materialism is a founding ideology, and where the machine universe is its founding presupposition.

So there are better titles that could have been chosen.

Instead of being anti-science The Science Delusion pries open ten founding presuppositions of scientific materialism – each with a chapter of its own - and identifies key problems within all of them.

1. Is Nature Mechanical? 2. Is the Total Amount of Matter and Energy Always the Same? 3. Are the Laws of Nature Fixed? 4. Is Matter Unconscious? 5. Is Nature Purposeless? 6. Is All Biological Inheritance Material? 7. Are Memories Stored as Material Traces? 8. Are Minds Confined to Brains? 9. Are Psychic Phenomena Illusory? 10.  Is Mechanistic Medicine the Only Kind that Really Works?

At the end of each chapter Sheldrake asks several open questions to materialists. Each question is designed to gnaw away at the delusion that these founding principles of scientism are part of an immovable bedrock; instead Sheldrake attempts to loosen their iron grip on unthinking practitioners and advocates of science by implying that each of them is more uncertain than is often taken for granted.

Rupert Sheldrake makes reference to his hypothesis of morphic resonance periodically throughout the book. This hypothesis states that nature/life operates within fields of intention which operate ‘above’ the simplistic reductionism/genetic fixation which dominates so much of mainstream and popular science. Whether morphic resonance will pass the test of time remains to be seen. But the success of the book does not rest on the validity of the idea of morphic fields. This is not a book seeking certainty. Instead it seeks to acknowledge the ambiguity which lies behind business-as-usual science and education.

I agree with Sheldrake that morphic resonance fits the evidence better in certain fields of enquiry, especially in terms of the nature of consciousness. There is simply too much data and evidence that is currently dismissed or explained away as “paranormal” in mainstream cognitive science (it doesn’t fit our worldview, so we can ignore it). The extended mind – mind which is not merely contained in localized skulls, but is entangled with others minds and the environment – simply must be accounted for. It is too important a part of life, nature and the human condition to be dismissed any longer.

I find The Science Delusion to be very thought-provoking and entertaining. It is, I believe, a book that should be read by all science students – and in fact anybody with a high school education. Readers may not agree with all of it, but the questions it asks are too important to be ignored.

Marcus

Sheldrake, Rupert (2012-01-05). The Science Delusion . Hachette Littlehampton.

What a F#*% Up!

Does Spirit have a sense of humour? Some people certainly think so. The way I look at it, if we have the ability to laugh at life, and laugh at ourselves and even at others, then it is part of "Spirit". Here's a little story which leads me think that maybe someone or something up there does have a sense of humour. For those offended by the "F" word, turn away now!

A couple of days ago a friend of mine, Joe, called and invited me for a weekend trip to Macau with two other male friends. It was to be a boys' weekend! Macau is the former Portuguese territory not far from Hong Kong. I had nothing else planned for the weekend, so I said "Why not?" This was not the first time I have been away with Joe. About eight months previously we went for a night away to Zhuhai, another nearby town. On that occasion my friend booked two rooms at a local hotel for us, using his credit card. On this occasion he told me the name of the hotel, and mentioned the price. I said that was all OK for me.

So it was that yesterday afternoon I found myself with my three friends sailing aboard the hovercraft ferry heading towards Macau. The trip is just over an hour, so we all took the time to have a little nap in our seats.

I am blessed - or cursed, perhaps - to have a lot of visionary experience, and as is nearly always the case, as soon as I became drowsy a simple image came into my mind. It was of two words typed into a computer screen: "Fuck up". It was a very clear image, and so unexpected that I dismissed it as some random projection emerging from my psyche. So I just let it go.

We arrived at Macau port, and made our way to the hotel via bus and taxi. We rocked up to the hotel reception in high spirits. Macau is quite a party town and has a vibrant nightlife, so 'the boys' were pumped. Sadly, a couple of egos were about to be deflated.

When my friend presented his credit card at the counter, I asked him if they needed my ID too. He looked at me wide eyed.

"You booked your own room online, didn't you?"

I hadn't! I had just assumed my friend had booked two rooms, just as he had on our previous 'road trip'.

I couldn't believe it. We were in Macau on a weekend, one of the busiest places on the planet, and rooms would be difficult to find. But things were about to get worse. The receptionist then informed Joe that his booking was for the following weekend, not that night! Since he went through an online booking agency, the hotel was powerless to change the booking. 

 Joe turned back to the rest of us.

"What a fuck up!" 

As soon as Joe said the words, I recalled the vision I'd had on the ferry.  I couldn't help but laugh, even though it was a frustrating situation to find ourselves in.

Joe cursed a few more times, but there was nothing we could do. He was adamant he had chosen the right date when he had booked, but that was useless to us now. An over-the-counter booking was three tims the online booking fee.

My other two friends had made their bookings without problem. So they were set for the evening.

The hotel was kind enough to let us use a computer to go online to look for another room. Unfortunately the booking web site (the same one) showed all rooms at that hotel booked, so we had to make a desperate search for another hotel that wouldn't cost the earth (late bookings are usually more expensive, as cheap rooms go first). Luckily we did find two rooms at reasonable price at a hotel very close by. Joe used his credit card to make the booking. We made absolutely certain the date was correct. We breathed a sigh of relief when the confirmation booking came through.

Joe and I made our way to the next hotel, our two colleagues tagging along. It was only two hundred metres away! Again we found ourselves rocking up the the counter. My friend produced the booking number, ID and some money. The young attendant went to her computer to confirm the booking.

"Sorry, your booking is for next weekend, sir," she said flatly.

"What? That's impossible!" Joe said. "We made absolutely sure the date was correct! Can we just change the date and stay tonight?

"Sorry, we have no rooms tonight, sir!"

Several more curses echoed around the room. Clearly the problem was something to do with the web site we had used, but it didn't help our cause. The receptionist was less than helpful, and refused to let us use the hotel computer, so we made our way back towards the first hotel. Joe had just made two useless credit card bookings through a less-than-reputable Chinese web site, his credit card having already been debited $US600 for services he would never be able to use - and with the possibility of a refund being minimal.

As we walked Joe kept making clipped references to the Michael Douglas movie Falling Down, where the main character snaps and starts blowing people away with a shotgun. 

One of the other guys laughed. "Oh, what a total fuck up! I wish I had my video camera here!"

The first hotel kindly let us use their business room computer again. This time I used my credit card and a different booking site. This site showed that we could book a room the very hotel we were in, so I booked two rooms, triple checking the date. Moments later I got a confirmation email. We had to pay about 20% more than our two friends, but we were just happy to get a bed.

We'd wasted about two hours of our day, but we didn't let it spoil our evening. We went out on the town and had a great time eating, drinking, and behaving badly. And laughing lots. Fortunately, there were no more fuck ups.

Thank God!

Marcus.

"

Should We Fight the Darkness?

In my last post I wrote about how important free will is to the development of human futures, to consciousness evolution. Today I am going to briefly address a question which touches upon that same issue: should we fight the darkness? I define 'darkness' as human unconsciousness trapped in the dream of separation.

Although it is not presently recognised in mainstream science and education, consciousness has field properties, and is not localised to the brain. Each of us is centred within overlapping pools of consciousness: family, friends, work colleagues, race, religion/worldview and ultimately the human species.

Human intention has force, and it has a particularly strong effect on other minds. And unfortunately it is the human desire for power and control over other people and life itself that has the most immediate and powerful effect on other minds. When I first learned to read and feel consciousness fields I was shocked - indeed terrified - at what I saw. We, the human species, are constantly attempting to belittle, shame, dominate and manipulate the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of others. These intentions manifest themselves in fields of intention which cross from one mind to another. The bad news is that you are not the victim. Regardless of whatever your particular role you adopt in any given drama in your life, you are responsible for dealing with your part in it.

Having said that, some people are particularly lost in the dream of separation, and because of their pain and fear, they are very destructive in terms of the psychic energy they throw about - unconsciously. There is an approximate correlation between 'dark' consciousness fields and negative and destructive human behaviour. Generally, the nasty, petty and manipulative people of the world are the ones with the darkest fields of intention. But it is not always a perfect correlation. Some people who might be called - to use apolitically correct terms - bastards and bitches - may have relatively benign energy fields. This is usually the case when the person is not suppressing emotional energy: what you see is what you get. On the other hand, some 'nice' people can have very dark fields of intention. These are usually people who have been deeply damaged, have a lot of anger, guilt and shame within their psyches, but who hide it from the world - usually because they fear the disapproval of others.

So 'evil' has two basic components: real-world action and behaviour, and fields of intention.

What should we do when we are being affected by people who are hurting us or emitting destructive energy at us? There are some schools of thought which suggest that we are incapable of such action. 

These might include those who feel free will is an illusion. I dealt with this idea in my last post. I do not agree with this position.

A second group are those whom I like to call the 'love 'n light' brigade, and they are common to new age culture. They believe that all things happen for a reason, for the greater good, and that we need not challenge that. In this way of thinking, even the greatest acts of human evil are 'meant to be', and good eventually comes of them. My take on this position is that it is naive in the extreme. It is true that there is a greater evolution of consciousness occurring, and that all things contain the potential for consciousness expansion. We all move towards the light in the end. Yet this does not do much good to the Jew being shipped off to the concentration camp, the Tibetan who is forbidden to practice his religion in peace, or the Australian Aborigine as he looks about and sees that the mission where he lives is stuck in an extreme state of poverty and helplessness.

As I have pointed out in Discover Your Soul Template, anger can be a positive catalyst for change. It can help people break out of the victim state, and change a sense of powerlessness into a state more ready for affirmative action. This is the power that Gandhi tapped into in South Africa and India. There was anger in Gandhi: make no mistake about that. He was no saint.

The key though, is that in any given drama, there is a psychic component playing out, and it is mediated via our thoughts, emotions, ingrained beliefs, childhood pain - and I believe, karmic beliefs and pain. There are also collective beliefs and intentions impacting many personal dramas. People who really wish to take an affirmative response when confronted with 'darkness' will ideally acknowledge their own role in proceedings, and engage in some kind of spiritual or introspective process to get a greater awareness of what these are. This is part of any truly empowered response to 'evil'.

The biggest mistake is to fight from a position of fear, blame and hatred. When this happens, you simply become another monster. The human ego is defined by blind stubbornness. It simply will not be told, will not allow itself to lose face. It is by nature delusional. This is why it is better in 99 per cent of cases to simply step aside when you meet the tiger on the path. A common example is people outraged by racism against 'my people'. In virtually every case they become lost in hatred of the race they see as 'the racists'. But talk to one of the 'haters' from the other race, and they will say the same thing about the race accusing them of racism. 

'Haters gonna hate', wrote someone on the comments section of my second last post about the late Australian bodybuilder Zyzz. He was writing about me. The irony is that he apparently could not see that the barrage of expletive and shame-laden comments on that post were themselves hateful in the extreme. But that is the nature of ego. It is blind unto itself. That post is a perfect example of a 'drama' where it is both unwise and unnecessary to challenge unconsciousness - which is by definition, unconscious. 

It also pays to remember that ego feels threatened by the judgement of others, and normally reacts by hitting out. This is because all judgment emerges from a subtle desire to destroy or eliminate the object of judgment. So as soon as you express any judgment of the 'monster', he will most likely respond aggressively. So gently acknowledge any judgments you may have towards the other, confess them to God, and forgive yourself for being human. The result of this is often a feeling of love and forgiveness for the one you previously believed to be 'bad'.

As Chinese mystic Lao Zi wrote 2600 years ago, to the outsider the wise man looks week as he yields or walks away. But often this is the most empowered response. It is not necessary to worry about gaining the approval of others, or worrying about how you are perceived. It is much better to be free, and at peace.

There are of course times when assertive action needs to be taken. This is most commonly the case where there is an immediate threat, or where the unconscious party is causing you unnecessary suffering. But I will not go into that here (There is a chapter in my book Extraordinary Mind - "Surfing with the Psychopath" - where I deal with this.)

Blessings,

Marcus

Do You Really Have Free Will?

Do human beings have free will? Can people actually make decisions of their own accord, or are they just robots mindlessly responding to the brain and the world around them? Most people assume they can make independent choices, but you might be surprised to learn that the dominant position in modern cognitive science is that there is no free will.

There are so many philosophical issues with the idea of free will that one could spend many hours going through them all. I will just note a few in this post. I will refer to two fascinating experiments which are important to the discussion.

The Libet experiment

The most famous experiment regarding human free will was conducted by neuroscientist Benjamin Libet. Libet and his team measured changes in the brain and the timing of ‘choices’.

Libet investigated what happened when people made ‘conscious’ choices. He measured the electrical activity of subjects’ brains by via electroencephalograph (EEG), with small electrodes placed on the surface of the head. The subjects were asked to flex one of their fingers or push a button whenever they felt like doing so. They also had to state when they ‘decided’ to do so. The surprising finding was that the conscious decision occurred about 200 milliseconds before the finger movement. But most crucially, electrical changes began in the brain about 300 milliseconds before any conscious decision was made. Many scientists use this experiment - or similar ones - to conclude that there is no free will because the brain changes first and then conscious awareness comes about a third of a second later. Therefore, it is concluded, the brain causes the ‘decision’, not free will.

A little philosophy

Of course the conclusion that there is no free will leads to a whole heap of paradoxes and problems.

Even scientists who believe they have no free continue to act as if they do. Sheldrake makes this point, too. For example, they continue to hold meetings to decide how to attract funding for their desired research projects. If they truly believed that everyone’s brains are making all these choices, and that those handing out the funding have no free will, why bother having the meetings in the first place?

The same scientists will continue to write papers, book, blog posts, magazine articles with the implicit assumption that they are choosing to do this – and that they can influence the opinions of others. ‘They’ – or at least their brains - will sometimes even get annoyed with the brains of people who have the audacity to claim that they have free will. But why have the debate in the first place, or get annoyed about it if nobody has any choice in proceedings, and their opinions have been decided by their brains?

There is also the obvious paradox that we are supposed to believe that we have no power to change our thinking or actions, yet our entire society spends millions of dollars attempting to manipulate perception and the choices that follow from it. Advertisers, government policy makers, educational administrators, CEOs and even torturers are all trying to change the way people think or feel. As a long time school teacher who has taught students of all ages from pre-school to university, I know that even small children can be masters of manipulating adults, using charm to ‘put it over’ them.

So we are expected to believe that we can readily influence other people’s choices, but not our own? How does a creature with no free will come to the ‘decision’ to try to change the way someone else thinks?

We all make regular choices with the implicit objective of influencing our own behaviour and feelings. Why would you bother to decorate your house in aesthetically pleasing colours if you cannot influence the way that your environment affects you? You might as well just slump in the corner and vegetate. But even that would require a decision.

We can also influence our mental structures, and even autonomic processes like heart rate. Yogis can even slow down their respiratory systems to minimal activity. A prime function of meditation is for the student to gain better control of mental processes, and develop the right relationship with the body and the mind. This is clear evidence that conscious choice can influence the body and brain. This should not be possible if there is no free will. One could argue that it is the brain that is telling itself to relax and breathe deeply. But again, we get into semantics. It seems that the idea of ‘brain’ has simply replaced ‘mind, with the same implicit meaning.

Finally, no matter how many correlations one finds between action and mental activity, in the end the science is merely descriptive.

There isn’t any way around it. We make choices all the time, even if we don’t believe that we are.

Sheldrake and time

In his wonderful book The Science Delusion, biologist Rupert Sheldrake discusses this issue of free will and comes to the same conclusion that I do - namely that even though the choices we make are subject to a whole range of factors that are wholly or partly out of immediate awareness, we are perfectly capable of making conscious choices. There is no contradiction.

Interestingly, even Benjamin Libet believed that there is a place for free will, stating that in the 200 milliseconds between conscious awareness of a ‘choice’ and the action taken, the individual can actually change the decision. Sheldrake writes:

This conscious decision depended on what Libet called a ‘conscious mental field’ (CMF), which emerged from brain activities but was not itself physically determined by them. The CMF acted on the activities of the brain, perhaps by influencing otherwise random or indeterminate events in the nerve cells. This field also helped integrate the activities of different parts of the brain and had the property of ‘referring back’ subjective experiences, and thus worked backwards in time. The CMF would unify the experience generated by the many neural units. It would also be able to affect certain neural activities and form a basis for conscious will. The CMF would be a new ‘natural’ field. It would be a non-physical field, in the sense that it could not be directly observed or measured by any external physical means. That attribute is, of course, the well-known feature of conscious subjective experience, which is only accessible to the individual having that experience.

The most interesting thing for me about Sheldrake’s take on these experiments is that he makes the same point I often have, and that is that consciousness is not localised, and that time is not linear. Logic is only as sound as the solidity of the premises which underpin it. Science is only as good as the presuppositions which scientists take with them as they go about their work.

Time can work backwards as well as forwards. While this may seem even more incredible than the idea that no free will exists, it is perfectly consistent with my own mental experience, as well as reports of human experience going back as far as human beings have recorded history.

The idea that the brain records stimuli before they happen has evidential support from scientific experiments. In these experiments subjects are tested for physical and neurological responses, after being exposed to randomly presented stimuli.

One such experiment was carried out in the 1990s by parapsychologist Dean Radin and his colleagues. Photographs were randomly shown to people. Some of the photos were of a peaceful or neutral nature, while others had deliberately shocking or arousing content such as corpses being autopsied or sexual content. Radin’s team measured changes in the skin resistance of the subjects with electrodes attached to fingers. People’s emotional state are reflected in the electrodermal activity of the sweat glands. Significantly, in Radin’s experiments, changes were detected three or four seconds before the emotional images were shown.

Sheldrake argues that mental causation, unlike physical causation, works from the future towards the past, and points out that ”the materialist interpretation of Libet’s finding assumes that causation works in only one direction, from the past towards the future.” He notes that if mental causation works in the opposite direction, then “the conscious choice could trigger the readiness potential.”

It is clear to me that human beings have free will. It is one of the defining characteristics of our species at this time in human consciousness development. Human intention is like a attractor in physics, pulling information into it from pasts and futures. For those who wish to live a mindful life, the key is to bring awareness to the moment of the decision, and to then choose wisely and joyfully.

Marcus

Reference

Sheldrake, Rupert (2012-01-05). The Science Delusion. Hachette Littlehampton. Kindle Edition.