All Episodes
Previous Next
March 23, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
22:34
The God Within documentary - exposing the false philosophy of modern science
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The God Within Physics, cosmology, consciousness, and the search for truth.
I've always admired physicists.
They seek answers by asking questions of nature, and when they follow a rigorous scientific approach to the quest for knowledge, they refuse to be sidelined by dogma, personal belief, or trickery.
Science, in its most pure form, is about the search for truth.
I'm not referring to the bastardization of science by modern corporations which use the language of science to push a kind of intellectual tyranny involving for-profit GMOs, vaccines, and pharmaceuticals.
I'm talking about pure, non-corporate-driven science and the quest for human understanding.
This search for human understanding has led me through a number of fascinating areas of study, but I've found the most fertile ground for exploration in the fields of quantum physics, the many-worlds interpretation, and the study of consciousness.
Along that path, I decided to read a book by famed physicist Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Modenow.
As a fan of Hawking's work over the years, I relished the idea of reading his explanations of the theory of everything, the grand design, the invisible hand behind it all.
What I found in his book, however, rather surprised me.
On the very first page of the book, I found myself quite disappointed in the apparent lack of understanding of the universe from someone as intellectually capable as Hawking.
As you'll soon see, his words reflect what can only be called the great failing of modern-day physics to address the meaning behind the math.
Far too many mainstream physicists seem stuck in what can only be called the Newtonian era of consciousness.
That is, they don't yet grasp the idea that consciousness exists at all.
Keep listening and you'll see quotes about this directly from Hawking himself.
Conventional physics is a lot like conventional medicine.
Hawking's book, The Grand Design, did serve another useful purpose in my search for understanding.
It nicely summarized the outmoded view of conventional physics.
This mainstream view of physics is to reality what conventional medicine is to healing.
In other words, it has all the technical jargon, but none of the soul, and so it misses the whole point.
Stated another way, conventional physics is the clever conglomeration of high-level mathematics desperately seeking to avoid any discussion of what it all means.
You're not allowed to talk about consciousness or free will or the spooky connectedness that has been experimentally demonstrated to exist between all things in the universe.
Because that brings up too many questions that make conventional physicists uncomfortable.
Questions about God or the intersection of intention with the physical universe or free will.
They even have a name for their cover story.
It's called the Copenhagen Interpretation and it can be summarized as shut up and calculate.
fate.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is essentially an intellectual security blanket under which physicists can focus on the narrow mathematics of their calculations without having to be bothered by the bigger questions that inevitably invoke the realm of philosophy.
That's where Stephen Hawking's book begins, by the way.
On page one, he writes, Philosophy is dead.
Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.
Philosophy is dead?
It's a stunning statement, not so much in its abruptness, but in its arrogance, which presumes that philosophy's success can only be measured by the degree to which it keeps up with physics.
Conventional physicists, it turns out, largely believe that physics alone can explain everything.
The grand design, as it goes, will become apparent if we can only work out the math.
The mystery of being will be understood through the study of subatomic particles and the tiny fractions of moments that unfurled immediately after the Big Bang.
One chapter in Hawking's book is actually named The Theory of Everything.
Really?
Everything?
Not just physics stuff, but everything else, too?
I find that a bit hard to believe, given that a typical quantum physicist probably doesn't even know what's in a hot dog, much less the entire universe.
But please excuse my attempt at humor.
Just so you know I'm taking this seriously, let's consider the definition of physics itself.
The Collins English Dictionary defines physics as the branch of science concerned with the properties of matter and energy and the relationships between them.
It is based on mathematics and traditionally includes mechanics, optics, electricity, and magnetism, acoustics, and heat.
There is no dictionary that defines physics as the study of all that is.
I've checked.
The very idea that physics accounts for everything actually seems, well, a bit arrogant.
But that's not new in the field of physics either.
Top physicists have a long history of thinking they had it all figured out.
There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, uttered Lord Kelvin in 1894.
He continued, all that remains is more and more precise measurement.
The God particle isn't a particle.
Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man in his field and probably a very sincere and well-meaning human being on top of that.
But as brilliant as he may be in the world of physics, he has misunderstood the boundaries of one particular approach to the search for truth.
To say philosophy is dead is to disavow the big questions philosophy seeks to answer, questions that cannot be asked through the study of physics alone.
What is consciousness?
Is there a God?
What happens after death?
How do we know what we know?
What does it mean to exist?
Can love be measured?
How does consciousness interact with matter and energy?
For what purpose, if any, are we here?
Are these questions now considered so unimportant that the entire branch of knowledge seeking under which they appear is to be discarded by conventional physicists?
Or is it that physicists believe firing up the nearest supercollider will magically reveal their desperately sought god particle, which will answer all the questions for them?
The Copenhagen interpretation, remember, provides a convenient exit for avoiding tackling these questions at all.
Shut up and calculate, but don't ask anything too spooky.
The fact that the ever so mysterious God particle is even named the God particle is, by itself, an enlightening commentary on the disappointing degree of delusion now running rampant through the conventional physics community.
The God particle name is wrong on both counts.
It isn't God, and it's not even a particle.
In fact, the branch of physics known as particle physics doesn't study particles at all, as any practical physicist will readily admit.
Every time they look for particles, they only see vibrating waves of energy, or flickering hints of structured probability waves that vanish in billionths of a second.
What does seem to be found behind the curtain of so-called particle physics is, to the great surprise of many scientists, the ever mysterious issue of consciousness.
Consciousness is what appears to collapse waves of probability into seemingly real particles in our seemingly real world.
Without consciousness, the observer, there's nothing to translate the apparent laws of physics into observable, testable events in the first place.
And at a deeper level, there is exciting evidence now emerging which hints that consciousness is physics in a way similar to E equals MC squared which of course explains that energy is matter just in a different form.
What becomes increasingly clear in all this is that physics cannot be fully explained without taking consciousness into consideration.
And that's a rabbit hole most conventional physicists don't wish to explore, at least not when their careers and academic reputations are on the line.
We are all just robots.
Stephen Hawking does not believe in consciousness, nor free will.
He quite literally believes we are all just deterministic robot machines who behave as if we were biological puppets driven by predictable and mechanistic biochemical impulses.
Here's what he says.
Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets.
Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions and not some agency that exists outside those laws.
And there you have it.
Hawking stating that he utterly denies the existence of the mind or consciousness or a connection with spirit or anything other than the deterministic clockwork of biochemical determinism that he calls our brain.
Hawking is not alone in this bizarre belief.
Of course, the vast majority of conventional scientists and physicists also believe that human beings are mere biochemical robots with no souls, no consciousness, and no free will.
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, said that awareness was nothing more than a feeling generated in the brain.
He says, you, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.
He wrote that in his book, The Astonishing Hypothesis.
But if Hawking and Crick and most other conventional scientists believe that they themselves are biochemical robots with no souls and no free will, then who do they believe wrote their books?
Was Hawking's grand design book merely a spontaneous regurgitation of neurological ricochets cascading through his head without any intention behind them?
And if so, then the book must by definition be a mindless account of physics.
Or more precisely, in writing that human beings are biochemical robots, Hawking hasn't merely lost his mind.
He never believed he had one to begin with.
To call Hawking mindless is to agree with his own hypothesis.
This isn't a verbal snipe at Hawking, by the way.
It is a highly accurate description of his own beliefs, practically in his own words, as you will soon see.
To further support the notion that human beings are all biochemical robots with no minds and no free will, he offers a rather faulty argument, saying the following...
A study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk.
From this, he leaps to the conclusion that we have no free will.
This is a fallacious and illogical argument from the outset.
I can tie a string to your toe and pull it around as if you were a puppet, but that doesn't mean that you can't decide to move that same toe on your own through conscious intention translated into your human body through your brain.
The mind, you see, works by being translated through the brain, which is a biological organ.
The brain, in turn, controls the physical body.
But artificially inducing a muscle movement through the electrical stimulation of the brain, or the muscles themselves, only proves that there is a biological component to our existence.
Not that the biological component is the entirety of our being.
For example, if you capture my remote-controlled helicopter, you can easily cause the rotor motor to turn by applying electrodes to the motor's contact points.
But I can also control those same motors on the helicopter by broadcasting a command signal from my controlling device located some distance away.
Your ability to artificially induce motor activity through the use of electrodes does not disprove an internal, even an invisible, command link to the same hardware.
The only thing the brain stimulation experiment demonstrates is that the hardware of the human brain can be artificially stimulated.
Well, that's not surprising.
It says nothing about the software, or possibly even the computing cloud, that is also capable of driving that hardware through free will.
By Hawking's argument, the fact that a doctor can hammer your knee and cause a literal knee-jerk reaction somehow bolsters the false belief that we have no consciousness or free will.
It is a baseless argument.
Lest you think I am misinterpreting Hawking's conclusion on this matter, he sums it all up nicely with this statement.
It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law.
So it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.
I couldn't explain it any more plainly.
Like the majority of conventional physicists, Hawking believes we are deterministic robots who lack free will, consciousness, and anything you might call a mind.
This belief, as you will soon see, is a very dangerous belief.
It has huge implications for the very way we value life on our planet and throughout the universe.
The dangerous philosophy of determinism.
Determinism is an extremely dangerous philosophy because, by definition, it absolves people from all responsibility for their own actions.
If you believe in determinism, you are logically forced to believe there is no such thing as a criminal because those who choose to commit violent crimes are merely biochemical robots who pursue such actions through no fault of their own.
They can't help it, in other words.
Determinism is the magic get-out-of-jail-free card sought by every defense attorney who is trying to get his murderous client declared innocent.
The frequently invoked plea of insanity, of course, is a classic citation of brain-based determinism.
It seeks to absolve the criminal of his actions based on the idea that he did not have any presence of mind in committing those crimes in the first place.
He was not, in essence, self-aware.
His criminal actions were merely the result of biochemical cause and effect, his lawyers would argue.
Hawking believes we are all effectively qualified for that same plea of insanity.
Because in his mind, we are all deterministic biochemical robots who have no free will, no consciousness, no soul, and therefore no responsibility for our current actions.
But what about future actions?
If we are biochemical machines, it would seem that we could be held accountable to pre-crime.
Because, as Hawking openly states, if we knew the complete molecular state of someone's brain today, we could perfectly predict every thought and action they would take in the future.
Thus, by accurately assessing someone's brain today, with a brain scan for example, Technology could pinpoint exactly who would commit a future act that would break society's laws.
That person could therefore be arrested for having the present state of mind that doctors claim would lead to future crime.
This leads to an absurd ethical contradiction, which means that people aren't responsible for their present actions, but they can be held accountable for future actions they haven't even committed.
Such is the distortion of determinism.
But the belief that human beings lack souls or consciousness is dangerous for a far more serious reason.
It can provide a scientific basis for the commission of heinous crimes against humanity, including genocide.
From Hawking's point of view of soulless determinism there is no reason why the United Nations, for example, can't reduce regional overpopulation by simply committing genocide against human beings through population reduction programs.
Because humans aren't real people with souls and consciousness, the poisoning of them does not violate any real ethical boundaries, according to that line of thinking.
This is not an outlandish scenario.
Currently, the United States Department of Agriculture, the USDA, operates a mass avian euthanasia program in the United States called Bye Bye Blackbird.
Under that program, the USDA poisons literally millions of birds each year and engages in the routine extermination of cougars, falcons, owls, foxes, beavers, wild pigs, and other animals.
This is all carried out under the presumption that animals have no consciousness and thus murdering them is of no ethical consequence.
If the United States government already engages in the murderous management of animal species that it perceives as becoming too populous, then by extension the same approach to managing human populations would quite easily be justified under a philosophical belief that human beings are mere biological animals too.
This is just one of the many reasons why this idea that human beings are mindless machines with no consciousness or free will is the perfect pretext for the mass killing of human beings by any government that embraces this thinking.
That's one of the many reasons why Hawking is such a dangerous person.
The wrongness of his ideas are only matched by the influence of his writings.
The very fact that he is so widely respected is what makes his ideas so potentially dangerous.
Because at any point, a government could latch on to his human beings are not conscious philosophy and commit heinous genocidal acts while calling it all scientific and clutching Hawking's books as if they were Bibles.
Adolf Hitler would have welcomed such a philosophy, of course.
It's all the easier to poison millions of Jews if you don't think of them as human beings and instead consider them to be mindless robotic machines waiting to be exterminated.
If Hawking's book had existed at the time of Hitler, Nazi crimes would have no doubt been carried out under the name of science, and the idea that Jews were mere soulless animals to be exterminated at will would have been branded a scientific idea as well, and anyone who opposed that idea would have been called unscientific.
Behind every madman, there is a distorted philosophy that denies people their humanity.
Stephen Hawking turns out to be a strong proponent of this very thing, denying people their humanity.
It is no coincidence, by the way, that science, which gave us the atomic bomb and other technologies with which to carry out mass genocide, has also given us the philosophical pretext under which that genocide may be justified.
Remember, too, that on the first page of his book, Hawking complained that ethics hasn't kept up with physics.
But a closer inspection of the subject reveals quite the opposite.
Physics actually hasn't kept up with ethics.
The recognition of the existence of free will and consciousness is the foundation of compassion for all living things.
It is the core principle from which the vast majority of ethics spring.
No human civilization can achieve lasting peace without the acknowledgement that human beings have consciousness and free will, and yet these are the very ideas that are now branded as unscientific by the vast majority of the conventional scientific community.
And they didn't just leave God out of their equations, you see.
They left out our humanity as well.
Under the brand of science, we are all meaningless, soulless, biochemical robots who have all fooled ourselves into thinking that we are somehow self-aware.
▲
Export Selection