Please pardon my indiscretion in the following rant: Islam and Christianity never agreed, but are still teaching the same exact fundamental thing.

Islam, at one point, completely destroyed the practice of the Egyptian religion, which persisted for some time into the first century. Yet Islam takes it's roots from the Egyptian religions. On the same token, "science" was considered a wholly religious pursuit for some time.

It's only these askew ideas of history which portray Catholicism and Scientific enlightenment being in discordance with eachother. According to tom's own theory, if you persist in the idea that religion and science aren't in harmony, then they will not be in harmony.

Consider this: even though at this moment you can't understand it (It can't even be articulated as concisely as you might wish) doesn't mean it isn't coming from the Truth.

That being said, there is a difference between experiencing this video, and experiencing a video of a preacher preaching the 2000 year old word of god.

This video is more alive than these preachers, but it can only be understood by really absorbing it. This is why I encouraged a certain way of watching this video in a previous post.




When his claims get under your skin, you have a choice.

Either: Accept that the things you agree with are coming from yourself, resonate with your own conscious intuition.

OR Identify with the ego that says "you can't claim something is truth!"


In myself, i noticed that both of these things happened, yet the ego is the ego. Every time Tom gets a little more animated (and maybe more irritating to Ego) its just an opportunity to observe, transform and reduce the ego.

I can't say i've read Tom's book, but this is what I would say regarding this theory.

Consciousness is the source of our existence.

From a quantum perspective, all these infinite possibilities are just there ( consider binary or hexadecimal but more like infinitydecimal)

Within all of those possibilities existed the potential for a "IUOC" (individuated unit of consciousness)

In the same way within all of the possibilities presented by the raw format of a programming language, there is only a certain very specific arrangement of data in the form of a "program."

The simplest reality, would be the one where there exists just ONE IUAC (the sum total of all consciousness) with access to unlimited potentials. Given the choice to manifest a certain simulation of "reality frames", he had to learn and grow, just like we do.

The bible says we were created in the likeness of God (I bring this up as a connection to supposed "dogma" which we often just fail to understand)


What we can deduce, is that this IUAC studied this infinite series of "reality frames" and eventually decided to run the simulation that we are now experiencing (which he programmed out of an entire infinite possibility database)

It seems that he decided to manifest a universe which could produce many more IUACs in the form of human beings. (or maybe other forms such as angels further down the line?)

Consciousness being the source of existence, somewhere along the line the play button was pushed for the purpose of creating more IUOCs.

He talks about "rules" because IUOC could calculate that his optimum yield would be realized in one certain direction (there may be other certain directions, but i cannot speak on those) and this requires things to make sense, a certain set of uniform laws, all of this, but in the end it evolves out of these two steps Consciousness, and the "Play button"

There have probably been other simulations before this one, and were required in order to accumulate the specific data which will evolve in the direction according the intelligence of "God"


I could relate so many different religious, mystical, yogic, zen, toltec, sources to this. but i will restrain myself. Because this type of data is unique to our little Now, quantum ideas are one of the most important links between religion and science in this age.

He claims his theory is perfect and necessary, so yes he does, according to the way I understand it, claim "infallible truth".

Data is not random. It is organized. He claims with ABSOLUTE certainty that he understands how it is organized, but more mezmerizingly - why it has organized. Nowhere have I found the irrefutable logical steps of his Big Toe that would warrant such certitude. I see a lot of belief, no science and at best questionable logic and at worst random illogical musings. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with beliefs, but beliefs parading as fact and supported by flimsy logic and certain claims are suspect at best and at worst - take a glance at any and all history - dangerous.

All I am asking, in good faith and by way of intellectual (and spiritual) curiosity, is for a step by step walkthrough of his logic. Surely those that accept his ideas have thought it through and followed his process of reason and logic and not just taken it on face value, no? I guess I could watch a few more talks, but 3 hours should be enough to say I either disagree with his ideas and find flaws in his logic or that I understand or do not understand them.

Without backing his claims, his speeches come across as merely the (somewhat) interesting musings of an elderly gentleman. I suspect this is actually all they are, but I am open to being wrong and am pleading to be proven so.

JBArk

I will not pick apart all of what you wrote, but all the above is RIFE with assumption, and assumption is antithetical to logic.

"Consciousness is the source of our existence."

First HUGE assumption. I tend to agree with this, because it is an idea that pleases me and fits into my belief system. But I recognize that it is not rational, or logical.

All the rest flow from that one idea so I need go no further - logic that proceeds from a statement that entails a fundamental assumption (and infers MANY others) is flawed logic.

Remember - I am not attacking his ideas or whether or not they "resonate" with anyone, I am only taking him to task with his claims of logical consistency. I like his ideas, they're stimulating and while far from original, he seems to structure them in an original framework. But I feel the same way about Inception, Solaris, 2001, the nines, Mr nobody...

So what logical proof to his claims of logic and infallible veracity?

Just wonderin'

JBArk

That's a question only he can answer...

Looking for truth and proof in a theory is just folly...it's a theory... an idea...

Elderly men have been purporting 'theories' since the birth of language and will continue to do so ad infinitum...
The 'truth' can never be known absolutely... and hard nosed 'belief' in anyone of these theories will waste valuable time.
Pick one which sounds nice to you and run with it till a 'nicer' one comes along.

As a former nuclear physicist, I'm betting he's given this more than a cursory thought.
Even if he's propping up his pension via the lecture circuit...fair play I say...at least he attracts some interest and spreads some notions of Love in his conclusions.

I totally agree Cyb. That's why i take issue with his "absolute" claims and purported logical proof. From the very first minute of the video you embedded he makes claims of certainty, of knowing, of having figured it out - and not in some hodgepodgy mystical way (my inference), BUT from a standpoint of logic, reason and science. Fair enough - show me the logic, reason and science!

...or come clean and say these are some interesting musings and the backbone of a consistent system of belief, and no more.

"Looking for truth and proof in a theory is just folly...it's a theory... an idea..."

Well, i'll have to disagree. It's a hypothesis. It only parades as a theory because he claims to have irrefutable proof of it. Which he fails to provide. At least religions tell you that you have to take a leap of faith!

But I agree with you that "the "truth" can never be known absolutely". This is axiomatic to me. And people that claim to know it despite it being axiomatic are a dime a dozen. But a man on the lecture circuit claiming to have a logically sound and hermetic theory of everything better be prepared to back it up with logic. It stands to reason: claim logic, then explain your logic in logical terms.

And being a nuclear physicist does not mean you are not prone to the seductions of irrational belief - it just means you may be more well equipped to rationalize them and sell them to those less educated. I know, my dad is a nuclear physicist.

Anyway, i won't harp on any further. I really don't want to ruffle feathers - i just wanted to see if someone could lay it out for me - a cogent, logical step by step walkthrough of his theory. It may be my loss, but i don't see anything in the 3 hours I viewed that warrants ordering his book to find out...

Cheers,

JBArk

Well yes you're correct that everything flows from that one idea

Unfortunately thats all I can really really say objectively.


"Tom's ToE states that Consciousness is the source of reality."

I just feel that is so silly to ask for anything more than that. It is such a huge step in itself, that to move on to other things without just accepting that one basic condition is going to leave you unsatisfied.

I have to agree with jbark. I find his talks interesting, some of his ideas appeal to me, but the absolute certainty he comes across with bothers me.

In the video he says he's so sure of himself because his ideas get backed up by experiments and references things like the PEAR projects. So this is evidence that the mind can affect reality (test results). Okay. That's cool. I even agree with it to an extent. What experiments has he done that prove his idea that we're actually immortal and reincarnation is truth of life after death? His proof (in this talk) is that 1) it's supported by the logical flow of his theory and 2) that he's seen it first hand subjectively. Well, those aren't irrefutable facts.




I have to say I'm a bit amused that you say disagreement with his perspective is a result of ego inflation. I can't think of a bigger act of ego than claiming, as he does, that you have the absolute truth of the universe.

It's not so cut and dry. Science requires cut and dry thinking, so im not trying to argue with anybody.

I don't mean that he knows the truth, in a sense his own theory is coming from a whole Series of unspeakable "first this, then that's." he doesn't come close to what you're actually hoping for when you watch this video. We're always going to be disappointed when we look outside of ourselves.

What I'm saying isn't that If you disagree than you just have a super huge ego or you're stupid.
I'm saying that there's a likely chance that he says some things which you already inherently know. Any thing you may have learned or that became clear to you because of this cam from inside you.

Tom isn't any different from yogis or gurus or Osho or whatever Baba. He hut approached this intellectually.

And all of these people say the same thing, that the ego and imagination cause our stagnation. This can be understood practically, mystically or intellectually. If you cut all the garbage out of the way, it is very clear that we can't appreciate each other because we don't experience the humility available to us. This humility comes from recognizing the barriers to our own growth within ourselves in the moment every moment.

If you think I'm defending this guys ego that says " I'm absolutely correct" I didn't express myself well enough.

I'm pointing at my own ego, what I felt as I watched this video, and having the intention to show you yours.

We can only work on ourself. But this is only addressed far down the line in Toms system, he insists on understanding everything leading up to "why evolve" first.
It's not necessary but at least it ends up in the right direction.

Thanks for the clarification cubeananda. I definitely believe that some knowledge is innate, and that ego is often an issue, so we might be closer in our perspectives than it seems at first glance.

It's good to consider the Dharma in relation to Buddhist schools.
" if even the sublime dharma must be shed, how much more that which contradicts it?"

I myself am a Student of a fourth way school. In a way Tom an his system reminds me of Gurdjieff, but it is not as practical.
Gurdjieff's "objective" system is that way as well. It claims to be truth, and therefore turns off the people who aren't willing to spend the energy involved in learning about it.

Every good teaching comes from the wordless and leads one to the wordless.
But jut for fun, I will describe The "virtual" character toms created by using fourth way terminology.

Tom was influenced by Saturn when he was born. This means that his pituitary gland was the major production gland in his life, because of this he has such a large forehead.

Another characteristic of Saturns is that they are extremely organized.
Just like Saturn and its moons are organized.

Because his essence lives under the "rules" of a Saturnine essence, he can only express himself the way he is.
He also has a bit of Solar influence, which is why he likes attention.

He is centered in the emotional part of the intellectual center. This means that he's a queen of diamonds.

Being a super organized Saturn who feels emotional about ideas, you just can't blame the guy for what he does.

He has all these ideas because its in his essence and then it's in his essence to make them all fit together into a system.
So there you have Tom Campbell. A Saturn-solar centered in the queen of diamonds. Give him the conditions that he had and hell end up on the lecture circuit doing what he does.

I feel privileged see his system from the perspective of a different system because I actually can't tell which one contains the other one, they Are quite complementary.

MERGED

Hey all,

I was a bit surprised that I found little, when doing a search for Tom Campbell and "My Big TOE".

I am pretty sure, with all the astute members on this site, that Tom Campbell, and his TOE (Theory of Everything) would have surfaced by now, and be a Theory that would interest many members.

The link below is part 1 of 3 where Tom speaks about his theory in Calgary.

If you aren't familiar with Tom and his theory, I think it is worth a bit of time to listen to what he has to say.......

Tom Campbell is a NASA physicist currently doing consulting work for them, and is a very intelligent guy that attempts to put ALL the pieces together.

Let me know what you think!!

Here is the link.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nlbro2MNBs

Much Love&Light

Observer

Thanks for posting cyb, I didn't know Tom Campbell has a YT channel.

Hello all!

I have very recently come by new videos of Tom Campbell, author of "My Big TOE" which i highly recommend for those of you interested in a more scientific approach at the nature of consciousness.
There are tons of lectures of Tom on his youtube channel which go deep into what his book is about too.

But these new videos, 6 videos total (only the first three are available right now) take place at The Monroe Institute and are more about the practical side of consciosness exploration in the Non-Physical Reality (NPR).

I don't really want to go into anymore detail since Tom has far better ways of conveying this information.
Nevertheless, i strongly advise anyone who has even a slight interest in the exploration of consciousness (whatever the form) to take a look at his work and these videos particularly.
You will not be disappointed, this man is one of the greatest minds of our time, we have much to learn from his work.

Here are the three first uploads:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0FuXKHzE2c

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fuuey0nQXkI

Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgpS4-Himrk

Enjoy!

I really enjoyed this! Thank you for the share

TC is also on "world tour" in 2017: http://mbtevents.com/Future_Events.html

Btw, if you don't know TC well, he really worked/works (?) as a scientist as he claims. His conciseness/OBE research was his "nighttime job":

Thanks Ufostrahlen for resurrecting this thread, I had looked into TC a lot recently and hadn't spotted he had gained attention on here. This thread was way before my time.

I loved his message, but the closer I looked the more I worried. TC comes across as a really lovely soft spoken Santa Claus like guy. His take on realities is nice and worth a lot of thought. But looking closer at it there are a few things about the TC phenomenon I don't like.

1. Lots of science and computer terms are used around his ideas, none of these are science and give the air that it is. There is no data, no equations, no stream of logic even. This seems purely as a way of giving credence to his followers.

2. His initial step of saying this reality is a simulation is not new, and not even new to science.

3. When he starts talking about consciousness as the medium for the simulation, this is nothing that sages have not been saying for thousands of years, nay even to the beginning of humans having their first spiritual thoughts.

4. I have heard him speak about topics he clearly knows nothing about, and he acts as if he knows all about them. He also fully misunderstands the double slit experiment as implying consciousness is a factor, or willfully erroneously uses it to back up his claims.

5. The "He is a scientist" thing is massively over egged for no good reason, and leads people to believe he is some sort of leading researcher. This was not the case, he is trained in science and worked for NASA but he was not any sort of lead researcher. I've met physicists that are Christians and believe that the bible is 100% literal, and these ones have probably published more papers than him. It really has no validity to support his theory unless he was publishing it as research (which he is not), nor does it prove his ideas because he has a scientific mind.

6. His claims of remote viewing and seeing possible futures are exactly the sort of things that could be exposed to direct examination and would give experimental evidence. This does not happen, and in a plea to find a missing person on his group, several of his followers who apparently can follow his technique gave lots of excuses about why they shouldn't help and was followed by some random vague remote viewings that yielded nothing and were later proved wrong.

The REALLY interesting thing about him is that he asserts that he has been reaching these meditative states since the 70s, has met all sorts of entities, can do this at will and with ease and has sort of mapped out the multiverse. This does interest me. I am sort of suspicious though, that although he is promoting meditation, given the era of the beginning of his consciousness research that entheogens may actually be behind all this.

I make no conclusions as I know nothing really, but I smell fish around him big time and I trust my instincts - even though I would love it if all he says is true. I hung on his forums a little bit and saw the dogma that is inherent in those who follow him. If TC didn't say it, and if TC says its not like that, then it isn't like that. He does nothing to dissuade this attitude. And his over confidence in everything he talks about reinforces his guru status amongst his followers.

He is taking some good eastern philosophy packaged in a christian and modern western friendly format. In that sense its good. He has some very interesting ideas which he has expanded on at length, and these are a worth while read for all. Perhaps the bad taste in my mouth is the flavour of a money making machine behind him that is tainting his message, or perhaps the facts have been changed to sanitise the message, and makes me worry that the well is poisoned. I am not sure this is TCs fault, he said that Belief should be avoided at all costs and that to me was one of the best things he said, however belief is fostered 100% in his followers.

I think he would be a great person to get to know and listened to, but I am not sure he can tell us the true story unless it was all off the record. He also mentioned on the forum he had had a kundalini awakening as a child (around 7 years old I think) In many circles this would give him a much better Guru status than all this science stuff.

Sorry about the rant, I got very excited about him for a while - but the closer I looked the more annoyed I got.

Follow your heart.

I didn't resurrect the thread as I already did my fair share of TC spamming on the forum. Just a simple reply.

Your comment is a fair and necessary rant for a thinking person and open-minded skeptic.


I don't think he says he invented it, he says it explains alot of the psychic phenomena. The conncection of digital physics and psychic phenomena is the unique thing. The preexisting idea is as old as 1967:

https://en.wikipedia.org...d_Zuse#Calculating_Space



He never did drugs, stopped drinking the occasional beer and claims that they aren't beneficial for the whole OBE/remote view thing. (source: his book) He even avoids sugar. For me it's the same: it is really interesting. No need to believe, but to investigate. For the money thing: don't spend cash on anyone, unless you have good reason to do so (omen, gut feeling etc.)

Another idea: discard TC completely and practice Zazen. A lot of roads lead to Rome: https://www.dmt-nexus.me...&m=685638#post685638 ... but then Zen monks are full of dogma as well.

My current idea is multihybrid: listen to all sorts of ideas and filter out those who prove not working. Zazen yes, buddhist dogmatics no, TC meditation/BB tips yes, TC drug tips no etc.

TC did a good job explaining binaural beats and meditation, so far I don't have a negative feeling about him.

I didn't make it past the first 10 minutes. One example of why I don't care for him so far: I feel that TC makes paranormal claims (like OBE and PEAR results) easier to swallow by fallaciously grouping them with claims that have been subject to rigorous [repeatable] scientific studies (like test scores and placebo effect). He throws out the word "science" a lot, too much in fact, and often referring to unscientific procedures.

He has an answer for everything, and that's great and all, but so do I... So should everyone past a certain age, right? I guess I've become too apathetic: I no longer attempt to reconcile my TOE with other people's TOEs.