David Wilcock - The 2012 Enigma

[Friedrich]

Sorry if this has been previously posted, or is in the wrong thread.

I'm currently watching a video of David Wilcock, where he argues that the Universe is based on consciousness. I think, despite being a good idea/concept, he executed it poorly.

He uses the example of Edward Gayce and his associates/family having similar looks to himself and his own social circle. Personally, this all seems like mere coincidence. I could probably find people who look just like myself and my friends.

To me, his whole speech is all a coincidence, as shown by further examples such as The Inconvenient Truth/The Milky Way.

Anyway, what are your views on this topic?
Just search "The 2012 Enigma" on Youtube, I can't post links yet.

[ChrisK]

Why is that a good idea/concept? Sounds like metaphysical horseshit to me (no offense).

[Widerstand]

Can anybody tell me why God won't speak to me? Why exactly is this concept good? What exact 'evidence' is there?

[Friedrich]

No offence taken, it's not something I agree with.
I just think its a more interesting view than that of Christianity, and I am new to this subject so am intrigued.

[Meridian]

If we are to claim, for example, that the universe is based on consciousness, we have to make some presuppositions about our language.

Now, most people, philosophers at least, make the same presuppositions (usually dithered further by ignoring language and attempting to grasp the relationship between 'the mind' and 'external objects').

For it to be true that the universe is based on consciousness, it would have to be true that language is not primarily a means of communication, a human 'invention', but simply a way to describe things that we put words on.

If it is the case that language is such a representational system, then it could be the case that the universe is based on consciousness, because both 'universe' and 'consciousness' are after all words we have that refers to something that exists 'objectively'. If humanity died tomorrow, and language with us, then the universe and consciousness would still exist afterwards.

However, if language is primarily a human invention like a tool, we use words not because they represent things that exist 'objectively' but because they are of communicative use. Likewise, configurations of words (sentences) do not necessarily represent possible configurations of objects. A lot of words do not refer to any object at all. If humanity died tomorrow then no one could claim that the the universe exists or consciousness exists (and no one would know if they did).

There is no problem with posing a question such as "will Anne go to school tomorrow?", or claiming that "Anne did not go to school yesterday". The problem arises when posing a question such as "is the universe based on consciousness?" or claiming that it is or is not. It's based on a presumption that language is not dependent on use.