Here’s a questions and answers page that delves into general consciousness mechanics stuff. I, Carlton, answer many questions directly in first-person. CM means consciousness mechanics, and CMTM means Consciousness Mechanics: The Movie.
Q: Who’s to say consciousness needs a brain?
A: CM is about the human experience, which involves a central nervous system. None of this is arguing whether consciousness does or doesn’t need a brain. There are life forms that have no brain, and yet are still very much alive, for example plants and bacteria. Animals such as jellyfish are perfect examples of conscious, living entities that have the capacity to exhibit all sorts of intelligent behaviors with no brain.
Q: But what about insert any religious concept here?
A: CM is religion-neutral. Nothing about it is intended to invalidate or disrespect one’s spiritual or religious beliefs. The experience you call insert any religious concept here is still a real experience, and nothing in CM will ever try to refute that. Whatever person, place, or thing you experience is a real experience. The specific hows, whats, and whys of that experience, and whether you could label that experience more appropriately in another way, is another topic.
A lot of the ideological conflict between different spiritual schools of thought and popular science are about systems of labeling physically, mentally, and emotionally real phenomena, for instance the concept of “spirit.” This may be controversial for some, but it has to be said, because it is an aspect of CM: “spirit” is just mind. It is a specific type of EMF that holds its own emotional-tactile sensation just like the physical body. You witness the realness of this substance as mental visualization, dreams, and as the very animating principle of life itself—that’s what spirit and mind is made of. I explain this substance more in a book. This specific type of energy hasn’t been explained by popular science, and is the cause of the dichotomy between science and spirituality. When the mind is fully explored, all the various conflicts of spiritual, religious, and scientific thought will remedy.
Q: I don’t agree with insert concept here.
A: CM exists for philosophical purposes. You are free to disagree.
Q: How the hell is consciousness mechanics scientific? It’s metaphysical pseudoscience! It’s a bunch of silly nilly woo woo!!
Q: Why is CM’s premise solipsistic, when clearly others exist and I’m not the only one in the universe?
A: This is a misunderstanding that is actually explained in the movie and in CM videos—I viscerally remember the times I intentionally mentioned that other people are real, and are connected to you, and have their own reality and consciousness experience, specifically so that people DON’T get the impression that “only you exist and other people are illusions.” Nevertheless, because I have seen this critique so often, I wrote an entire page to re-explain it here.
Q: You make a lot of claims, why not source your info?
A: Most of CM is general logic-based information that anyone can deduce themselves—the info is largely self-evident. But to answer the question in another way: I am the source. I won’t shy away from that, because it’s the truth, just like how Max Planck was “the source” for quantum theory. All the different natural sciences were started by somebody (or small number of somebodies), and branched out into many people evolving that genre of theory. I’m just getting the ball rolling on the consciousness genre. If you’re going to observe and explain quanta, you have to have a fancy lab, with fancy equipment, and create fancy experiments. If you’re going to observe and explain consciousness, you have to analytically meditate, and deduce your experiences in an obvious, logical, unembellished manner.
I naturally alter my state of consciousness (not with drugs, drugs can ruin this natural ability) with the specific intent of analytically understanding my experience.
One thing I noticed is that the human brain and mind is capable of much, MUCH more than what you’re taught in school. Your mental vision isn’t just for seeing fantasy nonsense. For instance, just as you can train yourself to see the past vividly, you can train your mind’s eye to see possible futures and parallel versions of Earth. I learned the timeline-spaceline stuff from direct mental observation. Obviously memory is natural, but not everyone has a photographic memory. You can build that photo-memory ability, along with other versions of the same talent—it has a distinct feeling sensation and continuity level that lacks manipulation, unlike when you are fabricating mental fiction.
In summary, I don’t usually (I sometimes do!) source stuff because CM is personal-logic based, thus you’re the prime validator, and there’s no need to link stories about what some guy saw under a microscope. You are that guy, you are your microscope, and you are examining yourself.
Q: What’s with the self-empowerment stuff; for instance, some of the stuff in Navigating the Matrix? Why not just release mechanical, technical information only?
A: Yeah! Let’s all just be soulless, information hoarding automatons, with no desire to apply the information constructively in a world filled with people lacking empathy holding tribalistic values! Hell yeah!!! Great idea! Lol, just kidding.
In direct response to the second question: They’re both one in the same. Learning mechanical information about the nature of your reality is another form of self-empowerment. But besides that, I do. The CM videos feature tons of raw data about how the mechanisms of change operate in your consciousness. As far as having no life-empowering content whatsoever, that’s not possible because it’s all about explaining how life works. Providing information as to how to use it in your life is what makes the content useful. I can’t completely escape the “self-help vibe,” because I want the information to be helpful.
I will say this though: I am no hater, but I am also no fan of the self-help, self-empowerment genre of media, because they often give people half-truths by not explaining things fully and mechanically. The authors of these works often rely on saying things that sound good and feel good, rather than saying things that make practical, logical, at-least-somewhat-scientific sense. And with that said, I still appreciate that this genre brings smiles to people’s faces, and is simply working to make the world a better place. I’m not a fan, but I’m glad this genre of work exists in the kind of world we live in. The world would undoubtedly be an nicer place if more people read positive, inspirational books designed to empower one another.
Q: Is Navigating the Matrix named from the movie series? Are you a fan of the Matrix movies?
A: Nope and nope. It has nothing to do with the movies, and I neither like nor dislike the series—I’m neutral about the whole thing. Although, I do think the digital rain (the green stuff that make a scene look like virtual reality) is kind of cool. It originates from Ghost in the Shell.
Q: Why say the movie exists for entertainment purposes? That devalues the information.
A: There are all kinds of people all over the world that will see this info, including people that hear what they want to hear and readily misinterpret stuff. In a world where some people do irresponsible things and then blame others for their choices, disclaimers exist for good reason. What if someone simply forgot to take their medication one day and said, “F* yeah I’m the universe! I create my reality!! I CAN FLY!!!” and jumps off a roof and blames a consciousness mechanics video? Also, it is for entertainment. Some people ABSOLUTELY LOVE pondering the whys and wherefores of consciousness and the structure of their reality experience. This movie was made for them. :)
Q: What’s with the ads on the YouTube videos?
A: No one has been paid to produce anything, so naturally advertisements help balance out the costs of making stuff; for example, the movie. And there are costs.
Q: What’s up with Cole’s paradox? Why that name? Isn’t there already one?
A: There are tons of paradoxes, and they are often named from the surname of their respective authors; i.e., those that first published it publically. Here are some other examples: Carroll’s paradox, Denny’s paradox, Ehrenfest paradox, Faraday paradox, Fermi’s paradox, Gibbs paradox, Klein paradox, Levinthal’s paradox, Lombard’s paradox, Loschmidt’s paradox, Olbers’ paradox, Polchinski’s paradox, and Supplee’s paradox.
Q: Are you trying to say I am the universe, and there is nothing in this world that isn’t me? How insane! How arrogant!! How dare you!!!1!
A: It’s all about logic and context.
In the normal, day-to-day context in which people talk about things, no. You’re very obviously just a human.
In an abnormal, down-the-rabbit-hole, o-sh-Im-trippin-balls context, yes! The logic is that you are not separate from what you experience, and as an observer, you are not disconnected from what you observe.
In the context and part of the movie in which it was stated, it was a correct, axiomatic statement.
The idea of “you” being something depends upon how you define yourself. Most people define themselves as just their body, and rightfully so, because it is the human being’s daily, waking focus of consciousness. Regardless of how you define “you,” whatever you experience, you are still fundamentally experiencing yourself, regardless if you recognize or understand that experience as yourself.
It’s no more arrogant than saying you experience your hand while you give someone a handshake. Do you experience the other person’s hand? Yes, as an experience of yourself, or else you would not perceive another hand to shake.
Depending on how you word this axiom, and depending on your interpretation, it can sound like it’s saying you are the Almighty Supreme God Master of the Cosmos, but it’s not. It’s explicitly saying you are your experience. Another way to say that is “you are your reality,” and “you are the universe.” Also, there’s more to it than that but we’ll save that for another day.
Q: Is there going to be another movie? I really liked this one!
A: Rest assured, I have at least two more movies’ worth of information on hand. Right now, my focus is on individual videos, because there are too many variables and things to consider with regard to more movies. Some variables are the fact that I would like to release a DVD of CMTM1, I also feel to remake it again, and I’m not sure if CMTM2 will have the same format as the current one depending on even more factors (Will I make it entirely by myself? Will I connect with a studio to do it? Will I make my own studio? Will this studio make the new version of the currently released movie first?). The individual videos are extremely useful in their own right, because people tend to like quick, fast-food-like entertainment, rather than long, full-course meal videos. The shorter videos are still chock-full of information, and conveniently require less time to produce.