Hiding in Plain Sight: Evidence of Impersonal Intelligence as an Aspect of Consciousness

By Tom Bunzel, Collective Evolution

Too often we remain mired in our own specialized silos. Scientists worship the scientific method and without clear proof they reject any speculative ideas out of hand. Worse, in today’s climate, academic and research scientists are often in the service of corporate objectives.

So we miss connections. Physicists think in terms of material interactions or quantum theories; biologists consider the interplay of chemicals and biological agents and microbes and mathematicians remain in their own cerebral world.

But if we look out at nature, we notice that there is no distinction between these and other branches of “science” – physics and math express in our bodies and those of other creatures all the way up to the stars and astrophysics.

“Laws” may be different at various scales; we have not found much evidence of quantum mechanics at our scale of reality but experiments have proven the veracity of the theory.

But just as language is all that makes you distinguish between branches of science and other fields, so too if we consider the words “Mind,” “Energy” and “Consciousness” how do we truly understand them?

Are they really separate and distinct “entities”?

Or are these words merely labels that we use such as “animate,” “inanimate” and “digital”?  These concepts parse our world into fragments that our minds can begin to understand and so biology, robotics and computer science have performed wonders.

But ultimately as thinkers like Deepak Chopra suggest, ALL of these concepts arise within a mysterious “field” which we label “Consciousness.”

Even our ephemeral personal identities are built on conceptual beliefs and memories that can be transcended or moved beyond by – another concept.  Neuroscientist Douglas Hofstadter conveyed this in his work, “I Am a Strange Loop” where he demonstrates the tricks that language plays to make us believe we know things absolutely when everything except the actual existence of our own “private” mental world is open to question.

So what sort of speculative thinking can possibly provide a clue or pointer beyond the limitations of our own thoughts and senses?

For me the first jolt came with the work of Erich von Daniken and “Chariots of the Gods” where he asserted that many ancient monuments depict and/or could only have been created by beings with the ability to fly and in possession of advanced technology.

Nothing along these lines has been “proven”; but his work and the resulting “Ancient Aliens” series raise some very interesting questions.

For me the great “timeless monuments” – the Sphinx and Great Pyramid make a great deal more sense as repositories of wisdom than as “tombs” or works of “primitive” art.

Peter Tompkins, who wrote the “Secrets of the Great Pyramid” curated many of the mathematical and astronomical relations that seem depicted in the structure of the pyramid and also raised questions as to its amazing precision, and of course its vast scale.

More recently Graham Hancock and Robert Schoch have revised estimates of the age of the Sphinx backwards – it keeps getting older – and esoteric teachings suggest it dates back to when the Sahara was not a desert but fertile.

The Magical Egypt series goes a step further, deconstructing the art of Egypt as possibly depicting the inner structure of the human brain or providing a structural blueprint of consciousness itself.

Richard Cassaro who has appeared in the series has discovered a series of remarkable likenesses between the monuments and artwork of civilizations separated by vast geographical distances, suggesting they may have once been connected in some way.

This kind of “speculative” alternative history suggests a notion of Timelessness – and that perhaps all of human activity is either in service to an evolution of consciousness or in opposition to it – with a possible Reconciling Force (suggested in Magical Egypt and elsewhere) – representing a higher vertical supra-mental dimension that reaches our scale of reality only occasionally.

In Tompkins’ work on the Great Pyramid he suggests that not only the constant Pi but also Phi — the relationship of numbers also known as the Fibonacci sequence which seems “perfect” as is seemingly infinite is represented as a primal force of nature — in the spatial relationships of the great pyramid.

This is suggestive of the idea, conveyed also by Pythagoras, that mathematical relationships such as geometry are not human achievements but rather “discoveries” as they exist innately within nature.

In fact, using the relationships of Fibonacci and other spatial awareness from nature in engineering itself has given rise to the field of “Biomimicry” – where structural creations like airplanes use the aerodynamic features of birds, or the mathematical relationship of Phi is incorporated into; for example “the architecture of the shopping hub is directly inspired by the petals of an orchid flower and designed as repetition of a basic designed module.”

Through these examples we can get a sense of how the mathematical patterns of nature play out in reality – from the great spiral galaxies to the web of a spider and into the quantum world “below.”

Then finally we discover that these mathematical principles go as far as algorithms and programming within our own genetics.  Modern geneticists like Juan Enriquez have taught us that our own DNA, based on four symbols, A, C, T and G (English letters) that represent chemicals acting according to strict instructions of DNA code, operate exactly like our own computer code.

In his TED video, Enriquez refers to an apple as an “application” that gets energy from the sun which when sufficient, it “executes its {DNA} code and drops from the tree.”

This brings up the speculative question of whether our own computer software may not be the result of unconscious biomimicry; we created our own operating systems and programs according to the principles (intuitively at first) embodied by DNA – literally to be considered as an organic programming language.

The question I address in my own book – If DNA is Software Who Wrote the Code? is how we account for the existence of such “code” operating within our own bodies when all other “software” that we know through our recent experience was intentionally created by teams of programmers with “minds”?


This is the same principle that we now use to “encode” what we now call “Artificial” Intelligence for robotics and a host of other scientific endeavors.

But having discovered programming in nature itself with DNA – what about intelligence, or mind, can we truly deem “artificial”?  Is this not the clearest possible pointer to the existence of an invisible “field” or what Eckhart Tolle calls “no thing” – and the reality of Consciousness?

One comment

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.