Peter Russell: The Primacy Of Consciousness

Primacy Of ConsciousnessA rather fascinating and important lecture from Peter Russell. Could the fundamental nature of reality actually be consciousness?

In his documentary Peter Russell explores the reasons why consciousness may be the fundamental essence of the Universe. Many have made such claims from metaphysical perspectives, but the possibility has always been ignored by the scientific community. In this talk, he discusses the problems the materialist scientific world view has with consciousness and proposes an alternative world view which, rather than contradicting science, makes new sense of much of modern physics. He presents a reasoned argument that shows how they are pointing towards the one thing science has always avoided considering — the primary nature of consciousness.

This documentary basically seeks answers for these questions: What is consciousness? How could consciousness arise from matter? Paradigm shifts in science. The materialist meta paradigm. A new meta paradigm. Consciousness is in everything. Everything is in consciousness. Matter is a mental construct. Relativity and light’s point of view. Light lies beyond space, time and matter. Photons and the quantum of action. Parallels between light and consciousness. Consciousness as the fundamental reality. The mystical experience of consciousness. Who am I? What is the self? The meeting of science and spirit.



George T. Mortimer is the author of three books: 'Bothy Culture', 'The Probationer's Handbook' and 'Magick Without Fear: The Gerald Suster Letters'. He spends most of his free time writing and wandering around remote parts of Scotland seeking out blissful isolation. Mortimer can be found at

52 Comments on "Peter Russell: The Primacy Of Consciousness"

  1. Thanks for posting this

  2. Monkey See Monkey Do | Mar 6, 2012 at 3:20 am |

    So if each of us is a god co-creating reality, what about all the other potential gods that exist? Last I’ve read even the most conservative scientists believe its very unlikely we’re the only intelligent, sentient beings that exist in the universe. whether its Inter-dimensional, Extra-dimensional, Inner space or Outer Space it seems very likely their are many players in this experiment called life.

    • razzlebathbone | Mar 6, 2012 at 4:32 am |

      If I understand the point he’s trying to make, he’s saying it doesn’t matter how many beings are out there thinking of themselves as individuals, because all of them (all of us) are the same “I AM”.

    • gwen jackson | Mar 7, 2012 at 7:43 am |

       uh, creating our own illusion of reality based on our limited perceptions certainly does not make us gods.
      even the designation of humans as an intelligent life form, much less the only intelligent life form, is a perception that i perceive to be highly dubious at best.
      you should definitely demand a refund from whoever has misled you so shamelessly.

      • Monkey See Monkey Do | Mar 7, 2012 at 8:26 am |

        Maybe the designation of you as an intelligent life form is a perception that is highly dubious.

        You should know that information can be obtained just by looking into yourself, you dont have to be led around by whatever you read or see.

        • gwen jackson | Mar 10, 2012 at 11:12 pm |

          you should know that the voices in your head are usually full of shit and only serve to tell you what you want to hear. if you want to believe that you’re a god, be my guest, chimp. mental institutions are overflowing with people who believe that, what’s one more?

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | Mar 12, 2012 at 5:12 am |

            Keep running away from ideas out of fear. “I don’t want to believe in something because i hear that crazy people believe it” I guess according to you all buddhist’s are crazy too right?

            Mystics swim where schizophrenics drown…

    • Monkey See Monkey Do | Mar 6, 2012 at 9:56 am |


    • Mortimer | Mar 6, 2012 at 9:57 am |

      I find it funny when people are incapable of even entertaining an idea. I think your response is best summed up at 0:23:14 in the video. I’m not saying he’s right, but ideas are always worth entertaining.

      • Simiantongue | Mar 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm |

        There is a difference between “entertaining” an idea and “believing” an idea. I can entertain many things, that does not necessarily mean that I accept them as true.

        If Daniel Savio says “Nonsense” that does not mean the idea has not been “entertained”, he very well could have ruminated on it, it simply means he doesn’t believe it. What you did there is called equivocation “entertaining an idea” and “believing an idea” are not the same thing.

  3. Gregory Wyrdmaven | Mar 6, 2012 at 9:36 am |

    Atheists, don’t watch this video lest you spontaneously combust.  These are difficult ideas, unable to be ruminated upon by folks who think that physical reality is real.

    • Huh?  The reality of matter doesn’t automatically preclude the reality of things other than matter, nor vice versa.  It seems to me that matter is probably just one point on a spectrum of existence.

      • gwen jackson | Mar 7, 2012 at 7:00 am |

         i totally disagree but i liked your point anyway so i gave it three and a half stars and a cat. but i give everybody cats.

    • razzlebathbone | Mar 6, 2012 at 3:33 pm |

      Atheism is not belief in physical reality.

      It is lack of belief in gods.

      Buddhists, for example, are atheists. They don’t believe in gods, but they do believe that the physical world is an illusion.

      • Jin The Ninja | Mar 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm |

        most buddhists are not atheists.  most buddhists reject a western atheist reading of their religion, and most buddhist ‘cultures’ have associated indigenous practices alongside buddhism. daoism for instance, was heavily borrowed by chan (zen) buddhists in china for jargon and metaphysical concepts. shingon buddhism which was the buddhism of the court in heian and kamakura japan, was highly esoteric, highly influenced by japanese shamanism (yamabushi, shintoism) and imported daoism. tibetan buddhism has a huge pantheon. pure land buddhists pray directly to guan yin or buddha for salvation. even thai buddhists *theravada) have animistic spirits they petition, and buddha functions as a deity. As well as mainstream japanese lay buddhists- who (also contemporary chinese buddhists) petition their ancestors.

        any extant, predominantly buddhist nation on earth, incorporates deities in their buddhist practice. it is only a very few western buddhists, and some highly intellectual zen buddhists who are ‘atheist’ in the true sense, perhaps ‘non theist’ more gently.

        • Monkey See Monkey Do | Mar 7, 2012 at 1:37 am |

          I find it odd that atheists refuse the possibility of god or gods in their belief system. Couldn’t extremely intelligent, complex, vast and very powerful aliens beings be interpreted as gods? They certainly would have many of the traits of the gods described in religions worldwide.

          • Jin The Ninja | Mar 7, 2012 at 3:15 am |

            i can’t personally say i understand a materialist, atheist worldview, as that has not been my conscious, subconscious, altered conscious or living experience, but everyone is entitled to autonymy of consciousness and a choice of beliefs and i FULLY support that.

            as to aliens, well i find it interesting, but haven’t really given it much thought outside of graham hancock’s supernatural conjecture of ayuhuasca/iboga/cave painting experiences.

          • Simiantongue | Mar 8, 2012 at 3:34 pm |

             “i can’t personally say i understand a materialist, atheist worldview…”

            Lets see if I can sum it up in a nutshell. Prove it or GTFO.  

          • Jin The Ninja | Mar 8, 2012 at 4:22 pm |

            understand connotes informed by/empathise with. I understand the framework, i am not personally informed by or particularly sympathetic to that worldview, the most important thing is for everyone to have sovereignty over their own consciousness’ – whatever the resultant belief system. i certainly think a rationalist, scientific worldview is very valid (and something i do sympathise with), but i have a serious problem with reductionists, and the framework of american atheism which i find led by/informed by a patriarchy of xenophobic materialist thinkers.

          • Simiantongue | Mar 8, 2012 at 7:09 pm |

            Can’t disagree with that.

          • Simiantongue | Mar 8, 2012 at 3:15 pm |

             You probably find that odd because that’s not what most atheists think. And atheism is not a belief system btw.

          • Jin The Ninja | Mar 8, 2012 at 4:27 pm |

            there is a western atheist tendency towards materialism. that is, epistemologically, a belief system. although certainly not representative of all atheists or even the semantic value of ‘atheism’ (which is simply a ‘lack of belief in g-d, gods’)

          • Simiantongue | Mar 8, 2012 at 10:55 pm |

                 Sorry missed this response, I’m at work and I have to keep one eye on the boss’ door.

                 I agree with you. That’s not what monkey was saying however. Which is why I responded. Clearly saying atheism is a belief system. Or that non-belief is belief.

                 You’re saying there are people who are atheists, they tend toward materialism and materialism is a “belief”. There is a correlation between atheism and materialism, just as you pointed out. But correlation is not causation and atheism is not the reason some atheists “believe” in materialism. That is not just a small semantic difference from what Monkey is saying, completely different in fact.

                 The whole sentence is a twisted mess, one fallacy after another. It’s not particularly odd. Atheists don’t generally refuse the possibility. Although you’d actually would have had to talk to a few to be aware of that. And atheism is not a “belief system”.

          • Jin The Ninja | Mar 9, 2012 at 2:30 pm |

            if it helps, i didn’t really understand that post either, nor was it representative of my values or beliefs.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | Mar 12, 2012 at 5:04 am |

            I’m sorry but you really don’t have any idea what your talking about.. you jump around in logical circles with no real point to make. Do some research on philosophy and belief systems and come back and contribute some new ideas please.

    • As an atheist and a mystic I object to your assumptions.

  4. InfiltratedSlacker | Mar 6, 2012 at 10:21 pm |

    What’s consciousness made of?  Turtles?  Just more psuedo-crap.

    • Jin The Ninja | Mar 7, 2012 at 1:06 am |

      so your post was pseudo-thinking?

      • What can be grasped is never the real thing, so, congratulationsq with this eye-opener video!!!

      • InfiltratedSlacker | Mar 7, 2012 at 4:29 am |

        You’re right, I’m mistaken.  Consciousness is made of “perturbations in the absolute”.  Hand wave so you can stick to your dogma. 

        This explanation for existence is really no different than “God made the universe”, just a longer chain of circular reasoning.  And as a bonus you can write off anyone who disagrees with you as an “ignorant materialist”.

        • Jin The Ninja | Mar 7, 2012 at 5:10 am |

          i don’t find materialists “ignorant,” just limited. i never implied that i had any problem with them, simply that i don’t understand their worldview. and what exactly is my “dogma” – no really i’d like you to explain it- since you so readily know and equally, dismiss my beliefs with a perturbed hand wave.

          • UselessJunk | Mar 7, 2012 at 1:46 pm |

            “Everything is made of consciousness” is the dogma.  It’s no different than saying “turtles all the way down” or “God runs the universe”.  It’s wishful thinking, unprovable, unfalsifiable, and just plain wacky.  I’m willing to accept that some things are made of consciousness, sure, maybe even most things.  But when you claim that EVERYTHING, the fundamental ether of the universe, is all consciousness, you’ve done nothing more than hand-wave an explanation.  And the explanation solves everything because consciousness can explain anything (just like God).  Why is there a rock there?  “Cuz consciousness wanted to be.”  “Cuz God put it there.”  You basically have thrown out scientific reasoning for superstition.

          • Jin The Ninja | Mar 7, 2012 at 3:12 pm |

            1-that reality is a kind of ‘ conscious ether’ has never been my position.

            2- dogma is a doctrinal belief tied to a textual document and institutional practices (i.e.) religion. so no, that’s not my ‘dogma’ nor is it in fact dogma in the sense of the word.

      • gwen jackson | Mar 7, 2012 at 7:48 am |

         pseudo-thinking is my job. it’s the official title i made up to describe what i do, anyway.
        but i loved this lecture. a little fundamental, but it’s always healthy to be reminded that any dilemma or argument can always be reduced effectively to:
         “aw, it’s all in your head.” and it really, really is. 😉

        • UselessJunk | Mar 7, 2012 at 1:50 pm |

          “aw, it’s all in your head.”

          No, it really, really isn’t.  Those other people, they are real.  They are not in your head.  They exist outside your mind.  That you’ve made representations of them in your mind should not be confused with their objective existence.

          I am not in your head.  I am far away, an external entity, typing this.  I am not just a figment of your imagination.

          • You have a kinda strawman of these ideas. This isn’t philosophical idealism in the sense of “i am god, and i’m creating this reality in my head”. It is sortof the opposite side of the coin of reductionist materialism, looking up from the utmost base of reality (here, called consciousness) rather than looking down from our human perspectives.

            In this sense yes it is the same as calling it turtles all the way down, but you misunderstand that as well.

          • gwen jackson | Mar 10, 2012 at 11:20 pm |

            really? because i’m definitely just a figment of your imagination.

    • gwen jackson | Mar 7, 2012 at 6:55 am |

       lol, you said puh-soo-ey-doe. everybody knows it’s puh-see-ew-doe. silly.

  5. Tried to watch it today, but it literally put me “unconscious” in the first 20 mins.

    I’ll give it another try tomorrow.

  6. gwen jackson | Mar 7, 2012 at 6:52 am |

    i love being reminded that there’s really no such thing as color. metaphorically, it makes it easier to swallow that other people perceive black where i perceive white, and vice versa. makes so much more sense when i remember that it’s okay if we’re all perceiving different colors, because none of them are really there anyway. yay.

    • UselessJunk | Mar 7, 2012 at 1:58 pm |

      You’ve confused the semantics of language with a failed attempt at applying physics.  Colors may not be “real” in the common-sense understanding of the term, as in, once you start looking at things at a deeper level you see their component parts and realize “hey color is just a refracted projection of light through a medium interpreted by our eyes and brain”.  But the existence of component parts do not suddenly invalidate the larger systematic pattern.  Are you not real because you are made of molecules?  Or are you real because you are that particular arrangement of molecules?  You are real.  Colors are real.  Yay.  Time to celebrate, nihilism is dead!

      The alternative is to fall into the language trap and say: “that’s not a car, it’s just an engine and some wheels”.  But wait, “that’s not a wheel, it’s rubber and a spoke… but thats not rubber its some atoms… those arent atoms its quarks… omg those arent quarks… everythings consciousness!”  You can now speak one word for the rest of your life to explain everything: consciousness.  Consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness?  Consciousness, consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness, consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness, consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness, consciousness consciousness, consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness, consciousness consciousness consciousness consciousness!

      • You make a good point that some people get lost and forget that levels of abstraction are important distinctions to make, but you seem to go the opposite way and discount the value of levels we don’t understand.

      • Monkey See Monkey Do | Mar 8, 2012 at 5:18 am |

        You got it the wrong way around. The idea is consciousness as the primary. It should be ‘Consciousness’ says that’s not a car, and then consciousness manifests things all the way down to atoms and then quarks and then who knows what else?

      • gwen jackson | Mar 10, 2012 at 11:13 pm |

         i assure you, i am not real. i checked.

  7. Kitforrestall | Mar 25, 2012 at 2:08 pm |

    Interesting. Some “but what abust ?” in my mind. Existentialism.

  8. Kitforrestall | Mar 25, 2012 at 2:09 pm |

    Oops, meant “abouts”  ie learning ?

Comments are closed.