Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Quantum Aspects of Consciousness
Sep 10, 2007 05:10 PM
by Leon Maurer
Before I respond to your comments... Let me say that this entire
interspersed one liner commentary by you is inherently vapid -- since
it never deals directly with the context of the ideas presented as a
whole, and simplistically nit picks words and sentences out of
context -- which, by implication, is ad hominem argument by skeptical
denial without any rational foundation -- that is not worthy of this
or any other scientific or philosophical forum. However, I'll answer
you in full after your comments below...
And to keep the overall context clear, I'll include our original
messages after our signatures.
On Sep 8, 2007, at 9/8/076:04 AM, Michael Cecil wrote:
--- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...> wrote:
> Regardless of whether or not a supposed separate God
Just because the existence of the Creator is "supposed" by you does not
mean that it is "supposed"
by everyone else.
In other words, there are, in fact, people for whom the existence of the
Creator is not "supposed" at all.
LM: I have no conrol of what other people may or may not "blindly" or
subjectively imagine and believe in, or how they rationalize it to
themselves... But, it certainly is 'supposed" as far as I am
concerned -- so long as they cannot prove or offer any rational basis
for "His" (or Its) existence as an essential necessity -- other than
reference to or arbitrary interpretation of written scriptures or
This doesn't mean that I deny that there is an essential
"intelligence" (constructive information) inherent in and underlying
the universe and everything in it. All that is denied is the
existence of a separatel God outside of the universe itself who
allegedly creates it, and all within it, miraculously out of nothing,
and "supposedly" has a continued personal interest in its so called
And who said "separate"?
I did not say "separate".
LM: I never said you did. But, you certainly implied it... Since
any entity labeled "God" (as the God in the Bible) -- to directly
create something different from itself (such as conscious Mankind) --
must be separate from its creation. Since, this is not possible in
my rational scientific philosophy, I reject it as merely a false
supposition by those ignorant (of the true nature of reality).
So what does the "supposed" refer to? the 'separateness' ? or His
existence per se?
LM: Both... Since "His" implies a separate male personality -- whose
existence could only be the figment of a fanatic religious
fundamentalist's imagination, based on literal interpretation of
written "Revelations" and "Gospels" reported by others.
Thus, in ABC theory, the so called "God" is the impersonal,
androgynous, noumenally materal and conscious Cosmos itself -- which
is considered, in its present phenomenal spacetime condition, as
being the lawfully governed cyclic manifestation of non temporal and
non dimensional "absolute" primal SPACE... That remains located
ubiquitously in every zero-point center of primal force or spinergy
in the Planck vacuum.
I assume that Einstein, when he talked of "God not playing dice," had
something similar in mind -- since he could not, in accord with his
mathematical conclusions, separate the "spacetime continuum" from its
primal source he called the "singularity". Now, that "sinularity"
seems to be in every black hole -- which Einstein also predicted.
Therefore, I conclude that it is this absolute zero-point
(singularity) that is the source of all non local consciousness,
which is spread uniquely through every sentient being, and down to
their smallest cellular structures -- each such cell's proein
structure being encoded holographically in every DNA molecule -- in
accord, and analogous with the information of universal structural
knowledge carried by every fractally involved coenergetic sub quantum
field... That are located (coadunately but not consubstantially)
everywhere in the Planck vacuum between the zero-point of primal
SPACE (at the static center of the spin-momental ZPE) and the quantum
particle fields -- as well as permeating and surrounding every
"living" (whether dormant or otherwise) physical form or being.
If you can't believe this, try imagining the "spacetime" of the
theory of relativity down to its zero-point "singularity" ... Or, try
following the descending spiral vortex of a black hole to its zero-
point center... Or, imagine a photon of sidereal light compressed
down to zero length and infinite mass as it crosses the event barrier
of a black hole, and apparently, disappears from our universe.
Where, did it go? Or, did it transform to a higher energy phase
order and become an invisible astral photon that we can only "see" in
our mind's eye? Ask yourself, what is the light image, we directly
perceive in our mind field, made of? And, how can it be seen
holographically in 3-D depth, if it weren't composed of modulated
wave interference patterns -- carried on a higher frequency-energy
phase order (than photonic light) electrodynamic field -- that can be
reconstructed by a projected coherent ray of the identical "astral
Thus, since the higher order fields are ubiquitous in every pohysical
form -- every particle and object in nature can be considered
inherently potentially conscious in this or subsequent manifestations
of the Cosmos... Since, the law of conservation of "energy," and
thus, of "information" remains an eternal and immutable law of nature
governing every field or form, either metaphysical or physical --
whether manifest or conditioned, or apparently dead or unconditioned.
Of course, none of this will impress you, or anyone else who doesn't
acknowledge the reality of mind and thought, consciousness
(subjectivity) as being separate from and independent of matter
(objectivity), and the universe as an interconnected holographic
reality... Since it is written for "true" scientists, who can use
their consciously willed intuitive "imagination" (coupled with their
reason) -- which Einstein said was "more important than knowledge."
This is the only way a "new psychophysical paradigm of science" --
with a true understanding of both consciousness and matter, their
primal beginning, and their phenomenal interrelationships -- can ever
It now remains for the learned academic scientists who understand
this, to codify the new paradigm's ontology and epistemology in
empirical scientific terms that integrates all the varied current
QFT, LQG, string, M, holographic paradigm theories, etc., into one
(simple as ABC) unified field theory of everything.
> created the
> universe from scratch... Before all the cosmic dust and the starry
> and galactic constellations leading to the evolution of sentient
> beings and conscious mankind appeared -- there had to be a
> fundamental SPACE stuff out of which all that was made.
Not sure that the word "space", even if capitalized, has any real
LM: It simply is the label of the primal 'stuff' from which this
entire conscious metaphysical and physical universe is made out of...
Including, consciousness, mind, matter-energy, and the
"information" (knowledge) necessary to effectively build it all
initially, and through continuously involved morphogenetic processes,
evolve all its sentient beings -- leading ultimately to conscious
The capitalization simply distinguishes it from the second, third,
and higher orders of the space-time continuum it emanates and
ultimately empowers and supports.
(Use your imagination to think about all this carefully in context
[reading in and around the words and between the lines] and maybe
you, and other skeptics, whether scientists or not, will eventually
understand what I am talking about.;-)
> If so, then
> the basis of both consciousness and matter had to be inherent in that
> primal SPACE prior to the Big Bang.
> And, even if there could be a
> separate creator
which, by the way, I have not asserted.
LM: Who cares about your assertions? Why are you taking this so
personally? And, why do you nit pick individual words and sentences
out of context?
(Either you deal with the overall meaning behind my words and the
pictures I'm trying to paint, or there, is no point in my trying to
explain anything to you.)
> to "make man in his own image" -- that "God" would
> logically have to be inherently conscious itself,
What would the word "consciousness" even mean in such a context?
Consciousness is a word grounded in human experience.
LM: Who says so?. That's only one aspect of t. In my view,
consciousness is a quality of fundamental sub quantum primal SPACE
that is both potentially aware and willful, and expressed
phenomenally through the proper phenomenal medium -- i.e., the
information carrying chain of coenergetic electrodynamic fields of
mind, memory, neurology, senses, etc. It is therefore, potential or
noumenal in ALL matter-energy and expressed phenomenally in one
degree or another in every sentient being -- from the single celled
microbe through the vegetable and animal kingdoms... Culminating,
eventually, in individualized self-conscious Mankind... And
ultimately, after innumerable cycles of human evolution, resolving
into the unified consciousness of the universe itself.
Some advanced, new paradigm scientists see this as the "anthropic
principle." And, as a posssible confirmation of this in your
terms... In the (Hebraic-Egyptian) Kabbala (corroborated by Dorial's
translation of the Emerald Tablets of Thot) it says, "First a stone,
then a plant, then an animal, then a man, then an angel, and finally
a God." Interpret that anyway you like -- but I see it as completely
How in the world this word could then be used to describe the state of
of the Creator is at least misguided, but probably much worse.
LM: How you can consider any form of "creation" without consciousness
(awareness and will) coupled with a plan or blueprint in some sort of
"mind" is beyond my (or any other intelligent beings, I presume)
understanding. So either the "creator" (which could be fundamental
or absolute SPACE itself) has all those characteristics, or "He" is
just a figment of your imagination, or possibly a blind belief in the
dead letter interpretation of biblical allegorical and metaphorical
scriptures based on the "visions" and/or "revelations" of others --
which you, apparently, have accepted as being literal truths.
> and have the
> knowledge of that creation in its mind
Have no idea what this word would mean in this context.
LM: That's why you cannot come up with any scientific or reasonable
idea to explain consciousness and its relationship to mind, memory,
brain, body, senses, etc., that any intelligent thinker can understand.
However to give you some idea... It could mean that the primal SPACE
(that I base my ABC theory on) has within it, the inherent qualities,
functions and characteristics of (1) consciousness, (2) mind (the
vehicle of information of consciousness that determines "qualia" and/
or "lnowledge") and (3) matter/energy -- as a fundamental trinity, an
intermediate quaternary, and an ultimate quinary.
IOW, no creation is possible without (1) a conscious (aware, willful)
creator, (2) a mental image or blueprint modeling whatever is to be
created or built, (3) the will to create, and (4) the material
composing the construction of the creation (5). E.g., (a) the
conscious artist/creator, (b) the mental imagination and (c) the work
of art based on it -- which requires, in addition, tools, clay,
materials, canvas, paint, brushes, etc. -- not to mention the desire
coupled with will needed to create and make it in the first place.
For, to be philosophical... Where would this universe be if (using
the nomenclature of various religious philosophies) IT (Brahma
resting between "lives" in Parabrahm or Kether sleeping in Ein Soph)
didn't wake up and have a desire to open its eyes and see what, where
and who it was before it went dormant (with its heart still pulsing,
however) and then, go about restoring itself (reincarnating so to
speak) so as to experience its new life as past, present, and future
Mankind in THIS manifestation of its (our) cosmos (or, analogously,
our Solar System)? Isn't it an obvious fact that all our "life"
energies,and that of all plants and animals (including the higher
order sub-quantum fields that empower the particles of our matter)
must come directly from the Sun (and possibly through the Earth's
fields as well)? Is that why some of the Astronauts who went to the
Moon reported a certain feeling of detachment from reality and a
draining of their life energy while in space at that distance from
> -- just like the primal SPACE
> would have the knowledge of construction of the universe carried as
> holographic interference patterns in its fundamental infinite spin
> momental force.
> Therefore, the "observation" of consciousness, alone,
Well, that is merely the context for the conveying of information.
> can tell us
Speak for yourself rather than "us".
LM: This is a meaningless comment just to hear yourself talk, as Wry
pointed out. Not only do you make interruptive inconsequential
remarks to words or phrases taken out of context, but you,
apparently, cannot deal with ideas as a whole, and can only defend
your simplistic assertions about consciousness, God, creation, etc.,
by references to obscure scriptures -- of which, you claim, only you
can understand their profound meanings.
FYI, "us" refers to the logical thinkers in this forum... Among
which, I assume, from your non sequitur remark, you are not one of them.
> nothing about its origin, nature or its functions, nor can it solve
> the hard problems of explaining the experience of consciousness
> (qualia) and the binding of mind to brain, or its function in human
> cognitio -- all of which are the subjects of philosophical and
> scientific investigation,
But the question of consciousness raises questions about the fundamental
of the scientific paradigm itself.
LM: That's true. So, what are those questions, and how do you answer
them -- while still remaining "scientific" (i.e., rational in both
ontology and epistemology, and not merely baselessly assertive)?
and the purpose of this forum.
Translation: I've been a 'bad boy' for introducing information which
occurs beyond the
framework of the scientific paradigm itself.
Guilty as charged...
Because the scientific paradigm, exclusively, is insufficient to the
task of understanding consciousness.
LM: Agreed. But your alternative is equally vague and indecisive in
"understanding" the hard problems of consciousness and brain-mind
binding -- which still has to be examined "scientifically" -- even
under a different scientific paradigm. The problem here is not the
so called duality of consciousness (which is also questionable) but
explaining the cause, nature, experience and mechanisms of
consciousness (awareness, will) with respect to its informational
linkages with mind, brain, body, senses, etc., as well as their
relationship to cognition. Your simplistic assertions and baseless
denials of alternative theories, based, apparently, on interpretation
of religious scriptures, does none of that.
> Thus, the only way consciousness (awareness, will) can be
The scientific paradigm did not come down from Mt. Sinai, nor does it
originate in Revelation.
It originates in self-reflection and thought.
LM: As so does the new "scientific paradigm" that is the basis of ABC
theory (besides being capable of verification by direct experience of
the initial primal origin of consciousness independently of matter or
Although I question what "self reflection" refers to? No one says
that the old scientific paradigm (based on the assumption that matter
is paramount) can't be changed, or that pure witness consciousness
(awareness and will) could not be the inherent nature of
fundamenental primal SPACE itself, that is always located everywhere
in configuration space-time. In such a sense, the only fundamental
duality is that of potential matter and consciousness right from the
apparent beginning ("singularity" of timeless and dimensionlesss pre
cosmic primal SPACE).
So, consciousness as it is experienced by us -- to be understood in
all its ramifications as above stated -- would still have to be
studied and explained scientifically.
Unfortunaely, your "science of consciousnes" based on "Revelation"
and " Gospels" alone, or "observation" (which you admttedly can't
show us how to do) can't even come close to scientifically or
rationally explaining the origin and nature of consciousness (i.e,,
awareness, will, qualia, etc.) and its perceptual or cognative
informational and intentional responsive mechanisms.
Does coming down from Mt. Sinai and originating in Revelation give
such a study any more validity?
The question is whether consciousness can only be understood from within
that context or paradigm, or whether Revelation is in any way relevant
to the understanding of consciousness.
LM: Not necessarily so... Since your interpretation of the metaphors
and allegories in John's Revelation may be entirely false... Besides,
having nothing whasoever to do with consciousness, as pure
subjectivity of *qualitative* awareness, will qualia, etc. -- in
opposition to objectivity of *quantitative* matter-energy... Two
entirely different aspects of fundamental reality... Neither of which
could exist without the other...
For, if there was nothing to observe, or body (animal self or "lower
mind") to reflect through, there could be no observing
consciousness... And, if there was no observing (and creative)
consciousness, there could be nothing (objective or created) to
observe. Thus, consciousness and matter must be mutually dependent
right from the start... Or, as the Buddha said, "Dependently arising."
Therefore, it follows -- there cannot be any God-creator outside of
the absolute primal SPACE itself, that underlies and is everywhere
within configuration or metric space-time.
Thus, each of our indivdualized consciousness is a direct ray of that
primal cosmic consciousness. This is what the metaphor, "God created
Man in his own image," means. By the way, the word "man" refers to
mind or "manas" in the Sanskrit language... As the word "Mahatma"
refers to the highest order fractal field of consciousness or
"universal mind." Therefore, mind (as a higher order electrodynamic
field aspect of matter) cannot be separated from consciousness --
whether universal at the primal beginning or individualized in man.
Thus mankind, or "Humans" as distinct from other animal species, is
the "thinking" being.
(Naturally, since you admittedly don't think -- or, supposedly, don't
have a mind to think with -- I don't expect you to understand any of
that logical reasoning.;-)
> understood with respect to its qualia (nature of
> experience), its non locality, and its holographic informational
> connections with mind,
the existence of which, similar to the 'ether', has never been proven.
LM: And neither has the existence of a separate God creator, or your
so called "science of consciousness," or the scriptural writings you
refer to as your authorities. The "ether," of course, which some
scientists still consider as an essential medium of light, has never
been proven NOT to exist. (And may very well be the sub quantum
fields or "foam" in the Planck vacuum.)
Thus, the assumption we might make from the Michelson-Morely
experiment, is that the "ether" field -- possibly being a part of the
sub-quantum fields that is the nature of the Planck vacuum between
the particles -- travels along with the Earth... If so, there would
be no "ether wind" to be detected by sending a split light beam in
opposite directions and measuring the relative difference in their
velocities, as the Earth apparently moves through metric space.
> memory, brain, body, senses, etc. -- would be
> to first accept consciousness as the inherent subjective aspect
> (along with the noumenal source of objective matter-energy) of the
> primal "singularity" of absolute SPACE -- out of which this entire
> spacetime universe and all the objects within it originated. None of
> this can abrogate any of the proven scientific basis
Translation: the scientific paradigm was Revealed by God, after all.
LM: Where did you get that from? Which proves that your thoughtless
remarks are completely off the wall -- apparently, just to hear
yourself talk -- which, apparently, are designed to give you a good
feeling that your simplistic ideas about the "science of
consciousness" or your ideas about God and creationism makes any sense.
To set the record straight, God didn't reveal a damn thing to me...
But, my consciousness coupled with intuitional mind tempered by
reasonable thought did reveal, by pure retrodictive deductive logic,
the necessary basis of both sub-quantum and quantum, as well as
relative spatial reality, and its holographic informational coupling
of observer consciousness (pure awareness, will) with brain, body,
senses, world, etc. Since that coupling requires information fields,
that are substantial in one degree or another, physics (based on a
new paradigm or fundamental psychophysical assumption) is necessary
to explain them.
In addition, this was confirmed by certain meditative practices that
enable one to directly observe each ascending higher order field or
state of consciousness, between direct physical (sensory) awareness,
through the higher order fields of mind and memory, to the highest
order spiritual consciousness. Thus, achieving what may be called
"enlightenment," and directly experiencing the "ultimate division of
time" -- as concluded to be the last stage of the practice of
Patanjali's Rajah Yoga Aphorisms. See:
As with everything, once you "know" these fields actually exist,
through pure reason and intuition coupled with imagination -- the
same way an experienced and intuitive engineer can see inside an
automobile or aircraft engine down to its smallest part without a
blueprint or disassembling it -- with sufficient meditative practice,
it becomes easy to step through these levels of higher consciousness
until pure cosmic consciousness is experienced (Samadhi in Eastern
meditative practices)... A stage, when all universal truths -- being
unblocked by the normal waking or dreaming "modifications of the
mind" (uncontrolled thought images) -- become self evident.
Patanjali shows how this can be done by any of us willing to
concentrate on the practice.
This is the same "revelation" that most ancient prophets and masters
of wisdom -- who, not understanding the modern language of scientific
thought -- found difficult to write down. Since, without being able
to translate the original ancient symbolic (Sacred oral) language, or
their author's meditative visions, into the pragmatic written
language of their day (Aramaic, Greek, English, Latin, German, etc.,
etc.) -- their later uninitiated scribes could only use allegories
and metaphors -- some of which could be greatly distorted. Thus,
only those initiates trained in ancient symbology and glyphic studies
as well as in their allegorical and metaphorical meanings, are
capable of correctly interpreting such writings (along with their
illustrations) and explaining them in modern scientific terms.
For example, only a Hebrew or Sanskrit master with direct (native
language) knowledge of the symbolic meaning of the chanted oral
teachings of Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, etc., can fully
understand and translate the true nature of the reality expressed in
ancient scriptures. Even a Glossary written by an academically
trained ancient language scholar (yet still uninitiated in the
ancient "mystery" teachings and their Sacred language or symbology)
leaves much to the imagination.
So much for your "crop circles", "Revelation" and the translations of
the "Gospel of Thomas" and other ancient Gnostic scrolls, etc., as
having any scientific meaning or rational explanation of
consciousness, mind, brain, etc.
> of the neural
> correlates of consciousness, or the electrodynamic functions of the
> brain with respect to its linkages to the neuromuscular system, the
> endocrine, system, the mind/memory, and the physical senses, among
> other channeling, processing and control functions.
All of this indicates that the focus of the discussion has
shifted away from the subject of consciousness to neuro-physiology.
But not in any way relevant.
LM: How you can say that in a forum composed of scientific thinkers
interested in the study of consciousness, mind and brain, beats me.
It's your scriptual based nonsense that is scientifically irrelevant
in all these forums you make your unfounded assertions in.
> So, rather than waste time trying to understand the nature and
> mechanisms of consciousness by observation of it directly
Well, it would be a 'waste of time' only if no information were
LM: What "information" relative to these scientific studies of
consciousness, mind and brain have you got in mind?
> -- (which
> requires knowledge and practice of meditative introspection and the
> quieting of all sensory and mental distractions that can only
> enlighten the one doing the observing)
I don't know anything about such stuff.
LM: Naturally, since you are a blind believer in the literal meaning
of scripture, and are attempting to inject "creationism" into a
scientific forum. Also, you have no idea how to "observe"
consciousness and its cause of genesis directly, as all the ancient
masters of wisdom did who understood it... But, who could only write
about it allegorically and metaphorically in their "scriptures"...
Some of which eventually ended up interpreted and transcribed in the
Bible and in the Gnostic scrolls and Gospels. Too bad you can't
understand them in their "real" meaning, and have no idea how to
reason the essential existence of sub quantum consciousness as a
function of primal SPACE, or how to go about actually subjectively
observing the higher order fields of consciousness objectively. ;-)
Although I may believe in a NON personal "intelligent design" of the
universe -- based on the information, intelligence, or knowledge
contained (as holographic interference patterns) in its fundamental
SPACE's initial "spinergy" (which Buddhists and Vedantans call the
"Akasha") and, which is utilized by morphogenetic field evolutionary
processes (ref: Sheldrake, "Science of Life") -- I DO NOT believe in
the literal view of "Creationism" as you (and other "religionists"
who believe that God "created" anything from nothing) profess.
> ... In order to explain
> consciousness and its qualia and informational mechanisms to others,
> it is necessary to begin with a new "psychophysical" scientific
> paradigm -- as suggested by Chalmers when he first initiated the
> current scientific study of consciousness some thirteen years ago.
What exactly are you saying here?
That Chalmers has, forever, set the parameters for the discussion?
With all due respect, maybe Chalmers was too firmly wedded to the
scientific paradigm itself to understand that it is insufficient to the
LM: The fact is that Chalmers said that the current scientific
paradigm was insufficient, and suggested that only a new
"psychophysical paradigm" -- such as the ABC model and other sub
quantum field theories that put consciousness (as a fundamental a
priori given, alongside matter-energy and information) PRIOR to the
big bang and its subsequent physical spacetime continuum, universal
inflation, symmetry breaking, expansion, and evolution -- could
answer all the hard problems of qualia and brain-mind binding...
Notwithstanding your unfounded assertions that mind does not exist,
and that the study of the interconnections between consciousness,
mind, memory, brain, etc. is irrelevant.
> Unfortunately, since that time, after millions of words in thousands
> of papers and letters, no one has come even close to solving the hard
> problems of explaining both the experience of consciousness (qualia)
> or the binding of mind to brain, or the informational linkages
> between awareness/will and mind, memory, brain, body, senses, etc.,
> using the conventional scientific paradigm that matter is fundamental
> and consciousness is an epiphenomena.
> Therefore, such a new scientific paradigm would accept as a
> fundamental postulate that consciousness is NOT an epiphenomena of
> matter and/or the complexity of the brain's neurology, but IS a
> fundamental aspect of primal SPACE itself -- as is both time and
But this is old news.
LM: As your comments are unnecessary ... (Besides being a sign of
your ignorance or inability to think ;-). maybe it would help is you
stopped talking so you could could actually listen to what has been
said, and comment on it intelligently. The fact that you heard it
before -- does not take anything away from its possible truth.
> Such primal (eternal, empty of all form) SPACE (after
> the Big Bang cyclic manifestation of the present metric spacetime) --
> being located everywhere in the Planck vacuum at the non temporal and
> non dimensional center of the fundamental spin momentum or "zero-
> point energy" (ZPE) that empowers the apparent lepton particles
> (fermions) postulated by QM, the microleptons of QFT and LQG, the
> vibrating strings of M theory, etc.... And energizes their standing
> waves (at different frequency-energies) as well as their associated
> radiant particles (bosons). All this being totally independent of
> the inherent consciousness (awareness, will) of each zero-point of
> absolute primal SPACE located everywhere in the sub quantum Planck
> space. This paradigm would also suggest that the entire universe
> could be an interconnected whole, and function in accord with
> holographic principles.
Discussion is now shifted away from consciousness once again to a
of physics, etc.
Again, interesting but not relevant.
[LM] Are you saying that the study of consciousness and its
informational connection to mind, brain, body, senses, etc. has
nothing to do with physics? I thought this forum was primarily
interested in studying mind and brain, their interconnections, and
their relationship to consciousnes and cognition. If such studies,
including their physics are irrelevant to your narrow and limited
ideas about consciousness, then why are you butting in here? Why not
just start your own forum to discuss your non physically scientific,
so called, "science of consciousness"? ;-)
<further irrelevancies snipped>
LM: And so... Since you have not said anything relevant to the ideas
presented here, or any others considered by this forum, and have
nothing to say about consciousness that is "scientific" (even under
any new paradigm you or others might propose) -- while also appearing
to have no understanding of the relationship between consciousness
and physics, or their relevancy to each other -- there is nothing
further to say...
P.S. Although this is an attempt to, once and for all, set the record
straight about your constant unfounded ad hominem denials of my
proposed ABC model (while I would welcome rational counter argument)
-- I've given up trying to answer your rambling, out of context
comments in all your previous posts -- which never seem to go
anywhere ... Except, back to your harping on the dual nature of
consciousness -- which is irrelevant to understanding what
consciousness actually is, explaining its qualia, its informational
transformation and transmitting mechanisms, and how it interacts with
the material world through the medium of sentient beings and their
mind-brain physics, biochemistry and neurophysiology... All purely
"scientific" studies based on fundamental reality and its primal
conditions, ontology and epistemology... Which you, apparently
resting on your belief that God created it all from nothing, have no
understanding of or interest in finding out about.
Regardless of whether or not a supposed separate God created the
universe from scratch... Before all the cosmic dust and the starry
and galactic constellations leading to the evolution of sentient
beings and conscious mankind appeared -- there had to be a
fundamental SPACE stuff out of which all that was made. If so, then
the basis of both consciousness and matter had to be inherent in that
primal SPACE prior to the Big Bang. And, even if there could be a
separate creator to "make man in his own image" -- that "God" would
logically have to be inherently conscious itself, and have the
knowledge of that creation in its mind -- just like the primal SPACE
would have the knowledge of construction of the universe carried as
holographic interference patterns in its fundamental infinite spin
Therefore, the "observation" of consciousness, alone, can tell us
nothing about its origin, nature or its functions, nor can it solve
the hard problems of explaining the experience of consciousness
(qualia) and the binding of mind to brain, or its function in human
cognition -- all of which are the subjects of philosophical and
scientific investigation, and the purpose of this forum.
Thus, the only way consciousness (awareness, will) can be
scientifically understood with respect to its qualia (nature of
experience), its non locality, and its holographic informational
connections with mind, memory, brain, body, senses, etc. -- would be
to first accept consciousness as the inherent subjective aspect
(along with the noumenal source of objective matter-energy) of the
primal "singularity" of absolute SPACE -- out of which this entire
spacetime universe and all the objects within it originated. None of
this can abrogate any of the proven scientific basis of the neural
correlates of consciousness, or the electrodynamic functions of the
brain with respect to its linkages to the neuromuscular system, the
endocrine, system, the mind/memory, and the physical senses, among
other channeling, processing and control functions.
So, rather than waste time trying to understand the nature and
mechanisms of consciousness by observation of it directly -- (which
requires knowledge and practice of meditative introspection and the
quieting of all sensory and mental distractions that can only
enlighten the one doing the observing)... In order to explain
consciousness and its qualia and informational mechanisms to others,
it is necessary to begin with a new "psychophysical" scientific
paradigm -- as suggested by Chalmers when he first initiated the
current scientific study of consciousness some thirteen years ago.
Unfortunately, since that time, after millions of words in thousands
of papers and letters, no one has come even close to solving the hard
problems of explaining both the experience of consciousness (qualia)
or the binding of mind to brain, or the informational linkages
between awareness/will and mind, memory, brain, body, senses, etc.,
using the conventional scientific paradigm that matter is fundamental
and consciousness is an epiphenomena.
Therefore, such a new scientific paradigm would accept as a
fundamental postulate that consciousness is NOT an epiphenomena of
matter and/or the complexity of the brain's neurology, but IS a
fundamental aspect of primal SPACE itself -- as is both time and
matter/energy. Such primal (eternal, empty of all form) SPACE (after
the Big Bang cyclic manifestation of the present metric spacetime) --
being located everywhere in the Planck vacuum at the non temporal and
non dimensional center of the fundamental spin momentum or "zero-
point energy" (ZPE) that empowers the apparent lepton particles
(fermions) postulated by QM, the microleptons of QFT and LQG, the
vibrating strings of M theory, etc.... And energizes their standing
waves (at different frequency-energies) as well as their associated
radiant particles (bosons). All this being totally independent of
the inherent consciousness (awareness, will) of each zero-point of
absolute primal SPACE located everywhere in the sub quantum Planck
space. This paradigm would also suggest that the entire universe
could be an interconnected whole, and function in accord with
In such a condition of fundamental reality -- it would then be
obvious that between the fermion and boson particle fields
themselves, and the zero-point source of their energies, there would
have to be ascending higher order frequency-energy fields that could
only be analogous to the first fields emanating and fractally
involving from the "singularity" at the primal beginning... Such as
those explained thoroughly by my ABC theory of cosmogenesis -- (which
I have covered enough times in my previous posts to almost all the
online forums studying consciousness, so as not to be necessary to
repeat here). Although I will be happy to answer any questions based
on the following sites and/or my previous correspondence:
It should be noted that the ABC model does NOT consider the universe
was created by a separate God through some miraculous process... But,
does postulate that it always was a part of a timeless and
dimensionless absolute primal SPACE -- which comes in and out of
phenomenal existence periodically (possibly along with infinite other
universes). And, further, it postulates that all the laws of nature
are based on the fundamental cyclic attractive and repulsive (CW &
CCW) spin force (infinite angular momentum) on three (of infinite)
potential spherical spin axes of that zero-point primal SPACE...
That, while ubiquitous everywhere in configuration space, is
distinguishable from metric dimensional and constantly changing
"spacetime" of conventional physics, because of its zero dimension,
infinite potential force, and absolute inertia or changelessness.
For a corroborative new paradigmatic scientific approach to sub
quantum reality similar to the ABC model, along with an analysis of
why consciousness CANNOT be an epiphenomena of matter and how the sub
quantum fields transmit the information of consciousness
holographically between consciousness (awareness, will) and mind,
memory, brain, body, senses, etc., see:
On Sep 5, 2007, at 9/5/077:36 AM, Michael Cecil wrote:
The fundamental question concerning all of the following is, of course,
whether it is even a discussion of consciousness at all; or whether,
instead, it is a study of neurology and physics in an attempt to
distract from the direct observation of consciousness in the first
I suggest that, if consciousness is to be understood, it must first be
observed directly; that is, without the intervention of thought;
observations of consciousness not being the same as thoughts about
Observations of consciousness must begin with the observation of the
mechanism or movement (see the Gospel of Thomas) of self-reflection and
the consequences of self-reflection.
If the eye is then 'taken off the ball' through a discussion of
increasingly complex thoughts about consciousness rather than in the
direct observation of consciousness itself--specifically, its
spatiality, its alleged continuity in time, and its complete collapse in
the immersion in experience--it is not consciousness which is being
understood; it is either physics, biology, or psychology--all of which
originate in thought rather than direct observation.
I seriously doubt that there is any branch of human intellectual
endeavor in which there is a more rapid loss of focus on the subject of
the discussion than in that branch of inquiry referred to as the
'science of consciousness'.
Of course, the 'classical' consciousness originating in self-reflection
can be considered to be 'fundamental' rather than an epiphenomenon.
The real question is whether there is a consciousness which is more
'fundamental'; for example, the non-temporal/non-spatial "observing
consciousness" of the Eastern esoteric traditions and/or the
consciousness with which man was Created "by and in the image of" God.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application