[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jcs-online] Defining Consciousness (or what it is like to live ...

Sep 15, 2008 12:32 PM
by Leon Maurer

I though that all students of theosophy might be interested in this dialogue from a scientific consciousness study forum.

On Aug 11, 2008, at 8/11/0810:12 AM, Joseph McCard (JM:) wrote:

On Aug 7, 2008, at 8/7/084:14 AM, Robin Faichney
wrote: "Consciousness is a stream of intentional

JM: I happen to agree with the general sense of this
description of consciousness. It also seems consistent
with Plato's theory of emanations. In such a model,
the individual projects (emanates), like the beam of a
flashlight,  their expectations, the idea in their
mind,  onto a field of possible shapes. That
information is reflected back from the object. For
example, I believe that amorphous shape can be a
crumpled towel to me until I don't believe it any
more, until upon closer inspection, I see it is a cat.
One perceives an object and at a later stage one
perceives facts about the object. Seeing an object
does not require one to see the object in some
particular way. Seeing objects is non-epistemic.
Seeing facts is, on the other hand, epistemic. Seeing
objects and facts is a projective and reflective

 Emanations are forms of intentional information. I
identify intentionality as directed awareized energy.
Thus, one can conceive of consciousness as the beam of
a flashlight, a stream of intentional information.

LM:  How can the beam itself, carrying the encoded image information
of consciousness, prior to reception by the retinas, be equated with
the experience of consciousness?

LM wrote: (earlier) I think that consciousness cannot be "a stream of
intentional information" -- since it can only be the subjective
perceiver/ interpreter of, and responder (intentionally or
reflexively) to the objective information delivered by the senses and
processed through the brain, as well as reflected in the mind
directly from the memory...

JM: In Plato's theory, there is no objective information.
The perceiver is not simply an inert responder, but an
active creator constructing his/ her own perceptions.

LM: If that is so, then how do we account for the objective
information contained in the reflected light received by the eyes and
sequentially transmitted to the brain for processing before being
detected as a gestalt visual image and experienced by consciousness?
Plato's theory -- which is based solely on his lack of knowledge of
the neural system or  the transmission of information through energy
fields -- is "naive realism" and has no basis in actual physical
reality.  This doesn't mean that there is a separation between the
perceive and the perceived... Since Plato is correct in his
assumption that everything, including both spirit or consciousness
and matter are dependently arising.  His only problem is not knowing
the dynamics of the spatially connected medium of information between
the two.

LM wrote: (earlier) Whose short and long term information
would most likely be stored as modulated wave
interference patterns on radiant energy fields --
similar to ordinary radio signals that can
be transformed into and interpreted as pressure waves
-- somewhat like phonons. This is what is perceived
efferently by conscious awareness.  But, "intentional
information" can only be triggered by the afferent
impulse of will, directed by consciousness from its
surrounding spin- momentum, and transformed/transmitted
through the Brain's neural network and neuromuscular
system, or through the mind to manipulate the thoughts..

JM: Like 'radio waves' the mind actively projects the
ideas in the mind, associatively retrieved from
memory, onto the possible perceptual landscape. As an
experiment, think of yourself as visually projecting
your expectations onto some object. I find it enhances
my visual acuity.

LM: I can imagine the spin momentum, surrounding my zero-point of
conscious perception, projecting the coherent higher order (astral)
"light" energy that reconstructs, and by reflection, detects and
experiences the holographic image of the objective world carried by
the modulated wave interference patterns in my mind field.  "Visually
projecting expectations" onto some object can only be a figure of
speech, that if taken literally, could very well (by projecting one's
biases) prevent one from seeing things as they really are.

LM wrote: (earlier) Therefore, the conscious experiencer cannot be the
same as the experience itself, nor of the information causing
the experience.

JM: The theory of emanations does not distinguish the
observer from the observation. It suggests the
difficulty of separating the boundary of the rest of
the world from the observer.

LM: Unfortunately, the theory of emanations is only an unfounded
philosophical assumption that has no scientific basis in actual reality.

LM wrote: (earlier) Nor can it be part of a "stream" of
anything physical -- since consciousness, as a
subjective *quality* of fundamental reality, or
absolute space itself, must be entirely separate from
matter... Although material forms or consciousness can never
be separated from themselves.

JM: Consciousness, as energy (aware-ized), is entirely
capable of creating matter. And, within a theory of
emanations, this is exactly what happens. Perception
is creation.

LM:  While I agree that consciousness can be the creative power behind
the production of material forms... e.g., it can imagine a process as
well as plan a system, such as an atomic reactor that produces both
energy and mass as different forms of matter.  However, consciousness
as pure subjective awareness, being a subjective *quality* of
absolute space, cannot be the objective energy or mass -- that is a
*quantity* of that space (appearing as its standing waves and their
groupings). Therefore, perception, per se, cannot be "creation" -- since
that would require intention and construction AFTER the mental
perception of the *ideation* underlying the creation.

LM wrote: (earlier) The only way this diversity within a unity can be
resolved -- without considering which came first, consciousness or
matter -- is for consciousness or subjectivity to be the fundamental
nature of the absolute empty space that underlies and is the
source of the ubiquitous and unconditioned (inert/static) physical
aether space (having infinite angular momentum everywhere) from
which is generated all objective mass-energy fields and forms.

JM: The other way diversity within a unity can be resolved
is for consciousness to be a characteristic of energy
acting within and upon itself. One does not need to
invoke an additional 'fundamental nature' beyond
energy itself. Energy has a dual nature, like light,
it can be subjective, its wave nature,  or objective,
its particle nature.

LM:  This is entirely wrong -- since the wave nature of energy is its
fundamental *objective* basis (with particles simply being its
appearances as standing waves or other concentrations of primal force
at different frequencies).  This applies to light itself -which is,
apparently, as a radiant vibrating field of fundamental space -- which,
when formed as a spherical standing wave and projected linearly,
*appears* to act as an individual particle. In either condition, wave or particle, light is entirely objective... And only its zero-point CENTER of spin
momentum (of the unconditioned absolute space underlying everything)
can be the root of consciousness.  Subjectivity (consciousness) and
objectivity (Mass/energy or matter) can never exist independently...But they are entire different aspects of their underlying fundamental space... One,
*qualitative*, and the other, *quantitative*.

LM wrote: (earlier) Thus, all such forms (from quantum particles to
stars, galaxies and black/white holes, etc.) are potentially
conscious... And all physics must be based on metric/material
space in linear cyclic motion -- which is entirely different from
the stillness of non-metric/immaterial absolute space, or pure

JM: All forms are not only potentially conscious, they are
conscious. Consciousness creates form, form does not
create consciousness. All physics is, as it should be,
based on energy. "Pure consciousness ' is Leon's
idealization of a dynamic quality of energy, the
ability to know itself. With respect to Occam's razor,
one does not need to invoke any additional ontological
primitives, such as 'pure consciousness',  to
understand consciousness.

LM:  You are partially correct.  But, still, there is no logical way
of conflating objective energy with subjective consciousness --
unless they are considered as two different and separate yet
interconnected aspects of fundamental space.  The only thing that
Occam's razor requires is that all matter be simplified to pure wave
motion of absolute space.  Therefore it's the simplicity of the
singularity of space being conscious that is more parsimonious than
have a duality of energy and matter.  As Einstein proved, mass  and
energy are equivalent (both are "matter") and thus, there is only one
conscious thing -- and that is fundamental space itself -- prior to
its emanation and radiation, holographically, as ubiquitous fractal
involved spherical mass/energy fields.  Therefore, as Chalmers
indicated, there, apparently, cannot be any "scientific" explanation
for the *experience* or qualia of consciousness.

Obviously, objectivity cannot explain subjectivity -- since they are
opposite aspects of the same fundamental space.  One, unchangeable
and immovable, and the other the opposite.  Therefore, energy cannot
"know itself" -- because knowing is subjectively insubstantial --
while "energy" itself, is simply another aspect of objectively
substantial matter... Which, standing alone, is passively *dead* --
until it is *awakened* and animated by pure consciousness (awareness,
will, etc.). Thus, only *life* can be synonymous with *perceptive* or
experiential consciousness.

LM wrote As the Buddha said (of spirit or consciousness and
matter) -- they ere "dependently arising" (as separate aspects of
the void or emptiness -- yet inseparably interconnected)...

JM: One can also interpret this to refer to the imbalance
of the separate aspects of action and identity that
creates consciousness. Identity is action which is
conscious of itself. Identity and action, for purposes
of discussion are as separate aspects of energy. Yet,
though identity is formed from action, 'dependently
arising',  basically no such separation exists. They
are 'inseparably interconnected'. Identity is formed
from the unfolding of action upon itself. Through a
series of creative strains, identity seeks stability
while action must seek change. Consciousness results
from a lack of balance between these two.

LM:  That's just another way of saying the same thing.  However,
consciousness is still a separate aspect of the same space that
generates all material forms.  Identity comes from the unity of zero-
point consciousness within every cell of the human body, entangled
with the zero-point center of consciousness of the overall 7 fold
hyperspace fields of consciousness permeating and surrounding it. See:

LM wrote: (earlier) Although pure, unconditioned consciousness,
itself, must be eternal.  This would necessarily lead to the
concept of both karma and reincarnation, as well as explain
all psychic phenomena... None of which is supernatural.

JM: "Karma' is simply your sense of guilt and sin
projecting itself, and punishing yourself, or others,
you believe should be punished. There is no sin.

LM:  Nonsense...  As the Buddha said, "Inaction in a deed of mercy is
action in a deadly sin."  and "The only real sin, is the sin of
separation." Sin meaning, simply, as I interpret it -- any act that
is not in accord with the harmony or truth of nature.  Karma (meaning
"action") under the reality that consciousness is eternal, is the
cause and effect of your acts in this life reflecting in your future
lives -- as all action leads to equal and opposite reaction, and
there is an eternal memory of all our actions in the highest order
fields surrounding our zero-point of individual consciousness --
which must live on after death (coupled with our individual higher
order triune monadic field [see above illustration]).  Thus, our
karma (reaction to our deeds, good or bad) can be fulfilled in future
lives when circumstances permit.  Therefore, the biblical admonition,
"As you sow, so shall you reap," is, apparently, a metaphor
explaining the fundamental law of nature and its relationship to our
periodic lifetimes.  This is based on the fundamental laws of cycles
inherent in the fundamental cyclic spin momentum of Absolute Space.
Thus, everything is subject to the laws of periodicity, and the
universe would appear to come and go -- just as we all might do...
Until. possibly, our zero-point of individual consciousness can be re-
merged with the universal awareness or cosmic consciousness from
which it came, and of which it has always been an integral part.

Unfortunately, none of this can ever be known through science --
since it has yet to understand the true source of physical reality...
And, consciousness cannot be observed or measured objectively.

JM: The explanation of psychic phenomena can be undertaken
within the framework of consciousness I have

LM:  Then explain it...  Which I doubt you can -- since I can't
imagine that mass-energy (material substance) itself is aware or is
even the root of consciousness (awareness, will).  Energy is a
*quantity* of etheric (non linear spinning space) in relative linear
motion, and consciousness (in order to be able to discriminate the
subtlest degrees of sensory or imaginative information) can only be
the *quality* of the underlying absolute space in perfect stillness.

However, it's very easy to explain psychic phenomena by means of
coadunate but not consubstantial fractal involved, radiant
electrodynamic fields -- with their zero-point centers of origin
having absolute consciousness... And, with all such points entangled
with each other everywhere in our overall surrounding 3d metric
space.  Since all such fields interpenetrate each other, conscious
intent can influence action between them by means of phase conjugate
adaptive resonance, down to the cellular levels.  Thus,
theoretically, one conscious mind field can resonate with another,
and transfer information to its center of awareness.  This could
easily explain telepathy and other psychic experiences, such as self
healing, etc.  (According to this holographic ABC fractal field
model, every cell in the body has inherent individual consciousness,
memory, instinct, etc.)

Also, with proper concentration and correlation of forces, our
highest order monadic field and its center of consciousness can leave
the physical body and still be perceptively aware (OBE).  In
addition, deep meditation practice can allow us to experience altered
states of consciousness -- when we shift our center of individual
consciousness to the different higher order fields of mind and memory
and then willfully control the forces within them to achieve certain
psychic powers of mind and body.

As I see it, there cannot be any physical explanation for any of that.


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application