Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Brain as seat of consciousness?

Expand Messages
  • John M
    Mark, I concur with your disagreement on different 2 grounds. One is labeling , Glen may be mistaken to assign his opinion to scientists in general. The
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 6 11:40 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark,
       
      I concur with your 'disagreement'  on different 2 grounds.
      One is 'labeling', Glen may be mistaken to assign his opinion to "scientists" in general. The other is a mixing of plausible vs. proven, (and you may be (?) part of this as well) meaning the detection of a working tool (even measuring its workings) to be
      assumed as the 'originating' "seat".
      Neurological sciences found measurable blood, chem. etc. movements in the brain correlated with mental events. They have no other (physical?) obsevational tools yet, so THIS IS IT.
      Remember the Flat Earth? or the anger of Zeuss?
       
      The conscious deficits you mention MAY be the result of some functional deficits of the TOOL, like eg. a tire blowout causing a directional change in the running of a car, but this may be an overestimated mechanisation as well. Don't ask me details, I simply 'open' the mind in cases what we don't know so far.
      You wre absolutely right in:
       
      "we find more evidence that brain activity and consciousness are subtly and inextricably linked."
       
      Nothing more! Like the travelling of a car to the rotation of the wheels. Or any other part of the 'intricate' mechanism.
      I am not advocating any 'ghost in the machine', nor 'above it', I simple believe (sic) in a complexity of nature, the mental effects constituting an aspect of its wholeness.
      Furthermore it is futile to look for a phsycal "seat" (brain) for an ideational concept (mind) which supersedes space and time.
      In ancient times it was not much worse to point to the 'heart'.
       
      Neither physical model-observations and their explanations, nor spiritual belief and their implications seem complete, both try to impose a partial vue on the complexity - much broader than our present cognitive inventory may include. We are still learning, widening the information we epistemologize, so all attempts to declare our partial model a complete one is wrong.
       
      Addition to Sacks: a man who mistook the peak of a mountain for a chair, because he could sit on it (Credit: Jamie Rose).
       
      Cheers
       
      John Mikes
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:37 PM
      Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Brain as seat of consciousness?

      Glen,
      you wrote:
      '
      Of course scientists don't question their understanding that the
      brain is the seat of consciousness, for to do so could undermine
      their whole world view. That understanding, however, is based solely
      upon belief, not science, and their ploy of placing the burden of
      proof on anyone who disagrees with them simply obscures the fact
      that they've built a house of cards purely upon faith.'

      This is simply not true!
      How on Earth to you reconcile the view you are putting forth with the enormous body of clinical evidence showing that all sorts of different specific deficits of consciousness, perception and behaviour have been shown to correlate characteristically with damage to specific areas of the brain?  I googled <brain damage effects on consciousness>  and immediately got a page full of links to look at on the subject. this one is as good as any to start looking at:  http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec06/ch082/ch082a.html
      here is another: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/body/coma.html

      I remember reading an article in Scientific American magazine years ago in which the author explained how the study of localised brain damage and specific deficits got its first big boost during the Russo Japanese war of 1904-1905 The reason was because one side or the other was using for the first time high velocity rifles which sent bullets, intact, right through the heads of a significant number of victims [I can't remember the details - although it was probably the Japanese with the best guns because they beat the Russians due in part at least to having recently modernised their equipment]. I guess most of these poor b*stards would have died eventually [well of course they did, we're all gonna die, aren't we! :-) ] but many of them lived long enough so that changes in their behaviour or their reports of changes in perception, etc., were recorded. After their deaths these records were available to be checked out against the evidences of brain damage and lots of exiting new things were learned.

      If we turn from the merits or lack of such in being cannon fodder, and look at what psychoactive chemicals due to people's consciousness, we find more evidence that brain activity and consciousness are subtly and inextricably linked. Beyond that there is now the evidence available from several methods of brain scanning, and from decades worth of EEG recordings.

      You need to re-read Oliver Sacks's book 'The man who mistook his wife for a hat'.


      --
      Regards

      Mark Peaty
      mpeaty@...
      http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/


      glen_swift wrote:


      --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Tintner" <tintner@b...>
      wrote:
      >
      > 1.The idea that the brain is "the seat of consciousness" hasn't
      really
      > been proven scientifically.
      > glen_swift
      >
      > --------------
      > My comments:
      >
      > 1. What are your ideas/ thoughts/ wild speculations about where
      else
      > consciousness resides, Glen?

      Hi Mike,

      I can appreciate your believing that consciousness must
      necessarily "sit" someplace, but I should point out that that is
      merely a belief, held by many people, based on the assumption that
      consciousness is an emergent quality of matter.

      Consciousness is the focusing of attention, an activity of beingness
      need not originate in any physical place. Obviously, I make the
      opposite assumption from that made by most scientists; namely that
      consciousness exists independent of physical reality.

      This question reminds me of my reading some years ago the first few
      chapters of Dana Zohar's book, "The Quantum Self," where she labored
      creatively to find the so-called seat of consciousness. As I recall,
      she looked hither and yon, without success.


      > 2.no scientist is questioning the brain as the seat of
      consciousness.
      > Indeed, the 'Cartesian duality', which considers a separate
      consciousness
      > from the brain, is not taken seriously in any scientific circles. 
      Until
      > evidence to the contrary emerges, the brain is considered to be
      the seat of
      > consciousness by default.
      > Robert  RKS

      Of course scientists don't question their understanding that the
      brain is the seat of consciousness, for to do so could undermine
      their whole worldview. That understanding, however, is based solely
      upon belief, not science, and their ploy of placing the burden of
      proof on anyone who disagrees with them simply obscures the fact
      that they've built a house of cards purely upon faith. I await the
      day when the two alternative assumptions can be tested without bias
      to find out which holds up best under scientific investigation.

      Cheers,
      Glen

    • Robert Karl Stonjek
      In my view, you need to distinguish more between deficits in cognitive functions, and consciousness. You cannot automatically equate mental deficits with
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 10 2:04 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        In my view, you need to distinguish more between deficits in cognitive functions, and 'consciousness.'  You cannot automatically equate mental deficits with meaning deficits in consciousness.
         
        You say: "the brain is considered to be the seat of consciousness by default," because noone considers other possibilities.  What do you think of the alternative view which I elaborated in my critique offered through the forum-of consciousness being connected to blood flow and the Heart, the I am of Descartes, to compare with your 'i think.'

        You say: "Of course scientists don't question their understanding that the brain is the seat of consciousness, for to do so could undermine their whole worldview.

        Christopher Holmes:
        Well, maybe such a paradigm shift is necessary to understand the enigmas of human consciouness, which with the grand unifying theory of physics, stands as the most puzzling and unexplained phenomena in the universe.  Oh yes, there are also the enigmas of the generation of the heart beat!
         
        Why does so-called science, not consider consciousness as something possibly separate from brain functions?  There is a huge experimental literature demonstrating the occurance of innumerable instance of extended mind, esp, out of body experiences, near death experiences, and the like which question this assumption, plus a large number of 'real scientists' who do-in all areas of science.  Wake up, such opinions are so out of touch with the existing volume of scientific literature.  You don't read widely enough to maintain such superficial Descartian views.
        RKS:
        Considering the hugeness of this experimental literature, you should have no problem citing a few scientific publications that confirm your position.
         
        It is my understanding that the scientific literature only points out that most people don't have any experiences on the operating table and those that do most probably dream their 'experience' upon waking, not during death.
         
        Further, the experiences dreamt are consistent with the individuals prior beliefs, not with any archetypal or typical experience one would expect if these experiences were genuine.  Anecdotal evidence is not scientifically valid.
         
        Kind Regards
        Robert Karl Stonjek
      • Christopher Holmes
        Dear Jane, Thanks for your supportive comments. I visited your web site and read a good portion of your paper. Some interesting materials, although I am not
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 19 6:45 PM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Jane,
           
          Thanks for your supportive comments.  I visited your web site and read a good portion of your paper.  Some interesting materials, although I am not sure how it all might relate to my own orientation towards these subjects.  We certainly have different views of what consciousness is, but this whole idea of biological circularity is very valuable.  I think then of the blood and its circular patterns, as I think the cells leave and return to the heart in approximately 20 seconds, and then the circular patterns within the heart. 
           
          In your article you write "we experience consciousness and being conscious as a result of biological circular, cyclical processes"-and I wonder if you consider the heart in your schemes, as your focus seems more on the mind.
           
          Anyway, take care.  Christopher

          Jane Cull <jcull@...> wrote:
          Dear Chris
           
          It is fantastic to see this kind of email.  The problem with the present view of consciousness being determined by activity only in the brain, is that it obscures what is going on in the biology as a whole, namely self organising cyclical patterns of activity and how that activity triggers the experiences of what we distinguish as consciousness.
           
          For those that experience this kind of phenomenon particularly from a sensory point of view, some kinds of activity occur as a rush of sensations which are felt throughout the body as a whole.  Experientially then it is ridiculous to distinguish in terms of a location for such activity.  I find it irritating that theories of consciousness do not reflect nor add up to what we actually experience.
           
          I have a written a paper on the Biology/Pschology of Consciousness:  A Circular Perspective if you are interested Chris.
           
          Sincerely
          Jane Cull
           
          Life's Natural Solutions
          A Paradigm Shift for Human Evolution
          612 9979 9147
          61401 479 315
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 4:52 AM
          Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Brain as seat of consciousness?

          Indeed there is no scientific evidence that material or neurological processes in the brain produce consciousness, although there is all kinds of evidence that different cognitive and mental procxesses are more localized there-providing 'the contents' for conscious experience, but not the 'consciousness' itself.  When scientists map what parts of the brain are involved in varied activities, the most common practices is actually to monitor blood flow, not neurological activity!  We determine what cognitive processes are activated by observing the blood flow as an indication of where consciousness resides.  
           
          Consciousness could be connected to bloodflow, as when you bring your consciousness into an awareness of your hand, and your hand enlargens because of the blood flow, and consciousness there.  The distribution of consciosness thoughout the body is most closely linked throughout the mystical and spiritual psychologies of humanity with the Human Heart, and the ensoulment of the material body, through the breath and the circulation of blood.  Why could our 'self' experience not be related to the heart and blood.  You can even experience this within yourself in your inner world, by being more conscious of yourself.  Noone points to their heads to localize 'i.' 
           
          In my view, as a mystic scientists, who has pursued consciusness studies for thirty years, the modern "head doctrine" is a profoundly serious mistake which pervades modern thought, and so-called 'scientific psychology.'  The central core of inner self experience, and consciousness within a human being, is not manufactured somewhere in the brain, by material processes and as an epiphenomena, which is non-substantive.  Instead, the human being needs to be considered from a scientific point of view, as a quantum system, which grows from a singlet state, and is embedded within fields of quantum information.  The Heart is a quantum computer, and the electromagetic centre of the living being.  Consciousness within the mind and all of its cognitive functions, is secondary to this central awareness of Being, of real 'I' within the heart.  The I within the heart, is the pixel on a higher dimensional screen, which makes a human being potentially a microcosm of the macrocosm, in the hologram of the Universe.
           
          In my view, psychology today is at a pre-Copernicus level of development, when people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth, just like scientists think the Heart revolves around their famous minds and cognitions.  The heart is the centre of the human being from a quantum physics perspective, so unless there is some kind of evidence to the contrary, the head doctrine is the biggest scam of modern thought.  Everyone who wants to write a book about human consciousness just puts a picture of the brain on the cover, and everyone claps and things that this is 'science.' 
           
          Modern scientists dare to say there is 'no evidence,' that consciousness can exist apart from the body, or that the mind does not somehow have 'extended functions.'  In fact, there is a huge, huge body of scientific and antedotal evidence that it can.  The fraudulent dismisssal of the spirit and soul, and extended mind, within modern times, and the materialist, accidental theories of evolution occuring blindly through transformations of matter and energy, uninformed by deeper intelligence, are simply the superstitions of mechanistic science philosophy. , and blind indeed.  All things grow within/without from zero points, out of higher dimensions.  Modern physics descibes such things, and such concepts allow a framework of ideas to explain all the paranormal phenomena that pervade everyday life, and science.  Modern psychology is at a pre-Copericus level in terms of understanding the deep roots of human consciouness of being.
           
          Further, the teachings of the mystics about the Heart, and its mystical dimensions, allow us to develop an actual physics and metaphysics of what the heart is, as a life source, and as a quantum black-hole computer.  Seriously it is, if we consider the Scientific American artices on Black Box Computers, and Information in the Holographic Universe.  Human consciousness has zero point origins, out of higher dimensions!  This the head scientists have never conceived, but the mystics and enlightened teachers of humankind have maintained this through millenium. A human being is a pixel on a screen of higher dimensions.
           
          Modern psychologists and philosophers consider everything in a simplistic dualistic manner, with a fraudulent science of the body and mind, but no heart or soul; created out of matter and energy, within time and space,  but not informed through by underlying intelligence and design, and with no substantive consciousness principle.  When will scientists ever see the light?
           

          glen_swift <glenswift@...> wrote:


          --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Tintner" <tintner@b...>
          wrote:
          >
          > 1.The idea that the brain is "the seat of consciousness" hasn't
          really
          > been proven scientifically.
          > glen_swift
          >
          > --------------
          > My comments:
          >
          > 1. What are your ideas/ thoughts/ wild speculations about where
          else
          > consciousness resides, Glen?

          Hi Mike,

          I can appreciate your believing that consciousness must
          necessarily "sit" someplace, but I should point out that that is
          merely a belief, held by many people, based on the assumption that
          consciousness is an emergent quality of matter.

          Consciousness is the focusing of attention, an activity of beingness
          need not originate in any physical place. Obviously, I make the
          opposite assumption from that made by most scientists; namely that
          consciousness exists independent of physical reality.

          This question reminds me of my reading some years ago the first few
          chapters of Dana Zohar's book, "The Quantum Self," where she labored
          creatively to find the so-called seat of consciousness. As I recall,
          she looked hither and yon, without success.


          > 2.no scientist is questioning the brain as the seat of
          consciousness.
          > Indeed, the 'Cartesian duality', which considers a separate
          consciousness
          > from the brain, is not taken seriously in any scientific circles. 
          Until
          > evidence to the contrary emerges, the brain is considered to be
          the seat of
          > consciousness by default.
          > Robert  RKS

          Of course scientists don't question their understanding that the
          brain is the seat of consciousness, for to do so could undermine
          their whole worldview. That understanding, however, is based solely
          upon belief, not science, and their ploy of placing the burden of
          proof on anyone who disagrees with them simply obscures the fact
          that they've built a house of cards purely upon faith. I await the
          day when the two alternative assumptions can be tested without bias
          to find out which holds up best under scientific investigation.

          Cheers,
          Glen






        • Jane Cull
          Hello Chris Thank you for your reply email. My focus is more on self organising patterns of cyclical activity that occur throughout the body as a whole, not
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 21 10:33 PM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Chris
             
            Thank you for your reply email.  My focus is more on self organising patterns of cyclical activity that occur throughout the body as a whole, not just particular regions of the body, i.e. head, heart etc.  The distinction of a heart metaphor for me reflects the emotionings of love and acceptance in which we distinguish ourselves, human beings, the environment and other living systems in a more broad and encompassing way, where we recognise their beingness, their beauty etc.
             
            For me, it is important to distinguish the body as vast interconnected whole where 'activity' or to be more precise 'correlations of self organising activity' that repeats, determines our experiences, our manner of thinking and relating in language in the braiding of emotioning, along with behavior and other kinds of sensory experiences.
             
            Hope this helps in terms of clarification...
             
            sincerely
            jane
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:45 AM
            Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Brain as seat of consciousness?

            Dear Jane,
             
            Thanks for your supportive comments.  I visited your web site and read a good portion of your paper.  Some interesting materials, although I am not sure how it all might relate to my own orientation towards these subjects.  We certainly have different views of what consciousness is, but this whole idea of biological circularity is very valuable.  I think then of the blood and its circular patterns, as I think the cells leave and return to the heart in approximately 20 seconds, and then the circular patterns within the heart. 
             
            In your article you write "we experience consciousness and being conscious as a result of biological circular, cyclical processes"-and I wonder if you consider the heart in your schemes, as your focus seems more on the mind.
             
            Anyway, take care.  Christopher

            Jane Cull <jcull@...> wrote:
            Dear Chris
             
            It is fantastic to see this kind of email.  The problem with the present view of consciousness being determined by activity only in the brain, is that it obscures what is going on in the biology as a whole, namely self organising cyclical patterns of activity and how that activity triggers the experiences of what we distinguish as consciousness.
             
            For those that experience this kind of phenomenon particularly from a sensory point of view, some kinds of activity occur as a rush of sensations which are felt throughout the body as a whole.  Experientially then it is ridiculous to distinguish in terms of a location for such activity.  I find it irritating that theories of consciousness do not reflect nor add up to what we actually experience.
             
            I have a written a paper on the Biology/Pschology of Consciousness:  A Circular Perspective if you are interested Chris.
             
            Sincerely
            Jane Cull
             
            Life's Natural Solutions
            A Paradigm Shift for Human Evolution
            612 9979 9147
            61401 479 315
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 4:52 AM
            Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Brain as seat of consciousness?

            Indeed there is no scientific evidence that material or neurological processes in the brain produce consciousness, although there is all kinds of evidence that different cognitive and mental procxesses are more localized there-providing 'the contents' for conscious experience, but not the 'consciousness' itself.  When scientists map what parts of the brain are involved in varied activities, the most common practices is actually to monitor blood flow, not neurological activity!  We determine what cognitive processes are activated by observing the blood flow as an indication of where consciousness resides.  
             
            Consciousness could be connected to bloodflow, as when you bring your consciousness into an awareness of your hand, and your hand enlargens because of the blood flow, and consciousness there.  The distribution of consciosness thoughout the body is most closely linked throughout the mystical and spiritual psychologies of humanity with the Human Heart, and the ensoulment of the material body, through the breath and the circulation of blood.  Why could our 'self' experience not be related to the heart and blood.  You can even experience this within yourself in your inner world, by being more conscious of yourself.  Noone points to their heads to localize 'i.' 
             
            In my view, as a mystic scientists, who has pursued consciusness studies for thirty years, the modern "head doctrine" is a profoundly serious mistake which pervades modern thought, and so-called 'scientific psychology.'  The central core of inner self experience, and consciousness within a human being, is not manufactured somewhere in the brain, by material processes and as an epiphenomena, which is non-substantive.  Instead, the human being needs to be considered from a scientific point of view, as a quantum system, which grows from a singlet state, and is embedded within fields of quantum information.  The Heart is a quantum computer, and the electromagetic centre of the living being.  Consciousness within the mind and all of its cognitive functions, is secondary to this central awareness of Being, of real 'I' within the heart.  The I within the heart, is the pixel on a higher dimensional screen, which makes a human being potentially a microcosm of the macrocosm, in the hologram of the Universe.
             
            In my view, psychology today is at a pre-Copernicus level of development, when people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth, just like scientists think the Heart revolves around their famous minds and cognitions.  The heart is the centre of the human being from a quantum physics perspective, so unless there is some kind of evidence to the contrary, the head doctrine is the biggest scam of modern thought.  Everyone who wants to write a book about human consciousness just puts a picture of the brain on the cover, and everyone claps and things that this is 'science.' 
             
            Modern scientists dare to say there is 'no evidence,' that consciousness can exist apart from the body, or that the mind does not somehow have 'extended functions.'  In fact, there is a huge, huge body of scientific and antedotal evidence that it can.  The fraudulent dismisssal of the spirit and soul, and extended mind, within modern times, and the materialist, accidental theories of evolution occuring blindly through transformations of matter and energy, uninformed by deeper intelligence, are simply the superstitions of mechanistic science philosophy. , and blind indeed.  All things grow within/without from zero points, out of higher dimensions.  Modern physics descibes such things, and such concepts allow a framework of ideas to explain all the paranormal phenomena that pervade everyday life, and science.  Modern psychology is at a pre-Copericus level in terms of understanding the deep roots of human consciouness of being.
             
            Further, the teachings of the mystics about the Heart, and its mystical dimensions, allow us to develop an actual physics and metaphysics of what the heart is, as a life source, and as a quantum black-hole computer.  Seriously it is, if we consider the Scientific American artices on Black Box Computers, and Information in the Holographic Universe.  Human consciousness has zero point origins, out of higher dimensions!  This the head scientists have never conceived, but the mystics and enlightened teachers of humankind have maintained this through millenium. A human being is a pixel on a screen of higher dimensions.
             
            Modern psychologists and philosophers consider everything in a simplistic dualistic manner, with a fraudulent science of the body and mind, but no heart or soul; created out of matter and energy, within time and space,  but not informed through by underlying intelligence and design, and with no substantive consciousness principle.  When will scientists ever see the light?
             

            glen_swift <glenswift@...> wrote:


            --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Tintner" <tintner@b...>
            wrote:
            >
            > 1.The idea that the brain is "the seat of consciousness" hasn't
            really
            > been proven scientifically.
            > glen_swift
            >
            > --------------
            > My comments:
            >
            > 1. What are your ideas/ thoughts/ wild speculations about where
            else
            > consciousness resides, Glen?

            Hi Mike,

            I can appreciate your believing that consciousness must
            necessarily "sit" someplace, but I should point out that that is
            merely a belief, held by many people, based on the assumption that
            consciousness is an emergent quality of matter.

            Consciousness is the focusing of attention, an activity of beingness
            need not originate in any physical place. Obviously, I make the
            opposite assumption from that made by most scientists; namely that
            consciousness exists independent of physical reality.

            This question reminds me of my reading some years ago the first few
            chapters of Dana Zohar's book, "The Quantum Self," where she labored
            creatively to find the so-called seat of consciousness. As I recall,
            she looked hither and yon, without success.


            > 2.no scientist is questioning the brain as the seat of
            consciousness.
            > Indeed, the 'Cartesian duality', which considers a separate
            consciousness
            > from the brain, is not taken seriously in any scientific circles. 
            Until
            > evidence to the contrary emerges, the brain is considered to be
            the seat of
            > consciousness by default.
            > Robert  RKS

            Of course scientists don't question their understanding that the
            brain is the seat of consciousness, for to do so could undermine
            their whole worldview. That understanding, however, is based solely
            upon belief, not science, and their ploy of placing the burden of
            proof on anyone who disagrees with them simply obscures the fact
            that they've built a house of cards purely upon faith. I await the
            day when the two alternative assumptions can be tested without bias
            to find out which holds up best under scientific investigation.

            Cheers,
            Glen






          • leonmaurer@aol.com
            ... Perhaps you misunderstood me. When I referred to consciousness as being centered everywhere, I was referring specifically to its qualia of awareness and
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 25 9:33 PM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 04/11/05 6:11:11 PM, tintner@... writes:

              >2) Consciousness is (brain-body) CONFIGURABLE - I disagree with Leon's
              >"consciousness can be centered anywhere" - I would think it is always
              >centered in the brain (but please disagree). However, what is clearly the
              >case is that the total brain-body span of consciousness is highly
              >configurable - in other words, I can largely concentrate on my upper body,
              >or on my lower body, or on a mix of both, or on an endless variety of
              >configurations of parts. And that to me is remarkable: that consciousness
              >is not a fixed, stable field but a somewhat movable field/feast.

              Perhaps you misunderstood me. When I referred to "consciousness" as being
              centered everywhere, I was referring specifically to its qualia of awareness and
              intention of will -- which is "centered" wherever we experience or project it
              from.

              Thus, since a pain in the foot is experienced in the foot, that is the
              specific location where such *pure consciousness* is "centered" -- at the moment we
              feel or experience it... NOT in the brain... Although the correlates of
              consciousness, where the sensory information or "contents of consciousness" (not its
              experience) is processed -- might be "seated" in the brain (as it could also
              be spread throughout the entire nervous and circulatory systems connected to
              the brain through the heart and other plexus). These contents, therefore, are
              merely the result of the transformations necessary to convert the impressions
              (that constitute the vibrational frequencies of the sensory impulse, i.e.,
              light striking the retina, pin stuck in the foot, chemicals effecting an
              olfactory or taste bud, sound impinging on the ear tympanum, stimulation of any other
              neural endpoint, etc.) -- to a higher enough frequency energy (I presume to be
              modulated on a higher order hyperspace field analogous to those postulated by
              string theories) so as to be detectable and experienced by the zero-point of
              awareness -- which, wherever that ubiquitous zero-point is located in
              configuration space, is the fundamental source and ground of all conscious
              experiences, i.e., the seat and center of awareness and will (the fundamental aspects of
              pure consciousness without content).

              Of course, I understand that this separates consciousness, as it is
              "experienced," from the matter-energy that forms the informational "contents" of
              consciousness... And, thus, constitutes a duality and implies a homunculus -- which,
              while part of a trinity that includes the first iteration of primal space
              prior to the Big Bang, is a fundamental unity that can't be approached
              empirically from a reductive scientific point of view that depends on objective
              observation and experimental proof. Therefore, I stand with Chalmers, who first posed
              the "hard problem," and suggested that a new scientific paradigm is required
              to solve it.

              Accordingly, I think, my ABC theory of Cosmogenesis, consisting, initially,
              of a holographic, multidimensional fractal involution of coadunate but not
              consubstantial coenergetic fields, starting from a zero-point singularity and its
              surrounding infinite angular momentum ("spinergy" or G-force) and that also
              covers the explanation of all paradoxes of science as well as its anomalies such
              as psychic as well as all other transcendental phenomena -- may be the
              fundamental basis of such a new paradigm.

              >3) Consciousness is very much EVOLVABLE - (contradicting Leon) - clearly
              >the story of evolution is in part the story of evolving an ever greater
              range of
              >sensors and mental faculties (in tandem with an ever more mobile and agile
              >body). ALso the story of human development is of developing ever higher
              >powers of concentration - powers which depend on developing the rest of
              >the body as well.

              The "phenomenal consciousness" you speak of that (I agree) is "EVOLVABLE," is
              only related to the differences in degree of the *sensitivity* or the
              *contents* of consciousness -- i.e., thought, reasoning, intuition, detection, and
              response to impulse in all sensory channels, etc. -- that depends solely on the
              complexity of the neural system -(which, physically, is all that can evolve
              with respect to these contents and sensitivities). Thus, the degree of such
              contents or sensitivity of vision, smell, etc., in lower animals on the chain of
              evolution, is quite different from those on the higher levels. And, in the
              case of many animal species, and even plant species (that, e.g., can sense the
              direction of sunlight using different sensory channels) -- such "phenomenal
              consciousness" can be far more sensitive than in the human species. Therefore,
              it's these systems and its processes that evolve, not the pure or "experiential
              consciousness" (awareness-will) that I am talking about -- which is an a
              priori fundamental aspect of Absolute or pre "big Bang" space itself, and is
              entirely separate from all directional aspects of matter, energy, form, time, etc.,
              that constitute our visible space time continuum. If this fundamentally
              unified field theory of everything goes against all current materialistic concepts
              underlying the empirical theories of science that give only partial views of
              the true realities of nature and its constituents -- then, so be it. (All
              arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. :-)

              Best wishes,

              Leon Maurer
              http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
              http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
              http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif

              ------Original Message-----------------

              Leon Maurer wrote:


              In a message dated 04/03/05 4:32:08 PM, stonjek@... writes:


              >There is no mystery with regard to the non-feeling of the brain itself

              >- there are no pain receptors in the brain. The reason why we feel anything

              >is due to pain receptors which are connected to the brain. Cut the

              >connection to the brain and the feeling in the area thus isolated is removed.


              >Quadriplegics, who might have the spinal chord severed in the neck, do not

              >have two consciousnesses nor is their consciousness trapped in the body.

              >

              >If such a dualism as Descartes imagined really does exist then this does

              >not take away from the fact that in the living, consciousness is still

              >centred in the brain. There is no utility in thinking otherwise.


              How come, when I have serious indigestion, the (consciousness of the) pain

              is centered (seated) in my belly? Or, why, when I stub my toe, my

              consciousness is centered in my sore foot? At the same time, how could I be
              also

              conscious that I'm hearing, seeing, breathing, etc., and actually feel my
              heart

              beating -- apparently, from down there at the center of pain?


              Is it possible, then, that my consciousness can be centered anywhere I focus

              my attention to or from? Of course, this would not necessarily refer to

              direct sensory impulses to parts of the body whose hard neural wiring is cut

              off from the physical processing or transponding system of the brain, but
              would

              account for phantom limb effects in paraplegics, as well as blind sight,
              etc., if

              the "contents of consciousness" is linked to hyperspace waveform field

              effects and their transformations. (Ref: my ABC model or certain aspects of

              M-theory, quantum field theory, holographic paradigm theories, etc.)


              --------------------------


              MT:


              I like some of the thoughts here - and would like to see some further

              discussion from RKS & the more scientifically-minded. I am not iinto what I

              might call the private, mystical 'field" theories of consciousness. But what

              has emerged from this thread it seems to me is the idea of:


              1) Consciousness as a Brain-Body configuration - consciousness may be

              centered in the brain but it would seem to be clearly extended over the body

              as well. As Leon says: surely when we feel our pained/pleasured

              toe/hand/penis/genitals/guts etc. "we"/ our consciousness is located there

              (and over our body) as well as in our brain/head? (Does anyone want to

              dispute this?)


              1a)Arguably, in evolutionary terms, consciousness - particularly cognition -

              preceded the development of a specialised brain to handle it - and even

              perhaps the development of a nervous system? (Anyone knowledgeable here

              about the evolution of our primitive one-celled & multicellular fellow

              organisms?) In other words, consciousness emerged from the body as a whole.


              1b)The higher forms of consciousness/cognition (higher in evolutionary

              terms) exist to serve, and are interdependent with, the body. Isn't it the

              sea-squirt (correct me) that loses its brain when it ceases to move?


              2) Consciousness is (brain-body) CONFIGURABLE - I disagree with Leon's

              "consciousness can be centered anywhere" - I would think it is always

              centered in the brain (but please disagree). However, what is clearly the

              case is that the total brain-body span of consciousness is highly

              configurable - in other words, I can largely concentrate on my upper body,

              or on my lower body, or on a mix of both, or on an endless variety of

              configurations of parts. And that to me is remarkable: that consciousness

              is not a fixed, stable field but a somewhat movable field/feast.


              3) Consciousness is very much EVOLVABLE - (contradicting Leon) - clearly the

              story of evolution is in part the story of evolving an ever greater range of

              sensors and mental faculties (in tandem with an ever more mobile and agile

              body). ALso the story of human development is of developing ever higher

              powers of concentration - powers which depend on developing the rest of the

              body as well.
            • Chris Lofting
              Leon wrote: Accordingly, I think, my ABC theory of Cosmogenesis, consisting, initially, of a holographic, multidimensional fractal involution of coadunate but
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 26 2:21 AM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Leon wrote:

                "Accordingly, I think, my ABC theory of Cosmogenesis, consisting, initially,
                of a holographic, multidimensional fractal involution of coadunate but not
                consubstantial coenergetic fields, starting from a zero-point singularity
                and its
                surrounding infinite angular momentum ("spinergy" or G-force) and that also
                covers the explanation of all paradoxes of science as well as its anomalies
                such as psychic as well as all other transcendental phenomena -- may be the
                fundamental basis of such a new paradigm."

                As far as I can tell, all 'paradox' emerges from the conceit of our
                conscious states in thinking it is the centre of things when it obviously
                isnt. This is easily demonstrated using sensory paradox to show the
                differences between XOR and AND perspectives upon reality -
                http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html - and how that conceit
                feeds into our maps of reality and so gets everyone 'confused' -
                http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/species.html

                Chris.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.