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

Theosophy vs. Science - dialogue on consciousness

Feb 14, 2003 11:01 PM
by leonmaurer


I thought you all might be interested in the bekow segment of an ongoing 
dialogue between a reputable scientist/cognitive psychologist and a not so 
reputable (in the public eye :-) theosophist on the subject of understanding 
the nature of consciousness. All the comments and discussion here on the 
theosophical side are based on the ABC field theory of holistic space, time 
and energy that is in relative conformance with the metaphysics of 
Cosmogenesis as explained in the Secret Doctrine.

I hope it serves as food for thought for all theosophists on the path to 
Self-realization... That I feel cannot be ultimately attained without 
acquiring direct meditative experience coupled with a comprehensive knowledge 
and understanding of the correlation of all the forces in the universe and 
the nature of their inherent laws which govern the harmonic formation and 
coenergetic interrelationship of the primary seven fold coadunate but not 
consubstantial fields of consciousness... Thus, allowing us full conscious co
ntrol of both our awareness and our will in conjunction with our mind and 
body on all seven times seven levels of our individual and universal being.

Best wishes,


The quale is not a property of physical reality, it is a property of 
consciousness. Whilst some qualia seems to be fairly consistent between 
individuals, others are obviously quite different leading individual likes 
and dislikes for the same objects.

Agreed. But that is psychology. And, I am speaking solely about the physics 
of consciosness. The only interest I have in qualia, is what determines it, 
and how, why, and where we experience it. This comes down to 
understanding the fundamental nature and cause of awareness. 

[LM] previously
at any particular moment in time is the only "reality" we can know 
about it or be aware of

This is the most common observation but not always true. There are 
paradoxical optical illusions that appear to be one thing or another, the old 
and young lady for instance. At twilight, we can see the silhouette of an 
object in the distance and think that it may be a soldier with a gun about to 
come and harass us, or a bush that looks like a soldier (these days, the bush 
can just as dangerous). 
These extremes point to the ability of human consciousness to model more than 
one reality simultaneously. We could, however, point out that for any given 
unambiguous sensory experience, there is usually only one resultant reality.

One could say that there is only one OBJECTIVE reality providing one can 
safely ignore quantum phenomena and that one is considering only a single 
slice of time. 

You are talking about the interpretation of perception from a psychological 
viewpoint, and I am talking about the function or capability of awareness per 
se -- regardless of what we think about it or how we interpret the qualia of 
the perception. My questions are directed solely toward a fundamental 
understanding of the nature and cause of consciousness -- not its neural, 
physiological, or psychological correlates. So, apparently, we are looking 
at the same thing from diamterically opposite points of view or in different 

>From my point of view, paying attention to ones perceptions have nothing to 
with the capacity to perceive, or awareness per se -- which is a fundamental 
subjective aspect or attribute of the universe (as a singular indivisible 
entity) that is coeval with its fundamental objective matter or mass-energy. 

Such awareness, from a psychological POV, can be experienced in varying 
degrees or levels of consciousness by sentient physical beings depending upon 
the complexity of their physical sensory channels that link subjective 
awareness to objective reality. Nevertheless, from the physics (functional) 
and mathematical (formative geometrical, topological, etc.) POV, the property 
of awareness is a universal a-priori, as is material substance/energy. It is 
the unchanging root essence or potential of absolute "consciousness" (both 
awareness and will) -- as opposed to the changing fields of matter energy -- 
that I am talking about. Absolute consciousness vs relative consciousness.

>From the viewpoint of physics alone, therefore, the only "reality" is what 
exists out there (including its individual latent unexpressed and individual 
degree of expressed consciousness, extending from the largest universal 
field/form down to the smallest particle)... Not what or how we individually 
experience (of) it. 

However, we are in agreement that the only thing we can "know" about that 
reality is what we interpret from our momentary awareness of it. Naturally, 
that interpretation can be wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of 
them being a faulty neural structure. Nevertheless, it does not change the 
nature of the fundamental reality itself. 

>From a physics point of view, a rose is "red," based solely on the 
wavelengths of light it absorbs and reflects -- whether or not we all 
perceive those wave lengths as the same qualia. If we project only green 
light onto a rose it will appear as black (and the leaves will appear as 
white). This does not change our consciousness of the rose itself or the 
singular "reality" of its inherent existence -- even though the only thing we 
can experience or mindfully know about it (e.g., under different conditions 
of lighting) varies. Changing the physical conditions of what we perceive 
has no relationship to the capacity or potential of that perception or 
awareness. Perception sometimes depends on experience, knowledge or 
attention. Some of my questions are; What causes it? Where is it situated? 
Why is it there? What is the nature of that experience? What is will? How is 
it activated? Where does it originate? I think this theory answers them all. 
(Although, there is more to it than I've spoken about here.)

When we turn the lights on we see shape, shade, chroma, hue, etc. When the 
lights are turned off, we perceive nothing but darkness. In either condition 
of the external world, the potential capacity of the awareness or our 
perception of it doesn't change... Only, it's qualia changes. And this has 
nothing to do with the existence of consciousness as a universal aspect of 
fundamental reality -- which, in essence, is changeless in itself -- although 
emerging perceptively in varying degrees or levels of experience depending on 
both complexity of organism or power of determination, intent or will. This 
can be very puzzling, unless one accepts a multidimensional hyperspace theory 
of reality emanating out of a zero-point-instant singularity, coupled with 
the understanding of the triune nature of the universal monad or primal field 
that is the model of all subsequent lower order fields of matter-energy. 

Unfortunately, optical illusions are no criteria for judging consciousness, 
they are simply two dimensional representation of the actual three 
space that we experience in consciousness through all the sensory channels. 
They are nothing more than 2-D optical tricks that fool us into oscillating 
different judgments of the relationships between static objects and different 
viewpoints that have no relationship to our stored memory of actual physical 
reality -- that always can be examined in a 3-D matrix from a viewpoint in 
relative motion.

[LM] (previously) 
-- as such apparent physical reality changes from 
moment to moment, and our sense mechanisms have only a narrowly limited 
range of sensitivity. This also means that the only true reality is *that* 
fundamental source from which all the so called objective material reality 
and "subjective" conscious reality originates from. (Could that be why the 
ancient Vedanta philosophers say that the objective world is an illusion? 
Did they mean "... of the mind and senses" or, because it is continuously 
changing from one zero-point instant to another along the timeline?) 

This assumes that all reality can be sourced to the particles that make up 
objects. But motion is not so sourced. Motion is the changing relative 
position of one object as measured against some other object. There is 
nothing that can be found within an object or its particles which indicates 
the motion that that object has. Einstein recognised this and enshrined it 
in his famous postulate of 1905:-
"The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not 
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other 
of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion."

What this really means is that you can count yourself stationary or moving at 
any velocity. Thus the whole of special relativity as it applies to moving 
bodies can not be sourced to the constituent particles that make up that 
body. Thus a significant part of reality does not have a quantum source.

Indeed, few would agree that 'reality' per se has a source. 'Reality' is the 
name of the quale that we apply generally to some intangible. There is no 
objective thing called reality, the universe just is. Thus the concept of 
objective reality is as fundamentally flawed as the objective "redness of the 
rose" is.

I do not, nor does the multidimensional theory of zero-point energy and it's 
progression into coadunate but not consubstantial fields of matter assume 
that all reality can be ascribed to the "particles" in this metric physical 
space. Fundamental matter is not particulate but simply triune fields of 
vibrational energy that steps down (involves) through lower and lower 
frequency-energy phases and ultimately condenses or becomes "knotted," into 
forms of various stable configurations of what we call mass-energy or matter 
on the lowest energy phase level. Such knots or entangled wave fronts simply 
appear as particles, either metrically or mathematically, and are merely 
convenient concepts for purposes of calculation or generating generalized 
classical laws of mechanics on the physical level.

Right, "the universe just is." And, Einstein has already pointed out its 
But, being basically an engineer, as well as an artist/architect I always 
wanted to know what that "is" was made of, what made it tick, and how come 
it ended up where we are now situated. :-) 

The true reality I speak of is nothing but motion. And that motion, in its 
fundamental aspect as pure force, must be the angular momentum of Absolute 
Space circling around its zero-point. Those two, one forever changing and 
the other, never changing aspects of space, plus that ineffable space itself 
-- is the only reality -- which is not a duality, but a trinity as a 
fundamental unity. This is the root of consciousness and matter, which in 
our continuum as well as within all the motional fields of primal force that 
leads to it, is, along with the surrounding primal space that remains 
unchanged -- is that primal monad replicated in both non-metric hyperspace 
and our metric space-time continuum. As Hermes said, "As above, so below" 
and, "The microcosm is the mirror of the macrocosm." Thus, each human is 
also composed of a similar series of coadunate but not consubstantial 
coenergetic fields of varying phases of frequency-energy-mass.

This observed space time continuum that you speak of, and that Einstein tried 
to explain, is not that total reality -- but just one relative aspect of it. 
In my view -- considering the zero-point as being stationary as well as 
coadunate (being dimensionless) and, therefore, "entangled" with all other 
zero point centers of material fields, each with their own relative motional 
energy and relative degree of substantiality, starting from zero and 
extending to infinity -- the relative is absolute, and the absolute is 
relative. This means that the universe has no beginning or end, but is in 
constant flux, forever expanding and contracting in accord with the 
fundamental principle of cyclic motion, that forever governs all laws on any 
level or phase order of substantiality and frequency-energy. 

Naturally, since all your arguments are based on only one special case of 
such a range of changing forms of that reality, it cannot apply to the 
gestalt reality itself, that I am speaking of. Therefore this relative 
universe must begin at a zero-point-instant "singularity" that, regardless of 
how it becomes spread out in metric space due to both involution and 
evolution of the fields generated from its spinergy, it will always retain 
the same potential force tied up in that spinergy. Thus, the information 
contained, as encoded patterns of angular momentum of the infinite lines of 
force, remains ubiquitous throughout the entire holographic universe, 
regardless of its changing field state or phase of existence. This is, in my 
view, is the basis of both inertia as well as the "dark matter" observed by 
physical science in our metric space time continuum. It also gives us the 
basis of explaining the cause of entropy and enthalpy by simple logic alone. 

This concept is based on the understanding that primal force, that can have 
no beginning or ending, is nothing more than absolute, dimensionless space in 
infinite zero-point angular momentum, or abstract motion. Therefore, all of 
Einstein's reasoning, which is limited to this relatively temporary physical 
space-time-continuum, which considers time as a vector equivalent to the 
metric vectors of 3D space, has no relevance to the ABC theory of 
consciousness -- that considers time simply as a measure of change -- whose 
"constant" also changes along with the frequency/energy phase (and concurrent 
maximum velocity of light) of the particular involutional hyperspace universe 
it relates to. I suppose this is why Einstein could never scientifically or 
mathematically arrive at a unified field theory. He needed a whole new 
multidimensional topological geometry and fractal mathematics such as that 
used by Superstring/M-brane theorists. Have you read Brian Greene's book, 
"The Elegant Universe"? It's interesting to correlate it with Bohm's ideas of 
the implicate and explicate orders.

[LM] (previously)
In any event, to set the record straight, I know that consciousness is not in 
any sense material, nor does it derive from material causes. However, it is 
just as real, and like matter-energy, it always was, is and will be the 
opposite side of the same coin. There is no matter without consciousness, nor 
consciousness without matter, and they both are aspects of the one reality 
(we might call, "absolute abstract space") -- that must forever, no matter 
what their phenomenal expression, always remain an inseparable trinity.

The concept of "no matter without consciousness" is derived from some as yet 
unproven theory or from a model that is yet to prove its usefulness or be 
generally accepted. Thus your statements, while sounding like statements of 
fact are actually statements of speculation that may or may not prove to be 
correct or useful.

There is no speculation involved -- since my theory is resting on a logical 
deconstruction or reverse engineering of the universe based on a 
multidimensional geometrical, topological and fractal mathematics that can be 
completely visualized and reasoned mentally. The resultant model is similar 
to that of Superstring/M-brane theory -- with the added assumption, based on 
logical elimination of all other possibilities, that consciousness or 
subjectivity is the inherent attribute of the zero-point-instant -- while 
objectivity or the multidimensional hyperspace fields of material substance, 
leading up to and including the physical mass energies in the metric 
space-time-continuum, is the inherent attribute of the angular motional 
"spinergy" or momentum of primal Force surrounding (but not separate from) 
that zero-point instant. 

No view of fundamental reality is valid without taking into consideration 
these fundamental concepts that underlay all laws of cycles and periodicity, 
electricity, harmony, holographics, etc. -- that support all apparent 
physical reality, and explain the transfer of information between one phase 
form of it and another simply as modulated wave patterns on the surfaces of 
those coenergetic hyperspace fields. From this, I could imagine that the 
separate sensory channels function at a different ranges of tuned frequencies 
such as multiplexed carrier signals used in analog telephony over a single 
wire pair. 

As for this model's usefulness and general acceptance, it stands in the same 
position that Einstein's theory of relativity and concurrent energy-mass 
equivalency stood when he conceived of it prior to (and for some time after) 

Since, I'm sure Einstein also understood then what I am talking about now 
(although he couldn't verify or prove it, even up to his death in 1955) -- I 
take no personal credit for this theory (since not being a professional 
scientist, I cannot carry it further than simple logically reasoned 
hypothesis). All I can do is simply offer my visual-mental versions of it's 
multidimensional geometry and logic (which is almost impossible to explain 
thoroughly in words :-) for the benefit of professional scientists working in 
consciousness studies to consider and apply, wherever fitting, to their 
research. No guarantees, but I'm fairly certain that when this view of 
fundamental reality can be proven, and gain the attention of all scientists 
and technologists -- its usefulness, considering the current state of our 
scientific knowledge, will be even more immediately apparent than the 
usefulness that came from their acceptance of relativity and quantum physics 
during the last century. 

Once the actual physical and transcendental mechanism of consciousness is 
completely understood from a physical, biological and physiological point of 
view, it will bring psychology, as a synthesis of cognitive, behavioral and 
transpersonal points of view, into a whole new world of practical 
applications. I also foresee -- when such a new paradigm explaining the 
fundamental relationship between consciousness, mind, and matter is 
universally accepted by all scientists and philosophers along with the bulk 
of humanity -- substantially useful breakthroughs in the fields of mental and 
physical healing arts, human relations, zero-point energy transformations, 
communications, transportation, and other technological advances, will come 
as a direct result of such knowledge. 

Consciousness does not need this degree of fineness. Like the TV image that 
flickers along at 25 frames per second, consciousness is not continuous down 
to the last nano second. The equivalent of the fluorescence of the TV screen 
is the spike train of neurons. Neurones don't fire with any precision at 
all. In fact, they fire off randomly all the time. When they are to pass a 
signal they fire rapidly forming a peak and then decay until they again fire 

Thus the zero point for human consciousness could not be much finer than 
1/25th of a second. Monitor refresh rates need to be at least 85Hz to 
prevent flicker, but this flicker comes from the time taken for the beam to 
sweep down the entire screen, thus the larger the screen the faster the 
refresh rate needs to be.

But this is many many orders of magnitude above and beyond the zero point you 
are suggesting.

LM: Surely. But, all you are talking about here is "human consciousness" as 
related to our individual sensory awareness of the physical universe -- which 
I previously said was limited to the coarseness and ranges of the sensory 
mechanisms. It seems, here that you're trying to explain cognition on the 
plane of our physically limited and low frequency/energy phase space-time, 
while I'm talking about fundamental consciousness throughout all the 
multidimensional, higher frequency/energy phased hyperspace fields that 
underlay this physical space. It seem we are trying to compare apples to 
oranges -- which is why I said you misunderstood what I was talking about. 

What I refer to as "consciousness" or "awareness" pertains also to the higher 
levels of transcendental consciousness that reaches all the way to the first 
field of universal expansion in a seven fold progression of hyperspace fields 
that are eventually reflected in the analogous seven fold hyperspace and 
physical space fields that make up each human being. Check out the following 
web site to see how I envision it, symbolically, from a purely geometrical 
field involutional point of view (discounting, if you prefer, how I see this 
scientific concept correlating with Eastern philosophical or theosophical 

[LM] (previously)
Couldn't we then say, as was pointed out to me by the philosopher, Mac 
Truong, that "The Absolute is relative, and the relative is absolute?" And, 
as shown me by nuclear physicist, Philip Perchion, who also said, while 
discussing the hypothetical tachyon, faster than light particle, that "there 
cannot be a constantly changing relative reality composed of temporary, 
although cyclically stable forms of matter-energy -- without an unchanging 
and inertial absolute reference point of infinite 
mass-energy-duration-frequency upon which it all rests upon, and serves to 
maintain their relative stability's... And, further, that this 
zero-point-instant of apparent nothingness must be everywhere at the center 
of and between everything (or each individual field of matter-energy) -- no 
matter in what harmonic and fractal differentiation of Absolute space they 
happen to exist in." This is exactly what Einstein's theory of Relativity and 
gravity points out... (Although, he was limited in his interpretation, since 
he could never, using his tensor analysis methods, arrive at a clear 
mathematical understanding of the harmonic hyperspace fields of faster than 
light particle-waves that must exist between his supposed "singularity" and 
the first metric field of the space-time continuum after inflation.)

"Singularity" is an interpretation of general relativity developed by Roger 
Penrose and Steven Hawking, long after Einstein passed on.

It's immaterial who coined the word "singularity" with reference to 
Einstein's general relativity. (Actually it was used by Karl Shwartzburg as 
early as 1917) 

As I see it, (and as, I'm sure Einstein apparently saw it although he 
couldn't scientifically prove it) this term actually describes (when 
unmanifest or unexpressed prior to the initial expansion of the Cosmos) the 
zero-point instant which is spinning with a force of infinite angular 
momentum of absolute space... And, after expansion of the manifest Cosmos, 
that same zero-point instant "singularity" is reflected everywhere in sub 
quantum Planck space, at the center of origin of any involved hyperspace 
field, at the center of origin of all stabilized or momentarily existent 
particle-fields in metric space, and at the center of all black holes. Such 
a "black hole" consists of an immense amount of concentrated vortically 
mass-energy spinning around a singularity, having sufficient gravity and an 
"event barrier" of a certain diameter beyond which sidereal light cannot 
escape and where sidereal time approaches zero. The "black hole" represents 
the mass energy related to E=mc^2 that is part of this metric space time 
continuum -- that is the lowest energy/frequency-phase of the first 9 fields 
emanated from the primal zero-point instant "singularity" spinning at 
infinite force of infinitesimal space -- regardless of whether or not there 
is a black hole attached to it. 

But there is no evidence that consciousness extends down to this level of 
fineness. Listening to an oscillator played through speakers, I can just 
detect the oscillations at about 30Hz. That's one oscillation every 0.02s 
(two peaks per cycle). Anything of a higher frequency sounds continuous to 

Planck's time is 10E-43 seconds (ten to the power of minus forty three or 
0.000....01 with 42 zeros). Your zero point is nearly the same number of 
magnitudes below that. I should be able to see the individual oscillations 
of the light associated with various colours.

Again, you are completely misunderstanding what I'm talking about. And 
insist on bringing your obviously valid arguments (in the context of your 
parameters) down to the physical limitations of human sensory perception. 
All well and good when you are relating it to psychological studies of 
perception and cognition. But it can have no relationship to the mechanisms 
or source of consciousness, beyond the neural correlates. Since none of it 
explains the unanswered hard problem of explaining qualia. Nor, how sensory 
information is channeled and processed through the brain to the mind? Nor, 
how the will or intent is energized so as to cause physical responses to 
perceptive awareness? Nor, where such source of energy is located? Nor, 
where does the energy of will come from? Nor, why consciousness of a 
particular sensation is located at the remote point of initial causation of 
that perception -- whether inside or outside the body? Nor, can it explain 
PSI phenomena, ESP, ASC, or any other non-physical aspects of consciousness. 

LM] (previously)
RKS, is also is wrong in assuming that my argument implies that 
"consciousness is the only reality"... 

Just where did I say THAT?

Sorry. But, I think it was "B" who said you said that -- since you are 
quoting here from his letter that I answered. 

Since, my model assumes that BOTH 
matter and consciousness (or specifically, awareness) are an essential
,..(and, possibly, anything else disparagingly said about my hypothesis or 
myself. ;-) ...

I have never, I thought, been antagonist toward you personally (as you 
mentioned in your intro). At least I haven't done so wittingly. If I have 
been clumsy and trodden on your toes then I apologise for that. I appreciate 
the efforts you make (as I am sure do many others) even if I don't agree with 
what you say - still makes interesting reading.

LM: Thank you. I accept your apology -- although, I didn't think I ever 
intentionally implied that you had been antagonistic to me personally. 
Anyway, my level of consciousness is at a much higher stage than to think 
along such materialistic lines. :-) 

The particular aspects of consciousness that your theory proposes to address 
are not those aspects generally recognised or acknowledged by cogscience or 
anyone else except your particular niche and some QM theories. Neurones seem 
to be too slow and inaccurate to be the harbingers of consciousness, but then 
it is hard to imagine why consciousness would be so slow and inaccurate if it 
weren't generated by neurons alone.

Assuredly. I have no allusions that my theory is acceptable to those steeped 
in a materialist reductive view of fundamental reality. Naturally, it also 
doesn't have really that much relevance to cognitive psychologist who 
couldn't care less about the fundamental basis of awareness or will. 
However, from my point of view, there are levels of consciousness and will 
that extend far beyond the range that the neurons alone can process. 
Therefore, although I cannot prove it -- through my own transcendental 
experiences, I know that all humans have the inherent ability to transcend 
such neurological channels of perception and wakefully experience higher 
orders of universal consciousness -- some aspects of which many people 
experience unknowingly in dream states.

When one allows his consciousness to transcend the mind and brain, one can 
realize this directly. However, such realization can in no way help one 
concerned solely with the neural correlates of consciousness, although it 
could help someone trying to obtain a general theory of cognition or 
psychology that considers the changes in cognition that can occur when one 
can consciously control certain mental powers of concentration, 
visualization, intuition, will, etc. Self healing through such mental 
control is one such possibility that I've explored and found of practical use.

In my view there's much more to "consciousness study" than determining how it 
correlates with the material world through the physical senses. Much of the 
aesthetics of life, as well as its higher aspirations of universal 
brotherhood, peace on Earth, and true love -- that transcends all differences 
of opinions and material related prejudices which create barriers between us 
-- could be related to this higher knowledge of the roots, and the 
transcendental and universal nature of consciousness as an eternal aspect of 
fundamental reality.

Best wishes,

Leon Maurer

[Back to Top]

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