Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00704)

Ariel,

Science can only measure something that has an objective or physical reality. 
Such intangible (non material) phenomena as gravitational wells and energy 
fields, however, are still objective and can be meaured by science -- since 
they react to other things, respond empirically to external influences, or create 
observable effects. 

Consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely subjective, and the only things 
about it that can be measured indirectly are the results of conscious actions 
or the correlates of consciousness such as neural discharges, EEG brain waves 
and MRI pictures of brain responses to conscious thought or imagery. 
Therefore, the experience (qualia) of consciousness, such as the smell of a rose, its 
subjective color, shape, etc., cannot be measured directly and can only be 
evidenced by their neural correlates or by assumption based on one's own 
experience. 

Such first person or subjective evidence, however, is not acceptable 
according to the scientific method. Obviously, then, thoughts, memories, ideas, or 
other "feelings," or perceptive awareness of sensory images, have no quantities 
or physical properties that can be measured by any instruments known to 
science. 

Thus, there are still many physical as well as cognitive scientists who 
believe that consciousness is not a primary aspect of universal reality, but is 
merely an epiphenomena of (or caused by) the living brain's complex neurology... 
Therefore, for them, there is no need to measure anything except the indirect 
neural correlates of consciousness -- which really tells them nothing about 
the actual nature of consciousness, or why and how we experience it. 

Incidentally, that's why theosophical metaphysics (seven fold coadunate but 
not consubstantial planes or levels of consciousness) can only be grasped 
intuitively, or presented as a theory or hypothesis -- and not as empirical facts 
that can be proven scientifically. Didn't HPB say in the introduction to the 
Secret Doctrine that all that follows was presented simply as a theory that 
could only be verified by each of us individually -- through our own self 
determined and self devised efforts? Nowhere did she indicate that consciouness per 
se could be scientifically proven... Although, she did say that science would 
eventually prove the metaphysical, multidimensional, and radiant field 
concepts of theosophy. And, that alone could give credence to the fundamental 
universal nature of consciousness -- without need of any credible objective proof or 
measurement. From the standpoint of my ABC theory (that is entirely 
consistent with theosophical metaphysics) -- consciousness is the function solely of 
the zero-point itself -- which is everywhere. Such a point also being "empty" 
of all physical attributes -- (such as dimension or location, and therefore, 
non referenceable to anthing else in the universe) -- what is there to measure? 


Leon 


In a message dated 04/29/04 2:21:42 AM, arielaretziel@yahoo.com writes:

>Dear Leon,
>
>It seems to me that today's Science is dependent on the ability to 
>measure something, not on it being material. Examples of non-material 
>objects like gravitational wells and energy feilds seem to point to 
>this. I wonder if a measurement is dependent on a "materialality." Or 
>maybe something is defined as a scientific reality once one can 
>quantify it and then plug it into a mathamatical equation. I wonder 
>if there are scientists today researching the possability of 
>measuring conciousness.
>
>Ariel