Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01628)

Friends,
For those wondering about the current reductive scientific approach to 
human consciousness and psychology, limiting it all solely to neural processes 
in the brain -- as well as the controversy it has engendered from scientists 
of a more mystical bent -- I thought the following commentary might be of 
interest.  
Note that Dr. Holmes, a Canadian clinical psychologist is right in line 
with my ABC theory/model and has even quoted me in his articles and books. 
See: http://www.zeropoint.ca/microcosm_4-7bleonmaurer.htm 
(The only mistake he's made as far as I can see, is that he's figured me a 
few years older than I am.) </:-)> Hope you find it enlightening. Len

================================================

In a message dated 04/07/05 5:28:52 PM, christopherholmes@rogers.com writes:

>----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Mark Peaty 
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:18 PM
> Subject: [Mind and Brain] Naive realism - truth in illusion? or in truth
>- an illusion!
>
>>[Mark] "For years now I have accepted that the best explanation of me 
>>being aware of being here now is that my brain creates within itself a model
>>of self in the world and, while I am awake, it keeps updating this model.
>>Consciousness as such is what it is like to be the updating of this model
>>of self in the world, no more and no less."
>______________________________
> 
>>[Jud] “Bravo! yes! Yes, the brain processes represent a constantupdating 
>>of the brain's existing in a conscious state - but there is no separate 
*consciousness*
>>which *belongs* to the brain, no medievalistic *soul* or *mind* or *spirit*
>>or *consciousness * that goes bump in the night and plays musical chairs
>>with poltergeists and visiting pixies and hobo gnomes."
>
>***********************************
>
> A Radical Critique of Cognitive and Neuropsychological Approaches to the
>Study of Human Consciousness:
>A Mystical Psychology and Science Perspective
>By Christopher P. Holmes, Ph.D. (Psych)
>
>Zero Point Institute, Ontario, Canada
>
>www.zeropoint.ca 
>_________________________
>
>These two opening remarks on consciousness from the forum represent a 
completely
>erroneous understanding from my perspective, as a clinical psychologist,
>scientist and mystic.
>
>“I think, therefore I am,” Descartes’ declaration epitomizes the dualistic
>errors of contemporary thought. Modern psychology became “the science
>of behaviour and mind,” and dismissed the idea that human beings had a
>heart and soul, or spirit, or any ‘immaterial mind’ to connect to the 
material
>body—another simplistic dualistic formulation of ‘the ghost in the machine.’
>
>Modern psychology has given the “I think” of Descartes, primacy over the
>“I AM,” the deeper awareness of Being. And now, the scientists think that
>the brain in the head produces the only level of mind, and creates 
consciousness
>somehow, undefined, through neurological processes. You even imagine that
>consciousness is due to the brain creating ‘a model of itself,’ as you
>go about minding your day.
>
>The consciousness of Being, the I Am, is more primary than the thinking
>and cognitive processes, and ‘consciousness’ is not a product of mental
>activity, or of the brain. An infant is ‘conscious of Being’ long before
>he is able to mentally construe himself in language and thought, and go
>around minding your own business. This is what the head centred scientists
>do not seem to realize. Of course, they would dismiss any concept of 
consciousness
>as related to the Heart and blood as simply poetry or music, or religious
>superstition, but this in fact is the idea at the heart of mystical 
teachings.
>
>Modern science considers that the brain/mind produces consciousness-even
>though no-one can explain what consciousness is, where it ‘seat’ might
>be, if it has one, or many, or how it could be produced by its ‘neural
>correlates.’ Modern consciousness studies are in such a quagmire, a virtual
>tower of Babel. Consciousness is not simply a cognitive process, but a
>‘deeper awareness of being’- which we are trying to understand.  
>
>Your views of the brain as creating a model of itself and that this somehow
>is consciousness, are representative of 50 years of cognitive approaches
>to consciousness studies. Before that, there was a complete neglect of
>consciousness studies for 50 years-under the behavioural influence, when
>Watson could not see a soul in a test tube. All of this has also been
>due also to the acceptance of superficial Darwinian ideas about 'evolution'
>by random material processes, and the dismissal of the possibilities of
>a human soul and spirit-whatever these might be.  
>
>Nowadays, as I’ve said before, anyone can write a book on the nature of
>the human mind and consciousness and simply illustrate it with a picture
>of the brain, and everyone claps, and declares that this is ‘real science,’
>like Carl Sagan celebrating the romances of science and Broca’s Brain,
>and declaring that there is not ‘one iota’ of evidence forany immaterial
>mind, or consciousness, spirit or soul. John Horgan writes a book on 
“Rational
>Mysticism,” and he illustrates it with a picture showing blood patterns
>in the brain. He doesn’t consider that ‘mysticism’ could have anything
>to do with the Heart and blood, or a study of physics and metaphysics.
> People have become so conditioned in psychology today to accept on faith,
>or blind authority, this dogma of “the head doctrine,” that the brain
>produces consciousness by material/energetic processes  
>
>Until psychology was defined as “‘the science of behaviourand mind,’ as
>it is in contemporary times, its ancient meaning was the ‘science of the
>soul.’ The issue of ‘the soul’ is in modern timesalso the issue of 
consciousness,
>although they are different, and the nature of the heart. It is only
>western thinkers who have followed Descartes who thought that any ‘immaterial
>soul’ would have to be connected to the body in the head, and relating
>it to the pineal gland, a singular gland roughly in the centre of the brain.
> In contrast, all esoteric psychologies elaborate the relationship of the
>‘soul’ and ‘consciousness’ principles, and‘I,’ to the Heart--the I am
>of Descartes’ intellectual formula.  
>
>Mystical psychologies maintain that humans can experience varied levels
>of the awakening of consciousness, inner quantum shifts, through Self 
Realization,
>and then further levels of conscious development- varied samadhis, 
experiences
>of unity with the cosmos, spiritual and divine consciousness. Mystical
>psychologies regard consciousness emerging from within the deep substrates
>of Being, and it is certainly not a fortuitous byproduct of matter/energy
>processes of the brain. 
>
>Why do we think that contemporary thinkers on consciousness necessarily
>know so much more about the inner nature of human consciousness, than do
>all the saints, swamis, yogis, Sufis masters, mystics of the esoteric 
psychologies
>of humankind, who have been described as the daring inner explores of such
>realms? What do the head doctrine theorists think about what the Dalai
>Lama says about the origins of human consciousness-as related to the 
‘indestructible
>drop’ within the heart-a minute Space Particle, illumined by the Mind of
>Clear Light? Do they know, or even consider such a view, even possessing
>such fine cortex as they celebrate? What do you think of what the Dalai
>Lama says, compared to your generating consciousness out of your mind and
>brain, and while you think about yourself constructing your world. I’ll
>tell you something of this.
>
> ‘Consciousness' has to be distinguished from the cognitive processes 
involved
>in your 'minding' of the world, Yogis call these the 'monkeys of the mind,'
>described as an obstacle to Self realization and the further awakening
>of higher consciousness. Of course, all the thinking does increase the
>blood flow to the brain, and consciousness to become more 'intellectually
>centred,’ while reducing the blood flow to your feet, which go cold, and
>of which you are then unconscious.
>
>The central fallacy of the head doctrine, as I call it to contrast it with
>the heart doctrine of all the esoteric teachings of psychology, seems quite
>self evident in self study, guided by discerned analysis and self awareness.
> Do you really feel in yourself that your consciousness is only up in your
>head? To me it now all sounds so strange and silly. And yes, I do know
>about the sensory motor strip, and other facts of science, which are 
misinterpreted
>in their roles. 
>
>Scientists and philosophers, from my perspective as a mystic and scientist,
>confuse the 'psychological functions' of thinking, feeling and sensation,
>with 'consciousness.' This is one of the fundamental mistakes in modern
>so-called scientific consciousness studies, and it goes back to William
>James, who identified the "stream of consciousness" with the "stream of
>thought.” 
>
>The human experience is that consciousness is not confined to the head.
> Hardly anyone ever points to their heads to localize the ‘I,” although
>the idea of the cognitive theorists is that particular areas of the cortex
>are the key to the self-experience. Neurological processes in the brain
>do provide elements on the ‘object side’ of consciousness,as when I am
>conscious of this, or that, or of doing some mental manipulation. However,
>the subject side of consciousness is completely misunderstood and 
ill-conceived,
>and then simply equated with the objects or ‘contents’ of consciousness,
>and overlooked and neglected the ‘hard problem of consciousness.’ This
>all goes back to William James, who distinguished the “I” and the “me,”
>but he also took his ‘me’ as his “I” and failed to conceive how the I could
>be of a different order or substance than all his thoughts, feelings and
>sensation taken together as the ‘stream of consciousness.’ 
>
>Further, western psychologists do not think that ‘consciousness’ could
>be ‘substantive’ or anything in itself, which could exist separately from
>the material body. In this view, as scientist Asimov declares, when 
molecular
>arrangements of the material body disintegrate at death, “I will cease
>to be.” This is the assumption and superstition of materialist psychology,
>which is completely unfounded upon any true understanding of consciousness,
>or understanding of other contemporary physics and scientific investigation,
>and in spite of the massive scientific evidence for all kinds of other
>psychic and para-normal phenomenon, which are inexplicable in terms of
>the existent framework of understanding, or rather, I would say the framework
>of misunderstanding. Modern psychology and consciousness studies are 
certainly
>a virtual Tower of Babel, as Gurdjieff might say.
>
>If we consider consciousness as related to blood flow, illuminating different
>energetic/material processes of the neurons, then this provides a interesting
>view on how to approach what Chalmer’s calls the hard problems of consciousn
ess-the
>subject side, and a way of approaching the ‘hologram’ of the whole human
>being! 
>
>Modern psychology has no conception of the deep origins of human 
consciousness
>from within the grounds of being, and yet such an astonishing idea is 
actually
>consistent with the most advanced ideas in modern physics, information
>and computer science, and studies of the quantum realm. It is the modern
>head doctrine itself that has no foundation in theoretical science, 
completely
>ignoring the study of the overall human being as a quantum system, and
>never considering the actual physics and metaphysics of consciousness and
>the heart. The heart itself is a quantum computer-in science now, it is
>so considered. Why would we imagine that the consciousness of a whole
>quantum system, would simply be localized in one part-the head. Have you
>never felt your pulse, or your heart beat?
>
>Further, there is a whole other autonomic nervous system, outside of your
>head brain, centred in a series of major plexes within the body, which
>I would say is more the neurological basis for emotional experience, than
>limbic areas. So why cannot your famous consciousness exist in relationship
>to the electromagnetic processes of the solar plexus, or of the heart plexus?
> Why is it that only neurological activity in the brain are considered
>to produce consciousness, but not neurological activity elsewhere, even
>if you think that the neurons produce consciousness, as you do I gather.
> The central nervous system, the autonomic nervous system, and the 
electromagnetic
>centre of the human being-in the heart, must all be considered as to the
>role they play in regards to ‘consciousness,’ and the electro-magnetics
>at the heart of being.
>
>Consciousness does not consist in 'minding' self, construing your reality
>and such, as you imagine. In fact, such processes are regarded as obstacles
>to the awakening of consciousness, within all of the mystical traditions.
> Consciousness is light, and it functions to 'illuminate' different parts
>of the body, emotional centre and mind. Just as there is light in the
>external world, which illuminates things which it is not, so also, there
>are forms of 'inner light' which allows awareness of thinking, or of a
>full stomach, or of the feet, or of one’s heart ache. To understand such
>possibilities we would have to explore the complex physics and metaphysics
>of what is 'consciousness,’ and what is light. 
>
>The fact that the body is represented on the sensory motor cortex, does
>not necessarily imply that our normal consciousness of these bodily area
>resides only up in the cortex. As different parts of the organism require
>energy, there is increased blood flow and consciousness to those areas.
> Consciousness is not simply confined to the head but flows, or circulates,
>potentially through the whole organism. When a person does different 
cognitive
>task, these are ensouled and enlightened through the blood, and part of
>the brain lights up, providing contents for conscious experience. The
>modern neurological correlates of consciousness do not somehow manufacture
>the consciousness-and there is no scientific evidence that they do. It
>is simply an assumption that the brain produces consciousness, but the
>issues of consciousness remain the central unsolved enigma at the heart
>of psychology and science - or should I say, at the head of modern science!
> 
>Modern scientists even focus on studying emotions in the head, as though
>love and compassion, hurt and despair, are all processes of the limbic
>system, and could not have anything to do with the heart, the central 
electromagnetic
>source of life in the body. Do you go home and tell your sweetheart that
>you love her or him with all of your limbic system, or midbrain processes,
>or with ‘all of your head’? She will send you to a psychiatrist.  
Psychology
>today has almost completely ignored the study of the heart, as the central
>computer in the human quantum system. Meanwhile, everyone is trying to
>find consciousness, and its neural correlates only in the head.
>
>Most consciousness researchers approach the study of consciousness with
>the mind with simplistic patterns of dualistic thinking, and through the
>observation of external material processes, but do not explore the dynamics
>of consciousness through any form of inner self-study, or through any of
>the mystical/spiritual practices designed to illustrate the issues and
>illusions of consciousness and Self. Eastern and esoteric psychologies
>of consciousness are far ahead of modern concepts when it comes to 
understanding
>the inner dynamics of human consciousness. Further, such teachings actually
>allow for the application of modern theories in physics to the study of
>consciousness. Compared with the esoteric psychologies, I would describe
>the modern form and the head doctrine, as ‘Mickey mouse psychology.’
>
>Your consciousness can be in your head, your heart, your hands, and 
elsewhere,
>even in your stomach, a primary centre of conscious experience in many
>people. Think of consciousness as being-self-awareness, circulation through
>the blood and possibly existing throughout the whole of your organism,
>and not simply confined to the brain construing yourself. What you consider
>to be the nature of consciousness, your thinking and minding your own 
business,
>is the exact mistake explained within the mystical and spiritual teachings
>of psychology, of confusing consciousness with the mind. Mystic Blavatsky
>writes “The mind is the great slayer of the real.” 
>
>>From a mystical/spiritual perspective, human beings have a three and seven
>fold nature—they function primarily mentally, emotionally and physically.
> This actually reflects the “three modes of nature,” or the three ‘gunas;
>in Vedic teachings, wherein all manifest phenomena are described as having
>a triune nature as material, energetic and intelligence principles. So
>a human being has a head-intelligence, a heart-the energetic and emotional
>principle, and a body, the material nature. So also in physics, in modern
>times, the world is not simply thought to be composed of matter and energy,
>but information and quantum intelligence is regarded as latent everywhere
>within space.  
>
>Whereas spiritual psychologies distinguish a triune head, heart and hands,
>modern dualistic psychology has so far only distinguished the mind and
>body, or mind and brain, or consciousness and unconscious. Theorists debate
>endlessly in dualistic ways about the issues of consciousness, mind, self
>and science. Even if they conceive of a spirit or soul, they think that
>it is a question of an immaterial something to connect to a material 
something.
> Such a statement is so stupid really in the light of science itself! –
>The idea that there is nothing ‘immaterial’-considering the theories of
>physics concerning quantum fields, is pretty naïve after the billiardball
>Newtonian science, a century ago. Hello. !
>
>One of the most persistent descriptions of consciousness within the mystical
>literature is that consciousness is light, some form of inner light that
>arises from within the depths of being. Such divine or spiritual sparks
>are described as “inherently self-illuminating’ like the sun. Such light
>is physical, and has a physics and metaphysics to it, in how it manages
>to illuminate the worlds of the heart, and minds, even within different
>planes of a multidimensional universe through different subtle bodies.
> In mystical teachings, the light of consciousness can experience through
>the three vehicles of intelligence, emotions and the body, but has to be
>considered as ‘separate’ from the material side of nature.Consciousness
>illuminates the three modes of nature, so that a human being can be conscious
>of their minding, or of their feelings and emotions, or of their sensations
>and movements. Consciousness as ‘light’ is one way of understanding the
>hard questions of consciousness, the
> subject side. One can directly experience the light of consciousness,
>and this is why humanity is claimed to have had enlightened teachers, who
>taught the ancient wisdoms of the Heart. Consciousness has to be 
distinguished
>from the activities of the mind, and related to the deeper level of the
>I Am pixel, within the higher dimensions of the Heart.
>
>To understand the nature of human consciousness, one has to approach it
>from a scientific, instead of pseudo-scientific way, and realize that the
>Human being is a quantum system as a whole, and the Heart itself is the
>central quantum computer, while the mind secondary. The experience of
>what I AM, is, as a pixel emerging out of higher dimensions through the
>quantum dynamics of the Heart. This inner light sources, and the influences
>of the jiva-atma, or individualized spirit soul, spreads out from the Heart
>through three channels and seven centres, such that consciousness can pervade
>the body, in fact seven possible bodies.
>
>There is a whole science of consciousness and physics hidden within the
>ancient wisdoms if we are able to discern these.
>
>The Scientific American features an article asking ‘ARE YOU A HOLOGRAM?’
>and they picture the universe as a holographic image around a person’s
>head! Perhaps the human holograph would involve the whole human being,
>and the heart is clearly the centre of a human being as a quantum system
>and quantum computer. Pearsall (1998) estimates that the electromagnetic
>volume of the heart is approximately 5000 times that of the brain. Of
>course, the Scientific American article on the Universe as a Hologram,
>says nothing about how the mind or consciousness might function as a 
hologram,
>or about consciousness. They do not seem even to imagine that a human
>being might be such a ‘pixel’ in higher dimensions, and that their own
>physics and model of holography, can be applied to understanding the zero
>point origins of human consciousness.  
>
>Karl Pribram, a holographic head scientist, once declared “there are no
>laser beams in the brain,” and consciousness researchers do not think 
seriously
>about taking consciousness actually to be light, an aspect of its ‘substance’
>-as the mystics have suggested for millennium. To understand consciousness
>might thus have to do with understand the physics of light, and how indeed,
>human beings are ‘pixels’ on a screen of higher dimensions, in a holographic
>universe. The modern psychology of consciousness has no solid basis in
>theoretical physics-while the mystical teachings offer exactly such an
>approach-to the physics and metaphysics of consciusness.
>
>Compare the Dualistic Thinking of modern times, the thinking in twos, to
>the 1-3-7 analyses of mystical Teachings. Instead of the dualistic body
>and mind of modern psychology, mystical psychologies regard humans as having
>a 'triune nature' as embodied in all cosmic phenomena. They can function
>mentally, emotionally and physically-in accord with the three modes of
>nature-of intelligence, energy and matter. Consciousness is a fourth 
element,
>and is associated with 'light.' In mystical views, there is an inner source
>of light and vitality, called the spiritual soul, the I or pixel in the
>Hologram of the universe, and this pixel is described as "inherently 
self-illuminating,"
>like the Sun. A Point source of light consciousness -- which is inherently
>self-illuminating, a fine pixel for life in a Universe which is a Hologram,
>And the One became Three and then Seven, as light is divided by a three
>sided prism, to produce a spectrum of 7 colors. So also, the inner light of
> consciousness emerges from zero point sources, and illuminates the processes
>which take place through seven planes of being. The Dalai Lama describes
>49 planes of being, a quantized system, of 7 dimensions, each sevenfold
>again, created through generations of causes and effects as creation emerged
>out of nothingness.  
>
>When I read modern theorists discussing always the dualistic nature of
>reality, the body and mind, or the material self and immaterial self, or
>consciousness and unconsciousness, mysticism and science, I can only chuckle
>in light of the triune and sevenfold analysis inherent in the ancient wisdom
>teachings. 
>
>In mystical teachings, you exist within 49 interpenetrating planes of 
existence,
>emerging within-without from a zeropoint source out of the apparent 
Nothingness-or
>Void/Plenum. The intelligence, energies and materials of nature are created
>on all of these planes of being, as the mechanisms for the creation of
>virtual worlds surrounding a central I, the pixel of higher dimensions,
>the 7 dimensional God particle, described by mystic Blavatsky, the Dalai
>Lama, and Leon Maurer in his studies of the Secret Doctrine, and modern
>science.  
>
>So which view of human consciousness offers us a more possible comprehensive
>model of human existence in all of it’s depth. The modern scientist who
>says there is no evidence for any immaterial self to connect to the body
>and mind, or the mystics, describing the inner circulation of light through
>a hierarchy of broken symmetries in higher dimensional space, in a sevenfold
>quantized manner, spinning worlds and the webs of life creating virtual
>realities out of virtual particles within the quantized spaces of 
nothingness.
> 
>In mystical teachings, the knowledge of the whole is latent everywhere
>through out every point in the universe, and a human being, is capable
>of being illumined by such secret and sacred knowledge. Mystics declare
>as above, so below, and describe the individual living being as a microcosm
>of the macrocosm. So, just as the material universe arose from a singularity
>condition, so also have the mystics described the zero point origins of
>human consciousness-from such a void/plenum within the deep substrates
>of being. The Sufi saint declares: “"Know that since God created human
>beings and brought them out of nothingness into existence, they have not
>stopped being travellers." (Ibn al'Arabi)
>
> The mystics clearly had holographic models of consciousness, of an “I 
“being
>of God, of a human being as a ‘pixel’ established within higher dimensions,
>long before the scientists arrive at such concepts of the universe as just
>such a hologram, even with little 7 dimensional Calabi-Yau Space Particles
>for the Dalai Lama. 
>
>Of course, scientist I. Asimov is so sure the ‘I’ is only a ‘molecular
>arrangement’ which breaks down upon death, and the I will be lost forever;
>and F. Crick who assures us that the astonishing hypothesis of science,
>is that "you are a pack of neuron," but, who then admits that his theories
>may be a house of cards. 
>
> But if the dogma of materialism, the high canons of the head doctrine,
>and the soul-less psychology, were all false, where would that leave us.
> Modern psychology has profound misunderstandings about the mysteries of
>human consciousness, the human heart, and the multi-dimensional nature
>of the universe.
>
>“If the doors of perception were cleansed,
>everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.”
>William Blake
>
>___________________________________________
>
>>“Bravo! yes! Yes, the brain processes represent a constant updating of
>>the brain's existing in a conscious state - but there is no separate 
*consciousness*
>>which *belongs* to the brain, no medievalistic *soul* or *mind* or *spirit*
>>or *consciousness * that goes bump in the night and plays musical chairs
>>with poltergeists and visiting pixies and hobo gnomes.
>>
>>That sort of thing is for kids. Why not call a spade a spade and refer
>>to the brain as the: *conscious brain?* The brain can't *lose* consciousness
>>because it hasn't *got* [in the genitive sense of the word] a consciousness
>>to *lose* - it simple ceases to be conscious. Dualism has been a dead-duck
>>for years, it's démodé, passé, fogyish clapped-out, etc. 
>>
>>Better [IMO] to say:
>>
>>*The conscious brain exists in a modality of being aware of its own updating
>>processes, which contemporaneously provide a self-regarding model of itself
>>in the world, no more and no less.
>>
>> Regards,
>>Jud
>>
>>
>>Personal Website:
>>http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm
>>E-mail Discussion List:
>>nominalism@yahoogroups.com