Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00314)

In a message dated 04/26/05 5:04:34 PM, mpeaty@arach.net.au writes:

LM:

'It's not the same thing at all -- since I was referring to the actual point 
of the "experience of consciousness" or qualia -- not the source of 
transformation of the "contents of consciousness"'

and

' That point of feeling the qualia of pain is where my consciousness is 
seated 
when I step on a pin -- not in my head. That is what I am asking to be 
explained.....'

MP:
Excuse the puns if you will but the point about feeling pain is to 
prevent or limit damage to the body. So the location of a pin point 
piercing the skin of one's foot is a vital item of information. The 
location can be known because sensory nerves at the location are 
stimulated and the effects of this stimulation are passed along neurons 
in the leg and spinal cord to neurons in the cortex and other places 
which can represent both the location and the pain. Reflex action 
mediated by ganglia in or around the spinal cord may cause the foot to 
be moved very fast but this is not a conscious process, we only become 
aware of the completed result. 

LM:
You're excused. But, all that is simply explaining an effect of conscious 
experience or awareness of qualia, or an explanation of the mechanisms of our 
response to it -- but what has that got to do with the actual location point of 
that experience itself, or explaining how our individual self experiences it? 

If such an explanation must be a function of the brain, then from a 
scientific point of view it is necessary to show how both the location of the source of 
pain is linked to the supposed body model in the brain. So far, none of this 
has been explained by anyone -- other than with vague assumptions that 
consciousness is an epiphenomena of the brain, and the brain has a body model -- all 
of which are simply guesses based on no logical scientific reasoning or 
evidence. These assumptions, therefore, does nothing to explain the hard problem I 
was referring to. This problem also include how the brain and mind are linked 
together -- i.e., the mechanisms of what causes the so called "model of self" 
in the brain to be linked directly to the actual physical body as well as 
with the visual image of the outer world -- so as to control the muscles in 
response to that same point of awareness. For example, how do we explain the 
ability of the artist to place his brush on the exact point on the image he is 
painting that is exactly in directly coadunation with the corresponding point on 
the image of the model he is carrying in his mind. i.e., what mechanism in 
the brain, neural system, body, etc., allows this perfect synchrony between the 
object of perception (the canvas and brush -- with the brush position 
controlled by the muscles of the body) and the image of the model in the mind of the 
artist to occur apparently simultaneously and exactly positioned to the 
smallest point of attention? As for the reflex action you refer to... That has no 
relationship to explaining the experience of consciousness itself, but is 
simply a previously learned autonomic or subliminal effect of the initial sensory 
input that follows the reverse path through the fields of consciousness 
affecting the brain's kinesthetic cortex field that is coenergetically analogous to 
the sensory cortex field. In any event, there is no scientifically consistent 
explanation of this process... Other than assuming that the contents or images 
of consciousness assembled in the brain field is of a holographic EM nature, 
and that the "body model" is of an identical nature -- both related to the 
analogous (and malleable) structural and electrochemical nature of the neural 
network. 

MP:
For any more sophisticated protective or defensive action to occur, the 
information of pain and where it is must be related to information about 
the position of all the rest of one's limbs and an assessment of *what* 
is causing it and an assessment of the danger. This other information, 
wherever it comes from**, has to be incorporated into a model of self in 
the world in order to be of any use. This latter process takes place 
within the brain - which is why we can use the quaint term 'seat of 
consciousness' - but it is *about* things/processes which are not in the 
brain. Thus the process embodying the experience is an , is in and 
of the brain, whilst the meaning or subject of the experience is 
elsewhere. How else can you explain the fact that we can DO anything 
about our experiences?

LM:
Doing something about the experiences does not explain how the causes of the 
experience or contents of consciousness are transferred from the detector of 
the impulse coming into the body and transformed in the brain's neural system, 
and thence to an image in the mind so as to be detected and experienced as a 
gestalt qualia at the point or points (in the case of vision) of input. Vague 
references to "interaction of dynamic logical entities comprised of swarms or 
clouds of neuron depolarization's and related electrochemical [and their EM] 
effects related to a "model of self" in the brain explains nothing about the 
mechanics of the processes involved or the means of transforming the original 
electrical impulses, assembling them into a coherent image that is consciously 
detectable and results in a qualia experienced subjectively by our awareness. 
Nor does it explain how will is initiated by the center of self consciousness 
to effect the response, what that source of will energy is, where it 
originates, or how it controls the muscles to position the body or its parts wherever 
our attention is directed? Neither does it explain what is the nature of the 
mind that contains the images that is experienced, or how that mind (consisting 
of non scientifically detectable imagery) is linked to the brain and its 
wetware or to that aspect of space inside or outside of material space that may be 
the locale of the *singularity* of conscious experience? There are too many 
questions here that require much more scientific answers than simply guessing 
that consciousness is an epiphenomena of the brain and that some sort of 
unexplained body model exists in the brain. BTW, I would also wonder if that 
"model of self" is the same for an infant or an adult, and if not, what is the 
mechanisms and processes of its change as the body grows? 

MP:
It is, I hope, an accepted fact that what we are and what we do is 
manifest primarily as the movements of muscles. I don't see how you can 
explain this apart from allowing that the brain creates and updates a 
model of self in the world. This is a very sophisticated process which 
needs to incorporate all manner of analogue processing just to produce 
the muscle movements which we all take so much for granted but it 
doesn't need pan psychic type *other* stuff. Occam's Razor supports the 
notion that our best description is an identity theory. As it happens 
this entails that our experience of being here now is deeply, 
intrinsically and irremediably paradoxical.

LM:
An "identity theory" is only as good as the science behind it that tells us 
the nature of that identity, and explains the mechanisms between the image 
produced in brain and the identical image transformed in the mind -- in much more 
direct terms. And, even if we had the semblance of that explanation, we 
still wouldn't know how the final or secondary image in the mind of that identity 
is detected by our awareness and converted to qualia. My ABC theory, 
referring to an entirely different view of fundamental reality that consists of 
coenergetic, *coadunate but not consubstantial* hyperspace fields (analogous to 
those postulated in Superstring theory) enfolded in the ubiquitous quantum vacuum, 
and that are in resonance with the radiant EM physical fields produced by the 
brain's neurology, and with consciousness solely the subjective property of 
the similarly ubiquitous zero-point -- is far more explanatory of all those 
questions... And, further, it is more closely in conformance with Occam's Razor 
by simplifying the process of holistic image transference from Brain to mind, 
to long and short term memory, and from all those areas of multidimensional 
space carrying the images of consciousness to awareness. In addition, it also 
explains the source of will energy and its effects on the brain fields 
controlling the muscles (by a simple resonant holographic field informational energy 
transference process) and eliminates all so called "scientific paradoxes." 
>From a scientific point of view, this physically non provable, and thus, non 
falsifiable theory, is far more logically consistent than any similarly non (yet) 
proven "identity theory." Although, I have no arguments with, nor does this 
ABC paradigm mitigate or moderate any observational or experimental findings 
of neural correlates or their related cognitive psychological conclusions or 
assumptions -- which in reference to my questions (and my proposed answers) has 
little relevance... (Other than giving such soft sciences a metaphysically and 
physically sound basis of hard science to base their thinking on. :-)

In accord with this ABC model, "Being here now," is simply relative to the 
reference between metric time on the physical level, hyper time on the higher 
order hyperspace mental field levels, and zero time on the consciousness 
(awareness / will) level at the ubiquitous zero-point of self awareness. Thus, 
everything is always changing in time around us and within us (including the 
vibrational wave form interference patterns that compose the images of consciousness) 
while the self at the zero-point of consciousness is changeless and nonlocal, 
yet always located at the center of any field of consciousness it experiences 
(by a focus of will or intent) that is linked to (or should I say "entangled" 
with?) the overall surrounding highest order field of individual self- 
referenced existence that contains them. See:

http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/TaiChiFldDiag-figure-2.gif
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg

LM: (earlier)

'and no amount of scientific explanation referring to 
neural correlates of consciousness, or using pejorative catchwords like 
"naive realism" can convince any one that he feels a pain in his foot in his 
brain. '

MP:
"naive realism" is not a pejorative term, it is a reference to the 
normal way that most people describe and think about their everyday 
experiences. For most normal activities and discussions about things in 
our daily lives, the underlying assumption of naive realism is pretty 
much OK. This is not surprising if we accept a Darwinian explanation of 
our origins. The creative activity of the brain which builds and 
maintains the model of self in the world needs to be effective, 
efficient, and transparent in order for us to know where we are with the 
minimum of energy outlay. Natural selection has been for millions of 
years killing off those unfortunate creatures who were so closely 
related to the ones who survive long enough to be our ancestors. There 
was no pay off for deep thinking about *how* it all comes to be, at 
least not until the evolution of sophisticated culture. Now it is 
necessary to understand that *all* our experience is constructed by the 
brain, because if we don't understand this then we cannot reasonably 
explain to ourselves and each other how it is possible to be so deeply 
misled in our social perceptions by processes of unconscious projection

LM:
This just talking around my original questions and assumptions, since you are 
talking about the neural correlates of consciousness with the brain as the 
phenomenal source of consciousness and I was referring to the actual experience 
or qualia of consciousness, i.e., the "feeling," seeing, smelling, etc., and 
the universal source of it that is independent of mental thought or cultural 
evolution. Your assumption that all this takes place in the brain, referring to 
an unexplained model of self therein, is nothing but vague inferences that 
answers none my questions that are both epistemological and ontological. As for 
the pejoritive nature of "naive realism" ... It's obvious by the usage of the 
term by "scientists" who insist on direct or indirect realism based on 
materialistic biases in the their thought processes, and especially by those that 
deny the metaphysics of fundamental reality and sneer at it as the wrong 
thinking of religious zealots. Of course, all that epiphenomenal thinking about 
consciousness and its linkages with cultural evolution is fine for those exploring 
cognitive psychology, but it cuts no ice for those looking for scientific 
answers to the hard problems of consciousness and brain-mind binding, along with 
the unanswered ontological questions of metaphysical involution to physical 
evolution and their intermediate field transformational processes that are 
consistent with both physical and information theories (that are themselves 
consistent with each other, and together, form a solid ontological and 
epistemological view of actual reality that includes both consciousness and matter as an 
essential unity). 

MP:
I put it to you that this last thing I have mentioned is one of the most 
important issues of our time and it is not addressed by traditional 
religions and traditions which all rely on a naive realist 
interpretation cum spiritual dualism as their philosophical foundation. 
This is why I do not find talk of 'spiritual' development and what not 
at all reassuring. The fundamental question is always: How do I know if 
this is true or not?

It should be obvious by now, that I am not speaking here from any religious 
or traditional viewpoint. The way to know that, is to practice introspection, 
as the Eastern philosophers do, obtain your own subjective evidence, compare 
it with all those others that have taken that same path of inner knowledge 
since ancient times, and when you are satisfied that you are truly seeing 
fundamental reality and tracing its entire involution and evolution in the only 
logical and reasonable manner that its could be -- you will find out for yourself 
the truth of the metaphysical-scientific view. Then, and only then, will you be 
able to see the scientifically valid relationships between the metaphysical 
and physical connections that leads consciousness to matter and matter to 
consciousness -- as two aspects of one universal reality -- starting right from the 
singularity that gave birth to this universe and all the things in it. Thus, 
from this point of view, you will understand why metaphysical science merged 
with physical science can say (without reference to any culturally evolved 
religious theologies) that the experience of consciousness is both direct and 
indirect realism, and that consciousness and matter are two sides of a 
fundamental reality that cannot exist independently. And that, in fact, there is no 
dualism, since each are integral parts of a fundamental trinity rooted in a 
single non dimensional point of absolute or fundamental space -- whose only 
attribute is the potential of infinite "spin" on an infinite number of potential axes 
at infinite potential velocities (carrying infinite potential patterns of 
vibratory motion) in infinite duration of time (which we might label 
"zero-time"). From this, all involutional and evolutional processes can be derived and 
explained deductively, logically and reasonably -- starting from zero and 
extending to infinity -- with no gaps in between.
For a humorous view of how all this starts at the primal singularity, see:

http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/BuddhaBabyGordianKnot.gif

Best wishes,

Leon Maurer
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/