Theos-Talk Archives (October 2006 Message tt00400)

Robert, what convincing proof or argument do you have that phenomenal 
consciousness -- considered as awareness or ability to experience qualia, make 
discriminatory judgments and generate willful intent (as both Hamiroff and Chalmers 
define it) -- is a "property" of the brain?   Incidentally, is this property 
you speak of equivalent to the electrochemical properties of the brain?   But, 
how can consciousness as subject be a property of what it observes (object) -- 
even if such observation is an objective image in the mind?

IOW, how can you explain how the subjectivity or qualities (i.e., feelings) 
of consciousness are   caused by the brain's objectivity or material substance, 
or even the organization, functions or properties of the brain's neurology? 
... Since, it is quite obvious to me that the brain is nothing more than an 
electrodynamic receiver, transponder and transmitter that processes, assembles, 
and directs the sensory or thought images so that they may be detected and 
experienced by consciousness -- which obviously is not localized in the brain, nor 
could it be a property or function of it.   It's the skin cells, not the 
brain, that feel the puncture of a needle at the end of a finger.   And, I know 
it's my finger because the zero-point of consciousness at the center of origin 
of the cell fields is entangled with the zero-point of individual self 
consciousness at the center of my overall body fields. See:
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/TaiChiFldDiag-figure-2.gif

Apparently, you are conflating these conditional effects of the brain's 
analog transponder-like and transformational mechanisms and processes with the 
subjective aspects of experiential consciousness -- that, as far as I can see, has 
no material or informational causes of its potentially phenomenal 
qualities... Although I do see these brain field images as an indirect cause of the 
experience of particularized qualia -- but not as the direct cause of the 
qualitities of awareness and will of subjective consciousness per se ... Which in my 
view can only be -- since they cannot be an epiphenomena of matter, brain or its 
neurological complexity -- a function of the nonlocal zero-point of primal 
space -- which is everywhere.   

And thus, such consciousness must be experientially latent until stimulated 
by the brain's EM field containing the holographic images of the contents of 
consciousness that resonates through all the intermediate fractally involved 
orders of hyperspace fields between that EM field and the analogously higher 
order ED field closest in frequency/energy to the zero point itself that 
experiences the impulse of sensory input, whether located in body or mind -- e.g., when 
we are conscious of memory or thought forms accessed through the mind or are 
asleep and dreaming or in other states of apparent unconsciousness... That I 
see only as effecting the brain's sensory channels, but not the unconditioned 
consciousness or, if you will, spirit, that is always latent in the primal 
zero-point-spinergy source of all physical forms of matter, along with all 
coadunate but not consubstantial fields of potential consciousness that permeate 
them.   

How else can we logically explain the qualia of altered states of 
consciousness, including the qualia of dream experiences or imaginary images in the mind 
-- without resort to conflating experiential consciousness with its neural 
correlates -- that only serve to connect consciousness with our emotional nature 
and our brain field centered kinesthetic body image that, by coenergetic 
inductive resonance processes, integrates with our higher order aural and visual 
fields?   Is there any other way to explain the ability of a baseball player to 
catch a long fly ball on the run and jump? Or a skilled hunter to locate a 
hidden prey by the sound of a broken twig? 

It's quite obvious (to me at least) that the changing conversion of the two 
eyes act similarly to a range finder on a camera, and the coherent pixelized 
images produced by the brain, assembled and overlayed in its EM field while 
being resonantly induced in the analogous mind field, to form point source (from 
corresponding retinal rods and cones) interference patterns that can recreate a 
holographic image when reconstructed by a coherent beam of inner light 
projected by the zero-point center of visual consciousness located directly behind 
the eyes at the convergent focal point between the ears.   This is the simplest 
and most reasonable explanation of binocular 3-D stereo fusion imaginable.   
And, I doubt that intelligent nature would select any other, more complex 
system dependent on the secondary material aspect of fundamental space -- when it 
is the fundamental source of all consciousness that has free will and access 
to all universal knowledge.

This, by the way, is the best argument I know of for non supernatural 
intelligent design (without relying on chance mutation) that underlies evolution by 
natural selection in accord with the basic theory of Darwin.

Best wishes,

Leon Maurer

In a message dated 10/24/06 7:11:14 AM, stonjek@ozemail.com.au writes:


> RKS:
> Yes, the brain is made of matter, but consciousness is not a property of the 
> brain's matter but a property of the normal human brain (and perhaps at 
> least some non-human brains).  In other words, it is the specific arrangement of 
> matter which we call the brain that gives rise to consciousness.
>   
>  One could argue that consciousness still arises from matter (considering 
> what I have said above) but the point I was responding to considered 
> consciousness to be a property of any matter and gave a particular quantum mechanical 
> account of matter to illustrate the model.  Thus I was contrasting that 
> position with the brain based consciousness position.
>   
>  One could argue that consciousness could arise from a suitably programmed 
> and/or constructed computer, but that wouldn't change the fact that 
> consciousness is currently found only as a result of brain activity.
>   
>  Kind Regards
> Robert Karl Stonjek
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]