Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00276)

Since consciousness and its evolution is the bugaboo of science but well 
understood by theosophy, I thought you all might be interested in this recent 
dialogue on the Journal of Consciousness Study online forum, that argues a 
view of consciousness and evolution that's perfectly consistent with the 
teachings of Cosmogenesis in the Secret Doctrine.

Lenny


In a message dated 08/27/02 2:09:46 AM, anthony_sebastian@msn.com writes:

(snip)
>... Presumably it took a community of communicating individuals
>for consciousness to have developed in the human species in the first place,
>and it takes a community of consciously experiencing individuals to
>reproduce consciousness in their progeny generation after generation. An
>isolated individual growing up from birth in the wild does not become a
>conscious experiencer, even though the hardware is in place.

How do you know that? And, how can you prove it? I thought an animal (of 
any kind) growing up in the wild can know or be aware of the difference 
between food and not food, self and not self, and can recognize it when it 
sees, smells, or otherwise detects it. The only thing different between a 
lion (who knows its mate and offspring and recognizes himself as different 
from other males) and a man -- is that a man can worry, think, and talk about 
it. If that's not "conscious experiencing," then what is it? (Or, are you 
saying that one who experiences consciousness is not the same as being a 
"conscious experiencer"?) Please clarify. 

Also, how can you be certain that consciousness or the capacity for awareness 
has to be "developed" and is not already fully developed, although latent, in 
the zygote -- just waiting for the neural and sensory organ development, so 
as to be self activated or "awakened" as individual, self referent awareness? 

(snip)
>Consciousness is not a function
>of the brain, but the way in which the brain performs a function, viz., the
>function of experiencing reality. The way in which it performs the function
>of experiencing reality that gives it conscious quality is by including the
>act of experiencing reality as part of the overall experience, so that one
>experiences that one is experiencing reality. It is communicating one's
>experience of reality to oneself, the ability of which is acquired by
>learning to speak.

If consciousness is not a function of the brain, what is consciousness a 
function of? If, on the other hand, consciousness is the inherent subjective 
nature of objective reality (such as the brain, as you imply) -- why should 
language be a requirement for the development of direct consciousness (or 
awareness) of objective reality? It's only the understanding of the meaning 
of that direct conscious experience that needs learning or training. One 
cannot understand that the red color of a branding iron is hot until one 
touches it. But the esperience is still full blown without any language to 
explain it. Perhaps, the problem is that we are confusing consciousness with 
cognition or comprehension.

... Although, there may be an exception when one considers 
"self-consciousness" or being aware of one's individual consciousness. 
However, so far, I've heard only opinions, rather than hard facts pertaining 
to that. As a matter of opinion, I think *all* animals are "self conscious" 
-- since, I'm sure they all know they each are the one that's hunting and 
feeding themselves and their offspring. But, what does that prove? 

If the brain learns how to speak (which is purely an electrochemical and 
mechanical process), who, what or where is the *one* that makes the choice of 
words, and determines the syntax? Could it be that claiming that the brain 
is the source of consciousness, without logical foundation, is simply a red 
herring to divert the study of consciousness away from the real hard problems 
of determining just exactly what conscious experience is, where it 
originates, and how it works. 

If "consciousness" is the experiencing of qualia, and consciousness is not a 
function of the brain -- then, how can the brain experience anything or be 
conscious in itself? If, therefore, the brain is not "conscious" and has no 
"experience," how can it "include the act of experiencing reality as part of 
the overall experience"? What actually is the "act of experiencing reality," 
and what mechanism or aspect of the brain-body could be aware of that "act" 
-- if the brain is ruled out as the conscious experiencer? If these questions 
can't be answered satisfactorily, without resort to a homunculus, then all 
that's said about brain being the "experiencer" of consciousness and the 
dependence of consciousness on language makes no sense. Perhaps, the answer 
to these paradoxical questions might be found by looking at consciousness and 
matter from an entirely different point of view.

e.g., In my theory of ABC, which explains all the hard and soft problems of 
consciousness as well as all questions and paradoxes related to ESP, ASC, 
transcendental experiences, non-local action at a distance, instantaneousness 
of thought, etc. -- consciousness per se, as awareness of experience or 
qualia, is proposed as the a-priori intrinsic function of the coadunate 
zero-point singularity -- that is everywhere in the vacuum of primal space 
between the smallest particle of material substance... All of which descend 
-- both in macrocosmic and microcosmic levels (starting from the initial 
"spinergy" or infinite angular momentum of the zero-point) -- as coenergetic, 
multidimensional, frequency/energy phase separated fields, like bubbles 
within bubbles within bubbles, etc. [ref: Superstring/M-brane theory, gauge 
theory, etc.] that conform to and obey (besides the fundamental laws of 
cycles and periodicity inherent in their energy-frequencies) all the laws of 
electricity, magnetism, light, etc. (such as inductance, capacitance, 
resonance, harmonics, holography, reflection, refraction, etc.). On the 
microcosmic level, these fields begin with the most tenuous dual fields of 
memory, and extend on down through the dual fields of mind, to link with the 
metric (E=MC^2) physical world through the dual EM fields of the brain, all 
of which *carry* as frequency modulated holographic image interference 
patterns, all the "inner" *images* or "contents of consciousness" -- and 
continue to involve on down through the fields of organs, cells, molecules, 
atoms, quarks, etc. (where, reflective, non local consciousness along with 
the causal power of will resides in all their zero-point centers and 
accompanying spinergy). 

It's obvious that when I consciously think before *I act*, *I use* *my* mind 
to organize *my* thoughts, which, in turn reflects through *my* brain, 
serving as a transducing control mechanism, to activate the performance of 
the act that *I decide* to perform. Therefore, I can't see or imagine how 
the mind or the brain can independently determine the course of my thoughts 
and ideas, or the actions I decide upon. Then, how can the brain or mind be 
anything more than subordinate tools used by my activating *self 
consciousness* that is an independent causal reality, in itself -- linked, 
reflectively, to every zero-point in my body -- including the focal (overall 
brain-body-mind field) one I ascribe as "myself," located in the center of my 
heart... (Even though, the apparent focal centers of my vision, and hearing 
is located in the pineal area, and the centers of touch, pain, taste, and 
smell is spread out through various areas and locations in or on the body.) 

(snip)
>Creating a computer capable of conscious experience would be to make them
>human.

I think that those (conscious? :-) AI programmers and engineers trying to 
create a conscious computer brain, might finally realize -- besides the 
understanding that it may have taken their same sort of pre existent 
"consciousness" to conjure up the physical structure of the human brain 
(whatever the process of trial and error, negative feedback, morphogenetic 
fields, etc., used) -- that consciousness or subjective awareness cannot be 
created by subjective awareness. It's like asking the Cosmic creator to 
create itself when it already exists. So maybe the only human-created 
conscious computer possible is a genetic clone of Kurtzweil or Minsky. :-)

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