theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Naive realism - truth in illusion? or in truth - an illu...3

Apr 24, 2005 09:10 PM
by leonmaurer


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



[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application