KARL JASPERS FORUM
TA 108 (Green)

Commentary 3

 

 

THE  LAWS  FOR  CONSCIOUSNESS  COMPARED
by Serge Patlavskiy
6 June 2008, posted 14 June 2008-06-06



<1>
[Lorna Green] wrote: "[1] All our fundamental assumptions about the nature of Reality have to change."

<2>
[S.P.] Think of the following approach: while we regard physical phenomena, our assumptions about the nature of Reality sustain; while we regard consciousness-related phenomena, we use specially constructed appropriate meta-theoretical framework.

<3>
[Lorna Green] wrote: "[2] The prevailing faith of most modern scientists:
a. Consciousness emerges only at the end of evolution, in us and a few of the higher animals, when matter attains 'a certain state of complexity,'
b. Consciousness is a by-product of brain activity, produced by neurons."

<4>
[S.P.] The modern mainstream approach in the field of consciousness studies is no longer based on the doctrine of anthropocentrism.  It is now presumed that 1) one living organism possesses only one (exemplar of) consciousness;  2) all (exemplars of) consciousness are of the same nature: they are realized on the same principles and are equal in their functionality and potentiality;  3) the total number of the (exemplars of) consciousness in the Universe is limited and conserves (these assertions constitute the Law of Conservation of Consciousness). Moreover, consciousness (transformation and utilization of subjective information) is regarded as an equally important factor (together with matter and energy) that influences the existence and development of our Reality. The described above “prevailing faith[s] of most modern scientists” are not grounded on laws, therefore they can't be treated as mainstream in this field.

<5>
[Lorna Green] wrote: "[3] And so: I propose that consciousness, and not matter, is 'first and fundamental' in the universe, Consciousness is there in the universe from the very beginning, Everything has it, And all the true explanatory principles of the universe are in it, The true explanatory principles of the universe belong to consciousness, and not matter."

<6>
[S.P.] As I have pointed out above, the mainstream approach presumes equi-importance of consciousness, matter, and energy. So, when formalizing anything existent, we use all three systemic characteristics: informational, material, and energetic. In other words, if anything does exist -- it necessarily describes by informational characteristic as well. From this immediately follows that there was no moment in the history of our Reality when matter and energy existed, but information (consciousness) doesn't.

<7>
[Lorna Green] wrote: "[4] I call it simply: The Consciousness Paradigm, It implies a New Universe, not chance and necessity, matter and mechanism, but conscious, awake, aware, intelligent, enspirited, creative, A New Earth, an Earth and all her bright array of beings, not cleverly-wired machines, automata, board feet, but conscious, intelligent, aware, awake, a living organism, indeed, a divine being, Gaia,"

<8>
[S.P.] I must admit that while constructing any new paradigm, we must obey some universal requirements (or criteria of approach) (see, for example, [1]). Otherwise we will receive not a scientific intellectual product, but a set of poetic metaphors.

<9>

[Lorna Green] wrote: "[5] The answer is simple: Physical reality is an expression of consciousness, fully enspirited, that is why it is so beautiful, And so, we need to completely re-vise our understanding of nature."

<10>
[S.P.] It's some queer mixture of utter form of solipsism, animism, and romanticism.
 I don't think we were searching for such an answer to the question of what is Reality.  To the point, in which does "physical reality" differ from Reality as such ?  Do we mean here the distinction between Noumenal Reality and Phenomenal Reality ?

<11>
[Lorna Green] wrote: "[10] Matter and mechanism cannot explain, account for consciousness,"

<12>
[S.P.] Consciousness can be explained only as an element of a tri-unity consciousness-matter-energy. These three elements are equally fundamental.

<13>
[Lorna Green] wrote: "[14] Essentially: All energy contains consciousness, That idea alone will change our world forever."

<14>
[S.P.] As I have mentioned above, in each different case we should regard a tri-unity of fundamental elements. Therefore, the phrase that one fundamental element contains another one has no sense at all. I repeat: only the interaction of those three fundamental elements gives rise to everything existent.

<15>
[Lorna Green] wrote: "[18] c. For Reincarnation, a process whereby one consciousness dons bodies again and again, and lays them down, wholly impossible in a purely material universe, The scientific evidence for reincarnation is increasing from all sides, independent evidence for the consciousness universe,"

<16>
[S.P.] The possibility of, what is called, reincarnation, directly follows from the above formulated law of conservation of consciousness.

<17>
[Lorna Green] wrote: "[23] 1. How consciousness works

From the top down, downward causality, through a kind of alignment, as an electric current in one wire induces an electric current in another, The mind aligns the brain, my consciousness aligns the consciousness of the cells in the brain, in my body, to some extent, the brain can align the mind, but causality is, if not downwards, interactive, and not reductive.
2. Dualism solved. Descartes' problem: How can two such different things as the grey matter of the brain, and the mind, interact ?  The answer :  They are not so different, the neurons of the brain have their own consciousness, and my consciousness aligns theirs, it is all an interaction in consciousness."

<18>
[S.P.] A mere stating that "mind aligns the brain" is far from being sufficient for explaining the mechanisms of consciousness.  To explain how the physical sensory signal transforms into subjective experience, we have to make a transition from the physical to informational models (which, by the way, have to be constructed first, and it is not an easy task).  To the point, the idea that "the neurons of the brain have their own consciousness" contradicts the formulated above law of conservation of consciousness, according to which one organism (whether multi-cellular or unicellular) possesses only one (exemplar of) consciousness.  We can talk about consciousness only when we deal with the whole organism, but not with its anatomical part. (See the related discussion at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/ in the thread "One organism -- one consciousness").

<19>
[Lorna Green] wrote: "[24] a. The law of consciousness, source of all universes: Consciousness must create,"

<20>
[S.P.] Consciousness, rather, organizes.  Namely, it tends to reduce the entropy of the system which is described by informational characteristic. In case of the living organisms, consciousness (or, the acts of processing and conceptualization of information) is responsible for the effect of self-organization, and life as such.  Therefore, the formulated law may be accepted if by the term "creation" we would mean "organization, or the improvement of something which already exists". For example, "creation of a life-form" should be meant as an "improvement, or organization of some already existent dead-form".

<21>
[Lorna Green] wrote: "[24] c. Consciousness communicates instantaneously, is not bound by any limit, like the speed of light."

<22>
[S.P.] Really, the speed of information propagation and the speed of light are two principally different things. (Albert Einstein has missed this point while constructing his theory of relativity).

<23>
[Lorna Green] wrote :  "[32] It is woman's time here, and who among us does not know this ?"

<24>
[S.P.]  Me, for example.  By the way, is the name "Lorna" male, or female ?  (Pardon for my ignorance).


[1] http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy/ElaborNewParadigm.pdf

-------------------------------

Serge Patlavskiy
     e-mail <prodigypsf (at) rambler.ru>