The SMN Blog

Further thoughts on consciousness .... from New Scientist 19 September 2011

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:58:09 -0500

Recent research links the sensory function of smell with emotion and the limbic system and consequently an element of consciousness. "What's more, it is becoming clear that the brain's olfactory centres are intimately linked to its limbic system, which is involved in emotion, fear and memory. That suggests a link between smell and the way we think." "Other work has found that scent can influence our cognitive skills. A study this year by William Overman and colleagues at the University of North Carolina Wilmington found that when men were subjected to a novel smell - either good or bad - during a gambling task used to test decision-making skills, they performed significantly worse than normal. The researchers conclude the scent stimulated brain areas connected with emotion, making their decisions emotional rather than rational (Behavioral Brain Research, vol 218, p 64). Smells also seem to direct our visual attention, and they may play a key role in consolidating memories too (see "Blast from the past").

AN EXPLORATION OF CONCEPTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS - some basic thoughts.

Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:07:07 -0500

The current definition of consciousness is:

“The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings : she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later.

• the awareness or perception of something by a person : her acute consciousness of Mike's presence.

the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world : consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.”

New Oxford American Dictionary

Consciousness is a term that has been used to refer to a variety of aspects of the relationship between the mind and the world with which it interacts. It has been defined, at one time or another, as: subjective experience; awareness; the ability to experience feelings; wakefulness; having a sense of selfhood; or as the executive control system of the mind. Despite the difficulty of definition, many philosophers believe that there is a basic underlying intuition about consciousness that is shared by nearly all people. As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness:

"Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."

Wikipedia

And then there is the idea of collective unconscious, developed by Carl Jung:

Collective unconscious is a term of analytical psychology, coined by Carl Jung. It is proposed to be a part of the unconscious mind, expressed in humanity and all life forms with nervous systems, and describes how the structure of the psyche autonomously organizes experience. Jung distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious, in that the personal unconscious is a personal reservoir of experience unique to each individual, while the collective unconscious collects and organizes those personal experiences in a similar way with each member of a particular species.

Wikipedia

A crucial aspect of consciousness is that it is not a physically palpable entity, like a table or a cat. In this lies the problem; even in discussing abstract concepts like time and space we are able to define their elements with the tool of mathematics. With other abstract emotional concepts like love, hate, jealousy, anger etc. which are associated with the human and animal condition we are also able to assign a reasonably understood physical value to them, even if it is only on a microscopic level in the alteration of neural synapses in the brain. Or in an actual physical example: he was angry because his football team lost and so he threw his cap into the river. With consciousness though, there does not seem to be these subtleties. You are either conscious - alive, awake and able to communicate or dead and unable to communicate. Perhaps the closest other phenomenon is gravity - you either step off the top of a building and float or plummet to the ground. It’s either there or not. The only in between aspects are being unconscious through physical trauma and sleep. In both of these cases the brain remains in a state of suspended activity in which automatic body functions are maintained.

The definition is further complicated by descriptions of states of “elevated consciousness” and “altered consciousness”. If we do not have an absolute definition of something, how can we know if it has been “elevated” or “altered”? Or could it be that like a table which has had its legs shortened, it stays a table but would only be able to function as such in strictly defined conditions - as a child’s table?

So it would seem that “being conscious” and “consciousness” are two different aspects of being.

In attempting to make sense of this concept, perhaps we should start with the current theory which underlies our existence. At the beginning, the “big bang” the origin of the known universe where an infinitesimal point of energy inflated and expanded and then cooled over a period of over some 14 billion years, eventually coalescing into the current observable universe of galaxies, stars and planets.

Under immense pressure and heat, various physical elements were formed, eventually becoming the components of animate and inanimate matter.

Perhaps we should attempt to define the physical universe before attempting to define a considered element of it.

Perhaps also we should attempt to define our definitions. It is obvious that the physical universe of mineral matter existed before the emergence of plant and animal forms. In most traditional descriptions of creation this is also the format. In defining plant and animal forms we say that they are “alive” although they emerged into this world from “dead” matter. So in discussing “consciousness” it could be crucial to define the exact event at which mineral matter became plant matter. But why did some mineral matter become plant matter and some stay mineral? And what part of this primal soup became cellular, the precursor to the animal kingdom?

Alive

adjective [ predic. ]

1 (of a person, animal, or plant) living, not dead : hopes of finding anyone still alive were fading | he was kept alive by a feeding-tube.

• (of a feeling or quality) continuing in existence : keeping hope alive.

• continuing to be supported or in use : militarism was kept alive by pure superstition.

2 (of a person or animal) alert and active; animated : Ken comes alive when he hears his music played.

• figurative having interest and meaning : we hope we will make history come alive for the children.

3 ( alive to) aware of and interested in; responsive to : always alive to new ideas.

THE RIGHT WORD

Dead is dead, but one can be alive to varying degrees. The broadest of these terms describing what has life or shows signs of having it, alive can refer to what barely exists (: he was unconscious but still alive when they found him) as well as to what is bursting with (literal or figurative) life (: her face was alive with excitement and anticipation).

Living, on the other hand, is more limited in scope and implies the condition of not being dead (: at 92, she was the oldest living member of the family) or a state of continued existence or activity (: America's greatest living historian).

Animate has fewer connotations than living or alive; though rare, it is used to distinguish living organisms as opposed to dead ones (: one of the few animate creatures after the devastating explosion).

Animated, on the other hand, is used to describe inanimate things to which life or the appearance of life has been given (: an animated cartoon), or things that are vigorous and lively (: an animated debate on the death penalty).

Anything that is essential to life is vital (: vital functions; vital organs), but vital can also be used to describe the energy, activity, and alertness of living things (: an aging but vital member of the historical society).

New Oxford American Dictionary

We don’t refer to minerals as being “alive”. But what are the instruments which we use to define “alive”? And to obtain a reading on those mechanistic instruments we require the transfer of packets of information; the beat of a heart is transmitted from the “alive” patient via the mechanism of an electrocardiograph machine to a sheet of paper; in a similar way that packets of information are transferred through our sensory organs - eyes, nose, hearing, touch and even taste when two humans become aware of each other.

Even though we don’t consider mineral structures like crystals to be “alive” they nevertheless do grow and replicate.

Inorganic matter, if free to take that physical state in which it is most stable, tends to crystallize. There is no practical limit to the size a crystal may attain under the right conditions, and selenite single crystals in excess of 10 m are found in the Cave of the Crystals in Naica, Mexico.

Wikipedia

So could simply occupying space be considered being “alive”? Could “alive” be thought of as being a self-sustaining system? And would self-replicating be a necessary part of the definition?

So is a wooden table a self-sustaining system/entity? I would say yes. Not self-replicating, but once assembled is to a significant degree self-sustaining in that it maintains itself, maintains form and structure, (perhaps unconsciously or non-consciously) as an individual entity. Yes, this individuality has been embodied in it by a third party (the carpenter) but could this embodying be considered to be imparting elements of “life” in that it contains design structures (thoughts) of its maker, the carpenter and so conveys images or emotions to the viewer/user in the same way that a painting may? One could perhaps argue that the same system prevails concerning humans, in that we are the result of specific molecular material and genetic patterns which assemble, albeit automatically. But paradoxically, though we are of far greater structural complexity, no extra actual designing is needed to be incorporated into producing the end product; we have reproduced as part of an entrenched system of negentropy, an increasing in order. Only now through DNA research is there some factor of individual design input feasible. Conversely the table is in a state of entropy, a decreasing state of order; it will eventually rot and crumble, losing its identity as a table.

A brain-dead human in a hospital bed on life-support systems is considered to be “alive”, but lacking the ability to naturally self-replicate and to maintain itself in a specific structure where its system does not breakdown into entropy.

Lacking the self-support systems, analyses of the brain dead human and the table would be synonymous; the one, the human, will be more complex in structural design, but both will slowly degrade into their base components and their individualities will collapse. The table no longer a part of a chain in a “live” system - a forest, a tree, because that is part of its historical continuum, and the body no longer part of a sophisticated self-replicating species.

The New Oxford American Dictionary gives the definition - “consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.”

So it would seem that in the accepted sense, consciousness is unique to living animals, a prerequisite being a fully functioning brain, or central processing unit, with a more complex interaction in humans and decreasing in complexity as we go down to single cell structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

The other prerequisite would seem to be a range of sensory abilities which link to some form of physical central processing centre like the human brain. The human senses are sight, taste, hearing, touch and smell. The sensory impressions are relayed to the brain which formulates an assessment which is based on an accumulation of previous impressions.

The smell and taste of a peach is an accumulation of previous interactions with the fruit.

However in the human species the gut is now considered to be a “second brain” where independent decisions in the functioning of the body are made. Although lacking the more sophisticated cognitive aspects of the brain, it nevertheless is capable of producing independent actions which have significant effects on the organism. http://www.psyking.net/id36.htm.

A final component of a definition could be the ability to transfer information. Though “inanimate” the table nevertheless reflects light and thus transfers information about itself to an observer. And even in a dark room it will transfer information of itself to an unwary shin in a painful fashion. Its existence as a structure in this reality gives it this function.

To go back to the example of the table. It began as an entity of a billions years old self-replicating system which has resulted in a tree in a forest, a grouping of similar forms which grow and replicate within the boundaries of beneficial growth elements. At the point of cutting the tree down, killing it, it was capable of expanding its genus on a continuos basis; even to time scales of thousands of years. Now that it has been cut down and separated from its neural network it lapses into an entropic state where it is no longer capable of occupying greater space but rather occupies less space as it crumbles and rots. It has lost its ability to be “conscious”. The term ‘deadwood’ is very apt here.

This is similar to the human body once it dies. It too can be fashioned into functional objects, as has been done in some art forms and it would follow the same pattern of entropy as the table.

So where do we draw the line between “alive” and “dead”? The table and the human skull paperweight which sits on it both impart information to our senses and both occupy space, thereby being valid entities in our reality.

Neither though, is self-replicating. Could one then define alive as being able to self-replicate and capable of occupying (to an optimal scale) an increasing volume of space?

Now once again paradoxically, it would seem that living entities cannot function in an environment devoid of non-living entities. Or can they? Perhaps in a Garden of Eden environment with perfect climate which would not require clothes and with a constant supply of fruit, fresh water and grains it would be possible, but not probable. (In the traditional Biblical interpretation the garden of Eden excluded the concept of Death, which could be perhaps considered to be the antithesis of consciousness. Consequently, “Paradise” could perhaps be a state of constant hyperconsciousness.) Perhaps not probable because of the complexity of our central processing unit (CPU), the brain and the sophisticated combination and range of our information assimilating faculties, our senses.

Is it possible that as a result of random primary molecular bonding an initial primitive sensory organ - say touch - developed and the CPU had no option but to develop as a consequence of the amount of new information being accessed? This principle operates in babies, human and non-human.

So it would seem that in principle one could consider any self-replicating system as possessing an element of consciousness, relative to the complexity and volatility of its CPU or neural system. One could perhaps draw a comparison to shares in the stock market where some trade in large numbers and with constant price changes due to the complexity of the parent company while others are largely stagnant and illiquid, languishing at the same price levels price week after week. The human being versus the tree.

And if this is the case, the next question would be - what are the functions of consciousness?

Could it be that, assuming a molecule developed an element of spatial awareness, it also developed a superiority over other molecules in the assimilation of limited resources? In this way it would fulfill the requirement of being self-replicating and occupying an increasing volume of space. Again this is a common principle in nature; coral reefs, fungi, forests, with no end purpose other than becoming the dominant species through no reason other than the fact that there was nothing to prevent it becoming so. Of course a natural balance of interdependency would emerge, otherwise the extinction of the species would be a consequence.

As an aside, this is unfortunately being seen as a current social problem of humanity today.

So in what way does consciousness as defined by self-replicating and occupying space differ between multicellular organisms like humans and unicellular one like spores or fungi?

There would be an increase of QUANTA OF POTENTIAL, PROBABILITY and VOLATILITY in the complexity of structure.

Everything possesses a quantum* of potential.

* Physics a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents.

• an analogous discrete amount of any other physical quantity, such as momentum or electric charge.

• Physiology the unit quantity of acetylcholine released at a neuromuscular junction by a single synaptic vesicle, contributing a discrete small voltage to the measured end-plate potential.

The manner in which it is expressed is defined by its inherent probability*

*The extent to which something is probable; the likelihood of something happening or being the case : the rain will make the probability of their arrival even greater.

• a probable event : for a time, revolution was a strong probability.

• the most probable thing : the probability is that it will be phased in over a number of years.

• Mathematics the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible : the area under the curve represents probability | a probability of 0.5.

This event will be modulated by its structural volatility*

1 (of a substance) easily evaporated at normal temperatures.

2 liable to change rapidly and unpredictably, esp. for the worse : the political situation was becoming more volatile.

• (of a person) liable to display rapid changes of emotion.

• (of a computer's memory) retaining data only as long as there is a power supply connected.

noun (usu. volatiles)

a volatile substance.

New Oxford American Dictionary

So let’s take the comparison with the table and the human.

Each possesses a certain quantum of energy, the accumulated sum of their molecular structure, with the human possessing a greater complexity of pathways of energy.

Each possesses the capacity of probability; the table may become firewood, or smaller utilitarian structures like shelves, but again will for the most part remain as it always was from construction while the human is more open to event interaction - possessing many more options as a result of its more complex structure and physical capacity and mobility.

Each has a component of volatility - change in physical structure. Each changes infinitesimally each nanosecond as microcellular deaths and growths occur in the human and decomposition in the table. But again the table will for the most part remain as it always was from time of construction.

Based on these criteria, both table and human possess elements of consciousness, with one distinct difference; the human is capable of independent and considered movement of its physical entity in a time/space continuum while the table is not.

Now one has to consider the relevant abilities of physical structures and delegate an element of “consciousness” to each, with the human species having a rating of 100. This does not imply any superiority to the human, but simply its capacity of quantum of potential, probability and volatility.

Taking the human as 100, we could perhaps rate a fungal spore at 25, a coral reef at 50, a plant at 75, the animal kingdom at 95 and human at 100.

Anything less than 25 would exist as elements of the conscious world but in a regressive state (entropy) rather than a progressive state (negentropy). For simplicity we would consider these elements to be termed “alive”. This would include crystal structures. In other words these entities possess a quantum of potential to influence reality in a probabilistic way relative to the volatility of their structure.

A further distinction could now be drawn. In the “alive” group, some entities possess a critical level of volatility - an ability to alter their structure and interact with the world in ways more complex than others. In this group would be organic and inorganic substances and elements and a division would be made based on the above definition. So inorganic mineral crystalline structures would be distinct from organic structures, these being the animal kingdom (which would include lower invertebrates, spiders and other arachnids, insects, fishes, frogs, reptiles, birds, mammals) and the human race.

What determines a “critical level of volatility”? Crucially there would be the ability for electrical energy to flow in as unimpeded way through subsystems of the entity as possible. In the same way that information flows much faster along fiber optic cables than copper cables, so the option for mutation of a basic system exists. Though information flows extremely fast in a crystal like silicon, the mainstay of the computer industry, it exists basically as a single system, whereas organic entities possess a greater range of interacting and interdependent subsystems.

To summarise:

As a result of an undefined event which we term the “big bang” a dimension has emerged which we, as perceptive entities, call reality.

The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them : he refuses to face reality | Laura was losing touch with reality.

• a thing that is actually experienced or seen, esp. when this is grim or problematic : the harsh realities of life in a farming community | the law ignores the reality of the situation.

• a thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind : the paperless office may yet become a reality.

• the quality of being lifelike or resembling an original : the reality of Marryat's detail.

2 the state or quality of having existence or substance : youth, when death has no reality.

Philosophy existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions.

New Oxford American Dictionary

Within this dimension there are individual entities which have developed as a result of an initial interaction. As a consequence of advantageous specific molecular bonding, organisms developed and have expanded exponentially both in complexity of information pathways and structurally, occupying greater spatial volume. The commonly understood term “evolution” could be used to describe this process.

A crucial element of this expansion was the sophistication of sensory development in the organic stream as opposed to the purely structural development in the inorganic stream. The greater access to sensory information, the greater the opportunity to develop complexity and dominance over other entities.

I would see this as self-explanatory in the same way that a child develops and uses information about fruit through long term sensory exposure. Some are sweet, some sour, some hard, some soft, some smooth, some prickly. This information is stored, is accessed when needed, and forms the basis of the child’s interaction with other fruits.

However these faculties could equally be functions and programmed systems of a mechanical entity - a robot.

Is it difficult to propose that from this background of environmental exploration that the organism developed a parallel sense which we call consciousness; a sense which encompasses intangibles like emotions, which are essentially the intense combination of physical and mental response? This would include the entire animal kingdom.

Perhaps as a result of biblical permission - man given domination over the animal kingdom - there developed a perception that animals do not possess emotion or consciousness; they live in a reactive state to their environment, but research has shown that this is a false belief. I will not go into the vast data showing that even the most simple animal species is capable of emotions akin to human; love, fear, greed etc.

So how to explain the birth of these emotions, which are the building blocks of consciousness? Why should the robotic computer be equally capable of processing information and have similar capacities of movement yet not possess consciousness?

The first considerations would be that of entropy, negentropy and the ability to grow - to sequentially occupy greater spatial volume.

The robot exists from construction/birth as an unchanging structure, occupying the same spatial volume. It is entropic, decreasing in structural order. Animals are not. They are negentropic, increasing in structural order. The robot has a capacity for processing information only within the capacity of its central processing unit. Animals are able to vastly increase the ability of information processing and storage with the same unit, the brain.

Both require a source of energy to function. The robot’s is very basic, electricity. The animal’s is extremely complex, requiring as well as electricity, a mixture of minerals, carbohydrates, proteins, gases ....

We know that with increased information comes greater volatility. The stock market example.

Could the combination of a complex energy supply mechanism (quantum of potential), linked to a sophisticated range of sensory abilities, (volatility) have developed into an optimal (probable) structure which became self-aware?

In the same way that a molecule can, and has no option but to change its structure as a survival mechanism, a result of interaction with its environment, so too would it have developed more sophisticated sensory abilities through the process of survival of the fittest. This process is an incipient state of learned behavior, self-awareness, a feedback loop of information processing, a precursor to “consciousness”. In this way a computer stores “cookies” which enable faster access to a returned website.

If it had not happened, that molecular structure would simply not exist, in the same way that if the orbit of the earth were fractionally different the human race would not exist. We are here because conditions were just right for us to be here. The Goldilocks Effect.

A “conscious” system must have a central processing unit and have an organic structure.

So I would like to propose a new definition of consciousness.

Consciousness is defined as the process of interaction in all organic systems which encompasses the flow of information between sensory faculties and the central processing unit. This would be aggregated as a complexity index of information flow, defined as a sum of the various physical subsystems - nervous, endocrine, circulatory, lymphatic etc. The index would comprise a weighting where the more complex subsystem is assigned a higher value. For example if the total value in humans is 100, the neural system would have a value of 40 while the circulatory system a value of 10.

The entity would also have the capability to sequentially occupy a greater spatial volume through its own volition and to perform functions within its physical ability on command of the CPU.

So consciousness as such is not an individual entity, but rather the assemblage of all the information processing systems in the organism.

In this way the brain dead human still possesses an element of consciousness relative to its optimum value but it would be an incomplete value. Whereas a strong and healthy tree would possess a complete value but a lower scale of “conscious complexity”.

An unimpeded free flow in all the subsystems in the entity at any level of volatility of information would result in the optimal functioning of the CPU (central processing unit) while a disjointed and irregular flow of information would result in a dysfunctional CPU. So the disfunction of the endocrine system could lead to a malfunction of the thyroid gland leading to a lower scale of consciousness.

This is clearly seen in the brain scans of meditating monks as opposed to schizophrenics.

This definition would account for a scale of consciousness from the most basic organic molecule to the most complex system.

So using these definitions, one could perhaps define the Earth as having elements of “consciousness”.

It is also important to remember that this process is one which would unfold over billions of years.

In my opinion this definition in no way negates the vast range of human experience and emotion. It merely describes these (yes, somewhat pedantically) more precisely as to their quantum and operation of expression.

The romantically inclined will no doubt cut this proposal down in shreds with the criticism that there is no space for the intangibles of imagination, love, beauty and mysticism.

My reply is that the vastness of the neural ability of the brain allows for all this, to whatever level of functionality you would like to take it. The permutations of the brain for forming new subsets of systems are virtually endless and we are often told by science that we use only a fraction of it.

Finally, does this definition exclude the ideas of parapsychological abilities:-telepathy, precognition, psychokinesis, reincarnation, etc.

Again, I don’t think it necessarily does. I think that many of these abilities simply require a refining or a rewiring of our CPU. The ability of precognition of death for example has in some cases been found to be an inherited trait; a differently wired CPU. Regarding other esoteric abilities, I think that we do for the most part possess the raw material in our physical structure to achieve far more than what is considered as “normal”, but to do so also requires enormous discipline and training. A case in point is the investigation into the atomic structure of elements by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater.

The other under-researched areas of our physical structure are fields of electromagnetic energy. I think there are aspects of the mind/body system like “faith healing” which could be rationalized with a greater understanding of the placebo effect which is essentially faith healing.

Regarding out of body and near death experiences I await with great interest the results of Dr Sam Parnia’s research into the experiences of patients undergoing surgery which will hopefully throw some light on the ability of the “consciousness” to leave the body.

Regarding other esoteric theories like reincarnation, which would presumably require the containment of the “consciousness” as an entity independent of a physical structure, the understanding of the human system as an electromagnetic field and quantum mechanics in which particles have a charge value yet no mass leads me to think that this is not as far-fetched as usually thought.

Zen and the art of watching films

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:46:57 -0500

This draws on a published conversation between Zoran Josipovic, a neuroscientist with an interest in meditation, and another neuroscientist, Rafael Malach, who has performed experiments that may be relevant to this area. Malach argues that at least in some cases conscious perception does require any form of 'observer' inn the prefrontal area, but needs only activation in the sensory cortex. This claim is based on fMRI studies performed by Malach and colleagues. In one study where subjects had there brains scanned while watching a film, there was widespread activation of the sensory cortex in the rear part of the brain, coinciding with relatively little activity in the frontal areas. It was further shown that the more engaging the film, the less activity there was in the frontal areas. The subjects were in a sense out of themselves or detached from everyday cognition by the gripping nature of the film. The experimenters also noted a high degree correlation between the brain activity of the different subjects, something also sometimes claimed for meditators.

Malach suggests that the role of the frontal areas is not to create perceptual consciousness, but to deliberate on the nature of the sensory experience. If we accept this approach, it becomes impossible to explain consciousness entirely in terms of the 'self' which is seen as a product of the cognitive and emotional areas. The easy let out of deconstructing the self and then claiming to have explained consciousness is closed off in this case.

In the course of the conversation between Josopovic and Malach, it is suggested that conceptually there could be an axis running from introspective activity in the prefrontal, through wrapped attention to external world material such as a film in the sensory cortex, to a final stage of experiences such as Zen meditation. This last can be seen as pure perception without any awareness of the self. This refers to those types of mediation that focus on something external rather than more introspective forms. Of course, this type of pure perceptual/absence of self experience is widely reported as being associated with other forms of altered states of consciousness and spiritual experience.

MEG and altered states of consciousness

Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:49:46 -0500

EARTH, CANCER, AND THE 100TH MONKEY

Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:04:12 -0500

"Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and Monsanto´s pesticide Roundup are amongst the most dangerous products of modern times, joining a list that is heavily populated by other Monsanto products such as PolyChlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin and bovine growth hormones.

"In all cases, Monsanto has been fully aware of their harmfulness yet has lied about their dangers with an impunity conferred by the collusion between the company and the public health and environmental authorities of successive U.S. governments."

Marie-Monique Robin, author of The World According To Monsanto.

* * * * *

Let´s imagine planet Earth and all its life forms as one living organism with a soul, in the process of spiritual evolution, just like a human being.

Recently, Earth caught a serious illness that is threatening its very life. It´s comparable to when a human being is invaded by a cancer that slowly grows and kills the healthy cells of one, many, or all vital organs, until death occurs.

So, let´s have a look at what cancer is, and how to cure it. As many of my readers will know, I have taught the philosophy and principles of holistic medicine for over 15 years. CANCER and AIDS are among my specialties.

The "orthodox" medical doctrine works locally on the principle of all-out warfare to directly kill specific cancer cells in order to cure the patient. Even though this may kill the targeted cells perceived as "invaders", it also kills necessary healthy cells and causes a lot of harm to the entire organism, not least to the immune system, which is the body´s principal defence system, and absolutely necessary for long term survival and health.

That´s why the true success rate of conventional, "orthodox" cancer treatments is so low, indeed abysmal, although those with vested financial and other interests in this system have ways of camouflaging the results to make them look better. This devious "cooking" of the facts helps justify the fact that all better and cheaper treatment options are outlawed in the US and most Western countries under US corporate influence. This policy makes a criminal of a doctor who cures a patient with such a treatment. But not if he kills the patient with the authorized method. And there are many effective and cheap alternative treatments with no harmful side effects. But you are never told about them. As most of us know by now, this is the result of bribes, threats and intense lobbying on the part of the global pharmaceutical industry, under the false pretense of protecting the patients from "dangerous quacks".

Holistic medicine, in contrast, works systemicly on the principles of reinforcing the organism´s own defenses. It works with the body and not against it. It sees the organism as an organic Whole from a wider angle, where information, energy and emotions are potent influences, whether emanating from the geophysical environment, the human environment, or the patient´s own psyche, and all of them have to be taken into account. Above all, holistic medicine still honors common sense, long sinced abandoned by Big Pharma´s "scientific" medicine.

Cancer can be caused by three different types of disturbances to the organism, which harm or overwhelm the immune system. On successively subtler or higher levels they occur through

1) chemical interference, e.g. poisons or toxins (compare chemotherapy, which adds even more poisons)

2) vibrational interference e.g. radiation, (compare radiation treatment, which can cause serious immediate damage to the organism as well as new cancers after a few years or so)

3) emotional and mental interference, e.g. "mental poisoning" such as resentment, fear and hate, or deep depressions (compare how doctors more often than not frighten and depress patients, telling them that their illness is life-threatening, and how small chances they have of surviving it. Although this is undoubtedly true with the treatments they insist on using, it does not help the patient´s chances of overcoming the illness).

Ultimately, all these causes come down to vibrations, or frequencies that interfere with the information inherent in the genetic programming of the cells, prompting them to go wild and grow without control.

Chemically caused cancer occurs when the frequencies of certain alien substances, carrying antagonistic information, interfere with and change the natural healthy frequencies of the body´s own cells. That´s why some substances are carcinogenic and should be avoided. However, since not everybody has the same power of resistance to alien, disharmonic vibrations, some people are more sensitive and more at risk than others. Also, it may be a matter of degree and time of exposure.

The remedy is always detoxification and cleansing, along with avoidance of particularly harmful substances. Adding more poison in the form of chemotherapy is hardly the most intelligent solution. What about a minimum of common sense?

Vibrational interference comes from pure electromagnetic radiation, such as that from X-rays, microwave ovens, cell-phones, electric transformer stations, high voltage power lines, and - most powerfully - radiation from nuclear bombs, nuclear power stations, uranium, plutonium and other radioactive substances, including the fallout of the so called DU ("Depleted Uranium") ammunition, used by the US and the UK in all their wars since the first Gulf War in 1990. Here, the harmful vibrations affect our cells directly and invisibly without a chemical medium, but the effect and the cause are essentially the same.

The remedy is avoidance of ALL harmful radiation, and the application of positively reenforcing energy frequencies. Adding still more destructive harmful radiation to "kill the cancer" often makes things worse.

The third kind of cause I call emotional, and it´s the most difficult to understand and manage. It´s a common experience, even though our blindly materialistic "scientific" medicine has problems acknowledging it, that depressed people often come down with cancer, as well as other illnesses. So, for example, is it quite common that someone who loses his or her spouse - or child or other loved one - is taken ill with cancer a few years later. It is also fairly common that a man, whose job has been the center of his entire life, dies of cancer a few years after forced or automatic, age-related retirement. Likewise, deep frustration, resentment or hatred can wreak havoc with the immune system. In the end, the direct cause of the cancer is the same, but the original triggers are different.

To understand cancer, we must realize that our organisms are constantly bombarded by potentially cancer-causing vibrations of different kinds, some more damaging than others. It´s just that with a normal immune system we are able to fend off most of them.

The two first causes, chemical and vibrational, have to do with unusually strong and disharmonic vibrations that disturb the natural frequencies of the cells and can overcome even a normally strong immune system. The third cause, the emotional, has to do with a debilitation of the immune system and the energy level of the organism, so that even alien frequencies that a normal immune system fends off without problems, now can change the genetically programmed frequencies of the cells, causing cancer.

The emotional level of cancer causation is closely related to the placebo phenomenon, which is recognized as fact by practitioners of mainstream "orthodox" medicine, even though they cannot explain it in terms of their understanding of medical science.

Placebo can be explained as a subconscious programming having a positive effect on health. It has a negative counterpart, known as nocebo, which is a subconscious programming promoting illness and death. This is akin to Voodoo, when someone blindly and totally believes in the power of the medicine man who pronounces the death sentence, and subconsciously programs himself to die as predicted or ordained. The same thing happens with many healthy people who are falsely diagnosed as HIV-positive. They believe in the doctor and his "science" telling them that they have an incurable disease that will inescapably lead to death within a few short years. The depression and the nocebo effect will intensify the effect of the lethal drug, and they die punctually within the prescribed time.

Incidentally, AIDS is not caused by any virus. It´s not contagious at all, and has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual relations. AIDS is caused by - or is - a depleted immune system, nothing else. And this depletion is in turn caused by harmful chemicals (such as the super-toxic chemotherapy drugs prescribed to "treat" it), harmful radiation, emotional depression, faulty nutrition, infected water, parasites, recreational drugs such as heroin and cocaine, lack of sleep, protracted stress, and a generally abusive lifestyle that depletes the energy sources of the organism, especially the adrenals, which are necessary to maintain a healthy immune system.

As has been clearly shown decades ago, chemotherapy destroys the immune-system and thus removes the body´s ability to cure itself, resulting in death. Radiation, on the other hand, directly causes the change in vibration of the cells, that is one of the primary causes of cancer. Thus this "treatment" may cause more of the illness it´s supposed to cure.

In AIDS, even the prognosis of inevitable death - always false and unfounded - will in many cases provoke a deep depression, which dramatically weakens the immune system and accelerates death.

Having explained what cancer is in humans, how it is caused, and how not to treat it, let´s go back to our dear Mother Earth.

I was saying that Earth has been diagnosed with cancer and is at risk of dying. If the causes of this cancer are chemical pollution and electromagnetic and nuclear radiation, would it be logical or reasonable to give it more chemicals and more radiations? Hardly. So maybe we should use some common sense and try to reduce these strains on the health of Earth and all of us who form part of Earth on one level or another?

That means NO chemicals in agriculture and NO nuclear energy or materials of any kind.

It also means we need to reform the entire communication system that is now dependant on a harmful kind of electromagnetic waves. These waves may or may not harm what we superficially perceive as Earth itself, but they definitely harm life on it, of which we are all an integral part. I have no doubt that other options can be found that do not harm the human organism.

And what about the emotional level of cancer causation?

Being starved of positive human emotions in a society hell bent on the "bottom line", on fierce competition for money and material values only, will have a nocebo effect in the larger social context, and this is comparable to emotionally caused cancer. It generates a society of greed, conflicts, egotism, ruthlessness, wars, lack of compassion and contempt for the rights and plights of others, naturally leading to depression.

With positive human emotions I am referring to true happiness, love, friendship, the sense of belonging, the joy of harmonious resonance, for instance through music and visual beauty, the spiritual joy of creativity, and the confidence of being a generous, useful and appreciated member of one´s community. In the final analysis, the level of spiritual evolution of a society, and of its individual members, is indicated by the prevalence and quality of these positive emotions.

As I am sure most of our fellow members know, recent research into the effect of focused mass meditation has shown that it clearly influences the entire society of which the meditators form part. Furthermore, this research indicates that the effect is related to the number of meditators, and that as small a proportion as 4% of a community large or small, can turn around the attitude of a majority of the entire community.

To old-paradigm "hard" scientists, this is nonsense, superstition, mumbo-jumbo, but only because they suffer from paradigm blindness and shut their eyes to new scientific research and discoveries.

Another example of the phenomenon I am referring to here, is the well-known so called "100th monkey" effect. Supposedly, under scientific scrutiny, one day a young female monkey on a small island in Japan had the bright idea of washing away the sand from her sweet potatoes before eating them. None of the other monkeys had ever done that before. One by one, the other monkeys learnt the trick and began washing their potatoes.

Eventually, one day, when already a considerable number of monkeys - anecdotally "a hundred" - were routinely washing their sweet potatoes, the practice was suddenly picked up on other islands, and on the mainland, with no physical contact between the different groups of monkeys, who were now all washing their potatoes.

The factual basis of this story has been put in doubt - as was to be expected - and I myself cannot vouch for its truth, but I know for a fact from numerous other examples and fields of research, that there is what could be called an information field encompassing Earth - or maybe it is completely non-local and extra-dimensional?- that I believe some call the Noosphere, and from which living beings can pick up information by other means than their physical senses. This is science, even if it´s frontier science not yet incorporated or acknowledged by the majority of old, paradigm-blind materialistic scientists.

The idea of raising general consciousness through reaching critical mass, is part and parcel of Aquarian Paradigm thinking. Ken Keyes, Jr. published a book on the Internet entitled, precisely, The Hundredth Monkey. In it he writes, "there is a point at which if only one more person tunes-in to a new awareness, a field is strengthened so that this awareness is picked up by almost everyone!"

When our own SMN member Rupert Sheldrake launched his now famous theory of morphic resonance, he offered an explanation for the increasing ease with which new skills are learned as greater quantities of a population acquire them. This phenomenon is directly related to both quantum physics and parapsychology, and such recently introduced concepts as the Zero Point Field.

To conclude these reflections around our sick Earth, and ourselves, its sick inhabitants, I suggest a possible solution to the problem, hers and ours.

The solution would seem to be a laboriously raised consciousness in a "critical mass" proportion of the population, that should then trigger the same level of consciousness in a majority of the world population through the 100th monkey effect. There is no language barrier in the Noosphere.

How could this be done? Perhaps through meditation. Or through videos, courses, books, blogs, etc. "going viral" over the Internet. - Any better ideas, anyone?

If such a feat is indeed achieved but without affecting the nefarious plans those in power have for the rest of us, then the next step may well be a global revolutionary movement requiring both civil and military disobedience, until the many-headed Hydra and the military-industrial Octopus with its million tentacles are rendered powerless and starving to death.

Finally, let´s all keep in mind that as long as there is life there is hope, and that depression and feelings of powerlessness lead assuredly to defeat.

Alors...

Allons enfants de la terre maltraitée

Nôtre devoir est protester...

See you on the barricades!

P.S. You can follow my weekly blog at http://paradigmwatch.com/index.php

End-of-Life Experiences

Sun, 05 Jun 2011 14:53:38 -0500

At the recent 'Towards a Science of Consciousness' conference in Stockholm, Peter Fenwick gave a very interesting lecture on end-of-life experiences (ELEs), which may not yet be in more general circulation.

Fenwick reported on a study by 110 carers in England, Ireland and the Netherlands. The study looked at both what experiences carers recalled from the previous five years before being recruited to the study, and what they observed in the year after being recruited to the study. Ninety percent of carers had heard of some form of ELE in the previous five years, and 45% reported something in the year after joining the study. Some carers reported up to 20 instances. An older study suggested that ELEs are cross cultural.

End-of-life experiences can start with premonitions of death up to two years before the time of death. Death bed visitors (DBVs) start two to three weeks before death. These are usually dead relatives, most commonly parents, spouses or siblings, but can be friends or even dogs. This involves language to do with journeys, and a favourable change in the patient's attitude towards the dying process. The DBVs stand around or sit on the bed in real space, but are rarely seen by others, and then usually by children. The arrival of the DBVs is usually unexpected and involves patients in clear consciousness. Sixty to seventy of Dutch carers had heard of DBVs, and over 50% of English and Dutch carers taken together had heard of them. Irish figures were lower, which was suggested to be related to cultural factors. The next stage in the process is reports of moving backwards and forwards between this reality and another or 'new reality', bearing some resemblance to NDEs. The new realities involve love, light and compassion.

A variety of events are associated with the actual point of death. Often there is a period of lucidity even in Alzheimer patients. Reports include light radiating from the body, something in the corner of the eye, hymns/singing etc. shapes leaving and numerous reports of clocks etc. stopping and alarms going of. An intensive care nurse was reported as saying 'Oh, that happens all the time.' Finally there are also reports of the dying person contacting a remote loved one at the point of death,

In a separate lecture at the same Stockholm conference, Lakhmir Chawla, an expert on critical care, discussed the mega spike in brain activity often reported at the point of death. Chawla's studies ruled out the possibility that this related to external electronic devices such as pagers, mobiles or cardiac equipment. After the patient becomes pulseless, there is no sign of brain activity for 30 seconds to two minutes, and then there is a spike of high gamma frequency activity. Gamma activity is associated with consciousness, and high gamma activity is tentatively associated with altered states of consciousness.

The Emotional Brain

Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:08:14 -0500

Emotional processing in the brain revolves around a system of 'rewards' and 'punishers'. Representations of the external world are produced in the cortex, but these are initially neutral in terms of reward value, until they are projected to other brain regions and particularly to the orbitofrontal cortex, which samples the entire sensory range. The orbitofrontal is seen to encode the relative value of rewards. It responds more strongly to sensory inputs related to rewards than to neutral stimuli. Thus it responds more to the pressure of velvet than the pressure of wood. Studies show that the level of orbitofrontal activity correlates to the subjective pleasantness of sensations rather than the strength of the signal being received.

In responding to a face, activity increases in line with the subjectively assessed attractiveness of the face. The orbitofrontal also processes shifts in preferences. In a choice of apples and carrots, apples may be preferred, but when bananas are added, the orbitofrontal can switch to this option. Thus some aspects of orbitofrontal processing could be argued to make sense only in terms of qualia, rather than any form of non-conscious relationship with the external world. The orbitofrontal can be seen as a brain region that creates a common neural currency, in which to evaluate differing rewards, or even rewards that have no common characteristics such a as a holiday versus a healthy bank account.

The subjective nature of qualia creates a scenario in which the alternative choices can be played out. It is hard to discern how an algorithm or system of calculations can arrive at a preference between bananas and apples or holidays and money. Any number that was inserted into this system would itself be arbitrary or subjective, and this suggests that in a choice of subjective experiences, we are looking at something non-algorithmic or non-computable.

The orbitofrontal projects to the subcortical basal ganglia, a brain regions that lies upstream of actions and behaviour. The orbitofrontal also projects to the dorsolateral frontal seen as the executive and long-term planning region of the brain. The basal ganglia integrate the reward assessment of the orbitofrontal, plus inputs from many other parts of the cortex, the amygdala and other limbic areas. The basal ganglia are not thought to take any part in cognitive computation, but instead act as a form of mixer tap for a wide spread of inputs, and as such select or gate for material processed by the cortex, including the orbitofrontal. Dopamine and other neuromodulators play a role both in the selective processing of the basal ganglia, and of the delivery of the qualia of subjective reward to the brain's reward centre in the nucleus accumbens, itself part of the basal ganglia. The determining role of qualia in these processes can be seen as contradicting much of mainstream consciousness studies.

Right Understanding of Time is Bridging Science and Spirituality

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:28:00 -0600

Spiritual experiences are known to be “timeless”; time disappears; one enters the “eternal here and now”. The results of our research group demonstrate that space in the Theory of Relativity is four-dimensional. Time is not the fourth dimension of space, time as measured with clocks is the numerical order of changes that take place in a 4D space. Cosmic space is timeless; past, present and future exist only as mind models through which we experience changes in a timeless space. The established scientific practice is experienced through inner psychological time and is therefore “temporal”. By practicing watching the mind regularly one discovers the “inner time” and experiences changes as they take place in a timeless cosmic space. This “a-temporal” experience is conscious; it reveals the sacredness of the world. Rational “temporal” scientific experience and conscious “a-temporal” mystical experience are complementary. The former gives us a quantitative experience of the world; the latter gives us a qualitative experience of the world. A-temporal conscious experience is the source of true human ethic and that is the only thing that can change this world for the better. Rational mind without consciousness is like a lantern without oil. In order to create a human civilization which will live in peace and in a harmony with nature we have to awaken consciousness in each individual world-wide. The right understanding of time is one of the paths leading to this global awakening. Real power of science is uncompromised search for Truth.

12 Problems in Consciousness Studies

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:16:00 -0600

The revived consciousness studies of the last quarter of a century has become mired in an orthodoxy that lacks explanatory power. Twelve problems can be seen as responsible for the present unsatisfactory state of consciousness studies.

1.) Assuming what one is setting out to prove, with particular reference to the conscious or unconscious assumption of a 19th century Newtonian world picture. Attached to this approach is what might be termed 'flat Earthism', essentially the argument that classical physics has demonstrated in the past that things are different from how they appear, and that it will soon somehow pull this trick with consciousness.

2.) Partly because of the Newtonian assumption, consciousness theories relating to fundamental physics have been marginalised and ridiculed, often without it being felt necessary to properly understand the theories being proposed.

3.) The idea that consciousness is non-physical put forward by those who believe that there is no such thing as the non-physical.

4.) Much of consciousness studies is surprisingly light in terms of actual neuroscience, particularly the more relevant areas of research that have emerged in the last two decades. Similar to this is the lack of discussion of the failure over decades of artificial intelligence to come closer to functioning in the way that humans function.

5.) The assumption that consciousness relates exclusively to the rational brain, in contradiction to modern research into the emotional brain.

6.) Trying to magic a solution out of the complexity and feedback aspects of the brain.

7.) The claim that consciousness/qualia does not really exist. The existence of this is the thing that we are most certain about, and denying this is a refusal to tackle the problems that researchers are called on to solve.

8.) Defining consciousness as something else, explaining that, and then claiming to have explained consciousness.

9.) Qualia or subjective conscious experience is the real hard problem, but much of consciousness studies diverts away from this into peripheral areas.

10.) In some cases neuroscientists and artificial intelligence researchers are prone to out sourcing anything to do with consciousness to third parties, usually reductionist philosophers, when they would be better of drawing insights from their own areas of expertise.

11.) Appeals to authority, such as 'this is wrong because it disagrees with established ideas' are not uncommon. Aligned to this can be a bullying of readers into believing they are attached to false ideas, until they are ready to believe anything an author proposes.

12.) Fixation with trivia, particularly in the freewill debate, where there is an inability to move beyond the unconscious control of trivial actions, and towards deliberative thought and planning that are more likely to be relevant to agency and freewill.

The Beginning of Death

Sat, 08 Jan 2011 16:02:45 -0600

A character in Philip Roth's book "Exit Ghost" remarks on the initial evolution of single cell structures; that they reproduced through sub-division and thus at that stage of evolution death was unknown.

At a later stage with the development of multi-cellular forms, one presumes that there would be some cellular attrition through interaction with environment, but there would not yet have been any process called "death" as we understand it today in a world populated by sophisticated multicellular organisms (human and animal) where a collection of cells united by intricate bonds of laws of physics suddenly or eventually ceases to perform in a self-supporting way and "dies".

At that initial stage there also may not have been a concept called "consciousness" - an awareness of mind and self in relation to the world and universe.

Did the cell at some complex stage develop both "consciousness" and "death"?

And one cannot help but think of the biblical mythology of the Garden of Eden, where the unique mythical cells Adam and Eve existed without the curse of "death" but on acquiring "knowledge/consciousness", were banished to a world of "death".

I recently found this interesting paper on the evolution of cells to consciousness which graphically explores the problem.

http://www.dhushara.com/cosfcos/cosfcos2.html

Cosmological Foundations of Consciousness

Chris King

Emeritus, Mathematics, University of Auckland

Abstract: This paper overviews the cosmological basis of consciousness and subjective experience in biological organisms. It draws on principles of symmetry-breaking and interactive non-linear dynamics to establish the cosmological status of biogenesis. It then investigates the Archaean genetic explosion as a source of the envelope of functional machinery forming the basis of neural activity in the conscious brain based on the universal excitability of all living cells. Finally it examines the biophysical basis for consciousness, both in single cells, and in the human brain and its Cartesian theatre, to elucidate cosmological principles underlying the mind-body relationship.

lets hear it for the mad scientists

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:24:00 -0600

In every generation, scientists who are at the cutting edge of their field are branded "fringe" and "heretical" for dealing with things that are "paranormal", because they don't fit with received paradigmatic views of how the world works. History later shows us that the label "paranormal" was in applied due to a restricted conception of normality, rather than because the scientists were engaging with impossible or crazy ideas. What does it take to work on truly cutting-edge ideas that challenge mainstream wisdom? It takes courage, that's for sure, for you will be attacked from all sides. While sometimes people get it completely wrong with their unusual ideas, sometimes a maverick hits the jackpot. Here is a brief article on 6 such non-conformist scientists:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-05/st_madscientists

Daryl Bem, mentioned in this article, has recently published research in one of the top psychology journals, which has received credible coverage from the likes of the New Scientist - is the paranormal becoming normal?:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19712-is-this-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future.html

It is exciting times for research on consciousness and for scientists who have for years postulated ideas that pertain to consciousness and mind extending beyond the physical body. So let's hear it for the renegade scientists who have the courage to step out on a limb, for in all cases, that's where the fruit is.

Christopher Hitchens vs Tony Blair on religion

Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:09:00 -0600

Below are some clips from a recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair. Although the SMN doesn't generally engage in the polarised atheism - religion debate, it make for interesting viewing.

there are 3 more clips available here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lns2g-PJHg8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfCfw1qMifQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ2kkn6hz8E&feature=related

Christmas is coming - are we celebrating materialism?

Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:09:15 -0600

Religions tend to co-opt the buildings and celebrations of their forerunner. This was certainly true of Christianity and the nature religions that preceded it. For example, the Pantheon, a pagan temple in Rome, became a Catholic church, Easter, the fertility festival of the Goddess Esther, was co-opted as the celebration of Christ's resurrection, and the Winter Solstice or 'Yule' festival became the festival of Christ's birth, and the imagery of Yule - mistletoe, snowflakes, yule logs and so, remained central to it. Its a way of bolting on to what has come before, and in so doing increasing your converts.

The same process is in play now. The Christian festival of Christmas has been co-opted by a new religion. The Christian pretext to Christmas has all but disappeared under a festival of consumption. Its patron saint is a bloke dressed by Coca Cola who gives out material goods, and icons of the new Christmas emerge from the consumer media. Rudolf the red nose reindeer was a US advertising campaign in the 1950s which then became part of consumer folklore.

From mid-November, we are subjected to the onslaught of Christmas advertising, Christmas decorations in the street and in shops, and Christmas jingles blarring out from the TV. Each company tries to get in front of its rivals to make the most of the consumer frenzy that is Christmas. People put on their best clothes to head out to the cathedrals of the new religion - the glittering shopping centres that promise the earth, if you can pay for it. A 'successful' Christmas, so we are told, is one which lots of stuff is sold. BUY! is the central moral message. Ah, how lovely.

But you might say - how can materialism be a religion if it is not recognised as one? Well, here's something. When the British got to India there was no name for their religion - they did not even think they had a religion, as it was just their way of life. We then named it Hinduism. Materalism has all the hallmarks of a religion - ritual, priests, buildings, purposes, values and collective celebrations. We may not have called it a religion, but it is hard to see something with a clear perspective when you are in it, just it like it was for Indians practising Hinduism without seeing it as a religion.

Are materialist values a perfect complement to philosophical materialism? Not necessarily - there are materialist philosophers who have very nuanced and selfless moral perspectives. But rolled out on large-scale to the non-philosophical masses, its perhaps inevitable that this is where we end up. All that is real is material stuff so what else is there to do but try and acquire as much stuff as possible? Answers on a postcard.

Reality and consciousness

Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:10:00 -0500

In looking for the basis of consciousness, it may first be helpful to consider the structure of the universe from which consciousness may arise. Everything that we perceive is comprised of quanta that can be described as energy waves oscillating as excitations of the quantum vacuum. In terms of physics nothing else exists, there are no things, there is no colour green, although it is not usually put as bluntly as that, perhaps for fear of frightening the horses.

Some physicists consider that the waves that excite the quantum vacuum are less fundamental than the vacuum itself. The vacuum is not a nothingness, but is full of virtual particles that leap in and out of existence, and can be rendered permanent by the energy of a strong gravitational field or of an equivalent in acceleration. The vacuum is argued to be a reality rather than an abstraction. It is proposed that if we were on a spaceship accelerating towards some high percentage of the speed of light, we would see hot particles heading towards us out of the vacuum, as the equivalent of the energy of our acceleration. Physicists are also tending towards the view that spacetime is not a continuum, but a web or network. Once we think in these terms, the possibility emerges that the network contains pattern or information, and with this the possibility that this information is related to consciousness.

This all seems far from the world that we see around us. Strictly speaking, what we see does not exist except as brain states. All that physics shows to exist are the quanta of the vacuum. Neuroscience tells of the brain producing representations of the external world, but this exaggerates the likeness between brain states and the external world, and it is more helpful to talk about mapping.

If we think of a very abstract map, such as the map of an urban metro system, we might get the right analogy. The coloured lines on paper have no actual resemblance to the reality of cavernous tunneling, steel rails and metal carriages. However, in evolutionary terms the metro map is adaptive, once we understand that lines on paper correlate with a system that can move us to preferred destinations. Similarly the brain state for an object based on signals from the external world has no resemblance to the energy waves oscillating in the vacuum, but the correlation between the two may be adaptive for the survival of an organism.

Where is all this leading in terms of consciousness? It is really to suggest that approaches that start from the old Newtonian physics assumptions of massive objects in the external world bumping into one another, or even of neurons as massive objects projecting chemicals at one another, may mislead. Theories based on this have not produced a satisfying explanatory consensus about consciousness. This suggests that we might do better to work upwards from the real basis of the physical universe.

Crossing the perilous 'is-ought' divide

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:03:00 -0500

http://www.politicsofwellbeing.com/

We seem to be in danger of falling into the chasm of David Hume's Is / Ought argument in our search for a natural Aristotelian ethics, based on the goal of human flourishing, or eudaimonia. Hume famously laid out this argument in his Treatise On Human Nature:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."

This Is / Ought argument is the principal objection to any attempt to ground ethics in naturalistic accounts of human nature - human nature IS like this, therefore humans OUGHT to behave like that. You can't move from the descriptive to the prescriptive, Hume argues.

Now let's just mention in passing that Hume didn't follow this rule himself. His most famous quote is: 'Reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions', which has since been used by many an evolutionary psychologist and social intuitionist to justify moral claims based on anthropological and neuroscientific insights into human emotions. But let's ignore that inconsistency, and ask if we can get over the Is / Ought chasm, to arrive at some sort of natural foundation for moral claims.

Modern communitarians such as Alisdair MacIntyre, Sam Harris, Martin Seligman or Martha Nussbaum are trying to go beyond moral relativism, and to return to an idea of Aristotelian ethics grounded in Aristotle's idea of human flourishing. Aristotle, like Plato and the Stoics, built his ethics on a biological account of human nature - on an 'Is'. The Greeks then said that humans should develop this human nature into its full flowering, which they called eudaimonia, which means 'highest happiness', 'fulfilment' or 'flourishing'.

That's the 'Ought', the goal or telos. Philosophy is the bridge from the Is of human nature to the Ought of eudaimonia.

What was the Greeks' description of human nature, and how do we develop it into eudaimonia?

1) Humans ARE usually unconscious animals driven by animal passions and automatic beliefs. However we ARE also capable of rationality, uniquely so among the animals, which enable us to reflect on our beliefs, passions and behaviour, and therefore we SHOULD develop this uniquely-human higher rationality.

2) Because of humans' unique higher cognitive powers and their capacity for language, humans ARE capable of knowing themselves, rationally discussing and scrutinizing their beliefs, and thereby also changing their emotions and behaviour (this is the cognitive theory of emotions). Therefore they OUGHT to develop this ability to know themselves, examine themselves and take responsibility for their thoughts, emotions and behaviour.

3) Humans ARE creatures of habit. Therefore, they OUGHT to get into good habits, engraining their rational choices into habits of thought, emotion and behaviour.

The Aristotelians and the Stoics at this point part company. Aristotle said the following:

4A) Humans ARE capable of using their reason to know themselves and choose their behaviour. Therefore they OUGHT to find the golden mean between excesses of emotion and behaviour, so that they think, feel and respond in the right way at the right time. This will lead to eudaimona, or highest happiness.

While the Stoics go from the same Socratic foundation in a different direction.

4B) Humans ARE capable of using their reason to know themselves and choose their behaviour. This reason is a divine gift from the divinely intelligent universe. Therefore they OUGHT to accept the divine will of the Logos, and never feel any negative emotions, which are judgements that things should be other than they are. This will lead to eudaimonia.

5) Humans ARE social and political animals. Therefore to achieve eudaimonia, they OUGHT to engage in the social and political life of their society.

The Stoics added to this:

5B) Humans ARE members of the human race, and therefore they OUGHT to use their reason to widen their affectional attachments to include wider and wider groups of fellow humans, until they feel sympathy with the entire human race (this has been called cultivating cosmopolitanism).

It seems to me that almost all of these Is / Oughts still stand up, and are still supported by psychology and neuroscience. They're pretty limited in their moral recommendations - they have nothing to say about sexual preference, for example, other than not being excessively into sex. They have nothing to say about abortion. So they don't necessarily give us an entire moral framework.

But they do give us a natural ethics based on what Richard Rorty called a 'core self', or a core idea of human nature. To Hume's anti-rational argument that reason IS and OUGHT to be the slave of the passions, the Greeks would reply:

Yes, reason often is the slave of the passions. Often our automatic emotional self responds in appropriate ways to our environment, especially if someone has been brought up well. But often our emotional responses to the world are wrong, and destructive to ourselves and our social, political and natural environment. Our animal nature, upbringing, our family and our society can ingrain false or self-defeating beliefs into us, and this can mean our passions cause us and those around us big problems. In that situation, we have to use our reason to educate, guide and control our passions. So there are clearly instances when our reason needs to steer our passions. We can't trust them to simply carry us to eudaimonia.

Indeed, the history of human culture is nothing less than the millennia-old effort to steer the passions through reason, discussion, religion and the arts.

http://www.politicsofwellbeing.com/

Truth and Human Beings

Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:44:27 -0500

"It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, merely as truth, has any inherent power denied to error, of prevailing against the dungeon and the stake. Men are not more zealous for truth than they often are for error, and a sufficient application of legal or even of social penalties will generally succeed in stopping the propagation of either. The real advantage which truth has, consists in this, that when an opinion is true, it may be extinguished once, twice, or many times, but in the course of ages there will generally be found persons to rediscover it, until some one of its reappearances falls on a time when from favourable circumstances it escapes persecution until it has made such head as to withstand all subsequent attempts to suppress it. (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, p. 37)

Is Hawking's 'Grand Design' just PR spin

Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:13:25 -0500

Stephen Hawking has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the universe. However, his latest book 'Grand Design' looks more like PR spin for a dominant but in trouble world view. One side of Hawking's argument is based on string theory, which was initially atttactive in that it reconciled the two basic theories in modern physics, relativity and quantum theory. String theory appeared to run into problems when it became apparent that there were trillions of possible forms of the theory. Normally this would indicate the demise of a scientific theory, because effectively any data would be consistent with this number of solutions, so the theory could never be tested. However, over time a substantial weight of academic careers, funding and credibility had come to depend on the sucess of string theory, while alternatives came to be side lined. This might be felt to create a significant bias in favour of anything that could rescue string theory.

In fact a convenient let out for string theory did appear. The Big Bang theory had brought with it the fine-tuning problem, which is the impossibly large odds against the outcome of a random explosion generating laws of physics that would permit the emergence of intelligent life. This problem brought with it the threat that some form of intelligence was implicated in the origin of the universe. The solution to this came from inflation theory. This proposes a phase of very rapid expansion in the early universe to account for the degree of thermal equilibrium in the background radiation. Subsequently it was proposed that a very large or even infinite number of universes could have been flung of during this period of inflation. Given such a large number of universes, it was inevitable that one of them would contain the laws of physics necessary for intelligent life. This large number of universes is at the same time suggested to equate to the universes possible in string theory. Rather than the multiplicity of solutions in string theory being a problem, Hawking is able to glorify them as glimpses into other universes. This marriage of inflation amd string theory does have a look of contrived convenience in dealing with both the problems of string theory and the threat of intelligent involvement in the origin.

It is difficult to test either string theory or inflationary theory, but even if these ideas were less speculative, there would be further problems down the road. It is claimed that for inflation to start, the universe needs a low level of entropy that is as improbable as the original fine tuning problem. Furthermore proposals for the actual beginning of the universe, including Hawking's own 'no-boundary' proposal assumes the prior existence of a vacuum governed by quantum laws in which a fluctuation can generate the explosive appearance of a new universe. This still leaves the question of how such a law-like vacuum arises. Something is still needed to break an infinite regression of cause and effect.

Reflections on 'Mind as Healer, Mind as Destroyer' conference

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:19:00 -0500

The Scientific and Medical Network held a major conference on 'the Body and Beyond: Mind as Healer, Mind as Destroyer' at Latimer Place, Buckinghamshire, last weekend. This is part of a series of cutting edge annual conferences which alternate in subject between 'Beyond the Brain' and 'the Body and Beyond'.

David Lorimer set the scene with a talk on some largely forgotten 20th century thinkers/writers/researchers who explored the power of positive thinking in affecting life and health.

David Spiegel, Professor of Psychiatry at Stanford University, USA, gave a fascinating talk on 'Hypnosis and Health', including data from brain scans showing that hypnotically induced analgesia and anaesthesia actually blocks pain at the level of perception. If however, the hypnotist instead alleviates pain by diverting the patients attention away from the pain, then the pain is perceived by the brain but without causing the conscious experience of pain. This raises very interesting questions about the power of mind over body.

Kavita Vedhara is Professor of Health Psychology at Nottingham University. She gave a talk on 'Psychoneuroimmunology: What has Stress got to do with it', in which she presented research findings showing that the observation that people under stress are more susceptible to infectious diseases is supported by biochemistry: Among elderly people, it seems that stress reduces their ability to produce antibodies in response to flu vaccination.

On Saturday afternoon we had parallel sessions presented by participants: David Beales and Helen Whitten; Sue Bayliss; Ingrid Collins; Zohar Dina Glouberman; and Marilyn Monk. I attended Marilyn's presentation on 'The Science of Imagination', touching on factors influencing control of gene expression, a fascinating area of research.

The next plenary session on 'Placebo and Nocebo Responses' was by Michel Odent who is famous for his work in obstetrics, introducing the whole concept of water births and the birthing pool. I found his talk disappointing. He has a very particular view of orthodox antenatal care which he sees as having a strong 'Nocebo' effect on pregnant women. This seemed to be based more on opinion than on evidence. Placebo/Nocebo is such an important effect, with a large body of evidence to support it, that I felt he didn't do justice to it.

Saturday evening we watched a beautifully mde film by doctor and artist Vanda Playford, showing the work of a spiritual healer, from the pre Hispanic tradition of Mexhica Pactili.

On the Sunday morning we had excellent complementary talks from two clinicians: Paul Gilbert, professor of Clinical Pyschology at the University of Derby, and Dr David Beales, a practising physician with the NHS, both of whom use mindfulness and self compassion techniques in the treatment of physical and psychological conditions. It is remarkable that more than 50% of people who see their GP have no underlying pathology!

It was an inspiring weekend and, as with all Network events, the most valuable part was meeting the other participants: some 160 of them from around the world. On the Saturday night we had a cathartic party and sing along, undoubtedly improving our health and wellbeing! The venue was excellent. We had our own separate building set in lovely gardens and with access to a swimming pool. I'm already looking forward to next year's Beyond the Brain conference which will be the same weekend.

Blake's View of the '3 Great Errors'

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:33:00 -0500

A passage from William Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell".

"All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors.

1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.

But the following Contraries to these are True

1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul; for that call'd Body is a portion of Soul discern'd by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age.
2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body; and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
3 Energy is Eternal Delight."

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/blake_ma.html

Independent philosopher

Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:21:52 -0500

Barbara Montero is an independent philosopher to the extent that she does not follow so many modern philosophers in acting as an under-labourer to a dated Newtonian view of science. Montero offers a shrewd analysis of the reasons why mainstream thinkers are unhappy with theories of consciousness that derive consciousness from the fundamental level of the universe. She asks why properties that are mental should be accounted as non-physical, rather than as being part of the physical universe. She suggests that properties related to the mental tend not to be regarded as acceptable parts of the physical universe, because if the mental were seen as fundamental, it would have emerged like that from the Big Bang. She thinks that for some this might hint at the existence of a god, and further than that a human or mental related purpose to the universe.

I think this analysis give a good idea of the reason why quantum and fundamentalist theories of consciousness arouse such unreasoning and unscientific hostility in many mainstream quarters. Montero suggests that even researchers who are unaware of the gods/purposes implications of fundamentalist theories, pick up on their generally tainted reputation and respond accordingly.

Montero points out that there is broad scientific and philosophical agreement that the features of the world arise from a fundamental physical substrata. Every feature of the world can therefore be traced back to and shown to depend on fundamental physical properties. From this simple definition, it would appear that any theory of consciousness that arises from the fundamental level is a physicalist theory, and does not involve any form of dualism. She is open to the view that consciousness is a fundamental property, with the fundamental property not conscious as such, but acting as a ground state from which consciousness can arise given certain favourable circumstances, such as those that exist in the human brain.