If consciousness were only byproduct of interacting charge exchanges between synapses within a receiver brain or cell organism, then such byproduct would already be determined BEFORE the time of each such charge exchange. In that case, each subsequent exchange of charge would be determined by the receiver state of the system or organism, from each next preceding state. The quality of consciousness (and any unfolding meaning or consistency thereof) would be mere acausal byproduct (so the notion goes). If true, it would seem that each brain (or complex stimulus-response system) should be experiencing "choices" before its mind is even aware of it. Actually, that may well be the case.
However, if that is probably the case, what would be the deeper indication begged by that? Is not the deeper indication this: that whatever it is that accounts for consciousness does not abide solely in disparate individuals? Must not consciousness as we experience it abide as a result of an interacting feedback communication between a holistic field and the particulars and perspectives that condense from it in order to occupy folds within space-time? Must not consciousness be a fundament of reality?
In that case, an holistic quality of consciousness would NOT be mere acausal byproduct. Rather, it would simply precede a local perspective's apprehension of it. And once the local perspective did apprehend, that would be fed back to the holistic perspective. And so on. Always in the "Now."
As to any consistent quality of meaning that unfolds in respect of such constant and continuous feedback between the whole of consciousness and its parts, why should that be the case ... unless the field itself somehow meaningfully invests a "care" to communicate, however immeasurably, among the various perspectives of it?
If the choice for what to make manifest among possible parameters (of the fuzz that precedes choices) is made before particles even organize to manifest the choice, then the physical manifestation of each choice would seem to be mere byproduct for storing measurable information about sequences of choices that had already been made. Whatever actually "causes" each choice would seem to be of a different and immeasureable character (conscious will) than of mere measureable matter.
Insofar as physical matter that is measurable, such would seem merely to provide means for feeding back information regarding decisions already made at a meta level, i.e., at a level of immeasurable consciousness. That level is still physical in that it entails a physical field of consciousness with scattered condensate of perspectives. However, it is a physical field of consciousness, which cannot measure its own emotive consciousness, except indirectly insofar as it makes manifest (in the kind of matter that is measurable) a means for storing empirical and sequential Information.
But, how is it that perspectives of consciousness that are beyond measurable matter can become aware of, make choices about, and exert influence to cause charge differentials between synapses within a receiver brain or cell to interact? Must the mechanism have something to do with a capacity of a field of conscious will and empathy to "lens" with a field of gravity (space-time geometry)? Must that lensing interaction have some immeasureable influence on effecting choices within parameters of feedback along the path for our universe's unfolding of informational storage mechanisms, which only consciousness interprets as physical quanta, matter, energy, electricity, and magnetism?
Well, I cannot measure or quantify the "meta how." But I can adduce that it abides.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Just which parts of "love your neighbor as yourself" and "be faithful to higher principles" is it that so scares atheists and liberals? Why is "restoring honor" conflated as necessarily being only about faithful belief? Which of Beck's values so anger and scare atheists and liberals? Cannot an "atheist who is faithful to higher or moral values" find anything to praise in Beck's bringing together of faithful Americans of all beliefs -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam ... and no doubt various Buddhists, Hindi, pagans, humanists, atheists, and nature worshipping deists and empiricists? I don't quite get it: Why do Leftists, collectivists, and atheists so often fear and hate Beck? What, precisely, was it about the rally that so stirred their fear juices? Why is there so much Christphobia in many fiscal conservatives? Is Beck scheming with Isabella and Ferdinand to loose a new Inquisition? What is the source of all this modern fear mongering against ordinary people who simply believe in higher meaning? Do Christphobics fear social conservatives are going to take away doctors' rights to be educated in modern scientific medicine? Where is this stuff coming from? Do they think intelligent people's brains will somehow fall out if they are exposed to differences in thought concerning conscious design, intelligent design, and meaningless chance? Do Christphobics even know what conscious design (Klingman) is?
Post a Comment