Earlier this year I wrote an article titled "Conscious Shift 2012," briefly offering an overview of what consciousness consists of. Since that article was published, I have participated in a variety of discussion groups via Linkedin where others share in my passion of such topic. It is fascinating to see people of all parts of the world gather at these groups to consider new views and attempt to solve this ancient and ongoing enigma. Groups ranging from spirituality and metaphysics to quantum physics all have the same burning questions:
What is consciousness? Can consciousness be measured? How does the mind play a part in consciousness? How does our consciousness affect our DNA? This is only to name a few of the most heated and intriguing discussions I engaged in. The overall consensus is, to say the least, a mixed bag of opinions, as both sides -- science and spirituality -- continue the mud-slinging with regards to where consciousness comes from.
Personally, I side with Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff with the model they have postulated on "Orch OR." But then, I encountered a great deal of resistance of that model by members of the math regime theoretical camp mostly in the Eastern hemisphere of the world, who argued Orch OR is not "real physics." They could not buy into the notion that so much of consciousness depends on "coherence," the non-computational aspects of conscious thinking. Consciousness is at best subjective, meaning non-local "non-deterministic free will at the essential nature of our experience."
One of the most peculiar discussions I played part in began to develop a "personality" of its own. It is this particular discussion I wish to draw your attention to. As time went on, what I observed was the growth of a common thread, that being camaraderie, compassion and, yes, even love. Now, how does that solve any of our current issues with understanding consciousness or even dealing with some of the less conscious aspects threatening our global economy or human conditions? Interestingly enough, the energy generated out of this discussion lead me to comprehend that as a "tribe" we all want the same things, a little understanding and a sense of belonging.
Taking into account this type of philosophical approach in problem-solving opens a variety of creative avenues to larger issues, such as getting to the heart of what really matters with regards to politics, economics and health. I would venture to say that, as a community, if in the voting ballot we were to include a question such as "How does your favorite presidential candidate rank in vibrational frequency?" -- meaning how conscious is he with respect to self-actualization, shadow beliefs, anger transmutation and awareness of subtle energy realms -- we would likely end up with someone like Deepak Chopra, Wayne Dyer or Eckhart Tolle running the country. Not a bad choice if you ask me, but then no one has asked me. Any of these candidates would likely be able to raise as much funds for a presidential campaign as any one of the current running candidates. Oddly enough, I feel as though one of them could actually get elected and make a vast difference.
We are, without doubt, at a tipping point in our human evolution. The underlying theme seems to be "change," as in self-transformation, or get sucked in by the "quantum vacuum" of our dysfunctional system.
If everyone does their part in this most dynamic and imperative exercise, then we would all be living in nirvana. Sadly, the majority of the population is still falling behind when it comes to acquisition of tools empowering the mind's ability to tune into the cosmic intelligence of this elegant universe. It is those folks who will likely suffer the most in the upcoming shift as the pendulum swings over to reflect the need for unity. Not until everyone can fully grasp the wisdom in Rumi's words "You are not just a drop in the ocean, you are the entire ocean in a drop," will we be out of the woods.
I invite you to speak in our Linkedin discussion moderated by Jos Hoebe titled "Is Consciousness Material?" and see an example of what can be created regarding motion and group energy for the exploration of infinite possibilities. Remember you are a part of our tribe; you can either play or miss out; in which case the words of Andy Dufresne (character) from Stephen King's The Shawshank Redemption apply well: "It all comes down to a choice, really. You either get busy living or get busy dying."
For more by Denise M. Wilbanks, click here.
For more on consciousness, click here.
Follow Denise M. Wilbanks on Twitter: www.twitter.com/denisemwilbanks
However, think about this: because no one in the fields of neuroscience and cognitive psychology has ever agreed on a definition of consciousness, it has been impossible to make a true science out of the concept - unlike physics and biochemistry where scientists agree on the definitions of, say, "electron" and "DNA".
Moreover, "consciousness" is one of a small group of words in natural languages that are "under-determined" by empirical data (other words include "mind" and "God"). That means a proper science of consciousness is impossible. And there is nothing we can do about that limitation because we are "stuck" in the web of our natural languages from birth.
Finally, I would ask you this: why do we often assume that consciousness must reside in biological tissue like the brain? How would you respond to someone who assumes instead that consciousness resides nowhere in the world of our senses and therefore can never be the object of any scientific experiment?
How can our sciences respond to the second assumption - arbitrarily deny it is sensible and reasonable, or admit that, indeed, empirical science has intrinsic limitations preventing it from answering certain questions about the nature of reality?
Mr. Dick Turpin
It has to be this way because of cosmic laws. We can't as a whole (humankind) outpace nature. We can only "recur" until we get it right as individual entities.
This is a very different and powerful idea put forth by Gurdjieff, which I quote from a passage of a book written by Ouspensky, "In Search Of The Miraculous" page 64;
"Only thought as theoretical and as far removed from fact as modem European thought could have conceived the evolution of man to be possible apart from surrounding nature, or have regarded the evolution of man as a gradual conquest of nature. This is quite impossible. In living, in dying, in evolving, in degenerating, man equally serves the purposes of nature—or, rather, nature makes equal use, though perhaps for different purposes, of the products of both evolution and degeneration. And, at the same time, humanity as a whole can never escape from nature, for, even in struggling against nature man acts in conformity with her purposes..."
Increasing ones level of consciousness has to be an individual experience, it is not pleasing at times and contains many levels of self discovery...
Eso
You are absolutely correct in stating: "Increasing ones level of consciousness has to be an individual experience, it is not pleasing at times and contains many levels of self discovery"
This is perhaps the reason so many avoid looking into the opportunity to embark on the path of self-transformation. Interestingly enough, the rewards far exceed the cost of such unpleasantness. Expressing those benefits has become my passion, offering an incentive to those who fear the unknown. I am not familiar with the book, "In Search Of The Miraculous", but the title alone is very revealing, and I would also agree that a conscious awakening is nothing short of miraculous.
Thank you for you comment on my column, I look forward to your return visits.
The mystical notions that have arisen in the past ( and often still do!) are purely illusory, an inevitable result of approaching the question by introspection. This, of course, was the only option available to earlier philosophers and many still have trouble escaping from that trap with its inevitable recursive loops.
Today, although the details of nervous system function of ourselves or other animals is very far from complete, we have sufficient information to have a rough idea of the gross workings of these systems.
From evolutionary considerations we can also now see how the essentially navigational function we like to call "consciousness", "self-awareness" "sense of agency" and so forth is bound to arise.
Furthermore, from another discipline, we now have an excellent understanding of functionally analogous computational systems.
With these new tools at our disposal we can now view the phenomenon in a truly objective way. And then the hocus-pocus surrounding this issue vanishes!
This topic is part of the broad evolutionary model very informal outlined in "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" (free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website)
The verdict is not yet out on matters pertaining to "consciousness". I will agree that it is not only a mystery but one of the most elegant enigmas of the universe. I will venture to say that you cannot "mechanastically break down all the observable components" that is why still today this topic is considered in most disciplines as "The Hard Question"
Thank you for making a contribution to my collumn. Hope to see you more often.
While it is true that we are able to see how "consciousness" is bound to arise, the real question I pose is: Do we on all accounts opt to allow or create the atmosphere for it to arise? There is no value to the aspects of measurements so long as individuals we are reluctant to explore the real benefits of "awakening". I can tell you from personal experience that when one undergoes the shock and awe of a transformational undertow, one is unable to view anything else through the same eyes; hence enhancing the ability to become "The Observer".
Assuming I am understanding your statement, the principal computazion systems I am aware of, only measures brainwave funtion EEG, it can not measure coherance. These is no way to account for the "loop" Consciousness transgresses during its "home run" around the cosmic baseball field.
Part 1 of 2
This is the dawning of the 'New Age"--The 'New Awakening' is gaining momentum..
I particulary like the last comment made by Denise--re:joining the group discussion.'The words of Andy Dufresne(character) fromStephen King's-"The Shawshank Redemption,apply well."It all comes down to choice, really.You either get busy living or you get busy dying.