Games of Consciousness - The Light In The Astrodome
You are a highly trained, technically aware, international operative representing government and commercial interests on the leading edge of the study of consciousness and the human mind. Your assignment: find out how consciousness works. Tracking down a hot lead late one night in the laboratory of a competitor, you are attacked from behind, knocked unconscious…
...and come to lying on your back in complete darkness, unable to see anything, with no idea of where you are and no memory of how you got there. You shake out the cobwebs and with the determination of a true scientist, set out to discover the nature of your environment.
Using the senses that work, feeling the ground, calling out and listening for echoes, sniffing the air for telltale odors, and so on, you come to the conclusion that you are inside a very large building that arches high above your head. Images of the Astrodome come to your mind and you stare straight upward with dilated pupils in an attempt to catch any glimmer of light as you process the information you have and wonder what to do next.
Suddenly a powerful and brilliant light floods the darkness from above and you are momentarily blinded by the contrast from the absolute blackness you have been experiencing.
You reflexively close your eyes and turn away. But the light has made it possible for you to see and as your eyes adjust you note that the assessment of your surroundings is confirmed. You are, indeed, inside a large, completely enclosed, dome shaped building which is now illuminated by a single source of light, too strong to look at directly, located at the apex of the building far above your head.
Looking up to the top of the dome, to the source of the light, all you see are rays and light and energy so bright and brilliant that you have to avert your eyes just to keep from being blinded. Fascinating how the light is illuminating everything in the building but itself.
Lying there on the ground, unable to look directly at the light, there is no way you can answer any questions about it with any degree of certainty; how it works, where its source of energy comes from, who if anyone is in charge. Without further facts, whatever you come up with is merely speculation and your academic training and scientific rigor will not permit you to make unsupported claims.
In fact, there is nothing about the light you know for sure, except, of course, the one thing you experienced personally and first hand. It had been dark. Now it is light. The light had been off. Now it is on. Whatever else you may not know, THAT MUCH YOU KNOW! Right?
…
…
…
...
...
...
(answer before reading further)
...
...
...
...
...
...
Well, not quite...
You can certainly say as a result of your direct experience that you had experienced darkness and now you are experiencing light. And with the English penchant for nominalizing process, you could even say 'it' had been dark and now 'it' is light, whatever ‘it’ is.
However you cannot say with absolute confidence that a light which had been off is now on. Although a reasonable explanation, it is only supposition since there is at least one other scenario that could have occurred and produced the same existential results.
What if a lens shaped aperture had suddenly opened up in the ceiling above your head revealing a brilliant and powerful light source, already on, located just above the roof? The opening of the lens would have flooded the building with light from this already illuminated source and if the light were larger than the opening and positioned close enough to the roof, the pattern of diffusion of light rays within the building would be the same as that produced by a light the size of the lens positioned just below a roof without an opening.
Lying there on the floor below, wouldn't your experience be the same in either case, a sudden change from darkness to light? And since you are unable to look directly at the light would there be any possible way for you to tell which of the two processes had actually taken place and changed your world?
What matters here is not even which process is the 'real' one, the one lighting up your otherwise dark surroundings. What does matter is the realization that once it is clear that there are two equally valid and equally logical possibilities that yield the exact same sensory experience, it becomes impossible for the rational and logical mind, (i.e. the scientific mind, your mind) to hold onto any one explanation as being the only possible one.
Let us apply this logic to the issue of consciousness. Science has clearly established the relationship between mind and brain. The more evolved the brain, the more evolved the mind. Human brains are developed beyond those of dogs which in turn are developed beyond those of frogs which are developed beyond those of slugs and so on down the line, with the perceptual and cognitive capacities and capabilities of each level mapping a clear direct relationship with the development of the brain. This is observable fact.
However, what has been presumed to be a logical conclusion within the scientific community, that as the brain evolves and develops it creates the attributes of consciousness we call mind, turns out to be pure supposition. There is another explanation of the brain/mind relationship that is just as valid and just as possible as the causal explanation of modern science. And this explanation leads to completely different conclusions about the nature of consciousness.
What if the brain, through its measurable development and evolution, rather than creating an internal light of consciousness out of dark nothingness, was opening us up to an awareness of a light of consciousness that already exists external to us?
What if the evolution and development of the brain did not turn on an ever increasing internal light of cognition and perception within but rather operated as a lens which opened us up ever wider and ever more clearly to an external consciousness that already exists in totality? Is it possible? Why not?
Why not, indeed! Back when we were inside the building, looking up at the light, we could not tell whether it was coming from a source under the roof or whether it was coming through a hole from a source above the roof. In an exact parallel, inside our body looking at the source of our own consciousness, there is absolutely no way of knowing whether it is self-contained within us or flooding us through an aperture from an external source. Think about it. From within, there is no possible way we can tell the difference. And if we cannot tell for sure about our own consciousness, there is certainly no way we can claim to know about anyone else's.
All the scientific studies ever done that demonstrate the relationship between brain and mind are still valid. The observable features still hold, the more evolved the brain, the greater the capacity of the mind. Only now the brain is viewed not as a mechanism whose development, like the operating of a rheostat, turns on a light and makes it ever brighter; it becomes a mechanism whose development, like the operating of a camera lens, widens and allows ever greater access to an already existing brightness.
What matters here is not even which process is the 'real' one, the one lighting up your otherwise dark surroundings. What does matter is the realization that once it is clear that there are two equally valid and equally logical possibilities that yield the exact same sensory experience, it becomes impossible for the rational and logical mind, (i.e. the scientific mind, your mind) to hold onto any one explanation as being the only possible one.
Yet surprisingly, only one of these two equally possible explanations of what we actually experience has dominated western scientific thinking for the past several hundred years. This shortsighted supposition has led us to view humans as having the right to rape nature and dominate other species because 'we have consciousness and you don't!'. It sounds silly when it is said that way, but that is exactly what has happened.
Yet aren't we missing something here? Something so obvious that we keep overlooking it? After all, this suggests a major paradigm shift that would reshape all of western thought if it were discovered to be so. Isn't that a pretty big step?
Well, yes it is, but it's not as if such a shift has never happened before. There was a time when everyone was sure Earth was flat and then suddenly people started sailing home from places where they should have fallen off.
And we were sure the sun circled Earth, that we were in the center of things. We just had to look up, for goodness sake, and we could see it was true with our own eyes! But one small change in consciousness such that our mind sees the sun holding steady while Earth rotates, and though everything still looks the same, our understanding shifts making possible the comprehension of an even greater reality.
We have made quantum leaps of awareness before that moved humanity out of the physical center of what was happening to a place on the periphery. Back then the church was in the power position, claiming the ability to verify for everyone what was true or not. Church fathers kept a lid on new ideas that went against what they held as sacred because they had a vested interest in preserving the status quo. From today's scientific perspective, we can look back and know that reality seen through a lens of theology clearly biases how we perceive what we see.
However the eye of science, while freeing us from the distorting lens of theology, has nontheless colored our subconscious reality in the exact same way with a distorting lens of its own. Everything must be measurable. And just as those trapped in a theological mind set couldn't conceive of there being another way of viewing reality than theirs, so it is with us of the scientific mind. We don't even recognize that our view is skewed.
Remember what you just experienced. Like the light in the Astrodome, there is no way to tell for certain whether our own consciousness is being generated from within our brains or coming in through an 'opening' from outside. Once it is in our heads, it is too late to find out where it came from.
Thus, it behooves us humans to focus, for a while at least, on the other equally valid alternative to the nature of consciousness just to see if it would make any difference in our understanding of who we are and the way we interact with life, each other, and the world around us. After all, anything less would be unscientific.
POW!
...and come to lying on your back in complete darkness, unable to see anything, with no idea of where you are and no memory of how you got there. You shake out the cobwebs and with the determination of a true scientist, set out to discover the nature of your environment.
Using the senses that work, feeling the ground, calling out and listening for echoes, sniffing the air for telltale odors, and so on, you come to the conclusion that you are inside a very large building that arches high above your head. Images of the Astrodome come to your mind and you stare straight upward with dilated pupils in an attempt to catch any glimmer of light as you process the information you have and wonder what to do next.
Suddenly a powerful and brilliant light floods the darkness from above and you are momentarily blinded by the contrast from the absolute blackness you have been experiencing.
You reflexively close your eyes and turn away. But the light has made it possible for you to see and as your eyes adjust you note that the assessment of your surroundings is confirmed. You are, indeed, inside a large, completely enclosed, dome shaped building which is now illuminated by a single source of light, too strong to look at directly, located at the apex of the building far above your head.
Looking up to the top of the dome, to the source of the light, all you see are rays and light and energy so bright and brilliant that you have to avert your eyes just to keep from being blinded. Fascinating how the light is illuminating everything in the building but itself.
Lying there on the ground, unable to look directly at the light, there is no way you can answer any questions about it with any degree of certainty; how it works, where its source of energy comes from, who if anyone is in charge. Without further facts, whatever you come up with is merely speculation and your academic training and scientific rigor will not permit you to make unsupported claims.
In fact, there is nothing about the light you know for sure, except, of course, the one thing you experienced personally and first hand. It had been dark. Now it is light. The light had been off. Now it is on. Whatever else you may not know, THAT MUCH YOU KNOW! Right?
…
…
…
...
...
...
(answer before reading further)
...
...
...
...
...
...
Well, not quite...
You can certainly say as a result of your direct experience that you had experienced darkness and now you are experiencing light. And with the English penchant for nominalizing process, you could even say 'it' had been dark and now 'it' is light, whatever ‘it’ is.
However you cannot say with absolute confidence that a light which had been off is now on. Although a reasonable explanation, it is only supposition since there is at least one other scenario that could have occurred and produced the same existential results.
What if a lens shaped aperture had suddenly opened up in the ceiling above your head revealing a brilliant and powerful light source, already on, located just above the roof? The opening of the lens would have flooded the building with light from this already illuminated source and if the light were larger than the opening and positioned close enough to the roof, the pattern of diffusion of light rays within the building would be the same as that produced by a light the size of the lens positioned just below a roof without an opening.
Lying there on the floor below, wouldn't your experience be the same in either case, a sudden change from darkness to light? And since you are unable to look directly at the light would there be any possible way for you to tell which of the two processes had actually taken place and changed your world?
What matters here is not even which process is the 'real' one, the one lighting up your otherwise dark surroundings. What does matter is the realization that once it is clear that there are two equally valid and equally logical possibilities that yield the exact same sensory experience, it becomes impossible for the rational and logical mind, (i.e. the scientific mind, your mind) to hold onto any one explanation as being the only possible one.
Let us apply this logic to the issue of consciousness. Science has clearly established the relationship between mind and brain. The more evolved the brain, the more evolved the mind. Human brains are developed beyond those of dogs which in turn are developed beyond those of frogs which are developed beyond those of slugs and so on down the line, with the perceptual and cognitive capacities and capabilities of each level mapping a clear direct relationship with the development of the brain. This is observable fact.
However, what has been presumed to be a logical conclusion within the scientific community, that as the brain evolves and develops it creates the attributes of consciousness we call mind, turns out to be pure supposition. There is another explanation of the brain/mind relationship that is just as valid and just as possible as the causal explanation of modern science. And this explanation leads to completely different conclusions about the nature of consciousness.
What if the brain, through its measurable development and evolution, rather than creating an internal light of consciousness out of dark nothingness, was opening us up to an awareness of a light of consciousness that already exists external to us?
What if the evolution and development of the brain did not turn on an ever increasing internal light of cognition and perception within but rather operated as a lens which opened us up ever wider and ever more clearly to an external consciousness that already exists in totality? Is it possible? Why not?
Why not, indeed! Back when we were inside the building, looking up at the light, we could not tell whether it was coming from a source under the roof or whether it was coming through a hole from a source above the roof. In an exact parallel, inside our body looking at the source of our own consciousness, there is absolutely no way of knowing whether it is self-contained within us or flooding us through an aperture from an external source. Think about it. From within, there is no possible way we can tell the difference. And if we cannot tell for sure about our own consciousness, there is certainly no way we can claim to know about anyone else's.
All the scientific studies ever done that demonstrate the relationship between brain and mind are still valid. The observable features still hold, the more evolved the brain, the greater the capacity of the mind. Only now the brain is viewed not as a mechanism whose development, like the operating of a rheostat, turns on a light and makes it ever brighter; it becomes a mechanism whose development, like the operating of a camera lens, widens and allows ever greater access to an already existing brightness.
What matters here is not even which process is the 'real' one, the one lighting up your otherwise dark surroundings. What does matter is the realization that once it is clear that there are two equally valid and equally logical possibilities that yield the exact same sensory experience, it becomes impossible for the rational and logical mind, (i.e. the scientific mind, your mind) to hold onto any one explanation as being the only possible one.
Yet surprisingly, only one of these two equally possible explanations of what we actually experience has dominated western scientific thinking for the past several hundred years. This shortsighted supposition has led us to view humans as having the right to rape nature and dominate other species because 'we have consciousness and you don't!'. It sounds silly when it is said that way, but that is exactly what has happened.
Yet aren't we missing something here? Something so obvious that we keep overlooking it? After all, this suggests a major paradigm shift that would reshape all of western thought if it were discovered to be so. Isn't that a pretty big step?
Well, yes it is, but it's not as if such a shift has never happened before. There was a time when everyone was sure Earth was flat and then suddenly people started sailing home from places where they should have fallen off.
And we were sure the sun circled Earth, that we were in the center of things. We just had to look up, for goodness sake, and we could see it was true with our own eyes! But one small change in consciousness such that our mind sees the sun holding steady while Earth rotates, and though everything still looks the same, our understanding shifts making possible the comprehension of an even greater reality.
We have made quantum leaps of awareness before that moved humanity out of the physical center of what was happening to a place on the periphery. Back then the church was in the power position, claiming the ability to verify for everyone what was true or not. Church fathers kept a lid on new ideas that went against what they held as sacred because they had a vested interest in preserving the status quo. From today's scientific perspective, we can look back and know that reality seen through a lens of theology clearly biases how we perceive what we see.
However the eye of science, while freeing us from the distorting lens of theology, has nontheless colored our subconscious reality in the exact same way with a distorting lens of its own. Everything must be measurable. And just as those trapped in a theological mind set couldn't conceive of there being another way of viewing reality than theirs, so it is with us of the scientific mind. We don't even recognize that our view is skewed.
Remember what you just experienced. Like the light in the Astrodome, there is no way to tell for certain whether our own consciousness is being generated from within our brains or coming in through an 'opening' from outside. Once it is in our heads, it is too late to find out where it came from.
Thus, it behooves us humans to focus, for a while at least, on the other equally valid alternative to the nature of consciousness just to see if it would make any difference in our understanding of who we are and the way we interact with life, each other, and the world around us. After all, anything less would be unscientific.
* * *
posted by Anonymous | 10:17 PM
1 Comments:
So what's your point? If consciousness feels the same to us, and I do like your example of the Astrodome by the way, then what does it really matter where that consciousness is coming from? I am still me no matter what. What's the big deal?
Post a Comment
<< Home