Since consciousness is necessary for the functioning of mind, as the vehicle of thoughts, sensory images, or ideas (processed by the brain and stored in memory) that are delivered to consciousness through mind for consideration and response...

And since, without mind that carries the images or contents of consciousness, there could be no awareness or will, as well as no objective matter to be conscious of...

It's obvious that, between subjective consciousness and objective matter, there must be an information carrying field coupled with a continuously logical input-output transformational, transmission, and detection/response process that operates in perfect harmony and synchrony between subjective consciousness and objective memory, brain, body, senses, surrounding world, cosmos, etc.

Thus, there cannot be any separation between subjective consciousness and objective mind (energy) and matter (mass) as an essential duality within a unity (as a trinity) -- which, more or less exactly corresponds to the initial fractal involved triune hyperspherical structure of our entire space-time continuum, visible and invisible -- that perfectly conforms with General Relativity and superstring/M-brane theories, and their electrodynamics. It follows, that a structural duality can exist only on the physical.material plane -- that corresponds to the initial pre cosmic duality of subjectivity and objectivity inherent in absolute space.

Therefore, since I have no objection to the division of consciousness, as a generalized term representing different categories of subjective observation or experience, whether attentive, inattentive, unconscious, subconscious, subliminal, etc., and in whatever phenomenal or observational aspect or dimension it functions, such as wakeful, dream, meditative, self reflective, psychotic, etc. ... I would suggest that a satisfactory, all encompassing title for the topic in question -- could be changed from "mind experts" to either plain "consciousness and mind experts" or "general consciousness and mind experts"

I also agree that the limiting title "phenomenal consciousness and mind experts" originally suggested by me, would not be appropriate, and I will withdraw it from consideration.

Thus, under these suggested new titles, any theory of consciousness or mind, including creationist theories that are non scientific, but may relate to psychology, could be offered as a camp statement without objection.

Sorry about my previouss duplicate post.

As an observation relative to Michael's last letters quoting and responding to xodarap... The more Michael writes the less he says.

Apparently he has to know what "naive realism" means -- so as to understand exactly what he is commenting on (or ignoring). Also, since he knows practically nothing about general relativity theory or the roles the ether and gravity play in it -- his claims that objective space becomes curved by subjective consciousness (one quantitative and the other qualitative) -- without explaining the geometry and the dynamics between them -- IS an aspect of "naive realism" and IS Imposing a paradigm on the study of mind and consciousness that has no scientific or philosophical basis.

Therefore, if Michael wishes to establish a new scientific paradigm (or, as he calls it, a "science of consciousness") -- he should be able to explain its origin and basis, what it is composed of, and how it can split apart into two other so called "dimensions" (which is a physical term) and how it bends space when it splits into what he calls, "self reflected" or "classical" consciousness. In this latter state or condition, I would like to see Michael explain to us what and where is the "self" that consciousness supposedly reflects from?

All of those assertions, however, are meaningless opinions -- without clearly explaining the nature of "dimensions" (in empirical or logical terms), as well as the dynamics and mechanism of how the information of the senses and the memory are physically processed, transformed, and transmitted to consciousness, and how such information is detected, transformed and experienced as qualia.

IOW, explain, understandably, how that observation -- whether direct or self reflected, or psychotic -- is perceived and responded to willfully by our individual consciousness... Thus. proving any other paradigm either wrong, or a subset of the new paradigm -- like classical physics became an approximate subset of modern physics -- while some of its conclusions, such as gravity, space, light, matter, energy, electrodynamics, etc. were proven partially or entirely wrong.

If that can't be done -- without all the empty talk, such as wrong analogies, mixed metaphors, and unfounded assertions and denials -- Michael may as well be babbling gobbledygook (from a physical or even a psychophysical point of view). Obviously, biology, physiology and physical chemistry, as well as information theory cannot be left out of consciousness and/pr mind studies.

So, to be an "expert" means to cover a large part of all of that.

In addition, mind, as the medium of the information of consciousness, cannot be denied or claimed as an artifact of thought, without a clearly explained and verified rational basis for such beliefs.

Although I certainly do not agree with his rationale, I applaud Lenny's brilliant suggestion that:

<<"I would suggest that a satisfactory, all encompassing title for the topic in question -- could be changed from "mind experts" to either plain "consciousness and mind experts" or "general consciousness and mind experts""

"Consciousness and/or mind experts" would probably work *better* for me (but I won't quibble), since it at least implies that there is a difference and that one can choose between 2 paradigms: either consciousness or mind.

Great idea!!

(And why didn't *I* 'think' of that? Well, that should be *obvious*: I do not acknowledge that 'to think' is a verb. Every once in awhile, a 'thinker' is quite helpful.)

As I understand it, the purpose of this thread is to establish a new title for the topic of Mind Experts rather than to argue one's particular paradigm.

It would appear that this problem may very well have been resolved either by Lenny's quite reasonable suggestion of "Consciousness and Mind Experts", or my (equally reasonable) suggestion of "Consciousness and/or Mind Experts.

For further details about the separate paradigms, I suggest the camp statements are sufficient; and any questions or criticisms can be answered by e-mail or in discussion threads specifically for that purpose.

I vote for "Consciousness and Mind Experts".

"and/or" lacks panache.

Lenny quotes Michael as saying

"his claims that objective space becomes curved by subjective consciousness (one quantitative and the other qualitative) --"

This is mixed up. Fitzgerald and others have shown by psychophysical experiments that phenomenal space is curved. Einstein's curvature of physical space refers to a different topic.

Lower down Lenny claims that "dimension" is a physical concept. This is an error— "dimension" as ordinarily used is a geometrical concept that can be applied to phenmenal consciousness as well as in physics.

John Locke wrote:

<<""and/or" lacks panache.">>

So, "Consciousness and/or Mind Experts (*With* Panache, However)" will not work???

 :)

I 'think' I'll survive.

To John Locke I would say, thanks for clearing up the application of the word "dimension" .

As for the curvature of space, i agree that fundamental symmetric hyperspace and asymmetric phenomenal metric space would both have to be curved -- since ALL space is generated from a spherical "singularity'' as an analogous hyperspherical toroidal geometry -- which agrees with both relativity and string theories.

Quoting Michael: (And why didn't *I* 'think' of that? Well, that should be *obvious*: I do not acknowledge that 'to think' is a verb. Every once in awhile, a 'thinker' is quite helpful.)

Do we detect a bit of hypocrisy there, if not a contradiction in terms? ;-)

On second thought, I find that consciousness, being subjective and not a part of the phenomenal objective universe, although interconnected on an informational level (and in my view, holographically) with every part of it through the medium of mind... And, that since consciousness itself is not subject to direct observation conditionally, other than by anesthesiologists who deal with consciousness with respect to unconsciousness, but NOT with "the unconscious" which is a psychological term -- its obvious that there cannot be any experts on consciousness, per se -- since its origin and its nature is ineffable.

Therefore, since I think that the name change, if any, would be more reasonable, from a scientific point of view, if it were "mind and consciousness experts" rather than "consciousness and mind experts. I will add this alternative phrasing as a camp under the Name Change topic, and we can then see what the consensus will decide (if there is to be any change at all).

Personally, since I am not an expert on consciousness, but only on the informational contents of consciousness and its mechanisms and dynamics, as it relates to mind, memory, brain, body, senses, world, etc. -- I am satisfied with the current topic title as it stands. So, if a name change is necessary to satisfy some contributors, I might suggest it be set up as a separate topic

I also agree with Michael that our individual theories would best be discussed in the appropriate email forums, or posted under the appropriate canonizer topic

My goodness me! ... And this seemed like such a quiet little pond [or teacup] when last I looked :-) Various browser/google/curse_you_Bill_Gates! issues kept me away these last few days.

Here are some responses to some of the ripple causing issues:

• "Mind & Consciousness" sounds fine - the Earth will keep turning whatever we agree on, will it not!
• John Locke's assertion of "considerable body of scientific evidence amassed by parapsychologists" is *very much* disputed. The Amazing Randy has been for years offering US$1million to anyone who can clearly demonstrate psi effects to a scientific standard. The Australian Skeptics have been offering AUS$100,000 for the same thing for many years now also. Neither prize has been claimed. Most would be applicants are apparently almost stunned to find that they must allow third party collaboration and oversight of the experimental situation. I suggest that users of the canoniser system familiarise themselves with what Susan Blackmore discovered about all the claims for psi effects that she investigated.
• John L also complains that I seem to be giving "uncritical support to the psychoneural Identity Theory. This is a speculative metaphysical theory masquerading as a scientific hypothesis, and is not supported by any evidence." Well actually my support for this idea is the result of much sceptical thought over many years. I think that Identity Theory is a mighty fine summary of the relationship between "mind" as experienced and _brain_ as observed through umpteen objective methods. I think William of Ockham would thoroughly approve. UMSITW on the other hand is more an explanation of why we have a subjective impression of being here now. Of course it is 'speculative' but then so is every other statement about why we have a subjective impression of being here now, or subjectivity of any degree.
• Michael Cecil proclaims that my references to naive realism are irrelevant, and reckons that my disavowal of any supernatural being/effect is not relevant either but then asserts: "There would be no knowledge of the existence of self-reflection were it not for the "observing consciousness". It is the "observing consciousness" which 'observes' the 'movement' of self-reflection as a 'pirouette' of consciousness itself. This dimension of consciousness occurs prior to thought." However Michael fails utterly to explain how the first two sentences are different in any way from Descarte's "I think therefore I am", or how the third sentence is anything other than a simple assertion of belief.
• John L also asserts that naive realism is only a certain theory about perception and has nothing to do with understanding consciousness. I assert however that most conscious experience is about the world around us and tightly involved with perception [or apperception - it may be a better word for what we are talking about]. It is mainly the personal discovery by each of us that naive realism is inadequate to explain our perceptual experience which leads us to the disturbing realisation that the world is very much NOT what we usually just take it to be.

That's enough for now, or the dreaded time-out will destroy me :-(

Regards,

Mark

So, I guess this thread will be used for the arguments of the paradigms themselves after all; until the issue of the name change is finally resolved.

So, in response to Mark (oxodarap) who wrote:

"Michael Cecil proclaims that my references to naive realism are irrelevant, and reckons that my disavowal of any supernatural being/effect is not relevant either but then asserts: "There would be no knowledge of the existence of self-reflection were it not for the "observing consciousness". It is the "observing consciousness" which 'observes' the 'movement' of self-reflection as a 'pirouette' of consciousness itself. This dimension of consciousness occurs prior to thought." However Michael fails utterly to explain how the first two sentences are different in any way from Descarte's "I think therefore I am", or how the third sentence is anything other than a simple assertion of belief."

First of all, the consciousness of the 'thinker' cannot observe the 'movement' of self-reflection because the consciousness of the 'thinker' does not even *exist* until the thought of the 'thinker'. This can be very easily observed. Self-reflection occurs in the complete absence of any thought. It is a neurological reflex.

The word "pirouette" is instructive. It is a description of the 'movement' of consciousness. It is not a "thought" word; it is a "picture" word.

Thus, the first two sentences are different than Descartes because they describe a neurological reflex which can be directly observed by a consciousness other than the 'thinker'.

The third sentence is not in any way a belief. It is a description of the observation that self-reflection occurs prior to thought.

"A woman walks down the street, holding a baby on one hip and talking on her cell phone with the other (hand)."

That is not a belief. It is a description of something that can be observed; although the kind of observation is different.

"I 'think' [an assumption], therefore [implying a logical connection, which is another assumption, requiring a belief in logic], I am." [a conclusion deriving from a logical assumption, resting on the belief that "to think" is a verb; which verb, allegedly, requires an agent to perform that action.]

This duality of 'thinker' and thought or 'experiencer' and experience is conveyed in the scientific method by the *belief* in the "observer" and the "observation"; which, according to quantum physics cannot be so easily disentangled from each other.

The "observing consciousness" is, in fact, the information observed by that observing consciousness. The duality does not occur until the instant of self-reflection.