(This is a long delayed posting written in December, 2008)
The most reasonable response I can make to Michael's assertions, is to point out that while he has a perfect right to propose a new way of considering different dimensions of consciousness -- his use of scientific and other analogies to denigrate experts of mind is quite false.
For example, there is no relationship of a theory of mind with a theory of "phlogiston" that could discredit the word expert in relation to studies of conscious mind, or deny (as Michael has done) that there is such a thing as a mind, or a thinker that enables one to study and consider the nature of all things... Since phlogiston, as an obsolete theory of physics proposing a new element that was totally disproved, and thus, cannot have any "experts", it cannot be compared to modern scientific theories of mind -- considered as a medium of information (whether an emergent aspect of or separate from the brain's neurology) between phenomenal consciousness and memory, brain, body, senses, etc.
Also, the rhetorical comparing of Einstein's "ether" (as the "total space" and source of all metric spacetime fields) conflated with the earlier (pre-relativity) "aether theory" claiming that it was the medium of light -- in order to discredit theories of mind -- is entirely specious and fallacious. It is also not correct to imply that the ether was disproved -- since the failed MM experiment only proved that the ether was NOT the medium of light, but did not disprove its existence, according to Einstein, as the primal source of all phenomenal spacetime, as well as light. Thus, Einstein never disowned the ether -- which can easily be verified by studying his 1920 Leyden Lecture. Therefore, the ether is NOT the medium of light, but IS the light itself that moves through metric spacetime. And, relativity not only disproved many elements of classical theory, but completely superseded it as an entirely new paradigmatic theory of space, time, gravity, mass-energy, relative motion, etc.
As for the possibility of other dimensions of consciousness, there is no denial... But to assume that there is only two or three such dimensions, such as "observing consciousness," "self reflected consciousness", and (as I've heard Michael say before) "psychotic consciousness" -- all based solely on creationist theories of genesis and revelation in the Biblical scriptures, or on interpretations of religious philosophers such as Krishnamurti or DeCartes -- is totally unsatisfactory, from a scientific or philosophical POV ... And, which appears to to be an obvious attempt to give credence to creationist theories of the origin of consciousness -- without any empirical proof or logical argument concerning the possible spatial or physical origin of consciousness.
Nor, is there any rationale offered in these assumptions for the examination of the possible natural basis for the existence of consciousness, as well as its function on multiple dimensions equivalent to the altered states of consciousness observed by Western and Eastern scientists and philosophers. Even dream consciousness would have to be thoroughly explained in any valid "science of consciousness" -- which would also have to cover the actual mechanisms of consciousness to be considered as any sort of expertise.
However, there wouldn't be a problem in considering Michael as an expert in this topic, if such a supernatural consciousness theory had a separate "observer consciousness" topic of its own, or a position statement in whatever camp under whatever topic Michael chooses to expound his ideas in. But I would warn all scientific or philosophical "thinkers" to be aware of the unverifiable creationist underpinning of these beliefs.
However, such a multidimensional concept of consciousness, while having no rational or scientific basis, may still have an application in studies in transpersonal or cognitive psychology. So, there is no reason for it not to appear under any topic specifically applicable to those subjects. Nevertheless, I do not think Michael's creationist theories of consciousness belong under any scientifically or philosophically oriented topic that primarily is concerned with the study of both access and phenomenal consciousness and their interrelationship with mind, memory, brain-body, neuromuscular system, sensory system, etc. Therefore, since Michael's consciousness theory doesn't fall under any of those areas of expertise, perhaps it should have its own topic heading or a camp under any general topic concerned with different theories of consciousness -- whether scientific or otherwise.
As it stands, however there cannot be any "expert" on consciousness based on creationist or revelatory principles, not can there be a "science of consciousness" without the possibility of empirical proof, falsification or verifiable prediction, or even rational explanation of origin and mechanism Although there should be no objection to the term "philosophy of consciousness" to describe such creation based theories of consciousness.
In conclusion, from my personal point of view, I don't think that Michael can justifiably call his theory a "science of consciousness" -- since there is nothing in it that can scientifically, or even logically or rationally explain the origin cause and nature of consciousness -- as pure subjectivity, or as self reflected phenomena that is somehow genetically or dependently interconnected with the overall total space and its material forms. Nor can it explain the actual informational and physical mechanisms of informational transformation and transmission that function between phenomenal consciousness (awareness, will, experiencing qualia, perceiving, discerning, discriminating, differentiating, integrating, thinking, ideating, intuiting, recollecting, remembering, reasoning, selecting, choosing, deciding, intending, creating, composing, acting, etc., etc.) and the media of mind-memory and brain between the body, senses, and the outer 3-dimensional world.
So, in context of Michael's creationist theory of consciousness, that admittedly challenges the "scientific method" as well as the "thinker" (neither of which, incidentally, makes any claim to be "the source of *all* truth") -- the phase "science of consciousness" would appear, in this case, to be an oxymoron.
Lenny
On Nov 15, 2008, at 11/15/087:00 PM, canonizer@canonizer.com wrote:
Michael has sent this message to all the supporters of the Agreement camp on the topic: Mind Experts.
Rather than reply to this e-mail (which only goes to canonizer@canonizer.com) please post all replies to the camp forum thread page this message was sent from here:
http://canonizer.com/thread.asp/81/1/1
----------------------------------
In response to Lenny, I guess I would have to say "How can there be any
"mind" expert?
Which I would consider to be approximately equivalent to the question
"How can there be any phlogiston expert"?
The assertion that "To be an expert about anything, one has to think
about how that thing works" is, of course, traceable to self-reflection
and the thought of the 'thinker' as the source of the scientific method
and *all* truth. This is the paradigm that I am challenging; but not as
a *replacement* paradigm (as occurred from the Ptolemaic system to the
Copernican); but, rather, as a "range of applicability" paradigm (as
occurred from classical physics to relativity). (I suggest, for
example, that poets and song-writers do not really 'think' about
things, the words of songs typically not consisting of logical
arguments, but observations which are not from the consciousness of the
'thinker' at all.)
What I am suggesting is that there are other dimensions of
consciousness and 'truth' conveyed by both the 'unconscious' and the
"observing consciousness".
The assertion that "thinking requires a medium of thought -- which is
the mind that carries the information of consciousness" is no different
than the assertion of classical physics that there must be an "ether"
which is the medium to carry light waves. Of course, I deny both the
existence of the 'thinker' and "to think" as a verb. In accordance with
Occam's Razor, there are thoughts as one particular dimension of
consciousness; one of those thoughts being the thought of the
'thinker'.
Similarly, the assertion that I am suggesting that all researchers of
the 'classical' consciousness or the consciousness of the 'thinker'
simply be eliminated is categorically untrue; for the same reason that
relativity theory was not a *replacement* for classical physics but was
merely a 'range of applicability' paradigm change.
That is, all that currently occurs within the rubric of research on
cognitive psychology, neurology, etc. etc. etc. could very well be
considered to be under to topic of "mind" experts (if that's what you
want to call it, it's no skin off my back) or the 'classical'
consciousness or whatever else you would like to term it.
I am NOT suggesting that all of this research and this perspective be
eliminated *at all*; only that a category be established which
acknowledges that there are, in fact, *3* rather than only one (the
'thinker' or the 'mind') dimension of consciousness. (And, if the
consciousness of the 'thinker' wants to deny the reality of both the
'unconscious' and the "observing consciousness"; that, too, is fine by
me; just so long as another category is established in which all of
these dimensions of consciousness *can* be acknowledged.)
Using Lenny's rationale, I suppose the Michelson-Morley experiment and
Einstein's relativity as well should be either "expelled" from any
discussion on physics or "ignored" because they challenge the existence
of the "ether".
It seems that such comments demonstrate just how close this society is
coming to the official institution of "thought police".
----------------------------------
Please report any abuse to support@canonizer.com.