TOWARD A NON-MECHANICAL SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Here is a gist or abstract for a paper entitled Toward a Non-Mechanical Science of Consciousness to be presented at the next 2010 global conference of ASSC – Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness. This is pending approval by ASSC. For more information and details on a non-mechanical and non-math-based view of nature, plus a unique and revolutionary philosophy of consciousness and our cosmos, visit our www.raw-wisdom.com website.
The above title of Toward A Non-Mechanical Science of Consciousness or even a Non-Science of Consciousness seemingly goes against the core thrust of ASSC and allied organizations. It definitely offers a revolutionary thesis that counters some central beliefs of our modern world. No doubt we need a more advanced and non-mystical (not just vaguely and comfortably believed in) view about what consciousness is. It needs to have practical and effective applications that really work to enhance our consciousness. This study, however, has resisted those kinds of results and even with the best of conventional scientific thrusts to fathom exactly and precisely what the essence of consciousness is.
This paper examines the reason why this innate resistance not only exists but has non-accidentally persisted.
In his earlier years, the author Nathan Batalion was a math prodigy who at the age of 17 had an high fever that caused his left-brain to shut down. Subsequent decades of deep inner explorations, led him to develop a radically different view of not only the nature of consciousness but of our cosmos as such. He went past his mathematical training and astute knowledge of physics to see through the essential left-brain dominant perspective that supposedly math-bound formulations pointed us to nature’s true essence . He went past the 17th century catapulted ideology of Galileo and Newton or the vision of a solely math-defined/machine-principle-eliciting view of nature and our cosmos.
THUS GOING PAST CONVENTIONAL LABORATORY APPROACHES
The distinctive features of a modern laboratory include a converging of measuring tools in order to buttress, reinforce and ever expand this same 17th century ideology of nature. A common assumption of the phrase “toward a science of consciousness” is thus that we need to break down consciousness to conform and fit into this mold. Or we need some breakthrough conventional lab protocol to fathom exactly what consciousness is in a measured way. We may thus study consciousness in the same way we study a geological rock – using precise lab assays or a test tub chemical analysis. We might then reduce the rock to a few chemical components, each delineated by an exact atomic structure. But can we really discover the nature of consciousness by these means – breaking it up into such atomistic parts or something akin? We may employ the very sharpest tools of measurement and/or microscopy to explore this approach and still somehow it has resisted that exploration – and for extremely good reasons.
The resistance, of course, is not what we would expect being “scientists.” We would anticipate our efforts bearing fruit soon – as we use our most exacting and reliable tool for “objective perspectives” and to satisfy peer reviews. However, peer review and peer pressure can be closely related what then engenders still more deeply ingrained cultural bias.
Here a radical thesis is proposed that we need to escape most of the conventional paths for arriving at a trans-left/right brain dominant, truly impartial, culturally non-tainted, impersonal and/or objective view of what consciousness is.
THE MAIN MISSTEP
Back in the 17th century western civilization experienced a hugely revolutionary and dramatic inner transformation. There was a shift from the dominance of the Bible-centered view of the world. This was symbolized by the steeples of churches that rose the highest or assumed cultural dominance. The biblical truths were the organizing core beliefs of the medieval vision. The biblical view was as deeply entrenched then as the math-centered vision that replaced that perspective is now. Civilization, guided by the likes of Galileo, Descartes, Newton aggressively sought to uncover nature-conquering truths that supposedly were more free of beliefs and blind metaphysics than the prior biblical. All elements of consciousness could now be subdued, fully known and reunited into a new order – the purely math-led and defined. All else was less real or less reliable to lean upon. This lead to a reconstruction of most major fields of knowledge and the transition from medieval religious culture to our modern industrial/commercial world.
AUDACIOUS THESIS GLOBALLY APPLIED
No longer the word of the biblical God, now where math symbols pointed presumably gave us bedrock truths of the “principia” or laws of nature. This very audacious thesis, if right, could help us evolve to heights or if wrong (because it is so universally and aggressively applied) could destroy us. This presumption, nevertheless, was promoted with an unbridled lack of doubt. It manifest in the global proliferation of the fruits of chemistry, physics, biotechnology, pharmaceutical medicine and the centuries-long experiences of our Industrial Revolution.
Galileo, Descartes and Newton naively envisioned a kind of glorious future Utopia evolving out of their ideas, and which was to manifest later with the Industrial Revolution. However, they never vaguely imagined the same future to filled with chemical pollution, atomic weapons proliferation or health pandemics like cancer. It was far from their consciousness to suspect that their ideas might be implicated in such threatening developments. They rather and again, with little self-scrutiny, foresaw blinding progress to be led by the discovery of nature’s “truly objective” laws. Nevertheless we now experience certain “side-effects.” They can be named “side-effects” to make them appear less significant. On the issue of health “side-effects,” we must face the fact that the collective health of our planet’s human population is not improving at present. A generation ago in the US, for example, 2% of children were known to suffered from chronic diseases. Now it is closer to 8%, the figure having quadrupled in just one generation. Cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease are especially pandemic and they are what I call “consciousness diseases.” For example, cancer spreads unnoticed within. Diabetes manifests with neuropathy or lack of feeling, especially of the extremities. A diabetes patient may step on a nail and not feel the penetration. Alzheimer’s disease obviously involves another kind of extreme loss of consciousness. If consciousness diseases are actually growing in our modern world, it becomes obvious that culturally we do not fathom deeply, we have not conquered the knowing of this phenomenon – not via our most conventional, trusted understandings.
From an ecological point of view, we also find ourselves approaching a kind of precipice. Our global collective path is not just energy-wise non-sustainable, it also threatens the extinction of life and therefore the extinguishing of consciousness. Some estimate that in the next 10o years 1/2 of all life forms on earth, plant and animal, will be threatened with extincting. This implies that present trends will continue. The recent wholesale death of bee colonies portends this. Avatar was a film with a script that captured a little of this gist. The integrity of the whole web of life and consciousness on Earth is being threatened on multiple fronts. Something is obviously very wrong which implies our modern knowledge of nature is faulty.
This paper assembles potent and piercing ways to challenged, transcend, and replace our conventional, taproot and mechanical understanding of nature. This means we also deeply reorient our understanding of waht is the nature and organization of consciousness within us and in our great universe. Here we thus challenge the depth-validity, integrity and true wisdom of the core of core philosophies of our times, the mathematical, and that just 400 years ago began guiding the formation of our uniquely modern world. So to move toward a genuinely objective science of consciousness we need a different approach.