Replies

I lack the wit to lampoon this article the way others on this thread have but I agree that it is new age claptrap.

The nature/mechanism of conciousness has always fascinated me and I'll try to deal with it seriously.

Science fiction authors sometimes introduce the concept of machine sentience. Stories like "2001", "Colossus","Terminator", and "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" come to mind. Usually the author just describes a huge computer that just "becomes" aware by virtue of it's size. No serious treatment is ever given to what architecture is required or what sort of recursive feedback is required for a processor to observe itself processing.

Thirty years ago, in the wake of the discovery of hallucinogenic drugs by our culture there seemed to be a lot of research into consciousness. Unfortunately, whenever I read anything that promised to investigate the mechanism of being, the main focus was on sensory and perceptual systems. What I considered to be the central issue was never mentioned. The I AM in each of us is what I wanted to understand but it was as if there was a blind spot that all the researchers had with regard to the cental concept of the "I AM". Perhaps it was so enigmatic that they just didn't go there.

After I became a Christian I stumbled upon something remarkable. In the Bible when Moses asked God for His name the answer was "I AM, I AM" This liguistic construct confuses a lot of people and they translate the passage "I AM WHO AM" or "I will be who I will be" or some other bit of deep sounding mishmash. The Jewish scribes turned it into an unpronouncable acronym that became the Hashem, the Holy name of God. Some today try pronouncing the name and say Yahweh or Jehovah.

The next verse should have prevented all that linguistic mischief. After God said to Moses "I AM, I AM" He added "This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you" God saying "I AM I AM" is equivalent to me saying "I am Robert"

I'm dwelling on this because what we are dealing with is the central truth in everyone's reality. There is nothing so certain to you as your existence as an "I AM".
You were created in the image of the one whose name is "I AM". This being was able to create a space time continuum,(the heavens and the earth) and a physical body (Jesus) that he was able to place His I AM into. There are some pretty weird references in the Bible with regard to this.

Jesus said: "Before Abraham was, I AM"
In the garden, when the soldiers were coming to arrest Jesus, They asked Him if he was Jesus of Nazereth and he answered: "I AM" and the soldiers were knocked down by something.

What I'm getting at is that I suspect there is no mechanism discoverable that explains the "I AM" in us. Your being may be a supernatural spark within you that is a reflection of it's creator. That may be the reason that nobody has any inkling of how it works. I believe the existence of sentience is a supernatural manifestation of the Almighty God.

Please don't look for answers in quasi-technical mystic babble like the article you posted.

Unfortunately, whenever I read anything that promised to investigate the mechanism of being, the main focus was on sensory and perceptual systems. What I considered to be the central issue was never mentioned. The I AM in each of us is what I wanted to understand but it was as if there was a blind spot that all the researchers had with regard to the cental concept of the "I AM". Perhaps it was so enigmatic that they just didn't go there.

Materialist science denies the "central concept," the I AM. So it's hardly surprising that they don't look for it. But then, if it can't be measured, materialist science can't do anything with it anyway.

Yet science itself -- physics preeminently -- is telling us that consciousness is an extraordinarily critical phenomenon that needs to be understood if science is to make further progress in discovering the deepest laws of nature. The "Integrative Science" approach -- which is multidisciplined -- looks like it may be able to produce some real insights into this universal phenomenon.

I am sorry to learn that you have pre-judged this as "New Age" claptrap. Certainly Prof. Raman's article has a strong Buddhist flavor to it. But basically, IMHO that paper points only to the tip of the iceberg. You have to look to the Grandpierre article if you want to get a scientific picture of the "depth."

Thank you for writing, UnChained. Except as noted, I much admired what you wrote.