_
___
_____
_______ Consciousness Craft

FINDING AN agreed-upon definition of consciousness proved elusive. Consciousness studies, though ancient, had only recently, in the 1990s, been accepted into academic curricula. In consciousness studies, biologists researching the neurological workings of the brain joined with mathematicians postulating quantum theories and philosophers eager to move beyond dualism and perhaps even resurrect Platonic ideals more amenable to quantum science. As these academics dialogued, a definitive, consensual definition of consciousness dissolved. The academic waters muddied, though they may soon clear.

Common use of the term consciousness may refer to the opposite of unconscious. One who is conscious is awake and alert. One who is unconsciousness is in an altered state, either chemically- or sleep-induced. Susan Blackmore, in an attempt to mold consciousness studies into a textbook curriculum, defines consciousness as "knowing something, or attending to something" (Blackmore 5). It is the equivalent of subjectivity, the first-person view of the world. Consciousness doesn't fit neatly into brain studies or biological definitions. She boldly asserts, "studying consciousness will change your life" (Blackmore 5). One is left wondering whether her consciousness assertion includes changing your scientific theories and academic assumptions.

Others, such as Leslie Brothers, a psychiatrist, question whether consciousness is an entity or a thing. Is it only a concept? Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist, who handles patient consciousness on a daily basis, asserts that consciousness in a restrictive sense is experience. It is an awareness possessed by biological systems. Joe Bogen, neurosurgeon, maintains that the brain produces consciousness. He looks at levels -- subcellular, cytoskeletal, microtubular, cellular, circuit levels, as well as how one brain interacts with others. Agreement is scarce. Disagreement is the consensus (Kuhn).

At a Tucson conference in 1994, philosopher David Chalmers pulled the consciousness discussion toward what he defined as the hard problem and the easy problems. The easy consciousness problems were not solved, but we were making progress. The easy problems included the brain's ability to discriminate, categorize and react to environmental stimuli; integrate information; report on its own mental states; focus attention; and exert deliberate control over behavior. The hard problem was determining how standard physiological processes translate to subjective experience (Huff). What is it like to be a biological organism? What is it like to be in a given mental state? The thorny philosophical mind/body issues were once again onstage, and experience the star as the hard problem.

The media weighed in on the hard problem and speculated, in movies such as Matrix, that evil computer aliens imposed a version of reality on humans, from the outside. Chalmers seems to question the scriptwriter's fantasy. Instead he theorizes that the brain appears to be constructing reality from within, on the fly, as waves of sensory information flood from the outer world. He marvels at how our brain processes a tsunami of sensory data (Huff). Our brain's involvement is essential.

In Wider Than the Sky: The Phenomenal Gift of Consciousness, Nobel-Prize-winning neuroscientist Gerald Edelman uses magnetoencephalography, a non-invasive technique, to explain the workings of our brain. He measured tiny electromagnetic currents in small groups of neurons, to develop neurological correlates of consciousness. He determined that there is no one place in the brain where consciousness takes place. No command center. There is also a wide variation in neural response among individuals responding to the same stimulus or scene. Finally he determines that the brain or the mind is not "software." He agrees with William James that "thoughts don't necessarily need a thinker." His research points to the possibility that our working brain was not designed, but evolved, as he postulates a "neural Darwinism" (O'Reilly).

The promising model of anesthesiologist Hameroff and mathematician Penrose proposes that quantum computation occurs in cytoskeletal microtubules within the brain's neurons. "The basic idea is that consciousness involves brain activities compiled to self-organizing ripples in fundamental reality. Brain stimulates reality based on sensory input and is also intimately connected to that reality at the quantum level." (Huff).

What about cosmic consciousness as the evil alien computers? Is it a media parody of reality at the quantum level? "In Panpsychism theory, mind is fundamental in the universe. All matter has associated mental aspects or properties.... Everything in the universe is seen as conscious" (Blackmore 11). Critics of panpsychism question why, then, have both physical and mental properties. Another door that leads to the hard problem. But Chalmers indicates that the door must be opened. At the 1994 Tucson conference he claimed that consciousness was a fundamental constituent of reality. It may be a building block of the universe, as photons are to light. Consciousness may be an inherent requirement of all that surrounds and composes us (Huff).

Is the evil alien computer simply a means of imaging consciousness at the quantum level, albeit a fearful image? The physicists, neurosurgeons, philosophers and mathematicians substitute the less-threatening term proto-consciousness to indicate that consciousness may be a fundamental constituent of reality, a building block. Is this a spiritual force? Danah Zohar merges religion and science with proto-consciousness. In her book SQ: Connecting With Our Spiritual Intelligence, she writes that David Chalmers "suggests that something called proto-consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter, just like mass, charge, spin and location. In this view, proto-consciousness is a natural part of the fundamental physical laws of the universe and has been present since the beginning of time. Everything that exists -- fundamental particles like mesons and quarks, atoms, stones, tree trunks...possess proto-consciousness" (Zohar 81).

Is proto-consciousness the universal "mud" in which Buddhists image the stem of the lotus rooting, emerging to flower as individual spiritual path? Are we all rooted in proto-consciousness, and do we emerge from the stem of creation to follow our designated spiritual paths this lifetime? Zohar agrees, "if neural oscillations in the brain were a coherent version of a fundamental property pervading the whole universe, then our human SQ roots us not just in life but at the very heart of the universe. We become children, not just of life, but of the cosmos" (Zohar 82).

Proto-consciousness, the mud of consciousness, may also be the answer to riddles of string theory. According the Michio Kaku, string theory was stumbling over the possibility of a world hidden from our senses. Quantum theory made it impossible to pinpoint the exact location of atomic particles like electrons. They had no single location. Subatomic worlds operated by outlandish laws that called into question many scientific theories. Kaku began to solve the riddle of subatomic worlds by positing the possibility of parallel worlds. He identified the difficulties of merging string theory and cosmological concepts like the big bang. The laws of string theory physics break down with the big bang. String theory formulas failed to work with the big bang. Then a once-dismissed theory of super gravity re-emerged with an elegant 11-string theory. After years of being dismissed by the string theorists, the super gravity model of 11 strings offered hope. "The astonishing conclusion was that all the matter in the Universe was connected to one vast structure: a membrane. The quest to explain everything in the Universe could begin again and at its heart would be this new theory. It was dubbed Membrane Theory or M Theory" (Barlow 12).

In the super gravity model, gravity was noted as extremely weak in comparison with other forces. They questioned whether this weakness was because gravity was leaking from our universe. Then the question was flipped, what if gravity was in fact leaking into our universe from another universe? Perhaps a parallel universe. Membrane Theory and 11 string dimensions indicated it was so.

How does consciousness fit in Membrane Theory? If mathematicians could work with the force of gravity to develop formulas to fit Membrane Theory, what about the nature of consciousness? Was consciousness leaking out of our brains. Or was consciousness leaking in, from a membrane, into our brains and bodies? Was M theory, mother theory? Were our prehistoric matrilineal ancestors onto a significant cosmic fact that we moderns have overlooked? Might our culture be preparing to re-embrace the Great Mother? Was the evil alien computer really a nurturing great mother -- Kwan Yin, Magdalene, Mother Mary, Isis, Mother of the Universe?