A Spectral Model of Consciousness
I’d like to propose a conceptual model of consciousness as a range of frequency; a spectrum whose natural division into discrete bandwidths defines the boundaries of state-specific perceptions. By defining consciousness as radiance, many of the same known laws governing the electromagnetic spectrum can be applied to comprehend the mechanics of subjectivity, objectivity, identity, and awareness.
Current Assumptions About The Nature of Consciousness
The currently fashionable Western view of consciousness as an internal biological function of the brain is both materialist and reductionist. Furthermore, it is a view built fundamentally upon 3 baseless assumptions, each of which I believe are flawed and will continue to limit the progression of consciousness research until the point they are re-examined:
1) Consciousness does not exist without a perceiver. 2) Consciousness begins and ends within the narrow bounds of human awareness. 3) The physical body is a prerequisite for physical perception.
I will address each of these related fundamental assumptions individually and as explicitly as possible, in such a way that the description may reveal the errors which underlie them.
1) Consciousness does not exist without a perceiver.
The assumed inseparability of consciousness and the experience of consciousness is without basis and limits our analysis of any individual component, either self or consciousness, as isolated from the other. One way to conceptualize a unified field of consciousness independent from a perceiver is to use our current understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum. Radio waves existed before the invention of the radio, and continue to exist as radiant frequency regardless of whether or not they happen to be picked up by a radio receiver. In the same way, consciousness can be thought to exist with or without our perception (or reception) of it. Additionally, our capacity for conscious awareness, like that of a radio, is of a limited range, which brings us to our second assumption…
2) The whole of consciousness begins and ends within the narrow bounds of human awareness.
The distinction of human awareness from the unified spectrum of consciousness it is immersed within, as afforded by identifying the first assumption as erroneous, inversely allows us to consider the broad range of frequencies extending both above and below the narrow bandwidth of the visible spectrum, for instance. By conceptualizing consciousness as a carrier medium in this way, distinct from individual “modulators” and “receivers,” to return to our radio wave analogy, we reveal an irrational and egocentric assumption - that we, as humans, somehow define the range and center of consciousness. This Ergocentric view of ourselves as exclusive or special, with all consciousness “revolving” around our perceptual capacity, is not unlike the Geocentric view which dominated our understanding of the universe before the insights of those like Copernicus. No, it turns out, the universe does not revolve around us - and, likewise, there is no reason to assume all of consciousness and the electromagnetic spectrum revolves around us either!
To return again to our radio receiver analogy, simply because a radio cannot pick up very high microwave frequencies, for instance, does not mean that the microwave band does not exist - or that it could not, in theory, act as a carrier medium for intelligible modulations or communication. In this same way, there is no basis to assume that the ranges of frequency above and below our meager capacity of awareness are without conscious experience.
3) The physical body is a prerequisite for physical perception.
The assumption that our perception of objective externality requires a living body, with sensory organs and brain, or is a product of the brain, is without basis in either the full range of human experience or empirical research. The near cultural universality of accounts of out-of-body perceptions, extending from modern times back to the dawn of socialization and the skill set of the shaman, undermines this distinctly Western notion of a material necessity to physical perception
If the argument of consensus was not enough to call this assumption in to question, we may additionally look to the sleep research of Dr. Charles Tart, who tested and verified the legitimacy of out-of-body perceptions. However scant the number of researchers exploring this area of consciousness, we must acknowledge that the findings of the available studies suggest a non-physical or residual aspect of self that possesses verifiable physical perception.
4 Replies
Kaleb (Feb 3rd 2012)  Here I was trying to describe the division of the spectrum into bound ranges of frequency, or bandwidths, each with its own set of perceptions and communications - a lot like radio stations. By thinking of consciousness in this unified energetic form, we are afforded a means of mapping the various states of consciousness within a defined scale. These thoughts have little outside influence, I admit. In the rare and extraordinary range of human experience, we can get a glimpse at some actuality normally hidden from our limited view - a momentary perspective of our place; a perspective of height. I detest the materialistic paradigm dominating psychology today - if there is one place it does not belong, it is in the research of consciousness. Crude, narrow-minded, and childish, we need to outgrow our reliance on base physicality and embrace the higher realms of human potential.
Kaleb (Feb 3rd 2012)  Individual consciousness can be generalized broadly as response to a stimulus, as response is implicative of awareness. From that basis, we need only define the ranges of awareness, that is, the differing sensate capacities, and the individual abilities to hold and reflect a stimulus (memory, perceptual processing, and expression.) The benefit of defining individual consciousness as broadly as response to stimulus is that it extends the unified spectrum to include living and non-living things. That is to say, resonance is a response to stimulus and, so, this radiant energy is evidence of consciousness, albeit in its lowest form or “bandwidth” of awareness. So when you knock or scream into a stone, it rings out a response specific to itself and to the expression it received from you. Its shape at that moment in time, and the intensity of your “message,” define the resonant frequency of its response. This personalized holding and reflecting of stimulus is evidence that consciousness exists or, as I prefer to say, that something is a “carriage” of consciousness.
Evelyn (Oct 4th 2012)  When a person or other species depart the allusions of entrapment, is there a awareness of self and connections to family and places people and locations ? Who do we allow age to progress unmanaged ?
Kaleb (Feb 1st 2014)  Mills Evelyn, is that you?? Well, there is one way to transcend those illusions of ego: the natural way, death, right? Transcending the limited conception of selfhood earlier than that - by way of decades of deep grueling meditation or by some psychoactive concoction - is, arguably, unnatural. In that way, some ancient cultures refer to the transcendent or spiritual knowledge attained by solitude and meditation as the wisdom of death. Regardless, I’ll cite the Hindus. They seem, more than anybody, to have experienced higher states of consciousness and self-transcendence. Yet, it is not that they lose all memory of self with attainment, but rather can see their previous state, their whole social life, and the constructs of their ego, as transparent; seeing through them a lot like you’d see through the costumes and acts of a theater play. Maya is the great theater of social self… I feel like you’re talking more about the natural route, though. Death…and if we still maintain an awareness of self, and family after death. Right?