I came to the conclusion that consciousness is not a formal information process, rather it is something fundamental to the universe, just like space, time, and energy.

- Nova Spivack (CEO of Twine and technology futurist.)

Dance of the Seven Veils

It seems somewhat naive, since vortex experiences are conscious experiences, to try to find vortex energy in the rock, in the stream or the stones of the cathedral. But where else would we look? Well, how about consciousness itself? After all, the vortices are experienced. The problem is that the fact of the human mind, of consciousness itself as an entity in mediating our world, has long escaped science except insofar as it is considered a product of the brain. As a result we are clueless as to how to measure consciousness, quantify it or understand it. Yes, we can show images of the brain "lighting up" under various scenarios, but does that mean the brain is generating consciousness? -- or just that it is involved in it, like a radio is involved in piping broadcast music to the listener? No one would consider the fact that the radio lights up when it is on, as evidence that it is the source of the broadcast. But as of this moment no one, as far as we know, has tried even that level of correlation -- that is, to observe brain responses -- in vortex energy experiences. 

There are some signs that science is moving toward considering consciousness as a fundamental field. We are beginning to take seriously the notion that we don't produce thoughts, we don't generate consciousness with our brains, but that rather we are in consciousness like we are in spacetime, and that we receive it like a radio receives a broadcast. Nova Spivack sometime back posted in his blog (as quoted above) that he thinks consciousness should be considered an ontological element like space, time or energy. That is credible and interesting, and while it isn't proven, there is no data that suggests otherwise either. 

If that is correct then perceiving is not an activity, it is the fundamental ground against which all activities and initiated acts take place. Perceiving isn't something we "do," although it is true that we can adjust our perceiving in the sense that we can concentrate, or focus on specific things, or exclude other things, and those adjustments can be considered mental actions. -But, all of them are possible only because we are already perceiving, and because this initial field of awareness in which we are immersed is simply "there." This suggests that the brain is not the source of awareness, but a vastly complex and sophisticated "smart node" in a system of interdepent functions and processes. Thus proposals that the so-called external world is either truly objective, or actually subjective, are both untenable, not because they are wrong so much as they are nonsensical: they are derived from an archaic view of information.  We have for a long time had an archaic view of the nature of perception and as a result we have missed identifying "mindspacetime" as the fundamental phenomenon in which conscious life is embedded.

Where this is leading, in the case of vortex energy, is that we should begin to view vortices not as physical phenomena or as electromagnetic fields projected by physical objects, but as psychic fields. We should measure the experience, not just the object associated with it. Our perception of vortex energy projects the cause of the experience onto the vortex location, but what if we should instead be studying the experience itself as a physical entity? -- the substantial field of psychic energy in which our mind exists in order to understand how it becomes charged in that specific way in the presence of a vortex?

[more to come]