@beachthorncombe
Sure. I absorbed every word spoken but, ultimately, isn’t JH merely transposing one way of attempting to view and render aspects of the noumenon using a slightly more granular rendition of the very same observational inner state that humans already do; all the while trying to keep a distance from that fact by using disclaimers, caveats and pedantic sub meanings or parallel lower case explanations for similar but differing upper case explanations he utters along the way?
I found it frustrating that JH also dismissed the gritty and presumably hard to express mathematical aspect of the theory for fear of muddying the water, scaring the natives or intimidating us viewers?
I get it. I appreciate and understand that the theory attempts to bolt on some new aspect and dimension in the way neurones spark, communicate or reveal their ‘inner lives’ or workings but merely creating some 3 dimensional crystal rising out of what he considers a normal 2d representation of the QUALIA of existence, (or a human comprehension of such a concept or perception), doesn’t bring me any nearer to being able to pin down whether consciousness appears to be some home grown biological or quantum manifestation, a Hoffman style VR headset phenomenon, a receiver of consciousness from some omnipotent ‘single mind’ of nature or someone merely pressing ‘Play’ to enable their own experience (of every moment possible already recorded), to be played out as a life using Einstein’s block universe content as tape media for a funky shoulder held 1980’s cassette radio player.
About the Author
