* * *

Seemingly innocuous statement, 'the physical bases of consciousness'. On the face of it there may seem to be nothing wrong with it, the grammar is certainly in place.

The 'non-physical bases of consciousness' looks like some either-or choice. However, consider this,

The first statement implies the physical bases of the consciousness of this writer here ;

It implies the physical bases of the consciousness of the reader (there),

It also implies the physical bases of the consciousness of the author of the statement 'physical bases of consciousness'.

Now, I have no problem with the physical bases of the transmission of this 'knowledge', it being this computer here, then what have you.

However, the 'knowledge' thus transmitted re-writes, quite correctly, as the physical bases of the consciousness of the reader (there) of the physical bases of the consciousness of this writer (here) of the physical bases of the consciousness of the author of the statement 'the physical bases of consciousness'.

How can the 'materialist' account for such a concatenation ? I do not at all see how, should there be any discernible structure to the actual import of any such proposition it would probably require a computer ten times the size of the known universe, working on the problem for some score of kalpas, at the least.

It being a sort of joke, the preceding statement. By the reports known to me, the 'materialist', understandably, cannot account for any such propositions and instead the general public is sometimes being deceived by assertions, made in the name of "science", that this problem simply "cannot be understood".

Is that 'knowledge' ? A something which "cannot be understood" is not knowledge, obviously, but a useless statement ; are you any the wiser for something which "cannot be understood" ?