The BPS Model of Reality, Life and Consciousness.

Consciousness Studies/BioPsychoSociology
< Consciousness Studies
This brief summary is an illustration of an attempt to model a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial (bps) understanding of self-consciousness seen from the perspective of both scientific methodology and metaphysical logic where the empirical and the inferential provide a seamless blend of the ontological brain with the epistemological mind.
The achievement of self consciousness is the crucial mental state allowing the human species to monitor the equilibrium state of biopsychosocial ongoing contingencies especially when confronting life-threatening circumstances. The inherited proto-semantics and acquired language guide the required recursive co-generation of the appropriate language and thought to meet the contingency. Thus informed, it allows humans to elaborate effective adaptive short and long range responses.
Definition of terms[edit]
Bps model uses some unusual definitions of terms. These are explained below.
“Sense-phenomenal awareness” is defined as an unconscious, life-preserving, adaptive reflex response which may occur without qualia. It originates at a sensory receptor, wherever located in the body economy, and ends at an effector organ, glandular or muscular. – Phenomenal consciousness/awareness is a term normally reserved for experience containing qualia in other analyses.
System/network “awareness” is defined in the bps model as that unconscious processing occurring during the integration of the participating neural network modules leading to a stereotyped adaptive response. – normally awareness is defined as knowledge that a conscious state is present.
Sense-phenomenal awareness may become a conscious experience when relevant inferential networks (e.g., memory, emotions, etc.)are subsequently accessed, including inner-language processors. When experiences are recalled the qualia that arise are called “conceptual qualia”.
“Access consciousness” is described as being initially an unconscious process that makes it possible for a life-preserving, reflex-driven and ‘unconscious’ sense-phenomenal state of mind to become conscious by making use of available, pertinent and concurrent mental states to interact with the novel sense-phenomenal input, a potentially life-threatening event.
“Proto-linguistic organ” or ‘plo’ is described as the first line of defense to guard against life-threatening stimuli arising from sense-phenomenal inputs (external, visceral or proprioceptive). Housed in the amygdaloidal complex, it represents the inherited proto-semantic (primitive ‘meanings’) database responsible for activating the corresponding unconscious fight/flight adaptive Cannon effector response.
“Proto-semantic” input from plo is described as a required initial participant in the subsequent recursive co-generation of inner language and thought as may be required in the eventual elaboration of “conceptual consciousness”.
Higher order consciousness theory[edit]
The ‘bps’ model of ‘consciousness’ is a high order consciousness theory in which an unconscious, non inferential phenomenal state (established from either online sensory receptor input or offline memory input), when confronting a novel life-threatening event, triggers an initially unconscious access intermediate stage where relevant modular networks are incorporated including Broca’s language processor recursively co-generating in the process the ‘inner language’ narrative state and accompanying thought, a conscious high order mental state, all of which causally precedes (or is simultaneous with) the adaptive response (if any, as we see in dreams).
Notice that bps considers phenomenal states to be non-conscious, this would confuse the ordinary reader who expects the Kantian term “phenomenal” to be equivalent to the term “conscious experience”. Only the higher order mental state is regarded as “conscious”.
The ‘bps’ model basically describes two co-existing, ongoing mental states, one non-inferential subconscious ‘gut feeling’ inner sense (BOP, a variant of Lycan’s 1996 HOP) and an initially non-inferential unconscious accessing of narrative pathways leading to (recursive co-generation of ‘inner language’ and thought is an open option) the eventual production of higher order thought (HOT) whose content is the feeling that oneself is the subject of self-consciousness.
In other words, according to the ‘bps’ theory, feelings are not part of consciousness until higher order thought occurs, i.e., qualia needs a context.
In ‘bps’ theory not even self-consciousness, of which ‘qualia’ may arguably be considered a subset of, has revealed its constitutive secrets. This means that bps is a theory of brain processing rather than a theory of the content of consciousness (qualia) or consciousness itself except when it ventures into the postulate that language and self-consciousness are recursively co-generated or co-causal. More controversial is the mediation of the amygdaloid complex (plo) in providing inherited primitive ‘meanings’ (protosemantic codelets) to initiate Chomskian language processing and thought co-generation, i.e., protosemantics precedes syntax structuring. For a more complete exposition see:

 

Further Reading: http://delaSierra-Sheffer.net For a quantum field perspective see also: http://www.biopsychosociology.org http://spaces.msn.com/angelldls/

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“REALITY, LIFE AND CONSCIOUSNESS.”

For most of you either retired or with part-time jobs, who spend leisure hours browsing on the I-net, probably the most frequent theme you come across is about “what is reality” or what is “to be conscious”.? The main reason for this emphasis is not accidental but due to the technological explosion we all witness. There are many layers of complexity, like the superficial and core in an onion. I will try to briefly dissect this out for you so you are better oriented when trying to make sense of these complex themes for the benefit of those curious enough to be confused while still smiling.

When we sense physical reality by e.g., audio-visual, touch, smell, etc. and then try to explain our experience in our adopted language, we call that analytical process of describing an object or event we have measured or observed as being part of an explicate order/domain we call ONTOLOGICAL as opposed to another dimensional order which we now call EPISTEMOLOGICAL because its material physical reality can only be implied by using abstract representations of that invisible reality  by using sentential or mathematical symbolic logic tools  hoping that anyone can adequately and consistently predict their behavior under specified conditions.

We have no choices because we humans observers can better explain than describe e.g., subatomic  particles, etc. Yet we intuitively know that those invisible particles are probably there and come into our sensory-phenomenal reality scope when they aggregate and emerge into our  measurable/observable resolution dimensionality. This is especially so when the anticipated results from the theoretical  representations are consistently corroborated as true by all measurements and observations of the new EPISTEMONTOLOGICAL hybrid unit of reality.

But, how do we know that such invisibilities as e.g., protons, electrons, viruses, mesons, etc. are real? Do we need to give up in our attempt to understand the structure and function of the sensory perceptual subatomic and/or the infinitely conceptual infinities of the constantly evolving cosmological domains? After all noumenal reality is a journey and not a destination however unreachable  by the most successful of the humanoid species. Needless to mention the intrinsic cognitive limitations of the social human species whose most important BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL (BPS) imperative is to survive the unfavorable environmental circumstances in the competition for resources in their biosphere ecosystem.  A successful evolution  implies all three elements of the BPS survival imperative: alive in good health, psychologically happy and socially convivial for an effective mutual defense against  predators and to lead a progressive life.

However, one non-trivial point shouldn,t escape detection by the stusious of ‘life’ and ‘consciousness’: Humans have historically displayed the most complex of an ever-adapting degree of structural/functional complexity whereas, at first sight, it seems like the human species attains a limited degree of complexity before it decays and dies, as ALL things in observable nature  seem to illustrate. Is there a SUPERNATURAL kind of life and consciousness that defies nature, as we know it?

By now, it should be clear, that an exclusive ontological description of perceptual sense-phenomenal reality or an exclusive epistemological  explanation  represent extreme interpretations of reality as we experience it in mesoscopic space-time. An EPISTEMONTOLOGICAL strategy contains the best of both the perceptual and conceptual elements always present in BioPsicoSocial reality in mesoscopic space-time. But it should also be as clear that such cognitive improvement in understanding life and consciousness is incomplete in that a theosophical historical element seems to be needed to explain the requirement of a physical brain and a JudeoChrIslamic synthesis that best approximate a noumenal reality sine qua non we’ll be denying well established recorded historical facts of the ‘prophets’. In my humble opinion Leibniz and Kant provided the unifying intuitive speculation when they wrote both the Monads and the  Critique of Pure Reason  and The Critique of Applied Reason,  respectively.

In a nutshell, a healthy living physical brain is always required by the historical narrator of LIFE and CONSCIOUSNESS. The perceptual experiences on objects and events have been shown to provide memories in specific anatomical locations of the brain as measured by fMRI instruments. The human brain specializes in organizing the unconscious genetic and environmental information. The subconscious adds on the learned environmental elements. Both maintain the adaptive neuro-hormonal equilibrium.

Consciousness, is a unique state of self-induced consciously-willed  SELF AWARENESS. This creation of a consciously willed mind state  is timeless and space less as opposed to the neuro-hormonal driven state which I am unable to oppose in my unconscious or subconscious state. However, I can consciously delay or negate even my own beneficial state for my convenience.

Reference: “A Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness.” A Multidisciplinary BioPsychoSocial (BPS) Model.

Dr. Angell O de-la-Sierra

ISBN 978-1-4669-3-

Penguin Books/Trafford Publishing   Revised Edition 08/29/2014

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“The Metaphysical Onion Layers of Existential Reality.”

 

“The Metaphysical ‘Onion Layers’ of Existential Reality, a Critical Analysis of its Ectodermal, Mesodermal and Endodermal Layers Derivatives. Between Ontological Nominalism and Epistemological Transcendentalism.”

 

  1. Introduction

It has been known from the time of Cicero that human behavior has been associated with the his/her biological nature. As Protagoras observed, the human is the measure of all things, those that ‘are’ sense-phenomenal (ontological) and those that ‘are not’ self-evident (epistemological). We were not limiting ourselves to Heidegger’s duality ‘being/essence’ but aimed instead to a transcendental dialectic pair ‘absolutism/relativism’ which in this author’s experience, better describes the uniqueness of self-consciousness in the human species. Thus we systematically correlated the trichotomy body-mind-society followed by the identification of systems, structures and genetic patrimony constants in humans that characterize his human personality being. Finally, we reinterpreted all uniquely human activities such as memory, learning, emotions, reasoning and motivation trying to keep up with the recent technological information explosion on brain dynamics that inexorably ontologically describe and/or epistemologically/conceptually explain the ontological brain’s causal reciprocal link to the epistemological mind. We need to integrate the best of the emotional, nominalist, sense phenomenal, perceptual ontology with the best of the rational, transcendental, conceptual, idealistic epistemology.

Whereas ontological nominalism stresses the measurable/observable aspects of perceptual reality as narrated in a given adopted language, epistemological transcendentalism -on the other hand- stresses the mathematical logic probability aspects of conceptual, universal idealism. The latter, long under the influence of romanticism, sociology, feminism, etc. can now properly consider divinity and other theosophies.

Consequently, our own ‘epistemontological’ approach to biopsychosocial (BPS) phenomena generated our brain dynamics BPS model of existential reality, essentially a compromise between extreme nominalism and transcendentalism; as collected in refereed discussions in 7 volumes: “Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness”, Penguin Books/Trafford Publications, Inc.

  1. Specific. The preceding historical background synopsis allows us now to introduce the role played by the reflex neuro-hormones control of emotions and the self-conscious control of rationality, i.e., interplay of mind states (joy, sorrow, fear, love, hate, etc.) with cognitive, volitional states of self-consciousness as determinants of real time existential behavior. We examine the epistemontological contributions made by inherited and learned influences in a constantly evolving environment, including moral and related aspects. We then discover that the whole of existential reality cannot be the sum of its constitutive emotional, rational or moral parts? We discuss this conundrum by identifying absolutism as an epistemological Universal Holism and relativism as an ontological Individualized Reductionism of reality. Perhaps now it should be easier to understand why real-time existence may be compared to the metaphysical metaphor of onion layers with each deeper layer containing more complete information than the more superficial ones until a receding absolute noumenal truth certainty is approached but never attained because of the intrinsic epistemontological/cognitive limitations of the exclusive historical narrator of reality, the human observer.

 

Argumentation.

Universal Holism and Individualized Reductionism.

When a Whole Cannot be the Sum of its Parts.

See Plato, Kant, Nietzsche evolving views on complex dynamic existential reality.

It is almost impossible for a normal healthy human being to have an opinion without an implied theorizing. Regardless of his/her real intentions it implies premises contained in a subconsciously adopted frame of reference. But, as pointed out in another publication, the frame of reference may either be consciously free willed or acted by subconsciously controlling the opinion as expressed in the language report. Either way the propositioned opinion about an object or event occurrence is reported and its credibility depends on the probable truth content of the opinion. If the report is based on the sensory perceptual, described verification of the individualized occurrence(s) by all witnesses, at all times, anywhere in mesoscopic space, then it is likely to be accepted by many as true without further considerations. “Seeing is believing” will guide the choice.

But when the occurrence escapes sense-phenomenal perceptual or ontological verification/resolution then we must rely -by epistemological inferences- on the less credible certainty of the visible consequences of the occurrence, as linguistically reported by an observer or recorded by an instrumental measurement.

What if the individualized occurrence resist being framed/reduced into any symbolic or sentential formalism to be linguistically reported? Fortunately, we need not worry much about objects or events projecting infinitely into cosmological space ‘n’ or infinitesimally into sub Planckian micro space at either extreme of the ontologically descriptive spectrum? Either way, logically absent the possibility of a reductionist effort of receding infinities, the information content cannot become directly available. The practical/empirical solution is to eliminate infinities and to settle for approximations to a truthful reliable content by positing the reality of an abstract transfinite space ‘n-1’. This way, the absolute, reliable truthful certainty of anecdotal sensory evidence is sacrificed as we depart from the individualized reductionism into the speculative uncertainty domain of an indirect universal holism based on intuitions and the recent benefits of both new updated recorded history and a global explosion of other information as we map today the probable territory of tomorrow while we look into the past for orientation. We can now benefit from the joint merits of a ‘universal holism’ and an ‘individualized reductionism’ synthesis. Let us now examine the merits and drawbacks of this dialectic approach.

A ‘Holism’ perspective tacitly implies that everything in our entire universe is causally connected, entangled or otherwise existing as non-separable entities functioning as a unit whole. Whatever experienced occurrence that you cannot ontologically describe you can always explain so long as your epistemological explanatory model poem account is strictly derived from the same relevant ontological measurements or observations when statistically correlated and then linguistically expressed as a comprehensive new unit singularity comprising the best of both perceptual and conceptual constitutive elements. But ‘Holism’, as practiced by organized JudeoChrIslamic religions and other theosophies in our real existential reality, brings in new contemporary issues influencing our vital decision-making process. Which element should we rely more on to satisfy the bioppsychosocial (BPS) imperative for biological survival, the immediate nominalistic empirical experience or the transcendental conceptual abstraction thereof? To follow are some of the salient issues to focus on.

Is the whole more than the sum of its constitutive parts? Are the constitutive units static or are they dynamically interacting?  If the latter, then it would be more appropriate to restate the concept of ‘Holism’ as one where the dynamically evolving state of the universal whole is more important than the dynamically evolving states of its relevant constituent parts. In hybridizing the new emergent Epistemontological singularity, which aspect should we rely more on, the nominalist ontological scientific methodology or the transcendental, epistemologically derived inferences there from? How do we reconcile the invariant constituent unit mass particles with the variable states of their aggregates as the controlling determinants of the overall state of the unit ‘holistic’ whole? Let us briefly consider the merits of both aspects.

As previously suggested above both aspects have their own intrinsic merits and to benefit from both we need to identify or invent a common denominator to both capable of satisfying at least their necessary requirements if not their isolated sufficiency status. If we agree on the premise of an ongoing dynamic evolution of complex existential reality, then a consideration of ‘variable states’ is more fitting than an ‘invariant statism’ for a critical analysis. This way we stay alive in the present by anticipating the probable future threats to species survival based on recurring, consistent past experiences and updated recorded historical facts, lest we are “condemned by repeating the “Lessons of History”” as author Will Durant warned us in his now famous book. But an Epistemontological new hybrid synthesis as a guiding singularity is a compromise between the relative certainty of the nominalist ontological scientific methodology sense-phenomenal tools and the current uncertainty of the transcendentalist epistemological tool resting on mathematical logical probabilities, a speculative approach. Something like a re-statement of the still raging debate on the merits of the classical ‘feet on earth’ Copenhagen classic school and the postmodern ‘flights of fancy’ school relying heavily on symbolic/sentential reductionism many a times irrelevant to sensory ongoing real time realities of existence, as if it could have an independent life divorced/isolated from falsifiable environmental circumstances. We find that quantum mechanical theory provides the current best bet to bring both extremes together as argued extensively in our other published books. Let’s us briefly examine critically the respective merits of the methodological tools behind transcendental epistemological ‘holism’ and nominal ontological ‘reductionism’ respectively.

Contrary to other commentators’ opinions on how best to compare or contrast both methodologies, this author believes that inferential abstractions are always necessarily derived from their corresponding preceding observables, measured or observed experiences. One cannot infer reliable absolute consequences from acts that have not happened yet. If all complex objects must have had an origin from an unit particulate object at the beginning, it cannot spontaneously and independently evolve into complex structures/arrangements without a previous intelligent plan and a source of energy to fuel the new geometrical 4-d arrangement in any space-time conceivable because, among other things, there is in principle no accessible memory of preceding occurrences. Then any reliable real time, updated analysis of both tools should start first with an examination of the general principles as they apply to the totality of the whole complex system or apply to the individualized structural/functioning of any of its reduced components. The proper reductionist activity is based on the totality of the environmental circumstances influencing the whole complex system considered as a unit and not on the sum of the applicable characteristics in the environmental idiosyncrasies of the isolated constituent parts. Likewise, an explanatory reductionism is metaphysical and not an observable ontic, pragmatic category, as some renowned particle physicists argue when ignoring the evolutionary aspects of complexity as viewed by the investigator within a valid frame of reference. See Weinberg’s 1992 justifications. This warning is particularly so when trying to understand the super complexity of dynamically interacting living systems at the micro or mesoscopic level of organization (molecular, cellular, histological, organismal, societal, etc.) where inherited and learned traits are continuously influencing each other in their environmental space-time milieu right here on our real time city hospitals or laboratories today where it is realistically meaningful as a first priority option. Within those priority option guidelines, we prefer to start from the general to the particular in all cases whether at the cosmological, sub-Planckian sub-atomic levels, mesoscopic or in between because ultimately it is all about human life and its exclusive self-consciousness capability to double up as actors/observers and narrators of the drama of existence, as extensively argued in our own BPS brain dynamics model. In our opinion, it constitutes an excessive act of self-indulgent behavior when claiming exclusive validation of either a transcendental/holistic or a nominalist/reductionist model as necessary and sufficient when obviously both are complementary and needed but not sufficient in themselves. We witness this unfortunate behavior often in physics where reductionists generalize about the resulting behavior of particulate matter when e.g., environmentally contrived component electrons, ions or molecules perform when condensed, frozen at sub-zero temperatures or otherwise unnatural environments on our vital earth biosphere environmental simulations, with the intent to market their ideas as applicable to real time ongoing existential conditions on our planet earth vital bio-system or elsewhere. Another problem we will not discuss now is the questionable probability distribution assigned to varying participating events. This is not meant to deny the potential transcendental value of simulations under justifiable environmental conditions to generate various probable formulations to explain the measured reports. The one formulation able to produce the most future confirmations of their predictions would be the winner. Sometimes it would be the hands-on experimentalist and materialist reductionist, other times the arm chair holistic philosopher with the same materialist frame of reference. The former looks at the immediate, empirical/nominalist ongoing now, the latter at the transcendental probable tomorrow scenario so valuable in anticipating and preparing actionable strategies for probable life survival threats in the future. Both approaches are necessary but not sufficient in themselves. Together, as a unit life survival kit Epistemontological singularity, it is the best choice as argued by this author in detail in many published volumes of arguments. We will briefly examine some of those arguments to follow.

For the reasons expressed above this author finds it unnecessary and confusing to dissect out further the metaphysical holism as an epistemological/transcendental category to distinguish alleged (but as yet unjustified) ontological property and nomological variations. The allegations that some physical objects carry nonphysical parts or the equivalent allegation that the whole may contain non-physical entities directly responsible for causally efficient properties in addition to those properly attributed to the physical particulate matter constituents; they call it ‘ontological holism’, is incomplete. This incompleteness may have well been the reason why Ontological Holism has been a stumbling block in explaining quantum mechanical interpretations because, e.g., if a physical particle is not detected as traveling with a de Broglie ‘wavicle’ it is assumed it is not there, being carried by the wave. For some it is more credible that a massless physical particle exists! Along the same lines ‘nomological holism’ stands for behavior that can only be attributed to a non-physical agency. These very special environmental circumstances attending these variations need more elaboration until they become experimentally testable or at least probable under a metaphysical logic scrutiny. However, it is fair to say that in the ideal world of Weinberg’s reductionism it is correct in insisting that it is the ontological particulate matter, visible or not, that ultimately decides the outcome of their reactive interaction and not the representational abstract formulation of interpreters that drives and controls the outcome. But in the real-time world scenario of fluctuating environmental idiosyncrasies the very same object or event under the same environmental conditions may well elicit different occurrence language accounts even by identical twins! So much for the importance of the renowned narrator in dictating trend setting norms for all to follow as truths regardless of the strict ontological correspondence to the real object in real existence. The very same object may elicit different conceptualizations in different qualified observers. I am reminded of Nobel Prize Niels Bohr remarks on what today we call ‘Ontological Holism’ as it applies to Quantum Theoretical considerations way back in 1934. While quantum mechanical phenomena can be described or explained in purely physical terms, obviously not all participating entities (e.g., physical particles, environmental conditions, etc.) can be characterized as physical material objects especially when independently characterized as to their isolate/individual structure/function and reactivity. Consequently, to characterize a ‘quantum’ object as an independently existing object is simplistic and unnecessary. Even Bohmian Mechanics’s relatively more recent inclusion of the corresponding fields created by the totality of physical particles of the undivided universe that guide their particle trajectories, besides the physical particles themselves, is incomplete, albeit being necessary… but not sufficient because it excludes, among other things, the human being species obvious brain limitations in the perceptual/conceptual evaluation and linguistic characterization of existential reality as this author had abundantly analyzed in other publications. Consequent to those limitations the human species’ existential reality has to choose between random transcendental impossibilities and an illusory nominalist physical certainty as we will examine below. .   .

Between Random Impossibility and Illusory Physical Certainty, the Survival of Free . From Chaos to Probable Outcome.

 

“One can predict that the double reflecting surface of the mirror neuron will be the new area of neuro-philosophy research as we march slowly but unrelentingly along the reductionist asymptotic plank knowing that we have choices because free will survives.”

I could have entitled this portion “Between an Indeterministic and a Deterministic Reality.”, Reality as a Complex Probabilistic Chaos.” Or “The Physicalist Religion’s Horse Blinders, their Faith on Reductionism”. The common thread between these alternate titles is the falsifiable premise that the human has limited brain capacities for sensory resolution and combinatorial processing. If we accept those premises, then the easier solution seems to be just increase/extend the resolving power of the senses with the appropriate instruments and/or extend the human computational capacities with supercomputers. We have no doubt this has been largely responsible for the demise of the Skinnerian ‘behavioristic pessimism’ about the reality of a mind that pervaded the pre-Chomskian era. We have taken long strides in improving the quality and resolution of both instruments and computers. Yet we remain ever so far from ascertaining the ontology of consciousness, the limits of cosmos or the characterization of the Kantian reality ‘in se’, if anyone exists. Why do we keep trying? I suppose because humans always hunger for answers as to his origins and destiny. What alternatives remain, barring an unforeseen species mutation sometimes soon?

Let it be clear that our species limited resolution capacities notwithstanding, all of us modelling reality should be intellectually committed to a reductionist view of reality as an asymptotic goal by stretching to the limit the resolving power of our ontological descriptions and epistemological explanations. Humans remain the measure of all things, those that are and those that are not. Thus both aspects of existence are relevant and should be integrated into a functional hybrid, what we have termed an ‘epistemontological’ view of existential reality. All of which reminds me of Chris Langan’s efforts in synthesizing matter and information in his CTMU.

Let us briefly review what neuroscientists and mind philosophers have accomplished in these respects and speculate on why a quantum theoretical probabilistic approach may be the best compromise in explaining ‘consciousness’ where conscious, free decision-making or “free will” consent survives the perfectly deterministic, physicalist world faith/dream of reductionism.

First things first, for the sake of an efficient and productive time communication, I will use the term nominalist ontology when exclusively referring to sense-phenomenal/instrumental descriptions of observable/measurable beings in empirical reality, leaving any explanations of structure or function of an object/event beyond our species sensory phenomenal resolution to be transcendentally inferred epistemologically with the aid of sentential or symbolic logic tools. Thus, terms like correlation between mind ‘m’ and brain ‘b’ describes their relation when there is empirical evidence to back up the claim and ideally there is logical supervenience between them. But in most cases we have to rely on a natural ‘supervenience’, as when e.g., there is a consistent reproducible correlation between an increased glucose and oxygen consumption (increased blood circulation) and an activated brain area. We need not then worry about intermediate causal factors as long as they remain stable and invisible to our detection. If we claim instead a causal relationship between ‘m’ & ‘b’ we are expected to theoretically explain the correlation. E.g., if we posit that the conscious mind free consent can cause the actualization of a previously selected (subconsciously) and activated cortical attractor, the claim must be backed up by relevant, reproducible, falsifiable empirical correlations (EEG, MEG pattern description, brain potential, etc.) and ideally explained by one or more fundamental types of causal interaction between ‘m’ & ‘b’ (weak, strong, gravitational or EM forces).

If all attempts at precision fail, we can always ascribe and explain consciousness as having a Russellian type of primordial existence or as ‘emerging’ from a special brain material complexity, both of which are metaphysical constructs to embellish our ignorance about matters immaterial. So one often wonders about conceptual ego trips into the invisible when others, with their feet on solid grounds, are trying to resuscitate and bring ‘behaviorism’ through the back door with the Don Quijote’s Sancho Panza reality test, e.g., the psychophysical archetypal order approach of Chalmers, Jung, Bohm, Primas, etc. Our own biopsychosocial (BPS) model implicitly, albeit reluctantly, gives in into it…for now at least.

I will also assign jurisdictional frames to specify the particular mental state being referred to, thus I will use the term unconscious when referring to that mental state where the agent is totally unaware of those inherited reflex neuronal networks programs charged with the preservation of biological integrity for the species and whose conscious access is denied during normal functioning, like the access to ‘machine language’ programs running a computer registry or BIOS. The term subconscious I will reserve for the mental state of conditioned awareness, those network processes containing both inherited (genetic) and acquired (memetic) components that, when needed, can subconsciously access higher mental faculties to extract conscious meanings from the changes monitored/detected in the ongoing/online contingencies, e.g., by accessing mirror neurons complex or the language faculty.

In this last respect we have argued that at that time, the adopted language processing and accompanying thought (or conscious activity) are recursively co-generated (see below). We admit that these distinctions are a controversial premise because we do not always realize that, unless there is a significant change in the ongoing familiar scenery (external or body internal), the customary on goings and familiar perceptual/conceptual inputs are not reportable nor generate ‘inner language’. This is a kind of neurophysiological habituation like the one experienced when using a cell phone down a familiar but dangerous road when the driving is set to subconscious ‘pilot control’ mode and our attention is focused on the conversation. Likewise, we may have someone playing music in front of me while I focus my attention on a conversation with another person without being oblivious to the music or the source, as opposed to what would happen if the musician is now pointing a cocked gun at me instead! It should be mentioned that there is new evidence (continuous flash suppression/filtering) that we still register and respond behaviorally to perceptual stimuli we are not paying any conscious attention to while focused on some other activity. Another forced short cut that may bias this discussion is worth pointing out. In a previously published paper we found it easier to assume that language generates thought rather than the reverse account based on the relative completeness of language data (as opposed to the ambiguous foundation of thought processes). As a compromise we arbitrarily opted for tentatively positing a recursive cycling co-generation of both thought and language.

Furthermore, I will assume the troublesome position that the non-physical mind that is involved in conscious choices/intentions of humans, can influence the activities of his physical brain (as suggested by Stapp 1999, 153), a most controversial stance attributing the non-physical mind causal efficacy in driving the physical brain, but see below (quantum theoretical reasoning and other intuitions, mirror neurons, etc.) how, ultimately, the unit particulate material of the physical brain is in control.

In a nutshell, we are saying that the psychological experience of being in a conscious state with ‘inner language’ faculties is the result of an actualization of one of several co-existing potential conscious states. We are not going to develop here the technical notions of quantum theory (wave functions, eigenvalues, state vectors, etc.) that we have adopted to equate the coming into a conscious mental state to the actualization of a Hilbert space state vector by giving our conscious consent to one of several coexisting alternatives (entangled, super positioned, embodied in Hilbert space),  the one subconsciously isolated and consciously chosen by consent (collapse of its wave function) on the basis of its biopsychosocial (BPS) survival value, in response to an important perceptual/conceptual change detected in the environment. A particular cortical attractor constitutes the state vector being the focus of the directed attention/awareness. We can assign to any physical subsystem (e.g., a brain) a singular state represented by a vector in its own Hilbert space, as discussed elsewhere. At this moment we prefer to disclaim any correlational continuity between our local selection to bring into a conscious mental state and a cosmic scale Hilbert vector space. We further disagree with the current interpretation of von Neumann’s projection postulate suggesting that the mind becomes conscious after the collapse of the wave function as it happens during an instrumental measurement analogy. In our model, the initial online perceptual/conceptual input triggers an introspective subconscious evaluation of alternative solutions (cortical attractor’s probable future outcome) present in the ‘flow of sub consciousness’, an arguable pre-conscious state. The most compatible/adaptive solution is consciously consented to and a ‘collapse of the wave function’ follows, in that order. Contrary to what happens in quantum mechanical instrumental measurements, our mind’s (microscopic M?) conscious consent represents the measuring instrument of the brain’s (macroscopic B) cortical attractor isolated alternative. They form a single quantum theoretical state vector (wave function ΨM ± B) which arguably can in turn be the object of an empathy ‘measurement’ by another observer’s mirror neuron system (Theory of Mind). Consequent to a significant perceptual/conceptual, input-induced change in the quantum field wave (represented by the wave function) of the cortical attractors, a wave function collapses onto the cortical attractor option with the highest probability of success in resolving the contingency posited by the novel input, all BPS consequences being considered in the process.

Besides the theoretical formalities barely mentioned above, we prefer the intuitive premises based instead on analogies to well established neurophysiological facts (see Sherrington’s neurophysiology) regarding the unconscious reflex coordination of the best musculo-skeletal dynamic body posture (controlled by reflex networks in subcortical basal ganglia, cerebellum, olives, etc.) in executing complex adaptive movements, like we see in the Olympic gymnasts where the biological integrity of the subject is genetically guaranteed; in such cases we need not be conscious of every possible moto-neuronal synaptic connectivity to guide the many individual muscle fiber contractions resulting in the gross, balanced, integrated and coordinated adaptive movement needed. Based on the various relevant inputs (from muscle spindles, stretch receptors, Golgi tendon receptor organs, mirror neurons and other relevant inputs) the genetically programmed appropriate reflex arc just needs to be unconsciously ‘isolated’ and mobilized into actuality by the simple conscious consent (yes or no) to the chosen reflex arc by the unconscious activity of the performer. Please notice that, for lack of a more precise word now, we are making a subtle distinction between choice and consent, suggesting that only the latter is exclusively a conscious event.

By analogy to the conscious consent to the ‘choice’ of a particular gross movement from several unconsciously organized probable motor responses just described, we are suggesting, for analytical purposes, that a conscious consent/choice is the functional equivalent of an instrumental measurement in quantum mechanics, as discussed above. This conclusion is based on our modification of Dr. Freeman’s seminal work on the cortical attractor basin for the olfactory system of rabbits and also on von Neumann’s projection postulate, (1955, Ch. V.1) describing a quantum mechanical instrumental measurement as causally efficient in producing the transition of a quantum state a to an eigen state of the observed event with a certain probability of occurrence, what we called above the ‘collapse’ of the wave function (opposing the expected normal, continuous evolution of the Schrodinger equation). Arguably, then, when we subconsciously ponder/measure on probable courses of action during a flow of sub consciousness and make a choice by consent to the subconscious isolation of a given attractor from available future outcomes alternatives in the cortical attractor basins (based on their probability of adaptive success), we are just passing review before giving our conscious consent (yes or no) to a previously isolation and choice of an alternative among many available which caused the activation/collapse of the free willed/chosen alternative. We have tried to develop an algorithm incorporating vector spaces (Hilbert) reasoning to explain this in more detail but have achieved limited success thus far.

In this respect, it should also be noted how the significant perceptual/conceptual environmental change experienced (e.g., purposive, goal-directed movement by another person or animal) captures our attention focus and shifts it (e.g., visual-motor relays) to relevant ‘cortical mirror neurons’ situated at the premotor , insular and parietal cortex loci (see Rizzolati, G, 2002 “Hearing sounds, understanding actions representation in mirror neurons.”), (See Science 297, 846-848) the same general location where related prior events were registered in specific cortical attractors based on the related content of the perceptual/conceptual change, as we speculate based on Dr. Freeman’s results. This environmental change input triggers a transition from a chaos of environmental sensations -à stochastic/chaotic probability in the attractor basin -à self-consciousness and certainty of the chosen attractor solution, a veritable spontaneous but negentropic activity.

Unlike quantum theory that selects from probable random natural events (during an instrumental measurement), in our case the conscious free consent to a preceding subconscious selection is equivalent to choosing from complexly organized stochastic/chaotic synaptic architecture, represented as symbolic or sentential modal logic syllogisms and mapped as neuronal networks. Far from being random, they just happen to be complexly ordered dynamic solutions to events in potency. But they cannot be considered inexorably deterministic events either, to the extent that we can consciously consent to a subconscious selection even when those alternatives isolate the least adaptive solution as witnessed in heroic or pathological acts ‘contra natura’. The quantum theoretical interpretation introduces, like in the previous case above, the conscious consent to the antecedent subconscious selection (all things considered) of a probable future outcome alternative and does away with the physicalist deterministic model of reality and brings a new unexplored domain between the deterministic and the indeterministic extremes resolved by a conscious free will consent to a previous subconscious selection based on biopsychosocial equilibrium considerations.

Somehow we get the intuition that nature’s randomness only exists when an event so behaving is considered isolated (for cognitive pedagogic convenience), out of its normal natural/holistic ecological environment, e.g., radioactive decay from an unstable atom. When so considered, this reality ‘in se’ is non-linear, asymmetric, indeterministic, atemporal and acausal, and as such, unintelligible to human cognition because of our natural inherited linear/sequential way of processing information so aptly simulated by computers. Thus, the human species had to bring symmetry by temporalizing empirical reality and linearizing the sensory receptors input in harmony with an inherited sequential language processing by inventing the concepts of time and space to explain change. Independently related events can now be processed statistically or linguistically when linearly coupled on the basis of their complementarity and entanglement potential.

This is a most controversial and dark grey area indeed where it has to be demonstrated how significant receptor inputs (movement, sounds/phonemes, etc.) are eventually represented/encoded and readied to be parsed and processed in the language mill. Humans process information in serial sequences with the aid of innate language processors (see S. Pinker). For humans to extract the meaning of the quotidian Kantian ‘chaos of sensations’ we may have inherited the ability to represent crucial environmental events as linked with individualized phonemic and visual content tags attributing primitive survival meanings when compared to an inherited gallery of audiovisual/movement representations, what we have called the proto-linguistic organ (plo) in the amygdaloid complex. We have not developed equivalent explanations for other sensory input variations, but the ‘freeze response’ to pressure, tactile and other nociceptive receptors can now be easily demonstrated.

What has remained a mystery is an explanation of how the sensory information travels and relates to mirror neurons strategically located in pre-motor, insular, parietal and Broca’s cortical areas where we speculate they may generate the emotional qualia as consciousness awakens. We don’t know yet how mirror neurons connect with cortical attractors, if at all. By using the technique of ‘flash suppression’ (what magicians use to distract the public so you don’t see things while looking at them) it has been demonstrated how unconscious stimulation by objects invisible to the subject can control behavior.

We speculate that soon after birth, the newborn has to activate the inherited archetype allowing us to linearize the sense-phenomenal environmental receptor input and couple it to the processing of the adopted language. This way we integrate the inherited proto-semantic, amygdaloidal unconscious processing of sense-phenomenal input with the hippocampus subconscious, contextual analysis of the sensory input and the insular mirror neuron input. The amygdalar and insular components are charged with the preservation of the species biological integrity and the visceral brain’s neuro-humoral homeostasis respectively. The hippocampus/executive cortex axis is involved in the preservation of psychosocial equilibrium. As long as there is no significant/purposive environmental change threatening the biological homeostasis and the psychosocial equilibrium we remain in a state of subconscious awareness, like a sophisticated robotic monitor. As soon as a significant perceptual/conceptual change ensues we either continue updating the attractor basins with perceptual/conceptual memory based inputs or adaptively respond to the environmental contingency. We can reflexly respond stereotypically at the unconscious proto-semantic level by a temporary inhibition of any response (‘freeze response’) pending a contextual analysis by the hippocampus at the subconscious level. If the contextual analysis is semantically positive and the sensory stimulus represent a biological survival threat, the amygdala is disinhibited and a Cannon ‘fight or flight’ response is unleashed. Otherwise, when the change carries the potential for a psychosocial disequilibrium then the higher mental faculties are accessed to extract meaningful information, e.g., a language sequential linear processor to parse the inherited/acquired audiovisual representations data and generate the corresponding syntax structure to express the proper symbolic and/or sentential premises preceding the appropriate logical conclusions (propositional attitude?) and generate the corresponding thought/consciousness in the process. Brain lesions to angular gyrus and Broca’s area interfere with this processing. A flow of subconsciousness is thereby triggered from which the most probable and best adapted cortical attractor solution is subconsciously isolated and freely chosen by consent from the probable future outcomes, as discussed above.

A cortical attractor (including the corresponding mirror neurons components) represents the unit behavioral complex attending the solution to a novel contingency. It comprises a complex behavioral strategy integrating the phenomenal and attitudinal/emotional aspects and their associated perceptual/conceptual qualia. Once more we emphasize that perceptual and conceptual qualia are semantically neutral and find their existential meaning within the context of an individual BPS equilibrium context requiring the language faculty to generate the appropriate symbolic/sentential representations for recursive parsing and syntax elaboration in the adopted language.

It has been most difficult to integrate the participation of the mirror neurons in this unit behavioral complex because of our paucity of relevant anatomico-physiological data. Their presence, in association with Broca’s area, insular cortex and parieto-temporal angular gyrus, is an indication of their likely involvement in the semantic, emotional and multimodal assembly of the unit behavioral entity, not to mention their possible role in the emergence of self-consciousness as we reverse the mirror neurons focus into the agent/observer. As we published elsewhere, just like a newborn baby can watch her lactating mother’s facial/body movements and listen to her baby talk cooing until she eventually discovers the difference between the self and that of mother’s; reciprocally the mother can anticipate the newborn’s needs, an empathy state only possible with the help of mirror neurons. We see no reason why the same ‘mirror neuron’ mechanism cannot be directed inwards to auscultate the self as both the actor and observer! We can demonstrate using fMRI techniques the complex coordination of the left somatotopic premotor cortex with auditory and left parietal cortex which lightens up when we either move a hand while making a sound or watching someone else do it! If the observer can empathize with the external subjects making those sounds or movements via motor neurons systems, especially the likely emotions attending such behavior (as suggested by the activity of the insular mirror neuron system), we don’t see any serious problem about turning that empathy faculty on ourselves and achieving self-consciousness in the process, a veritable reciprocal ‘theory of mind’! This area needs more development because both phenomenal and conceptual qualia in our BPS model requires the language faculty to be accessed for interpretation as to what it existentially really means to me whereas in an ordinary ‘introspection’ a semantic analysis may be waived, like when we are just mind reading someone else. I can predict that the dual reflecting surface of the mirror neurons will be the new area of neuro-philosophy research as we march slowly but unrelentingly along the reductionist asymptotic plank knowing that we have choices because free will survives.

 

Summary and Conclusions.

The simplest way to phenomenologically describe and/or inferentially explain the causally driven simplest possible system S with two or more participating components, say a, b, c, is to assume the unit-size particulate matter components may interact under clearly stated standard temperature and pressure (STP) environmental conditions and coordinates in space time. This would be an idealist representation of a Newtonian spatiotemporal kinematic behavior of a, b, c, ..n particles responding to finite forces f=ma as each particle projects forward along its trajectory. In anticipation of having to describe/explain some unexpected experimental results or observations, we then incorporate a quantum theoretical mathematical logic such that this system is now more adequately characterized by a tensor-product state-vector factorizing into a vector in the Hilbert space of each individual participant thus: Ψa, b, c, …, n ≠ Ψa ⊗ Ψb ⊗ Ψc….. Ψn. In the real time human and earth spatio-temporal biosystem world of hands-on experimentalists and arm-chair theorists of language reporters of the observables results, the tensor products of the equation do not factorize out as shown in the previous equation. No wonder the participating elements are said to be all entangled if we imply an unreal statism instead of a real-time complex evolving before the scratching heads of the human practitioners and the speculators whose access to absolute reality is denied to their physical brain processing capabilities in both the perceptual and/or conceptual domain of discourse! No wonder we have to settle for convenient approximations and propositional brainstorm model poems to see it their corresponding predictions are verified in future measurements and/or observations….. and even then it will undoubtedly change eventually with the passage of time, not to mention the unjustifiable excesses attributable to either the materialist physics scientific methodology ontological claims or the philosophical methodology epistemological claims when excluding each other as the only valid assessment of human existential reality. That is the reason why only in the ideal world the total is not necessarily and sufficiently expressed as the sum of its constitutive parts. This way both the nominal/ontological and transcendental/epistemological views, albeit necessary, become extreme views because of their insufficient status when taken separately. Why not integrate the best of both into a new unit singularity, a dynamic hybrid Epistemontological synthesis like our own biopsychosocial BPS model of brain dynamics? This conceptualization, as spelled out in seven published volumes, a blog, a treatise and various other publications, is still in development as several issues remain unsolved as pointed out in our arguments above.

There is no doubt that most of the HiQ neuroscience commentators are naturally intelligent either because of inherited genes or because of a stimulating environment at an early age, especially in grammatical/semantic expressions (see Jean Piaget’s “Development of Thought” and Noam Chomsky’s “New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind.” I say this because some participants deliberately avoid facing an ever present existential reality, that our human species is the exclusive historical narrator and interpreter of both the sense-phenomenal perceptual world and the abstract probable reality as conceptually represented by symbolic/sentential mathematical logic (see Wittgenstein). Consequently, we must take into account our obvious nominal ontological/perceptual and transcendental epistemological/conceptual limitations when transmitting our experiences. Yet, contrary to the case of the most advanced social primates, we humans are able to abandon the animalistic cage and evolve the sophisticated civilization we all witness. The social primates remain prisoners of their subconscious reflex life as triggered by neuro-hormonal control of cortical premotor stimulation directed to their reproductive activity. In humans these equivalent areas have access to both neural networks encoding memories of emotions (e.g., amygdala, hippocampus) and rational algorithms (e.g., Broca’s area). You will have noticed how some analysts capitalize on either one of these two extremes. Notwithstanding the unavoidable perceptual/conceptual cognitive limitations aforementioned, the behaviorists will limit the scope of their analysis to observable/ontological action while the physical theorists bet heavily on metaphysical/conceptualized/epistemological representations of physical measurements with the tools of mathematical logic probabilities. All things considered, a moderate approach needs to consider the falsifiable evidence from both extremes, an epistemontological hybrid approach. Thus, the biological, psychological and social (BPS) aspects of life become an all-encompassing and unifying synthesis of life and consciousness in real-time space as evidenced by brain dynamics data.

In behalf of the worth of one of the extreme arguments, including religion or atheism, it is clear that the super complexity and order of sentient beings is beyond human analytical cognitive reach if we take into consideration the intrinsic perceptual/conceptual cognitive limitations of the human species, the entropic natural reality established by thermodynamic theory would never explain the clear negentropy aspects of life and self-consciousness. Only a hypothetical ‘intelligent designer’ entity could challenge natural law. In behalf of the other extreme interpretation is the undeniable pragmatic value of a nominal sense-phenomenal behavioral observation when solving immediate issues of no future theoretical impact. It is surprising how ‘behaviorists’ deny the relevance of theoretical conjectures about the invisible micro subatomic and/or the cosmological macro universe. I often wonder how they feel when a transcendental theoretical prediction is validated by falsifiable evidence? I also wonder why the physicalist atheism cannot appreciate the human survival imperative value of all organized religious congregations (JudeoChrIslamic)? After all, in a constitutionally elected democracy, why should anyone expect that only the rich, with degrees and power is deserving of being healthy, happy and socially recognized and/or protected? It is only when the mind soars into virtual domains of open-ended meditational abstractions that we realize that in a mesoscopic, real time existential reality, we need a synthetic, a-posteriori modus operandi because there is no need to identify a noumenally causal dynamics requiring an infinite resolution in sense perceptual capacity and an infinite brain capacity to represent and parse all relevant but invisible variables likely to be encountered. Absolute truth, albeit inferential, is a necessary but unreachable goal for the human species…., maybe for an ‘intelligent designer’ entity?

Finally, the best historical account on how to harmonize the transcendental and nominal biological strategies of human survival is illustrated by Kant’s magnum opus on existential reality in a mesoscopic transcendental survival context: “Critique of Pure Reason”, and on biological survival: “Critique on Practical Reason.” It is only fair to say that Kant did not have the advantage of the modern technological revolution, in vitro and in vivo, and could not appreciate life existential reality in a mesoscopic world. That is where we take over in our own ‘Epistemontological’ hybrid model of human brain dynamics. One can anticipate what any super specialized analyst may ask about ‘life and consciousness’, the what, when, where and why of the evolving objects and events of reality as experienced by all. The ‘What’ layer of our metaphysical onion refers to the outer measurable, observed, sense phenomenal, perceptual domain of discourse ‘When’ linguistically described by a narrator at a given time, ‘Where’ it happened under a given set of prevailing conditions (e.g., standard temperature & pressure) until the incompleteness of the ontological description makes us to intuitively reach for additional, albeit tentative, epistemological conceptual domain explanation about ‘Why’ it happened by using the tools of probable mathematical logic and/or theology. Some experts (behaviorists, materialists, etc.) prefer exclusivity of the nominalist perceptual/ontological critical analysis while others (philosopher, mathematical theorists, theologians, etc.) prefer the exclusivity of the transcendental conceptual/metaphysical model of reality in Kantian philosophy; i.e., being beyond the limits of all possible human experience and knowledge, the transcendental approach.

For Kant, the transcendental approach or epistemological domain was a conceptualized empirical argument of high causal probability value and ontological pretensions where its structural elements were anchored in both measurements/observations of objects or events and/or validated conjectures about their probable existence. Such accounts of existential reality we prefer to label as ‘epistemontological’. It was not necessary to invoke the God metaphor to explain the probability of a pre-determined harmony as Leibniz -along Plato’s reasoning- found necessary in his writings. It may be true that an object or occurrence/event may be judged as being evil, harmful, specific or universal only in the eyes of the beholder.

Sometimes we choose to be pragmatic and intentionally try to emphasize on reliable results derived from measurements and/or observations. In this case their meaning is driven by my intention or motive when analyzing the results. On the other hand we may wish to evaluate objects or events as to their general potential to do harm or good now or in a foreseeable future, not personally but transcending the immediate present.

Leibniz theodicy that “we live in the best of all possible worlds” is predicated on the obvious difference between the nominal, real spatiotemporal sense phenomenal physical reality as described and the ideal transcendental metaphysical reality as conceptually explained. This difference emphasizes the necessity of conceiving the presence of both a micro subatomic and a macro cosmological invisible reality beyond the resolution capacities of the human species. Thus the need and justification for rational models of reality where measurements/observations of environmental objects/events and their seemingly un-natural verifiable manifestations are reconciled. This way Leibniz was able to “vindicate the justice of God” in a rational way as complementary to (not in substitution of!) interpretations exclusively based on religious beliefs.

Reproduced in part and modified from “Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness.” A Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial (BPS) Model. Trafford Publishing, Inc.  Only Reference.

 

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq.

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Amazon Book Review on Richard Bernstein’s “Evil”

I am surprised that both the author and the book reviewer take opposite and extreme positions  (rational<–> emotional) on the question of mesoscopic existential reality, criticizing in the process the time honored analysis of Emmanuel Kant in “Critique of Pure Reason.” and “Critique of Practical Reason.” respectively. What is lost in the review is a clear perspective on the required need of a living human narrator -in an adopted language- that communicates the sense-phenomenal (audio-visual, tact, etc.) perceptual content of either/or a material object or event in a real-time ecosystem environment. What is ignored is the tacit presumption that several cognitive levels are interactively involved, an unconscious, genetically determined, a subconscious learned component describing the individualized ecosystem and a conscious conceptual component transcending the perceptual limitations of the species and taking into account the invisible but probable presence of smaller objects/events based on their consistent measurable effects. At the individual biological imperative level of survival we thus identify the participation of genetic, learned and intuitive elements allowing the results of an unconscious reproductive activity sustained by neuro-hormonal controls to subconsciously survive the particularities of an ever changing environment such that only the human species could consciously, introspectively discover the social need for the individuals to band together and collectively survive. This introspective discovery of self and others requires a living brain and the ability to transcend sense-phenomenal perceptual ‘descriptions’ and make virtual mathematical logic representations of the probable presence of smaller objects/events beyond the human species sensory resolution. This particular level of analysis required the elaboration of both symbolic and sentential languages by academics. Interestingly, for the common people sharing communal living a different level of psycho social communication was required for their common survival and defense, the theosophies. Besides the convenience of a peaceful, healthy, happy collective conviviality there was a powerful falsifiable fact that could not be described/explained/speculated by the most sophisticated of individuals, technology in the most respected centers of learning: the most sophisticated cognitive temporal complex evolution of the human species when all other known natural systems degrade to much simpler structural/functional organization.

Consequent to the brief argument above based on other published material it is unclear why known academics like the author and the book reviewer above insist on the exclusively ‘rational’ or the exclusively ‘theological’ interpretation of existential reality. It is easy to see that, taken all relevant factors and variables into consideration, especially the intrinsic perceptual/conceptual cognitive limitations of the human species, all BioPsychoSocial elements of mesoscopic reality must be incorporated as a single dynamic hybrid unit because the human species must be alive with a functional brain in a changing environment before he can adapt and survive before s(he) can write books or review them, first things first.

Dr.d              Ref. See updated edition of “Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness.” A Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial (BPS) Model. Penguin Books/Trafford Publishing, Inc. ISBN 978-1-4669-4900-3

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

To Kill a Mocking Nerd

To Kill a Mocking Nerd.

A Short Fictional Story Written by Reality.

Chapter 1

Mr. Quin was quite busy aiming at a huge computer monitor screen with a simulated sniper rifle. Without even blinking his eye he watched intently as the uniformed screen terrorist’s militia and the chasing police squad flashed across the screen at high speed in all directions while a sweaty, cussing, screaming Quin scored hit after hit during his consuetudinary daily, all day, International game’s compulsive, obsessive competition cravings.

The immediate family of this young 32 yrs. old rebel were used to the awkward quotidian explosive, unattractive behavior from this socially inept African American character wearing unstylish clothes when trying to communicate an unstructured message to anyone within sight or hearing. Yet, one thing was undeniable, Quin was naturally intelligent as shown when he slavishly devoted to the intellectual pursuit of mastering all of the available computerized gear to shoot down more ‘terrorist militia’ than anyone else engaged in the sniper simulated competition across the world, a typical computer nerd. This was his unconventional nerdish way to mock what he perceived as an Anglo-Saxon oppressive society that kept him from developing and expressing his full creative potential, his black life ‘didn’t count shit’, as he used to complain.

How so, wondered Yogi, a retired medical malpractice lawyer and then visiting family friend who had to endure this weekly colorful spectacle with his girlfriend who happened to be Quin’s Mother in Law? At the urging of his lifetime partner, Quin was today determined to find a viable answer to that question and seek some professional help because it was getting late for him, he could not continue wasting his talents by shooting simulated terrorists on a TV screen when he could use those very same talents or their functional equivalent in earning a decent salary to sustain his white immediate family of three and thereby becoming integrated into the Central Floridian society along with his partner and Quin Jr., his 3 yrs. old mix breed son.

This seemingly difficult solution would also constitute a healthy conversation substitute for visiting Yogi who would otherwise be ignored while Quin, an Ohio native, performed his loud, crazy target shooting spectacle for his family audience. Why not try finding some solutions tonight?

Consequently, rambunctious Mr. Quin and a sober, laconic Dr. Yogi were thus isolated from the rest of the family and left alone in the small screened porch overlooking a beautifully manicured fenced yard, product of Quin’s detailed mowing activity when not distracted from his unpaid full time job as a virtual sniper defending our country from its many virtual Middle East enemies while in the very middle of a real time very confusing political race for the U.S. presidency by Mr. Donald Trump and Ms. Hillary Clinton, so help us God!. Quin sat down in a comfortable chair while Yogi, with some effort, sat comfortably in a rocking chair savoring a glass of Pinot Noir wine he had brought along for the visiting occasion. They exchanged pleasantries while toasting. Yogi was wondering what on earth Quin was drinking that looked and smelled like tea?

It did not take too long for Quin to spring up from his chair and start a litany delivery of complaints about systematic racial discrimination by everyone in both private and public institutions in Warren, Ohio who, at that time found itself in the middle of an economic chaos fueled by the crash of the local automotive industry. Quin was promptly but respectfully advised that unfortunately, while entertaining, his expletive, colorful narrative were just disorganized allegations that were going nowhere inside the legal system in the absence of documents, witnesses, etc., to sustain them, especially 20 years after they had happened!

“Quin, you’d better calm down a bit and let me first ask some of the questions I may need to start an investigation on the useful survival of pertinent facts. Remember there is a Statute of Limitations, for starters, that would be a major obstacle to achieve your ultimate goal of being cleared of any past wrong doing so you may qualify for a gainful employment, if I understood you correctly.” “You are unknowingly distracting my attention from specifics by bringing in so many unfamiliar, causally ineffective/irrelevant details, not to mention your spectacular colorful antiques.” “Calm down Quin, this is important to your future.” It was very difficult for Quin to fully comply but, without the benefit of a recorder or paper to write notes, Yogi still managed to get the following information.

Quin had spent time in jail when convicted for the abduction and rape of a minor when allegedly, his assigned Public Defender wouldn’t testify against his colleague, Quin’s Prosecutor, for prosecutorial malpractice. Apparently, the genetic test of the aborted child of Quin’s victim matched his own as reported in a document that was not authenticated by an official seal, according to Quin. Furthermore, he alleges, he couldn’t have abducted the girl for a few days before raping her in a basement without her mother, living upstairs, noticing and immediately notifying 911 after the girl reflexly denied consent for the sexual act. As it later turned out the mother did call 911 but for her current boyfriend when the mother surprised them in the basement; he was detained in the local jail for both rape and some other past unrelated case and later on released after serving a short time for some unexplained reasons.

About 2-3 months after that event, when the girl’s mother noticed the early pregnancy bulging off the girl’s abdomen, the mother wanted to protect the imprisoned white boyfriend of her daughter and instead had Mr. Quin, a local black boy, detained and jailed for abduction and rape in the same city’s prison where the boyfriend was still serving sentence.

There was also where Quin met the girl’s current boyfriend again, they were friends and both had had sexual relations with same girl before. While both share same prison cell the boyfriend admitted to Quin being the father of the aborted child. Yet, somehow, soon after that the boyfriend was released and subsequently he disappeared, nowhere in the jurisdiction to be found. Later on, when Quin was accused of abducting and raping the girl in the basement, he innocently told his Public Defender about having had sexual relations with same girl before, as the Public Defender took notes. Consequently, Quin was shown an un-official genetic test document incriminating Quin. Mr. Quin insisted on making it clear that it was precisely that faked document the reason the Prosecutor detained him in same cell pending trial and the reason why the boyfriend was let go free and was nowhere to be found thereafter. Meanwhile, Quin was convicted for an abduction/rape felony which had forever after disqualified him for a job position. Quin will never understand why, when his Public Defender introduced a letter sent by the girl apologizing to Quin for her lies about who impregnated her, it didn’t result in his absolution and release from prison.

Now, 20 years after that event, Quin is now looking forward for his criminal record to be cleared so he can get a gainful job!  However, the fact is that indeed Quin never served the number of years such felony statute calls for, instead he served prison time for what the law called a misdemeanor lascivious behavior offense. The girl had confessed in writing she was impregnated by her boyfriend, not Quin….., or so he claims. But, regardless of its truth content, where is the document to be found saved now, 20 years later?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Chapter 2

It should not surprise many people to learn that most litigation lawyers would have considered this case a waste of litigation time with no possible success in sight. For one, the Statute of Limitations would have applied, especially for misdemeanors, not to mention the unknown location of possible witnesses, the survival of required documents, high expenses, etc. But God knows, maybe it may survive as a fictional novel in the interest of the hypothetical value of rehabilitation, forgiveness, ethics and morality. But, where do we start, who would be interested in this vindication project with no distinguishable light at the end of the tortuous tunnel! What resources are there available for an unemployed Mr. Quin with a small toddler and a moderate income from his household partner? One wonders if there is any similar case of record to guide a possible course of action?

The closest case that may possibly orient a rational course of action we can find in a historical  -albeit literary- case dealing with rape and racial inequality in the 1930’s as narrated by author/attorney Ms. Harper Lee in her now famous book “To Kill a Mocking Bird.” which inspired the title of this abridged narrative. Furthermore, because we have serious concerns about how much such only probable prosecutorial malpractice may be responsible for the possible negative consequences these experiences may impact a susceptible early childhood witness when subjected to this quotidian drama, the case of Quin Jr.

Just like it happened during the Depression of the 1930’s in Southern Alabama, we in the current 2016 national depression witness how this young toddler is learning about life at home, in the Central Florida community and life in general. Like in Alabama then, the course of future legal action in Quin’s controversial case now, will hinge on the dreams of Yogi, an idealist retired attorney struggling to make sense out of a young black man’s case claiming he was falsely accused of abducting and raping a white woman. Like then, like today, it is astounding to witness human’s inhumanity to each other. One needs only to empathize by stepping into the shoes of Quin to appreciate and finally understand that race, money, professional titles, social standing or connections cannot adequately define a sentient human being. The defense of life and a biopsychosocial equilibrium inspired by ethical and moral standards is, believe it or not, the key to our human species survival in the long run.

Before we start implementing a litigation plan we have to identify the closest legal clinic department of a Law school in Central Florida where Quin now resides with his family and Warren, Ohio City. and the State Courthouse where things and occurrences took place and recorded some 20 years ago. Hopefully some law facultative will encourage a law student to pursue the project for a grade.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Chapter 3

It would not be very easy to synchronize the activities of the legal clinics in Central Florida, Warren, Ohio and Dr. Yogi, as anticipated. One may have to request the participation of ACLU and any Legal Aid Society willing to participate while keeping the Google browser and smart phones busy, for starters. Once the team was synchronized and a strategy agreed upon, it was hoped that Mr. Quin’s criminal records were cleared administratively and thereby save his family’s future life. A tortious compensatory litigation for damages to Quin was not ruled out.

After many hours of Google search, e-mailings and telephone inquiries we managed to put together a synchronized group of law school students, easy access to criminal procedure and administrative law faculty running the Legal Clinics of both Florida and Ohio and the participation of Legal Services, ACLU. It was hoped that a solution would be found within an administrative legal hearing if possible.

The first Administrative hearing was held in the Ohio Courthouse. Yogi was silently watching how Judge X suddenly emerged from an arched door inside Warren, Ohio’s elegant Courthouse, walked a few steps along the classic stone tiles and hesitantly approached his high bench and sat down. The defense lawyer DL for Ms. WYW, the local 39-year-old white young woman, seemed just as nervous as WYW herself who was donning a pristine conservative white long dress and was sitting next to him by the witness stand.

In contrast, the two lawyers from Legal Services, sitting next to Yogi, feigned a confident relaxed state, ready to undermine and shred to pieces whatever WYW had to say about what happened some 20 yrs. ago when themselves, both young aspiring ‘prosecutors’ didn’t even think of going to their respective law schools in Central Florida and Ohio.

Judge X, looking taller than he really was, stood up on his bench-pedestal. WYW, visibly nervous, was staring at the judge from the witness stand and jumped to her feet when her name was called and ordered to stand up, raise her right hand and with the left hand over the Bible, swear under oath that whatever evidence she will give will be the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help her God.

“I do” she replied as the audience observed she was a heavy set, muscular woman used to do heavy work in the field; her conservative long white dress was a contrasting feature.

“Ms. WYW, please tell the judge in your own words what you remember as to what happened on Xmas Eve, 1996, almost 20 yrs. ago, shortly after you celebrated with family and neighbors?” “More precisely, where were you?” Judge X and the witness crossed starings at each other before she defiantly said “In the house, of course, where else could I be, most everyone was gone after eating barbecued pork and washing it down with plenty of homemade bootleg?”

The ‘prosecutor-like’ Legal Aid Society team member interrupted her testimony and smiling asked, “…most everyone Madame?” “And what were you doing then?” The judge hammered down, “..calm down sir, I’ll ask the questions now, you’ll get a chance to ask yours soon.”

Before the judge even finished, Ms. WYW yelled “..nutting, I was doing nutting! The judge tried to calm her down and said in a soothing tone, “…please lady tell us, the best way you can, what actually happened to you that night.”

“Well, hell,…I don’t know sir, he must have been still under the effects of bootleg and, …I don’t know, he came along and, I don’t know what the hell happened to him because …..” The judge interrupted her in midsentence and asked her “…Who was he?” She turned around and looking at the ‘prosecutor’s team, pointed a finger at Quin, sitting between the 2 lawyers. Quin catapulted from the chair and, before he could say one word, his two lawyers grabbed him and pulled him back to the seat before he went berserk! Ms. WYW, looked scared at her defense lawyer who motioned to her to be calm, to continue without looking at Quin, whom she surprisingly noticed hadn’t changed much in appearance after 20 years.

She replied to the Judge’s question avoiding eye contact with Quin “I yelled at him, what’s up with you nigger, why do you look at me that way, gonna hit me or som’n? I then turned around to grab whatever was in sight to defend me in case the nigger got funny and ‘fore I knew he was wrestling to get on top of me. I tried to run but he grabbed me, cussing and yelling dirt as he hit me again and again. Then he tried to get funny and take advantage of me.”

The judge asked again, “Did you try to fight him back, you look stronger than he does.” Ms. WYW was confused and looked again at her defense lawyer and in desperation said “I must have, I reckon I did, fought back tooth and nail, I don’t know but he’d done what he came after.” Her lawyer gently grabbed her hand and assured her she had done well, to be steady.

The Judge then recognized the defense lawyer for Mr. Quin as the rest of the Legal Aid Society lawyers team nervously took notes, “You are sure of that Ms. WYW?”

“Damn sure.” She was cocky and confident. Meanwhile, Yogi was grinning as he approached the team and made some suggestions. The lawyer for the team then continued, “Lady, please tell the court, how old are you now, more than 20 years after you had consented to occasional sexual intimacies with both Mr. Quin and your then boyfriend?”

Ms. WYW bristled in anger and replied, “I already told the judge how old I am, were you not paying attention, you were there, weren’t you sir?

“Just answer the question Ma’am.”, Judge thundered from the bench. She jerked her head in resentment in response to the scolding while looking in frustration to her lawyer, hoping he would say something to save her embarrassment. She finally answered “I am sure you remember I am 39 years old now, don’t you sir, stop mocking me sir?”

There was silence in the Courtroom while both parts exchange looks and Judge took notes.

“I sure will Ma’am, as soon as you stop making fun of this Administrative procedure in this Courtroom.”, was the stern reply of Quin’s lawyer. The judge had to intervene in this discussion,

“Lady, at least one of Mr. Quin’s layer practices in this court for some years now and has always been respectful and polite to witnesses and others.”

Ms. WFW interrupted, “he don’t have to call me ‘whore’ or ‘lady’ or ‘miss’, it pisses me up!”

Judge had learned that many folk from the backwoods mountains, had big families, were poor or had not much of a formal education and were living below the poverty line and likely would take offense at ordinary, routine courtesy.

.Meanwhile, Yogi pondered as to whether that was also Quin’s shortcoming, in which case he reaffirmed his inner conviction that perhaps rehabilitation was possible. Why did Quin have to volunteer to his Public Defender the fact that he had had sexual relations with this lady in the past, as if nobody else did, knowing, as he did, that his buddy friend was the one who impregnated her, as he himself had confessed to him? He is now nowhere to be found to testify in his behalf, and has disappeared!

Yogi’s strategy to ask loaded questions to the defense witnesses would be to elicit the equivalent to subtle confessions of guilt if defense attorney would not object to it for being immaterial or irrelevant. But Yogi’s intuition told him that hopefully, in the interest of justice, this judge may deny such objections, he’ll keep his fingers crossed! Next step would be to get Ms. WYW’s mother to declare under oath on the circumstances surrounding the alleged rape of his daughter and her questionable follow up actions following such alleged ‘rape’ by Yogi.

To counter the strategy of WYW’s defense attorney to justify her ugly behavior before the court and her obviously questionable account of what in reality happened, Quin’s lawyer then argued before the court that many good black citizens with equivalent genetic endowment and deprived environment, such as Quin, did not inexorably result in systematic ethical or morally deficient behavior.

Meanwhile the current Administrative hearing continued at the Warren, Ohio Courthouse. It was clear that Yogi’s strategy had been to emphasize on the woman’s previous sexual experiences during her early childhood upbringing and beyond while surviving poverty in the mountainous woody boon dogs of Ohio.

The Legal Aid Society team resumed its interrogatory after the long recess, “Ms. WYW, do you have any friends here in Ohio?”.

“And what the f…. do you care.”, she nearly vocalized, frowning and trying to control her hostility, “you’re picking on me again counsel!”

Counsel chose not to respond and ignore her complaint, “do you now get along with your father?”. Her father sitting near the stand, opened his eyes wide. “Whatcha mean? ” was her puzzled reply.

“You know what I mean, is he still mean to you?”

“He’s ok, but…” she said.

“But what, finish your sentence.”, said the lawyer. “But nuttin, I said He’s Ok, didn’t ya’ hear?”

“Except when he is hitting the bootleg bottle all day…..right?” Counsel gently suggested. She looked at the floor and nodded in approval. “Yeah”

“Did he ever go after you when in such drunk state?”

“What d‘ya mean?” She was now very nervous.

“I mean, did he beat you and took advantage of you?” She was panicked as she exchanged stares with her father, sitting not far away from her.

“Answer the question Mrs.” ordered the Judge as he also took some notes. The defense lawyer gently pressured her wrist as if to encourage an explosive reply.

“My Dad never put a hand on me, d’ya hear, never, never and you’d better believe it!”

After a short recess, when everyone present noticed how she managed to stay away from her father, the hearing was again called to order by Judge. Yogi was busy discussing his strategy with Quin’s Ohio lawyer when the time came to renew his questioning again. She was sitting nervously moving her fingers.

Tell us Ms., “How well do you know Mr. Quin?”

“Well, he and my boyfriend were good friends from school and we had fun together occasionally, and what’s that got to do with anything sir, are you gonna start harassing me again? “

Counsel ignored her, “Please tell the court what exactly happened on Xmas Eve 20 years ago on 1996 after the crazy bootleg celebration in your house basement with your Mother, family, friends, neighbors, etc., including Mr. Quin and your steady boyfriend?

“Whaddya mean by what happened, after everyone and his dog could hardly walk drunk back to their cars or houses, don’t y’a know. Try our bootleg and soon you’ll find out?”

“I can imagine! Probably some of them driving had to wait before taking a chance and being detained by duty police personnel, like your African-American friend Mr. Quin, contrary to your boyfriend who lived nearby and only had to watch for snakes as he walked back home, right?” There was a pause, then she responded, “Well yeah, and so what?”

“Nothing, just asking.” He winked an eye and grinned at Yogi who responded in kind with a thumb up gesture.

“Didn’t your Mom notice your absence when you stayed in the basement with your steady boyfriend?”  “Yeah, she did and got mad when she found me petting with ‘my fiancée’, like she didn’t know already…. and, what’s wrong with that?”

“Petting only? How can you then explain why your Mom, after calling 911, had him arrested and detained in prison? How do you explain to this jury why you had an illegal abortion performed when your baby was not even 2-3 months in gestation?” He purposely joined that sequence together before the Judge and opposing Counsel objected.

“He is picking at me again your honor, I don’t have to answer that question, I didn’t do anything illegal, my mother arranged for the delivery procedure to be performed safely at home, I am not guilty, your honor!”, she screamed and tears cascaded on her cheeks.

But, the Legal Aid Society team, didn’t give her a break, “ hmm..’delivery’, is that what you millennials call ‘abortion’ nowadays, where is the baby, what happened to the dead baby’s genetic profile documents?” And, more important, why did your mother, after consulting with Warren, Ohio’s Prosecutor had Mr. Quin detained and locked in same prison area that ‘your fiancee’ was detained for the same crime? Before you answer, please remember you are testifying under oath….. and, by the way, so will your Mom when her turn will come to testify about her lie about the genetic test of paternity ordered by Prosecutor. This is just the beginning of a big political storm you have set up in motion Ms.  ‘White Young Woman’ against an innocent ‘poor nigger’, like you called Mr. Quin.; like we don’t have enough with the melodrama of ‘Trump vs. Clinton‘s run for the USA presidency!!” The judge called for an immediate recess.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Chapter 4

The Court session opened with the same Administrative Hearing standard operating protocol as usual, with all the players in their respective positions and expectations running high. Can the ‘academic’ Legal Aid Society team deliver on all its promises as anticipated?

This time, all of the young law students from Warren, Ohio University attending the legal clinic course were in attendance of this session. Yogi, stressed to the members of the academic Legal Aid Society team to “Please remember not to ask Ms. WYW any questions you yourself do not know the correct answer to, don’t take any chances. And make sure you do not get any reply different from the specifics that you asked about, remember she is a master at answering that irrelevant aspect of your question that may distract you away from your goal and favors hers. She is a master creating that evasive stunt..”

The defense lawyer man was busy talking to her, who was now dressed, not in a conservative long white dress as before, but in an old, raggedy pair of discolored jeans, as to create the opposite impression from the previous session before same Judge and jury.

Judge X was about to repeat-perform for the audience his own magisterial emergence from the same beautifully adorned arched door inside the elegant Baroque Ohio Courthouse and slowly walked on the shiny stone tiles towards the high bench chair only a few steps away.

The defense lawyer and his young lady client nervously stared at the bench hoping that the new ‘socially deprived landscape’ strategy would be more productive than the previous Trump-like conservative sociology did before. He was well oiled for this act after watching the CNN television rendition of the U.S. presidential debates by the leading candidates.

Meanwhile Prof. Yogi stressed to the legal team the virtues of his socially ‘moderate’ approach by adopting the very best of the emotional and rational content of either extreme postures soon to be witnessed, because the living, real life survival ‘needs’ of the human race will always, inevitably precede the ‘conveniences’ derived therefrom, all this notwithstanding the self-serving indulgence of both the extreme materialist behaviorist and the armed chair logical theoreticians. What we need is a realist Kantian balance between the Platonic idealist and the Humean empiricist extremes as Kant and Leibniz have taught us all, all of it considered from a theosophical ethical-moral perspective.”

Once more Ms. WYW got up from her chair at the witness stand when she heard her name called and ordered to stand up, raise her right hand, rest her left hand on the Bible and swear that any evidence at all given will be exclusively the truth. Everyone immediately noticed the heavy set, muscular Hill Billy change in clothing appearance from the previous session, the 39 years old actually looked much younger now in her new attire. They all wondered what strategy, if any, was up her Defense Lawyer’s sleeve this time around?

Before being acknowledged by the Judge or identifying himself, the opposing Counsel, Quin’s lawyer, stood up to remind her she was testifying under oath and begged her to please speak in standard Christian American language so people from the city could understand her. She covered her face with her hand to hide her anger and disgust at such demeaning remark. The Judge used his Gavel ‘hammer’ when striking his bench desk and ordered him to identify himself for the record and reminded Quin’s lawyer that he was inside a Court of Law and order.

Quin’s Defense Lawyer complied with the order and proceeded to continue his questioning: “Please tell this Court the name of the school you attended as a teen ager when living up in the mountains?” Already pissed off, she lied, “I don’t remember now, that was 20 years ago.” “Ok, while your memory recovers, tell us if you had any friends there.”

“Well, of course, everybody makes friend in school.” She yelled, “Didn’t you, doesn’t everyone, what kind of a question is that?”

“Ok Miss, look around and, pointing with your finger, tell this court if you can identify any of them present here now?” Quin was curiously sitting nearby, by the same seats where his own opposing lawyers team were sitting. She hesitated, looked surprised at her lawyer and had no choice but to point at her ‘favorite nigger’, Quin, trying to avoid eye contact with him, as he silently cussed her. “Let the Court record show that WYW is pointing at Mr. Quin, herein represented by our lawyer’s team.”

“So I knew the nigger, like I knew many other guys, and so what, what’s the point Counsel?,” she retorted defiantly.

“Was he present at your family’s basement Xmas Eve bootleg party soon after it finished; when you were 19 years old, that is. I’d like to remind you that you are testifying under oath.”

WYW bristled in anger, for everyone to see, “Judge, Sir, don’t you see he is picking on me again!” Sternly, the Judge looked at her, “answer the question Ma’am.”

“Well, so what, and so were a few others, like for example my fiancée who had to walk back home in the darkness, everybody else was high on bootleg.” Quin’s lawyer immediately interrupted her:

“Yes indeed except for Mr. Quin, sitting there,” pointing in the direction of the African American Quin, “who wisely left soon after in his car, soon after the basement party ‘Bacchanal’, because he didn’t want to be detained while driving too stoned by duty policemen on such eventful night.” Both the Defense counsel and her client were getting visibly nervous and did not comment. Looking directly at both, he continued his interrogatory,

“Can you tell this Court what happened soon after Mr. Quin and most others had left the basement?”

“Whatcha mean by that, how the hell would I know?”, she replied in disgust.

But the questioning continued without losing step, “something must have motivated your mother to get angry when you unreasonably delayed your return upstairs from the basement and she went downstairs to the basement?”

“Big deal Counsel”, she said mockingly, “I was ‘petting and necking with my fiancee, she has seen us before like that.”  “You mean your fiancee, Mr. Quin’s social buddy, why has he not responded to our summons to testify in your behalf, just like he also did 20 years ago during Mr. Quin’s felony trial when accused for your own aggravated abduction and rape as a victim?”

“What the hell do I know where he is now or was 20 years ago, shit!” “Honestly judge, do I need to answer that stupid question Judge, Counsel is harassing me now!”

“Answer the question lady.”, demanded the Judge.

“I don’t know Judge, how would I know?”, she nervously perjured herself.

“For the record, your honor, I respectfully submit 911 recorded evidence of what happened in Defendant’s basement immediately after the Xmas Eve Bachannal when her Mother surprised her daughter having intercourse with her fiancee’. ”

WYW’s face blanched out from her uncontrolled emotional state and began crying profusely, her tears cascading down her rosy cheeks into the palmar surface of her shaking wet hands now covering her face. The Judge called for a short recess.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Chapter 5

After a deliberately short recess, Judge reopened the session with the standard robotic like protocoled instructions and reminders issued from his high bench desk. Mr. Quin’s lawyer did not wish to lose the flowing momentum of that momentous occasion when truth was about to float above the murky waters of planned falsehoods.

Before Miss WYW’s tears dried up Mr. Quin’s lawyer was back on the fast lane. “I’d like to remind you, Miss WYW, that you still remain under oath.….. and so will your Mom be when her turn will come up to testify about her lie about the genetic test of paternity ordered by Prosecutor. This is just the beginning of a big political storm you have set up in motion Ms.  ‘White Young Woman’ against an innocent ‘poor nigger’, like you called Mr. Quin.; like we don’t have enough with the melodrama of ‘Trump vs. Clinton‘ run for the USA presidency!!”

Her Defense lawyer unsuccessfully objected on the grounds of immateriality and relevance, they were browbeating the witness. “I will allow it Counsellor; she is doing worse than that.”

Meanwhile Quin’s lawyer continued to rain questions on her, “Do you want to change or reconsider anything you just said before the recess about what really happened in your basement shortly after your mother found you and your current fiancée having sexual relations? Tell us the truth about what transpired.”

“What’dya mean, why d’ya want me to lie and say som’n that didn’t happen? I already told’ja what the hell happened. What d’ya want from me? Mom thought he had hurt me when he insisted on it, right then and there, in my own house basement. That’s when Mom rushed downstairs to the basement and called 911 for help when I hollered ‘n’ kicked ‘n’ fought him back.”

“We understand, that’s why your Mom wanted your boyfriend immediately arrested and thrown into City jail.” She didn’t answer and avoided eye contact with the Judge. “Unfortunately, Quin had already driven away and couldn’t have helped you.”

“Nah, them two were good friends.”, she reflexly responded while her attorney closed his eyes in disgust at her controversial comment.

Quin’s Counsel continued his successful examination, “But your father followed your mother downstairs soon after…..but your boyfriend had already walked home to unsuccessfully avoid the 911 response and your father beat you up instead while insulting you, why?”

“How on hell would I know, why don’t you, yourself, ask him, he’s sitting there.”, pointing at her father sitting near the witness stand with an ugly grim on his face. She looked furious and scared.

“I will, don’t worry about that, I promise!”, was Counsel’s sarcastic response. But before he could ask for a short recess, in a rage of fury she got up, sat down, and sprung up again from her seat and, while pointing at Mr. Quin with her finger, she screamed:

“That goddamn nigger yonder took advantage of me and no fancy legalese shit gonna change nuttin, you yellow stinking bunch of…..”  In deep frustration she began really crying, her shoulders moving in synchrony with her angry sobs. She sure meant what she said, stubbornly refusing to answer any more questions and ignoring Judge’s call to order and warning to jail her for contempt of Court and everybody else inside the Courtroom.

But a jail solution would be of no avail, practically speaking, when considering her extreme poverty and very limited educational background resources.

As usual, ex-Jesuit Seminarist Yogi had also mixed feelings but of an ethical-moral investiture, that would have been his weakness if ever employed as a judge and or prosecutor. Young Miss WYW’s deep wrath inner feeling showing at her contorted facial features, were directed at Quin, his 2 defense lawyers and Yogi himself, sitting alongside the team. Yet, Yogi couldn’t help feeling sorry for the young girl, maybe her real quotidian life displayed both inherited and environmental circumstances that left her with no real conscious choices but to survive as a human animal first and as a socially adapting group / social player second. Yogi’s religious Christian moral-ethical issues would always, inevitably overcome any other consideration. Maybe he was unfit to make real time impartial judgements after all.

As everyone in the Courtroom expected, a recess will be called into effect now. Some already held a lighter in one hand and a Havana cigar in the other and were ready to rush towards the outside exit door to pollute their lungs during the break; especially now that President Obama had just lifted the U.S.A. trade sanctions with Cuba, Havana cigars made it to Miami in a hurry! Others inside the Courtroom wouldn’t stray too far from their seats and just leaned their backs against the solid concrete walls tossing chewing gums into their open mouths. Judge had hinted it had been a long busy, productive day but still could accommodate one more witness before calling it a day’s worth. No exodus was rushing back to their parked cars or to the currently ongoing big Deland, Florida famous Music and Arts Festival this time. Yet, everybody in the Courtroom correctly suspected that the an witness, Mr. Quin, would be taking the witness stand any minute now. They won’t miss it even when it was getting quite late in the slowly cooling afternoon.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Chapter 6

Once more a tense Mr. Quin stood up and nervously walked to the witness stand when Judge X called again the late afternoon session to order. Judge sternly reminded the Court audience that all witnesses remained under oath to tell only the truth and nothing but the truth. He was trying to hurry up the late proceedings. All eyes were fixed on the youngish, black 39 yrs. old, clumsy looking, clumsy dressed virtual TV screen shooter and sniper expert as he stepped into the witness chair. Before he could wiggle himself into a comfortable position, the Central Florida -Stetson University- lawyer member of Quin’s team was already discharging a barrage of questions:

“Mr. Quin, can you tell this Court if you have been in trouble with the law before this case? Were you ever convicted of anything, anywhere, other than a misdemeanor for an alleged disorderly conduct? Can you explain to this Court in your own words what happened, if anything, in the proceedings?”

Quin was confused with the complex question and didn’t even know where to start and looked confused at his team. Yogi urged the young Stetson Law School faculty member located at St. Petersburg, western Gulf of Mexico Florida area, near Miami area, to dissect out the question for him. However, the Volusia County Courtroom was within a walking distance from both Stetson University Main Campus and a huge ongoing Music and Arts Festival competing for attendance with the important Court hearings nearby.

The Stetson University Law School professor handed nerdy Mr. Quin a written paper containing the abridged answers to the questions that followed:

“Mr. Quin, please tell this Court on what basis were you convicted in the Warren, Ohio Courthouse for an aggravated ‘abduction and rape’ felony carrying a sentence of many, many years in jail. How long did you in fact served? Did you have any previous conviction in Ohio?”

“Objection your honor, one question at a time.”, Ms. WYW’s Counsel demanded.

“ If relevant, start with the previous conviction.”, the Judge ordered.

Quin’s Counsel signaled him to read from notes given and asked him, “What were you convicted and jailed for in Ohio?”

“Disorderly conduct Misdemeanor, got into a fight with another man when he tried to cut me with a knife, I defensively had to hit him with my fist to disarm him and only me served 30 days in prison because I couldn’t post my fee, but he paid his.” He continued, “that son of a bitch was gonna kill me if I…” The Stetson lawyer quickly motioned him to stop before he exploded with unnecessary expletives, Yogi thumbed up, having himself witness that ugly show when visiting his family on Thursdays before. Judge took notes. There were no comments by her Defense Lawyer. Questioning continued:

“Please tell the Court why did you only served a relatively short ‘misdemeanor time’ in jail for an aggravated abduction and rape felony conviction carrying many years in jail?” Counsel then signaled Quin to use the next set of notes given him earlier when answering. Quin apparently had cooled down already.

A more confident ‘nerdy’ Quin responded, “ Because I didn’t do nutting, no abduction, no rape, no nuttin, it was all a concerted plan by my assigned white Public Defender, Ohio’s influential Prosecutor and Miss WYW’s ‘nigger-hating mother to crucify me, that SOB.” With fingers crossed, his lawyer asked him to explain to the Court why they all wanted to harm him, including his own Public Defender?

“Because nigghers’ life, like mine, don’t count no more 1) the bitch’s mother wanted to save her white boyfriend’s skin, 2) the white Public Defender tacitly refused to challenge his superior and colleague white Prosecutor who was hell bent on 3) keeping all them niggers like me in big Corporate private jails who contributed high dollars for Prosecutor’s re-election. It’s a shame that ex-Attorney General Janet Reno died before knowing about this conspiracy!”

Wow, silently exclaimed the Stetson Prof., ‘got a lot more than I asked for!’ “A conspiracy you said? Why? He motioned Quin to refer to the following set of notes given him earlier. He was surprised Quin hadn’t yet exploded into incoherent explanations yet as warned by others, but he kept his fingers crossed for he had learned Quin didn’t even have a High School Diploma, only a GED Certificate of its equivalent, otherwise known as the Good Enough Diploma by inveterate realists.. If he only had had a chance to develop that natural potential.

“Can you expand on that suspicion of a conspiracy to keep you in jail and how you managed to only serve for a misdemeanor lascivious behavior offense?” At the same time he was handing the Court Clerk an official copy of the available records of the case.

Quin needed some time to organize his thoughts with the aid of the guiding notes previously given. “Well, in my humble opinion the most influential ‘evidence’ that the devious white Prosecutor had were an un-official typed, unsealed document where I confessed having had sexual relations with the young girl that directly resulted in her illegal aborted pregnancy as allegedly demonstrated by genetic tests evidence linking data from my blood sample and the dead baby’s biopsy obtained during an autopsy properly ordered by the Prosecutor after an illegal abortion sponsored by the young girls’ Mom, as statutory law requires.”  He paused, looked at his lawyer for approval and continued:

“While I was about to be sentenced for the felony nobody had really in fact committed, the young girl had sent me an absolutory letter to spare me from probably a life sentence in the corrupted Ohio legal system. I gave the document to my Public Defender who somehow must have sent it too late to abort my felony conviction of record which, by the way, has prevented me from getting a paid job in government and every place else to this day. Imagine, how can I sustain my life partner and our 3 years old toddler son? Anyway, somehow, this absolution issue raised by WYW repentance letter must have all been secretly solved for the benefit of all wrong doers because the mother’ felonious conviction for an illegal abortion murder of a 3 months old viable baby, plus the unconsented rape of WYW by his boyfriend was all a secret, including my own tacit absolution from any aggravated felony responsibility as judged by my misdemeanor-type jail time! Obviously, the 911 call records when the mother responded to her own daughter screaming from the basement protesting an unconsented sexual assault, plus the invalid typed confessions and invalid genetic paternity report, etc. must have had a ‘Solomonic’ absolutory effect on all? God forbid! Two wrongs don’t make one right! Those who owe should pay without any exceptions. What about my heavy cross of permanent unemployment because of an invalid, tortious survival of an invalid felony conviction? May as well let it be known that we reserve the right to file for surviving unemployment consequent damages stemming from deliberate hateful acts by racists who are in tacit or explicit control of our national economic resources.  Black lives also count!”

Mr. Quin’s unusually extended peroration deserved him a standing applause by several human rights activists still attending the late afternoon session, eager to leave the Courtroom and join the overly crowded festivities in Deland’s annual Music and Arts Festival.

The Judge must have agreed when he declared the legal proceedings closed for the long day until further notification. He let his hand holding the elegant Gavel hammer rapidly fall against his desk as he got ready to also enjoy the ongoing activities near his Stetson University small second office, not so many steps away along the now congested Northßà South, 17/92 corridor, not far from New York Avenue running East ßà West, at the very center of the quaint old Deland town  of so many good and bad memories……, Stetson U. friends, Elks Club, Athens Theatre, Moose Club, Pontoon Island, St. John’s River, etc.

Soon after the seasonal Musical and Arts Festival, a thriving gold mine for local artisans, upcoming artists and musicians that Deltona area residents, like Quin and his immediate partner and young toddler enjoyed so much ended a few days later, all litigating parts were formally notified about the reopening continuation of the adversarial proceedings in the same venue, same parties, judge and personnel where they left off a few days ago.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Chapter 7

The Gavel thundered with a deafening sound once the strong athletic arm of the same Stetson Judge accelerated it down and made physical contact with the white pine wooden surface of his desk. “I need not remind that all relevant parties and personnel remain under oath to proceed according to our Constitution and procedural laws of the land in this continuation of the previous proceedings. Counsel for Mr. Quin may proceed with his examination.”

Quin walked slowly toward his witness chair with some trepidation, he couldn’t count this time with the benefit of reading from the guiding prefab answers written notes to understand Counsel’s sometimes complex questions.

“Mr. Quin, I am sure this Court would like to know how a Lily white, socially conservative, racially prejudiced young Southern woman living in a ghetto got to meet and apparently managed to eventually develop an acquaintance with a total stranger, but a handsome looking black man like you?”

Mr. Quin grinned at the compliments but was hesitant to answer because he honestly couldn’t himself figure it out with any degree of certainty, other than to invoke the questionable reflex, subconscious presence of the predatory presence of a human animal in his pristine state of reflex-like sexual drive? How the hell else can he explain what happened to him when one day WYW asked him to help her with some needed work inside her house basement while she apparently was alone in the house shortly after having taken her children to school? He thought, “why me, she don’t know me for nutting because I rarely visit my mother living nearby and only when she needs help with her farming that I pass this young girl’s house and notice her young white face smiling and waving at this here nigger face of mine, I dunno but I courteously wave back suspiciously. How the hell would I have known she wanted sex with me as it happened unexpectedly when I went inside and she gently grabbed my body and then my genitals in her basement, Holy crap, that was crazy!”

Quin cannot fathom however effective he must have managed to have been to articulate into intelligible spoken language whatever thought context was present inside the previous mental perambulations. But he must have just done so when his audio-visual sensory receptors witnessed the standing applause from several Human Rights activists attending this session. He awakened from his self-induced day dreaming when the Stetson defense Counsel effusively shook his hand in admiration for his convincing synopsis that prompted the Judge and others to quickly take notes.

Neither could Quin’s team understand why Ms. WYW Defense Counsel had such ineffective arguments to derail or counter such damaging arguments against their client? Was that a tacit equivalent of conceding to Quin’s theory of the case or was it a way to protect themselves or their clients against possible indictments against the State for prosecutorial malpractice and their clients for criminal practices and/or tortious damages like manipulating documentary evidence and worse, the criminal abortion of a 2-3 months old viable life?

But idealist, introvert, shy, laconic Prof, Dr. Yogi, to the chagrin of rest of Quin’s pragmatic, extrovert, expressive legal team, as expected, preferred, at heart, a more equitable, ethical-moral approach, precisely the one that had always interfered with his own successful hands-on professional practice, one characterized by a more appealing and stimulating theoretical digging into the real-life causal complex forces and variables playing out.

In fact, along those lines, this case should have never even come to conventional Court trial. The legal faculty members and Human Rights experts were surprised, only a few of the young millennial students enrolled in the Legal Clinic course listened intently to Prof, Yogi’s unconventional arguments as explained.

“Can any of you please tell me what solid, reliable evidence, other than the questionable testimony of their 2 witnesses, had Prosecutor presented that Quin, or anyone else, for that matter, had abducted and raped this young girl? The witnesses’ testimony had successfully been torn to pieces in cross examination, thanks to your masterful effort. Was Quin nonetheless guilty or is the young white girl guilty? Guilty of what?” Prof, Yogi asked and then continued:

“Yet, a closer look at the young girl, a non-consenting white victim of rape by her abusing boyfriend immediately following the Xmas Eve moonshine orgy, an unwilling victim of abject poverty and institutionalized ignorance inside a racially biased Southern ghetto society, becomes both a subconscious offender -as witnessed in Court- and circumstantial victim of forces during early childhood upbringing and still operating beyond her consciously willed control? Victim because the primal needs of the human species is to survive and reproduce and constitute a higher and stronger driving force than the conveniences of abiding by Constitutional democracies abstract norms of behavior intended for social constituencies, not particular individuals. The need to survive at the individual level is superior to even the convenience of doing it peacefully in comfort, as illogical as it may sound at first sight. The unconscious need to be alive takes precedence over the convenience of even enjoying a healthy and happy convivial subsequent living experience. Was this lily white young girl guilty because she was tempted by an innocent ‘young nigger’, as she consciously describes Mr. Quin in the legal written confession submitted into evidence? Who is then guilty? Every case cannot be judged except in its own circumstantial inherited and learned merits, and not by general abstract -albeit well intended- social rules.

Furthermore, if some humans lie, are immoral, cannot be trusted around members of the opposite sex and engage in questionable ethical/moral behavior, then why attribute such negative activity exclusively to non-white humans, as if it were absent in the white Anglo-Saxon counterpart? Everybody knows that not all humans are created equal! Having said that, it should also be clear that there has being a punishable act and a victim, neither of whose acts came about spontaneously, and therein the questionable justification for creating a court system where humans are systematically processed as if created equal? The equality before the human species law is just a goal to reach at in a complex analytical logical process and not a destination arrived at, as yet. And always remember that, because of the unquestionable, intrinsic perceptual and conceptual limitations of our Homo Sapiens species, we will only slowly evolve towards that ever-receding rational abstraction of a noumenal absolute truth, if ever, but we can always justify it as Emmanuel Kant did in his now famous compromise between the extremes of a pure (“Critique of Pure Reason”) and pragmatic (“Critique of Practical Reason.”) perspective of mesoscopic reality. They are both correct within the limits imposed by circumstances beyond human control.“

As an example of the tenets of the preceding arguments, as anticipated by Yogi’s published biopsychosocial model of reality. Quin, unfortunately, was this time convicted and sentenced to a lifetime imprisonment notwithstanding the quality arguments and reliability of documents entered into evidence by Quin’s legal defense team. It had been a most complex political controversy that flared off and resulted in the questionable Electoral College vote ‘selection’ of Donald Trump as the new President of the United States when the popular vote registered was significantly lower than Hillary Clinton’s. The ‘new’ ultraconservative Republican party was now controlled by Trump’s myopic vision of economic stability. The private control of prisons made sure that the prisons were chock full of minorities and it made sure it sponsored the election of like-minded racially prejudiced political cronies. African American Quin didn’t have a chance with this new racially-tinged post Trump political reality. When have you seen a WASP jury majority declare a black, poor, uneducated human, like Quin, innocent when he may even temporarily gain a living sustenance from a civilian run prison system? Perhaps if they had more woman juries, but everybody knows that the macho type mentality seen in the presidential campaign keeps them out, especially in the South. Why give a Southern black American a monetary compensation for damages based on the unsubstantiated testimony of witnesses, they would spend it in no time in drugs and women and will be back in jail anyway, would be conclusion, what a shame,” Yogi concluded.

The Legal Defense team filed an Appeal. They had a job to do and would not be distracted by Yogi’s idealisms about what would never come to fruition, especially now that a new president has been elected who believes in making deals as the only working strategy available to get results.

In the meantime, Quin was taken back to jail and before you know it, he will be forced to get into an argument and a fight with a white prison guard who will have now an excuse to shoot him down “defensively, as he tries to escape.” History will then repeat itself in Counties and States where de facto functional apartheids still remain operational and now will flourish. Maybe humans cannot be trusted to effectively escape from the Homo Sapiens cage mode and remove themselves from the judicial cases and just objectively apply the corresponding legislated sanctions. God knows, maybe this can be tried using Artificial Intelligence algorithms where only objective data from objective measurements participated.

How could a jury give a life sentence based on purely circumstantial evidence? There were not even witnesses! Should we do away with juries and rather depend on functional brain recordings such as f-MRI that are at least consistent and need not require human participation, What about an artificial intelligence program based strictly on time-honored laws and judicial cases?

But “Life is a Dream.” Like author Calderon de la Barca pointed out in his classic. And we add, “but dreams are just that, dreams” as argued in this short fictional story that reality wrote.

References: 1) “Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness.” A Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial (BPS) Model of Reality. Penguin Books/Trafford Publishing (Revised 2014) ISBN 978-1-4669-4900

2)   “To Kill a Mockingbird.” A Novel by Harper Lee. Harper ISBN 978-0-06-198026-8

Dr.d

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Between Ontological Nominalism and Epistemological Transcendentalism.

 

“The Metaphysical ‘Onion Layers’ of Existential Reality, a Critical Analysis of its Ectodermal, Mesodermal and Endodermal Layers Derivatives. Between Ontological Nominalism and Epistemological Transcendentalism.”

 

  1. Introduction

It has been known from the time of Cicero that human behavior has been associated with the his/her biological nature. As Protagoras observed, the human is the measure of all things, those that ‘are’ sense-phenomenal (ontological) and those that ‘are not’ self-evident (epistemological). We were not limiting ourselves to Heidegger’s duality ‘being/essence’ but aimed instead to a transcendental dialectic pair ‘absolutism/relativism’ which in this author’s experience, better describes the uniqueness of self-consciousness in the human species. Thus we systematically correlated the trichotomy body-mind-society followed by the identification of systems, structures and genetic patrimony constants in humans that characterize his human personality being. Finally, we reinterpreted all uniquely human activities such as memory, learning, emotions, reasoning and motivation trying to keep up with the recent technological information explosion on brain dynamics that inexorably ontologically describe and/or epistemologically/conceptually explain the ontological brain’s causal reciprocal link to the epistemological mind. We need to integrate the best of the emotional, nominalist, sense phenomenal, perceptual ontology with the best of the rational, transcendental, conceptual, idealistic epistemology.

Whereas ontological nominalism stresses the measurable/observable aspects of perceptual reality as narrated in a given adopted language, epistemological transcendentalism -on the other hand- stresses the mathematical logic probability aspects of conceptual, universal idealism. The latter, long under the influence of romanticism, sociology, feminism, etc. can now properly consider divinity and other theosophies.

Consequently, our own ‘epistemontological’ approach to biopsychosocial (BPS) phenomena generated our brain dynamics BPS model of existential reality, essentially a compromise between extreme nominalism and transcendentalism; as collected in refereed discussions in 7 volumes: “Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness”, Penguin Books/Trafford Publications, Inc.

  1. Specific. The preceding historical background synopsis allows us now to introduce the role played by the reflex neuro-hormones control of emotions and the self-conscious control of rationality, i.e., interplay of mind states (joy, sorrow, fear, love, hate, etc.) with cognitive, volitional states of self-consciousness as determinants of real time existential behavior. We examine the epistemontological contributions made by inherited and learned influences in a constantly evolving environment, including moral and related aspects. We then discover that the whole of existential reality cannot be the sum of its constitutive emotional, rational or moral parts? We discuss this conundrum by identifying absolutism as an epistemological Universal Holism and relativism as an ontological Individualized Reductionism of reality. Perhaps now it should be easier to understand why real-time existence may be compared to the metaphysical metaphor of onion layers with each deeper layer containing more complete information than the more superficial ones until a receding absolute noumenal truth certainty is approached but never attained because of the intrinsic epistemontological/cognitive limitations of the exclusive historical narrator of reality, the human observer.

 

Argumentation.

Universal Holism and Individualized Reductionism.

When a Whole Cannot be the Sum of its Parts.

See Plato, Kant, Nietzsche evolving views on complex dynamic existential reality.

It is almost impossible for a normal healthy human being to have an opinion without an implied theorizing. Regardless of his/her real intentions it implies premises contained in a subconsciously adopted frame of reference. But, as pointed out in another publication, the frame of reference may either be consciously free willed or acted by subconsciously controlling the opinion as expressed in the language report. Either way the propositioned opinion about an object or event occurrence is reported and its credibility depends on the probable truth content of the opinion. If the report is based on the sensory perceptual, described verification of the individualized occurrence(s) by all witnesses, at all times, anywhere in mesoscopic space, then it is likely to be accepted by many as true without further considerations. “Seeing is believing” will guide the choice.

But when the occurrence escapes sense-phenomenal perceptual or ontological verification/resolution then we must rely -by epistemological inferences- on the less credible certainty of the visible consequences of the occurrence, as linguistically reported by an observer or recorded by an instrumental measurement.

What if the individualized occurrence resist being framed/reduced into any symbolic or sentential formalism to be linguistically reported? Fortunately, we need not worry much about objects or events projecting infinitely into cosmological space ‘n’ or infinitesimally into sub Planckian micro space at either extreme of the ontologically descriptive spectrum? Either way, logically absent the possibility of a reductionist effort of receding infinities, the information content cannot become directly available. The practical/empirical solution is to eliminate infinities and to settle for approximations to a truthful reliable content by positing the reality of an abstract transfinite space ‘n-1’. This way, the absolute, reliable truthful certainty of anecdotal sensory evidence is sacrificed as we depart from the individualized reductionism into the speculative uncertainty domain of an indirect universal holism based on intuitions and the recent benefits of both new updated recorded history and a global explosion of other information as we map today the probable territory of tomorrow while we look into the past for orientation. We can now benefit from the joint merits of a ‘universal holism’ and an ‘individualized reductionism’ synthesis. Let us now examine the merits and drawbacks of this dialectic approach.

A ‘Holism’ perspective tacitly implies that everything in our entire universe is causally connected, entangled or otherwise existing as non-separable entities functioning as a unit whole. Whatever experienced occurrence that you cannot ontologically describe you can always explain so long as your epistemological explanatory model poem account is strictly derived from the same relevant ontological measurements or observations when statistically correlated and then linguistically expressed as a comprehensive new unit singularity comprising the best of both perceptual and conceptual constitutive elements. But ‘Holism’, as practiced by organized JudeoChrIslamic religions and other theosophies in our real existential reality, brings in new contemporary issues influencing our vital decision-making process. Which element should we rely more on to satisfy the bioppsychosocial (BPS) imperative for biological survival, the immediate nominalistic empirical experience or the transcendental conceptual abstraction thereof? To follow are some of the salient issues to focus on.

Is the whole more than the sum of its constitutive parts? Are the constitutive units static or are they dynamically interacting?  If the latter, then it would be more appropriate to restate the concept of ‘Holism’ as one where the dynamically evolving state of the universal whole is more important than the dynamically evolving states of its relevant constituent parts. In hybridizing the new emergent Epistemontological singularity, which aspect should we rely more on, the nominalist ontological scientific methodology or the transcendental, epistemologically derived inferences there from? How do we reconcile the invariant constituent unit mass particles with the variable states of their aggregates as the controlling determinants of the overall state of the unit ‘holistic’ whole? Let us briefly consider the merits of both aspects.

As previously suggested above both aspects have their own intrinsic merits and to benefit from both we need to identify or invent a common denominator to both capable of satisfying at least their necessary requirements if not their isolated sufficiency status. If we agree on the premise of an ongoing dynamic evolution of complex existential reality, then a consideration of ‘variable states’ is more fitting than an ‘invariant statism’ for a critical analysis. This way we stay alive in the present by anticipating the probable future threats to species survival based on recurring, consistent past experiences and updated recorded historical facts, lest we are “condemned by repeating the “Lessons of History”” as author Will Durant warned us in his now famous book. But an Epistemontological new hybrid synthesis as a guiding singularity is a compromise between the relative certainty of the nominalist ontological scientific methodology sense-phenomenal tools and the current uncertainty of the transcendentalist epistemological tool resting on mathematical logical probabilities, a speculative approach. Something like a re-statement of the still raging debate on the merits of the classical ‘feet on earth’ Copenhagen classic school and the postmodern ‘flights of fancy’ school relying heavily on symbolic/sentential reductionism many a times irrelevant to sensory ongoing real time realities of existence, as if it could have an independent life divorced/isolated from falsifiable environmental circumstances. We find that quantum mechanical theory provides the current best bet to bring both extremes together as argued extensively in our other published books. Let’s us briefly examine critically the respective merits of the methodological tools behind transcendental epistemological ‘holism’ and nominal ontological ‘reductionism’ respectively.

Contrary to other commentators’ opinions on how best to compare or contrast both methodologies, this author believes that inferential abstractions are always necessarily derived from their corresponding preceding observables, measured or observed experiences. One cannot infer reliable absolute consequences from acts that have not happened yet. If all complex objects must have had an origin from an unit particulate object at the beginning, it cannot spontaneously and independently evolve into complex structures/arrangements without a previous intelligent plan and a source of energy to fuel the new geometrical 4-d arrangement in any space-time conceivable because, among other things, there is in principle no accessible memory of preceding occurrences. Then any reliable real time, updated analysis of both tools should start first with an examination of the general principles as they apply to the totality of the whole complex system or apply to the individualized structural/functioning of any of its reduced components. The proper reductionist activity is based on the totality of the environmental circumstances influencing the whole complex system considered as a unit and not on the sum of the applicable characteristics in the environmental idiosyncrasies of the isolated constituent parts. Likewise, an explanatory reductionism is metaphysical and not an observable ontic, pragmatic category, as some renowned particle physicists argue when ignoring the evolutionary aspects of complexity as viewed by the investigator within a valid frame of reference. See Weinberg’s 1992 justifications. This warning is particularly so when trying to understand the super complexity of dynamically interacting living systems at the micro or mesoscopic level of organization (molecular, cellular, histological, organismal, societal, etc.) where inherited and learned traits are continuously influencing each other in their environmental space-time milieu right here on our real time city hospitals or laboratories today where it is realistically meaningful as a first priority option. Within those priority option guidelines, we prefer to start from the general to the particular in all cases whether at the cosmological, sub-Planckian sub-atomic levels, mesoscopic or in between because ultimately it is all about human life and its exclusive self-consciousness capability to double up as actors/observers and narrators of the drama of existence, as extensively argued in our own BPS brain dynamics model. In our opinion, it constitutes an excessive act of self-indulgent behavior when claiming exclusive validation of either a transcendental/holistic or a nominalist/reductionist model as necessary and sufficient when obviously both are complementary and needed but not sufficient in themselves. We witness this unfortunate behavior often in physics where reductionists generalize about the resulting behavior of particulate matter when e.g., environmentally contrived component electrons, ions or molecules perform when condensed, frozen at sub-zero temperatures or otherwise unnatural environments on our vital earth biosphere environmental simulations, with the intent to market their ideas as applicable to real time ongoing existential conditions on our planet earth vital bio-system or elsewhere. Another problem we will not discuss now is the questionable probability distribution assigned to varying participating events. This is not meant to deny the potential transcendental value of simulations under justifiable environmental conditions to generate various probable formulations to explain the measured reports. The one formulation able to produce the most future confirmations of their predictions would be the winner. Sometimes it would be the hands-on experimentalist and materialist reductionist, other times the arm chair holistic philosopher with the same materialist frame of reference. The former looks at the immediate, empirical/nominalist ongoing now, the latter at the transcendental probable tomorrow scenario so valuable in anticipating and preparing actionable strategies for probable life survival threats in the future. Both approaches are necessary but not sufficient in themselves. Together, as a unit life survival kit Epistemontological singularity, it is the best choice as argued by this author in detail in many published volumes of arguments. We will briefly examine some of those arguments to follow.

For the reasons expressed above this author finds it unnecessary and confusing to dissect out further the metaphysical holism as an epistemological/transcendental category to distinguish alleged (but as yet unjustified) ontological property and nomological variations. The allegations that some physical objects carry nonphysical parts or the equivalent allegation that the whole may contain non-physical entities directly responsible for causally efficient properties in addition to those properly attributed to the physical particulate matter constituents; they call it ‘ontological holism’, is incomplete. This incompleteness may have well been the reason why Ontological Holism has been a stumbling block in explaining quantum mechanical interpretations because, e.g., if a physical particle is not detected as traveling with a de Broglie ‘wavicle’ it is assumed it is not there, being carried by the wave. For some it is more credible that a massless physical particle exists! Along the same lines ‘nomological holism’ stands for behavior that can only be attributed to a non-physical agency. These very special environmental circumstances attending these variations need more elaboration until they become experimentally testable or at least probable under a metaphysical logic scrutiny. However, it is fair to say that in the ideal world of Weinberg’s reductionism it is correct in insisting that it is the ontological particulate matter, visible or not, that ultimately decides the outcome of their reactive interaction and not the representational abstract formulation of interpreters that drives and controls the outcome. But in the real-time world scenario of fluctuating environmental idiosyncrasies the very same object or event under the same environmental conditions may well elicit different occurrence language accounts even by identical twins! So much for the importance of the renowned narrator in dictating trend setting norms for all to follow as truths regardless of the strict ontological correspondence to the real object in real existence. The very same object may elicit different conceptualizations in different qualified observers. I am reminded of Nobel Prize Niels Bohr remarks on what today we call ‘Ontological Holism’ as it applies to Quantum Theoretical considerations way back in 1934. While quantum mechanical phenomena can be described or explained in purely physical terms, obviously not all participating entities (e.g., physical particles, environmental conditions, etc.) can be characterized as physical material objects especially when independently characterized as to their isolate/individual structure/function and reactivity. Consequently, to characterize a ‘quantum’ object as an independently existing object is simplistic and unnecessary. Even Bohmian Mechanics’s relatively more recent inclusion of the corresponding fields created by the totality of physical particles of the undivided universe that guide their particle trajectories, besides the physical particles themselves, is incomplete, albeit being necessary… but not sufficient because it excludes, among other things, the human being species obvious brain limitations in the perceptual/conceptual evaluation and linguistic characterization of existential reality as this author had abundantly analyzed in other publications. Consequent to those limitations the human species’ existential reality has to choose between random transcendental impossibilities and an illusory nominalist physical certainty as we will examine below. .   .

Between Random Impossibility and Illusory Physical Certainty, the Survival of Free . From Chaos to Probable Outcome.

 

“One can predict that the double reflecting surface of the mirror neuron will be the new area of neuro-philosophy research as we march slowly but unrelentingly along the reductionist asymptotic plank knowing that we have choices because free will survives.”

I could have entitled this portion “Between an Indeterministic and a Deterministic Reality.”, Reality as a Complex Probabilistic Chaos.” Or “The Physicalist Religion’s Horse Blinders, their Faith on Reductionism”. The common thread between these alternate titles is the falsifiable premise that the human has limited brain capacities for sensory resolution and combinatorial processing. If we accept those premises, then the easier solution seems to be just increase/extend the resolving power of the senses with the appropriate instruments and/or extend the human computational capacities with supercomputers. We have no doubt this has been largely responsible for the demise of the Skinnerian ‘behavioristic pessimism’ about the reality of a mind that pervaded the pre-Chomskian era. We have taken long strides in improving the quality and resolution of both instruments and computers. Yet we remain ever so far from ascertaining the ontology of consciousness, the limits of cosmos or the characterization of the Kantian reality ‘in se’, if anyone exists. Why do we keep trying? I suppose because humans always hunger for answers as to his origins and destiny. What alternatives remain, barring an unforeseen species mutation sometimes soon?

Let it be clear that our species limited resolution capacities notwithstanding, all of us modelling reality should be intellectually committed to a reductionist view of reality as an asymptotic goal by stretching to the limit the resolving power of our ontological descriptions and epistemological explanations. Humans remain the measure of all things, those that are and those that are not. Thus both aspects of existence are relevant and should be integrated into a functional hybrid, what we have termed an ‘epistemontological’ view of existential reality. All of which reminds me of Chris Langan’s efforts in synthesizing matter and information in his CTMU.

Let us briefly review what neuroscientists and mind philosophers have accomplished in these respects and speculate on why a quantum theoretical probabilistic approach may be the best compromise in explaining ‘consciousness’ where conscious, free decision-making or “free will” consent survives the perfectly deterministic, physicalist world faith/dream of reductionism.

First things first, for the sake of an efficient and productive time communication, I will use the term nominalist ontology when exclusively referring to sense-phenomenal/instrumental descriptions of observable/measurable beings in empirical reality, leaving any explanations of structure or function of an object/event beyond our species sensory phenomenal resolution to be transcendentally inferred epistemologically with the aid of sentential or symbolic logic tools. Thus, terms like correlation between mind ‘m’ and brain ‘b’ describes their relation when there is empirical evidence to back up the claim and ideally there is logical supervenience between them. But in most cases we have to rely on a natural ‘supervenience’, as when e.g., there is a consistent reproducible correlation between an increased glucose and oxygen consumption (increased blood circulation) and an activated brain area. We need not then worry about intermediate causal factors as long as they remain stable and invisible to our detection. If we claim instead a causal relationship between ‘m’ & ‘b’ we are expected to theoretically explain the correlation. E.g., if we posit that the conscious mind free consent can cause the actualization of a previously selected (subconsciously) and activated cortical attractor, the claim must be backed up by relevant, reproducible, falsifiable empirical correlations (EEG, MEG pattern description, brain potential, etc.) and ideally explained by one or more fundamental types of causal interaction between ‘m’ & ‘b’ (weak, strong, gravitational or EM forces).

If all attempts at precision fail, we can always ascribe and explain consciousness as having a Russellian type of primordial existence or as ‘emerging’ from a special brain material complexity, both of which are metaphysical constructs to embellish our ignorance about matters immaterial. So one often wonders about conceptual ego trips into the invisible when others, with their feet on solid grounds, are trying to resuscitate and bring ‘behaviorism’ through the back door with the Don Quijote’s Sancho Panza reality test, e.g., the psychophysical archetypal order approach of Chalmers, Jung, Bohm, Primas, etc. Our own biopsychosocial (BPS) model implicitly, albeit reluctantly, gives in into it…for now at least.

I will also assign jurisdictional frames to specify the particular mental state being referred to, thus I will use the term unconscious when referring to that mental state where the agent is totally unaware of those inherited reflex neuronal networks programs charged with the preservation of biological integrity for the species and whose conscious access is denied during normal functioning, like the access to ‘machine language’ programs running a computer registry or BIOS. The term subconscious I will reserve for the mental state of conditioned awareness, those network processes containing both inherited (genetic) and acquired (memetic) components that, when needed, can subconsciously access higher mental faculties to extract conscious meanings from the changes monitored/detected in the ongoing/online contingencies, e.g., by accessing mirror neurons complex or the language faculty.

In this last respect we have argued that at that time, the adopted language processing and accompanying thought (or conscious activity) are recursively co-generated (see below). We admit that these distinctions are a controversial premise because we do not always realize that, unless there is a significant change in the ongoing familiar scenery (external or body internal), the customary on goings and familiar perceptual/conceptual inputs are not reportable nor generate ‘inner language’. This is a kind of neurophysiological habituation like the one experienced when using a cell phone down a familiar but dangerous road when the driving is set to subconscious ‘pilot control’ mode and our attention is focused on the conversation. Likewise, we may have someone playing music in front of me while I focus my attention on a conversation with another person without being oblivious to the music or the source, as opposed to what would happen if the musician is now pointing a cocked gun at me instead! It should be mentioned that there is new evidence (continuous flash suppression/filtering) that we still register and respond behaviorally to perceptual stimuli we are not paying any conscious attention to while focused on some other activity. Another forced short cut that may bias this discussion is worth pointing out. In a previously published paper we found it easier to assume that language generates thought rather than the reverse account based on the relative completeness of language data (as opposed to the ambiguous foundation of thought processes). As a compromise we arbitrarily opted for tentatively positing a recursive cycling co-generation of both thought and language.

Furthermore, I will assume the troublesome position that the non-physical mind that is involved in conscious choices/intentions of humans, can influence the activities of his physical brain (as suggested by Stapp 1999, 153), a most controversial stance attributing the non-physical mind causal efficacy in driving the physical brain, but see below (quantum theoretical reasoning and other intuitions, mirror neurons, etc.) how, ultimately, the unit particulate material of the physical brain is in control.

In a nutshell, we are saying that the psychological experience of being in a conscious state with ‘inner language’ faculties is the result of an actualization of one of several co-existing potential conscious states. We are not going to develop here the technical notions of quantum theory (wave functions, eigenvalues, state vectors, etc.) that we have adopted to equate the coming into a conscious mental state to the actualization of a Hilbert space state vector by giving our conscious consent to one of several coexisting alternatives (entangled, super positioned, embodied in Hilbert space),  the one subconsciously isolated and consciously chosen by consent (collapse of its wave function) on the basis of its biopsychosocial (BPS) survival value, in response to an important perceptual/conceptual change detected in the environment. A particular cortical attractor constitutes the state vector being the focus of the directed attention/awareness. We can assign to any physical subsystem (e.g., a brain) a singular state represented by a vector in its own Hilbert space, as discussed elsewhere. At this moment we prefer to disclaim any correlational continuity between our local selection to bring into a conscious mental state and a cosmic scale Hilbert vector space. We further disagree with the current interpretation of von Neumann’s projection postulate suggesting that the mind becomes conscious after the collapse of the wave function as it happens during an instrumental measurement analogy. In our model, the initial online perceptual/conceptual input triggers an introspective subconscious evaluation of alternative solutions (cortical attractor’s probable future outcome) present in the ‘flow of sub consciousness’, an arguable pre-conscious state. The most compatible/adaptive solution is consciously consented to and a ‘collapse of the wave function’ follows, in that order. Contrary to what happens in quantum mechanical instrumental measurements, our mind’s (microscopic M?) conscious consent represents the measuring instrument of the brain’s (macroscopic B) cortical attractor isolated alternative. They form a single quantum theoretical state vector (wave function ΨM ± B) which arguably can in turn be the object of an empathy ‘measurement’ by another observer’s mirror neuron system (Theory of Mind). Consequent to a significant perceptual/conceptual, input-induced change in the quantum field wave (represented by the wave function) of the cortical attractors, a wave function collapses onto the cortical attractor option with the highest probability of success in resolving the contingency posited by the novel input, all BPS consequences being considered in the process.

Besides the theoretical formalities barely mentioned above, we prefer the intuitive premises based instead on analogies to well established neurophysiological facts (see Sherrington’s neurophysiology) regarding the unconscious reflex coordination of the best musculo-skeletal dynamic body posture (controlled by reflex networks in subcortical basal ganglia, cerebellum, olives, etc.) in executing complex adaptive movements, like we see in the Olympic gymnasts where the biological integrity of the subject is genetically guaranteed; in such cases we need not be conscious of every possible moto-neuronal synaptic connectivity to guide the many individual muscle fiber contractions resulting in the gross, balanced, integrated and coordinated adaptive movement needed. Based on the various relevant inputs (from muscle spindles, stretch receptors, Golgi tendon receptor organs, mirror neurons and other relevant inputs) the genetically programmed appropriate reflex arc just needs to be unconsciously ‘isolated’ and mobilized into actuality by the simple conscious consent (yes or no) to the chosen reflex arc by the unconscious activity of the performer. Please notice that, for lack of a more precise word now, we are making a subtle distinction between choice and consent, suggesting that only the latter is exclusively a conscious event.

By analogy to the conscious consent to the ‘choice’ of a particular gross movement from several unconsciously organized probable motor responses just described, we are suggesting, for analytical purposes, that a conscious consent/choice is the functional equivalent of an instrumental measurement in quantum mechanics, as discussed above. This conclusion is based on our modification of Dr. Freeman’s seminal work on the cortical attractor basin for the olfactory system of rabbits and also on von Neumann’s projection postulate, (1955, Ch. V.1) describing a quantum mechanical instrumental measurement as causally efficient in producing the transition of a quantum state a to an eigen state of the observed event with a certain probability of occurrence, what we called above the ‘collapse’ of the wave function (opposing the expected normal, continuous evolution of the Schrodinger equation). Arguably, then, when we subconsciously ponder/measure on probable courses of action during a flow of sub consciousness and make a choice by consent to the subconscious isolation of a given attractor from available future outcomes alternatives in the cortical attractor basins (based on their probability of adaptive success), we are just passing review before giving our conscious consent (yes or no) to a previously isolation and choice of an alternative among many available which caused the activation/collapse of the free willed/chosen alternative. We have tried to develop an algorithm incorporating vector spaces (Hilbert) reasoning to explain this in more detail but have achieved limited success thus far.

In this respect, it should also be noted how the significant perceptual/conceptual environmental change experienced (e.g., purposive, goal-directed movement by another person or animal) captures our attention focus and shifts it (e.g., visual-motor relays) to relevant ‘cortical mirror neurons’ situated at the premotor , insular and parietal cortex loci (see Rizzolati, G, 2002 “Hearing sounds, understanding actions representation in mirror neurons.”), (See Science 297, 846-848) the same general location where related prior events were registered in specific cortical attractors based on the related content of the perceptual/conceptual change, as we speculate based on Dr. Freeman’s results. This environmental change input triggers a transition from a chaos of environmental sensations -à stochastic/chaotic probability in the attractor basin -à self-consciousness and certainty of the chosen attractor solution, a veritable spontaneous but negentropic activity.

Unlike quantum theory that selects from probable random natural events (during an instrumental measurement), in our case the conscious free consent to a preceding subconscious selection is equivalent to choosing from complexly organized stochastic/chaotic synaptic architecture, represented as symbolic or sentential modal logic syllogisms and mapped as neuronal networks. Far from being random, they just happen to be complexly ordered dynamic solutions to events in potency. But they cannot be considered inexorably deterministic events either, to the extent that we can consciously consent to a subconscious selection even when those alternatives isolate the least adaptive solution as witnessed in heroic or pathological acts ‘contra natura’. The quantum theoretical interpretation introduces, like in the previous case above, the conscious consent to the antecedent subconscious selection (all things considered) of a probable future outcome alternative and does away with the physicalist deterministic model of reality and brings a new unexplored domain between the deterministic and the indeterministic extremes resolved by a conscious free will consent to a previous subconscious selection based on biopsychosocial equilibrium considerations.

Somehow we get the intuition that nature’s randomness only exists when an event so behaving is considered isolated (for cognitive pedagogic convenience), out of its normal natural/holistic ecological environment, e.g., radioactive decay from an unstable atom. When so considered, this reality ‘in se’ is non-linear, asymmetric, indeterministic, atemporal and acausal, and as such, unintelligible to human cognition because of our natural inherited linear/sequential way of processing information so aptly simulated by computers. Thus, the human species had to bring symmetry by temporalizing empirical reality and linearizing the sensory receptors input in harmony with an inherited sequential language processing by inventing the concepts of time and space to explain change. Independently related events can now be processed statistically or linguistically when linearly coupled on the basis of their complementarity and entanglement potential.

This is a most controversial and dark grey area indeed where it has to be demonstrated how significant receptor inputs (movement, sounds/phonemes, etc.) are eventually represented/encoded and readied to be parsed and processed in the language mill. Humans process information in serial sequences with the aid of innate language processors (see S. Pinker). For humans to extract the meaning of the quotidian Kantian ‘chaos of sensations’ we may have inherited the ability to represent crucial environmental events as linked with individualized phonemic and visual content tags attributing primitive survival meanings when compared to an inherited gallery of audiovisual/movement representations, what we have called the proto-linguistic organ (plo) in the amygdaloid complex. We have not developed equivalent explanations for other sensory input variations, but the ‘freeze response’ to pressure, tactile and other nociceptive receptors can now be easily demonstrated.

What has remained a mystery is an explanation of how the sensory information travels and relates to mirror neurons strategically located in pre-motor, insular, parietal and Broca’s cortical areas where we speculate they may generate the emotional qualia as consciousness awakens. We don’t know yet how mirror neurons connect with cortical attractors, if at all. By using the technique of ‘flash suppression’ (what magicians use to distract the public so you don’t see things while looking at them) it has been demonstrated how unconscious stimulation by objects invisible to the subject can control behavior.

We speculate that soon after birth, the newborn has to activate the inherited archetype allowing us to linearize the sense-phenomenal environmental receptor input and couple it to the processing of the adopted language. This way we integrate the inherited proto-semantic, amygdaloidal unconscious processing of sense-phenomenal input with the hippocampus subconscious, contextual analysis of the sensory input and the insular mirror neuron input. The amygdalar and insular components are charged with the preservation of the species biological integrity and the visceral brain’s neuro-humoral homeostasis respectively. The hippocampus/executive cortex axis is involved in the preservation of psychosocial equilibrium. As long as there is no significant/purposive environmental change threatening the biological homeostasis and the psychosocial equilibrium we remain in a state of subconscious awareness, like a sophisticated robotic monitor. As soon as a significant perceptual/conceptual change ensues we either continue updating the attractor basins with perceptual/conceptual memory based inputs or adaptively respond to the environmental contingency. We can reflexly respond stereotypically at the unconscious proto-semantic level by a temporary inhibition of any response (‘freeze response’) pending a contextual analysis by the hippocampus at the subconscious level. If the contextual analysis is semantically positive and the sensory stimulus represent a biological survival threat, the amygdala is disinhibited and a Cannon ‘fight or flight’ response is unleashed. Otherwise, when the change carries the potential for a psychosocial disequilibrium then the higher mental faculties are accessed to extract meaningful information, e.g., a language sequential linear processor to parse the inherited/acquired audiovisual representations data and generate the corresponding syntax structure to express the proper symbolic and/or sentential premises preceding the appropriate logical conclusions (propositional attitude?) and generate the corresponding thought/consciousness in the process. Brain lesions to angular gyrus and Broca’s area interfere with this processing. A flow of subconsciousness is thereby triggered from which the most probable and best adapted cortical attractor solution is subconsciously isolated and freely chosen by consent from the probable future outcomes, as discussed above.

A cortical attractor (including the corresponding mirror neurons components) represents the unit behavioral complex attending the solution to a novel contingency. It comprises a complex behavioral strategy integrating the phenomenal and attitudinal/emotional aspects and their associated perceptual/conceptual qualia. Once more we emphasize that perceptual and conceptual qualia are semantically neutral and find their existential meaning within the context of an individual BPS equilibrium context requiring the language faculty to generate the appropriate symbolic/sentential representations for recursive parsing and syntax elaboration in the adopted language.

It has been most difficult to integrate the participation of the mirror neurons in this unit behavioral complex because of our paucity of relevant anatomico-physiological data. Their presence, in association with Broca’s area, insular cortex and parieto-temporal angular gyrus, is an indication of their likely involvement in the semantic, emotional and multimodal assembly of the unit behavioral entity, not to mention their possible role in the emergence of self-consciousness as we reverse the mirror neurons focus into the agent/observer. As we published elsewhere, just like a newborn baby can watch her lactating mother’s facial/body movements and listen to her baby talk cooing until she eventually discovers the difference between the self and that of mother’s; reciprocally the mother can anticipate the newborn’s needs, an empathy state only possible with the help of mirror neurons. We see no reason why the same ‘mirror neuron’ mechanism cannot be directed inwards to auscultate the self as both the actor and observer! We can demonstrate using fMRI techniques the complex coordination of the left somatotopic premotor cortex with auditory and left parietal cortex which lightens up when we either move a hand while making a sound or watching someone else do it! If the observer can empathize with the external subjects making those sounds or movements via motor neurons systems, especially the likely emotions attending such behavior (as suggested by the activity of the insular mirror neuron system), we don’t see any serious problem about turning that empathy faculty on ourselves and achieving self-consciousness in the process, a veritable reciprocal ‘theory of mind’! This area needs more development because both phenomenal and conceptual qualia in our BPS model requires the language faculty to be accessed for interpretation as to what it existentially really means to me whereas in an ordinary ‘introspection’ a semantic analysis may be waived, like when we are just mind reading someone else. I can predict that the dual reflecting surface of the mirror neurons will be the new area of neuro-philosophy research as we march slowly but unrelentingly along the reductionist asymptotic plank knowing that we have choices because free will survives.

 

Summary and Conclusions.

The simplest way to phenomenologically describe and/or inferentially explain the causally driven simplest possible system S with two or more participating components, say a, b, c, is to assume the unit-size particulate matter components may interact under clearly stated standard temperature and pressure (STP) environmental conditions and coordinates in space time. This would be an idealist representation of a Newtonian spatiotemporal kinematic behavior of a, b, c, ..n particles responding to finite forces f=ma as each particle projects forward along its trajectory. In anticipation of having to describe/explain some unexpected experimental results or observations, we then incorporate a quantum theoretical mathematical logic such that this system is now more adequately characterized by a tensor-product state-vector factorizing into a vector in the Hilbert space of each individual participant thus: Ψa, b, c, …, n ≠ Ψa ⊗ Ψb ⊗ Ψc….. Ψn. In the real time human and earth spatio-temporal biosystem world of hands-on experimentalists and arm-chair theorists of language reporters of the observables results, the tensor products of the equation do not factorize out as shown in the previous equation. No wonder the participating elements are said to be all entangled if we imply an unreal statism instead of a real-time complex evolving before the scratching heads of the human practitioners and the speculators whose access to absolute reality is denied to their physical brain processing capabilities in both the perceptual and/or conceptual domain of discourse! No wonder we have to settle for convenient approximations and propositional brainstorm model poems to see it their corresponding predictions are verified in future measurements and/or observations….. and even then it will undoubtedly change eventually with the passage of time, not to mention the unjustifiable excesses attributable to either the materialist physics scientific methodology ontological claims or the philosophical methodology epistemological claims when excluding each other as the only valid assessment of human existential reality. That is the reason why only in the ideal world the total is not necessarily and sufficiently expressed as the sum of its constitutive parts. This way both the nominal/ontological and transcendental/epistemological views, albeit necessary, become extreme views because of their insufficient status when taken separately. Why not integrate the best of both into a new unit singularity, a dynamic hybrid Epistemontological synthesis like our own biopsychosocial BPS model of brain dynamics? This conceptualization, as spelled out in seven published volumes, a blog, a treatise and various other publications, is still in development as several issues remain unsolved as pointed out in our arguments above.

There is no doubt that most of the HiQ neuroscience commentators are naturally intelligent either because of inherited genes or because of a stimulating environment at an early age, especially in grammatical/semantic expressions (see Jean Piaget’s “Development of Thought” and Noam Chomsky’s “New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind.” I say this because some participants deliberately avoid facing an ever present existential reality, that our human species is the exclusive historical narrator and interpreter of both the sense-phenomenal perceptual world and the abstract probable reality as conceptually represented by symbolic/sentential mathematical logic (see Wittgenstein). Consequently, we must take into account our obvious nominal ontological/perceptual and transcendental epistemological/conceptual limitations when transmitting our experiences. Yet, contrary to the case of the most advanced social primates, we humans are able to abandon the animalistic cage and evolve the sophisticated civilization we all witness. The social primates remain prisoners of their subconscious reflex life as triggered by neuro-hormonal control of cortical premotor stimulation directed to their reproductive activity. In humans these equivalent areas have access to both neural networks encoding memories of emotions (e.g., amygdala, hippocampus) and rational algorithms (e.g., Broca’s area). You will have noticed how some analysts capitalize on either one of these two extremes. Notwithstanding the unavoidable perceptual/conceptual cognitive limitations aforementioned, the behaviorists will limit the scope of their analysis to observable/ontological action while the physical theorists bet heavily on metaphysical/conceptualized/epistemological representations of physical measurements with the tools of mathematical logic probabilities. All things considered, a moderate approach needs to consider the falsifiable evidence from both extremes, an epistemontological hybrid approach. Thus, the biological, psychological and social (BPS) aspects of life become an all-encompassing and unifying synthesis of life and consciousness in real-time space as evidenced by brain dynamics data.

In behalf of the worth of one of the extreme arguments, including religion or atheism, it is clear that the super complexity and order of sentient beings is beyond human analytical cognitive reach if we take into consideration the intrinsic perceptual/conceptual cognitive limitations of the human species, the entropic natural reality established by thermodynamic theory would never explain the clear negentropy aspects of life and self-consciousness. Only a hypothetical ‘intelligent designer’ entity could challenge natural law. In behalf of the other extreme interpretation is the undeniable pragmatic value of a nominal sense-phenomenal behavioral observation when solving immediate issues of no future theoretical impact. It is surprising how ‘behaviorists’ deny the relevance of theoretical conjectures about the invisible micro subatomic and/or the cosmological macro universe. I often wonder how they feel when a transcendental theoretical prediction is validated by falsifiable evidence? I also wonder why the physicalist atheism cannot appreciate the human survival imperative value of all organized religious congregations (JudeoChrIslamic)? After all, in a constitutionally elected democracy, why should anyone expect that only the rich, with degrees and power is deserving of being healthy, happy and socially recognized and/or protected? It is only when the mind soars into virtual domains of open-ended meditational abstractions that we realize that in a mesoscopic, real time existential reality, we need a synthetic, a-posteriori modus operandi because there is no need to identify a noumenally causal dynamics requiring an infinite resolution in sense perceptual capacity and an infinite brain capacity to represent and parse all relevant but invisible variables likely to be encountered. Absolute truth, albeit inferential, is a necessary but unreachable goal for the human species…., maybe for an ‘intelligent designer’ entity?

Finally, the best historical account on how to harmonize the transcendental and nominal biological strategies of human survival is illustrated by Kant’s magnum opus on existential reality in a mesoscopic transcendental survival context: “Critique of Pure Reason”, and on biological survival: “Critique on Practical Reason.” It is only fair to say that Kant did not have the advantage of the modern technological revolution, in vitro and in vivo, and could not appreciate life existential reality in a mesoscopic world. That is where we take over in our own ‘Epistemontological’ hybrid model of human brain dynamics. One can anticipate what any super specialized analyst may ask about ‘life and consciousness’, the what, when, where and why of the evolving objects and events of reality as experienced by all. The ‘What’ layer of our metaphysical onion refers to the outer measurable, observed, sense phenomenal, perceptual domain of discourse ‘When’ linguistically described by a narrator at a given time, ‘Where’ it happened under a given set of prevailing conditions (e.g., standard temperature & pressure) until the incompleteness of the ontological description makes us to intuitively reach for additional, albeit tentative, epistemological conceptual domain explanation about ‘Why’ it happened by using the tools of probable mathematical logic and/or theology. Some experts (behaviorists, materialists, etc.) prefer exclusivity of the nominalist perceptual/ontological critical analysis while others (philosopher, mathematical theorists, theologians, etc.) prefer the exclusivity of the transcendental conceptual/metaphysical model of reality in Kantian philosophy; i.e., being beyond the limits of all possible human experience and knowledge, the transcendental approach.

For Kant, the transcendental approach or epistemological domain was a conceptualized empirical argument of high causal probability value and ontological pretensions where its structural elements were anchored in both measurements/observations of objects or events and/or validated conjectures about their probable existence. Such accounts of existential reality we prefer to label as ‘epistemontological’. It was not necessary to invoke the God metaphor to explain the probability of a pre-determined harmony as Leibniz -along Plato’s reasoning- found necessary in his writings. It may be true that an object or occurrence/event may be judged as being evil, harmful, specific or universal only in the eyes of the beholder.

Sometimes we choose to be pragmatic and intentionally try to emphasize on reliable results derived from measurements and/or observations. In this case their meaning is driven by my intention or motive when analyzing the results. On the other hand we may wish to evaluate objects or events as to their general potential to do harm or good now or in a foreseeable future, not personally but transcending the immediate present.

Leibniz theodicy that “we live in the best of all possible worlds” is predicated on the obvious difference between the nominal, real spatiotemporal sense phenomenal physical reality as described and the ideal transcendental metaphysical reality as conceptually explained. This difference emphasizes the necessity of conceiving the presence of both a micro subatomic and a macro cosmological invisible reality beyond the resolution capacities of the human species. Thus the need and justification for rational models of reality where measurements/observations of environmental objects/events and their seemingly un-natural verifiable manifestations are reconciled. This way Leibniz was able to “vindicate the justice of God” in a rational way as complementary to (not in substitution of!) interpretations exclusively based on religious beliefs.

Reproduced in part and modified from “Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness.” A Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial (BPS) Model. Penguin Books/Trafford Publishing, Inc.  Only Reference.

 

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq.

 

 

.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Critical Analysis of Real Time Existential Reality in our Vital Biosphere.

A Critical Analysis of Real Time Existential Reality in our Vital Biosphere.*

This brief note is yet another attempt to clarify an unnecessary cognitive confusion among scholars with the subtle differences between the ontological and the epistemological domains; the measured/observed description (of an object or event) and the appropriate conjectural explanation derived therefrom (especially when the unit dimensional physical micro particle and the cosmological macro dimensions are beyond both the perceptual and conceptual threshold resolution of the human observer). There is the necessity to arrive at a consensus of language terminology to adopt to avoid the Merry Go Round rephrasing and repeating published literature. To illustrate, it appeals to common sense that there should be a big conceptual difference between an invisible physical particle of unit dimension and the infinite subdivision of a visible aggregate of such particle (e.g. spin coupling) leading eventually to an adimensional non physical point (See Peano). Likewise there must be a fundamental difference between the invisible micro/macro cosmological physical reality (when falsifiable and justifiably argued) when instrumentally measured or observed as opposed to the need to represent it using sentential or symbolic logic language tools to extract meanings. More surprising is to find some distinguished colleagues unable to realize that a first object or event must first be sense-phenomenally perceptually detected by stimulated receptors (right brain hemisphere) ‘before’ any conceptual language representation or even body language communication is possible. Another self-evident fact of mesoscopic existential reality in our vital biosphere space time is the anthropic consistent observation of an entropic decay in nature, the super complexity and negentropic order that characterizes life in all its verifiable manifestations. To invest in the spontaneous emergence of life from inanimate physical matter begs the question. Once we realize the essential difference between ‘needs’ (to be alive and reproduce) and ‘conveniences’ (healthy, happy and convivially cooperating collectively) to prepare for potentially life-threatening contingencies in an evolving environment, then we realize the importance of understanding brain dynamics justification for a biopsychosocial (BPS) model approach. Ergo, first things first!

  1. First things first.

Priority needs (survival imperative) and conveniences (health and happiness). Individual (self) and collective (others) participation. Sense-phenomenal perceptual descriptions (audiovisual, tactile, measurable/observed) and conceptual explanations of objects/events (mathematical logic, probability, intuitions, conjectures), whether exclusive or combinations thereof. Humans are the exclusive linguistic narrators of occurrences that history records (anthropocentrism); this includes from body language, sounds to elaborate symbolic representations of the material physical and immaterial metaphysical. The processing of environmental information, inherited or acquired, physically visible or invisible –whether unconsciously, subconsciously or self conscious of its occurrence-) occurs in a physical brain. Finally, our models of reality will inevitably be constantly evolving because of the intrinsic perceptual/conceptual limitations of the human species vis a vis the perceptual superiority of other social subhuman species. The winner would be the ones able to reach and sustain a reproductive potential and realization of life in a changing and potentially dangerous environment.

  1. Unavoidable consequences of sharing experiences with other living species in a constantly evolving environment.

Being alive, able to communicate my immediate/mediate needs/conveniences to others. This way we can survive in a constantly evolving/changing **environment.

Regardless of the naïve claims that the epistemological mind controls the ontological physical, living human brain as it generates conscious thoughts to maintain a homeostatic balance between species survival needs and conveniences, a moments’ intuitive analytical reflection  will convince the reader that the reverse is true. We can find living humans with no mind activity but never without a physical brain.

Meaning is provided by the brain as it sorts out between available environmental alternatives, physically present or absent but recorded in the brain as memories of audio-visual perceptual objects or events or their symbolic conceptual representations thereof. In a real spatio-temporal terrestrial environment the sources of information input into the brain are originally perceptual sense phenomenal -whether the inherited (unconscious), acquired (subconscious) or combinations thereof assisted by inner linguistic elements (consciousness)- and conceptual when beyond the human sensory threshold of perceptual resolution. Anything too small (subatomic domain) or too far away (cosmological), however falsifiable by consistent, reliable consequences (measured/observed), must be conceptually included in mathematical logic or Bayesian logic formulation. If the occurrence of such postulated objects and/or events are confirmed they become part and parcel of the resulting model. If you now consider our human species as the exclusive historical narrators of the truthful structural and functional aspects of such micro invisible and macro unreachable galactic domains, then consider the absolute truth certainty of our conclusions when the limited perceptual (ontological) and conceptual (epistemological) resolution of our models of existential reality in an evolving universe? Enter theosophy to fill the cognitive gap, What is more reliable, an inductive or a deductive analysis of life and existential reality?

Theosophy, as represented by JudeoChrIslamic organized religions, is a historical fact of life as long as we keep in focus the mesoscopic existential reality we experience in real time where first things come first -(life survival imperative needs for the species), health and conviviality conveniences for the vital community happiness). All things considered, inheritance, acquired learned experiences during early upbringing meaning comes from context and a constantly evolving environment, how could any serious model of existential reality claim exclusivity, whether of the materialistic, theoretical abstractions**, theosophical or other variety? Does it make sense to be inclusive, where the falsifiable physical –albeit invisible- aspects of the micro cosmos may conjecture about the Biology of physical particles, the Psychic aspects of a living physical brain dynamics as they impact the convivial Sociology of the individual members of the collective surviving to remain alive, reproduce and build creatively to improve on what they found and plan for future contingencies threatening our human species continued survival?

** Neither can decisions be based exclusively on a timeless multivariate calculus protocol. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/parametrization   ..

Inductive vs. deductive critical analysis of real time existential reality?
The living human dynamic brain is much more sophisticated than either the scientific methodology materialists, the arm chair mathematical theorists or the theosophy extremist admit. It certainly is not just the bone enclosed container where information is just crammed in in the form of past memory patches of past environmental experiences. As research shows it is continually adapting to new information inputs by modifying the old memory content. For more information see the following Wikipedia link.

It should be clear that an Inductive Logic critical analysis system –where the premises cannot logically imply the resulting conclusions- limits further the truth certainty of  it’s conclusive inferences as opposed to those derived from deductive/abstract mathematical logic. However, inductive logic extends the pragmatic real time value of scientific methodology especially when inductions are sustained by evidential support in the form of falsifiable measurements and/or reliable observations of environmental objects and events. To exclude one system from the other would be an incomplete effort.

 Conclusion:

In fact the BPS Model has been so successful that arm chair mathematical theorists, biomedical clinical practitioners, biophysical chemistry researchers, sociologists and philosophers have each appropriated the individual components of this unit singularity trichotomy (BPS) as the exclusive interpretation of ‘existential reality’ in our vital biosphere space time. It is natural to expect that the information/technological explosion witnessed recently and its consequent evolutionary progression of a putative theory of everything (TOE) explaining life and consciousness would bring this splitting. But we cannot separate the ‘redness’ from the red apple and expect a viable independent existence of either the apple or the red color. What has happened is essentially a rephrasing of the original BPS model published by the undersigned in the 1980’s under “Bocetos Para Una Biopsicosociologia” (Editorial Limusa ISBN-968-18-1867-9 Mexico, DF) and previous/subsequent publications in defense of the BPS Model as the resultant of the exclusively living human brain dynamics complexity. The conundrum of reconciling the invisibility of the subatomic micro realm and the dimensions of the cosmologic macro universe, quantum theory and relativity, super symmetry (SUSSY) and its continuously evolving breaking, light and dark matter spin-coupling, etc., all of this and our well known perceptual/conceptual cognitive limitations makes of the BPS Model a journey in progress, susceptible to further theological investigations not a destination ready to be described.  Dr.d

 

*Taken from: “Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness” A Multidisciplinary BioPsychoSocial (BPS) Model of Human Brain Dynamics.

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Leave a comment