“A BioPsychoSocial (BPS) Model of Reality, an Update.”

“A BioPsychoSocial (BPS) Model of Reality, an Update.”

Introduction.

The  quest for finding the all encompassing, final theory of everything in reality (TOE) continues un-abated. The front runners’ current effort seems to be resting on the premise that the final TOE must exclusively be a “..coherent theoretical framework of physics…” linking all aspects of the universe we all witness. Consequently, models of general relativity and quantum field theories lead the pack by successfully  having both been modified  because they are mutually incompatible, under a “Grand Unified Theory” to include all dimensions, from the unreachable cosmic infinities of general relativity to the invisible subatomic manifolds of quantum field theories. This way it includes both, from particles of unit mass to distances of cosmological dimensions. The interactions between these particles unified both leading approaches. when it considered three non-gravitational forces, the “weak”, “strong” and “electromagnetic” influences. What seems to be missing from this materialistic physicalist model?

At first sight, the “Grand Unified Theory” seems to deny or ignore the constant change all human observers experience in objects and/or events as a function of time passed. In so doing this physical model naively believes their TOE model will become  a truthful ‘destination’ instead of the necessarily incomplete ‘journey’ through time where environmental and other relevant changing circumstances continually evolve. What is most amazing is ignoring the inconceivable  fundamental need for maintenance of life  and a nervous system which must be part and parcel of any ‘Theory of Everything’.  Rationality analysis is not superior to  the emotionality equivalent of feelings because the latter is  admittedly far more complex when ontologically describing and/or epistemologically  explaining  ever changing objects  or events, even with the assistance of mathematical logic. The outstanding feature  of gravity in the General Relativity Model, absent from the Quantum Field Theory has triggered a recent interest in ‘quantum gravity’, ‘Membrane’ and ‘String Theory’ and ‘dark matter’.

Nevertheless, there cannot be a complete model that can possibly exclude the the human narrator of any model. Life must be included , its regulation, biology, etc. The conscious configuration of the physical world  is inextricably correlated to the Platonic world, as Roger Penrose suggested. Any narrated account of living, existential reality inevitably becomes a metaphor in poem or prose.

In summary, a biopsychosocial approach, including both the macro general relativity and the microquantum fields physical model, makes it more complete and as such, better describes how to become better human beings with an improved knowledge  of our needs and that of others sharing our ecological niche. It is also true that the current  formulation of general relativity and quantum fields represent dimensional extremes of our experience of reality and required re-unification, but it is also incomplete in that it pays no attention to the undeniable influential role played by the observer-narrator/recorder of observed or measured events. A balanced view should include all biopsychosocial features, the biological nervous system, a sine-qua-non condition to have a self conscious psychological mind individualized and collective social activity to guaranty the survival of the human species. No brain, no self conscious effort to reunite the required biopsychosocial and theosophical elements.

Metaphysics

The BioPsychoSocial (BPS) approach to remedy the incompleteness of the physicalist/materialistic models of reality started in the early 1980 with our publication of “Bocetos para una Biopsicosociología.” ISBN 968-18-1867-9 Editorial Limusa Mexico, Distrito Federal. It has suffered various revisions to update the physical and technological substrates of the biopsychological aspects of brain function related to the theosophy of collective social conviviality. The BPS model has been detailed on “Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness.” ISBN 978-1-4669-4900-3 Penguin Books/Trafford Publishing, Inc. What follows represents a continuing effort to gather all the relevant ‘epistemontological’ aspects of life and consciousness, including theosophy, to approximate our BPS model to a reliable theory of everything goal.

The higher order BPS consciousness theory aspirations is to eventually become an evolving, yet updated theory of everything (TOE) dynamically incorporating all aspects of human experience, as exposed early on in Wikipedia as follows:

“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 all of 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’ (proto-semantic 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 / “

.Metaphysics.

Unfortunately, the extraordinary advances in Artificial Intelligence technology has so refined physics, technology and mathematical logic that we have forgotten the fundamental role of human beings, with all its known, inevitable cognoscitive limitations, in this effort. What is interesting is that the materialist/physicalists would not accept that an intelligent design of life can be exclusively demonstrated -with the known laws of physics and mathematical logic- by no other than such limited human being who cannot avoid making decisions outside a belief mental framework! Even Aristotle rested his case beyond the inductive method of the sciences with his defense of an invisible God as the first cause. After all why invest exclusively on the ontological induction when there is so much hidden inside the deductive and theosophy bag of surprises.? Why not ask idealists such as Hume, Kant, Hegel who emphasized more on the linguistic narratives of the epistemological content of self-conscious perceptual ontologies.  It must be easy to forget that all epistemological systems evolve from initial descriptive axioms about an existential reality of sensory phenomenal perceptions as measured or observed. Is there an absolute truth with such unstable and changing axioms? Are they mathematically elegant and impressive? No doubt, but are they complete? Ask Godel about their intrinsic limitations!

There have been more recent attempts by Prof. Damasio and others, to expand on the details of what we considered a multilayered, multidisciplinary conceptualization of consciousness by assigning a hierarchy of neurological stages before an internal or environmental stimulus reaches self conscious level and an adaptive sequential response which Prof. Damasio called an unconscious, primitive unconscious ‘protoself’, a subconscious ‘Core Consciousness’ before a self-conscious ‘Extended Consciousness.’ comes into being. See his year 2000 book: ‘‘The Feeling of What Happens.’’  where a synthesis of sense phenomenal ontological qualia and/or the mind’s epistemological activity becomes the effective trigger of an effective, adaptive decisive-action.  It should be obvious the tremendous influence memory networks (brains’s mental images) and language will have  in structuring effective decision-making processes arising out of primitive genetic and/or environmental origins.

Universal Holism and Individualized Reductionism. 

I

.What is the difference, if any, between my individualized personal experience and those of the social group I identify with? Is the experience of the group the reliable sum total of the individual participants’ experiences? Likewise, one may ask if  the experience of Homo Sapience , wherever in the universe recorded, predictable with reliable certainty> Experience is an account of what happened in the past and is happening now. At the personal level it is conditioned to my sensory-phenomenal perceptual experience as influenced by inheritance and environmentally acquired circumstances in my biosphere. At the group level, experience is best characterized  as a shared, common, consensual reality. It is then accurate to consider universal holism as the sum total of the individualized reductions of the whole, and vice-versa?

It becomes immediately clear that the ontological, sense phenomenal, perceptual experience is just a description of any object or event  within the resolution capacity of our sensory detectors. Any invisible object or event below such personal or instrumental description can still  epistemologically, conceptually explained as a reliable experience, usually under a given set of time/space conditions. If not, how else can we then talk  about invisible viruses, molecules, etc. as participating in a visible disease condition?

By using mathematical logic tools of analysis, we can now predict reliable outcomes in certain interactions between the known and the unknown, between the ontologically visible perception and the epistemologically invisible conceptualization. We are now in a better cognoscitive perspective to proceed with a more detailed structural/functional dissection of our reality, life and self consciousness before we need to introduce theosophical  criteria to compensate  for our human species perceptual and conceptual cognoscitive limitations. This way, the conundrum of a biopsychosocial (BPS) model of reality, life and self consciousness will become clear as it may apply to the various personality types we suffer or enjoy during ordinary, consuetudinary social events as the one considered below for illustration purposes. But first we may ask ourselves, what is it we’d like to converse about, when or where  it happened or why it happened  to him/her  specifically or to anyone, anywhere, wherever  in space-time? What degree of completeness or sophistication are we socially aiming at?

II

‘What’ refers to the measurable/observed sense-phenomenal, perceptual domain of discourse ‘when’ linguistically described by a narrator at a given time in space, ‘where’ it happened under a given set of prevailing conditions (e.g., Standard Temperature and Pressure or STP) until the incompleteness of ontological description makes us to intuitively reach out for an 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 the exclusivity  of the perceptual/ontological critical analysis while others (philosophers, mathematical theorists, theologians, etc.) prefer the exclusivity of the conceptual/epistemological model of reality, as e.g., is found in Kantian philosophy where the absolute truth about existential reality lies beyond the limits of all possible human experiences and knowledge, the ‘transcendental’ approach.

For Kant, the ‘transcendental’ approach or ‘epistemological’ domain was a conceptualized empirical argument of a high causal probability value  and ontological pretensions where its structural elements were anchored in both measurements/observations of phenomenological objects and events and/or  validated conjectures about their  probable statistical existence. Such modified comprehensive, multidisciplinary accounts of an evolving existential reality we prefer to label as an ‘epistemontological’ unit of a hybrid ‘biopsychosocial’ (BPS) model of existential reality. Consequently, it becomes perhaps unnecessary to invoke a God metaphor to explain the probability of a predetermined harmony as Leibniz -along Plato’s reasoning-  found necessary in his writings, what we now call ‘God’ in all the theosophist doctrines.

A ‘biopsychosocial entity’ understanding includes an analysis of the why, for humans anywhere, it may be true that an object or an occurrence/event  may be judged as being evil, harmful, specific or universal, if it only exists in the eyes of the beholder when subjected to an ‘individualized’ reductionism’. The analysis is now ready to briefly consider some genetic/environmental motivational or intentional forces influencing the reliability of our judgements..

III

Sometimes we choose to be pragmatic and intentionally try to emphasize on reliable results derived from measurements and/or observations. But, in this case, their meaning is driven by my intention  or motive when critically analyzing the results.

Suppose we may wish to evaluate objects or events as to their general potential  to either do harm or good, now or in a  foreseable future, not personal but transcending the immediate present.

What we are about to narrate is about individuals who represent the whole spectrum of human personality types, from the introvert –> extrovert shy loner –>, etc.

To understand personality types  you need to analyze  their biological, psychological and  sociological (BPS) structural and/or functional component elements and how  they amalgamate to become a unit BPS driving personality force.

The biological moety can be conveniently dissected out to reveal the genetically determined, environmentally steered and socially executed parts. The unconscious neuro-hormone driven features are controlled in their expression by circumstantial environmental operations at crucial times during fetal maturation and early development in the biosphere.  This joint interaction of genetic and environmental determinants in any human individual is termed the subconscious. However, when the species survival, as driven by neuro-philosophical considerations of species predatory competition and evolutionary adaptation to a changing environment, is critically examined, we call it self consciousness. Notice that this is like peeling the surface (self conscious) layer of an onion to see the undersurface (subconscious) layers and subsequent (unconscious) hidden layers until the core sustaining the layers is analytically revealed to simulated vision, taste and smell perceptual equivalents.

But, what if an important feature exists beyond ontological, sense-phenomenal recognition? We then have no choice but to rely on the ontological descriptive consequences of generating Artificial Intelligence (AI)  equivalent activity of simulated invisible objects or events. If the measurement values are consistent to all observers, all of the time, under a defined set of space, time circumstances, these epistemological explanation becomes part and parcel of the ontological description.

IV

Welcome to the epistemontological nature of the biopsychosocial (BPS) hybrid reality as narrated in an adopted language by cognitively limited human beings. So much for the reliability, certainty and absolute existence of objects and occurrences. That is the justification for mathematical logic probability as a necessary and convenient tool to statistically  assist in any description and/or explanation  of existential reality. Yet, we have no choice but to consider the analytical tools available to use, especially when extrapolating from results obtained from other species, since no  other socially advanced pre-human species  left narrative linguistic evidence  to critically analyze our fast changing evolving reality. Both pre-human social Bonobos and humans have developed brains and there is good experimental chromosomal evidence linking both species, i.e., all pre-human monkeys have 24 chromosomes resulting from the fusion of 2 chromosomes into the single human chromosome #2 and thus only 23 chromosomes are to be found in humans. Why then only humans were able to leave readable literary evidence of their journey through time?

V

The human species is the only one demonstrated to be capable of introspectively become aware that s(he) is different from the surrounding environmental biosphere and capable to improve on an inherited primitive Chomsky proto-language to describe /explain his existential reality subsequently. It made possible  to distinguish between emotional and rational mindsets controlling Psychosocial behavior both corresponding to their respective primitive, hormonal and evolved rational language

Do we have emotional or rational personalities?  Do we indulge into the delusional grandeur of utopia or surrender to the uncontrollable  forces of mental dystopias? Are we free to choose between the two contrasting personality alternatives? At this point we need to further distinguish between a species needs and conveniences. Needs are related to species survival, preferably in good health, happy and socially convivial in harmony with the group he shares the biosphere with., e.g.,  BPS equilibrium. It exists at all 3 levels of consciousness. Conveniences are exercised by and large, at the self-conscious level of behavior  in pursuit of happiness.

If our own cognitive-limited human species, where behavior is determined by inheritance and environmentally acquired influences, are we really free? Are we different from other advanced  social primates? Another relevant question comes up when we compare  the life cycles  of humans and primates at the cognitive level. Humans naturally display an adaptive array of complex solutions to a constantly changing environment and share that information with succeeding generations to benefit from. But evolving complexity is not a spontaneous natural event in our biosphere, because things naturally decay as a function of time! Is there an un-natural way or a compensatory activity to make up for our obvious  disadvantage in reproductive activity when compared to other species? Why are us humans different?

It is not surprising to explain why any phenomena defying nature’s entropy conservation laws of physics is likely the result  of an ‘intelligent design’ by an un-natural entity we all call ‘God;. This ‘modus operandi’ is not different from the conceptual epistemological explanations invoked when dealing with invisible objects or events beyond perceptual ontological description.

VI

Enter the theosophical domain to assist the cognitive-limited human species with an additional epistemological reasoning tool. Why choose the human species? The evolutionary survival of the fittest in a rapidly changing environment dogma  explains it well. In a biopsychosocial environment any theological gathering promoting  friendship, cooperation and good will, will do. Arguably, it can be considered not just a ‘convenience’ , but a human dire survival ‘need’ sub-serving the preservation of dear life for the species! After all, the circumstantial shadow inevitably always follow the object casting it! Like famous Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno argued, existential life refers to man plus his inseparable circumstance.

But life is a dynamic journey through an ever changing  space time with no certain destination within cognitive reach of the limited human mind  to anticipate. It would be interesting to see how the different subsets  of consciousness portions out the emotional and rational components of reality to provide a BPS equilibrium. Debary Lodge 8063 in Central Florida became the laboratory observatory where the BPS model theory of the 1980’s became alive again. There will never be a more friendly, cooperative, good will club where members, family, close friends and neighbors shared the consequences of their only formal bond, military service, and made life for all so safe and convivial in a complex dynamic social interaction on Fridays (see brief illustration below) and the rest of every week.

VII

At Debary, Central Florida, Veteran of Foreign Wars (VFW) member David was not crazy, but for him any epithet was good enough to bring smiling looks in your direction while you loudly squeak your size 12 tennis shoes against the shiny, waxy terrazo floor until the latter  screams a funny flatulence-like noise. Meanwhile his energetic, attractive wife runs back and forth along the long hall distributing to each guest a copy of some future activity of the 8063 VFW Lodge or the Post Auxiliary Group. Behind her, slowly-walking Sandy, the quietly active, good-looking Club  accountant and President of the Post Auxiliary Group, was selling 50-50 tickets to fund and promote the various welfare projects in behalf of disabled veterans or Boy Scouts in any moment of need.  Ceiling lights are now dimming.

It’s almost 7 pm and the ceiling lights are about to go off except for the  beautiful multicolored displays that adorned the ceiling tiles. The busy kitchen, under the efficient control of the entrepreneurial, charming Chef Yolanda and her voluntary ’employees’ were busy closing for the night. The musical group rehearsed its drums near an improvised podium arrangement not far from the kitchen area. The dancing was about to start. The kitchen staff soon disappeared through the kitchen back door. Busy waitress Barbara undid her apron and returned to the main  Bar counter’s high bench seat where her introverted husband was patiently waiting for her. The show was on!

After some brief welcoming remarks to the huge Friday crowd, the Post Commander wasted no time in displaying his unique Saloon dancing savoiz-faire  techniques with his elegantly dressed wife, all despite  the very limited space available for the dancers to move laterally. The oscillatory wiping movements  of the older dancers as they walked was a prominent non-intentional attention seeker.

The place was jam-packed celebrating the 20th anniversary of the original Brooklyn, N.Y.  band -Monterrey Jacks-, that now wouldn’t leave the Central Florida podiums. Meanwhile the two parallel bar counters couldn’t keep up with the brisk business typical of every Friday night. As usual, the Canteen Manager, had taken careful care  of all administrative and related non-administrative details since her time of arrival  on early afternoon with her inseparable friendly, ailing  Marine veteran husband.  The distant far end of the wisely decorated hall ceilings was simultaneously hosting  a private community party. A riding wall panel, halfway opened, separated both activities while birthday cake from the private party and free salad crossed ways as they moved in opposite directions. Nobody complained and there was always order and smiling looks, an organized friendly little chaos.

VIII

As usual, some of the un-authorized, non Member, afternoon and early evening crowds, disappeared after repeating 3 or more times the delicious , crispy whiting fried fish carefully prepared by Chef Yolanda, the only Mardi Gras southern-style chef this side of Central Florida.

Soon after part of the neighbourly crowd left through the North side entrance door, another wave  of door ringing, card carrying, authorized Members rushed through the front  West door. while yet, another  neighbourly non member  group rushed in through  the North side door. Meanwhile some bartenders  sitting outside the North side door  watched from their smoke filled tables outside. At the same time the orchestra director had been busy arranging the podium and instruments by the  now closing kitchen area, and not at the elegantly decorated far end podium, where the orchestra’s ego would have preferred.  Several smartly placed round tables had been reserved for the  special insider group elite soon to arrive.

Today Friday, at a time when most employed  personnel in town are out of work, ready for a relaxation moment at the club before going home, the arrangement of seats was different from Wednesdays, another very popular Karaoke Day. Today’s psychosocial expectations  of activity would be accordingly display very different, qualitatively and quantitatively.

Just like any other social club, the ‘insiders’ group had  3 modalities, depending on the psychosocial orientation of the Post Commander and/or his staff, their dissenters and those who couldn’t care less, one way or the other.

Under the new administration the club had slowly evolved  from the very exclusive  Members-only club of the 1980’s to become a very popular Members and Debary’s middle class  neighborhood ‘club’. Members and the mostly upper middle class non-members from Debary neighborhood established a very friendly functional relationship.

The moment you pulled out and insert your  Member card and open the front West door entrance, the orange, western setting sun brightly illuminated the semi dark general area now occupied by the drink toasting extroverts surrounding the main bar counter area on the left. On the right hand side was the immediate entrance to the main bathroom. A few more steps ahead were a set of  high table bench seats against the wall where the administrative elite share drinks, experiences and an occasional Friday night free pool table match on their right side.From that wall vantage  point they could watch the only other  of the three high tables arrangement against a wall, two on their left-near the front entrance- and remaining one directly in front of them -near the side entrance.

If you wanted to know the breaking news on the club’s operation, just stand in line at the bar and then listen carefully  while you wait  for a smiling Sandra or Jodie to serve  your special drink concoction which they have already memorized. In stark contrast was the  lonely presence of Larry II, patiently waiting for his busy partner, now working at the kitchen’s closing routine. Most of the introvert types of personality clients are scattered around, all they needed was an isolated corner or an occasional  half empty table. As the evening matured there were a few quasi extroverts-converts  as liquor sale lines got larger… and they became more socially conscious. Unfortunately, a few  could become aggressive but fortunately not yet in this Debary Post., thanks to the special previous  biopsychosocial training orientation peculiar to the military mission to live, let live and survive anywhere, regardless of their heterogeneous composition as driver, nurse,, engineer, pilot, physician, lawyer, academic or otherwise.

It was always interesting to watch how two amiable extroverts, retired Post Office guys, used to meet so many people and pets during their many walking mailbox distributions, would socialize with their wives, one would gravitate towards the gambling machines leaving his attractive wife to socialize alone with others. The other one , in contrast, wouldn’t take his eyes away from his equally attractive blue-eyed blonde for a moment. In both cases the female looked happy and enjoying the party with their husbands and went home together smiling! Some others wouldn’t stop talking to anyone displaying the least interest in the subject matter until they hit a mutually interesting topic. Others would insist in answering their own somewhat related question when invited to react to a very different question by his /her  friend at the table. Yet others, with a smiling face, would rather remain silent as they politely listen to one or more simultaneously ongoing dissertations! Some may agree with an original exposition while accepting a contrasting explanation!  Finally, another participant may care less about the issue under discussion, one way or the other, regardless of the content because they rather drink and toast for a better material life.

IX

The one participant enjoying the most profit from his/her physical presence at the Club was the ‘non political’ Mayor who doesn’t need to  identify his party affiliation to promote  and defend his political point of view in the most affable , self indulgent  demeanor. This will obviously contrast with introverts who, while having a party affiliation, will prefer a neutral academic perspective when analyzing  a psychosocial issue. Others, nonetheless, will tolerate them, offer a drink and pay no serious attention t. C’est la vie when you are de facto socially isolated.

The interesting part of this preceding brief illustration is the analogical diversity between a social Friday evening at the 8063 Debary VFW post in Central Floridaand the rest of Continental United States and its territories when the Constitutional democracy features are duly respected and observed while both examples constantly evolve into better places to make friends, cooperate, share, learn in convivial happiness and inspired in good will.

May God bless the Club, its administrators, Members, their families, friends and neighbors and God bless America.

Respectfully, Dr. Angell O. de -la-Sierra, Esq. Life Member VFW  .WWW.delasierra-sheffer.net/index.htm

.

 

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

“A BioPsychoSocial (BPS) Model of Reality, an Update.”

“A BioPsychoSocial (BPS) Model of Reality, an Update.”

Introduction.

The  quest for finding the all encompassing, final theory of everything in reality (TOE) continues un-abated. The front runners’ current effort seems to be resting on the premise that the final TOE must exclusively be a “..coherent theoretical framework of physics…” linking all aspects of the universe we all witness. Consequently, models of general relativity and quantum field theories lead the pack by successfully  having both been modified  because they are mutually incompatible, under a “Grand Unified Theory” to include all dimensions, from the unreachable cosmic infinities of general relativity to the invisible subatomic manifolds of quantum field theories. This way it includes both, from particles of unit mass to distances of cosmological dimensions. The interactions between these particles unified both leading approaches. when it considered three non-gravitational forces, the “weak”, “strong” and “electromagnetic” influences. What seems to be missing from this materialistic physicalist model?

At first sight, the “Grand Unified Theory” seems to deny or ignore the constant change all human observers experience in objects and/or events as a function of time passed. In so doing this physical model naively believes their TOE model will become  a truthful ‘destination’ instead of the necessarily incomplete ‘journey’ through time where environmental and other relevant changing circumstances continually evolve. What is most amazing is ignoring the inconceivable  fundamental need for maintenance of life  and a nervous system which must be part and parcel of any ‘Theory of Everything’.  Rationality analysis is not superior to  the emotionality equivalent of feelings because the latter is  admittedly far more complex when ontologically describing and/or epistemologically  explaining  ever changing objects  or events, even with the assistance of mathematical logic. The outstanding feature  of gravity in the General Relativity Model, absent from the Quantum Field Theory has triggered a recent interest in ‘quantum gravity’, ‘Membrane’ and ‘String Theory’ and ‘dark matter’.

Nevertheless, there cannot be a complete model that can possibly exclude the the human narrator of any model. Life must be included , its regulation, biology, etc. The conscious configuration of the physical world  is inextricably correlated to the Platonic world, as Roger Penrose suggested.

In summary, a biopsychosocial approach, including both the macro general relativity and the microquantum fields physical model, makes it more complete and as such, better describes how to become better human beings with an improved knowledge  of our needs and that of others sharing our ecological niche. It is true that the current  formulation of general relativity and quantum fields represent dimensional extremes of our experience of reality required re-unification, but it is also incomplete in that it pays no attention to the undeniable influential role played by the observer-narrator/recorder of observed or measured events. A balanced view should include all biopsychosocial features, the biological nervous system, a sine-qua-non condition to have a self conscious psychological mind individualized and collective social activity to guaranty the survival of the human species. No brain, no self conscious effort to reunite the required biopsychosocial and theosophical elements.

Metaphysics

The BioPsychoSocial (BPS) approach to remedy the incompleteness of the physicalist/materialistic models of reality started in the early 1980 with our publication of “Bocetos para una Biopsicosociología.” ISBN 968-18-1867-9 Editorial Limusa Mexico, Distrito Federal. It has suffered various revisions to update the physical and technological substrates of the biopsychological aspects of brain function related to the theosophy of collective social conviviality. The BPS model has been detailed on “Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness.” ISBN 978-1-4669-4900-3 Penguin Books/Trafford Publishing, Inc. What follows represents a continuing effort to gather all the relevant ‘epistemontological’ aspects of life and consciousness, including theosophy, to approximate our BPS model to a reliable theory of everything goal.

The higher order BPS consciousness theory aspirations is to eventually become an evolving, yet updated theory of everything (TOE) dynamically incorporating all aspects of human experience, as exposed early on in Wikipedia as follows:

“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 all of 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’ (proto-semantic 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 / “

The quest for finding the all-encompassing, final theory of everything in reality (TOE) continues un-abated. The front runners’ current effort seems to be resting on the premise that the final TOE must exclusively be a “coherent theoretical framework of physics” linking all aspects of the universe we all witness. Consequently, models of general relativity and quantum field theories lead the pack by successfully having both been modified because they are mutually incompatible, under a “Grand Unified Theory”, to include all dimensions, from the unreachable cosmic infinities of general relativity to the invisible subatomic manifolds of quantum field theories. This way it includes both, from particles of unit mass to distances of cosmological dimensions. The interactions between these particles unified both leading approaches when it considered three non-gravitational forces, the “weak”, “strong” and “electromagnetic” influences. What seems to be missing from this materialistic physicalist model?

At first sight, the “Grand Unified Theory” seems to deny or ignore the constant change all human observers experience in objects and/or events as a function of time passed. In so doing this physical model naively believes their TOE model will become a truthful ‘destination’ instead of the necessarily incomplete ‘journey’ through time where environmental and other relevant changing circumstances continually evolve. What is most amazing is ignoring the inconceivable fundamental need for maintenance of life and a nervous system which must be part and parcel of any Theory of Everything. Rationality analysis is not superior to the emotionality equivalent qualia of feelings because the latter is admittedly far more complex when ontologically describing and/or epistemologically explaining ever changing objects or events, even with the assistance of mathematical logic. The outstanding feature of gravity in the General Relativity Model, absent from the Quantum Field Theory has triggered a recent interest in ‘quantum gravity’, ‘Membrane’ and ‘String Theory and the mysterious ‘dark matter’.

Nevertheless, there cannot be a complete model that can possibly exclude the human narrator of any model. Life must be included, its regulation, biology, etc. The conscious configuration of the physical world is inextricably correlated to the Platonic world, as Roger Penrose suggested. Any narrated account of living reality becomes a metaphor in poem or prose.

.Metaphysics.

Unfortunately, the extraordinary advances in Artificial Intelligence technology has so refined physics, technology and mathematical logic that we have forgotten the fundamental role of human beings, with all its known, inevitable gnoscitive limitations, in this effort. What is interesting is that the materialist/physicalists would not accept that an intelligent design of life can be exclusively demonstrated, with the known laws of physics and mathematical logic, by no other than such limited human being who cannot avoid making decisions outside a belief mental framework! Even Aristotle rested his case beyond the inductive method of the sciences with his defense of an invisible God as the first cause. After all why invest exclusively on the ontological induction when there is so much hidden inside the deductive and theosophy bag of surprises.? Why not ask idealists such as Hume, Kant, Hegel who emphasized more on the linguistic narratives of the epistemological content of self-conscious perceptual ontologies.  It must be easy to forget that all epistemological systems evolve from initial descriptive axioms about an existential reality of sensory phenomenal perceptions as measured or observed. Is there an absolute truth with such unstable and changing axioms? Are they mathematically elegant and impressive? No doubt, but are they complete? Ask Godel about their intrinsic limitations!

There have been more recent attempts by Prof. Damasio and others, to expand on the details of what we considered a multilayered, multidisciplinary conceptualization of consciousness by assigning a hierarchy of neurological stages before an internal or environmental stimulus reaches self conscious level and an adaptive sequential response which Prof. Damasio called an unconscious, primitive unconscious ‘protoself’, a subconscious ‘Core Consciousness’ à self-conscious ‘Extended Consciousness.’ comes into being. See his year 2000 book: ‘‘The Feeling of What Happens.’’  where a synthesis of sense phenomenal ontological qualia and/or the mind’s epistemological activity becomes the effective trigger of an effective, adaptive decisive-action.  It should be obvious the tremendous influence memory networks (brains’s mental images) and language will have  in structuring effective decision-making processes arising out of primitive genetic and/or environmental origins.

Unfortunately, the extraordinary advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has so refined physics, technology and mathematical logic that we have forgotten the fundamental role of human beings, with all all of its known, inevitable cognitive limitations, in this effort. What is interesting is that the materialistic, physicalist  would not accept  that an intelligent design of life can be exclusively demonstrated, with the known laws of physics and mathematical logic, by no other than such limited human being who cannot  avoid making decisions  outside a belief mental framework! Even Aristotle rested his case beyond the inductive method of the sciences with his defense  of an invisible God as the first cause. After all, why invest exclusively on the ontological induction when there is so much hidden inside the deductive theosophy bag of surprises? Why not ask idealists such as Hume, Kant, Hegel who emphasized more on the linguistic narratives of the epistemological content of self conscious perceptual ontologies. It must be easy to forget that all epistemological systems evolve from from initial descriptive axioms about an existential reality of sensory phenomenal perceptions as measured or observed. Is there an absolute truth with such unstable and changing axioms? Are they mathematically elegant and impressive? No doubt, but are they complete> Ask Godel about their intrinsic limitations!

Universal Holism and Individualized Reductionism. 

I

.What is the difference, if any, between my individualized personal experience and those of the social group I identify with? Is the experience of the group the reliable sum total of the individual participants’ experiences? Likewise, one may ask if  the experience of Homo Sapience , wherever in the universe recorded, predictable with reliable certainty> Experience is an account of what happened in the past and is happening now. At the personal level it is conditioned to my sensory-phenomenal perceptual experience as influence by inheritance and environmentally acquired circumstances in my biosphere. At the group level, experience is best characterized  as a shared, common, consensual reality. It is then accurate to consider universal holism as the sum total of the individualized reductions of the whole, and vice-versa?

It becomes immediately clear that the ontological, sense-phenomenal, perceptual experience is just a description of any object or event  within the resolution capacity of our sensory detectors. Any invisible object or event below the  such personal or instrumental description can still  epistemologically, conceptually explained as a reliable experience, usually under a given set of time/space conditions. If not, how else can we then talk  about invisible viruses, molecules, etc. as participating in a visible disease condition?

By using mathematical logic tools of analysis, we can now predict reliable outcomes in certain interactions between the known and the unknown, between the ontologically visible perception and and the epistemologically invisible conceptualization. We are now in a better cognoscitive perspective to proceed with a more detailed structural/functional dissection of our reality, life and self consciousness before we need to introduce theosophical  criteria to compensate  for our human species perceptual and conceptual cognoscitive limitations. This way, the conundrum of a biopsychosocial (BPS) model of reality, life and self consciousness will become clear as it may apply to the various personality types we suffer or enjoy during ordinary, consuetudinary social events as the one considered below for illustration purposes. But first we may ask ourselves, what is it we’d like to converse about, when or where  it happened or why it happened  to him/her  specifically or to anyone, anywhere, wherever  in space-time? What degree of completeness or sophistication are we socially aiming at?

II

‘What’ refers to the measurable/observed sense-phenomenal, perceptual domain of discourse ‘when’ linguistically described by a narrator at a given time in space, ‘where’ it happened under a given set of prevailing conditions (e.g., Standard Temperature and Pressure or STP) until the incompleteness of ontological description makes us to intuitively reach out for an 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 the exclusivity  of the perceptual/ontological critical analysis while others (philosophers, mathematical theorists, theologians, etc.) prefer the exclusivity of the conceptual/epistemological model of reality, as e.g., is found in Kantian philosophy where the absolute truth about existential reality lies beyond the limits of all possible human experiences and knowledge, the ‘transcendental’ approach.

For Kant, the ‘transcendental’ approach or ‘epistemological’ domain was a conceptualized empirical argument of a high causal probability value  and ontological pretensions where its structural elements were anchored in  in both measurements/observations of phenomenological objects and events and/or  validated conjectures about their  probable statistical existence. Such modified comprehensive, multidisciplinary accounts of an evolving existential reality we prefer to label as an ‘epistemontological’ unit of a hybrid ‘biopsychosocial’ (BPS) model of existential reality. Consequently, it becomes perhaps unnecessary to invoke a God metaphor to explain the probability of a predetermined harmony as Leibniz -along Plato’s reasoning-  found necessary in his writings, what we now call ‘God’ in all the theosophist doctrines.

A biopsychosocial entity includes an analysis of why, for humans anywhere, it may be true that an object or an occurrence/event  may be judged as being evil, harmful, specific or universal, it only exists in the eyes of the beholder when subjected to an ‘individualized’ reductionism’. The analysis is now ready to briefly consider some genetic/environmental motivational or intentional forces influencing the reliability of our judgements..

III

Sometimes we choose to be pragmatic and intentionally try to emphasize on reliable results derived from measurements and’or observations. But, in this case, their meaning is driven by my intention  or motive when critically analyzing the results.

Suppose we may wish to evaluate objects or events as to their general potential  to either do harm or good, now or in a  foreseable future, not personal but transcending the immediate present.

What we are about to narrate is about individuals who represent the whole spectrum of human personality types, from the introvert –> –> extrovert shy loner –>, etc.

To understand personality types  you need to analyze  their biological, psychological and  sociological (RPS) structural and/or functional component elements and how  they amalgamate to become a unit BPS driving personality force

The biological moety can be conveniently dissected out to reveal the genetically determined, environmentally steered and socially executed parts. The unconscious neuro-hormone driven features are controlled in their expression by circumstantial environmental operations at crucial times during fetal maturation and early development in the biosphere.  This joint interaction of genetic and environmental determinants in any human individual is termed the subconscious. However, whenthe species survival, as driven by neuro-philosophical considerations of species predatory competition and evolutionary adaptation to a changing environment, is critically examined, we call it self consciousness. Notice that this is like peeling the surface (self conscious) layer of an onion to see the undersurface (subconscious) layers and subsequent (unconscious) hidden layers until the core sustaining the layers is analytically revealed to simulated vision, taste and smell perceptual equivalents.

But, what if an important feature exists beyond ontological, sense-phenomenal recognition? We then have no choice but to rely on the ontological descriptive consequences of generating Artificial Intelligence (AI)  activity of simulated invisible objects or events. If measurement values are consistent to all observers, all of the time, under a defined set of space, time circumstances, these epistemological explanation becomes part and parcel of the ontological description.

IV

Welcome to the epistemontological nature of the biopsychosocial (BPS) hybrid reality as narrated in an adopted language by cognitively limited human beings. So much for the reliability, certainty and absolute existence of objects and occurrences? That is the justification for mathematical logic probability as a necessary and convenient tool to statistically  assist  assist in any description and/or explanation  of existential reality. Yet, we have no choice but to consider the analytical tools available to use, especially when extrapolating from results obtained from other species, since no  other socially advanced pre-human species  left narrative linguistic evidence  to critically analyze our fast changing evolving reality. Both pre-human social Bonobos and humans have developed brains and there is good experimental evidence chromosomal evidence linking both species, i.e., all prehuman monkeys have 24 chromosomes that give rise  to the fusion of 2 chromosomes into the single human chromosome #2 and thus only 23 chromosomes are to be found in humans. Why then only humans were able to leave readable literary evidence of their journey through time?

V

The human species is the only one demonstrated to be capable of introspectively become aware that s(he) is different from the surrounding environmental biosphere and capable to improve on an inherited primitive Chomsky proto-language to describe /explain his existential reality Subsequently, it made possible  to distinguish between emotional and rational mindsets controlling Psychosocial behavior both corresponding to their respective primitive, hormonal and evolved rational language

Do we have emotional or rational personalities?  Do we indulge into the delusional grandeur of utopia or surrender to the uncontrollable  forces of mental dystopias? Are we free to choose between the two contrasting personality alternatives? At this point we need to further distinguish between a species needs and conveniences. Needs are related to species survival, preferably in good health, happy and socially convivial in harmony with the group he shares the biosphere with., e.e.,  BPS equilibrium It exists at all 3 levels of consciousness. Conveniences are exercised by and large, at the self-conscious level of behavior  in pursuit of happiness.

If our own cognitive-limited human species, where behavior is determined by inheritance and environmentally acquired influences, are we really free? Are we different from other advanced  social primates? Another relevant question comes up when we compare  the life cycles  of humans and primates at the cognitive level. Humans naturally display an adaptive array of complex solutions to a constantly changing environment and share that information with succeeding generations to benefit from. But evolving complexity is not a spontaneous natural event in our biosphere, because things naturally decay as a function of time! Is there an un-natural way or a compensatory activity to make up for our obvious  disadvantage in reproductive activity when compared to other species? Why are us humans different?

It is not surprising to explain why any phenomena defying nature’s entropy conservation laws of physics is likely the result  of an ‘intelligent design’ by an un-natural entity we all call ‘God;. This ‘modus operandi’ is not different from the conceptual epistemological explanations invoke when dealing with invisible objects or events beyond perceptual ontological description.

VI

Enter the theosophical domain to assist the cognitive-limited human species with an additional epistemological reasoning tool. Why choose the human species? The evolutionary survival of the fittest in a rapidly changing environment dogma  explains it well. In a biopsychosocial environment any theological gathering promoting  friendship, cooperation and good will, will do. Arguably, it can be considered not just a ‘convenience’ , but a human dire survival ‘need’ sub-serving the preservation of dear life for the species! After all, the circumstantial shadow inevitably always follow the object casting it! Like famous Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno argued, existential life refers to man plus his inseparable circumstance.

But life is a dynamic journey through an ever changing  space time with no certain destination within cognitive reach of the limited human mind  to anticipate. it would be interesting to see how the different subsets  of consciousness portions out the emotional and rational components of reality to provide a BPS equilibrium. Debary Lodge 8063 in Central Florida became the laboratory observatory where the BPS model theory of the 1980’s became alive again. There will never be a more friendly, cooperative, good will club where members, family, close friends and neighbors shared the consequences of their only formal bond, military service, and made life for all so safe and convivial in a complex dynamic social interaction on Fridays (see brief illustration below) and the rest of every week.

VII

At Debary, Central Florida, Veteran of Foreign Wars (VFW) member David was not crazy, but for him any epithet was good enough to bring smiling looks in your direction while you loudly squeak your size 12 tennis shoes against the shiny, waxy terrazo floor until the latter  screams a funny flatulence-like noise. Meanwhile his energetic, attractive wife runs back and forth along the long hall distributing to each guest a copy of some future activity of the 8063 VFW Lodge or the Post Auxiliary Group. Behind her, slowly-walking Sandy, the quietly active, good-looking Club  accountant and President of the Post Auxiliary Group, was selling 50-50 tickets to fund and promote the various welfare projects in behalf of disabled veterans or Boy Scouts in any moment of need.  Ceiling lights are now dimming.

It’s almost 7 pm and the ceiling lights are about to go off except for the  beautiful multicolored displays that adorned the ceiling tiles. The busy kitchen, under the efficient control of the entrepreneurial, charming Chef Yolanda and her voluntary ’employees’ were busy closing for the night. The musical group rehearsed its drums near improvised podium arrangement noot far from the kitchen area. The dancing was about to start The kitchen staff soon disappeared through the kitchen back door. Busy waitress Barbara undid her apron and returned to the main  Bar counter’s high bench seat where her introverted husband was patiently waiting for her. The show was on!

After some brief welcoming remarks to the huge Friday crowd, the Post Commander wasted no time in displaying his unique Saloon dancing savoiz-faire  techniques with his elegantly dressed wife, all despite  the very limited space available for the dancers to move laterally. The oscillatory wiping movements  of the older dancers as they walked was a prominent non-intentional attention seeker.

The place was jam-packed celebrating the 20th anniversary of the original Brooklyn, N.Y.  band -Monterrey Jacks-, that now now wouldn’t leave the Central Florida podiums. Meanwhile the two parallel bar counters couldn’t keep up with the brisk business typical of every Friday night. As usual, the Canteen Manager, had taken careful care  of all administrative and related non-administrative details since her time of arrival  on early afternoon with her inseparable friendly, ailing  Marine veteran husband.  The distant far end of the wisely decorated hall ceilings was simultaneously hosting  a private community party. A riding wall panel, halfway opened, separated both activities while birthday cake from the private party and free salad crossed ways as they moved in opposite directions. Nobody complained and there was always order and smiling looks, an organized friendly little chaos.

VIII

As usual, some of the un-authorized, non Member, afternoon and early evening crowds, disappeared after repeating 3 or more times the delicious , crispy whiting fried fish carefully prepared by Chef Yolanda, the only Mardi Gras southern-style chef this side of Central Florida.

Soon after part of the neighbourly crowd left through the North side entrance door, another wave  of door ringing, card carrying, authorized Members rushed through the front  West door. while yet, another  neighbourly non member  group rushed in through  the North side door. Meanwhile some bartenders  sitting outside the North side door  watched from their smoke filled tables outside. At the same time the orchestra director had been busy arranging the podium and instruments by the  now closing kitchen area, and not at the elegantly decorated far end podium, where the orchestra’s ego would have preferred.  Several smartly placed round tables had been reserved for the  special insider group elite soon to arrive.

Today Friday, at a time when most employed  personnel in town are out of work, ready for a relaxation moment at the club before going home, the arrangement of seats was different from Wednesdays, another very popular Karaoke Day. Today’s psychosocial expectations  of activity would be accordingly display very different, qualitatively and quantitatively.

Just like any other social club, the ‘insiders’ group had  3 modalities, depending on the psychosocial orientation of the Post Commander and/or his staff, their dissenters and those who couldn’t care less, one way or the other.

Under the new administration the club had slowly evolved  from the very exclusive  Members-only club of the 1980’s to become a very popular Members and Debary’s middle class  neighborhood ‘club’. Members and the mostly upper midle classnon-members from Debary neighborhood established a very friendly functional relationship.

The moment you pulled out aqnd insert your  Member card and open the front West door entrance, the orange, western setting sun brightly illuminated the semi dark general area now occupied by  the drink toasting extroverts surrounding the main bar counter area on the left. On the right hand side was the immediate entrance to the main bathroom. A few more steps ahead were a set of  high table bench seats against the wall where the administrative elite share drinks, experiences and an occasional Friday night free pool table match on their right side.From that wall vantage  point they could watch the only other  of the three high tables arrangement against a wall, two on their left-near the front entrance- and remaining one directly in front of them -near the side entrance.

If you wanted to know the breaking news on the club operation, just stand in line at the bar and then listen carefully  while you wait  for a smiling Sandra or Jodie to serve  your special drink concoction which they have already memorized. In stark contrast was the  lonely presence of Larry II, patiently waiting for his busy partner, now working at at the kitchen’s closing routine. Most of the introvert types of personality clients are scattered around, all they needed was an isolated corner or an occasional  half empty table. As the evening matured there were a few quasi extroverts-coverts  as liquor sale lines got larger… and they became more socially conscious. Unfortunately, a few  could become aggressive but fortunately not yet in this Debary Post., thanks to the special previous  biopsychosocial training orientation peculiar to the military mission to live, let live and survive anywhere, regardless of their heterogeneous composition as driver, nurse,, engineer, pilot, physician, lawyer, academic or otherwise.

It was always interesting to watch how two amiable extroverts, retired Post Office guys, used to meet so many people and pets during their many walking mailbox distributions, would socialize with their wives, one would gravitate towards the gambling machines leaving his attractive wife to socialize alone with others. The other one , in contrast, wouldn’t take his eyes away from his equally attractive blue-eyed blonde for a moment. In both cases the female looked happy and enjoying the party with their husbands and went home together smiling! Some wouldn’t stop talking to anyone displaying the least interest in the subject matter until they hit a mutually interesting topic. Others would insist in answering their own somewhat related question when invited to react to a very different question by his /her  friend at the table. Yet others, with a smiling face, would rather remain silent as they politely listen to one or more simultaneously ongoing dissertations! Some may agree with an original exposition while accepting a contrasting explanation!  Finally, another participant may care less about the issue under discussion, one way or the other, regardless of the content because they rather drink and toast for a better material life.

IX

The one participant enjoying the most profit from his/her physical presence at the Club was the ‘non political’ Mayor who doesn’t need to  identify his party affiliation to promote  and defend his political point of view in the most affable , self indulgent  demeanor. This will obviously contrast with introverts who, while having a party affiliation, will prefer a neutral academic perspective when analyzing  a psychosocial issue. Others, nonetheless, will tolerate them, offer a drink and pay no serious attention t. C’est la vie when you are de facto socially isolated.

The interesting part of this preceding brief illustration is the analogical diversity between a social Friday evening at the 8063 Debary VFW post in Central Floridaand the rest of Continental United States and its territories when the Constitutional democracy features are duly respected and observed while both examples constantly evolve into better places to make friends, cooperate, share, learn in convivial happiness and inspired in good will.

May God bless the Club, its administrators, Members, their families, friends and neighbors and God bless America.

Respectfully, Dr. Angell O. de -la-Sierra, Esq. Life Member VFW  .WWW.delasierra-sheffer.net/index.htm

Concluding remarks on the semiotic analysis of existential reality:

When any human being encounters an unknown object or event in his ecological niche, it is not very different from the protocol any clinician follows when examining a sick person for the first time. The protocol simply consists of a systematic analysis of the structure/function of the valid inferences where there is a consistent and reliable logical support between the inferential content and the correct determination of the patient ailment. The validation of the conclusion will then be sustained or invalidated by processing the inferential content within the context of subsequent relevant measurements and observations—including artificial-intelligence simulations and other technologies. It may even include rival model conceptualizations. Consequently, when considering the intrinsic epistemontological cognoscitive human limitations of the clinician, it is not surprising to find paradoxes, fallacies, controversies, disparities, etc., when making judgements from the perspective of the clinician’s adopted language, emotional, rational, and theosophical mental framework. This is so when you consider there is a continuous evolutionary change of relevant seen or unseen circumstances as a function of time. This self-evident fact won’t stop even the best trained medical subspecialists in claiming extreme, exclusive interpretations of causality and/or treatment. One may stress the ontological materialistic measurements; others will exclude everything except the epistemological, mathematical logic conceptualization; yet others will be exclusively convinced that ultimately everything is in the hands of a virtual God to cure or not cure the patient and promote psychosocial gatherings praying for the health of the patient. We prefer a synthesis of the best of each extreme approach: a BioPsychoSocial (BPS) model of existential reality. This is the best logical form we can only tentatively adopt because of the continuously evolving content reality—that being the justification for our use of symbolic and syllogistic logic tools when applicable. Within the concept of natural occurrences, all consistent with entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy is conserved, but notice that the established super complexity of life and self-consciousness, as discussed above, cannot be explained by natural law. Consequently it is proper to postulate that life cannot be spontaneous. There needs to be a preceding plan to guide such defiance to natural law, what we call an “Intelligent Design” as discussed above. Last but not least, it is important to notice that the human species is the only one historically recorded as narrator of existential reality. So besides the use of formal, deductive inferential logic, a semiotic approach requires also the use of the informal inductive logic of natural language. This is especially the case when we consider the semantic logic or real meaning of any narrative when critically analyzing it logically.

Since our BPS model of life and self-consciousness has pretensions of becoming an evolving Theory of Everything (TOE), it is proper to acknowledge Alfred Tarski’s “Semantic Theory of Truth,” a theoretic semantics model where the value of all four models of existential reality discussed—including BPS—are predicated upon a “first-order predicate logic” of any “model theory” mapping all propositions to true or false probabilities, all things probable being considered. You be the judge as to which one will survive! For more information see:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0LEVwuyyWZao6QA1BxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyNzVrY2ZyBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjQ0ODNfMQRzZWMDc2M?p=toe+theory+of+everything&fr=yset_chr_cnewtab

Dr. Angell O. de-la-Sierra, Esq.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

 

Respectfully,  Dr. Angell O. de-la-Sierra, Esq.

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Leave a comment

 Universal Holism and Individualized Reductionism. The BPS Model Revisited.*

 Universal Holism and Individualized Reductionism

I

What is the difference, if any, between my individualized personal experience and those of the social group I identify with? Is the experience of the group the reliable sum total of the individual participant’s experiences? Likewise, one may ask if the experience of Homo Sapiens, wherever in the universe recorded, predictable with reliable certainty? Experience is an account of what happened in the past and is happening now. At the personal level it is conditioned to my sensory-phenomenal perceptual experiences as influenced by inheritance and environmentally acquired circumstances in my biosphere. At the group level, experience is best characterized as a shared, common, consensual reality. Is it then accurate to consider universal holism as the sum total of the individualized reductions of the whole and vice versa?

It becomes immediately clear that the ontological, sense-phenomenal, perceptual experience is just a description of any object or event within the resolution capacity of our sensory detectors. Any invisible object or event below such personal or instrumental description can still be epistemologically, conceptually explained as a reliable experience, usually under a given set of time/space conditions. If not, how else can we then talk about invisible viruses, molecules, etc. as participating in a visible disease condition?

By using mathematical logic tools of analysis we can now predict reliable outcomes in certain interactions between the known and the unknown, between the ontologically visible perception and the epistemologically invisible conceptualization. We are now in a better cognoscitive perspective to proceed with a more detailed structural/functional dissection of our reality, life and self consciousness before we need to introduce theosophical criteria to compensate for our human species perceptual and conceptual cognoscitive limitations. This way, the conundrum of a biopsychosocial (BPS) model of reality, life and self-consciousness will become clear as it may apply to the various personality types we suffer or enjoy during ordinary, consuetudinary social events as the one considered below for illustration purposes. But first we may ask ourselves, what is it we’d like to converse about, when or where it happened or why it happened to him/her specifically or to anyone, anywhere, wherever in space-time? What degree of completeness or sophistication are we aiming at?

 

II

 

‘What’ refers to the measurable/observed, sense-phenomenal, perceptual domain of discourse ‘when’ linguistically described by a narrator at a given time in space, ‘where’ it happened under a given set of prevailing conditions (e.g. Standard Temperature and Pressure) until the incompleteness of the ontological description makes us to intuitively reach out for an 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 perceptual/ontological critical analysis while others (philosophers, mathematical theorists, theologians, etc.) prefer the exclusivity of the conceptual/epistemological model of reality, as i.e., is found in Kantian philosophy where the absolute truth about existential reality lies beyond the limits of all possible human experience and knowledge, the transcendental approach.

For Kant the ‘transcendental’ or ‘epistemological’ domain was a conceptualized empirical argument of a high causal probability value and ontological pretensions where its structural elements were anchored in both measurements/observations of phenomenological objects and events and/or validated conjectures about their probable statistical existence. Such modified comprehensive, multidisciplinary accounts of an evolving existential reality we prefer to label as an ‘epistemontological’ unit of a hybrid ‘biopsychosocial’ (BPS) model of existential reality. Consequently, it becomes perhaps unnecessary to invoke a God metaphor to explain the probability of a predetermined harmony as Leibniz -along Plato’s reasoning- found necessary in his writings, what  we now call God in all theosophies.

A biopsychosocial entity includes an analysis of why, for humans anywhere, it may be true that an object or an occurrence/event may be judged as being evil, harmful, specific or universal, it only exists in the eyes of the beholder when subjected to an ‘individualized reductionism’. The analysis is now ready to briefly consider some genetic/environmental motivational or intentional forces influencing the reliability on  our judgements.

III

 

Sometimes we choose to be pragmatic and intentionally try to emphasize on reliable results derived from measurements and/or observations. But, in this case their meaning is driven by my intention or motive when critically analyzing the results.

Suppose we may wish to evaluate objects or events as to their general potential to either do harm or good, now or in a foreseeable future, not personal but transcending the immediate present , as the case may be.

What we are about to narrate is about individuals who represent the .whole spectrum of human personality types, from the introvertà extrovertàshy lonerà, etc.

To understand personality types you need  to analyze their biological, psychological and sociological (BPS)  structural /functional  component elements and how they amalgamate to  become a unit biopsychosocial driving personality force.

The biological moiety can be conveniently dissected out to reveal genetically determined, environmentally steered and socially executed  parts. The unconscious, neuro-hormone-driven features are controlled in their expression by circumstantial environmental operations at crucial times during fetal maturation and early development in the biosphere. This joint interaction  of genetics and environmental determinants in any human individual is termed the subconscious. However, when the species survival, as driven by neuro-philosophical considerations of species predatory competition and evolutionary adaptation to a changing environment  is  critically examined, we call it self-consciousness. Notice that this is like peeling the surface (self-conscious) layer of an onion to see the under surface (subconscious) layers and subsequent  (unconscious) hidden layers until the core sustaining the layers is analytically revealed to simulated vision, taste and smell perceptual equivalents.

But, what if an important feature exists beyond ontological, sense-phenomenal recognition? We then have no choice but to rely on the ontological descriptive consequences of the generating Artificial Intelligence (AI) activity of simulated invisible objects or events. If measurement values are consistent to all observers, all of the time, under a defined set of space, time circumstances, these epistemological explanations become an inseparable part and parcel of the ontological description.

 

IV

 

Welcome to the epistemontological nature of the biopsychosocial (BPS) reality as narrated in an adopted language by cognitively limited human beings. So much for the reliability, certainty and absolute existence of  objects or occurrences? That is the justification for mathematical logic probability as a necessary and convenient tool to statistically assist any description and/or explanation of existential reality. Yet, we have no choice but to use the tools available to use, especially when extrapolating from results obtained from other species since no other socially advanced pre-human species left narrative linguistic evidence to critically analyze our fast changing evolving reality. Both pre-human social Bonobos and humans have developed brains and there is good experimental chromosomal evidence linking both, i.e., all pre-human monkeys have 24 chromosomes that gave rise to the fusion of 2 chromosomes into the single human chromosome #2  and thus only 23 chromosomes are to be found in humans. Why then only humans were able to leave readable literary evidence of their journey through time?

 

V

 

The human species is the only one demonstrated to be capable of introspectively become aware that s(he) is different from the surrounding environmental biosphere and capable to improve on an inherited primitive Chomskyan protolanguage to describe/explain his existential reality. Subsequently, it made possible to distinguish between emotional and rational mindsets controlling psycho-social behavior both corresponding to their respective primitive, hormonal and evolved rational language.

Do we have emotional or rational personalities? Do we indulge into the delusional grandeur of utopia, or surrender to the uncontrollable forces of mental dystopias. Are we free to choose between the two contrasting personality alternatives? At this point we need to distinguish further  between a species needs and conveniences. Needs are related to species survival, preferably in good health, happy and socially convivial in harmony with the group he shares the biosphere with, i.e., BPS equilibrium.  It exists at all 3 levels of consciousness. Conveniences are exercised by and large, at the self-conscious level of behavior in pursuit of happiness.

If our own cognitive-limited human species, where behavior is determined by inheritance and environmentally acquired influences, are we really free? Are we different from other advanced social primates?  Another relevant question comes up when we compare the life cycles of humans and primates at the cognitive level. Humans naturally display an adaptive array of complex solutions to a constantly changing environment and share that information with succeeding generations to benefit from. But evolving complexity is not a spontaneous natural event in our biosphere, because things naturally decay as a function of time! Is there an un-natural way or a compensatory activity to make up for our obvious disadvantage in reproductive activity when compared with other species? Why are us humans different?

It is not surprising to explain why any phenomena defying the entropy conservation laws of physics is likely the result of an ‘intelligent design’ by an un-natural entity we call God. This modus operandi is not different from the conceptual epistemological explanations when dealing with invisible objects or events beyond perceptual ontological description.

 

VI

 

Enter the theosophical domain to assist the cognitive-limited human species with an additional  epistemological reasoning tool. Why choose the human species? The evolutionary survival of the fittest in a rapidly changing environment dogma explains it well. In a biopsychosocial environment any theological gathering promoting friendship, cooperation and good will, will do. Arguably it can be considered not just a convenience but a human dire survival need sub-serving the preservation of dear life for  the species! After all, the circumstantial shadow will inevitably always follow the object casting it! Like famous Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno argued, existential life refers to man plus his inseparable circumstance.

But life is a dynamic journey through an ever changing space time with no certain destination within cognitive reach of the limited human mind to anticipate.  It would be interesting to see how the different subsets of consciousness portions out the emotional and rational components of reality to provide a biopsychosocial (BPS) equilibrium. Debary Lodge 8063 in Central Florida became the laboratory observatory where the biopsychosocial model theory of the 1980’s became alive again. There will never be a more friendly, cooperative, good will club where Members, family, close friends and neighbors shared the consequences of their only formal bond, military service, and made life for all so safe and convivial in a complex dynamic social interaction on Fridays (see illustration below) and the rest of every week. .

 

VII

 

At Debary, Fl. VFW David was not crazy but for him any epithet was good enough to bring smiling looks in your direction while you loudly squeak your size 12 tennis shoes against the shiny, waxy terrazo tiles floor until the latter scream a noisy fart like noise. Meanwhile his attractive wife runs back and forth along the long hall distributing to each guest a copy of some future activity of the 8063 VFW Lodge or the Ladies Auxiliary group. Behind her, slowly walking Sandy, the attractive Club accountant, President of the Ladies Auxiliary, was selling 50-50 tickets to fund and promote the various welfare projects in behalf of disabled veterans or Boy Scouts in any moment of need.

 

It’s almost 7 pm and the ceiling lights are soon to go off except for the beautiful, multicolored displays that adorned the ceiling tiles. The busy kitchen, under the control of good looking Chef Yolanda and her employees were busy closing for the night. The musical group rehearsed its drums near the improvised podium arrangement not far from the kitchen area. The dancing was about to start. The kitchen staff soon disappeared through the kitchen back door and busy waitress Barbara undid her apron and returned to the main Bar counter high seat where her introverted husband was patiently waiting. The show was on.

After some brief welcoming remarks to the huge Friday crowd, the Post Commander wasted no time in displaying his unique Saloon dancing savoie-faire techniques with his elegantly dressed wife, all despite the very limited space available to the dancers to move laterally. The oscillatory wiping movements of the older dancers as they walked was a prominent non-intentional attention seeker.

The place was jam-packed celebrating the n-tienth anniversary of the original Brooklyn, N.Y. band, Monterrey Jacks, that now wouldn’t leave Central Florida. Meanwhile, the two bar counters couldn’t keep up with the brisk business typical of every Friday night. As usual, the canteen manager had taken careful care of all administrative and non-administrative details since her time of arrival on early afternoon with her friendly ailing husband.. The distant far end of the wisely decorated hall ceilings was hosting a private party. A riding wall panel, halfway opened, separated both activities as birthday cake from the private party and free                                                        salad crossed ways as they moved in opposite directions. Nobody complained and there was order and smiling looks, an organized friendly little chaos.

As usual, the afternoon and early evening some non-member crowds disappeared after repeating 3 times the delicious crispy whiting fried fish prepared by Chef Yolanda, the only southern style chef this side of Central Florida.

Soon after part of the neighborly eating crowd left through the side entrance door, another wave of door-ringing members rushed through the front door while other neighborly non-members also did the same through the same side door where the outside-rain-protected smokers were watching their entrance flow from their smoke-filled tables outside. The orchestra had been meanwhile busy arranging their podium and instruments near the closing kitchen, not at the elegantly decorated far end of the long hall, where their ego demanded. Smartly placed round tables had been reserved for the special insider groups elite soon to arrive.

Today Friday, at a time when most employed personnel in town are out of work and ready for a relaxation moment at the club before going home, the arrangement of seats was different from Wednesday, another very popular Karaoke Day.  Today’s psychosocial expectations of activity would be accordingly very different, qualitatively and quantitatively.

Just like any other social click, the ‘insiders’ group had 3 modalities, depending on the psychosocial orientation of the Post Commander and/or his staff, their dissenters and those who couldn’t care less, one way or the other.

Under the new administration the club had slowly evolved from the very exclusive Members-only club of the 1980’s to become a very successful and popular Members and Debary middle class neighborhood ‘club’. Members and the mostly upper middle class non -members from Debary neighborhood established a very friendly functional relationship.

The moment you pulled out and insert your Member card and open the front door entrance, the orange setting sun brightly illuminated the semi dark general area now occupied by the drink toasting extroverts surrounding the main bar counter on the left. On the right-hand side was the entrance to the main bathroom immediately. A few more steps ahead there was a set of high table seats against the wall where the administrative elite shared drinks, experiences and an occasional Friday night pool table match on their right side. From that vantage point they could watch the only other of the three high tables arrangement against a wall, two on their left -near front entrance- and remaining one directly in front of them -near side entrance-.

If you wanted to know the breaking news on the club operation, stand in line at the bar and listen carefully while you wait for a smiling Sandra or Jodie to serve your special drink concoctions they had already memorized. In stark contrast was the lonely presence of introvert Larry, patiently waiting for his busy partner, now working at the kitchen closing routine. Most of the introvert types of personality clients are usually scattered around, all you needed was an isolated corner or an occasional half empty table. As the evening matured there were a few quasi extrovert converts as liquor sales lines got larger….and they became more socially conscious. Unfortunately a few could become aggressive but fortunately not yet in this Debary Post, thanks to the special previous biopsychosocial training and orientation peculiar to the military mission to live, let live and survive anywhere, regardless of their heterogeneous composition as driver, nurse, engineer, pilot, physician, lawyer, academic or otherwise.

It was always interesting to watch how two amiable extrovert retired Post Office guys, used to meet so many people and pets during their many walking mailbox distributions, would socialize with their wives, one would gravitate towards the gambling machines leaving his attractive wife to socialize with others. The other one, in contrast wouldn’t take his eyes away from his equally attractive blue eyed blonde for a moment. In both cases the female looked happy and enjoying the party with their husbands and went home together smiling! Some wouldn’t stop talking to anyone displaying the least interest in the subject matter until they hit a mutually interesting topic. Others would insist in answering their own somewhat related question when invited to react to a very different question by his/her friend at the table? Others, with a smiling  face, would rather remain silent as they politely listen to one or more simultaneously ongoing dissertations! Some may agree with an original exposition while accepting a contrasting explanation! Yet another participant may care less about the issue under discussion, one way or the other, regardless of the content.  They rather drink and toast for a better material life.

The one participant enjoying the most profit from his/her physical presence at the Club is the ‘non political’ politician who doesn’t need to identify his party affiliation to promote and defend his political point of view in the most affable self-indulgent demeanor. This will obviously contrast with introverts who, while having a party affiliation, will prefer a neutral academic perspective when analyzing a psychosocial issue. Others, nonetheless, will tolerate them, offer a drink and pay no serious attention. C’est la vie when you are de facto socially isolated.

The interesting part of this preceding brief illustration is the analogical diversity between a social Friday evening at the 8063 Debary VFW Post  in Central Florida and the rest of Continental United States and its territories when the Constitutional democracy features are duly respected and observed while both examples constantly evolve into better places to make friends, cooperate, share, learn in convivial happiness and inspired in good will. .

May God bless the Club, its administrators, Members, their families, friends, and neighbors and God Bless America. Respectfully, Dr. Angell O. de-la-Sierra, Esq. Life Member VFW    WWW.delasierra-sheffer.net/index.htm

 

 

 

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Leave a comment

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/

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

“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