Ramblings on a reality check..

Lux, Veritas et Vitae

This Volume V (Neurophilosophy of Consciousness) is a continuation of the previous published volume that did not make it into press on time and represents an update on the status of consciousness as viewed within the context of an evolving perspective of human brain dynamics as evidenced by both modern technologies and new mathematical abstractions. One thing has been clear to this author, yes this is a ‘Brave New World’ worth discovering but we are shifting our emphasis too much into the vagaries of metaphysical abstractions at the expense of losing the ontological perspective of that evolving brain dynamics that makes it possible. It would seem as if our new physical materialist theoretical physicists and philosophers prefer to ignore that historical revolution that put man and his ongoing existential circumstances back at the center of the universe, like Husserl’s phenomenology, e.g., Heidegger’s existentiale Analytik, Ortega y Gasset’s ‘perspectivism’, Dilthey’s Leben philosophie and others. It is like ignoring that it was a human brain existing in a continuously evolving dynamic process of self transformation continues to un-relentlessly modify and reformulate his understanding of life experiences, rejecting the notion that if it was valid for the preceding ‘classic’ generation it is still viable in the modern convulsive 21th.century today. The work of these ‘existentialists’ was mostly based on the lessons learned from recorded history but, important as it is as a source, we have to remember that history is a synthesis of facts where psychosocial circumstances heavily influenced human motives, behaviors and retaliations, i.e., historical facts are not necessarily objectively based on falsifiable facts in evidence. Likewise, the laws of nature are not necessarily always determined by the same particles interacting under similar circumstances. These two extreme positions need a contemporaneous update before they are reconciled and ultimately hybridized into a coherent epistemontological whole. Neither should we accept the supremacy of the general, abstracts conceptualizations endorsed by materialist physics nor its total rejection as ‘irrelevant’ by radical empiricists that rather opt for the Sartrean type of day in and day out hedonistic existentialism. The temporality of
N E U R O P H I L O S O P H Y O F C O N S C I O U S N E S S, Volume V

evolutionary phenomenological and metaphysical logic change is very much part of reality. Natural cycles seem to repeat in cycles but only in appearance because the complete cycle was more of a spiral than a circle of repetition. As discussed *below in the Einstenian-Bohr debate on the reality of the simultaneous verification of a particle’s position and momentum, the verifiable ‘here and now’ is as important as the hypothesized predictable ‘later’, one reality but at different times, the verifiable present is best understood than an unverifiable conceptualization, albeit predictable (always?). In our BPS model we welcome the verifiable measurement or observation along with the transcendental reduction (Husserl’s abstract analogical transposition) as the best compromise for a fundamental basis in the understanding the experience of reality
The logic behind this epistemontological approach is simple, the human existential reality experienced is an individualized elaboration of the brain determined by genetic, learned and undefined yet other possible influences theosophical credo thrive on in their modeling of biopsychosocial, ergo human life is the ultimate reality. Consequently the biopsychosocial equilibrium with circumstantial conditions that we share with the subhuman living is necessary for day to day survival but not sufficient to guarantee the human species survival across generations. Unfortunately that guarantee is predicated on an efficient functional formulation of that relevant, falsifiable reality outside perceptual and/or conceptual threshold. It is not enough to exclusively study the details of human biopsycho social equilibrium (Ortega’s metaphysics of the ‘elan vital’), but neither is the exclusive abstract reduction to symbolic formulation of invisibilities, relevant or not, like extreme radical religionists do, theosophies and materialist physicists alike. Human need not become the willing prisoners of the theoretical physicists’ objectivism nor the biological research scientist objectivism to feed the ego of their intellectual proponents because existence is inexorably about both real perspectives, no principle can be superior to life…, all lives. To quote Ortega y Gasset: “….., “my life”—in the “biographical” not in the “biological” sense—is the question of what to do with it and that of what happens to me as I find myself “shipwrecked” in the precarious sea of “circumstances.”
N E U R O P H I L O S O P H Y O F C O N S C I O U S N E S S, Volume V

For unknown reasons beyond my capacities to analyze, our human species has been uniquely endowed with the means to survive thanks to his introspective ability to “… sink into the inner depths of his being as he or she makes an effort to hold on to consciousness and to the very essence of his life….(because) “To live,”… “is to deal with the world, aim at it, act in it, be occupied with” (Obras, 5: 26, 33–34, 35, 44–45, 7: 103–04, Ortega). As we argue, the experience of existential living is not about some scientific description of fMRI brain recordings or some metaphysical logic principle underlying such observations unless the real life historical and psychosocial dimensions are incorporated into the equation.
For those respectful colleagues of mine in academia who keep insisting that my strategy all along –based on my publications- has consisted on deliberately or subconsciously marketing a Roman Catholic cosmogony without calling it by name, I rest on the literal interpretation of my writings by others in the general public. Like everyone else, we all have preferences that may be relevant or not to a particular domain of discourse. If nothing else it proves my point about judgments based on other than factual data as briefly mentioned below in relation to quantum non-locality. We all have beliefs that are based on individualized circumstances surrounding our cultural upbringing and adult life. That diagnosis on my ‘hidden agenda’ certainly is not based on signs and symptoms consistently observed or measured because one can be objective in recognizing meaningful content in those opposed to one’s views. There existed many good human beings much before organized religions were established.
In any event we hope to have confused readers as much as we still remain ourselves about what the universal guiding principle should be as circumstances evolve into the future. What is or should be the ultimate criterion of truth for the faithful in the JudeoChrIslamic or physical materialist religions? We can also respect the Buddhist conviction that ultimately reality transcends all possible human elaborations and cannot ever be fully comprehended by sensory descriptions or linguistic and conceptual explanation, i.e., it escapes the grasp of language and thoughts representations for analysis. However, while we recognize the human brain sensory and conceptual limitations, it seems unwarranted to
N E U R O P H I L O S O P H Y O F C O N S C I O U S N E S S, Volume V

conclude that physical objects do not phenomenologically exist or emerge from non-physical empty vacuums.
Another issue worthwhile pointing out in this dilemma of ‘which reality is true’, if either one. The answer is related to the required reconciliation between quantum theory and general relativity. As we interpret it, the ‘criterion of reality’ seems to be related to the EPR and Bell’s theorem interpretations (based on Bohm’s spin measurements) of the physical real-time immanent ‘locality’ (as measured in the lab) and the hoped-for metaphysical universality of an alleged ‘non-locality’, the classical syndrome of confusing the reality of the conceptually inferred map with the reality of the phenomenologically perceptual territory. If we could only simultaneously measure or at least predict both the evolving and interacting variables then they can be regarded as simultaneous elements of physical reality, seen or unseen. But this is not yet the case for our limited human brain performance, which reality is true?
For the benefit of those more familiar with theoretical physics, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen ‘solution’ constituted an attempt of reconciliation of the phenomenological with the metaphysical has itself added new layers of confusion when attempting to solve the dilemma between a particle locality and quantum theoretical completeness by affirming the physical existence of a reality assumed (momentum) based on measurements of other presumably linked and interacting particle position. Needless to say that Einstein’s strategy of maintaining locality is more appealing phenomenologically. On the other hand it would appear from the Bell theorem adoption of Bohm’s measurements on spin pairing suggesting non-locality that Einstein’s immanent sensory reality of experiencing locality consciously coexist with the mathematical logic of Bell’s inequalities and the ‘simultaneous’ technological measuremens of observers miles apart! What description/explanation is incomplete? Which reality is true, Einstein’s ‘separability and local’ appealing to phenomenological reality or the ‘functionally linked and non-local’ counterpart? Is it possible to modify the wave function such

N E U R O P H I L O S O P H Y O F C O N S C I O U S N E S S, Volume V

that mesoscopic reality becomes a hybrid incorporating both the phenomenological physical locality and the metaphysical non-locality? Stay tuned!

About Dr.d

See CV, family & publications at: http://delaSierra-Sheffer.net/
This entry was posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s