Once again, I have to give credit to X’s more objective perspective in reconciling Y’s extreme conservative ‘mind’ perspective with Z’s extreme liberal physical ‘brain’ views, both of which IMHO are necessary but by themselves not sufficient for a credible, falsifiable, justifiable theory of life and consciousness.in a real time/space, evolving and complex mesoscopic existential reality. A cognitive handle of life and consciousness has so many interacting complex variables that some must inevitably escape human phenomenological descriptive ontological characterization or resist being framed in consistent mathematical logic epistemological representations using symbolic or sentential language tools. Is is still debatable the human inherent cognitive limitations in the perceptual and conceptual domain of discourse will always deny us absolute certainty? Ergo, does it make sense to tentatively conclude that a hybrid -but evolving- Epistemontological singularity synthesis is the best compromise? Why settle for either an incomplete physicalist or theosophical model when both are necessary?
Is it still debatable that humans are the exclusive historical linguistic reporters of our existential reality in our vital earth biosphere? Is it still debatable that any complex structures/function -like the living- cannot spontaneously be initiated and sustained without an external, unfathomable source of energy? Yet, is it not self evident that there is nonetheless a coherent and synchronized non random order beyond human predictable control at all levels of organization from the sub-Planckian to the cosmological manifolds? Why is there no big surprise there must be good experimental evidence there seems to be a collective global synchronization to preserve human lives now and always? Is it not convincing yet the experimental evidence on the role of the human amygdala to mediate neurohormonal emotional anticipation of probable threats to life or the cingulate cortex participation in analyzing complex situations of probable threat significance to life?
Is it still debatable that there must be an embodiment of a living, conscious human brain, preferably healthy, happy and convivial first and foremost before s(he) can provide reliable accounts of our biopsychosocial life in our vital environment? Is there still any doubt about the unavoidable emotional drive for human reproductive activity before any rational expressions become evident?
Finally, is it surprising to suspect that many probable threats to a biopsychosocial equilibrium still remain unsolvable by reason or facts and consequently this global synchrony of human collective intentional acts find its expression as organized community theosophies in churches, synagogues or mosques.
Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq.
Deltona, Fl. 5/4/2014
This entry was posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness
. Bookmark the permalink