Reconciling the immanent/pragmatic ‘now’ with transcendental but probable ‘tomorrow’.

Reconciling the immanent/pragmatic ‘now’ with the transcendental but probable ‘tomorrow’.

  • A critical analysis of statements by distinguished experts in neurophilosophy of consciousness.

    Statement 1: “Tolerance and empathy are not the same thing,” Twenge said. “Millennials believe that everyone can live their lives as they want to—thus, they are tolerant—but that doesn’t always extend to taking someone else’s perspective or feeling empathy.

    Statement 2: “Being conscious of SELF, requires the reality/existence of the SELF. Visible things/matter are made of visible particles. Invisible things/matter are made of invisible particles. Invisible particles come under the generic name of dark matter. If the SELF is real and invisible, SELF then must be made of dark matter.
    Reaction: Intuition suggests that the experience of ‘being conscious of self’ precedes the qualia of ’empathy’. If we admit the premise that an ‘inner language’ makes possible a conscious introspective dissociation narrative between our physical body self and a putative, virtual mind self (as represented by memory experiences -and encoded by neuronal networks in our physical brain-, then it is difficult to experience ‘tolerance’ for an object/event without a simultaneous qualia empathy, thus tolerance and empathy are functionally the same thing….unless you extend the critical analysis to provide justifiable exceptions! 
    Furthermore, if we also admit the premise that there is measurable fMRI evidence of non phenomenal/’invisible’ interpersonal communication, it is fair to say that the ‘self’ may well be just a convenient conceptualization evidencing the neuronal activity of a physical brain. This is not meant to exclude theoretical math probability calculus and Bayesian arguments that e.g. dark baryonic subatomic ‘wavicle radiation’ (neutrino?) influences  intra cellular RNA/DNA translation process as we published elsewhere. 
    As we have argued many times, in consideration of the human species intrinsic perceptual/conceptual cognitive limitations as the exclusive narrators of history, it is not necessary to invest exclusively on scientific methodology ontological measurements/observations (the ‘seen’) or philosophy’s epistemological conjectures (the ‘unseen’) when we can adopt an evolving ‘epistemontological’ hybrid model incorporating the best of both formulations that reconcile the immanent/pragmatic in our real time mesoscopic biosphere environment with the anticipated probabilities of the cosmological domain. This way our healthy physical brain dynamic activity will best realize the optimal mindscape strategy for protecting our biopsychosocial (BPS) needs in our changing existential reality.  Dr.d 

About Dr.d

See CV, family & publications at:
This entry was posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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