Answering the critics. Back to basics.

“Is there anything sacred or secretive or mystical or metaphysical or supra/super natural here about conscious behaviors (as some one recently raised objections to such physical allusions to sacred consciousness, or was it sacred behaviors?)?”

Reply:

To the extent that only a living entity is capable of ‘conscious behaviors’, one may ask the very same question about ‘life’ in general or in particular to the role our human species play in defining/explaining the what, when, where of a ‘living’ entity. The very first thing to keep in mind is the narrator’s resources to communicate what life and consciousness are. The only credible one on historical record, for good or for bad, is the seriously limited (perceptual/conceptual resolution capacity) human being operating from his/her circumstantial vital space on our biosphere as it continuously evolves into a different existential reality. We can then choose to describe/explain the smallest constituent micro particle or the largest cosmological structural/functional aggregate of the smallest physical particles. We have just concurred that such smallest particle must be physical (have mass or its energy equivalent) and consequently can only ‘describe’ the sense-phenomenal ontology of aggregates; anything smaller needs to be ‘explained’ epistemologically. This brings the first cognitive unsolvable issue when we ask what is the absolute truthful dimension of the smallest physical particle

when we subdivide any size aggregate? Can we call it a ‘point’ and posit it’s dimensionless extension? Quare! A similar argument can be suggested for the other extreme dimensional macro cosmological realm. Enter the brain’s conceptual invention of ‘infinities’ beyond the absolute truth cognitive reach of our human species. So, why not be practical and consolidate first our knowledge of the sense-phenomenal macro ontological mesoscopic existential structures/functions of measurable and/or observed objects/events as the scientific methodological substrate to sustain our conjectures/speculations about our quotidian existence in our biosphere. We have agreed that this requires a solid biophysical chemistry background as successfully argued for a ‘biodark chemistry’ model of phenomenal reality. Unfortunately this model, like all others, cannot ever reach an absolute cognitive, truthful and reliable knowledge grasp of either the micro subatomic or the macro cosmological manifolds. Consequently any claim for exclusivity of truth, whether the physicality of scientific methodology or the theosophy-based models are necessarily incomplete unless all falsifiable and justifiable variables are considered and incorporated as a singularity hybrid unit we call ‘Epistemontology’ which reunites all consistent and reliable elements of biological, psycho-social human (BPS) experience. This brain dynamics anthropogenic model provides a respectable entry for all organized JudeoChrIslamic efforts for a continued survival of our human species (survival imperative) living under constitutional democracies in health, happiness and convivial cooperation. It recognizes the vestigial remains of primitive emotions in early childhood, a remainder of our animal origins (See Piaget’s “The Development of Thought.”, Viking Press)  Along the guidelines of these premises this author has proposed a model to reconcile these unavoidable human emotions we share with other social subhuman species with a rational human living on our planet, a sine qua non for useful and creative adaptive solutions to germinate and guarantee a biopsychosocial harmony in defense of our species against potential environmental threats in a constantly changing environment. Accordingly we developed a sub-model conjecture identifying the source of cosmic radiation capable of stimulating the human brain’s premotor cortex baryonic dark matter and thus inducing  translational genetic changes in human RNA/DNA resulting in the production of the appropriate protective enzymes in anticipation of forthcoming threatening environmental influences on human life. See Vol. VII, “A Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness”, a Multidisciplinary BioPsychoSocial (BPS) Model. Penguin Press/Trafford Publications, Inc. In case you didn’t notice, this ‘rational’ interpretation was not meant to substitute the most important congregation of JudeoChrIslamic organized religions to collectively help with each other needs but instead to add another dimension to their religious beliefs. Either emotional or rational exclusive explanations are incomplete to deal with mesoscopic existential reality.    Dr.d

 

From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:47 AM
To: MindBrain MindBrain
Cc: thoretical_physics yahoogroups
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [Mind and Brain] Consciousness & the Cults

 

 

[Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq.]
If subhuman species are unable to engage in a self induced introspective state of establishing the difference between self and others and communicate the experience symbolically or in body language, then they are only aware of the environ and adaptively respond by reflexes  governed by neurohormones.
Unconscious behaviors: Purely inherited responses
subconscious [behaviors]: Produced from information acquired/learned from the environment.
[Conscious Behaviors]: Self induced and introspective. Recognize the difference between self and others and able to communicate by symbols and/or language.
[Philip Benjamin]
Is there anything sacred or secretive or mystical or metaphysical or supra/super natural here about conscious behaviors (as some one recently raised objections to such physical allusions to sacred consciousness, or was it sacred behaviors?)?
What is self-induced?  Same as brain induced? If not what is self? Where is it? Any size or shape, smell or sign? If both are the same why befuddle “brain processes” with “self-processes”?
Self and others? All electrons “look” the same. So are all subatomic particles at all levels– atomic, molecular, cellular including genetic components. How on earth should there be either any difference at all between self and others, or any electron/nucleon/quarks mechanism to recognize any difference anywhere?
Best regards

Philip Benjamin
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
CC: theoretical_physics@yahoogroups.com; physical_sciences@yahoogroups.com
From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:56:38 -0400
Subject: RE: [Bulk] [Mind and Brain] Consciousness & the Cults

Back to basics. IMHO, it will expedite our discussions if we will all agree on the linguistic use of some terms like e.g., consciousness, awareness, unconscious, subconscious, etc. We are trapped in a Merry Go Round repetition, rephrasing and saying nothing new other than advancing our own models. For starters, iff we agree that subhuman species are unable to engage in a self induced introspective state of establishing the difference between self and others and communicate the experience symbolically or in body language, then they are only aware of the sense-phenomenal presence of an object or event and adaptively respond reflexly, as dictated by neurohormonal control of responses. These responses come in two flavors: inherited and environmentally acquired. If exclusively inherited (e.g., Chomsky’s primitive language ‘organ’) then the behavior is unconscious. If information is acquired/learned from the environment then the combination can be termed subconscious. Consequent to organic maturity ( as per accepted models of early childhood development) we eventually distinguish self from other and are able to communicate/narrate linguistically the results of our interactions with our vital biosphere. It all leads to maintain our species alive, healthy, happy and convivially cooperating to compensate for our perceptual/conceptual limitations vis a vis other species. Because of these species limitations we must consider falsifiable ontological measurements/observations as the basis for an epistemological representation of falsifiable/justifiable seen and unseen elements of our mesoscopic reality as a potential hybrid singularity when dealing with spatio-temporal realities in a changing world.  Dr.d

 

From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 2:24 PM
To: MindBrain MindBrain
Cc: thoretical_physics yahoogroups; PhysicalSciences PhysicalSciences
Subject: [Bulk] [Mind and Brain] Consciousness & the Cults

 

 

  1. Dialectical Materialism (A. Spirkin)  The Marxist view. Highlights are not in the original https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch03.html
    “As the highest level of human mental activity, consciousness is one of the basic concepts of philosophy, psychology and sociology”.
    2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
    First published Fri Jun 18, 2004; substantive revision Tue Jan 14, 2014
    Consciousness is an aspect of mind.

    Consciousness as we know it today is a relatively recent historical development that arose sometime after the Homeric era (Jaynes 1974).
    There was no word of ancient Greek that corresponds to “consciousness” (Wilkes 1984, 1988, 1995).
    The stage Hamlet in 1600 already saw his world and self with profoundly modern eyes.
    Only by the early modern era in the seventeenth century, consciousness came full center in thinking about the mind, as essential or definitive of the mental.
    René Descartes defined thought (pensée) in terms of self-awareness. In the Principles of Philosophy (1640) he wrote,

‘Thought’ (‘pensée’) is all that of which we are conscious as operating in us [Note the adjective form].

Psychology Today  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201303/what-is-consciousness
Kristian Marlow on Mar 01, 2013 in The Superhuman Mind
“Consciousness is something it’s like to experience the color red, to taste chocolate, to feel happy or sad…. Philosophers call this phenomenology.”
[Philip Benjamin]
“Consciousness as the ground of being” is an entirely New Age religious concept. It refers to the Tao Yin/Yang or the Vedic and Upanishad Brahman/Cosmos described as the “ground of being”.  Atman is the “self” or Atman part of Brahman. It was first popularized by Swami Vivekananda in the Parliament of Religions, in Chicago in 1893.
This is what the various cults including the “academedia” knowingly or unknowingly mean by consciousness and the occultist scientistsy, especially physicists, are determined to bring it into science as a principle.
 

__._,_.___

Posted by: Philip Benjamin <medinuclear@hotmail.com>

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3)

Visit Your Group

 

.

__,_._,___

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