A Critical Analysis of Real Time Existential Reality in our Vital Biosphere.

A Critical Analysis of Real Time Existential Reality in our Vital Biosphere.*

This brief note is yet another attempt to clarify an unnecessary cognitive confusion among scholars with the subtle differences between the ontological and the epistemological domains; the measured/observed description (of an object or event) and the appropriate conjectural explanation derived therefrom (especially when the unit dimensional physical micro particle and the cosmological macro dimensions are beyond both the perceptual and conceptual threshold resolution of the human observer). There is the necessity to arrive at a consensus of language terminology to adopt to avoid the Merry Go Round rephrasing and repeating published literature. To illustrate, it appeals to common sense that there should be a big conceptual difference between an invisible physical particle of unit dimension and the infinite subdivision of a visible aggregate of such particle (e.g. spin coupling) leading eventually to an adimensional non physical point (See Peano). Likewise there must be a fundamental difference between the invisible micro/macro cosmological physical reality (when falsifiable and justifiably argued) when instrumentally measured or observed as opposed to the need to represent it using sentential or symbolic logic language tools to extract meanings. More surprising is to find some distinguished colleagues unable to realize that a first object or event must first be sense-phenomenally perceptually detected by stimulated receptors (right brain hemisphere) ‘before’ any conceptual language representation or even body language communication is possible. Another self-evident fact of mesoscopic existential reality in our vital biosphere space time is the anthropic consistent observation of an entropic decay in nature, the super complexity and negentropic order that characterizes life in all its verifiable manifestations. To invest in the spontaneous emergence of life from inanimate physical matter begs the question. Once we realize the essential difference between ‘needs’ (to be alive and reproduce) and ‘conveniences’ (healthy, happy and convivially cooperating collectively) to prepare for potentially life-threatening contingencies in an evolving environment, then we realize the importance of understanding brain dynamics justification for a biopsychosocial (BPS) model approach. Ergo, first things first!

  1. First things first.

Priority needs (survival imperative) and conveniences (health and happiness). Individual (self) and collective (others) participation. Sense-phenomenal perceptual descriptions (audiovisual, tactile, measurable/observed) and conceptual explanations of objects/events (mathematical logic, probability, intuitions, conjectures), whether exclusive or combinations thereof. Humans are the exclusive linguistic narrators of occurrences that history records (anthropocentrism); this includes from body language, sounds to elaborate symbolic representations of the material physical and immaterial metaphysical. The processing of environmental information, inherited or acquired, physically visible or invisible –whether unconsciously, subconsciously or self conscious of its occurrence-) occurs in a physical brain. Finally, our models of reality will inevitably be constantly evolving because of the intrinsic perceptual/conceptual limitations of the human species vis a vis the perceptual superiority of other social subhuman species. The winner would be the ones able to reach and sustain a reproductive potential and realization of life in a changing and potentially dangerous environment.

  1. Unavoidable consequences of sharing experiences with other living species in a constantly evolving environment.

Being alive, able to communicate my immediate/mediate needs/conveniences to others. This way we can survive in a constantly evolving/changing **environment.

Regardless of the naïve claims that the epistemological mind controls the ontological physical, living human brain as it generates conscious thoughts to maintain a homeostatic balance between species survival needs and conveniences, a moments’ intuitive analytical reflection  will convince the reader that the reverse is true. We can find living humans with no mind activity but never without a physical brain.

Meaning is provided by the brain as it sorts out between available environmental alternatives, physically present or absent but recorded in the brain as memories of audio-visual perceptual objects or events or their symbolic conceptual representations thereof. In a real spatio-temporal terrestrial environment the sources of information input into the brain are originally perceptual sense phenomenal -whether the inherited (unconscious), acquired (subconscious) or combinations thereof assisted by inner linguistic elements (consciousness)- and conceptual when beyond the human sensory threshold of perceptual resolution. Anything too small (subatomic domain) or too far away (cosmological), however falsifiable by consistent, reliable consequences (measured/observed), must be conceptually included in mathematical logic or Bayesian logic formulation. If the occurrence of such postulated objects and/or events are confirmed they become part and parcel of the resulting model. If you now consider our human species as the exclusive historical narrators of the truthful structural and functional aspects of such micro invisible and macro unreachable galactic domains, then consider the absolute truth certainty of our conclusions when the limited perceptual (ontological) and conceptual (epistemological) resolution of our models of existential reality in an evolving universe? Enter theosophy to fill the cognitive gap, What is more reliable, an inductive or a deductive analysis of life and existential reality?

Theosophy, as represented by JudeoChrIslamic organized religions, is a historical fact of life as long as we keep in focus the mesoscopic existential reality we experience in real time where first things come first -(life survival imperative needs for the species), health and conviviality conveniences for the vital community happiness). All things considered, inheritance, acquired learned experiences during early upbringing meaning comes from context and a constantly evolving environment, how could any serious model of existential reality claim exclusivity, whether of the materialistic, theoretical abstractions**, theosophical or other variety? Does it make sense to be inclusive, where the falsifiable physical –albeit invisible- aspects of the micro cosmos may conjecture about the Biology of physical particles, the Psychic aspects of a living physical brain dynamics as they impact the convivial Sociology of the individual members of the collective surviving to remain alive, reproduce and build creatively to improve on what they found and plan for future contingencies threatening our human species continued survival?

** Neither can decisions be based exclusively on a timeless multivariate calculus protocol. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/parametrization   ..

Inductive vs. deductive critical analysis of real time existential reality?
The living human dynamic brain is much more sophisticated than either the scientific methodology materialists, the arm chair mathematical theorists or the theosophy extremist admit. It certainly is not just the bone enclosed container where information is just crammed in in the form of past memory patches of past environmental experiences. As research shows it is continually adapting to new information inputs by modifying the old memory content. For more information see the following Wikipedia link.

It should be clear that an Inductive Logic critical analysis system –where the premises cannot logically imply the resulting conclusions- limits further the truth certainty of  it’s conclusive inferences as opposed to those derived from deductive/abstract mathematical logic. However, inductive logic extends the pragmatic real time value of scientific methodology especially when inductions are sustained by evidential support in the form of falsifiable measurements and/or reliable observations of environmental objects and events. To exclude one system from the other would be an incomplete effort.


In fact the BPS Model has been so successful that arm chair mathematical theorists, biomedical clinical practitioners, biophysical chemistry researchers, sociologists and philosophers have each appropriated the individual components of this unit singularity trichotomy (BPS) as the exclusive interpretation of ‘existential reality’ in our vital biosphere space time. It is natural to expect that the information/technological explosion witnessed recently and its consequent evolutionary progression of a putative theory of everything (TOE) explaining life and consciousness would bring this splitting. But we cannot separate the ‘redness’ from the red apple and expect a viable independent existence of either the apple or the red color. What has happened is essentially a rephrasing of the original BPS model published by the undersigned in the 1980’s under “Bocetos Para Una Biopsicosociologia” (Editorial Limusa ISBN-968-18-1867-9 Mexico, DF) and previous/subsequent publications in defense of the BPS Model as the resultant of the exclusively living human brain dynamics complexity. The conundrum of reconciling the invisibility of the subatomic micro realm and the dimensions of the cosmologic macro universe, quantum theory and relativity, super symmetry (SUSSY) and its continuously evolving breaking, light and dark matter spin-coupling, etc., all of this and our well known perceptual/conceptual cognitive limitations makes of the BPS Model a journey in progress, susceptible to further theological investigations not a destination ready to be described.  Dr.d


*Taken from: “Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness” A Multidisciplinary BioPsychoSocial (BPS) Model of Human Brain Dynamics.

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