Brain and Mind.

Shawn Roske (
Thu, 28 Sep 1995 00:06:59 GMT

I'm just wondering if a response is merited by the anthro. camp to
what I wrote here. These are just some understandings I have of
"Biogenetic Structuralism", a theory worked on by Charles Laughlin,
John Mcmanus (sorry if I mispelled that), and Eugene D'Aquili (ditto).

[ Article crossposted from soc.religion.eastern ]
[ Author was Shawn Roske ]
[ Posted on 27 Sep 1995 08:44:13 -0700 ]

I've been lurking here for a while, on S.R.E

Here's some idea's about the universe that I like.
They've come from many sources, and if anyone has questions about
whether I'm the originator of the idea or not just ask, but it is
probably best to assume I'm regurgitation something that I read somewhere.

The book "Brain, Symbol, and Experience" is a big influence for me.

Taoist alchemy is facinating stuff. Much has been made of it
in recent times about how science is approaching concerns previously
considered of the mystical and not proper for "scientific enquiry".
Mostly this is because of the positivist movement of the enlightenment
which swung science away from the mystical into the secular. Now, this
is changing. It's not that empirical data is becoming less important
in the sciences, and here I must clarify what sciences I'm gonna talk
about, for in the exact sciences (ie. physics, chemistry, ect.) their
mathematical methodologies will always utilize quantifiable data, but
it is the so called social sciences where it is being realized that
positivism just 'doesn't cut it'; that personal paradigms, researcher
bias, and inescapable subjectivism is now the norm of concern.

One of the threads here (S.R.E.) is about the ability of "human
objectivity", and whether such a thing exists. Can a person be
objective? Is there an external "real world" (singular)? Can decisions
be made about the "real world" be considered freely thought?

I'm of the opinion that, no, in truth the "real world" can not
be known: Not in the sense that physical laws are known, not in the
sense that two plus two always equals four, and not even in the sense
of "I think, there I am". For me to explain, I must be granted several
concessions, and if you disagree with me on the following points then
I doubt we will ever resolve such differences:
[The above is me being provocative.]

--Consciousness is a construct of neurons in the brain.

-- " " is the brain aware of itself, and serves many functions.

--There is no location of consciousness in the brain,
rather it is a fluid structure continually assimulating and
accomodating to numenon in the operational field.

--The sensorium is the continuous stream of information entering the
brain through our sensory organs.

--The operational field is the brain's representation or model upon
which it operates-- the World or Universe.

--All of the "outside world" is represented in the brain through
neural constructs, and the sensorium is the part of the total
operational field whereby consiousness won't and can't be aware of
Everything within it.

--All aspects of consciousness that serve differing funtions are
autonomous complexes of neural entrainments that interpenetrate with
other constructs which are in turn potentially able to 'link-up' to
the Conscious Structure, hence our consciousness does have the
potential to be aware of Everything in the sensorium or operational
field, but it just isn't efficient or necessary to do so.

--We all develope individual understandings of What's Really Going On
around and within us. This is the personal paradigm, and this
paradigm is basically the total structure of the brain. Consciousness
*is* the paradigm in so much as the brains model of the universe is
it's paradigm; therefore, consciousness is the brain's awareness of
how it is responding to the operational field, which in turn is
continually modified by the sensorium.

I could go on, but it's getting tedious. If you're able to
follow me, [my] admittedly confused logic, then my point is obvious.
According to how I understand things to be, each of us is living in a
completely separate universe. Many such universes have very simular
properties, and probably developed under simular conditions (one's
culture and society), but an essential truth of this line of thinking
is that the difference is Still There.

So, no, objectivity is not possible... ...there can be differing
phases of consciousness (which are reentrainments allowing different
complexes to become conscious or operant)... ...most of all the
validity of different cosmologies and axiologies are equalized as
being equally applicable to the universe. Isn't life great!

++++v.0.86++++MO S* G QkcO>@ 666+>? Y++ !W* C N+ Pxx !D

That which is can be called Tao is not the eternal Tao.

++++v.0.86++++MO S* G QkcO>@ 666+>? Y++ !W* C N+ Pxx !D