http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/out-of-our-brains/
The story linked above and the comments that follow is another indication that science will ultimately abandon the brain as synonymous with the mind, and thoughts as the central core of consciousness. However, the problem that continues to plague the way science approaches the problem is that they are entertaining the mind as a self contained phenomenon rather than as an energy circuit with the individual immutably connected with its surroundings on the animal level of awareness. For example, you can see the author of the article and one commenter struggling over the notion of a cat’s “cuteness.” (My resolution of the conundrum is that the cat’s cuteness is how the hunger circuitry imports the essence of the cat into the mind of the person observing the cat, with the preyful aspect of the cat “tuning” the persons balance circuitry so that they remain feeling grounded. In other words the cuteness of the cat is a specific ratio preyful aspect to predatory aspect and since emotion is a universal operating system to all animal consciousness, thus the emotional value of “cuteness” can register in a person’s mind).I found especially interesting the point that science is questioning the value of hand movements and gesticulation as someone struggles to make a point. This verifies for me that the physical center-of-gravity is the core seed of consciousness, and therefore when a person is struggling to articulate a feeling or a difficult concept, or simply if they are moved emotionally as they are speaking, by moving their arms they are literally changing their physical center of gravity, they are aligning their subliminal focal beam on a point within their body just as if they are physically struggling against a field of resistance, all of which is predicated on the physical memory of actual physical experiences. They are quite literally “grappling” with an object of resistance, or “swimming upstream” or “flailing wildly” or “running with an idea.”
In a nutshell, the body does more than carry the head around. In network consciousness, the body plugs the brain into the mind.
“In network consciousness, the body plugs the brain into the mind.” A neat circle if I do say so…I can almost grasp it but not in it’s entirety.
Since there is no ‘mind’without a brain, any belief to a mind outside the brain is not reasonable.
I’m arguing that your statement is like saying that there’s no signal without the radio, or there’s no internet on the screen without the cpu of the computer. True in one way of looking at things, but not the whole truth either.
I disagree, I think embodied cognition has it right, and I bet that the body/p-cog gives access to the core layer of consciousness.
And in that regard, it seems reasonable that an energy theory would lend itself to exploring some larger philosophical points, such as the nature of this core layer of consciousness, the deepest workings of the animal mind that organizes everything, the very foundation of the theory itself. Is its genesis, from what it evolved, still an open question from an evidentiary standpoint? (if I understand it, emotion moving in accordance with E, UE, RE–based on physical memory, which I have to trust is separated from linear time/thoughts– is the mechanism of evolution, and consciousness precedes form).
Also, is there speculation about how this core layer works, ie, what is the experience of this “kernel” of consciousness like, which would be the foundational “value” in an animal’s mind as emotion is resolved? Because all values would be created by a resolution process shared by every conscious being, they must be relative to some sort of normalizing scheme (if we knew the scheme, that information might be the makings of a good book.) Some might say that such values are externally imposed, but it would be impossible to resolve emotion and ignore the nature of the kernel of consciousness (the essence of embodied cognition), as sure as it would be impossible to violate the laws of physics.