Model of a neurophysiological functional level of a physical representation of all cells of the body under the aspects of
symmetry and hierarchy in brain centers. Integration of representation and enactivism into a model of "complete embodiment".
Meditation-Ethics-Science: The term-combining should point to a connection between self-reflection (meditation) and the consideration
of both the emotional level (ethics) and its impact on the intellectual level (science). Under the influence of meditation,
science should not be seen as something different from ethics, which requires a humane control from the outside. Instead, it acquires
the property of merging with ethical principles.
Here on this pages are described particularly the hypothetical determination of an additional level between the level of nerve cells and
that of the phenomenal psychic experience patterns. In order to make meaningful representational statements about the locality of
brain functions, the physical activity is first artificially separated of the mental and emotional experience (which should be seen
as a holistic unit), in order to be subsequently assembled in a special way.
Science looks for universal rules, causal relationships. The pursuit of insight and knowledge involves the desire for objective statements,
wherein subjective influences of the researchers themselves seem to be a negligible size.
The objectivity of science is in my opinion a fallacy, the "human" factor tends to be neglected. Science is done by people and not only
subject to socio-political factors, but also subjective like the personality of each individual researcher.
The "first-person perspective" is therefore always contained in scientific papers.
These affect mainly theory and interpretation of empirical results, and limit the potential capacity of the overall system.
It scatters not in correlative way to an ideal average, who then ideally corresponds with best approximation to the "objective" result,
but these "deviations" run by biological, psychological and social rules.
Science and experience do not confront each other as opposite poles in my opinion, as Varela (Varela et al, 1995, p 13)
postulated, but the experience flows in unconsidered and unconscious manner into the science.
It is neither neutral nor scatters the "objective truth" as a kind of subjective variance around an optimal average. The established science
does not seem to be aware that and to what extent individual influences of the researcher himself flow into the research.
The objective result is only objective within a kind of individual "filter bubble", depending on the transcendence abilities of the
Here, in my view fits well the concept of "autopoiesis", thus, for example, THOMPSON (2007) describes the property of autonomous biological,
living systems to obtain themselves and to reproduce itself: (p 101: ... "the shape or pattern of the autopoietic organization
is did of a peculiar circular interdependence between at interconnected web of self-regenerating processes and the self-production of a
boundary, examined did the whole system persists in continuous self-production as a spatially distinct individual").
In the above concept a biological system is meant as a whole; it is made no statement to what extent the individual parts - ie
in relation to man - this means the physical, mental and emotional processes are autopoietically organized. In my view,
the first-person perspective distorts the research direction (third-person perspective) by a species-specific level of autopoiesis,
included here especially in the mental expression.
The concept of autopoiesis can be in my opinion very well apply to the mental portion of human cognition, what therefore indirectly relates
to the direction and intensity of research. The research thus serves species-specific interests under species-specific point of view,
but not in an objective point of view.
Examples of mental autopoiesis in overall experience image of man are slightly to give: alone the different, oscillating in time unit
and contradictory thought processes, which all appear in the first-person perspective logical and correct, but apparently correlate with
physical conditions and emotional moods. Another aspect is the preferred saving of informations which are "matching" to the own inner world -
in opposition to "inappropriate" informations, which are rather forgotten or suppressed. It is significant here that the individual does not
experience consciously the contradictory nature of the mental (semblance)-causality; the mental processes are not independent purposeful,
but follow an arbitrary, serving their own "protecting boundary" of their own apprehension and experienced world in an autopoiesistic sense.
What THOMPSON (2007) says about the organization of a single living cell, can also be described to the organization of all aspects of human:
"....a cell continuously produces itself as a spatially bounded system, distinct from its medium or milieu" (p 92).
Especially the species-specific sense of superiority of humans over the other forms of life speaks for autopoiesis in thinking (and also
acting) of man, presumably corresponds with that of the other forms of life when trying to put in their position, where all species
of biosphere due to their different physiological structure must have different embodied action and experience worlds,
in which they themselves with their specific skills must be in the focus of their self-awareness. Any living creature "protects" thus itself
physically, affectively (higher life forms) and mentally (human obviously the only specie).
In this context the generic term "cognitive science" is very interesting from a meta-perspective, which deals with the especially
humans (ergo with itself) ascribed cognitions. So indirectly, the perception and importance of the property of human thought increased,
which distorted the perception of the functionality of the Cortex in my opinion.
"Cognitive" strongly oriented to the mental, even if the definitions are most more comprehensive: STEPHAN and Walter (2013, p.1) regard in
cognitive performances that property, which makes complex systems capable of the perception of a problem to come to a corresponding solution
(including possible action).
Another definition sees cognition not independent of the context of interacting organism within an environment over
the sense organs and physical action (see THOMPSON, 2007, p.13: .... "cognition is the exercise of skillful expertise in
situated and embodied action. Cognitive structures and processes emerge from recurrent sensorimotor patterns of perception and action").
Nevertheless, distinction is often made between cognitions and emotions (see THOMPSON S. 12) and thus the concept of "cognitive" narrower
and thus moved into the vicinity of the mental. I use hereinafter the wider term of cognition, which includes physical, mental and
emotional processes. Also I missed in the definition of Thompson the inner-body processes beyond sensorimotor action.
The sensorimotor processes depict in my opinion only the consciously perceivable part of the interaction; each visceral and internal organic activity
is for me equally as much a part of the cognitive system. They rather depict the unconscious part of the interaction and are therefore difficult
for mental detection in the first-person perspective.
Representations here means not the classical sense of a sensomotoric input-output relationship between an objective outside world and
a figure in the inner world, but as a senso-viscero-motoric detection of external stimuli, which builds the human experience space in an
enactive way, concerning the entire body. Contrary to popular interpretation as sensorimotor, concerning conscious perception
and conscious action, to some extend "two-dimensional", here is meant the body in its entirety, "three-dimensional", the
unskilled and subconscious including. The body in its entire volume constitutes as it were the metaphor of the entire brain,
the physical input in its structure and totality is the basis for the enactive development of cognitive experience spaces.
"Representations" in the classical sense refer only to the consciousness easily accessible in humans, the obvious; here the concept of
representations relate to all areas of the body, the entire body comprising, regardless of consciousness.
The unconscious is assumed to be in a constant presence, neuro-physically hierarchically without structural difference.
Thus representations received something abstract and are in my opinion quite compatible with the concept of enactivism.
In the classical sense, they correspond only to a disembodied inattentive reflection ("entkörperte unachtsame Reflexion"
VARELA et al, 1995, p 51), a thinking without inclusion of one's body. In contrast, the "mindful embodied reflection" concerns on the
relationship between body and mind in the actual experience ("Beziehung zwischen Körper und Geist in der wirklichen Erfahrung", p.53).
Since the enactive physicalization at the level of the brain includes a metaphor of the structure of the entire body, by
suitable diagnostic long-term measurement methods on the surface of the head, statements about the functionality of the individual
somatopsychic system in relation to the entire body are possible:
via empirically determined localized data pattern in relation to
different situations (intra-individual) as well as in relation to a population (between individuals).
"Connection science - human, consideration of the third-person knowledge from the first-person perspective, in subject to the ability
of autopoietic influences of oneself"
The best overcome lies in the individual personal development of every individual researcher as a link of
sciences, not only at the cognitive level, but in the sense of wholeness both emotionally and in the formation of a
One way to do this is at individual level the meditation and programmatic strict ethics to commit the sciences on a
positive aspect and also to release personal energies.
But not the optimized human adapts to "the" sciences; they themselves are transformed and optimized by the aspect of wholeness.
- Operation from a holistic perspective, including the inner organs - assumption of primary and subsequent centers of the interior organs -
assumption of equal, neurologically exoderm-, endoderm and mesoderm attributable body areas - adoption of convergent and divergent
representations of the body in the brain - acceptance of the precedence of somatic prior to psychological localization and
calling into question the theory of neuronal psychic correlates -
The brain here is an example for the above described way of unconscious interpretation and the direction of research in the sciences.
Here now should be only the empirical findings in brain research, which are already available, evaluated and assigned by other principles.
These are symmetry, congruence, analogy and hierarchy.
They should be combined to a holistic model
- knowing that the now dominant model underlies also a preliminary assumption about a particular image of man, an expected operation.
To illustrate this, the chapter "cortex" as the main chapter is embedded into chapters, with which it does not seem to be relate.
Science is seen here in her attempt, to examine the reality of objective criteria, restricted by the subjective limitations of their individual
members (in the narrow sense the researchers). Meditation is seen critically here in their probably exclusive investigation as an object
during scientific research. Instead they will be seen in this context as an individual ability to detect the subjective perception,
thereby increasing the flexibility and effectiveness of science. Ethical principles should be considered as an essential tool,
to avoid animal testing, among other.
Only roughly should be made a relationship between the three entities, most detailed described in the chapter
"Cortex". In my opinion it would be interesting to extend these considerations on other science fields.
The publicizing of these alternative ideas to a superordinate operation of the cortex can be achieved in my opinion at best by a website,
regardless of scientific organizations, and to put them in relation to one of the areas in which they are embedded: meditation,
philosophy of science and ethics.
In a superordinate manner it is also about a transcendent description of nutrition and digestion in a holistic view -
inner organismic and for the relationship between species.
For me, there is a similarity here to the anthroposophical understanding of science, but this is in my opinion not enough universalistic with their
Preference of the Christian faith, emphasizing the "spiritual sciences" and the concept of a "secret knowledge". I miss the orientation to
all religions and philosophies, all areas of science and I do not know which would be intellectually not communicable. a secret would be
in my opinion only in translating the intellectual capture of "understanding".
Before 25 years ago I got the idea during a meditation that in the Cortex-theories the internal organs were "forgotten" - they take the place of
the "association centers", they occupy the space that are attributed to "association centers" and complete by extending the theory of the
division into primary and secondary assignement areas of LURIJA (1992)*, and completed therefore the entire cortex as a primary physiological
information processing unit.
With the inner feeling to share this thought only when I am simultaneously deploy against animal experiments, it took me until now finally to
find this structure. Thus, ultimately, the focus has shifted: it is no longer primarily a matter of publishing a particular theory,
but to work for an ethical, self-reflective science.