There are a number of ideas as there are interpretations on the nature of our consciousness. There ends the comparison. However, there is one idea that is quite different from any such prospective work in the field. A perceptive study, it breaks new ground and develops a strongly meditative and original insight into the nature of evolution, science and humanity.
Its beginning honours a timeless maxim: the mind has evolved from living organisms. Hence, it also argues that intelligent life developed, thus; it wasn’t merely pushed to propel life as a stereotyped design. In so doing, it triumphs without falling into a mix of claims and resistance. The resultant effect is more than sincere: of an insightful examination secured to a classy underpinning of human consciousness.
This new understanding relates primarily to parallel concepts of reductionism, and a theory of everything: both problematic identities in today’s realistic world of experimental science. Applied to the biological domain, one could argue that a theory of everything runs repellent of a virtually boundless aggregate of probabilities at elevated levels of narration. Modern research in physics, with all its cerebral sparkle and gloss, for instance, is no different to the nature of chemistry — the solid ground upon which biology is based.
Put simply, the idea is itself an extension: of secondary nature, where the rules of the game change over time. This leads us to yet another big question: how has nature ‘fixed’ to resolve and execute winning systems in such a composite mental game like chess? Answer: a compound web of positive feedback running through corresponding planes of the biosphere, and permitting abrupt antecedent circlets to arise. In other words, the transition from brains to minds, which can be traced back to the time when animals came up with non-genetic routes to protect their offspring.
This idea provides for a context in which intelligence can develop — not just as survival smarts but individualistic, genetically stored, or relearned, personages of trial and error, where culture provides a context in which it can also advance. Once evolution started down this avenue, things have got even better for the talented. Intelligence and culture now comprise a handy pair and/or the corresponding positive feedback loop — or, growth of intelligence-stimulating-culture-inducing-intelligence — leading to the emergence of mind. This may be called as a ‘pluralistic’ perspective: one that is not intended to replace reductionism, but complement it. It is an extension of our understanding beyond the customary sentiment too — a response to combatant tensions by which our brains have somehow evolved.
Yes, we’ve, in the process, managed to invent language, and become conscious by way of our task as apprentices of the mind sculpted to discover where consciousness is located in the machinery of the brain. Of a formulation that is so well provided to emphasise the context in which mental processes emerge, rather than a scanty look at the neural components of the brain — something that has always amused us to ‘compute’ how they might be correlating.
Add to it a sense of wonderful symmetry — the connection of neural processing — and, you have a contemplation of recognition that takes advantage of the manifestation of the variance between the average man and a woman. In other words — the true understanding of the nature of empathy and consciousness.
