Since educators are always looking for ways to improve their practice, and since empirical science is now accepted in our worldview as the final arbiter of truth, it is no surprise they have been lured toward cognitive neuroscience in hopes that discovering how the brain learns will provide a nutshell explanation for student learning in general. I argue that identifying the person with the brain is scientism (not science), that the brain is not the person, and that it is the (...) person who learns. In fact the brain only responds to the learning of embodied experience within the extra-neural network of intersubjective communications. Learning is a dynamic, cultural activity, not a neural program. Brain-based learning is unnecessary for educators and may be dangerous in that a culturally narrow ontology is taken for granted, thus restricting our creativity and imagination, and narrowing the human community. (shrink)

Depth psychology finds empirical validation today in a variety of observations that suggest the presence of causally effective mental processes outside conscious experience. I submit that this is due to misinterpretation of the observations: the subset of consciousness called “meta-consciousness” in the literature is often mistaken for consciousness proper, thereby artificially creating space for an “unconscious.” The implied hypothesis is that all mental processes may in fact be conscious, the appearance of unconsciousness arising from our dependence on self-reflective introspection for (...) gauging awareness. After re-interpreting the empirical data according to a philosophically rigorous definition of consciousness, I show that two well-known phenomena corroborate this hypothesis: (a) experiences that, despite being conscious, aren’t re-represented during introspection; and (b) dissociated experiences inaccessible to the executive ego. If consciousness is inherent to all mentation, it may be fundamental in nature, as opposed to a product of particular types of brain function. (shrink)

I argue for an idealist ontology consistent with empirical observations, which seeks to explain the facts of nature more parsimoniously than physicalism and bottom-up panpsychism. This ontology also attempts to offer more explanatory power than both physicalism and bottom-up panpsychism, in that it does not fall prey to either the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ or the ‘subject combination problem’, respectively. It can be summarized as follows: spatially unbound consciousness is posited to be nature’s sole ontological primitive. We, as well as (...) all other living organisms, are dissociated alters of this unbound consciousness. The universe we see around us is the extrinsic appearance of phenomenality surrounding—but dissociated from—our alter. The living organisms we share the world with are the extrinsic appearances of other dissociated alters. As such, the challenge to artificially create individualized consciousness becomes synonymous with the challenge to artificially induce abiogenesis. (shrink)

Context: Varela’s neurophenomenology was conceived from the outset as a criticism and dissolution of the “hard problem” of the physical origin of consciousness. Indeed, the standard (….

Policymaking carries an intrinsic problem in the measurement of the effectiveness of policy. Stafford Beer proposed in 1975, to measure the eudaemonia generated by the implementation of a policy in a society to determine its effectiveness. To achieve this end, he devised a system that compares differential rates of change in eudaemonia. Despite the effectiveness of Beer’s idea, policies regarding highly subjective issues, such as the complex case of symbolic inequalities pose a new challenge. In this article, the author sets (...) to update Beer’s model, using A.N.Whitehead’s concept of experience, to improve the possibility of measuring the eudaemonia resulted from implementing a policy. The article uses management cybernetics and process philosophy to propose a model that absorbs the complexity of the case of symbolic inequalities. The model shows increased society’s involvement on the evaluation of policies; It offers the possibility for a more technical management concerned with optimization of policy and resources, and a more autonomous organization in general. The involvement of A.N.Whitehead’s experience as a measure of eudaemonia allows a system to handle higher levels of subjectivity in policy design, and implementation. Beer’s idea found many problems to set in practice, but the advent of modern technologies facilitates the implementation of new forms of measuring satisfaction and wellbeing in cooperatives societies. The ideas in this paper could serve as a base to create a more democratic, participative, and satisfactory administration of a cooperative society, and a more technical management. (shrink)