Amalya,

While knowledge is part of human consciousness, and I have no doubt it consists of each of the experiences and attributes you pinpoint I can, at this stage, offer only one reasonable insight.

Although human beings (us) have been on this earth for two hundred thousand yeas, far longer than previously thought, our impact on the planet was perhaps 30,000 years ago, although the idea of elevated cognitive skills suggest 60000 years. Increases in population were necessary before increases in cognition was possible.

The exchange of information, although then limited, created information and over time knowledge of...that is one object or another. Knowledge of stone and tools which could be applied to problems. The object contained the knowledge. And yes, without going into more detail, consciousness emerged from connections between objects and knowledge of how those connections could be applied to other objects. Expressions of the environment became consciousness.

Thank you, Stanley, for sharing your insights. Consciousness can indeed be viewed not only in the context of human beings, but also in terms of objects, nature, and even the universe. However, human consciousness differs from metaphorical consciousness in many ways: it is based on linguistic, cognitive, and philosophical expressions. In contrast, the non-human world—composed of inanimate objects—lacks conscious understanding, informational analysis and synthesis, and the ability to create new knowledge.

To sum up, while knowledge is predominantly rooted in human consciousness, its layered and multidimensional essence allows it to be reflected, in a metaphorical or symbolic sense, within objects, nature, and the universe as well.

Amalya,

You perceive objects as essentially passive rather than a part of the minds structure, as they do not you believe possess independent validity. Look out of your window. Roads. Cars. Buildings. It is not ht they are separate from other objects, although they are not entirely separate, but example a separate cognitive state within us. The reflective nature of the human environment is ignored in the shady sciences of the brain/mind, the sequential environment of chemicals and drugs. A moments reflection convinces this model cannot be true, cannot be sustained outside of the deliberate mirages created by the two professions below to sustain reputation and power. (A separate point here, but Kraepelin created a mind structure that was physical and acted within physical medical propositions because it was the most financially and medically rewarding system. I fear others cling to it like limpets. He had no proof but it was readily picked up. What proof there is is simply rhetorical, not empirical)

I suggest that the understanding of psychiatry and neurology with everything haplessly confined to the brain lacks intentionality and while it permits some mind aspects cannot account for much else other than moods and the mental illnesses this model is concerned with alongside the treatments, drugs, ignoring the environment, the symbolic extension of human kind. The model serves the imagined creation of illnesses, eliminating other possible causes, see Kraepelin above. The role symbolic understanding I suggest is a joint effort of external and internal action. The additional purposes of separation and further identification, aiding the construction of time for example, cannot be limited to the brain. We live in a universe of objects, expressions of the above interaction. The psychiatry and neurology (do you read the papers?) models limit activity to the skull without any appropriate means of creating the human world we inhabit other than structural positioning of inside and outside.

Stanley,

I perceive objects neither passive nor active, but as part of human consciousness, nature, the broader world, and the universe. They should be defined according to their functions, role in evolutionary developments, as well as their value and meaning in chaotic and harmonious Earth. Both inner and outer consciousness demonstrate the complex and multifaceted nature of cognition, individual and societal experiences, and neurological structures. Psychiatry, like any other branch of science, is far from perfection, evolves constantly, and may be revolutionized within the next decades or centuries. The power of knowledge, as a means to enhance consciousness, plays an important role not only in shaping the spheres of the human mind, but also developing it, and transforming epistemic doubts into neurological precision.

YAmalya,

You prioritize the neurological and this seems a change from your previous view and your belief in the neurological future as a means to knowledge involves the central understanding of the brain without exploring the rest of the universe.

there is no reason for your optimism regarding neurology and certainly psychiatry, the latter's imprecision and other difficulties disqualify their claims, but you prioritize the human brain in constructing our universe, which has merit, but is selective. The history of psychiatry, politically and ideologically based, involves its evolution nt into the ideal state you imagine but back upon itself into dangerous drugs and physical origins and healings. This in fact is the 20th century's process and I fear propaganda, it is the narrative psychiatry tells itself but not at any point backed up except through laboratory work : itself not backed up by evidence of both its claimed processes and results. Distinguishing between rhetorical claims and narratives and reality is essential.

The history of psychiatry cannot bear the weight of optimism with its proliferation of false claims and thereby claims of a false science.

Stanley, I haven’t changed my views on neurological reality in the contemporary world. My approach involves critical analysis and analytical reasoning to provide a more comprehensive perspective. I believe psychiatry should adopt a more humanistic, patient-centered approach—going beyond medication to consider patients’ individual circumstances and daily challenges, which often contribute to their mental health conditions. While neurology and psychiatry are not without flaws, their contributions to evaluating, analyzing, and addressing mental disorders are invaluable. My stance reflects cautious optimism: it acknowledges the darker aspects of reality while also appreciating the positive developments brought by medical advancements.