Ralph Brückner I looked up the definition of neuropsychology and the first thing it mentions is consciousness. I understand that it has been famously difficult to get academic funding to research into consciousness.

Perhaps the title of the academic discipline should be ”How the brain works.” The scope of such a course could be an understanding of the primary neuroscience aspects of the brain together with aspects of philosophy and psychology.

In providing this link to my research I am aware that we are some way away from a comprehensive understanding of how the brain works but this is a start.

Preprint The Conscious Brain

I would suggest seeking foundational research funding to prepare a course for delivery in 3 to 5 years from now.

Richard

Ralph Brückner I have to say the Germans ironically always seem to be the hardest to get to think more broadly; things like consciousness and therefore minds are unlikely to give up their secrets to conservative plodding empirical incrementalism; there is too much so far not known. I applaud your creative energy.

As a practical answer to your question I suggest doing some research and finding examples that would help to persuade that they will be left behind if they stay so intellectually lazy- nobody cares who was tenth on the Moon.

Article The Primary Pitfalls on the Road to Understanding Consciousn...

Article The Nature of Fundamental Consciousness - - - PsyArXiv downl...

See also works by Colin Hales.

Also be willing to consider their arguments as to whether their existing roads cover the need.

More important than whether this particular effort of yours is successful, is that you keep that spirit. Elon Musk for example doesn't care if he embarasses himself sometimes, and he leads all others in his fields. I'm writing to you from NASA, a team that obviously makes history.

Best,

Karl

Ralph Brückner

Karl Sipfle

My own view is that Germany has a long history of brilliant scientific research but that is a side issue.

I noted in the paper linked by Karl the fact that he states the definition of terms at the beginning of the paper. I think getting the definitions right is half the battle.

When trying to determine how the brain works I would remove some of the words altogether. I would remove the word “mind”. Its definition is unhelpful and we can always refer to the brain.

I would avoid the word “feeling”. We can always refer less ambiguously to “subjective experience “.

My definition of consciousness is: “The subjective experience that we have from the operation of our brain”.

In discussing consciousness, I think that focus of attention is very, very, very important. Understanding “focus of attention “ explains how consciousness arises. Focus of attention is also open to investigation to find its neuron network correlate.

Richard

Richard Lewis As to Germans, your "view" is indisputably and extremely correct- they became the new Greeks- hence my word "ironically." Einstein wrote on these things.

Dear Ralph,

just some quick points here: By now, I think, internationally, neurophilosophy can be regarded as a fairly well established sub-discipline within the neurosciences and philosophy. Perhaps it would be useful in your endeavor to point at successful examples of institutionalizing neurophilosophy within established academic institutions and departments. Here is one prominent example from Germany (LMU Munich):

https://www.neuro.philosophie.uni-muenchen.de/index.html

Otherwise, I know how hard it is to break up old and well-established institutional structures within academia to establish innovative and forward-thinking research pathways. But it is possible. Just don't give up!

Best,

Julius

Richard Lewis

As to both supplying definitions in general, and danger of early false assumptions in general (and very much re consciousness), I wholeheartedly agree.

Specifically, I prefer term "feeling"

We can start from classic textbook Kandel et al Principles of Neural Science, Sixth Edition p. 1060 heading "Functional Imaging Has Identified Neural Correlates of Feelings:" "Conscious experience ["subjective experience"] of an emotion are generally referred to as feelings."

The word "feelings" in common use refers to a variety of specific ones and usually of human (or other animal) size and elaboration. In order to have those one must have (and only needs) "feeling," that is, that elemental generic capacity, as is often contrasted with, e.g., reason/logic.

Other terms bring more baggage- the assumptions that accompany them- a trait that we have just agreed is problematic.

Feeling is "subjective experience," but that term introduces the concept of a subject, a feeler distinct from the feeling. This has bedeviled thinking on the topic for centuries. It also further complicates understanding another distinction: that the fundamental feeling is much simpler than our personal experiences and that the feeling provided by the universe is not the same as a mind.

It gets worse, because subjectivity, which is a relationship between "parties" and is a relational and informational condition, is both a term not actually about feeling yet made manifest in our actual universe by feeling as its particles. Better to navigate around the term "subjective" when laying down first principles. This separates the affective from the cognitive, which is necessary.

I then define Fundamental Consciousness as feeling to intentionally carry that assumption.

"P-Consciousness" might work, but that leaves it too easy for some to still speak of "awareness of" feeling rather than it simply being feeling, and towards "subjectivity," and, worse, suggests automatically adopting more steps in models that use the term. The terms I use aid one in understanding and continuing to understand that feelings precede Subjects, and that the latter are elaborate manifestations of the former.

This is certainly a topic in which terms must be defined and assumptions realized and stated.

I disagree with your emphasis on focus of attention (first of all that mechanism is informational, not feeling). I think that provides many clues and is a key operational behavior of our own brains, but not the, or even an, essential ingredient of consciousness, even by your own definition. Now if we early on drift into the notion of a Subject, your view will seem far more natural, but it is an illusion courtesy the limits of our minds, which were not first and foremost evolved to study their own deep makeup.

Layer 2 of the Four Layer Architecture- the hardest layer- deals with getting from subjectless feeling to Subjects. Irrespective of my specific explanations about how, the processes of Layer 2 must occur.

Mind (even the smallest) and brain are both complicated things made from much smaller things; what the smaller things are and how they work and how they build the larger is everything in understanding consciousness. An evolutionary view.

Thanks,

Karl

Richard Lewis

Article Consciousness, the Full Stack: Four-Layer Architecture=Langu...

When I think about the target question which is “How does the brain work” I find it can be divided into subsidiary questions:

How do the neurons firing in the network achieve the effect of a single train of thought?

How and where do I store memories?

How do I learn new physical skills?

How does the process of recall operate?

What is the purpose of sleep?

The key to understanding these subsidiary questions lies in understanding the neuron network control of Focus of Attention.

This is why I put it at the very top in understanding consciousness and why I find terms such as “mind“ and “feeling” unhelpful in reaching an understanding.

Richard

My suggestion is that instead of Neurophiloophy you could struggle for the implementarion of Sentiomics, because this is a truely a scientific field and a very promising one! See e.g.Article Neural Stimulation of Brain Organoids with Dynamic Patterns:...

You address in fact two questions, Ralph: (i) How to introduce a new field (in German academics); and (ii) how to structure Neuro-Philosophy.

Regarding (i): German academics (the Humboldtian system) is notoriously deficient, and few scholars seem to see this. Germany was once the number one in science, but it lost that position even before WWII. Now, almost 80 years after WWII, German academics is still deficient. This is due to an unwillingness to properly reform higher education (all countries belonging to the Humboldtian system are affected by this). See in this respect the works of the eminent sociologist of higher education, Joseph Ben-David (or my summaries).

Ben-David argued that new fields develop at the intersection of old fields, and that these new fields develop in formerly uncharted territory. Uncharted territories can be found in institutions that are willing to expand internally: the institutional setup must allow this. Unfortunately, Humboldtian universities are not institutions that would allow this easily: they have (now) bad faculty-student rations and, hence, are much too hierarchic. Faculty do not want to change the system because this would, they think, reduce their prestige.

Go to an institution with a more enlightened intellectual setup (a good British or US institution, primarily).

Regarding (ii): The answer to this is dependent to the answer of (i). In Zurich, an inter-institutional institute was formed perhaps three decades ago, the Institute of Neuro-Informatics, to initially great hopes. But again, the hopes remained unfulfilled to some extent.

Hi Richard Lewis

The attention mechanism is mechanical/informational and the focus of attention is what is selected by the INPUTs making requests to the attentional mechanism, which each are each either re bottom up info input, top down info input, or valence +/- ultimately deriving from pain and pleasure. The Advanced Safety components in cares already do early selection and fusion and as later selection resulting in conclusions and thence to straight to actions. Cruise missiles do similar things.

Everything about consciousness just described is relatively easy and can be done on a computer.

We are not just "aware" in such a colloquial sense, for us things "register" and "are like" something. This is feeling. The same thing as "subjective experience. Chalmers is right that this is where the big deal has been in the mystery.

Preprint The Neural Correlates of Feeling That Explain Consciousness

On attention itself, see your neighbor Edmund Rolls's Cerebral Cortex Principles of Operation.

Cheers,

Karl

Hi Ralph

I know little of German academia but from your description its seems like a slightly exaggerated form of what one finds around the world in universities.

Regarding Neurophilosophy, this indeed an interesting area. In our book, "Leading Beyond the Ego", I wrote a chapter "The neuroscience of consciousness and how it applies to leadership" which connected neuroscience and philosophy. This may be of use to you. The books is available at Amazon Germany https://www.amazon.de/s?k=leading+beyond+the+ego&crid=3T1V06WCU0ZB&sprefix=leading+beyond+the+ego%2Caps%2C63&ref=nb_sb_noss

Regards

John

Thank you all for your motivating comments. If you are going to start something it is strengthening to know: You are not alone! And this community – all around the world sharing neuroscientific interests – is, I think, what we should call the “Neuroscience Mouvement”.

To sum up, in some comments I found the details and articles in brain and consciousness research really interesting for the second step in neurophilosophical work (thanks to Richard Lewis, John Knights and Karl Sipfle). Now, for the first step I found it very helpful:

1. What Julius Riese writes that there is already a „Forschungsstelle für Neurophilo­sophie und Ethik der Neurowissenschaften“ as part of the „Fakultät für Philosophie, Wissenschaftstheorie und Religionswissenschaft“ and the „Munich Center for Neuro­sciences“ at the Ludwig-Maximilian Universität München. Thank you very much.

2. Marcel Herbst mentions the Humboldtian System. In June 2014 Prof. Wolfgang Deppert gave a lecture at the University of Hamburg entitled: »Die Befreiung der deutschen Universitäten« – to show that the german universities following the bachelor-master-system are not Humboldtian Universities – contradicting the german »Grundgesetz« Art. 5 (3): “Kunst und Wissenschaft, Forschung und Lehre sind frei”.

It was Wilhelm von Humboldt as a reformer of the Prussian education system who realized in practice this liberation from control. In his famous manuscript »Über die innere und äußere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten in Berlin«

(https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/5305/229.pdf) Wilhelm von Humboldt settles as principle: Dogmatic science cannot exist because our knowledge is always incomplete.

Therefore, research and higher education cannot be separated (op. cit. 231).

But today, in the german bachelor-master-system, research and higher education are separated. That’s why there should be more freedom, cooperation and more space for innovative work in the sense of “Freiheit von Forschung und Lehre”. The liberalism of the Humboldt brothers strengthened passion for science and is the real cooperative spirit of the german Humboldt-University, as Humboldt himself said:

„Da aber auch das geistige Wirken in der Menschheit nur als Zusammenwirken gedeiht, […]

so muss die innere Organisation dieser Anstalten ein ununterbrochenes sich immer selbst wieder belebendes, aber ungezwungenes und absichtsloses Zusammenwirken hervorbringen und unterhalten.“ (W.v. Humboldt op. cit. 229f)

This cooperation means balancing freedom so that the institutions may not suppress the work of others (op. cit. 233) – and this principle of scientific liberalism, I think, concerns also the rise of modern Neurophilosophy. After the sputnik choc, Edwin Land – the founder of the Polaroid Corporation whose parents immigrated into the US from Ukraine – transformed the Humboldtian System into the model of the American University which is very successful in its target to produce new knowledge.

3. Karl Sipfle from NASA indicates new connections between Neurophilosophy, consciousness and the coming Space Age,

represented by the work of Eilon Musk, NASA (and probably ESA as well). Of course, I know that the Kavli Prizes for Astrophysics, Nanoscience and Neuroscience concerning the largest, the smallest and the most complex indicate the most important fields for science in the 21st century. And indeed, I am myself deeply influenced by that spirit and wrote some­thing about this connection which is for me the primary reason for doing neurophiloso­phical research at all (being also inspired by Hamburg’s Astronomical Observatory in Bergedorf with e.g. Prof. Wolfschmidt‘s inspiring lectures documented in her »Nuncius Hamburgensis«).

So I think, the essential question to start is: Why does Neurophilosophy really makes sense?

I gave at least a part of my answer in an essay written for the »Neuroethics Essay Contest« of the International Neuroethics Society in 2022 which is included here. The title of my essay is: »Neuro-Ethics makes really Sense for Space-Ethics: Framing New Priorities for a Worldwide Common Education«.

My thesis is: Under the pressure of wars, climate changes and pandemic diseases, human survival arises now as a new and urgent priority.

That’s why Eilon Musk’s thesis of human beings as a multiplanetary species is a highway into the Space Age which aims to discover better conditions for human life in our common future. Put it simply into the words of the german neurologist Christian Elger:»We want to enter the Moon, that’s why we have to enter the brain«. And to understand brain, mind and body in their social and cultural environments in space we need Neurophilosophy – as a science of the possible for the foundation of the human family, focusing on eternal peace, human health, enhancing biological fitness and human civilization as well.

I think, the spiritual background of Neurophilosophy will awake – in the whole range of its new priorities – the enthusiasm for a new generation of greatness which will enter the space age and wants to enhance our human capacities for spaceflight and to make neurotechnologies acceptable. Preventing us from extinction events and overcoming conflicts and clashes of cultures, a worldwide common education, I think, will be an essential binding factor.

As frames of reference, this common education includes e.g. Darwin’s evolutionary extension of empathy, educating and evaluating the will of the rulers to end wars forever and to respect human rights as well as creating economic growth by mapping and using extraterrestrial resources.

Introducing this kind of education is a question of politics and has to be investigated, as I propose, by a World Commission preparing an

“Agenda for Guiding Principles for a Common Worldwide Education

in the Coming Space Age”.

Thank you Ralph Brückner for the update and your own thinking. Good luck with the movement! It is really needed.

Ralph Brückner You write many words that I think will energize others.

On a specific point, I would avoid a World Commission providing an Agenda for most things; in real life and in general the prospects are dark and have already been realized.

A great idea should have to fight its way to acceptance in the human marketplace of ideas, with minimal opportunity for hijacking by powerful agendas of others. And we don't want the same directed education for the whole world. Implementing this causes more problems than it solves.

So, it seems you have two interests: a field of knowledge and its successful deployment. I recommend maintaining the distinction in your own thinking.

KS

Rather than neurophilosophy, it can be pschophilosopy, in my opinion since psychology is social study & not natural science. Neurology is clinical & experimental natural science and has logic & fact, whereas philosophy has logic but not fact !