En el estudio de la conciencia y subjetividad hay una pretensión de estudiar solo el "objetivismo" de los razgos en el cerebro, sin ver los procesos de las prácticas sociales y de relaciones sociales históricas, ni identificarlos estructuralmente. Esto reduce a plantear solo la relación cerebro - conocimiento, dejando fuera los procesos de comunicación, valorización, acción, etcétera, es decir socioculturales.

Reductionism came to argue that if consciousness is a form of matter

The concept of praxis practice or is it necessary to reformulate? body to the multitude of operations - mind and (social / cultural) action.

In the study of consciousness and subjectivity is a pretense of studying only the "objectivism" of traits in the brain, without seeing the processes of social practices and historical social relations or identify structurally.

Surely, "social practices and historical social relations", in the context of all learned events, contribute to the *content* of consciousness. But the brain mechanisms that account for the very existence of the state of consciousness in which our cognitive content is manifest is the profound mystery that has eluded explanation for centuries.

Ricardo:

I tried to remember something I may have read that contributes useful information and insights into the problems you mention, besides Susan Blackmore's book *Consciousness: an introduction*, which I am using to get an overall picture of the state of the art, and as a guide for further reading. The first thing that popped into my head is Terrence W. Deacon's book *The symbolic species: the co-evolution of language and the brain*, first published in 1997. It doesn't directly address your question, but much of what it says is relevant, given the importance of verbal communication in human society. Some authors think there is an evolutionary advantage to consciousness, and there must be important relations between consciousness, language, and symbolic thinking.

An example from Blackmore's book is the section on Nicholas Humphrey's idea that consciousness has a basically social function, by providing a mechanism for observing one's own behaviour, a sort of "inner eye." This is in itself insufficient for explaining consciousness and how or why it evolved as a function of our nervous system, but it seems to have some relevance to your questions, and is evidently related to the matter of empathy (which some have explained through the neuroscientific concept of "mirror neurons").

Of course, sociology has not escaped the late 20th and early 21st fashion of looking for new ways of understanding the human experience through neuroscience. I have an incipient interest in neuroaesthetics, and here at ResearchGate I have noticed a backlash, particularly among neuroscientists who are losing patience with the superficial application of information from what they feel is their academic territory. The warning is not taken unheeded; my previous forays into transdisciplinary research have shown me the importance of acquiring a good working knowledge of the disciplinary toolboxes that I am borrowing from.

I decided to look up "neurosociology" to see what is out there, and I was not surprised to see a relatively new field emerging on the borders between neuroscience and sociology, as well as something distinct that people are calling "social neuroscience."

To save you a few minutes, here are the results of searching for both terms on Wikipedia, Google Books, and Amazon, just for a preliminary glimpse of the literature:

NEUROSOCIOLOGY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosociology

https://www.google.com/search?q=neurosociology&btnG=Buscar+libros&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=es

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=neurosociology&hasWorkingJavascript=1

SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_neuroscience

https://www.google.com/search?q=social+neuroscience&btnG=Buscar+libros&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=es

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=social%20neuroscience&sprefix=social+neur%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Asocial%20neuroscience

I don't plan on diving into this literature in the near future, if ever. My strategy with neuroaesthetics is a medium-term goal of organizing a graduate seminar, to force myself to dedicate as much time and energy to assimilating the basic literature, learn vicariously through my students' individual research projects, and discuss the results in the classroom and online. This generally works better than passively reading, or than reading and then writing a few conference papers. Perhaps you could set something like this up at your Campus with neurosociology. Then in a few years we can organize an inter-transdisciplinary colloquium and compare notes between these two overlapping fields, with our students presenting the results of their research. That might generate interest among our colleagues as well. (I know, I know, the neuroscientists who read this will probably wince, but this stuff is too important to ignore for any field concerned with the human experience.)

I should add Google Scholar searches for both terms.

NEUROSOCIOLOGY

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&q=neurosociology&btnG=&lr=

SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&q=%22social+neuroscience%22&btnG=&lr=

The next step would be to get on the virtual periodical services that the University of Guanajuato administrators finally expanded (after much insistence) and download a bunch of articles.

I am assuming you don't have anything else to do for the next few months. (:o )

The concern becomes a time of possible bridge to other researchers in other disciplines. In a cross-cutting issue to discuss with the principal eagerness to listen and contribute. This requires a degree of intellectual maturity , considering that there may be potential new interdisciplinary ideas and transdisciplinary work. The complexity of the phenomenon makes me think of the spatial and temporal location outside an evolutionary approach , where in the social analysis of social structures that influence the knowledge you would bring , this means considering issues such as culturall capital, power and asymmetries . As for how he valued subjectivity groups and their representations, thus we are incorporating analytical and synthetic elements to consider. Recognize the potential of students of the brain in terms of its progress in techniques and results , but in the recompecabezas missing pieces. At first it would be an exercise in a second time the integration of a multidisciplinary team possible .

This implies ability to listen and to propose , communication, critical dialogue and purposeful atmosphere.

It's time to team up in order according to the areas of competition can do - participate.

For now, in the social sciences worth returning to discuss concepts such as "praxis" which is a very suggestive to try to understand the processes of action with knowledge idea.

The cultural assets, the skills are working in parallel with technology, to finer issues of processes, their limits and certain guidelines "conditions" and their breakups.