Your critique is profound: reductionism, while powerful in mapping structure, fails to bridge the chasm between mechanism and lived experience. Calling for a science of form, not fragments, aligns with post-reductionist currents like enactivism and neurophenomenology. Physicobioneurodynamics is very intriguing, especially in reframing consciousness as topological transduction rather than localized function. But to move from vision to paradigm, I believe it must offer formal precision, operational definitions, and empirical traction. The real question here is not whether reductionism has failed, but whether the scientific community is ready to adopt a model of consciousness that demands both conceptual depth and disciplinary humility.

Both comments above (Arturo's and Dalia's) make excellent points. Thank you.

Please consider a paper that addresses the limitations of reductionism and current scientific models of consciousness based on physicalism. The paper is a useful intro to a much more holistic paradigm, logically coherent, in-depth discussion that places consciousness as primary to matter (substance) and form (structure) -- easily accessible full-text, open-access on ResearchGate.net:

"The Scientific Method as Practiced: Its Successes, Limitations, and How to Progress Deeper" (RW Boyer)

It would be fun to dialogue with you more about your questions with this expanded context. Thanks,

RW Boyer

Dear Dalia,

Thank you so much for your comment. It is incredibly gratifying and insightful. I deeply appreciate that you place my proposal in dialogue with such relevant currents as enactivism and neurophenomenology. Indeed, my work draws from these traditions and seeks to extend them with a topological language.

Your final question is, in my opinion, the Gordian knot of this entire field of study: "Is the scientific community ready to adopt a model of consciousness that demands both conceptual depth and disciplinary humility?"

I think your diagnosis is painfully accurate. The greatest obstacle to a true science of consciousness is not necessarily the lack of data, but the inertia of paradigms and disciplinary fragmentation.

Physicobioneurodynamics was born with the ambition of being a "bridge" or a "common language." It does not seek to impose itself, but rather to offer an architecture where physics, neuroscience, and phenomenology can dialogue without one discipline nullifying the other. It's an invitation to that "disciplinary humility" you so aptly mention.

Thank you again for such insightful reflection. It's a pleasure to meet interlocutors with such conceptual clarity.

Best regards.

Dear Robert,

Thank you so much for your kind comment and, above all, for sharing your article. I read it with great interest and must say that I feel a profound resonance and synergy between your thinking and the foundations of my own work.

Your analysis of the limitations of the practiced scientific method, especially your critique of strict subject-object independence and your recognition of reason and experience as subjective processes, articulates with great clarity the underlying problem I am also trying to address.

I find your proposal of three-level models, such as Bohm's "Implicate Order," fascinating as a way to overcome the mind-matter duality. In fact, I consider my concept of the "Phenomenological Trace" to be a candidate for the transduction mechanism through which that implicate order manifests in the explicate order, generating insight events with a measurable empirical signature.

Where I believe our work becomes powerfully complementary is in the methodology for "progressing deeper." You rightly advocate the development of direct experience through the refinement of the scientist's own consciousness. The history of science is replete with examples that validate your argument: from Nikola Tesla, who solved complex integrals in his mind in a purely visual and abstract way, to Einstein's bold attempts to use the hypnagogic state—validated by neuroscience but without a more concrete explanation—interrupting his sleep with a silver plate and a fork—to access an almost free-thinking state that allowed him to reimagine space, time, and gravity.

Physicobioneurodynamics attempts to build a bridge from the other shore: it seeks to develop empirical and falsifiable tools (such as the fractal signature or the SCIS scale) to measure the correlates of those same non-discursive and highly creative states of consciousness. They are, in my opinion, two sides of the same coin.

I enthusiastically accept your invitation to talk. I would love to explore with you how your framework could enrich mine and vice versa. I'm sure a conversation on these topics would be incredibly fruitful.

Best regards and my deepest admiration for your work.

Thanks so much, Arturo, for reading and positively commenting/appreciating the paper. In pursuit of deeper explanations of the connection (transduction mechanism" as you called it) between concrete physical and more abstract mental processes. Please consider my recent papers Bohm-Hiley "Ontological QT" Helps Resolve the "Paradox" of Particle-Wave Duality, and Seamless Transitions between Matter, Energy, MInd, and Consciousness -- both of which are easily accessible on researchgate.net Then we can dialogue about how your model relates to physicalism (the terms you use seem to do so) and, later, the 'methodology' to experience deeper levels of mind systematically to establish higher permanent states of consciousness.

Very best wishes, and thanks again,

Bob (RW Boyer)

Dear Robert,

I followed your advice and have read with great interest your two recent articles on the ontological interpretation of Bohm-Hiley and "seamless transitions." I am deeply grateful, as they have considerably clarified my perspective and reveal an even deeper synergy than I imagined.

Your concept of the "psi wave" as a real, nonlocal wave of information that guides the particle seems to me to be an elegant solution to the duality paradox. It resonates directly with my hypothesis of the "Phenomenological Trace" and leads me to a fascinating question: could the "Trace" be, precisely, the empirical and measurable manifestation of this "psi wave" as it interacts with the fractal geometry of microtubules?

Furthermore, your model of "seamless transitions" between the physical, nonphysical, and unified levels seems to me to be the perfect framework for situating the dynamics of my theory. The states of isostasis and high entropy I describe could correspond to a system dominated by the physical level, while the states of high coherence and the "fractal signatures" of insight could be the neurodynamic correlate of a successful transition: a transduction of information from the subtle level you postulate.

The possibility of exploring how your theoretical framework and my empirical methodology might inform each other is extremely stimulating.

I enthusiastically accept your invitation to discuss this with great enthusiasm. I would love to delve deeper into these ideas and hear more about the direction of your work.

Thank you once again for your intellectual generosity and your time.

Best regards.

True, the Reductionist theory is redundant. The sciences mentioned are trying to look into human beings (the whole & interlinked body-mind-spirit) from outside, from their own perceptions.. Standards are made on average measurements. But the inside of human beings is constantly varying, the changes in bio-chemical environment are measurable. How these 'Standards' are really standard? One of the infuencing factors for these changes is a person's social environment, his relationships and interactions, which are also constantly changing. Unless we understand human beings from their own perspectives, we cannot solve their problems. The approach needs to be Inside-Out, rather than Outside-In. And the gap between these two perceptual worlds must close to understand human consciousness in it's true sense. .

Dear Ratna,

Thank you very much for your comment and for your insightful and insightful analysis. I completely agree with your premise: critiquing reductionism is only the first step; the real challenge is bridging the gap between external observation and internal perspective.

You raise the key question: "How are these 'standards' really standard?" My work is built on precisely that question.

My proposal for Neurotopological Psychometrics is an attempt to solve this problem. It does not seek to impose an external "standard," but rather to "map" the internal dynamics of each individual. The SCIS scale is the tool I designed to capture the subject's "own perspective" that you speak of, while network entropy and fractal signature are the tools to measure the state of their neurodynamic "environment."

You say that "the gap between these two perceptual worlds must be bridged." My Neurotopological Coherence (C_{NT}) equation is precisely my proposal for formalizing this bridge: a function that mathematically integrates data from the internal (subjective) perspective with those from external (biophysical) observation.

Your comment has articulated the problem with admirable clarity. It's a pleasure to continue discussing these important and necessary topics with you.

Best regards.

Dear Arturo Salazar Chon,

Here in India a few like minded people are thinking in the same line as yours. In order to get more such people with us and generate more ideas to get answers to these questions, we are planning for an International Conference in November this year. Mostly by next week we will be able to give out the 1st announcement. I will post it in this platform. Please see whether you can make it. Feel good talking to you, though in writing. With best wishes in your search for the truth....

Dear Ratna,

Thank you very much for your response and the information about the conference. I greatly appreciate the invitation and the fact that my work resonates with a community of researchers in India.

I sincerely appreciate the personal invitation to attend. However, as a full-time undergraduate student in Mexico, my academic schedule and the logistical challenges of international travel make my in-person participation in November unfeasible at this time.

Nonetheless, I am genuinely interested in participating. I would like to know if you have considered any virtual or hybrid participation options for the conference. I would be very interested in contributing a remote presentation or poster.

Regardless of this occasion, I greatly value the connection we have established and will follow the announcement and results of your conference with great interest.

I hope we can stay in touch for future collaborations.

I wish you much success with your preparations for the event.

Best regards.

We badly need a new approach, especially in the medical field, which still appraises human conduct and brain activity through chemicals involved in some kind of automatic barn dance. The medical approach is considered here but perhaps not the harm it has done and is doing.

Ratna, your position is gratifying and resembles my own over many years.

Stanley, I'm so glad to see you here. I wanted to briefly thank you not only for your comment and continued support, but also for interacting with other participants in the discussion.

Seeing these intellectual alliances being forged in real time is exactly the kind of debate I hoped to foster. Your perspective and validation are invaluable.

Best regards and a big hug.

Arturo,

Nicolo Petrogalli is another fierce contributor on these questions, galvanised by personal experiences!

Although the medical profession claims (for gain)? that drugs are effective in so much that they relax, they also can have extreme psychological effects denied by doctors and drug companies.

Stanley, I would like to deeply thank you, once again, for the incredible depth and historical and sociological perspective you bring to this discussion. Your comments not only enrich the debate, but elevate it to a level of critique that is absolutely necessary.

You have articulated something fundamental. While my critique focuses on the methodological inadequacy of the current model, you reveal its sociopolitical roots: it is not just "bad science," it is a tool of power that serves economic and class interests. Your last comment about how the medical profession denies the "extreme psychological effects" of drugs while promoting their benefits (to, as you say, "win?") is a perfect and devastating example of this same dynamic.

This is where I see the most potent connection. An ambiguous scientific model, one that is not falsifiable and ignores the complexity of the individual, is the perfect vehicle for wielding the power you describe. Therefore, my proposal for Physicobioneurodynamics, with its demand for rigor and falsifiability, is not only a quest for "better science," but, consequently, an attempt to create tools so transparent that they are resistant to manipulation and return power to the individual.

And I especially thank you for highlighting other passionate collaborators like Nicola Petrogalli. It is very gratifying to see this space becoming a meeting point for an international network of critical thinking, something you are actively helping to build.

Your perspective is crucial, and I feel very fortunate to have it.

Best regards.

I argued this in my book, published in 2005. Here's an abstract

Book Neither Brain nor Ghost: A Nondualist Alternative to the Min...

Dear Teed,

Thank you very much for your comment and, above all, for highlighting your book. It is a true honor to receive a comment from a thinker whose work has pioneered the nondualist alternative.

In fact, my goal with Physicobioneurodynamics is precisely to try to build the mathematical and empirical framework for the ideas that you and other philosophers of the embodied approach have so lucidly defended. I consider your work a fundamental philosophical pillar for what I am trying to formalize.

I will begin reading your book with great interest. It is exactly the kind of conceptual bridge I seek to strengthen.

Thank you again for your contribution.

Best regards.

Assalomu alaykum. Savolingiz oddiy bo‘lsada, ammo javob berish odamni ancha o‘ylantiradi. Chunki to‘g’ri javob berish uchun uch sohani chuqur bilish kerak. Ongni to'liq tushunish insoniyat oldida turgan eng murakkab jumboqlardan biridir. Nevrologiya, fizika va psixologiya sohalarida ulkan yutuqlarga erishilgan bo'lsa-da, ularning hech biri ongning to'liq mohiyatini va uning kelib chiqishini yakuniy tarzda izohlay olmadi. Bunga bir nechta asosiy sabablar bor:

Nevrologiya nuqtai nazaridan. Nevrologiya miyaning tuzilishi va funksiyasini o'rganadi. Biz miyaning qaysi qismlari qaysi funksiyalarni bajarishi (masalan, ko'rish, eshitish, harakatlanish) haqida ko'p bilamiz va nevrologik jarayonlarning ong bilan bog'liqligini tushunamiz. Biroq, nevrologiya duch keladigan asosiy muammo qattiq muammo (the hard problem) deb nomlanadi. Ya'ni, neyronlarning o'zaro ta'siri va elektr signallari qanday qilib subyektiv tajribalar, hislar va ongni hosil qilishi noma'lum.

Ong miya neyronlarining oddiy yig'indisi emas, balki ularning murakkab o'zaro ta'siridan kelib chiqadigan emergent xususiyat bo'lishi mumkin. Hozirgi ilm-fan emergentlikni to'liq tushunish uchun yetarli vositalarga ega emas.

Ba'zi nazariyalar kvant mexanikasining ongda rol o'ynashini taxmin qiladi, ammo bu nazariyalar hali isbotlanmagan va keng qabul qilinmagan. Miya makroskopik tizim bo'lib, uning kvant effektlari bilan qanday bog'lanishi aniq emas.

Nevrologiya, asosan, reduksionist yondashuvni qo'llaydi, ya'ni murakkab hodisalarni uning tarkibiy qismlariga ajratib o'rganadi. Lekin ong kabi murakkab hodisa uchun faqatgina qismlarni o'rganish yetarli bo'lmasligi mumkin; tizimning butunligini tushunish kerak.

2. Fizika nuqtai nazaridan. Fizika koinotning asosiy qonuniyatlarini va materiya-energiya o'zaro ta'sirini o'rganadi. Hozirgi fizika ongni bevosita o'rganish uchun asbob-uskunalarga ega emas.

Ba'zi falsafiy va diniy qarashlarga ko'ra, ong moddiy emas. Agar ong materiya yoki energiyadan iborat bo'lmasa, uni fizika qonuniyatlari doirasida tushuntirish mumkin emas.

Klassik fizika makroskopik dunyoni yaxshi tushuntiradi, ammo ong kabi nozik va murakkab hodisani tushuntirish uchun uning imkoniyatlari cheklangan bo'lishi mumkin.

Kvant fizikasi olamni intuitiv bo'lmagan tarzda tasvirlaydi va ongning kvant darajasidagi jarayonlar bilan bog'liqligi haqida spekulyatsiyalar mavjud (masalan, o'lchov muammosi va kuzatuvchining roli). Biroq, bu nazariyalar asosan falsafiy xarakterga ega va eksperimental isbotlanmagan.

3. Psixologiya nuqtai nazaridan. Psixologiya aql-idrok, xatti-harakatlar va ruhiy jarayonlarni o'rganadi. Psixologiya ongning funksional jihatlarini, uning qanday ishlashini va qanday rivojlanishini tushunishga yordam beradi. Biroq, u ongning fundamental, ontologik kelib chiqishi masalasini hal qila olmaydi.

Psixologiya ko'pincha subyektiv tajribalarni o'rganadi, ammo bu tajribalarning neyrobiologik asosini tushuntira olmaydi. Har bir insonning o'ziga xos subyektiv tajribasi bor va ularni miyaning fizik holatlari bilan to'liq bog'lash qiyin.

Psixologiya ko'proq ongning "nima qilishi" ga e'tibor qaratadi, "nima ekanligi" ga emas. U ongning turli ko'rinishlarini tavsiflaydi (masalan, xotira, his-tuyg'ular, idrok), ammo ularning miyada qanday paydo bo'lishini chuqur tushuntira olmaydi.

Ongni ob'ektiv tarzda o'lchash va miqdoriy baholash juda qiyin. Bu uning ilmiy tadqiqotini murakkablashtiradi.

Bu sohalarning har biri o'ziga xos darajada va o'ziga xos metodlar bilan ongni o'rganadi. Biroq, ongni to'liq tushunish uchun bu sohalar o'rtasida integratsiyaning yetishmasligi asosiy muammo hisoblanadi.

· Metodologik farqlar-har bir sohaning o'ziga xos tadqiqot metodlari va yondashuvlari bor, bu esa ularni birlashtirishni qiyinlashtiradi. Nevrologiya biologik darajada ishlasa, fizika fundamental qonuniyatlar bilan, psixologiya esa xatti-harakatlar va kognitiv jarayonlar bilan shug'ullanadi.

· Kontseptual cheklovlar-bizda ongning nima ekanligini tasvirlash uchun hali to'liq kontseptual asos mavjud emas. Bu sohalar ongni turli burchaklardan yoritadi, lekin ularni bitta yagona nazariyaga birlashtirish qiyin.

· Interdistsiplinar yondashuvning yetishmasligi- ong kabi murakkab hodisani tushunish uchun nevrologiya, fizika, psixologiya, falsafa, informatika va hatto matematika kabi ko'plab fan sohalarining hamkorligi zarur. Bu sohalar o'rtasidagi samarali muloqot va integratsiya hali to'liq yo'lga qo'yilmagan.

Ongni tushunishga harakat qilishda bu uch soha birgalikda katta qadamlar tashladi, ammo ularning har biri o'z chegaralariga ega. Ongning sirini ochish kelajakda fanlararo hamkorlik, yangi nazariyalar va kashfiyotlar orqali amalga oshishi mumkin. Balki, ongni tushunish uchun bizga butunlay yangi ilmiy paradigma kerak bo'lar.