KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA32 (Muller)

Commentary 17 (to C13 Bausch to Muller)

( HOW CAN A BRAIN POSSIBLY THINK ABOUT ITSELF ? )
by Adrian van der Meijden
10 January 2001, posted 6 February 2001

Very nice, but the brain is not just composed of only a forebrain with two halves that DO intra-communicate with a chiasma, incidentally, also wrapped up in a cortex, but has about five major parts as crudely "observable", other forms of analysis find other parts or sections, so what are they contributing to the melee, for which it is assumed forebrain means intellect. The hindbrain, when its cortex is un-anfractuosed into a flat sheet, is as large as that of the forebrain and what is that busy doing? All this somewhat con-fuses me as to what's real, metaphoric, simulacra, representational, symbolic or quite what? I've heard that form follows function and here read that function follows form? It is also possible that form and function co-evolve and mutually influence each other from more "primitive" to what one is boggled to give a name, as it is not necessarily "better".

The Gazzanigean left and right forebrain cores are pathological artefacts for which generalisations made to apply to a WHOLE brain are somewhat suspect. We are back at phenomenalisation with locations again and where's consciousness? Is not the brain supposed to be anastomotic? What in all this might be ignored is that MIR assumed "observations" of a physical brain are projected into what a brain could be up to in a "conceptual" sense with little to no account of how such conceptualisations arise, either within the brain or some other "projected" virtual reality that could possibly be philosophical. In a nutshell: How can a brain possibly think about itself? Or is it the case that someone can both observe their own physical brain while thinking?

-----------------------------

Adrian van der Meijden