* 'Mind' is here to be understood as the latest state of the individual's (or humankind's) adaptation to sensory input imprinted via the thalamus in a way that makes any new input pattern obliged to hit (roughly/dynamically) the same original association pattern. For this process to work no "qualia" is possible other than as obscure concepts in language. In fact, to understand the mind one has to separate it from language. Or more precisely, one has to understand language as sensory input in general - compare Peter Klevius stone example (1992) - but realize its capability of irrational illusions. There's no table in the brain to support a toddler learning to walk - s/he is just adapted to it as part of her/his surroundings. Same with a sunset etc. The neuronal circuit is just a chaotic "film" emulsion where different association patterns have become familiar to the individual. And scanning the brain shows just that, i.e. a chaotic pattern unlike anyone else's, except for more general structures due to similar biology.
The main point of Peter Klevius concept 'existencecentrism' (1992) is that the only reality is the one inside the mind, and that it's impossible to even talk/think about something "outside" the mind because any such speculation is 100% determined/understood by what is inside the mind.
A pile of house building material
has the potential for a variety of different houses. However, the more
the house is built the less possibility for variation. Same applies to
the mind, according to Peter Klevius (1981, 1992, 1994, 2004). This
means that the more the brain (mind) adapts to its limited
(existencecentrism) surrounding, the less room for other views. First
threshold for the growing young human (fetus, baby etc.) is the limit of
the senses. The second is the ackumulation of synaptic adaptations
which makes the individual naturally (walking etc.) and socially
(talking etc.) fluent, but further also limits access to alternative
understanding because of the mind “going native”*.
* "Going native" is a concept in social anthropology when a researcher “becomes” one with the culture under study.
Peter Klevius evolution formula from 1981 applied to the mind.
This
article appeared as a s.c. "under-liner" (under strecket) on the
editorial page and was back then paid Fmk 500 to the author.
The
understanding of what the senses bring is limited to what they have
brought before (P. Klevius 1992). This is in line with Peter Klevius
evolution formula (published 1981) where the causality of events
constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution (synaptic pruning).
Evolution can be said to be the consequence of the variables of
causality in where the complexity of older structures is reinforced
(compare s.c. counterfactual relation). This development stays in an
apparent opposition to thermodynamics which theoretically leads to what
is called "maximum entropy", i.e. the state where no additional pruning
is needed (compare e.g. walking and talking in general). Thus, one could
fatalistically say that evolution in fact only constitutes components
of causality on its way to uniformity, where the end point of evolution
is determined by its external frame of reference, and can be summed up
in the words of the philosopher Hegel: 'Pure being and nothingness are
identical' (P. Kotilainen* 1981).
* Kotilainen
(mother's maiden name) was the last of three names labelled on Peter
while still a child - the others being Lundberg (marrie to the mother)
and Lindroos (who kept the kidnapped child in secret for many years).
Ironically, the proper name Kinnmark (the bio father who admitted
fathering the child and promised to marry the mother but never did) was
never applied.
