Origin of Emotions, Language and Mind

Introduction:

As i argue in the theory of consciousness i wrote before this, what we call emotions and feelings is actually a primary interface with reality that all living beings have.

This is a copy of that section in my previous article:

We call these type of emotions "instincts" as if that means it's something not worthy of considering. Something "lesser" and easily dismissed. Another way to make ourselves feel (notice that) greater than the other living beings and so excuse many of our behaviors.

We know that living beings had such "instincts" since ever life began on this planet. Those early forms of life had no brains or minds to use as interface with reality, to comprehend it, to understand it. But they needed something to understand reality with in order to survive. What some call "sensory input" and usually reduce to just a few basic simplified ones, despite the actual reality of a very complex and incredibly diverse sensory input spectrum.

So – the primary interface with reality was created. Physical sensations.

At first very simple, the simplest possible physical sensations, just enough for the simplest survival basics. The feeling of hot and cold, of chemical changes in the outside environment, the feeling of touch, pain, the feeling of hunger, or satisfaction. As life evolved and become more complex, as it expanded into new environments and as those environments became more complex – living beings became more complex, spectrum of sensory inputs became more complex and diverse and so did our primary physical interface with reality. Those early physical sensation evolved into feelings, which evolved into emotions, as we think about them right now.

Much, much later we also developed a separate language to communicate these emotions. Better than our gesticulating, body language or other physical behavior can. Better even than our rational language and words can. Although we try to incorporate and use all of those ways of communication in expressing this primary understanding of reality.

We call it music.

It is the only language that can express the full depth, diversity and width of our primary interface with  reality. There is as many different emotions as there is different kinds of music and songs in the world. And as many as there are different tones, cadences, rhythms, melodies and all other forms of sounds music is made of. Yes, we like to combine the pure emotional language of music and our language of mind and thoughts. To get a fuller, better, more precise expression of all that we are and all we can experience.

 That is why we are at our best when we manage to balance the two main interfaces with reality that we have, our emotions and our rational mind. That is also why we are at our worst when that balance fails or is damaged.

Our emotions provide a deeper primary understanding of reality that our minds cannot efficiently process. Our minds provide a higher level interface with reality that our emotions cannot efficiently  process. They both deeply affect one another - as they should. Both are physical and virtual at the same time.

Neither of these two interfaces should take precedence over another, neither should exclude the other. And that is hard to achieve and maintain. Which is why we fail at it so often.

Main:

All this got me thinking further and as i was reading other literature and articles about all these subjects it became clear to me that it was this primary interface with reality, the emotions, that created language and so our minds. Or at least pushed the evolution and shape of our minds to a great extent.

I think it is undeniable that the sound is the best tool all living beings have to communicate pure emotions, which are information. Almost every land based animal in the world, even many insects, use sounds to communicate different information on the "emotional" level as we generally think about it. 

The more complex a living being is, the more complex are the sounds they are making. From the chirping and buzzing of insects to the warning or the rattlesnake to the songs of whales and various guttural sounds various monkeys and apes make. The hissing, mewls and other sounds of cats, the barking of dogs, the howl of the wolves, bird songs, or whistles... I could number different examples for days.

These sounds are the primary, most basic language.
Animals remember and understand them. Even across species. 
A horse will shy away from the sound of the rattlesnake. A dog can remember and understand  human words used for basic commands. A cat will at least understand that its "name" means you are calling it to a meal. And they can all figure out if you are happy or angry, just by the tone of your voice. Apes and monkeys have different sounds they make to make it clear they are angry, or happy or in heat. The birds are the same. (these are all very basic, simplest examples)

There is a bird in Africa that gives warnings to antelopes or zebras that lions or other predators are approaching by its distinctive calls. Antelopes understand what that sound means. Not on the level of a mind like human is, not translated into, or in the form of words. They understand it on the "emotional" level, in the virtual space of their minds and emotions - as a specific meaning. A specific information: "predators are approaching - run"

Now, if animals would use any random sound to communicate and express their feelings, their sensations their understanding of reality, It would be of no use. That is why even creatures much simpler then we are start using specific sounds to communicate specific information.

The most basic sound based meanings. 

It is simply efficient and advantageous tool or a system. While the opposite, using random sounds, simply doesn't achieve anything valuable. It is also clearly very advantageous for survival of the species if your progeny can learn them and understand them. Once this process is repeated over and over through thousands of generations it gets embedded into the very physical structure of living beings through Epigenetic changes on the levels of individuals, which spread that capability in form of DNA/genes to the offspring and then such abilities get selected for by the basic survival of the fittest.


Individuals who are better, faster and smarter about understanding and using these sound based meanings - have better chances of survival than those who are not. And better chances to create offspring which will have similar capabilities transferred through them. The more of these basic sound-meanings you can create and learn, the more diverse information you can communicate - the bigger the advantage.

Thus this advantageous capability clearly forces and supports development of speed and depth of learning and understanding, or in other words, intelligence.

So it is not that we developed intelligence first and then started to develop language. They developed each other.

• First the primary interface with reality is developed. The "emotions", our physical sensations of reality. Whoever is better at it has better chances of survival, and spreads the genes that support attributes that create and support that capability. 
• The sound is an inescapable part of our nature and environment. Movement itself creates sound so it is one of the basic effects of reality living creatures learn to understand as a sign of danger, or recognition of pray at the most basic primitive level.
• Then living beings start to use sound to communicate the most basic information, simply because the sound is already there and provides clear advantages. Thus a specific sound gains specific meaning.
• Evolution works again and the most adapted to this new advantage survive. Evolution then pushes and supports any physical attribute that supports this trait or capability. Like intelligence.
• One of the most valuable tools in understanding and reliably and quickly using this advantageous ability is intelligence. 
• The increased intelligence makes the "vocabulary" expand and becomes more complex and diverse.
• This supports survival of the more intelligent individuals or species.
• In turn the intelligence and survival force and support creation of even more sound-meanings.
• Which pushes and supports development of intelligence.

Force feedback loops. One affects the other.

After thousands of generations, this process creates first clear, repeatable, learnable sound based meanings - original for a single species. Or for a smaller group of that species. These sound based meanings force a mind to develop out of primary virtual space our biology and brains create. 
A mind that uses mental representations of these sound-meanings.

Words. 

This is followed and fueled by accompanying increase in intelligence needed to understand them and use them quickly, reliably and correctly. All this forces our very biology to adapt to these advantages. That is how and why we think in words today. That is why our kids have the capability to learn and understand words and learn to think in words. 


As i argued above, and as we all know, this does not substitute or removes the old primary interface with reality, our physical sensations, our feelings - our emotions. It provides us with another layer of understanding reality, another tool which has its own specific uses, limits and faults. Just like the primary interface has its own specific uses, limits and faults. The primary interface, our emotions, sensations and feelings and instincts provide us with a quick reaction time to a whole spectrum of sensory inputs that our minds would simply take too long to comprehend. But thats not all.

Its what enables us to feel and care. To feel physical reality and to translate reality in all its diversity into sensations, feelings and emotions. Objective and subjective. The outside physical world and our inner worlds. It enables us to understand all this in a immediate, condensed form of a feeling. An emotion. A feeling is not just a "feeling". It is understanding. Comprehension.
It is experience. The value and the meaning of value itself.

Yet by itself, it is not enough. That is why our minds are made to give us capabilities to disassemble reality, to simplify and constrain it into specific and useful meaningful terms and descriptions which then evolve into our language, culture and science. None of which could be achieved by our primary interface alone.

Yet without emotional anchors and deep physical connections to reality we would become careless, empty husks without meaning. Limited in our understanding of reality to the point of being delusional. Separated from it.

This is why we need both of these abilities and why we are at our best when we manage to balance them.


Or... at our worst when we fail at that, one way or another.




Further assumptions, thoughts and meanings:


It seems that after our minds slowly developed, as our cerebral cortex grew and evolved through millions of years and as we gained so much advantages through our abilities to disassemble and simplify reality into specific terms, sounds that carry specific meanings - words, we started to think that is the most important feature we have.


Understandably so, because it obviously gave us so much. And because that inner voice in our heads is very noticeable, right? But our mistake is in thinking that thinking is the only thing we should value, to the exclusion of our primary interface with reality.

This is why today so many of the intellectuals value thinking and "rationality" so much they almost despise emotions. (see what i did there?) The rejection is deep and diverse, although it is at the same time really obvious no human can divest himself from emotions entirely, and that many of these rejections are actually emotionally motivated.

Emotions are just chemical reactions, right? They are just instinct, evolutionary leftovers, etc, etc.

Our minds are strongly focused on this kind of dissembling of reality.  Our thinking is deeply dependent on reduction of anything we are trying to figure out into some kind of simplest ingredients.
Everything we think of, we have to first slap some kind of label (a word) over. To simplify it. To constrain it into a specific meaning.

That is the very reason why we have problems thinking about our emotions.
Because when you try to disassemble them, or reduce them into specific words - we *feel* something is lost in that reduction, translation into supposedly basic components. That is not just a "feeling" but an actual understanding that is deeper then our thoughts. In fact, it seems the more we try to deny how important our emotions are, we end up effectively amputating ourselves and loosing our understanding of emotions even more - which results in emotions having bigger and bigger influence on us, divested, separated from our minds. Thus we are influenced much more by something we cannot understand and even avoid to understand. In a way, we are making ourselves schizophrenic, split into two separate parts seemingly opposite to each other although they are not and cannot be separated. 

The emotions are integral fundamental feature which fueled and pushed evolution of our minds. They are foundations upon which the "rational" mind is built and they provide the fundamental sense of value and meaning to everything we think and do. Not just in a sense of "feelings" but as our primary, earliest interface and a tool to understand reality with.

The mind is supposed to provide balance and protection against some faults our emotions create, but if we separate them those negative influences of superficial, short term emotions grow all the more powerful. And our mind cannot deal with those because they are working on a different level that we refuse to even acknowledge. 












***



Bellow i added several links to various articles and scientific studies that support my ideas.
From the way how a monkey figured out a specific sound gives him advantage over the others which lead directly to capability to understand lying, to how and why even Science itself suffers from falsification by various scientists who wish to become more famous or to falsely push their own preferences, agendas and desires as true to such an extent that scientists themselves cannot handle the amounts of false studies anymore.

To the newest neuro-science discoveries about much more complex role our primary cerebellum has.
Our deeper "little brain", the earlier evolutionary product around which our cortex and higher intellectual capabilities formed much later.




edited on 13.10.19 for clarity.

links:


Fish recorded singing chorus just like birds


Monkeys lie to one another


How insects like bumblebees do so much with tiny brains


Squirrels Are Professional Eavesdroppers


Neuroscientists just accidentally discovered a whole new role for the cerebellum


Why facts dont change our minds


High tech war on cheating in Science


A higher-order theory of emotional consciousness
A new proper scientific paper that basically argues for the same as i do
and the link to the pdf of it:


A Higher-order theory of emotional consciousness PDF



Jordan Peterson: 2017 Personality 15: Biology/Traits: The Limbic System

Consciousness is virtual

Contents:
- Introduction.
- The first crucial Truth
- The second crucial truth
- The proof
- The Answer
- Some Further explanations and facts
- The Meanings, conclusions and assumptions
- Links

Introduction:

I will dare to call this a theory because it aligns with and is built upon all the facts, empirical proofs and ontological knowledge that we have about the phenomena of Consciousness.And i have an undeniable proof for it.

 

The theory is based on all scientifically proven facts about our brains, bodies, biology in general, history, evolution and many other relevant current discoveries - some of which you will find linked to at the end. 

Before i explain it fully and present my proof i have to be very clear that this actually does not really prove or disprove any of the usual atheistic or religious points of view about what consciousness is. Instead it synthesizes both of these binary extremes, shows they are both right to some extent and leaves open a possibility of understanding and accepting a “spiritual level” of this phenomena. Although that was not the intent. 
The intent is only to figure out the Truth. Not to confirm any pre-established belief or opinion. I dont subscribe to either of these opposing binary systems of beliefor disbelief and rather than calling myself agnostic (which became a loaded term) i usually say i am simply undecided, until some stronger evidence comes along one way or another.  

In fact, i will say that this theory provides a clear and provable basis for the concept of a "soul", without it actually being completely materialistic, or completely non-materialistic entity. Of course that won't satisfy any of the usual binary extremes proponents. But that is largely because humans have a fundamental flaw of “tendency to think in binary extremes”, among a few others such fundamental faults. I am sure that both sides will try to argue to the contrary and try to take this as proof for their side, but i am telling you: this theory does not do any such thing. Which i consider the beauty of it. In this it also satisfies the elegance requirement of scientific theories, although that by itself is not a proof.

When I figured this out, at first I thought someone else had already surely done so. So i checked.

There is already a theory seemingly similar to mine but it went into very limited and therefore wrong direction, as John Searle argued, among others. The "Computational theory of the Mind",

Computational_theory_of_mind 

There are several other hypothetical or theoretical propositions that try to solve the so called "mind-body problem" in "Philosophy of mind" theories.

Philosophy_of_mind#Mind.body_problem

This theory explains and solves that problem, as well as problems of intentionality and dualism.

There is also a "Hard problem of consciousness".

Hard_problem_of_consciousness

This theory of mine solves the Mind-Body problem, the Hard Consciousness problem and all other problems of this kind. Or at the very least, shows a better new approach, as it clarifies and corrects the mistakes in all of these previous approaches.

 

The first crucial truth:

In order to clarify and explain i will need to use the example of the computers, but not in the way most of readers would expect, because: "We are not like computers. The computers are like us. Very, very simplified and specialized versions of us."

This will be repeated many times throughout this article because the opposite and completely wrong meme has been repeated far too many times and has taken root in far too many people's minds. This inverted incorrect, illogical reductionist meme is causing many extremely negative and absurd consequences, such as rejection of individuality, personal agency and responsibility as well as any value we consider fundamental for our existence. But also because the actually true and correct comparison, which is: "We are not like computers. The computers are like us. Very, very simplified and specialized versions of us." - is very useful in explaining what the consciousness and the mind actually are.

This is probably the strongest and biggest disagreement i have with the above mentioned "Computational theory of the mind" or any such kind of similar idea. The obvious similarities between us and the modern computers has lead many to make the wrong assumption, that we are like computers. And of course, once people took it as true it became very difficult to make them reconsider because people have difficulties admitting they are wrong. This incorrect and upside down opinion that “humans are like computers” led many to jump to conclusions that we are nothing but some kind of more complicated calculating machines. Yet all that we know about neurology and how our brains work clearly and undeniably shows we do not calculate zeros and ones like computers do, that our neurons and synapses don't really use mathematics in such a crude basic way and we definitely do not behave like any such simplistic machines. In fact, our "brains" dont use digital computation at all, but analog kind.

On the other hand, if we look at that idea in a correct way and realize that computers are actually like us, but very simplified and specialized versions of some of our capabilities, then the picture becomes very different. Much more logical and reasonable. And much clearer.

One thing to point out is that we did not create computers through some subconscious urge to make copies of ourselves. As some maybe would assume. We created computers as they are because such systems are efficient. They provide specific capabilities that are useful in very efficient ways. Nature has been using the same kind of efficiency systems to achieve and create various efficient and capable systems, like for example, living beings and living beings with conscious minds. The computers are very, very, very simplified and specialized versions of these natural systems of efficiency - which are apparently ubiquitous and fundamental in this Universe physical laws.

We made computers able to do everything they can do just based on the most simple form of mathematical calculation. Binary combinations of zeros and ones. Yet even such a simplified basic form has created the Internet and all the incredible things we can do and create with the help of computers today. Naturally, we started with the simplest possible versions we could achieve back in those times of past century, but then the evolution took over and those starting designs and technologies  improved – in other words, evolved.

Imagine what you could do if you had such systems based not just on ones and zeros, but something much more complex. We are already moving in that direction with the advent of quantum computers and DNA based computers which will have three, four or more basic states to calculate with, instead of just binary two like the current ones. Imagine what you could do with neurons that can have hundreds of connections in a biological system.

Well,... you could imagine things like that, for one thing.

The second crucial truth:

What exactly do all those calculations, computation and those connections achieve? That is a crucial consideration or question most people don't think about. What do we create even with that simple binary calculation our computers are capable of? Mathematical results? Endless strings of numbers? Electrical signals? Is that what you see on your screen?

No. You see a Virtual Environment.

At the most basic level, all the computation your computer does - with the help and instructions of software - creates the OS. The Operating System which is Virtual and so immaterial, yet perfectly real. You see it right in front of you right now. You interact with it in many different ways everyday. In that virtual environment you can install and run additional programs which are also virtual, all of which have specific valuable or needed capabilities – which are specifically virtual, despite the fact that their foundations are physical.  You use those virtual capabilities, which are virtual and at the same time no less real for it, to create specific virtual and real things.

I am writing this theory in the virtual environment of Open office, which is itself a software running in the virtual space created by my Windows Operating System. All of it is running on the physical hardware of my PC. Which is used and instructed by the software to create all kinds of different virtual capabilities and virtual environments we ultimately see presented in light pixels on the surface of our screens.

If i want i can start another kind of virtual tool called a “movie player” and watch a movie in this virtual but real environment, maybe a whole tv-show, like Breaking Bad is, and experience the whole story about invented but very well created characters and their “adventures” - all of which is virtual and "magically" appearing in the virtual environment the hardware of my computer creates. Or i can open Photoshop and create some art in that specific virtual environment which has very specific tools and capabilities. Or use a music software and the virtual capabilities that program would give me to create some kind of music. (it wouldn't be any good but that's beside the point). I can also start a whole sub virtual environment of a video game, a whole small virtual world running in the virtual environment of my OS – and then play a game inside that completely invented non-material but real virtual world. Maybe playing as a pale gray dude who cannot die and talks to a floating blabbering skull whom he should not trust. And so live through and experience all that invented, immaterial character experiences in that immaterial invented world.

I could even, if i knew how, use other virtual programs and create a whole video game inside them.  A completely invented virtual world of my own in which i can guide a virtual character through a whole progression of experiences set in that virtual world and its specific setting, rules and conditions.
I could do science, create better computers, design new things or improve designs of already existing real things, study and do medicine, architecture, talk to other people, collaborate on projects that will become real in the real world... almost anything you can think of.

All of that and more can be done in a virtual environment my computer creates, with the help of virtual capabilities various software programs provide inside the virtual space of my OS. All of it running on the materialistic physical hardware. Hardware that is based on simplest binary calculations of ones and zeros.

Remember:

"We are not like computers, the computers are like us. Very, very simplified and specialized versions of us."

The capability to create virtual environments is the main ability of the computers and the result of computation they can do. Not the computation itself. The computation is a tool that is used to create something – greater than computation itself. It is only in these virtual environments that we get all the special capabilities and options i mentioned above. Because you cant use the software directly. You have to boot it up and use its virtual form.

It is only in the virtual environment of our minds, running on and created by the biological hardware and "software" of our bodies and brains, so much more complex than any binary computer, that we gain the capability to be conscious.

To think, to value, to create meanings, to experience all that we can, including ourselves and our own consciousness.

The proof:

Is a thought experiment which is undeniable.

And i think that is very apt.

I will use the Millennium Falcon (from the original movies mind you) as a subject of this thought experiment because it is a completely fantastic, virtual, but real and very widely known term.

Trekkies can swap it for Enterprise as they prefer. As far as i'm concerned i would rather use terms like Neuromancer and Wintermute but those are not so widely known.

So...

Imagine you are watching the Star Wars movie on your computer. In it you will see the Millennium Falcon. The importance of it is not just in the ship by itself, but in all the meanings that “ship” carries with it. The story it is a part of, the connections between specific plot points and events, the characters connected with it and the story and relations between them.

No matter how hard you try you won't be able to find the Millennium Falcon in the hardware or software of your computer. No matter the force or technology you use, no matter how microscopically deep you try to dissemble any particular part of the computer, regardless of how deep you go – you won't find the Millennium Falcon anywhere in it. No super computer or even a godlike AGI can find the Millenium Falcon in that reductionist way in the material hardware of your computer. Not even if you discover the code, the raw data of the movie itself somewhere on the hard drive – all that will show is huge strings of ones and zeroes. Or just electro-magnetic signals on a piece of metal.

There will be No Millennium Falcon anywhere in that.

You could catch the electrical signals traveling through the hardware as you watch the movie, or play a game, but those won't be the Millenium Falcon with all its meanings and importance. You can find all these separate basic ingredients of it in the hardware. But you cannot see or find the Millennium Falcon itself.

Yet the second you put it all of it together, the hardware, the software, the data, and turn it on – the second you boot your OS virtual environment and then start a virtual movie viewing program in that virtual environment - the whole movie is there, before your eyes.

And the Millennium Falcon appears.

With all the meanings, with all the baggage.

If anyone wants to disprove this – you will need to show me the Millenium Falcon in any level of the hardware or software of your computer.

Not the data, not the signals and electrons, not the strings of code.

Show me the Millenium Falcon itself.

And of course it's not just about the Millennium Falcon. You can exchange that concept-idea with anything else that has a meaning, anything else we understand or think about.

Any qualia you can think of.

Virtual, but so very real.

The Answer:

Consciousness is virtual.

It is a virtual gestalt effect, or virtual strong emergent phenomena that is greater than the sum of the parts that create it.

It is created out of, emerges out of several other basic virtual emergent phenomena, all arising, emerging from biological hardware that is interacting with and being influenced by environment (which we are a part of) in numerous diverse force feedback loops.

It is more then the sum of its parts.

Emergence#Strong_and_weak_emergence

These emergent virtual capabilities arise from combinations of all the different physical and biological parts that make us who we are yet cannot be found in any of them, no matter how far down we dissect and disassemble them. Not in the mere biology of the brain, or the body, nor in neurons or synaptic connections themselves, not in chemical reactions transferring signals, or in the signals themselves.

But you need all of those and the interaction with the environment working together for consciousness to emerge.

All the current neuroscience is doing is basically digging through the hardware.

And it will never ever find the consciousness there.

Because it is not in the hardware. It is in the virtual space that our biological hardware creates.

Some of the other emergent capabilities we have that are parts of the whole:

• Our subconsciousness is like bios (only actually it is the bios that is like our subconsciousness) that controls how our biological hardware is running, it keeps us breathing without the need to do it intentionally, it keeps our heart beating while we sleep. And many other crucial things, so we dont have to waste every second of our lives doing it "ourselves" which we wouldn't be able to do either with our emotions or with our minds. Or, if we could, we would be too busy trying not to die to do anything else.

• Our memory, both long and short term, is a feature of the biological hardware but it is also a emergent capability with its own virtual features, capabilities and effects..

• Our capability of logic thinking is a virtual capability of our virtual Mind.

• Our capability to think at all is a virtual capability of our virtual Mind.

• Our capability to formulate language and have thoughts in that language is a virtual capability running in the virtual environment of our virtual Mind.

All of these and many more are partially created out of the physical capabilities of the biological hardware. Just like the operating system or other programs capabilities of your computer are not really in the copper, silicone and transistors of your computer but arise from the interaction of all these different parts. They are not in the software itself, or the data.

Or the electro-magnetic signals.

Just like the Millennium Falcon is a virtual emergent phenomena that cannot be found in the physical matter or data of a computer or in my brain biology itself.

Therefore: consciousness arises as a virtual strong emergent phenomenon from all these constituent parts all working together and affecting each other physically and virtually.

It is virtual – and it is real.

Some further explanations and facts:

Of course you can affect minds and consciousness by damaging or in other ways affecting the biological hardware it runs on. It can also be affected by many chemical changes our body goes through, not just the brain. That is undeniable. There are many new research papers and discoveries that prove our minds can be affected even if any of our symbiotic microbial biomes are damaged or changed.This proves that the emergent virtual spaces our biology creates cannot be considered completely divested from the material or physical reality.

But this connection also goes both ways and that has been empirically proven over and over.

Our virtual minds, thoughts and emotions can similarly affect, change and or damage our physical bodies, our very biology. The force feedback loops our physical and virtual features create are mutual. They are not separate entities. Our emotions can severely affect our minds and bodies, there is no denying that. From effects of stress, or any sort of trauma, or any kind of less strong feelings, to greater positive ones like love is.

Our emotions are not just "feelings" and they are not "just chemical reactions or signals".

So i should probably explain what emotions really are:

Emotions are the primary interface with reality all living beings have.

We know this because we can see that many "lesser" animals have various "instincts", yet no complicated minds capable of thought like ours.

We know that brains and minds, especially our complicated ones came much later in the evolution of life.

We call these type of emotions "instincts" as if that means it's something not worthy of considering. Something "lesser" and easily dismissed. Another way to make ourselves feel (notice that) greater than the other living beings and so excuse many of our behaviors.

We know that living beings had such "instincts" since ever life began on this planet. Those early forms of life had no brains or minds to use as interface with reality, to comprehend it, to understand it. But they needed something to understand reality with in order to survive. What some call "sensory input" and usually reduce to just a few basic simplified ones, despite the actual reality of a very complex and incredibly diverse sensory input spectrum.

So – the primary interface with reality was created. Physical sensations.

At first very simple, the simplest possible physical sensations, just enough for the simplest survival basics. The feeling of hot and cold, of chemical changes in the outside environment, the feeling of touch, pain, the feeling of hunger, or satisfaction. As life evolved and become more complex, as it expanded into new environments and as those environments became more complex – living beings became more complex, spectrum of sensory inputs became more complex and diverse and so did our primary physical interface with reality. Those early physical sensation evolved into feelings, which evolved into emotions, as we think about them right now.

Much, much later we also developed a separate language to communicate these emotions. Better than our gesticulating, body language or other physical behavior can. Better even than our rational language and words can. Although we try to incorporate and use all of those ways of communication in expressing this primary understanding of reality.

We call it music.

It is the only language that can express the full depth, diversity and width of our primary interface with  reality. There is as many different emotions as there is different kinds of music and songs in the world. And as many as there are different tones, cadences, rhythms, melodies and all other forms of sounds music is made of. Yes, we like to combine the pure emotional language of music and our language of mind and thoughts. To get a fuller, better, more precise expression of all that we are and all we can experience.

 That is why we are at our best when we manage to balance the two main interfaces with reality that we have, our emotions and our rational mind. That is also why we are at our worst when that balance fails or is damaged.

Our emotions provide a deeper primary understanding of reality that our minds cannot efficiently process. Our minds provide a higher level interface with reality that our emotions cannot efficiently  process. They both deeply affect one another - as they should. Both are physical and virtual at the same time.

Neither of these two interfaces should take precedence over another, neither should exclude the other. And that is hard to achieve and maintain. Which is why we fail at it so often.

But we are getting better at it. Slowly.

More on this particular subject is in the second article on this blog:
https://surfacereflection.blogspot.ca/2017/02/origin-of-emotions-language-and-mind.html

The Meanings, conclusions and assumptions:

Unlike the extreme materialistic view this approach does not and cannot lead into assumptions that we are "machines" or "computers" or "chemical reactions".

That is just the hardware and the software.

Not what that hardware and software create.

Unlike the religious point of view this does not prevent us from understanding, does not require the end of attempt to understand ourselves. Nor does it require refusal and rejection of what Science is discovering. A term as a "soul" can too be understood as something arising, emerging from the "material" – but it is not material itself, nor it can be found by disassembling the biological hardware. In that sense, at the very least, this theory leaves open the possibility many ideas of spirituality subscribe to. A "soul" could very well be another strong emergent phenomena, created by all the "lesser" virtual phenomena such as our minds, emotions and consciousness are.

Whether that has any religious meaning – i am sure i do not know.

If you are not religious, this theory gives you an undeniable proof that we are not just material beings, or computers, or machines. Remember: Computers are simplified and specialized versions of some of our basic capabilities.

We are not "machines" or chemical reactions or electrical signals.

Each of us is a unique complex physical-virtual being, arising from the physical biology of our bodies and the environment we are parts of. We are all deeply connected with reality that surrounds us through primary and secondary interfaces of our emotions and minds. We are literally made from reality - created out of matter and energies of our environment. We affect the reality and our environment as it affects us back, which creates meanings and values in our higher emergent virtual capabilities, which then affect our lives, behavior, thinking, even our biology. Sometimes these force feedback loops show results quickly, sometimes more slowly, sometimes over very long passages of time.

This same process is happening to every living being, not just humans.

All life has these same capabilities, all life is conscious - just in many varying lesser or greater degrees. Science confirms this. Your direct experiences confirm it.

You can FEEL it. Down in the bones. In the deepest parts of yourself. As well as know it rationally or intellectually.

This theory of mine shows that reductionist materialism is a limited tool.
It is undoubtedly useful in some or a lot of cases, but that does not mean its the only tool we can use to figure out literally everything. It is almost useless when we need to understand the emergent created phenomena, to experience it, to feel it, and so to understand it as a whole.

As a very, very, very wise man once said:
"He who destroys a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom".

Because what is created by the fundamental particles and energies (and what are those, huh?) has capabilities and qualities and utility that cannot be found in those basic constituting parts. Just like the Millennium Falcon cannot be found in the constituting parts of a computer.

This is nothing strange or unnatural, or supernatural.

If you take a look around you can easily see that the whole Universe and every single thing in it is emergent phenomena. A process of emergent complexity which has its own extra features and capabilities that cannot be found in the constituting parts. Some of these emergent properties can be traced backwards (but only to some specific point after which we simply do not know) and the others are strong emergent phenomena and reductionist approach fails as a tool of discovery and complete understanding of those.

I think that the best thing about this theory is that it does not present an end of understanding,

But only a new, better and more true beginning.

*****


- Edited 02.07.17
For purposes of clarity and easier reading. Shifted one section to another position. Hopefully improved some sentences.
Several new links added to the relevant research and recent discoveries are added to the previous ones bellow.

- Edited 10.05.18
Slightly edited some sentences to improve readability and clarity.
Added a few more links of relevant scientific discoveries since last edit.


- Edited 15.10.19
Slightly edited to improve readability and clarity.

Links:

henry_markram_supercomputing_the_brain_s_secrets

So close.

When i was watching this presentation by mr. Henry i thought "Shit! Someone figured it out. I should have written this theory of mine... there goes my fame and glory..." - and then he switches back to that old "machine" regression reductionist logic just at the last moment. 
While actually watching the visualization of the "virtual space" of our consciousness right in front of him. Its right there at the end of the presentation. Glowing - for all to see. 



andersonbrown mereological-fallacy
A very nicely written article that very much aligns with my view and provides more insights about the usual sides in this discussion.



David Deutsch: How close are we to creating artificial intelligence
An excellent and very easy to read article where David Deutsch explains how and why the computation itself is not enough and will never be enough to create an actual consciousness. Among other things. 




Split brain does not lead to split consciousness
Just what it says.



Dissociative Identity Disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder)
Very relevant.



Neuroscientists just accidentally discovered a whole new role for the cerebellum
New discoveries about the cerebellum, which is considered one of the most ancient evolutionary lineages of all the brain regions and is wired in similar ways across all classes of vertebrates. 
This new research shows the deep connection of our sensations and feelings with most basic functions of our body.



A higher-order theory of emotional consciousness
Although emotions, or feelings, are most significant events in our lives, there has been relatively little contact between theories of emotion and emerging theories of consciousness in cognitive science.
We offer modifications of higher-order theory, a leading theory of consciousness, to allow higher-order theory to account for self-awareness, and then extend this model to account for conscious emotional experiences.




Same genes and environment create different personalities
Genetically identical Amazon mollies raised individually and under identical environmental conditions, nevertheless develop different personality types.



Cliques of neurons bound into cavities provide missing link between structure and function
The lack of formal link between neural network structure and its emergent function has hampered our understanding of how the brain processes information. We have now come closer to describing such a link by taking the direction of synaptic transmission into account.
Applying this approach to a local network of neurons in the neocortex revealed a remarkably intricate and previously unseen topology of synaptic connectivity.



Neurons form up to 11 dimensional structures

Blue Brain Team Discovers a Multi-Dimensional Universe in Brain Networks

When simulated virtual neurons would form a clique with each neuron connected to another in such a way that a specific geometric object would be formed. A large number of neurons would add more dimensions which in some cases went up to 11. The structures would organize around a high dimensional hole that researchers called a "cavity". After the brain processed the information, the clique and the cavity vanished.

Henry Markam director of the Blue brain project, said the findings could help explain why the brain is so hard to understand. "The mathemathics usually applied to study networks cannot detect the high dimensional structures and spaces that we now see clearly", he said. "We found a world that we had never imagined. there are tens of millions of those objects even in the small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. in some networks we even found structures up to eleven dimensions".



No two neurons are genetically alike
Accepted dogma holds that - although every cell in the body contains its own DNA - the genetic instructions in each cell nucleus are identical. But new research has now proved this assumption wrong. There are actually several sources of spontaneous mutation in somatic (nonsex) cells, resulting in every individual containing a multitude of genomes.
There are reasons to think somatic mosaicism may be particularly important to the brain, not least because neural genes are very active.



Natural systems show nonlocal correlations
This article points toward future research that will very probably be very relevant to the understanding of how our biology and so our consciousness works, as it points toward the possibility that quantum entanglement plays a big part in how we function and think.



Survival-mode-tiny-worm-brain.html
These animals are not just hibernating--- they are actually triggered by their environments to rewire their own brains.


Why genes don't hold all the answers for biologists
The function of genes is now understood to depend on systems of epigenetic inheritance and environmental signaling. Whether a gene is activated (or not) to produce a protein depends on how it is "packaged" into chromosomes, and information the organism receives from the environment.


Nature-meet-nurture
In a study published in Nature Neuroscience on Jan.21, neuroscientists and systems biologists from Harward medical School reveal just how inexorably interwoven nature and nurture are.



Further links to relevant scientific discoveries will be added as they appear.