This Page Is Currently In Development:

Presented below is a nearly complete version, which has most of the intended information, but lacks final editing, and correcting of residual errors and omissions. Also the “Clickable Menu” is possibly missing about some Line Items, yet to be added.

Henry S Gurr ZMMQ Sitemaster. June 23 2022, 12Oct22, <1-15May24, 23May24.

Supplementary Information#1 for Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works.

This Page Is A Compilation Of Additional Information, Selected Because It Supports (or Is Relevant To => SiteMaster Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works”. . Click Here.

NOTE1: Readers Should Be Aware That There Are FOUR Continuation Pages Of “Supplementary Information” Which Are =>
…
1) Supplementary Information1, for Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works. This is the WebPage you are reading right now.
…
2) Supplementary Information2, for Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works.
…
3) Supplementary Information3, Featuring Professor James F Ross’ Book ‘Portraying Analogy’ … Which Very Much Is Working With “Metaphor” …. AND Is Relevant To (And Supports), Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works.

4) Supplementary Information4, for Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works.

… NOTE2: A Clickable Menu For This Page You Are Reading Now, Is ~8 Inches Below.

The Published Articles, Listed Below, On This Page You Are Reading Now => Were Selected Because Supports (Or Is Relevant To), Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works.
… These Following Articles and Information were mostly found (and selected out of) Google Results, Search for from wide variety of topic areas related to Mind, Consciousness, Brain Research, Neuron Physiology, Psychology, Artificial Intelligence, Decision Theory, Etc. Eventually our search will be expanded to include The Citation Index , and also expand to Google Advanced search, where we look for WebPages, that are themselves link to valuable article, already discovered. These articles are presented approximately in order of their discovery. Material copied directly from the various articles below is shown in “quote marks”.
DISCLAMER: There Is No Claim That This Compilation Is Anywhere Near To =>
Exhaustive, Has the most important information in these fields, Is presented if a logical order, Has a good choice of excerpts from these Google Found Documents, or Even has an adequate balance of topics covered.
… You will find that for each article, we have presented perhaps too much information, and trust the reader can select what is of interest, and skip otherwise. This information is presented for what it is worth, in hopes, that it will be useful and revealing to those who are Friends In Mind!
Organization and Format Of This Page
..'For Each Published Article Listed Below, You Will See: '

To Jump-Down To An Item, Click On Its Blue Link Below. HOWEVER THIS “JUMP-DOWN IS INCOMPLETE.
…If You Wish To Return Here After Jumping To The Section, Click The “Back” Arrow In Your Browser’s Window. '''

Part One: Articles.
State-Of-The-Art MEMS And Microsystem Tools For Brain Research
Detection Theory
Signal Detection Theory
Decision Theory
Cognitive Constructivism
Multimodal Learning, by Cisco
The Sources of Innovation and Creativity in the System of Higher Education
Multiple Intelligences hypothesis Of Howard Gardner
Analysis Paralysis
A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness By Bernard J Baars
Consciousness: by Robert Van Gulick 2014 In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Part Two: Books.
I3} “The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment” by Eckhart Tolle
XXXXXX HSG needs to make jump-down to this below.
Steps to an Ecology of Mind
The Body Keeps The Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma: by Bessel van der Kolk M.D.
Bertrand Russel On the Notion of Cause
Pearl & Mackenzie The New Science of Cause and Effect'
John K Sheriff "The Fate of Meaning: Charles Peirce, Structuralism, and Literature."

A1) “State-Of-The-Art MEMS And Microsystem Tools For Brain Research.”
By John P. Seymour, Fan Wu, Kensall D. Wise & Euisik Yoon Microsystems & Nanoengineering volume 3, Article number: 16066 (2017) doi:10.1038/micronano.2016.66 Received: 25 March 2016 Revised: 01 July 2016 Accepted: 23 August 2016 Published: 02 January 2017
“Article Abstract:”
“Mapping brain activity has received growing worldwide interest because it is expected to improve disease treatment and allow for the development of important neuromorphic computational methods. MEMS and microsystems are expected to continue to offer new and exciting solutions to meet the need for high-density, high-fidelity neural interfaces. Herein, the state-of-the-art in recording and stimulation tools for brain research is reviewed, and some of the most significant technology trends shaping the field of neurotechnology are discussed.”
“Article Introduction:” ‘
”Neuroscience today is like chemistry before the periodic table: People knew about elements and compounds but lacked a systematic theory to classify their knowledge.’ –Paul Allen and Francis Collins, Wall Street Journal, 2013 (Ref. 1). The lack of a systematic theory of neural activity is complicated by the scale of the human brain, with an estimated 85 billion neurons, 100 trillion synapses, and 100 chemical neurotransmitters2. Understanding what makes any one neuron fire, or not fire, is a central question in neuroscience, and thus, the ideal sensing tool must span from the single neuron to its complex network of connections if we are to understand how a particular ‘cell type’ assimilates information3,4. In doing so, neuroscientists will identify new circuit ‘elements’ or neuronal cell types that may someday provide the world with a general theory of brain activity5,6, similar to how the periodic table arose from the study of repeating physical properties. Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) and microsystems have enabled the study of neurons from the single unit to the scale of large populations, and all indications are that these technologies will continue to be an important tool-making platform for the neuroscience community.”
[Article Explanation]
“This is a paper about the recent advancements in measuring, influencing, and overall understanding the activity of the brain. Most of these devices are referred to as MEMS, short for MicroElectricalMechanical Systems. The paper then goes on to talk about future technologies, such as increasing resolution through chemical, genetic, and other means.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/micronano201666

B1) A Wikipedia Article On ‘‘Detection Theory’‘, Which Is The Methodology Of ‘‘ Picking Out A Signal’‘ From Noise or Other Nonsense.
... ’‘Detection Theory Or Signal Detection Theory is a means to measure the ability to differentiate between information-bearing patterns (called stimulus in living organisms, signal in machines) and random patterns that distract from the information (called noise, consisting of background stimuli and random activity of the detection machine and of the nervous system of the operator). In the field of electronics, the separation of such patterns from a disguising background is referred to as signal recovery .”
' ... ”When the detecting system is a human being, characteristics such as a) experience, b) expectations, c0 physiological state (e.g., fatigue) and d) other factors, can affect the human responds to.. For instance, a sentry in wartime might be likely to detect fainter stimuli, than the same sentry in peacetime which has to a lower criterion, however a wartime sentry might also be more likely to treat innocuous stimuli as a threat. …”
' ... ”This article goes through certain assumptions and variables of detection theory: One example is in the above quotation where a sentry on duty when threats are likely will more easily detect threats than one in peacetime, assuming the same frequency of threats. The magnitude of threat could also increase the ability to detect threats, and the example used is of a bomber carrying a nuclear weapon – in this case it’s much more important to notice and then intercept the bomber, assuming any stimulus which could be a bomber will likely be interpreted as a nuclear bomber and be dealt with.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_theory

[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Closely Related To the Abovementioned A Wikipedia Article On ‘‘ Detection Theory’‘, It This FOLLOWING Article On ‘‘Signal Detection Theory’‘

B2) ”Signal Detection Theory” is a method which allows one to distinguish between patterns which contain information and patterns which don’t (stimulus and noise, respectively), then to differentiate further between stimulus types into targets (which are the desired subject(s) of attention, or positive stimuli,) and foils (which are undesired subjects, or negative stimuli).
… These two categories can be similar to each other, and result in some uncertainty of decision; deciding between the two categories depends on both bias towards one or the other category, and sensitivity of the receptors.
… This article goes into more detail on both the theory and its utility to find which decision is preferable. The article shows how incorporating the economic concept of utility allows signal detection theory to serve as a model of optimal decision making, going beyond its common use as an analytic method. This utility approach to signal detection theory clarifies otherwise enigmatic influences of perceptual uncertainty on measures of decision-making performance (accuracy and optimality) and on behavior (an inverse relationship between bias magnitude and sensitivity optimizes utility).”
“Signal Detection Theory (SDT) is applicable across a spectrum from perceptual to conceptual domains. In fact, a diverse array of nonpsychophysical “perceptions” have been treated as involving issues of signal detection … “
https://web.northeastern.edu/spencerlynn/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Lynn-Barrett-in-press-Utilizing-SDT.pdf

[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Closely Related To the Abovementioned A Wikipedia Article On ‘‘Signal Detection Theory’‘, It This FOLLOWING Article On ‘‘Decision Theory’‘

B3) Wikipedia Article on ‘‘ “Decision Theory”, “Which Is The Study Of Making Choices Based On Stimuli.” [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment => ] This Article Is Closely Related To The Above Article On ‘‘Detection Theory’‘ ''.]
' ... “Decision Theory” ‘‘ can be broken into three branches: normative decision theory, which gives advice on how to make the best decisions, given a set of uncertain beliefs and a set of values; descriptive decision theory, which analyzes how existing, possibly irrational agents actually make decisions; and prescriptive decision theory, which tries to guide or give procedures on how or what we should do in order to make best decisions in line with the normative theory.”
... [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] This is perhaps one of the more relevant pages to my Proto Theory Of How Our Mind Works, which seeks to explain human signal detection, and from this human cognition, the lion’s share of which is both conscious and unconscious, decision making. As described in this Wikipedia Article The Unconscious part of decision making is very quick, but possibly fallacious, process of making choices, The conscious part of decision making delves into heuristics of rational step-by-step decision making; which is a much slower, more rigorous process by which decisions are made and contradictions removed. (Many other articles discuss this “very quick” vs “much slower” aspect or our brain, most particularly the Dual Process Theory, mentioned elsewhere on this page. “Thinking Fast And Slow” by Daniel Kahaman, is a book that explains Dual Process Theory operation of our mind.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory

C1) “A Field Guide To Constructivism In The College Science Classroom: Four Essential Criteria And A Guide To Their Usage.” By R. Todd Hartle1 , Sandhya Baviskar2 , and Rosemary Smith3 Bioscene Volume 38(2) December 2012.
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Constructivism, Specifically Cognitive Constructivism, Describes The Act Of Learning Something As Adding It To A System Which Includes All Of The Previously Learned Ideas. ]
…“Abstract:”…
“This field guide provides four essential criteria for constructivism as well as a guide for using these criteria to identify and assess the level of constructivism being used in an educational experience. The criteria include: 1) prior knowledge, 2) cognitive dissonance, 3) application with feedback, and 4) metacognition. This guide provides timely, valuable information and “best practices” for science educators, especially faculty in higher education.
“Key words:”
“Constructivism, prior knowledge, biology teaching, cognitive dissonance, metacognition, science pedagogy”.
... ”Constructivism has become one of the most important learning theories in modern education. It is the basis of inquiry teaching methods, and consequently it is the primary learning theory underlying the AAAS Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action “
... ”This article describes how to identify and use their theory in a teaching/learning setting”
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1002158.pdf
... [Concerning Above Article => SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Old ideas must be removed, shifted, or otherwise integrated to make way for the new knowledge. Its essential criteria are, according to the linked article, eliciting prior knowledge, creating cognitive dissonance, application of new knowledge with feedback, and metacognition – which is reflection on [or into] learning.]

C2) “Constructivism In Education” by D. C. Philips Editor.
... The overwhelming consensus as the twentieth century closed has been that knowledge is constructed. Furthermore, the knower is not a passive Rodin-like thinker, but is both physically and mentally active. Rather than being alone on a pedestal, the constructor of knowledge is a member of a sociocultural group from which he or she draws innu- merable resources and obtains invaluable direction. We have Piaget and Vygotsky, Dewey and Kuhn, Marx and Geertz, and many others to thank for this important intellectual revolution. Whether it is actually one revolu-tion or many remains to be seen, although some contributors to this book think that there are many different and often conflicting themes that need to be disentangled in contemporary con-structivism.
... There are some, such as the postmodernists and radical social con- structivists, who go fur-ther in a radical direction and assert that we live in an age when the entire Enlightenment edifice i-s lying in ruins, in- cluding belief in "truth," "objectivity;" and "rational warrants for be- lief." There are others who, while acknowledging the importance of the new insights, despair that the intellectual baby is in danger of being thrown out with the Enlightenment bath water, and they want to sal- vage some at least of the old attitudes toward knowledge. There are some moderates who want to add new insights about the social nature of knowledge construction to traditional notions of rational warrant. The radicals tend to see this as a "wishy-washy" position.
... These disparate forces will be relatively easily detected in the pages of this book. We live in a time of (to adopt an expression from William James) "blooming buzzing confusion," and this yearbook also captures this rather nicely. The authors do not mince words, and they do not oversimplify; it is clear that they all regard themselves as being engaged with issues of great import. And they are right.
…There are hosts of important educational issues that emerge in these debates about knowledge costruction. Is the way experts construct knowledge parallel to the way that students construct their own understandings? Should the fact that scientific and mathematical knowledge- construction takes place in communities be reflected in the way that science and mathematics are taught in elementary and secondary schools?
This Book Is Available From Many Sellers. Click Here.

D1) “A Cisco Presentation On Multimodal Learning Research, Which Demonstrates That Visuals Often Aid In The Learning Process And Produce A Much Higher Retention Than Text Alone. ” [Following Bolds & Underlines are by HSG.]
... ”We have a tremendously increased the amount of data and information at our fingertips. As we strive to make sense of unimaginably large volumes of data, visualization has become increasingly important. Why? '''Our brains are wired to process visual input very differently from text, audio, and sound. Recent technological advances through functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) scans confirm a dual coding system through which visuals and text/auditory input are processed in separate channels, presenting the potential for simultaneous augmentation of learning.”
... “'The bottom line is that students using well-designed combinations of visuals and text learn more than students who only use text. A Myth Shattered: Bogus Data Educators are in constant search for more efficient and effective ways to advance student learning. Thus it is no surprise that educators have been interested in the often-quoted saying that: We remember… 10% of what we read 20% of what we hear 30% of what we see 50% of what we see and hear 70% of what we say 90% of what we say and do Unfortunately, these oft-quoted statistics are unsubstantiated. … ''
... ”Learning seems to scale with involvement, with the amount of effort, engagement, and turning-over our brain performs with a certain subject. This is why students who take notes typically remember more material than those who read exclusively. Of most particular interest could be the “How the Brain Functions” section, though the entirety of the presentation has in-depth information on the topic and could well be expanded upon.”
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/solutions/industries/docs/education/Multimodal-Learning-Through-Media.pdf

E1) “The Sources Of Innovation And Creativity In The System Of Higher Education.”
…”Article Summary:”…
“The following pages represent a comprehensive summary of current research and theory on the sources of innovation and creativity in individuals. Based on the recurring concepts in the existing literature, the paper concludes with some recommendations for how education systems can best foster these attributes in students. Both research and recommendations have been conducted with a view to informing world workforce development efforts within the context of the new global economy.
[The following key questions are discussed: ]

... A variety of theorists, using case studies, experiments and a variety of research methods, have attempted to better understand the sources of creativity and innovation in individuals. While these efforts have contributed significantly to broadening our 2 comprehension of the subject, there is nonetheless disagreement between theorists and many hypotheses that remain to be fully substantiated. The challenge lies partially in the nature and definition of creativity itself.
... Broad, complex and multi-faceted, creativity can take many forms and can be found within a variety of contexts. It is embodied by individuals with a broad range of personal characteristics and backgrounds. It appears that the only rule is that there are no hard and fast rules concerning the sources of creativity. As such, the following paragraphs synthesize the current viewpoints, with the caveat that our understanding of the topic is still a work in progress.”
http://internationalscientificjournalnews.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ISSUE-1pp.1-143.pdf
... [ Concerning Above Article => Sitemaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Creativity, from the human mind] has many potential sources, and in this article a synthesis of several hypotheses on the subject. While there are no solid rules, as all attempts at solid rules are found to fail, there are three general qualities. These three are knowledge, flexibility of approach, and motivation. In addition to these three criteria, the article covers recommendations for education and entrepreneurial development. Many of the sources of creativity, and how creativity appears in action may usefully be understood through my Henry Gurr’s “Explanation-(Theory) Of How Our Mind Works”, and conversely..

E2) “Theory Of Multiple Intelligences.”
…[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Howard Gardner Is The Originator Of The Multiple Intelligences Hypothesis. which proposes that rather than one general factor, intelligence is better mapped by 8 unique ones; namely verbal, logical, visual/spatial, musical, naturalistic, body-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal.
… Gardner’s theory & hypothesis has led to the use of multiple styles of teaching which has been supported through research. Unfortunately, other parts of his theory are not strongly supported by experimentation.. There has been negative criticism of multiple intelligences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
…If you want to read more, Google finds these =>
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201311/the-illusory-theory-multiple-intelligences -
https://www.edutopia.org/multiple-intelligences-research

F) “The Science of Analysis Paralysis: How Overthinking Kills Your Productivity And What You Can Do About It.” By Becky Kane at Todoist.com
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Analysis Paralysis Is A Phenomenon Where One Has So Many Decisions That They Can Choose From, That They Become Unable To Choose Any, Or At The Least The Choice Is Delayed. When our Problem Solving Brain is presented with too many choices, none of which seems priority, its choice may be to either balk or just go to something else easier!! ]
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment Continued =>] This article is a discussion of the phenomenon, and guides the reader away from over-analyzing how right a decision is; rather, the reader should use criteria such as motivation to carry out the decision and making a solid, doable plan.]
https://blog.todoist.com/2015/07/08/analysis-paralysis-and-your-productivity/

G1) “Wikipedia Article On Consciousness:” What Kinds, History Of Knowledge About Consciousness. And Has Following Important Declaration.
... On July 7, 2012, eminent scientists from different branches of neuroscience gathered at the University of Cambridge to celebrate the Francis Crick Memorial Conference, which deals with consciousness in humans and pre-linguistic consciousness in nonhuman animals. After the conference, they signed in the presence of Stephen Hawking, the 'Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness', which summarizes the most important findings of the survey:
... "We decided to reach a consensus and make a statement directed to the public that is not scientific. It's obvious to everyone in this room that animals have consciousness, but it is not obvious to the rest of the world. It is not obvious to the rest of the Western world or the Far East. It is not obvious to the society."
... "Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals ..., including all mammals and birds, and other creatures, ... have the necessary neural substrates of consciousness and the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

G2) “ 'A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness.” '' By Bernard J Baars,
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] This is a project which explains consciousness as a function of mental activity through seven sections which are further split into eleven chapters, These chapters' particular associations with Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works”, are in chapters 4 (Unconscious contexts shape conscious experience), 5 (Conscious experience is informative and demands some degree of adaptation), 6 (goal contexts, spontaneous problem-solving , and stream of consciousness), 6 (attention as control of access to consciousness), and 10 (the function of consciousness).
… Of course, the entirety of the paper is a fascinating journey which those interested in psychology will enjoy reading, but those listed hold particular importance to my Proto Theory of How Our Mind Works.]
[ Some excerpts from this page:]
… This book is based on the premise that perception and other conscious events are indeed decomposable, and that one major function of the system underlying consciousness is to unify these components into a single, coherent, integrated experience (Mandler, 1975; Treisman & Gelade, 1982). Thus, as we pursue the issue of decomposable features here, we are by no means excluding the well-established Gestalt phenomena. [<= SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Most especially note that Bernard J Baars, sees the value of Gestalts Psychology as does my Proto Theory of How Our Mind Works.” ... …” we view conscious experience in his book: as a theoretical construct that can often be inferred from reliable evidence; and as a basic problem needing solution.”
… ”We have briefly reviewed the three major sources of evidence for limited capacity associated with conscious experience: the evidence for narrow limitations in selective attention, competing tasks, and immediate memory. It consistently shows an intimate connection between conscious experience, limited capacity processes, and voluntary control. There can be little doubt that the mechanisms associated with conscious experience are remarkably small in capacity, especially compared to the enormous size and sophistication of the unconscious parts of the nervous system. 1.34 The Mind's Eye and conscious experience. In recent years our knowledge of mental imagery has grown by leaps and bounds. Not so long ago, "mental imagery" was widely thought to be unscientific, relatively unimportant, or at least beyond the reach of current scientific method (Baars, in press). But in little more than a decade we have gained a great amount of solid and reliable information about mental imagery (Paivio, 19xx; Cooper & Shepard, 19xx; Kosslyn, 19xx). In general there is a remarkable resemblance between the domain of mental imagery and ordinary visual perception -- between the “Mind's Eye and the Body's Eye … “
https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/com”m/steen/cogweb/Abstracts/Baars_88.html

G3) “Consciousness.” By Robert Van Gulick 2014 (rnvangul@syr.edu), In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
…Introduction:...
Perhaps no aspect of mind is more familiar or more puzzling than consciousness and our conscious experience of self and world. The problem of consciousness is arguably the central issue in current theorizing about the mind. Despite the lack of any agreed upon theory of consciousness, there is a widespread, if less than universal, consensus that an adequate account of mind requires a clear understanding of it and its place in nature. We need to understand both what consciousness is and how it relates to other, nonconscious, aspects of reality.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

G4) “Who Am I: The Conscious and the Unconscious Self.” By Michael Schaefer1,* and Georg Northoff.
Abstract:
Who am I? What is the self and where does it come from? This may be one of the oldest problems in philosophy. Beyond traditional philosophy, only very recently approaches from neuroscience (in particular imaging studies) have tried to address these questions, too. So what are neural substrates of our self? An increasing body of evidence has demonstrated that a set of structures labeled as cortical midline structures are fundamental components to generate a conscious self. Moreover, recent theories on embodied cognition propose that this conscious self might be supplemented by additional structures, for example, in the somatosensory cortices, which enable our brain to create an “embodied mind”. While the self based on cortical midline structures may be related to a conscious self, we here propose that the embodied facet of the self may be linked to something we call unconscious self. In this article we describe problems of this model of a conscious and unconscious self and discuss possible solutions from a theoretical point of view.
... Keywords: self, cortical midline structures, neuroscience, embodiment, somatosensory cortex
[[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Article has much valuable Discussion Of 1) Consciosness As A Self Refferentals System and then 2) Makes Similar Points About "The Self".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5355470/

G5) “The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness: An Updated Account. “
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] The abstract to the below linked issue explains itself rather well, and so it is copied here and followed with an excerpt.]
Abstract:
… The information axiom asserts that every experience is one out of many, i.e. specific – it is what it is by differing in its particular way from a large repertoire of alternatives. The integration axiom asserts that each experience is one, i.e. unified – it cannot be reduced to independent components. The exclusion axiom asserts that every experience is definite – it is limited to particular things and not others and flows at a particular speed and resolution. IIT formalizes these intuitions with three postulates. The information postulate states that only “differences that make a difference” from the intrinsic perspective of a system matter: a mechanism generates cause-effect information if its present state has specific past causes and specific future effects within a system. The integration postulate states that only information that is irreducible matters: mechanisms generate integrated information only to the extent that the information they generate cannot be partitioned into that generated within independent components. The exclusion postulate states that only maxima of integrated information matter: a mechanism specifies only one maximally irreducible set of past causes and future effects – a concept. A complex is a set of elements specifying a maximally irreducible constellation of concepts, where the maximum is evaluated at the optimal spatio-temporal scale. Its concepts specify a maximally integrated conceptual information structure or quale, which is identical with an experience. Finally, changes in information integration upon exposure to the environment reflect a system’s ability to match the causal structure of the world.
Con
… The information axiom asserts that every experience is one out of many, i.e. specific – it is what it is by differing in its particular way from a large repertoire of alternatives. The integration axiom asserts that each experience is one, i.e. unified – it cannot be reduced to independent components. The exclusion axiom asserts that every experience is definite – it is limited to particular things and not others and flows at a particular speed and resolution. IIT formalizes these intuitions with three postulates. The information postulate states that only “differences that make a difference” from the intrinsic perspective of a system matter: a mechanism generates cause-effect information if its present state has specific past causes and specific future effects within a system. The integration postulate states that only information that is irreducible matters: mechanisms generate integrated information only to the extent that the information they generate cannot be partitioned into that generated within independent components. The exclusion postulate states that only maxima of integrated information matter: a mechanism specifies only one maximally irreducible set of past causes and future effects – a concept. A complex is a set of elements specifying a maximally irreducible constellation of concepts, where the maximum is evaluated at the optimal spatio-temporal scale. Its concepts specify a maximally integrated conceptual information structure or quale, which is identical with an experience. Finally, changes in information integration upon exposure to the environment reflect a system’s ability to match the causal structure of the world."
http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/a-theory-of-consciousness-can-help-build-a-theory-of-everything

H1) “Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate.” By Jonathan St. B. T. Evans1 and Keith E. Stanovich2 1 School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, England; and 2 Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
To Jonathan St. B. T. Evans, Corresponding Author:
… May I, Henry Gurr, compliment your research group, on your very informative, well written article: Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: found at => ]
https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/dual-process-theory-Evans_Stanovich_PoPS13.pdf

H2) “Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate.”
… [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Dual-Process Theory is a hypothesis of cognition which states that humans have both a fast, intuitive and slow, deliberative method of problem solving. These are often referred to as system 1 and system 2 methods of problem-solving, respectively. … This hypothesis exists in many forms and from multiple sources, as the link below outlines, and the general idea of the hypothesis has rather heavy criticism levied against it. Specifically, the link below addresses 5 arguments made by critics and responds to them in turn, providing some thought to defend the more general hypothesis. ]
https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/dual-process-theory-Evans_Stanovich_PoPS13.pdf

I1) [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>]
… In The Following Transcript, Christine Runyan-Discusses “What’s Happening In Our Nervous Systems” Although A Somewhat Unorganized Presentation, These Reaction Of our Mind-Body To Anxiety Created By Primal Instincts, Is Good For Most People To Know.
************************
“Excerpts From A Transcript Of Interview Of Christine Runyan.” -By Ms Tippett:
Runyan:
… "So one that you’ve come to is the naming it, which is, that’s part of the self-awareness, but that’s also leveraging your thinking brain. Our nervous system is really activating — is acting at this very primitive level. And in fact, when it goes off, it compromises our thinking brain. [laughs] And so when we can name, “Oh, this is anxiety,” or, “This is anxiety showing up as, what was that thought?” — [laughs] when we can just name it and put it out there, it brings our thinking brain back online. And we can begin to quiet our nervous system by leveraging our thinking brain, as well.”
… ‘And so that’s what happens when you name something, is that you send a message. You can send a message to your nervous system, like, “Oh, OK, I see what this is. I got you; it’s OK. It’s OK. We’re just having a conversation. It’s OK to lose your train of thought. I’ve probably done it seven times already and just glossed over it.” So that naming it is a really powerful strategy.”
[Later in discussion:]
… “The breath — with the caveat that the breath is not neutral for everybody, and so I do want to be sensitive to that. And certainly, as a mindfulness teacher, last spring, teaching and encouraging around the breath was precarious.
Tippett:
What we’ve discovered about breathing.
Runyan:
There’s various techniques you can do with the breath, but if you’re gonna do one thing, a long exhale, because that’s part of our sympathetic nervous system, that dorsal part of our sympathetic nervous system that activates our calming — so, a long exhale. The inhale can have an activation part; a long exhale can — that alone can actually be quite calming, although there are some other breath techniques that one can use as well. …. The other things that, again, sound — if you don’t understand this at the nervous system [level] ….. they sound almost, I don’t know, New Age-y or froufrou. But scents — so I always work now with a candle in my office. ... "
[Later in discussion:]
… “And this is why, when I think about what are the superpowers that we all hold in us that is also part of our source code, it’s that self-awareness — is there a pause point to be able to step out of that automatic pilot and then be able to make an intentional choice? “
… “There’s a quote that’s attributed to Viktor Frankl, and he says, “Between stimulus and response, there is a space. And in that space lies our power to choose. And in our choice lies our growth and our freedom.” And it’s such a beautiful encapsulation, I think, of that self-awareness and that pause, which is so hard to do at this time, because we’re so activated. And so it’s just recognizing when we can pause and say, oh, that’s what that is.
Click Here For The Complete Interview Transcript.

[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>

… The /\ Above /\ mentioned 1), 2) & 3) are sincere & strongly held testomonies about the amazing ability of the Conscius Mind to control, even long term, inprove body actions. These should be taken as likely true, until porven otherwise.

I2) “An Introduction to The Science of Doyletics.” By Bobby Mathern.
… “It is a rare thing when anyone makes a cosmological discovery — a discovery about the structure and evolution of the universe — but that is what Doyle Philip Henderson did. He discovered something which is true for every human being in the world, whether you live in Mumbai or Miami, Melbourne or Moscow: human feelings and emotions are artefacts of human maturation. There are no basic emotions common to everyone. That this seems to be the case is a result of local uniformities in culture, customs, and family rearing which expose each child to events which create what is thought to be the basic set of emotions: reverence, sadness, joy, anger, blushing, excitement, arousal, awe, irritability, moodiness, etc. How these childhood events before the age of five years old are stored and recapitulated later over a lifetime was Doyle Henderson's basic discovery and led to his pioneering of a method to erase one's unwanted feelings and emotions. The nascent science of doyletics was founded on these basic principles and the speed trace which resulted provides anyone a simple memory technique to remove unwanted bodily states or doyles within a minute or so.”
A History of Doyle Henderson and His Work.
… “Doyle was very fearful as a young boy growing up in Southern California. He was scared, but he did things anyway. When other boys climbed high trees, Doyle would be trembling, his heart beating very fast in fear of what they were doing, but he would climb the same trees anyway, even higher than the other boys. He was never too scared to do something — he did them anyway. But always he wondered, "Why am I trembling with my heart racing, and not the other boys?" During World War II he wanted to join the Army like his older brother had done years earlier. He kept flunking his physical because his heart rate was off the charts. Only after his earnest pleading did the doctor wisely allow him to run up and down some steps. With his heart rate in the normal range for someone who had been exercising, he passed his physical. So he joined the Army — he went to war in spite of his overwhelming fears. After he came home, he even learned to fly and owned an airplane for a long time.”
… “After the war Doyle became a pioneer in digital electronic instrumentation. He built the first digital timer ever used at Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah (USA) to time car speeds. He obtained a degree in electronics and went to work for Berkeley Instruments where he continued to design instruments. Later he went to work on such state-of-the-art projects as the SNARK intercontinental missile, which was an unmanned airplane guided by celestial navigation capable of delivering a nuclear weapon payload over 6,000 miles away within a quarter of a mile accuracy, an incredible feat for the technology of the time.”
… “Always in the back of his mind he was wondering, "Why am I so fearful?" One day an insight popped up in his head which was destined to change the course of his life and millions of others: "An emotion is a recapitulated event from one's childhood." His work in digital instrumentation had taught him one can make records of earlier events, such as during calibration time, and recall those events to compare to some current reading. What if our brain worked that way? What if we stored those bodily states we call variously feelings and emotions from events which happened to us before some early age and thereafter simply recalled them given some appropriate trigger or signal? "That," he thought triumphantly, "would explain my fearful trembling!" “
… “The chase was on. Doyle began studying everything he could find about emotions, psychology, and psychotherapy, and soon he began to see that nothing in his insight was contradicted by what he read. This emboldened him to begin attempting to locate the original event during which he stored the fear and trembling bodily states. Using a combination of hypnosis and age regression, he was able to locate the original event and thereafter he experienced no more trembling and rapid heart rate.”
[- *** *** *** *** =]
… [NOTE by Henry Gurr: Mr. Doylse’s findings are supported by my Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works”. (PROPOSITION 19) => Where It is Noteworthy Fact & Quite Amazing =>

Click Here, And Open In New Tab. AFTER Page Comes Up, Scroll Down To => APPENDIX II
[- *** *** *** *** =]
… “He (Doyle Henderson) began to assist others, even opening a clinic locally in which they took in the hopeless cases from a nearby drug rehabilitation clinic — those that the clinic had been unable to help. He would begin by having them systematically relax all the muscles in their body, then place their minds at an earlier age. Eventually he would lead them to locate and then to cycle around the original event. When done, the bodily states which led to their aberration and addiction would have dissipated. Doyle claimed that he had converted alcoholics into social drinkers. One of the clinic doctors felt threatened and had the police shut down Doyle's competing clinic. At that time Doyle was still working as an aeronautical engineer and doing this community work on his own time. His procedure worked. It was free. “
The Above Are Excerpts From “An Introduction to The Science of Doyletics,” by Bobby Mathern.

[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>
… In The SECOND ABOVE Transcript, Christine Runyan Said => '' “-We Can Begin To Quiet Our Nervous System By Leveraging Our Thinking Brain”.
' And In The NEXT ABOVE Article, “The Science of Doyletics”, You Saw A SAME Ability For 'A Person To Quiet Their Fears.
… Readers Should Know That => This Same (Or Similar) “Ability” Is ALSO Reported In Book , Which Is Listed As Among “The 21 Best Spiritual Books Of All Time” And In The List Of “The 50 Best Spiritual Books Of All Time”, THIS BOOK FOLLOWING =>

I3) '' “The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment.” by Eckhart Tolle

… This book is one of the most influential and on “the top ten” lists of many people including Oprah Winfrey. AND in “100 Best Spiritual Books of the Century”. ... Written by spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle, it teaches you the power you have when you become present and live in each moment. Learn how to get out of your self inflicted suffering thoughts and find peace in your everyday life.
… “This is just one of Eckhart Tolle’s powerful books. This one focuses on living in the present moment.” For example Tolle says => … “When we are not living in the present, we create our own anxiety and stress. Learning to be fully present can lead to happiness and peace.”
Amazon.com Says =>
… “It's no wonder that The Power of Now has sold over 2 million copies worldwide and has been translated into over 30 foreign languages. Much more than simple principles and platitudes, the book takes readers on an inspiring spiritual journey to find their true and deepest self and reach the ultimate in personal growth and spirituality: the discovery of truth and light.”
… “In the first chapter, Tolle introduces readers to enlightenment and its natural enemy, the mind. He awakens readers to their role as a creator of pain and shows them how to have a pain-free identity by living fully in the present. The journey is thrilling, and along the way, the author shows how to connect to the indestructible essence of our Being, "the eternal, ever-present One Life beyond the myriad forms of life that are subject to birth and death."
… “Featuring a new preface by the author, this paperback shows that only after regaining awareness of Being, liberated from Mind and intensely in the Now, is there Enlightenment.”
It is Clear That The /\ Above /\ Is Something Useful For Anyone With A Brain To Know More About.
… [More recently Amazon says = > ]” It's no wonder that The Power of Now has sold over 2 million copies worldwide and has been translated into over 30 foreign languages. Much more than simple principles and platitudes, the book takes readers on an inspiring spiritual journey to find their true and deepest self and reach the ultimate in personal growth and spirituality: the discovery of truth and light.
... ”In the first chapter, Tolle introduces readers to enlightenment and its natural enemy, the mind. He awakens readers to their role as a creator of pain and shows them how to have a pain-free identity by living fully in the present. The journey is thrilling, and along the way, the author shows how to connect to the indestructible essence of our Being, "the eternal, ever-present One Life beyond the myriad forms of life that are subject to birth and death." “
... ”Featuring a new preface by the author, this paperback shows that only after regaining awareness of Being, liberated from Mind and intensely in the Now, is there Enlightenment.”
https://www.amazon.com/Power-Now-Guide-Spiritual-Enlightenment/dp/1577314808

I3) Continued: SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>
… In An ABOVE Transcript, Christine Runyan Said => '' “-We Can Begin To Quiet Our Nervous System By Leveraging Our Thinking Brain”.
'' And In The FOLLOWING ABOVE Article, “The Science of Doyletics”, You Saw A SAME (Or SIMILAR) Ability For 'A Person To Quiet Their Fears.'
… Readers who have read the above (Runyan and/or Doyletics) Should Also Come To Know That => This Same (Or Similar) “Ability” Is ALSO Reported In Book => “The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment” by Eckhart Tolle .
… NOW, Readers who have read the above (Runyan and/or Doyletics and/or Tolle) Should Also Come To Know That SIMILAR Abilities Are Apparently Available From =>
The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a popular type of alternative therapy based on the idea that poor posture gives rise to a range of health problems.
… Alexander began developing his technique's principles in the 1890s in an attempt to address his own voice loss during public speaking.[2]: 34–35  He credited his method with allowing him to pursue his passion for performing Shakespearean recitations.
… Proponents and teachers of the Alexander Technique believe the technique can address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims.[5][6] As of 2021, the UK National Health Service cites evidence that the Alexander Technique may be helpful for long-term back pain and for long-term neck pain, and that it could help people cope with Parkinson's disease.[6] Both the American health-insurance company Aetna and the Australian Department of Health have conducted reviews and concluded that there is insufficient evidence for the technique's health claims to warrant insurance coverage.
… The Alexander Technique is used and taught by classically trained vocal coaches and musicians in schools and private lessons. Its advocates state that it allows for a balanced use of all aspects of the vocal tract by consciously increasing air-flow, allowing improved vocal skill and tone. The method is said by actors to reduc stage fright and to increase spontaneity. … The Alexander Technique is a frequent component in acting training, because it can assist the actor in being more natural in performance.
… According to Alexander Technique instructor Michael J. Gelb, people tend to study the Alexander Technique for reasons of personal development.

–> lessons in the technique may lead to reduced neck pain and associated disability for up to a year or more

… The NHS further states: "Some research has also suggested the Alexander Technique may improve general long-term pain, stammering, and balance skills in older people to help them avoid falls. But the evidence in these areas is limited and more studies are needed. There's currently little evidence to suggest the Alexander Technique can help improve other health conditions, including asthma, headaches, osteoarthritis, difficulty sleeping (insomnia) and stress."
… A review published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine in 2014 focused on "the evidence for the effectiveness of AT sessions on musicians' performance, anxiety, respiratory function and posture" concluded that: "Evidence from RCTs and CTs suggests that AT sessions may improve performance anxiety in musicians. Effects on music performance, respiratory function and posture yet remain inconclusive."
For A Very Comprehensive Overview Of “Method of Alexander”, Click Here.

I3) The Book “Deep Listening: Hidden Meanings In Everyday Conversation.” By Robert E. Haskell [Like The Ideas of Christine Runyan, and/or” The Science of Doyletics”, and /or “The Power of Now” , and/or “The Alexander Technique”, this book’s Deep Listening depend on our Problem Brais’s ability to sense (or recognize or tease-out long range correlations. These presented conclusions may seem beyond belief, but I believe they should be seriously investigated, to find the extent of scientific verifiable. '''
GoogleBooks shows a large amount of Robert E. Haskell’s Book => “Deep Listening.” Click Here.

I4) This Article “How The Brain Learns Throughout Life” Is an Informative Discussion On Neuroscience, Something Useful For Anyone With A Brain To Know More About.
This is especially important for educators to understand, and the report linked below applies neuroscience to the issue of learning, taking information from multiple sources and generating a more comprehensive piece on the current status of research, as well as possible projections for the future. ]
https://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40554190.pdf

J1) “The Myth of Optimality in Clinical Neuroscience” By Avram J. Holmes & Lauren M. Patrick.
… “This Article opposes the common idea, That There Is Only One Model of mental health, as a Standard ForAll Persons: This article, supporting instead, the hypothesis that there are multiple healthy states which have each evolved from different success strategies.”
… “Clear evidence supports a dimensional view of psychiatric illness. Within this framework the expression of disorder-relevant phenotypes is often interpreted as a breakdown or departure from normal brain function. Conversely, health is reified, conceptualized as possessing a single ideal state. “
… We challenge this concept here, arguing that there is no universally optimal profile of brain functioning. The evolutionary forces that shape our species select for a staggering diversity of human behaviors. To support our position we highlight pervasive population-level variability within large-scale functional networks and discrete circuits. We propose that, instead of examining behaviors in isolation, psychiatric illnesses can be best understood through the study of domains of functioning and associated multivariate patterns of variation ac {across society] distributed brain systems."
http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(17)30268-1

K1) “Darwinian Neurodynamics.”
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Although this paper uses a fair bit of jargon, these authors propose A Very Interesting Model Of Cognition.]
… The careful reader will gain some very valuable insight into how neural networks breed solutions, store useful architectures of cognition, and return to them for future use. These researchers considerably use the Hopfield Model in their mathematical simulations, and thus their conclusions are consistent with the Hopfield Model used in Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works”, itself, and demonstrated through experimentation.]
[A few quotations from this article:]
… “Attractor networks have been used (among others) as models of long-term memory, which are able to complete partial input. These networks consist of one layer of units that recurrently connect back to the same layer. The recurrent connections can learn (store) a set of patterns with a Hebbian learning rule. Later, if these patterns or their noisy versions are used to provoke the network, it settles on the original patterns after several rounds of activation updates on the recurrent weights (recall), thus stored patterns act as attractors.”
… ”Attractor neural networks can store activation patterns stably for a considerable time in form of corresponding attractors and are able to recall them given the appropriate trigger (Figure 1A). This memory allows for heredity, which is indispensable for Darwinian dynamics (in genetic populations memory is the genotype pool).”
… ”This experiment effectively proves that a system of attractor networks can reliably recall earlier stored solution patterns, therefore solves the problem faster in an alternating environment than a system without long-term memory.”
… “To sum up, we have seen that a process analogous to natural selection can be rendered into a neuronal model employing known neurophysiological mechanisms. Now we discuss relations to some other publications and outline future work.”
https://f1000research.com/articles/5-2416/v1

N1) “Neurological Disorders And The Structure Of Human Consciousness.” By Jeffrey W. Cooney and Michael S. Gazzaniga.
... [Sitemaster Henry Gurr Comment: Medical College of Georgia Researcher David Stoney, sent to me this very valuable article, for which I heartily thank him! This very interesting well written article, brings together & summarizing, a wide range of brain & mind research, which for me is “on target the whole way!” This article theory wise, very strongly supports my Proto Theory of How Our Mind Works, with examples & real experimental data! ALSO in many ways, it says in its own different words, VERY close to what my theory says! ((SIDE NOTE: If you are interested in this arena, you might Google …. Gazzainga physiological science … You will find much of interest including a Text Book he coauthored with Todd Heatherton, which you can read much of in a GoogleBooks version. )) ]
... [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Please see examples of above mentioned ‘article’s strong support,’ in the following six excerpts, where I show for the readers special attention, underlined (and italic), text I believe is most relevant to my Proto Theory of How Our Mind Works: After each excerpt I have added my comments [in brackets]. ]
... “More strikingly, the activity of these [brain] regions is observed to vary directly with the contents of awareness [of the person under brain scan testing].during binocular rivalry tasks, increasing markedly when the stimulus to which each region preferentially responds is consciously perceived. In such experiments, the presentation of a separate stimulus to each eye results in an alternating conscious perception of first one stimulus, then the other, rather than a blended image or the perception of both stimuli simultaneously. Because the presented stimuli remain constant throughout the task, the co-variation of neural activation with the dominant percept represents a direct correlation between neural activity and conscious experience. In addition, the finding that direct electrical stimulation of specific brain regions can elicit perceptual experiences related to the processing role of the stimulated circuit [4,14] strengthens the modular-consciousness hypo- thesis. These data indicate ….
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] It is interesting that “… activity … varies directly with the contents of awareness … when the stimulus [is] perceived … '' In other words when there is a better fit, of the “seen” to “what is there,” brain response goes up.in response to the increased coherence. Also note well separate images presented to each eye, have their own brain image Mental Arrival to Consciousness!]
... ”In the workspace model, outputs from an array of parallel processors continually compete for influence within the network. Dynamic integration of these outputs, which combines factors including bottom-up stimulus attributes, modulation caused by contextual valence and memory, and selective attentional amplification, determines which aspects of the available information emerge as dominant, and gives rise to a coherent network state in which the integrated information is widely available and can be used by a variety of cognitive processes that require input from multiple modules [9]. The result of this process is a fluctuating stream of transiently self-sustained, self-modifying workspace states, the characteristics of which are postulated to determine the contents of the[conscious] subjective experience of the individual [9,18]. Although the majority of cerebral processing takes place outside conscious awareness, information is perceived consciously when it is sufficiently amplified within the system to generate a coherent network state in which the information is widely available to a range of modular processors. The population of neurons activated at any given moment then further influences the development of subsequent states of the network and facilitates a coherent progression of cognitive processes with no need for a separate, higher-order executive system.”
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] The above is a remarkably, rather good re-statement of my Proto Theory of How Our Mind Works, especially what I have put in italic! This included, processing is “Unconscious”, until “sufficiently amplified” and “coherent state” [that] “determine the contents of the [conscious]subjective experience of the individual!! …… The only things left out is, my optimal, best fit, and positive feedback regeneration to saturation. ]
... “Studies indicating that retrieval of a memory entails activation of the same perceptual circuits that are activated directly by the event being recalled complete the picture.”
[[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] This matches my Proto Theory of How Our Mind Works, in saying that when sensory input is matched to memory, this increases coherence, and contributes to an optimal solution, leading to Perceptual Awareness, as a Mental Arrival. ]
... “However, although the ability of individuals with delusional syndromes to create subjectively rational story out of seemingly incoherent information is startling, what might be most striking is the realization that such syndromes reveal the overwhelming significance of this process in shaping our own experience of the world.”
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] EXCELLENT! YES! YES! These are the creative aspects of the GPSB, that finds the best coherence that it can, and that is what “we see”. Because there is no other input, our evolutionary survival brain is programed to do no other! This is also what authors say next excerpt below.]
... “However, although the ability of individuals with delusional syndromes to create subjectively rational story out of seemingly incoherent information is startling, what might be most striking is the realization that such syndromes reveal the overwhelming significance of this process in shaping our own experience of the world.”
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] EXCELLENT! YES! YES! These are the creative aspects of the GPSB, that finds the best coherence that it can, and that is what “we see”, at that moment. Because there is no other input, the brain can evolutionarily do no other, which is what authors say next excerpt below.]]
... “The explanations provided by an interpretive system are only as good as the information available to it, and bizarre information yields bizarre results. Patients with delusional syndromes might know that their assertions sound strange to others, but they also ‘know’ that the scene they perceive is complete, that the hand presented to them is not theirs, and that they are sitting in their own homes. The information presented by the modular components of the workspace network are all that the brain has available to it, and yields [creates in consciousness our!!] subjective experiences that are just as self-evident and unassailable as the experience engendered by any other network state. The presence of such an interpretive [creative!!] mechanism is beneficial in an intact brain and on an evolutionary scale because it greatly enhances the ability of an individual to adapt to a wide range of novel and unexpected situations. However, it results in a variety of strange beliefs when the internal information of the brain is itself corrupted. … The dynamic, self-modifying nature of the interactions between these components is driven solely by the range of information available to the system and enables the coherent pro-egression of cognitive processes without requiring a higher-order executive system.”
... [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Amen ! Well stated. This could be a good bottom line, to summarize My Proto Theory of How Our Mind Works! What Cooney & Gazzaniga say here repeats almost exactly what my theory says => As to how The JJ Hopfield Model helps us understand just how a physical system can do all this, including all Mental Arrivals, such as the AHA Flash of Insight! Which is just EXACTLY what the General Problem Solving Brain (GPSB), creates for us!! This is because in consciousness, we have laid out for us, “before our very eyes”, a whole perceptual scene, which includes items to which we must attend! And this is the entire basin for our GPSB, using sensory input and memory of past experiences, creates for us (mentally constructs), our conscious experience, as a Mental Arrival. For example our GPSB using memory, creates for us, a representation of our surrounding world called a Mental Model. (See NOTE2 below re Constructivist Epistemology.) …. AND … Oh by the way … This is exactly also what created (mentally constructs),
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comments continued =>] The Whole Ancient System & Unique Seamless World of Original Participation, as propounded by Owen Barfield!! Which does make sense, to a modern person, when properly understood! (Click here and scroll down to APPENDIX VI More Mental Arrivals, As Seen In The Ancient System Of Participation :.) Starting say 80,000 years ago, up to ~300 years ago, Participation, is this was the DOMINANT world view & mode of existence of nearly all ancient people!! BUT this is known to only a few alert persons, most of which know their Barfield! I assert that a modern person, MUST know this, in order to adequately understand practically all history!! So I keep working on this topic! ) Contact me if you want more about this.]
... [Sitemaster Henry Gurr Comments Continue ->] To see the Full Remainder of this article, you might Google for it’s title plus authors. I have done this and found ~6 WebPages that show little more than this articles Abstract, However, the following says => ''Looking for the full-text?
You can request the full-text of this article directly Click Here For The Entire Article From The Authors On ResearchGate.“

O) “Consciousness On-Off Switch Discovered Deep In Brain.” NewScientist.com, 2 July 2014.
…This VERY interesting article, reports some discoveries about Consciousness, but in addition states (similar to John R Searle), these important conclusions concerning the net result of the System that creates what we call Consciousness, and what in this document is called Primary Consciousness. The mentioned “Integration”, and Unifying” nicely, which says that our Problem Solving Brain, Generates, Constructs, Creates => Optimum, most coherent Solutions, in response to our ever-present & dominatingly large and continuous sensory input from the surrounding environment. This “fit” is seen in this articles statement =>
-.>”Many theories abound but most agree that consciousness has to involve the integration of activity from several brain networks, allowing us to perceive our surroundings as one single unifying experience rather than isolated sensory perceptions. …. One proponent of this idea was Francis Crick, a pioneering neuroscientist who earlier in his career had identified the structure of DNA. Just days before he died in July 2004, Crick was working on a paper that suggested our consciousness needs something akin to an orchestra conductor to bind all of our different external and internal perceptions together.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762-700-consciousness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/

S1) This Is A Book Review of Book => “Action in Perception”, By Alva Noe, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2004. HSG finds these noteworthy excerpts =>
... Noe¨ argues for what is in one way at least a more radical form of externalism about experience. His externalism is vehicle externalism rather than content externalism. The vehicles of contents are the physical items that have or express the contents—sentences for example. His analogy is to the view of Andy Clark and David Chalmers 3 that memory and calculation constitutively include props such as a diary or a pencil and paper. Similarly, according to Noe’s view, the skilled active body partially constitutes the vehicle of experience.
... Noe¨ sometimes tries to frame the debate in a way that has his side arguing for a mere possibility, for example, “I have been arguing that, for at least some experiences, the physical substrate of the experience may cross boundaries, implicating neural, bodily, and environmental features”. However, these specks of caution float on a sea of exuberant declarations, such as “A neuroscience of perceptual consciousness must be an enactive neuroscience—that is, a neuroscience of embodied activity, rather than a neuroscience of brain activity”.
... The leading idea of the book—what Noe¨ calls the enactive view4 —is a constitutive claim about experience: “Perceptual experience, according to the enactive approach, is an activity of exploring the environment drawing on knowledge of sensorimotor dependencies and thought”
Archive.org Makes This Book Review Available. Click Here.

S2) This Is An Essay That Continues Alva Noe’s Similar Conclusions As Stated In Above Book Review => “Magic Realism And The Limits Of Intelligibility: What Makes Us Conscious.” By Alva Noë, University of California, Berkeley.
... Perceptual experiences are widely believed to supervene narrowly on neural states and processes. Some philosophers and scientists find it natural to think that for every experience there is some specific neural state or process whose occurrence suffices for that state. Let's call this the Narrow Substrate thesis or Narrow Substrate, for short.
... One philosopher who endorses Narrow Substrate is Ned Block. He writes (Block 2005) that "nothing outside the brain" is "a metaphysically necessary part of a metaphysically sufficient condition of perceptual experience" (Block's italics). In making this claim, what is at stake, for Block, "is the issue of what is and is not part of the minimal metaphysically sufficient condition for perceptual experience (i.e. the minimal supervenience base)."
... John Searle is also committed to Narrow Substrate. He writes: "Consciousness and other sorts of mental phenomena are caused by neurobiological processes in the brain, and they are realized in the structure of the brain. In a word, the conscious mind is caused by brain processes and is itself a higher level feature of the brain".
... Some neuroscientists endorse Narrow Substrate. Christof Koch (2004), for example, discusses "the" NCC and defines this as "the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms jointly sufficient for a specific conscious percept".
... He writes: "If there is one thing that scientists are reasonably sure of, it is that brain activity is both necessary and sufficient for biological sentience..."
... In this essay I present evidence that Narrow Substrate is false. Experiences are neural processes, to be sure; but they are not only neural processes. Perceptual experience depends constitutively on factors that are not neural. The substrates of perceptual consciousness are (in this sense) extended. Let's call this claim, which I believe to be true, the Extended Substrate thesis or Extended Substrate, for short.
To View This Entire Essay, You Will Need The Assistance Of An Academic Library. Click Here.

S3) This Is An Article That Also Discusses Alva Noe’s “Action in Perception”, => “A Sensorimotor Account Of Vision And Visual Consciousness.” By, J. Kevin O'Regan and Alva Noë. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 November 2002
... We propose that seeing is a way of acting. It is a particular way of exploring the environment. Activity in internal representations does not generate the experience of seeing. The outside world serves as its own, external, representation. The experience of seeing occurs when the organism masters what we call the governing laws of sensorimotor contingency. The advantage of this approach is that it provides a natural and principled way of accounting for visual consciousness, and for the differences in the perceived quality of sensory experience in the different sensory modalities. Several lines of empirical evidence are brought forward in support of the theory, in particular: evidence from experiments in sensorimotor adaptation, visual “filling in,” visual stability despite eye movements, change blindness, sensory substitution, and color perception.
Click Here For Entire Article.

S4) This Is An Article That Raises Objections To Alva Noe’s Conclusions As Stated In Above Book Review AND Alva Noe’s Above Essay. => “Putting the Brakes on Enactive Perception.” By Jesse Prinz, Department of Philosophy, UNC/Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3125 '''

change blindness, non-conceptual content, pictorialism
Abstract:
... Alva Noë’s Action in Perception offers a provocative and vigorous defense
of the thesis that vision is enactive: visual experience depends on dispositional motor
responses. On this view, vision and action are inextricably bound. In this review, I argue
against enactive perception. I raise objections to seven lines of evidence that appear in
Noë’s book, and I indicate some reasons for thinking that vision can operate independently
of motor responses. I conclude that the relationship between vision and action is causal, not
constitutive. I then address three other contentious hypotheses in the book. Noë argues that
visual states are not pictorial; he argues that all perception is conceptual; and he argues that
the external world makes a constitutive contribution to experience. I am unpersuaded by
these arguments, and I offer reasons to resist Noë’s conclusions. https://cspeech.ucd.ie/Fred/docs/Prinz.pdf

T1) '' “Consciousness On-Off Switch Discovered Deep In Brain. NewScientist.com, 2 July 2014.
… This VERY interesting article, reports some discoveries about Consciousness, but in addition states (similar to John R Searle), these important conclusions concerning the net result of the System that creates what we call Consciousness, and what in this document is called Primary Consciousness. The mentioned “Integration”, and Unifying” nicely fits Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works”, which says that our Problem Solving Brain, Generates, Constructs, Creates => Optimum, most coherent Solutions, in response to our ever-present & dominatingly large and continuous sensory input from the surrounding environment. This “fit” is seen in this articles statement =>

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762-700-consciousness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/

T2) “Sorting Out the Neural Basis of Consciousness: Authors’ Reply to Commentators.” By Alva Noë and Evan Thompson. [The following excerpts, tell us the current state of knowledge, in NCC Research. ]
... Our aim in ‘Are There Neural Correlates of Consciousness?’ was to call attention to some problematic assumptions of one widespread approach to investigating the relation between consciousness and the brain — the research programme based on trying to find neural correlates of the contents of consciousness (content-NCCs). Our aim was not to cast doubt on the importance of neuroscientific research on consciousness in general (contrary to Baars’s impresssion). Nor was it to engage in philosophical debates far removed from the concerns of scientists (as McLaughlin & Bartlett may think). Rather, it was to target some problematic assumptions of a particular empirical research programme, and by bringing them to light, to suggest that there may be other, more profitable ways to investigate the contribution of brain processes to conscious experience than searching for content. [Skip Paragraphs]
... Scientists believe there must be an NCC, but given no theory of what an NCC is good for (no explanation of how an NCC could be a minimally sufficient neural substrate for experience), there’s no good reason to take one neural process rather than another to be an NCC.1 The NCC research programme, far from rescuing the problem of consciousness from the hands of philosophers (Crick, 1996, p. 486), is an act of metaphysical faith.
For Entire Article, Click Here.

T3) “Theory Of Mind And Darwin’s Legacy.” By John R. Searle, Philosophy University of California Berkeley. [This article is Searle at his best, and is a very well balanced (and correct) discussion of Consciousness. ]
Edited by Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine, CA, and approved April 30, 2013
Abstract
We do not have an adequate theory of consciousness. Both dualism and materialism are mistaken because they deny consciousness is part of the physical world. False claims include (i) behaviorism, (ii) computationalism, (iii) epiphenomenalism, (iv) the readiness potential, (v) subjectivity, and (vi) materialism. Ontological subjectivity does not preclude epistemic objectivity. Observer relative phenomena are created by consciousness, but consciousness is not itself observer relative. Consciousness consists of feeling, sentience, or awareness with (i) qualitativeness, (ii) ontological subjectivity, (iii) unified conscious field, (iv) intentionality, and (v) intentional causation. All conscious states are caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain, and they are realized in the brain as higher level features. Efforts to get a detailed scientific account of how brain processes cause consciousness are disappointing. The Darwinian revolution gave us a new form of explanation; two levels were substituted: a causal level, where we specify the mechanism by which the phenotype functions, and a functional level, where we specify the selectional advantage that the phenotype provides. Sociobiology attempted to explain general features of human society, ethics, etc. It failed. For the incest taboo, it confuses inhibition with prohibition. It did not explain the moral force of the taboo. To explain the function of consciousness we cannot ask, “What would be subtracted if we subtracted consciousness but left everything else the same?” We cannot leave everything else the same because consciousness is necessary for higher functions of human and animal life. The unified conscious field gives the organism vastly increased power.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1301214110

“T4) “Out of Our Heads_ Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons.” By Alva Noë. [In The following excerpt, Alva Noe in his book’s Preface, tells us the current state of knowledge Of Consciousness Research. ]
... After decades of concerted effort on the part of neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers, only one proposition about how the brain makes us conscious-how it gives rise to sensation, feeling, subjectivity, has emerged unchallenged: we don't have a clue. Even enthusiasts for the new neuroscience of consciousness admit that at present no one has any plausible explanation as to how experiencing the feeling of the redness of red!-arises from the action of the brain. Despite all the technology and the animal experimentation, we are no closer now to grasping the neural basis of experience than we were a hundred years ago. Currently, we lack even a back-of-the-envelope theory about what the behavior of individual cells contributes to consciousness. This in itself is no scandal. It is a scandal if we allow the hype to obscure the fact that we are in the dark.
GoogleBooks shows a large amount of Alva Noe’s Book => “Out of Our Heads_ Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons.” Click Here.

T5) “Robert Lawrence Kuhn Interview Of Neuroscientist Alva Noë: Be Sure To ClickOn TRANSCRIPT: [Noteworthy statements selected by Henry Gurr => ]
Robert Lawrence Kuhn >
So the question is, how do we get all of those kinds of, what seems to be very special kinds of non-physical things, without having some sort of a immaterial something as part of it?
Alva Noë >
Well, to say that they’re non-physical doesn’t mean to say that they’re some other special kind of thing, as if we can group things into things that are physical and things that are not physical.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn >
It’s a common perception. So—
Alva Noë >
What we mean – what we mean when we say they’re non-physical is that physics doesn’t tell us how they work. Physics doesn’t tell us about how a lot of stuff works. Physics doesn’t even really tell me how my computer works, even though I understand how my computer works. I understand it at a more abstract, higher level of its – of its engineering. Not that anything about its engineering is inconsistent with physics, and I see no reason to think that there’s anything about the human mind or consciousness which is inconsistent with physics, with the fact that we are creatures in a physical universe. [Skip Paragraphs]
Alva Noë >
Well, I find it very difficult to start with – even to start with your question, because I just don’t see the obstacle. I don’t – don’t see the problem. It’s certainly true that there are – there’s nothing that science is teaching us about how we are that supports different religious fables about what we’re supposed to be. Magic is not substantiated in science, or in philosophy. But putting those fighting words aside, I see that precisely what we’re doing here. We, scientists and thinkers trying to understand the nature of consciousness, is to try to understand what a person is. And a person is not a brain. A person’s not even a brain in a body. A person is a living being, with thoughts and feelings and hopes and aspirations and commitments, bearer of memories, and so on.
https://closertotruth.com/video/noeal-001/

T6) “Bridging The Gaps: Conversations With Researchers, Explorers And Thought Leaders From Around The World.” [All of these Persons ideas and recorded talks are valuable. ]
... AFTER this WebPage comes up, scroll down to the 5th Researcher: In this conversation, Philosophy Professor Alva Noe at first gives an overview of his life’s work, where in we can see how he thinks and talks about the Life Of Mind & Consciousness. It is excellent that he double emphasizes that Consciousness does not just come from the brain, but is rather a Dynamic Interplay (Noe calls “A Dance), that uses no only, what is in our surrounding world outside of us, but also acting dynamically with our entire perception system & brain! So, Conscious is stimulated into existence by our environment, stimulating our senses, which acting on the brain, then creates our Conscious World. Consciousness is thus prompted into play, and as Noe says “Shows up”. This Alva Noe discussion agrees well with Henry Gurr's “Explanation (Theory) How Our Mind Works”.
https://www.bridgingthegaps.ie/tag/consciousness/

T7) “Consciousness: How Your Brain Creates The Feeling Of Being” By Anil Seth. [Anil Seth is a Professor at the University of Sussex and author of the book ' “Being You – A New Science of Consciousness” (Faber/Dutton, 2021). To learn more about Anil Seth book “Being You”, see Amazon Link next below. ]
... Henry Gurr did a Google Search for =>."Consciousness is essentially awareness, attention, attending, focus, thinking, internal narrative: and ,,,And found this in which Anil Seth said these noteworthy facts & ideas=>
… 1)"by injecting a pulse of energy into the brain using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and using electroencephalography (EEG) to monitor the response, a team of neuroscientists led by Giulio Tononi and Marcello Massimini found that the electrical echo generated by the energy pulse will bounce all around a conscious brain, but stays very localised in an unconscious brain. In other words, the conscious brain is much more connected."
… 2)"Then there are “outside-in” or “bottom up” prediction errors – the sensory signals – which report the differences between what the brain expects and what it gets. By continually updating its predictions to minimise sensory prediction errors, the brain settles on an evolving best guess of its sensory causes, and this is what we consciously perceive. We don’t passively perceive our worlds – we actively generate them.
… 3) Predictive processing is well suited for explaining why a particular experience is the way it is and not some other way, because we can understand these differences in terms of the different kinds of perceptual predictions the brain is making. In my theory, these differences are particularly significant when it comes to the experience of being a ‘self’, which I argue is not an inner essence that ‘does’ the perceiving, but rather a collection of perceptions itself. The self, in my view, is a special kind of controlled hallucination that has been shaped by evolution to regulate and control the living body.
… 4) It’s not exactly a theory of consciousness, but you could call it a theory for consciousness. And it’s through ideas like this that I believe we will eventually come up with a satisfying scientific account of consciousness. Instead of solving the hard problem head on, we may end up dissolving it by developing and testing detailed explanations of how the properties of consciousness depend on their underlying mechanisms. In this way, we will have solved what I call the real problem of consciousness.
… 5) The theory I’ve been developing is a version of predictive processing theory. When I see a chair in front of me, it’s not that the eyes are transparent windows out onto the world and my brain just reads out “chair”. Instead there are noisy sensory signals impacting my retina and my brain has to use its prior expectations about what might be out there in order to interpret this ambiguous sensory data. In a little more detail, the idea is that the brain is constantly calibrating its perceptual predictions using data from the senses. Predictive processing theory has it that perception involves two counterflowing streams of signals. There is an “inside-out” or “top down” stream that conveys predictions about the causes of sensory inputs.
… 6) Then there are “outside-in” or “bottom up” prediction errors – the sensory signals – which report the differences between what the brain expects and what it gets. By continually updating its predictions to minimise sensory prediction errors, the brain settles on an evolving best guess of its sensory causes, and this is what we consciously perceive. We don’t passively perceive our worlds – we actively generate them.
Click Here For The Entre Anil Seth Article.

T8) “Being You – A New Science of Consciousness” a book By Anil Seth is a Professor at the University of Sussex.
... A BOOK OF THE YEAR
GUARDIAN, THE ECONOMIST, NEW STATESMAN, FINANCIAL TIMES, BLOOMBERG
Anil Seth's radical new theory of consciousness challenges our understanding of perception and reality, doing for brain science what Dawkins did for evolutionary biology.

'A brilliant beast of a book.' DAVID BYRNE

'Hugely important.' JIM AL-KHALILI

'Masterly . . . An exhilarating book: a vast-ranging, phenomenal achievement that will undoubtedly become a seminal text.'GAIA VINCE, GUARDIAN

Being You is not as simple as it sounds. Somehow, within each of our brains, billions of neurons work to create our conscious experience. How does this happen? Why do we experience life in the first person? After over twenty years researching the brain, world-renowned neuroscientist Anil Seth puts forward a radical new theory of consciousness and self. His unique theory of what it means to 'be you' challenges our understanding of perception and reality and it turns what you thought you knew about yourself on its head.
... 'Seth thinks clearly and sharply on one of the hardest problems of science and philosophy, cutting through weeds with a scientist's mind and a storyteller's skill.' ADAM RUTHERFORD

'A page-turner and a mind-blower . . . Beautifully written, crystal clear, deeply insightful.'
DAVID EAGLEMAN

'If you read one book about conciousness, it must be Seth's.
JULIAN BAGGINI, WALL STREET JOURNAL

'Amazing.' RUSSELL BRAND
'Gripping.' ALEX GARLAND
'I loved it.' MICHAEL POLLAN
'Fascinating.' FINANCIAL TIMES
'Awe-inspring.' NEW STATESMAN
'Brilliant.' CLAIRE TOMALIN, NEW YORK TIMES
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Being-You-Inside-Story-Universe/dp/0571337708

U) “Is Balancing Emblematic of Action? Two or Three Pointers from Reid and Peirce.” By David Vender
... [In This Article]. remarks made by Reid on balance are used in a Peircean framework for perception to suggest that, at least for humans, an action is always the performance of an acquired skill. Also, while action is constitutive of perception, bodily perception is the basis of action, providing in a feeling of ownership direct knowledge of an asymmetric opposition between the agent and the world.
https://philarchive.org/archive/VE NIBE
https://philpapers.org/rec/VENIBE

V) “To Remember, the Brain Must Actively Forget. t"
... ”Researchers find evidence that neural systems actively remove memories, which suggests that forgetting may be the default mode of the brain. A researcher says => “How is it that the field of neurobiology has actually never taken forgetting seriously?” “
... [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] The reason that we “Forget” is that => Our Problem Solving Brain Generates, Constructs, Creates => Optimum, most coherent Solutions, in response to our immediate circumstances, thus older un-needed memories are not used. This Optimum, effectively eaves out what does not “Fit” Consequently there is no need for a /Program For Forgetting” or some sort of a “Filter For Forgetting,” But of course this overall is what is needed, and automatically leads to efficiently ignoring what can reliably be “Forgotten”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-remember-the-brain-must-actively-forget-20180724/

W) “The New Science of Mind and the Future of Knowledge Neuron." By Eric Gilel. Neuron Volume 80, Issue 3, 30 October 2013.
... The opportunity to understand our mind in biological terms opens up the possibility of using insights from the new science of the mind to explore new linkages with philosophy, the social sciences, the humanities, and studies of disorders of mind. My purpose in this Perspective is to examine how these linkages might be forged and how the new science of the mind might serve as a font of new knowledge. I describe four interrelated and potentially fruitful points of contact where the new science of the mind is well positioned to enrich our understanding of another area of knowledge and, in turn, be inspired to explore further aspects of mental functioning.

... These [above] four points of contact are likely to give us not only particular insights into specif-ic areas of the social sciences and humanities, but also into new approaches to understanding conscious mental processes. Along the way, we may be surprised to find that biologists have learned the im-portance of unconscious processes in our mental life—not just our instinctual life, but also aspects of our free will, personal responsibility, and decision making.
Neuroscience Links to the Humanities, Philosophy, and Psychology: Conscious and Unconscious Per-ception and Unconscious Instinctive Behavior.
... The unity of consciousness—our sense of self—is the greatest remaining mystery of the brain. As a philosophical concept, consciousness continues to defy consensus, but most people who study it think of it as different states in different contexts, not as a unitary function of mind. One of the most surprising insights to emerge from the modern study of states of consciousness is that Freud was right: unconscious mental processes pervade conscious thought; moreover, not all unconscious mental pro-cesses are the same. Freud (see Gay, 1995) initially defined the instinctual unconscious as a single entity consisting largely of the aggressive and erotic feelings, thoughts, urges, and memories that lie outside consciousness yet influence our behavior and our experience (for a modern discussion see Alberini et al., 2013). He later added the preconscious unconscious (now called the adaptive unconscious), which is part of the ego and processes information without our being aware of it.
... Thus Freud appreciated that a great portion of our higher cognitive processing occurs uncon-sciously, without awareness and without the capacity to reflect. When we look at a person’s face, we don’t consciously analyze its features and say, “Ah, yes, that’s so-and-so.” Recognition just comes to us. Similarly, we do not consciously form grammatical structures. It’s all done unconsciously—we just speak. Recently, several psychoanalysts (Shevrin and Fritzler, 1968) and neuroscientists (Edelman, 1989, Edelman, 2004, Koch, 2004, Damasio, 2012, Ramachandran, 2004, Shadlen and Kiani, 2011, Dehaene, 2014) have attempted to define different states of consciousness operationally, to make them amenable to experimentation. One approach has been outlined by Shadlen and Kiani (2011), who argue that awareness and subjective aspects of perception and volition are interrelated. They advance the idea that the neural mechanisms that give rise to conscious states share features with the neural mechanisms that underlie simpler forms of decision making, designed to engage with the environment.
Dehaene, who uses brain imaging to study a mental process that parallels the adaptive unconscious, takes another approach. He distinguishes a minimum of three states of consciousness: (1) the state of wakefulness—awakening from sleep; (2) the state of attention—processing a specific piece of infor-mation without necessarily being aware of it, such as feeling hungry or seeing a friend; and (3) the state of perceptual awareness (authorship) and reportable consciousness—becoming aware of some of the information we pay attention to and being able to tell others about it (Dehaene, 2014). The second state—attention—is a transitional state between wakefulness and reportable consciousness. Dehaene holds that our experience of consciousness is based on these three independent but overlapping states. The three states presumably reflect different biological processes, and since wakefulness is essential for both processing information and reportable consciousness, the processes presumably interact. Dehaene argues that only reportable consciousness corresponds to the idea of consciousness discussed by philos-ophers in the past.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627313009914

X) “An Integrative, Multiscale View On Consciousness Theories. By Johan F Storm, P Christiaan Klink, Jaan Aru, Walter Senn, Rainer Goebel, Andrea Pigorini, Pietro Avanzini, Wim Vanduffel, Pieter R Roelfsema, Marcello Massimini, Matthew Larkum, Cyriel MA Pennartz.
Comparing Theories
... The mind-brain problem, i.e. how our conscious experience is related to material brain processes, has been debated by philosophers for centuries and remains one of the deepest unsolved problems in science. The last decades have seen a surge of theoretical and empirical consciousness research. A variety of neuroscientific theories of consciousness have been proposed and are hotly debated (e.g.4). Efforts to test competing theories against each other through ‘adversarial collaboration’ have been undertaken e.g. by consortia sponsored by the Templeton World Charity Foundation. Historically, most researchers have emphasized the development and validation of their preferred theoretical framework in isolation. This article, however, takes a different approach. It arises from researchers within the Human Brain Project (HBP; 2013-2023) working on topics related to consciousness and representing different theories.
... Based on recent empirical progress, we show that many aspects of the various theories of consciousness do not necessarily contradict each other, as sometimes claimed; instead theories often try to explain different aspects of consciousness and tend to converge on fundamental neuronal mechanisms and processes
... Here, we argue that several theories are at least partly compatible and complementarity, and consider approaches towards convergence that have so far been largely neglected. As it is not feasible to cover all proposed theories of consciousness, we focus here on five of the most prominent ones: (1) global neuronal workspace theory (GNWT; 6), (2) integrated information theory (IIT; 7); recurrent processing theory (RPT; 8, (4) predictive processing (PP; 9–11) and neurorepresentationalism (NREP; 12,13), and (5) dendritic integration theory (DIT;14).
... These theories were selected also based on related research within the HBP, and they cover three of the four broad categories of consciousness theories outlined by Seth and Bayne. Higher order theories of consciousness (HoTs) are not discussed here.
https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/9byzu

Y) “Forget Mornings: Here’s How to Design the Best Afternoon Routine, According to Research.” By Jory MacKay,· October 5, 2017
... With the large] amounts of tips and tricks out there telling us how to have the most productive morning possible, you’d think the majority of the working population spends the pre-lunch hours lifelessly shuffling around like a bunch of office-bound zombies. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
... No matter what your morning routine is, our body is predisposed to get stuff done in the AM. Humans have a ‘master clock’ called our Circadian Rhythm, which controls when we have the most energy and alertness. And while each person’s ‘clock’ is set slightly differently, the most common scenario backed by research shows that we have high mental alertness at 10am (a few hours after we wake up) with energy levels dropping off in the early afternoon until a predictable crash at around 3pm.
Plan for a Productive Afternoon—Before You Have Lunch.
... The hours before your energy naturally starts to decline are some of your peak working hours and shouldn’t be wasted. However, you should use some of this high energy to set yourself up for a productive afternoon. Here are a few suggestions.
So instead of neatly wrapping up that task before you break for lunch, follow this simple piece of advice from Ernest Hemingway: Stop while you’re ahead.
... "If you stop when you are going good, as Hemingway said…then you know what you are going to say next," eplains author Roald Dahl (who, oddly enough, is the original source for Hemingway’s trick). "You make yourself stop, put your pencil down and everything, and you walk away. And you can’t wait to get back because you know what you want to say next and that’s lovely."
... This trick can be applied to any job. Whether you’re banging out customer support tickets, putting together a new strategy doc, or editing your slide deck for a presentation, the key is to stop not when you’re finished, but when you know exactly what to do next.
Why? Well, Hemingway’s hack works for two reasons:
... You’re lowering the psychological barrier to returning to work: When you come back after lunch and head into your afternoon, there’s no question of where you want to start. You don’t need to expend any unnecessary cognitive energy or risk hitting a block.
... Our minds naturally hate not finishing a task we’ve started: The Zeigarnik Effect is a psychological phenomenon discovered back in 1927 that explains how "the brain has a powerful need to finish what it starts. When it can't complete something, it gets stuck on it," and will even give us a boost of energy to help us finish what we’re started.
Set a minor milestone you’ll be able to finish in the afternoon.
... Your afternoon depends on getting back into the flow of work quickly. But starting up the engine is hard enough, let alone trying to get any sort of momentum going. We get a rush of energy when we finish a task. However, we don’t need to hit major goals to see that benefit.
... "When we think about progress, we often imagine how good it feels to achieve a long-term goal or experience a major breakthrough. These big wins are great—but they are relatively rare. The good news is that even small wins can boost inner work life tremendously," explains researchers Teresa Amabile and Steven J. Kramer who studied the correlation between daily progress and happiness and meaning at work.
... The effect is like a viral loop: Making measurable progress, even minor, makes us happier. When we’re happier, we’re more productive. More productivity means more progress. And on and on.
... The key is to identify these minor milestones and work towards hitting them early in the afternoon.
https://zapier.com/blog/best-afternoon-routines/

Part Two: Paper Books That Strongly Support Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works”, And Conversely.

A) [SiteMaster Henry Gurr’s Conclusions About Gregory Bateson’s => Intuitions, Research Methods, & Conclusions, In his Book => ‘‘Steps to an Ecology of Mind.” ]
... [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Professor Bateson demonstrates a tremendous range of good conclusions, based on his very wide range of research areas: Much of his innovative research is directed to his study of mind & how our mind works, from the standpoint of criterion for biological evolution at all levels Bateson’s own mind & intuitions are very penetrating, incisive, & innovative. You will read just how he does this, because on-purpose, he is always looking for and “Asking The Impertinent Question!” Excellent!! We all would do well to pay attention to just how he does this! And in the process, Prof. Bateson’s conclusions strongly support Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works”, and conversely. For example, Bateson says concerning our Mind: “It is important that these [mentioned] ’reasons’ stay unconscious: They can do their work better and faster that way’” Another Bateson example: “Every given system embodied relations to time, that is, characterized by time constants determined by the given whole . These constants were not determined by the equations of relationship between successive parts but were emergent properties of the system.”
... HOWEVER: Bateson never really (directly) lays out the supporting evidence for his conclusions, or even points to the data. All too often, he just seems to pull his statements out of the thin air, apparently all from of his wide ranging intuitions! We are left to reading between his lines, to see just why, he says what he says!
... BUT! Don’t get me wrong! => Prof Bateson has VERY GOOD INTUITIONS!!! It’s just that we are left with the job of figuring the why. Despite this, I have closely studied his book (below) ‘‘Steps to an Ecology of Mind. ‘‘ and purchased a paper copy of his ‘‘The Individual, Communication, and Society’‘ Gregory Bateson makes many good assertions, and this is how I will use Bateson’s many insightful and well stated passages, I plan to use Bateson writing as a resource for good quotes, so I don’t have to compose good words myself!!
... You may also want to investigate Gregory Bateson’s other works such as books A) ‘‘Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity, ‘‘ Dutton 1979, or B) ‘‘The Individual, Communication, and Society: Studies In Emotion & Social Interaction,’‘ by a collection of Researchers Who Are Bateson Supporters: At start is the excellent 28-page essay titled in Search of the Impertinent Question: An Overview of Bateson’s Theory Of Communication. ' This is a summary of Bateson’s methods of research, investigation, & career, and an overall assessment of Bateson’s career. This essay points out how Bateson uniquely sees into all biological processes, and all levels, the same (or analogous) communication connections and inter-workings of conclusions. ]
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Continuing Comments => Re Gregory Bateson’s Book => “Steps to an Ecology of Mind. “ ]
... “This book is a collection of Gregory Bateson's short works over his long and varied career. Subject matter includes essays on anthropology, cybernetics, psychiatry, and epistemology. It was originally published by Chandler Publishing Company in 1972 (republished 2000 with foreword by Mary Catherine Bateson).” .. [See Full Text Version below.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind
B) Free Downloadable, Full Text Version of Gregory Bateson’s book “Steps To An Ecology of Mind .”
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] This otherwise excellent book, begins with (and is interspersed with), a series of metalogues, which take the form of conversations with his daughter Mary Catherine Bateson: However for the beginning reader, these metalogics are difficult to understand, and should be at first skipped over.
... Read Book Free Here: Also you can do a Right-Click > SaveAs > To get Download here =>]
http://nomadicartsfestival.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Gregory-Bateson-Ecology-of-Mind.pdf

C) The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma: by Bessel van der Kolk M.D..
... “Author, Bessel van der Kolk, M.D., is the founder and medical director of the Trauma Center in Brookline, Massachusetts. He is also a professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine and director of the National Complex Trauma Treatment Network. When he is not teaching around the world, Dr. van der Kolk works and lives Boston.”
... [Sitemaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] This an illuminating & excellent book that you might want to look into. What author Dr Kolk says, and does for patient cures, and why …well fits my own limited experience. The information in this book is valuable for all readers, since lots of persons have lived through tough circumstances, that leave behind reduced immune system, mal-adaptive behaviour, even tortured emotions (PTSD). Understanding this book thus, would help readers to be more tolerant and accepting, of their own situation and .that of others. And know that effective cures are available, and what it is like to undergo treatment. What Dr Kolk says, as to the effect (and cures) for trauma, is pretty much to be expected from my Proto Theory of How Our Mind Works.
... Those of you who have experience, are invited tell me their own opinions about this book, or similar. Your input will be useful and appreciated as a guide to => My current major effort to write-up “A Proto-Theory Of “How Our Mind Works”: Thus I hopes you will have a look, and send feedback.
... The following Link Is An Excellent Amazon Reader Reviews, tell at length, what are exactly my own conclusions about this book =>]
https://www.amazon.com/Body-Keeps-Score-Healing-Trauma/dp/0143127748

D) “The Book Of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect'” by Pearl and Mackenzie
[ = ... =][SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] These Authors give us some important historical facts in their Chapter 1 =>} [At some point] “Humans acquired the ability to modify their environment and their own abilities at a dramatically faster rate. What [is the] computational facility did humans suddenly acquire that eagles lacked? .. Many theories have been proposed, but there is one I like because it is especially pertinent to the idea of causation. In his book Sapiens, historian Yuval Harari posits that our ancestors’ capacity to imagine non-existent things was the key to everything, for it allowed them to communicate better. Before this change, they could only trust people from their immediate family or tribe. Afterward their trust extended to larger communities, bound by common beliefs and common expectations (for example, beliefs in invisible yet imaginable deities, in the afterlife, and in the divinity of the leader). Whether you agree with Harari’s theory or not, the connection between imagining and causal relations is almost self-evident. It is useless to know the causes of things unless you can imagine their consequences. Conversely, you cannot claim that Eve caused you to eat from the tree unless you can imagine a world in which, counter to facts, [the relation] between imagining and causal relations is almost self-evident. It is useless to know the causes of things unless you can imagine their consequences. Conversely, you cannot claim that Eve caused you to eat from the tree unless you can imagine a world in which, counter to facts, she did not hand you the apple. … “
... ”The position of counterfactuals at the top of the Ladder of Causation explains why I place such emphasis on them as a key moment in the evolution of human consciousness. I totally agree with Yuval Harari that the depiction of imaginary creatures was a manifestation of a new ability, which he calls the cognitive revolution. His prototypical example is the Lion Man sculpture, found in Stadel Cave in southwestern Germany and now held at the Ulm Museum (see Figure 3). The Lion Man [Sculpture carved], roughly 40 thousand years old, is a mammoth tusk that has been sculpted in the form of a chimera, half man and half lion. .. We do not know who sculpted the Lion Man or what its purpose was, but we do know it was made by anatomically modern humans and that it represents a break with any art or craft that had gone before. Previously, humans had fashioned tools and representational art, from beads to flutes to spear points to elegant carvings of horses and other animals. The Lion Man is different: a creature of pure imagination.. .. As a manifestation of our newfound ability to imagine things that have never existed, the Lion Man [sculpture carved into a mammoth tusk, ~40 thousand years ago, very importantly] is the precursor to every philosophical theory, scientific discovery, and technological innovation, from microscopes to airplanes to computers. Every one of these had to take shape in someone’s imagination before it was realized in the physical world. “
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] Prof Pearl (At His Chapter 1’s 1/5th point), Summarizes His Main Points, In His Very Insightful & Valuable FIGURE 2: Here Is Sitemaster Henry Gurr Re-Casting of Prof Pearl’s Words (In Quotes), This Collects Into One Place, How He Views Three Levels of Human Mental Functioning. ]
1) “ASSOCIATION: The first lowest level on ladder to causation”: By observations, the finding “regularities” & “conditional probabilities” and “degrees of association between variables; …. makes predictions based on these passive observations”.
2) “INTERVENTION: Rung two of the Ladder of Causation: Doing”, taking action: “Intervention ranks higher than Association because it involves not just seeing what is, but goes on to changing what is.”
3) “COUNTERFACTUALS:” Top rung of the Ladder of Causation,” ,,, “The mental model is the arena where imagination takes place.”: We use “causal imagination” to “answer why”: We imagine, retrospect, “understand”. “We can think “back [and forward] in time, change history and ask, ‘What would have happened if I did X?’, ‘What would have happened if I had NOT done X?’ “ … “On the top rung, counterfactual learners can imagine, retrospect, understand, worlds that do not exist and infer reasons for observed phenomena.”
... ”The recognition that causation is not reducible to probabilities has been very hard-won, both for me personally and for philosophers and scientists in general. The drive to understand what a “cause” means has been the focus of a long tradition of philosophers, “
... [Prof Pearl’s Chapter 1, concluding Paragraph = ] “Bayesian networks inhabit a world where all questions are reducible to probabilities, or (to put it in the terminology of this chapter) degrees of association between variables; they could not ascend to the second or third rungs of the Ladder of Causation. Fortunately, they required only two slight twists to climb to the top. First, in 1991, the graph surgery idea empowered them to handle both observations and interventions. Another twist, in 1994, brought them to the third level and made them capable of handling counterfactuals. But these developments deserve a fuller discussion in a later chapter. The main point is this: While probabilities encode our beliefs about a static world, causality tells us whether and how probabilities change when the world changes, be it by intervention or by act of imagination.”
[Sitemaster Henry Gurr Comment =>], Concerning Professor Pearl’s last paragraph and especially last sentence:
... HSG Bottom Line For Ch 1: Professor Pearl has offered us a well written, valuable, insightful view of human functioning. He has done us a great service to point out why & how his “causation” MUST be integral to our understanding of mind, and how, this crucial realization has been historically missing [by a form of idea blindness], from both philosophy and Pearl’s own field of Artificial Intelligence.
... '''Based on my own Proto Theory of How Our Mind Works => I, HSG, would add the following understanding (especially applied to) Pearl’s above words marked in quotes marks .) =>' ' Our human understanding of “causality”, comes from our Problem Solving Brain, which possesses, consults, manipulates, and works from “Mental Models” , which naturally include “causal explanations” or equivalent to such. These “Mental Models” including “causal explanations”, in many ways functions (for all humans), as a Theory of How the World Works: This theory enables abilities , which allow us to make plans, for future action, indeed to form intentions & “interventions”, even “imagination” of “counter factuals”.
… Such plans and our ability to complete them, are formed by our Problem Solving Brain’s creative problem solving abilities, acting on a massive store house of remembered successful experience. Of course our brain is using “probabilities” and “degrees of association between variables”, but nevertheless our brain’s creative abilities can, with creative problem solving ability (as Prof Pearl says), “to imagine non-existent things” and thus go way beyond “probability assessment“.]
... [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] However, you should eventually see that “causation” is a slippery concept, which in most cases can only can be fully & accurately established by extensive theory laden Philosophal & Scientific Analysis.
… But, the crux of what Pearls is pointing to, does NOT require such scientific proof of causality. In any discussions of how our brain works, it is pretty much irrelevant whether, in our ordinary thinking, a real and present physical “cause” was present or not.
… But chances for the success of our intended actions, knowing & perceiving whether or not , there was a “cause” is VERY relevant! This is because if we know (or imagine) “This Caused That”, we will be alert to watch out for, any advancing problems, such as a rock slide, snow avalanche, foot steps om a thief, or attacking animal! Here the normal perception, and mental awareness of “cause” is very needful, for successful future action. Instant reaction is what saves the day, and NO philosophical thinking about causality is needed!
... [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment Continued =>] Thus, in place of using such words as => “cause”, “causation”. etc, I think we can and should alternately, avoid these admittedly crucial causal connection, by using more common descriptive words such as “mental model”, “imagination”, “visualization”, “future plans”, ”intention”, “intervention”, “expected probability of success”.
http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/WHY/why-ch1.pdf
[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] The Above Link brings up Pearl and Mackenzie’s Chapter One. ]

E) [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] From What Was Said In Above Re Pearl’s Book, And Continuing On The Same Topic Of Causality => It Is Easy To Find Support For, My Suggestion That We Steer Around Variants Of The Word “CAUSE. Google Finds This by Prof. Raymond Tallis (2014) =>
“Raymond Tallis Hunts For The Source Of Causation.”
... ‘The law of causation… is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.’
[The quotation above approximates =>] Bertrand Russell, ‘On the Notion of Cause’, in Mysticism and Logic (1918)
... ”It is easy to sympathize with those philosophers who have come to regard causes as, well, a lost cause. The venerable idea that everything that happens is caused to happen by other, distinct and separate, previous happenings – going right back to the First Cause, the mysterious Uncaused Cause (God or the Big Bang according to taste) that got happening to happen – has been under increasing attack for nearly quarter of a millennium. While it [support for cause] has fought back valiantly (mainly by re-defining itself), things are looking pretty bad for the idea of causation.” --- There are many reasons for this. --- Cause’ is a rather slippery concept that serves a multitude of explanatory needs. Amongst them is the idea of material (as opposed to logical) necessity: the sense that how things happen to be is how they had to be. Material necessity has a complex and generally unhappy relationship with natural laws as they are usually conceived, not least because those laws betray their contingency in the seemingly arbitrary values of the fundamental constants built into them. …. At any rate, there are numerous untidy intuitions behind the notion of causes as explanations. To get to the bottom of this, we need to reflect on why we feel events require explanations, or, more generally, why happening needs something else to make it happen, and why this something else should be prior happenings – in the last analysis, immediately prior happenings. But before we do so, let us look at the vicissitudes of the idea of causation and the transformations it has undergone in response to them. ” [This is explained in the remainder of this article. ]
https://philosophynow.org/issues/100/Causes_As_Local_Oomph
... [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] The OxfordReference,com gives the exact passage => “The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm. Mysticism and Logic (1918) ch. 9. “
Googling the above passage will show the above Quotation, and other portions of Russell’s book.

[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] In essence, Prof. Raymond Tallis concludes by saying cause is here because conscious beings (us), want to use this very handy concdpt, and NOT because , cause itself really exists , whatever really exists means.
... [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>] The reality of “cause”, becomes vastly more problematic & elusive, with the advent of Quantum Mechanics: where the physics basis foundation of all matter (elementary particles), is the Quantum Mechanical Wave, about which we know absolutely nothing! Nary a clue!!

[SiteMaster Henry Gurr Continued Comments :] Despite Cause & Causality Being Slippery Concepts, It Is Easy To Find Support For This => On Average The Concept of Causality, Has Distinct Useful Meanings To Us, Serves our Human Purpose, and Serves Rather Well Most of The Time! …. UNTIL …. We Are Pressed To Be Philosophic & Scientific … And Be VERY SURE There Really Is 1) A Full Step By Step “Hard Contact” Chain of Physical Causation. And 2) Be SURE Necessary AND Sufficient Are Clearly & Fully Established!
… [SiteMaster Henry Gurr Continued Comment =>] Topic continued From Above What Prof. Tallis says =>''' “At any rate, physical reality is seamless and law-governed, (possibly) unfolding over time, not a chain or network of discrete events that have somehow [to be glued back together], to be connected by causal cement. Causes, far from being a constitutive stuff of the physical world, are things we postulate to re-connect that which has been teased apart.” …. Embodied subjects [we humans] divide the world into localities, and items and events that are localised within those localities. This is the realm of spatio-temporally discrete items – including separate events that have to be cognitively glued together … ”. [<<Underlines by HSG: Please especially notice!. END SiteMaster Henry Gurr Comment =>]
https://philosophynow.org/issues/100/Causes_As_Local_Oomph
See also => http://ritholtz.com/2012/01/hume-causation-science/
See also => GoogleBooks shows the whole of Raymond Tallis Book => “ Epimethean Imaginings: Philosophical and Other Meditations on Everyday Light.”

F) An Introduction To An Especially Valuable Book “The Fate of Meaning”, by John K Sheriff’, From Henry Gurr Email April 26, 2014.=> Dear Literature & ZMM Book Enthusiasts:
… My Clemson South Carolina friend ( and Owen Barfield Expert), Ken McClure, recently learned of my tangential interest in Semiotics, (This is a subject that came up as a side issue in a 4 page Hand-Out, that I gave to the Physics Teachers Audience, on one of my recent J. J. Hopfield Theory Talks.)
… Ken, very excitedly sent me email Re what turns out to be a most excellent book about Human Thinking & Language & Human Responses To Words: Curiously enough this book emphasizes the works of Philosopher, Logician, Mathematician, & Scientist, Charles Sanders Peirce, one of Ken's favorites.
… Having studied Sheriff’s book closely, I see much illumination concerning, not only Linguistics & Semiotics (Theory of Signs), but also clear discussion of how “modernist objectivism” afflicted (blinded) those early developers in the fields of Linguistics & Semiotics, such as Ferdinand de Saussure, and others .
… In Sheriff’s book, you will see many places, a discussion of the detrimental effect of “dualisms” such as separation of mind-body, & subject-object etc, and other concerns. These detrimental effects are major concerns I have also learned about from Owen Barfield, Michael Polanyi, Robert Pirsig, and perhaps William James.
… Literature Enthusiast should well note => This book well explains some of our problems as Modern and Post-Modern Persons, arising from ~wrong cultural assumptions, and wrong-headed Literary and Philosophical positions, that pervade our culture: Moreover these pervasive “problems & limitations” are hardly recognized by anyone, least of which are "the experts" !
… Robert Pirsig ZMM Enthusiast should well note => In addition to the above, this book lends STRONG support to Pirsig's concerns, which are fully explained in his book ZMM, as well as William James, & Michael Polanyi, and many other authors of this persuasion!
… John K Sheriff’s book is especially valuable, since its viewpoints and overall conclusions are independently arrived at from other fields of study, and from a completely different intellectual fields/traditions!! (From those mentioned by Robert Pirsig, and other authors.)
… John K. Sheriff is Ernest E. Leisy Professor of English at Bethel College, North Newton, KS. He is the author of “The Fate of Meaning: Charles Peirce, Structuralism, and Literature; The Good-Natured Man: The Evolution of a Moral Ideal 1660–1800”, and articles on semiotics and literary theory. ….Sheriff began teaching in the English department at Bethel in 1967, after graduating from Greenville (Illinois) College, a small, church-affiliated, liberal-arts school, and then earning a master’s degree at the University of Illinois. He also has a Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma. … In 1997, Sheriff became interim academic dean, from which he moved to the permanent dean position until 2005. Barry Bartel, who became Bethel president in 2006, then named Sheriff executive vice president for institutional development. For Remainder Of Article AND Excellent Photo, Click Here. ]

Overview For John K. Sheriff’s Book => "The Fate of Meaning: Charles Peirce, Structuralism, and Literature."

Please let me know what you think. Sincerely Henry Gurr.

'''To Learn More About This Very Good John K. Sheriff’s Book => Please Study Reviews Below
1) Princeton University Press Overview:
… ”This succinct and lucid study examines the thought of the philosopher Charles Peirce as it applies to literary theory and shows that his concept of the sign can give us a fresh understanding of literary art and criticism. John Sheriff analyzes the treatment of determinate meaning and contends that as long as we cling to a notion of language that begins with Saussure’s dyadic definition of signs, meaning cannot be treated as such any more than can essence or presence. Asserting that Peirce’s less familiar position offers a way out of this difficulty, Sheriff first discusses the Saussurean-based theory of meaning and then argues for the advantages of the radically different triadic theory developed by Peirce.”
… ”Part One of the work reviews and critiques the treatment of meaning in works by Jonathan Culler, Tzvetan Todorov, Stanley Fish, Roland Barthes, and Jacques Derrida, among others. The focus of this section is on the treatment of meaning in structural and post-structural theories and their common basis in Saussurean linguistics.”
… ”Part Two provides a readable introduction to Peirce’s general theory of signs and develops comprehensively the implications of his semiotic. The substitution of his theory for Saussure’s opens our eyes to new and cogent answers to many questions relevant to the meaning of texts.”
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691631035/the-fate-of-meaning

2) Ian Adam Reviews The Book => “The Fate of Meaning: Charles Peirce, Structuralism, and Literature.” by John K. Sheriff. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1989. pp.xviii, 149. $13.15 pb. [Edit [Clarifications] & Bolds Added By Henry S Gurr.]
… ”By critically exposing foundational assumptions about such binaries as writing/speech, male/female, culture/nature [and many other concept dualisms in] poststructuralism … [John Sheriff] has successfully relativized our thinking in the humanities and social sciences. Perhaps the success [of these foundational assumptions] has been too thoroughgoing: We have been thrust less into a postlapsarian world than into the chaos that preceded creation—an exhilarating experience, to be sure, but one which leaves no stable ground on which to base the actions that the fact of our living, and living as social beings, entails.”
… “This short, lucid, and coherent study provides some important clues about ways in which the absolutism of poststructuralist skepticism may be tempered and even radically replaced without any falling back onto mere logocentric assumptions.”
… [John K ‘Sheriff’s book] “It does this by examining the foundational assumptions of poststructuralism itself in Saussurean concepts of language, and particularly the concepts of the sign as arbitrary and meaning as differential. It takes as its model the sign theory of American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), which differs in several striking respects from that of his contemporary, Saussure. One of these lies in Peirce's recognition of a far greater number of motivated and "natural" signs than Saussure, and this leads to a more stable ontology than the Saussurean. If only some signs are arbitrary, we are directed to consider the possibility that concepts may not be merely cultural constructions, but may also be products reciprocally negotiated between subject and object.”
… “Sheriff bases much of his book on this ontological issue ("[The core of Peirce's pragmatism is a refutation of absolute idealism and realism and an insistence of the interdependence of reality and thought" [141]), but his preoccupation is particularly with the epistemological implications of Peirce's sign theory and its critical bearing on post-Saussurean thought and implications for art, criticism, and theory.”
… ”Both Saussure and Peirce see meaning as a product of sign systems but for Saussure meaning is a product of differential relations— paradigmatic, syntagmatic—in language itself. Derrida has wonderfully demonstrated how Saussure 's definition of language as a "system of differences without positive terms" leads to the undermining of the referential status (a covert "positive term") in Saussure's signified: it too is already a signifier. In this, however, as he acknowledges (Sheriff 127-130), he was anticipated by Peirce nearly one hundred years before. Where Peirce significantly departs from consistency with Derrida and further from consistency with Saussure is in his introduction of a third term into sign theory/theory of meaning. His terms "sign" and "object" correspond quite closely to Saussure's "signifier" and "signified," but there is no equivalent to Peirce's ‘interprétant’."
… ”For Saussure/Derrida meaning is a product of the difference between the signifier and signified, and since difference implies overlap rather than coincidence of identity, meaning is also non-meaning, noting that which is occluded or deferred to provide some illusion of finality. It is not difficult to see the implications of this theory as a largely, perhaps even purely, formal system, in which the users of language play a passive role. It is language which dupes us into a belief in meaning; and even when we post-structurally realize the trick it plays we continue to be under its determination and control. We move from the position of Shakespeare's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to Tom Stoppard's, in the prison-house still, but now knowing it. It is the triadic system of Peirce that Sheriff presents as an alternative to the dyadic of Saussure/Derrida/poststructuralism. It should be underlined that he does not present it as a refutation—he suggests a refutation might be impossible—but as an alternative, coherent, consistent, and plausible, which is in important respects superior to the equally coherent, consistent, and plausible dyadic system. … Meaning is less a product of differential relations within language than of the creative refashioning of these by [the human brains of] those who interpret signs (the signs themselves of course being interpretations of prior signs). Language does not make the difference; WE DO. Without the [human mind] interprétant there can be no satisfactory account of meaning: without an auditor [human listener] there can be no sound in a thunderstorm, no clap or bang, no Thor, no Thunderbird flapping its wings, no demonstration of the laws of physics, no inspiration for Ian Fleming's Thunderball (a possible plus). Meaning cannot come out of system which is inert; meaning is created, again and again, by resignifying agents [In other words a Human Mind] in all uses of language to a lesser or greater degree.”

[- *** *** *** *** =]
NOTE by Henty Gurr: Please take time to carefully understand my “Explanation of How Our Mind Works” to create & see MEANING, Such s This => As Is Directly Observed => Our Problem Solving Brain Automatically Spontaneously Generates (Constructs Creates) A Sense Of => Clear, Whole, Understandable, MEANINGS, Which Then Immediately Mentally Arrive Into Our Consciousness, Along With Our Ongoing Experience Of Primary Consciousness. …-In Other Words, Our Problem Solving Brain MAKES Meaning, Sense of Truth, Beauty, Recognition, Insight, Knowing, Comprehension, Sense of Clear Understanding, and Importance. And All This With Felt Certainty. …AND Although It Is Unknown (Even Inexplicable), How Our Brain Does It => Be Sure To Notice Very Well =>
…Our Problem Solving Brain => In The Process Of Generating (Constructing, Creating, Forming, Assembling, Building, Making, Producing), These Optimal (Best or Near Best) Problem Solutions => These MEANINGS ARE ALSO THERE, Right-Before-Our-Mind’s-Eye.
For Full Explanation Click Here, and AFTER Page Comes Up, Scroll Down to Please learn to quickly “spot” these. .
[- *** *** *** *** =]

[Continued Review Of The J. K. Sheriff Book By Ian Adam => ]
… ”This view of meaning as a creation of agents [Human Minds] has major bearings for postcolonial thought. Agency [In other words a Human Mind] is frequently discussed these days, but nearly always as an escape from "false consciousness" with all the elitist (Calvinist?) assumptions this entails. There is also a contradictory entailment, for "it is not possible for us to describe our own archive, for it is within these rules that we speak" (Foucault). Peirce implicitly suggests a way out of both linguistic elitism and linguistic determinism that is consistent with the postcolonial experience of dis-identificatory creation both against and through an archive and by a culture rather than by great leaders directing the masses.''' While it would be anachronistic to speak of Peirce as writing against the determinism of contemporary European philosophy the applicability of his thought to this function is consistent with his concept of an American philosophical alternative to the skepticism of European thought, particularly in its Descartean legacy.”
… “I have dwelt on Sheriff s epistemological exploration, but in conclusion should briefly indicate a second major contribution of this book in its significance for theorists of discourse. Neither Peirce nor Sheriff use that term, but in chapters five, six, and seven, Sheriff demonstrates how Peirce's thought deals with distinct (though never "pure") discursive categories for possibility, fact and reason into which fall art, criticism, and theory. Poststructuralists do not make these distinctions because, as Sheriff points out, their view of language is monofunctional:” [and the presentations of the Poststructuralists, tell us that language is so difunctional to point of having no meaning.]
… “Derrida's definition of language as 'writing' is an assertion that all language is of the nature of a class-1 o sign symbols representing symbols as symbols. Therefore, much of structural and Derridean theory of language is consistent with Peirce's theory of class-i o signs. It should be clear now why deconstructive theorists cannot distinguish between literature and history or philosophy.” (127)
… “Peirce provides a theoretical base for the ludic and empirical as well as the conceptual functions of language, and Sheriff draws out its implications.”
… “Charles Peirce's work has attracted steady attention from philosophers and semioticians over the years, but [to our great dismay] for the past two decades in literary studies European thought drawing on Saussurean insights has been dominant.”
… “This book shows, with considerable originality, the significant poverty of that tradition.”
http://www.ariel.ucalgary.ca/ariel/index.php/ariel/article/viewFile/2519/2472

POST SCRIPT By henry Gurr: If you are Ian Adam or the author of the above review, please email HenryG__usca.edu, and give us your name and approval to post your work.

G) ”Metaphors We Live By” Dec 19, 2008, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson ( 687 pages)
… ”The now-classic Metaphors We Live By changed our understanding of metaphor and its role in language and the mind. Metaphor, the authors explain, is a fundamental mechanism of mind, one that allows us to use what we know about our physical and social experience to provide understanding of countless other subjects. Because such metaphors structure our most basic understandings of our expe-rience, they are "metaphors we live by"—metaphors that can shape our perceptions and actions without our ever noticing them…. In this updated edition of Lakoff and Johnson's influential book, the authors supply an afterword surveying how their theory of metaphor has developed within the cognitive scienc-es to become central to the contemporary understanding of how we think and how we express our thoughts in language.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphors_We_Live_By
https://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468011

H) “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About The Mind.” Aug 8, 2008, by George Lakoff ( 112 pages)
… "Its publication should be a major event for cognitive linguistics and should pose a major chal-lenge for cognitive science. In addition, it should have repercussions in a variety of disciplines, ranging from anthropology and psychology to epistemology and the philosophy of science. . . . Lakoff asks: What do categories of language and thought reveal about the human mind? Offering both general theo-ry and minute details, Lakoff shows that categories reveal a great deal."—David E. Leary, American Scientist”
Click Here For Wikipedia Article About This Book.
https://www.amazon.com/Women-Fire-Dangerous-Things-Categories/dp/0226468046

I) “Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought.” Aug 4, 2008, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson ( 104 Pages)
… ”What are human beings like? How is knowledge possible? What is truth? Where do moral val-ues come from? Questions like these have stood at the center of Western philosophy for centuries. In addressing them, philosophers have made certain fundamental assumptions-that we can know our own minds by introspection, that most of our thinking about the world is literal, and that reason is disem-bodied and universal-that are now called into question by well-established results of cognitive science. It has been shown empirically that: Most thought is unconscious. We have no direct conscious access to the mechanisms of thought and language. Our ideas go by too quickly and at too deep a level for us to observe them in any simple way. Abstract concepts are mostly metaphorical. Much of the subject matter of philosophy, such as the nature of time, morality, causation, the mind, and the self, relies heavily on basic metaphors derived from bodily experience. What is literal in our reasoning about such concepts is minimal and conceptually impoverished. All the richness comes from metaphor. For instance, we have two mutually incompatible metaphors for time, both of which represent it as movement through space: in one it is a flow past us and in the other a spatial dimension we move along. Mind is embodied. Thought requires a body-not in the trivial sense that you need a physical brain to think with, but in the profound sense that the very structure of our thoughts comes from the nature of the body. Nearly all of our unconscious metaphors are based on common bodily experiences. Most of the central themes of the Western philosophical tradition are called into question by these findings. The Cartesian person, with a mind wholly separate from the body, does not exist. The Kantian person, capable of moral action ac-cording to the dictates of a universal reason, does not exist. The phenomenological person, capable of knowing his or her mind entirely through introspection alone, does not exist. The utilitarian person, the Chomskian person, the poststructuralist person, the computational person, and the person defined by analytic philosophy all do not exist. Then what does? Lakoff and Johnson show that a philosophy re-sponsible to the science of mind offers radically new and detailed understandings of what a person is. After first describing the philosophical stance that must follow from taking cognitive science seriously, they re-examine the basic concepts of the mind, time, causation, morality, and the self: then they re-think a host of philosophical traditions, from the classical Greeks through Kantian morality through modern analytic philosophy. They reveal the metaphorical structure underlying each mode of thought and show how the metaphysics of each theory flows from its metaphors. Finally, they take on two ma-jor issues of twentieth-century philosophy: how we conceive rationality, and how we conceive lan-guage.”
Click Here For Wikipedia Article About This Book.
https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Flesh-Embodied-Challenge-Western/dp/0465056741

From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. =>A Good Focus Summary Excerpt About George P. Lakoff’s Very Important Writings Concerning Mind & How We Think: (And Close To A Theory Of How Our Mind Works.)
… Metaphor has been seen within the Western scientific tradition as a purely linguistic construc-tion. The essential thrust of Lakoff's work has been the argument that metaphors are a primarily concep-tual construction and are in fact central to the development of thought.
… In his words:
"Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphor-ical in nature."
… According to Lakoff, NON-metaphorical thought is possible only when we talk about purely physical reality; the greater the level of abstraction, the more layers of metaphor are required to express it. People do not notice these metaphors for various reasons, including that some metaphors become 'dead' in the sense that we no longer recognize their origin. Another reason is that we just do not "see" what is "going on".
… In intellectual debate, for instance, the underlying metaphor according to Lakoff is usually that argument is war (later revised to "argument is struggle"):
Click Here For Complete Wikipedia Article.
******* END Lakoff ******

J) “Implications of Metaphors in Defining Technical Communication.” By Charles E. Beck.
Abstract
Examining the limitations of some common metaphors for technical communication and exploring new alternatives lead to a new definition of technical communication. In current studies of the field, four metaphors appear dominant through explicit or implicit use: transmitter, channel, balance, and bridge. But each of these metaphors is limited in some way when used to describe the field. These limitations arise from complexity, directionality, or originality of the process. Some alternatives provide a new way of viewing the field: lock, translator, transformer, synthesizer, conductor, and orchestrator. The latter term leads to a tentative definition of the field: Technical communication is the process of orchestrating linguistic, visual, or auditory codes to accommodate information to the user.
…NOTE: After this WebPabe cones up there will be options to get full access to this article.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/5NPU-VHQ3-CE6A-TW5F

K) “Natural and Artificial Minds.” Edited by Robert G. Burton, Subjects: Cognitive Sci-ence. Series: SUNY series, Scientific Studies in Natural and Artificial Intelligence. August 1993
Contents
Acknowledgments/ vi Preface/ vii 1. Approaches to Mind I 1 Robert G. Burton 2. On the Nature of Theories: A Neurocomputational Perspective I 21 Paul M. Churchland 3. Connectionism and the Future of Folk Psychology I 69 William Bechtel and A. A. Abrahamsen 4. Squirrel Monkeys, Concepts, and Logic I 101 Roger K. Thomas
5. Connecting the Cognitive and the Cultural: Artificial Minds as Method¬ ological Devices in the Study of the Sociocultural I 121 Robert N. McCauley and E. Thomas Lawson 6. Without Perception, There Is No Knowledge: Implications for Artificial In-telligence I 147 Ulric Neisser 7. On the Phenomenology of Remembering: The Ne-glected Case of Place Memory I 165 Edward S. Casey
8. The Owl and the Electric Encyclopedia I 187 Brian Cantwell Smith 9. Reduction, Elimination, and Strategic Interdependence I 231 Robert G. Burton Contributors / 245
Description
This book describes and explores six current approaches to the study of mind: the neuroscientific, the behavioral, the competence approach, the ecological, the phenomenological, and the computational. No other book in cognitive science covers such a broad range of research programs and topics in such a bal-anced fashion. The first chapter is a mini-history and philosophy of psychology which reviews some of the scientific developments and philosophical arguments behind these six different approaches. Each subsequent chapter presents work that is on the frontiers of research in its field.
Robert G. Burton is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Georgia.
Reviews
"One rarely sees books in cognitive science that include the ecological, phenomenological, and behav-ioral approaches to the study of the mind. Cognitive science is currently one of the more exciting and productive areas of interdisciplinary research, and this book makes an important contribution to this field. I especially think that philosophers of the mind and psychology could learn a great deal about the range of approaches to the study of mind that are being practiced. Many workers in these areas are not aware that there are psychologists working on research that is outside the strictly functional-ist/computationalist paradigm." — Stephen M. Downes, Northwestern University
Click Here For GoogleBooks Version, Which Shows Much Of This Book.

K) A Book About Analogy, Metaphor, and Related Human Cognitive Mental Events => That Consciously Come To Mind => As A Person Reads Words & Phrases: …

Professor James F Ross’ Book Is Highly Relevant To Henry S Gurr’s Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works:

… Although Prof Ross’s Book Does Discuss Mind & Thinking, He Does Not (As Does Henry Gurr), Much Say He Is “VERY Closely Watching His Problem Solving Brain At Work”.
… But Nevertheless, This Is What He Is Doing For Himself, AND What His Book Is Nearly Con-stantly Doing & Showing To Us!!
… Altogether His Results Are Constantly Showing Us How Our Minds Are Spontaneously & Automatically Finding Optimal Meaning, In The Reading Of Words or Phrases. … And Of Course, Prof Ross Is Sensitive To Text Reading Processes That happen To Be Variously Repeated Which Ross Calls For Example => “Differentiations” “Contests”, “Resistances”, “Semantic Con-tagion”. Plus 6 Other Named Examples
… AND BOTTOM LINE => As Prof Ross Discusses These (And Other Ideas), He Is ALL The While STILL “Showing Us How Our Mind Works With Words & Language”. (Except That Ross Does Not Use These Words, To Say What He Is Doing.)

Professor Ross’s Book Is Discussed Here, Because It Supports (or Is Relevant To) =>
…1 SiteMaster Henry S Gurr’s Shorter Introduction To => A New & Vital & Unified Panorama View (Theory) Into “How Our Mind Works, In The Creation of Conscious Awareness. Click Here.
…2) SiteMaster Henry S Gurr’s Longer Expounding of His Proto Theory of Min. Click Here.

Henry Gurr’s FULL & COMPLETE INTRODUCTION TO, AND DISCUSSION OF, Pro-fessor James F Ross’s Book “Portraying Analogy” :
Please Click Here: For Henry Gurr’s COMPLETE DISCUSSION OF PROFESSOR JAMES F ROSS’S BOOK “PORTRAYING ANALOGY” AS WELL AS ITS FULL TEXT With HSG Annotations.

******** o0OOO0o ********
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT => James F. Ross, And His Book => “PORTRAYING ANALOGY”.
… “ Professor James F. Ross, Is A Creative Thinker In Philosophy Of Religion, Law, Metaphys-ics And Philosophy Of Mind, was a member of The Philosophy Department at The University Of Penn-sylvania for 48 years. “
…1) Click Here For James F. Ross Wikipedia Article.
…2) Although No Longer Living, Professor Ross’ WebPages Are Still Available, With A Good Color Photo of Him. Click Here.
…3) Google Happens To Discover This Book, Which Illustrates Professor Ross’ Publishing Proclivity.
“Thought and World The Hidden Ne-cessities.” by James Ross, 280 pages, Nov 2008.
NOTE: This Above Link Says =>>
…”James F. Ross is a creative and independent thinker in contemporary metaphysics and philosophy of mind. In this concise metaphysical essay, he argues clearly and analytically that meaning, truth, impos-sibility, natural necessity, and our intelligent perception of nature fit together into a distinctly realist ac-count of thought and world. Ross articulates a moderate realism about repeatable natural structures and our abstractive ability to discern them that poses a challenge to many of the common assumptions and claims of contemporary analytic philosophy. He develops a broadly Aristotelian metaphysics that rec-ognizes the "hidden necessities" of things, which are disclosed through the sciences, which ground his account of real impossibility as a kind of vacuity, and which require the immateriality of the human ability to understand. Those ideas are supported by a novel account of false judgment. Ross aims to of-fer an analytically and historically respectable alternative to the prevailing positions of many British-American philosophers.”
******** o0OOO0o ********

L) Books by Douglas Hofstadter, Such As => “Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies”. :
NOTE1: In his Book Title above, Prof Hofstadter implies his central concern is Mental Processes & Thinking Process, rather than either Concepts or Analogies! AND this is the reason I decided to add his books here, just below the two above books on “Analogy”.
NOTE2: Also in his Book Title above, we learn how Prof Hofstadter, along with his "Fluid Analogies Research Group" (FARG): graduate students, make (ie “programing”) digital computer code, in order to mimic certain parts of the human thinking process, and so to explain such. But for me, Prof Hof-stadter has chosen a course that can’t go very far to achieve his own goals. He hasn’t a prayer! This is because his “digital codes” do not much have the massive parallel processing that our brains use, nor do his “digital codes” utilize massive amounts of memory to provide a basis for action & decisions, that our brains make use of. =>
… These above two conclusion are based on extensive study and writing of my Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works”. For just how I come to these two conclusions, please scroll down to Bolded => As any reader may read, my theory, is very complex , for a brief discussion of Our Brain’s Massive Memory & Hopfield Neuronal Model, ~20 inches below.
… For Douglas Hofstadter (D.H.), Concepts Involving “Analogy” Have Been A Central Feature In All His Books & Articles Since About 1988 , when with his graduate students, formed the "Fluid Analogies Research Group" (FARG): Even IN the name of his Research Group. In fact most of D.H. writing has very much emphasized the central importance of what he called “Analogy”, even saying =>~”a broad view of analogy as the very core of cognition,”+ suggesting that “When you think, you are really just making analogies”. D.H. does this even to the extent of repeating these statements (or equivalents), in practically all his books, articles & even YouTube Video.
… All this says to me, that Hofstadter (as specifically mentioned above Prof Ross also considers > ), mostly considers “Analogy”, much different and more broadly than most people do, or a dictionary does. This agrees with his own Profile which says => “Currently his most active goal is to reveal how analogy-making lies at the base of all human thought “… “Toward the Roots of Thought.”
… More of how Hofstadter considers “Analogy”, much different and more fuzzy & diffuse & broadly than most people do, or a dictionary does, comes out in his Stanford University Presidential Lecture where he said => “ … evident even in a slight hesitation or the lengthening of a consonant, are "revelatory of a fight between words, between analogies that are struggling to take over and beat the other ones out." .. “This underground competition is going on in every word choice, in every situation and at all times, Hofstadter said. "We are trying to put labels on things by mapping situations that we have encountered before. That to me is nothing but analogy." … AND this is the reason that Stanford Reporter Barbara Palmer titled her Report =. “Noted Cognitive Scientist Asserts That Analogy Is (Al-most) The Whole Enchilada”
… Similarly, in his book “Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking” (2010); [as one reviewer said his goals=>] “ opening premise is right there in the subtitle: making analo-gies is the chief mechanism of human thinking and intelligence. Mental acts that don't normally get classified as analogies can, in fact, be understood better in the light of that framework. So far, so good.”

… Of course Hofstadter knows (and much of the time), uses the dictionary standard meaning for “Analogy” But as I read and reread various places in Hofstadter’s writings, I slowly had an emerging conclusion => Different from the dictionary, Hofstadter over half of the time, has his own special meaning for the word “Analogy” !! In examining how he uses “Analogy” in sentences, he seems to mean ~’thinking” or “categorization”, even his “name for ideas that that just suddenly automatically spontaneously comes into conscious mind”.
… One book review agrees with this saying => “Douglas Hofstadter, in which he argues for a broad view of analogy as the very core of cognition. His chapter draws links between analogy, high-level perception, and the formation of abstract categories. He emphasizes the fluidity of analogies and concepts-the way in which they vary as they mold themselves to fit specific situations-and suggests that this fluidity permits remindings that connect new experiences with memories of remote events that are relationally similar. Analogy, in the broad view taken in his chapter, encompasses tasks ranging from everyday application of simple concepts to the complex cross-linguistic mappings required to translate structured poetry from one language to another.” (<Bold by HSG.)
… So we see that Hofstadter does not so much consider what most people call “Analogy”, a fact that is seen in an another book review, which said => “I hoped that there might be some description, or at least hypotheses, put forward about how it is that the human brain can so easily make analogies. Are there one or more “analogy engines”? These days it seems that this line of investigation would naturally lead into how neural networks work, AI, “deep learning”, and so forth, especially in connection with the authors’ discussion of topics like “conceptual encoding” (p. 172) and “brainbows” (pp. 182-3). Maybe this further topic was considered too big of a subject to include in the book, and deserving of its own book (or books). Still it surprised me that virtually nothing was mentioned about all this here.”

Summary For Douglas Hofstadter: For Reasons Given Above. I Henry Gurr Conclude

NOTE: Members of FARG, are hereby invited to tell me where & why I am wrong. Their entire com-munication will be placed here.

As Any Reader May See, My Theory, Is Very Complex, But [[http://venturearete.org/ResearchProjects/ProfessorGurr/Documents/ProtoTheoryOfMindThesisPanorama | A long study will find these Basic Foundations (NONE of which Douglas Hofstadter’s FARG is using) , as follows =>

In Building A Theory Of How Our Mind Works, The Properties Of Neural Networks (Of Which Hopfield’s Model Is An Example), Deserve Very Close Attention.
… From Prof Hopfield’s results, the inescapable conclusion =>Massive Neural Networks MUST underlie, and be at the basic foundation of a Theory of How Our Mind Works, since such fits the fol-lowing necessary biological conditions:

… THUS: Neural Networks, such as proposed by Prof Hopfield, 1) Well fit what can be built up by means of Darwinian Evolution, and 2) Well fit what can be created from fertilized egg, growing to an adult, dynamically learning, and developing. ... Also such Neural Networks, as proposed, well fit what we see in the obvious fine-tuned behavior of animals and ourselves, both mentally and in subse-quently emerged physical real-world body actions. Such a system supports Darwinian Survival, and thus we are here to tell the story!
… Here It Is VERY Important To Notice That => Our Problem Solving Ability, Indeed All Or Our Mental / Brain Functioning At All Moments, Depends On => Our Brain’s Own Internal Massive Memory Of A Whole Lifetime Of Memory Saved Experiences!
To Learn More, Click Here And AFTER Comes Up Scroll Down to ''' PROPOSITION 10a) & 10b) :

M) “Meaning On The Brain: How Your Mind Organizes Reality.” By Ben Thomas, Decemer 26, 2012. [This article discusses their research on categories of “chunks of sensory experience and as-sociating those chunks with other stimuli”. Although, it is hard to understand and you likely will not understand, Mr. Thomas states a conclusion that you should work hard at seeing its truth in your expe-riences and remember. Which is excerpt as follows => ]
Association And Meaning:
... All this talk of “dimensions of association” points back to a far more profound idea about how our brains work: We understand the meaning of an object in terms of the meanings of other objects - other chunks of reality to which our brains have assigned certain characteristics. In the brain’s taxono-my, there are no discrete entries or “files” - just associations that are more strongly or more weakly cor-related with other associations.
... And that idea itself raises deeper quandaries: If associations define what an object or action “is,” as some neuroscientists have argued, then why does the concept of meaning - semantic representa-tion - need to enter the picture at all? Instead of being a special type of mental function, might “mean-ing” itself simply be another word for “association?”
... The answer to that question won’t be a simple one to find, at least for the foreseeable future. “I don’t think it’s possible to make a conclusive claim about that from fMRI data,” says Jack Gallant, the lab’s director; “and anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken.”
... NOTE1: Mr. Thomas is saying that for any one circumstance, “meaning” comes from a vast network of “associations” we have that are mentally connected to that one circumstance. Just now, it suddenly comes to my mind => This “meaning comes from associations: likely is a powerful conse-quences of our Biological Brain Neural Network Optimizing Problem Solving, Content Addressable, Associative Memory. ” '', which in turn is a VERY important italicized 11 word name & idea, as em-phasized (about 8 inches above) in the 4 paragraphs, labeled a), b), c), & d).
... NOTE2: Please send an email: I would like to learn what you think of Mr. Thomas conclusions, and how it fits your experience. For email address, click on "Contact Me", at the bottom of this page, or every ZMMQ Page. HenryG__USCA.edu
Click Here For The Entire Ben Thomas Article.

N1) The Book “Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind." By Matthew M. Hurley, Daniel C. Dennett And Reginald B. Adams Jr., An Evolutionary And Cognitive Account Of The Addictive Mind Candy That Is Humor.” ''

N2) The Above Mentioned Book “Inside Jokes:.” Which Shows How Humer Results From Our Problem Solving Brain’s => Finding Good Solutions (Answers) To A Joke Puzzle, Resulting In Sudden Automatic Spontaneous A mental Arrival Like Unto Flash of Insight. [Below are selected passages from the book that show these author’s conclusions concerning problem solving in humor. Although there are many more insightful passages, it is hoped that the selection below, shows how seriously & VERY deeply these authors dig into the human mental processes surrounding humor. Repeatedly seen is how these authors conclusions strongly support Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works”, and conversely. ]
. ... ) When you “get” a joke, there is enjoyment— including a kind of satisfaction in having fiured it out. (We will explore the relation of humor to problem solving and discovery in detail in a later chapter.) Moreover, humor, like beauty, is “in the eye of the beholder.” Page 25
... ) As already mentioned, there is an undeniable similarity between the joy of humor and the joy of problem solving. When we “get” a joke we feel a sense of discovery rather like the sense of triumph when we solve a problem. And when we are unable to solve a problem, there is a sense of confusion or missing knowledge that is reminiscent of the feeling we get when we are unable to get a joke. Page 27
... ) What is the relationship between problem solving, discovery, and humor? We tend to exclaim “Aha!” when we discover something new or solve a problem. Occasionally we even laugh. The same emotion of discovery occurs when we “get the joke.” What is the relationship between these phenomena? Page 60
... ) Many of those who would endeavor to sire an artificial intelligence (e.g. The [Brain as a] General Problem Solver—as reported in Newell and Simon 1972), have imported the formal system of reasoning into their designs directly—often including, for their brainchildren to employ, as many of the theorems that have fallen out from these axioms as possible—with very limited success. These early architects and those following in the tradition after them can be forgiven: Logic is the basis of programming in modern computing substrates—it is only natural to want to extend its ambit into the minds of their intellectual progeny when delivering them into life upon those very same substrates [when they try to make theories *& models as to how the brain does its work, resulting in “insight” or “discovery — the sense of “Aha!”]. Yet, it may be more suitable, we suggest, to endow these models only with a sense, similar to ours, of the self-evident axioms, and then to allow the employment of these endowments to help those agents engage in nonformal reasoning (much like ours) as necessary to solve the problems they come to face in their ecological niche, and perhaps to eventually discover the theorems of formal logic. It is well accepted, by now, that humans are not normatively rational thinkers, yet are often, under the right conditions, capable of rational thinking (Samuels, Stich, and Bishop 2002). The heuristics and biases that characterize our thinking may be the result of a certain kind of cognitive apparatus, yet to be fully described, which reasons informally based on some approximations to the axioms of logic, but ~ which also provides the cognitive scaffolding (Clark 1997; Clark and Chalmers 1998) and tools necessary to learn technologies such as formal systems that allow for more effective nonheuristic truly rational thinking … Page 65
... ) Gopnik and colleagues noticed that problem solving in children is associated with a positive affective response (and often a concomitant expression of joy), which she aptly named the “theory drive” (Gopnik 1998). The idea is that the positive emotion (which she calls “explanation” but we will refer to as “insight” or “discovery”) that is associated with the successful accomplishment of creating an explanation—the sense of “Aha!” that comes with the piecing together of a consistent theory of the situation at hand or a string of related events—is a prime motivational factor for performing the kinds of covert cognitive behaviors of theory development that lead to those kinds of theories/explanations. We are innately endowed with a desire to work on building theories. Gopnik continues to explain that theory-construction in both infants and scientists is the same behavior, lying on an unbroken continuum, where the scientists’ version of theorization is simply a socially organized extension of the child’s (really, everyone’s) basic theory-construction device (Gopnik and Wellman 1994; Gopnik and Meltzoff 1997; Gopnik 1998). In fact, children discover and verify their theories in quite the same way as scientists do: through experimentation. They manipulate the world and discover regularities of causation from those manipulations. Why do they do it? The discovery of regularities comes with a pleasurable burst of insight, which all of us, but especially children and scientists, continuously long for like bonbons or opium. Page 78
... ) In the previous section we argued that the emotions, broadly construed, are rational motivators that encourage us to do the right things at the right times in order to balance all the survival and reproductive needs we face, assuming we live in roughly the same (physical and social) environment in which our genes underwent selection. Thanks to the emotions of physical fatigue and mental weariness, we know when to spend energy and when to save it. Moving beyond that, hunger tells us when to forage for more energy; thirst, when to hydrate; and fear, when to run for our lives. An agent that can manage the coordinated timing of just these behaviors already will have solved a number of important environmental challenges. Augmenting this view with Frank’s explanation, we realize that superficially irrational emotions, such as romantic love, solve even more complicated natural quandaries such as the commitment problem, allowing us to engage successfully in even more complicated social environments. Lastly, we suggested that the most complex problems—problems that require open-ended thinking—are also solved by a certain set of emotions: curiosity, boredom, doubt, confusion, insight, mirth, and the like. Page 81
... ) …but the methods for manipulating these concepts, rather than being somehow purely abstract and disinterested rule-following, are also richly entangled with bodily feedback. We feel whether something makes sense or whether something strikes us as “true”; and we feel our way through problem-solving episodes—in the same way that we feel a stomachache or a cool breeze. The most abstract thought and the most abstruse and rarefied logic can only come to be because of bodily sensation. Page 92
... ) A brief disclaimer is necessary: A good theory of thought would explain not only how we think—how we recombine information into new beliefs and anticipations—but how we think validly about just the right things— and not too much else—in order to perform just the tasks we need to. At this point in our science, it would be excessively bold for anyone to commit to a full model of thought. Nonetheless, something along those lines will be necessary in order to buoy up what we are trying to offer: a full model of the cognitive trait called humor. As we said in the introduction, humor is an Al-complete problem and requires most of the still un explained faculties of cognition. In order to present our model clearly within this broader context, we are going to begin by drawing an impressionistic sketch of a particular model of thought. This sketch is not meant to provide a novel account of all cognition; it is meant only to provide the assumptions underlying our work and will consist primarily of extensions and regroupings of pieces already on offer by other theorists. As the sketch is drafted, we will employ just the interfaces it provides to frame and constrain our model of humor. Keep in mind as we proceed that the commitment to this model of cognition is very open — we are allowing space for further discoveries in the understanding of cognition to refine the model over time. What we expect to remain of our account, as cognitive science proceeds to shed further light on the human mind, is exactly these interfaces — the ways in which humor relates to thought (whatever the details of the latter turn out to be) and how it interacts with the rest of cognition and emotion. Page 95
... ) This sets the brain an extremely difficult task, first clearly articulated by McCarthy and Hayes (1969) and called by them the frame problem (for an introduction, see Dennett 1984, reprinted in Dennett 1998). How is the brain to do a passable job of thrifty search without lapsing into combinatorial explosion on the one hand or failing to represent key elements on the other? It is important that we neither squander all our precious time and energy in an exhaustive consideration of the prospects (which we might call Hamlet’s problem’) nor let ourselves be blindsided a dozen times a day. Page 96
... This category of relatively hidden or tacit assumptions contrasts with the deliberately articulated, noticed, accounted-for assumptions of serious problem-solving, whose contributions to current mental spaces are more or less manifest. The construction of mental spaces is one of those activities that spans the large space between clearly voluntary or deliberate actions on the one hand and unconscious reactions on the other. For the most part, the incessant generation of mental spaces in the course of our daily lives appears to us to be effortless and automatic and, indeed, involuntary. “We” delegate this task to the unconscious triage mechanism that carries on without further supervision, admonition, or notice by “us.” For instance, JITSA constructs frame-like structures on the fly, with all their accumulated baggage, and these temporary data structures contribute efficiently to our sense of what is happening, and, more importantly, our sense of what is about to happen. But we can also go into problem-solving mode and attempt to marshal our construction activities. Sometimes we introduce some item of information into a mental space in this deliberate and uncommitted fashion in order to see what it leads to, and discover that it leads to a contradiction; on such occasions we may feel surprise, and even pleasure, but not mirthful surprise. We can see the difference in slow motion when a bad joke-teller explicitly informs his audience of the key presumption before telling the story. It is only the information that gets introduced covertly—without drawing attention to itself on arrival— into the mental space whose discovery elicits mirth; typically making a presumption too overtly, too explicitly, will draw attention to the possible mistake, thus helping us to approach it with caution and then avoiding it. Page 118
https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Jokes-Using-Humor-Reverse-Engineer/dp/026201582X

O1) Ian Glendinning’s Insightful Review Of Owen Barfield’s Book “Poetic Diction: An Inquiry Into Meaning.”
Three Insightful Paragraphs
... I can see why people recommended I look at Barfield after Pirsig, Northrop and Lakoff. One particular angle of my own thesis is strongly re-inforced. Knowledge is about evolutionary psychology (spooky to pick up the Pinker link below at this precise moment). This is evident in etymology and in figures of speech of all kinds. Metaphor one way or another is the main component of this development of knowledge and meaning. Some extracts that resonated …
... Evoking Maitland, he says [Quote p29] If law is the point where life and logic meet, perception is the point where life and imagination meet. [Uquote]
... Accepting for a moment that the subject is poetry (or poesis), where good = “pleasing” = aesthetic quality, it is interesting to note the recurring references to dynamism being the key. He uses the electrical dynamo analogy from the outset – no motion no potential output – to back-up the idea that poesis relies on novelty, juxtaposition, creativity, synthesis of new meaning, often by metaphorical means. Interesting to note that even “archaism” – going backwards etymologically, invoking lost words or lost meanings of current words, is equally creative. Right in the final concluding paragraphs, Movement. is the single word sentence that jumps off the page. Poetry, said Coleridge, is the best words in the best order, in other words, best language – ie [Robert Pirsig’s] Highest Quality.
https://www.psybertron.org/archives/538

O2) “The Rise And Fall Of Metaphor: A Study In Meaning And Meaninglessness. ” By Nathan Black Rupp. From The Journal Semiotica https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0131, Oct 2015. [Continuing From Above Glendinning Book Review, This Insightful Article Concerning Metaphor And “Communal Lexicon (CL), quotes many books, including Owen Barfield’s Book “Poetic Diction: An Inquiry Into Meaning.” ''']
Abstract
... I propose the specific words used by a community define that community, yet at the same time the community is defined by those words. This ever-changing lexicon of communal metaphor is the storehouse of all the meanings and their usages used by a given group. By looking at the metaphors that permeate any communal language, we see that all language is metaphoric. With the use of Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Conceptual Blending Theory, I investigate how new meanings enter our lexicon and become social meaning. This investigation also provides a closer understanding of “literal” meanings. We come to see they are just stale metaphors or neglected blendings devoid of potency. The process by which meanings are created illuminates how they become “literal.” Thus, showing us the danger that accompanies us in the modern, literal age.
Keywords: meaning; conceptual metaphor theory; language change
Closing Paragraphs
... To understand the metaphors, or even words we use, we must understand where they came from, whether blended or from conceptual reification. This matters because we cannot understand the present if we do not understand how we got here. As Isaac Newton said, he stood on the shoulders of giants (Newton, personal communication, with Hooke, 1676). Newton knew that his knowledge came from those before him; it was that which connected him and gave him knowledge and meaning. Without the shoulders of our forebears we are lost to the street of Prufrock.
... The careless use of metaphor and the neglect of blendings only adds confusion to the Communal Lexicon. We accrue meaning into our Communal Lexicon (CL) via the interaction with conceptual metaphor and the blending of concepts. The repository for our communal understanding of the world is constantly in flux. This fluctuation is the byproduct of the accessers’ creation or sublimation of new or old meaning. The items in the CL dictate the quality of it. Thus, when we consciously add works of beauty we become more beautiful, and when conversely we create items of violence and sexism we embody that. We make our CL, but it colors us.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2015-0131/html?lang=en

O3) “Top Ten Metaphors of 2008. By John D. Casnig, Who Says “The Observatory Is Meant To Call Attention To The Subtleties Of Metaphor Use And Impact. The Material Is Mature In Nature, Though Accessible To All. Wednesday, 22 July 2009 ” [Continuing From Above Article Concerning Metaphor, this “Top Ten Metaphors” is pure amusement, having no significance. ]
http://www.metaphorobservatory.com/wp-content/plugins/really-static/static/aboutus/

P1) The book “The Rough Guide to Travel Survival.” By Doug Lansky.
…You might want to purchase this because => You will find good general survival advice, as well as the survival technique => “Follow Water Down Stream”, on pages 186 thru 191.
... You should carefully think about this survival rule =>

WHY IS THIS BOOK MENTIONED HERE?
…The idea => Always Move Towards Inevitable Problem Solution, Also Applies To => How Our Problem Solving Brain Works
.. To find a Best or Near Best Solution (Answer) our brain “Slides To Better & Better”: This, is analogous to “Water sliding down a series of gullies”, similar to water flowing down a steep mountain stream. So “All Is Slide To Better & Better Partial Fit Problem Solution!”, is analogous to a liquid going downhill, following & guided by valleys, to lowest energy level.

P2) The WebPage “How to Find Civilization When You Have No Idea Where You Are” By Elise Xavier 2013.
…This WebPage gives an excellent, expanded full discussion that follows fairly well, the above-mentioned “Tough Guide To Travel Survival “
(AFTER this page comes up, please ignore the at right Photos and Advertisements. )
https://morethanjustsurviving.com/how-to-find-civilization-when-you-have-no-idea-where-you-are/by

P3) The WebPage “What to do When You’re Lost in the Woods, By Montana Hiking Trails, Maps, and Guides.
…If hopelessly lost in a remote mountainous region (problem to be solved), Survival Manuals Suggest This Rule (A general means of solving problem) => “One good rule on self rescuing is to follow water downhill. Generally speaking, roads and civilization lie downhill of a mountain, so following a stream downhill can be a smart move.”
https://mthikes.com/what-to-do-lost-woods/ - :~:text=One%20good%20rule%20on%20self,can%20be%20a%20smart%20move.

About His Book "Zen & Art Of Writing”, Ray Bradbury says => "I like to think is one of the better books on writing."

…Googling Mr Bradbury’s above phrase finds the book “Conversations With Ray Bradbury” which shows on its back, essentially an epigraph, ” which says =>
'"Any writer who sets out to write by formula turns away from himself, whatever truth he contains about the world, and any creativity he has to offer." '

In His Book "Zen & Art Of Writing”, 'Creative Science Fiction Author Ray Bradbury, Tells of His Long Developed Writing Practices, Which He Had Evolved Into, by Long Experience.
…He wrote "Zen & Art Of Writing” because => “He was stunned, in reading Eugen Her-rigel’s book '' "Zen & Art In Archery", how close his writing / creative practices “fit” Zen Bud-dhist Practices described there!!!”
… I (Henry Gurr) agree with Mr Bradbury, and add that the same can be said of Robert Pir-sig’s ZMM. Thus we have essentially three independent confirmations of the validity of “Zen Practices / Principles, as evolved in Eastern Countries!!

Concerning Ray Bradbury’s Statement => “Book Writes Itself” And Other Writing Advice, Which Agrees With My Henry Gurr’s “Explanation-(Theory) Of How Our Mind Works”, and conversely.
… You Will Would Enjoy =>
Zen in the Art of Writing: Releasing the Creative Genius Within You ...
…"Every morning I jump out of bed and step on a land mine. The land mine is me. After the explosion, I spend the rest of the day putting the pieces back together. Now, it's your turn. Jump!" Zest. Gusto. Curiosity. These are the qualities every writer must have, as well as a spirit of adventure. In this exuberant book, the incomparable Ray Bradbury shares the wis-dom, experience, and excitement of a lifetime of writing. Here are practical tips on the art of writing from a master of the craft-everything from finding original ideas to developing your own voice and style-as well as the inside story of Bradbury's own remarkable career as a prolific author of novels, stories, poems, films, and plays. Zen In The Art Of Writing is more than just a how-to manual for the would-be writer: it is a celebration of the act of writing it-self that will delight, impassion, and inspire the writer in you. In it, Bradbury encourages us to follow the unique path of our instincts and enthusiasms to the place where our inner ge-nius dwells, and he shows that success as a writer depends on how well you know one subject: your own life.
Henry Gurr Comment: =>
… Readers should be aware that => Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) Of How Our Mind Works”, (in part), wells agrees with the writings (and implied theory), of many insightful au-thors, especially including the VERY insightful Ray Bradbury, who in my mind has it totally right in nearly all respects, how best to utilize his own Problem Solving Brain to strongly & effectively connect with creativity & then write in ways that other persons will really appreci-ate what he has written.
…These authors write quite perceptively about their own mode of discovery and their heart-felt conclusions on how we all should best use our minds. Although not written with the idea of being a Philosophy of Mind, these works in their own way, many places essentially con-tain a Theory of How Our Mind Works!!
… These authors have formed their conclusions, from their own mode of discovery, inde-pendent of others, and thus when we find portions of mutual author agreement & support, we have found significant conclusions, likely to be truth-bearing! The inquiring reader would do well to study the works of authors whose names and conclusions are on This Document You Are Currently Reading, : Top writers Re Mind, include => Michael Polanyi, Robert Pirsig, Owen Barfield, B F Skinner, John K Sheriff, Charles Peirce, George Lakoff. The resolute penetrating reader will see in => These and many Important Authors),show significant sup-port for Henry Gurr’s “Explanation-(Theory) Of How Our Mind Works”, and conversely.
[- *** *** *** *** =]

NOTE: Most Of The Passages & Ideas Shown Below Are Copied From => Ray Bradbury’s book "Zen & Art Of Writing”. Click Here.

…BRADBURY FOCUS1: True experts have similar mental focus for highly effective work and this Zen-Like attitude Is possible for all persons,: As Ray Bradbury Says => Athletes do it. Painters... Mountain climbers. Zen Buddhists, with their little bows & Arrows do it.

.WORK... RELAX... DON'T THINK: Be a co-sharer of Zen Buddhists, with their little bows & Arrows do it.

…In his Video Presentations, and other writing about his writing, Ray Bradbury often whips up short pithy quotes, that are also pointed Zen like statements. From his own extensive ex-perience, he really understands good procedures to achieve good writing, AND has found Zen like principles on his own. This independent discovery (not from any exposure to East-ern thought), puts Bradbury high on the list of significant authors who really understand the writing process. Mr. Bradbury knows very well how to fully and efficiently allow his UNCON-SCIOUS Problem Solving Brain Processes, to come up with creative insights, that will auto-matically spontaneously Mentally Arrive (such as a Flash of Insight) into his CONSCIOUS MIND!!

…"Don't Think" Of Self: Bradbury says that it is essential to get your Conscious Mind “out of the way”. So your Unconscious Mind can automatically spontaneously do its work! And in this way as he says repeatedly "The artist must not thin critical rewards or money, [nor] the surgeon his fee, nor the athlete the cheering crowd.
…"WORK... DON'T THINK ... RELAX ="Don't Think!.. Which results in more relaxation and more unthinkingness and greater creativity."..."Quantity, lots of work (in writing) gives experi-ence: "From experience alone can quality come.") …
…What we are trying to do is find a way to release the truth that lies in all of us. [To Achieve Writer’s Truth requires the proper Creative Mental State, which in turn produces hard work-ing mind that might paradoxically be "still" and "clear" (about what it is doing!)] [To learn more of Mr. Bradbury’s conclusions re creative, read below the sentences around the word creativity . ]

…RB FOCUS2:: “WHOME DO WE SERVE:; PROPER MOTIVATION; RIGHT ATTITUDE:”

OUR WORK & NATURAL ORDER: Bradburry says repeatedly "RELAX+ DON'T THINK." This is exactly "WORK WITH & NOT AGAINST"
…WORK... RELAX... DON'T THINK
[Be] a co-sharer of existence with your work Once you are really a co-sharer of existence with your work [and life], that work will lose its repellent aspects.... "The artist must not think of critical rewards or money, [nor] the surgeon his fee,[nor] ... the athlete the [cheering] crowd."….. In the arts, WORK is both study and preparation. …For I believe that eventually, quantity will make for quality.
NOTE:
Be a co-sharer of existence with your work Become not a slave but a partner [in your re-lation to what you do]
…"'First off, let's take a long look at that faintly repellent word WORK. It is, above all, the word about which your career will revolve for a lifetime. Beginning now you should become not its slave, which is too mean a term, but its, but its partner. Once you are re-ally a co-sharer of existence with your work, that word will lose its repellent aspects. [Not1e: In previous paragraph, the idea => Co-sharer should be with all existence, not just work.] [Note2: This book is significant because it is largely an independent discov-ery of Zen like principles / abilities discovered from actually doing them, and secondarily discovery of relation to Zen. Relation to what other authors have said about writing could have been co-evolution and discovery of how related. ]
…Let me stop here a moment to ask some questions. Why is it that in a society with a Puritan heritage we have such completely ambivalent feelings about Work? We feel guilty, do we not, if not busy? But we feel somewhat soiled, on the other hand, if we sweat overmuch? I can only suggest that we often indulge in made work, in false busi-ness, to keep from being bored. Or worse still we conceive the idea of working for mon-ey. The money becomes the object, the target, the end-all and be-all. Thus work, being important only as a means to that end, degenerates into boredom. Can we wonder then that we hate it so? 8 Simultaneously, others have fostered the notion among the more self-conscious literary that quill, some parchment, an idle hour in midday, a soupcon of ink daintily tapped on paper will suffice, given inspiration's whiff. Said inspiration be-ing, all too often, the latest issue of The Kenyon Review or some other literary quarter-ly. A few words an hour, a few etched paragraphs per day and - voila! we are the Crea-tor! Or better still, Joyce, Kafka, Sartre! Nothing could be further from true creativity. Nothing could be more destructive than the two above attitudes. Why? Because both are a form of lying. It is a lie to write in such a way as to be rewarded by money in the com-mercial market. It is a lie to write in such a way as to be rewarded by fame offered you by some snobbish quasi-literary group in the intellectual gazettes. . Do I have to tell you how filled to the brim the literary quarterlies are with young lads and lasses kidding themselves they are creating when all they are doing is imitating the scrolls and flour-ishes of Virginia Woolf, William Faulkner or Tack Kerouac? Do I have to tell you how filled to the brim are our 9 women's magazines and other mass circulation publications with yet other lads and lasses kidding themselves they are creating when they are only imitating Clarence Buddington Kelland, Anya Seton, or Sax Rohmer? The avant-garde liar kids himself he will be remembered for his pedantic lie. The commercial liar, too, on his own level, kids himself that while he is slanting, it is only because the world is tilt-ed, everyone walks like that!"'

…BRADBURY FOCUS4: …"Don't Think" Of Self: "The artist must not think of critical rewards or money, [nor] the surgeon his = fee, [nor] ... the athlete the [cheering] crowd."….
…VIRTUE, STRENGTH, NATURAL LAW, CONNECT WITH REALITY:.
"You need to go to Zen for the answer to your problems. Zen, like all philosophies, followed but in the tracks of men who learned from instinct what was good for them." [Trying to bring out your own truth.]
…"WORK... RELAX... DON'T THINK"
"Each of you, curious about creativity, wants to make contact with that thing in yourself that is truly original.".... "And work itself, after a while, takes on a rhythm. The mechanical begins to fall away. The body begins to take over." "
…For I believe that eventually quantity will make for quality."
NOTE:
[For Ray Bradbury, WORK is both study and preparation ] …. "'What kind of schedule? Something like this. 1,000 or 2,000 words every day for the next twenty years. At the start, you might shoot for one short story a week, 52 stories a year, for five years. You will have to write and put away or burn a lot of material before you are comfortable in this medium. You might as well start now and get the necessary work done. For I believe that eventually quan-tity will make for quality. How so? Michelangelo's, da Vinci's, Tintoretto's billion sketches, the quantitative, prepared them for the qualitative, single sketches further down the line, single portraits, single landscapes of incredible control and beauty. A great surgeon dissects and re-dissects a thousand, ten thousand bodies, tissues, organs, preparing thus by quantity the time when quality will count - with a living creature under his knife. An athlete may run ten thousand miles in order to prepare for one hundred yards.

[- *** *** *** *** =]

“Conversations With Ray Bradbury: Science-Fiction Supernova” An Interviews With Ray Bradbury And Related Discussions. Univ. Press of Mississippi. Sandy Hill / 1997
From the Charlotte Observer, 12 October 1997, Art Section, p. 1 F. Copyright © 1997
…Question: You don't consider yourself a science-fiction writer, even though others call you that. How do you see yourself?
…Answer: I am a collector of metaphors. Any idea that strikes me I run with. I've published in the last seven years two murder mysteries, Death Is a Lonely Business and A Graveyard for Lunatics. Then during the last six years I've published a book on Ireland and (written) Moby Dick for the screen. I have published two books of essays, Zen and the Art of Writing, which I like to think is one of the better books on writing, then Yestermorrow, on how to cure current problems and make our society work.
…I wrote The October Country, which is weird fantasy. There is no science fiction there. And "Halloween Tree," which is a history of Halloween. And Dandelion Wine, which is my child-hood in Illinois. Something Wicked. This Way Comes, which is also my childhood plus fan-tasy. So when you look at the spread of things, there is only one novel that is science fiction. And that's Fahrenheit 451.
…In other words, science fiction is the art of the possible, not the art of the impossible. As soon as you deal with things that can't happen you are writing fantasy.
…Q: I know you never have trouble coming up with ideas. Walk me through your daily inspi-ration and writing process.
…A: I just wake up with ideas every morning from my subconscious percolating. At seven in the morning, I lie in bed and I watch all the fragments of ideas swarming around in my head and these voices talk to me. And when they get to a certain point, I jump out of bed and run to the typewriter. So I'm not in control.
…Two hours later I have a new short story or an essay or part of a play.
End Page 170
The Above Is An Excerpt From GoogleBooks Ver-sion Of “Conversations With Ray Bradbury”. Click Here For This And Other Parts Of This Book.
For Additional Parts Of This Book, Includ-ing Portrait Of Mr Bradbury, In GoogleBooks Version Of “Conversations With Ray Brad-bury”. Click Here.

Wikipedia Page About Ray Bradbury Says The Following => How Ideas Suddenly Strike =>
He described his inspirations: "My stories run up and bite me in the leg—I respond by writing them down—everything that goes on during the bite. When I finish, the idea lets go and runs off"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Bradbury

This List Found By YouTube Search, Shows Many Good But Short Vid-eor Of Ray Bradbury. Persistent Google Or Bing Search May Find Better.
NOTE: Let me know if you find good ones, such as Ray Bradbury saying =>

Building On Ray Bradbury’s Conclusions About Writing: A Good Research Article About Writing => "The Givens in Our Conversations The Writing Process." [What this article says, is well supported by Henry Gurr’s “Explanation-(Theory) Of How Our Mind Works”, and conversely. ]

…That writing is a process sounds pretty obvious. We know that texts don't appear magically on pages as whole products. There is a process in getting from mind to page. As obvious as that might be, how-ever, teachers of writing have until relatively recently been trained to behave as literary critics—looking at texts so as to analyze what happens within those texts. Students in ,, composition classes were en-joined to look at texts, analyze and discuss what : , happens in those texts, and then produce something of their own that followed the patterns they found in those texts. Ideas were to be provided by the text, the form provided by the text, with evaluation based on how well ' the student paper emulated the ideal text.
…The process was rather like having students watch and discuss a videotape of a prima ballerina and having • the students attempt the same dance, with the students then being evaluated based on how well they approximated the ballerina's performance—without • knowing how the ballerina came to mas-ter those steps. No attention was given to the process of arriving at the product.
… In 1959 the National Academy of Sciences sponsored the Woods Hole • Conference. Its director was a cognitive psychologist with a keen interest in S education and language—Jerome Bruner. The result of the conference was 5 a shift in emphasis for all schooling to the process of cognitive develop-ment. > Process became the new catchword. In 1966, about fifty teachers of English, , from England and from the United States met to discuss common problems.
…What the Americans discovered was that the British did not teach writing as discipline specific. The British, rather than teach writing to serve some external purpose or genre, taught writing as a process of individual • development, a matter of self-discovery. This was the Dartmouth Conference. Its discover-ies fit well with the Woods Hole discoveries. Cross-Talk in Comp Theory Woods Hole and Dartmouth made for a new attention to the whole concept of process. Writers and teachers like Donald Murray, Ken Macrorie, and Peter Elbow turned to what they knew as writers and as teachers to shed light on what writers do when they write. At about the same time, researchers in composition were heeding the call provided by Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoer's Research in Written Composition, a collection of research on composing to 1963. Their call? More research on writing itself (as opposed to products or pedagogy). …
"Jerome Bruner, like Jean Piaget, through a comparable set of categories, posits three major ways in which we represent and deal with actuality: (1) enactive—we learn "by doing"; (2) iconic—we learn "by depiction in an image"; and (3) representational or symbolic—we learn "by restatement in words."® To overstate the matter, in enactive learning, the hand predomi-nates; in iconic, the eye; and in symbolic, the brain. What is striking about writing as a pro-cess is that, by its very nature, all three ways of dealing with actuality are simultaneously or almost simultaneously deployed. That is, the symbolic transformation of experience through the specific symbol system of verbal language is shaped into an icon (the graphic product) by the enactive hand. If the most efficacious learning occurs when learning is reinforced, then writing through its inherent reinforcing cycle involving hand, eye, and brain marks a uniquely powerful multi-representational mode for learning. Writing is also integrative in perhaps the most basic possible sense: the organic, the functional. Writing involves the full-est possible functioning of Writing as a Mode of Learning [wherein] the brain, which entails the active participation in the process of both the left and the right hemispheres. Writing is markedly bispheral, although in some , popular accounts, writing is inaccurately presented as a chiefly left hemisphere activity, perhaps because the linear written product is somehow regarded as analogue for the process that created it; and the left herhisphere seems to pro-cess material linearly: ...
Click Here For Entire “The Writing Process” Article.

For Further Reading => On Topics Related To “How Our Mind Works”:

NOTE: Readers Should Be Aware That There Are FOUR Continuation Pages Of “Supplementary Information” Which Are =>
…
1) Supplementary Information1, for Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works. This is the WebPage you are reading right now.
…
2) Supplementary Information2, for Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works.
…
3) Supplementary Information3, Featuring Professor James F Ross’ Book ‘Portraying Analogy’ … Which Very Much Is Working With “Metaphor” …. AND Is Relevant To (And Supports), Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works.

4) Supplementary Information4, for Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works.

EDIT HISTORY OF J K SHERIFF PART ABOVE
Compsd RPG 3Nov15 EditHSG 26April14:13Sept21, 12Oct22.
Moved To Suppl1 Page on 11Sept22
Originally in File = ZmmqMenu}JohnKSheriffBkRevTheFateOfMeaningByCharlesPierceByRpg01hsg03 .doc

THIS ENTIRE SUPPLEMENT1 PAGE
CompsdHsg27&May18;Rev4June18;EditRpg2May18;6June18 ]EditHsg3May19;14June19;5Aug19;15Sept21,21-23June22. Fx&AddSheriff11Oct22,Fx&Improve12Oct22,24-
25April24Fis&ReMoveAllPprBooksToHere&AddtecentlyFind. <1-15May24,24May24.
File = Rpg03Hsg19+EditFx5+QMec=PoThPgSuppt1v12....InsideJokes1Mo4+Bradbury3
PrevFile = Rpg03Hsg19+EditFx5+QMec=PoThPgSuppt1v12...ffx3..+Fx6+InsideJokes1Mo4
PrevFile = Rpg03Hsg19+EditFx5+QMec=PoThPgSuppt1v12...ffx3+AllPprBksMvdToHere5{NowDn&Missing+Fx6
PrevFile = Rpg03Hsg19+EditFx5+QMec=PoThPgSuppt1v12..ffx3AllPprBksMvdToHere5
PrevFile = Rpg03Hsg19+EditFx5+QMec=PoThPgSuppt1v12C&pFmSvr6+Sheriffx3
[PrevFile = Rpg03Hsg19+EditFx5+QMec=ProtoTheoryPanoMindSupplmt1v12+Sheriff3.docx
[--210915Svd}S5268File= Rpg03Hsg19+EditFx5+QMecProtoTheoryPanoramaMindSupplmt1v7+Sheriff.docx ]
prevFile= Rpg03Hsg19+EditFx5 Proto Theory Panorama of Mind Supplmt2v7.docx
[+ Previous PostedAs = Rpg06Hsg1+ReeeEditFx5=Proto Theory Panorama of Mind Supplemental -]
Older File = Rpg03Hsg19+ReeeEditFx5=Proto Theory Panorama of Mind Supplemental -]

NOTE: 220620
HsgSpent~1hrIdentityChk}CurrentPostedVersion95%EqualToEvidentWorkDocumentSeriesLastSavedAs2109116ToFile= Rpg06Hsg1+ReeeEditFx5=ProtoThPanoMdSuppl1FmServer+HsgWrk20.2.docx <WhichContentSeen95%ContainedintoToThatCurrentlyPosted, AND TheEvidentOriinalOriginsOfWhichWereInSaveAs210913 (or possibly 180502) File = Rpg06Hsg1+ReeeEditFx5=ProtoThPanoramaMindSuppl1FmServer.docx