Neurosemantics: The Third Ecology?
Neurosemantics: The Third Psicology?
Neurosemantics: The Third Neurosciences?
Neurosemantics: The Third Cybernetics?
Neurosemantics: The Third Sociology?
Neurosemantics: The Third Biology?
Neurosemantics: The Third Linguistics?
Neurosemantics is the science and technology of neurosemantic networks.
Neurosemantic networks are diferent from neural networks, unless they will be considered implicit, under this new approach, to Neurosciences and Neural Networks.
Sensorial Systems are so fundamental in the operation of our Neural Networks, as the operations ocurring within the Brain. In fact both subsystems ("neural" -and- "sensorial") are but static, linear distinctions, among a global neurosensorial network, who is the Hunting Epistemic Territory of this comprehensible way to understanding and approaching Neurosemantics.
In that way Neurosemantics covers three subsets: 1) Brain and Neural System, 2) Sensorial System, or Sensosphere, and 3) Language, that becomes covering all the information systems within Ecosystem.
As Sensosphere would be, under this approach, the (extended-) Brain of Humans, Any of our Sensations would be approached as within a symbiocybernetic set we call Sensosphere (Networks), and Any of the languages, or Any of the information perceived within our observational process, would be included as true conversation, within all the networks of conversations composing our living existence. That means that a blackbird singing or flying, are also part of your, our, conversations. In that way a new subjectivity merges, as not only you (your brain, your body), as not only you and your fellow humans, are the participants in your living conversations, but all the sounds, waves and bits your bodies are watching within ecosystem.
In a second step, you would understand that also "inert" nature are active participants too. When you attend a case of echolocation, you wuld see how the final result of your echolocation operation is also depending of the physical surroundings, whose features are going to modify the sounds in their way, with a relief comparable to your own possible changes in the primary production of your vocal sounds.
The sounds, after resonating within ecosystem, are a double sucessional derivation of the fonal processes inside your body, and the resounding, or reverberating processes that are going to occur outside your body, when your songs, twistles, or sounds, are going to play pin-pong within all the surfaces...
In that way we reach at so dramatic inclusional change in the concept of Language, as including three classes of Language. Language 1.0 would be the formal characterization of Human Language, that is the words... Language 2.0 jump on this last definition to include all the human language, gestures, singing, danzing, or whatever information occuring within us in the physical, biological levels. In that way we follow autopoiesis indictum, or "a priori", a Autopoietic Coherence Principle, that is, which "knowing is living and living is knowing", after Maturana and Varela Biology of Knowing approach. A third Language, we call 0.0, merges when we consider together with these two previous acceptions, all the information system within ecosystem. Sensosphere covers both previous levels of Language, including all the sensorial capital of ecosystems, beyond any previous disctintions taken according to the respective epistemic possition by one certain discipline...
As Language began to be considered today, seriously, as a biological feature, that means that autopoiesis of sounds, within ecosystem, become a ecological outcome, where living organisms are only a piece of all the living, and perceived theatre. In that way we would talk actualy about "ecopoiesis" processes, conducting within certain space-time characteristics, towards a certain waves danzing, so dynamic, that the complexity of outcomes, being a transfinite informational, dynamic set, is on the other way accesible to our sensorial devices.
In this way we would diferentiate three diferent "Worlds" according with the levels of neurosensorial networks, that are covered in diferent epistemic models.
World 1.0 would be related with conventional psicologism approach, where all things are surfing over the Brain. Body, sensations and ecosystem neurosensorial networks being absent. World 1.0 would be related with the reductionistic vision of the Brain as the center of attention of Neurosciences. World 1.0 would be related to autoecological approach by naturalists only attending to a very small systematic focus among all the species network actually composing any ecosystem. World 1.0 Would be related to conventional Language approaches, where Biology was almost wholy absent. World 1.0 would be related with Cybernetics and Sociology 1.0, where unidirectional control and communication was dominating.
World 2.0 would be related to middle approach within this continuum covering Brain, Body, Society and Ecosystem. Embodied Phenomenology. Sinecology in classical approach, where only non-human species are included, or and where sensations are not extensively covered in the research. Extended Mind models would be here too, notwistanding their inclusional, implicit widening focus, clearly directed towards the ecosystem. The new open doors within "Sensomics" offer a particular configuration within this level. Sensomics is beginning to take seriously the sensations, at least as to include flavors in foods. World 2.0 would include also all the developments in social sciences, that clearly approach towards people and ecosystems, for example Ecological economics, Ecosemiotics, Political Ecology, Symbiotic Conservation, Biocultural Diversity...
WORLD 0.0...
Looking within a multi collective curriculum
My own curriculum, as a small series of sketches, would show how a polymathic result has being reaching after 20 years.
We would compare the diversity of topics in my research. We take a sample of articles covering this temporal process of transdisciplinary expansion.
1) One article of my first, biogeographical research step.
2) "Y tu mirá se me clava en los ojos como una espá" 1996. This article represent a significant increase in the topics covered in it. The diversity of topics appears, in that way, as a variable in exponential increase, specialy from the next one.
3) "Meando Fuera del testo". In this article, symbiodiversity is presented as a unification tool within a symptomatic break in knowledge society, the separation between natural, and social sciences. The Language of the article is becoming "biopoetic", in line with "The Book of Desire. Towards a Biological Poetics", where Language and Content converge towards the same focus. "The media is the message".
4) "The Role of Symbiotic Revolution for Human Survival" is an integrative vision of the point where we were at this time (2006). We are going to construct a list of memes, or descriptors, covering those disciplines that were covered in each of these articles, and any one more.
A discipline can be considered a "Doctrinal Corpus Discipline", that is a fuzzy set composed by a certain sample of descriptors or and theories. In that way, a discipline is wholy equal to analyse as a territory or ecosystem, just because who works, and meke the increase and changes within a certain discipline are human beings, the scientists, all whose their academic or scientific actions are available to be stuvied as of any other living being we would talk about.
As organisms or superorganisms, disciplines changes along their life, adding inmigrating memes or descriptors, from elsewhere, increasing in that way the population of memes or descriptors within the core of Doctrinal Corpus Discipline.
Specialization versus Polymathics means as a small sample of memes or descriptors, versus a very high sample of descriptors or memes.
In that link, I put the point in "An important assumption of NLP is that emotion, thought and behavior consists of, and is influenced by, how the sensory-specific modalities (visual, auditory,kinesthetic, olfactory, gustatory) are organized and give rise to consciousness."
That meaning an expanded approach to what is more important under our 0.0 approach, that is, the sensorial, or ecosystem memories. It is in that point where our mutual approaches converge towards World 0.0. No matter now other aspects of this link. Just being sensorial realm so apart from so many conventional approaches...
Of course Sensosphere awareness is a special programming, but so open and reprogramming process that would be more close to Flowing, in the sense that you are aware of your functional dynamic sensorial inclusion within all the ecosystem, and thus your sensorial eficiency allowing a easier way to profit all that amount of transfinite information, and returning as outcome a ever increasing awareness of ecosystem transfinite sensational diversity. In that way you always seems and feels, and perceive, "as the first time", as a new rebirthing moment, because you are always as a "beginners Mind"... World 0.0 means an ever phenomenological alert consciousness.
