ONTOLOGY

A branch of philosophy concerned with what really exists as opposed to what appears to exist but does not. The ontology of a theory is the set of real objects or events which the theory ascribes existence to by referring to them without reference to an observer. An ontology is implied in claiming knowledge of what is. (Krippendorff)  [principia cybernetica web]

EPISTEMOLOGY

A branch of philosophy concerned with how an observer may know, not with what he may know thereby. The latter is the concern of ontology Epistemology seeks to understand the origin, processes and limitations of observation including such OPERATIONs as drawing distinctions, establishing RELATIONs, creating CONSTRUCTs and all consequences for knowledge resulting from COMMUNICATION between an observer and the observed and within a community of observers who may observe each other. The epistemology of a theory considers the observer and the observed as parts of the same system and theory as an emergent property of the interaction process. Epistemology asks not "what is", or "what can we know" but "how do we come to know". (Krippendorff)  [principia cybernetica web] 

Neurocosmology is a phenomenological science ((1) the study of all possible appearances in human experience, during which considerations of objective reality and of purely subjective response are temporarily left out of account. (2) a philosophical movement based on phenomenology, originated by Edmund Husserl about1905. )  [principia cybernetica web] Phenomenology is terminally focused on the relational nature of knowledge, as opposed to Scientism which conceives of knowledge in its substance and nature, real beyond any perceptual or intuitional contingencies of the knower/observer/investigator. "In his Refutation of Idealism , Kant shows clearly the confusion between that which one wants to prove, and that with which one carrries out the proof, and the means whereby the proof is materialized" (Kockelmans, 1970; 153).  Historically, phenomenology aroze in some reaction to what many then (e.g., Heidegger, Wittgenstein) perceived as a kind of dead end traditional philosophical method had lead inquiry into (a la the fly bottle [animation]).

Among other things Kant affirms that it is a scandal for philosophy that there is still no conclusive proof for the real existence of things outside of us.  According to Heidegger the "scandal of philosophy" is not that this proof has yet to be given but that such proofs are expected and attempted time and time again [AMEN BROTHER!] (Kockelmans, 1970)

There is a certain totalitarian spirit in the the mind which needs to ascertain what is absolutely [ontologically] real so as to get on about the business of building worlds according to its own suspicions about what constitutes optimal experience for "homo sapiens" (so liberal democratic scientistic capitalism or Objiway Spritualism, for example). The starting point is 'what is life for?' The answer (s) to this question spins out worlds practically unrecogniable in their both having been created by the same entity 'homo sapiens.

Beginning in earnest with Edmund Husserl, the attempt was made to point the light of inquiry at the very arena/space wherein knowing occurs and has its being:  consciousness itself.  The relational nature of knowledge, then, turns out to echo a more fundamental dynamic of consciousness early phenomenologists dubbed "intentionality."  Intentionality in a most basic sense is the directioning nature of concsiousness; consciousness is always of , at or about some thing.  Now comes the tricky part which is what separtates ontology from epistemology and is why neuro-cosmology is an operational epistemic philosophy and not a method of arriving at the 'ding an sich.'  How [a] consciousness is being conscsious of, at or about some thing in the/a world is where this discussion becomes anthropological and specifically neurophenomenological.  Here's how.

If we are doing epistemology then given the above we must first focus on those very constiuents of knowledge fabrication which are [possible] contingencies that shape what is known and in so doing make the known intelligible/meaningful/useful to only those whose knowing may be similarly tailored.  Axiomatically, I am going to list the following as such

• The perceptual mechanisms themselves:  the biological stuff of the senses and how it is designed and how it behaves.
• linguistic/semiotic mechanisms woven into (vs. 'overlaying') the biological stuff: naming, grammatical institutions for naming (e.g., indo-euro vs algonkian), syntax, pure limbic perception (semantic foundation) of symbols, and culture specific crafting of limbic perception of symbols,
• cognitive/emotional and physical behaviors concomitant with perception (grokking): what happens as grokking occurs; what does ontykus think feel and do inside its 'there.'  [semiomorph will ascertain this finally inside grok box]

Consistent with the phenomenological tradition, Neuro-cosmology begins with the contents of mind (PSI) at any point during perceptual interaction with some thing presumably causing the perception resulting in the contents of mind at T_x.  Moving on then to a description of the fundamnetal nature's of the kinds of things which may become the contents of our minds (which again are entirely determined by the above contingency elements such that there are psi contents for an indian in the caremony perhaps even just referring to the moon which are simply not present to me when signifier 'moon' arizes) nK is hueristically, and so consequently hopefully conceptually founded on a notational system.  This system breaks perceived reality up into three groups [set theory notation and quantum mechanics] MIND, LIFE, MATTER.  

• PSI
• PHX
• PHI

Using these three categories the whole of the interaction between mind and a world may be represented and meditated upon; intentionality may be so hueristically rendered and then experimentally manipulated (e.g.,  semiomorph)

Neurocosmology, as such, is very briefly put into a context and defined by Dave Warner as

[under construction]

Introduction to Neurocosmology

In the course of systematic reflection upon those fundamental essences which appear to be
ontologically distinct primary percepts, one may construct a sound and verifiable epistemology
with a triad of categorical types. That is, if one is to separate the "WORLD" as perceived into
categories which are characterized phenomenologically rather than by the material constituents
with which it is constructed, one finds that there are three principle realms which may act in
concert and in various combinations to account for the whole of perceptible "reality". These three
categories are Experiential, Biophysical and the Abiophysical, more commonly known as MIND,
LIFE and MATTER.

Given these abstract categories as primitives, a quick reality check will also reveal that there is a cosmological scale where this"perceptual" reasoning will be most valid; that being the Anthroscopic scale. It is only at this scale that we, as biophysically restrained sentient beings, are truly able to perceive the "world" around us. A second class of restraints which also limit our capacity for a sound epistemological basis are the limitations intrinsic in our biophysical systems' capacity to transduce information from our external and internal environments and present it to our consciousness. We "KNOW" only that which the human nervous system is capable of modulating. A third class of restraints emerge from the fact that the content and context of these consciousness sustaining neuromodulations induce powerful limitations in our capacity to act on our well intended abstractions of what ought to be right actions. It is my observation that the above mentioned points are for the most part neglected in most modern ethical and moral dialogue. How easily it is to jump right in with an apriori theism and/or humanism in which the ontological basis is assumed to be universal. In reality, there is no rational basis for these beliefs other than questionably authoritative historical documents and/or transiently fashionable, socially specific, emotionally biased, cultured dispositions.  

My personal moral and ethical beliefs take into account the fact that I, as an individual, am limited intrinsically not only in what I can know but also, by cultural default, in what I know. Therefore it does not seem reasonable that I have a fixed default reasoning algorhythm to which I blindly adhere, but rather that I have an ecclectically evolving dynamic psychotechnology which I judiciously employ as needed. Over the course of my intellectual development I have attempted to derive, from first principles, a culturally coherent set of fundamental heuristics which aid in my discerning a course of right action which is consistent with my understanding of the universe and my current status therein.

Neurocosmology aims to illuminate and exploit the biophysical and cultural/historical boundaries of human knowing. This "operational philosophy based on perception" works in the context of information processing systems and the related perceptual modulations wrought by nervous systems interacting with informatic systems (e.g., topochromosonics). Humans create knowledge based on what our nervous system has phylogenetically become and what our culture simultaneously makes of our nervous systems. Knowledge itself, then, seems a culturally specific modulation of the nervous system through an entire range of social and technological media towards some set of cultural priorities over against the living out of the typically opaque anwer to the question: 'what is life for?'

SYSTEMS HIERARCHY

(LEVELS OF ORGANIZATION)

BIOSPHERE

SOCIETY-NATION

CULTURE-SUBCULTURE

COMMUNITY

FAMILY

TWO-PERSON

*PERSON* [experience and behavior]

NERVOUS SYSTEM

ORGANS/ORGANS SYSTEMS

TISSUES

CELLS

ORGANELLES

MOLECULES

ATOMS

SUBATOMIC PARTICLES