Talk:Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer
I am unsure of how to categorize this page, for the reason that i believe it to be heuristic, yet neuroheuristic more over, and there really is no category for this. I may have to create one later. I have also left things unfinished, such as footnotes or notation. I don't know how to do that yet, and will learn shortly. Wiki help pages said I can just toss the info on, and someone will come and fix it. As long as pages numbers and where i got it from are noted.
not bad but umm, i dont think its appropriate to put this in neuroscience at all (pseudoscience if anything.) Is there a category for cognitive development? evolutionary psychology? new age/occult books? Also wouldn't this fall under the grounds of semiotics? And no, I haven't even read the book.
Oh also, theres a bit of a super geeky pun on the front page, "help improve the human biocomputer by expanding it"! (I love it!) Universal Logic (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
my personal view upon subject
first, let me excuse expressing several personal views on the subject, yet i hope they might guide future editors toward more clear view on the subject, article, and the ideas they represent.
personally i think this is just metaphysical theory, as it has many obvious shortcomings. first - leary was not skilled enough in mathematics, computer science and neuroendocrinology to understand differences in way how computers and autosophers work. he treated brain functions phenomenologically, not giving much care about even his-age development of neurology.
ofcourse to improve article and to put it in correct context, one needs quite extensive explainations , preferably attention of few experts in modern neuroendocrinology (especially to explain how Leary 'studied' brain by using of neurohormonal-receptor binding proteins, and how he managed to create his metaphysics basing on results, and especially _why_ this was still way ahead understanding of even quite highly educated people of his age)
current state of article is imho too 'factual' - Leary had much confidence in his beliefs, esp. they based on - also phenomenological - ideas of far east. unfortunatelly this overconfidence yielded in copy&paste theory , not really explaining much beyond obviously observable phenomenons. this makes it more than actually just a 'belief' - so the 'human biocomputer' could be compared to delusion sometimes experienced by westerners with schizophrenia of pre-electronic age - that their body is complex machine, made of gears, springs, etc. (source - Antoni Kepinski "Schizophrenia") .
as this delusion is frequently copied, perhaps it could be classified as one of common schizophrenic belief ? (like the 'human biomachine' one observed by Antoni Kepinski?) . ofcourse this still doesn't explain how such delusions form, and even Kepinski - despite his knowledge of schizophrenia - could not explain exactly _how_ they form (meaning where their content comes from), instead basing on clinical research...