The October 19th New Scientist reports that Stanford University epidemiologist, John Ioannidis believes many of the

problems encountered by the current scanner approach to analysing brain activity are due to a lack of transparency about the parlous state of its methods and ob ectives and a tendency to s!eep details of the errors that result under the carpet" It#s unusual for a member of the scientific community to break ranks in this style but I#m sure you#re a!are that many !ithin the community are openly admitting ho! relieved they are that someone has at last !orked up the courage to poke his head over the parapet in this regard" The big $uestion, ho!ever, is ho! long the sense of relief !ill last % this could be the biggest can of !orms that science as a !hole, not simply neuroscience, has confronted since &opernicus" There#s a ghastly vicious circle here" 'e need to kno! ho! the brain !orks in order to formulate a psychology sufficiently rigorous to support scientific empiricism but one of the biggest obstacles in our path is the problem of !hat to look for in the brain if you#re unclear !hat mind is" I#ve been !orking on this problem for some time so I decided to send (rof Ioannidis a sample of my results" I#m sending you a copy because I#m convinced his transparency !ill only !ork if it#s e)tended to include the public" I#ve been a fan of your ournalism on the sub ect of science and culture for decades and have bought, read and thoroughly en oyed your book The Brain is Wider than the Sky" I hope you !ill en oy the many ironies my approach to the topic reveals"

*mail to (rof Ioannidis+ % Dear Prof Ioannidis In the spirit of your recent call for greater transparency in attempts to resolve the current problems of neuroscience, I offer the attached essay on an as yet unconsidered strategy. Its aim is to throw some light on a key problem, researchers' failure to acknowledge the symbolic role of the brain in our culture. What the strategy entails is an application of WV !uine's theory of empirical e"uivalence to pinpoint what is currently perceived as the least likely option for an empirical solution to the mind#body problem $$ any theory that claims the brain is % & the organ of mind, has a much simpler though e"ually vital anatomical and physiological role easily described in terms of known neural characteristics and mind is a totally distributed system e"uivalent to the whole physiology. 'uch a theory would clearly solve the brain#body problem but only at the cost of divesting the brain of any utility as a symbol of authority or e(pertise. &he theory would then act as a benchmark in the rating of the degree of vulnerability to cultural bias of theories which propose that the brain I' the organ of the mind. ne e(ample of a possible use of this benchmark is as a means of uncovering issues currently swept under the carpet to e(pose the boundaries of the reductionist basis of contemporary neuroscience. )nother is as a measure of the widespread but hidden hostility towards holistic forms of empiricism. *et another is as a means of spotlighting the need to "uestion more openly where science ends and natural philosophy emerges as a more effective ad+udicator of the issues involved.

,enchmarking ,rain Theories.uine#s *mpirical *$uivalence and /euroscience 'illard 0an Orman .uine !as an 1merican philosopher of science !ho developed a thinking tool that could be very useful in analysing the current problems of neuroscience" 2e called it #empirical e$uivalence# and described !hat it entailed in an essay titled 3On *mpirically *$uivalent Systems of the 'orld4" .uine !as uni$ue, one of the fe! that stood astride the flo! and movement of the century leaving us a legacy the community of analytical philosophers has yet to herald !ith the full acclaim it deserves" 2is self5kno!ledge and honesty !ith regard to the cultural provenance of the e)perimental method come too close for comfort for them and for most of today#s scientists" 2e sa! more and more clearly through the course of his life that deep problems in the study of mind and its role in behaviour !ere being ignored by !orking scientists" 1ssumptions !ere being made !hich turned out on closer and more impartial assessment to be strongly controversial" 2e sa!, in particular, that many of the assumptions !e make about scientific language and !ays of thinking are not !ell5founded in terms of the psychology they entail" 2is honesty seems grounded in a general !illingness to start from the simple $uestion, 3Is there another, e$ually plausible but contradictory story that could be told here-4" The more he asked this $uestion in the conte)t of the philosophy of science the more he found himself forced to ans!er in some courteously provocative !ay, 36es74" The more he thought like this the easier he found it to reduce most of the issues involved to a pragmatic psychology !hich based itself on uncovering the holistic nature of language, meaning and thought in general" 8amously, he claimed it#s !rong to think in terms of the meanings of !ords as being located solely inside them, emerging together from !ithin us as self5contained entities from some indeterminate or abstract space in us that stores them" 1gainst this, .uine#s vie! is !e#re only able to grasp the meanings of !ords because !e kno! ho! they !ork in the e)ternal social institutions using them" Scientific !ords and thinking, in these terms, only make sense in terms of 3the !hole of science4" This holistic, e)ternalist and behaviourist approach culminated in his promotion of 3empirical e$uivalence4 as a tool for the assessment of any attempt to e)plain !hat it is to identify empirical science !ith the methodological use of e)periments" If you don#t understand ho! e)periments relate to your o!n mind, it#s saying, you#ll never understand ho! reliable or unreliable the e)perimental method is" .uine recognised this !as something fe! scientists !ere bothered by" 2e sa! that the key feature of empirical e)periments is that they#re conceived as e)tending the range of our natural senses" The latter provide an intrinsically sub ective and thus inherently limited vie! of things" 'e never get to see the !hole picture and are obliged to interpret !hat the things !e can see mean for our kno!ledge of !hat !e can't see" 2o!ever, using technological means to e)tend our senses doesn#t eliminate the need for interpreting the results !e get in the process" 2e realised it may even complicate the account !e !ant to make of them" 2is investigation of the problems that can ensue as a conse$uence of such complications convinced him e)periments can never be used to decide !hich is the better of t!o incompatible or rival interpretations nor ho! to grade them or eliminate one of the narratives they generate" Such rivalry % mutually contradictory accounts of the same set of e)perimental results % !as !hat he identified as #empirical e$uivalence#" .uine#s preferred arena for e)plaining his approach to this key problem of empiricism !as to e)plore the rivalry bet!een the traditional internalistic e)planation of language and meaning and his o!n development of an e)ternalistic and holistic approach to these topics" 2e sa! our current

linguistic internalism as a fla!ed component of the humanistic search for an impregnable cognitive foundation that !ould put our secular culture ahead of all other cultures in the race for supremacy" 2e had, that is, spotted a fundamental parado) regarding the very means of communication !e rely on to talk to each other and think !ith, the indeterminacy of language and the meanings of !ords" 2e realised that, if our !orldvie! is to make any sense at all, the problem of our denial of the role of this indeterminacy in our lives !ould have to be opened up and publicly resolved" 9y preferred means of achieving this basic aim relates more specifically to theories about the brain" : : :

The main reason for my choice here is the absence of a !idespread consensus about any of the many current scientific e)planations of the brain" 'hat interests me about this absence is the !ay it distracts us from one ikonic point on !hich almost everyone is agreed, layfolk and e)perts alike" The brain is culturally important to all of us because !e all automatically see it as the location of our minds" It isn#t a theory for us" It#s as much a part of our reality as our lungs and kidneys" ;etails of ho! our minds !ork are specially important to scientists because of their basic need to discount for their sub ectivity in the various tasks they have to carry out as scientists" The notion that the brain might function as a kind of central organic computer is thus crucial because it helps soften people #s !orries and doubts about the role played by mind in the action of our senses and ho! !e interpret !hat they tell us !hether as science or in general" Sho!ing, therefore, that the brain may not be the location of our minds and may, indeed, have a much simpler though e$ually vital role to play in the action of our bodies has, from the point of vie! of the story I !ant to unfold here, several important advantages" 8irst and foremost is the !ay it !ill serve to sho! that .uine#s claims don#t ust relate to linguistics or the use of language in science % empirical e$uivalence is capable of threatening the underlying practices by !hich our current science identifies itself, the mechanics of the e)perimental method itself" In particular, it !ill help to clarify many of the issues involved in the at best thinly disguised hostility most of today#s scientists feel to!ards holistic forms of empiricism" 2opefully, it !ill help scientists committed to the currently dominant reductionism to recognise that e)ploring holistic solutions can bring advantages !hich clearly out!eigh any loss of e)pert authority it might also entail" <aining a clear provenance for our minds, for instance, is likely to be an essential component in our ability to navigate many of the perilous !aters that lie ahead of us if !e are ever to drum up the courage to turn our culture round and head it to!ards less impactful !ays of sustaining itself" 9y strategy is to list up those claims of the various versions of the standard model of the brain that stand out as being incompatible !ith the claims of the non5psychological rival brain theory I am claiming is empirically e$uivalent to it" The list !ill include enough detail to allo! me to go on to sho! that the standard model only has meaning in the conte)t of the !hole of our !orldvie!, our 3system of the !orld4" It should, at the same time, provide readers !ith clues to ho! to choose !hich version of the standard model they prefer to use in the comparison necessary for their assessment of empirical e$uivalence in the conte)t of brain theories" 8irst, let#s consider .uine#s vie! of !hat#s at stake here" 1 brief look at the first and last paragraphs book5ending his essay referred to above is a good place to start"
If all observable events can be accounted for in one comprehensive scientific theory % one system of the !orld = % then !e may e)pect that they can all be accounted for e$ually in another, conflicting system system of the !orld" 'e may e)pect this because of ho! scientists !ork" 8or they do not rest !ith mere inductive generalisations of their observations+ mere e)trapolation to observed events from similar

observed events" Scientists invent hypotheses that talk of things beyond the reach of observation" The hypotheses are related to observation only by a kind of one5!ay implication> namely, the events !e observe are !hat a belief in the hypotheses !ould have led us to e)pect" These observable conse$uences of the hypotheses do not, conversly, imply the hypotheses" Surely there are alternative hypothetical substructures that !ould surface in the same observable !ays" There is a final fantasy to contemplate" Suppose = t!o rival systems of the !orld, e$ually sustained by all e)perience, e$ually simple, and irreconcilable = Suppose further that !e can appreciate their empirical e$uivalence" 9ust !e still embrace one theory and oppose the other, in an irreducible e)istentialist act of irrational commitment- It seems an odd place for irrational commitment, and I think !e can do better" It is the e)treme situation !here !e !ould do !ell to settle for a frank dualism" Oscillation bet!een rival theories is standard scientific procedure any!ay, for it is thus that one e)plores and assesses alternative hypotheses" 'here there is forever no basis for choosing, then, !e may simply rest !ith both systems and discourse freely in both, using distinctive signs to indicate !hich game !e are playing" This use of distinctive signs leaves us !ith t!o irreducible and unconflicting theories"

.uine#s !ords here are skillfully contrived to put us in the appropriately convivial frame of mind best suited to impartial consideration of the rival claims of the t!o types of brain theory" ?et#s start !ith the list of the main claims of the standard psychological theory of the brain !hich stand at odds !ith those of my rival theory" Thus, according to all versions of the standard theory the brain 1@ is the uni$ue and centralised site of mind and consciousness" A@ embodies processes !hich rely solely on neuronal impulses from individual sensory units, eg cells of the retina, to generate the sensations of perception" B@ embodies processes !hich rely solely on neuronal impulses to individual effector units, eg muscles of the limbs and glands, to generate behaviour" C@ embodies processes !hich monitor the output from the processes in A@ for problems and passes appropriate decisions to the processes in B@ to generate output to solve them" D@ embodies processes that give the bearer of the brain privileged access to details of the current state of the processes in A@ to C@" E@ embodies processes !hich generate linguistic representations of the results of D@ and assess any linguistic activity detectable in the brain bearer#s vicinity" F@ depends solely on a single process embodied by neurons to carry out the tasks in A@ 5 E@, namely, the neuron#s ability to add up the strengths of the impulses it receives from other nerves until the sum is e$ual to the set threshold level at !hich it generates its o!n output impulse to pass on to the nerves to !hich this part of its anatomy is connected" /ote that the list isn#t intended to be a complete list of the functions attributed to the brain by the standard therory" /or does it aim to specify ho! the theoretical processes in it are linked, if they overlap or are other!ise integrated" It plainly has no pretensions regarding the consistency or coherence of !hat it includes" 'hat I have to do ne)t is e)plain !hy I believe the standard brain theory only has meaning in the conte)t of the !hole of science so it#s clear that it#s an essential element of a particular system of the !orld thus $ualifying it as a candidate for full .uinean empirical e$uivalence !ith my rival theory" I !ant to argue that the claims on the list provide the rudiments of a physiology and psychology that sit comfortably !ith the rest of today#s science % physics, chemistry, biology and so on % to form the components of the materialistic world system adhered to by individualistic humanists" 9y first move here is to ask you to focus on the plainly incomplete state of today#s brain science in the !ide diversity of interpretations it offers to anyone seeking clarity or help in grasping !hat it all means" The apparent tolerance of most such seekers !ith regard to this situation indicates they#re OG !ith the assurances of brain scientists that the rest of today#s science is !ell able to provide the

human race !ith the tools !e need to arrive in the near future at a plausibly complete solution to the problems involved" The rest of today#s science, in other !ords, provides the missing credibility or grounds for belief !hich encourages people to consider brain science as making any sense at all" To further flesh out my claim about the intimate relationship bet!een brain science and the rest of science I#m going to look a little closer at t!o related issues" 1ny self5respecting system of the !orld must have ans!ers to t!o main $uestions, !hat kind of !orld this is and ho! !e fit in it % !hat kind of beings are !e, in other !ords % and these ans!ers must be compatible !ith each other" I !ant to develop this basic rhetorical insight to argue that !hat binds the standard brain theory sketched above to the rest of our current cosmology is the combination of internalistic and individualistic rhetorical strategies both use to maintain the impression that the problems they confront all lie !ithin a range the scientific mind conceives itself as competent to handle" The prime e)ample of this individualismHinternalism mi)ture is the !ay the standard brain theory describes a brain !hich aspires to be hard-wired for individual survival" This brain, in other !ords, clearly has everything #on board# the individual bearing it needs to navigate the !orld effectively" It doesn#t merely promise internally based e)planations of the individual#s behaviour" It#s also pefectly adapted to support an 'atomistic' story of how human societies work with the human individual as the basic constructional component" It#s thus !ell aligned to resonate !ith the literal atomism of today#s physics !hich still insists on talking of #sub5atomic particles# even though the mathematical formulae defining the $uantum level of the !orld make it absurd to do so" The resulting picture the layperson gets of science is of an e)tensive and impressively !ell5kept neat and tidy arena" 1 similar argument can be constructed around the biological resonance between the individualism of brain internalism and that of neo-Darwinian natural selection" 9ost of us are no! accustomed to listening to discussions of natural selection in terms of genetic mutations but it#s helpful to recall that ;ar!in never himself talked about mutations or genes and that discourse of this kind is a later accretion to his system" /evertheless, even !ithout genetic mutation, the notion of natural selection only makes the minimal non5circular sense it does because it rests on the supposition that evolution proceeds as a result of the emergence of some identifiable feature that confers an advantage on the individual bearing it in the struggle to survive and reproduce" That the notion of natural selection involves circular thinking is plain from the !ay it defines advantage here as being anything that increases the liklihood of the reproductive success of the individual !ho has it" Thus, as a !ould5be principle, natural selection is simply a claim that a feature has conferred reproductive success because it was likely to do so % it#s a !ay of distracting us from the underlying failure of the alleged principle to e)plain the nature of the process of emergence involved" The later introduction of the notion of #mutation# simply further obscures the matter" The important point to note is that !hat makes this rhetorical sleight of hand palatable is that it plainly entails a causality in which the individual plays the key role" It#s good news, that is, for the individualism of materialist humanists and thus likely to be !idely accepted for as long as this ideology remains prevalent" 1rguments such as the above sho! the ease !ith !hich a strong case can be made for the overall coherence and consistency of our current system of the !orld !hen it incorporates the standard brain theory as an integral component" 6ou don#t have to be a holist to see it" The common mindset of the overall package that emerges as a result stands out like a !ell5tuned backbone" So, before !e turn to the rival brain theory, let#s put the final touches to this brief picture of the standard theory and, at the same time, prepare the stage for the rival contender by considering the more localised details of the neuroscience evidence they both appeal to" This falls into four main categories" 8irst is evidence based on brain damage observed to result in identifiable loss of or deterioration in

a particular class of behaviour" <enerating and controlling this behaviour is then considered to be the functional role of that brain area or of some crucial modular part of it" /e)t !e have e)pert interventions such as physical probing or surgery on brain areas diagnosed as failing to carry out their function properly" Iesulting changes in behaviour are seen as further clues to !hat is generated and controlled !here" 1 third type of evidence is gathered from scans and the visual clues they provide to !hich brain areas become active !hen sub ects carry out set tasks" The fourth type involves all the previous three applied to the brains of non5human animals" The one type of evidence current versions of the standard theory make conspicuously little of concerns the long established physiology of the nerve cell referred to in item F@ of the list" This evidence, crucially related to the electrical characteristics of neurons, involves a very fine point !hich turns out to be the pivot round which the difference between the two types of theory revolves" &urrent standard theory makes little use of these characteristics apart from in their role as the basis of the metaphor of the thinking brain as an organic computer" The rival holistic metaphor, on the other hand, focuses on the central role of the fre$uency related features of these characteristics % the process of summation of a nerve#s input impulses and the role of e)citation and inhibition in its output % in combination !ith the psychological action of the glial cells of the distributed immune system" In this automotive metaphor the brain is the local cephalic module of a non5psychological #timing harness# se$uencing the kinesiology of the sinuous movements of the antagonistically organised skeleto5muscular mechanisms that mediate the action of the overall vertebrate embodiment strategy" The overall feedback loop of mind and consciousness of the holistic model, in other !ords, is located in the smoothing of the hydraulically based and more slo!ly acting immune system rather than in the more rapidly acting nervous system" Thus, the ne! contender stamps the details of its difference to the standard theory list from the very start % from item 1@ % Jipping it through to F@ in one clean s!eeping thrust" In this ne! picture, the brain is ust the frontmost module of the timing harness of an architecture that goes all the !ay back to the first a!ed fishes" 1s such it#s a vital part of a totally distributed system !ith a specification that automatically trashes items A@ to E@ in one fell s!oop" The difference is a fine one but it has recently found po!erful support in the !ords of I" ;ouglas 8ields and his book 3The Other ,rain4" It turns out that the neuronal electrical mode of action actually only operates in around AKL of the brain#s mass" &haracteristising it as the sole active feature of the brain totally diminishes the role of the cells that form the other MKL, the #glia#" The standard brain theory presents glia as having an almost trivial and passive subsidiary role, that of providing packing or insulating material for the neurons they encase" The !ork of 8ields and his team makes it clear that this picture is a travesty of !hat glial action involves" <lia, according to this ne! vie!, no! have to be considered as carrying out the main organisational management of brain development from the !ord go" They determine !hat gets connected to !hat and !here the connection is made, maintaining the resulting system so that it operates at peak performance !ithin the limits of the ecological niche in !hich the vertebrate is situated" They do this as the neurological arm of the vertebrate immune system" 8ields tells us in his blog, 3,rain 'aves /euroscience /e!s4, that,
<lia are non5neuronal cells that vastly outnumber neurons in the brain, but until recently most neuroscientists had little interest in studying them because glia do not fire electric impulses like neurons" 'e are no! learning that glia communicate !ithout using electricity> that they can control communication bet!een neurons at synapses, and they are critically involved in nearly every aspect of brain function in health and disease"

The key shift in our mindset that !ill allo! us to take this on board involves grasping the difference bet!een t!o basic attitudes to the task of understanding ho! our bodies !ork" 1ccording to the

attitude underlying the standard brain theory !e#ll only understand ho! our bodies !ork and !hy !e behave the !ay !e do !hen !e#ve understood ho! our brains !orks" The ne! distributed systems approach, on the other hand, is based on the attitude that !e#ll only understand the !ay the brain !orks, its various structures and !hat they do, !hen !e understand the !ay our bodies !ork" The standard theory, in other !ords, puts everything !e do do!n to a #central governor#, our brains" The ne! kinesiological approach opines that there is no central governor and it#s the distributed design of the overall body !hich e)plains both the shapes of the brain and ho! !e behave" The kinesiological approach I#m promoting here abandons the atomism of items A@ and B@ of the list and replaces them !ith a holism of sense and behaviour in !hich both are dynamically integrated from the start" 'e can thus no! think of perception as the basic form of behaviour on !hich all other behavioural categories ride and of all behaviour as involving the !hole body in the form of one of a variety of totally distributed gaits" 1ll forms of perception, in these terms, are forms of tropisms and all forms of behaviour are cycles of the inner ecology priming the mechanisms of the !hole body to act together to achieve an optimum dynamic relationship !ith the e)ternal ecology" 2o! this !orks in the case of mammals and apes like ourselves can be seen in the fabulous simplicity of the design of our vertebrate bodies % if you ust allo! yourself to see it % all the !ay through to the e)pression of this design in the neural !iring harness of its frontmost compartment, the head" The key to this structural simplicity is the underlying antagonistic relationship bet!een all the skeleto5muscular mechanical components of our bodies" This starts !ith the basic antagonism of our bodies as !holes, in the reflected structures on either side of our spines, and diversifies do!n to the musculature of the parts of our individual limbs" 'hat drives this arrangement is the selective action of our immune systems e)pressed through their interplay !ith the functional division of the neural harness into t!o mutually antagonistic roles, one, e)citation and, the other, inhibition" In order to see the simplicity more clearly, !e need to take a number of further steps to divest ourselves of any residual attachment to the standard brain !ay of looking at ourselves" In the first !e begin to correct the diminished status of the immune system in our current vie! of the design of our 3body politic4" This is still toiling under the restricted vie! that its origins and purpose are to be found in the identification of and defense against attack from alien lifeforms !ith maintenance !ork healing damaged structures and clearing a!ay cell detritus of one form or another emerging as an une)pected bonus" 9any of today#s immunologists !ould agree that !hile all these activities are an important part of !hat the immune system does it not merely mis udges its origin and seriously underestimates the scope of its influence" It has them entirely the !rong !ay round" The core component of the non5psychological brain theory contender is the belief that if !e are to understand ourselves and !here !e fit in nature !e need to follo! these immunologists, do!nplay the manly military defense metaphor here some!hat and big up the role of the motherly house!ork notion" 'e need to see the scope for a blossoming here, a sense of a developing narrative pregnancy in !hich the immune system and the genome are revealed as the parental pair of a much more enveloping conception of life as self5creating !ith a continuously gro!ing need for attention to the house!ork involved in keeping such a pro ect afloat % continuously checking and tinkering !ith the nuts and bolts to keep them tight ust right" 8rom here on, in fact, I shall refer to the physiological system I#m considering in such conte)ts as the 3immunogenetic system4" In the ne)t step, !e start the process of lightening the brain#s current e)cessive !orkload by relieving it of the task of generating consciousness" It !as, in any case, never going to be easy to imagine ho! a bunch of nerves trapped in the motionless seclusion of their location in the cavern of the skull could generate the kaleidoscope of colours, alerting effects and multi5dimensional dynamism of consciousness" /eurons may come in several forms but there#s nothing about this variety !hich corresponds to the intricately te)tured and interactive such5ness of inter!oven

sensory $ualities gathered together in the profuse bou$uet of the flo! of consciousness" /o !onder scientists have avoided the issue for so long7 /o! take a look instead at the peripheral cells at the direct interface !ith the ecosphere provided by our perceptual organs and there you#ll find the gifthorse into !hose mouth our scientists have been staring for centuries" These form dynamically responding structures perfectly adapted to the task of capturing the precise $ualitities !e !ould e)pect to find to identify them as the source of our sensations, from the clammy surfaces of our smell and taste organs through the pigment laden retinal components of our eyes, the tap5tapping drum and sticks of our ears and the pillo!y softness of our skeletal positional sensors" 'hat#s so !rong !ith looking to these structures % distributed precisely !here !e sense them % as the true locations of our sub ective e)perience of the !orldThe $uestion is specially striking !hen you look at the mountain of mental clutter this !ay of thinking removes from our path to!ards understanding the fundamental role of sensory behaviour as the kinesiological platform for the organisation of all our other physical and social interactions" Once again, !e have to start out from the overall design of our bodies" Its basic floor plan in the hydraulically adapted spear head shape of a!ed fishes has all our distance sensors collected together at the tip !here they are closest to the focus of the underlying tropisms" 2ere they function as a parallel array of antagonistic neuronal impulse precursors for global antagonistic movement patterns covering the main physical media by !hich the immunogenetic system can detect, identify and evaluate events in the surrounding ecology and set in train the appropriate gait to lock on to and target or Jig5Jag and flee from" In this arrangement only one sense modality provides the precursor pattern of e)citation and inhibitory neural impulse output that mediates global behaviour at any one time" The pattern starts, in other !ords, in the local structural and functional antagonism bet!een the t!o reflected organs of the particular distance sense modality selected for tropistic action as they get in step !ith each other to carry out their part in the appropriate gait" *ach side, that is, takes it in turn to provide the output e)citatoryHinhibitory pattern to be passed on to the vertebral segments further do!n the spine to enable them to develop the sinuous movement necessary for full generation of the gait" The basic neural !iring diagram at the tip thus involves a local lateral feedback loop for neuro5 muscular se$uencing of the individual lateral sense organ itself, translateral connections to the reflected feedback loop on the other side of the spine and a)ial connections !ith the feedback loops of the subse$uent vertebrate segments further do!n the spinal a)is" 'ith this structural arrangement sparked into action by the smoothing of the udder in the activation of the functional distinction of e)citation and inhibition, you no! have the basis for the kinesiological dimension of the interactive gaits the model !e#re constructing here develops to navigate the ecology in !hich it#s situated" 8rom spear tip to flighted tail the original translateral distance5receptor5generated !ave builds a progression of local synchronously opposed phases of e)citation and inhibition !hich migrate do!n the a)is as sinuously balanced inversions in the actions of the local locomotive limb structures" This develops over a timescale !hich permits modifications in the tips behaviour in perceiving variations in the path of its progress to become s!ift enough to function as appropriate corrections" Such is the basic immunogenetically adaptive dimension of the kinesiological model being promoted by the rival theory for the distributed overall gait generation to be found in all vertebrates"'hat it gives us is a global mechanical system !ith a reasonable chance of ensuring the rest of the body 'follows through' effectively in the direction of the location targeted by the selected distance sense organ" The first e)planatory benefit !e gain from this approach is the !ay it fits the multi5dimensional, multi5media character of consciousness" Thus, !hen the immunogenetic system selects a single sensory modality from the parallel array to initiate the kinesiological response of the rest of the

body to the locus of the detected event, this doesn#t s!itch off the other sensory modalities" It merely dislocates them from the action in the manner of a clutch in a car" In this state they continue to carry out their o!n assessment of the situation in a !ay !hich is sub ectively e!perienced as a continuously adapting frame of relevant alternatives to the focusing and tropistic targeting behaviour of the currently selected sensory modality" The result is the !rap5around vorte) of dynamic synaesthesia !e#re no! happy to recognise as #consciousness#" 1nother e)planatory benefit relates to the ne)t big step !e must take to thro! off the old !ay of thinking" 1 moment#s thought comparing the comple)ity of the brains of a!ed fish and humans clearly threatens my claims about the simplicity of the vertebrate body plan with a painful degree of absurdity" If !e are to undo this gordian knot of structural, behavioural and psychological comple)ity !e#ll have to find one more set of tools to add to the three !e no! have available to us in the combination of kinesiology, immunology and genetics" 9ore specifically, !e need a nonDarwinian comparative biological classification !hich permits us provisionally to vie! fish and humans as related in terms of design" 'e !ill, for instance, have to abandon the notion of genetic mutations having a useful role in this relationship but I#ll leave the finer details of !hat#s involved till later !hen !e#ve gathered together enough notional materials to do it coherently" 'ith this ne! $uiver of tools to hand !e can start unpicking the knot" 'e can, for instance, immediately begin identifying aspects of the old classification of cognitive behaviour that !e can abandon in order to focus more intently on the clearly immunogenetic class of behaviour !hich no! emerges as bearing a distinct resemblance to it" Taking this to be the key sub ective interface bet!een our overall physiology and our psychology, !e can use it to start vie!ing the spectrum of !ays this interface is configured as a provisional holistic non5;ar!inian comparative biological classificatory template suggesting !here any given configuration belongs along its o!n spectrum !ithout having to attach a value regarding the comparative !orth of the species bearing it" ?et us, for e)ample, start by comparing non5 a!ed fishes like lampreys !ith a!ed fishes like carp" The carp clearly behaves in !ays the lamprey doesn#t and the difference e$ually clearly relates to the carp#s possession of a a! and the ability to control its use it in association !ith changes in the behaviour of its eyes and fins" The carp is able to coordinate its mouth, eyes and fins to manipulate aspects of its reproductive cycle such as mating rituals, nesting behaviour, movement of eggs and so on in !ays that suggest a coordination of reproductive and immunogenetic behaviours alien to the lamprey" The implication for the rival brain theory is that this behavioural difference !ill be associated !ith different arrangements in the immunogenetic supervision of the neural connections bet!een local and global innervation of the eyes, mouth and fins to cope !ith the action of the range of different skeletomuscular structures, connective tissues and so on that accompanies them" The rival brain theory relies on further e)amples of this range of differences in the sub ective immunogenetic interface to e)amine the range of comple)ities observable in the emergence of amphibians, reptiles and mammals in the fossil record" The key connection to be nurtured and developed in this conte)t relates to the order of senses as they are configured in the translateral and a)ial spinal kinesiology" 'hat soon becomes strikingly relevant here is the !ay the vertebrate a)ial configuration spectrum sho!s the importance of the first distance receptor along the a)is and its role in the development of immunogenetic behaviour" It doesn#t take long to recognise that the highest priority of ecology related postives and negatives revealed by the t!o5headed #animal7# !hich is our smell and taste are the main reason the olfactory senses stand !here they do as the gatekeepers of the immunogenetics of the internal ecology" Smell and taste are supreme early !arning arbiters of purity and danger at a distance" They#re also $uite useful in close detailed e)aminations !here e)aminers feel no pressure to be $uick about !hat they#re doing" 'hen they#re functioning !ell they embody the detection of the pre5history of the

!hole species all the !ay back to its !atery origins in the sea and all the !ay on!ards from its successful adaptation to the crushing gravity and dessication of the ancestral landfall" 1 fe! sniffed intakes of breath sing out the scale of an individual#s strength in the very suppleness and toughness of the connective fibres they stretch in ust being still" This is the gate!ay that opens up the sense of provenance" The behaviour of the mouth area !hich engages in e)aminations of this kind must clearly be tuned to the full scale of the life and death decisions that are constantly being made there" It#s hardly surprising then that it#s this frontal part of the vertebrate a)ial configuration spectrum !e need to focus on to understand !hat !ould other!ise be e)tremely parado)ical, even clearly absurd % the claim that the vertebrate embodiment strategy is a master!ork of simplicity" In focusing this !ay, ho!ever, it#s important !e don#t let ourselves be distracted from the holistic connectedness of the various dimensions of the spectrum" Seen in this light, the increased comple)ity of the neural harness of the olfactory senses observable in the emergence of amphibians, reptiles and mammals in the fossil record only begins to makes sense as one of a multiplicity of connected factors in the range of differences in the original design of each of these species and its relationship to their provenance" It#s in these conte)tualising terms that claims about the underlying simplicity of the vertebrate embodiment strategy can be maintained !ith no fear of a descent into absurdity" ?et#s cut to the chase no! and consider the claim in the conte)t of the emergence of mammals and humans" ?et#s also be clear that in doing so !e#re leaping over a number of versions of the symphony of vertebrate simplicity !hich vary the treatment of the themes established in the lampreyHcarp comparison in !ays !hich can all be identified as immunogenetic adaptations of the !hole vertebrate embodiment strategy to changes of ecological niche" 1ll areas of the strategy are affected together % as one" 8rom tip to tail nothing escapes modification of some sort and it#s plain that the modifications are all a matter of fine details" The basic groundplan doesn#t change" ?et#s further hone in on the main area of modification at issue here, the configuration of the cephalic innervation of mammals and humans, to see if the vie! I#ve been promoting above can be coherently maintained !ith regard to it" ?et#s concentrate on !hat immediately emerges as the striking identificatory spectrum !hich is peculiar to mammals, the development of one area of the top surface of the cephalic innervation, kno!n as the 3cerebral corte)4 or even ust 3corte)4 !hich is so conspicuously !rinkly in humans" 'hat needs to be emphasised about the corte) is that !hile it sits on top of the cephalic unction areas of all the distance senses in the parallel array of a)ial antagonistic neural impulse precursors it isn#t a flat and evenly distributed development of all of them" It#s an outcrop from one of them that includes connections !ithin itself to the others % it#s a pro ection of the foremost sensory area, the immunogenetically oriented olfactory senses" /e)t, let#s turn to mammal behaviour to see if there is anything !hich is e$ually striking about its difference to the behaviour of amphibians and reptiles and thus might help us to make sense of the ne! innervation" 1nd yes there is" The ne! symphony of immunogenetically related changes in the details of the mammal body plan is clearly coordinated in one single behavioural shift or revolution, even" "ammals use their mouths# limbs and distance sensors refle!ively on themselves" They groom themselves, turning their heads and t!isting their bodies to make inspections of their o!n surfaces and other!ise spend much time in self5related activity entirely unlike anything observable in the behaviour of amphibians and reptiles" These do have behaviours related to the upkeep of their skin but they are restricted to replacement of the entire surface in a single sloughing activity !hich doesn#t re$uire direct oral intervention through coordination of the distance sensors and limbs" The defining social dimension of mammal oral refle)ive behaviour revolves around care of the young" It#s defining because its the ultimate condition !ithout !hich there !ould be no such thing as mammals as !e kno! them" If mammal mothers didn#t use their oral ability to behave refle)ively on themselves and on the fruit of their !ombs, their infants !ouldn#t survive" This coordinated

behaviour of the mouth, teeth, tongue, eyes and limbs involves freeing the infant from the !omb and then from the placenta and lick5readying its skin for it to begin to do the same for itself in the development of its o!n immunogenetic behaviours % remember, the skin is the biggest single component of the distributed immunogenetic system !hich generates and coordinates this behaviour" 'hat they do this !ay is the ultimate fabric of their consciousness" It#s the fundamental institution of the mammal social !orld and can#t ust happen by chance" It must rely on some form of neuro5muscular timing harness to se$uence the coordinated sinuous refle)ive behaviours of !hich it#s composed" 1n ikonic te)tbook representation of the ideal candidate for this harness in ourselves is available in the form of a crucial and currently completely under5appreciated piece of evidence called the cortical sensori-motor homunculus" This usually involves a side vie! of an e)posed brain !ith a long cortical !rinkle vertically dividing the front of each cerebral hemisphere from the back and marked along its lengths to peg out the features of an unusually proportioned grinning homunculus representing areas of the body !hich are activated !hen the area is probed or other!ise stimulated" (robing or stimulating one side of the !rinkle produces an action" Trigger an antidromic or reverse direction neuronal impulse on the other side and the person !hose head it#s happening in reports a surprisingly strong sensation" 'hat#s instructive about this graphic representation is that the strikingly unusual proportions of the homunculus soon start to make sense !hen you begin looking at it in terms of the immunogenetic activity of mammal oral grooming" 'hat emerges is that the siJe of a given part of the homunculus relative to the !hole is a measure of the siJe of the net!ork of connections being stimulated" The human homunculus, for e)ample, has an outsiJe mouth, nose, tongue, eyes and hands, precisely the parts you !ould e)pect to be !ell se$uenced, and thus connected, in the course of activity focused on oral grooming" 'hat this homunculus is telling us, it seems, is that the function of this most celebrated part of our anatomy is $uite simply the same for us as it is for other apes" This, ho!ever, presents the rival brain theory !ith a ne! problem" On the one hand, the structural, functional and behavioural evidence all seems to be converging to!ards the conclusion that this part of our anatomy constitutes a structural e)tension se$uencing the same primordial immunogenetic oral behavioural activity as is observable in all our mammal cousins" &ritically, it !ould also appear to bear out my claim that the vertebrate embodiment architecture !e share !ith them is an inherently simple construct !ith a principle of pro!imity governing the structure and function of all points along the spinal a!is" The large cortical development of the human brain, in these terms, stands as strong evidence of its local role in the overall body plan, namely, as a !iring harness for the adaptive oral refle)ive immunogenetic behaviour associated !ith it in all other primate species" On the other hand, there#s a couple of 3sore thumbs4 standing out in this story" 'e sho! strong signs of negative feelings, aversion even, at the very thought of carrrying out oral grooming behaviour like other mammals" Our mothers don#t use their mouths to free us from the !omb or the placenta" Instead, !e #clean# ourselves differently and assiduously cultivate a different sort of oral behaviour, the grooming of internally produced oral noise in our generation of !ords" 'e also coordinate this !ord making activity !ith all the other parts of the mammal oral grooming behaviour, !ell5meaning intention related gesturing hands, close mutual inspection and mutual care" The human version seems someho! turned inside out compared to non5human mammal versions" Other mammals make noises but they don#t 3make a meal of it4" 'e occasionally lick at little !ounds and like to pick at things" 'e also use our mouths as a supplementary limb to hold things !hen !e#re intensely engaged in some task involving the grooming of ob ects, something !e do !ith e)ceptional fre$uency" 'hy don#t !e also orally groom each other- 'hat#s going on here- The case for the simplicity of the structural and functional dimensions of our anatomy and physiology seems to be gaining in strength here !hile at the same time !e#re being increasingly confronted

!ith a very different type of !orry about the comple)ity of the behavioural, psychological and anthropological dimensions of our lives" 'hat#s happening here is that !e#re straying into the ne! and uncharted territory revealed by re ection of the assumptions of the standard theory !ithout e$uipping ourselves !ith the necessary tools for dra!ing ne! maps" The ne! distributed physiology demands a similarly distributed psychology" The immunogenetic mind can't be pinned down in one location because it's hydraulic as much as structural, taking and filling any shape that sho!s itself to be available for its purposes" These re$uire a !hole list of ne! approaches to health and vitality in general, a far more #situated# and non5abstract imagination based and health related diagnostic reasoning process in particular, similarly situated purity and aversion related consciousness of the e)ternal !orld, cultural engagement and interaction and the life of the social emotions" It#s not enough to say !hat the brain#s doing if it isn't the mind" 6ou#ve also got to reposition yourself !ith regard to mind" In these terms, mind is ultimately bound to be fluid and outgoing, fle)ibly linked to the fulfillment of e)ternalistic intentions and loosely tied to the maintenance of balance in the internal ecology" This sounds overly vague so let#s take the bull of !hat !e#re doing here by the horns and leap through them to see ho! it allo!s us to develop the anatomy, physiology and kinesiology of a ne! behaviourist psychology % one !ith a holistic acceptance of consciousness and imagination clearly setting it apart from the old #scientific behaviourism# !hich attempted to do a!ay !ith the notion of mind altogether" 6es, !e seem to be going in the same direction here" 'e#re chasing a!ay all claims that neurons have more to do !ith the mind than the lungs or kidneys but !e haven#t done a!ay !ith sub ectivity itself in the process" 'e#re ust fitting it into an e)ternally oriented ecological approach !hich must at some point connect !ith and thus thro! light on the differences in our grooming behaviour" 1t the same time, !e#re getting closer to something the old behaviourism denied itself % the ability to see ho! doing so helps us be more precise about that most imprecise of phenomena, the imagery of thinking and its tendency to intrude in the processes of grooming" ?et#s start, then, by reminding ourselves of the ecological utility of the notion of #situatedness# referred to above" ?et#s, for instance, consider !here all our distance sensors are situated in terms of place and time" They are, that is, located ahead of everything else in the body plan !here they#re best positioned to assess the future and lead the !ay" They are, ho!ever, elegantly simple in that they#re so constructed as to entail as little as possible in the !ay of redundant baggage, maps, compasses, chronometers and so on" They rely, in other !ords, on their territorial advantages, not least the #terroir#, the olfactory taste of the land itself and the cycles of the !ay this unfolds" 'hat I !ant to suggest here is that these situating factors are likely to be enough to allo! us to assume that the sensors themselves are so constructed as to locate the detection of differences from a territory#s e)pected cyclical event patterns at the sensors# leading edges !here consciousness is liminally slightest and least disturbing to the ongoing targeting activity of their more central focusing points % in all liklihood, the origins of the #double take# effect so treasured of farcical humour" The importance of this assumption is as follo!s" 'hat it allo!s us to conclude is that these edges are likely also to be the location of all that sensor#s mechanisms for alerting the rest of the internal ecology of the need for rapid change of attitude such as those re$uired for alarm or re!ard related behaviour" This !ill include the making of identificatory tokens by !hich the sensor registers the most general or striking traits of the main sources of danger and re!ard it#s constructed to detect together !ith mechanisms for emergency fast t!itch activation of the appropriate muscles to re5 position the focusing part of the sensor to !here the subliminal !arning occurred % the #double take#" 'ebs of situated identificatory tokens of this kind are likely to be hovering at the edges of the consciousness of all tropistic organisms !ith gait based sensor5effector kinesiologies" This gives us a rough and ready point of entry to !hat I consider imagination to be" If !e no! turn

to these !ebs as they occur in mammals and primates in particular !e#re likely to find degrees of immunogenetic control !ith respect to them that is proportional to their use in immunogenetically oriented social instutions like mutual oral grooming" This, in other !ords, is likely to be !here the adaptability of these !ebs !ill be most e)tensively developed" Outside this behavioural Jone imagination is likely to be restricted to situations in !hich the sub ect is engaged in some form of refle)ive immunogenetic inspection focused on establishing !hat the ne)t most appropriate gait should be" In such unctures, the identificatory token !ebs !ill tend to ooJe general re!ard and danger tokens relevant to the sub ect#s current inner ecology, its cycles and appropriate gaits" In line !ith assumptions and conclusions such as these, it seems plausible to con ecture that the distributed internal ecology is continuously priming these liminal !eb developing areas of the distance and postural senses in !ays appropriate to the e)ternal ecological and social conditions in !hich the sub ect is situated" ,ecause of the cyclical nature of both internal and e)ternal ecologies !e can identify this priming activity as the initiating and thus identificatory phase of a sub ect#s development of any of the range of mammal behavioural modes such as resting, foraging, reproduction, grooming and territorial maintenance" It seems likely, that is, that, as remarked above, the modes in !hich liminal !eb imagery priming becomes most proactive is likely to be related to situations !hen the ne)t most appropriate gait is either refle)ive or mutual grooming !hen the priming focus is most likely to be the general state of health of the sub ects involved" *ffectively, !hat we're focusing on here are the main effects of the !ay the rival brain theory banishes consciousness from the brain and re5situates it in the distributed kinesiology of local sensory loops" This then also gives us the site of memory, imagination and adaptive culture" In particular, it identifies the heart of culture as the mode of diagnostic behaviour typical of mammal oral immunogenetic grooming" 1s such, it entails systematic recourse to !hat <ilbert Iyle described as rehearsal of !hat it#s like to engage in a particular sense activity Nin his case, remembering 9t 2elvellyn is e)pressed as a rehearsal of what it would be like to look at it@ % clearly, the proactive use of liminal tokens in a benign situation likely to foster focus on the relationship bet!een internal and e)ternal homeostases" 'ith no pressure to be alert to danger, the internal kinesiology inverts itself, all distance and posture sensors stood do!n from e)ternally5 oriented duties, allo!ing the internal ecology to push the sensory surfaces to their edges, refresh them and create a flo! of tokens from them in a series of relevant rehearsals of the Iylean kind" ,ut ho! does all this help us in our search for an e)planation of human aversion to oral groomingThe cultural traditions of other mammals seem to place a high value on oral grooming" Why don't we$ 'e need an appropriately e)ternalistic e)planation holistically compatible !ith the rival brain theory here" &ould it be, for e)ample, the result of something that happened to us in our primordial past, a set of events e)plaining ho! !e lost the mammal oral grooming tradition and its social institutions and !ith them our coat of hair, our fast four5limbed running and climbing gaits and our prelapsarian easy !ay !ith breathing" 'e need an e)planation of these things !hich allo!s us to get at their sub ective dimension so !e can put a value on !hat happened in terms of the scale of the differences bet!een us and other apes and mammals !hich emerges as a result" 1ccording to supporters of the standard psychological brain theory, the olfactory behaviours of oral grooming cultures of other mammals are assumed to be relatively trivial affairs !hich we happily traded in as part of our adaptation to the dangers of life on the open savannah" In this story, plausibility is maintained by the central role in it of the gro!ing brain and the human capacity for a mysterious $uality kno!n as #intelligence# !hich allegedly gro!s !ith and from it" If it !eren#t for our need to promote this $uality as the supreme and uni$ue factor differentiating us from other animals the !hole $uestion of triviality ust !ouldn#t arise" The rival theory doesn#t intend to trivialise cognition> ust to situate it in more !idely recognisable ecological terms" The triviality only emerges as a result of the desire of standard brain supporters to do!ngrade oral grooming

behaviour in order to evoke the notion of a #cordon sanitaire# surrounding humanistic civilisation" The effectiveness of this hygienic safety belt our societies !rap round us goes hand in hand !ith the frailty of our sense of smell and taste" 1s a conse$uence, it#s difficult for us to imagine the intense intimacy of the bonds uniting mammal societies that not only manage to live outside the belt but make olfactory intimacy the central pillar of their lives both as individuals and groups" (utting all the components of the difference together isn#t easy for us but !e have to try if !e#re to have any hope of arriving at a reliable settlement of the oral grooming triviality issue" 8rom all the preceding chains of inference !e#ve considered up to this point it seems safe to say !e can#t go too far !rong if !e start !ith the motherHinfant bond" ;oing so is clearly important in the search for the source of the cohesion in non5human mammal groups" It#s also e)tremely important in the study of the human condition % the high socio5cultural diversity in the structure of the human motherHinfant bond seems to indicate this is indeed the locus of most of !hat is both creative and destructive in our lives" The olfactory senses are the key to the intensity of the intimacy here giving it much of its po!er to bond" 8or us humans this factor is inaccessibly hidden and apparently lo!5key but for other mammals it#s the main integrative component of their consciousness" The level of a!areness it entails is arguably !hat humans strive for in years of meditation and !hat they seek !hen they buy mind developing motivational books and abuse substances" Olfactory intimacy is the seed crystal of all mammal social relationships and the medium for the curative action of oral grooming as the main institution of mammal societies" Through it the fertility of the group#s !omen, the security of territorial limits, the politics of status and the comparative health and !ell5being of the group#s members in relation to those of neighbouring groups become po!erfully moving topics structuring the unfolding of the manifold of primate daily life" %rine# fecal material# sweat and other body fluids e!press its le!icon in the most e!plicit and unambiguous terms" 8ramed in the vast panoply of olfactory data of !hich the ecological niches they occupy are composed, this is a discourse of monumental grandeur !e humans belittle at our peril" ?osing the cultural tradition that embodied it on the perilous landscape of the savanna !ould have been a formula for certain disaster for any proto5human group" It#s !orth noting that no other species of primate e)ists !hich sho!s ho! this could have been achieved" ?ook at the large groups of the doughty savanna baboon, for e)ample, !here oral grooming remains a central institution" 8ortunately, the savanna theory isn#t the only 3origin of human difference4 story available for us to turn to for guidance on this issue" The one that seems more tailor made for matching !ith the embodiment story !e#re looking at here is 1lister 2ardy and *laine 9organ#s a$uatic ape theory" ?ike the savanna theory this starts in a period of severe climate change several million years ago !hen the forests of 1frica !ere beginning to shrink and the much greater diversity of ape types then flourishing began to e)perience the stress of the resulting tougher competition for territory" 1ccording to the a$uatic ape theory, ho!ever, our ancestors % !ho !ould then have been virtually indistinguishable from their close relatives, the ancestors of today#s chimpanJees and bonobos % !ere lucky enough to occupy a part of the forest very close to an e)tremely !ell appointed piece of shoreline some!here along the coasts of the 2orn of 1frica" Thus, !hen their part of the forest started to shrink and they found themselves being defeated in the territorial struggles for !hat !as left, they had no!here to go but the beach" They !eren#t, of course, the first species of mammal to take this option" The ancestors of dugongs, manatees, dolphins, !hales, seals and elephants are all e)amples of mammals !ho managed to adapt !ell enough to flourish by taking this route for !hatever reason" Their e)perience is clear evidence not only of the versatility of the mammal body plan !ith regard to the variety of means it offers for re5adaptation to life beside and in the sea but also of the relatively benign nature of the

haven such a life provides for these means to take effect" 2ardy and 9organ#s list of such means is impressive" 1bandoning the full body coat of hair and its substitution by a layer of fat beneath the skin is perhaps the most immediately striking % resulting in the eye5catching title of ;esmond 9orris# classic 3The /aked 1pe4" 9odification of the spinal a)is of the body to promote faster s!imming and diving also stands out as an essential component in the emergence of the human erect posture and bipedalism" ,reathe control in the development of a diving refle) is another clearly also important in the emergence of the patterns of breath control essential for participation in the vocal acrobatics of language" (erhaps the most impressive feature of all the items on the list is the !ay they combine the emergence of anatomical changes !ith more than one side5effect in a situation of conviviality" This is a crucial factor in the arguments I !ant to develop here" It figures critically, for e)ample, in arguments over the role of increases of brain siJe and the alleged increases in intelligence associated !ith it" The a$uatic ape story makes it plausible to argue instead that increases in the siJe of the human corte) is ust one e)ample of a common marine adaptation also observable in !hales, dolphins, seals and elephants entailing adaptation of the corte) as it reverts to the primordial role of se$uencing a range of balance related behaviours" These involve the mouth and nose area acting as the leading limb coordinating the others in the high speed manouvering and acrobatics typical of tactical movements and pursuit in a !atery niche" It#s no surprise, in other !ords, that these are all animal species fre$uently seen performing in circuses and other similar venues" The brain in this picture, that is, is seen here as increasing in siJe not because it#s the source of some notion of cleverness that predates discovery of the immune system, 3intelligence4 or !hatever you !ant to call it, but because it improves the facility for movement in a highly adaptable part of the body" The fact that this improvement is also e)perienced sub ectively as graceful, stylish or as e)pressing bravado or a !hole load of other social emotions is because it#s situated !ithin the distributed immunogenetic system and so has the !hole frame!ork of related immunogenetic possibilities as back5up repertoire to give it holistic meaning in the .uinean sense" 'hat it does not do, in other !ords, is generate consciousness, thinking or any other psychological condition" ?ike the heart, lungs and kidneys it contributes to them in a vital and critical !ay and that#s all" The difference bet!een the t!o #human origin# stories is simply that the savanna story is located in a plainly dangerous niche so that human survival in it is emphasised as heroic and this $uality rubs off on all the factors allegedly responsible for survival including the gro!ing brain and the notion of intelligence associated !ith it" ,y the same token, oral grooming and olfactory intimacy end up so trivial their loss doesn#t even merit a mention" 6et, drop the abstruse notion of intelligence and detach brain neurons from direct connection !ith the mind and it becomes difficult to see ho! life on the savanna could have led to the obvious differences bet!een the apes !e once !ere and the humans !e are no!" ?ooked at in this light it becomes clear that choice of the savanna as the location of our emergence as a very different kind of ape only makes sense as a !ay of promoting brains as the source of our psychology and intelligence as its uni$ue and most significant feature" The rival brain theory, on the other hand, needs a benign niche as backdrop for its combination of the notions of the non5psychological brain and a trouble free loss of oral grooming and the olfactory intensity and intimacy that goes !ith it" 'hy- ,ecause the rival brain theory makes the distributed immunogenetic basis of the physiology of oral grooming the source of all that the savanna theory attributes to the brain" It can#t do this any!here else than in a niche !hich is arguably relatively secure from terrestrial predators and !ell stocked !ith food because doing so !ould threaten its effectiveness" This bears considerable repetition> changing !hatever suite of behaviours includes and combines personal hygiene and mutual care inevitably involves an indeterminate period of sub ective and social breakdo!n, panic, pulverising an)iety and disorientation"

'e humans clearly rely on stable social organisation for our survival and changing the !ay this is maintained isn#t going to !ork unless !e have an ade$uate substitute for our old immunogenetic behaviours including !ays of convincing ourselves and each other that !e#re clean, healthy, alluring and !orth being intimate !ith" Until !e find such a substitute, personal and social stability are likely to undergo regular attacks of breakdo!n from !ithin !ith a tendency to spiral do!n!ards to catastrophic conditions of incapacity from !hich chances of escape are e)ceedingly slim and only outcomes verging on the miraculous offer hope of recovery" This is precisely !hat the early and developmental stages of the beachcomber life of the a$uatic ape offers the punter in search of a plausible human origins narrative" It#s also the basic motif of stories of holiday romance" The a$uatic theory indeed offers considerable narrative scope for relief from several of the theoretical problems !e#ve confronted in our efforts to iron out the apparent problems of the rival brain theory" In particular, it demonstrates ho! the light of different circumstances sometimes bring about a sudden sub ectively perceived change in the scale of difficulty from massive to trivial in a !ay that points to the solution of the #triviality of oral grooming# problem !hich has been hovering in the background up to this point" One of the attractions of the a$uatic ape theory pointed out by 9organ is the effortless route to change the shoreline !ould have offered the original escapees from the strife of the shrinking forests" This relates to another apparent do!nside of the theory, namely, the aversion most land mammals have for the initial stages of any dip into large bodies of !ater" Terrestrial mammals !hether predator or prey clearly prefer to keep their fur dry" This seems to be an essential feature of their regular maintenance of their skin, the largest component of their immunogenetic systems" The prospect of an une)pected !etting plainly constitutes a considerable threat to the cycles of their consciousness of being and staying healthy" 9organ asks us to consider the situation likely to have precipitated full commitment to the a$uatic apes# fare!ell to full terrestrial life % being discovered by a large predator !hich has sniffed them out and tracked them do!n along their path from the tree line" The apes have their backs to the !ater like cornered rats" The predator is in no apparent hurry to attack" It#s eyeing them all up to choose the tastiest morsel" 8inally, it starts to close in on one of them" 'hat does the selected ape do- <iven a choice bet!een letting yourself be mauled into the teeth of a slavering monster and getting your party dress !et it#s incredibly unlikely anyone !ould dither" The ape makes a dash for the !aves immediately follo!ed by the rest of the bunch" The predator is momentarily nonplussed because this hadn#t been part of its estimate of the outcome" /o! the predator is confronted by the same choice and the apes have gained a considerable margin of advantage" That#s ho! the slide along the slippery path to easy change begins" It !ould hardly seem any time at all before the !hole group are regularly in the !ater, narry a predator in sight and reliving the relief and sense of freshness that goes !ith it" ,efore any of them kno! !hat#s happened the old oral culture has been !ashed a!ay, a ne! one has begun to emerge and life ust !ouldn#t be !orth living !ithout the regular communal dip that sets it off" Of course, it needs to be emphasised at this point that none of the above sho!s that the change of personal identity it involves actually demonstrates the scale of the difference bet!een the t!o cultures" 9y claim that it#s non5trivial and is, in fact, monumental, being a measure of the most important part of our lives, isn#t unassailable" It simply underlines the point % as a conse$uence, it seems, life !ill never be the same again" So, in the melting pot of this ' ust so' story &remember# the savannah theory is one of these too', !e have a perfect set of ingredients to accompany and embellish positive ans!ers to $uestions about ho! !e became the physically and kinesiologically very different animal to the apes !e#re believed to have descended from, ho! !e could have lost the oral immunogenetic grooming tradition, the scale of the importance of this change in our lives and, indeed, many others such as ho! !e have come to have such an aversion to the mammal grooming tradition and the many other

anthroplogical aversions !e have that seem to be related to it % all !ithout re$uiring us to talk about #intelligence# or the mental dimensions of brain siJe" 'e have, that is, everything !e need to set about discussing and e)plaining the many substitute traditions !e have put in place of mammal grooming and the many !ays they complicate the ob of the !hole body timing harness" ,ecause it#s clear, the holiday romance had to end" 2ere !e all are, most of us, back on land again, clearly the makings of a vast separate genre of similar # ust so# stories" 'here do !e start- 2o! much nicer ust to slip back into memories of the sun5drenched !ater and moving !ith the !aves, laughing, teeth chattering, gesticulating and #!aving# to each other across the top of them7 'e tend not to think of such memories as being part of a rite, a culture, a ne! !ay of organising the life of our society or, indeed, a reversion to a primordial form of it !hen !ords first began to form, an ancient total immersion, a cleansing baptism of names attracting each other#s attention in the rythmic surge" 6et there is something in that flip bet!een the marine and the terrestrial that has locked a!ay !ithin it a treasure trove of light and shade to cast upon our deepest yearnings" The origins of language and the seeds of our dispersal over the landscapes of our !orld as !e returned to life upon the land must be bedded very close" 'hatever the ultimate story that unfolds it and brings their details to fruition, !e can at least begin to consider in greater depth the other multitudinous perspectives that lie concealed behind the holiday snap album approach I#ve been dallying !ith here" Was there# for e!ample# a darker side to life on the seashore that began increasingly to e)ert an influence over the comple)ion of life upon it- Some of the palaeontological evidence from around the 2orn of 1frica suggests interpretations in line, for instance, !ith the good times of the seashore generating cycles of stressful overcro!ding in the human marine nursery that may have lead to periodic overspills back onto the land in the form of ne! species of hominids" 1nother even less auspicious possibility is that our ancestors may have become targets for marine predators like sharks or killer !hales looking for a change from their diet of seal pups" 'hatever it !as that inspired the more committed groups of returnees, it seems likely that they !ould at some stage soon after have become prey to concerns about less easily identified sources of unease" The further a!ay from the !ater they !ent the more difficult it !ould have become to maintain the standards of easy freshness and comfort to !hich they had been accustomed on the beach" 1long !ith the physical discomforts of their bodies becoming smeared and mired in ne! forms of #dirt# !ould be the an)iety and mystery of their lack of role models for ho! to escape these conditions" Seashells and other souvenirs of the purity of the beach could gradually have become the central motifs for memory cults based on the benefits of re5establishing the old sense of regulated immunogenetic competence through the cyclical management of any blocks in the flo! of sensory imagery generated by periodic attacks of the sense of #dirt# and insoluble mystery" The details of ho! all these problems, blocks and cults unfolded and the emergence of language !ith them needn#t detain us here because one thing that#s been $uietly gna!ing it#s !ay to the surface up to this point no! seems to have become plainer" (ren't they still with us as perpetually unheeded reminders of the scale of the immunogenetic side of our lives and the monumental effect on it of our marine episode- Our need to confront the proportions involved here as an essential component of any plan to e)tricate ourselves from impending ecological disaster puts considerable onus on us to re5e)amine the many aspects of the psychological brain theory !hich feed the denial of our full animal identity !hich stands as the main obstacle in the path of such plans" 1t the top of the list of these aspects is the support the theory gives to the myths of uni)uely human self-awareness and self-knowledge that the e)tra siJe of our psychological brains is supposed to confer on us" Typically, the reduced siJe of the brains of other apes and mammals is alleged to be one of the main reasons for their lack of aptitude for language along !ith their possession of the !rong kind of laryn)> the right kind and language are supposed to be the key to our ability to

e)plore the full brainy difference of our humanity !hich sets us apart from the rest of the organic !orld, including other apes" /o! mutual embellishment !ith the a$uatic ape theory allo!s the rival brain theory to tell a totally different story of the acute difficulties other apes clearly have !hen set the task of stringing a fe! !ords together to make a mere single sentence> it#s not the physical difference of the number of neurons or connections bet!een them that counts here" It#s the combined lack of the physical differences of the marine adaptations and the hypersensitivity of the human immunogenetic system that accompanies them that is the crucial factor" 'hat this combination gives us humans is a form of behavioural neotony or preservation of infantile forms of behaviour into adult life" In our case, it#s immunogenetically based games about rules of display and their systematisation or grammar particularly !ith regard to the use of vocal sounds" 1t the core of these games are challenges to improve on simulations of internal sensory rehearsals of the Iylean variety but the potential for misunderstanding is so great such games run the risk of tipping over into real strife and in ury" (reempting such outcomes itself then becomes an ever escalating problem of establishing common identity through the ritual self5infliction of pain" These problems sometimes loom so large they over!helm us in fluctuating !aves of alternating psycho5pathology and cultural self5cure leading us into ever more comple) forms of self5harm and self5delusion proliferating out of prehistory into the e)ternal !ebs of fantasy of the institutions of our current !orld" In the process they#ve developed modes of self5propagation that seem to steadily diminish the liklihood of our eventual escape from the condition % the sense of disgust at the immunogenetic forms of life of other species and the conviction that !e are someho! internally and structurally more comple) and thus more !orthy in hidden !ays than they are being outstanding e)amples" The po!er of this aversion is clearly a measure of the trauma entailed in the desperate violence of the territoriality battles that first drove us from the forests of our pre5a$uatic origins" 8ortunately, the seeming bleakness of this vie! can be delicately countered by the challenge that it only makes sense in the !ay it uses the terms involved and that clear solutions lie in looking at these terms in !ays !hich are only slightly different" 'hat it#s possible to see here is a chance to hold firm !hile !e develop a more appropriately different perspective" 'e need, that is, to take our time and look at !hat !e#re confronted !ith here" 8or a start, !e can look more carefully at the bleak vie! and linger on its one5sidedness % a clear revelation that it is, itself, one more symptom of !hat !e#re hoping !e can slo!ly and gently slide out from being under" 'hat it#s failing to emphasise, in other !ords, is that it entails that !e do fit in and that our problems arise from a failure to recognise ho! illusory they are" They#re not conse$uences of mere structural comple)ity" They#re cycles of stuff borne around inside us by simple hydraulic processes !e teach ourselves to perpetuate through the !ay !e intervene in the maturation of our children" 'hat !e need to do no! is to start thinking very carefully ho! to lessen these interventions and ultimately ho! not to do them at all" 'e need to !ean ourselves" 1n essential part of this change of approach has to be learning like .uine ho! to put things into their holistic conte)t" Iight here, for instance, I can remind myself that the vie! outlined immediately above is to be seen as part of a piece of natural philosophy in !hich the empirical e$uivalence in .uinean terms of t!o mutually contradictory theories of the role of the nervous system is sho!n to have much !ider positive implications for all of us than hitherto perceived" One theory, the standard brain model, is internalistic and inclined to!ards structural comple)ity !ith most of the psychology individuals need for navigating the environment vie!ed as located on board and hard5!ired into the structure> the other, a hitherto unkno!n e)ternalistic and kinesiological approach to a relatively simple nervous system !ith mind and consciousness generated outside the brain in the distributed physiological sensorium integrated by its immunogenetic adaptability to the guidance of social institutions and the cycles of its ecological niche"

1ll !e need to do no! for their empirical e$uivalence to be clearly apparent is to take t!o further steps> one, consider the compatibility of the rival theory !ith the four types of specifically neurological evidence listed !hen !e looked at the standard theory and, t!o, check !hether the rival theory can also be considered to form an integral part of a #system of the !orld# in the .uinean sense" ?et#s first remind ourselves, crucially, !hat, above all, empirical e$uivalence means for the t!o theories of the brain, current standard and rival alike" It means, that is, that the evidence for both of them is purely circumstantial % any #facts# there might be relating to the brain could re$uire a very different interpretation at odds in some critical !ay or another !ith both of them" The claim that the brain is the non5psychological head module of a !hole body timing harness in the embodiment strategy of a distributed behaviouristic mind cannot escape this restriction on its reliability" It isn#t, ho!ever, adversely affected by the current neuroscience evidence relating to neural damage, probing, neurosurgery, scanning or the evidence from studies on other species" 1ll the phenomena covered by these data could arise as e$ually plausible theoretical conse$uences in the conte)t of a cephalic behaviouristic timing harness module as in that of the current notion of a psychological brain" ,oth accounts entail the role of the head and its nerves as being vital to the behaviour of the body as a !hole" In the case of the rival theory, for e)ample, the functionality of the nerves se$uencing the interplay of the parallel array of distance sensors and the muscles moving the antagonistic structures that generate the behaviour of the mouth and a!s are obviously critical factors in every aspect of vertebrate life" The slightest udder of any of these components is going to entail all the currently observed effects and damage to them !ill result in the same dysfunctionality" The situation regarding !hat type of 3system of the !orld4 !ould be up to the task of supporting the natural philosophy I#ve been developing here in order to introduce the non5psychological brain story in the current arena of discourse is potentially more interesting than $uestions about evidence" The rivalry bet!een the savanna theory and the a$uatic ape theory spotlights the opportunities for anyone tra!ling for relevant non5standard thinking in this conte)t" There are, after all, a number of other #rival# theories straining to make it to centre stage that turn out to be e$ually relevant" 8oremost among them are several non5;ar!inian theories of evolution capable of occupying the slot I briefly and tentatively filled !ith the token notion of a morphological #spectrum#" 1n e)ample is the Imanishi theory !hich proposes that it#s !hole species rather than individuals !hich evolve" One variant of this model of thinking developed by 8ukuda, Gubota and Shimo ima concentrates on viruses as a possible mechanism for its action on the basis of the ease !ith !hich viruses can be used to insert genetic material in cells in the field of genetic engineering" 9y o!n preference !ould be for a theory !hich combines all these strands to turn the !hole of evolutionary thinking upside do!n to deliver an organic universe based on the self5creating ideal of single celled organisms like bacteria" 9ulticellular organisms, in these terms, are vehicles constructed by commensal bacteria" &learly, the holistic cosmology most appropriate for a bio5physics of this type !ould be roughly compatible !ith current thinking around the plausibility of a multiverse" This !ould, ho!ever, need some firming up to compensate for its current tendency to preserve elitist forms of abstraction in its obsession !ith overly atomistic forms of mathematics based on the illusory concreteness of cardinal numbers to the e)clusion of potentially more popular forms encouraging e)ploration of the links bet!een ordinals and music" The ideal remedy !aits in the !ings in the form of yet another e)cluded rival theory, the !onderfully concrete notions of the e)panding earth theory" *)clusion of this e)tremely 3do!n to earth4 theory from the academic arena of discourse is dependent on shakey assumptions about geo5magnetism as flimsy as those of pre5&opernican talk

of epicycles and the number of angels that can dance on the tip of a pin" It has been strongly resisted up to no! by geologists and geographers fearful of the !rath of cosmic physicists intent on maintaining the orthodo)y of materialist determinism currently dominating academic discourse" The possibility that !hat holds us here in our present positions in the sky is a gate!ay to another universe capable of delivering the e)tra energy re$uired to balloon out its girth by the siJe of the 1tlantic and the (acific !ithin the time period of the emergence of multicellular life !ithin the seas that seethe around the pores that deliver this gro!th besto!s both real and imaginary gravitas to anyone !illing to stand upright on the surface and ponder on it a !hiles" The theory offers much more" Indeed, it#s clear that !hy it#s so fearful for materialist humanism is that it promises the final blo! to atomistic thinking in its ability to dissolve a!ay any remaining notions of ultimate sub5atomic particles by reformulating them as features of organic $uantum scale versions of the terrestrial gate!ay uniting us !ith as many other universes as !hat !e currently identify as the number of types of atomic elements" The possibility of the multiverse being organic in this multicellular !ay should change the !hole cosmological ball game and the ethics it inspires" The very thought of polluting the organic vitality of interplanetary space !ith the detritus of the miserable fires of human space !agons should send a shiver do!n our spines" *t's not as if the physics involved is asking for the admission of fey or new-agey thought forms" On the contrary, it#s basis is nothing more than a re$uest that thinkers in this field develop a firmer resolve !ith respect to !hat they#re currently confronted by here" The current situation accepts a dualism of e)planatory modes !hich is far more fey and lack5a5daisical !ith macro5processes e)plained in terms educated layfolk can understand and $uantum scale processes relying simply on mathematical formulae because, apparently, they defy rational e)planation in macro5process terms" 1 more honest approach !ould be to admit that !hat is being defied here are the terms of the current orthodo)y fi)ated as it is on the notion of deterministic matter" ;rop the assumption of deterministic materiality and a provisional pragmatic integration of the t!o scales becomes feasible" Talk then about the double identity of $uantum phenomena as both !ave and particle then becomes coherent as a conse$uence of the interdependence of the components of a multiverse in !hich energy appears to come from no!here and to go every!here % #no!here# being the space5time of a different universe and #every!here# being the po!er, e)tent or fre$uency of the energy flo!ing from that universe to ours" There !ould, of course, be a high price for cosmologists to pay for this coherence" 1ll the empirical evidence for it !ould then by definition be inaccessibly e)ternal to our !orld leaving them !ith about as much authority !ith regard to the matter as the ne! age tale tellers they so despise" 8ocusing on the difficulty of gauging the scale of our ignorance about ourselves and our !orlds as e)emplified by the scope for this and other types of empirical e$uivalence is po!erful emphasis for the ever gro!ing need to look more deeply into how the upper levels of our academic institutions are organised" 'e need more open discussion of the reasons !hy topics like these are to be treated as out of bounds or even as grounds for an accusation of some kind of heresy" 'hy do !e hear so little about these problems from our philosophers, particularly those charged !ith responsibility for our attempts to get to grips !ith the limits of our human ability to kno! things, science, !isdom or !hatever you !ant to call it- Is there something special about science or is it ust another form of philosophy- 2o! could !e tell decisively !hen !e appear to kno! so little about ourseslves- *s philosophy ust another form of rhetoric, even- Is this confusing situation merely the result of the actual limits to kno!ledge themselves or are there restrictive practises involved or a closed shop, in effect maintaining !hat amounts to an academic orthodo!y: : :

The absence of clear ans!ers to these $uestions doesn#t mean that the ranks of our academic philosophers are solidly united against any dissension !ith regard to theories of mind and cosmos like those discussed above" 'hat it does mean is that discussion is grotes$uely muted and e)pressed in e)tremely rarified and almost unrecognisable terms often shuttered about in the obscurity of the highly derived thinking of delicately inter!oven thought e)periments> things here often have the air of a masked ball conducted in high security in some baro$ue building of other!ise indeterminate provenance" The effect is to make access to the arena of discourse so tortuous and unlikely most of us are put off from any attempt to achieve it" The sense of solidarity based on belonging to a highly priviledged elite in5group is clearly an essential accoutrement" Only the boldest philosophers and the most braJen in their need for stronger limelight manage to function credibly as thinkers on the public stage !hich is, of course, the only place to get the keener sense of social relevance needed to give strong philosophical substance to their offerings" Jerry 8odor appears to be one such !ith negative vie!s on neo5;ar!inism and the computational approach to cognition !hich align nicely !ith the intimations on the need for deep5reaching changes to the higher curriculum e)pressed in this essay" 8odor, ho!ever, is savvy enough to kno! that there are costs to leaning too closely to taboo sub ects and that there#s no point in complaining about it !hen your efforts appear to fall on deaf ears because that#s precisely !hat you#ve done" The book he co5!rote !ith 9assimo (iattelli5(almarini, What Darwin +ot Wrong, for instance, appears to have had little effect on orthodo)y#s shield5!all in spite of the rigourous coherence of its contents" In it, the circular nature of the thinking behind the term #natural selection# and the failure to understand the intercellular communicatory role of genes it conceals is laid out in emphatic terms" 6et no other philosophers have responded to this public call for support or responses !ith e$ually coherent grounds for disagreeing" 8odor sets out his reasons for opposing the computational approach to mind in his book The "ind Doesn,t Work That Way and makes it clear that a centralised and non5situated approach like that of the psychological brain construct is systemically incapable of modelling mind and linguistic meaning" 2e kno!s that, ironically, it#s envy of his ability to bridge the gap bet!een academia and the public that is his ultimate hobbling factor" ,ring up the topic of matter, ho!ever, and you#ll probably find you#ve 3lost him4" 6ou#ld be attacking the front door of deterministic science and that#s the #holy of holies#, the secret #inner sanctum# for all analyical philosophers" 'hich is !hat he is" There is also a vigourous debate about #e)ternalism in the philosophy of mind# ostensibly $uestioning the reliability of e$uating mind !ith the brain" This has been rumbling for at least thirty years but has become so enmeshed in thickets of elaborate thought e)periments it has effectively shot itself in the foot !ith regards to relevance to current events" It could !ell stay that !ay for a hundred years or more if !e all decide it#s easier ust to let the hedge go on gro!ing" : : :

So, the upshot of all this is that it doesn#t seem to stretch credibility too far to claim that the holistically empirical theory of the brain I have outlined in this essay stands fairly stably as one component of a holistic 3system of the !orld4 !hich is clearly at odds !ith that of humanistic materialism" It thus $ualifies as a contender for the role of rival to any standard brain theory specified by my list of seven main claims in a relationship of empirical e$uivalence of the sort defined by .uine" One $uestion that#s likely to follo! acceptance of this conclusion is !hat relevance all this has to the kind of neuroscience being pursued at the moment" 1 couple of ans!ers stand out from the ostling throng of others" (erhaps the most obvious is that it provides the coordinates for the start of an escape route out of the murk that s!irls round the

circularity !e are inevitably forced into !hen dealing !ith data from e)periments intended to establish the nature of mind % effectively admitting at the very start that !e don#t $uite kno! !hat !e#re looking for" The t!o empirically e$uivalent and rival types of brain theory !e have been considering provide a baseline from !hich to begin triangulating the cognitive space" 1nd, since the holistic theory appeals only to already !idely accepted features of our physiology, it can at least be said to provide some sort of benchmark locating one end of this line in established physical theory" ,eing able to blindly finger this mark gives us a mnemonic to periodically remind ourselves that !hat !hat !e#re dealing !ith here is the mind-body problem and that mind-brain e)uivalence is merely one of many positions it#s possible to adopt in dealing !ith it" To act as if it can be safely assumed that it#s our only option is to risk falling into a very $uirky state of denial" This is especially the case if you fail to take account of the !ide range of cultural symbolism, imagery and metaphors sustained by belief in mindHbrain e$uivalence" There is a clear danger of cultural bias or some other form of incapacitating loss of ob ectivity or neutrality here" Investigation of the failure of many recent attempts to e)plain the !orkings of the brain suggests that mindHbrain e$uivalence has been their e)clusive initial assumption" 'hat seems to have stumped the theorists is their inability to balance the two subtasks !hich emerge once this assumption is made" One is the ob ective of e)plaining ho! the brain generates the phenomena !e sub ectively identify as evidence for our belief that our mental activity is uni$uely located !ithin its bounds" The other is the need to sho! ho! the brain at the same time generates the behaviour of the rest of our bodies, effectively, the 3brain-body problem4" It seems likely that the all5consuming character of the former task !orks negatively against successful completion of this latter task effectively scuppering any plausibility either might have had if the latter task had been attempted as a first priority" 1t the very least it seems fair to say that deep meditation on the application of .uine#s notion of empirical e$uivalence in the conte)t of brain theories should serve as a positive contribution to the clarification of !here people stand on an issue of gro!ing importance" This is the compelling need to scotch any suspicion that today#s neuroscience is contaminated by unthinking hostility to holistic forms of empiricism based on fear of the loss of the authority they are currently perceived as having and the elite academic and social status that accompanies it" One !ay of ackno!ledging this need !ould be to encourage more debate of the possibility that mind might be a distributed system !ith the brain fulfilling the same non5psychological task as nerves throughout the rest of the body and the evidence for it being the organ of mind turning out to be purely circumstantial" One final thing at any rate emerges as difficult to deny" .uine#s holism !as the product of a lifetime#s dedication to !orking through the sensitive epistemological problems contemporary neuroscience no! confronts and his commitment to empiricism in general !as both total and sincere"