You may be interested in Gregory Bateson and the Evolution Of Mind.
But if you are going to bring in the biological in that way, it changes how one speaks of an "individual mind."
The perspective dispenses with a certain way to divide experience. If one accepts the new premises, one leaves behind the arguments that grew from the old. One cannot have the cake and eat it too.

If you take a look at my profile, you will see that Gregory Bateson is included in my list of favorite thinkers. In episode one of my podcast, it thoroughly explains cognitive mapping in relation to what Bateson had to say.

You might be interested in Mikhail Bakhtin. We only recognize self in relation to that which is not self.

It is important to include an understanding of how our brain develops and cognitively maps a model of reality, from conception on, and even prior when we include that science is now confirming that nervous systems can convey 'messages' to future generations via epigenetics. An individual cognitive model of reality is never the actual 'medium'. It is always cloaked. No matter who we are, or what opportunities we've had. The only way to get closer to a shared understanding is through dialogue. Just as synapses are not actually connected, but exchange information via chemical and electrical signals. As Bateson said, the territory never gets in due to representations, (maps of maps, ad infinitum). Consciousness extends beyond an individual brain.

The road of fear of the Void within the contradiction of Matter is superior to the way of beauty of the forms and natures. The compressions of calculus are platonic day dreams. Name one thing smart pierce said about Zeno

"All the arguments of Zeno depend on supposing that a continuum has ultimate
parts. But a continuum is precisely that, every part of which has parts, in the same
sense." .....
CP 5.335 (commens.org)

Turtles all the way down? ;-)

How about shared hallucinations?

I think Mapping the Medium is a supporter of the freaky doctrines of Time Freke and Ken Wilbur.

Objects have matter and form in them. There is the atoms, and there is the arrangement into shape. But what of the shape of the atoms? The process goes on forever, so there IS matter and form. They are not distinguishable (enter Descartes) But the Aquinas doctrine of substances adds another, false, aspect to it. Things don't have an invisible substance of whoses' extension is an accident. Material things are defined by the the cohesion they have. Everything else is culture and psychology. This is strict materialism. Because of the marriage between finitude and infinity, everything is an indeterminate form, in the philosophical and in the mathematical sense.

Absolutely not.

I have found that when someone doesn't understand Peirce, or synechism, they resort to accusations of that nature. I hope you'll decide to learn at some point. I think it is beneficial for anyone.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Oh, oh.

This may provide some insight..... An excerpt from episode 4, but to fully understand you need to listen to or read starting with episode 1. .....

If we were to try and apply a commonly understood, modern analogy to the relationship between semiotics and archetypes, semiotics might be thought of as the cognitive mapping ‘software’ that engages in an exchange of activity that is external to ‘self’, while ‘archetypes’ might be thought of as the cognitive mapping ‘internal’ hardware, that is fundamental to knowledge as a ‘collective’, and provides the platform for what arises as semiotic cause and effect. Let me explain more of how I come to this analogy, but in order to do that I will need to backtrack a little to a field of study I mentioned in episode #1; Epigenetics’. ….
Epigenetics is the study of changes in organisms cause by ‘modification’ to gene expression, rather than alterations to the genetic code itself. The Greek prefix ‘epi’ in epigenetics refers to features that are ‘on top of’ or ‘in addition to’ the genetic basis for inheritance. What’s fascinating about this field of research is how these scientific discoveries are confirming that there is ‘continuity’ in all things, and every ‘thing’ is just an aspect or ‘mode’ of the greater Whole. For example, in a December 1st, 2013 Nature Neuroscience article, located online at http://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3603, researchers found that when mice are taught to fear a particular odor, both their offspring and the next generation are subsequently born fearing that same odor. The findings indicate that environmental information may be inherited transgenerationally. And in a more recent study published in the scientific journal ‘Cell’, found at www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(19)30448-9.pdf, researchers confirmed that the nervous system ‘can’ transmit messages to future generations.
If we look at this with a parallel frame of mind regarding semiotics and archetypes, we can consider how semiotics is ‘epi’, or ‘on top of’ or ‘in addition to’ primitive archetypes. In other words, what makes our species ‘human’ in a genetic sense is our common genetic code, and what makes our species human in a cognitive sense is our primitive and collectively common archetypes. Our genes are influenced by our environment, or Medium, per epigenetics, and expressed as creative diversity manifested over and above genetic copies. Our collective, cognitive foundation (archetypes) is also influenced by our environment, or Medium, per semiotics, and expressed as creatively diverse ideas, and manifested in our verbal, non-verbal, and written dialogue.

It seems like you are trying to prove something that is way more complex than what a single thread can handle. Almost no one will go through all your implied sources.

I did this mistake too previously. It's much more fruitful to make threads about small specific things in your bigger thing even if knowing the bigger thing needs all the parts.

Everyone needs to start somewhere and very few will try this route if it is this hard to go trough.

Thank you for your insight. :)

It is SOOO very true that most people want to talk about philosophy, the meaning of life, consciousness, and what happens when we die, but only if it's understood in a few words or minutes. It is the sad state of our dumbed-down 'commercial' length culture. ... Life, death, and consciousness are complex. I have been told by those who listen to my podcast that I do a good job of making complex topics easy to understand. That is my specialized training and education; explaining difficult topics to average people. But the one thing I can't do anything about is the people who don't want to learn.

Synechism "denies that all is merely ideas, likewise that all is merely matter, and mind–matter dualism." Uh, so then everything thing is a super-spiritual entity? This wanting to merge with everything else is an escape tactic from one's conscience, as I see it. No different from trying to merge with Jesus in Christianity

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I do.

All I can do is invite you, and I have.

I no longer debate these things. I don't have to, or need to.

I've been on enough forums to understand the nature of debate threads. I also study logic, and have been and have participated in debates. Peirce was first and foremost a brilliant logician. You should get to know him.

Have a good night.

This is just Hinduism without the koan. It's mushy spiritualism, without even the sense there is a God your communicating with

What? Lol..

These contrary comments posted toward me are totally irrelevant.

Consciousness extends beyond an individual brain. — Mapping the Medium

You’re going to have to do better than making such a statement and refusing to explain it. I’d be willing to look at your ideas if you could explain this. If it’s too much bother to answer on the third time of asking then I’ll assume you don’t have a reasonable answer.

I don't believe in God. I have speculated about a Sol Invictus, but there is not evidence of him. Hindusim, it is true, usually doesn't have koans. Which is why it is usually escapist spiritualism. Reincarnation is not real. You are you, not everyone. I have no respect for Christianity because they make an innocent person into their scapegoat. It's clearly immoral. Trying to merge with every is just as bad however. At least I have respect though for people who sense there might be a God and are willing to follow him, just so long as they don't expect him to take away their responsibility.

If it appeases you to take that stance rather than read my posts and the links explaining the biology. So be it. I don't play games.

Studies on biology can never take away the truth of free will and wrongdoing, even if we have to adopt compatabilism as our option.

Another non-reader. Geez!
I'm beginning to think that this forum is full of opinionated people with 'fixations of beliefs'. Sad.

Be charitable. Just because Peirce believed in ‘god’ it doesn’t make his work redundant/nonsense. If you’re referring something else not on stated on this forum that’s different. I don’t see anything here to stringly suggest some kind of religious inclination on the part of the OP.

Your just creating an Obama big shining star for everyone to get lost in and have orgies!

s

I no longer debate these things.

I don't have to, or need to. — Mapping the Medium

I don't understand why you're here then.

Answer the question posed to you three times or leave then? This forum is most certainly full of opinionated people and a fair few who do doubt have certain ‘fixated’ views.

Another non-reader. Geez!
I'm beginning to think that this forum is full of opinionated people with 'fixations of beliefs'. Sad. — Mapping the Medium

You probably should read yourself other threads in this forum. They are mostly high quality enough unlike this thread and this thread isn't working because of the groundwork you demand of others and because of your low quality responses and shrugging off of people who just try to make you define your arguments to start a honest discussion.

Suggestion: make a new thread about a smaller topic with less groundwork for others and don't shrug off people who ask for you to define your arguments.