Steven Rose does not agree with certain physicists maintaining that still unknown motion states of matter might exist: "there are a few distinguished neurobiologists who are still unashamed dualists. However, more dualists are probably to be found among the ranks of the philosophers than among the scientists. Among scientists, most of the concern over the 'abolition' of mind has come from those who are convinced - often because they are physicists rather than biologists - that there are still to be found in biology new laws, forces and properties of matter which cannot be subsumed under the classical laws of physics and chemistry"²². Hence we comment that the scare of dualism should not refrain us from searching the brain mystery for everything that cannot be but material, irrespective of being made up from known physical ingredients or not, or based on new physical principles, yet unknown. The gate is still open to both possibilities. For Steven Rose "there are no properties of the brain which cannot be analyzed, defined, explained and interpreted in terms of the biological mechanisms which are known to operate in other systems²³. He says "There are, to put it bluntly, no mysteries beyond the reach of scientific analysis. There are puzzles and problems. There will surely be major surprises to come"²⁴. However he realizes that something must still be sought. Hence his stand in the problem of consciousness is that 'mind' is "the total of brain activity at any given time"²⁵ and 'consciousness' is "the summation of this total activity from some point (yet to be established) ..."²⁶. What kind of departing point thinks Rose that should be searched for ? And it is not the beingness phenomenon the very departing point we are looking for ? Indeed, if beingness is taken as the reference point then both consciousness and awareness can be explained and hence we can use Rose´s statement that "Consciousness is seen not as a thing but a process, expressing the relationships between the mind/brain and its environment"²⁷.

A review of brain research achievements²⁸ observes that neurology is now in the stage of development in which genetics was in 1920´s (when biologists were in a state of disbelief and frustration). Brain science cannot so far explain how and where the brain processes of perception, memory, learning, awareness, consciousness and other take place²⁹.
F. V. Bassin observed that the concept of "consciousness" (meaning, awareness) is, as a working notion, foreign to modern neuro-cybernetics, and hence if previously the unconscious was trying to gain citizenship into science, now, paradoxical as it may seem, the consciousness finds itself in the same difficult position, since questions have appeared regarding its status: does it reflect a regulatory factor of the nervous activity, or is it only a sterile functional shade, an epiphenomenon of cerebral activity that we need not take into account in any serious analysis of the mechanisms of this activity³⁰.
A. Kolmogorov³¹ showed that neuro-cybernetics does not explain consciousness, at least in its present state, and then considers that in the developed human consciousness the formal logics mechanism does not play a decisive role, being but an auxiliary computing device. Both Bassin and Kolmogorov make no distinction between consciousness and awareness, but their observations are meaningful and both give consciousness an important role in neurology. For them consciousness (and awareness, by implication) is not an epiphenomenon, but it has an active functional role.
F. V. Bassin considers that it is strange that consciousness is absent from all the neuro-cybernetic brain descriptions, since he considers consciousness to be strongly connected with the activity of the upper levels of human nervous system, that takes part into this activity assuming a complex and specific role³². He takes a critical stand towards psychology disregarding the "experienced states", considering that this retards the development of an important chapter of brain research³³. Starting from the theory of social consciousness, Bassin reveals the "extremely complex genesis of consciousness, its dependence on factors that are both psychological and social³⁴. The psychological factor cannot be reduced to the physiological aspect, but nevertheless cannot be separated from it. Bassin examines various point of views elaborated in the first half of 20^th century³⁵ regarding consciousness (when neuro-cybernetic models of nervous activity were not known) and concludes that they were a continuation of machism, by dissolving consciousness in "pure experience".

Weinshen³⁶ and Fessard³⁷ considers that consciousness is a physiological process and admit that it is located in certain brain structures. According to Fessard these structures would have an integrating role in the upper nervous activity. This point of view does no longer consider that consciousness is an epiphenomenon and hence looks for it as a process of the human brain with a certain location. Bassin comments that this leads to a biological conception about consciousness. Following this line of thought, it was sought to connect consciousness with the attention (vigilance) levels of the brain, i.e. implicating the reticular formation however, as Bassin observed³⁸, such total association is mechanicistically vulgar.
One should mention that various options as expressed by various authors are referring either to beingness, or to consciousness, or to self-consciousness, or to social consciousness, but always under the same name of consciousness. Further one should observe that all the points of view mentioned before are generated by a confused understanding of the processes implicating consciousness; nevertheless they reflect, in a way or another, some partial or indirect truth.

The model we propose offers a more detailed understanding of the consciousness processes. It makes distinction between various forms of consciousness, between consciousness and awareness; within awareness it records experimentally, introspectively, three moments of which only one, the beingness, is still unexplained by existing sciences. This does not mean that it will not be explained by science in the future, by some research specific to this concept of beingness, i.e. in a new stage of scientific development.

Biology and Psychology in Relation with Awareness 60