A theory of consciousness for Scientists

[HermesThePhilosopher]

Hey everyone,

I have been interested in studying how the mind works for a number of years now and have arrived at my own understanding of how we become self-aware. I have created a site that details my thoughts:

 

Introduction (A model of Synthetic Intelligence)

 

Below is one page that contains some of the main points.

My work is based primarily on two things; evolution and the philosophy of Heidegger. Because the philosophy is a little difficult to follow, perhaps, I have posted this on philosophical forums mostly, but have received no pertinent feedback (philosophers seem to delight in avoiding the point!).

 

So... fellow scientists! I would be grateful if you would read my post, or some of my site, think like a practical scientist and try to answer this question:

If this model was programmed and enacted within a suitable machine would it achieve self-awareness? If not, why not?

Many thanks,

Hermes

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

The Temporal Cycle

Here we shall consider a schematic of the temporal cycle, and follow through the temporal loop including its derivative and worldly functions. This (top) loop is the basic function of Dasein, the continued Anticipation of the Now and Now-that-was to produce the Potentiality-for-Being, and the Making-present of that Potentiality with the senses to produce the Now. These two Interpretations, with respect to the Entities of Dasein, would in our ancestors have provided (and still do, in us and higher order animals) a sense of what is to come within-the-World around us.

 

The bottom right loop is the derivative (weak) Interpretative cycle, allowing Dasein to "see" a Potentiality beyond the immediate. The bottom left loop is how Dasein interacts with the World in which it lives, and the other instances of Dasein, the They. This loop is also vital for sentience to emerge, particularly, it is key in developing the Entity-of-Dasein (the "ego") and for subsequently enabling purpose.

 

 

Now + Now-that-was

 

The Now is the current state of Dasein in the present. Its Being is one of the Entities at hand, the senses and Entities of the present as they relate to the Entity of Dasein and as the Function of Dasein determines the present to be. At any one moment in time, the Now is the collection of Entities that the Function of Dasein is "experiencing" at that time, the focus of Dasein's ken, the region of Dasein that is the present.

 

The Now-that-was is the remnant Entities of a just-passed Now, the Being of Dasein as it was a moment before. This short, immediate "history" of Dasein is vital to provide a vector, so to speak, for the extrapolatory Interpretation called Anticipation. To perform a strong temporal Interpretation, a comparison of two things is required. The Now-that-was then serves to produce, on Interpretation with the Now, a differential, the change in Being of Dasein, which change can be identified with changes in the memory of Dasein, it's Entities.

 

Anticipation

 

As said, by Interpreting the Now and the Now-that-was, Anticipation produces an Interpretive product that is a status of the Being of Dasein, in the future, based on the Entities held within Dasein (its past experiences, thus Anticipation is "with respect to the past"). This Interpretive product is called the Potentiality-for-Being.

 

Potentiality-for-Being

 

Just as the Now is the state of Being of Dasein in the present, the Potentiality-for-Being is the state of Being of Dasein in a possible future. The nature of that future, the quality of the prediction so the speak, is clearly dependent on the range and depth of experiences Dasein has stored as Entities that are Interpretistically relevant to the Now at hand. If it has encountered a similar situation before, then the Anticipation Interpretation is more likely to be accurate.

 

An important feature of the system to note at this point is the temporality created by this predictive Interpretation. By taking Dasein into a possible future, the Being of Dasein is not only in the past through its Entities, nor also in the present through its senses, but reaching into a future it has created of its own accord. This point will be very important for the emergent properties of Dasein, discussed in the Birth of Dasein and the Development of Dasein, and also the conception of time possessed by Dasein.

 

One should envisage the loop of the three main states of the Now-that-was, the Now and the Potentiality-for-Being not as a cycle to be followed round and around, for if one did then at any moment one's focus would be away from some part of the loop, but as a continuous and parallel flow of information.

 

Senses

 

The senses obviously take physical interactions in-the-World and translate these to signal patterns "readable" by Dasein. There may be some degree of "pre-processing" whereby the sense "organ" in question encodes or optimises the signal for Interpretation, but this is not strictly necessary and is rather a way to help subsequent functions focus on what has been determined important in the sense, by evolution or the creator.

 

Making-present

 

The Making-present is the second big Interpretation performed by Dasein, it compares the Anticipation Interpretation (future) with the senses (present) and in doing so creates the Now, completing the cycle. For the Potentiality-for-Being to be assessed and productive, it must be brought back to the present, and in Interpreting it thus with the senses, the predicted state of Being of the World can be reckoned with what the senses record.

 

Again, there are emergent properties of this system that are discussed on other pages. But even now one should be able to simply imagine the effect this would have on the casual execution of Dasein. Consider dropping a ball in front of yourself. At any one "moment" in time, Dasein has the current position of the ball as the Now, and traces from its immediate knowledge of where the ball was an instant before to Anticipate where it shall be next (with respect to prior experience, Interpretation is of Dasein's Entities); and this Potentiality-for-Being is appreciated whilst the ball is falling. The senses will then corroborate this in a normal situation, the Making present brings this synthesis of the future and the present back to the Now, and Dasein's expectations have been realised. They didn't have to be realised, but this is a matter for other sections.

 

Motor action

 

For the instance of Dasein to interact with the World and the They it must partake of motor action to effect a change in the World. In humans this takes one of two forms; speech or skeletal muscle movement, generally associated with movement of the limbs. The Potentiality-for-Being provides, in the possible future of what Dasein may become, the goal for said movement. In the process of execution to reach this goal, other parts of the instance, the cerebellum in humans or example, are dedicated to achieving the plan through translation to coordinated skeletal muscle contraction.

 

Attention control

 

The process as described thus far has two intrinsic problems which have a common solution. First is the continuous increase in the amount of information being introduced into the cycle; the derivative Potentiality-for-Being and the senses mean that there is potentially more data to arrive back at the Now than departed. Secondly, not all this data is of import to the instance at any one time, to Be concerned with inconsequentialities at a time of danger could be fatal for Dasein.

 

Therefore, Dasein has control over the weighting of its own Interpretations in the form of a "gating" signal system (in green) that may promote or inhibit certain Interpretive pathways. Like all possibilities of action this originates in the Potentiality-for-Being, sending regulator signals to major sites in the process; this is akin to motor action since Dasein is becoming its potentiality through self action, but here in the most direct manner and at a level undetectable to its senses and Entities, thus it is "sub-conscious".

 

As a consequence, rather than Being "everywhere at once" within its own Being, Dasein can emphasise Being within the Now by inhibiting Anticipation, or focus upon the sense of hearing; always by acting upon a Potentiality-for-Being. The problem of lost information is sidestepped by selecting what is relevent-to-hand and the problem of Being "in the wrong place" is directly confronted by allowing Dasein to Be where it deems to be important.

[charles brough]

From reading some of the overly-lengthy post above, it is easy to see that you have, indeed, been in the philosophy department! If that is not Abstract, Ivory Tower, type of effort then what is it?

 

In science, it is important to use words that have clear meaning and, with key words, only ONE meaning. Otherwise, it is easy to endlessly rationalize. Rationalizing, if done academically, can sound very deep and impressive.

 

In my work (see the Atheistic Science Institute - home page ), I have an Appendix frilled with twenty-one academic word-use stratagems used in social science rationalizing. In every case, no social scientist is aware that he IS rationalizing or it would not be rationalizing!

 

charles

[HermesThePhilosopher]

From reading some of the overly-lengthy post above, it is easy to see that you have, indeed, been in the philosophy department! If that is not Abstract, Ivory Tower, type of effort then what is it?

 

In science, it is important to use words that have clear meaning and, with key words, only ONE meaning. Otherwise, it is easy to endlessly rationalize. Rationalizing, if done academically, can sound very deep and impressive.

 

In my work (see ), I have an Appendix frilled with twenty-one academic word-use stratagems used in social science rationalizing. In every case, no social scientist is aware that he IS rationalizing or it would not be rationalizing!

 

charles

 

Y'see, this was just the type of reply I was hoping to avoid. I asked a specific question, provided links to further information and definitions, and appealed to everyone's sense of scientific inquisitiveness... and get berated for being in an "ivory tower" and "rationalizing"?

 

I know the post is long, I provided more than the introduction to save readers from linking to another site.

 

The concepts, by the way, do have one meaning. That meaning may not be immediately apparent. Apparently. Try reading again, or try going to the links provided to get more information.

 

If there is any part of it you don't understand, then pray tell, and I shall forthwith attempt to demystify said befuddlement.

[CraigD]

So... fellow scientists! I would be grateful if you would read my post, or some of my site, think like a practical scientist and try to answer this question:

If this model was programmed and enacted within a suitable machine would it achieve self-awareness? If not, why not?

As a computer programmer with a long interest in “synthetic intelligence”, I look forward to reading your work. A cursory glance at it suggests it’s sensibly written, and worth seriously reading.

 

As most hypographers are occupied with professions and personal lives, and inclined to seek to understand a subject well before questioning or commenting on it, please note that days may be required before you receive substantive feedback, and be patient. You clearly didn’t write your work overnight, so a few days or a week’s wait for reaction to it shouldn’t, I expect, be unbearable.

 

Oh, and welcome to hypography. :confused: I hope and expect you’ll find it among the highest quality science enthusiast forums on the internet, and both gain and give value to it.

[HermesThePhilosopher]

Thank you, Craig. I'd appreciate thoughts from the programming POV greatly, since it is only through coding that it could be implemented. I have tried to make it as clear as possible in this regard, though I am aware there that the model only goes into so much detail, and the specifics (particularly of the process of "Interpretation") have been intentionally ... not filled in, so to say!

 

The main reason for this being that Interpretation could be programmed in many different ways, and to specify one would be unnecessarily restrictive. I just hope there is sufficient definition within the site to pin down what it should be doing as a function in the mind of a programmer.

[Essay]

Oh yea!

This is a neat post. I saw it earlier, but could only skim it (and still not read :) ), but yes: AI.

 

I've thought about this and saw what you were going for right away, I think

(what's all that stuff about social science/ivory tower....)

...though maybe I should read it fully, before asking questions.

===

 

...after the massively parallel, self-iterative, linked networks....

With AI, in the end, I think you'll need to have some "motivator."

This would be anything that makes "balancing homeostasis" slightly difficult for the computer (thus needing continuing attention) ...so it can stay "happy."

...or words to that effect.

 

...of course how to make a computer aware of, or define, homeostasis....

...intractable problems, irrational numbers, heat detectors linked to processing?

 

...sorry, be back later if I don't explode first.

 

~ :confused:

[charles brough]

Y'see, this was just the type of reply I was hoping to avoid. I asked a specific question, provided links to further information and definitions, and appealed to everyone's sense of scientific inquisitiveness... and get berated for being in an "ivory tower" and "rationalizing"? The concepts, by the way, do have one meaning. That meaning may not be immediately apparent. Apparently. Try reading again, or try going to the links provided to get more information.

 

I know it is un-academic to be so blunt, but sometimes I have to be blunt to be objective. I hope no one thinks I am being personal about this, and I never questioned your sincerity. People are sincere while they rationalize.

 

But to get to the point . . . you take German word, "Dasein" whose meaning is fraught with controversy and offer no definition. Are you telling us it cannot be translated? Evidence to me is that it has many different meanings, so which one do you use? If you use different ones, you make it easy to rationalize and easily create a flow of abstractions that amount only to double talk. There is a problem in the non-physical sciences and it is that scholars are motivated to subconsciously write to impress more than to acquire usefull information which the public can benefit from. This may not be the case with you, but genuine interest in the public good affects not just the political world but all of society. I have written extensively about this in the Atheistic Science Institute - home page    . You need a glossary with key words defined with only a single definition, that always being the only one you use. That takes it away from ivory tower philosophizing real well.

 

For example, "Dasein" translates to "existence," "life (live)," "presence" etc. In every day usage one can say you lack it if someone is talking to you and your mind is elsewhere. But is your mind really elsewhere? It is still there, only thinking of something else.

 

What is that "potential" to-have something you write about? Do you mean that it can be caused to be or do something? In my own writing, I have always avoided the word because it purports to refer to something that is nothing.

 

That is all I picked up in the first few paragraphs and explains why such a long post as you made makes it difficult to respond to. No one else has responded, I notice. You have a lot of impressed viewers, but can they explain to me what you have written?

 

What are these "loops" your refer to?

 

charles

[HermesThePhilosopher]

 

...after the massively parallel, self-iterative, linked networks....

With AI, in the end, I think you'll need to have some "motivator."

This would be anything that makes "balancing homeostasis" slightly difficult for the computer (thus needing continuing attention) ...so it can stay "happy."

...or words to that effect.

 

...of course how to make a computer aware of, or define, homeostasis....

...intractable problems, irrational numbers, heat detectors linked to processing?

 

...sorry, be back later if I don't explode first.

 

~ :)

 

OK this is a good point. I have, so far, steered clear of emotion, but I know it needs to be addressed. My current thinking, in line with the model proposed, is that Dasein develops Entities for "good" and "bad", fundamentally based on physiological responses to pain and being-well, and the effect these have on the brain.

 

These Entities are intrinsic in subjecting Potentialities-for-Being to a kind of continuous "judgement", so Dasein is continuously evaluating possible actions as "good" or "bad" - and somewhere down the road this would produce the motivation you speak of. So, good point.... But emotion is tricky, and I'm not yet sure if it is necessary for self-awareness - though of course needs addressing at some point.

 

What do you think? Emotion required for sentience?

 

 

I know it is un-academic to be so blunt, but sometimes I have to be blunt to be objective. I hope no one thinks I am being personal about this, and I never questioned your sincerity. People are sincere while they rationalize.

 

But to get to the point . . . you take German word, "Dasein" whose meaning is fraught with controversy and offer no definition. Are you telling us it cannot be translated? Evidence to me is that it has many different meanings, so which one do you use? If you use different ones, you make it easy to rationalize and easily create a flow of abstractions that amount only to double talk. There is a problem in the non-physical sciences and it is that scholars are motivated to subconsciously write to impress more than to acquire usefull information which the public can benefit from. This may not be the case with you, but genuine interest in the public good affects not just the political world but all of society. I have written extensively about this in . You need a glossary with key words defined with only a single definition, that always being the only one you use. That takes it away from ivory tower philosophizing real well.

 

For example, "Dasein" translates to "existence," "life (live)," "presence" etc. In every day usage one can say you lack it if someone is talking to you and your mind is elsewhere. But is your mind really elsewhere? It is still there, only thinking of something else.

 

What is that "potential" to-have something you write about? Do you mean that it can be caused to be or do something? In my own writing, I have always avoided the word because it purports to refer to something that is nothing.

 

That is all I picked up in the first few paragraphs and explains why such a long post as you made makes it difficult to respond to. No one else has responded, I notice. You have a lot of impressed viewers, but can they explain to me what you have written?

 

What are these "loops" your refer to?

 

charles

 

Sorry, I think this is a misunderstanding in part caused by my inability to link until I've clocked 10 posts :)

And I apologise for being blunt myself, for I agree with you, and have in fact already made a glossary of sorts and on the site link to a definition of all key words and phrases...

 

sites.google.com/site/hermesthephilosopher/Index/

 

And my definition of Dasein...

 

sites.google.com/site/hermesthephilosopher/Index/Dasein

 

(Just realised some of these haven't been transferred to the new site - will do now)

 

The "Potentiality-for-Being" is, in a sense, a logical prediction of the future. Thus, a Potentiality. Since it applies to Entities, and in particular the Entity of Dasein held within itself, then it is a possibility of the world-model that Dasein holds within itself, and also a possibility of itself - which may or may not occur in the future.

 

The "loops" are the overall structure of the functions of Interpretation as they relate to each other. The picture (again, can't post it yet!, but it is linked above) helps immensely with visualisation, it is quite simple really.

[questor]

If you are going to discuss an arcane subject such as consciousness, why don't you first tell us the biochemical basis of thought itself? It does no good to discuss macro events such as emotions unless you first understand how thought itself is propagated. Since the human brain is powered by biochemical reactions, consciousness must exist at some particulate level and be biochemical in origin. Why don't we first describe this activity?

[Essay]

Questor,

Isn't consciousness an emergent property, not reducible to basic properties like biochemical reactions.

 

Darn, that's not quite how to say it; but like many things, consciousness is not able to be predicted even with a thorough knowledge of the basic physical reactions.

 

...complex emergent properties evolving from simple robust systems....

 

...or something like that.

~ :naughty:

 

p.s. in the never-ending attempt to maintain or regain homeostasis.

[questor]

I would also suggest you study the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems ( perhaps from Gray's Anatomy textbook), in order to get a more scientific understanding of the human brain ''wiring''. When you are done with that, get a biochemistry text to study energy transfer by enzymatic activity in the cells to see if you can refine your theory. Then you can express your ideas simply, concisely and scientifically.

[Essay]

Questor,

Isn't consciousness an emergent property, not reducible to basic properties like biochemical reactions.

 

Darn, that's not quite how to say it; but like many things, consciousness is not able to be predicted even with a thorough knowledge of the basic physical reactions.

 

...complex emergent properties evolving from simple robust systems....

 

...or something like that.

~ :naughty:

 

p.s. in the never-ending attempt to maintain or regain homeostasis.

 

Questor, to reiterate...

I think it is regardless of the mechanism (biochemistry, electronics, etc.) that information processing is conducted through; it is what is done (categorized, associated, etc.) with the information, that generates consciousness. I think that is what the OP is about.

 

p.s. Sorry for that very awkward sentence.

[HermesThePhilosopher]

If you are going to discuss an arcane subject such as consciousness, why don't you first tell us the biochemical basis of thought itself? It does no good to discuss macro events such as emotions unless you first understand how thought itself is propagated. Since the human brain is powered by biochemical reactions, consciousness must exist at some particulate level and be biochemical in origin. Why don't we first describe this activity?

 

If you are going to post in a thread, why don't you first read that thread?

/flippant_reply :naughty:

 

What you suggest is exactly how I did it (more or less; not from a "biochemical" POV as you put it but from the POV of evolution).

 

As Essay said, what this model describes is a basic process from which I believe consciousness may emerge. Nowhere did anyone say this process described emotion, the previous reply to Essay was merely responding to a point he made and giving my opinion on how emotion may fit into this framework. The question in that post was a purely hypothetical one.

 

Edit:

 

I would also suggest you study the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems ( perhaps from Gray's Anatomy textbook), in order to get a more scientific understanding of the human brain ''wiring''. When you are done with that, get a biochemistry text to study energy transfer by enzymatic activity in the cells to see if you can refine your theory. Then you can express your ideas simply, concisely and scientifically.

 

OK there are good reasons for not going down this path. The sympathetic and parasympathetic systems are hard-wired evolutionarily designed PNS that are purely there to help control of the body, are present in many "lower" animals, and are not part of the central functioning of the brain. However, I do concede, in an earlier post, that some parts of the CNS/PNS are involved in creating a "mood" or "feeling" within the mind - I think it is better to return to explaining this once the core functions of the CNS have been worked out though.

 

I have already studied Gray's, in more detail than I care to remember, amongst a plethora of other medical textbooks, and they taught me nothing of how humans achieve self-awareness; except the ignorance of medical science in this particular field.

 

I have already studied biochemistry in plenty of detail, and it taught me nothing of how humans become self-aware.... But this is beside the point.... Science has known the general topography and pathways of neurons within the brain for many decades, but has not been able to find how these produce consciousness. There has been a logical failure on the part of scientists to understand how a simple process may lead to self-awareness, and this is where philosophy, in particular I believe Heidegger, can make progress.

 

My model is based on the logic of evolution and ... hermeneutics. But, like any theory, it would require scientific testing for proof. And again, thanks Essay!, I agree, the medium in which the process is executed is of no importance whatsoever. The function of neurons, depolarisation and enzymatic transfers, are simply how DNA found how to manifest the abstractions of information exchange.

 

I know it is not immediately clear and easy to understand - but it is, I believe, very simple at heart. As an interpretation of Being and Time it is immensely simpler than the original book :D

[Essay]

Darn, you've got me thinking about AI again. :naughty: Most enjoyable.

I'm starting to read your text (only did the titles so far [i'm so sorry]) up to Dasein, and CharlesB's response about Dasein, and yours to that.

 

I will look at pics and site and finish reading, but....

 

About emotion: I wasn't really going for happy or emotions in a human sense. As you saw, it is just the binary choice of good or bad. Nothing more than the "emotions" of an ameoba are needed to motivate, but how to link them to that potential goal (or partial image of a goal, that potentially could be filled in correctly) is the trick.

 

Thanks!

:D

 

p.s. ...a quick wiki (a qwiki) of Dasein:

Heidegger attempted to maintain the definition of Dasein as we all are, in our average everydayness. [my emphasis]

 

Ah yes. Wouldn't that be homeostasis? Well that's how I'm translating it.

The binary choice to maintain (or restore) homeostasis vs. the choice that leads away from homeostasis (which will quickly be retracted).

 

...back to reading....

~ ;)

[questor]

You do have one correct observation...

except the ignorance of medical science in this particular field.

, other than that I see nothing here that will give us much information on the subject. If you read more of your biochemistry book and studied the Krebs cycle, you would understand more about the energy production without which no system in the body can operate. In the middle ages we studied skeletons and muscles. Modern medicine studies macro systems and microsystems of non-functioning cells. The breakthrough will come when we can study the functioning biochemical reactions in living cells that make us what we are. We are already able to study electrical activity in the brain and know which brain lobes are concerned with different functions. Since you think you may have a proper perspective on this, please answer a question that has escaped me. Are thoughts conceived on the molecular, atomic, or sub-atomic level?

[HermesThePhilosopher]

You do have one correct observation..., other than that I see nothing here that will give us much information on the subject. If you read more of your biochemistry book and studied the Krebs cycle, you would understand more about the energy production without which no system in the body can operate. In the middle ages we studied skeletons and muscles. Modern medicine studies macro systems and microsystems of non-functioning cells. The breakthrough will come when we can study the functioning biochemical reactions in living cells that make us what we are. We are already able to study electrical activity in the brain and know which brain lobes are concerned with different functions. Since you think you may have a proper perspective on this, please answer a question that has escaped me. Are thoughts conceived on the molecular, atomic, or sub-atomic level?

 

I see no need to justify my education on a forum board, suffice to say I am well aware of the science and processes you mention and, moreover, the complete lack of relevance these processes have to this thread and the subject of consciousness in general.

 

You need to re-evaluate the human body from an evolutionary perspective. It is nothing more than a machine for replication. The Krebs cycle, genetic transcription/translation, proteins, cells, the nervous system - all to propagate information. That's it. If they didn't propagate information, then this information, ourselves, would not be here now. The brain is part of this too, but applicable to different evolutionary pressures and, indeed, a totally different stage of evolution to what you are talking about. Adaptations tend to be patching and rearranging existing phenotypic configurations; it seems absurd to bring up the citric acid cycle, ATP recycling or any other molecular process.

 

You seem to be arguing that once the smallest intra-cellular functions are known we shall be in a position to understand consciousness. There is no logical way, and I seriously doubt any genetic proof, that at the last speciation - that which gave rise to sentient homo-sapiens - our metabolic/general cellular functions altered to allow self-awareness. This is a case of not being able to see the wood for the trees... neural activity is what creates consciousness, nothing more.

 

Your question, "Are thoughts conceived on the molecular, atomic, or sub-atomic level?" is easy to answer, thoughts are conceived by the action of neurons. So, none of the choices you gave, the answer is the "cellular level".

 

Other scientists, Penrose for example, postulated that current science is unable to answer the question of consciousness, that a new "kind" of science is needed, and that perhaps quantum physics is involved somehow. Such thinking is totally unnecessary, at best a diversion, at worst boarding on a mysticism akin to the "mind-body problem".

 

All scientists should look for the simplest possible explanation, and in this thread and on my site I offer such a solution. To believe that neural-electrical activity is not responsible for consciousness has been the reaction of many unable or unwilling to look for what is right in front of them.

 

If you find nothing of value here, I recommend you read again from the Primer. If you disagree, and it is so obviously wrong as you intimate, then please tell me what part is wrong?

[HermesThePhilosopher]

Darn, you've got me thinking about AI again. :naughty: Most enjoyable.

 

Glad you enjoy this subject, me too :D

 

p.s. ...a quick wiki (a qwiki) of Dasein:

Heidegger attempted to maintain the definition of Dasein as we all are, in our average everydayness. [my emphasis]

 

Ah yes. Wouldn't that be homeostasis? Well that's how I'm translating it.

The binary choice to maintain (or restore) homeostasis vs. the choice that leads away from homeostasis (which will quickly be retracted).

 

...back to reading....

~ ;)

 

Heidegger is difficult - Wikipedia is, there, just paraphrasing what he said, which is OK, but difficult to fully understand outside the context of Being and Time. Heidegger tended to mix ontological logic with unfounded opinions and judgements of human nature - his weakest point in my opinion.

 

When he talks of an "average everydayness" of Dasein he means that Dasein could be, in some way, "more" aware, but that Dasein tends to "cover up" the true nature of things, including itself, by making facile interpretations of the world.

 

Perhaps a valid observation, but it is not as fundamental as other parts of his work. My own interpretation of Dasein is clearer, simpler and in line with Heideggers. Your idea of homeostasis is one that I have not really considered yet. Again, I haven't really got as far as "tying up" Dasein to the body yet, but it needs to be done at some time.