How Peter Klevius evolution formula (1981) explains why existencecentrism (P. Klevius 1992) is essential to understand the human mind*.

*  'Mind' is here to be understood as the latest state of the individual's (or humankind's) adaptation to sensory input imprinted via the thalamus in a way that makes any new input pattern obliged to hit (roughly/dynamically) the same original association pattern. For this process to work no "qualia" is possible other than as obscure concepts in language. In fact, to understand the mind one has to separate it from language. Or more precisely, one has to understand language as sensory input in general - compare Peter Klevius stone example (1992) - but realize its capability of irrational illusions. There's no table in the brain to support a toddler learning to walk - s/he is just adapted to it as part of her/his surroundings. Same with a sunset etc. The neuronal circuit is just a chaotic "film" emulsion where different association patterns have become familiar to the individual. And scanning the brain shows just that, i.e. a chaotic pattern unlike anyone else's, except for more general structures due to similar biology.

The main point of Peter Klevius concept 'existencecentrism' (1992) is that the only reality is the one inside the mind, and that it's impossible to even talk/think about something "outside" the mind because any such speculation is 100% determined/understood by what is inside the mind.

A pile of house building material has the potential for a variety of different houses. However, the more the house is built the less possibility for variation. Same applies to the mind, according to Peter Klevius (1981, 1992, 1994, 2004). This means that the more the brain (mind) adapts to its limited (existencecentrism) surrounding, the less room for other views. First threshold for the growing young human (fetus, baby etc.) is the limit of the senses. The second is the ackumulation of synaptic adaptations which makes the individual naturally (walking etc.) and socially (talking etc.) fluent, but further also limits access to alternative understanding because of the mind “going native”*.

* "Going native" is a concept in social anthropology when a researcher “becomes” one with the culture under study.

Peter Klevius evolution formula from 1981 applied to the mind.

 This article appeared as a s.c. "under-liner" (under strecket) on the editorial page and was back then paid Fmk 500 to the author. 

The understanding of what the senses bring is limited to what they have brought before (P. Klevius 1992). This is in line with Peter Klevius evolution formula (published 1981) where the causality of events constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution (synaptic pruning). Evolution can be said to be the consequence of the variables of causality in where the complexity of older structures is reinforced (compare s.c. counterfactual relation). This development stays in an apparent opposition to thermodynamics which theoretically leads to what is called "maximum entropy", i.e. the state where no additional pruning is needed (compare e.g. walking and talking in general). Thus, one could fatalistically say that evolution in fact only constitutes components of causality on its way to uniformity, where the end point of evolution is determined by its external frame of reference, and can be summed up in the words of the philosopher Hegel: 'Pure being and nothingness are identical' (P. Kotilainen* 1981). 

* Kotilainen (mother's maiden name) was the last of three names labelled on Peter while still a child - the others being Lundström (marrie to the mother) and Lindroos (who kept the kidnapped child in secret for many years). Ironically, the proper name Kinnmark (the bio father who admitted fathering the child and promised to marry the mother but never did) was never applied.