Brain reward systems and social interactions

Administrador del Nodo Postmaster at neubio.sld.ar
Sun Nov 19 15:40:38 EST 1995


>From Postmaster Sun, 19 Nov 95 15:35:39 ARG remote from neubio
>Received: by neubio.sld.ar (UUPC/PcCorreo 3.0) with UUCP; Sun, 19 Nov 95 15:35:39 ARG
>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 15:35:39 ARG
>From: Administrador del Nodo <Postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>
>Message-ID: <733ko327 at neubio.sld.ar>
>X-Mailer: UUPC/PcCorreo 3.0
>To: neuroscience at net.bio.net
>Subject: Brain reward systems and social interactions
>
>Dear JAppel 12188,
>
>               (upon your much cybernetic name, I hope you too bear
>hominid reward systems in your central processor, so as to enjoy
>the extraordinary interest of your subject question!  :-)  )
>			      ****
>                  The sentient parenchyma is described in our old,
>hylozoist local tradition as in charge of three proper functions
>that act upon two general independent physical variables:
>
>Function One is defining stationarities upon holographic-holophonic
>like interfering reverberating circuits, as Chr. Jakob show since
>1906 upon a line of concepts began in 1749 but relegated in the 1890's. 
>Such stationarities make a structural system.  Function Two is the
>opening (upon long range parameters of the spacetime astronomically
>traversed by the biospheric components, and by means of applying low
>but coherent electroweak energies) another phase wherein non-structu-
>ral phenomena, whose unstructurality prevents them to be conveyed
>through structural (= informatic) channels, can be physically deter-
>mined.  Function Three is determining differentially these characteri-
>zations on the different stationarities, turning these interactive.
>The first independent physical variable is, these non-structuralities'
>being experienced; the second, also taken as a non-responsive physical
>variable by the natural selection forming the neurocognitive parenchyma,
>is such experiencing's finding itself having its experiences in parcels;
>that is, "circumstanced" into experiencing (as noema) the non-structurally
>featured stationarities	made by a given parcel of sentient tissue ins-
>tead than, rather, another.  This finding oneself circumstanced is named
>in Spanish "cadacualtez".  It is what makes a person (human, or of any o-
>ther animal species); but an economically important historic prejudice in
>our culture (the tenet that there is only science of "general things"; 
>particulars being unamenable to be fully known, just for such illogicity
>of their cadacualteces) prevented to wonder for it except in "existen-
>tial" philosophic issues; it therefore is certainly foreign to every natu-
>ral-science research, at least for the present times.
>
>As you are probably aware, specially in the well-organized countries
>which most need to rely upon the coherence of their peoples' prefigu-
>rations, the neurosciences were blocked to advance research beyond Func-
>tion One by a syncretic cultural myth describing non-hylozoistically such
>brain tissue, that is, describing it upon a kinetized, exogenist physics.
>So in the main countries the neurosciences are restricted within the
>Function One, the following encaptic processes being left to theologians
>or psychologists, under command of said prefigurative syncretic myth.
>But this is also changing now, and so your question is very opportune.
>
>Now, many industries need non-Turing automata, and so our remote tradition
>can opportunely offer its results (i.e., UK Patent 1,582,301). Moreover,
>in the next few lusters the relaxing of integrisms (= reactions against
>the modernity) with the consolidation of the planetary market, allows
>to foresee two simultaneous moves: first, a recognition of cadacualtez
>(German "Jemeinigkeit"; English has no term albeit "my-own-owness" has
>been essayed without success; "ipseity" is not a similar, but the con-
>trary concept) for cultic use, thus windowing the syncretic myth enough
>for this research; and, secondly, a consecuent liberation of neuroscience
>studies of the noema, as a physical resource for industrial use.
>
>Innovation always terrifies even academic people, but the impulse for
>this process comes from economic needs and so it can foreseeably gain
>a window for its growing and development.
>
>So you can expect having, in a few years, public neuroscience results 
>of researches upon the elicitation, by social interactions, of brain
>reward systems activities.  By the present times, in said neurosciences
>so heavily limited (except in our own hylozoist traditions and perhaps
>in other some individual researchers) by such exogenist physics promoted 
>by the syncretic myth, neither money nor stimulus was afforded to study 
>the differential physical productions of such sentiences. Thus, the most
>you can get are some statistics of chemicals' concentrations in the
>involved areas of the brain parenchyma and by no means any notice about
>the physical mechanisms producing differentially such sentiences.  Least,
>upon re-arrangement of the system of said interactive stationarities (=
>the object contents of the mental world)  stirred by social interactions,
>which is in what the results consist that you require.
>
>
>By the present, not even the perceptually-stirred among those mechanisms
>are studied by such neurosciences; i.e., the production of a colour in
>the recall!
>
>
>In these circumstances, the physical processes at the reward systems are
>to be studied, by first time outside our remote local tradition, beyond
>its general chemical elicitation at their specialized brain regions,
>in their general features of basic physics (just what you cannot find now
>in the present-day neurosciences abroad).
>
>
>I hope that your interest help us to set the neurosciences of the main
>countries also on a hylozoist physics that enables them to inquire and
>to investigate experimentally your question, non-Turing processes in bio-
>logy and in automation, and related issues; so proceeding beyond its pre-
>sent confinement within the exogenist physics prefigured by the syncretic
>myth.
>
>                       Cyberkisses from
>                          Mariela
>

       =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
       Prof. Mariela Szirko,
       <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar> 
                            
       Centro de Investig. Neurobiologicas, Ministry
       of Health & Welfare, Argentine Republic; and Lab. of
       Electroneurobiological Res., Hospital "Dr. Jose Tiburcio Borda", 
       Municipality of Buenos Aires,
       Office:  Phone/Fax (54 1) 306 -7314
                e-mail <postmaster at neubio.gov.ar>
       Standard disclaimer: Las opiniones de este mensaje son personales 
      y no comprometen las dependencias a cargo de la firmante.
  Reply to THIS message,  ONLY to: <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar> 
  =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=




More information about the Bioforum mailing list