Hylozoism vs. Long Term Potentiation

Administrador del Nodo Postmaster at neubio.sld.ar
Sat Nov 4 15:06:06 EST 1995


>From Postmaster Sat, 4 Nov 95 17:48:02 ARG remote from neubio
>Received: by neubio.sld.ar (UUPC/PcCorreo 3.0) with UUCP; Sat, 4 Nov 9=
5 17:48:02 ARG
>Date: Sat, 4 Nov 95  17:48:02 ARG
>From: Administrador del Nodo <Postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>
>Message-ID: <634jz442 at neubio.sld.ar>
>X-Mailer: UUPC/PcCorreo 3.0
>To:=09neuroscience at net.bio.net
>Subject: Re: Hylozoism vs. Long Term Potentiation 
>
>
>
>
>
>Hello, all!
>
>Regarding my previous writing (Prof. Mariela Szirko, <postmaster at neubi=
o.sld.ar> 
>and <postmaster at neubio.gov.ar>, where I commented:
>
>>In our own tradition we are hylozoist and so see no need of searching=
 for engrams; 
>>least to use these constructs as Procrustean beds to provide function=
 
>>onto any experimental fact that admits to be interpreted as bolsterin=
g LTP.  
>
>John E. Anderson, Ph.D. <janderlu at msn.com>, <jander at unf6.cis.unf.edu>,=
  
>wrote on 2 Nov 1995:
>    
>> What do you mean? 
>
>By way of a clear if not succint response I should provide the followi=
ng notice:
>
>1. (Our local bias towards electrobiological phenomena in psychogenesi=
s.) 
>Through a series of historical contingencies, our neurobiological trad=
ition 
>worked with exceedingly scarce communication towards the foreign. A 
>friend of Thomas Young and Michael Faraday, namely Octavio Fabrizio 
>Mossotti, re-ignited locally in the 1820s and 1830s the interest in th=
e elec-
>trical state inside the physical masses, formerly stirred here by seve=
ral lo-
>cal theses (on electric fishes and bioelectricity) forwarded late in t=
he XVIII 
>century. Mossotti's influence expanded well outside his Chair of Exper=
i-
>mental Physics at the University of Buenos Aires and, in the ensuing f=
ifty 
>years, created an special atmosphere permitting since 1879 the work on=
 
>brain electrostimulation of Richard Sudnik, a former co-founder in Par=
is of 
>the Intl. Society of Electricity and later another full professor in o=
ur same 
>University. The outcome was the worldwide-first prolonged electrostimu=
la-
>tion and brain mapping of a conscious human brain, performed (during 
>some eight months!) since the 15 September 1883 on a luetic osteitis p=
a-
>tient (the top of whose skull was blown out by the syphilis) by Dr. Al=
berto 
>Alberti, an eminent inmigrant from Trento and later first medical dire=
ctor of 
>the Italian Hospital in Buenos Aires. Sorrily this important contribut=
ion was 
>appropriated by a plagiarist - who, nevertheless, published here the N=
issl 
>procedure before Nissl did in Germany. The plagiarist obtained an unla=
wful 
>doctorate of the University with said electrostimulation in 1885 and t=
his 
>silenced most of the local work in the field for many years.  Alberti'=
s contri-
>bution was repossessed only in 1909, when Prof. Cushing synthesized 
>and augmented a long series of brain electrostimulations done in the f=
or-
>eign over much smaller areas,though however Prof. Sudnik and others 
>continued, interim, the local experimental work.  All this established=
 a 
>heavy local bias regarding electrobiological phenomena in the understa=
nd-
>ing of psychogenesis.
>
>2. (Chr. Jakob depiction, of interfering reverberating circuits in bra=
in psy-
>chogenetic processes, required to abandon the Pythagoric-Parmenidean 
>exogenism.)  In such athmosphere, in 1899 Prof. Christfried Jakob arri=
ved 
>from Erlangen. (Some of his early books you might find in your local l=
ibrar-
>ies.)  Since 1906 he forwarded an elaboration of his previous European=
 
>views; I feel sure that this elaboration was locally elicited by the s=
pecial 
>atmosphere I just described. The psychogenetic process was described b=
y 
>Prof. Jakob as the formation, by interfering reverberating circuits, o=
f 
>atomic-like stationarities apt to be linked among themselves in a mole=
cular 
>guise. Exceedingly few persons understood, at that time, Jakob's publi=
ca-
>tions in Spanish. It was of no help, the intrinsic difficulty to grasp=
 how an 
>interference (spatial or of echoes) could define structures able to in=
teract 
>systemically. This was by no means the unique flaw in communication of=
 
>our tradition; among many others, Jakob published in 1911 the descript=
ion 
>of what in the foreign is called the "Papez" circuit from Papez accoun=
t of 
>1937. And for a blunt, unforeseen intervention, see in Behavioral & Br=
ain 
>Sciences 11, p. 95, 1988, F. J. Irsigler's rejoinder upon the hemisphe=
ric 
>rotation around the sylvian pivot (Chr. Jakob: Von Tierhirn zum Mensch=
en-
>hirn, Lehmann, Munchen, also 1911) of a spacetime morphogenetic dislo-
>cation between cortices whose different rates and modes of differentia=
tion 
>found species-typical (innate) behaviour, in the words of Sperry (1983=
) 
>'largely preorganized independently of sensory input". But the crucial=
 point 
>was the nature of the natural force in which the "molecular" system of=
 
>those stationarities would relax.  After some time adhering, just as K=
arl 
>Kleist,the psychophysical parallelism upon the influence of Th. Ziehen=
, it 
>was manifest to our school the need of embracing hylozoism and gather-
>ing data to provide a physical description of such a force. Already in=
 1910, 
>in a Panamerican scientific congress in Buenos Aires, the reproach was=
 
>forwarded to  Prof. Jakob that, if such a problem remained unresolved,=
 just 
>only the short term memory would be accounted for by the "functional r=
e-
>manence" of such a system of electromagnetically-linked stationarities=
 
>defined by reverberations' interference. (Engrams replace the bare sel=
fre-
>producing remanence every time that interactivity is denied.) But hylo=
zoism 
>implied relinquishing the exogenist description.  This was somewhat 
>stimulated by the aforementioned atmosphere and perhaps mostly by dint=
 
>of our very remoteness  =96neither behaviourism nor neuronism thundere=
d 
>here, nor emergentistic complexity theories, nor outlooks glad to forg=
o 
>natural facts by self-limiting to analyze formulations=96.    But it w=
as needed 
>to distinguish hylozoism from a futile insertion of dynamic or hormic =
agen-
>cies inside spatial structures; and, to do this, our tradition underto=
ok two 
>parallel ways.  While on one hand the holographic-holophonic models of=
 
>cortical functioning  were developed here upon some important phyloge-
>netic hints abroad unavailable (namely, the ciliary descent of such ho=
lo-
>graphic-holophonic-like definition of stationarities, discovered by Pr=
of. 
>Mario Crocco after Prof. Jakob's death occurred in 1956), on the other=
 
>hand it was also needed to perform painstaking studies in the history =
of 
>ideas, also performed by Prof. Mario Crocco and disciples, to elucidat=
e the 
>prefigurations of the syncretic cultural myth that supported the exoge=
nism. 
>At the same time, Prof. Karl Pribram and disciples in the U.S. also fo=
r-
>warded holographic (and T.W. Barrett holophonic) models,but they staye=
d 
>without those important phylogenetic links and also foreign to the pro=
b-
>lems of said syncretic myth.  So since 1974 Prof. Pribram fell in such=
 futile 
>insertion of hormic agencies in structural neurobiology, and his schoo=
l 
>stayed cloven to exogenism, while here by that time we fully adhered s=
ince 
>long to a program studying, for the neurobiological sake, (1) the feat=
ures of 
>such physical interaction upon which the system of stationarities rela=
x, (2) 
>the historical prefigurations conspiring against such a study, and (3)=
 the 
>experimental use of such a physical resource. This unusual and difficu=
lt 
>perspective widened the communicational gap between us and the neu-
>robiological traditions abroad.
>
>3. (Basic neurobiological processes became of industrial interest). In=
 the 
>meanwhile, the exogenist explanations of neurobiological function, dev=
el-
>oped upon the ganglionary models amenable to fruitful networking, be-
>came for the first time of industrial interest.  However true academic=
 com-
>munication on our developments was at the time impracticable, some in-
>dustries began to think in their need of non-Turing automata,and in 19=
79 
>T.D. Lee published (in Chinese) the first edition of his "Particle Phy=
sics and 
>Field Theory" (English Tr.: Harwood Acad. Publ., 1981) in whose para-
>graph 2 of Chapter 25 (



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list