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
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
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>