Explaining consciousness processes by "new" (physical?) theories

Administrador del Nodo Postmaster at neubio.gov.ar
Sat Sep 16 14:06:09 EST 1995

Hello, all!

Joseph Strout is to be congratulated for his having made Ken Seto
to speak.  Ex ungue leonem!  Seto's first answer (about cell divi-
sion) is -just now!!!- so blatantly inadequate that netters with
even a moderately serious command of the subject shall surely es-
cape of wasting time reading what Seto believes to have to say on
the other subject, consciousness.

In this second regard, Seto's second answer shows with like evi-
dence that he frames his thoughts inside the neurobiological tra-
ditions of the central countries. So Seto is, sorrily, in too good
a company in ignoring the developments made in other, more remote,

E.g., ours, inchoated 1879 (but fully fledged since 1899) is hylo-

Seto's wiews, upon their posted samples, seem an elaboration  -upon
ignote loan paths; and surely without hylozoism-  of Christfried
Jakob's views of the system of stationarities defined by interfering
macro- and micro- reverberating circuits.

Professor Jakob forwarded them since 1906 (of course, for the connoi-
sseurs, elaborating factually upon speculations from Hartley and Kant)
and after Prof. Jakob's death in 1956 they were greatly developed by
his school here, chiefly by Prof. Mario Crocco and his disciples; and
since the 1960's, by Prof. K.H. Pribram and his also numerous scholars
(Barrett, Westlake, Pollen, etc.). These last, of course again,	did
always operate -just as Sato's samples-  framed inside the pythagoric-
parmenidean background so dominating in the main countries.

Since most of the mentioned remote scientific traditions still have not
access to WWW but only to e-mail, even knowing of Sato's inappropria-
te choosing of academic formulations (having said that neuroscientists
do not know how neurons communicate is doubly erroneous!: as a communi-
cation to Neuroscience at net does not contribute to discussion; and also
supposses consciousness explanations to depend from a neuron theory 
today obsolete) I think it would be important that Sato makes available
for E-MAIL just only the adjudgeable portion of his contribution.

This is, I think, just his chapters or paragraphs pointing out clearly
and without neither rethoric nor repetitions, the facts he believes to
exist to support what he dubbs "E-Strings of the E-Matrix", and defining
these natural events -or elements- in a way apt to distinguish them from
those proposed by Franz Nissl in "Die Neuronenlehre und ihre Anhaenger"
(Jena, 1908). 

Beyond his past blunders in communication, I believe that, if Sato indeed
has something valuable to say, this is the way to put it under a fructi-
ferous discussion.  Of course once more, the matter is just not theoreti-
cal but of industrial importance; and, often, works on the subject are
classified; for a now disclassified one, interested readers can look at
Prof. Crocco UK Patent 1,582,301 (U.K. Official Journal - Patents, 7
January 1981). 

So I hope that true communication be reached in this Net regarding such
specific points, at least in order to evaluate them independently of 
Sato's failures in other regards.  This I say frankly, in no way ironica-
lly, as my best way to pay hommage to the strivings of a scientific work.

 			    Greetings for Sato and all!!

     Prof. Mariela Szirko,
     <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar> 
     Neurobiology Res. Ctr., Ministry of Health & Welfare; and
     Electroneurobiology Res. Lab., Hospital "Dr. Jose Tiburcio Borda",
     Municipality of Buenos Aires City,  Argentine Republic.
           Office:  Phone/Fax (54 1) 306 -7314
                    e-mail <postmaster at neubio.gov.ar>
      Standard disclaimer: Este mensaje es personal
      y no compromete las dependencias a cargo del firmante
 Reply to THIS message,  ONLY to:  <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list