Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
Might a general rule be a solution for the question of the correlation between neuronal processes and consciousness?
Elisabeth Daegling
Friday, 04 July 2008 18:04 UTC
In the „consciousness“-forum I´ve presented an idea which better might be discussed in this forum. But please be aware that it is really the presentation of an idea.
My suggestion is that neuronal processes run rule-describing. I have proposed that it must be a general cause-effect- rule and I refered to a contribution of Wolf Singer – *that the general organization of the structure of the brain suggests to the conclusion that in the neocortex a single algorithm of processing must be realized which suits to the application of the most different contents and which iteration could lead to increasing cognitive (mental) efforts. * I suggest that such a general rule could be this algorithm.
Thus the rule itself must be a description of causal correlations: condition–action/effect–consequence-units – or in a more formal kind: If X (condition) and Y (action/effect), then Z (consequence) must be included.
X, Y and Z are blank positions, variables in which different contents could be filled in. And now I ought to make a prediction: neurons additional to their well-known functions gain some new functions accordingly to the particular variable. That means the particular function of a neuron is not arbitrary.
I have demonstrated by an interaction of opponent cells by an example in which way the rule must apply :
„A red-green- neuron (condition X) a white-black-neuron( action/ effectY ) and a blue-yellow- neuron (consequence Z including). These neurons receive impulses by cells of th receptor-systems and interact in a way which could be descripted by the rule. If the rule ist „fulfilled“ they synchronize their activities.“
The reason why a red-green-neuron has the function X is: it receives signals by S-, L- and M-receptor-cells and the subtraction of the L- and- M- inputs effects an axonal reaction. This reaction is the precondition for the reaction of the white-black-cell (Y) which on its part adds the L- and M- reactions. The function Y of the white-black-cell (luminance) is due to dependance of the exposure to light. The difference between the reaction of the white-black-cell and the S-receptor-reaction leads in consequence to a blue-yellow-polarity.
In the same way – so my predinction – feature-specific neurons in premotor- and motor areas (to compute the lokalization and the motion of an object ) and temporal regions ( to compute the contours) must interact in the same way.
Rule-descripted interacting must have a second effect – the production (or creation) of electrophysical potentials – or patterns (I think, event-related potentials and slow brain potentials might be good candidates for this job). I suggest that these space-time-patterns are identical with what we experience – and identic means: patterns and experiences own the same properties – they are one and the same in two different views: measureable patterns in the third-person-view and first-person-view when they will be experienced.
Due to my assumption that all processes run iterating at least in the first period colour-specific neurons form the variable condition, motion-specific neurons form the variable Y and contour-specific neurons form the variable Z to run rule-descripted. In common they are involved in a process to produce a complex pattern which is identic with the shape of an object – as a homogeneous whole.
To produce this complex pattern all processes must run recursive.
Elisabeth Dägling
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Dear Elizabeth: Good idea for a forum. I think people are lost with different (but valid) perspectives and meaning -off on tangents which probably can span the whole genetic tree. States the probelm with a good conceptual approach.
I have just written a paper Consciousness, Universality : The Incoherent and Logical Valid Coherent Meaning. In it I draw an example , that though it is unarrived at yet, if the theory of relativity were proved it yet could classified as incoherent. In relating to the problem of the validity of the theory of relativity one arrives at topics of philosophy and the self. Einsteins philsophy which has a quality of a universalness/constant quality to frame of reference with which he describes the world mathematically. This is more philsophical than mathematical and the argument reduces to a matter of the possessor of knowledge and solisticism -canwe know beyond the self. With my meager knowledge of all these things I assembled an idea that light and sapce are partners in a metabolism -like enzymes and substrates. And asked the question whether it is a good description to ask if space is expanding or contracting ( a question that confused Einstein) of whether the expansion and contraction of space is a mechanism standing alone —Einsteins querstion becomeing incoherent in the first person (the world is nothing but a sum of first persons) even if an answer is possible.
My suggestion with respect to the senses, neuro science is thatthe process of transmission of light and electrical impulses both inside and outside the brain involve a change in volume from the changes in energy =in a given time interval ther will be changes internally in the brain realted to detection changes in the input signal to the eye=together one might visualize as distances =that can be combined in any fashions for net length outputs with which to construct representations. Second to this I think animage is created that is opposite in polarity to that which is yielded =so that it shows increasing volume of space when it is actually decreasing. This filters into our cognitions-a perplexity exits at every angle of the universe=defines what perpsective is =i.e. sets of unique differentials ratios that a re inco,mparable one to the other at other perspectives. I also think perpplexity when presented is the “go” trigger the thermometer of how life is doing. Inthe construction of theories like Einsteins =it’s universal teaching a pursuit of perplexity (which exits also in every corner of the theory) also occurs which entails “getting space/room volume”. which though , because of its intellectual source and incoherent actual meaning to the individual results in behavorial disturbances. Anjunct to this, as I dont think in the history of civilization, false points were actusally arrived at, things are still open=a much simplier physical problem exists over the earth for its period of habitation, predates Einstein =all=and has resulted in the substitution of abstracted ideas for a physical unknown influence. Most people can relate to this when they sit around mulling over problems =even in science, but we are coming up against a wall that has to do with our perspective of approach and what we have already decided as coherent, though some very important and at least known philosphers have refered in some way to the problem. (Berkeley, Bothius, Russell, Nietzsche) = but it seems an answer that requires seemingly a solution to the unanswerable is demanded for ideas to be raised form the ignored status.
I hope my interpretation is along that route and involes the creation of a new division in the catagory unanswerable to a point where it branches off into the realms of science. Consciousness is like the last frontier, when certain elemental facts of it should have been evidenced as sufficient from the start-i.e a search for constants-mathematics apllied for explanation that overlaps with a simple fatc that the worlds is just a place of contrasts differences, appropriateness and inappropriateness just at the first level reflexive=instinctual appraisal. For some reason, I believe that may involve actual to strange phenomenon, if not an unconscious sense of something. Things may have not exceed the first perspective up until Einstein just at a first approach to an understanding,higher populations the A bomb was created from theory,and all sorts of exposive ideas to change nature have also ensued. Coupled with this in light of modern day problems is a missing John Kennedy and an agremment not to invade the third world where in I believe all new incubates (inline with my hypothesis of missing fact and resulting abstraction at the source of all problems)-Einstein is now accepted very well there=in the temples=while there is an incorrectness with it-though itis hard to tell whether this appears as a means to address the less educated or if it is stringently believed. Proof, they would say themselves is never with numbers.
At any rate, the valid existence of a physical problem to the whole is secondary to education of a natural ethic and how it can be violated and this is intimately with the study of consciousness -I think the last of our needed wonderings.Marvin
-
Dear Elisabeth:
Your conjecture is very interesting. At first sight I interpret your example as being a consequence of quantum mechanics ‘gauge theory’ (please check Brian Flanagan´s ideas in the debate that followed my Notice “A Decade of the Brain” in this group).
I would better answer your question departing from a ‘structuralist’ approach. First I compare the question with the issue about the existence of life in the universe. Is there a general rule that predicts that life could occur only on Earth? I think most scientists would say that the existence of life depends on initial and boundary conditions, not on Laws. However, there should be a rule that describes that when such and such conditions are fulfilled, the consequence (life) follows. Therefore, you may be asking for a descriptive rule.
Now I make the same kind of question relatively to “cells”. What is the structural difference between cells that generate consciousness and cells that do not? (of course, I am assuming that many cells don´t, for instance plant cells).
My research indicates that consciousness depends on a combination of large-scale (as oscillatory synchrony) and molecular-scale processes. The cellular mechanism that supports the necessary operations is the Glutamatergic Tripartite Synapse (GTS), which is composed by (at least) two neurons and one astrocyte.
In my view, the rule you are looking for follows the operation of this mechanism. For instance, look at the temporal dynamics of the GTS. Glutamate (Glu) binds to three kinds of receptors, AMPA, NMDA and metabotropic Glu receptors. First, there is the effect of Glu binding to APMA (post-synaptic membrane depolarization), second the effects of calcium entry through synaptic NMDA (that may include the formation of memory), third the effects of Glu binding to astrocytic metabotropic receptors, fourth the effects of astrocytic Glu binding to extrasynaptic NMDA (which include the sustaining of AMPA activity in the post-synaptic neuron, and here is the recursive phase you required). This temporal sequence corresponds to what is going on at the macro level. The dynamics of NMDA receptors is adequate to be influenced by the occurrence of synchrony and also to boost it.
Therefore I conceive the rule as one that describes the operations of the GTS and its correspondence with brain-wide events as synchrony – and I suspect that Wolf Singer would not disagree with this conjecture!Best Regards,
Alfredo Pereira Jr.
-
Dear Marvin
thank you very much for your answer. I must admit that I´ve got some difficulties to integrate your explanations into my conceivabilities. This might be due to what you call the creation of a new division in the category unanswerable – and a change of the point of view from an established and convenant meaning seems to be an attempt to make the unanswerable ascertainable.
In his wellknown lecture in 1872 when he explicated that consciousness will not be explainable out of its material conditions Emile Du Bois-Reymond spoke his famous „Ignorabimus“. But it´s my opinion that if things seems to be unanswerable, when mulling over problems does not lead to any satisfying solution yet rather coming up against a wall and when our efforts seem to lead to infinite regresses, our questions do not fit – and thus I claim for a change of our perspectives.
You wrote: „ My suggestion with respect to the senses, neuro science is that the process of transmission of light and electrical impulses both inside and outside the brain involve a change in volume from the changes in energy =in a given time interval ther will be changes internally in the brain realted to detection changes in the input signal to the eye=together one might visualize as distances =that can be combined in any fashions for net length outputs with which to construct representations.“
My approach is pragmatic. In respect to assumptions of Gerald Edelman and Humberto Maturana I´m afraid that the conceivability of representations of experienced issues will not be sustainable. And in respect to the results of the experimental psychology and the neurosciences I act on the assumption that neurons in the retina (rods and cones) by chemico-physical processes transform light (frequencies) into electrical impulses of a property of about 60 to 90 mV. As I tried to explain I suggest that in order of the rule electrophysical patterns occur by processing these impulses and that these patterns could be what we call ERPs. The conceivability of internal images or internal representations seems to me to be an unnecessary complication.
The suggestion that electrophysical patterns are identic with our experiences – like for instance water is identic with H2O (two different considerations of the same object) – seems to me to be a probable solution. S why should we need internale representations? And what fashion of matter could they be? They are supposed to be the fashion in which things appear diffenrent from themselves. But what else ERPs could be?
But the urgent question is that if all we can know about the world beyond of ourselves are molecules and electromagnetic waves and if we know that our sensory systems will be sensitive only to these chemico-physical qualities whether we can be ensured, that our approximations to the world beyond ourselves will be true.
My suggestion is that a general rule might deliver the answer, because it will apply both inside and outside the brain. You mentioned Einsteins mathematical (and philosophical) description of the world. Applying the general rule to his description of the universe we will receive the following result: If things in space (X/conditon) are given and time (Y) affects the things, then gravity is the consequence (Z) and must be included for a description.
We are part of the world outside of ourselves and thus I assume that a general rule like I claim which will apply to issues beyond ourselves and to brainprocesses, respectively could be an affirmation that our assumptions concerning to the world outside are true.You wrote that a natural ethic is intimately with the study of consciousness and I agree to your claim. Nevertheless we are obligated to use our talent for a proliferation of knowledge.
Many regards
Elisabeth -
Dear Alfredo,
thank you for your advice to read Brian Flanagans contributions – and as I mentioned in my answer to Marvin Kirsh I see similarities between processes in the brain and processes in our universe which might be to be descripted by the same rule. And many thanks, too for your advice to the composition of the GTS. Your Explanation seems to corroborate my suggestion.
But I would like to explain the implications of the rule a bit more explicit:
I desribe it as a unit of three variables – condition – effect/affect – consequence(s). That means consequences are included – they aren´t a result. The result is a new property of the system which is not reducible to the conditions from which they stem. It emerges by applying the rule. As I tried to explain the appliance of the rule on the interaction (or behavior)of the opponent cells lead to a new property: the production (creation) of electrophysical patterns (which I suggest to be identic with our experiences) – a property which is not reducible to the cells or the cellular mechanisms.You have asked for the structural difference of cells that generate cosciousness and cells that do not. I prefer the term „feature-specific cells“ as Wolf Singer does. And I my prefered formulation to describe the processes in which these cells are involved is that they create or produce electrophysical patterns. These can be visualized by the EEG.
But I have to admit that I do not know whether structural differences as yet are known but I´m very interested in knowing about them, too.Many regards,
Elisabeth -
Dear Elizabeth: I was glad to recreive you comments. From your criteria and suggestion, It does not look like I made my writng perfectly =is that assumptions are made of my meaning =I suppose from wording that appears to have other potential referals. I believe Iunderstood exactly what you before I posted, and in fact do not see how others refer to its aspects/criteria demands in refernce to a rule and starting perspective as a matter of open topic=I really do need illustrations to supplement my words. In my writing I was hypothesising how a representation could come about from a rule that is related to Einsteins theory of relativity,e.g. how space works. I hypothesise that sets of distances, form and shape result (can result) as consciousness from (in the case of vision but I think applicable to all) from light impinging on the eye.
If yo have trouble with the theory/formula…think of a scintillation oounter=it uses mirrors fixed distances to create two paths in order to electrically detect coincidences from time/transmision pathlenth electrical considerations involving oscillaotors etc. A scintillation counter is already known-a devise= and I think what is new in my theory is the way to interpet Einstein thought of an expanding verses a contracting universe=to make it a property of the world itself=to disregard an actual value with respect to an appraisal. His thoughts onperspective differ from own which is sort of based ona Boethius like idea that knowledge is relative to the nature of the posessor rather than to statistically view all humans at any given perspective as equal representaions of the notion of perspective. In example the question of relative velocities of two moving things with respect to each other and to a third stationery person cannot be considered at all in my theory. What I do consider is realtive processing of enrergy and relative changing paths(distances) for each perspective-it includes a mechanism of brain function that can be (has to be for it to have any validity) extrapolated to be universal at any perspectuve regardless whether there is a relective human present at it or not. I also portray living things a having less total complexity than the environement ( a total of space) in a descending ladder..the notion of ascending evolution as not only the product of a sensory illusion, but the illusion=it’s mechanism= as the universal means of the operation of space.I am still suggesting with regards to your comment that a formula is involved to progress from an unaware dimension of signals and processing to connect to an output of the consciousness we experience. I also think with regards to your comment about to the collection of knowledge for its own sake that we have some other unconscious sake added to it based on deviation form the fair and practical nature should present to us, an additon to earthly struggles exists from an unthoughfulleness (of nature) in the earths enviromment that has been present for a long time history wise, and grows in us to represent nature as an adversary, making us a little guilty with respects to our treatment of nature, but less so if one considers that we have an innate blindness to a natural problem constructed of inversions. Awarenss to these facts is a cure, also to wide our choices of free will as any man who drifts away from the good in concept, restricts his choices in life. I hope you read over over my recent posts in the definitions section for a better idea of my thoughts. If you still have trouble, I have presented a rather detail view which may reuqire more attention than is obvious some, I hope you will again share your thoughts so thatI may reply -I do not see any conflict.
My theory, sort of, inverts Einsteins idea about the expansion and contraction of space, to say that light undergoes change during the temporal course of its transmision=alltransmisions undergo change the same way. I propose two branches 1)the change of the pathlength of the light from the object to the eye) and two 2) the pathlength of neurophysiological responses in the brain after detection. Neither 1) nor 2) can be can be known directly but it is possible that impulses (considering that we are discussing a moving picture in which the proceeding transmisions(picture) have different parameters from the presceeding one =i.e. that all is in motion is a mandatory requir$ement (blindness can occur without motion in the field =scence change is mandatory for dicsrimination) …such that there is always a temporal differential (different set of parameters reflecting the processes of space=how they work =at every stage, the retina, the produced signal=which can take more than one path( and thus by the time of the conception as differential of two processing is possible) to the mental conception. A temporal processing standard is thus built into the brain that can be crudely represented in terms of path length. This is tricky because path length of processing modulates a pathlength factor included with the input( as matter of the motion of the object). Essentially the brain would work like a motion picture itself =feed it a motion picture, and based on the mechanics of space processes (changing volume with time) a semblance of a motion picture is produced interms of electrophysical processing. This there is the actual moving picture at the eye, a semblance of a picture (temperal changes from processing of the input) in the brain, and a third motion picture can occur from a combination of the two which I propose, though it would actually be negatve=reflect decreases =downhillness of energy=is inverted in sign to create an image (represntation of positiveness of volume/space). It is a simple of combinable different distances (which are brought about essentially by the fact that the brain occupies space and has passages of electrical conduction) =a still that is brought to life, given life between detection and processing in a neither chicken or egg but resulting oscillation). I do not think that actual consciousness (in terms of vision) if we visualize a motion picture can come from any but that which resmbles the properties of a motion picture rather than from something totally different. Things have to come from things =relates to the formula you are requesting=my answer = differnt paths and subsequent pathlengths of processing are able to paint a picture of the real detected topic(object). I.e as a formula 1 foot(actual signal time 1 / plus 1.25 feet/brain processing path time 1==in combination with 1.125 feet/actual signal time 2) plus 1.38/processing path time 2=a moving signal from combinations in the brain of (1.0 minus 1.125) =minus (0.125) ….. (1.25 minus 1.38) =minus (0.13)….minus (0.13)minus minus(0.125)= minus (0.005)….time 3…time 4… time 5 etc. I also include in this an inversion such that (-.005) is converted with the input of energy (from food) to +.005. to produce the way we see/perceive, how we search , for what, and how we feel around= reality made of an illusion(that I have theorized is the same though out all of space and how we are frustrated=always presented with paradox when we ‘interogate’ nature) (for orientation purposes I have a slightly comical perspective of this). -
Elizabeth,
internal representations are in the form of categories derived from oscillations. These cover generic states and so give all neuron-dependent life forms basic senses of ‘wholeness’, ‘partness’ etc etc With the development of humans has come neural complexity and the ability to mediate (and so oscillations) out of which comes language and consciousness as an agent of mediation.
The core categories grounded in the neurology are then open to relabelling to fit any context and so derive some specialist language to communicate that context.
When there is nothing to communicate, when there is no need for mediation, we fall back on autopilot (our instincts/habits) and so our more primate natures
Chris
IDM -
Dear Marvin,
I appreciate your answer, too. Yet I mean that we vary in some of our conceivabilities due to our different positions – and my preference is the psychological position. You wrote:
I propose two branches 1)the change of the pathlength of the light from the object to the eye) and two 2) the pathlength of neurophysiological responses in the brain after detection. Neither 1) nor 2) can be can be known directly but it is possible that impulses (considering that we are discussing a moving picture in which the proceeding transmisions(picture) have different parameters from the presceeding one
I have some difficulties with the wording „motion picture“, because it provokes the conceivability that the brain would produce pictures to compare them.
The psycholoy of perception use other concepts and means for an explanation. One is the so called “horopter”. By focusing an object its picture get onto the fovea. Depending from the distance between the left and the right eye to the distance of the focused object results an angle called convergence angle. If one could draw a line from the legs of the angle to the point of the retina of each eye and then would overlap both retinas, the points of the legs would lie on corresponing points of both eyes.
Now imaging to draw line from the legs of the angle from object to the pivotal point of both eyes and back and you´ll achieve an arc of circle – the horopter. Objects lying on the horopter cannot be distinguished by „near“ or „far“, they all have the same distance to the subject. If they move the distance change and the angle, too.
Objects reflect the light and in the retina there must exist receptor cells which are sensitive to these frequencies – and feature-specific neurons in the brain (in parietal regions) receive impulses from these receptor cells.
If my assumption about the rule will apply neurons in these regions will interact in the same way like opponent cells to create measurable patterns. And by moving of the objects from one moment to the next other neurons (and glias) are involved in these processes. Due to the fact of an uninterrupted recursive and parallel run of processing a temporal distance is given between the creation of the first pattern to the following ones (as it can be shown by EEG measuring). And we have to consider that neurons of the motor cortex regions must be involved in these processes – we at last must move our eyes or our head to watch a moving object. These processes must run rule-based, too.What do you think – is there an approach cognizable in our views?
Many regards
Elisabeth -
Dear Chris,
„internal representations are in the form of categories derived from oscillations.“
Is this your statement or is there any evidence?
I´m not very clear in what you mean with „ deriving from oscillations“. In particle physics there´s the suggestion that particle arrive from the oscillation of strings – and particles are something measurable. Therefore physicists around the world hope that Large Hadron Collider will produce some of these predicted particles, e.g. the Higgs-particle.Oscillations in the brain can be measured: neurons indicate their common activity by oscillating in phase and in analogy to the physical example something measurable must be yielded (or produced). My assumption is that this could be what we call event-related potentials ( maybe slow brain potentials, too) and that they are identical with which we experience.
I do not see any necessity for the demand for „representations“.„When there is nothing to communicate, when there is no need for mediation, we fall back on autopilot (our instincts/habits) and so our more primate natures“
I disagree to this conclusion. First, we are very able to communicate our experiences. But in my assumption consciousness is no mediator but an autonomous system, complementary to the system of neur(on)al connections and correlates.
And I´m not confident that our next relatives in animality will be without a kind of consciousness.
The psychologist and neuroscientist Marc D. Hauser has written a very interesting book: „Wild Mind. What Animals Really Think“.
Their kind of consciousness differs a lot from ours, but exists.Many regards,
Elisabeth -
Dear Elizabeth: Re; do not see any necessity for the demand for „representations“.
By representation, I mean (In my dialogues) the consciuos experience itself in reference to something it is derived from.
Marvin
-
Dear Elizabeth: I exactly think there is an approachable cognizable between us. A key fact, from my introduction via the known scheme you presented, is that the fixing of lines to cause a fixture of the image requires the physical and mental coordination of the experiementer, which I then induce parallels conceptually the neurological mechanism itself. In saying that a moving picture exist internally I am only expressing an acknowledgement that internally mvoing electo chemicaltemporal processes are at work, I cannot say what the actual image I know when I see is as there is route to a ground for contrast to describe reality but an actual picture or mirror to view(that represents only a picture). The senses, as I am just begining to reflect upon and compare, they only have an internal form that is not the perceived sense itself. In all though, I do think that path length(with temporal change and change in the temporal in the sense of Einstein and relativity, a natural innnate to/defining existence for the conceptual thinker, but other than defining “is what is” qualitatively-the quantative regarding a total theory/concept/scheme lacking coherency. Is true of processes in both the internal and external environment (space) are the universal determiners. Scientist more than philosophers overlook the differential of active verses the sentient, as theirs is an activity that precludes a perfect sentient view they seek/hope to attain from qiantitatively oriented theory and measurement. But I still the idea of a rule of interpretation is an ingenious idea and has to come from ideas of mass, energy and time =the differentials we can assoicate to form composites=pictures like the kind we can see that are though produced; though for many other senses such tangible representations are not possible, but I believe fall into a united classification. Light must occupy a very order in the geneology/factual sciences of life.
I also with respect to your referal about the collection of knowledge, a right to, do not have challange that way (I was scientist myself for more than ten years) …but I do think a disease grows in civilization that has etiology of disturbance involving abstraction employed to define and use nature==entails a blindness to self as being nature. Berkeley of the
1600 hundreds spoke very early of self denigration caused from abstraction =doubted the independant existence of matter beyond its perception, two centuries later Nietzsche reported a potential medical disturbance he related as man having conquered himself=avoided profundity, lost his sense of fear.
I do not think all of our scientific activities, accepted activities are kosher-just to ourselves, that a natural ethic exists =a moral that we have yet defined, and continue pursuits that may violate it. Second I do no think that all men are all that bad; that a reason exists-we are in an unaware sense being pushed by something thoughtless(i.e an act of nature?) and push back still unaware blindly.
I had just finished a laborious writng, when I dial up the forum to see you comment. And had come to a potential fact , with very rigorous thinking that a thoughless act of man, maybe or not involving as I suggested/thought nature to be a sole perpetrator=bad happenstance somehow,, but it to be, from deduction involing a further extension of the material I have been writing and posting that such a disease is fact of an ingestion brought about self immune response very earler in the human lineage. I had pictured trees, things grown into them and the human skin, but I now think from the features Ihave been deducing involves a cannibalism of an important human “parent” in the genetic linkage. I twist through theory involving DNA as an embodied natural path taken by a transmission through space= a physical light ray that may sound a little comical in objectivity. But a laboratory has recently reported ebing able to slow, freeze light to mass and recover information stored in the original form. I dissect its feasibility as embodied living in symbioses memory. And discuss the possibility that any ingestion has two routes to the self=via the eye, and its role in its employment as food energy for the senses-two routes and a blindness from a canibolism continues chronically as thoughtlessness. Another report in Nature refers to a common virus to mankind dating back to very early times tohardly but by comparison and analysis to be identifyable as not innately human, but externally arrived. Mankind in his activities, regardless of genetics, has the potential to become aware of this fact though it sounds fatal-something lost= a worst case senerio. Though with an awareness a self feeding (key word)of the trouble can be conquered.
If you like a preliminary copy of my manuscript I can send it to you -rehashes the topics in our current discussions. I am just goig to begin a search on topics of canibolism-the writing,I initially intended as an appendage to a paper I already submitted to a philosphy of mind journal took me off topic.Regards
marvin
Results
-
