Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
Histo-Psychology
Graeme Smith
Tuesday, 25 August 2009 04:50 UTC
We are beginning to understand the nature of neurons, and scientists are attempting to blaze new trails in understanding the nature of Columns.
However, we really will not understand the nature of the brain, until we begin to understand the nearly 1000 different types of tissues that make it up.
The massive brain atlases that allow us to pick out the tissue areas aren’t especially helpful in deciding what the psychological effect of the tissues is, for that we often need to be able to reach deeper into Architectonics and Connectomics, or do our own staining studies of each individual tissue.
However, I believe that real psychological understanding of how the brain works, will be dependent on us doing the work. That is why, I have begun to promote the idea that the standard psychological interpretations, might be quite significantly changed if we truly understood networks at the Heterogeneous Group Level, and could thus understand the mechanisms of the individual tissue areas.
For lack of any competing name, I have chosen to call the study of Tissue Psychology Histo-psychology. It was not my intention to be the first pioneer in histo-psychology to name it so, but the discipline has a great potential for knowledge and so I think it deserves its own name.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Dear Graeme,
I am skeptical about this idea. Psychology is a macro phenomenon. Certainly tissues are involved and the brain is important. But don’t you think that the rest of the body is also involved? Also if you take for granted that something possibly can happen in a part of the brain that has a specific histology, don’t you think that that is only the “wetware”?
What makes psychology so interesting is that we can adopt “programms” or not and we can memorize information or not. Difficult to predict, isn’t it?Apart from these general caveats, I think it is a great idea. E.g. one major concern about brain histology is Alzheimer which essentially is a histological diagnosis. Why do those plaques happen where they happen? Is psychology involved in this process? I could imagine that people cannot forget things that they cannot “finish” (that is basically the Gestalt approach) and that could lead to plaques. Wild speculation? Maybe, but I am puzzled by a finding that seems to be well established and quite significant in this context: when human beings are young they have long phases of deep sleep, the older they get, the shorter and less deep these stages seem to get.
Yours friendly
Hans -
[Graeme Smith]
“The massive brain atlases that allow us to pick out the tissue areas aren’t especially helpful in deciding what the psychological effect of the tissues is, for that we often need to be able to reach deeper into Architectonics and Connectomics, or do our own staining studies of each individual tissue.”
[Philip Benjamin]
If DNA correlations with various psychological dispositions (and thoughts such as suicidal)are meaningful, histological correlations with psychology also must be very revealing. There are some such studies in MS already reported [J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;68:157-161 ( February ) Changes In The Normal-Appearing Brain Tissue And Cognitive Impairment. In Multiple Sclerosis : A Study With MT Histogram Analysis.M. Rovaris, C. Tortorella, M. Bozzali, F. Possa*, M.P. Sormani, G. Iannucci, G. Comi*, M. Filippi Neuroimaging and *Clinical Trials Research Units, Dept. of Neuroscience, H San Raffaele, Milan, Italy]
Two other studies showed that the overall disease burden (i.e., macroscopic lesions and subtle abnormalities in the normal-appearing brain tissue [NABT]), as assessed by brain MT histograms, is correlated with the presence and severity of cognitive impairment in MS. [Rovaris, M., Filippi, M., Falautano, M. et al. Neurology, 50, 1601,1998.
van Buchem, M.A., Grossman, R.I., Armstrong, C. et al. Neurology, 50, 1609, 1998.]
It is worth fully studying “tissue effects” for every thought and every feeling. Such studies, while useful for psychology, may not throw much light on the question of “SELF”, That is, as to who or what is doing the “thinking” and “feeling”? Then other physical factors also need be explored.
Varying low energy magnetic fields may be one such physical factor. It is known to affect biological processes. [cytotrontreatment.com CAL Bassett – BioEssays, 1987 – interscience.wiley.com
PA Valberg, R Kavet, CN Rafferty – Radiation research, 1997 – jstor.org
… the possibility of a causal link between low-level EMFs and bio processes.Research Note: European Journal of Parapsychology 2005 Volume 20.1, pages 65-78 ISSN: 0168-7263
Sleeping With the Entity – A Quantitative Magnetic Investigation of an English Castle’s
Reputedly ‘Haunted’ Bedroom. Jason J. Braithwaite and Maurice Townsend
Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre, School of Psychology University of Birmingham Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena.Be it “Histopsychology” or “Complex low energy” magnetic fields, an ordinary materialistic perspective based on Standard Model particles alone will not suffice to explicate “SELF”. A “total body”- cel by cell, organ by organ- invisible reflection that is just as sentient as the visible body is the most probable invisible “SELF”. There is no need for any “mystic” unnatural stuff
to have that “reflection”. Dark matter and its dark chemistry will come to the rescue of ordinary materialism (or ordinary physicalism).What ordinary psychology or neurology cannot explain, the “DARK” psychology and “DARK” neurology will. These extraordinary phenomena will not be the “MIRROR” reflection that Hans Ricke is looking for. It is the REAL invisible physical counterpart in the IMMAGE of the visible body.
Best regards,
Philip Benjamin
-
Hans, it is your right to be sceptical.
Psychology is no longer a single discipline Instead over time, it has split into a number of disciplines depending on how information is gathered about it.
Histo-psychology is not about replacing psychology with something else, so much as with attempting to winkle out Tissues Contributions to it, to confirm assumptions made at the Neuropsychological and organ levels, or to indicate new interpretations where the histological structure is changed from that needed to confirm the theories at the other levels.Neuro-psychology should inform histo-psychology, which should inform organic psychology, which in turn should inform psychology as a whole.
As far as the Wetware argument, I assume that you mean that there will be software and data as well as neurological tissues involved. If you have followed my model, then you will know that the tissues do not affect the Software per se, except to indicate the capabilities of the system doing the processing. Further you should know that the nature of the tissues is changed by the data that flows through it, during development. Studies of how the tissues perform their functions, might tell us something about the Software level of the brain, and the data that is passing through it. Perhaps not the detail of the data passing through it, since that seems somewhat refractory, but the gross content maybe.
Benjamin, Did you know that there is no DNA that defines a neuron? We can’t point to one gene or another and say that is the blueprint for a neuron, DNA just doesn’t work that way. What does happen is that special types of cells called Stem Cells are formed early in the life of the blastocyte, and then the DNA acts as a sort of rule-base that guides the development of those stem cells into many different types of cells, over the life of the cells.
As a result we can’t expect to find a recipe for a pyramidal cell in the DNA, all in one spot, the actual recipe is distributed across the genome in multiple places, and activated at different times in the development of the cell. -
Dear Graeme; I am very sympathetic with your idea. It does not need to have a reductionist flavor. Maybe you could make a synthesis with Jaak Panksepp models in the field of Affective Neuroscience (he is a reductionist, but it does not matter for your purposes). Thank you for bringing this discussion to BPCC – even those who disagree can benefit from the discussion.
Best
Alfredo -
[Graeme Smith]
Benjamin, Did you know that there is no DNA that defines a neuron? We can’t point to one gene or another and say that is the blueprint for a neuron, DNA just doesn’t work that way. What does happen is that special types of cells called Stem Cells are formed early in the life of the blastocyte, and then the DNA acts as a sort of rule-base that guides the development of those stem cells into many different types of cells, over the life of the cells. As a result we can’t expect to find a recipe for a pyramidal cell in the DNA, all in one spot, the actual recipe is distributed across the genome in multiple places, and activated at different times in the development of the cell.
[Philip Benjamin]
Though a free-living organism can be chemically defined with a complete genetic blueprint, and Biology may see the entire part-list of a living cell necessary for growth, survival and reproduction, Sentience is still remains mysteriously unfathomable and the least susceptible to exact analysis.
How will Biology assign the term ‘person’ to any sentient being? Tissue analysis may definitely yield valuable information on thought ‘processes’, but not on ‘thought’ itself. What constitutes ‘personhood’? Is it the sentient somatic ‘behavior’? Or is it the sentient neuronal ‘thinking’?
The environment has to deal with only the first kind. The thinker is elusive. “Thinking, feeling, acting” is the total person. How can DNA determine that three-some whole? Some very strict programming across the genome may determine the mind boggling multi-cellular ‘body’ person, not the other two “persons” which are beyond cellular functions. The brain is no exception just billions of neurons functioning as an integrated group with no specific genetic components for “thought”.
Genetically, the single cell matures into the adult sentient entity. So how does single cell sentient ‘thought’ mechanism develop into the adult form? It cannot be ordinary genetics. The natural process of birth has nothing to do with it. ‘Unnatural’ premature birth have the same level of sentience . Sentience and all its qualities begin with the moment of conception, and remains, throughout the growth or maturing process. The cells including neurons are not capable of “growing” thought. An extra dimension of extraordinary genetics seem necessary.
Only the somatic growth is programmed in their DNA, and they have no intelligent ‘choice’ in the matter. Then what on earth programmed the DNA? Chance? But chance does not EXIST. It has no dynamics of its own. It is only an after-the-fact statistical number with no creative powers!
Apparently, ‘origin of species’ has not the same track as the origin of thought! “Survival of Favored Races” has nothing much to do with “personhoods” and “personalities”. Nor des DNA.
All the best,
Philip Benjamin
-
Philipe asks "how will Biology assign the term “Person” to any sentient being?"
Biology doesn’t assign personhood, per-se. What it does is detect the mechanisms by which the Universe has allowed sentience to be expressed. It is people who have described themselves as being sentient. It is people who decide what animals are and are not persons, and often the difference is more cultural than anything else. People of the Native American Cultures used animism, or the ascription of human motives to animals, to explain how they acted.
People who have pets, often imbue them with personalities. Even the lowly computer was voted man of the year at one point. The problem is not how biology will assign personhood, the problem is how biology will help us define what beings are not sentient with a greater accuracy than the guessing that happens already.
Philipe goes on to say “Only the somatic growth is pogrammed into their DNA, They have no choice in the matter, then what programmed their DNA Chance?”
I think you are right to be skeptical of “Chance” being the driving factor in evolution. Actually, if I am correct the driving force is ENTROPY, not chance. Unfortunately Entropy has been labelled by Newtonian Scientists as disorder, and the Laws based on Entropy such as the second law of thermodynamics were written at the time of the steam engine to explain why heat engines worked, and they were based on that interpretation.
I favor the idea that Entropy is the result of Energy flowing from areas of high potential to areas of low potential, and the fact that sometimes the energy flow can be interrupted and kept from flowing for a while. When it is, Order precipitates out of the Energy Chaos. Quite simply however, the Universe always trends in a direction that increases Entropy, and when it does, sometimes the order generated seems to emerge without rhyme or reason.
As a result we say that the reasonless order is a result of chance. DNA emerged from chemistry because long-chain molecules like RNA are significantly more entropic than smaller molecules. DNA controls protein chemistry in the cell, because proteins are more entropic than many amino acids. The enzymes that make it possible developed because catalyzing the formation of RNA and Proteins was more entropic than not, so when an enzyme was more effective at catalysing a protein it was conserved.
How this all evolved into a living cell, is an epic too extensive for this posting, even if I knew it.
However I must say that I do not accept that DNA is limited to Somatic Change. In fact the work of Kandel and his associates at Columbia University seems to clearly show a link between DNA expression in LTP and Long-term memory in the hippocampus. We are still somewhat uncertain of the biochemistry of synapse formation so we can’t say for sure why a synapse forms in one case and not in another despite the proximity of the neural processes and the presence of Dendritic Spikes, but we can statistically show that despite proximity less than 10% of potential synaptic connections actually link up.
I think that part of the problem you have with science, is that you expect it to be perfected already, instead of a moving target that is moving towards an explanation of the Universe, and where it isn’t you want to substitute in your own interpretation willy nilly as if it were more likely than other more prosaic interpretations that just haven’t had time to be fully explored.
-
[Graeme Smith]
" I agree with you that chance is not the driving force…
I favor the idea that Entropy is the result of Energy flowing from areas of high potential to areas of low potential, and the fact that sometimes the energy flow can be interrupted and kept from flowing for a while. When it is, Order precipitates out of the Energy Chaos. Quite simply however, the Universe always trends in a direction that increases Entropy, and when it does, sometimes the order generated seems to emerge without rhyme or reason."
[Philip Benjamin]
Stability through spin-spin interactions may be driving force inthe universe.
The sentient human body by itself is a very high entropic EM system that is unstable. If it is bonded via spin spin interactions at the atomic and molecular levels with non-EM systems which are necessarily at very low energy (could be relatively negative energy state),a very stable system will result.
The ideal situation will be an equivalent non-EM whole-body- cell by cell, organ by organ.[Graeme Smith]
“Philip asks how will Biology assign personhood to any sentient being?
Biology doesn’t assign personhood, per-se. What it does is detect the mechanisms by which the Universe has allowed sentience to be expressed. It is people who have described themselves as being sentient. It is people who decide what animals are and are not persons, and often the difference is more cultural than anything else. People of the Native American Cultures used animism, or the ascription of human motives to animals, to explain how they acted.”[Philip Benjamin]
Then in the hypothetical situation of all humans kidnapped by aliens and transferred to some other galaxy, plants and animals will stop having any sentience on earth.
Biology should never have defaulted in this task of identifying personhood biologically. Sentience and personhood are as much biological phenomena as are the species and taxa. The invisibility of ‘mind’ should not have been ignored as weird and let theology and religions to figure out the metaphysics of sentience.
There is no metaphysics, if invisible non-Em physical matter particles are also incorporated. The Bio Dark Matter may or may not be the same as that of physics. These have zero charges and negligible masses and are of three different types corresponding to electron, proton and neutron. Monopoles may be the counterparts of electric charges.
The ‘punctuated’ differences in sentience, and the corresponding differences in the rates of ELF photon emission rates point to a differential distribution of these dark particles such that humans have the most stable and complete dark bodies. This parallel dark human body and its parts are in resonance with all their counterparts of the visible body. The incompleteness of these dark bodies in animals and plants may account for the incompleteness of their ‘conscious states’. These selective incorporations are governed by genetic factors, such that all the three types of bio-axions occurs only in humans. Robots will have no dark matter particles coupled to any visible particles since there is no genetic governance there.
This allows an estimate of a proprtionality as 3^3: 3^2 : 3^1 (or 9:3:1) in plants to animals to humans, where the powers 3, 2, 1 refer to the ‘number of kinds’ of dark matter particles in each taxon, the base 3 refer to the ‘number of kinds’ of light matter particles common to all (i.e.electrons, protons & neutrons).
Nine times more ELF photons in plants than humans closely agree with the experimental value.
Best regards,
Philip Benjamin
-
If biology made a mistake, it was humans that didn’t fix it.
The problem is that you are applying a human word to a biological function. Then you blame biology if when you take away the human word it doesn’t have a replacement for it. Biology is, it does things, but it doesn’t name them. We leave that for humans to do.
-
[Graeme Smith]
If biology made a mistake, it was humans that didn’t fix it.
The problem is that you are applying a human word to a biological function. Then you blame biology if when you take away the human word it doesn’t have a replacement for it. Biology is, it does things, but it doesn’t name them. We leave that for humans to do.
[Philip Benjamin]
Empirically, BIO involves sentience or LIFE. Biology cannot and should not restrict itself to species and taxonomy. The visible structural differences may have invisible structural causes besides the known (visible) DNA structures. Biology ignored brilliant minds like Plato, Aristotle and the commonsensical wisdom of the ages and deligated the vital BI-MATTERS of sentience and Life to Philosophies, some of them ludicrously irrational.
Intuitively, the physical world of matter and energy is supposed to besupervened by a parallel ineffable, immaterial world of psyche. Such notions while reminiscent of alchemy, vitalism and phlogiston, gave an appealing rationale for the hereafter of some kind. Plants have no souls and animals have only mortal souls. The human soul is infused at fertilization or at birth, or in between, there being an infinite supply of souls of all kinds.
Since all cells of an organism inherit identical nuclear composition, the same DNA sequences as well as similar chromatin organizations, the observable genetics and epigenetics seem inadequate to explain taxonomy or developmental processes. Obviously, there are basic differences between plants and animals (including humans) in the use of genetic and epigenetic information. Morphogenetic fields are imprecise. The governing genetic and hormonal agents of life are very similar and are all programmed mostly identical throughout an organism and across the taxa. So, whatever constitutes epigenetics must be different not only for different organisms within a species, but also across the taxa. More over, every organism is also in a state of constant flux at the molecular and atomic levels with frequent recycling of constituent elemental particles, while all sentient phenomena remain constant, and coexist invisibly and durably with the visible structures.
This leaves something in the ’dark’ besides the observable genetics, chromatin dynamics and epigenetics, to account for developmental processes, cell differentiation and the vast morphogenetic diversity. It is the role of Biology to explore that.
All the best,
Philip Benjamin
-
You always have some interesting arguments.
But lets face it, you are pushing a word too far.
Biology means the study of life. It is a generic catch all definition under which we store lots of other words that have to do with living things.
It is also a discipline under which scientists work. In the current scheme of science, scientists reduce a subject to smaller pieces and name the pieces. It has been called Reductionism. Scientists can’t work on everything all at once or they would never achieve anything, so they tend to specialize. Each specialization has its own word, its own reductions and subspecializations.
When you talk about Biology and Sentience in the same sentence, you are ignoring the structure of the reductionism that has gone into building the science of biology. You are certainly free to do so, but you will not impress the scientists that have spent their lifetimes working in the fields that you ignore, that separate the general field of biology from the specific field of sentience.
Sentience is rightly the province of Cognitive Scientists, Philosophers, Artificial Intelligence and now I hope Artificial Consciousness researchers.
But it is not Biology that is failing to deal with it, but these sub-specialities each with their own reductionism and each with their own theories, and hypothesis, and laws, and so on.
Results
-
