Archive for the ‘Cérebro’ Category

Cerebro e Matrix/DNA: Inteligencia Surge de Um Algoritmo no Cerebro Humano

domingo, março 26th, 2017

xxxx

Ha’ mais de um seculo – depois de algumas importantes descobertas sobre o cérebro – tem sido acreditado que existe uma infra-estrutura no estilo computacional que deve estar oculta por trás das funções do cérebro e tem-se insistido que e’ necessário descobrir esta infraestrutura para se entender melhor este cérebro. Esta logica computacional, acreditam os acadêmicos – deve dirigir a maneira pela qual as células neuroniais se conectam para produzirem o conhecimento inteligente e a flexibilidade nas atuações. Existe uma tal de Teoria da Conectividade que já’ sugeriu que a origem da inteligencia esteja enraizada numa logica de permutação na base da potencia-de-dois, um conceito bastante comum em algoritmos na programação computacional. Agora os cientistas responsáveis por um paper publicado nesta semana revelam uma pesquisa pela qual acreditam que confirma a teoria. A formula algorítmica seria N = 2i−1 ( onde i para números de entradas de informações distintas; N e’ o numero de neuronial cliques com todos os padrões possíveis de conectividades combinadas).

Por outro lado, eu – que venho da selva com uma teoria cosmovisionária para caipiras da roça – penso ter descoberto ha’ 30 anos atras uma formula que pode ser interpretada como um conjunto de algoritmos que teria modelado e inserido as funções no cérebro. Mas a formula que sugiro e’ mil vezes mais complexa e tem a grande diferença de produzir processos vitais e não apenas no estilo mecanicista computacional. Esta teria sido a formula aplicada pela Natureza para organizar a matéria em sistemas naturais e o cérebro em si mesmo e’ um sistema natural.

Esta formula e’ representada por uma figura animada pois suas variáveis são produzidas pelo processo do ciclo vital. Porem, a representação da formula e’, ao mesmo tempo, um programa de algoritmos como dos mais simples para softwares – descobri isso a 30 anos atras ainda na selva. Acontece que o cérebro em si mesmo e’ mais um sistema natural e portanto, deve ter sido modelado pela formula que e’ um conjunto de algoritmos. Então o que a Teoria da Conectividade e a investigação dos cientistas publicada hoje estão batendo com minhas previsões de 30 anos atras. Mas tem umas diferenças cruciais nas interpretações deste fenômeno e para explica-las preciso trazer a formula para cá:

E o desenho do circuito do fluxo interno de informação da fórmula da Matrix/DNA na sua versão de sistema perfeito fechado, na forma de diagrama de software

E o desenho do circuito do fluxo interno de informação da fórmula da Matrix/DNA na sua versão de sistema perfeito fechado, na forma de diagrama de software

Segundo minha teoria, o cérebro esta montado em cima desta formula. Devido uma serie de dificuldades ( como a falta de tempo, a falta de acesso aos cientistas da área, etc.) eu ainda não pude identificar qual elemento do cérebro corresponde a qual F (função sistêmica) da formula. Tenho anotado centenas de papers sobre as informações, mapas cerebrais e as mais recentes descobertas no campo das ciências neurológicas buscando montar essa identificação, porem a falta de tempo e condições de trabalho estão me atrasando. Alem disso, eu preciso algo que acho não existir: figuras inteiras do interior do cérebro para ter uma visão de conjunto como tenho da formula. A primeira indicação que salta aos olhos ‘e que `a esquerda da F5 temos o hemisfério esquerdo, e a direita de F5 temos o hemisfério direito. A base central, nuclear do cérebro deve ser a região do hipocampo e portanto este deve corresponder a F1, o qual’e’ o núcleo e o inicio do circuito da formula. Mas depois, no cérebro vem suas partes, como as glândulas, etc. e estas partes que precisamos identificar de acordo com suas funções. Então, num primeiro relance, penso que as camadas de neurônios representam os espaços das setas na formula, os quais são, na formula, as formas do corpo que rola sob a forca do ciclo vital. Se isto for correto, a teoria dos investigadores esta’ muito distante de finalizada. Eles estão pensando que apenas as camadas de neurônios, suas diferentes regiões no cérebro são o hardware onde se instala e se processa o software algorítmico. Estão ignorando as peças do cérebro nestas regiões?

Eu penso que o cérebro esta dividido – vertical e horizontalmente – em seis regiões, cada região tem um função especifica em qualquer pensamento, mas cada região e’ um sub-sistema no mesmo modelo da formula, ou da totalidade do sistema que e’ o cérebro.

O fato e’ que o cérebro tem uma grande diferença com computadores, apesar de que os humanos criaram os computadores como uma imitação do cérebro. A diferença e’ que o cérebro e’ autônomo, cria e produz e modifica, transforma por si próprio, enquanto o computador nada faz disso. Em outras palavras o cérebro e’ um sistema vivo e o computador um sistema em hibernação, mecânico. A diferença vem do fato que o código em que o cérebro se baseia e’ um código vivo, de algoritmos vivos, porque esta animado pelo ciclo vital. Então esta investigação acredita que descobriu a causa da inteligencia baseado num exercício matemático do calculo de todas as variáveis do numero dois elevado a uma potencia n, e disso resulta uma sequencia fixa, mecânica, linear de números.

Na minha macaquica e humilde opinião, eles vão se deparar com um cérebro-maquina, morto, que nada vai produzir do que o cérebro vivo produz. Muito menos a inteligencia com sua criatividade e autonomia. Não vejo como as nossas ciências vai mudar esta abordagem enquanto imperar no meio acadêmico esta visão de mundo mecanicista e redutora. talvez estes pequenos avanços no caminho errado sejam o guia para endireitar sua cosmovisão, pois a ciência tem progredido pelo método tentativa e erro para então descobrir o acerto. Vou me esforçar para estudar e assimilar o que fizeram pois nesse meio tem as informações cientificas que foram ( junto com as informações da natureza bruta da selva), a base da minha cosmovisão.

Fui notificado desta pesquisa primeiro por um artigo no link ( e dai puxei o paper cujo link vai depois a seguir):

https://futurism.com/new-clues-hint-at-the-imminent-release-of-teslas-newest-model/

Intelligence May Stem From a Basic Algorithm in the Human Brain

A theory posits that the all of our thoughts are a function of a basic algorithm, N=2^i–1. ( A teoria sugere que todos os pensamentos são uma função básica algorítmica: N=2^i-1)

This development may be huge for AI, since artificial neural networks operate much like the brain, applying this formula may be the key to true intelligence. ( Este desenvolvimento pode ser valioso para Inteligencia Artificial, desde que rede neuroniais artificiais operam aparentemente como o cérebro, aplicando esta formula pode ser a chave para a verdadeira inteligencia natural.)

 

The brain’s formula

Neste artigo obtive o Scientific Paper, cujo titulo e link e’:

Brain Computation Is Organized via Power-of-Two-Based Permutation Logic

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00095/full

Original Research ARTICLE

Front. Syst. Neurosci., 15 November 2016 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00095

Meu comentario publicado no paper da Frontier:

I am a layman in this specific area, but from my specialized field I think I can offers a new insight to the authors about this “flexible behavior”. My theoretical results are suggesting ( since about 30 years ago), a general natural formula for all natural systems, and the brain’s structure for this process called “intelligence” must obey that formula. It happens that the formula is an algorithmic representation (as you can see the formula at my website). So, in this case my models has predicted yours findings.
The difference is that my algorithmic formula is a kind of “living process”, than, the flexible behavior, while yours mathematical algorithm is not. Thoughts mimics biological or living processes, they are developed by a life’s cycle common process. That’s the secret of creation, autonomy, etc., which, AI does not have it, yet. I had no time for learning yours mathematical development for arriving to yours formula and making comparisons with my formula, for to perceive where are the differences. I think this work can help you developing yours research and knowledge on this issue. Cheers…
xxxx
E outros comentários publicado pela MSN-USA, em:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/researchers-uncover-algorithm-which-may-solve-human-intelligence/ar-AAkTr2R?fb_action_ids=10210902314866604&fb_action_types=og.comments
I have registered the copyrights from 30 years ago in Brasil and USA showing a set of alghoritms as the framework of the brain as of all natural systems and life’s cycles. But my formula/alghoritm is a lot more complex than this N = 2i-1 formula. It is not my interest to comunicate that I had predicted it, but suggesting that these researchers changes their interpretations and approaches, because they are in the most difficult and slow way, And we need this right konwledge for helping millions of people being tortured by mental ilness.

My formula represents a thing that is alive, autonomous, creator and has flexible behavior. There is not only two variables, but, seven, like seven are the variables encrypted at a DNA’a unit of information. And each variable for the whole system is variable in relation to itself. it is not translated by Math neither mechanistic processes like the alghoritm above which merely results in a sequence of fractals and nothing else. Each new brain’s region and elements are built by the same process of life’s cycle that build our entire boddy and produces the differentiation of shapes along a lifetime. This formula wich I called “Matrix/DNA” was extracted from comparative anatomy between living and non-living natural systems, so, it is natural and alive, can not be compared with our nowaday computers. The formula and explanations are at my website, if someone is curious about

Turiel Grigori ·Owner at Trabalhador(a) independente

And might this same algorithm be responsible for disallowing us from seeing reality as it REALLY is?
No, Turiel. We and the whole Universe has evolved under a kind of Matrix, in the sense that all biological systems has evolved under a matrix called DNA. Like the DNA is not playing dice with us, the universal matrix is not too. We can’t see the reality as it really is because we are almost blind ( we can see only one face of objects – those reflecting the visible frequency of the eletromagnetic spectrum, and we are blind to the other six frequency/vibrations that are here and compose this world. Also our brain has poor and limited sensors such our technological sensors. I am not seeing supernatural ghosts or intelligent aliens behind this matrix for explaining its existence and functionality, it is purely natural. But, since I am almost blind…who knows?
xxxx
ESTUDO/TRADUCAO DO ORIGINAL PAPER:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00095/full

Brain Computation Is Organized via Power-of-Two-Based Permutation Logic

Computação Cerebral e’ Organizada via Logica de Permutação Baseada na Potencia-de-Dois

Ha’ considerável interesse cientifico em entender como as células se conectam – o tao presumido computacional padrão – tao organizadas que o cérebro possa gerar inteligente conhecimento e flexível comportamento.

A Teoria da Conectividade propõe que a origem da inteligencia esta enraizada numa logica de permutação na base da potencia-de-dois (N=2i-1), ( ver wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_two ) produzindo especificidade para arquiteturas de células montadas capazes de gerar especificas percepções e memorias, assim como generalizado conhecimento e acoes flexíveis. Nos mostramos que esta logica de permutação e’ amplamente usada nos circuitos corticais e subcorticais através de especies animais e e’ conservada para o processamento de uma variedade de modalidades cognitivas incluindo apetite, emocional e social informações.

Todavia, modulatórios neurônios, tais como os neurônios dopaminergic (DA), usam uma logica mais simples apesar de seus distintos subtipos. Interessante, esta logica de permutação do especifico para o geral permanece largamente intacta através dos NMDA receptores – o switch sináptico para aprendizagem e memoria –  foram deletados durante a fase adulta, sugerindo que a logica ‘e um desenvolvimento pre-configurado. Alem disso, esta logica computacional e’ implementada no cortex via a combinação de uma estrategia de conectividade ao acaso nas camadas superficiais (2/3), enquanto ns profundas camadas as organizações  de não-acaso são 5/6.

(continuar tradução)

 

Pesquisar:

  • Theory of Connectivity ( proposes that the origin of intelligence is rooted in a power-of-two-based permutation logic (N = 2i–1), producing specific-to-general cell-assembly architecture capable of generating specific perceptions and memories, as well as generalized knowledge and flexible actions.)
  • Muito importante a pesquisar aqui: We show that this power-of-two-based permutation logic is widely used in cortical and subcortical circuits 
  • modulatory neurons, such as dopaminergic (DA) neurons – use a simpler logic despite their distinct subtypes.
  •  ler: Theory of Connectivity: Nature and Nurture of Cell Assemblies and Cognitive Computation ( em https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4850152/

Onde se le: How should cell assembly organize itself so that incoming information can be orderly and gradually converted into memory, concepts, and flexible motor behavior?

 

Cerebro E Relogio Biologico: Poder dos Astrocystes

domingo, março 26th, 2017

xxxx

Astrocytes Keep Time For Brain and Behavior

http://neurosciencenews.com/astrocytes-behavior-time-6292

Neuroscience News –

xxxx

Pensava-se que o ciclo circadiano ( relogio biologico) era regulado por um gene e 20.000 neuronios que estao numa regiao ( the suprachiasmatic nuclei, or SCN ). No meio destes neuronios estao 6.000 astrocystes que sao celulas na forma de estrelas. Pensava-se que estes astrocystes nao tinham funcao importante apenas estavam ali para encher espaco. Depois descobriu-se que os genes do tempo estao presents em quase todas as celulas do corpo, desde pulmoes, estomago, etc. Agora descobriu-se que os astrocystes se conectam com neuronios (uma conexao de sinapses tripartite, tendo um astrocystes no meio de dois neuronios) e que estes astrocystes tem a capacidade de regular o tempo. Brilham e apagam ritmicamente. E descobriu-se que eles tem mais poder que os neuronios sobre o tempo, ou seja, o poder estava escondido atras do trono e nao sentado no trono. ( Entao estaria errada a hipotese de que a glandula pineal capta a luz como uma antena e campos magneticos da Terra?)

 

Image shows astroyctes.

In this slice of the master clock, cells expressing an astrocyte-specific structural protein that had been stained red (top right panel) matched up well with cells that had been equipped to fluoresce green when they were expressing a clock gene (middle right panel), demonstrating that the scientists could watch astrocytes tick in the clock. NeuroscienceNews.com image is credited to Herzog Lab.

xxxx

Pesquisar:

 – the suprachiasmatic nuclei, or SCN

Cérebro, Memoria: Hipótese da Consolidação dos Sistemas – Mais Uma Previsão Acertada da Matrix/DNA

terça-feira, fevereiro 14th, 2017

xxxx

Uma nova experiência laboratorial está exigindo uma mudança no paradigma da Neurologia e gerou a Hipótese da Consolidação dos Sistemas: memorias de curto-prazo envolve o hipocampo, mas memórias de longo prazo é de algum modo desconhecido transferida para outras áreas, como o córtex.

Os cientistas dizem que o mecanismo é desconhecido, mas tendo a formula que montou o cérebro humano, posso ver claramente qual é e como funciona o mecanismo.

A evidência é que numa experiência recente, no laboratorio alguém tentou ativar a memória através de neurônios do córtex um mês mais tarde, e de fato a memoria foi reativada. ( ver a fonte desta notícia no link abaixo e nos próximos dias farei novo artigo sobre os “papers” oficiais publicados)

Isto é importante porque como os cientistas, eu sempre pensei que a memória existisse no hipocampo, ou na região central do cérebro, mas com esta informação ela pode estar em muitas regiões, parecendo que é espalhada.

Mas então apenas agora me lembro que a formula da Matrix/DNA (mostrada na figura abaixo) sugere isso claramente, ou seja, eu já sabia disso, sem saber que sabia, porque nunca raciocinei a formula em relacao a memoria. O cérebro é um sistema em si mesmo, vendo-o separado do resto do corpo. Ele tem núcleo (a região central onde está o hipocampo), tem partes ( as diversas glândulas, regiões cerebrais, etc.), tudo interconectado, funcionando. O cérebro é mais uma cópia da formula da Matrix/DNA, ou seja, esta formula monta todos os sistemas naturais `a sua imagem e semelhança, na medida que permite o ambiente e os materiais do ambiente, o estágio evolutivo, etc. Podes ver que o cérebro tem hemisférios direito e esquerdo como a formula tem suas faces esquerda e direita dividida pelo circuito F5, que no cérebro se torna o corpus callosum. E a formula monta cada sistema a partir de um objeto inicial, um corpo, aplicando nele o ciclo vital que o faz se diferenciar em várias formas/funções e depois conecta estas diferentes formas como suas partes. Assim se formou o cérebro desde os primeiros rompantes de sistema nervoso nos seres primitivos como as bactérias.

Na formula está claro que o sistema-cérebro possui memória em F1, onde começa o circuito do sistema, ou seja, mais um ciclo vital. O circuito nada mais é que o fluxo de informações avançando, ou seja, um corpo crescendo em idade, como o corpo humano faz após nascer. Em F1 ocorre a gestação de novos sistemas, como o corpo humano, onde F1 é representado pela mulher grávida. Ora, um novo ser começa a ser formado com informações memorizadas que vieram de seus genitores. Por isso a memória já está em F1.

Então quando o fluxo sai de F1 e vai para F2, ele está sendo a informação do corpo inteiro, está levando o corpo inteiro, e com isso, claro, vai a memória do corpo. A nossa memória quando estamos na forma de adulto ( que na formula e’ F4), veio da memória na nossa forma como adolescente (F3), com mais alguns acréscimos.

Então quando transportamos a formula para o sistema “cérebro” e vemos F1 representada pelo hipocampo, notamos que o circuito sobe pelo hemisfério esquerdo em direcao ao córtex, e com isso ele está levando a memoria. Quando o circuito perfaz-se totalmente, a memoria está presente em todo lugar que ele passou, e se fixou. Assim conhecemos o mecanismo que transporta a memória pelo cérebro.

Mas estamos aqui pensando na formula quando ela desenvolve e estrutura a forma do cérebro, e se torna o template do cérebro. Outra coisa é mais tarde na evolução biológica chegando ao ser humano quando a formula retorna para criar os pensamentos, igualmente a sua imagem e semelhança.

Cada pensamento nasce vive e morre pela mesma configuração da formula, porém, os pensamentos são muitos, ocorrem em sequências, nunca dois ao mesmo tempo, e tem duração de vida brevíssima, muito menor que a do cérebro. Além disso, pensamentos não se fixam nem se auto-reciclam idênticos. Pensamentos são micro-ciclos abstratos ( softwares) de e dentro de um macrociclo concreto (o hardware) que é o cérebro. Isto significa que em relacao a pensamento, a memória está sempre em movimento, pulando de região para região, é impossível fixá-la em algum ponto, e depois que ela passa por uma região, desaparece daquela região. E as partes da memória carregadas por cada pensamento morrem com os pensamentos, ou, quando o pensamento for importante, quando ele foi contaminado por informação nova que não existia antes, ele chega ao córtex e perfaz a trajetória de F5, retornando diretamente do córtex (F4) para o hipocampo e registrando-se ali definitivamente como mais um acréscimo da memória estrutural.

Então existe a memória estrutural e a memória abstrata mental, ou memória dos pensamentos, segundo a Teoria da Matrix/DNA.

Muito simples entender isto quando se tem a formula, concorda? Porém, o maior absurdo disto e’ que os cientistas não conhecem e nem entenderiam a formula. para explicar de onde ela veio eu teria que montar um curso universitário de alguns anos e isso me e’ impossível. Então, infelizmente, vão continuar gastando bilhões e dólares para descobrir coisas por acaso quando uma teoria dirigindo as experiências ficaria muito barato e com melhores resultados.

Vamos trazer a formula para ver isso melhor:

E o desenho do circuito do fluxo interno de informação da fórmula da Matrix/DNA na sua versão de sistema perfeito fechado, na forma de diagrama de software

E o desenho do circuito do fluxo interno de informação da fórmula da Matrix/DNA na sua versão de sistema perfeito fechado, na forma de diagrama de software

 

Fonte da informação sobre a experiencia cientifica:

Think you’ve got a terrible memory? You don’t know the half of it

http://ideas.ted.com/think-youve-got-a-terrible-memory-you-dont-know-the-half-of-it/?utm_campaign=social&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_content=ideas-blog&utm_term=social-science

Observe no artigo que o entrevistador pergunta aos neurologistas porque a memória é tão maleável?

Eu vou ter que procurar porque eles pensam que a memória é maleável, ou seja, maleável em que sentido, em relacao a que? A formula está sugerindo claramente que a memória é tão maleável como um corpo humano, mudando ou desenvolvendo-se em diferentes formas, etc. Mas as respostas dos cientistas foram muito nebulosas e acho que não responderam a pergunta. Um deles citou o fato de que tendemos a esquecer um evento de extrema agonia e para explicar isso ele diz que nosso cérebro faz isso para nos poupar de dolorosas recordações inúteis, etc. Ora, o cérebro por si só não tem propósitos, não pode saber que mentalmente sofremos ao recordar, ele não faz nada disso, e como “o cérebro é eu” e “eu sou o cérebro”, ele estaria apagando, extraindo uma parte de si mesmo, o que penso ser impossível. Combatem o dualismo de Descartes em corpo e alma porém criam o dualismo cérebro e o eu como se fossem duas coisas distintas? O que acontece – segundo a minha cosmovisão – em relacao aos “pânicos esquecidos, apagados da memória” é o mesmo que acontece quando nosso corpo é ferido ou uma perna quebrada. A ferida se cura, cicatriza e desaparece, a perna volta ao normal, etc. Falta de entender que a memoria em si é um sistema, um sub-sistema do cérebro, e como tal deve ser vista como um organismo, com mesmas propriedades. A  seguir copia do trecho desta pergunta:

Entrevistador: “A question for the group: Why is human memory so malleable?”

Elizabeth Loftus: Whatever your theory is, why would Darwin or God or whoever have made us with memories that are so malleable? That must serve some sort of function, and one of the functions that malleable memories can serve is to be able to correct errors that creep in. You can update your memory with accurate information, and that is certainly a benefit. ( obs.: sim, porém neste caso, quem “update” ou corrige erradas informações na memória são nossas experiências afrontando a realidade do mundo externo, o qual atua como um medico, e as corretas informações inseridas são como os remédios ou cirurgias ministrados pelo medico-realidade).

Nosso cerebro morre e ressuscita a cada vez que dormimos.

sábado, fevereiro 11th, 2017

xxxx

Como e porque a Natureza inventou este negocio de um objeto material dormir e acordar?! De onde ela tirou esta ideia?

Foi começando com este método de questionar cada detalhe visto no mundo natural que construí a cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA. E as respostas sempre me surpreenderam porque elas jamais foram imaginadas. Fica difícil em poucas palavras aqui explicar a resposta para quem não conhece esta cosmovisão, mas vou tentar.

O corpo humano é um sistema natural. Sistema é todo aquele objeto material que tem partes diferentes inter-conectadas por um único circuito de substancia ou energia. Um dos principais aspectos de um sistema é que ele tem uma entidade invisível produzida por ele mesmo que o controla. Cada parte tem uma quantidade de informações, e quando as partes se interagem geram mais informações, mas o sistema na sua totalidade pode ser definido o conjunto de todas estas informações voltando-se e atuando sobre cada parte. Como não existe um centro material onde esteja localizado este conjunto, digamos que é a entidade invisível do sistema, a mente, o software, a alma, do sistema. E até um átomo, que é um sistema, tem sua identidade.

Existem poucos grupos de sistemas naturais conhecidos, podemos conta-los nos dedos: o sistema atômico, o astronomico ( dividido em estelar e galático), o celular, o ser vivo multicelular, e agora parece que nos humanos existem mais dois sistemas: o cerebral e o mental. Acontece que todos estes sistemas são apenas diferentes formas de um único sistema universal sob evolução. E assim como todos os seres vivos tem uma formula em comum – o DNA – todos os sistemas naturais tem um formula em comum – a Matrix/DNA. Então vendo esta formula, (que também esta sob evolução, que acompanhou a evolução dos sistemas se evoluindo junto), no ancestral gerador do sistema biológico vivo, nos imediatamente descobrimos porque a Natureza nos faz dormir. de onde ela tirou essa ideia, e porque. Vamos trazer a formula para cá:

E o desenho do circuito do fluxo interno de informação da fórmula da Matrix/DNA na sua versão de sistema perfeito fechado, na forma de diagrama de software

E o desenho do circuito do fluxo interno de informação da fórmula da Matrix/DNA na sua versão de sistema perfeito fechado, na forma de diagrama de software

Assim estava o estagio evolucionário desta formula quando ela era ( e ainda é) o “DNA” do sistema astronomico que nos criou, na sua tentativa de se auto-reproduzir. Observemos o trecho entre F7 e F1. Apos uma volta inteira do circuito de informações – que é um ciclo de vida do sistema – ele chega em F7 quando se desfaz, “morrendo”. Esta ” morte” começa desde F6 porem o processo torna-se formado em F7 e prolonga-se até F1. Em F7 o corpo tornado cadáver se fragmenta e seus fragmentos vão produzir F1. Em F1 ocorre a reciclagem do sistema, o que, nos seres vivos, corresponde a fase da embriogênese. F2 é quando o embrião nasceu. Então podemos dizer que no meio deste trecho entre F6 até F1 o sistema morre e torna-se cadáver, para ressuscitar realmente em F2.

O sistema celular foi feito por eta formula neste estagio evolucionário, porem, como esta transição demorou milhões ou bilhões de anos ( pois foi um evento na escala de tempo astronômica, período este que a ciência acadêmica oficial intitulou de abiogênese mas que na verdade nada mais foi que uma embriogênese), e esta transição ocorreu num meio-ambiente muito diferente daquele em que havia ocorrido a formação do nosso ancestral astronomico, ambiente que teve o acréscimo do novo estado da matéria chamado de liquido o qual produziu a química orgânica, tudo isso contribuiu para que houvesse uma enorme mutação. Ao invés de uma galaxia em miniatura, a filha se saiu como uma célula biológica.

Mas nossa ancestral era um sistema termo-dinâmico semi-mecânico/semi-biológico, que se reproduzia auto-reciclando-se, automaticamente. Porque era um sistema fechado em si mesmo. Quando sua cria se saiu como um sistema aberto e biológico, como iria este sistema se auto-reciclar? Impossível para sistemas abertos. Da célula se formaram os organismos multicelulares, os quais são estruturados pela mesma formula. Para o corpo destes organismos, esta morte temporária da formula foi transformada na respiração. Cada vez que exalamos, nosso corpo morre e cada vez que inspiramos, nosso corpo renasce. O cérebro veio como novo sistema emergindo mais complexo deste corpo e em certa fase da evolução, ele passou também a influenciar na evolução do corpo. Mas o cérebro por si só não tem os apetrechos para a respiração, então, este lapso de tempo da morte da formula se torna o lapso de tempo que que dormimos. O cérebro cai, se desliga. Tanto é assim que na formula este período entre morte e renascimento se constitui de um terço do circuito total da formula. Pois nos dormimos por 8 horas que e’ um terço de cada dia. Mas como o cérebro se regula seu tempo de morte pelo mesmo tempo do movimento do astro perfazendo um dia se o cérebro esta isolado dentro de uma caixa de osso e não pode ver, nem tem noção de que um dia, um movimento de rotação do planeta, tem tal tempo que dividido por três da’ o tempo que ele dorme?!

Ora, não é ele que decide isso. E’ a formula, que esta dentro so sistema astronomico e dentro do cérebro. E tem mais. Se na formula o trecho entre morte e renascimento do sistema abrange 3 funções, tem uma função, a do meio, em que o processo da morte é mais real, mais profundo. Este detalhe da formula também funciona quando dormimos. Se dormimos por 8 horas, tem uma fase no meio deste dormir em que acontece o sonho. Neste período a morte do sistema é total, ele esta totalmente desligado, seus fragmentos estão na forma de nebulosa, espalhados e entrechocando-se caoticamente. Por isso nossos sonhos são esquisitos, nos estamos mortos para o mundo racional, nossa imaginação esta totalmente livre vivendo em outras dimensões talvez criadas por ela mesma. Por isso tenho medo. Se eu tiver sonhando que estou em outro planeta e correndo de monstros, e na minha casa o teto cair matando meu meu cérebro, minha imaginação não tem mais para onde voltar, e vou ter que ver eternamente correndo dos monstros no outro planeta…. Mas seja como for,.. a explicação da Matrix/DNA respondendo de onde a natureza tirou essa ideia de inventar esta coisa estranha, me botando para dormir por um terço de cada dia, valeu a pena. Segundo a teoria da Matrix/DNA e sua formula, podemos deduzir que a auto reciclagem de um sistema termodinâmico consiste num processo de retração e impulsão. Pois para que foi isso que os cientistas descobriram no artigo com link abaixo, onde dizem que durante o sono, as sinapses do cérebro retraem.

Sleep research high-resolution images show how the brain resets during sleep

Sleep research high-resolution images show how the brain resets during sleep

Evidencia para a Hipótese de que Configuração Neuronal Adquirida Pode ser Mutada

domingo, fevereiro 5th, 2017

xxxx

Mais uma evidencia de que – por exemplo, os instintos para predador e presa – não são predeterminados de forma imutável. Tenho sugerido que devido nosso ancestral símio ter sido carnívoro e herbívoro, portanto portador das duas tendencias, os humanos tem liberdade de escolha se tendera para um instinto e inclusive se se tornara neutro a todos estes instintos. Isto dependera’ do lar em que nasce, sua situação econômica, sua doutrinação cultural, a educação escolar, etc.

No artigo deste link:

https://bbrfoundation.org/brain-matters-discoveries/mouse-study-reveals-how-critical-connections-are-built-in-early-brain

Mouse Study Reveals How Critical Connections Are Built in Early Brain

Lemos este paragrafo:

Although GABA is typically considered an inhibitory neurotransmitter in the adult brain, the study by Drs. Kwon and Castillo and their colleagues suggests the chemical messenger plays an excitatory role in the developing mouse brain. By selectively releasing chemically “caged” doses of GABA in mouse cortical neurons, the researchers discovered that GABA stimulates the development of both excitatory and inhibitory synapses in brain cells as they are “wiring up.”  This may mean that neuron-to-neuron connections are not always made at a predetermined place, the scientists write, but rather their formation can at times be spurred by an individual’s experience – learning, for example: processes during which GABA is released in the developing brain.

Fluido Cerebroespinal: O Fluido do Circuito da Matrix?! Veja O Vortice…

sábado, janeiro 28th, 2017

xxxx

The Cerebrospinal Fluid and the Appearance of “I Am”, Mauro Zappaterra

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh_mvbAUuCw

Prestar atenção na forma dos ventrículos, do vórtice acima da cabeca…

Ver também o paper provando que o DMT (conhecido como “a molécula do espirito”, o alucinogeno no Santo Daime e plantas), existe na glândula pineal e várias outras partes do corpo levado pelo CSF:

https://www.cottonwoodresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Pineal-DMT.pdf

xxxx

O dia em que descobri que o cérebro está deitado (na horizontal) e nao em pé … Pois estas imagens sugerem como os ventrículos estruturam a fórmula da Matrix/DNA, e aqui a formula está na horizontal. Isto vai modificar toda a orientacao na busca de identificar as partes do sistema.

Human Ventricular system colored and animated.gif

Rotating 3D rendering of the four ventricles and connections. From top to bottom: Blue – Lateral ventricles Cyan – Interventricular foramina (Monro) Yellow – Third ventricle Red – Cerebral aqueduct (Sylvius) Purple – fourth ventricle Green – continuous with the central canal

Rotating 3D rendering of the four ventricles

 

 

Meu comentario postado no Youtube:

Louis Charles Morelli Louis Charles Morelli – 01/28/2017

Dr. Mauro and everybody that is studying the brain and consciousness need to know the universal formula that build all natural systems, because brain is a system and human consciousness is an embryo of ex-machine consciousness, which is also a system. I am telling that because we need to sum our different expertises into this investigation. You can developing your understanding of the CSF when seeing its picture side by side with the formula’s picture. I can’t say more here because I can’t bring on the formula here, which is at my website, http://theuniversalmatrix.com

First of all, the 3rd ventriloque is at the position of F1 (at the formula). The two lateral ventriloques performs the whole sphere. CSF is the flow of information that runs inside the spherical systemic circuit. The branch that leave the sphere for running as spinal cord is due the brain being an opened system ( my formula is draw as the closed system state), so the spinal cord is the extension of the system’s brain for connecting with another system, which is the body, built as an accessory.

We need to identificate which gland and cerebral region represents each systemic function, then, we will have a total understanding of the brain. The vortice above the head is saw by natives of Amazon jungle when drinking the beverage called “Saint Dayme”, a kind of ayahuasca which I think contains DMT. I watched those natives and hypnotizing them to see things that I was looking for. My big surprise is that they described a picture identical to the one described by Asian religions where they talks about kundalini and chakras, but, going further in my questions I found that the picture is anything else than the DNA ( two kundalinis in spiral are the two DNA’s streams and the chakras are the nitrogenous basis. It makes sense: the alucinogenos make our neurons to reveal what is at their nucleus – DNA. Since that the Amazon and Asian natives does not know DNA, they invented this mystical interpretation.

The vortice ( as described in Amazon) is composed by tiny, colored, microscopic flying things that moves around us. When they feel a next brain, they falls towards the cortex, drawing the spiral vortex. They enters inside CSF, they are added to another particles coming from the body and neurons and they are the energy and bits of informations carried by CSF. These particles are equal the draw of some particles described by Physics. I think that they are solar atoms burned at the Sun and sent to the space. They seem as a lizard, having a central body like a line in ice color, which, the formula suggests, is composed by protons and neutrons from the burned atoms. And they have luminous points that seems as legs, but each leg has a different color. These legs are electrons, and the different colors is due photons inside them. The Matrix/DNA formula comes from cosmic radiation and from stars like the sun, fragmented as these photons.These things penetrates our body through the top of the head, by the vortex. In this way, biological systems like human bodies and brains are built by evolution.

We have a problem to solve. The CSF running inside the spinal cord should be two ways, one going down and other going up. Like the trunk of trees. At least, this is what the Matrix/DNA formula is suggesting. But, the information I have is that till now is detected only one flow, going down. Is it right?

Pesquisa:

Cerebralspinal fluid CVS (liquido cefalorraquiano ou Fluido cerebrospinal)

Líquido cefalorraquidiano

 

File:1316 Meningeal LayersN.jpg

O fluido (amarelo) passando pelo cortex e rodeando o cerebro. A divisão longitudinal ‘e o corpus callosun dividindo os hemisférios – fonte: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/1316_Meningeal_LayersN.jpg

xxxxx

DMT

Um Anjo Guerreiro no Córtex Bombardeia o Demônio do Baixo Cérebro?!

quinta-feira, janeiro 12th, 2017

xxxx

Cortex (a esq) bombardeia brainstem (a dir) inibindo instintos

Cortex (a esq) bombardeia brainstem (a dir) inibindo instintos

Parece que eles continuam vencendo. Cada dia estão descobrindo novas evidencias para reforçar sua teoria: a de que não existe mente ou consciência, nem separada do cérebro, mas sim, o que existe, são meras reações químicas e impulsos elétricos no cérebro.

Acima da coluna espinhal, logo na nuca e dentro do cérebro, tem uma proeminência que algum cientista antigo denominou de ” Complexo Reptiliano”, ou Complexo R. Seria resquício do cérebro dos repteis que os humanos herdaram e a evolução ainda mantem. Se esta proeminência se expressar mais forte que outras partes do cérebro, um humano atua como um réptil, cometendo as coisas mais hediondas. Talvez como o individuo que atacou outro na Florida e comeu o rosto dele…

Mais modernamente, esta proeminência é denominada “brainstem”, ou “tronco cerebral”, se estou traduzindo corretamente. E sabe-se que ali esta a sede dos instintos, a maioria vinda do comportamento animal. Ela se expressa continuamente e é responsável pelo comportamento agressivo. Perante alguma ofensa, mesmo que apenas verbal, começamos a ter o sentimento agressivo, e isto vem do brainstem. Se o brainstem não sentir resistência do resto do cérebro ou não for por este inibido imediatamente, o sentimento torna-se ato agressivo de fato. O que descobriram agora é relativo a outra parte do cérebro, o chamado cortex pré-frontal, que fica no alto do cérebro. Ao receber o sinal de que o brainstem despertou o sentimento agressivo, ele se contrai e se prepara. Se o brainstem ficar só nisso e não prosseguir para a ação de violência, o cortex relaxa e volta ao normal. Mas se o brainstem iniciar a reação para violência, o cortex dispara um bombardeio de neurônios sobre o brainstem tentando neutraliza-lo. Se conseguir, o humano irado se contem e não agride. Isto é o que se observa ocorrendo na matéria do cérebro e pode-se ve-lo claramente na figura abaixo. Mas…, filosoficamente falando, sera só isso mesmo?

Onde, em que outra situação, a Natureza tem suas forcas fluindo numa direcao, e de repente surgem outras contrarias impedindo as primeiras de se moverem? Ok, acho que podemos detectar varias destas situações. Por exemplo, forma-se um tornado, indo numa direcao, aparece uma montanha, ou um vale, e o tornado morre.

Não, isto não serve, pois a montanha não é uma força que move vindo da direcao oposta. E a montanha não emite nenhuma força contraria ao tornado. Talvez duas nuvens vindas de direções opostas, quando provocam trovoes e relâmpagos? Acho que não, não tenho certeza, mas acho que todas as nuvens numa regiao devem moverem-se na mesma direcao. Bem, fica isto em aberto `a busca de tal situação para que possamos aceitar que a natureza tem capacidade para fazer isto por si mesma. Pois se estes cientistas com esta ideologia puramente materialista querem defende-la, tem que mostrarem que dentro do cérebro ocorrem apenas processos físicos/químicos naturais, caso contrario, se acreditam que esta situação dentro do cérebro ocorre pela primeira vez no Universo, estarão apelando para a magia, estão se desviando para o pensamento magico de todas as religiões.

Porque o cérebro animal puramente instintivo desenvolveu outra parte nele mesmo que o combate,… é uma questão que esta filosofia me plantou na cabeça agora e nunca vi antes sendo perguntada nem respondida. Para mim não faz sentido logico natural, se vamos reduzir o cérebro a eventos físico/químicos, naturais. Ok, mas os materialistas dizem que estas mudanças ocorrem por mutações genéticas as quais ocorrem por acaso nos erros nas duplicações do DNA. Se o erro produzir uma inovação que faca o individuo, ou a população, se adaptar melhor ao ambiente, a seleção natural vai fixar esta mutação definitivamente. Não cola. Para começar, enquanto não aprimorar-mos nossa visão ainda quase cega e nossos sensores poucos e primários, e ficar-mos apenas com estes instrumentos técnicos de pesquisa que são apenas extensões destes poucos sentidos, não podemos acreditar em nenhuma conclusão definitiva sobre o porque ocorrem estas mutações. Em segundo lugar, os primeiros indivíduos com esta mutação jamais seriam selecionados naturalmente pois este novo apêndice os enfraqueceu.

Enfim, eu não acredito ( pois um filosofo naturalista nunca acredita), mas prefiro apostar na teoria de que num animal ancestral começou a se expressar uma antiga propriedade da Natureza que esteve dormente desde os átomos que formaram o cepo primitivo comum, cuja propriedade hoje denominamos de consciência. E esta consciência tem uma força própria que pode atuar sobre a matéria cerebral. E seria esta consciência que dirigiria o cortex a bombardear o brainstem. Mas não tenho provas disso como eles não tem provas de sua teoria, estão fica teoria contra teoria em aberto, sem crendices. Esta notável descoberta sera’ excelente alimento para pensar muito e partir para mais pesquisas do fenômeno. Vamos ao artigo, e nossa pesquisa:

Neural Connection Keeps Instincts in Check

http://neurosciencenews.com/instinct-prefrontal-cortex-5889/

Pesquisa:

PAG

Cn3nucleus.png

Periaqueductal gray – Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periaqueductal_gray

The periaqueductal gray (PAG) (also known as the central gray) is the primary control center for descending pain modulation. It has enkephalin-producing cells that suppress pain. The periaqueductal grey matter is the grey matter located around the cerebral aqueduct within the tegmentum of the midbrain

 

 

O que faz voce,voce?

quinta-feira, janeiro 5th, 2017

xxxx

( Copiar e traduzir este artigo. E’  muito importante sobre o conhecimento e teorias atuais da mente)

What Makes You You?

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html

What Makes You You?

Ensaio do meu comentário a ser postado:

Congratulations, a collection of theories about the issue. There is another theory suggesting a new idea – the Matrix/DNA Theory. This theory introduces his theoretical model of the link between cosmological and biological evolution. It is the building block of galaxies (showed at my avatar above) which happens to be the same building blocks of DNA ( a lateral pair of nucleotides). The difference is

Bons Comentarios:

Corneliu Coman ·

Hey Tim! I’ve asked myself the same question over and over again, since i’ve put a lot of effort into finding “who I am”. My conclusion was close to the “continuity” (I am who I decide to be-or become).

But there goes another dillema: does any of your neurons think “I’m Tim?” or “I am Tim’s Neuron?” or “I am Neuron #1.002.125 of Tim’s Body”? Probably no (how can we know)?

So imagine Earth (or countries or whatever bigger instance) as “the bigger organism” and YOU as the neuron from the example above. Would your previous arguments still stand? probably yes. cell have atoms, molecules, dna and organelles.

So, would you realize your identity is a part of something, and you are not a stand-alone organism? Or you are stand-alone, but you cannot live isolated, so you are completely dependant to other cells (people).

So, finally, my greatest dillema: why do I see the world through my eyes (my body’s eyes) and not through yours. Or his. Or hers? It doesn’t make sense that I should be confined to myself.
Can it because all of us together are the greatest organism and I am just a cell?
Or are we simpy unable (or unconscious) of our ability to perceive everybody else’s brains?

xxxx

Copia para ser traduzida:

When you say the word “me,” you probably feel pretty clear about what that means. It’s one of the things you’re clearest on in the whole world—something you’ve understood since you were a year old. You might be working on the question, “Who am I?” but what you’re figuring out is the who am part of the question—the part is obvious. It’s just you. Easy.

But when you stop and actually think about it for a minute—about what “me” really boils down to at its core—things start to get pretty weird. Let’s give it a try.

The Body Theory

We’ll start with the first thing most people equate with what a person is—the physical body itself. The Body Theory says that that’s what makes you you. And that would make sense. It doesn’t matter what’s happening in your life—if your body stops working, you die. If Mark goes through something traumatic and his family says, “It really changed him—he’s just not the same person anymore,” they don’t literally mean Mark isn’t the same person—he’s changed, but he’s still Mark, because Mark’s body is Mark, no matter what he’s acting like. Humans believe they’re so much more than a hunk of flesh and bone, but in the end, a physical ant is the ant, a squirrel’s body is the squirrel, and a human is its body. This is the Body Theory—let’s test it:

So what happens when you cut your fingernails? You’re changing your body, severing some of its atoms from the whole. Does that mean you’re not you anymore? Definitely not—you’re still you.

How about if you get a liver transplant? Bigger deal, but definitely still you, right?

What if you get a terrible disease and need to replace your liver, kidney, heart, lungs, blood, and facial tissue with synthetic parts, but after all the surgery, you’re fine and can live your life normally. Would your family say that you had died, because most of your physical body was gone? No, they wouldn’t. You’d still be you. None of that is needed for you to be you.

Well maybe it’s your DNA? Maybe that’s the core thing that makes you you, and none of these organ transplants matter because your remaining cells all still contain your DNA, and they’re what maintains “you.” One major problem—identical twins have identical DNA, and they’re not the same person. You are you, and your identical twin is most certainly not you. DNA isn’t the answer.

So far, the Body Theory isn’t looking too good. We keep changing major parts of the body, and you keep being you.

But how about your brain?

The Brain Theory

Let’s say a mad scientist captures both you and Bill Clinton and locks the two of you up in a room.

CH

The scientist then performs an operation on both of you, whereby he safely removes each of your brains and switches them into the other’s head. Then he seals up your skulls and wakes you both up. You look down and you’re in a totally different body—Bill Clinton’s body. And across the room, you see your body—with Bill Clinton’s personality.

CFO

Now, are you still you? Well, my intuition says that you’re you—you still have your exact personality and all your memories—you’re just in Bill Clinton’s body now. You’d go find your family to explain what happened:

CF1

CF2

So unlike your other organs, which could be transplanted without changing your identity, when you swapped brains, it wasn’t a brain transplant—it was a body transplant. You’d still feel like you, just with a different body. Meanwhile, your old body would not be you—it would be Bill Clinton. So what makes you you must be your brain. The Brain Theory says that wherever the brain goes, you go—even if it goes into someone else’s skull.

The Data Theory

Consider this—

What if the mad scientist, after capturing you and Bill Clinton, instead of swapping your physical brains, just hooks up a computer to each of your brains, copies every single bit of data in each one, then wipes both of your brains completely clean, and then copies each of your brain data onto the other person’s physical brain? So you both wake up, both with your own physical brains in your head, but you’re not in your body—you’re in Bill Clinton’s body. After all, Bill Clinton’s brain now has all of your thoughts, memories, fears, hopes, dreams, emotions, and personality. The body and brain of Bill Clinton would still run out and go freak out about this to your family. And again, after a significant amount of convincing, they would indeed accept that you were alive, just in Bill Clinton’s body.

Philosopher John Locke’s memory theory of personal identity suggests that what makes you you is your memory of your experiences. Under Locke’s definition of you, the new Bill Clinton in this latest example is you, despite not containing any part of your physical body, not even your brain. 

This suggests a new theory we’ll call The Data Theory, which says that you’re not your physical body at all. Maybe what makes you you is your brain’s data—your memories and your personality.

We seem to be honing in on something, but the best way to get to concrete answers is by testing these theories in hypothetical scenarios. Here’s an interesting one, conceived by British philosopher Bernard Williams:

The Torture Test

Situation 1: The mad scientist kidnaps you and Clinton, switches your brain data with Clinton’s, as in the latest example, wakes you both up, and then walks over to the body of Clinton, where you supposedly reside, and says, “I’m now going to horribly torture one of you—which one should I torture?”

What’s your instinct? Mine is to point at my old body, where I no longer reside, and say, “Him.” And if I believe in the Data Theory, then I’ve made a good choice. My brain data is in Clinton’s body, so I’m now in Clinton’s body, so who cares about my body anymore? Sure, it sucks for anyone to be tortured, but if it’s between me and Bill Clinton, I’m choosing him.

Situation 2: The mad scientist captures you and Clinton, except he doesn’t do anything to your brains yet. He comes over to you—normal you with your normal brain and body—and asks you a series of questions. Here’s how I think it would play out:

Mad Scientist: Okay so here’s what’s happening. I’m gonna torture one of you. Who should I torture?

You: [pointing at Clinton] Him.

MS: Okay but there’s something else—before I torture whoever I torture, I’m going to wipe both of your brains of all memories, so when the torture is happening, neither of you will remember who you were before this. Does that change your choice?

You: Nope. Torture him.

MS: One more thing—before the torture happens, not only am I going to wipe your brains clean, I’m going to build new circuitry into your brain that will convince you that you’re Bill Clinton. By the time I’m done, you’ll think you’re Bill Clinton and you’ll have all of his memories and his full personality and anything else that he thinks or feels or knows. I’ll do the same thing to him, convincing him he’s you. Does that change your choice?

You: Um, no. Regardless of any delusion I’m going through and no matter who I think I am, I don’t want to go through the horrible pain of being tortured. Insane people still feel pain. Torture him.

So in the first situation, I think you’d choose to have your own body tortured. But in the second, I think you’d choose Bill Clinton’s body—at least I would. But the thing is—they’re the exact same example. In both cases, before any torture happens, Clinton’s brain ends up with all of your data and your brain has his—the difference is just at which point in the process you were asked to decide. In both cases, your goal is for you to not be tortured, but in the first situation, you felt that after the brain data swap, you were in Clinton’s body, with all of your personality and memories there with you—while in the second situation, if you’re like me, you didn’t care what was going to happen with the two brains’ data, you believed that you would remain with your physical brain, and body, either way.

Choosing your body to be the one tortured in the first situation is an argument for the Data Theory—you believe that where your data goes, you go. Choosing Clinton’s body to be tortured in the second situation is an argument for the Brain Theory, because you believe that regardless of what he does with your brain’s data, you will continue to be in your own body, because that’s where your physical brain is. Some might even take it a step further, and if the mad scientist told you he was even going to switch your physical brains, you’d still choose Clinton’s body, with your brain in it, to be tortured. Those that would torture a body with their own brain in it over torturing their own body believe in the Body Theory.

Not sure about you, but I’m finishing this experiment still divided. Let’s try another. Here’s my version of modern philosopher Derek Parfit’s teletransporter thought experiment, which he first described in his book Reasons and Persons

The Teletransporter Thought Experiment

It’s the year 2700. The human race has invented all kinds of technology unimaginable in  today’s world. One of these technologies is teleportation—the ability to transport yourself to distant places at the speed of light. Here’s how it works—

You go into a Departure Chamber—a little room the size of a small cubicle.

cube stand

You set your location—let’s say you’re in Boston and your destination is London—and when you’re ready to go, you press the button on the wall. The chamber walls then scan your entire body, uploading the exact molecular makeup of your body—every atom that makes up every part of you and its precise location—and as it scans, it destroys, so every cell in your body is destroyed by the scanner as it goes.

cube beam

When it’s finished (the Departure Chamber is now empty after destroying all of your cells), it beams your body’s information to an Arrival Chamber in London, which has all the necessary atoms waiting there ready to go. The Arrival Chamber uses the data to re-form your entire body with its storage of atoms, and when it’s finished you walk out of the chamber in London looking and feeling exactly how you did back in Boston—you’re in the same mood, you’re hungry just like you were before, you even have the same paper cut on your thumb you got that morning.

The whole process, from the time you hit the button in the Departure Chamber to when you walk out of the Arrival Chamber in London, takes five minutes—but to you it feels instantaneous. You hit the button, things go black for a blink, and now you’re standing in London. Cool, right?

In 2700, this is common technology. Everyone you know travels by teleportation. In addition to the convenience of speed, it’s incredibly safe—no one has ever gotten hurt doing it.

But then one day, you head into the Departure Chamber in Boston for your normal morning commute to your job in London, you press the big button on the wall, and you hear the scanner turn on, but it doesn’t work.

cubicle broken

The normal split-second blackout never happens, and when you walk out of the chamber, sure enough, you’re still in Boston. You head to the check-in counter and tell the woman working there that the Departure Chamber is broken, and you ask her if there’s another one you can use, since you have an early meeting and don’t want to be late.

She looks down at her records and says, “Hm—it looks like the scanner worked and collected its data just fine, but the cell destroyer that usually works in conjunction with the scanner has malfunctioned.”

“No,” you explain, “it couldn’t have worked, because I’m still here. And I’m late for this meeting—can you please set me up with a new Departure Chamber?”

She pulls up a video screen and says, “No, it did work—see? There you are in London—it looks like you’re gonna be right on time for your meeting.” She shows you the screen, and you see yourself walking on the street in London.

“But that can’t be me,” you say, “because I’m still here.”

At that point, her supervisor comes into the room and explains that she’s correct—the scanner worked as normal and you’re in London as planned. The only thing that didn’t work was the cell destroyer in the Departure Chamber here in Boston. “It’s not a problem, though,” he tells you, “we can just set you up in another chamber and activate its cell destroyer and finish the job.”

And even though this isn’t anything that wasn’t going to happen before—in fact, you have your cells destroyed twice every day—suddenly, you’re horrified at the prospect.

“Wait—no—I don’t want to do that—I’ll die.”

The supervisor explains, “You won’t die sir. You just saw yourself in London—you’re alive and well.”

“But that’s not me. That’s a replica of me—an imposterI’m the real me—you can’t destroy my cells!”

The supervisor and the woman glance awkwardly at each other. “I’m really sorry sir—but we’re obligated by law to destroy your cells. We’re not allowed to form the body of a person in an Arrival Chamber without destroying the body’s cells in a Departure Chamber.”

You stare at them in disbelief and then run for the door. Two security guards come out and grab you. They drag you toward a chamber that will destroy your cells, as you kick and scream…

__________

If you’re like me, in the first part of that story, you were pretty into the idea of teletransportation, and by the end, you were not.

The question the story poses is, “Is teletransportation, as described in this experiment, a form of traveling? Or a form of dying?

This question might have been ambiguous when I first described it—it might have even felt like a perfectly safe way of traveling—but by the end, it felt much more like a form of dying. Which means that every day when you commute to work from Boston to London, you’re killed by the cell destroyer, and a replica of you is created.1 To the people who know you, you survive teletransportation just fine, the same way your wife seems just fine when she arrives home to you after her own teletransportation, talking about her day and discussing plans for next week. But is it possible that your wife was actually killed that day, and the person you’re kissing now was just created a few minutes ago?

Well again, it depends on what you are. Someone who believes in the Data Theory would posit that London you is you as much as Boston you, and that teletransportation is perfectly survivable. But we all related to Boston you’s terror at the end there—could anyone really believe that he should be fine with being obliterated just because his data is safe and alive over in London? Further, if the teletransporter could beam your data to London for reassembly, couldn’t it also beam it to 50 other cities and create 50 new versions of you? You’d be hard-pressed to argue that those were all you. To me, the teletransporter experiment is a big strike against the Data Theory.

Similarly, if there were an Ego Theory that suggests that you are simply your ego, the teletransporter does away nicely with that. Thinking about London Tim, I realize that “Tim Urban” surviving means nothing to me. The fact that my replica in London will stay friends with my friends, keep Wait But Why going with his Tuesday-ish posts, and live out the whole life I was planning for myself—the fact that no one will miss me or even realize that I’m dead, the same way in the story you never felt like you lost your wife—does almost nothing for me. I don’t care about Tim Urban surviving. I care about me surviving.

All of this seems like very good news for Body Theory and Brain Theory. But let’s not judge things yet. Here’s another experiment:

The Split Brain Experiment

A cool fact about the human brain is that the left and right hemispheres function as their own little worlds, each with their own things to worry about, but if you remove one half of someone’s brain, they can sometimes not only survive, but their remaining brain half can learn to do many of the other half’s previous jobs, allowing the person to live a normal life. That’s right—you could lose half of your brain and potentially function normally.

So say you have an identical twin sibling named Bob who developes a fatal brain defect. You decide to save him by giving him half of your brain. Doctors operate on both of you, discarding his brain and replacing it with half of yours. When you wake up, you feel normal and like yourself. Your twin (who already has your identical DNA because you’re twins) wakes up with your exact personality and memories.

twins

When you realize this, you panic for a minute that your twin now knows all of your innermost thoughts and feelings on absolutely everything, and you’re about to make him promise not to tell anyone, when it hits you that you of course don’t have to tell him. He’s not your twin—he’s you. He’s just as intent on your privacy as you are, because it’s his privacy too.

As you look over at the guy who used to be Bob and watch him freak out that he’s in Bob’s body now instead of his own, you wonder, “Why did I stay in my body and not wake up in Bob’s? Both brain halves are me, so why am I distinctly in my body and not seeing and thinking in dual split-screen right now, from both of our points of view? And whatever part of me is in Bob’s head, why did I lose touch with it? Who is the me in Bob’s head, and how did he end up over there while I stayed here?”

Brain Theory is shitting his pants right now—it makes no sense. If people are supposed to go wherever their brains go, what happens when a brain is in two places at once? Data Theory, who was badly embarrassed by the teletransporter experiment, is doing no better in this one.

But Body Theory—who was shot down at the very beginning of the post—is suddenly all smug and thrilled with himself. Body Theory says “Of course you woke up in your own body—your body is what makes you you. Your brain is just the tool your body uses to think. Bob isn’t you—he’s Bob. He’s just now a Bob who has your thoughts and personality. There’s nothing Bob’s body can ever do to not be Bob.” This would help explain why you stayed in your body.

So a nice boost for Body Theory, but let’s take a look at a couple more things—

What we learned in the teletransporter experiment is that if your brain data is transferred to someone else’s brain, even if that person is molecularly identical to you, all it does is create a replica of you—a total stranger who happens to be just like you. There’s something distinct about Boston you that was important. When you were recreated out of different atoms in London, something critical was lost—something that made you you.

Body Theory (and Brain Theory) would point out that the only difference between Boston you and London you was that London you was made out of different atoms. London you’s body was like your body, but it was still made of different material. So is that it? Could Body Theory explain this too?

Let’s put it through two tests:

The Cell Replacement Test

Imagine I replace a cell in your arm with an identical, but foreign, replica cell. Are you not you anymore? Of course you are. But how about if, one at a time, I replace 1% of your cells with replicas? How about 10%? 30%? 60%? The London you was composed of 100% replacement cells, and we decided that that was not you—so when does the “crossover” happen? How many of your cells do we need to swap out for replicas before you “die” and what’s remaining becomes your replica?

Something feels off with this, right? Considering that the cells we’re replacing are molecularly identical to those we’re removing, and someone watching this all happen wouldn’t even notice anything change about you, it seem implausible that you’d ever die during this process, even if we eventually replaced 100% of your cells with replicas. But if your cells are eventually all replicas, how are you any different from London you?

The Body Scattering Test 

Imagine going into an Atom Scattering Chamber that completely disassembles your body’s atoms so that all that’s left in the room is a light gas of floating atoms—and then a few minutes later, it perfectly reassembles the atoms into you, and you walk out feeling totally normal.

disassemble

Is that still you? Or did you die when you were disassembled and what has been reassembled is a replica of you? It doesn’t really make sense that this reassembled you would be the real you and London you would be a replica, when the only difference between the two cases is that the scattering room preserves your exact atoms and the London chamber assembles you out of different atoms. At their most basic level, atoms are identical—a hydrogen atom from your body is identical in every way to a hydrogen atom in London. Given that, I’d say that if we’re deciding London you is not you, then reassembled you is probably not you either.

The first thing these two tests illustrate is that the key distinction between Boston you and London you isn’t about the presence or absence of your actual, physical cells. The Cell Replacement Test suggests that you can gradually replace much or all of your body with replica material and still be you, and the Body Scattering Test suggests that you can go through a scatter and a reassembly, even with all of your original physical material, and be no more you than the you in London. Not looking great for Body Theory anymore.

The second thing these tests reveal is that the difference between Boston and London you might not be the nature of the particular atoms or cells involved, but about continuity. The Cell Replacement Test might have left you intact because it changed you gradually, one cell at a time. And if the Body Scattering Test were the end of you, maybe it’s because it happened all at the same time, breaking the continuity of you. This could also explain why the teletransporter might be a murder machine—London you has no continuity with your previous life.

So could it be that we’ve been off the whole time pitting the brain, the body, and the personality and memories against each other? Could it be that anytime you relocate your brain, or disassemble your atoms all at once, transfer your brain data onto a new brain, etc., you lose you because maybe, you’re not defined by any of these things on their own, but rather by a long and unbroken string of continuous existence?

Continuity

A few years ago, my late grandfather, in his 90s and suffering from dementia, pointed at a picture on the wall of himself as a six-year-old. “That’s me!” he explained.

He was right. But come on. It seems ridiculous that the six-year-old in the picture and the extremely old man standing next to me could be the same person. Those two people had nothing in common. Physically, they were vastly different—almost every cell in the six-year-old’s body died decades ago. As far as their personalities—we can agree that they wouldn’t have been friends. And they shared almost no common brain data at all. Any 90-year-old man on the street is much more similar to my grandfather than that six-year-old.

But remember—maybe it’s not about similarity, but about continuity. If similarity were enough to define you, Boston you and London you, who are identical, would be the same person. The thing that my grandfather shared with the six-year-old in the picture is something he shared with no one else on Earth—they were connected to each other by a long, unbroken string of continuous existence. As an old man, he may not know anything about that six-year-old boy, but he knows something about himself as an 89-year-old, and that 89-year-old might know a bunch about himself as an 85-year-old. As a 50-year-old, he knew a ton about him as a 43-year-old, and when he was seven, he was a pro on himself as a 6-year-old. It’s a long chain of overlapping memories, personality traits, and physical characteristics.

It’s like having an old wooden boat. You may have repaired it hundreds of times over the years, replacing wood chip after wood chip, until one day, you realize that not one piece of material from the original boat is still part of it. So is that still your boat? If you named your boat Polly the day you bought it, would you change the name now? It would still be Polly, right?

In this way, what you are is not really a thing as much as a story, or a progression, or one particular theme of person. You’re a bit like a room with a bunch of things in it—some old, some new, some you’re aware of, some you aren’t—but the room is always changing, never exactly the same from week to week.

Likewise, you’re not a set of brain data, you’re a particular database whose contents are constantly changing, growing, and being updated. And you’re not a physical body of atoms, you’re a set of instructions on how to deal with and organize the atoms that bump into you.

People always say the word soul and I never really know what they’re talking about. To me, the word soul has always seemed like a poetic euphemism for a part of the brain that feels very inner to us; or an attempt to give humans more dignity than just being primal biological organisms; or a way to declare that we’re eternal. But maybe when people say the word soul what they’re talking about is whatever it is that connects my 90-year-old grandfather to the boy in the picture. As his cells and memories come and go, as every wood chip in his canoe changes again and again, maybe the single common thread that ties it all together is his soul. After examining a human from every physical and mental angle throughout the post, maybe the answer this whole time has been the much less tangible Soul Theory.

______

It would have been pleasant to end the post there, but I just can’t do it, because I can’t quite believe in souls.

The way I actually feel right now is completely off-balance. Spending a week thinking about clones of yourself, imagining sharing your brain or merging yours with someone else’s, and wondering whether you secretly die every time you sleep and wake up as a replica will do that to you. If you’re looking for a satisfying conclusion, I’ll direct you to the sources below since I don’t even know who I am right now.

The only thing I’ll say is that I told someone about the topic I was posting on for this week, and their question was, “That’s cool, but what’s the point of trying to figure this out?” While researching, I came across this quote by Parfit: “The early Buddhist view is that much or most of the misery of human life resulted from the false view of self.” I think that’s probably very true, and that’s the point of thinking about this topic.

___________

Related Wait But Why Posts
– Here’s how I’m working on this false view of self thing.
– And things could get even more confusing soon when we have to figure out if Artificial Superintelligence is conscious or not.

Sources
Very few of the ideas or thought experiments in this post are my original thinking. I read and listened to a bunch of personal identity philosophy this week and gathered my favorite parts together for the post. The two sources I drew from the most were philosopher Derek Parfit’s book Reasons and Persons and Yale professor Shelly Kagan’s fascinating philosophy course on death—the lectures are all watchable online for free.

Other Sources:
David Hume: Hume on Identity Over Time and Persons
Derek Parfit: We Are Not Human Beings
Peter Van Inwagen: Materialism and the Psychological-Continuity Account of Personal Identity
Bernard Williams: The Self and the Future
John Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Chapter: Of Identity and Diversity)
Douglas Hofstadter: Gödel, Escher, Bach
Patrick Bailey: Concerning Theories of Personal Identity

And a fascinating and related video
For a while now, my favorite YouTube channel has been Kurzgesagt. They make one amazing five-minute animated video a month on the exact kinds of topics I love to write about. I highly recommend subscribing. Anyway, I’ve spoken to them and we liked the idea of tag-teaming a similar topic at the same time, and since this one was on both of our lists, we did that this week. I focused on what the self is, they explored what life itself is. Check it out:

 

Cérebro: Desenvolvimento do Cortex

segunda-feira, janeiro 2nd, 2017

xxxx

A Tiny Change With Considerable Consequences

http://neurosciencenews.com/neocortex-evolution-5715/

xxxx

 

xxxxx

Pesquisa:

Googlando “basal progenitors”

papers relacionados:

Dev Neurosci. 2008;30(1-3):24-32.

Role of intermediate progenitor cells in cerebral cortex development.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18075251

Abstract

Intermediate progenitor cells (IPCs) are a type of neurogenic transient amplifying cells in the developing cerebral cortex. IPCs divide symmetrically at basal (abventricular) positions in the neuroepithelium to produce pairs of new neurons or, in amplifying divisions, pairs of new IPCs. In contrast, radial unit progenitors (neuroepithelial cells and radial glia) divide at the apical (ventricular) surface and produce only single neurons or single IPCs by asymmetric division, or self-amplify by symmetric division. Histologically, IPCs are most prominent during the middle and late stages of neurogenesis, when they accumulate in the subventricular zone, a progenitor compartment linked to the genesis of upper neocortical layers (II-IV). Nevertheless, IPCs are present throughout cortical neurogenesis and produce neurons for all layers. In mice, changes in the abundance of IPCs caused by mutations of Pax6, Ngn2, Id4 and other genes are associated with parallel changes in cortical thickness but not surface area. In gyrencephalic brains, IPCs may play broader roles in determining not only laminar thickness, but also cortical surface area and gyral patterns. We propose that regulation of IPC genesis and amplification across developmental stages and regional subdivisions modulates laminar neurogenesis and contributes to the cytoarchitectonic differentiation of cortical areas

xxxx

Cereb Cortex. 2009 Oct;19(10):2439-50. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn260. Epub 2009 Jan 23.

Intermediate neuronal progenitors (basal progenitors) produce pyramidal-projection neurons for all layers of cerebral cortex.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19168665

 Abstract

The developing cerebral cortex contains apical and basal types of neurogenic progenitor cells. Here, we investigated the cellular properties and neurogenic output of basal progenitors, also called intermediate neuronal progenitors (INPs). We found that basal mitoses expressing transcription factor Tbr2 (an INP marker) were present throughout corticogenesis, from embryonic day 10.5 through birth. Postnatally, Tbr2(+) progenitors were present in the dentate gyrus, subventricular zone (SVZ), and posterior periventricle (pPV). Two morphological subtypes of INPs were distinguished in the embryonic cortex, “short radial” in the ventricular zone (VZ) and multipolar in the SVZ, probably corresponding to molecularly defined INP subtypes. Unexpectedly, many short radial INPs appeared to contact the apical (ventricular) surface and some divided there. Time-lapse video microscopy suggested that apical INP divisions produced daughter INPs. Analysis of neurogenic divisions (Tis21-green fluorescent protein [GFP](+)) indicated that INPs may produce the majority of projection neurons for preplate, deep, and superficial layers. Conversely, proliferative INP divisions (Tis21-GFP(-)) increased from early to middle corticogenesis, concomitant with SVZ growth. Our findings support the hypothesis that regulated amplification of INPs may be an important factor controlling the balance of neurogenesis among different cortical layers.

O Tanque de Isolamento Sensorio, Ironizado por um Cético

domingo, janeiro 1st, 2017

xxxx

What a Sensory Isolation Tank Taught Me About My Brain

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/opinion/sunday/whos-in-charge-the-body-or-the-brain.html

E meu comentário a respeito (não publicado)

What a modern culture isolation jungle taught me about my brain:

1) The jungle biosphere is a product of entropy attacking Milk Way;
2) The separated particles-photons of the galactic building blocks fell in state of chaos at Earth surface;
3) The photons bits-information tried to re-build the system here and got the shape of a pair of nucleotides ( the building blocks of RNA/DNA), due different environment, water and its effect, organic chemistry;
4) The same building block, less evolved, is the template for atoms systems;
5) This template is a formula made up when a portion of matter (space substance or dark matter) gets the dynamics of life’s cycles, which comes from any natural wave composed by the seven known electromagnetic radiation ( gamma-ray, visible light, X-ray, etc).
6) So, in the beginning, from a Big Bang, a wave of light with the code for natural systems penetrating dark matter created atoms which evolved to stellar systems, to galactic systems, to cell systems, to plant and animal systems, to human brains… which expresses that wave of light in shape of consciousness. (cont.)

7 Our head is the egg; the brain is the placenta; the actual fetus is the formation o fan ex-machine consciousness ( or mind, you choose the words); It is expressed as a cloud of light produced by electrical neuronal synapses.
8) Mind, or consciousness is merely the last more evolved shape of that formula, called by me ” the universal matrix/dna”.
9) So, we are 8 billion genes for consciousness which will be added to billions of bullions another genes spreaded in this universe. The Universal History must be called ” From the Big Bang to the Big Birth”.
10) Why we can not do anything as consciousness, yet? Because it is a fetus, at last an embryo of consciousness, It did not opened its own eye (the third eye) for to see its own body.
11) It is losing time trying transcendental experiences. What we must do is understanding that we are genes, bits or bubbles of consciousness. Of only a unique human does not do its job, we all will born handicapped. So, this world view has the moral code we need just now.