>From uucp Fri, 05 Jan 96 11:14:51 ARG
>Received: by neubio.sld.ar (UUPC/pcmail 1.0095/RAN (2)) with UUCP; Fri, 05 Jan 96 11:14:51
>ARG
>>From msn.com!janderlu Fri Jan 5 09:58:28 1996 remote from secyt
>Received: from upsmot01.msn.com ([204.95.110.78]) by secyt.gov.ar with SMTP id <11048>;
>Fri, 5 Jan 1996 09:58:22 -0300
>Received: by upsmot01.msn.com id AA05533; Fri, 5 Jan 96 04:54:30 -0800
>Return-Path: <janderlu at msn.com>
>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 09:52:39 -0300
>From: postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>Message-Id: <UPMAIL04.199601051255520318 at msn.com>
>To: neur-sci at net.bio.net>Subject: Hylozoistic tradition in the Argentine neuroscience
>>Hello, neuronetters!
>>in a private mail, John Anderson" <janderlu at msn.com> wrote:
>:> Hi
>:> In a message you posted to neuroscience at net.bio.net on 4 Nov 1995,
>:> in response to a post by me, you said:
>:>:>Regarding my previous writing (<postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>
>:>and <postmaster at neubio.gov.ar>), where I commented:
>:>>:>>In our own tradition we are hylozoist and so see no need
>:>>of searching for engrams; least to use these constructs as
>:>>Procrustean beds to provide function onto any experimental fact
>:>>that admits to be interpreted as bolstering LTP.
>:>>:>John E. Anderson, Ph.D. <janderlu at msn.com>,
>:><jander at unf6.cis.unf.edu>, wondered on 2 Nov 1995:
>:>>:>> What do you mean?
>:>>:>By way of a clear if not succint response I should provide
>:>the following notice (that I forward into two parts because
>:>my e-mail hylozoistically resisted to send it complete :-) ):
>;
>:followed by an interesting history of the development of the hylozoistic
>:tradition of Argentine neuroscience. But I still don't understand what your
>:theory of the brain is; could you provide a synopsis of it? You might
>:consider posting a synopsis to the neuroscience list, since I am sure there
>:are others who would be interested to see it.
>>I posted several mails to the list; as a result I became engaged in a num-
>ber of private exchanges. Yet the subject seems to me as if still deemed
>too unusual in the American and European faculties as to be taken as
>a point of departure for academic contributions there. Perhaps this is the
>reason why netters prefer private exchanges. Nevertheless I am ready to
>re-post these mails again if really we encounter an interest in discussing
>it (though I think that they ought to be recoverable from biosci@ as
>old mails -see FAQ- under my signature (Administrador del Nodo)). Of
>course I am most interested in criticisms, but I cannot dismiss the commu-
>nicational work that is to be previously done to attain them.
>>John E. Anderson, Ph.D continued:
>:Part of the problem might be that I was unfamiliar with hylozoism prior to
>:your posts. According to Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary 2nd
>:edition (1978), the definition of hylozoism is "the doctrine that all matter
>:has life, or that matter and life are inseparable." Do you agree with that
>:definition?
>>No, John; it is untenable inasmuch as entirely vitalist. Perhaps someone
>should tell it to the Webster s folks. The following paragraph, taken from
>one of our local texts, might be useful:
>> *It might already be pointed out a little informally that the
>spontaneous belief in absolute motion yokes to the hylozoist
>acknowledging of subjective, e-motional feelings emanating action.
>By its absolutely starting causal series, this internal, historic,
>endogenist source of motion denies completeness and unrestricted
>value to behaviourist reductionisms and geometrodynamic
>descriptions of Nature, mutually supporting in this regard. Both do
>exogenistically substitute the +envelopment+ for the +source+.
>This exogenism prevails, for instance, in the cinematic concepts of
>energy and of behaviour as conservative syntheses -one lumped,
>the other unlumped- of outer excitations characterizing the total
>responses of any changing system whatsoever. These conceptions
>present the actions of every inanimate or animate being as if those
>actions would depend intrinsically of actions of every other and to be
>displayed in said surrounding frame of external excitations it
>unceasingly suffers. Above quantum uncertainties, they describe
>*every macroscopic change as a mere transformation* conserving
>some invariable substract of ultimately homogeneous units amenable
>to redistribution; whereas hylozoism is defined as the acknowledgement
>of *causal intrusions into macroscopic processes*. Pairings stay
>inescapable: while experimental investigation of the natural selection
>and differential production of subjective links among brain contents
>requires the endogenistic antecedent of hylozoism, the callousness
>of a nature unqualifiedly indifferent to all suffering and purpose (these,
>hence, removed as *spiritual* -and, as long as the social purveyors
>to the societal need of consolation cannot apprehend the cadacualtez,
>they become bound to take them out-) gets analytically obtained
>out of its being exogenistically determined. Such global philosophic
>and civil issues thus regulate the research of these individual
>experimental facts. All possible macrophysical processes became,
>therefore, historically limned as accordingly kinetized (= all macroscopic
>diversity in nature is produced by motion, be it obtained from action at a
>distance or by vires a tergo; and any energy of movement can be stored
>as energy of position), referring all them to the theorem of living forces or
>to work done by agents always mutually exterior. In this way they cannot
>account for any eventual non-external determination of +eclosional+ events,
>both quantum and anthropomorphic. (This is the same deficiency our local
>tradition found early on in the all-transductionist, all-transmissionist
>fetishism of the +Neuronenlehre+, extruded from the cultural syncretic myth
>and sightless for the limits of neurocomputation.)*
>>:Why does being a hylozoist mean that you "see no need of searching for
>:engrams"?
>>No; hylozoism is connected with brain Function Three (I recently posted
>some mails touching this) while such lack of need to search for engrams
>is connected with brain Function One (the reverberating interference mo-
>dels forwarded by Christfried Jakob since 1906).
>>:In that same 4 Nov 1995 post, you mentioned that a monograph on your theory
>;would be available in February. Is that still on schedule? I would be
>:interested in getting a copy of it, if that would be possible. My address is
>:John E. Anderson, Ph.D.
>:9439-226 San Jose Boulevard
>:Jacksonville, FL 32257
>:USA
>>Declassification is scheduled for late February, but one of authors died
>on December 11. Her work is done, but some administrative concerns
>are being attended belatedly. So I hope to have it sent to you in diskette
>(MSWord6 ?) about late March. Meanwhile you can have a glimpse in
>UK Patent 1,582,301; I personally have no much time to engage now in
>thorough discussions since I am traveling on summer vacances (though
>I can remotely send and receive mail from my site). But I hope to conti-
>nue in touch.
>> Cheers,
> Mariela
>
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Prof. Mariela Szirko,
<postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>
Centro de Investig. Neurobiologicas, Ministry of
Health & Welfare, Argentine Republic; and
Lab. of Electroneurobiological Res.,
Hospital "Dr. Jose Tiburcio Borda", Municipality of Buenos Aires,
Office: Phone/Fax (54 1) 306 -7314
e-mail <postmaster at neubio.gov.ar>
Standard disclaimer: Las opiniones de este mensaje son
personales y no comprometen las dependencias a cargo de la firmante
Reply to THIS message, ONLY to: <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
