STUDY - Technical - New Dacian's Medicine
How
it Works... Our "Body" (5).
Translation Draft
I was promising yesterday that I would address structures capable of processing
information. OK... You have already "seized" the fact that I have a fairly unified conception of the functioning of our body, in the sense that each cell of it has its purpose. So I'll start my approach from the cell.
From previous posts it could be inferred that the first organized forms of life and therefore, the serial head of the whole living world, are monocellular beings, more specifically protozoa (viruses being considered as an intermediate form, of passage between living and non-living matter). Their rudimentary structure allows them much simplified functionality towards multicellular beings and, of course, eliminates the existence of any form of nerve cells (because one cannot talk about a cell inside a cell).
If you have gone through previous posts, you have noticed that the cell membrane can be assigned a "compatible" functionality to a kind of brain (a manifestation similar to a coordination center, a "nervous" manifestation), the nucleus being nothing more than the repository of information that is stored "genetic type" and "type of functionality" due to its "manifestations of selective permeability" and the fact that the potential membrane causes it to manifest itself in a rather similar way to the "nerve cell" (No longer details). Breathing is thus done by directly disseminating oxygen from the atmosphere into the cytoplasm of the cell similar to all other "assimilations" or excretions of substances.
Let's follow what happens on the next steps of evolution and organization of the living, that is, to the organisms in which several cells appear, to which the organism appears! As we move forward on the philogenetic scale, we find that the functionality of organisms evolves, amplifies, to meet the requirements of an ever more complicated structure. From a "historical" point of view it is obvious that everything has "started" from a kind of collaboration between saprofit cells (collaboration existing today in nature) everything evolving towards differentiation in a future organism and thus, in the performance of a function begin to participate several cells with a specific purpose.
This leads to differentiated, specialized structures of the organ type and, then, organ systems. For example, the function of oxygen diffusion breathing at the monocellular life is taken up in the multicellular organisms of specialized organs which then, by improvement, reach the gills, then to the lung apparatus of the upper vertebrates (similar to the function of digestion, excretion, etc. that will be performed by the digestive apparatus, excretory, and so on.m.
Returning to our protozoa, who directs its functionality? Further, in the living assembly, consisting of several cells, there appears the need for a structure that takes command of the whole community and orients it towards achieving its purpose, self-preservation and self-reproduction. And so, the tissue destined for this function is important for the life of the body that will be the nervous system. However, the function of coordination and integration of the nervous system has no representative in the anatomical structures of protozoa.
The first structural nervous element occurs in cellenterates (hydres, actins, jellyfish, colonial polyps - diploblastic organisms themselves, having the body consisting of two embryonic sheets, ectoderm and endodern between which there is a mesoglea where there is a diffuse subepithelial, mono or multicellular nervous "plex", depending on the evolution of these organisms), being represented by a single neuron with double circuit, receptor-effector. On the next stage of evolution, nerve circuits consisting of two neurons (sensitive and motor) appear so that in the later stages intermediate neurons are added to the role of association between the flow of information received and that emitted by the living organism, i.e. between the receptor and the effector neurons.
In relation to the evolution of life, neurons will "gather" into groups called plexuses, nerve centers and cerebroid ganglia, then some of the ganglia will undergo the process of encephalization, reaching the brain we know today in humans.
Therefore, it is obvious that nerve structures, including what we call the brain, initially appeared as a kind of first coordinated reflex at the level of cellenterates, demonstrating that the origin of the nervous system at this level is not so simple and, especially, especially since, regardless of structure, its functionality perfectly meets the requirements of the organism. Then it is the multiplication of the body's "functions" that has attracted the increase in the number of nerve cells, then the formation of such agglomerations, culminating in our great brain.
But back to the base unit, the cell, the unicellular form of organization. Under functional ratio it is accepted that the regulation of internal metabolic processes in single-celled beings would be done exclusively by proteins with enzymatic activity (of which RNA is noted). At this level, a nervous structure is not known, as I mentioned before. On the upper stages of the organization of the living world appears a new function, directed by the nervous system of the relationship life, with the role of integrating the organism into the environment, intervening functional differentiation.
Thus, some of the nerve structures will take over the vegetative functions, of vital importance for the existence of the organism (of the individual) and which, as a mode of deployment, remained outside the conscious (rational) control. Consciousness has been imposed on these functions only as needs, the individual being gratified with "feeling good" (possibly you can "read" endorphins) for their satisfaction. I think you agree that this is a "necessary existence" if you consider the impossibility of consciously leading a "gear" of billions of cells (as for leadership, more correctly "collaboration with" vegetative nerve structures is a whole other problem and can be achieved with some training and awareness – something clearly belonging to the new medicine).
But since the purpose of the species lies in its self-preservation and perpetuation, it was not possible to leave it to an individual whether or not he wants to continue his chain of existence. For this reason the interests of the species are so strongly represented by instincts, and the great struggle of man, aware, is carried in their field (so, behold, it can be seen why any impairment of new "external" interests, as "mind" will be penalized at the level of the body, and hence most of the REAL considerations of the new medicine). So here's how our existence is much "complicated" by this necessary balance between consciousness and instinct (between body and mind).
Another part of the nervous system has assumed the function of maintaining the individual's relations with the environment. The reflection of the internal and external environment in the brain results in psychic processes, i.e. the phenomenon of consciousness. In other words, appropriate behaviour occurs from the integration of information received from inside and outside the body into the nervous system. When the seat of integration is the brain's crust, behavior is called "rational." The question arises: is appropriate behavior at lower human levels not rational? There is, however, a reason of the species, which I have spoken of above, and the species is expressed by individuals. Can there be a rational population of irrational individuals? There may be a population of individuals who do damage to each other, being quite irrational?!?
So the activity of all living organisms is not carried out at random, but in a well-determined sense, an internal logic exists even when their behavior has no justification in terms of our reason. All their actions are geared towards solving the fundamental goal, self-preservation and perpetuation. It is an instinctive behavior, based on fixed, innate programs, expression most likely due to the experience accumulated by the species. Apart from this conditioning, we believe that there must also be the possibility of developing a conduct according to the individual's own experience and not only of his predecessors.
Nothing in the universe we know could predict all the factors a body would have to react to throughout its life. Moreover, reality itself confirms it, even plants being able to memorize some experiences to which they are subjected by man (for example). And if both types of conduct aim only at achieving a "rational" purpose (preservation and perpetuation of the individual and species) it means that each individual carries in itself a rational grain, regardless of his place in the philogenetic hierarchy. Undoubtedly, on the lower rungs of evolution instinctive behavior is becoming more and more prevalent.
In humans, consciousness offers the possibility to free itself largely from the empire of instincts, "but" that will be paid for by the birth of conflicts with the unconscious. Human physiology will no longer be strictly conditioned by the natural environment, thanks to the constructive reason man improving his living conditions, diversifying and optimizing his possibilities to meet the requirements imposed by his physiology. Its conduct is no longer dictated "blindly" by the species, but constitutes a result of its physiological, social, moral and cultural conditioning (about how these "conducts" and their "results" appear we will discuss).
Let's talk now, a little, about another facet of the philogenetic development of the nervous system. Is the nervous system the only living structure capable of processing information? The function of integration into the environment, thus the function of decoding information coming from inside and outside the body, occurs through the nervous system only in metazoas (amoeba si similar), as organisms on a higher stage of development. But does this newly developed function mean that it was totally absent at the original queen of life, i.e. in the primary cell? Apparently yes, logically no.
The appearance of the lungs does not mean the absence of breathing function in protozoa and the observation is valid for other functions. Moreover, to the "response positioning of the infidels", that the subsequent appearance of organs for vision, hearing, taste, etc. does not imply their presence at Paramaecium, we can answer that they are represented by the function of the vibratial cilia and by the property of excitability of the cytoplasm which, we agree here, that does not require the presence of a nerve structure. From a functional point of view everything is organized on the principle of the open system, involving a permanent exchange of substance, energy and information with the environment (with different levels of manifestation).
Without this exchange there can be no life. Without the ability to perceive information of favorable or harmful significance from the environment, a protozoan would not have resisted the competition for life. For example, paramecs or infusions (as they are called) have coordinated movements. They move their cilia faster or slower, depending on their "interests" (the cilia do not move randomly, but knock in a certain sequence, a movement compared to that of "a wind-beaten wheat field"), they turn right out of the way when they encounter an obstacle or bypass it.
For example, they do not include as a food the drops of ink or other unnecessary objects, as carnivorous plants, also devoid of nervous system, do not digest stones and metal if offered experimentally, but do so at the most fiendative touch of an insect (the same "main" observation being valid for plants). In the face of such appropriate, targeted behavior of single-celled beings lacking a structure that orients them "means that there is an adjustment center, which is found somewhere at the level of the cell and which, receiving certain excitations from the environment, determines the appropriate ciliary movement".
A plant performs chemical operations with human-impossible performance, even in the laboratory. And the whole living world lives on the plant, the road from inorganic to organic matter passing through their leaves. There are numerous observations attesting to the existence of properties in plants that we know only in organisms endowed with a nervous system.
Therefore, we believe that the nervous system, as we know it, is not the only structure capable of processing information at the level of living organisms. The emergence and improvement we find in humans is only a necessity of a substrate capable of processing information of a complexity commensurate with its structure and physiology. This does not exclude the possibility that on simpler, primary steps, the organization of biological systems there may be other formations capable of processing information with a less complex content. Therefore, we must hypothetically admit the existence of a structure in all living cells that replaces the function of the nervous system.
If we accept this hypothesis, we get another horizon in the interpretation of the living world, with consequences on multiple levels (as we will see later). All living systems, regardless of their level of organization, appear to us in this vision, capable of receiving, processing and issuing information. In this way, all living systems appear equipped with possibilities that correspond to their possibilities. In other words, "every being gets himself."
In conclusion, it can be said that the existence of life requires a mandatory exchange of substance, energy and information with the environment, which in turn involves appropriate, targeted behavior (searching for food, avoiding dangers, etc.). And this can be achieved not necessarily when there is a nervous system, "evidence" supported by theoretical and practical arguments, at the level of each cell there are structures capable of processing information and developing a "compliant" response, "capacity" that is available at all levels of life. Acceptance of this hypothesis gives us a way of scientific interpretation for phenomena such as primary perception, sensitivity of living structures and many, many others, that will be presented... In future posts...
I was promising yesterday that I would address structures capable of processing
information. OK... You have already "seized" the fact that I have a fairly unified conception of the functioning of our body, in the sense that each cell of it has its purpose. So I'll start my approach from the cell.
From previous posts it could be inferred that the first organized forms of life and therefore, the serial head of the whole living world, are monocellular beings, more specifically protozoa (viruses being considered as an intermediate form, of passage between living and non-living matter). Their rudimentary structure allows them much simplified functionality towards multicellular beings and, of course, eliminates the existence of any form of nerve cells (because one cannot talk about a cell inside a cell).
If you have gone through previous posts, you have noticed that the cell membrane can be assigned a "compatible" functionality to a kind of brain (a manifestation similar to a coordination center, a "nervous" manifestation), the nucleus being nothing more than the repository of information that is stored "genetic type" and "type of functionality" due to its "manifestations of selective permeability" and the fact that the potential membrane causes it to manifest itself in a rather similar way to the "nerve cell" (No longer details). Breathing is thus done by directly disseminating oxygen from the atmosphere into the cytoplasm of the cell similar to all other "assimilations" or excretions of substances.
Let's follow what happens on the next steps of evolution and organization of the living, that is, to the organisms in which several cells appear, to which the organism appears! As we move forward on the philogenetic scale, we find that the functionality of organisms evolves, amplifies, to meet the requirements of an ever more complicated structure. From a "historical" point of view it is obvious that everything has "started" from a kind of collaboration between saprofit cells (collaboration existing today in nature) everything evolving towards differentiation in a future organism and thus, in the performance of a function begin to participate several cells with a specific purpose.
This leads to differentiated, specialized structures of the organ type and, then, organ systems. For example, the function of oxygen diffusion breathing at the monocellular life is taken up in the multicellular organisms of specialized organs which then, by improvement, reach the gills, then to the lung apparatus of the upper vertebrates (similar to the function of digestion, excretion, etc. that will be performed by the digestive apparatus, excretory, and so on.m.
Returning to our protozoa, who directs its functionality? Further, in the living assembly, consisting of several cells, there appears the need for a structure that takes command of the whole community and orients it towards achieving its purpose, self-preservation and self-reproduction. And so, the tissue destined for this function is important for the life of the body that will be the nervous system. However, the function of coordination and integration of the nervous system has no representative in the anatomical structures of protozoa.
The first structural nervous element occurs in cellenterates (hydres, actins, jellyfish, colonial polyps - diploblastic organisms themselves, having the body consisting of two embryonic sheets, ectoderm and endodern between which there is a mesoglea where there is a diffuse subepithelial, mono or multicellular nervous "plex", depending on the evolution of these organisms), being represented by a single neuron with double circuit, receptor-effector. On the next stage of evolution, nerve circuits consisting of two neurons (sensitive and motor) appear so that in the later stages intermediate neurons are added to the role of association between the flow of information received and that emitted by the living organism, i.e. between the receptor and the effector neurons.
In relation to the evolution of life, neurons will "gather" into groups called plexuses, nerve centers and cerebroid ganglia, then some of the ganglia will undergo the process of encephalization, reaching the brain we know today in humans.
Therefore, it is obvious that nerve structures, including what we call the brain, initially appeared as a kind of first coordinated reflex at the level of cellenterates, demonstrating that the origin of the nervous system at this level is not so simple and, especially, especially since, regardless of structure, its functionality perfectly meets the requirements of the organism. Then it is the multiplication of the body's "functions" that has attracted the increase in the number of nerve cells, then the formation of such agglomerations, culminating in our great brain.
But back to the base unit, the cell, the unicellular form of organization. Under functional ratio it is accepted that the regulation of internal metabolic processes in single-celled beings would be done exclusively by proteins with enzymatic activity (of which RNA is noted). At this level, a nervous structure is not known, as I mentioned before. On the upper stages of the organization of the living world appears a new function, directed by the nervous system of the relationship life, with the role of integrating the organism into the environment, intervening functional differentiation.
Thus, some of the nerve structures will take over the vegetative functions, of vital importance for the existence of the organism (of the individual) and which, as a mode of deployment, remained outside the conscious (rational) control. Consciousness has been imposed on these functions only as needs, the individual being gratified with "feeling good" (possibly you can "read" endorphins) for their satisfaction. I think you agree that this is a "necessary existence" if you consider the impossibility of consciously leading a "gear" of billions of cells (as for leadership, more correctly "collaboration with" vegetative nerve structures is a whole other problem and can be achieved with some training and awareness – something clearly belonging to the new medicine).
But since the purpose of the species lies in its self-preservation and perpetuation, it was not possible to leave it to an individual whether or not he wants to continue his chain of existence. For this reason the interests of the species are so strongly represented by instincts, and the great struggle of man, aware, is carried in their field (so, behold, it can be seen why any impairment of new "external" interests, as "mind" will be penalized at the level of the body, and hence most of the REAL considerations of the new medicine). So here's how our existence is much "complicated" by this necessary balance between consciousness and instinct (between body and mind).
Another part of the nervous system has assumed the function of maintaining the individual's relations with the environment. The reflection of the internal and external environment in the brain results in psychic processes, i.e. the phenomenon of consciousness. In other words, appropriate behaviour occurs from the integration of information received from inside and outside the body into the nervous system. When the seat of integration is the brain's crust, behavior is called "rational." The question arises: is appropriate behavior at lower human levels not rational? There is, however, a reason of the species, which I have spoken of above, and the species is expressed by individuals. Can there be a rational population of irrational individuals? There may be a population of individuals who do damage to each other, being quite irrational?!?
So the activity of all living organisms is not carried out at random, but in a well-determined sense, an internal logic exists even when their behavior has no justification in terms of our reason. All their actions are geared towards solving the fundamental goal, self-preservation and perpetuation. It is an instinctive behavior, based on fixed, innate programs, expression most likely due to the experience accumulated by the species. Apart from this conditioning, we believe that there must also be the possibility of developing a conduct according to the individual's own experience and not only of his predecessors.
Nothing in the universe we know could predict all the factors a body would have to react to throughout its life. Moreover, reality itself confirms it, even plants being able to memorize some experiences to which they are subjected by man (for example). And if both types of conduct aim only at achieving a "rational" purpose (preservation and perpetuation of the individual and species) it means that each individual carries in itself a rational grain, regardless of his place in the philogenetic hierarchy. Undoubtedly, on the lower rungs of evolution instinctive behavior is becoming more and more prevalent.
In humans, consciousness offers the possibility to free itself largely from the empire of instincts, "but" that will be paid for by the birth of conflicts with the unconscious. Human physiology will no longer be strictly conditioned by the natural environment, thanks to the constructive reason man improving his living conditions, diversifying and optimizing his possibilities to meet the requirements imposed by his physiology. Its conduct is no longer dictated "blindly" by the species, but constitutes a result of its physiological, social, moral and cultural conditioning (about how these "conducts" and their "results" appear we will discuss).
Let's talk now, a little, about another facet of the philogenetic development of the nervous system. Is the nervous system the only living structure capable of processing information? The function of integration into the environment, thus the function of decoding information coming from inside and outside the body, occurs through the nervous system only in metazoas (amoeba si similar), as organisms on a higher stage of development. But does this newly developed function mean that it was totally absent at the original queen of life, i.e. in the primary cell? Apparently yes, logically no.
The appearance of the lungs does not mean the absence of breathing function in protozoa and the observation is valid for other functions. Moreover, to the "response positioning of the infidels", that the subsequent appearance of organs for vision, hearing, taste, etc. does not imply their presence at Paramaecium, we can answer that they are represented by the function of the vibratial cilia and by the property of excitability of the cytoplasm which, we agree here, that does not require the presence of a nerve structure. From a functional point of view everything is organized on the principle of the open system, involving a permanent exchange of substance, energy and information with the environment (with different levels of manifestation).
Without this exchange there can be no life. Without the ability to perceive information of favorable or harmful significance from the environment, a protozoan would not have resisted the competition for life. For example, paramecs or infusions (as they are called) have coordinated movements. They move their cilia faster or slower, depending on their "interests" (the cilia do not move randomly, but knock in a certain sequence, a movement compared to that of "a wind-beaten wheat field"), they turn right out of the way when they encounter an obstacle or bypass it.
For example, they do not include as a food the drops of ink or other unnecessary objects, as carnivorous plants, also devoid of nervous system, do not digest stones and metal if offered experimentally, but do so at the most fiendative touch of an insect (the same "main" observation being valid for plants). In the face of such appropriate, targeted behavior of single-celled beings lacking a structure that orients them "means that there is an adjustment center, which is found somewhere at the level of the cell and which, receiving certain excitations from the environment, determines the appropriate ciliary movement".
A plant performs chemical operations with human-impossible performance, even in the laboratory. And the whole living world lives on the plant, the road from inorganic to organic matter passing through their leaves. There are numerous observations attesting to the existence of properties in plants that we know only in organisms endowed with a nervous system.
Therefore, we believe that the nervous system, as we know it, is not the only structure capable of processing information at the level of living organisms. The emergence and improvement we find in humans is only a necessity of a substrate capable of processing information of a complexity commensurate with its structure and physiology. This does not exclude the possibility that on simpler, primary steps, the organization of biological systems there may be other formations capable of processing information with a less complex content. Therefore, we must hypothetically admit the existence of a structure in all living cells that replaces the function of the nervous system.
If we accept this hypothesis, we get another horizon in the interpretation of the living world, with consequences on multiple levels (as we will see later). All living systems, regardless of their level of organization, appear to us in this vision, capable of receiving, processing and issuing information. In this way, all living systems appear equipped with possibilities that correspond to their possibilities. In other words, "every being gets himself."
In conclusion, it can be said that the existence of life requires a mandatory exchange of substance, energy and information with the environment, which in turn involves appropriate, targeted behavior (searching for food, avoiding dangers, etc.). And this can be achieved not necessarily when there is a nervous system, "evidence" supported by theoretical and practical arguments, at the level of each cell there are structures capable of processing information and developing a "compliant" response, "capacity" that is available at all levels of life. Acceptance of this hypothesis gives us a way of scientific interpretation for phenomena such as primary perception, sensitivity of living structures and many, many others, that will be presented... In future posts...
Love,
Gratitude and Understanding!!!
Dorin, Merticaru