Sections of the site
Editor's Choice:
- An era is passing: What is happening on Sennaya Square
- The Year of Good People, or about Volunteering and Volunteering
- History of the Universe: from the Big Bang to the present day Universe history of origin
- Places and times of deployment of special forces (1981–1989) Preparation for the campaign against Urgun
- Three highly important documents published simultaneously
- Project work "my city"
- Alexander Nevzorov - the origin of human personality and intelligence
- The complete history of film adaptations of Anna Karenina
- Analysis of the fable Monkey and glasses, the main characters of the fable
- Green energy and nuclear silicon
Advertising
| The origins of human personality and intelligence pdf. Alexander Nevzorov - the origin of human personality and intelligence. all or nothing |
|
Alexander Nevzorov Origo personae et cerebri hominis Experimentum generalium notitiarum neurophysiologiae classicae Alexander Nevzorov The origin of human personality and intelligence Experience of generalizing the data of classical neurophysiology Moscow "ACT" ASTREL SPb UDC 572 BBK 28.71 N40 Nevzorov, Alexander Glebovich H40 The origin of human personality and intelligence. Experience in generalizing data from classical neurophysiology / Alexander Nevzorov. - Moscow: ACT, 2013. - 541 p., ill. ISBN 978-5-17-079795-0 In this book, Alexander Nevzorov - director, screenwriter, writer, member of the All-Russian Scientific Society of Anatomists, Histologists and Embryologists - offers clear, detailed interpretations of such concepts as “consciousness”, “mind”, “personality”, “thinking” and “intelligence” , based only on those discoveries that were made by classical schools of neurophysiology, and on the natural scientific interpretation of any processes in the brain of a person or other mammal. UDC 572 BBK 28.71 Project curator Lidia Nevzorova Project coordinator Tamara Komissarova Project curator Lidia Nevzorova Project coordinator Tamara Komissarova Production editor Stasia Zolotova Latin text editor Elena Ryigas IT director Elizaveta Makarova Art editor, photographer Dmitry Raikin Assistants: Ekaterina Aralbaeva, Tatyana Time, Alina Nos, Alexandra Oranskaya, Evgenia Shevchenko, Victoria Terenina © A. G. Nevzorov: text, photo, 2012 © AST Publishing House LLC, 2013 LIST OF LATIN WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS PRAEFATIO The reason for this book. "Storekeeper". History of the issue. Brain in Ancient Egypt. Hippocrates. Galen. Vesalius. Descartes. Gall. The Brain in the Bible. Translationism. Darwinism. Theory of reticular formation. Pavlov. Homo brain variability. Uncertainty of coordinates. I've been wanting this book for a long time. To be honest, I would prefer that someone else wrote it, and I would receive it in finished form, with a good reference and bibliographic apparatus and a set of decent tables and illustrations. This would be better in every sense of the word: et lupi saturi et oves integrae. I waited a long time and patiently, not even thinking about taking on it myself, since I’m not looking for extra work, and I believe that such books should be done by those whose direct responsibility is this. Ceterum, I probably never became the mass of readers for whom it is worth writing and publishing a book that would summarize the indisputable scientific facts about the morphology and evolutionary history of the functions of the human brain. Atque formal summation did not suit me very much. I needed conclusions that were a natural continuation and generation of these facts, so that in each specific case I could “feel the umbilical cord” that goes directly from the fact to the conclusion. I needed clear, detailed, but not clouded by “psychology” interpretations of such concepts as “consciousness”, “mind”, “personality”, “thinking” and “intelligence”. These interpretations could be as bold or paradoxical as desired, but at the same time they should not contradict even the most radical dogmas of classical neuroanatomy and classical evolutionary neurophysiology. Moreover, they had to be a direct consequence of these dogmas. Repeto, I needed a book like this at hand, and I was completely indifferent to who its author was and whose name was on its cover. In the same way, it doesn’t matter to me now. The presence of my name on the book is a mere coincidence. It could have been written by anyone, since the facts and discoveries in this area have already formed an extremely coherent picture, obvious, as I believe, to everyone without exception. My authorship can only be explained by the fact that I turned out to be less lazy than my contemporaries. Secundum naturam, a significant part of this work is a collection of those brilliant discoveries that were made long before me, or conclusions that are possible only on the basis of the research of I. M. Sechenov, C. S. Sherrington, V. M. Bekhterev, W. G. Penfield, G. Magun, I. Pavlov, A. Severtsov, P. Broca, C. Wernicke, T. G. Huxley, A. Brodahl, L. Roberts, G. Jasper, S. R. Cajal, S. Oleneva, I. Filimonova, I. S. Beritashvili (Beritova), S. Blinkov, J. Eccles, X. Delgado, E. Seppa, G. Bastian, K. Lashley, D. Olds. Here I am obliged to quote the statement of Sir Isaac Newton: “If I have seen a little further than others, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” (I'm not very sure that I "saw further than others," but as I understand it, this does not exempt me from observing a funny ritual with quotation.) In toto, I act only as a storekeeper who, rattling the keys, can lead you through the bins where brilliant discoveries are gathering dust. Naturally, like any storekeeper, I can afford a couple of maxims about the contents of this storeroom. Since I saw myself first and foremost as a reader of this book, I was, accordingly, extremely concerned about the accuracy of formulations and quotes, the balance of conclusions and their purity from any categorism. (You can and should regale the public with categorism, “ideas”, trends, but not yourself.) Latin, which I (probably) overuse somewhat, is not just senile self-indulgence. In addition to all its other advantages, it creates significant hindrances and inconveniences for those whom I would not like to see among the so-called. readers of this study. Hypotheses and theories about the origin of intelligence are a field of conflicting doctrines. Some of them are openly “mystical”, some allow a certain percentage of “mysticism”, i.e. mixes neurophysiology with the principles of the “unknowable” and “sacred”. I firmly base myself only on those discoveries that were made by the classical schools of neuroanatomy, and on the physiological, natural science interpretation of any processes in the brain of a person or other mammal. Alias, for romantics and mystics of any kind, this book is absolutely meaningless and unpleasant. Puto, any talk about the “secrets” of the brain and the “mysteries” of consciousness is possible only with a deliberate ignorance of the classical basic doctrines of neurophysiology, in the absence of long and thoughtful sectional practice on brain preparations, in the reluctance to evaluate consciousness, mind, thinking and intelligence as a direct and understandable consequence physiological processes and evolutionary history of the vertebrate brain. Some of the complexity of the issue under study lies in its multidimensionality, in the impossibility of solving it only by methods of neuroanatomy or neurophysiology. By limiting ourselves to just these two disciplines, we get the well-known effect of “phenomeni observantis se ipsum” (a phenomenon that observes itself or, more precisely, a phenomenon that studies itself). Sine dubio, consciousness, reason and thinking, taking place in a small space of the brain skull, obey, first of all, the laws of neurophysiology, accordingly, they can be understood and explained only in strict accordance with these laws. But there are a number of external (i.e., outside neurophysiology itself) influential factors that must be taken into account in the study of thinking or the mind. These include data from geochronology, evolutionism, paleoanthropology, paleozoology, comparative anatomy and physiology, recorded history, histology and (partly) genetics and clinical psychiatry. Moreover, not a single phenomenon is able to evaluate itself, its size, place in the world order, significance and importance. To understand any natural phenomenon, you need an idea of its origin, “size” and meaning. This concerns thinking and reason to the same extent as any other natural phenomenon. An idea of their development, since it is (first of all) the history of the physiological substrate of the brain and its functions, can partly be provided by paleoanthropology and paleozoology. But the questions of “dimensions” and the place of these phenomena in the system of the universe can only be resolved strictly “from the outside,” that is, only by methods adopted in that science that is accustomed to accurately, freely and coldly evaluate both worlds and molecules. We have many examples of how “one-dimensional” attempts to resolve the question of the essence of consciousness, mind, thinking and intelligence resulted in “psychological verbosity”, vulgar theology or some kind of confusion, which surprisingly could coexist with the most sophisticated understanding of the principle of operation of brain mechanisms . Current page: 1 (book has 31 pages in total) Alexander Nevzorov ORIGIN PERSONALITY AND INTELLIGENCE PERSON Experience in generalizing classical neurophysiological data Origo personae et cerebri hominis Alexander Ne vzorov Origo personae et cerebri hominis Experimentum generalium notitiarum neurophysiologiae classicae Alexander Nevzorov Origin personality and intelligence person Data summarization experience classical neurophysiology Moscow "ACT" ASTREL SPb UDC 572 BBK 28.71 N40 Nevzorov, Alexander Glebovich H40 The origin of human personality and intelligence. Experience in generalizing data from classical neurophysiology / Alexander Nevzorov. – Moscow: ACT, 2013. – 541 p., ill. ISBN 978-5-17-079795-0 In this book, Alexander Nevzorov - director, screenwriter, writer, member of the All-Russian Scientific Society of Anatomists, Histologists and Embryologists - offers clear, detailed interpretations of such concepts as “consciousness”, “mind”, “personality”, “thinking” and “intelligence” , based only on those discoveries that were made by classical schools of neurophysiology, and on the natural scientific interpretation of any processes in the brain of a person or other mammal. UDC 572 BBK 28.71 Project curator Lidia Nevzorova Project coordinator Tamara Komissarova Project curator Lidia Nevzorova Project coordinator Tamara Komissarova Commissioning Editor Stasia Zolotova Latin text editor Elena Ryigas IT director Elizaveta Makarova Art editor, photographer Dmitry Raikin Assistants: Ekaterina Aralbaeva, Tatyana Time, Alina Nos, Alexandra Oranskaya, Evgenia Shevchenko, Victoria Terenina A. G. Nevzorov: text, photo, 2012 AST Publishing House LLC, 2013 LIST OF LATIN WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS absolute ad infinitum ad interim ad oculus ad verbum aegrote videre aliqualiter anfractus aut totum aut nihil undoubtedly to infinity at this time before your eyes by the way it hurts to see in other words somewhat of a turning point and all or nothing barbare dictu bella latebricola bellum omnium contra omnes breviter roughly speaking lovely outback war of all against all in short callide capitales principales caput aperire ceterum circiter circus clausus claris verbis contra racenem OK initial capital bare your head (take off your hat) however approximately vicious circle in clear words against the meaning e supra dicto ordiri ecce rem eo ipso et cetera et vita genuina incepit evidenter exemplary cause exemplum explico Based on the above, the point is thereby and real life began obviously For example example I'll explain floriculi fortasse flowers Maybe gaudia private personal joys i.e. (id est) ignis et tympani in mensa anatomica in postremo in tenebris in toto that is hence fireworks and timpani on the anatomy table in the end in the dark generally in unda fortunae locus communis wave vaste minimum consumption mirabiliter molliter dictu necessario notare nervus vivendi nihilominus opportune per dentes per obticentiam perfecte fortasse plangor infantium propinquus pauper psittacinae repetitiones punctum pronumerandi puto radula pro neuronis ridicule scilicet se sustinere difficile secundum naturam semimalum severe dictu sine dubio taceo ego tamen ultra limites factorum ut notum est ventilius reciprocus verumtamen vulgus terminale on the wave of success common place as rough as possible subsistence level wonderful to put it mildly worth noting passionately nonetheless Now By the way through clenched teeth default It is quite possible that infants will be beaten quicker poor relative parrot repetition reference point I guess neuron scratcher I repeat funny Certainly enough of course it's hard to resist naturally not so bad literally speaking undoubtedly I'm keeping quiet though beyond the facts to as is known check valve however, it is still extremely simple The reason for this book. "Storekeeper". Story question. Brain in Ancient Egypt. Hippocrates. Galen. Vesalius. Descartes. Gall. The Brain in the Bible. Translationism. Darwinism. Theory of reticular formation. Pavlov. Variability brain homo. Uncertainty of coordinates. I've been wanting this book for a long time. To be honest, I would prefer that someone else wrote it, and I would receive it in finished form, with a good reference and bibliographic apparatus and a set of decent tables and illustrations. This would be better in every sense of the word: et lupi saturi et oves integrae. I waited a long time and patiently, not even thinking about taking on it myself, since I’m not looking for extra work, and I believe that such books should be done by those whose direct responsibility is this. Ceterum, I probably never became the mass of readers for whom it is worth writing and publishing a book that would summarize the indisputable scientific facts about the morphology and evolutionary history of the functions of the human brain. Atque formal summation did not suit me very much. I needed conclusions that were a natural continuation and generation of these facts, so that in each specific case I could “feel the umbilical cord” that goes directly from the fact to the conclusion. I needed clear, detailed, but not clouded by “psychology” interpretations of such concepts as “consciousness”, “mind”, “personality”, “thinking” and “intelligence”. These interpretations could be as bold or paradoxical as desired, but at the same time they should not contradict even the most radical dogmas of classical neuroanatomy and classical evolutionary neurophysiology. Moreover, they had to be a direct consequence of these dogmas. Repeto, I needed a book like this at hand, and I was completely indifferent to who its author was and whose name was on its cover. In the same way, it doesn’t matter to me now. The presence of my name on the book is a mere coincidence. It could have been written by anyone, since the facts and discoveries in this area have already formed an extremely coherent picture, obvious, as I believe, to everyone without exception. My authorship can only be explained by the fact that I turned out to be less lazy than my contemporaries. Secundum naturam, a significant part of this work is a summary of those brilliant discoveries that were made long before me, or conclusions that are possible only on the basis of research I. M. Sechenov, C. S. Sherrington, V. M. Bekhterev, U. G. Penfield, G. Maguna, I. Pavlova, A. Severtsov, P. Broca, K. Wernicke, T. G. Huxley, A. Brodal, L. Roberts, G. Jasper, WITH. R. Cajal, S. Oleneva, I. Filimonova, I. S. Beritashvili (Beritova), S. Blinkov, J. Eccles, X. Delgado, E. Seppa, G. Bastian, K. Leschly, D. Olds. Here I am obliged to quote the statement of Sir Isaac Newton: “If I have seen a little further than others, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” (I'm not very sure that I "saw further than others," but as I understand it, this does not exempt me from observing a funny ritual with quotation.) In toto, I act only as a storekeeper who, rattling the keys, can lead you through the bins where brilliant discoveries are gathering dust. Naturally, like any storekeeper, I can afford a couple of maxims about the contents of this storeroom. Since I saw myself first and foremost as a reader of this book, I was, accordingly, extremely concerned about the accuracy of formulations and quotes, the balance of conclusions and their purity from any categorism. (You can and should regale the public with categorism, “ideas”, trends, but not yourself.) Latin, which I (probably) overuse somewhat, is not just senile self-indulgence. In addition to all its other advantages, it creates significant hindrances and inconveniences for those whom I would not like to see among the so-called. readers of this study. Hypotheses and theories about the origin of intelligence are a field of conflicting doctrines. Some of them are openly “mystical”, some allow a certain percentage of “mysticism”, i.e. mixes neurophysiology with the principles of the “unknowable” and “sacred”. I firmly base myself only on those discoveries that were made by the classical schools of neuroanatomy, and on the physiological, natural science interpretation of any processes in the brain of a person or other mammal. Alias, for romantics and mystics of any kind, this book is absolutely meaningless and unpleasant. Puto, any talk about the “secrets” of the brain and the “mysteries” of consciousness is possible only with a deliberate ignorance of the classical basic doctrines of neurophysiology, in the absence of long and thoughtful sectional practice on brain preparations, in the reluctance to evaluate consciousness, mind, thinking and intelligence as a direct and understandable consequence physiological processes and evolutionary history of the vertebrate brain. Some of the complexity of the issue under study lies in its multidimensionality, in the impossibility of solving it only by methods of neuroanatomy or neurophysiology. By limiting ourselves to just these two disciplines, we get the well-known effect “phenomeni observantis se ipsum” ( phenomenon , which watches itself or, to be even more precise, a phenomenon that studies itself). Sine dubio, consciousness, reason and thinking, taking place in a small space of the brain skull, obey, first of all, the laws of neurophysiology, accordingly, they can be understood and explained only in strict accordance with these laws. But there are a number of external (i.e., outside neurophysiology itself) influential factors that must be taken into account in the study of thinking or the mind. These include data from geochronology, evolutionism, paleoanthropology, paleozoology, comparative anatomy and physiology, recorded history, histology and (partly) genetics and clinical psychiatry. Moreover, not a single phenomenon is able to evaluate itself, its size, place in the world order, significance and importance. To understand any natural phenomenon, you need an idea of its origin, “size” and meaning. This concerns thinking and reason to the same extent as any other natural phenomenon. An idea of their development, since it is (first of all) the history of the physiological substrate of the brain and its functions, can partly be provided by paleoanthropology and paleozoology. But the questions of “dimensions” and the place of these phenomena in the system of the universe can only be resolved strictly “from the outside,” that is, only by methods adopted in that science that is accustomed to accurately, freely and coldly evaluate both worlds and molecules. We have many examples of how “one-dimensional” attempts to resolve the question of the essence of consciousness, mind, thinking and intelligence resulted in “psychological verbosity”, vulgar theology or some kind of confusion, which surprisingly could coexist with the most sophisticated understanding of the principle of operation of brain mechanisms . Example: Definitely a great scientist Wilder Graves Penfield(1891-1976), studying only the human brain itself, but ignoring the evolutionary history of the brain, despite all his discoveries, as a result he was “locked” in very banal conclusions about the nature of thinking and intelligence. Another brilliant explorer Henry-Charlton Bastian(1837-1915) was the first to discover the relationship between thinking and speech, but could not give his discovery proper neurophysiological justification. As a result, his discovery was appropriated by psychologists who drowned Bastian's theory in their standard phraseology, depriving it of almost all meaning and content. These two examples are just an indicator of the final futility of both attempts to one-dimensionally comprehend cerebral processes, and the admission of any extra-scientific disciplines, such as psychology or philosophy, into this topic. However, it should be remembered that if Penfield and Bastian had not made these mistakes, then someone else would have had to make them. Perhaps for us too. Now all we can do is thank them not only for their discoveries, but also for their mistakes, and study the latter almost on an equal basis with the former. The value of a real, serious mistake in science is well known. Respect for it was well formulated by “Quantum Sensation” Pauli (as he called himself) in his review of one of Victor Weisskopf’s hypotheses: “This idea is wrong, it’s not even wrong.” Another thing - example I. M. Sechenova (1829-1905). He missed the publication of the fundamental discoveries of Nobel laureates C. S. Sherry England just a little bit in time "The Integrative Action of the Nervous System"(1906); S. P. Kahalya "Histologie du Systeme Nerveux de I"homme et des Vertebres"
Ill. 1. I. M. Sechenov (1909); with the centencephalic theory of W. Penfield, G. Jasper, L. Roberts "Epilepsy and the Functional Anatomy of the Human Brain" (1954), "Speech and Brain Mechanisms"(1959); with the developments of the theory of reticular formation by G. Magun, A. Brodal, J. Rossi, A. Zanchetti (1957-1963); with the result of many brilliant neurophysiological experiments and studies of the 20th century. If Ivan Mikhailovich Sechenov, with his ability to generalize everything that science has, with his understanding of the principles of how the brain works, would have had all the above materials during his lifetime, then there would not be the slightest need for this book; perhaps all the i’s in the matter of the formation of thinking and intelligence would have been dotted by Sechenov long ago. But we were unlucky: Ivan Mikhailovich died before neurophysiology acquired its real “scientific flesh.” In the history of brain research, great discoveries are compressed with equally great errors so tightly that it will be possible to dissect one from the other only in the distant future, when the sum of knowledge will probably become final, and some kind of summary of the evolutionary history of the vertebrate brain will be summed up. We can only be content with the known ad interim. Briefly - the history of the issue. The Paraschites of Ancient Egypt (embalmer priests), who prepared the bodies of the dead for eternal life, treated all human internal organs with the most serious respect. The liver, heart, kidneys, stomach, intestines, spleen, lungs et cetera, upon removal from the corpse, were washed, embalmed and either packaged in vessels or placed back into the mummy. Oblivion or accidental destruction of any of the internal organs was excluded, since it deprived the deceased of part of his status in the afterlife. Each of the organs had a special mystical role and its own patron god. The heart, exempli causa, was under the protection of the god Tuamutefa ( Book of the Dead, 2002. Ch. XXVI), the stomach was guarded by the god Hapi, and the liver by the god Kebsennuf In addition to the protector god, each organ also had a demon enemy who tried to damage, steal or destroy it. During mummification, all organs were protected from kidnapping demons with special amulets made of lapis lazuli or carnelian. The only organ that paraschites discarded without regret or thought was the brain. It was extracted, as Herodotus writes, “through the nostrils,” but in reality, probably by breaking concha nasalis superior, os lacrimale, proc. uncinatus, those. superior turbinate, lacrimal bone and uncinate process ( Mikhailovsky V. G. Experience in X-ray examination of Egyptian mummies. SMAE, 1928. T. 8)(Ill. 2).
Ill. 2. X-ray examination of the mummy (according to Mikhailovsky) The brain had neither a patron god nor a secret name. It had no meaning at all and, after being removed from the head, could even be “fed to the dogs.” There are no intelligible explanations for this fact. It is impossible to talk about the exact time of origin of this trend, but if we date it to the eras of the III-V dynasties, which is 2600–2500 BC, then we will probably be somewhere not far from the truth. (At this time, the first editions of the “Book of the Dead” were compiled and the basic techniques and rules of mummification were formed.) But, secundum naturam, it cannot be ruled out that complete neglect of the brain is an earlier tradition, dating back to the 1st-2nd dynasty, to the times of Djer and Khasekhemwy. About two thousand years later, the Greeks began to suspect that the mysterious formation contained in the skull of the head still had some significance. The first of the Greeks to appear on this topic was, naturally, Hippocrates. “Hippocrates defined the brain as a gland that regulates the body’s moisture and as the main producer of sperm, which it pumps along the spinal cord to the testicles.” (Morokhovets L., prof. History and correlation of medical knowledge, 1903). Usually this extract from the Hippocratic treatise "About the glands" cited as a textbook example of the naivety of ancient medicine. There is almost nothing incorrect in citing it; it, indeed, summarizes part of Hippocrates’ ideas about the brain. But probably only a part. His treatise “On sacred disease" It was written as if by a completely different person. There is almost no word in it about sperm, but there are developments so reasonable that the greatest authority on neurology of the 20th century, Wilder Graves Penfield, publicly acknowledged their “amazingness to this day.” Puto, a full quotation from Penfield’s speech at the Detroit Congress of Neurophysiologists would be helpful here: “...The description of the function of the human brain, which can be found in his book, in the section on “sacred disease” (epilepsy), is truly amazing to this day. It is clear that Hippocrates used the symptoms and manifestations of epilepsy as a guide to understanding brain function, just as Huling Jackson did many years later, and just as we try to do today." (Penfield W. G., 1957). Penfield may have gone a little overboard with his admiration (he was generally very generous with his praise), but the treatise certainly contains some scientific soundness and a clear understanding of the dominant role of the brain. However, this treatise did not make much of an impression on Hippocrates’ contemporaries and immediate descendants. Its lack of resonance in ancient science is inexplicable, but obvious. This is especially strange, given the sensitivity of the ancient Greeks to any genius and ability to develop brilliant ideas to a global scale. However, the indifference of contemporaries and descendants probably has a very prosaic reason: in the time of Hippocrates, the treatise was either still unknown or had a completely different content. It should be remembered that the authorship of all the works of Hippocrates is generally very controversial; all of his treatises were subject to later additions, editing or distortion. It is impossible to establish the scale of the inscriptions today, just as there is no way to understand which text is genuine and which is significantly later. Later, nice exercises by Plato and Aristotle appeared on the topic of interest to us, but we will omit them and go straight to Claudius Galen(200-130 BC) and his “hydraulic model” of the brain. (This model is sometimes erroneously attributed to Nemesius, who lived in the 4th century AD.) Ergo, Galen. At the beginning of the new era, everything was in approximately the same positions. A certain significance was recognized for the brain, but it was incomprehensible and rather fit into the “naive” formulations of Hippocrates. Against this dim background, in the complete absence of any scientific dogma and interest in the issue, Claudius Galen had complete freedom, both research and improvisation. Today it is quite difficult to maintain seriousness when listing his important thoughts on the role of the cerebral ventricles and the tentorium cerebellum. But seriousness is necessary.
Ill. For -b. Left: Leonardo da Vinci's drawing illustrating "three ventricles" theory. Right: Drawing from the book Peter of Rosenheim (collection of engravings, 16th century) Galen's theory that information collected by receptors is processed in the "front cavity" of the brain into a kind of "sense of experiencing the world" for almost fourteen centuries completely satisfied few interested in questions of reason and thinking. It became a dogma for extremely narrow scientific circles and was repeated without the slightest doubt even by the geniuses of the Renaissance, including Leonardo da Vinci (ill. 3 a-b). “All physicians trusted Galen so much that among them there was probably not a single one who could admit that even the slightest mistake in the field of anatomy could be or had already been discovered in Galen’s writings.” (Vesalius A. Galen also believed that various "complex" functions (judgment, reflection and recognition) were located in a certain "middle" ventricle, and memory and motor impulses in the "posterior". Abstracting from the anecdotal nature of these arguments, we nevertheless see some strange and crooked, but still an attempt to understand the structures and hierarchy of the brain. The “strangeness and crookedness” of the attempt, puto, are not at all explained by Galen’s stupidity, but they force us to take a completely different look at all the “achievements” of ancient anatomy in terms of cerebral research. All neuroanatomical hypotheses and ideas of Galen cast great doubt on both his personal sectional practice on this topic and the achievements of those who are considered to be his teachers, anatomists of the 3rd-1st centuries Herophila (Herophilus), Rufus of Ephesus (Rufus Ephesius), Marina (Marinus), Celsus (Celsus), Numesiana (Numesianus), Aretea (Aretaeus), Lykosa (Lycos), Martiala (Martialis), Heliodora (Heliodorus) et cetera. It is clear that having even minimal experience in correctly sectioning the brain, it would be impossible to come to the conclusions that Galen made the dogma of science for 14 centuries. The fact is that the horizontal sequence of almost equal-sized “cavities” carefully described by Galen is not contained in the human brain. Probably, not only the anatomists of the Alexandrian and other schools, but also Galen himself did not have the opportunity to thoroughly study the human brain. For one simple reason. Fresh brain is very difficult for a knife to handle, as in some places it has an almost semi-fluid consistency. When cut, its structures, as they say, “swim” and merge, depriving the anatomist of the opportunity to see demarcations and other nuances of cerebral architecture. But the opportunity to “thicken” (fix) brain tissue and make it suitable for accurate and complex cutting has not yet existed. Formalin, ethyl, potassium dihydroxide were not known to anatomists of Galen's era. And it is they who give the brain structures that “density” and even some “rubbery”, which makes jewelry sectioning, separation of structures from each other and the thinnest sections possible. Yes, as you know, Claudius Galen could open up a living sheep, expose its heart and give a measured and thorough lesson demonstrating the work of the pericardium. With the brain, such tricks were also possible, both on sheep and on dying gladiators or slaves, but with the possibility of only an external examination of the open organ, nothing more. With any attempt to cut a little deeper into the soft and arachnoid membranes of such a brain, profuse bleeding of the surgical field begins, and neither vacuum nor other aspirators (blood suction) have yet been invented. Plus, when dissecting a living brain, all the problems that are relevant when working with an unfixed preparation remain, i.e. "spreading" of structures. “With the removal of the soft shell, the brain expands greatly and, completely falling off, becomes somewhat blurred” (Vesalius A. De Humani Corporis Fabrica, 1604). It would be a mistake to assume that the 2nd century anatomist had no problems with cadaveric material. No, they were, since the heat and distances made almost any death meaningless for science. Considering the fact that the brain deforms and decomposes faster than any other organ, it was impossible to competently and carefully remove it from the brain skull after just a few hours. It is no coincidence that Galen did his main research in the spoliarii of circuses, studying the bodies of fallen or still agonizing gladiators and bestiaries. Bending over the next body, Galen undoubtedly saw in a bloody mess of hair, skull fragments and scraps dura mater the slimy, pulsating cortex of the brain and, probably, it was there that he first touched it with his hand or a lancet. It was then, under the dull roar of the stands, in the stench of the gladiator corpse, that neuroanatomy was born. Galen, the first of the scientists, recognized the brain’s function of controlling the entire human body and bowed before it. However, the deep structures of the brain remained anatomically inaccessible to him and, accordingly, have not been studied. In those descriptions where Galen dwells in detail on the structure of the brain, it is easy to notice the predominance of purely external observations: the cerebellum and vermis c cerebellum, hard and soft membranes. The herification of 1 hemisphere, the depth of the sulci, the presence of the falx, and the cerebellar tentorium were correctly noted. In short, everything that can be touched with bare fingers. True, he also makes attempts to look a little deeper, but they are limited to that part of the corpus callosum and the commissure, which can be seen by cutting along the line of the sagittal groove of the brain that separates the hemispheres, and some observations of those stem formations that open with simple cutting of the cerebellum . Suspicions that the absurdity of Galen's conclusions about the internal structure of the brain were caused by the impossibility of its full research are indirectly confirmed by the fact that all his other research related to decay-resistant and dense organs is recorded very well. As an anatomist, Galen demonstrates passion, consistency and seriousness. Some descriptions of muscle and fascial tissues, bones, tendons and even joint capsules (adjusted for incompleteness and naivety) can still be taken almost seriously today. Pre- with Vermis – worm (lat.) – Editor's note d Furrowing of the cerebral cortex, in other words, the presence of convolutions and grooves that form a complex relief of the cortex. – Note ed. The trepanation technique he introduced was quite decent for those times, and the almost exact description of the vagus nerve even arouses admiration. Puto that Claudius Galen of Pergamon, retreating before the complex, essentially capricious anatomy of the brain, simply replaced it with his personal fantasy. I cannot offer any other explanation for the emergence of the strange legend about three horizontal cavities. Galen's deception, repeto, successfully existed until 1543, when, finally, after almost fourteen hundred years, it was exposed by the anatomist Andreas Vesalius in his work "De Corporis Humani Fabrica" for the first time showing an accurate picture of the human brain. Having received accurate anatomical data about the geometry and structures of the brain, science should respond with something extremely sound. First to respond Rene Descartes (Cartesius), who proposed a “dioptric model of the brain” in the first quarter of the 17th century. The soundness of this model was equal to the fantasies of Claudius Galen, but the head of Descartes became a symbol of the intellectual daring of that era. Descartes was buried without her. His skull was posthumously sawn into exactly 100 pieces. All one hundred pieces were set into the castes of one hundred large rings that adorned the fingers of one hundred Carthusians - fanatics of the idea of "spirits" that penetrate the brain and, reflected in the cavities of the ventricles of the brain, affect the "nervous motor pathways." This is where, by the way, the “doctrine of reflexes” came from. Stereotypical reactions later got their name precisely thanks to Cartesian “reflecting” spirits ( refractio– reflection). The Cartesian version lasted, however, not so long. Already at the very beginning of the 19th century, the anatomist Franz Joseph Gall(1758–1828) 2 tried to map the brain, meticulously dividing the cortex of its hemispheres into sectors, each of which (according to Gall) concentrated a particle of “higher functions”. Gall (in his opinion) discovered the places of localization of “cunning”, “poetry”, “wit”, “thrift”, “friendship”, “hope” et cetera (ill. 4 a-b). His ideas were very popular for some time and even supplanted Cartesian “spirits”. Ceterum, the popularity was somewhat decorative and concerned not the essence of the theory, but its satellite - “phrenology”, which implied the ability to recognize “properties of character and mind” by the shape of the convexities of the skull. Gall, of course, was buried without his head, which was separated by the will of the deceased before funeral service, so as not to risk the delicate substance of the brain, intended for study and, of course, mapping. Ad verbum, Gall, of course, outdid Descartes by bequeathing not only the skull, but also the brain to “science,” but with this will he put some of his relatives in an extremely awkward position. These were simple-minded people who came to an ordinary funeral, and whom no one warned about the somewhat exotic nature of the situation. During the procedure of farewell to the body, wanting to imprint a farewell kiss on the brow of the deceased, they probably experienced some confusion in searching for his forehead. Gall's developments, which seem so naive today, subsequently provoked a real scientific search for places of dynamic localization of certain brain functions. Ergo, the very first researchers (today so conducive to irony about them), nevertheless, founded part of the basic principles of neurophysiology: the exclusive role of the brain, reflexivity, localization of functions. Definite success
Ill. 4 a-b. Mapping using the Gall method Of course it was there. But it was also obvious that man was astonishingly indifferent to the question of the functions and structure of the brain, to the nature of his own consciousness and mind. Alexander Nevzorov is guided by ideas that were 40 years old. On the contrary, the further we go, the more evidence is revealed of the active hunting of our ancestors, starting with the gracile australopithecines. Hunted like Australopithecus garhi(however, not our direct ancestors), and the “early Homo"(and these are our ancestors). Currently, a huge amount of material has been developed on this topic. Primates are not that much vegetarians at all. Small animals are hunted by baboons, chimpanzees and even peaceful, phlegmatic orangutans. (available review: Stanford C. Chimpanzee Hunting Behavior and Human Evolution // American Scientist, 1995, May-June, ). What prevented australopithecines and their descendants from doing this? Homo? L.B. Vishnyatsky, Doctor of Historical Sciences, famous archaeologist, Leading Researcher, Department of Paleolithic Archeology, Institute of the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences: Among paleoanthropologists, as well as archaeologists studying the Paleolithic and familiar with this issue not only from the works of B.F. Porshneva, today, perhaps, no one doubts that both early sapiens and Neanderthals (200 - 40 thousand years ago) were skilled hunters and that a significant proportion of their diet consisted of meat products. They say about this:
Current page: 21 (book has 31 pages in total) Ceterum, let's return to the therapsid skull. Repeto, skull NMQR-1702 quite typical, well studied (Sidor WITH. A., Welman J. A Second Specimen of Lemurosaurus pricei. Therapsida: Burnetiamorpha, 2003), including the issue of fundamental comparability with the skulls of other synapsids of the Permian and Triassic periods ( gorgonopsids, bullocephalus, lobalopex, dimetrodon, docynodon et cetera) to serve as a standard and give the right to some generalizations. Let's summarize. The brain of lizard beasts is already quite advanced. The basic structures that provide consciousness, emotions, self-identification (personality and its tools), complex behavior have already been formed. There are only minor additions left, which will be completed in 200 million years, when mammalian descendants of therapsids will replace dinosaurs on the stage of the evolutionary theater. Scilicet, the personal characteristics of the first animal lizards were only one of the stages in the development of this general function of the brain, but by no means its “founding stone”, not the foundation and not the fundamental principle. The very initial characteristics were and remain in the tenebris of the Archean and Proterozoic. However, biological personality homo is a direct continuation of the personal characteristics of the beast-toothed creatures of the Permian period. This is especially clearly seen in the example of both the homology of the nuclei of the reticular formation, the limbic system (see Chapter II), and when comparing other brain structures: “In higher mammals, especially in humans, the visual thalamus is very developed due to the significant development of the brain bark. Its functional and structural differentiation is very detailed. However, the basic scheme of structure and connections remains the same as it began to form at the level of amphibians and developed in reptiles” (Sell E. History of the development of the nervous system of vertebrates, 1959). Mammalian diet, placentarity, and enrichment of receptors have made very significant adjustments to these features, but not fundamental changes. In the context of our study, it is worth especially noting the development of the V and VII cranial nerves (mammals again inherited them from reptiles, albeit in a very modest form). Exactly L. trigeminus and l. facialis were the organizers of the facial language of mammals, much more universal than olfactory, postural, plastic, excretory and other languages. It's hard to say exactly how universal it is on a class-wide scale. (Mammalia) but within the framework of orders and families, and even more so genera and species, its universality is undoubted. With the development of facial expressions, the biological individual acquired another important ability for the accurate and rapid demonstration of aggression, physiological states and intentions, which, together with the magnificent design of the V and VII nerves, was inherited homo. Ceterum, all this is described in sufficient detail and fully both by G. Spencer and by C. Darwin or C. S. Sherrington: “Fear, if strong enough, manifests itself in screams, in the desire to hide or run away, in trembling and individual shudders. This kind of experience is also found in general muscle tension, clenching of teeth, extension of claws, dilation of pupils and nostrils, and grumbling. All these are weakened forms of actions that accompany the killing of prey." ( Spencer N. The Principles of Psychology, 1880); “Somatic manifestations of “coarser or bestial emotions” are widely known in humans and in higher animals. This point of view is presented in Darwin's work on the contraction of the orbicularis oculi muscle during screaming." (Sherring tone Ch.S. Integrative activity of the nervous system, 1969). Somewhat naive, but inevitable, is the question of the ability of a biological personality to radical metamorphosis under the influence of religions, ideals, literature, social relations, myths, traditions and everything that could be combined in the term “morality”. (This issue has already been discussed in Chapter III, but a number of additions need to be made here.) There is probably no precise (experimental) answer to this question; although it is clear that the so-called morality in the context of 500 million years of natural history looks so microscopic that, of course, it cannot be recognized as any influential “factor”, and the assumption of the possibility of a sudden “moral mutation” homo not based on anything. Probably, per obticentiam, the odiousness of such an experiment has always been so obvious that in the entire history of laboratory or clinical research of the brain it has never been staged like this. In part, this is even annoying, because... “morality” is our “contemporary” and (in laboratory language) capable of being “observable”; it could be of interest for studying the possibilities of the influence of artificial circumstances on biological individuality, which in itself would be an extremely interesting experiment, clarifying some of the features of the origin and implementation of aggression. Everything said above will be true, if not considered an involuntary “experiment” of the so-called. human history over the past 2,000 years. As we remember, mass religious and social training homo the declarative cultivation of “mercy”, “humanism”, “conscience” and “shame”, which lasted almost twenty centuries, had the end result of the First World War, revolutions in Russia and France, the Second World War and a number of other conflicts in which people demonstrated the futility of moral training, in a short period of time (for no particular reason) killing approximately 200,000,000 individuals of their species of different ages and different sexes in various ways and crippling another 600,000,000. The results of this experiment (if we recognize the status of “unintentional” scientific experience behind the events of the 1st-20th centuries) indirectly confirm the thesis expressed in the text about the microscopic nature of the “morality” factor and its complete inability to make adjustments to evolutionarily established behavior homo. Necessario notare, which are much more important changes than "moral mutation" homo are not realized in evolution, although (unlike the above) there are unlimited temporary “spaces” for them, and the need for them is vital. As Prof. wittily noted. N. Vorontsov(1934-2000) “the fur of forest animals has not acquired a green color or even a greenish tint over millions of years, despite all the convenience that such a metamorphosis could give” (Development of evolutionary ideas in biology, 1999). Let's summarize this topic. Evidenter that without the integrating, conducting and stimulating power of that function that we call “personality” or “biological individuality,” all brain activity becomes as meaningless as it is diffuse: the brain falls apart into hundreds of large and small neuronal groups, deprived not only control or incentive, but probably also of any need. By taking away “personality,” we also take away the root cause of the existence of the organism, its invitamentum, materialized in it. (A term that can be translated, not very harmoniously, but accurately, as “the will to live.” This “will” has its own genetic mechanism and is the subject of separate consideration.) Accepting Penfield's centencephalic theory as a convenient tool for understanding the mechanisms of the brain, we, nihilominus, can put an end to the question of the “dwelling” of this general function (namely in the reticular formation of the brainstem) only conditionally, taking as the main argument the lack of evidence of corticopetal and corticofugal connections , but the super-antiquity of the structure itself. Super-antiquity, in fact, is the main “guiding star” in the darkness of cerebrogenesis. (Speaking about the super-ancient structure of the brain, we are thereby talking about the root cause of the appearance of all its other formations, about the detonator of all its evolutionary transformations.) We are not allowed to assume the equivalence and equality of the parts of the brain by knowledge of the stages and gradualness of its formation over the last 500-600 million years; as well as the fact that creatures with the “original” brain were already biologically complete, i.e. capable of adequate behavior in a complex environment, otherwise they would not be able to survive and give rise to hundreds of thousands of species. (Naturally, the brain improved and developed, developing both the receptors and the substrate of the hemispheres, but this was only an escalation of capabilities necessary in conditions of competition between life forms and the struggle for survival). If in my words about the habitat of “personality” there is now some uncertainty felt, it is only because there is 100% reliable data that the reticular formation is the most ancient structure of the brain, i.e. We still don’t have some kind of “pre-structure”. It's obvious that formatia reticularis arose as an inevitable communicator between the already developing spinal cord and the nascent brain. Igitur, it was she who was the first cerebral formation that increased micron by micron both the substrate of the brain substance and its connections with the spinal cord, reciprocally complicating (as the connections were optimized) their functions. (It is precisely this property that we owe to the fact that the reticular formation until now has not had and does not have any obvious specialization, unlike all other formations of the brain stem.) According to the entire logic of cerebrogenesis, no other candidate for the role of “protostructure” exists. But (let me remind you) there is no “drug” from the Proterozoic era, the study of which would give us the right to categorism today. Therefore, we conventionally speak of the reticular formation as a super-ancient structure capable of generating biological individuality, igitur, and taking upon itself the leadership of behavior. Breviter, having touched on the deepest and most important, but at the same time subtle and debatable mechanisms of personality, we will now consider the fastigium quaestionis (surface of the issue), i.e. the simplest manifestations of this function. Now we are talking about “personality” as the most “relief”, most visual function of the brain, which allows a being to become self-aware and build relationships with its own body as an unconditional property. Let me explain. Exempli causa, let us once again take the factor of “adequate behavior” (which was already discussed in Chapter IX). Its presence or absence means the life or death of the organism. But such behavior can only be based on the creature’s continuous and clear self-awareness of its characteristics and capabilities. (Translating into the language of taxonomy: on “knowing” one’s belonging to a certain species, class, order, age, sex et cetera, not to mention many smaller but significant features, such as the presence of injury, fatigue, cold, etc. ) Search for the reasons for the adequacy of behavior in the so-called. instincts is not justified by anything. The concept of “instinct” is a literary psychological term that does not have any neurophysiological meaning 54. It can be used, but only as a metaphor, remembering its convention. The only conscientious attempt to give at least some scientific justification for the concept of “instinct” was made by Prof. G. Ziegler back at the beginning of the twentieth century ( Instinct. The concept of instinct before and now, 1914 ; The spiritual world of animals, 1925), but was not very successful; “instinct”, when attempting serious consideration, naturally “breaks down” into its reflexive components, each of which requires a separate explanation and understanding. The search for the reasons for adequacy will be equally unconvincing - in “innate behavior”, in that reflexive minimum that is contained in the genome and provides the body with the initial skills of grasping, sucking, belching, biting, defecation, vomiting, coughing, swallowing, friction, blinking, sneezing etc. But, ut notum est, the genome has neither receptors nor memory. He is "blind". Accordingly, he cannot, through the same blind and stereotyped “innate skills” as himself, guide the body in changing circumstances, the variability of which includes thousands of combinations. This was noted by E. Sepp: “However, behavior based on individual experience leaves far behind the role of innate reflexes” ( History of the development of the nervous system of vertebrates, 1959). It should also be noted that following the logic of “innate behavior”, it is impossible to explain the improvement of receptors, the primary task of which is to provide the brain with every second information. (Here we again come to the conclusion that the basis for adequate behavior can only be cerebral processes, and not anything else.) Now let’s consider the second mandatory component of the manifestation of “personality”: the attitude towards the body as unconditional property. This property needs protection, nutrition and rest and must properly serve any impulses of the brain (neuropil, protocerebrum). To a certain extent, this “proprietary” connection between the brain (at any level of its development) and the body is demonstrated by simple coordination of movements, always subordinate to both “plan” and an accurate analysis of all circumstances received by the brain through receptors. According to these simple characteristics, we can again see that personality (as a function of the brain) is probably inherent in every living being, and as a phenomenon is about 545 million years older than the image of Leonidas I, Scipio Africanus or Ivan Pavlov. The relevant question here is whether there is a fundamental neurophysiological difference between this brain function in homo and, for example, the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus), gray rat (Rattus norvegicus) or an alligator? Puto, there is no reason to assume that there is any significant difference. Biologically, the personality of the wild or socialized homo is the same in nature with the personality of any other animal, and what a person takes as his “unique feature” is, in part, the development (?) of a given brain function, but to a greater extent its modernized presentation, and addressed not only to the outside world, but also directed "inside". Explico. In the animal world, biological individuality (personality) can be demonstrated through smell, sound, posture, facial expressions, mimicry, plasticity, physical or sexual potential, status in a pack et cetera. Socialized to these manifestations homo I just added speech, thinking and all the derivatives of intelligence. These derivatives “colored” biological individuality, giving its features (somewhat far-fetched from the point of view of neurophysiology) “uniqueness” and drama. “Inner speech” (i.e. thinking) played a very special role; thanks to her, the most ancient function of the brain “sounded” and made itself the subject of its own close and aggressive attention. This circumstance did not change its biological mechanism in any way, but self-awareness (self-identification) turned from an everyday neurophysiological process into a very exciting activity. Here again, clarification is required, thanks to which we can approach the neurophysiological decoding of the concept “fascinating”. As we know, the system of nominations (speech) is a symbolization of creatures, properties, phenomena, objects, actions or connections between all these positions, i.e. a verbal duplicate of reality. The dependence of the organism on reality (environment) has been absolute since the Proterozoic. No matter how powerful a creature is, the rules of the game are always set by the environment, without distinction of species, class or... name. It is she who determines whether a creature “lives or not”, and what efforts must be expended by him in order to adapt to it or try to resist it. And it doesn’t matter what the creature is called - dimorphodon, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus or orangutan; in any case, the environment wins. And the point is not even that on its banners, on behalf of all creatures who have already passed the earthly path, a cold-blooded appeal to every living organism is inscribed: nos ossos qve aqvi estamos pelos vossos esperamos; since among its arguments is biogenesis, which automatically presupposes the death of anyone born. However, the omnipotence of the environment is so absolute that even the argument of death is not a trump card. (The improvement of receptors did not reduce, but, on the contrary, probably increased the organism’s dependence on the environment, since an increasing number of factors and nuances became components of consciousness coming through the receptors. Puto, the dependence escalated gradually and steadily, the moment of its “exacerbation” was not Let's establish. For example, we know that the age of the visual receptor (a protein with photochemical sensitivity) is about 500 million years, but the organelle itself (the optic rod on which this protein is concentrated) is a much more ancient creature, having a “ciliary” origin, therefore , (possibly) contemporary with cryogeny or even tonia.) As you probably remember, I.M. Sechenov gave an even more precise and categorical definition of “environment”: “An organism without an external environment that supports its existence is impossible; therefore, the scientific definition of an organism must also include the environment that influences it, since without the latter the existence of the organism is impossible.” (Medical Bulletin, 1861. No. 28). Inner speech homo creating a duplicate of the environment (reality), not only did not cancel its drama, its seductiveness or other properties, but also aggravated them. Why did this worsen happen? Probably for the reason that thinking turned out to be an excellent spatio nutribile for prognosticism, which by its very nature is prone to dramatization and aggravation, because Any animal perceives all the circumstances and nuances of the world primarily in relation to the good of its own biological individuality and rightly looks for hidden and obvious threats in everything. Prognosticism, or what the Russian physiological school called “probabilistic forecasting,” of course, is not a property of thinking alone homo; to a certain extent, the ability to predict is a prerequisite for survival, therefore, its mechanism has long been developed in an infinite number of creatures. Back in 1971, Prof. D. Dubrovsky summarized the ideas of classical neurophysiology on this issue: “Probabilistic forecasting is a fundamental function of the brain that provides programming and organization of current actions” (Mental Phenomena and the Brain, 1971). Despite the clarity and even some categorism of this dogma, it should be noted that regarding insects, amphibians, and reptiles, there is still no convincing experimental data today, and any speculation about their ability to predict turns out to be ultra limites factorum. (No matter how much one would like to recognize them on the basis of evolutionary logic alone and the fantastic magnificence of receptors in insects.) With some confidence, we can responsibly speak about the presence of experimentally confirmed prognosis only in insectivores, hedgehogs, rats, monkeys and those mammals whose abilities have been confirmed by multiple , correctly documented laboratory tests (Karamyan A., Malyukova I. Stages of higher nervous activity of animals // Physiology of behavior. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1987; Feigenberg I., Levi V. Probabilistic forecasting and experimental study of it in pathological conditions, 1965). There is no doubt that, compared with other animals, the prognosis of thinking homo became more dramatic and sophisticated. (We will discuss the quality of this prognostication and its actual effectiveness a little later.) Thanks to the system of nominations and knowledge, forecasts have become much more accurate, and therefore more pessimistic. (An understanding has come of the real number of dangers and their fatality.) Now let’s temporarily switch to the language of approximate concepts in order to briefly outline the reasons for the exacerbation of the prognostic function of the brain using simple examples homo in the era of the formation of intelligence. (We'll look at its actual productivity a little later.) The recognition of life doomed man to such knowledge of death that was inaccessible to any other animal; Now the image of death has become dissolved in almost every event, phenomenon or thing. This image has turned into an “eternal companion”, into a cunning, cruel, malicious and inexorable pursuer, and a person’s life into eluding him. Religions have also provoked man to constantly make dramatic predictions about how his actions and desires are assessed by the dangerous supernatural beings in whose power he is. These two positions are confirmed by the classics of anthropology: “Primitive thinking differs from ours. It is oriented completely differently. Its processes proceed in a completely different way... Primitive thinking pays attention exclusively to mystical causes, the action of which it feels everywhere.” “In the eyes of primitive people, death always implies a mystical cause and almost always violence.” (Levy-Bruhl L. Primitive thinking, 1930).“The native is absolutely incapable of recognizing death as the result of any natural cause.” (Spencer IN., Gillen F. The Native Tribes of Central Australia, 1899).“For the consciousness of the Mugands, there is no death arising from natural causes. Death, like illness, is a direct consequence of the influence of some spirit." (Roscoe J. Notes on the Manners and Customs of the Baganda, 1901). Property, sexual, predatory, intermale, territorial, hierarchical aggressions, naturally, became the core and content of all human social games. However, the strength of aggression itself did not guarantee success in these games, and then the search for advantages developed the so-called. deceit; the more effective a property is, the better its consequences have been predicted. Ad verbum, of course, aggression in many ways, up to “changes in the state of consciousness,” influence the way of action of all animals, but only in the example homo we can observe their ability to control behavior over a long period of time. As for lying, as noted above (Chapter II), this phenomenon has been perfectly developed by evolution in the mimicry of fish and insects, it is present in the mating, hunting, and conflict behavior of many animals; and in human culture, lying has developed into such an important factor that today “inability to lie” is a diagnostic feature of diseases such as Asperger’s syndrome and other types of autism. Labor, with the need for a “step-by-step” foresight of all its intermediate and final results, turned out to be just as essential for the development of prognosticism. It can also be assumed that labor was a special, “double-edged” factor. It provoked both simple (labor) forecasting and complex (social) forecasting, generated by the desire to free oneself from labor in general or from its most painful variations. Puto, the emergence of social relations (estates, classes, dynasties, hierarchies, property and law) is, first of all, the history of the desire and skill of a part homo avoid the necessity of labor. Secundum naturam, in addition to the listed global reasons (fear, lies, work and avoidance of it), there were also “younger”, but also extremely influential factors. The most famous of the direct consequences of prognosticism was the so-called. imagination, perhaps owing its development primarily to masturbatory practices inherited homo from part of the ancestral chain. Although monkeys in the animal world are distinguished as active masturbators, this activity does not become a fixed tradition of behavior for them, since it is based (mainly) on the rough mechanical effect of limbs or objects on the genitals and on momentary visible stimuli. The man managed to take a “step forward” in this matter. The fine motor skills of his hands, supported by the predictive potentials of the brain and the beginnings of “imagination,” suggested homo a lot of intense sensations that did not require from him (unlike real sexual relations) either social viability, or the performance of matrimonial rituals, or material or time costs, or the use of violence, or even a visible stimulus. Secundum naturam, these practices developed “imagination”, and it became the most important part of thinking. Find any other reason why masturbation has become a household norm homo in addition to socialization (which is always based on various taboos), it will be very difficult. The stylistics of sexual relations in packs of early people remains a controversial issue: the hypothesis of orgiastic relationships and promiscuity, limited only by the factors of menstruation and pregnancy of females, competes with the “harem family” hypothesis. Proponents of the first point of view: I. Bakhoven(1861), L Morgan (1934), Nesturkh( 1958), Zolotarev (1940), Espinas( 1882), Briffault (1927), Sahlins(1960) et cetera. Cautious apologists for the “harem” version include: Carpenter (1934), Quiet (1947), Voitonis (1949), Yerkes (1943), Zuckerman(1932), but even then with reservations, since these researchers only assumed the inevitability of transferring the model of relationships in monkey groups to the communities of early people. Regardless of the correctness of this or that hypothesis, it is indisputable that socialization has quite strictly tabooed sexual freedom, replacing chaotic partnerships with ritualized games, the dangerous need to use violence, pay or masturbate. There are very few authoritative detailed studies on this topic, but there are indications about the systems of sexual taboos and about public masturbation as an everyday norm of primitive peoples. Claude Lévi-Strauss in volume III of it "Mythologiques"(1968), y E. Crowley V "Studies on Primitive Marriage"(1895), at E. Westemark V "Stories of Human Marriage" (1901). However, it would be unfair to reduce the “masturbation effect” that develops the imagination exclusively to sexual desires and experiences. Puto, a broader interpretation of this term is possible. Status and property desires that are unrealizable in reality, becoming increasingly stronger with the development of material culture and social relations, can also be partly classified as masturbation or phenomena close to it in principle. (Later they will receive the name “dreams”, “dreams” et cetera.) The fact is that the symbols of reality (words) and its nominated images have almost the same irritating power as reality itself, but are completely independent of its dictates, determined by biogenesis, the laws of physics et cetera. With the invention of language, the entire immeasurability of the world, encoded in symbols, was “transferred” to the small space of the brain skull (350-1300 cm 3), where it was completely under the control of the so-called. thinking homo. The free and unrestricted manipulation of these symbols, the creation of arbitrary structures from them, turned out, at times, to be an even more powerful irritant than reality itself. Ceterum, as we have already noted, all the factors that gradually developed prognostic factors: fear of death, lies, work, masturbation, religion, aggression belong to the realm of approximate concepts and do not contain any neurophysiological meaning. Translated into a language we understand, we must label them as approximately equivalent, multiple, alternating or even neighboring stimuli, which, due to the richness and harmony of the reflexes they evoke, are capable of mobilizing the nervous system, ensuring its continuous tone. At the same time, we must remember that a verbal symbol or “fragment of consciousness” (visual image) has almost the same exciting potential as a real phenomenon. Dry but accurate I. Pavlov, who described in “General characteristics of complex nervous phenomena”(1909) this process as follows: “The various agents transformed into conditioned stimuli first act in their general form and only gradually, with further reinforcement of the conditioned reflex, become more and more specialized stimuli. This should be considered a rule, a law for stimuli delivered by all analyzers (sense organs).” Ergo, e supra dicto ordiri, each nomination (word), each symbol of reality, as Ivan Petrovich rightly noted, is a “multiple”, super-strong irritant. Thinking, being (severe dictu) a combination of hundreds and thousands of nominations, i.e. the interweaving and unweaving of thousands of stimuli, in fact, is for ancient and new brain structures a constant provocateur of a billion synaptic, neuroendocrine and structural processes that maintain part of the brain in a state of excitation. Here a new, but extremely important question arises - about the reaction of the brain to its continuous irritation by these processes. (Taking into account the physiological burden of any activation for any living cellular substrate). Theoretically, the answer is, of course, known; we see that even the most complex and multivariate thinking, hypothetically being a “biologically burdensome” challenge to an innumerable set of reflex responses, nevertheless “took root” and became the norm of brain function. Moreover, it is appropriate to assume that it was the irritating power of thinking that was probably the main reason for its emergence and consolidation. But this is a theory, and I would like to receive unambiguous experimental evidence of the brain’s “attitude” to those influences that persistently activate both its local cellular fields and entire structures. Here it probably makes sense to remember James Olds And Peter Milner which in 1954 at Hebb Laboratory at McGill University conducted an important and interesting experiment, described in detail both in the writings of Olds himself ( Physiological Mechanisms of Reward, 1955; Self-Stimulation of the Brain, 1958; Differentiation of Reward Systems in the Brain by Self-Stimulation Technics, 1960), and in his joint work with P. Milner"Positive Reinforcement Produced by Electrical Stimulation of Septal Area and Other Regions of Rat Brain" (1954). The influence of this experiment on neurophysiology was so great that it was later repeated by many of the most respected researchers. Reviews about the book:Being a person who has received special education in such fields of knowledge as anatomy, histology, embryology, physiology, etc. person, I must warn inquisitive people who do not have special education in these disciplines: Mr. Nevzorov, a member of the All-Russian Scientific Society of Anatomists, Histologists and Embryologists - as he is written about in the annotation to the book, is certainly neither an anatomist, nor a histologist, nor an embryologist. This is obvious from the text written by Nevzorov. The abundance of Latin language (not at all appropriate, in my opinion, in Russian-language popular scientific literature), the rich use of anatomical terminology, unfortunately, can mislead a person who does not know this terminology - create the illusion that the author really has an idea of what he writes about. Believe me, this is not true. In an attempt to justify his incompetence to the reader, the author, after this incompetence was pointed out by the portal Anthropogenesis.RU, has already released two (at the time of writing this review) fifteen-minute video messages in which the same ignorance of the subject is hidden behind beautiful words. It is obvious that the final conclusions of Mr. Nevzorov are simply a priori of no interest. Will you trust a person’s conclusions based on initially incorrect premises, which is due to the individual’s illiteracy in the issue at hand? Zakharov Sergey Viktorovich 0 This book has been in bestsellers for over a month now. Has no one even started reading it? You'll have to be the first to write your opinion about this work here. I’ve already read a quarter of the book, but I can say with all confidence that if you still continue to believe in the fabulously sudden origin of man 7 thousand years ago, then you will probably know that everything is much simpler and more rational. Man in this work appears without embellishment - as an animal creature who makes an excellent evolutionary career. Overall, if you want to understand who you really are, read this book. Vitaly 0 Other books on similar topics:
|
| Read: |
|---|
New
- The Year of Good People, or about Volunteering and Volunteering
- History of the Universe: from the Big Bang to the present day Universe history of origin
- Places and times of deployment of special forces (1981–1989) Preparation for the campaign against Urgun
- Three highly important documents published simultaneously
- Project work "my city"
- Alexander Nevzorov - the origin of human personality and intelligence
- The complete history of film adaptations of Anna Karenina
- Analysis of the fable Monkey and glasses, the main characters of the fable
- Green energy and nuclear silicon
- Mechnikov's phagocytic theory
