Referat Towards8
Mai jos puteti citi fragmente din
Referat Towards8 si de asemenea puteti face
Download Referat Towards8Citeste fragmente din Referat Towards8
Towards a philosophy of gerontology, version 8
1.Introduction.
2.Fundamental gerontological considerations on aging.
2.0.Definition of senescence.
2.1.On the process of senescence.
2.3.The forms of the pressure of time.
2.4. Explanatory-theoretic aspects of senescence.
3. Philosophical thoughts on the explanation of aging.
4. Towards eradication of aging: a philosophical strategy.
1.Introduction: An atempt to mediate a deeper compatibility between
Philosophy and Gerontology
What is philosophy in general, or what is the specific of philosophy?
For Aristotel, philosophy is the knowledge of the first principles and
causes - those supreme principles which explain the whole
existence(Coltescu, 2002 p.160 ). For Kant, philosophy is knowledge by
concepts; or the search of the limits of our cognitive capacities. For
Hegel, philosophy is the rational knowledge of absolute. For
Wittgenstein, philosophy is the activity of eludation of thoughts. For
analitical philosophers, philosophy is the analysis of scientific
language or of common language. For Heidegger, philosophy is the
existential analytics , that is investigating of those modes of being
that are proper to human existent(Dasein);
For Frankfurt school representatives (Marcuse), philosophy is the
critical theory of modern society and of forms of reification and human
alienation in the background of this society. Coltescu considered that
"In its esence, philosophy is this reflection, this meditation by which
we want to understand, to distinguish the sense of world and of our
proper existence---and by understanding, to liberate us, to conquer our
spiritual autonomy"(Coltescu 2002, p.21). Most philosophers had
considered that philosophy is a knowledge, differences appear either
concerning its object( first principles, the absolute, the universal
etc.) or its method (by concepts to Kant) or its faculty(reason, senses
etc). But, is philosophy limited just to a form of contemplative
knowledge disinterested from a practical or applicative point of view?
Tudosescu considers that"...only in limits in which it conditionate
value reedifications at the level of other forms of social conscience
and, respective, modifications in the structure of the tables of
cultural values, so that these to stimulate changes whith deep character
in the structure and dynamics of civilizations, we can say that
philosophy have an applicative character"(Tudosescu 1997, p.169).
Someones had emphasized the propensity towards universality, the
tendency to cover the whole reality: philosophy is a general conception
about the world; it tries to discern the most general determinations of
reality, that is of nature, society and thinking. But, neither thought
is an universal characteristic of univers nor society. The most general
determinations of world concern either the fundamental-necessary level
of reality, substance, microphysics level, or some characteristics of
the univers as a whole, like evolution or cosmic becoming. Others
considered that, philosophy studies existence in its totality . But
Beaufret have written about Wollf:"Wollf is proposing for himself
therefore to make the census of essentialias, that is of all that it can
be said about being as being. This science is, by consequence, the
science of being as posibility....One can talk about being without to
say a word about its existence. The last is just a "complementum
posibilitatis", a complement of posibility."(Beaufret 1998, p.11). On
the other hand, there are special philosophies, as ethics or ethical
philosophy, which are quasi-disinterested about some ontic or
ontological aspects of reality. There is some autonomy between some
philosophical disciplines, such as there is a certain freedom in human
life. An alternative characterization of philosophy concerns its aims.
Thus, for Rescher the characteristic aims of philosophy are: (i) Provide
answers to those domain definitive questions, that is, propound and
comunicate information that conveys these answers . ( We want answers.)
(ii) Seek for cogency, that is, fit those answers out with a rationale
that attains cogency and conviction by way of evidentiation,
substantiation, and demonstration. (We want not just answers but answers
worthy of acceptance.) (iii) Strive for rational economy, pursuing the
tasks at issue in points (i) and (ii) in a way that is rationally
satisfacatory, that is, in an efficient, effective, economical ...
The general characterization problem of philosophy relative to its
particular domains or of its specific relative to other cultural
forms---art, religion, science---is a metaphilosophical one. But, how it
can be justified this diversity of opinions about the esence of
philosophy? Coltescu had considered that: "The two levels of philosophy,
[first-order philosophy and metaphilosophy] are in interaction, are
situated in a circularity raport, the thinkers options in the plane of
proper philosophy having effects on their metaphilosophical conceptions
and, converse, their metaphilosophical conceptions influence their
investigations in the plane of proper philosohy."(Coltescu, 2002,
p.18-19).
About the antireduction of philosophy, science, mind and imortality
Like Vacariu et al (2001, p.275), I consider that the previous
characterizations are partly correct but they concern philosophy from a
single perspective, sometimes from a reductionist point of view. They
can be considered as quasi-complementary. However, previous
characterizations, either in particular or taken all together
simultaneouslly, do not succed to surprise all that was, all that is,
all that will be, all that can be philosophy. But, until to what limits
can be philosophy extended and developed? What is philosophy? Or, can be
it unificated? If an unification by reduction at one of the previous
characterizations is inacceptable, still remain a posibility of
unification not by reduction but by an ultimate persistent aim, ideal.
I will ilustrate this with an example from philosophy of science. Popper
considered that truth is the regulative ideal of science, and in this
sense truth may have an unificatory role, relative to various special
sciences, as a common aim, ideal, tack toward all the scientific
propensities converge. But, truth single maybe is a too strong criterion
of scientificity and is not enough as an ideal of science, because the
common statements as "the sun is brilliant" are not veritable scientific
statements, because they are too common-truths. More constrains are
needed. In addition, science should to pursue also sistematic
explanation, the laws and the freedom grades of universe at all its
levels, from microcosmos to individual human conscience, society and
macrocosmos.
Against antistructural reductionism
Fetzer assume that science aims at the discovery of laws of nature that
have the form of general principles that are applicabile for the
purposes of explanation and prediction. On the other hand, science
should not to prefere simplicity and economy necessarly. Simpler
theories ought to be prefered to complex alternatives only in the cases
in wich they are also adequate, truth. I addition, we do not know a
priori that reality is simple. Other think that, science tend towards
unity(cf. Gold and Stoljar, 1999). However, science should to pursue
unity only in the case in wich world is realy unitary. But, we do not
know a priori that universe have an ultimate universal unity. This aims
are preferable but they are contingent aims, thereby they have a
contingent scientific value. Maybe, the universe have a fundamental
ontological level wich have a necessary existence, and consequently is
universal, for/in every posible world, but the universe unity should not
be identified with the unity of science. The unity of universe exist at
the fundamental ontological level, but the unity of human science is at
the level of human conscious level. The human consciousness is something
that exist at an upper ontological level, that depend on a more complex
level of organization. If the "elementary particles" are not elementary,
if there exist an ultimate unique-type-of-ontological-primitive,
however, "organization is a property wich cannot be reduced to the
properties of its parts, for the behavior of each part depends on those
of the others and on the aims of the whole."(Del Re, 1998). By previous
phrase I have not intentioned to defend the autonomy of chemistry,
biology or of psychology against microphysics s imperialism. I only
intended to criticize the tendency to reduce all the emergent properties
of systems with complex organization to the sums of the properties of
their microparts. I disageed whith idea that all the phenomena from
superior organizational complexity levels supervene as simple sums of
the phenomena from lower levels.
The superior cognitive capacities of human brain are absent at the
single neuron level, that is neurons are not small brains. Brain is not
a big neuron.
For exemple, if we take two thousand of resistors and we try to connect
them in all posibile structures, we know that there is only one
unnecessary structure, wich is total serial, in wich the total
resistance, the phenomenon from higher level, is the sum of the
resistance of each resistor, or the sum of the properties of phenomena
from the lower level, but in structures that involve parallel conected
resistors, the total resistance is not a simple sum of the resistance of
individual resistors. The property that is comon both to the higher
level and to the lower level is "resistitivity".
And, in the non-serial resistors corpus the difference in the total
resistance is thanks to structure. However, this resistor corpus have a
aditive property, a property that is only the sum of the properties of
parts: its mass. Only its mass do not depend on its structure. But, the
previous exemple concern a set of objects that are of the same kind. If
we add to resistors also condensators, transistors and other parts, and
try to erect a computer, than the properties of computer will be only
the sum of the properties of its parts? How will we add resistivity with
condensativity?
An other argument antireductionist in spirit, comming from cognitive
neuroscience, is that of Quartz and Sejnowski concerning how develop
mind.
They present to paradigms that try to explain the development of mind:
"For selectionism, then, development marks a reduction in
representational complexity. In contrast, neural constructivism sees
development as a progressive increase in representational complexity."
(Quartz, S. & Sejnowski, T.J., 1997).
With regard to the measure of the representational complexity, they
present three main candidates :synaptic numbers, axonal arborization,
and dendritic arborization.
And, with many empirical evidences(e.g., Bourgeois et al. 1994) they
show that there is no in the temporal interval of development a change(a
sudenlly eliminatory selectivity as pretend selectionism) wich sustain
selectionism, on the contrary they argue for neural constructivism, that
is for development as an increase in complexity. And, this is not in
favour of simplicity.
However, I think that the developmental properties of mind should to
depend also on the synaptic spatial distribution, not only on the
synaptic number.
In addition, there are writers, like van den Bos, wich propose a
framework for animals consciousness study wich is based on a
hierarchical organizational feedback model of central nervous system.
van den Bos defined consciousness" as a property of neural networks of
self-organizing systems dedicated to dealing with rapidly changing
environments affording flexibility in behavioral patterning"([van den
Bos, 2000]). He consider that:
the brain structures form a functional unit.
the mental states have two parts:one invariant(wich is open to study in
relation with species Umwelt) and one variant.
the specific contents of a mental state at a particular time point is
dependent on momentarily active neural connections within the specific
network and on the information encoded in these connections.
the encoded information is formed by the specific input (through
sensory organs) and output (the movements that are made) relationship in
the hierarchical sistem.
On the other hand, between the neuronal level and the neuronal network
level there is a difference that is partial analogous with that wich
there is between the atomic level and the molecular level, or between
the macromolecular level and the celular level, or between celular and
tisular levels . If thinking there is only at the conscious level, and
the consciousness is a property of a network wich is situated at a
superior level of a hierarchy, then thinking and animals consciousness
cannot be reduced/limited at properties of a singular neuron, as must to
pretend the neuron doctrine.The correct tendency of present is to
recognize that there is a dependency between organization of conscience
of animals and the organization of brain. On the other hand, the posible
relationships and comunications between neurons depend also on the
properties of neurons. But, the properties of interactions between sets
of special organized neurons, depend also on the global properties of
those sets, wich depend partial on the specific organization of those
sets, and on the other influences from CNS. Thus, properties of neurons
plus the quantity (the number) of neurons determine a big set of posible
CNSs, as the set of the CNSs of mamals. From all posible CNSs, the
environment [competition, the fight for survival or/and reproduction,
the capacity of problem solving even by deceptive conditioning] have
selected some. But, the properties of neurons, when there are more than
one neuron, cannot determine only one type of special organization of
CNS, but only a non-diferentiated set of posibilities, or the general
laws of the organization of any posible CNS, wich permit the existence
of a great number of different special organizations of CNS. And, if we
consider the superior cognitive emergent properties of an individual
CNS, like that of human, I think that, we will realize that the
properties of its single neurons form in the explanation of those
superior cognitive properties only the necesary conditions--- with the
same neurons may be constructed other different CNSs--- and that for the
explanation of the specific or individual properties of a CNS we have to
consider also its organization, structure, functioning, wich form in its
explanation a sufficient condition. On the other hand, there exist
aditive properties, as would be the physical mass of brain, wich do not
depend on the arrangement of the parts of the whole. Thus, at different
levels of organizational and functional complexity there are emergent
properties wich cannot be founded at certain too lower levels and wich
are not just simple sums of the phenomena from wich they supervene. For
exemple, chemists, at least Del Re, admit the ireducibility of higher
levels properties (like, the global properties of cells) to the lower
level properties---by ireducibility I intended to say that a cell is not
just a quantity of molecules or macromolecules---in the folowing way:
a molecule is a collection of nuclei and electrons.
the way in wich are put together nuclei and electrons matter, and the
connections (chemical bonds or microforce fields) determine the
properties of the whole.
a complete description of the electrons and nuclei wich form the parts
of a molecule is not a complet description of an individual molecule,
because the whole reality of a molecule include also emergent
properties.
the properties of nuclei and electrons and their numerical cantity, the
constrains of universal environment plus the contextual constrains,
determine all the type of intramolecular connections and molecular
arrangements.
the particular arrangement of nuclei and electrons in a molecular
structure tend to satisfy the actions of force fields.
but the non-additive properties of a molecule as a whole depend also on
its specific molecular structure, and they neither can be finded at
level of the properties of nucleus, neither are unique determinated by
the the properties of the nuclei or of the electrons.
a cell, is what it is, not because it would correspond to a metastable
configuration of atoms and electrons by wich it is constituted, but
because its coordinated activity (entelehy) is finalized, aimed at
holding it alive in a particular (normal) state.
Del Re considers that, for a complet description of an entity wich
appear as unitary at a certain level, we must to describe the collection
of all the previous levels wich appear in a hierarchy of an
organizational and functional complexity, and that at each previous
level the information about the considered object is partial latent and
indeterminated. In evolutionary psychology it is considered that human
mind is the result of a modular organization of brain; the modules of
brain have multiple specialized functions like: receptive functions,
motor functions, or for the formation and the criticise of beliefs; and
these modules are interconnected. However, this modular view is
criticized by neural constructivism. All these (the hierarchy,
modularity or networks properties) tend to falsify the thesis that human
mind or the integral consciousness animal experience can be reduced, or
can be the product of a single neuron, untill to the level of the
singular neuron, as must to pretend the neuron doctrine. Maybe, neuron
can be an unity of NS, but cannot be an unity of conscious states. Two
man with the same number of synapses and with the same number of neurons
can differ in their mental properties, due to synaptic spatial
distribution. Political sciences do not treats about the properties of
elementary particles, but unity must be, however, a comm-unity of the
particular sciences and a specific unity of science, not a hierarchy of
levels of existence or a history of molecular evolution from elementary
particles and forces to the human society. However, systematization and
clasification of sciences are values from a rational point of
view(Hintikka and Halonen, 1999).
The unity of science should be an unity not of all the levels of
material organization, but an unity of all the scientific products.
Given the great diversity of domains of sciences and scientific
products, a content unity is less expectable. On the other hand, the
scientific progress can change the unity of science whith time.
Therefore, an regulative ideal/ideals as unity of science is good.
As a kind of conclusion to antistructural ontology
Human brain is a concretmaterialisation of an ontologically posible
system.
The set of all the posible systems and structures depend on the
properties of ontological primitive/primitives, on their numerical
quantity, on the trans-contextual conditions and on the specific
contextual conditions.
The properties of the wholes depend on the properties of ontological
primitives, on the quantity of the ontogical primitives that constitue
them, on their structures; there exist emergent properties.
An ontologically posible mind is not a product of human brain, but it
is a human discovery.
The posible minds, the properties of ontological primitive/primitives,
the laws of univers, are not products of human mind;their existence is
not conditionated by humans; humans cannot exist if they would not
exist; they had existed before the life apparition and can to exist if
life would no longer exist.
The ontological posibility of human brain is implicated by the
properties of ontological primitive/primitives, by their sufficient
quantity and by some specific contextual conditions.
What is physically posible do not depend at all on the imagination of
brain, but only on the universal and local physical constraints.
Implementation of a certain ontologically posible mind may be not
independent of human brain, but what is ontologically posible in every
context in space and time will never depend on human brain, maybe.
Question: What is the necessary level of univers? Is there something
indestructible in Univers?
We can to conceive the whole space being empty.
But, we cannot to imagine something aspatial.
Is there something more primitive than the empty space in univers?
Is there something that would can affect the space itself?
...The matter density in some region of space can increase and
decrease, but the space itself cannot be destructed?...
Now, considered etimologicaly, philosophy have the sense of love of
wisdom. In an analog way, we can consider that the eternal regulative
ideal of philosophy is wisdom. We saw that initial it was considered
that wisdom involve the knowledge of being, but then appeared an
enrichment, preoccupation for the knowledge of becoming, then for the
knowledge of humanity, then for the knowledge of the limits of the pure
reason, and so on. The history of philosophy reveal that the term
philosophy have a dynamical intension and extension. What would should
to justify the inclusion or exclusion of certain conditions to the
conceptual sense of philosophy is their consistency with its final
ideal: wisdom. This historical development and enrichment of intension
and extension of the love of wisdom make us to anticipate that wisdom is
an ideal toward we tend and/or progress, not a something present wich we
would need just to analize, like brain. I think that, brain itself is
nothing more than an mean wich participate, by its cognitive/scientific
development, at the realization of this ideal result, and in conditions
in wich its functions or capacities can be multiple implementable, brain
is not the only mean or the necessary condition, the posibility
condition of wisdom. If those capacities of brain (like control of
movement, stimulus reception and codification, information processing,
imagination, problem solving) are reproductible by robots, then the
neuronal level is not a necessary condition for the posibility of mind.
The necessary and universal characteristics of whatever posible mind are
a set of capacities wich can be implementated by architectures wich can
be different both at the organizational-cauzal level(the same capacity
can supervene on different structures that do not simulate brain
arhitecture) and at the implementational level.
As Block said, "it can be implementated mecanicaly, electricaly,
biologicaly."
Brain is specialized in realization of certain function/functions like:
sensory functions:
(a) reception, codification and processing of the light quanta flow, in
the limits of some frequencies.
(b) reception, codification, processing of acustic/air pertubations, in
some limits.
(c) reception, codification, processing of the stimulus coming from the
interaction with macrobjects.
motor functions:
for the reglation of movements:
(a) for movement preparation.
(b) for the movement in the external environment.
(c) for the internal motions adjustment (as the motions of heart, etc.)
for the codificated store of informations/contents.
for the abstract processing of information.
for reasoning.
But, the function or the ultimate utility of all this functions and
subsystems of the brain-system is only one: survival and optimization of
conditions of life; to maximize the quantity and quality of life;or the
preservation and the improvement of life. A beter visual system can
help an animal to resolve some vital problems. But, the accuteness of
human vision is inferior whith regard to the vision accuteness of other
animal visual system. Humans are superior to all animals with respect
to reasoning and abstract processing of information/content. In the case
of a conscious authonomous robot this final function or mission would
can be conservation of its integrity, information... I think that,
feelings have an unconscious very important role in animals motivation.
The feelings of pain and pleasure have a fundamental role in the
motivation of animals. If animals would not feel pain when are damaged,
how much time would they survive? If they would not feel the feeling of
hungry, if they would not feel any pleasure in their life, would
survive
they sufficient time to reproduce theirself? That is why a robot which
would have the capacity of feeling pain when is damaged would much
resemble whith animals, in its behaviour. On the other hand, feelings
neither are necessary for survival, nor are necessary for presevation of
the integrity of a robot. The capacity of abstract processing of
information(coming from other sensorial systems) and the capacity of
reasoning can also realize the role or the utlity of feelings. A robot
can be programated to have an ultimate mission and to use all its
cogntive powers to realize it. But in this case its freedom would be
only relative...to means. Bones, muscles, brains have as an ultimate
utility or mission to solve the preservation and optimization of life
problem?
We can conceive for every neuronal network of brain an artificial
network wich is superior both in quantity of its components and in its
structural-functional, organizational properties, that is in its
performance. What is essential is the final utility, the set of actual
structures and the actual capacities maybe is not the best one. Can we
conceive superior alternative capacities of mind? Is the abstract
principles of life multiple concretizable? If the first person level of
an individual human can supervene on different material implementations,
if its long therm memory would can be transferred, then the problem of
imortality is multiple solvable. However, here I had made a grave, but,
unconscious intended eror. Suppose that we would have the power to
double usself. So as, linings would do not differ qualitatively. Would
this mean that if we would die but our lining would survive, we had not
die? No!
Two atoms of hidrogen are not composed by the same elementary
particles, but only by the same type of elementary particles. I
attracted the attention on the fact that two things cannot be identical
in the summer of 2003, when one of my anemies(Stefanescu Adina.),
reactively to my thesis suggested something about the Harnad s
indiscernability.
Now, what is more important Cognitive Science or Gerontology? What is
more mean and what is more aim?
For humans gerontology is more important than creation of robots. Robots
should to serve humans. That is why my fundamental idea is:
Two objects never can be absolute identical, indifferently how many
properties they share, because they are TWO(quantitatively).
When I presented first time, in a primitive version, Towards a
Philosophy of gerontology, some of my anemies tried to extend in mases
hate against me by suggesting the feeling that my speech is against
procreation.
When I refered to one of them, in my previous version, next day, some
local political voices suggested indirectly that "some" do not listed
the good things that had been maded locally and that are a danger for
the national interests! To be local politicians so interested of
philosophy? Or had been they helped by some friends to see my works?
This kind of deceptive and manipulative behaviour is present in all
the countries of the world and its agents are a danger for the eternal
interests of humanity. Maybe, at the top of the political level are not
those who deserve to be there, but those who are the best in deceptive
and manipulative inteligence.
Short digression
A manipulative person can inhibit a person X behaviour(by fear), by
exciting the hate of a mas Y, by giving an ethicaly negative
misinterpretation of X s behaviour. To be more eficient, the
manipulative person can give an antinational or antihuman interpretation
of X s behaviour. Every human action can be antinational or antihuman
misinterpreted by those who have a deceptive and manipulative retoric.
The deceptively-manipulative person can prepare the mases to be very
agressive at some point of time, progressively. It can progress until
the idea that is more better to die one single person than a nation.
Jesus!
Or if two person are in competition for something, one of them, the
deceptive one can try to suggest to mases that its competitor have some
familiar duty and is more better for it to stay home or something. Or,
to inhibe the progress of its competitor a deceptive person rob its
competitor intimate journal from its naive adolescence and treath him
with its publicity.That is, the deceptive persons use even ethics to
misinterpret and deceptively manipulate humans. A little nation can be
affected(e.g., robed) by a more powerful nation. A religious
representative can give the folowing "explanation": "this was permitted
by god, due the decrease of faith in the first nation". A political
leader can provide this teleological explanation:"this to punish the
antidemocratic politics [practiced by the little nation] and to
stimulate religious faith increase". If it is not truth, however, will
be preventive.
That is why every wrong action can be deceptively sanctified.
Or, another, a media agency present at the place of an interbinational
conflict select and transmit to other nations only those news that are
in the favour of one part and is for the destruction of other one; and
all this in function of offers. All is negociable, even the right to
kill.
At least some political actions are the sublime expression of the most
barbarian will. And this posibilities can be infinitely diversified,
developed and mixed function of requests and offers. With regard to this
type of man, "we will never survive unless..."
You do not think that this persons should be detected, discredited and
eradicated from leadership?
Reflection on the idea of nothing and its relevance for science and
humanity
On the reference of the idea of nothing
It seems to me that there can be no absolute nothing.
Arguments:
an idea is not nothing; indeed, every posible cognitive system is
material and, therefore, is a function of matter; it is something
material: as a material state of a material system; therefore, until we
have any idea, the absolute nothing cannot be.
on the other hand, if the quantity of energy from universe is constant,
that is, if energy cannot be destroyed, but only transformed from a
state in an another state, than outer nothing cannot be, therefore
absolute nothing cannot be, that is nothing both inside and outside,
cannot be. If the empty space is indestructible, than the same it holds.
On the content of the idea of nothing
By our experience of relative nothing(e.g., an empty box or by the
experince of relative destruction) we can arrive, by mental operations,
at the idea of absolute nothing, by extension. Or by thinking at a
continuously reduction of a cognitive content of an idea(e.g., we can
arrive until the idea of 0). As we can arrive at the idea of
infinit...That is, by increasing continuously somehow a cognitive
content.
But, any idea in order to be understooded should to have a content.
Thus, idea of nothing cannot be understooded without starting or
relating it with something positive content. 0 is understooded relative
to quantity. The empty can be understooded only relative to matter or
physical and space.
That is why, the idea of nothing have, however, a content...it is not
merely negation, in addition is the negation of all that is .
On the other hand, we must to understand that the idea of nothing is
something material, is a material state of a material system.
Only together with a positive content this idea is inteligible.
~ single have not any meaning.
Even single, ~ have a content, although not a meaningful content.
Therefore, the idea of nothing does not involve an ideatic nothing.
However, we can think somehow at the idea of absolute nothing positive
content, but this idea is not content-empty. We can anticipate the idea
of absolute nothing, but we cannot arrive to it...
My fundamental idea is that
there can be no an absolute empty-content idea
But, content can to come from many sensorial systems, not only from
visual system.
And, many animals have sensorial contents.
I think that, there are animals with better senses than humans...
That is why mental opertations/processings/computations
are very important.
As was argued by Quartz and Sejnowsky in The neural basis of cognitive
development , evolution of cognition lead to a more flexible capacity of
forming free representation...but, as they argue, development also
involve an increase of the complexity of representations...not a
reduction to nothing...
Therefore, a depeer understanding of everithing involve more
logical/scientific/rational coherence of all that is from bottom to top.
The nothing cannot increase the inteligibility of science. I fear that
idea of nothing is a sterile one.
Metaphysics=chemistry.
Metachemistry=biology.
Neither science nor animal cognition, evolutionarily speaking, do not
begin with the nothing-content, but with some content, at least a
sensorial content.
We do not start from nothing-content, but we anticipate this idea
starting from some content.
More than simplity we want inteligibility, and this involve not only
isolates primitives, but also relations, structures, processes etc.
We should to arrive not to the idea of nothing, but to the coherence of
the whole existence...to the understanding of all that is. And this is
not thanks to the idea of nothing.
Humans and the whole existence will never participate toward idea of
nothing.
Neither had we started, nor we should to arrive at the idea of nothing.
We should to arrive at the understandig of all that is, all that was,
all that will be and finally to understanding all that can be and all
that cannot be; to an ultimate but coherent understanding of all ...and
to the discovery of those posibities that will make we happy. Not to
nothing.
Neither simplity nor economy is our ultimate and necessary scientific
and philosophical aims. By science we want primarly understanding and
secondly happiness. The lather involve extension of life quantity and
quality. The lather involve justice& love&peace&freedom&power and maybe
others.
Towards a unification by aim
We observe that, at the same time with the extension of science, art and
culture domains it is posible the extension of domains of philosophy,
for exemple apparition of philosophy of gerontology. However, the
enrichment of the content of the term philosophy may be initiated even
from the inside of philosophy itself. The progress in philosophy can
result in multiple ways:
by development of some ancient fundamental questions and answers.
by abandonment of some theses, directions wich had been proved untrue,
inexacte or improper.
by addition of new topics supervened by philosophic intuition and
reflection.
And, may be, every domain of reality or even the posibility can to
become an object for philosophical reflection, but much more those
themes wich are more compatible with its fundamental philosophycal
ideal: wisdom. Reasoning thinking, and its forms, is the necesary
condition of human wisdom, but it is not enough. What it can be wisdom?
Or, at least, in great lines, with what it is incompatible? Wisdom
cannot mean ignorance, therefore it is compatible with cognition.
However, wisdom cannot mean any knowledge: philosophy is not identical
neither with science, nor with religion or art. And, some proper objects
for cognitive philosophy, had been showed before . On the other hand,
wisdom cannot mean insuficient inteligence, therefore it must involve
also inteligence. In absolute, inteligence involve the capacity of
solving problems, indifferent of their importance or values for humans.
But, in addition, wisdom should to involve also the evaluation of the
fundamental function or pragmatic utility of inteligence in acord with
the fundamental needs of biobeings. Thus, wisdom is compatibile with the
conscious attempt to resolve the folowing problems:
survival; adaptation have a value only as a mean to survival, not an
absolute value; sometimes is more wiser the adaptation of univers to the
needs of humans.
optimization of life conditions.
extension of life span.
eradication of senescence, if it will be posible.
and progressing in this sense we tend towards an ideal limit: imortality
and happiness.
In addition to inteligence, wisdom must to involve the capacity of
correct appreciation of the possesor most important aims, for long term.
I propose the folowing measure law , as a potential biouniversal law of
wisdom:
The wisdom of creatures, either at individual level or at species level,
is directly proportional to the quantity, quality and the balance
between quantity and quality of their life in the history of univers;
however, considering the dificulty of their contextual conditions of
life.
This law is well-grounded on a supposition and appreciation of what is
and what should to be the final aims of all creatures[continuously
survival, conservation and development of life].
For 3,x miliards of years, the final sense or utility of most
body-environment interactions either conscious or unconscious, of
knowledge, of the navigation within environment, of the political
organizations and actions was the increase of the quantity and the
quality of life, at least for actor. By quality of life I mean all the
good mental pleasures(like those related to freedom, justice, cognition,
love, non-deceptive pleasures etc.) . I think that philosophy neither is
deceptive inteligence nor is manipulative inteligence. Wisdom is
consistent with justice, but all the humans in world try to impose
theirself by every imoral means. Everyone aspire to manipulate human
mases. For most of humans wisdom is relative to the power to gain many.
Many is the ultimate ethics of most humans.
Now, previous considerations(the good ones) can function as
alternative conditions wich enrich the conceptual sense of philosophy
term. Or, they can subsume the alternative conditions. If mankind would
be suddenly threatened by a natural disaster, as a collision with an
celestial body or by a new glacial era, all the human knowledge would be
utilized as a mean to solving the problem/aim of survival and unlimited
conservation of life. In relation with the other body parts, brain have
a role of control, orientation, problems(like survival, reproduction and
other involved by happiness) solving, but in relation with life is only
a mean; the mental life of brain depend on the life, the state and the
functional relation between its (neuronal, glial)cells; and survival and
conservation of other body parts cells depend, at least in part, on the
brain inteligence; there is an interdependence here. Human mind have as
fundamental tack, or,
the "spirit" or the" finality" of brain is the conservation and the
optimization of life.
From this perspective, of maximal extension of the quantity of life and
in an non-suficient measure of its quality, I wish to draw atention on
the importance, because it is compatibile with the biouniversal wisdom
law, of gerontology, and to the posibility of a philosophy of
gerontology.
2. Fundamental gerontological considerations on aging
In what it will folow, I want to present a minimal consideration on some
important aspects of gerontolgy.
2.1. Definition of senescence
Eremia consider that, "senescence is apparently the spontaneous process
of progressively deterioration of life structures, released at the
molecular level, starting with the first moment of this structures and
having as result the permanent reduction of biological performances, as
well as the increase of the risk of life cesation as a result of all
environmental aggressions kinds".([Eremia, p.38])
2.2. On the process of senescence
Strehler divide the processes of senescence in two categories:
determinated , by wich he understand that part of any senescent process
wich is geneticaly determinated.
and, subsidiary, related to the aggressions efects wich appear in the
frame of the interactions between body and environment.
Most gerontologists (cf. Eremia) consider that a process is senescent
when it fulfil the folowing four fundamental conditions:
universality: all the members of species must to be affected by it with
time.
progressivity: wich suppose that the lesions wich are at base of
senescence are acumulated with time; the affection of a macromolecule is
spontaneous, but accumulation of this lesions it is produced gradualy
and, therefore, progressively, regressively.
to be intrinsic: are excluded those lesions wich come from external
causes as diseases.
to be noxious.
2.3. The Forms of the Time Pressure
Eremia unify under the time pressure phrase the folowing factors with
senectogen character:
thermic agitation of molecules wich implement the structure of life.
fotonic and corpuscular bombardment caming under the form of
environmental radiations.
interconnection of macromolecular chains, in special of proteins and
nucleus acids, wich is the chemical reaction wich generate the most
ample noxious efect, starting from the most lower level chemical
interaction.
2.4. Explanatory-Theoretic Aspects of Senecence
In his "An attempt at a rational clasification of theories of aging",
Medvedev estimated the number of theories wich explain aging to
approximately three hundred. This is a part of them(cf. Eremia):
1. Theories of genetical program
1.1. The hypothesis of morphogenetic active program- wich release the
death of animal at short time after the end of reproduction act (at
species as somon, marsupial mouse etc.) or at short time after certain
modifications of environmental properties (day shortening, drought
etc.).
1.2. The hypothesis of postreproductive suicide program - most often by
non-feeding ( at some insects, nematods etc.).
1.3. The hypotheses of morphogenetical passive aging:
1.3.0.The hypothesis of aging as a continuation of differentiation, as a
supradifferentiation or as a increase of genes repression.
1.3.1. The hypothesis of aging as a disdifferentiation with genes
repression disappearance and disregulation of sequential transcription.
1.3.2.The hypothesis of aging as an efect of incomplete repression of
development program.
1.4.The hypotheses of the existence of some specific or non-specific
genes of senescence.
1.4.0.The hypothesis of non-balance between mutator and antimutator
genes action.
1.4.1. The hypothesis of some pleiotropic genes wich act in the late
life.
1.4.2. The hypothesis of the programmed synthesis of some mitotic
inhibitors or of some inhibitors of transcription and translation.
1.4.3. The hypothesis of some mutations wich accellerate aging (theories
inspirated from human the sindroms of premature aging).
1.5. The hypotheses of the existence of some longevity specific genes.
1.5.0. Hypotheses based on the identification of some genes wich extend
the life of some inferior eukariotes.
1.5.1. Hypotheses wich explain the human superior longevity
comparatively with the primates by some additional genes that have
humans.
1.5.2. Hypotheses wich have as starting point the identification of
mammals longevity genes with the help of selection by hibridization.
1.5.3. Hypothesis of the existence of some genetical programs for
correction wich are released only in germinal cells.
1.6. Hypotheses about the existence of some biological clocks .
1.6.0. Hypothesis of the existence of temporal genes, hypothesis of
gradual loss of temporal organization, hypotheses based on the
connections between senescence and biorhythms.
1.6.1. Hypothesis of DNA shortening in postmitotical cells.
1.6.2. Hypothesis of DNA repetitive sequences methylation.
1.6.3. Hypothesis of limited potential of cellular divisions.
1.6.4. Hypothesis of the cellular "capitulation".
1.6.5. Hypothesis about hipotalamic neuroendocrin centers.
2. Theories of the first lesions
2.0. Hypothesis of wear by work.
2.1. Hypothesis of autointoxication.
2.2. The Hypothesis of the suffocation by waste products.
2.3.The Hypothesis of calcification (calcifilaxiei).
2.4. The Hypotheses of the diminution of the co-ordination grade between
the metabolic pathways.
2.5. The Hypothesis of the erors in the protein synthesis.
2.6. The Hypothesis of the secondary efects of the intermediar
metabolits.
2.7. The theory of the free radicals.
2.8. The theory of the thermic microshocks.
2.9.The theory of somatic mutations.
2.10.The theory of entropy.
2.11. The theory of the deuterium accumulation.
2.12. The theory of the accumulation of some metabolits isomers.
2.13. The theory of the metallic ions accumulation.
2.14. The theory of the radiations senectogen efects.
2.15. Theories of lesions by stress.
3. Theories based on the analysis of senescence manifestations at the
molecular, cellular and organic level
3.0.Theories of the structural stabilization and of the macromolecular
intercconection.
3.1. Theories based on the calitative modifications of protein by
post-translational causes.
3.2. Theories based on the cantitative changes of proteins.
3.3. Theories based on modifications in protein biosynthesis.
3.4. Theories based on modifications of structure of nucleus acids.
3.4.0. Hypothesis of DNA chain breakings.
3.4.1. Hypothesis of DNA metilation diminuation.
3.4.2. Hypothesis of metalic ions wich are connected with DNA.
3.4.3. Hypothesis of modifications in DNA proprocessing.
4. Evolutionary Theories
4.0. Theories of rate of living.
4.1. Theories based on the correlations between breeding rate and aging
rate.
4.2. Theories based on the correlation between development lenght and
rate of aging.
4.3. Theories based on the carrelations between body sizes and life
span.
4.4. Theories based on the correlations between some modifications at
molecular level and the life span.
4.5. Theories based on the correlations between some modifications at
genetic level and rate of aging.
4.6. Theories based on the correlations between some modifications at
celular level and longevity.
4.7. Theories based on the correlations between tisular regeneration
performances or of celular proliferation and life span.
5. Theories of certain particular tissues aging
5.0. Theory of the colesterol in aterosclerosis.
5.1. Theory of the protein modification in cristalin aging.
5.2. Theory of eritrocites aging.
5.3. Theory of tooths wearing.
7. Unificatory Theories:
- wich try to combine elements from different groups of theories; for
exemple, so called "network theory of aging" elaborated by Kowald and
Kirkwood in 1994, wich join the theory of erors with the theory of free
radicals.
The problem wich is put in gerontology is that of distinction between
efects and causes.The main question will be always the folowing:
is the incriminated modification really a first cause of senescence or
is only the result of some emergent changes from a more fundamental
level?([Hayflick, 1983]).
Eremia had affirmed that "most gerontologists consider that senescence
is, most probable, a multicauzal and multifactorial phenomenon, at wich
realization take part many biophysical, biochemical and biological
mechanisms. Each type of cell, tissue, organ or organism have its proper
trajectory of aging. Cellular senescent processes are at the base of
global phenomenon of aging, but they form, at the same time, the
component elements of a an interactive superior hierachical network of
wich integrity is deteriorated with time. There are senescent processes
wich affect systems of different hierachical grades"([Eremia,
p.126])[italics are of mine].
As we have seen before, in the Medvedev rational classification, most
theories of senescence indicated different factors with senectogen
efect. It is possible that certain factors to be of non-first order.
Then would be posible an explanatory reductionism at some first/final
senectogen factors? But, the process of senescence is released only from
the fundamental [physical, chemical] level towards macroscopic, tissular
levels? There is no a bidirectionality? Psychical stress[at the
sistemic, emergent, macroneronal level] would cannot affect senectogenly
the individual cells level? Or the human etiological and therapeutic
ignorance [I think at the power of present-day gerontology to eradicate
senescence] would cannot take a place, as a condition, in a rational,
complete explanation of human aging? We see that, the senescence
conditions cannot be found in totatlity at an fundamental
ontic[physical-chemical, atomic-molecular] level, because cognition and
human ignorance are states wich depend on the dynamical interactions in
the space phases of a cellular ensemble. Therefore, a complete
explanation of senescence, wich have to expose all the conditions of
senescence, cannot be a reductionistic one, because human ignorance is a
cognitive insufficiency and conscious cognitive level is an emergent
one. And, if psychical stress may influence the speed or the rate of
aging, than again the reductive explanation is incomplete. Human
conscience is not to be found at the singular intraneuronal level. On
the other hand, senectogen factors can be both intrinsec[ for exemple,
replicative senecence] and extrinsec [for exemple, reactive species of
oxigen ROS], wich make havier the reduction of explanation to a singular
factor with senectogen efect. On the other hand, if we would unify the
previous theories clasificated by Medvedev and create the folowing
reasoning:
T1 or T2 or ...or TN(N=aprox.300)
X is a human
X will become specifically old in a specific time, with a specific rate
(sure, if it will not die because of certain accident or incurable
disease/s)
we would make a non-valid reasoning, because, on the one hand,
we have not a demonstration of senescence eradication imposibility, on
the other hand, a good explanation of human aging must to include all
the causes of aging in order to justify all the efects/manifestations of
aging. A single cause of aging that human body cannot neutralize it is
sufficient to produce aging, but a different form af aging, a different
rate of aging, a different longevity. But, there is a mea rate of human
aging wich determ a mean human longevity.
And if the eradication of aging is not imposible, than aging is a
contingent fenomenon and previous conclusion is not necesary, therefore
the reasoning is non-valid. Us hope is that human aging can and will be
eradicated, maximal minimized, or at least, very much minimized. If
there are non-aging cells, like those wich are caled "imortal"---but
they can be destructed---, than aging, relativ to class of all living
things, is not an universal and necesary phenomenon.
But, our reasoning is relative to human. Our present ignorance permite
to us neither to eradicate aging nor to know if the prediction is
necesary. If human aging is contingent, than in the explanation of the
human actual non wanted aging, ignorance have necesarily a role to play,
as a condition that permit. If human aging is non-necesary, even if for
human its eradication will be for a long time or forever imposible, than
the reasoning conclusion-prediction is non-necesary or contingent. And
therefore, the reductive explanation of aging is incomplete. But, even
if human aging would be ineradicable, the explanation of specific of
human aging traiectory would require a consideration of human body
arhitecture, of its structural and functional specificity. General
cellular senescence would indiferently explain the aging of all mamals,
but there are certain diferences wich cannot be explanated without
refering to special structural or arhitectural conditions. On the other
hand, now humans can modulate in some limits the rate of aging, and in
this case the pro-longevive actions are initiated from a macrolevel. If
we want an unificatory theory of aging, it must be a general theory or a
disjuntive one; but, a theory wich unify all the theories of aging by a
disjunction would unify factors wich are at diferent levels of
organization. Aging also can be conceived as failure of systems,
transbiogenically. From a philosophical point of view, wich tend to the
absolute(necessary and sufficient conditions), these are good
tendencies. Such general theory of aging would offer an most extense and
rational understanding of aging. On the other hand, the most
general=universal theory is the most minimal one. If we restrict our
general theory of aging to the class of living things, than that theory
should to refer to celullar processes, because the most simple living
thing is a unicelullar. But, how much resemble, or how much relevance
have the unicelullar senescence to the human senescence? Eremia have
wrote that anemona, a pluricelular organism, do not age because it
continuously replace its unicelullar parts. Some even have said that all
unicelullar do not age, because they are imortal; in this case a
biouniversal theory of aging is not posible. However, a general theory
of aging can be general in another sense: it is general not relativ to
all the living things but to all the things that are agingable or
senescentable. And, if we conceive aging as transbioaging than that
theory will be from an absolute perspective very good, but from a
perspective wich quest for a complete explanation of human aging will be
very minimal and insuficient. But, we must evaluate theories also from
the point of view of solving the problem of eradication of human aging.
It seem that a such general theory of aging would offer the most
rational help toward creating a fundamental strategy for eradicating of
human aging. But, a general theory of aging cannot substantiate a
complete explanation of human aging; and, if that theory cannot justify
all the aspects of human aging, than the strategy wich is based on it
cannot lead to eradicating of human aging. On the other hand, those laws
of nature, like termodynamics laws, that explain the failure of
nonliving things, cannot explain or are quasi-irelevant for explanation
of living things. Living things cannot leave in state of minimal
entropy(Oexle). If the laws of nature that explain the progressive
deterioration of non-living things are truthly irrelevant to the
explanation of the aging of living things, than can be a general theory
of aging? If the answer is yes, in what sense? A such theory must be a
covery theory, not general. It must must to refer at a formal
generality, or formal abstractivity. We must to conceive the general
concept or idea of aging as an progressive, cumulative process of
deterioration wich can be initiated both from the inside and the outside
of body. The form of senescence traiectory of diverse objects, or the
their senescence rates are not identical but similar. Those characters
of process of aging that are proper only to living things, like
noxiousness or the diminuation of biological performances, cannot be
characteristics of the universal form aging. Only the progessiveness of
a deterioration can constitue the universal form of aging.
Now I want to return to the previous reasoning-prediction-explanation.
For the conclusion to form a necesary consequence, the premises must to
form a sufficient condition. But, even if the theories from the first
premise are all true, we dont know if they form or not form a complete
causal explanation; sure, the causal explanation is not a complete
explanation because it do not see the permissibility conditions of
aging. And, it seem that the previous theories form a complete causal
explanation of aging, but the premises of explanans are not sufficient
to determine the conclusion as a necessary consequence-prediction.
Because the conditions are not sufficient; explanans do not contain a
explicit condition about the imposibility of eradication of aging. If
the argument would contain a condition about the absolute imposibility
of eradication of aging or about the imposibility to arrive at this
result, by the progress of science, in a given period of time(in the
life of X), than the prediction would folow with necessity. However, our
reasoning was formed in an absolute form, in the conditions is not
established a temporal interval. That global aging must
correlate(Shurtz) or depend (Thalos) on endogenous(e.g., genetical,
celullar, tisular carelates) and exogenous(e.g., physical and/or
evolutionary conditions) senectogen corelates it is truth, but in order
to a consequence to be necessary its condition/conditions must be
sufficient. For Schurz, "an explicit and complet answer to an
explanation-seeking question ?P is formally a pair A = (Prem,
Prem=>P)(for it
claims Prem to be true and Prem => P to be correct... . Prem is the
descriptive and Prem=>P the inferential part of A"(Schurz 1999).
In our case, the endogenous and exogenous correlates of aging can form
Prem. And, this Prem implies P=aging phenomenon. But, there is a
problem: even if the causal corpus from Prem is complete, the
implication is relative. If Harnad was right when he said that physical
laws are contingent, then there is no implication there. If the
implication it holds only in the case in wich are excluded accidents or
antiaging interventions than it is relative to some conditions. Should
we add always some conditions to causes/correlates in Prem to sustain
the ontological implication of Con?
2.5. Some philosophical Toughts on the explanation of aging
Human body, as a multicelular colony, is a part of whole univers; it
neither can isolate itself from the univers nor can live in the outside
of universe; for exemple, it need to inhale oxigen and to ingurgitate
food from exterior. A living being wich would live eternaly by its
proper energetical production would resemble with a perpetum mobile.
But, the atempt to reduce/limited the explanation of aging at a physical
process as entropy was criticated. In this sense, Oexle, a specialist,
consider that " Simple generalizing explanations of aging in terms of
entropy are insufficient for the following reasons: i) Non-equilibrium
entropy itself is not a simple concept. ii) The second law of
thermodynamics does not demand that each temporal process has to be
explained in terms of entropy. iii) Thermodynamic entropy must not be
confused with informational entropies, i.e., complexity measures. iv)
None of them is sufficient to explain biological organization. The same
applies to the explanation of disorganization in aging. Indeed, both
types of entropy may decrease with age. v) Theories that explain aging
as a declining sequence of minimal entropy production states, are not
well founded in thermodynamics. Organisms do not live in states of
minimal entropy production. Declining entropy production is a
consequence but not the cause of an age-dependent decline in metabolic
activity. Aging is a function of self-maintenance which varies between
species and was set by evolution but not by thermodynamic laws. vi) The
effect of free energy availability on aging is not transmitted by
entropy. vii) The overall entropy production of an organism indicates
its activity, but is not a useful measure of efficiency. The P/O-ratio
(rate of ADP phosphorylation per oxygen consumption) does not seem to
decline significantly with age. viii) Aging involves all aspects of
life. Neither life nor aging can be explained sufficiently by a single
state parameter such as entropy. Minute changes in a regulatory part may
cause large, positive or negative changes in entropy and entropy
production of the entire system. ix) Bioenergetics, i.e., the research
on regulation of and by free energy, should be fit into the framework of
emergent properties of an organism. Then it will contribute to the
understanding of aging". And, I think that, even if the universal
spatial background, the quasi-elementary physical properties,
alltogether with micro an macro forces influence, would determine the
fundamental laws of matter compositionality, and, therefore, would lie
at base of all forms of posible material existence, and if microscopic
events would lie at the base of macroscopic entropic processes, if
entropy would have a fundamental influence toward deterioration of all
microscopic existents, however explanation of a specific deterioration
of certain class of existents, aging of living sistems, would involve
also conditions related to their specific body arhitecture, and this
would mean that, realy, entropy neither have a sufficient and may be
neither a necessary role in the bioaging explanation. Appear the
folowing question: really living organism cannot elude the process of
entropy? or have entropy a necessary senectogen efect/influence in
every moment of life? At least, at the age of breeding, it seem that
entropy, in the sense of disorganization/disorder increasing, have not
power; and than it is not a absolute inevitable fenomen; therefore the
necessary condition of human aging must to be at a more specific level.
The causes of human aging are both external(for, exemple, ROS) and
internal (for exemple, replicative senescence). But wath about the
posibility condition/conditions of aging. It seem that destructibility
or perishability of human body is its first condition of aging, if aging
is understuded as a progressive deterioration it is a kind of
destruction. But this is also posibility condition of accidental death.
May be this condition is too large or there are multiple conditions that
only together form a aging posibility condition. However, human aging is
not a simple or general form of progressive deterioration; it involve
that some cells to arrive non-replicative stage, some cells must to
acumulate certain substances(lipofuscin, neurofibrilary tangles, senile
plaques and others), deterioration of certain pathways for signal
transmission; the human aging is more than the sum of celular
senescence, but the interneuronal pathways are also parts of body...;
human aging is not a simple deterioration of organization or is not just
this, it is a progressive decrease of functional capacities wich may
supervene not only on organizational deterioration(for exemple,
lipofuscin acumulation or quantitative neuronal loss). A part of aging
supervene on organizational deterioration and other parts can depend on
a functional decrease wich is determinated not only of body microparts
organization deterioration. We must to reduce death to a form of
destruction: life destruction, at least at the whole body level. And, we
must to reduce aging at a decrease process, it is a regressive
unidirectional change of body. Aging is a specific change at a higher
level wich may emerge/supervene on multiple microchanges, wich are not
all of a deterioration character. Surely this change is a structural
one, but this structural change not involve just deterioration, but also
sediments acumulation(lipofuscin) or cantitative decrease(neuronal loss,
or loss of viable cells). But, what make posible these emergent
changes? On the one hand, the imperfection of body: absence of certain
regenerative mechanisms [for anti(telomere shoretening)] , the
insufficience eficiency of some preventive, protective, reparative
mechanisms(like those again ROS attack, wich are antioxidant substances
like: tocoferols, SOD, ascorbic acid), the absecence of some mechanisms
for elimination of certain substances(lipofuscin) wich acumulate
continuosly in body, and on the other hand certain cognitive
imperfection/insufficience. We know about a reduction/regresion of
hormonal(testosterone, DHEA, melatonin)production in aging, but wath are
its causes and wath are its condition of posibility? In other cases we
know about the inexistence of some mechanism for regulation of some
processes (e.g., celullar senescence, apopthosis, arteries
calcification([Judit, 2003; Wick et al 2003]) of wich action is
senectogen on long term. But, is the eradication of aging problem
suitable to be solutionated at the genetic level? I dont belive. The
solution of this problem involve thinking and cooperation of some
researchers, conscious inteligences. However, brain arhitecture
specificity is partial geneticaly determinated ([Delacour 1998]), and
therefore, certain cognitive capacities( like thinking power) and their
limits are at least partial geneticaly predestinated, but not forever
and the solution to the aging eradication is not inborn." In the
nature/nurture debate that still pervade neuroscience, Gazzaniga argues
in favor of nature, by emphasizing that nurture alone is not enough to
shape brain function. He advocates a prominent role for modularity,
adaptive specialization and genetically driven mechanisms in the
ontogenetic/phylogenetic development of the brain"(Teixeira 1998).
However, I think that the most general behavioural actions and attitudes
of individual life form have formed a specialzation; this specialization
maybe
have determined a minimal change at the genetic level; maybe some
genetical changes due to continuosly learning have accumulated very
slowly until the apparition of...species. Both genetic factors and
nurture factors should be involved in the explanation of human mind
development. But, with regard to ontogenetic development of mind, I
agreed with
