Credit Bureau Phone Numbers

Credit Bureau Phone Numbers and Aliens

If there are intelligent beings on the planets of fairly nearby stars, could they know about us?

On another planet, the chances of finding another form of intelligence is rather high. However , the chances of finding beings who are physically very similar to us is near zero, because a different sequence of random processes applies making hereditary diversity and a different environment to select particular combinations of genes, very different from ours’.

They may have switching elements analogous to our neurons. But the neurons which operate their process of thinking may be very different. There may be planets where the intelligent beings have about the same neural connections, as we do. Perhaps they act as superconductors that work at very low temperatures rather than organic devices that work at room temperature, in which case their speed of thought will be thousands of times faster than ours and they will develop therefore faster.

Or let’s imagine a situation that may seem incredible, but can be very real:  perhaps the equivalent of neurons in their brains would not be in direct physical contact but in radio communication so that a single intelligent being could be distributed among many different organisms, or even many different planets, each with a part of the intelligence of the whole, each contributing by radio to an intelligence much greater than itself.

In this case they will need neither phones, nor credit bureau phone numbers, as we need here on Earth.

In some sense such a radio integration of separate individuals is already beginning to happen on the planet Earth, with our system of communication

Places where the neural connections are immensely high… I wonder what they would know.

One conclusion is however evident: Because we inhabit the same universe, we and they must share some substantial information in common. If we could make contact, there is much in their brains that would be of great interest to ours. But the opposite is also true. Extraterrestrial intelligence – even beings substantially further evolved than we – will be interested in us, in what we know, how we think, what our brains are like, the course of our evolution, the prospects for our future.

Might they somehow have an inkling of the long evolutionary progression from genes to brains to libraries that has occurred on the obscure planet Earth?

They might not use our system of communications, their phones may be quite a mystery for us and their system of credit of phone numbers might seem bizarre, but if there are intelligent beings on the planets of fairly nearby stars, they are interested in us. But what they already know about the Earth?

Anyway, if the extraterrestrials stay at home, there are at least one way in which they might find out about us.

This way would be to listen with large radio telescopes. For billions of years they would have heard only weak and intermittent radio static caused by lighting and the trapped electrons and protons whistling within the Earth’s magnetic field. Then, less than a century ago, the radio waves leaving the Earth would become stronger, louder, less like noise and more like signals. The inhabitants of Earth had finally stumbled upon radio communication. Today there is a vast international telephone, radio, television, radar communications traffic. At some radio frequencies the Earth has become the brightest objet, the most powerful radio source, in the solar system – brighter than Jupiter, brighter than the Sun.

An extraterrestrial civilization monitoring the radio emission from Earth and receiving such signals could not fail to conclude that something interesting had been happening here lately.

Our inkling to acquire more and more phone numbers leads us to an eventually contact with alien civilisation! And we can’t change this psychology inherent to the human beings.

“The smartphone revolution is under-hyped, more people have access to phones than access to running water. We've never had anything like this before since the beginning of the planet.” (Marc Lowell Andreessen, an American entrepreneur, founder of Netscape). Illustration by Megan Jorgensen.

Telepathy

Telepathy

Tell me, guys, do you believe in telepathy? To tell the truth, I’ve never given it much thought, but the evidence seems rather convincing. But is someone else capable of reading our mind?

I don’t know if you’ve read any of the evidence suggesting that telepathy is somehow independent of time.

Can you imagine a room without walls, where there’s no entrance or exit?

Well, it’s not as simple as that, but it seems that we can really read other people’s mind while we are dreaming or even slightly drink. Yes, you may say that invalidates the evidence, but I don’t think so. It seems it’s the only way we could break through the barrier that separates us from the others minds.

Try and imagine the effect of that discovery: the effect of learning that every act, every thought or desire that flitted through your mind is being watched and shared by another being. It’ll mean, of course, the end of all normal life for everyone.

The real life would become a nightmare as every man and every woman would be a kind of telepathic Peeping Tom – no longer content with mere watching.

The will be a constant but sudden invasion of your mind. People will be always there, sharing your emotions, gloating over the passions they can’t experience in their bodies.

To make matters worse, some people will came chasing after me, and they wouldn’t leave you alone, and bombard you with e-mail letters and phone calls. It’ll be hell, you’ll be unable to fight them, so you’ll have to run away (and you’ll think on a small calm village in Costa Rica, of all places, where no one would bother you.

Have you ever wondered what the human race will do when science has discovered everything, when there are no more worlds to be explored, when all the stars have given up their secrets? Telepathy is one of the answers.

Indeed, I don’t know if you’ve read any of the evidence suggesting that telepathy is somehow independent of time. If it is people will send back their minds to an earlier, more virile age, and become parasites on the emotions of their predecessors.

Perhaps this explains all cases of what we call possession. How the future Telepath must have ransacked the past to assuage their hunger! Can’t you picture them, flocking like carrion crows around the decaying  Afro-Canadian  Empire, jostling one another for the minds of the Emperor Tremblay? (But perhaps they haven’t much choice and must take whatever mind they can contact in any age, transforming from that to the next whenever he has the chance).

However, perhaps telepathy is a symbol of conscience, a personification of guilt, remarkably detailed hallucination, that is yet another example of the tricks the human mind can play in its efforts to deceive itself. And when we realized this, we would cease to be haunted by our past in times of emotional crises. Just trying to fight an increasing sense of futility and uselessness during these moments might be enough.

Telepathy - a room without walls, where there is no exit. Illustration : Megan Jorgensen.

Brain Decodes Skin Sensations

How the Brain Decodes the Skin Sensations

Bach-y-Rita determined that skin and its touch receptors could substitute for a retina, because both the skin and the retina are two-dimensional sheets, covered with sensory receptors, that allow a “picture” to form on them.

It's one thing to find a new data port, or way of getting sensations to the brain.  But it's another for the brain to decode these skin sensations and turn them into pictures. To do that, the brain has to learn something new, and the part of the brain devoted to processing touch has to adapt to the new signals. This adaptability implies that the brain is plastic in the sense that it can reorganize its sensory perceptual system.

If the brain can reorganize itself, simple localizationism cannot be a correct image of the brain. At first even Bach-y-Rita was a localizationist, moved by its brilliant accomplishments. Serious localizationism was first proposed in 1861, when Paul Broca, a surgeon, had a stroke patient who lost the ability to speak and could utter only one word. No matter what he was asked, the poor man responded, “Tan, tan,” When he died, Broca  dissected his brain and found damaged tissue in the left frontal lobe. Skeptics doubted that speech could be localized to a single part of the brain until Broca showed the the injured tissue, then reported on other patients who had lost the ability to speak and had damage in the same location. That place came to be called “Broca's area” and was presumed to coordinate the movements of the muscles of the lips and tongue. Soon afterward another physician, Carl Wernicke, connected damage in another brain area farther back to a different problem: the inability to understand language. Wernicke proposed that the damaged area was responsible for the mental representations of words and comprehension. It came to be known as “Wernicke's area.” Over the next hundred years localizationism became more specific as new research refined the brain map.

"We see with our brains, not with our eyes" (Bach-y-Rita, surgeon brain neuroplastician.) Illustration by Elena.

Unfortunately, though, the case for localizationism was soon exaggerated. It went from being a series of intriguing correlations (observations that damage to specific brain areas led to the loss of specific mental functions) to a general theory that declared that every brain function had only one hardwired location – an idea summarized by the phrase “one function, one location,” meaning that if a part was damaged, the brain could not reorganize itself or recover that lost function.

A dark age for plasticity began, and any exceptions to the idea of “one function, one location” were ignored. In 1868 Jules Cotard studied children who had early massive brain disease, in which the left hemisphere (including Broca's area) wasted away. Yet these children could still speak normally. This meant that even if speech tended to be processed in the hemisphere, as Broca claimed, the brain might be plastic enough to reorganize itself, if necessary. In 1876 Otto Soltmann removed the motor cortex from infant dogs and rabbits – the part of the brain thought to be responsible for movement – yet found they were still able to move. These findings were submerged in the wave of localizationist enthusiasm.

Bach-y-Rita came to doubt localizationism while in Germany in the early 1960s. He had joined a team that was studying how vision worked by measuring with electrodes electrical discharge from the visual processing area of a cat's brain. The team fully expected that when they showed the cat an image, the electrode in its visual processing area would send off an electric spike, showing it was processing that image. And it did. But when the cat's paw was accidentally stroked, the visual area also fired, indicating that it was processing touch as well. And they found that the visual area was also active when the cat heard sounds.

The Brain that Changes Itself by Norman Doidge, M.D. Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science.

Nobody will torture cats. Photo by Elena.

Brain Development

Brain Development

Anatomy and physiology are not glamorous subjects – a complete knowledge of them requires careful and intensive study. But the provide the very bedrock of the subject matter. It is easy to overlook the fact that the brain is, after all, just an organ. It is an organ like the liver or the spleen or the stomach. Like these other organs of the body, it is made of cells. These cells are connected together to form a piece of tissue with a certain characteristic texture and shape, and so the brains of all of look roughly the same. And yet, there is something almost miraculously special about this organ: it is the organ of the mind – indeed, of our very selves.

Despite this unique property of the brain, its cells are not fundamentally different from the cells of other bodily organs. What is the prototypical nerve cell? It consists of three basic parts. The first, the cell body, contains essentially the same things found in cells in other organs – namely, the things that govern its basic metabolism. There are two types of appendages to this cell body, one of which is known as the dendrites, the other as the axon; in our prototypical nerve cell, there are many dendrites but only a single axon. Together, these three components form the typical structure of a brain cell – a neuron. Neurons (in conjunction with some supporting cells called glia) are all that the nervous system is made of – billions and billions of cells, connected up with one another.

This interconnection takes place as follows: The axon of one neuron links up with a dendrite of another neuron, whose axon in turn links with a dendrite of another neuron, and so on; multiple interconnections can occur, as each dendrite on a neuron can accept many axon terminals. At the place where two cells link up – between the axon of one cell and a dendrite of the other – there is a minute gap, called a synapse. Over the synaptic gap, small chemical molecules pass from one neuron to the next; these molecules are called neurotransmitters. This transmission of chemical is the principal means of communication between the cells of the brain. Different cells located in different brain regions use different types of neurotransmitters.

A living creature, and especially a human being, is first and last a subject, not an object. Photo by Elena.

These five concepts – cell body, dendrite, axon, synapse, neurotransmitter – are all that one really need to know about neurons as basic concepts.

What is it, then, that makes this organ so unique – how is it that these interconnected cells produce something as miraculous as our awareness of being in the world? How can it be that the physiological activity of these cells, comprising this lump of tissue, produces something so utterly unlike anything that any other organ produces – indeed, so utterly unlike anything else in the physical universe?

Although the elementary properties of neural tissue obviously do not explain how or why the brain produces subjective awareness, there are two features about it that are quite unusual. These features are not fundamental, but they do distinguish the cells of the brain from those of most other bodily organs. The first distinguishing feature of neurons is the nature of the links between them: the synopsis mediated by neurotransmitters. This linkage permits the passing of “information” from one cell to another. The principle of information transfer is not unique to nerve cells (other cells also interact with each other in various ways), but the dedicated function of communication between nerve cells is an important distinguishing feature.

The second outstanding feature of brain tissue is that, while the basic plan of the brain's organization is, as it were, predetermined by our genes, the overall plan is dramatically modified by environmental influences during life. The brain comes into the world with innumerable potential patterns of detailed organization, as reflected in the infinite combinations through which its cells could connect up with each other. The precise way that they do connect up, in each and every one of us, is largely determined by the idiosyncratic environment in which each brain find itself. In other words, the way our neurons connect up with each other depends on what happens to us. Modern neurons connect up with each other depends on what happens to us.

Modern neuroscience is becoming increasingly aware of the role played in brain development by experience, learning, and the quality of the facilitating environment – and not only during childhood. In short, the fine organization of the brain is literally sculpted by the environment in which it finds itself – far more so than any other organ in the body, and over much longer periods of time.

At the level of neural tissue, then, these two features – the capacity for information transfer and that for learning – are what most distinguishes the brain from other organs. These capacities are present far more potently in brain tissue than in any other tissue of the body.

Neuropsychology, like classical neurology, aims to be entirely objective, and its great power, its advances, come from just this. Illustration by Elena.

The Brain and the Inner World, Introduction to Basic Concepts. Mark Solms, Oliver Turnbull.

Mind and Brain

Mind and Brain – How Do They Relate?

One of the main points is that the brain is simply a bodily organ, like the stomach, the liver, or the lungs. It is tissue, made of cells. These cells do have some special properties, but they are of roughly the same type and employ roughly the same sort of metabolic and other processes as other cells in the body. And yet the brain has a special, mysterious property that distinguishes it from all other organs. It is the seat of the mind, somehow producing our feeling of being ourselves in the world right now. Trying to understand how this happens – how matter becomes mind – is the mind-body problem.

The mind-body problem is a philosophical conundrum that dates back to classical antiquity, and probably beyond. What has changed in recent years is the emergence of a comprehensive scientific effort to solve this ancient problem. This effort, which involves neuroscientists, psychologists, and even philosophers, takes the form of a multidisciplinary enterprise called cognitive science.

The advent of science to the problem has changed it slightly. In that the mind-body problem is now commonly described as the problem of “consciousness.” In other words, the problem, “how does the mind emerge from the brain”, had become, “how does consciousness emerge from the brain.” Although psychonalytically minded readers need to reminding that mental life is not synonymous with consciousness, we will not address this particular twist to the problem. Let us assume that the two ways of putting the problem are synonymous.

Investigating consciousness has become the second career of Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning biologist famous for being the codiscoverer (in the 1950s) of the double-helix structure of DNA. In his book, entitled The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes:

“The astonishing hypothesis is that you, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will are, in fact, no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules (Crick, 1994, p.3).

The hypothesis seems self-evidently true, and yet it is something that many people do not find easy to accept. How can all this – all that comprises you – be reduced to the activity of a group of cells? The subtitle of Crick's book is The Scientific Search for the Soul. This (perhaps overstated) phrase captures something of the magnitude of the problem. The individual cells of the brain are not uniquely “mental”, yet when they are connected up together, each one contributes something to something else that somehow becomes the mind.

Cognitive science is an unfortunate term in that it implies an exclusion of noncognitive mental functions such as emotion and motivation. Illustration by Elena.