I thought I would provide some information you might find to be of interest. There are two articles on the cortical column as the binary unit involved in all cortical processing and memory. There is a third one listed applies the Dimensional Systems Model (based on the column) to psychologiacl treatment. All of these are now posted on RG. The references are as follows:

Moss, R. A., Hunter, B. P., Shah, D., & Havens, T. (2012). A theory of hemispheric specialization based on cortical columns. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 33, 141-172.

Moss, R. A. (2006). Of bits and logic: Cortical columns in learning and memory. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 27, 215-246.

Moss, R. A. (2013). Psychotherapy and the brain: The dimensional systems model and clinical biopsychology. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 34, 63-89.

I have also attached a manuscript of the neuroscience column I just did for the Neuropsychotherapist in an attempt to simplify the columnar theory. I will follow this question. Thanks. Bob

Thanks Robert for joining the group. Very interesting your work.

Hi Dante,

I submit the Fractal Catalytic Model for your consideration.

Davia, C.J (June 2006), "Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Metabolism and Cognition", in Tuszynski, J.A, The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (The Frontiers Collection), Springer, pp. 255–292, ISBN 978-3540238904

Vimal RLP, Davia CJ. How Long is a Piece of Time? - Phenomenal Time and Quantum Coherence - Toward a Solution. In review, Quantum Biosystems 2008

Overview: http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~davia/mbc/

[email protected]

I have being working on both theoretical and experimental neurosciences. I had published a paper on Intelligence in Plos One, two papers on Progress in Neurobiology and one in Medical Hypothesis. Now I posted a question to find people interested in discussing Neurosciences Interdisciplinary frontiers.

I am interested in discussing your proposal.

I have published but not exactly to unify the neuroscience, I publish about neurocognition and evolution...

However, I believe that is hard to neuroscience to continue collecting data with no clear goal. In my mind the key question to neuroscience should be: when and how do subjective experience become electro-chemical-proteinic responses?

Dear Alma:

By completing, maybe, your idea and your question: What of the electro-chemical-protein response, how it does, when it does, and why it does, to retain in the subjective experience, so that allows to the living things evolve?

The neurocognition and evolution are closely linked, therefore, are the royal road to achieve unification.

Interesting for me are the synchronicities, but also the electro-chemical-protein response is very fascinating, and the whole system of memory.

Luc Crevits wrote a book in Dutch: My mind of meat and blood. That is can take more then 10 years before the memory protein is made is something..

I can make no contribution - but I would like to follow the discussion on this topic.

Dear John,

Although the idea did not progress, the challenge remains in force. Once you can read part of the specific literature, you may be able to give us your view from your specialty.

Dante.

Dante a theoretical unification of neuroscience is a contradictio in terminis.

There are too many neurons involved. I feel a bit of opposition.

May be we see always the same electron as Feynman proposed but we can't believe it because we see also a multiplicity of things. And infinite factors we neither can cope with.

But every idea about it can help to widen the circle in which our ideas are caught.

Further than ideas we can’t think, this is the domain of silence, which is difficult to communicate.

Steve Lacy said, the notes I don’t play are the most important. (also metaphoric of course, I still believe that he wrote an opera on my poetry).

The future will be for the quantum biology, but that progresses slowly. On that level the working of the enzymes is great. The beauty of the molecular bioloigy must first be understood on a spiritual level and less on a mechanical.

Modern science usually succeeds by the process of creating new sciences by dividing the fields of inquiry into smaller and smaller domains where simple models can be proposed and tested.  But in order to really understand human cognition not in the details of very narrow domains but to understand human in their global nature we have to find a way to integrate together the result of multiple sciences.  Although this is an obvious conclusion that is known for a long time we have to admit that it is much more difficult to integrate narrow domain sciences into vaster domain sciences.  Only a group of scientist each one already committed to this spirit of integration can begin a dialogue for doing it at a larger scale than individuals can achieved.  A very minority of scientists have this kind integrative commitment.  What is needed is in a sense a renewal of the original impulse to philosophy , to create a unified cosmos and the domain of cognitive science would necessarily be central to the new cosmos since the knower of the cosmos cannot be evacuated from its center as it was in the Copernitian cosmological revolution.  The time for doing it is the time of the crumbling of the earth ecosystem that necessarily resulted from the modern cosmos and which is now crumbling with the economical system that resulted from it.  The spliting of sciences into a large number of narrow views which rendered us totally blind to the evidences of all what is going on is now for survival reasons of many kinds will now have to be displaced by an integrative spirit in the creation of a new cosmos.

Dear Dante, Thank you for including me. Bob Moss (he and I have been corresponding for some time) has some interesting ideas. It will be good to keep this discussion of yours going. My own special interest is addiction (counselling) and how neuroscience can give me some answers - or at least point me in the right direction. Best wishes, John 

Dear John,

Undoubtedly, a unified Neuroscience could be of enormous help in your field of study.

Dear Louis,

How pleased I am to have you again bringing you interesting viewpoint.

Warm regards,

Dante.