About encephalon last part

Lastly we can remark that the abilities expressed in this general description of the encephalon allow some technical actions common to the vertebrate animals and their transmission from a generation to the other. Generally the learning of these techniques is done by a succession of some actions having led to a feeling of well-being and so well memorized; but the abilities to analyze its sensorial primitive analysis, to analyze its ability to analyze its primitive analysis, to deduce and induce a methodic analysis, and the one to have some inventive constructions and not imitative ones being able to be some methods of analysis requiring some technical inventions, are not considered because they are not some common animal abilities.

Definition of encephalon second part

Encephalon in its management of data has some defined functions as the memorization, which allows to store some logics, which can afterward be triggered automatically in a situation in part analogous with the one memorized; we can notice that it stems from the triggering an imagination so an internal action, which can be accompanied by a motion of the body on the external world. The imagination is then also an important function which allows to conduct some sensations stemming from the five senses after a time (relatively to the action of origin), forming thus some unconscious logical combinations, which can be the origin of the psychosomatic problems linked to some past physical troubles; in addition to this it manages the dreams out of its hazardous changes, about this topic it is good to know that only God knows the influence of the dream on the animal actions (the spirit of the existence of animals for example having a less complete understanding, see a definition to come may be), because the dream can only reveal a will-power or inclination which will not happen; or be the cause of a succession of some recent and independent ideas which will be able to be chimerical so false, or correct and which will happen; or stem from a learned succession where the ideas are then dependent; or even from the memory of a periodical thing, what is equivalent to the automatic triggering described here before. The origins of dream can then be various but a mark stays more or less in the memory and can then after during the awakening influenced the order of the ideas according to the one given by the memory. Otherwise from the activity of the encephalon accompanied by the remainder of the nervous system stem also the feelings at their first degree, which can be summarized by the combination of six primary feelings which are desire which is an inclination toward the obtaining of a thing felt as being missing or which will be missing, of which the variation can lead to be blasé or in an absence of desire by the excess of a thing, next to aversion which is the desire to not more or not possess a thing; as well there is admiration as an astonishment in front of a new thing which triggers a prolonged attention; afterward joy and sadness which express well-being and bad-being; finally confidence being able to lead to love and fear being able to lead to hatred, which stem firstly from the result of an admiration.

Definition of encephalon first part

Encephalon is an organ common to all the vertebrate animals, it is located in the skull, also it is prolonging by the nerves via the spinal cord except for the nerves of the skull; its principal and common functions are used for the management of what is happening inside and outside the body, by the intermediate of the senses which are divided into the sight, the hearing, the touch, the taste and the sense of smell; these drive the informations by the nerves as far as the specific areas of the encephalon, which next manages the actions. For the set of the nerves, it is divided into two general parts the sensory one and the motor one; the sensitiveness so the sensory action is always more or less active; about the motor intervention, it is distinguished at its turn into two parts, the vegetative one which manages only the necessary actions as the breathing, the hunger, the sexual appetite, the digestion, the cardiac functioning, the system of the blood, …; and the somatic part which manages according to the changes of the life the actions on the outside in a direct way, and indirect one out of the programming changing via the habits and memories stemming from actions which happen again in the same manner...

Definition of the logic or form or nature[1], of an equilibrium (or we can dare equilibrial)

There the form is understood in its totality[2] so in an internal and external way. What taken generally means the set of the relations between all the parts of a body, then which is characteristic of it, and thus necessary in its totality for its existence defined as an equilibrium, so resistant, and except God limited in space, therefore of which the environment can change.
[1]: See René Descartes, Meditations, 6th meditation, § 21. \ [2]: See G. W. Leibniz, Monadology.

Politics and scientists second part

In order to conclude about politics and sciences, I want to add that Heidegger has confessed in the interview he has given to “Der Spiegel” in 1966 (See Ecrits politiques, 1933-1966, par Martin Heidegger, éditions Gallimard), that philosophy (as he practiced it) should not any more have any directly useful role in the change of the world. But he has well glimpsed that the most useful role of philosophy had a future from sciences (not literary), although writing a philosophical work needs some literary talents ; on the top of that it is better to be scientific and literary, in order to have a supporting group through the works of some dead persons (what is current in philosophy) or alive, but also the support of history. Furthermore the sense of this scientific exit (which is well compatible with the political part of my work, for which I did begin an American version) is present in Heisenberg’s book “Physics and Beyond”, relating of (not literary) sciences, of moral, of philosophy, of religion, and of politics. Finally I know the USA are a bit in advance about the relation between not literary sciences and politics, if we consider Benjamin Franklin; so I hope they would help the world to go in this direction. It is time that intellectual creators, which are competent in politics, have the possibility to have more power in this field. So we researchers of the most advanced countries have to unify in order to help real intelligence to have what it deserve! We can do it, especially in a world which needs to change! But we have to take a lesson from Mr. Penn (creator of Pennsylvania), which is to not associate with the bad people.

Politics and scientists first part

There is an interesting extract of a discussion between Carl Friedrich and Werner Heisenberg (in "Physics and Beyond" by W. Heisenberg) :

Heisenberg : “...Anyway we have understood, I did answer, that, for the person to whom the scientific and technical progress has given an important task, it is not sufficient to think only about this task. He has to observe the accomplishment of this task as a part of a great development ; obviously, he must have a positive attitude relatively to this development, since he is working on these problems. It will be easier to take some fair decisions if he considers this general context.” (See the part about the responsibility of the researcher.)
Carl Friedrich : “This would give utterance to the fact that the researcher should as well strive to realize a contact with the public life, to exert an influence on the leading organisms of the State, since it is not sufficient for him to think correctly, but that he wants as well to act and make act the others correctly… Insofar as the scientific and technical progress becomes more important for the collectivity, the influence of the bearers of this progress on the public life should increase. Of course, that is not in question to suppose that physicians or engineers should be more capable to take important political decisions than politicians themselves…” (See the same part)

Heisenberg adds further, out of the conversation : “…the important thing for me was not only to obtain the greatest as possible support of the scientific research by the authorities and the public opinion ; what was for me essential as well, was to realize a penetration of the scientific way of thinking up to the inside of the governmental spheres. I thought sure enough that it had to be recalled all the time to those which will assume in our place the responsibility of the functioning of the State that, in order to govern, it was not enough to assure an equilibrium between some opposite interests ; and that there were frequently some unavoidable necessities, based on the structure of the modern world, in front of which any irrational attitude of evasion toward some sentimental and unrealistic considerations could only lead to some catastrophes.”

A bit more about my work

Here is the conclusion of a study I have done about the “Discourse of the method” by Descartes, which can be useful in order to understand my work:

In order to conclude, I have to specify that the Cartesian logic, being applied among others to mathematics and physics/chemistry, we can find in the education by which we are abided some murky logics which could easily make us call all what we have learned in question, as the complex numbers which have a quite unusual consideration of the square root relatively to the negative numbers ; as well to consider electron as negative energy seems quite heretical because God (about God in science see the link at the beginning of the last post) is according with existence and it is not really possible to admit that something is present after nothingness. Nonetheless by a good reflection these notions can be enlightened. But moreover though the notion of lack is a fact, the concept of the negative energy and the anti-particles seems to me anyway quite doubtful (even if not so much heretical), and the system of the Cartesian gravity which follows the logic of the flame which is going up seems to me at least as neat, knowing on the top of that, that the theory of the skies is well confirmed by observing the rings of Saturn and that the motion in whirl, dear to Descartes, looks like the one drawn by the arms of galaxies. The relative void can be supposed. But if we want to put it at the center of attraction, why for instance could it not fill by volcanoes after they have spit? Because in this case there is not apparently any anti-return valve like in the blood vessels. And even if this could be possible the value of the attraction should decrease because the vacuum should tend to be filled through time. Furthermore the theory defended by Descartes, of which he did discuss with Blaise Pascal, about mercury(1) , has been confirmed by the work of Mr. Torricelli, a pupil of Galileo Galilei, who has rejected the theory of void used by his master about the functioning of pumps, what did lead him to the concept of the atmospheric pressure ; and this is the induction of this result which supports well the rest of the author ‘s theory against the one of vacuum. Nevertheless, it is possible to notice in the Galileo Galilei’s letter to Fulgenzio Micanzio of the 19th of December 1634 that even him did possess another explanation than the one of vacuum. In order to go further, despite the irregularity of the gravimetric geoids, it is possible to add the fact that the atmosphere presents a high resistance and temperature at the periphery of some layers ; what is observed while the rockets are going out, and is not due to the density of the particles because otherwise they should go closer to the planet Earth, but here it seems that we are in the presence of particles like the ones of the second element described in “The World”, which are very light, and thus produce a pressure by following a rule close to the theorem of Archimedes, which applies here vertically from the bottom toward the top because the particles which are light are going toward the top contrary to the molecules of water which are going toward the bottom, and the force is not equal to the weight of moved fluid, but depends on its volume. Finally in order to sustain the fact that when there is an error somewhere the whole is not inevitably one (about the work of Descartes), we can notice that Aristotle as well was rejecting the absolute vacuum, what did not stop Descartes doing it (he was not following Aristotle).

(1) : See the letter to the father Mersenne of the 13th of December 1647.