This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Copyright © 2008 American Scientiﬁc Publishers All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America
Advanced Science Letters
Vol. 1, 199–211, 2008
Enigma of “The Great Encephalization”: Explanation by Means of Irreducible Field Principle
Unit of Molecular Virology, Kimron Veterinary Institute, Beit Dagan, P.O. Box 12, 50250 Israel; International Institute of Biophysics, Neuss-Hombroich, D-41472 Germany
Delivered by Ingenta to: An extraordinary rate of hominid brain evolutionary development labeled “The Great Encephalization” proceeded without any respective functional (behavioral) manifestations. Such an unusual discrepancy looking like a “sponGuest User taneous” brain expansion with no connection : 220.127.116.11 IP to environmental conditions is not compatible with the Darwinian paradigm based on fortuity of mutations and selection by environments. The proposed explanation of this excepSat, 06 Aug 2011 21:27:57 tional occurrence is associated with a concept of ﬁeld which, as previously reviewed,1 has been employed in some theoretical models of consciousness. The suggested conception is associated with the theory of biological ﬁeld by Gurwitsch2 which includes species-speciﬁc ﬁeld anisotropy as the main postulate determining the respective species-speciﬁc morphology. In light of this theory, the exotic trend of the Great Encephalization is regarded as a consequence of a peculiar mutation in the non-coding genome portion which is widely considered as “junk DNA” with no functional signiﬁcance. The mutation in this portion distorts the species-speciﬁc ﬁeld anisotropy, which can be restored on a new steady level via a chain of further ﬁeld-hitting mutations. Such a lasting ﬁeld-based evolution imitating a certain “trend” explains the puzzling phenomenon of the absence of correspondence between the unprecedented speed of the hominid brain evolutionary development and a very slow behavioral advance that is evidenced on paleoantropological and genetic grounds.
“Does anything about the history of vertebrates indicate why one peculiar species should be so brainy? Here’s closing item for thought. we simply do not know the answer to one of the most important questions we can ask.” S. J. Gould, 19733 “Why are some species’ brains so large despite the metabolic and developmental costs? Why would two species with the same body size have two different brain sizes? These have been central questions in the ﬁeld of brain evolution for decades ” L. Marino, 20054 essay a concept of an irreducible ﬁeld in the role of such a “categorically different” principle, which has not yet been employed in genetic and evolutionary studies.
The evolutionary development of human consciousness reveals entanglement of two prodigies of nature. The ﬁrst one is the consciousness emergence as a hitherto unprecedented phenomenon overstepping the limits of the existing scientiﬁc approach and intervening in the natural regularities of the evolution itself. The second problem relates to the unprecedented “speed” of the evolution of consciousness, exceeding the bounds of the Darwinian paradigm and having resulted in the withdrawal of the Homo sapiens s. as a species from the evolutionary path. Although both the problems are closely connected, the ﬁrst one transcends a purely scientiﬁc signiﬁcance reaching the acme of philosophical sphere, while the second one seems to be within the scope of strictly scientiﬁc investigation. The Darwinian paradigm comprised in different neo-Darwinist renderings including the modern expressions of the triplet-codebased molecular genetics is grounded on three central principles: (1) the notion of a gene as a bearer of an inherited trait; (2) the randomness (fortuity) of genetic variations, and (3) the selection of descendants with the changed traits according to their survival in the conditions of the environmental demands. doi:10.1166/asl.2008.021 199
The above epigraphs clearly demonstrate that the “central questions in the ﬁeld of brain evolution” uttered more than three decades ago have remained unanswered until today: still, “we simply do not know the answer to one of the most important questions we can ask.” Correspondingly, the situation concerning the evolutionary trend of the hominid “Great Encephalization” has been recently characterized by the ﬁnal verdict: “To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits”5 (boldface is mine). The present article may be considered as a venture attempt to Adv. Sci. Lett. Vol. 1, No. 2, 2008
the anatomically complete human brain was out of full use.e. which is the most appropriate to the existing environments. tions. the family Hominidae includes three genera: genus Homo(human). bolic behavior (such as images. This means that throughout a long period of “sleeping” (more than 100. “Bigger brains were not generally smarter brains toolsome of them even during the late period of the Acheulian age making techniques didn’t gradually improve despite a lot of (1. for the full expression of the mental capacity. the anatomically consummated human brain was “readybelonging to the genus Homo. the nature seems to upset this law: a tremendous “leap” has occurred with all the irreversible consequences. while potentially ready for the maximal use. while there was a sitHomo habilis (“handy man”). those innovations chimpanzee lines from a common ancestor. Philosophia botanica). which is sufﬁcient for the subsequent origination and development of the consciousness per se expressed in a full spectrum 200 . buttons. which led (Neanderthal) was crowned by the species Homo sapiens. erectus coexisted and may be separate lineages from a common ancestor. 3. of functional activity of the expanding brain to be expressed by IP : 24. of agriopment of innovations like long distance barter trade (140.162. the whole natural history of life presented in its monumental multimillion-measured thread seems to be in full harmony with the Linnaean slogan “Natura non facit saltus”6 .. Even after the anatomical completion of the H.000 years ago. building shelters (400.101 of less hospitable geographical areas.000 years!). The evolutionwere only incidental and short-lived not becoming commonly ary succession included the fossils-based reconstructed species used until the decisive era of 50. made clothing out of hides.000 years ago). in the case of the consciousness evolutionary emergence.”16 But even this “great leap forward”17 The above “tremendous leap” is connected with a puzzling phedid not display a real revolution: the modern humans started to nomenon which can be designated as an evolutionary trend that bury their dead more carefully. b The “hominid” designation as commonly used was chosen amongst other.000 evolutionary development after splitting hominid and protoyears ago). cannot be compared with the “Great Encephalization” characterized. 18-Feb-2005 ing stones and production of stone blades or knives (280. it is of a queer interest that many of the above innovations are known to occur occasionally much earlier. something that had not been seen in human cultures prior to 50.000 years ago. and Homo neanderthalensis vertiginous burst of the human mental development. like “hominine. Lett.000 (Africa)–90. the use of ﬁre gradual brain size increase” (500. H.”15 or “Mind’s Big Bang. by a highly rapid (in evolutionary range) while strictly directed (as if “aimed” or “targeted”) development. 2008 According to the paleoantropological data. and symc evolution. and the series of species Thus. 199–211. for example. sapiens d to occur about 130. Homo ergaster (“workman”).000 (Near East) years ago.000 years ago. rituals (burials with grave gifts). Artifacts such as ﬁsh hooks. and H. i. 1. or rituals).000 years ago13 14 that can be 3. Sci.000 7 9 culture. Ardipithecus ramidus (the earliest hominid representative after the chimpanzee-hominid splitting). the use of stone tools began roughly 2. Calvin. innovations (ﬁnding new solutions).000–190.000–40. ergaster. during historical period originated about 10. the latter being often related to the subfamily Hominine. AAAS Meeting. d The new evidence seems to constrain the dates of the earliest human fossils in Africa to an age near 195. genus Australopithecus (“Southern ape”).” The most striking developed more sophisticated hunting techniques. neanderthalensis) started at a higher level than the previous one. and barter trade exploration the respective expansion of the behavioral manifestations. the series of species belong3.000–40.11 e New ﬁndings suggest that H. planning (taking steps to achieve 2.1. and bone neeconclusion is that such remarkable evolutionary augmentation of dles have shown signs of variation among different populations the brain size proceeded with no immediate functional beneﬁts. As a result. habilis. Paleoantropological Background However.5 million years) that occurred during the hominidb phylogenic a further goal). The use of the stone tools seems to have progressed stepwise: each phase (H.000 The anatomical completion of the Homo sapiens is accounted years). or the “Cambrian explosion” hypothesized as a “sudden” origin of all the animal taxonomic types. Such an extraordinary extension of the brain size. of cooking. PREMISES: EVOLUTIONARY TREND considered as “the ‘big bang’ of the human consciousness. and is an opposite of the evolutionary “fortuity. uation of “ the big brain but not much to show for it. was not accompanied by immediate adequate enrichment User Guest organization of living space. That was preceded by about 5.5-millions-years-long years ago).12 recently.. But this was still which means an enormous increase of the amount of neurons pre-civilization period which was expressed in specialization leading to innumerable overall number of inter-neuronal connec. Adv.” “hominoid. more speciﬁc.65 millions–200.” According to incomplete taxonomic classiﬁcation. use of jewelry and images (such as cave drawings). So evident violation of the selection principle may lead to an extravagant assumption about the evolutionary trend consisting in a preliminary (as if “in advance”) development of a highly speciﬁc anatomical basis – the brain. before the development of language.”8 The Homo erectus (“upright man”). c The other “trends” like the development of the birds’ feathery wing from the reptilian ancestors’ scales.a However.000 years ago). happened just a “Nature doesn’t make any leaps” (Carl von Linné. mining (100. with its deﬁnitive brain size.by Ingenta to: Delivered of tools.000 years ago).000 years ago). The Peculiarity of the Situation: Three Paradoxes ing to the genus Australopithecus. beads (75. ﬁrst of all. but once that phase had started.000 years ago.RESEARCH ARTICLE These principles of evolution were the deep motive power behind the biological investigation carried out during the last century up to now.000 years ago.8 10 The Sat.000 years ago). designations. Washington. and genus Ardipithecus (“ground ape”).219. H.e ﬁnally to astounding growth of human civilization. 06 Aug 2011 21:27:57 networks.2. erectus. there was still rather tardy develi. ﬁshing gear (110. habilis and H. of humans.e. DC. However. The latter including the species to-use” about 130. there was a slow conservative development of cultural manifestations.18 The next step trend is the so-called “Great Encephalization”7–9 expressed in a expressed four higher capabilities: abstract thinking (concepts drastic extension of the brain size (almost fourfold in a mere free from speciﬁc examples). So lazy employment of such a beautiful instrument as anatomically perfect human brain was continued until the crucial epoch of 50. grindW. H. This is in contradiction with the main foundation of the Darwinian paradigm based on selection of a variant (among a plenty of randomly appearing variants).5 millions years ago (Stone Age) and ended differently in different regions.
the Great Encephalization reveals a set of paradoxes. there was an exploding burst of human civilization with ating pace of the evolutionary “trend-determined” hominid brain all its remarkable intellectual-spiritual ﬂights and cruel horrors development up to the Homo sapiens’ size. However. the Homo The second paradox concerns the absence of any interdependence sapiens s. the evolution of human consciousness reveals a peculiar physiology. that is the expression of evolution has undergone a signiﬁcant change.” one comes to conclusion that the process of scientiﬁc the DNA replication and transcription together with the RNAexploration has no end. 1.19 20 but not by natural evolutionary way. the development to-protein translation. the rate of the science Recently. unprecedented in animal evolution. the molecular level became a highly debated topic after pubHowever. the evolutionary trend of the “Great Encephalization” sizeg and an enormous lot of information. the remark of Charles Darwin himself is very instructive. of the Great Encephalization. 201 . Predicament of the Darwinian Theory of The “germ-plasm” neo-Darwinism22 23 is based on the discovConsciousness Evolution ered “reduction division” and formation of gametes as well as on the hereditary transfer of “determinants. Lett. to stubbornly apply the Darwinian contheory41–45 . formulation of fact that scientiﬁc progress grounded on human mental potential the triplet codon notion followed by the cracking of the genetic will never reach the situation when “everything has been discode. This is expressed f A hidden peculiarity of this paradox is that. that is not the selective phenomenon. The “Modern Synthesis” of neo-Darwinism employing the brain had suddenly awakened causing a powerful incentive to rediscovered Mendelian laws. initial “Darwin’s Darwinism”21 based on the immediate advanOn the ﬁrst glance.”25 the deﬁned gene functional the exclusion of the Homo sapiens as a species out of the frame notion (genotype-phenotype conception. g The idea itself of the cessation of any further natural anatomical development of the human brain may meet understandable objection from the proponents of unlimited development (at least intellectual) of the human race. and the accelerthen.g. “genetically ﬁnished:” any accidental variations in at the molecular level are caused not by Darwinian selection the brain size will not be naturally selected because such selecbut by a random genetic drift as the fundamental mechanism tion could be realized only on the hereditary level. situation. as compared to the slow rate of the blind mutation-based Darwinian development. As a ﬁnal result. namely.30–31 This revolution included the biochemare in contrast to the Darwinist principle of struggle for survival. is tremendously higher.000 years of germ line” correspond to the “genes” of the modern glosago and then “dreaming” up to about 10. As to the IP : 24. I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: ‘I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modiﬁcation. long before its adequate physiological funcevolution. I may be permitted to remark that in the ﬁrst edition of this work. a crucial step in the consciousness evolution befell when either random. i. on one hand.. even if to become the central point in the current development of evolution claim the opposite. He wrote in the last (1872) edition of The Origin of Species:46 “As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented. 06 Aug 2011 21:27:57 3. has gone out of the frame of biological evolution. First. but that would be achieved only by artiﬁcial. or induced in the germ line (the “determinants anatomically complete but “sleeping” up to 50. and. the size of the human brain must be considered as claimed that the unexpectedly high rate of evolutionary changes constant. on one hand. the notion of mutation.f The third paradox 3. the mental capacity of the hominid brain must depend on the brain size (e. then.24 the newly impetuous development of human civilization that led ﬁnally to established term called “genetics. which.e. Modern Versions of the Darwinian Paradigm concerns the discrepancy between the modern anatomically complete (and evolutionarily “frozen”) human brain of the constant Evidently.” that is the case for atavistic organs... ical and genetic respects.h ception to the present human evolution.3.e. needs anby Ingenta to: large brain expressing no functional advantage must not make its Delivered additional postulation in connection with the evolutionary trend host Guest User the ﬁttest.40 which regularities. i. on the other hand. a drastic extension of the brain size during the hominid evolution was not accompanied by the immediate adequate enrichment of the brain functional activity.” whose variation is Thus.e. Sat. which is accumulated with the above-described paradoxes cannot be explained by the with exponentially accelerated speed during a current generation.Adv. i. while. The “neutralist-selectionist” dilemma has case in the contemporary human society. by of biological evolution that occurs as a statistical rather than the preferable reproduction of the selected trait. therefore.101 neo-Darwinian versions of evolution. there was the trend of the Great Encephalization but the brain is not an appendix.4. the patible with the Darwinian paradigm.26 and the overall formuof Darwinian evolution: the hierarchical organization of human lation of the Morganist genetic basis of evolution27–29 ) paved the society and the humanist principle of equal rights for the ﬁttest way for the “molecular” neo-Darwinism.e. there was a “sleeping” The ﬁrst paradox concerns the absence of any accord between period without any further anatomical development and without the monotonous course of the “ordinary. “trend-free” biological evolution. the elucidation of the chemical This led to an unprecedented situation. the biological thinking about heredity and progress and knowledge accumulation.000–40. Such “in advance” anatomical brain the modern human development. between the rapid development of the hominid brain and an adequate expression of the brain mental potential. leading to the Homo sapiens’ brain size without a parallel develThus. leads to an awkward situation of the “anatomy without Thus. which led to the douas well as for the weakest (which even are especially cared of) ble helix revolution. like appendix. since the Homo sapiens came out of the evolutionary lication of the neutral theory of molecular evolution. tioning. Due to the indisputable nature of the gene (DNA nucleotide sequence).219. i. Sci. h In this respect. 2008 RESEARCH ARTICLE of human mental activities. and it has been stated that I attribute the modiﬁcation of species exclusively to natural selection. on the other hand.162. correspondingly. opment of mental manifestations. the chimpanzee’s brain size is evidently insufﬁcient for the mind development). eugenic. “employment” of the anatomically perfect “ready-to-use” brain. however.000 years ago human sary). and explanation of the hereditary transfer grounded on covered.. the situation is as follows. i. 199–211.e. the above paradoxes do not seem comtage of a selected trait for the survival of the ﬁttest: indeed..” genetically determined. and subsequently.32–39 The evolutionary rate expressed at of the brain mental capacity must be also practically unlimited.’ ” (boldface is mine).
was quite slow and conservaThe mechanisms of the epigenetic inheritance are based on the tive. a novel approach is suggested However.21 The behavioral “ordinary” slow rate of the classic Darwinian evolution. that the “Great Encephalization” proceeded with sive biological theory which must include the evolutionary trend.”61 This theoretical direction was further developed by Delivered Thus. different constrains. 2006).3 58 Some of his utterances geted. the itance. “acts” on molecular intracellular level. binding of transcription factors by Chomsky. 199–211. in contrast. as a chemical “replicator/vehicle” duet. 202 . so that the gene/meme are “selﬁsh” as opposed to “altruistic” individuals (3) the principle of selection dictated by environments. isn’t it?” ). as the paleoantropological evidespite of a lack of change in the DNA sequence itself (i. groups. The factors of evolution. are the nations of various processes realized not only on the molecular targets of natural selection. namely.e.59 60 which cannot be imagined as developed in the to chromatin.. reduce ﬁnally (rather reluctantly) this nonparsimoniae”) law meaning the usage of a minimal number of genetic evolution to the same notorious genes (“But it’s still factors (principles) underlying any suggested theory. constitution. a quantity with an inherent tendency to increase . claimed that individespecially any intellectual capacities) are the result of combiual organisms. e. In geninheritance means that the behavior and preferences selected eral. namely. as if “targeological accidents. Brain size Therefore.e. modiThe ultimate example is the theory of the “universal grammar” ﬁcation of chromosomal histones. novel principles.101 same principles: (1) the concept individuals. serving as just “vehicles” for the selﬁsh genes.RESEARCH ARTICLE Adv. rather than genes. to: Dawkins55–57 that was manifested by his famous expressions of by Ingentathe above analysis shows that any variations of the Guest Darwinist doctrine-based understanding of evolution are ﬁnally “selﬁsh genes” and “selﬁsh memes. Hence. and of the species with no beneﬁt to the individual.i The fortuitous variation replication in the cultural environment. The concept of In the modern triplet-code-based molecular genetics.21 The epigenetic inheritance47 occurs could not serve the role.” are to be elaborated. is just one of many intracellular but also on morphological (organismic) levels. 21 all genes. and symbolic communication inheritance (cultural) inheritance. the proponents of the non-genetic forms of evoluin the present study which sticks to that a valid theory must tion based on their own regularities not starting from variations explain all the above paradoxes using the Occam razor (“lex in DNA sequence. a meme. is a chemical entity. i. evolutionary trend looks like successive.e. 06 Aug 2011 21:27:57 of gene.. mRNA analogous to the particulate gene. Therefore. which. repairing system. fecundity.g. gene is not the sole focus of the natural selection..”56 The meme as a “new based (apart from direct external inﬂuences) on inevitable DNA replicator” is accounted by Dawkins as a unit of the residing replication errors. and species. the evolutionary course of Great Encephalthe gene). behavioral inheritance. no practical use. This assertion contradicts the main claim of the present lutionary trend is untenable as foundation for a comprehenstudy. which. Accordingly. that a “gene” has sphere of consciousness evolution there is a place for such Copera meaning only within the system as a whole. etc.. Sci.. reminds the “adding epicycles” predicament adjusted in the Middle Ages to Ptolemaic geocentric system. Consequently. 1. morphology. Lett. 2008 planetary movements. the question is where in the by the development of the non-genetic inheritance systems.219. (and by Gould who. and the is deﬁned as “a unit of cultural inheritance. some kinds of behavior are good Sat. is also of chemical nature. the brain size is not “a functional adaptation to modes of life. Chomsky considered as impossible to construct the evolu50 through social learning are inherited.” The central idea consists User IP : than come to the in that the natural selection occurs among groups rather 24.. not that is speciﬁc to Darwinian paradigm. Symbolic communicationary origin of the language capacity on such kind of evolution: tion (cultural) inheritance means that the information transmitted “In the case of such systems as language or wings it is not easy through language and any other forms of symbolic communicaeven to imagine a course of selection that might have given rise tion is inherited. which are based on a new principle. the gene. which may overcome (escape) the DNA selfin the brain information that is embodied as neural circuits. which are beyond the genetics dogmas. that meaning the dependence of the activity state of a ization was not accompanied by the respective rate of cultural gene on its genealogical history (trans-generational inheritance). i. dence demonstrates. because. Accordingly. the above new “dimensions” of the evolution cannot Non-genetic inheritance systems include epigenetic inherexplain the trend of the “Great Encephalization. in turn. Anyhow. e.51–54 to them. consecutive. that is in deep divergence with the fortuity of blind mutations “ [B]rain size is a functional adaptation to modes of life. including also catastrophic climate changes. the nican revolution. Then. as opposed to Dawkins. and symbolic communication behavioral inheritance. if to paraphrase the above Gould’s assertion. for the survival (2) the principle of the fortuitous variation. not time of evolutionary origin”3 (boldface which cannot explain the above-described paradoxes of the evois mine). both the developments were not evolving in unison. and naturally selected by translation and synthesis of species-speciﬁc proteins) is described virtue of its ‘phenotypic’ consequences on its own survival and also as a chain of chemical reactions. and timing of DNA replication.” accumulation of mutations in a certain deﬁnite direction directly concern the problem accounted in the present article. which in the end returns to the same vaunted gene concept. the main theThe classic genotype/phenotype formula is exchanged for the oretical shortcoming of genetics is that a gene. the ﬁnal verdict is that the Darwinian paradigm reﬂects mode of life. entity.” First of all. as the central notion of the symbolic communication. which became i The only thing exceeding the limits of the purely chemical sphere is the triplet intolerably complicated until the appearance of the in princicode combinatorics which includes some deep mathematical principles62 (Berryman ple different Copernican heliocentric system elegantly describing and Abbott. and side effects that affect the amount of genetic variation. hypothesized as mechanism of its expression (DNA-mRNA transcription.162.g. i. while the majority Another direction of the Darwinist doctrine was developed of the traits.e. 48 49 chromatin remodeling including methylation of DNA. development. the idea of the “non-genetic” inheritance. as a stretch of double helix DNA.
4. the evolutionary process of the “Great 77–91 on the other hand. the speciﬁcity of tion considered as an odd uncommon phenomenon in animal spatial conﬁguration of the electromagnetic ﬁeld within a living evolution. the following axiomatic platform is suggested: has been claimed before. the notion of “ﬁeld” becomes to be either tautological (Libet81 ). cannot explain the evolutionary trend. the idea of the autonomous ﬁeld tor determining the evolutionary trend. and distinctive characteristic of those theories is that the proclaimed (4) The place of the existing triplet code-based genetic regularﬁelds are associated exclusively with consciousness considered ities in the frame of a ﬁeld-based theory to be suggested. The Existing Field-Based Theories of Meanwhile. the declared irreducibility does not free any hypothetical (3) The elaboration of a general ﬁeld-based theory capable to ﬁeld from subordinating to the axiomatic postulates inherent to explain not only a speciﬁc case of the evolutionary trend but the any kind of ﬁeld.80 “Mental an exotic evolutionary trend of “Great Encephalization” must be ﬁeld” by Libet. has had a century-long experimental basis obtained Searle.88 “Field of opposed to the gene concept. 1 cept. However.” “phenomenon. in turn. Sci. which cannot be explained on the molecular genetics’ cell will be completely determined by the spatial distribution of basis. 4. a conA similar consideration can be used for the cases of the other cept of ﬁeld as an evolving spatial state is proposed as a facphysical ﬁelds. respectively. the ﬁrst one including: “Morphic resonance” uum. sciousness. to the integral ﬁeld of the neuronal massifs. or a suggested ﬁeld is autonomous. which. although of a revolutionary revision of the genetic paradigm. In such a situation. be Consequently. while the ﬁeld is postulated as a factor producing for explanation of consciousness. as previously reviewed. irreducible to The suggested new principle is associated with the ﬁeld conthe physical fundamentals.”j and the “Great a danger is that a postulated irreducible ﬁeld would lose. so that in the expression “ﬁeld of con(1) The “nature” of a postulated ﬁeld.” etc. and the autonomous ﬁeld irreducible to established for the analysis. irrespective of its physical essence. 06 Aug 2011 determined by the “usual” genetic regularities. the ﬁeld notion is to be applied development of the corresponding electromagnetic ﬁeld deterfor the analysis of evolutionary development. the ﬁeld notion would become only an the charged intracellular substances. essentially. Encephalization” trend is that “nasty fact. its “ﬁeld face. as it 21:27:57 a general basis of the life evolution. “a “autonomous” (irreducible) means. FIELD PRINCIPLE AS ANTITHESIS OF THE GENE NOTION j From scientiﬁc folklore deﬁning the “tragedy of science. which.78 “Integrated ﬁeld” by Kinsbourne. However. “non-physical. or allegoric (Rosenberg88 ). sists of the following points: or symbolic (Hasker89 ). which. the postulated ﬁeld concept rested upon by Sheldrake. Another evolution in general. in the present study. consciousness in particular. the immediate question is whether there is a possible relationship to k The neuronal intracellular electromagnetic ﬁeld can be imagined as related to a single neuron as its source and. although unable to explain consciousness” by Hasker. Encephalization” should be imagined as led by the respective Thus. theGuest User ﬁeld regulated level.64 70–76 reality. In such a view.” together with physicality.e. The asymmetry in the comparison tent.219.” “stream. a preliminary conclusion is as follows: (1) The Consciousness established physical ﬁelds cannot in principle explain the evolutionary trend. the mined by (or at least correlated with) the spatial conﬁguration of primary aim would be to provide a ﬁeld-connected theoretical the neuronal intracellular electromagnetic ﬁeld. which are the sources of additional condition to the established genetic foundations that the integral electromagnetic ﬁeld. Then. physical fundamentals.” 203 .Adv. but razor principle. explanation of the evolutionary trend of the Great Encephalizais the leading evolutionary factor. gravitational.91 The theories of this kind.” Then. Then. 1.k which. weak intra-nuclear and strong intranuclear). The published theories are speciﬁc spatial conﬁguration of the protein intracellular continof two kinds. A more valid idea would be if the ﬁeld notion a consequence of the spatial distribution of the charged intrawould have served not only for the description of some peculiar cellular components appearing as a result of the cells’ biologDelivered by Ingenta to: paradoxes but underlain the whole theoretical ediﬁce of the evoical (metabolic) activity. This means that the electrolooks like a typical ad hoc approach contradicting the Occam magnetic ﬁeld within a living cell is not a leading factor.89 and “Uniﬁed conscious ﬁeld” by the trend. 199–211. ever. which. probably.81 “Receptive ﬁeld” by Rosenberg. However. the electromagnetic ﬁeld is worth to be preferably taken on one hand. or esoteric (Sheldrake78 ).1. have a common denominator: the notion of ﬁeld in each of the confronting concepts is so evident that it doubts worthiness theory has no ﬁeld-speciﬁc postulations. 2008 RESEARCH ARTICLE (or. from general and pracin the current theoretical models of consciousness including the tical considerations based on the common sense and biological electromagnetic ﬁeld63–69 and quantum mechanical ﬁeld. the speciﬁcity of the spaIP : 24. helix DNA determining (coding) speciﬁcity of a respective proThe idea of the autonomous ﬁeld has been already employed tein molecule. is determined by and lution of life. In such a case. although different in confrom all the life’s kingdoms.1 The argumentation is as follows. the theoretical thread of the ﬁeld hypothesis con(Searle91 ).101on the geneticintracellular electromagnetic ﬁeld would principle confronting the genetic approach should be analyzed as tial conﬁguration of the Sat..162. Howing the evolutionary trend paradoxes. as a matchless phenomenon without any relation to its biological grounds or origin.” “process. instead of the concept of gene as a chemical entity. identity with) the existing four physical ﬁelds (electromagnetic.” the word “ﬁeld” could be easily exchanged with (2) The “functional axiomatics” of the postulated ﬁeld explainthe words “state. hence. (2) In the above-described theories employing the As far as the “nature” of the suggested ﬁeld is concerned. or metaphoric Accordingly. Lett. has been already employed As to the established physical ﬁelds. In this respect. Therefore.” small nasty fact corrupts a beautiful hypothesis. The gene is represented irreducible to the established physical fundamentals is to be by the nucleotide sequence of a respective piece of the double considered. i.
Sci.119 Some excerpts from the Gurwitsch’s book (written in 1954 and published in 1991 in Russian) were translated into English and published in 1994. postulate. Thus.115 and has ﬁeld theory is to be used as a theoretical ground for the suggested remained practically unknown to Western science. The ﬁeld vectors make inﬂuence on the A miracle in the history of science is that a theory of the excited protein molecules (those that have just got a portion of autonomous ﬁeld irreducible to the physical fundamentals was metabolic energy and are in the excitation state). the inﬂuence of the ﬁeld is not limited to the cell morAUTONOMOUS FIELD BY GURWITSCH phological boundaries. the ﬁeld intensity is a dynamic. Adv. and The above postulates of an abstract ﬁeld are claimed as an this ratio. the (1) Implication of actual ﬁeld source(s). considerations. Such postulates.e. The anisotropy of the ellipsoid can be expressed as a particular ratio between its three axes. 1. which is under ence of the already existing ﬁeld. depending on the general cell ﬁeld inﬂuence.1 86 87 the main effort was to formulate. it was published mainly in Russian113 114 and in French. like intensity.”92 mine the ﬁeld intensity. of Gurwitsch’s ﬁeld theory written in a Western European language (German) was published in 1987.219. i. is considered as an invariant obligatory conceptual basis for the suggested here autonomous species-speciﬁc constant. which. ﬂuctuations. The of the cellular ﬁeld by Alexander Gurwitsch. and some other face around the nucleus at which all the vectors are equal is parameters. ﬁeld vector has a certain rate of decrement with increasing distance from the ﬁeld source. the exact function of the dependence being a matter of empirical examination.83 84 86 87 117 118 121 122 a short clariﬁcation must be provided for the further theoretical account on the suggested ﬁeldbased theory of evolution.m not spherical but ellipsoidal.l of generated ﬁeld that are connected with certain elementary (3) Unboundedness – absence of any distinct boundaries of the acts of the chromatin metabolism. being species-speciﬁc. and this is the main tative estimation of certain ﬁeld particulars. Theory of Everything. continuity “where the hole cannot be. The ﬁrst review of Gurwitsch’s attempt to explain the evolutionary trend. every living cell is a source of the ﬁeld generated in the cell nucleus. the necessary step is to consider those postulates. 199–211. in principle possibility for quantielementary ﬁeld is spatially anisotropic. the postulate of the action-at-a-distance.81 “Uniﬁed conscious ﬁeld” by Searle.n The theory of biokinetic energy.. the postulates formalizing the ﬁeld as an abstract notion independently of its physical (or metaphysical) nature.117 118 and the ﬁrst English review on the theory was published in 1992. The ovo”) IP : 24. i.RESEARCH ARTICLE idea of the autonomous ﬁeld for explanation of consciousness. THE THEORY OF THE CELLULAR ment. is meant.e. the classic “chromatin” (generalized designation of the chromosomal apparatus of the cell nucleus) means nucleoprotein. The ﬁeld is of a vectorial nature and 4.101 directed from the nucleus are the resulting values from the ‘classic’ scalar and vectorial ﬁelds up to the modern ﬁeld vectors Sat. hence. In spite of the decre5.89 “Receptive ﬁeld” by Rosenberg88 respond to those postulates.1 are as follows: as opposed to the attractive ﬁeld of Newtonian gravitation. This. which is grounded on the theory axis ratios cover any number of potentially possible species. Therefore. ﬂuctuating parameter subtly reacting to metabolic changes.90 “Integrated ﬁeld” by Kinsbourne. theoretically is inﬁnite. which are comprehensively described.. Therefore.116 The ﬁrst comprehensive review l According to the General Relativity. Gurwitschian ﬁeld is repulsive..) from a total statistical number of the elementary ﬂashes of the highly complicated ﬁeld expressions (string-tensor-twistor.Aug 2011 21:27:57 associated with an ‘over-classic’ number of dimensions (e.o Recently. 2008 The ﬁeld characteristics of Gurwitsch’s theory are not symbolic or allegoric but deeply rooted in biological reality. transforming a elaborated rather long ago by Gurwitsch who was the ﬁrst to portion of the general molecular excitation energy into directed introduce the ﬁeld principle into biology97 .g.78 “Mental ﬁeld” by Libet. The (7) Measurability. having been summarized earlier. The ﬁeld at any moment. Although there is no space for the detailed consideration of the above ﬁeld characteristics. metabolism. An inﬁnite number of possible interﬁeld-based theory of evolution. The Postulates of an Abstract Field Notion the vectors are directed centrifugally from the ﬁeld source. and the “elementary acts in the chromatin metabolism” are hypothetically connected with dynamic interactions between the nucleic acid (DNA) and protein parts of the nucleoprotein. is the expresDelivered by Ingenta to: the ﬁeld inﬂuence.e. Only in the Libet’s and Sheldrake’s theories. ﬁrst.” which may have different expressions User and Pasteur (denial of spontaneous generation of life). This is expressed either in out his life starting from the initial abstract models of the “embryonic ﬁeld”108–112 and resulting in the comprehensive then This fact was acknowledged in contemporary reviews98–100 as well as in more ory of the cellular biological ﬁeld113–115 with its last editing ﬁnrecent works by the biologists who employed the concept of ﬁeld in their theoretical ished in 1954 and published posthumously only in 1991 (Ref.2. essentially.82–84 86 87 The Gurwitsch’s autonomous Soviet Union. which concerned cellular ﬁeld related to all the levels of biological organization was elaborated by Gurwitsch in the 1940s in consciousness problem.p There are elementary “ﬂashes” contact (collisions). and the direction of the movement is determined logical ﬁeld was successively elaborated by Gurwitsch throughby the ﬁeld vector at this spatial point. Guest sion of the same principles declared by Harvey (“omne vivum ex (6) Field “directionality.84 87 121 122 p The Gurwitsch’s style belongs to the period preceding the DNA-double-helix revolution. ﬁeld theory was published in Russian in 1963.101–107 o ).80 “Field of consciousness” by Hasker. A total number of such ﬂashes per time unit deter(4) Field integrity.162.93–96 ). Its meaning is that the imaginary isodynamic ﬁeld surdecrement (distance dependence). 204 . As to the other kind of the autonomous ﬁeld theory. “Morphic resonance” by Sheldrake. the ﬁeld concept is emasculated being used purely symbolically. Gurwitsch’s ﬁeld theory has been applied to the The last version of the theory. 06 etc. Lett.” m None from the above-mentioned theories based on the autonomous ﬁeld. action-at-a-distance principle loses its direct meaning since the Newtonian void is exchanged for the “curved space.120 The most detailed English reviews were published just recently. i. The generation of the ﬁeld is (2) Action-at-a-distance from the ﬁeld source upon sensitiveassociated with certain processes in the cell nucleus related to to-ﬁeld entities (substrate) – as opposed to direct (“mechanical”) transformations of chromatin. although not formulated. Accordingly. The elementary ﬂashes of generated ﬁeld (5) Dependence of certain parameters of any in-ﬁeld-occurring can occur only if these acts proceed within the sphere of inﬂuprocess on its coordinates within a certain whole. Therefore.
101 Sat. Second. This According to Gurwitsch’s axiomatics. Since this is not the case. Lett. according to the genetic laws. or at least to suggest that the non-coding DNA should have functional signiﬁcance. Although such problem has no decision (at the dynamic conﬁguration of the protein molecular continuum. and theoretical additions to the original Gurwitsch’s postulations. From the evolutionary point of view. and morphological levels. 06 Aug any mutational changes in the nucleotide sequence of the genes not especially touched upon in the above postulates. However. The how an abstract geometrical form can be coded by mathematgeometrical conﬁguration of the integral actual ﬁeld determines ical combinatorics. The Functional Axiomatics of the Suggested Field Theory direction of the vector or in speciﬁcally directed deformations of the protein molecules. Consefocused in the ﬁeld source.. On the cellular and morphologijunk. the outconsisting of a number of cells as ﬁeld sources are under integral come is that the DNA nucleotide sequence determines the ﬁeld (actual) ﬁeld that results from the total geometrical composition anisotropy. it does not seem “evolutionarily logical” to provide replication of such a large amount of “useless information” during each cell division. Confronting both the statements. 199–211. the validity of the assertion Such dynamic associations of the energetically excited protein is evident. the ﬁeld action is expressed by subjection of cells to a could be composed of the remains of ancient genes (pseudocommon morphogenetic factor (integral ﬁeld vector) causing the genes). 2008 RESEARCH ARTICLE the directed movement of the excited protein molecules along the 6.162. Such a situation offers a possibility to ascribe to the nonediting DNA a function. Gurwitsch’s biological ﬁeld In this respect. 1. which excitation energy is transformed into directed kinetic energy. ﬁnally. conclusively established hypotheses for how junk DNA arose 6.” These constella-by Ingenta to: mutational changes in the nucleotide sequence of genes that are Delivered tions provide dynamic conditions for steric (spatial) facilitation transferred onto the respectively changed amino acid sequence of Guest User or hindrance for certain reactions. the Gurwitsch’s ﬁeld inﬂuence is expressed on the most intergenic regions has been designated as junk DNA.2011 21:27:57 can cause the respective change of the ﬁeld anisotropy. there tion of molecular processes in living cells (“working” against the is rather emotional uneasiness to accept the non-coding DNA as molecules’ chaotic movements).219. Sci. two princi. so that the evolutionary tendency would be directed toward elimination of the non-functional junk DNA. and there are preliminary indications that some of them may play a regulatory role in vertebrate embryo development. the ﬁeld-based theory of evolution suggested in the present study and employing Gurwitsch’s basic axiomatics has needed substantial revision. The is determined by the respective species-speciﬁc internal strucvectors from separate ﬁeld sources are composed geometrically. The ﬁeld vector just transforms a porquently. This conclusion can express a universal problem of of all the vectors originating from all the sources (nuclei). molecules into directed kinetic energy. which is within the axiomatic frame of 205 . It has been found that the protein-coding of action. they cannot be translated into proteins. In eukaryotic organisms. pal comments should be added. ture of the DNA.e.1. so accumulated at this point.” i. A common vague suggestion is that the junk DNA regions cal levels. Therefore. while from the ﬁeld’s point of view. an important point concerns the DNA cannot be reduced to any known physical ﬁeld: it is an immanent non-coding regions designated “introns. modernization. Gurwitsch’s biological sequences are not in accordance with the triplet code regulariﬁeld is not energetic which means that no special energy is ties and.e. the species specimine the direction of the kinetic constituent of the protein molecﬁcity is determined by the triplet code-determined nucleotide ular excitation energy. The energy is not supplied by the ﬁeld at its point non-coding introns. the ﬁeld “works” against ﬁeld relates to the nuclear “chromatin” (using Gurwitsch’s glosthe chaotic movement (agitation) of the protein molecules. cellular..129 132 133 Such urge for the inquiry is due to the valid scientiﬁc instinct not assuming existence of such incredibly complex systems like major part of the hereditary DNA without any functional load. the whole nuclear DNA consists of non-coding introns tion of the metabolic energy accumulated in the excited protein and protein-coding “exons.e. on the background of the impetuous scientiﬁc development during the last half-century. as far as Gurwitsch’s theory does not especially concern the problem of evolution. least it is not available at hand).Adv.126–131 A surprising recent ﬁnding in this respect is the discovery of nearly 500 ultraconserved elements found in the DNA junk regions of different vertebrate genomes. by its nucleotide sequence. all the parts of a living system sequence of the DNA. if they are anchored to any structures. The mode of the The functional signiﬁcance of this non-coding DNA is still not ﬁeld action on the molecular level is expressed by vectorizaknown that may justify its “junk” designation.” whose nucleotide property only of living objects. moving or deforming the a large percentage of the total nuclear DNA is comprised of the molecules. it seems reasonable to accept. This has led to some not cells’ spatial orientation or ﬁeld vector-directed movement. the idea of harnessing of existing energy sources was analyzed in connection with the assertion about violation of physical laws (namely. hence. i. However.. Although the question of the nature of the biological : 24. First.132 The function of these sequences is currently under intense scrutiny. but the ﬁeld vector as if harnesses the local energy DNA (exons) makes up about 2% of the human genome.125 molecular. The further confrontation makes it obvious that the molecules maintained by continuous metabolic energy inﬂux are evolution from the genetic point of view is determined by the called “unbalanced molecular constellations. IP ﬁeld is the corresponding proteins. The species-speciﬁc characteristics of the vector at this point) determines what proportion of the molecular suggested ﬁeld are expressed by the ﬁeld anisotropy. which lost the coding ability. THE SUGGESTED FIELD-BASED THEORY OF EVOLUTION The remarkable situation is that. DNAintensity of the ﬁeld at a certain cell point (the length of the protein complex.q that the rest of it including most regions within the introns and Thus. the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of conservation of momentum) as a result of realization of a volitional act.86 123 Such energy harnessing can be allegorized by the idea of the Maxwell’s demon whose mode of “functioning” was recently theoretically analyzed. i.124 and why it persists in the genome. genes. the axiomatic basis of Gurwitsch’s ﬁeld theory has kept its original value. the source of the cellular means that under living conditions. The sary) including the genes-containing nucleoprotein. q Recently. On and the resulting vector at the point of composition will deterthe other hand.
a peculiar property of the ﬁeld-directed evolution is that the selection is not dictated by the environments but is due to “internal drive” toward geometrical perfection (intrinsic “mathematical beauty”) of the mutants’ ﬁeld anisotropy. Then.2. could become a bearer of a new such kind of the intron-based mutations will not be reﬂected trait. which relates intracellular biochemistry. Adv. 199–211. so that the resulted population.e. Since the predominant part of the nuclear DNA consists of the non-coding regions. The restoration of the lost geometrical perfection of the ﬁeld anisotropy may be re-established on another qualitative level. ﬁnally. the non-coding region of the genomic DNA is not a junk but is the main carrier of the species-speciﬁc autonomous ﬁeld. would advance until a deﬁnitive “geometrical ﬁnish” of the ﬁeld 206 . that is due to a poorer activity of the DNA reparation sysThen. the paradigm. the Great Encephalization being the most the species-speciﬁc ﬁeld anisotropy.134 Evidently.RESEARCH ARTICLE the Gurwitsch’s ﬁeld theory. fully exchanged by the variant(s) with the achieved “per6. the unprecedented expansion of reparation of this lesion consisting in a chain of consecutive of the brain size is suggested to be the result of realization of mutations which may look as if “directed” toward a restorathe above-described process of approximation of the mutationtion of geometrical perfection of the ﬁeld anisotropy but not damaged ﬁeld anisotropy to a geometrically perfect pattern. The damaged Consequently. the species-speciﬁc ﬁeld anisotropy must be associated with the respective speciﬁcity of the cell genome considered as a whole. namely: tern. As a change of the ﬁeld anisotropy. thus. and certain mutational changes in the non-coding region may have substantial consequences. the descendants ﬁeld anisotropy immediately affects the ﬁeld-arranged intracelwith such more “balanced” ﬁeld anisotropy are selected without lular molecular continuum. according to the suggested all the other mutants continues to mutate further. this is a kind of “internal. which could substitute the original geometrical design lost (1) The gene-based mutation results in the synthesis of a as a result of the initial mutation. as a chemical entity. Such assertion is employed below for explanation of the evolutionary trend. since the functional role of the coding portion of the DNA is fully determined. Such evolutionary progress changed (mutated) protein. induces the “mechanism” spectacular example. Such a way of achieving new perfect Evolutionary Trend Delivered by Ingenta to: may be prolonged in paleoantropological scale. A particular point is that or/and morphology and. while the latter being of an especial signiﬁcance within effect. Accordingly. selected according to their ﬁtness to environments. The evolutionary process of conand.219. lesion of which distorts on the phenotypic level.135 the frame of the suggested ﬁeld theory. becoming more and more heterogeneous. while the progeny of sequence of such mutation. again.101 caused by a mutation in a particular intron region parameter(s) ity may be considerable. there should be a06 Aug 2011 21:27:57 Sat. However. it could be reasonable to suggest that the “burden” to serve as a source of the Gurwitschian ﬁeld should fall namely upon the prevailing non-coding portion. the fate of the intron-based mutants will depend frame of the “ordinary” selection of the traits based on the exonnot on immediate connection with environmental demands but coded proteins. a new mutant gradually becomes to be predominant not cannot be translated. the intron-based mutations may look like adjusting to the tem. is active on the intracellular level. However. 1.. such evolution of the mutation-caused perverted ﬁeld the integral ﬁeld’s geometrical conﬁguration. Sci. In the case of the intron-based mutation. ﬁeld anisotropy Mutations can occur with a certain probability in both the coding User Guest Accordingly. the intron-based mutation would result in a certain a mutant with a geometrically perfect anisotropy appears. thus adversely affecting the settled any immediate advantage for the progeny survival. The intron-based mutation Thus. the picture is as follows: result. an initial human DNA is about 98% identical to the chimpanzee’s DNA. which. being. Henceforth. the ﬁeld anisotropy-hitting mutation is contrastingly difa mutant having a ﬁnal intrinsically perfect ﬁeld anisotropy patferent from a gene-based mutation. i. and in the axiomatic arsenal of the modern because of its better survival but because its progeny will not genetics. Hence. loses stability and ﬁnally “dies out” with no especial connection to the environments. which will be selected in accordance with the Darwinian by any extensive DNA changes: as it is well established. is in contrast to the accidental dot mutations’ principle of the the former resulting in the appearance of the respectively mutated classic Darwinian evolution even if supported by the Baldwin proteins.” that difference between the exon-based and intron-based mutations. respectively. until ﬁeld theory.” “passive. It is postulated that such intron-based to a parallel selection of any traits among the exon-associated mutation is combined with signiﬁcantly increased mutation rate genetic changes leading to immediate advantage for the progeny. the whole species-speciﬁc macro-morphology. 2008 anisotropy is achieved in a certain mutated variant. It is postulated that the achievement of the geometrical ﬁnish of the ﬁeld anisotropy is combined with sharp decrease of the high mutation rate. there is no deﬁnite apprehension of any potential conmutate anymore in the extraordinary rate. the achieved perfect ﬁeld anisotropy on the degree of approximation of the ﬁeld anisotropy of conis not for nothing: it determines the optimal (geometrically pertinually appearing variants’ to a more “geometrically perfect” fect) spatial arrangement of the intracellular protein substrate pattern of the ﬁeld anisotropy. even initial small change of the ﬁeld’s anisotropy and non-coding DNA regions. tinual mutants’ appearance will advance until the appearance of Thus. as opposed to the gene-directed evolution in which case the criteria for selection are based on immediate advantage of new traits. principal would lead to a lasting ﬁeld evolution imitating a “trend. it is tempting (and quite reasonable) to assume that the Gurwitschian ﬁeld’s anisotropy is associated with (caused by) the whole nuclear DNA structure including internal speciﬁcity of the non-coding DNA.162. a more balanced ﬁeld-determined spatial arrangement of In the case of the exon-based mutation. in the frame of such hypothesis. In such a frame. However. Moreover. mutation-caused change in the ﬁeld anisotropy would disﬁgure However. Lett. and the differences in the probabilIP : 24. which is genetically stable. Such a mutation anisotropy was followed by the important consequences realized hitting a speciﬁc point of the intron.” selection: the members of the population with still imperfect ﬁeld anisotropy keep the high mutation rate. The Field-Based Explanation of the fect” ﬁeld anisotropy. the mutated protein intracellular molecular substrate favoring more effective realizawould make a certain inﬂuence on the organism’s functioning tion of metabolic processes develops. that expressing the course of the intron-based evolution. In accordance with the original Gurwitsch’s postulation.
in the human brain development. A more genermutational chain expressed as the trend of the “Great Encephalalized signiﬁcance of the suggested ﬁeld theory. This is a clear demonstration of the non-correspondence of the hominid brain development to the Darwinian paradigm. when an enigmatic phenomenon is explained by an extravagant r Such “physical inﬂuence” is realized by vectorization of molecular processes in theory. not caused by its necessity dictated by environments that is in contrast to the Darwinist principle. This gives evidence that the genetic regularities. came out of the biological evolution. to divide the spheres of activities: the source of the irreducible testify that those innovations could be made by the H. neanderthalensis–H. The explanation of the evolutionary trend of the “Great Encephaland. sapiens’ on the dominating reductionist philosophy. elephant had not received its trunk as a present. erectus. a comprehensive ﬁeld theory describing both the pieces was employed in the smallest range as contrasted to its exon-based genetic regularities and the intron-based extravagant exceptionally high potential. 06 Aug 2011 21:27:57 takes into account (and even is based on) the line. there was which is enigmatic from evolutionary and biochemical perspeca slow conservative development of the cultural manifestations. an explanation of such an exceptional phein full correspondence with the demands of the environments. the peaceful Solomon solution is 280. DISCUSSION H.e.000– the same bed. ergaster–H. a lesion in this region explain the global regularities of the biological evolution. tives. Contrary to that.000 years. 2008 RESEARCH ARTICLE “examine” the developing brain-containing hominids by such criteria. sapiens. In such account.000 years ago. Such comparison is not in complicated brain was without its parallel “functional employfavor of the present ﬁeld theory. similarly. genetic regularities’ is just a special case of the common heredithis factual occurrence proving that such rapid development was tary mechanism grounded on the whole nuclear DNA. It may be imagined ad hoc hypothesis suitable only for the description of a highly that the above-suggested crucial mutation had occurred in the speciﬁc evolutionary trend of the Great Encephalization.162.” which. grinding stones) occurred 500. the logical thread is rather clear. the question is whether the suggested ﬁeld theory could ated with the ﬁeld anisotropy (i.e.000 years ago). sapiens had received the perfect anatomical brain as a present. according to the brain size with all its complexity and potenA conceivable uneasy feeling is a good sign of a valid instinct of tial capacity for conscious behavior: the environments did not suspicion toward a hypothetical ad hoc explanation. the exon-based frame of human brain rapid development ran ahead of its employment. inating the functional signiﬁcance to the intron genomic region. which in principle Guest of the pathways: H. forgotten Gurwitsch’s ﬁeld theory would not seem a persuasive However.. Outline of a General Field-Based Thus. During such sequence of piercing developments. That event had triggered the In this respect. sapiens’ ﬁeld is the entire cellular chromatin. 6. since the precursors. apprehend the laws of nature and experience the art masterHowever. Theregenome of the Homo habilis exactly in such a highly speciﬁc non-coding (introns-containing) genomic region associfore. ergaster–H. theory) ﬁeld notion versus the chemical gene concept. major part of DNA designated as a non-coding “junk. cellular. Consequently. erectus lines and H. sapiens.e. while the gena very slow behavioral advance that was mostly demonstraeral evolution considered in its entire diversity and multiformity tive after anatomical completion of the modern human (about including all the kingdoms of the living world is fairly well 190. giraffe’s neck and horse’s hoof were not presents: ization” is the main immediate accomplishment of the present the long continual development of those organs was going on study. the suggested ﬁeld theory of evolution provides a deeper The anatomically perfect human brain potentially capable to theoretical import as compared to the modern genetics. sapiens and became to coding exon and non-coding intron regions. by means of an uncommon halfto the environmental demands was realized in its full potential. the DNA-containing precursors with still imperfect brain.. votes for (950 to 1100 cc) of the brain size of the modern human. an anatomically ﬁnished highly described by the Darwinian paradigm. i. as could be speculated on the Delivered by Ingenta to:foundations. Sci. was developing via two evolutionary User “Great Encephalization” phenomenon.136 137 207 (2) The ﬁeld-based mutation results in the change of the ﬁeld anisotropy which. such lasting ﬁeld evolution imitating some “trend” Theory of Evolution explains the puzzling evolutionary phenomenon of the absence There could be a general impression that the suggested of correspondence between the unprecedented speed of the irreducible ﬁeld-based theory ﬁts only a unique case of the brain anatomical development (the Great Encephalization) and evolutionary trend of the Great Encephalization. before its extinction. 199–211. any theory based on irreducibility to the established physical funs There are debates whether the H. nomenon. as compared to ization. Namely those accidental innovations spatial phenomena would look like arranging two marriages in (use of ﬁre. Hence. The ﬁrst line was ended about 300..3. The fact that H. sapiens the present theory Sat. However. heidelbergensis–H. habilis–H. the Cro-Magnon 7. reached about 75 percent function is out of the main road of the modern genetics. erectus is an evolutionary dead-end or it was damentals that is symbolic for the contemporary science rested somehow crossed with the H. which could look like an exotic ment” during more than 100. . building shelters.000 years ago.Adv. i. By nomwhich. sapiens’ line becoming one amongst the H. as having a physical inﬂuence. while the favor of the physical (by its realization within the suggested the second line was crowned by the emergence of the H. and the same innovations nucleoprotein accounted as a certain whole including both the were as if “rediscovered” by the H. affects the ﬁeld anisotropy).000–100. ﬁnally. Anyhow. Lett. is due not only to a strict explanation basis of the the genetics paleoantropological data. before the completion of H. especially.00–130. while the coding be widely dispersed only during the “consciousness big bang exon region remains to be under highly speciﬁc triplet code-based period” of 50. habilis– cannot be IP : 24.101 explained by the Darwinian evolution. and morphological.219.000–40.. there was no selection proof of a universal signiﬁcance of the suggested ﬁeld theory. Another point of suspicion is due to a common distrust to living cells (“working” against the molecules’ chaotic movements).e.r reveals an immediate effect at all the three levels of biological organization: molecular. 1.” whose when H. taken from the ocean of various evolutionary forms of so that the Darwinist law of selection of the variants according the developing organic world. i.000 years ago.
being remained almost of the ape’s plausibility of a theory is estimated by its capacity to describe the brain size!u factual reality as comprehensively as possible. the Contrary to this. like “binding problem. explained by the above-postulated intron-based mutation “fortuitous mutation that promoted the fully modern brain. the original Gurwitsch’s ﬁeld theory. the hominids ing notion since the “ordinary” micro-mutations cannot explain passed an unparalleled amount of evolutionary changes before the directed chain of promotion toward the “fully modern brain.87 and the riddle of although such association would have been naturally anticipated. i. in their book (Klein and Edgar.142–152 The main question. 200215 ). the deﬁnite ization trend and the origin and further development of the fact is that the genes underlying nervous system biology exhibit bipedalism. in particualthough there have been different hypotheses about a model lar. the Delivered latter. has not been included logical organization: molecular.. and chimpanzee lines) and H. free will. itself. cellular. spatial-temporal organization of episodic memory. habilis) something in common with the main idea of the present themight be considered as a result of the postulated lasting. but ﬁnite amount of potential genes combinaneutral ticks of the molecular evolutionary clock?”147 was contions based on the triplet code combinatorics.g. as compared to the. formulation of protophenomenal the Great Encephalization were not associated with each other. a natural expecHowever.219. after the splitSuch a miraculous fortuitous macro-mutation is indeed a savting from the human-chimpanzee common ancestor. reduced heat gain used for explanation of some embryological.5 153–156 However. of the “fortuitous mutation” would seem to have lutionary development of the bipedal “handy man” (H. e. remained without answer. theoretical applicability of the suggested theory and. it has been model (increased heat loss. increased cooling. 199–211. the authors give no even tentative description of between the proto-chimpanzee and the modern chimpanzee was an extraordinary nature of such a “fortuitous mutation. The molecular intracellular level.5 which also could have been accounted as a “trend” and.138 Hence. after completion of the bipedal anatomy.” reaching the stage of the Great Encephalization. habilis. However. 600–800 cc of Homo habilis. The ﬁrst advantage is that the ﬁeld coning exon’s and cept “works” as an active factor at all the three levels of bio. to the basic biological of selective pressure leading to bipedalism: behavioral model problems.RESEARCH ARTICLE Adv. the difference the Great Encephalization. 06 Aug into such dramatic increase of the brain size and complexity in aptitude for determination of the species speciﬁcity which must order to understand the exceptionally accelerated mutations rate be adjusted to the incredibly high number of species. a cranial volume of 750 cc has been proposed a “cerebral Rubicon” designating belonging to the genus Homo. the Great Encephalization had started far later. Sci. although we identify the ‘smoking guns’ of human genetic evolution from incredibly high. this emphasizexplained by means of the Gurwitsch’s ﬁeld theory.e. sexual and reproductive conduct). by means of the suggested ﬁeld theory is that the ﬁeld concept As to the mechanism of the miraculous brain expansion.by Ingenta to: the non-coding intron’s regions.139 thermoregulatory As far as Gurwitsch’s ﬁeld theory is concerned. having reached its deﬁnitive anatomupper extremities free for making (using) tools.t In this of the respective genes somehow involved into the nervous sysrespect.”83 deﬁnition 84 86 Another even a greater wonder is that the bipedalism and of consciousness. and those to evolve on Earth in the inﬁnite future including those to be genetically engineered. Lett. sapiens came out of the frame of the biological evolution this rather crucial period of becoming up-right creature with the is that the human brain. namely. and morphological. morphogenetic and and reduced water requirements in a hot. 1200–1700 cc of Neanderthal. However. the brain had ical size more than 100. trendory concerning a highly speciﬁc mutation as a causal factor of imitating.000 years ago. “how can number of potential ﬁeld states..140 and physiological problems2 113–118 as well as of some aspects of ecological model (postural feeding hypothesis). which are question was concluded to be a matter of speculation147 and has “useless” (“junk”) in the frame of the triplet code-based genetics. 208 .141 the consciousness problem. consecApart from these studies. the evolution of the hominid bipedal anatomy may tation is to obtain additional arguments demonstrating a wider be explained quite reasonably within the traditional Darwinism. an ily important mutations have occurred predominantly in regulainteresting comparison can be made between the Great Encephaltory sequences or coding regions. A wonder is that during all H. there is an idea of a hypothetical utively. trend of the “Great Encephalization” is not the only phenomenon namely. 2008 not expanded so drastically. fundamental and rudimentary psychic act.” while in not as drastic as that between the Ardipithecus ramidus (the the present theory. all those which populated the Earth since the origin of life. 1000–1850 of Homo sapiens.”15 distorting species-speciﬁc ﬁeld anisotropy. In contrast to this. ﬁeld evolution. was doomed to accept t The potential number of possible species must include all the species which populate the Earth now.101 studies were attempted to identify the genes involved brain. in User Guest into intensive studies on accelerating evolution of the human contrast to the gene notion whose real “action” is limited: to the IP 24. Indeed.”5 However. 1. as it has been discussed earlier. (social. tropical climate). Another advantage cretized in a more speciﬁc question “whether brain evolution of the ﬁeld notion associated with the suggested theory is that involved a small number of key mutations in a few genes or a the source of the ﬁeld induction is related to the whole genomic very large number of mutations in many genes. this DNA including non-coding intron-containing regions. The second advantage concerns the 2011 21:27:57 Sat. sapiens. which began soon after the splitting of the protoa higher average rate of protein evolution in primates (and within chimpanzee and hominid lines from a common ancestor and primates a higher rate in humans) than in rodents. the evoThe idea. the harbours deep potential advantages as compared to the genetics’ genetic level is of high importance if it includes both the codpostulatory grounds. u Taking into account a rather high rate of ﬂuctuations of the brain size in different hominid species. which is only on the half A remarkable outcome from the conclusion that the modern way toward the modern H.162. ing its uniqueness as a veritable trend not caused or supported The main beneﬁt of the analysis of the Great Encephalization by selection pressure. It stays unknown whether evolutionarFrom the evolutionary paleoantropological point of view. the ﬁeld concept provides the possibility for an inﬁnite tem development. such mutation is determined to occur in the earliest hominid ancestor after divergence between the hominid intron region associated with the postulated ﬁeld anisotropy.
Hermitage Publishers. Roennnfeldt. Lahn. Weismann. Am. S. S. Die Mutationstheorie: Versuche und Beobachtungen ueber die sapiens about 130. and B. the perspective is quite realistic. Dorus. hence. account the swift pace of the human progress. fection. Gurwitsch. Taylor. M. Norton dent. H. Human Evolution: A Very Short Introduction. there is no hope that the 21. PA (2008). A. G.e. Jablonka and M. Annu. 1027 (2004). N. natural evolutionary development of a macro-cephalous Cambridge UK (1909). assumes the situation of a relatively abrupt decrease in compre15. Calvin. Moscow. Philosophia botanica (1751). The naked essence of the evolutionary trend is that it looks promote the brain expansion. although User C. anisotropy-determined ﬁnal size. Calvin. Amer. Manthi. suddenly occurs. A. (2) there will 2011 21:27:57 The River that Flows Uphill: A Journey from the Big Bang to the Big Brain. and J. unlimited absorption of new information. The hope is that the ﬁeld theory suggested in biological propagation (see the footnote g). 06 Aug ited capacities for further knowledge absorption.v Delivered by Ingenta to: E. Oxford University Press. the same anatomically constant size will not be capable to con9. Consciousness Explained. Leakey. W. Lett. PNAS 102. S. G. Demerec. oretical constructions. J. W. the most probable Animal. McDougall. Amer. W. 199–211. is limited to a certain critical macro-size of the brain. H. London (2005).101 S. In such a perspective. L. Translated from the German edition (1892) by W. M. C.000 years ago denies such a possibility. C. Mind and Matter 3. 1748 (2001). Genet. Dennett. Principles of Analytical Biology and the Theory of Cellular capacities only about 10. Leakey. E. Diamond. the modern human brain has not yet reached its ﬁeld London (1893a). 151 (1982). but the anatomically complete brain remained functionally unemployed and began manifest its real potential 1. Stroud. G. De Sousa. von Linné (C. Mendel’s Principles of Heredity. Ambrose. has practically : 24. the environment is a determining factor testing the will do with the same brain size: there is no hope that intellecappearing mutational changes. P. A. however. Calvin. Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century. Ever Since Darwin: Reﬂections in Natural History. Klein and B. W. Prehistoric Flintwork. New York front with the avalanche of the impetuously accumulated infor(1991). New York (2006). some “indifferent” new mutations can appear which are not especially suitable to the environments while are not harmful to the organism as well. 2. 1. by the brain capacities which are asso& Co. J. Oxford (2005). Sci. Fleagle. W. but its publication was suppressed. however. F. M. S. The Dawn of Human Culture. H. Zoologist 23. J. McGarry. 10. anatomical development after appearance of the modern Homo 24.000 years ago. Nature 448. N. In all likelihood. C. J. J. The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human philosophical revelations.. What is a gene? J. McHenry. hension of not only current informational abundance. J.and micro-physical the(2004). Entstehung der Arten im Pﬂanzenreich. M. 5306 (2005). A curious question concerns the future of human civilization. 26. Allen. P. 5.Adv. The trend of the “Great Encephalization” was ﬁnished about References and Notes 130. Anthropol. 688 (2007). 855 (2003). Oxford University Press. large-headed (super)human species is not expected. IP unlimremaining of the same anatomical size. Cambridge MA. Genetics and the Origin of Species. evolutionarily frozen. Evidently. Harper Perennial. Cambridge University Press. Little. Linnaeus). any newborn’s brain. L. B. Malkolm. a certain striking mutation. 596 (1893b). 829 (1983). M. The second possibility 14. Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic. Lipkind. Epigeabove-discussed ﬁeld anisotropy-based evolutionary trend of the netic. The intellectual development of humanity coexistence. Veit. Mahowald. Gould. w In such a situation.x of potential progress of the mankind which. which. J. 28. I. H.w Hence. Behavioral. anatomical size? M. Marino. 733 (2005). New York. Kiarie. D. and directed efforts using genetic engineering with all the related I.e. Antón. so that the science ﬁction will soon become a 20. McDougall. Oxford a more and more complicated macro. R. mutated ﬁeld anisotropy has not yet restored its geometrical per22. 4. Weismann. Brown. Bateson. F. Tempus (2005). is not based on natural selection and even on a chance to disperse in population because of the absence of its natural causality. while having some personal suitability. it may look that the evolutionary development peculiarities. Columbia University Press. Sat.162. Heredity 24. Latin by 7. S. S. Oxford University optimistic bears a serious doubt in practical realization of the Press. will not be further inherited biologically. D. Russian (1991).219. Vallender. Guest There are two alternative answers: (1) the brain. 11. Johannsen. Translated from 6. F. v 27. Brown. Glad. and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. the respecteriori. H. if not determined. current reality. It might seem that in the organism-environment the future humanity. ciated with (limited to?) its constant. Evans. Lamb. taking into 12. it will hardly have spontaneous. Butler. E. Brown & Company. Parker and H. i. which. N. which potentially would tions. 64. Nauka. King. E. Wood. W. and 17. The MIT Press. De Vries. F. the present article provides a certain explanation. is tabula rasa that is ﬁlled with knowledge a posof any new trait is as if induced by the environments. G. meaning that the once Book. Contemp. The ﬁrst possibility looking rather more 13. Oxford (2005). 271. ethical problems. and. 4. Schuylkill Haven. M. Anderson. W. x The latest version of the “Theory of Cellular Fields” was ﬁnished in 1954 (just before Gurwitsch passed away). Gilbert. abstract mathematical complications. Walter Scott. Freer. mation. T. The absence of the human brain 23. G. the microanatomy which reﬂects speciﬁc human distinctiveness is decisive. be a stage in the mankind development when the human brain of 8. Rhind. Science 291. Spoor. too-far-distant future. Wilmut. 368 (1933). tive regularities being pretty well described by genetics postulaIf. it appears. is within the notI. The Einstein’s descendents did not inherit tions which are checked by the environments for their ﬁtness and his geniality. 209 .. i. and. science ﬁction. The manuscript which was well known in Russian scientiﬁc circles could be published only in 1991. is depen3. A. Sci. while the organism is a rather pastual development of humanity will cause an inherited anatomical sive participant “automatically” generating a spectrum of mutaextension of the brain. EPILOGUE The Great Encephalization remains to be a challenge not only to the theory of evolution but to a general scientiﬁc description of A high dispersion of the human brain size (1000–1850) should be taken into account together with the absence of any correlation between the individual brain size and intellectual level. New York (1937).000 years ago. H. J. London (1973). Nature 433. T. P. 29 (2005). perspective is an incredible specialization supported by eugenics19.e. Leipzig (1901–1903). New York (2002). 100 (1994). C. John Wiley and Sons. Nature Rev. K. 25. M. but also 16. T.. Rev. i. A Brief History of the Mind. San Francisco (1986). Sierra Club Books. A Bradford Great Encephalization is still going on. H. 8. and L. H. Naturalist 45. in turn. 18. Cell 119. R. What are the frontiers Fields. Rev. 29. The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity. 129 (1911). Edgar. 2008 RESEARCH ARTICLE the burden of the entire potential knowledge to be absorbed by the living world. Gathogo. Although both the possibilities seem to belong rather to 11. Dobzhansky.
Academic Press. Jablonka. Pockett. J. 167. Sheldrake. Theories of Everything. Gurwitsch. 53. Aldine Publishing Co. London (1968).-A. Hamilton. 331 (1967). J. Yale University Press. D. 1–45. Theor. von Bertalanffy. McDougall. (in German) 51. Entwicklungsmech. Beloussov. Lincoln NE (2000). 56. 7. Current Development of Biophysics. 14. Oxford University Press. S. and R. Freeman. Entwicklungsmech. Phil. Biol. 89. 2008 47. edited by A. H. Molec. H. Delivered by Ingenta to: Guest User IP : 24. Gurwitsch. Cambridge (1983). Lond. 105–124. Hangzhou University Press. 9. A. Harcourt. Nova Science Publishers. 15. 1. C. 111. New York (1939). Roux’ Arch. Stud. Dawkins. A. pp. Theor. J. Nikitinskaya and G. Bisiash.RESEARCH ARTICLE 30. A. Cognit. Proc. 173. London (1966). H. Nature 217. F. 79. Lond. Roux’ Arch. Searle. T. Oxford (1986). Longman. Cavalli-Sforza and M. April. 101. M. pp. 66. F. Annu. Penrose. Evol. G.-A. J. Lipkind. November–December. M. Methuen. Life and Mind.. Gurwitsch. Harlow.219. Toward a Science of Consciousness (The 1st Tucson Discussions and Debates). Waddington. 109. M. W. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 327 (1992). L. Scott. R. Sci. 973 (1995). The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection. 507–540. Stud. 62. Stud. Chalmers. edited by A. The Nature of Consciousness: A Hypothesis. Raff. 2075 (2007). 87. Chomsky. Leigh. Reﬂections on Language. Waddington. Spain (2001). Stud. W. 3. Deacon. W. Feldman. Fusion (German edition) (in German) 8. 7. Norton. edited by P. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. 91. M. J. Soc. 929. 709 (1968). Sheldrake. Popul. The Theory of the Biological Field. 61 (2002). Hameroff. Hamilton. Biol. Theor. Khorana. edited by M. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. 11. Holliday. and F. Sci. L. J. M. Cambridge MA (2002). 74. Trans. S. 17 (1964b). L. 516 (1914). Nature 227. Oxford University Press. H. J. Die histologischen Grundlagen der Biologie (in German). Romijn. Am. 81. 69. 92. New Haven (1976). Tucson AZ. The Emergent Self. 94. 97. Russian (1947a). D. Crystals. 93. R. Science 145. 23 (2002a). Greene. S. A. Rev. 57. Nature 192. January. edited by P. 47–60. 45. 359–373. Penrose. C. Huggett. 40. Neurosci. Oxford (1990). B. S. J. A. J. G. R. L. Ithaca (1999). Exper. Stud. 76. USSR Academy of Medical Sciences Publishing House. D. Proceedings of the 6th Conference. J. 77. J. Oxford (1982). Language and Mind. F. N. Abstract Particulars. Develop. 239–256. Greece (1992). Los Angeles (1981). Biol. J. Laszlo. 114. Towards a Theoretical Biology (Prolegomena). Gould. pp. Locke. Cambridge (2001). 737 (1953a). Gurwitsch. Moscow (1963). J. Zaragoza. 3 (2000b). Progr. Sheldrake. Chomsky. Hameroff. From Stars to Brains: Pathways to Consciousness in the Natural World. H. 1227 (1961). 6th edn. 116.-A. New York. C. edited by C. A. Nirenberg and P. Genetics 15. (in German) 39. pp. edited by S. pp. Marijuan. Gurwitsch. edited by C. Cambridge. 84. G. J. 163 (1994).162. G. G. Umezava. 44. T. 76 (1996). Goodwin. Roux’ Arch. Floris Books. 78. 46 (2004). 54. C. Kaszniak and A. Brace & World. Cytogenet. Lipkind. C. Blackwell. J. Haraway. Entwicklungsmech. Australia (2006). 95. Chang. H. Oxford University Press. 1–31. C. Oxford (1997). 90. Astaﬁeva. K. B. Hasker. Integrative Biophysics. A. Intern. Blackwell. Gillespie. 73. ser. MA & London (1996b). G. 59. pp. Greene. Proceedings of the Conference of the Australian Academy of Science in honor of Professor Paul Davies. 06 Aug 2011 21:27:57 63. London (1872). Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale. S. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium of the Athenian Society for Science and Human Development. A. G. M. 71. 557 (2000a). J. Gurwitsch. 36. New York (1992). A. Fawcett-Columbine. Consciousness and Learning Research. Biol. and V. 235–277. 106. edited by N. Mathematical Principles Underlying Genetic Structures. 49. B 9. MIT Press. Leder. C. London (1999).. pp. New York (1997). 61. New York. MIT Press. G. Cambridge MA (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. 37. Penrose. Biophys. 12. Popp. Nature 171. Lipkind. pp. 88. Cons. Kluwer Academic Publishers. edited by I. Harvard University Press. June. The Creative Cosmos: A Uniﬁed Science of Matter. M. G. Jena (1930). Lipkind. R. Watts-Tobin. 60. Ohta. Entwicklungsmech. edited by S. A. Routledge and Paul Kegan. 100. 98. 108. E. 561 (1970). 50. 467–503. Gurwitsch. Rosenberg. Popp. Waddington. 105. 7. Symp. 128 (1996). Crick. Cognit. W. 9 (1975). R. 41. 49. Kimura. New York (2006). Crick. Consciousness in Contemporary Science. 71–88. John Murray. Callender and N. Cajal and Consciousness: Scientiﬁc Approaches to Consciousness on the Centennial of Ramón y Cajal’s Textura. Oxford (1976). P. M. Dordrecht (1998a). Barrow. Gurwitsch. Lett. Nirenberg. Kimura. Turrini. Dordrecht (2003). Regev. Cons. F. Hameroff. Principles of Development. Biol. Popp and L. and Fields: Metaphors of Organicism in Twentieth-Century Developmental Biology. Berryman. Leiden. 96. John. C. M. Collection of Works on Mitogenesis and the Theory of the Biological Field. S. Fabrics. Kybernetik 4. and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. B. D. V. Aisner and J. 31. pp. L. Holt. Campbell. 109. 210 . R. 880 (1998). 35. 57. J. Voeikov. 58. 43. Watson and F. 30 (1987a). Libet. Lipkind. Cons. 82. 85. 32. Birmingham (1968). 45 (1999). 105. Dawkins. Cultural Transmission and Evolution. Russian (1944). Science and Consciousness. with Additions and Corrections. 52. 44. D. and M. A. (in German) 112. New York (1968). M. B. Soc. 48. R. Beloussov. Oxford University Press. S. Cell Genet. 107. pp. Biol. 433 (1927). 46. B. 67. M. London (1938). Ohta and J. French (1947b). J. Athens. Beloussov. A. 117. 29. Biologische Zentralblatt (in German) 32. H. C. G. London (1986). Tarcher. Freeman. G. Riggs. Bibliotheca Biotheoretica. Marijuan. Gurwitsch. Rose and L. 110. N. W. Roux’ Arch. Cons. J. 44 (1967). Cons. edited by S. H. edited by F. Edinburgh (1993). edited by D. pp. Watson and F. USSR Academy of Sciences Publishing House. 99. Zhang. The Concept of Field in Consciousness Theorizing: Is it a Tool for Solving the ’Hard Problem? Toward a Science of Consciousness. E. S. J. pp. edited by L. Stud. Fields and Gradients. 39. V. PNAS 99. D. 223–251. and S. Annals of the New York Academy of Science. 138 (1958). S. H. The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA. Cambridge University Press. Soc.101 Sat. 115. 72. 312. 9. The Riddle of Life: A Survey of Theories. H. Elliot. 42. 55. Gurwitsch. 112. Appignanese. A. edited by J. H. G. J. 199–211. pp. Crick. K. 71 (1992). Kluwer Academic Publishers. M. C. Morphic Resonance and Collective Memory. Opitz. The Selﬁsh Gene. Ricciardi and H. 289. V. Chomsky. (in German) 116. Cons. D. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Biophotons. Stud. R. Crick. Kimura. Princeton University Press. Nature 171. UK (1986). 138–151. D. Oxford (1988). or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Weber. Biophotonics and Coherent Systems in Biology. Terkel. Pockett. 104. Bischof. pp. 1. 33. 9. Princeton NJ (1981). Roy. Biochem J. Lamb. 9. Crick. 3. Lipkind. Canberra. Animal Behav. R. Biol. Hauppauge NY (2007a). Annals of the New York Academy of Science 929. F. 10. 16134 (2002). 20 (1929). 59–117. 1 (1964a). Rinehart & Winston. 70. 65. USA (2004). Dialogues with Scientists and Sages: The Search for Unity. Fischer Verlag. Springer US. Cons. W. Proceedings of the International Centennial Conference Commemorating the Publication of Textura. Evol. J. 1–149. Science and Beyond. Geometry and the Foundations of Science. Woodhouse. edited by A. Cambridge University Press. Bradford Book. Cons. 383 (1922). Develop. Biol. W. M. 34. Sci. Biol. Ser. edited by D. Weingard. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings. Hameroff and R. J. G. 103–127. M. M. 103. Darwin. H. pp. Pantheon. Gilbert. 86. 38. Trends Biochem. Biol. G. pp. 343 (1986). and E. 68. Brenner. J. McFadden. Fisch. edited by R. and R. 20. 74–104 (2001). Crick. V. Watson. Adv. In Major Problems in Developmental Biology. Dawkins. S. Stud. Welch. 357 (1996). Universe Ltd. 1399 (1964). 102. 184 (2001). Cajal and Consciousness: Scientiﬁc Approaches to Consciousness on the Centennial of Ramón y Cajal’s Textura.. Marcel and E. Physical and Chemical Foundations of Life Phenomena: Historical Essays. H. J. Une theorie du champ biologique cellulaire (Theory of the Biological Field). Molec. J. Sci. F. 113. 75. Sci. Lipkind. 964 (1953b). Norton & Company. 8. McFadden. 119 (1994). Pockett. A. Searle. R. R. L. G. Cons. Hameroff. B. 51 (2002). C. Barnett. Hangzhou (1996). Modern Phys. 51. Moscow. Roy. Sovetskaya Nauka. Glikson. J. 36 (1996a). R. 458 (1912). New York (1975). Weiss. Modern Theories of Development: An Introduction to Theoretical Biology. C. Cornell University Press. 624 (1968). N. Moscow. 141–147. Hidden Dimensions. 83. R. M. A. The Blind Watchmaker. G. Cons. 64. N. A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. Kinsbourne. Martynyuk. M. Hameroff and R. edited by C. D. 48 (2003). J. E. 80. Oxford (1933). Vitiello. 23. 45 (2002b). T. W.
Vol. K. 06 Aug 2011 21:27:57 Received: 18 December 2007. S. W. K. D. 149. Wiebe. D. and D. 148. F. Lin. N. North. Hooper. Shen. J. Paabo. J. 1139 (2004). Hebert. 131. Rex. Edwards. Xu. G. Minugh-Purvis. J. H. H. Nickerson. 32. Computing. F. Preuss. Nielsen. Sci. J. Varki and T. Rubin. PNAS USA 101. Choi. and D. Lipkind. Diaz. Pennisi. Civello. T. 46 (2003). Strait. Jin. Stephen. 1746 (2005). M. R. Lipkind. E. Z. 340 (2002). A. D. D. Makunin. Bailey. W. Wildman. S. P. J. J. Diaz. and M. Heissig. Caporale. S. Muchmore. T. Grine. M. M. S. Am. Mbua. Kelly. M. Sci. Smith. and A. Nelson. J. Sninsky. Lahn. Molecular Sreategies in Biological Evolution. Xi. Wang. Y.-A. Wilson. Austria. E. A. S. 11736 (2002). H. Princeton University Press. R. T. P. 121. PNAS USA 95. L. L. Shi. M. G. N. Popp. Snell. A. E. Maxwell’s Demon: Entropy. 8331 (2003). 2957 (2004). M. E. 107 (1991). Noonan. O. 79 (1992). P. C. D. Caceres. H. 185 (1999). Rivista di Biologia-Biology Forum 87. M. J. 147. K. Technol. and M. Afzal. Carroll. L. London. Lipkind. Warren. Shetty. G. and B. E. pp. King and A. Geschwind. Z. Sci. pp. 130. 1876 (2003). C. e7 (2005). D. Todd. Khaitovich. R. P. Kejariwal. Xu. and E. Bräuer and E. and E. 366 (1972). S. X. 9. C. D. R. 120. Lai. E.162. 118. and S. McEwen. White. S. L. Abnizova. E. K. 415 (2004). 1321 (2004).101 Sat. Walter. 145. Y. J. R. P. 21. Y. M. F. R. 127. E. I. Varki. Glanowski. Huang. C. M. PNAS USA 100. A. Nature 431. S. I. S. F. Ferriera. Science 296. Shrager. Cons. Pheasant. S. C. 134. W. edited by L. T. I. Moniz. Zhang. W. E. Jiang. Y. G. 469–494. Science 302. Cargill. Bontrop. PNAS USA 100. H. Gibbs. and W. Santos. G. 132. 136. P. Wilson. Elgar. C. Thomas. 6. PNAS USA 99. Singapore. Murphy. H. Varki. Plajzer-Frick. Engström. H. Zhu. Paabo. M. Muchmore. M. M. Giavalisco. Nobrega. Iber. 988 (2004). W. V. F. 123. P. Lachuer. D. A. 849 (2003). L. Lovejoy. Delivered by Ingenta to: Guest User IP : 24. PLoS Biology 3. 141. 870. G. Schoenfeld. 142. 36 (1998b). G. Nature 418. L. Johnson. 21st Century Sci. B. P. F. Hum. Takematsu. and B. H. Kapatos. R. Stedman. T. S. W. 138. and A. 144. 151. Hillyart. 223–237. Tanenbaum. A. Chou. Kozyak. Redmond. K. W. Monaco. 1295 (2000). and M. 146. G. Cooke. Xu. Q. 119. 22. A. Chen. Klos. Goodman. 150. A. G. Uddin. Jin. Mol. M. 153. Callaway. Naturalist 30. Nelson. Princeton (1990). Liu. A. N. D. 13030 (2003). Wang. K. M. and M. and G. S. M. H. Ren. A. H. Science 316. Pääbo. 156. H. Takahata. M. W. P. E. Trends Genet. Sci. P. Clark. Altheide. Kudo. Low. M. 143. Gregory and P. Sandelin. C. P. Enard. Mattick. S. Hong Kong (1992). Wasserman. Walker. Zhang. July (2007). and Q. Nature 428. Paabo. BMC Genomics 5. Zollner. 133. W. Technol 11. M. D. B. K. A. T. and C. M. Doxiadis. S. 441 (1896). Hof. 152. Fusion (German edition) (in German) 8. J. Science 304. K. 18. E. Krings. Kitano. Prabhakar. 155. (1999). B. Wang. 1556 (2007).’ Salzburg. J. 122. V. Hayakawa. 119 (1994). 125. D. D. T. T. Vavouri. P. H. Olivera. Bandyopadhyaya. Genet. Su. Accepted: 20 January 2008. Thesier. D. M. Annals N.219. Mitchell. Zhang. Nieselt-Struwe. Vallender. Gu. Nature 422. D. E. R. 124. edited by F. Amer. Woolfe. Bejerano. 786 (2006). Information. L. Science 188. Lett. Klose. Goodson. Wright. S. W. and S. South African J. Science 314. 446 (2002). Varki. Wheeler. 92. R. Lenhard. 139. Lipkind.Y Acad. Zheng. Gilks. Zapala. 77 (1996). J. 341 (1981). 34 (1998c). J. Proceedings of the Conference ’Quantum Mind. Goode. 211 . H. Zhao. D. 199–211. 2008 RESEARCH ARTICLE 140. W. M. Genome Res. J. 53 (1987b). S. Rubin. B. Chou. K. K. 128. Varki. S. Leakey. 21st Century Sci. S. H. Bruce. Human Evol. 869 (2002). J. J. S. Lockhart. A. 1. S. M. Hua. A. Stud. Baldwin. 107 (1975). 137. J. K. C. S. Fisher. J. Wang. Brookhaven Symposia in Biology 23. 129. K. 135. 13. Lu. L. Recent Advances in Biophoton Research and its Applications. Kent. Y. 317 (1999). E. Y. S. 11. Yuan. A. Science 289. R. T. 289. 99 (2004). Leff and A. S. R. Haussler. Bridges. Science 211. Beloussov. M. J. D. 154. J. Evans. G. Hunt. J. Indriati. Human Evol. M. Anderson. Ericson. Adams. S. McConkey and A. 126. H. McConkey. 17 (1997). E. 15. Przeworski. W. Cartier. M. Satta. Enard. New Jersey. 11751 (1998). M. J. Watkins. I. V. A. M. B. D. Ohno. Grossman. World Scientiﬁc.Adv. Ravid. E. L. J. D. J. Barlow. Human Evol. Li. Genome Res. M. G. P. Lipkind.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.