biology – Harmonia Philosophica

Ancestral asymmetries…

The left and right side of the brain are involved in different tasks. This functional lateralization and associated brain asymmetry are well documented in humans, but little is known about brain asymmetry in our closest living relatives, the great apes. Using endocasts (imprints of the brain on cranial bones), scientists now challenge the long-held notion that the human pattern of brain asymmetry is unique. They found the same asymmetry pattern in chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. However, humans were the most variable in this pattern. This suggests that lateralized, uniquely human cognitive abilities, such as language, evolved by adapting a presumably ancestral asymmetry pattern. (1)

The universe is symmetrical. Or so we think it should be. But why think something like that in the first place? Is it that symmetry is beautiful and we are naturally inclined towards admiring beautiful? Could it be that symmetry of also an inherent part of our nature and, this, we tend to adhere to theories which include it?

Our brain is asymmetrical. Or so we think because we see differences in our two hemispheres in our brain. But why think that in the first place? Differences are there, this is certainly. But what makes us look at those differences? What if by seeing things from another perspective? What if that other perspective shows as that symmetry is preserved at another level?

Which belief is going to prevail?

Think.

What do you want to see?

Do you feel safe within a symmetrical universe? Would you feel more creative in an asymmetrical one? What it everything is symmetrical because everything is not? What if everything is asymmetrical because there is no other cosmos where symmetry exists?

Think.

There is no symmetry in anything.

Until you see asymmetry.

And decide to create a mirror…

Awareness.

A research indicates that trees might be ‘aware’ of their size: Scientists found out that birch trees adjust their stem thickness to support their weight. (1)

We hold our consciousness so high.

Never have we thought to look down to the dirt.

Never have we thought that this might be the lowest of the possible forms of Being.

And that we need to get low in order to rise…

Look around.

So many things to see.

Do you see anything?

Life. A mess…

Life is built with three major components: RNA and DNA – the genetic code – and proteins, the cells that carry out their instructions. Most likely, the first cells had all three pieces. But first, RNA, DNA or proteins had to form without their partners. One common theory, known as the “RNA World” hypothesis, proposes that because RNA, unlike DNA, can self-replicate, that molecule may have come first. Some scientists believe the process of its formation may not have been such a straightforward path.

In a paper published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, Szostak Kim and colleagues present a new model for how RNA could have emerged out of a mixture of nucleotides with similar chemical structures: arabino- deoxy- and ribonucleotides (ANA, DNA, and RNA). Kim found that the chimeric oligonucleotides – like ANA and DNA – could have helped RNA evolve the ability to copy itself. (1)

Meet life.

Highly disorganized. Highly chaotic. Highly volatile.

Resulting in robust designs.

Creating lasting bonds.

Setting the foundations of everything.

Meet death.

Highly organized. Highly structured. Highly stable.

Resulting in the chaos of life.

Creating nothing.

Setting the foundations of nothing.

Meet the world.

Woven out of thin thread. Balancing between life and death.

Neither living, nor dead.

Dead and living as well.

Can the fish exist without the sea?

– Hi.

– Did you have breakfast?

– No, there were no fish…

Explanatory Notes

The “fish without the sea” is a mention to the idea that for something to exist, it may need a medium which has nothing to do with that something. The fish do not need fish to exist, they need the sea.
Breakfast is a reference to Jesus last meeting with the Apostles.

Knowing thy self…

Interoception is the awareness of our physiological states; it’s how animals and humans know they’re hungry or thirsty, and how they know when they’ve had enough to eat or drink. But precisely how the brain estimates the state of the body and reacts to it remains unclear. In a paper published in the journal Neuron, neuroscientists at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) shed new light on the process, demonstrating that a region of the brain called the insular cortex orchestrates how signals from the body are interpreted and acted upon. The work represents the first steps toward understanding the neural basis of interoception, which could in turn allow researchers to address key questions in eating disorders, obesity, drug addiction, and a host of other diseases. (1)

I feel hungry.

I know I am.

My brain thinks so.

Based on input from the stomach.

I feel alive.

My brain thought of that.

Based on input from the stomach.

I feel existing.

My brain thought of that.

Based on input from the stomach.

Do you feel it?

My stomach feels weird…

I know it is just my stomach.

Based on input from… ?

Drawing. Seeing.

Drawing an object and naming it engages the brain in similar ways, according to research recently published in JNeurosci. The finding demonstrates the importance of the visual processing system for producing drawings of an object.

In a study by Fan et al., healthy adults performed two tasks while the researchers recorded brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging: they identified pieces of furniture in pictures and produced drawings of those pieces of furniture. The researchers used machine learning to discover similar patterns of brain activity across both tasks within the occipital cortex, an area of the brain important for visual processing. This means people recruit the same neural representation of an object whether they are drawing it or seeing it. (1)

We think what we see.

We speak what we think.

Draw a line.

Contain the cosmos on a paper.

And you will remain speechless.

Do you see?

We think what we speak.

We see what we think…

But who drew the first line? Who thought of that first thought? Who spoke the first words?

In the midst of silence, can you listen to yourself?

Stop looking.

In the void of everything, can you see anything?