Consciousness, mind and brain – introducing Passive Frame Theory

Taking in consideration the carefulness required in any claim of a novel theory on consciousness and the necessary time to read and digest such a paper: “Homing in on Consciousness in the Nervous System: An Action-Based Synthesis” published at Behavioral and Brain Sciences by Associate Professor of Psychology Ezequiel Morsella from San Francisco state University.

A traditional disputed field among philosopher’s, psychologists, and many other research areas, theories of mind struggle to stand in solid ground.  In this aspect, this paper could be situated as a more naturalistic approach to the matter.

Focusing in overt action and reversing the attempt to understand mind-brain relationships from action to causes (instead of a stimulus-response study) is indeed not usual in recent or mainstream debate.  On this, it may bear some interesting dialogue with Piaget’s theory on intelligence, impulse and logic.

Such approach and the naturalistic arguments walk its way in what could be a descriptive, not normative, theory of mind-brain relationship.

A short introduction may be found by means of the press release issued along the article.

mens sans in corpore sano

A stroll in the field is good for our minds?  Sure.  Update your repertoire on why it is so with this “Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation” by Gregory N. Bratmana, Paul Hamiltonb, Kevin S. Hahnc, Gretchen C. Dailyd,e,1, and James J. Grossc.

The study approached the question “what mechanism(s) link decreased nature experience to the development of mental illness?”

Researchers suggest “One such mechanism might be the impact of nature exposure on rumination, a maladaptive pattern of self-referential thought that is associated with heightened risk for depression and other mental illnesses. We show in healthy participants that a brief nature experience, a 90-min walk in a natural setting, decreases both self-reported rumination and neural activity in the subgenual prefrontal cortex (sgPFC), whereas a 90-min walk in an urban setting has no such effects on self-reported rumination or neural activity.”

The Genesis Engine – will we change DNA faster than we can deal with it?

In another good piece on CRISPR DNA editing revolution, “Easy DNA Editing Will Remake the World. Buckle Up.” by Amy Maxmen.

“The technique is revolutionary, and like all revolutions, it’s perilous. (…)  It could at last allow genetics researchers to conjure everything anyone has ever worried they would—designer babies, invasive mutants, species-specific bioweapons, and a dozen other apocalyptic sci-fi tropes. It brings with it all-new rules for the practice of research in the life sciences. But no one knows what the rules are—or who will be the first to break them.

IN A WAY, humans were genetic engineers long before (…) through selective breeding. But it took time, and it didn’t always pan out.

(…)

Working together, microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier and biochemist named Jennifer Doudna’s teams found that Crispr made two short strands of RNA and that Cas9 latched onto them. (…) Cas9 does something almost magical: It changes shape, grasping the DNA and slicing it with a precise molecular scalpel.

(…) Once they’d taken that mechanism apart, Doudna’s postdoc, Martin Jinek, combined the two strands of RNA into one fragment—“guide RNA”—that Jinek could program. He could make guide RNA with whatever genetic letters he wanted(…) Cas9 protein proved to be a programmable machine for DNA cutting. (…) Doudna’s team published its results in Science.(…)” read full article