dna cervello coscienza consapevolezza educazione
dna cervello coscienza consapevolezza educazione
International Society of Neuropsychophysiology DNA cervello coscienza consapevolezza educazione
International Society of NeuropsychophysiologyDNA cervello coscienza consapevolezza educazione





Published on 'Brain and science integration', 1983,1,17-37 - 'International Journal of Psychophysiology',1984,4,253 - Introduced at the First International Meeting on 'Science - Education - Evolution' Roma, 1982, and, afterwards, at XXXV World Medical Assembly, Venice, Cini Foundation, 24-28 Ottobre and at III International Congress of IOP - International Organization of Psychophysiology, Vienna University, July 11th 1986



The present theory integrates the several researches performed in  neurophysiological field inherent in the interactions and interrelationships  between the two cerebral hemispheres. Therefore I think it’s useless reporting  the long bibliography that brought me to formulate such a theory, as I should  quote with deserves and worth not only the most famous researchers like Roger  W. Sperry and his equipe, but many others, less famous but as much worthy, who  contributed to such a formulation. I leave therefore to the researcher the  analysis of this theory, informing that for a scientific proof a lab is not  particularly required, as we can act directly on the person in front of us, and  on ourselves through stimulus and images, verbal or other kind of sounds we use  everyday in our interactions. By analyzing the responses evoked and their times,  we can have a clear vision of this experimentation. A lot of demonstrative  experiments will be published on the next issues of this magazine and others.
            In every phenomenon the physical-chemical-biological principles rule the  morphing of the interactions of functional parameters, and the consequent expressions  determine the reality of the phenomenon instant by instant.
            The effects generated by filogenetical and ontogenetical etch on next  transformations, in a chain bringing together diversities and differentiations  of all natural elements and every structure, except man potentially, binded by  precise laws, can’t help following the line and the direction of such an  evolution.
            The energetic morph-physiological reality of mankind locates him on a  completely different base than every other structure, even those that  palaeontology and zoology define as similar species; Man is the only capable to  etch on physical-chemical-biological principles, so much to alter the line and  the direction of the natural development of phenomena and have the power to  destroy the global ecosystem and consequently self-destroy. The self-destruct  power mankind actually owns is directly proportional to the non-knowledge of  physical biological and energetic laws that rule us and determine our automatic  and instinctive behaviour. First act aiming to defuse such a power is the  informational acquisition that every human being has a brain and every thought  and action depend unambiguously on that, in relation to the synthesis that  takes place within the brain between the physiology of mechanisms and the learning of information.
            The evolution of atomic elements and the biological evolution may be  integrated in a unique evolutional process. In fact the evolution of atomic and  molecular elements has never stopped and we can say that the long atomic  experimentation, developed on the long path determined by time and space, has  brought to a continuously higher complexity with an order that partially still  today escapes the researcher. Effectively all researchers know that the nervous  cell as we know it today is the result of a long biological evolution which  started after and not together with the appearance of biological life on Earth.  This kind of cell, that reaches his top functional complexity in mankind, does  not reproduce within its genetic nucleus, and has the same duration of the  biological cycle of man: this is to demonstrate that it represents our vital  cycle. The several billions cells of our nervous system have to work in an  environment being physiological to their functions and, in order to work, they  have to be physiologically stimulated. If we consider that every cell is  different, this means they have different duties, therefore in order to work  they need to have several billions stimulus. How much do we really stimulate  our cells? Are the stimulus physiological to their functions?
            The repetitiveness of cultural models prevents them from working in a  physiological manner on the base of their diversity; this is why we use just a  little of our brain.
            This theory will allow to arrange at its best the culture and the life  of a man in order to eliminate the several problems that affect today all  societies worldwide.





The anatomy of nervous system highlights the duality of the basic  component elements functional to the fundamental duality of the brain, as  within it the cultural man and his story take place: the two telencephalic  hemispheres.
            Particularly, all of incoming sensorial stimulations have double driving  channels, linked through nervous ways to both of left and right hemisphere, so  that every input is memorized independently in one and the other, evoking two  different cortical responses.
            If, from a morphological-anatomical point of view the cerebral  hemispheres look uniformly structured and differenced only by the mirror  symmetry, their physiology highlights the fundamental differences that exist  and determine the functional mechanisms, which are identified by parameters  which highlight the differences of coding and energy of neuronal cells and  their connections.
            One first differentiation is within the distribution of encephalic  areas, which have different functions in left or right hemispheres. A classic  example is supplied by the centres of language and writing: although motor  systems of vocalization have correspondence in both left and right hemisphere,  generally the ‘word’ has its site only in the left hemisphere.
            Considering other aspects of physiology, a global and deeper difference  between the two hemispheres is defined by their different way to interact with  outside environment, above all as to the responses to the stimulations coming  from that.
            Right and left hemisphere respond in a totally different way and time to  any  

stimulus, as the energetic level and characteristic frequencies of  interhemispherical biochemical stimulating functions are different.
            Through the duplicity of sensorial conditions, as above, the same  informative message  follows different  nervous ways and reaches the two hemispheres which elaborate and memorize it,  giving a global worth of it which directly depends on the structure of the  acquired parameters of analysis. The physiology of left hemisphere is such to  memorize information as cultural models, as what they have been until now,  represented by the total of all characteristics the physical information  carries within, and makes this model an ‘absolute truth’ to be defended. The  right hemisphere, instead, analyses all of the aspects of the information and  integrates them within, finding a common evolutional line that determines a  spatial distribution sequence in no way limited by previous acquisitions.
            By standing perceptively in front of an element, the two hemispheres  select and code the electro-magnetic information following different processes;  e.g., through sensorial receptors of sight, they perceive the existence and the  characteristics of an element: the tree.
            In the left hemisphere such a datum is identified instantly in a model  and every revoking function of the element ‘tree’ goes to join the specific  tree model which has arrived to the hemisphere first. Definitively, the first  memorization necessarily conditions next ones, as these will always be brought  do a direct match with the previous one. When the same stimulation arrives to  the right hemisphere, there is no learning being automatic or limited to the  incoming information, but a real spatial distribution process among intimately  connected element starts. The right hemisphere associates with the ‘tree’  element all of its fundamental components and associates with these other  segments, integrating in this way the entire natural process.
            Although the basic elaboration is separated and strictly autonomous,  right and left hemisphere constantly communicate through an anatomic connection  bridge: the corpus callosum.
            There are motor areas (Broca’s center and writing center) mainly active  in the left hemisphere, through which the right hemisphere’s stimulation must  pass to express, through an articulate and comprehensible language, the concept  of integration operating in the analysis of the incoming inputs. To do this,  the inside stimulation has to necessarily pass through the area of memorization  of the model, modifying it through a energetic-biochemical (RNA, DNA) that  determines the break or the usage of the model.
            In front of an incoming input, the learning function of the left  hemisphere is based on the binary code (same system used by electronic  calculators):

  1. Or the datum is recognized as already memorized (obviously,  in the case of a new datum it is directly memorized) and then it is identified  with a recall datum
  2. Or it is in antithesis with the memorized one , as it  does not present identically the same model of it, but offers a further  structure model of the same element.

In this way the left hemisphere acts by selecting incoming data by  exclusion: ‘yes’ or ‘no’, ‘true’ or ‘false’, there’s no third one that  includes, by integrating them, two different aspects of reality.

Such a possibility is the fulcrum-basis of the right hemisphere, to  which two different visions of the same concept a particular element may be  brought are synonym of a larger analysis space that allows to pick a larger  number of particulars and, at the same time, offer a starting point for an  associative study that researches, if it wasn’t clearly visible, a relationship  between the two aspects.
            It is anyway important underlining that it would be a mistake reduce  left and right hemisphere respectively to a strong determinism and to a  probabilism typical of two physical and structural models of matter and energy,  as once again this would mean entering a concept in a block scheme and again  selecting it into models, i.e. observing it only through the left hemisphere.
            If the input carries the information A=B, the left hemisphere learns A=B  and identifies it with a cultural model. This particular process is at the  basis of all of today’s scientific knowledge, as all the branches of science,  to study a phenomenon, hark back to a model which characterize a certain number  of parameters, sufficient to understand the phenomenon. The so-built  construction of an enough satisfying model automatically morphs into a mental  model to be defended, difficult to be removed. The history of science is full  of examples, and although it may look like a contradiction in terms, if not  explained by cerebral physiology, the field of cognitive learning that should  theoretically be the most open to innovations and observation aiming to enlarge  the knowledge, is often revealed to be dogmatically closed in its prejudices.
            A very deeper scientific analysis of the input is performed by the right  hemisphere which splits the equality A=B and determines the two elements A and  B in a sequential succession, establishing   that the verifying of the relationship A=B is impossible. This allows  the right hemisphere to preserve a spatial memorization freedom always open to  any new stimulation, allowing it in a second moment a creative dynamic  response. The right hemisphere doesn’t even admit the possibility of a  relationship A=A, as it is implied in the reality of A its uniqueness and  individuality not reproducible  in the  equality.
            The learning of a model by the left hemisphere and the analysis of the  related parameters to an element of the observable reality by the right  hemisphere, follow a precise succession of nervous ways, being related to the  differentiation of sensorial receptors and consequent areas of association and  elaboration. As for such a succession two kinds of coding are established: a  biochemical and energetic coding based on the models in the left hemisphere,  and an energetic consequential spatial that personalizes the particulars,  giving them a precise worth, in the right hemisphere.
            The optical afferences characterize, in the left hemisphere, a formal  model through which a particular is identified which, to be associated in our  mind to what we learnt in that particular, has to be represented visually in  the same way. The optical afferences determine in the right hemisphere the  specification of the spatial-electromagnetic characteristics, through the  integration of the contribution of the variable of every parameter.

The acoustic afferences carry into the left hemisphere a coding which is  instantly identified with the code model that, in the language, will be  consequently associated every time the sensorial stimulations offer such  information that, brought together in a global model, characterize that  element. To the right hemisphere the acoustic afferences determine an analysis  of the conceptual reality of the linguistic code at the base of the emission spectrum  that accompanies the same letter and to the same letter (and every letter has  an individuality of its own in the construction of a response, always  preserving its conceptual meaning): definitely they associate to the structural  reality of the element the quantized impulses of an energetic code of a human  size. The three aggregation statuses of the matter are a sign of as many  energetic global statuses of a system, so that a precise energy level  corresponds to every status. Every element, even of a high density, owns a lot  of sublimed which constitute the steam tension, often not measurable.
            The olfactory afferences in the left hemisphere constitute an aromatic  model always associated to that particular and determine it unambiguously. Such  afferences bring, in the right hemisphere, to the chemical-energetic  characterization of the structural part of the element to a higher energetic  global worth, i.e. the sublimed part. On this line such areas perform a first  particular chemical analysis.
            For the right hemisphere the analysis of taste afferences is added to  the one above, while the same afferences constitute a further model of taste  for the left hemisphere: only that specific model will be associated to the  element.
            In the right hemisphere the taste area determines a specific chemical  analysis of the element, apart from the sublimed part, characterizing its  acidity, the bond potentials and all of the other fundamental chemical  characteristics. The synthesis of the olfactory and taste afferences allows a  complete chemical analysis of the element.
            The fifth sensorial channel is the one of the tactile afferences which  creates in the left hemisphere a further model correlating the density of the  element and its morphology in an unambiguous way and totally defines its  stimulating tactile components corresponding to the construction of the model  (hard – soft – morphology; liquid – solid). In the right hemisphere the tactile  afference determines the characteristics of density and completely integrates  the analysis of the element, so obtaining a complete spectrum of the  characteristics which individuate it and, definitely, reflects the analysis  performed by integrating all of the energetic natural parameters.
            Our sensorial instruments are a very powerful tool to study the reality  around us and their analysis spectrum corresponding to the physiology of the  associative sensorial areas represents a fundamental example to understand  which parameters are to be studied in that phenomenon.
            The right hemisphere integrates in its analysis all of the physical  scientific parameters which constitute the message, as it analyzes from an  energetic, physical, chemical, biological point of view and synthesizes the  results coming from it to elaborate a complete response on the objective reality  of the element. Such an objective reality is deformed when the right hemisphere  transfers the message through the corpus callosum to the structural  conformation of the cultural models of the left hemispheres, which has to  match, integrate and express, through its own codes, the objectivity of the  right hemisphere, so making impossible the transmission of the message in its  initial integrity.
            Left and right hemisphere pick two different aspects of the world around  us. The first one learns and memorizes an artificial reality, made by models  and combinations of these which generate further models, and the coding which  takes place within the hemisphere is in the same way artificial. The second one  analyzes and records the reality of the physical-natural world and the coding  within this hemisphere reflects such a naturalness.
            In the presence of a stimulation, the left hemisphere quickly emits a  response, i.e. acts on stimulus-response, while the right hemisphere, through a  less quick process, emits a new then response due to how its physiological  inner activity sets the result (always new, corresponding to the news of the  last interactive moment).
            Although left and right hemisphere are such physiologically differenced  aspects of our brain, they are not in antithesis, on the contrary their  physiology has to further be integrated through   a higher contribution of interhemispherical interactions.
            The same physiology gives us the example of a double synchronous  activity of the vegetative system, and other examples could be drawn not only  from the human physiology, but from the whole physiology and anatomy of the  natural world (to be considered as mechanisms of working and integrated  structures).
            The first step to the knowledge of the reality of this ecosystem of ours  is the knowledge of our cerebral physiology and how it accomplishes the world  within; to reach such a knowledge we have to perform on ourselves such an  experimentation that the right hemisphere breaks the schemes and cultural  models, so to transfer to the left hemisphere a new cognitive methodology which  doesn’t bring anymore to a repetitive culture, but a creative one, i.e. to a  conscious comprehension of the world around us and ourselves: this work doesn’t  aim to create a new dominant hemisphere, but to search for a new integrative  synthesis of the depolarities of our brain.
            In short, we can highlight which should physiologically be the path of  the physical message building the individual, in input, to our senses. It is  received by the two hemispheres: if the preformed message has a possibility of  integrative continuity with the new incoming messages, it is built by the left  hemisphere in such a way to allow the right hemisphere to enrich, measure and  arrange the construction of the objective reality of the received message. If  the message is considered as ‘truth’, in the left hemisphere a neurological  model will be formed which can not be integrated with other messages, not to be  touched, and the biological mechanism of defence will be activated every time  there will be an attempt to alter such a message, both by the right hemisphere  and the outside environment. In the first case the right hemisphere is allowed  to perform a creative action on the world around not identifiable in a  preformed model, allowing the receiver of such an action to elaborate a new  message.
            This physiological process accelerates the human evolution and allows  every brain to be busy on creative psychological constructions, giving it the  pleasure to be protagonist of ideas and removing from it the need to aggress in  order to protect models and messages which due to their formation are closed to  any possibility of integration of different stimulations not identifiable by  the brain among the memorized models.
            It’s up to us to be able to arrange the culture in such a way that any  sensorial message coming from any sense organ may run through the entire thick  nervous net without the borders created by the repetitive cultural models.