torsdag 29 oktober 2009

Perception is quantum biology

Animals have to recognize a multitude of odorous substances related to food, predators, mating partners, health status, genetic individuality, group status etc. Accordingly, their sense of smell has the capacity to detect and discriminate an almost unlimited number of odors. But that is not all. Detecting and discrimination is just one piece of the cake. The other is how that information is interpreted (in the brain), or perception. How emotions, behaviour, desires, disgust, desisionmaking and so on comes out from that odor or smell. The first problem is gene-related, the second brain-related. By far the most important of these is the perception of odors.

Model of an odor receptor, a GCPR-receptor. Comparison of the predicted binding sites for GPCRs: white, bovine rhodopsin; green, rat I7 OR; blue, mouse I7 OR; red, β1AR. No clear mechanism is known for the message transmission. A suggestion: After the ligand is bound, the extracellular loop 2 may close down over the barrel. The dramatic movement of EC2 in response to ligand binding may cause helix 3 to translate in the cytoplasmic direction, exposing the D(E)RY sequence to the cytoplasmic region near the G protein. This might initiate the signal transduction pathway, and the involvement of second messenger pathways (amplifying cascade).

A sensory input has a 'what is it?', and a quality question 'how' or 'is this good?' and those questions come (almost) together. This is the eg. sensory input and the qualia-problem of that input. How our self interpret that smell. This happens automatically, without any conscious desisionmaking. But is this interpretion in the brain or already in the sensory receptors/neurons? Now the olfactory area in the brain is very near the receptors, so it is perhaps not so big difference. In fact all of our 'big' senses are in our head, seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling. It is only 'touch', or somatic sensory receptors, that is not. Is 'touch' then interpreted in another way than the 'top senses'? Are there a hierarchy in sensory inputs? The outcome is often depending on all senses, but in different degrees. Maybe the different evolutionary sensory ages lies behind that hierarchy? Olfaction sense is very old, says a look at the genes. Also bacterias have the same genes. The function of pseudogenes is also unclear.

'Sensory qualia are assigned to the sensory receptors rather than to the neural circuitry of brain as in standard neuroscience' says Matti Pitkänen. 'The identification of qualia follows from the identification of quantum jump as a moment of consciousness. Just as quantum numbers characterize the physical state, the increments of quantum numbers characterize the quantum jump between two states. This leads to a capacitor model of the sensory receptor in which the sensory perception corresponds to a generalized di-electric breakdown in which various particles carrying some quantum numbers flow between electrodes and the change of the quantum numbers at second electrodes gives rise to the sensory quale.'

Pitkänen has also proposed frequency coding for the sensory qualia. Frequencies code provide only a symbolic representations - define their names - as one might say. The information about qualia and more general sensory data would be represented in terms of cyclotron frequencies inducing dynamical patterns of the cyclotron Bose-Einstein condensates of biologically important ions residing at the magnetic body receiving the sensory information (I talk more of this later).

Quantum biology
'Welcome to the strange new world of quantum biology', says Graham Fleming in 'Is Quantum Mechanics Controlling Your Thoughts?'. 'Quantum mechanics and the biological sciences do not mix. Biology focuses on larger-scale processes, from molecular interactions between proteins and DNA up to the behavior of organisms as a whole; quantum mechanics describes the often-strange nature of electrons, protons, muons, and quarks—the smallest of the small. Many events in biology are considered straightforward, with one reaction begetting another in a linear, predictable way. By contrast, quantum mechanics is fuzzy because when the world is observed at the subatomic scale, it is apparent that particles are also waves: A dancing electron is both a tangible nugget and an oscillation of energy. (Larger objects also exist in particle and wave form, but the effect is not noticeable in the macroscopic world.)'

Is it really so that the worlds don't mix? How sensitive can a receptor be? It is a big protein though. Protons are known to give a respons, but electrons are far to small? Proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET), especially prevalent at metallo-cofactors that activate substrates at carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and sulphur atoms maybe? Those free radicals again.

Different models of olfaction.
The prevailing notion is that the sensation of different smells is triggered when molecules called odorants fit into receptors like 3-D puzzle pieces snapping into place; the key and lock models. When probed by a biological system, shape now translates into the sum total of all the repulsive and attractive interactions that a molecule 'feels' when bound to a receptor: exchange repulsion plus hydrogen bond donors and acceptors, lone pairs, etc.. But molecules with similar shapes do not necessarily smell the same. It is not only a question about 3-D. While odorant shape and size are important, experiment indicates these are insufficient. Isomeri, carbon chain structure, functional and end groups, metals etc. are also important.

One so far speculative model suggests inelastic electron tunneling from a donor to an acceptor mediated by the odorant actuates a receptor, and provides critical discrimination; the swipe card model, or vibrational spectrum of the odorant (Dyson 1938), reproposed by Luca Turin. Recognition and actuation involve size and shape, but also exploit other processes.

Receptors perform an act of quantum tunneling when a new odorant enters the nostril and reaches the olfactory nerve. After the odorant attaches to one of the nerve’s receptors, electrons from that receptor tunnel through the odorant, jiggling it back and forth. In this view, the odorant’s unique pattern of vibration is what makes a rose smell rosy and a wet dog smell wet-doggy.

The vibrational theory has been given the thumbs up by a team of physicists, says a Nature article 2006, Rogue theory of smell gets a boost.

The problem is intensity and background, perception is learned, says Wilson & Stevenson. The psychological side of odors are very poorly known. They say: 'The discovey of a large gene family coding for odor receptors 1991 (Buck & Axel) has led some to conclude that perception happens at the receptor sheet and that knowing of the pattern of the receptors afferent activity will predict the perception.'
Brennan & Kendrick says: Many of these signals take the form of complex mixtures and have important influences on a variety of behaviours, attracting interest and approach, that are vital for reproductive success, such as parent-offspring attachment, mate choice and territorial marking. Chemosignals with relatively high volatility can be used to signal at a distance and are sensed by the main olfactory system. Most mammals also possess a vomeronasal system, which is specialized to detect relatively non-volatile chemosensory cues following direct contact. Single attractant molecules are sensed by highly specific receptors using a labelled line pathway. These act alongside more complex mixtures of signals (based on the highly polymorphic genes of the major histocompatibility complex) that are required to signal individual identity. Thus robust systems for olfactory learning and recognition of chemosensory individuality have evolved, often associated with major life events, such as mating, parturition or neonatal development. In the accessory olfactory bulb, memory formation is hypothesized to involve a selective inhibition. Information is integrated at the level of the corticomedial amygdala, which forms the most important pathway by which social odours mediate their behavioural and physiological effects. Indeed, mammals could also learn odours associated with maternal MHC type in utero.

The receptors
Studies of the relationship between molecular shape and odor were earlier made without reference to the biological sensor. The discovery 1991 that the olfactory receptors were seventransmembrane helix proteins (7-TM), GCPR:s, finally brought this problem into focus.

'Olfactory receptors (GCPR:s) play a key role for a reliable recognition and an accurate processing of chemosensory information,' says Fleischer in 'Mammalian olfactory receptors'. 'They are therefore considered as key elements for an understanding of the principles and mechanisms underlying the sense of smell. The repertoire of olfactory receptors in mammals encompasses hundreds of different receptor types which are highly diverse and expressed in distinct subcompartments of the nose. Accordingly, they are categorized into several receptor families, including odorant receptors (ORs), vomeronasal receptors (V1Rs and V2Rs), trace amine-associated receptors (TAARs), formyl peptide receptors (FPRs), and the membrane guanylyl cyclase GC-D. This large and complex receptor repertoire is the basis for the enormous chemosensory capacity of the olfactory system.' The olfactory system is composed of several chemosensory subsystems, including the main olfactory epithelium (MOE), the vomeronasal organ (VNO), the septal organ (SO), and the Grueneberg ganglion (GG).

Different olfactory compartments in the nose express distinct types of olfactory receptors. The olfactory receptortypes expressed in each of these organs are indicated by color. The olfactory sensors is building a microsystem map (of the whole body), which is very sensually and 'sexy' ('good/bad').

Combinatorial receptor codes for odors
'We found that one OR recognizes multiple odorants and that one odorant is recognized by multiple ORs, but that different odorants are recognized by different combinations of ORs. Thus, the olfactory system uses a combinatorial receptor coding scheme to encode odor identities. Our studies also indicate that slight alterations in an odorant, or a change in its concentration, can change its "code," potentially explaining how such changes can alter perceived odor quality, say Malnic Individual olfactory neurons are responsive to qualitatively distinct odor compounds too.

Further, the olfactory system forms a unique spatial organization such that the axons of olfactory neurons expressing the same receptor converge onto fixed glomeruli of the main olfactory bulb (MOB). The type of activated receptors in the olfactory epithelium directly reflect the receptive field in the olfactory bulb, where they provide input to the primary dendrites of mitral and tufted cell projection neurons. Each glomerulus receives input from a single receptor type and therefore acts as a fundamental unit of odour representation. The result is a simple map. Accessory olfactory bulb mitral cells respond selectively to the strain identity of stimulus animals. Significant excitatory responses are indicated in red and significant inhibitory responses are indicated in green, in this fig. That is the 'good' signal is discriminated from the 'bad' already in the bulb, through a 'grid system'. Probabilities and quantum mechanic is used to compute this?

GPCRs mediate our sense of vision, smell, taste, and somatic sensations. They are also involved in cell recognition and communication processes, and hence have emerged as a prominent superfamily for drug targets. Half the GCPR:s are nonsensory communicative receptors, and mediates diverse physiological stimuli such as light, hormones, and neurotransmitters.

The receptor code for an odorant changes at different odorant concentrations, consistent with our experience. This concentration gradient can perhaps be explained by quantum tunnelling, where a small force give no or just a little transfer of information. See an animation of this. In ordinary biology it is explained by changing receptor sensitivity. 'At a low concentration of the odorant, only the receptor A recognizes the odorant, but at increased concentrations, more receptors can recognize the odorant, implicating that the encoding of the odorant changes at different concentrations.'

According to the old shape theory, discrimination at the level of olfactory receptors correlates with the receptive field in the olfactory bulb in brain, where the input signal is further processed, to create the specific odor maps in brain. The combination of sensory neuron specificity and the pattern of firing activity and the Ca-waves, appears to contribute to reconstruction of the information into a unified conscious perception in the CNS. Apparently, the perception of external signals and the correspondence of those signals in the physical world, is essential for most species across phyla to organize their various behaviors and processes.

Functional responses of single olfactory neurons can be seen in EEG-pattern, when actionpotentials and Ca-waves are generated upon sensing. Once the chemical signal encoded by odorants from the physical world (in the dendritic tree) is converted to electrosignals in the receptor neurons, the information is transmitted as an on-off signal to the glomerulus, the olfactory bulb and ultimately to the olfactory cortex.

But these potentials is made up of many different types of receptors and somatic, reflexive maps in the nose, and of both 'what' and 'good/bad', or 'how', the quality information. In no way the 'good/bad' information can be emergent in the brain. Or can it?

'Although further sharp tuning of the specificity and the integration of signals from odorant receptors may occur in the olfactory bulb and cortex, the pattern created at the peripheral receptor neurons is fairly preserved in the course of signal processing. The receptor code scheme, therefore, plays the main role in contributing to the olfactory processing of odor molecule information', says Touhara 2002. And he continues, 'Since the receptor codes for odorants seem to mainly contribute to odor discrimination, the function of signal transmission in olfactory neurons is mainly to produce action potentials. In this context, it should not be necessary to have more than one signal transduction pathway. Indeed, gene knock-out studies suggested that the cAMP cascade comprised of three components (i.e., stimulatory G protein alpha subunits, adenylyl cyclase type III, and cyclic nucleotide-gated channels). Also IP3 is perhaps used as another pathway (observations of cross-talk between the two pathways = concertations), which would give complex signals. Odorant stimulation results in either excitatory or inhibitory responses of individual olfactory neurons.

Complex signals is suggested by Kaivarainen as a quantum computation tool.

Calcium imaging is another strategy for detecting physiological odorant responses of olfactory neurons by measuring the temporal and spatial properties of Ca2+ changes caused by odorant stimuli. Odorant stimulation causes Ca2+ entry through cyclic nucleotide-gated channels in individual responsive neurons, which is regulated by a series of signal transduction components as well as feedback mechanisms followed by odor adaptation of the activated cells.

Agonist - antagonist in odors
Functional evidence that the olfactory receptors indeed mediate odorant signals had not been provided for many years since the discovery of the superfamily 1991. Heterologous expression systems and the lack of antagonists were the main reasons. The pairing of receptor and ligand was difficult. The chimeric receptor approach has led to the identification of a number of ligands for several olfactory receptors in rats and humans (also taste). In fact are olfactory receptors found through the whole body, not only in the nose. Why? Do other cells too smell? Or can it be the phonon electron tunnelling as Turin suggest?

Despite increasing information on agonist–OR combinations, little is known about the antagonism of ORs in the mammalian olfactory system. Oka shows how odorants inhibit odorant responses of ORs; evidence of antagonism between odorants at the receptor level. The antagonism was also visualized at the level of the olfactory epithelium. Dual functions of odorants as an agonist and an antagonist to ORs indicate a new aspect in the receptor code determination for odorant mixtures that often give rise to novel perceptual qualities that are not present in each component. The encoding of an odorant quality is determined by a combination of ORs. A receptor code for an odorant mixture, therefore, is expected to be the sum of the codes for its components. The perceived magnitude of an odorant mixture was neither additive nor a simple average of its components, but instead fell between these limits, designated as masking (i.e. modification of perceived odor) or counteraction (i.e. reduction of odor intensity). Mixing some odorants led to the emergency of novel perceptual qualities that were not present in each component, suggesting that odorant mixture interactions occurred. There is evidence that odorant mixture interaction begins at the peripheral neurons. Odorants compete to bind the receptor sites and activate or antagonize olfactory neurons, resulting in a nonadditive receptor code (synergism/suppression). It describes a molecular aspect in the odor-recognition mechanism in the olfactory sensing system that always perceives odorants as a mixture in real life and results in the creation of a complex spatial odor map, which is eventually transmitted to the higher cortical areas of the brain where a conscious perception is constructed. 'Our pharmacological analyses of receptor antagonism in HEK293 cells and single olfactory neurons that expressed a defined OR clearly demonstrated that odorant mixture suppression occurred at the receptor level', says Oka

Zou revealed a stereotyped sensory map in the olfactory cortex in which signals from a particular receptor are targeted to specific clusters of neurons. Inputs from different receptors overlap spatially and could be combined in single neurons, potentially allowing for an integration of the components of an odorant's combinatorial receptor code. Signals from the same receptor are targeted to multiple olfactory cortical areas, permitting the parallel, and perhaps differential, processing of inputs from a single receptor before delivery to the neocortex and limbic system.

Also odorant decaying products may be used as antagonists.

Microtubulis computate.
In vision, color discrimination is produced by appropriate combinations of three 'types' of receptors that are each most sensitive to a different part of the visible spectrum (i.e., red, blue, and green). In gustatory sensation, five basic qualities (i.e., bitter, salty, sour, sweet, and umami) are detected by distinct 'classes' of receptors in taste cells. The olfactory system requires highly discriminative capabilities to distinguish thousands of different odorous chemicals. This must happen at receptor level, and be computated by microtubulis. 'Discrimination of various odorants seems to be performed primarily at the receptor level but not at the level of signaling pathways', says Toukara.

More of microtubulis and different frequential windows later.

'It would seem that either we have been blessed with supernatural luck or there is some correspondence between our calculations and odor character', says Turin about the developement of new perfumes (in Rational odorant design). 'What has changed from Dysons years is that we have gained a large database of odors and structures, and a vastly better understanding of the ways in which a ligand can interact with a receptor. What has not changed is our ignorance of the exact structure of the receptor, which makes proper modeling virtually impossible. Trial and error is still the main way to get a new odor. Using computers would be much easier.'

Dyson, G. Malcolm (1938) The scientific basis of odor. Chemistry & Industry 57:647-51
Amoore, John E (1970). Molecular Basis of Odor. Springfield IL: Thomas
Wright, R.H. (1982) The sense of smell CRC press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA
Buck L and Axel R (1991) A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: a
molecular basis for odor recognition. Cell. 1991 Apr 5;65(1):175-87.
Turin L. (1996) A spectroscopic mechanism for primary olfactory reception. Chem Senses. Dec;21(6):773-91
Touhara K., 2002: Odor Discrimination by G Protein-Coupled Olfactory Receptors. MICROSCOPY RESEARCH AND TECHNIQUE 58(3):135–141.
Oka Y. et. al. 2004: Olfactory receptor antagonism between odorants. EMBO J. 2004 January 14; 23(1): 120–126.

And links in the text.

7 kommentarer:

  1. I was wondering how we can sense each others' MHC molecules and unconsciously feel someone's (from the opposite sex) body odour repelling if it is too similar to ours, that is the properties of immune systems are too similar. How the hell could this evolve? :)
    By the way, this scent is produced also around the upper lip, that is people sample each other when kissing.

    Say then biology is not design! :)

  2. I really don't want to talk about design in this context. It make me think of that American design - belief which I find disgusting. The most fanatic don't even let their children go to school. They might learn something dangerous about evolution:-) How on Earth can something creative come out of that!

    The sense apparatus is really coupled to our immune system, which is also a quantum biological system. Free radicals as veapons is such a tool. Wentworth et al. reported that antibodies can convert molecular oxygen to hydrogen peroxide and that the antibodies catalyze the oxidation of H2O to H2O2 by singlet oxygen molecules. The same has Ho written of and Pitkänen in his blog.

    How we can sense MHC molecules? It is the Fab-structure of the antibody that is interesting. Ordered water clusters with several water dimers, trimers and pentamers, protons from the amino acids surrounding these sties, buried hydrophobic pockets in the Fab-structure is doing the job in the interface regions. This chrystal water forms pentamer rings:-) and the bottom of the channel or barrel is capped by polar amino acids (usually glutamine) forming a hydrogen bond network. Gating or capping, that is protection, could be their role. Free radicals can also react with the antigen to help make the protein recognized by the antibody (more susceptible to attack by other enzymes in the macrophage). This might provide a defense mechanism against the proteins having antigens to these antibodies.

    If we copy our immune system as a fetus, that is from our mother, we also copy out MHC-spectrum there. The 'feeling' might be some allergic reaction:-). We also say that we are 'allergic' to some people:-)
    Perhaps one of the reasons we have 'sniffing' cells in other parts than our nose is just this. Sperm cells, as instanse, have these receptors. Perhaps that too is an evolutionary thing, preventing 'risky' gene combinations.

    I like the thought. Sperm cells sniffing: 'Is this the egg that I want?' Consciousness is certainly not only in our heads:-) This is the reason I love biology:-)

    That kissing is also such a thing:-) To sample each other:-) And if you take the reflexology chart along, what is around your cheek? Of course the genitalias:-) And sexually receptors in the floor of your nose:-) No miracle kisses are fun.

    Tryptofan and trans-amines are one of these proteins involved. And your group status is revealed in these, as a depressed or happy status for instanse. Every cell in your body can feel it if you are happy:-) Remarcable!

  3. You disassociate yourself from my comment :). I didn't mean that kind of design. Why systems look designed is never explained though in concrete terms, and nor did you.

    Look at Matti's intelligent re-design.

    "If we copy our immune system as a fetus, that is from our mother, we also copy out MHC-spectrum there." - you say.
    Why isn't the scent of your mother unpleasant then?
    By the way we inherit MHC's, don't we? Half of them from father, half from mother.

    "Perhaps one of the reasons we have 'sniffing' cells in other parts than our nose is just this. Sperm cells, as instanse, have these receptors. Perhaps that too is an evolutionary thing, preventing 'risky' gene combinations."
    I really don't want to be irritating, but all evolutionary explanations are cooked up like that. Something is advantageous when it has already evolved, so it has evolved. The hows are uninteresting. Examining the properties of strucures is also uninteresting. Taking the immune system, why you think antibody molecules reflect the Golden Mean?

  4. Thanks for a good question, Donkerhead. Asking the right kind of questions is half of the job:-)

    Why systems looks designed? And Golden mean? I feel those questions are far beyond my knowledge, but I'll try to answer you.

    The Golden ratio is coming out from the creation of living things as a whole. Perhaps also dead things. It can be seen everywhere, also in the antibody. About that I don't know, but you perhaps do? The reason why the Golden ratio is there is because of the underlying symmetries and the harmony in Nature. That harmony is mathemathically formed, exactly as Pythagoras once said. If there is a design in Nature the design is exactly this. And not to try to push it into the Golden ratio, it is a result. Just look at what come out of that design, how beautiful it is! In the egyptian 'Book of the dead' it is said so beautifully: 'That coming forth of the day'. Meaning light. Light is behind everything. The whole cosmos is light.

    The mathemathics behind things can also be said to be an creation afterwards, just as the 'living' evolution theory, but the high symmetries in Nature and the predictions that can be made out of them talk against that. I think the 'design' is mathemathical and coming from the nature in the elemental particle condensation and decaying. The chemistry is too a result of condensation and decaying. Condensation in fusion, as in the stars, decaying in fission. And the elemental table in chemistry is too hierarchial and topological. With increasing atomic number the topology changes, but you can still predict the charachters fairly well. The base for chemistry is quantum mechanics too.

    Why is it important to get a quantum mechanic base also for living things? Because in no other way we can say why we live. What is life? The old reductionistic model can't tell us that. And we don't know yet if the new quantum model can do it.
    Why QM? Because of the fractal, hierarchial, topological creation that comes out of it. Because of the quantum measurements (the 'multiverses' as Matti says), because of the holistic picture that encounters everything, every cell in our body. That is the dark energy/matter in the Universe (ought to be named the light matter, and the luminous matter is the dark matter:-)) and how it interacts with our cells and our whole biology. That was the basic topic of my writing. The 'magnetic body' as Matti says.

    We inherit MHC's, of course. But they must be 'activated' in our memory bank too, and that happens in our mothers pregnancy. Just as every other gene is activated or inactivated. It is epigenetics. The 'modelling of I' happens in our whole life, beginning from the fertilization moment. The MHCs tell us what is 'I' and what is 'not I'. The individual recognition details is seen in almost the whole body, and they are a result of 'Nature and Nurture'. The MHCs are perhaps more Nature, more stable than many other. You can change the color of your hair, but not of your MHCs. The chemistry in the body change too during lifetime, many times. The 'I' is not constant.

    'Why isn't the scent of your mother unpleasant then?' Our mother is quite close to the 'I', and it is no mystery in my eyes. After all she takes care of us, it is our social group, our safety. It is more odd that we actively look for a completely different MHC-pattern in our partner. Or is it? If you have a sister or a brother it is exactly that kind of behavior that avoids inbreeding.

    Pregnancy blocking is known from mice research. It is the MHCs from an unfamiliar male that prevent the embryo to fasten to the uterus, thus inducing abortion. The effect is directed from hypothalamus = an hormonal effect. So of course scent matters:-) It is a basic sense.

    Or take the lion male that kills kids from another male if he is conquered. It is the MHCs that makes him recognise the genes of the other male.

  5. Well, I wanted to get to the point that so far I haven't encountered a reasonable explanation of where the order in living systems come from. There is indeed order, needless to say.
    in this video there is a picture where an Ig-molecule and the Vitruvian man perfectly overlap.
    To me the 'Chance and necessity' mentality is just rubbish, even if Monod was a Nobelist.
    A scenario based on accident (and ok, not accidental selection) can be credible for a while, but it can only be disproved . . .

    I guess MHC genes must be house-keeping genes, because cells are killed that doesn't express them.
    How do you mean activation?

    This MHC stuff is damn complicated. I don't want to talk rubbish. But don't be too sure that everything is so straightforward in immunology, even pregnancy is a riddle.

  6. MHC is 'activated' in memory lymphocytes. Thymus is an important 'school'. But the MHCs are in the fetus before it has a thymus. And half of the fetus MHC is paternal=foreign, as you said. Why is not the mother reacting at it? In mice that kind of reaction could happen.

    Or the fetus could react on the mother. Why is it not? It should become very 'allergic'. In fact, in reflexology is a scheme to follow to prevent that allergies come up in the baby, if the parents have bad genes. It is epigenetics, or that NURTURE-part. The genes are not the part that determines our body, it is both. In medicine that fact has to be pointed out very much nowadays.

    But the fetus is a parasitic individual. It is cheating the mothers immunology.

    The body memory is very important. Memory in all cells and organs. And that memory is in our immunology and in our other tissues. But the self is very important for us. And that self has to change and follow us when we live. It is the base for all our reactions, just as a memory-bank.

    Immunology is extremely complicated. Just as complicated as the whole nervous system. But it is also important, and we must try to understand it. Benveniste used antibodies in his science, explaining homeopathic effects. And antibodies has chrystalline water, that can form memories. If it is those MHCs that build that memory of 'I' in form of chrystalline water, that memorial 'I' can be exported also outside our body. I think that is a very important fact.

    The body memory comes also out of the fractal and hierarchial system that the whole body is made of, also our genes. That's why much of the genetics is simply rubbish.

  7. I think I make a new writing. It becomes too long for a comment.