[PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:9289] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
DIPTI >"What was the very first instance of semiosis and why, where and how did it occur? What preceded it, and what triggered it?" The quantum void? The fleeting virtual particles of the quantum void that have to "learn how to be" before they can become the matter particles, hidebound in habit, that can persist across time? The quantum void always was, it was always pregnant with possibility. Maybe there never really was a beginning. sj From: biosemiotics-requ...@lists.ut.ee [mailto:biosemiotics-requ...@lists.ut.ee] On Behalf Of Dipti Kotwal Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 7:29 PM To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [biosemiotics:9289] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Hello all, In response to narrative 1, anything being 'operationally closed' is fundamentally an impossibility because everything ultimately exists as spacetime+gravity. What we humans identify as a system is a delineated -- but never truly isolated -- set of matter energy transformations and interactions, or the cognizable part of its trajectory in phase space. As for agency (in which are naturally subsumed 'conciousness' and 'cognition') perhaps it can be considered a special case of entropy. Which brings me back to the questions: What was the very first instance of semiosis and why, where and how did it occur? What preceded it, and what triggered it? Best, Dipti. On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, 14:50 Stephen Jarosek, wrote: Dear members, In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing out: 1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED: The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as "... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems' operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however, that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human communicators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it. 2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT: This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role. In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt, Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent. Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration. DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the potential of the semiotic paradigm. The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an outline: http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6 3 By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more compelling position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its experiences into its being, its unity. WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR? There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement, and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing correlations between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is only one
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9287] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
EDWINA >"Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of fundamentalism in religion." Yes, as per my reply to Helmut, Luhmann's "operationally closed" perspective seems to be an extension of the objectivist paradigm. Fundamentalist religion, man-made-in-god's-image, Darwinism, human exceptionalism, etc, all make assumptions about objective truth where reality plays out independently of the observer, and I think that this is the same trap that Luhmann's interpretation falls into. Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' memetics theory. This is a perspective where human behavior is regarded merely as an impartial medium for the transmission of cultural communications... a very odd position I must say. They're failing to recognize a most important point... the relationship between human behavior and culture... the "knowing how to be", imitation and pragmatism. sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 7:55 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Stephen Jarosek Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9287] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis I think this is an important distinction. Do societies function by ideology or by interactional relations with their environment and others? Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of fundamentalism in religion. This is where " the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it" that Stephen refers to. Cultural anthropology believes in the determinism of the cultural narrative. However, I think that a society, as a CAS [complex adaptive system] operates as an interactional system - and that includes its operating narrative. Granted - it can take generations for a cultural narrative to change - but - it does. Edwina On Thu 29/11/18 4:19 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: Dear members, In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing out: 1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED: The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as "... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems' operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however, that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human communicators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it. 2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT: This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role. In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt, Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent. Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration. DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the potential of the semiotic paradigm. The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an outline: http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6 3 By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
HELMUT >"because he speaks of "structural coupling"" I'm no expert on Luhmann's work, but that was also what I vaguely recall of his work from a good 2 decades ago. But my take on Luhmann's position is that while structural coupling does take place, what really matters, from his perspective, is the understanding (reality) implied in the body of the communication, and not what the observer (psychic system) makes of that communication. This seems to be some kind of objectivist position where reality is assumed to play out independently of the observer. sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 5:36 PM To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Stephen, list, I dont think, that "Luhmann (according to Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human communicators.", because he speaks of "structural coupling", which, I guess, may also mean presupposition. I interpret it like people are not parts of a social system, because a social system does not depend on any single person´s participation, and a person can quit one system and join another, without much harm or benefit done to both systems and the person. (Lest the system is a mafia that says you quit only with your feet first, but this is an asocial system :-o :-) Best, Helmut 29. November 2018 um 10:19 Uhr Von: "Stephen Jarosek" Dear members, In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing out: 1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED: The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as "... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems' operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however, that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human communicators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it. 2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT: This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role. In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt, Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent. Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration. DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the potential of the semiotic paradigm. The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an outline: http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6 3 By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more compelling position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its experiences into its being, its unity. WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR? There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement, and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing correlations between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is only
[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9287] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
think this is an important distinction.
Do societies function by ideology or by interactional relations with
their environment and others?
Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of
fundamentalism in religion. This is where " the cultural narrative
exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it"
that Stephen refers to.
Cultural anthropology believes in the determinism of the cultural
narrative.
However, I think that a society, as a CAS [complex adaptive system]
operates as an interactional system - and that includes its operating
narrative. Granted - it can take generations for a cultural narrative
to change - but - it does.
Edwina
On Thu 29/11/18 4:19 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au
sent:
Dear members,
In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored
with
others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)
and
autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives
playing
out:
1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED:
The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not
externally
caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social
systems as
"... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on
resources from
their environment, those resources do not become part of the
systems'
operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions
for
communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note,
however,
that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of
autopoietic
theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of
communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social
systems as
operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according
to
Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human
communicators."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann [1]
Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally
closed
culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay,
independently
of the humans engaging it.
2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT:
This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent,
semiosis, and
the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former
regards
an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the
agents
making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents
inextricably
as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central
role.
In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem
that
pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any
doubt,
Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an
agent.
Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration.
DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS
What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to
move over
to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of
including
agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better
appreciate the
potential of the semiotic paradigm.
The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by
incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement
addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem.
In this
regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further
compelled to
focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer
comprised
of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making
choices
from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA
entanglement
deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides
an
outline:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6
[2]
3
By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more
compelling
position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is
first
cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its
experiences into its being, its unity.
WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR?
There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA
entanglement,
and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing
correlations
between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is
only
one mechanism that might explain these correlations - DNA
entanglement.
So what's the holdup? There can only be one thing. Woo.
Professionals
terrified of having their valuable work assigned the woo label won't
dare
utter the words "DNA entanglement" in polite company. It is
unfortunate that
in this era of rampaging political correctness, with people being
unpersoned
for holding unapproved opinions, we are policing ourselves into
silence. As
I am independent of Academia, though, I
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Stephen, list, I dont think, that "Luhmann (according to Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human communicators.", because he speaks of "structural coupling", which, I guess, may also mean presupposition. I interpret it like people are not parts of a social system, because a social system does not depend on any single person´s participation, and a person can quit one system and join another, without much harm or benefit done to both systems and the person. (Lest the system is a mafia that says you quit only with your feet first, but this is an asocial system :-o :-) Best, Helmut 29. November 2018 um 10:19 Uhr Von: "Stephen Jarosek" Dear members, In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing out: 1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED: The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as "... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems' operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however, that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human communicators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it. 2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT: This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role. In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt, Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent. Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration. DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the potential of the semiotic paradigm. The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an outline: http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6 3 By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more compelling position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its experiences into its being, its unity. WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR? There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement, and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing correlations between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is only one mechanism that might explain these correlations - DNA entanglement. So what's the holdup? There can only be one thing. Woo. Professionals terrified of having their valuable work assigned the woo label won't dare utter the words "DNA entanglement" in polite company. It is unfortunate that in this era of rampaging political correctness, with people being unpersoned for holding unapproved opinions, we are policing ourselves into silence. As I am independent of Academia, though, I have nothing to lose, and so I'm so I'm going to say it loud and proud: DNA entanglement. It's a thing. Regards, Stephen Jarosek no woo REFERENCES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR DNA ENTANGLEMENT: Apostolou, T.; Kintzios, S. Cell-to-Cell Communication: Evidence of Near-Instantaneous Distant, Non-Chemical Communication between
[PEIRCE-L] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Dear members, In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing out: 1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED: The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as "... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems' operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however, that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human communicators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it. 2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT: This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role. In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt, Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent. Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration. DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the potential of the semiotic paradigm. The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an outline: http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6 3 By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more compelling position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its experiences into its being, its unity. WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR? There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement, and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing correlations between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is only one mechanism that might explain these correlations - DNA entanglement. So what's the holdup? There can only be one thing. Woo. Professionals terrified of having their valuable work assigned the woo label won't dare utter the words "DNA entanglement" in polite company. It is unfortunate that in this era of rampaging political correctness, with people being unpersoned for holding unapproved opinions, we are policing ourselves into silence. As I am independent of Academia, though, I have nothing to lose, and so I'm so I'm going to say it loud and proud: DNA entanglement. It's a thing. Regards, Stephen Jarosek no woo REFERENCES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR DNA ENTANGLEMENT: Apostolou, T.; Kintzios, S. Cell-to-Cell Communication: Evidence of Near-Instantaneous Distant, Non-Chemical Communication between Neuronal (Human SK-N-SH Neuroblastoma) Cells by Using a Novel Bioelectric Biosensor (JCS Volume 25, Numbers 9-10, 2018, pp. 62-74(13)) https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/0025/f0020009/art 2 Crew, B. (2018). This is the first detailed footage of DNA replication, and it wasn't what we expected. Sciencealert.com: https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected Greentechnique. (2011, January 15). Cleve Backster - Primary Perception (beginning at 344 seconds): https://youtu.be/V7V6D33HGt8?t=5m44s Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A. (2004). Non-local correlations between separated neural
