Indeed, chemism is beginning to gain safergrounds as a scientific explanation. Chemical processes are thoughtto play an increasingly basic role in brain functioning. FrancisSchmidt, head of the team in charge of the programme in neuro-sciencein the U.S.A (1977), considers that "The brain is an electricallycontrolled chemical machine"15. This statement is grounded in the progress made over the recent years in neuro-sciences. That the brain functions only by virtue of the classical neuronic network is no doubt an outdated view16. The new image is based on the attention given to information processing through gradual electronic currents and fields interacting in local zones made up of neurons with short axons (Golgi II) and amacrine cells without axons. In such circuits the dendrites no longer function as passive postsynaptic receivers (as postulated by classical neuronic theory) but they actively transmit the information to other neurons through dendrodendritic connections and electronic jonctions. Acting both presynaptically and postsynaptically, one in relation with the other, the dendrites from a vast dendrodendritic network in which information processing is averaged by gradual electronic currents and fields. In such dendrodendritic networks and in cortex in general, the distances between the parts that interact bioelectrically are small, of order of micrometers17. Then fairly quick reactions may be locally obtained, which shows the role of the "local circuits (LC)" in brain functioning. These local circuits, or modules, are themselves intricately connected, and the classical neuronic transmissions for somewhat longer distances are subsequently at play. These discoveries entitle us to speak of a new age in neuro-biology. This opinion is also shared by Professor R. R. Llinas, who insists however especially on brain functioning in molecular terms. From Roman y Cajal, our thinking has been aimed, if not fixed, on the idea that the smallest functional unit of the brain is the neuron. But in the last ten years, our understanding regarding the properties of neurons indicated the presence of some complex functional states in subneuronic aggregates (i.e. in the dendodendritic interaction - n.n.) It is probably more likely to extrapolate up to the conclusion that, in a fundamental way, the brain operates at molecular level18.

The brain issue is therefore raised in terms of organization and chemical-molecular work. So the question is not about the chemical transmission of information by means of the chemical neurotransmitters from the end of the axon to the synaptic junction; but rather about less conventional modes of communication and chemical processing of information. According to L. L. Iversen, the chemical substances that might be at play are amines, amino-acids, and possibly peptides and prostaglandines. Additionally, many questions are related to cell membranes, which are partially responsible for the brain "secret". Organization in terms of cell constituents is likewise largely responsible for brain work. Let us now turn to elementary matters, which still have something in stock for us.
G. Palade19 observes that biological tissues contain cell populations in which any cell can do the thing that any other cell in that system can. However, in the case of the brain, the situation changes essentially. Here, training differs substantially from one cell to another. The cell population is heterogeneous and heterogeneity may be observed down to molecular work. Palade20 notices that the research of the nervous system is still focussed on the cell and supra-cell level, and only slightly articulate at the sub-cell level, where heterogeneity precludes an easier insight. However, the current tendency, Professor Palade observes, is to judge in terms of molecular work.

However, brain chemism does not yet mark a definite leap to the informatter, but inasmuch as a general philosophical idea converges to chemism we may trust that further efforts may be illuminating in this respect. Science will no doubt have to account some day for the transition from the bioelectrical and biochemical activities in the brain of higher organisms to psychological processes. No conceptual principles to account for this relation, Francis O. Schmidt observed, have been thus far found21.
Two aspects may be used in a tentative explanation of the interacting activity of the brain:

  1. the high connectivityof the cell in the nervous system, which might explain the higherfunctions of the brain and permit even a mathematical treatmentof the nervous system as a continuum22 ;and
  2. the continuous electric potentials of the dendrodentritic interconnecting modules (graded electrotonic potentials), which might be the main language of the central nervous system23.

Like aspects are no doubt only a step towards an explanation of the integrating activity of the brain. But on this route towards explanation, a threshold of understanding will somewhere come up. And this threshold will have to be somehow exceeded. Science will come to account for the almost-integration, rather than for integration itself, for in the latter case a new physical ingredient will most likely be necessary.
By virtue of the ring of the material world, the mental realm exists independently of existence in itself. However, existence in itself is by far richer than was presupposed by Aristotle. It embraces the energymatter, the informatter and the substance all together. It would be erroneous to think that the mental realm is informatter or that it develops only in the informatter. Owing to the informatter, our mental ideas are only somehow better materially grounded than they used to be before, as they have both substance and informatter as a support. And if the mental realm can cause action on the substance, then it is most likely that it may cause actions on the informatter too.

The ring of the material world was first unlocked by Aristotle, investigated and roughly approximated by Werner Heisenberg, and only fragmentarily illuminated or mirrored by all philosophers more or less clearly.
Matter in profundities and matter in the universe are not disunited. It is precisely their unity which ensures both the origination of a universe out of the matter and the possible action from a universe into the profound matter.

Matter in Depths22