Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Thalami and Third Eye, PSI Science
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 20, 2004, 10:44 AM
Post #31


Unregistered









Interesting - I have not been here befre - yet I have people who put my work in many places (some not authorized). So let me understand - I provide specific material at the behest of debunkers and try to add to the dialogue and the gutter-snipes who cannot read or comprehend attack like small and punkish people - HMMM!

Not unusual mind you.

This is why education breeds contempt and confusion I suspect. Or perhaps these words might apply if there are nay here who actually try to think.

In the following pages, I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, other than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day. -Thomas Paine
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Apr 20, 2004, 12:02 PM
Post #32


Unregistered









QUOTE
So let me understand - I provide specific material at the behest of debunkers and try to add to the dialogue and the gutter-snipes who cannot read or comprehend attack like small and punkish people


we "gutter-snipes" only give in the manner in which we receive, oh ignorant one.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Apr 20, 2004, 01:06 PM
Post #33


Unregistered









QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 20, 05:46 AM)
My last name is a clue to that - Baird - do you know what a Baird is?

In Celtic, Baird means "bard" or "minstrel". In English it means "singer-poet". Another form of this name is Bard.

So Robert Baird, you're a singing poet? Fascinating!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 20, 2004, 01:07 PM
Post #34


Unregistered









we "gutter-snipes" only give in the manner in which we receive

Yes, I agree. Though humorous you speak truth and admit same here.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 20, 2004, 03:02 PM
Post #35


Unregistered









The Bard of Avon and other Bards might be poets but they are the Troubadours and a great deal more - you are woefully uninformed - keep trying though.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 20, 2004, 04:00 PM
Post #36


Unregistered









I take it there are no rules against fraud here. Lowlife criminals and unprepared deviates who gutter-snipe and feel big are really often just impotent punks you know.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Apr 20, 2004, 04:09 PM
Post #37


Unregistered









you sound confused Robert.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ganji
post Apr 20, 2004, 04:16 PM
Post #38


Aspiring
**

Group: Moderator,
Full Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Dec 22, 2003
From: AZ
Member No.: 815



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 20, 01:00 PM)
Lowlife criminals and unprepared deviates who gutter-snipe and feel big are really often just impotent punks you know.


you're talking about yourself?


All this talk of bards and criminals is completely unrelated to the topic of this thread. You should start a new thread if you're going to be talking about these things.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 20, 2004, 04:21 PM
Post #39


Unregistered









I suspect it was Guest who put a post here under my name - that is a criminal act and if you are at all interested in any moral or real communication you would do something about it. However, your response here also seems equally pubescent and it would appear you are interested in the same mental mastubation or circle-jerk that other punks here engage. No doubt students out having a lark think the world is somehow better for their vadlaism and gutter-sniping. You know if you guys can't deal with the facts you should simply ask me to leave and put a 'NO' in front of the name of your club of goons.


Location: AZ
Posts: 73
Joined: Dec 22, 2003
QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 20, 01:00 PM)
Lowlife criminals and unprepared deviates who gutter-snipe and feel big are really often just impotent punks you know.


are you characterizing yourself because it sure seems like it?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ganji
post Apr 20, 2004, 04:24 PM
Post #40


Aspiring
**

Group: Moderator,
Full Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Dec 22, 2003
From: AZ
Member No.: 815



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 20, 01:21 PM)
if you guys can't deal with the facts you should simply ask me to leave and put a 'NO' in front of the name of your club of goons.

It's safe to say that we can deal with any facts. But what facts are you talking about? I've only seen obnoxious replies to forum members from you.
And you're surprised and indignant when your obnoxiousness elicits a negative reaction?

What goes around comes around. The circle completes itself. If people have been goons to you it is only because you have been a goon to many people. I hope you understand this.

QUOTE
I take it there are no rules against fraud here.


this has been taken care of as you can see.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DearGanji
post Apr 20, 2004, 08:11 PM
Post #41


Unregistered









You say:

All this talk of bards and criminals is completely unrelated to the topic of this thread. You should start a new thread if you're going to be talking about these things.

To some extent this was brought on by gutter-sniping and me not knowing that Guest was in no way interested in conducting a conversation based on facts. However, if you were to know that a Baird of the Bairdic Tradition that taught the likes of Pythagoras (through Abaris the Druid - see Hecateus of Miletus) you might understand the reason the Third Eye is on the US dollar bill and what healing and other energy is involved through the focus of the Third Eye - which indeed is the very point of the lead-in post.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 20, 2004, 08:22 PM
Post #42


Unregistered









Dear Ganji

You say:

It's safe to say that we can deal with any facts. But what facts are you talking about? {All the posts I have made have yet to have a critical analysis of the facts presented except one by Shawn who admitted he had not read the post. He has subsequently read it and he has not responded to my replies which totally address his materialistic focus through the words of Professor Morowitz who details how Sagan did the same kind of thing Shawn was doing in his use of conventional words. - Again you have done the same on the Thalami Thread. There are a few people who have made comments on the Brotherhood of Man post - but again no real analysis of the thought. For you to say I have presented no facts is ridiculous. Most of my posts include authoritative expertise and detailed data from Nobel Laureates and the like.} I've only seen obnoxious replies to forum members from you {Only in response to those who did it first}.
And you're surprised and indignant when your obnoxiousness elicits a negative reaction? {Not at all - but I must say reasonable people would not endure this kind of gutter-sniping for long and no doubt that is why some people here just post lenghty quotes from Niebuhr and stay away from the lunatic fringe.}

What goes around comes around. The circle completes itself. {Indeed and I give what I get - and really could care less if it degenerates into that kind of thing if there was also a modicum of debate and communication happening.} If people have been goons to you it is only because you have been a goon to many people. I hope you understand this. {And I hope you do too.}

QUOTE
I take it there are no rules against fraud here.


this has been taken care of as you can see. {Thank you for deleting the fraudulent posting - I would like to see all the other asinine remaks made by the offending person also deleted. I probably will leave the site shortly regardless - due to the lack of any real communication and the naive self-centeredness of the people who have tunnel vision and like to act like they know what they are talking about - when they do not.}
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post Apr 20, 2004, 09:19 PM
Post #43


God
******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 20, 08:22 PM)
All the posts I have made have yet to have a critical analysis of the facts presented except one by Shawn who admitted he had not read the post. He has subsequently read it and he has not responded to my replies which totally address his materialistic focus through the words of Professor Morowitz who details how Sagan did the same kind of thing Shawn was doing in his use of conventional words


It wasn't necessary to read your entire post to make the observation that the authors were not versed in neuroscience. And even after I'd read it with an open mind, I still thought it was rubbish. Granted, many of your other posts have been worthwhile (and many disappointingly dismissive), but the one treating thalamic nuclei as ductless glands and the Third Eye was absurd. Even your subsequent post of the words of Prof. Morowitz did not address my objections. It merely said that different paradigms should be considered, which is not related to the issues I had originally brought up. My objections are not due to differences in paradigm or to the use of conventional words, but are due to a general lack of understanding of neuroscience on the part of the authors of your post. Regardless of paradigm and wording convention, anyone who examines the organization of the brain will not confuse thalamic nuclei as ductless glands on par with the pineal and pituitary.

And btw, the primary founder of QM, Heisenberg, did have a mentalist focus (or more precisely, a phenomenological one) in mind when he originally formulated QM in matrix form (well before Schrodinger derived his equations), which is obvious in his subsequent correspondence with Einstein. In these letters, Einstein expresses his disapproval of the reliance of QM on observation, which surprised Heisenberg since he was inspired by Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity to give observation primary importance in deriving QM. I mention this because your Morowitz post gets it wrong when they say that the founders of QM didn't set out to impose a 'mentalist' picture on the world. Heisenberg did; he had observation and phenomenology in mind, which was directly inspired by Einstein's earlier work.

Also in your Morowitz article, while it may be somewhat fashionable for physics-inclined people to criticize individuals who focus exclusively on the neuroscience behind mind (as opposed to the physics behind mind), it is also somewhat laughable, which is precisely why nobody in the neuroscience field takes a physicist like Penrose seriously when he talks of Bose-Einstein condensates in microtubules giving rise to consciousness. Sure it's easy to criticize Carl Sagan when he says ''My fundamental premise about the brain is that its workings- what we sometimes call 'mind' - are a consequence of its anatomy and, physiology and nothing more", but at least his view is pragmatic, and if nothing else, such a view centered on neural organization and function will lead one day soon to a deciphering of this system and subsequent modification, manipulation, and enhancement... all of this within the current neuroscience paradigm. So my advice to you is to think more about what you're attacking before running off and ignorantly attacking it. And it's not just the neuroscience paradigm; I've also noticed this of you with regard to "experts" and scientists, and people with advanced college degrees, who you invariably choose to criticize as in the following example:

QUOTE (Robert the Bruce)

The 'experts' thus proving their ignorance because the result inevitably is specious ego and puffery. Truth did not divide herself up for prissy 'nerds' to prevail upon, with their massive convolutions and devious attempts to practice buffoonery upon her.


let's be realistic for a moment, Robert, you are not even in a position to make such criticisms of those who devote their lives to building the temple of science. You are no scientist.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 20, 2004, 09:20 PM
Post #44


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



'bruce', why don't you register your name? If you were to do so, nobody could sock-puppet your character

also, I noticed how you disparaged Shawn right off the bat (we in the 'know' knew you were completely off-base) which explains why we are throwing it back at you (you started it!). Having dealt a lot with the new-age pseudoscientists it isn't hard to recognize you as a deluded, self-absorbed wacko rather than an open-minded critical thinker
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ganji
post Apr 20, 2004, 09:33 PM
Post #45


Aspiring
**

Group: Moderator,
Full Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Dec 22, 2003
From: AZ
Member No.: 815



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 20, 05:22 PM)
the naive self-centeredness of the people who have tunnel vision and like to act like they know what they are talking about - when they do not.


Isn't this like the Pot calling the Kettle Black?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 21, 2004, 10:42 AM
Post #46


Unregistered









Dear Ganji

No. It is not.

And maybe in time you will get to see that.

Your response however - is of that ilk.

I am certain that if you look at the links I have provided to my work - you will see I am not in a situation where I have to do this - I chose to do it for altruitstic purposeful reasons. I do it in hundreds of sites on the web as well. I know the usual small-minded ego and I deal with it when it attacks me. I do not have time to pussyfoot around. That blunt and brash approach is Gestalt-based. Few can handle it. I often do leave sites and yet I have a number of people who have learned from and continue to assist in the process of discovery we all are faced with. Said process has a limited window of opportunity.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 21, 2004, 10:45 AM
Post #47


Unregistered









You behaved like a lynch mob following the favored guru. I provided the facts from numerous disciplines beyond the myopia of tenured me-too think.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 21, 2004, 10:57 AM
Post #48


Unregistered









Dear Shawn

Morowitz does address the glossary of terms you use. Heisenberg was phenomenological and so were others like Faraday (regarded as the top experimental scientist of his era). But the majority of the approaches taken and people involved in developing String Theory and QMWI are not mystics or as much a scientist as my forbears are or were. The Scientific method we employ and employed long before its supposed invention by Bacon, calls one to OBSERVE then draw conclusions. Morowitz identifies this as the reductivist versus scientific. Others say we suffer gradualist paradigm thought rather than integrational although Morowitz would agree there has been a lot more inter-disciplinary integration since he made that excellent call to THINK and Observe. To use Ayer's Law and attune through many phenomological processes YOU have not familiarized yourself with. You have no idea what I am.

You still have not addressed the original post and the physics in it. I belong or have belonged to many forums where I debate these things with Physicists and I have been lauded by them as well as attacked by professorial tuypes or engineers who are not open-minded. You took the bull by the horns and I await your demonstration of a knowledge of Physics. I have given you ample formulations and thoughts for you to address the real situation.

Neurscience or pharmacology or many subsets that have risen to the status of independent schools of thought have much to gain through integration. I am currently starting work on a book on this subject and would like you to make a concerted effort to actually address the thought from the first post 0 which you have yet to do.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unknown
post Apr 21, 2004, 03:41 PM
Post #49


Unregistered









QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 21, 07:45 AM)
You behaved like a lynch mob following the favored guru. I provided the facts from numerous disciplines beyond the myopia of tenured me-too think.

Jeeez Loueez, Robert! You give new meaning to the term "blockhead".


Does anyone know how to set a killfile?

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unknown
post Apr 21, 2004, 03:44 PM
Post #50


Unregistered









QUOTE (Unknown @ Apr 21, 12:41 PM)

Does anyone know how to set a killfile?


either that or we should vote, like on Survivor, on whether certain nuisances get the forum boot!

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 21, 2004, 04:06 PM
Post #51


Unregistered









Those who waqtch so-called Reality TV rise to show their ignorance. What a lark!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 21, 2004, 05:40 PM
Post #52


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



OK, let's give Bruce a chance.

Bruce, can you explain the basic physics principle(s) that you claim to have referenced? Many of us are not interested in reading lengthy and obscure tomes in order to mine a supposed idea, we just like to see the idea barebones. Perhaps you could oblige, and then I would oblige you with an actual response rather than the all-too-easy ad-hominems.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post Apr 21, 2004, 06:07 PM
Post #53


God
******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



I have tried to distill the "physics" of Bruce's needlessly long first post down to the following:

If the quantum vacuum is to be identified with the field that carries the effects associated with psi, its virtual energies must interact with matter in the universe, including the matter lodged in the brain of human beings.

The interference patterns created by the motion of charged particles modify the local topology of the vacuum, and the modified vacuum field modifies in turn the motion of the particles.

Specific waveforms can be exact representations - 'Fourier transforms' - of spatiotemporal objects (ala Fourier).

This is precisely what may happen when charged particles trace their trajectories in space and time: they leave their Fourier-transforms in the virtual particle gas of the quantum vacuum.

We now have the basic properties of an interactive holographic field that encodes the particulars of the spatiotemporal motion of objects, and quasi-instantaneously transmits the corresponding wave-function to other objects in the planetary environment. This, as psi researchers will readily appreciate, could provide a physical foundation for a certain range of psi phenomena - telepathic and telesomatic transference, lifetime recall in NDEs, past-life experiences, distance diagnosis and psychic healing, among others.

Thus the cerebral hemispheres may act as specialized scalar interferometers, so that action potentials within the neural nets may be significantly affected by the scalar topography of the vacuum.

Attractors could amplify vacuum-level fluctuations and produce observable effects on the brain's information-processing structures.

Josephson junction-induced fields may mediate communication between physically separate assemblies of neurons in the brain.

Spectral patterns of specific frequency associated with nerve firings would impart information to the field, and the field in turn would impose coherence on the ongoing nerve firings.

Current findings indicate that fields of quantum potentials constitute an underlying regulatory system that alters non-synaptic communication between assemblies of neurons and could thus affect even higher brain functions. (Rein 1993)



In Conclusion: The authors of Bruce's post think that the quantum vacuum mediates Psi phenomena by influencing neuronal activity in the brain. I love the last part where they try to tie it in with "higher brain functions"! Here, the authors are no doubt counting on their readers not checking their single reference, which probably doesn't exist or is completely nonscientific, and just taking them at face value.

In my opinion, the essay is the result of a person with some understanding of physics who woefully misunderstands brain function and is trying to create a "physics fantasy" for themselves and is humorously trying to pass it off to others as some sort of truth. But let's get real; It's nothing but a form of mental masturbation. See it for what it is.

Nonetheless, I applaud this Lazslo guy for his fantasy and for his imagination. But his fantasy should never be confused with real neuroscience.

Here's a link maybe worth looking at, depending on your state of mind:
http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/discdocs/mind.htm




User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 21, 2004, 06:13 PM
Post #54


Unregistered









So you copied some of it - did none of the math and said it has only one reference.

The truth is quite the opposite and you should look into The Primer Project - the link of which is on my page at World-Mysteries. There are many top physicists and those from your field or other fields that impact on the matter of consciousness, mind, brain and other things on that site and quoted in that article. You did a very poor job of debunking it too. Randi (link provided under thread titled Small Minds) does a similarly poor job and he has no degree or expertise whatsoever.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 21, 2004, 06:23 PM
Post #55


Unregistered









Shawn's link provides support for the Wonder Child Authors he ridiculed so viciously about the functioning of the Cosmic Thought Field when it says this.

The brain is subtle and capable, it seems, of infinite understanding its self, its origin, its cosmic origin, the origin of the cosmos, and of that cosmos's immediate, intermediate, and long term featureless future" (my italics and bold).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 21, 2004, 06:37 PM
Post #56


Unregistered









I did that on a Physics site in conjunction with others about a year ago. It required actual physicists who understood the tomes you refer to. It required about ten posts the size of the initial one here. It took it to a point I later distilled in a piece called Affinity which you can find in my Encyclopedia that has about a million words in it. Perhaps at some point I will deal more specifically with it here. There are three threads at least which would be involved.

I have invited some people here who are long term students of these matters (I was invited by one such person who has not made a posting either) philosophical and when they start to give input or they see a reason to do so (so far they are not impressed) then I will do this.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post Apr 21, 2004, 08:20 PM
Post #57


God
******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce)

I often do leave sites and yet I have a number of people who have learned from and continue to assist in the process of discovery we all are faced with. Said process has a limited window of opportunity.


Well by all means, share your learning, but do not assume that you are above learning from others. Your experience and your perspective is limited, and by failing to see anyone else's viewpoint or reasoning, or admitting of possible errors, you come across as very close-minded. It does not concern me that you've written a few books (which is not very surprising considering all the free time you must have on your hands now that you don't work). Writing a few books does not make you a scientist, for you could just as well be writing trashy romance novels or similar nonfiction nonsense. Nor do your credentials place you in a favorable position to judge the edifice of science or the work of scientists. So by all means, use the window of opportunity if you can see it, though I doubt you really see it.



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce)

Shawn's link provides support for the Wonder Child Authors he ridiculed so viciously about the functioning of the Cosmic Thought Field


I would not characterize the authors as Wonder Children. Perhaps Naive Imaginative Children, but not Wonder Children. If you knew what I knew about how the brain is organized, you would understand the reasons behind my objections. I have tried to explain it, but there is only so much that I can explain in a forum setting in the time I allow myself for posting.


QUOTE (Robert the Bruce)
So you copied some of it - did none of the math and said it has only one reference.


I have intuition guided by past experience. I do not need to do the math in this case to know that it's little more than an amusing 'Physics Fantasy', akin to Penrose's microtubule Bose-Einstein Condensate Fantasy. If you want to see math done, then how about if you do the math? If you do, then I promise, I'll do mine.

And btw, the authors only had one reference for their claim that their theory could effect "higher brain functions". I did not mean that they only had one reference for the entire essay.


QUOTE (Robert the Bruce)
I have invited some people here who are long term students of these matters (I was invited by one such person who has not made a posting either) philosophical and when they start to give input or they see a reason to do so (so far they are not impressed) then I will do this.


Yeah well I guess some people are just shy about posting and will rationalize it in just about any way possible. Tell your wallflower friends that it's ok, we don't bite.


QUOTE (Robert the Bruce)
To use Ayer's Law and attune through many phenomological processes YOU have not familiarized yourself with.


You're assuming I'm unfamiliar with A. J. Ayer's "The Central Questions of Philosophy"?

"But without the help of such a myth can life be seen as having any meaning? The simple answer is that it can have just as much meaning as one is able to put into it."

So in other words, you're telling me that your post above is just a myth, a fantasy?
Perchance a Physics Fantasy?


QUOTE (Robert the Bruce)
You have no idea what I am.


I see no reason why you should presume such a thing since I have met many people with egos and personalities like yours, unless you happen to be referring to the Self behind the self, though I am intimately acquainted with That too.... and so, I am forced to conclude that there is nothing remarkably unusual about you, so why would you think that I have no idea what you are?

If you have something enlightening to say, then out with it. Do not drown us in needless verbiage.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 21, 2004, 10:42 PM
Post #58


Unregistered









You again illustrate you have not read the original post and the part that is from the authors of the book titled The Wonder Child or else you are unable to read.



I would not characterize the authors as Wonder Children. Perhaps Naive Imaginative Children, but not Wonder Children. If you knew what I knew about how the brain is organized, you would understand the reasons behind my objections. I have tried to explain it, but there is only so much that I can explain in a forum setting in the time I allow myself for posting.

You also assume arrogant status because you have studied one limited discipline for a few (!) years.

And yes, you do not know what I am or how important this saying of the Mayans is - ''Do not put yourself in front of your Self'.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post Apr 22, 2004, 10:42 AM
Post #59


God
******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 21, 10:42 PM)
you do not know what I am or how important this saying of the Mayans is - ''Do not put yourself in front of your Self'.


it is wise not to confuse ones inflated ego with the Self.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 22, 2004, 11:21 AM
Post #60


Unregistered









That is one meaning of it.

It also speaks to the soul in all things and our connectiveness.

I guess you could say 'wisdom' is not just intellect too.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th August 2019 - 04:05 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

BrainMeta is supported by:

The Neurological Foundation & CerebralHealth.com

BrainMeta is enhanced by:

UVISI: Universal Virtual Intelligence Singularity Infinity
info@uvisi.com