Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

BrainMeta Forums _ Best of BrainMeta _ The Thalami and Third Eye

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 18, 2004, 12:39 AM

THALAMI: - We were all enthralled by the Ben Franklin and the kite story, which is probably something many people or cells of adepts knew long ago; just as the research into the Thalami has been known as 'the Third Eye' attributes for many millennia. The book 'Wonder Child' recounts some of the modern research in the passage that follows - it is an excellent book for anyone wanting to enable a child to achieve the human potential or to guard against the abject apathy that rules in schools.


Franklin "was thinking as little of the lightning conductor as Hertz when he investigated electrical waves, was thinking of radio transmission. Anyone who has experienced in his own person how easily the inquisitiveness of a child at play can grow into the life work of a naturalist will never doubt the fundamental similarity of games and study. The inquisitive child disappears entirely from the wholly animal nature of the mature chimpanzee. But the child is far from buried in the man, as Nietzsche thinks. 'On the contrary, it rules him absolutely.'


So, the child is born too soon with greatly more response mechanisms available and far greater sensitivity than an animal. The child needs caring for, for much longer than an animal but the child also contains innate releasing mechanisms - the environmental patterns - and the open, experiential patterns. A child needs to fit into her environment and takes up the patterns of that harmonious tendency, becoming disoriented if suddenly placed in a wild jungle in the middle of the Amazon or more relevant perhaps to our way of life in the West, even the next village from the familiar habitat. In fact, a human child becomes displaced and disturbed if simply deprived of her mother. No doubt most of us are familiar with the panic on a child's face when she suddenly discovers in a crowded supermarket that mom has disappeared.


The environmental patterns, though, can also be adapted so that a child does not spend the rest of her life terrified of moving from one place to another. And the experiential response mechanisms also have a chance, either to be fixed by the lack of awareness or variability, or flexible, should the parents provide ample and intelligent wisdom to give the child the necessary room in early life.


What we have then, in our tiny newborn child, according to modern scientific understanding, is a blank slate with certain very ancient and primitive mechanisms that are simply lying there ready to take up the imprint of the world. This, we will see later, however, may be an over-simplification of the true potential of a child, for, from a more un-reasonable and as yet non-scientific viewpoint, the child is far from being a blank slate.


THE DUCTLESS GLANDS AND THE COSMIC THOUGHT FIELD:


In very recent research into the functioning of the immune system, scientists have found great variety in the systems controlled by endocrine glands - parts of the body which were hitherto largely a mystery. The other name for these glands is the ductless or thalami glands and they include the thalamus, the hypothalamus, the pituitary and the pineal glands, each nestling deep in the between brain region of the forebrain, between the brainstem and the cerebral hemispheres. The word thalami means deep chambers. (Greek)


The task of these glands appears to be to convey and expand information flowing into the brain, before it reaches the cerebral cortex - supposedly the memory and higher thinking center. All sensory signals, whatever their nature, pass through these glands - rather like a central telephone exchange for the brain. The pituitary gland orchestrates the delivery of hormones (the name hormone is derived from the Greek word meaning to set in motion) throughout the body affecting such functions as sexual maturity, food conversion and general growth. Under the control of these glands then is both the reception system for information flowing into the body, and the most powerful courier system for messages communicating with the rest of the body - two extremely important tasks, both apparently performed by the one set of biological organs {Vital to pranha or 'chhi' and spiritual reality.}.
BUT THE MOST ENIGMATIC OF THE DUCTLESS GLANDS, FOR THE MEDICAL SCIENTIST, IS THE CONE-SHAPED {The Egyptian cult of the Great White Brotherhood of Master Craftsmen, wore cone-shaped hats to augment and symbolize the pineal gland, they were associated with the Essenes and Therapeutae.} PINEAL, ONCE CONSIDERED TO BE THE VESTIGAL THIRD EYE PERHAPS BECAUSE OF ITS SUSCEPTABILITY TO LIGHT.


{Melatonin is produced better in the dark and workers of the psychic arts know melatonin improves the psychic or psi effects.}


Both Eastern philosophy and Western science have taken these mysterious glands very seriously and their dual tasks of receiving information and controlling the hormones is of particular interest to our study of the wonder child.


One of the most interesting explanations for these tiny glands is that they are the radio station receiver system for the human body and that a great many of the received 'radio waves' do not originate in places that we can necessarily immediately be conscious of. From outer space, for example, from other people too far away to be visible or audible, from the past and the future, from the dead, from animals, plants, birds, insects - in fact from everything around us, then and now.
IT MAY BE, AND IT IS SUGGESTED HERE, THAT THE DUCTLESS GLANDS RESONATE WITH A COMPLETE THOUGHT FIELD.


Much research is presently in process by scientists, such as, for example, Gazzaniga and Eddelman, into this particular area of discussion and this concept of a 'cosmic thought field' resonance device in the ductless glands {The pineal gland has small grains or crystals that 'buzz' like a crystal radio set. When humans get 'high' they sense this hum or 'buzz'.}, can only be presented as an hypothesis, but it is one nevertheless worthy of discussion.


If we consider that the innate releasing mechanisms which each child contains in the earliest years are open to anything that comes in, and that we, the adults, effectively close certain of them in order to protect the child from danger, it may become clear what could be happening inside the system. The glands, receivers of stimuli, have learned to accept certain input from this thought field and to refuse other input so that a great deal of the stimulation available from the cosmos is simply cut off at the source." (5)


Our next entry the Third Eye will delve into some other aspects of this brain of the soul. This book is sub-titled appropriately when you consider the common sense nature of this important ESP ability and what was likely a very appreciated part of human life before our jaundiced sophistication and manipulations of recent times. 'Rediscovering the Magical World of Innocence and Joy Within Ourselves and Our Children' is something we should place as a very high priority. They continue as follows:


"It is not suggested here that children are in a permanent state of enlightenment in the same way as those such as J. Krishnamurti or Buddha discovered, for this is a particular state far beyond all other states. But it is suggested that the state of innocence in childhood samples a comparable connection with reality, which if retained through into adulthood, can bring astonishing beauty and joy. Many children feel this light filled and natural form of existence everyday-and not only think nothing of it (!) but would not begin to consider writing reams of descriptive matter on it. The greatest tragedy of this profound situation is that adults are unable to understand the innocence of childhood in its full form 'at all' - simply because the natural state does not exist to be understood - it is not a matter of the intellect... if permitted to flourish through adult appreciation of it, can bring both the child and parent closer together. But because the adult has forgotten it, consciously he/she does not wish to complement it, very often out of simple misunderstanding...We pass on our fears to our children - step by step, as we move through their lives beside them - and in so doing we manage also to wipe clean their joy, their freedom and their innocence." (6)


Facing fears early in life is essential to maintaining a growth-oriented full life beyond the ego and its insecurities. Most people aren't able to remember the simple fears as a child that formed their character. There are many political and religious organizations who have actually fed upon these urges and fears for millennia, as we have shown. Our means of dealing with the fears as adults is often denial or outright avoidance. It causes us to need black and white answers and makes us convinced the 'experts' who provide those answers are worth listening to. The result would not encourage a man like Nostradamus who grew up near Rennes le Chateau to think his Jewish kabalistic or Cathar roots would be understood enough to share his knowledge. Fortunately for us he became a Jesuit and had the backing of powerful people who he had helped (like the de Medicis) and thus he gave us a glimpse of the knowledge that exists in the future. These glimpses and quatrains are not easily deciphered and include the possibility of change if we learn to exercise free will.


THIRD EYE: - The science of parapsychology has actual physical equipment to enable replication of results due to Col. Bearden's work, as we have covered. Not long ago this was not true and we are going to show the struggle good science was having in the battle with the control and manipulation of the ruling paradigm. This next quote comes from the 1994 J. B. Rhine Lecture, delivered at the 37th Annual Convention of the American Parapsychological Association in Amsterdam, on August 8th of that year. It was delivered by Ervin Lazslo of The General Evolution Research Group in Montescudaio (Pisa), Italy. They start the presentation with a small piece of wisdom from Albert Einstein - "We are seeking for the simplest possible scheme of thought that will bind together the observed facts." (7)


When talking about what the third eye and psychic ability avails each of us, I often find the logic of the person listening to me gets in the way. They think all the experts who taught them or present the news on TV can't be wrong. Even when I do something that amazes them they still get caught in the quagmire of their fears and doubts that they could do the same. They are hearing the words of their leaders talk in fancy words which have little actual meaning to them but sound so impressive. That is why we present some of the same for your consideration at this juncture.


“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 indicated interaction calls for two kinds of propagations in the vacuum. One kind constitutes the known charged particles that make up the matter-component of the universe. The other kind, however, calls for an innovation in theory: for postulating that also scalar waves propagate within the super-dense virtual-energy field of the vacuum. Scalars, in ordinary vector analysis represent a quantity that is completely defined by magnitude alone, without reference to displacement. Waves of this purely 'informational' (rather than 'force') kind have been discovered by Nikola Tesla at the turn of the century. They are longitudinal waves, like sound waves, {Does this connect with the 'one-dimensional harmonic force’ of String Theory?} contrasting with electromagnetic waves, which are transverse. Scalars may exist at the level of the quantum vacuum,


{Scalar energy is not seen by the eye and some astrophysical representations of the universe include topographies of scalar forces. The 'Dark matter' we have discussed that makes up most of the universe will perhaps have a 'cosmic soup' nature that allows our interconnectiveness.}


… where they would be generated by the motion of charge particles {Recall the electron scavengers of Dr Robins.}. In this view the motion of electromagnetically charged particles in the vacuum approximates the action of a monopole antenna: it alternately charges and discharges local regions of the vacuum's virtual-particle gas. Quantal motion thus triggers scalar waves in the vacuum, and these propagate by alternately compressing and rarefying its virtual-particle gas. The scalar waves generated in the vacuum modify the self-regenerating {Recall the 'peptides' from Bill Joy's article and the nanotubes.} cosmological feedback cycle outlined by Harold Puthoff. (Puthoff 1989) In Puthoff's feedback cycle interaction between the zero-point field (ZPF) {There might be a connection with the Mayan Center Point Theory of building temples on earth and cosmic energy grids.} and charged particles results in an exchange such that there is no average transfer of energy in any direction at any frequency. However, given the propagation of scalars in the vacuum, the energy field with which charged particles achieve local dynamic equilibrium becomes inhomogeneous and anisotropic - the fluctuations generated in the vacuum by the motion of the particles translate into the local equilibria generated between the particles and the ZPF. In this process 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. (Lazslo 1993, 1994)


The translation process instantiated in the interaction between particles and the scalar spectrum of the vacuum amounts to a two-way Fourier transformation between objects in space and time, and their waveform equivalents. Fourier showed that any three-dimensional pattern can be analyzed into a set of regular, periodic oscillations that differ only in frequency, amplitude, and phase. Specific waveforms can be exact representations - 'Fourier transforms' - of spatiotemporal objects. For example, when a vessel creates waves on the surface of the sea, it creates Fourier-transforms of its impact on the waters of the sea. 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.


The interaction of vessels with the sea is a dynamic metaphor of the above two-way translation process. H. C. Yuan and B. M. Lake have found that the surface of the sea is surprisingly information-rich. (Yuan and Lake, 1977) When its wave-patterns are subjected to mathematical analysis, it discloses information on the passage of ships, the direction of wind; the effect of shorelines, and other factors. The interfering wave-patterns may be conserved for hours and sometimes for days, after the vessels that created them have passed. Though ultimately they dissipate, eroded by the combined action of gravity, wind, and shorelines, as long as the wave-patterns persist, they provide information on the events that occurred at the sea's surface. But the waves created by vessels on the surface do more than create information regarding their own motion: they also inform - literally 'in-form' - the motion of other vessels. All vessels that traverse the wake that spreads out behind a given vessel are rocked by those waves; in this sense the motion of the 'wake-creating vessel' is translated into the motion of the 'wave-rocked vessels.' The medium that transmits the effects is the surface of the sea: it interconnects the wave-creating with the wave-rocked vessels. And, as all vessels both create waves and are rocked by them, the sea interconnects the motion of all vessels on its surface.


{Does cosmic energy lessen by gravity or do all heavenly energies continue throughout time to impact people like the observer on the sea shore swimming in the waves of the marvelous interconnection that astrology portends to understand?}


Inasmuch as the quantum vacuum interconnects the motion of the events that occur in space and time, it functions as a holographic field that encodes the particulars of their motion and transmits them to 'in- form' the motion of other events. There is no immediate indication, however, that this interconnection would be of the anomalous variety that is characteristic of psi.(Psi, as researchers well know, implies signals that are space - and time - transcending, that is, instantaneous for spatially distant objects and indifferent as the time when the signalled events took place.) {What kind of design or consciousness allows for the maintenance of such energy throughout time? Is the constant universal energy that existed when dimensions intersected and caused the 'Big Bang' involved? What kind of cold brain or energy was matter before the events which so continuously impact us? These thoughts are being studied now just as they were 13,000 years ago and more, by chaos science and observers of the heavens and our interaction [like a fine instrument] with these forces.} Yet a deeper analysis shows that the signals transmitted through the vacuum field are precisely of the psi variety. The reasons for this are first, because information in that field is holographic (that is, distributed and thus simultaneously available at distinct locations), and second, because the propagation of the holographic interference patterns is quasi-instantaneous.


{When Bearden gets 500 watts from a vacuum now, does he get it by influencing the info packets to convert nearby or inter-dimensional energy and/or matter in some way, or does the info packet 'non-force' become force through translation of consciousness?}


The latter statement is contrary to the tenets of mainstream physics; it needs further substantiation. Consider, then, that electromagnetic waves propagate in the vacuum with a maximum velocity currently estimated at 299,748+/- 15 km/sec. Relativity theory does not specify a physical reason for this finite magnitude: c functions as a basic axiom. However, if Silvertooth is right and c varies with the motion of the observer relative to the light source, the value of c can be ascribed to the finite electromagnetic permeability of the medium in which photons propagate. In that event c states a physical factor in the universe: its magnitude is inversely proportional to the square-root of the product of the vacuum's electric and magnetic permeability: c=I/0 uO.


So much for the propagation of photons, which are electromagnetic wave-packets travelling in spacetime. What about scalars then? Scalars are neither 'light' nor 'matter' - they are longitudinally propagating fluctuations below the energy-threshold of particle pair-creation (which is estimated at 6 X 10-27 erg/sec). Calculations by Thomas Bearden indicate that the propagation of scalar waves is a function of the vacuum's local electrostatic scalar potential. (Bearden, 1983) Because of the increase in vacuum flux density through the accumulation of charged masses, this potential is variable. It is higher in regions of dense mass, in or near stars and planets, and lower in deep space. Hence scalars propagate at speeds independent of the value of c. In the matter-dense region near the surface of the Earth they may reach velocities indistinguishably close to infinity.


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. The exploration of these phenomena as possible vacuum effects is a task I have undertaken elsewhere. (Lazslo 1993, 1994) I shall not enter on it here, but limit myself to indicating the physiological mechanisms that would underlie the brain's interaction with scalar waves of vacuum origin.
4. In the brain a staggering number of dendrites fire ions, each of which constitutes a minute electric field vector. 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. This could alter the initial condition of the nets, and the alterations may be amplified by the chaotic attractors that govern cerebral processes {It would do good for science to study the atrophying effects of charge buildup when psychic ability is denied by the society at large as reflected in the mental health of individuals who stubbornly or otherwise react to the denial of our soul.}. Chaos in the brain is a recent but well established fact: the cognitive centers of the brain are permanently in a state characterized by chaos. Vast collections of neurons shift abruptly and simultaneously from one complex activity pattern to another in response to extremely fine variations. Within the ten billion neurons of the brain, each with an average of twenty thousand interconnections, the action potential {And vectors of intersecting force.} of the smallest neuronal cluster creates a 'butterfly effect' that triggers massive gravitation 'towards one or another of the chaotic attractors. These attractors could amplify vacuum-level fluctuations and produce observable effects on the brain's information-processing structures.


Further evidence may be marshalled in support of the hypothesis of vacuum/brain interaction. Holographic functions in the brain require coherent nonlinear interaction between neuronal networks and/or pre- and post-synaptic neurons. In biological systems coherent interactions have been noted within molecules, between molecules, as well as among dipole clusters in distinct cellular and anatomical structures. In the past such phenomena have been explained in terms of long-range electromagnetic correlations between physically separated oscillating electric dipoles. Recently, however, an alternative explanation has surfaced. The new concept makes reference to the Josephson effect, a spontaneous correlation obtaining between physically separated superconductors. Josephson effects have also been found in living streams, where they function as a factor of intercellular coherence. (Del Giudice et al. 1989)


According to quantum field theory, Josephson junctions generate fields of quantum potentials (consisting of a magnetic vector potential and an electrostatic scalar potential), which in turn modulate the connection between the correlated superconductors or cellular systems. Such 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. (Psaltis et al.1990) 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)
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


Psi is a bona fide datum of scientific research, but so far it has remained mainly a datum. Scientific understanding of the phenomenon requires connecting the datum uncovered in psi research with the observations that furnish the empirical component of theories in the natural sciences. In light of the considerations advanced here, the conceptual framework required to connect psi with theories in the contemporary natural sciences calls in turn for a field capable of transmitting information beyond the scientifically recognized limits of space and time {The sciences are wrong again. Thanks to NEC labs for the 300 X light speed, refer to our section of Relativity for VSL.}. If the concept of such a field is not to remain an ad hoc postulate, we need to identify it with fields, or field-like continua, already known to science. The most likely choice in this regard is the quantum vacuum, a highly anomalous universal energy realm that is both the originating source and the ultimate destination of matter in the universe {Well stated expression of what the mystics have known for millennia, if not millions of years.}. Research on this field discloses significant evidence that it transmits a variety of effects that affect the behavior of matter. Complex matter-energy systems in the ultrasensitive states of chaos could amplify vacuum-level fluctuations into significant inputs to behavior. The human brain, of which the cognitive centers are in a constant and pronounced state of chaos, could receive and amplify such signals, and when not repressed by left-hemispheric censors {Logical 'denial'.}, the signals could penetrate to consciousness. The conscious or unconscious signals would yield the phenomena investigated in psi research.


The above concepts are offered not as a definitive solution to the problem of finding a scientifically acceptable explanation for psi, but as a working hypothesis to be tested and elaborated in collaborative research between psi researchers, and workers in physics, biology, neurophysiology, and related scientific disciplines. {Or talk to a Yogi, and other actual students who are able to do what can be known.}" (8)

Posted by: Shawn Apr 18, 2004, 06:45 AM

QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 12:39 AM)
In very recent research into the functioning of the immune system, scientists have found great variety in the systems controlled by endocrine glands - parts of the body which were hitherto largely a mystery. The other name for these glands is the ductless or thalami glands and they include the thalamus, the hypothalamus, the pituitary and the pineal glands, each nestling deep in the between brain region of the forebrain, between the brainstem and the cerebral hemispheres. The word thalami means deep chambers. (Greek)

The task of these glands appears to be to convey and expand information flowing into the brain, before it reaches the cerebral cortex - supposedly the memory and higher thinking center. All sensory signals, whatever their nature, pass through these glands - rather like a central telephone exchange for the brain. The pituitary gland orchestrates the delivery of hormones (the name hormone is derived from the Greek word meaning to set in motion) throughout the body affecting such functions as sexual maturity, food conversion and general growth. Under the control of these glands then is both the reception system for information flowing into the body, and the most powerful courier system for messages communicating with the rest of the body - two extremely important tasks, both apparently performed by the one set of biological organs {Vital to pranha or 'chhi' and spiritual reality.}.
BUT THE MOST ENIGMATIC OF THE DUCTLESS GLANDS, FOR THE MEDICAL SCIENTIST, IS THE CONE-SHAPED {The Egyptian cult of the Great White Brotherhood of Master Craftsmen, wore cone-shaped hats to augment and symbolize the pineal gland, they were associated with the Essenes and Therapeutae.} PINEAL, ONCE CONSIDERED TO BE THE VESTIGAL THIRD EYE PERHAPS BECAUSE OF ITS SUSCEPTABILITY TO LIGHT.


I have not had the chance to read entirely through your post (only the first third), and while it looks interesting, I would like to comment on one rather blatant error that compelled me to reply: What you refer to as thalami are not ductless glands at all, but are thalamic nuclei (composing the dorsal thalamus) located just above the midbrain, centrally-located within each cerebral hemisphere, and are composed of neurons (and glia) which communicate extensively with other neurons located throughout the brain. The pineal gland, on the other hand, even though it is located dorsally and in close proximity to the thalamic nuclei, it is not a neural structure, is not part of the dorsal thalamus, and has no direct neural connections with the brain.

The dorsal thalamus is the structure you should have referred to, and not the pineal gland (or any glands whatsoever), which "appears to convey and expand information flowing into the brain, before it reaches the cerebral cortex". The dorsal thalamus does these things and more, but in the above article, it is not appreciated that the dorsal thalamus is part of the central nervous system and is not part of the endocrine (or immune) system.

Also, I was not able to find anything on the studies of Gazzaniga and Eddelman through Pubmed which are cited in the post. Maybe the names are spelled incorrectly.

And finally, I think you're confusing the pituitary gland with the pineal gland when you refer to the latter as a 'master gland' when in fact it's the former, but this is a minor point. None of these glands play the role of a Third Eye.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 18, 2004, 07:32 AM

I think a person who is correcting someone's post should read it first.

This is from a book written by researchers and the assertions they make are from their book which includes many experts and degreed professionals. Your comments may apply to things you are not up to speed on because you have not read the body of work or the areas of research such as is evident when you do not read what you are correcting. I humbly suggest. Then you go further and suggest the people whose work they refer to are non-existent simply because you can't find them (which is further evidence of your lack of research and credibility).

The nit-picking over technical terms and names of the Thalami which are generally understood as they describe them is quite ludicrous in my opinion. Yes, ganglia and molecular parts or other things are further breadkdowns for the organs of glands involved - so what. Then you suggest they don't know the difference between the pineal (which has grains or crystals like a crystal radio set) and pituitary. True the pituitary is the hormonal manager but they are talking about information processing.

Posted by: Shawn Apr 18, 2004, 09:25 AM

Would it have been better if I had just bluntly stated that the person who wrote the essay above is ignorant insofar as neuroscience is concerned?

I was not just nit-picking over technical terms, but if you'd read my post more carefully, you'd see that I was raising legitimate concerns over the authors apparent fundamental misunderstanding of brain function.

The essay above goes far beyond Descartes ludicrous notion of localizing mind-brain interactions to the pituitary gland. Let's consider some excerpts from your posts to highlight this point:

QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 12:39 AM)

One of the most interesting explanations for these tiny glands is that they are the radio station receiver system for the human body and that a great many of the received 'radio waves' do not originate in places that we can necessarily immediately be conscious of. From outer space, for example, from other people too far away to be visible or audible, from the past and the future, from the dead, from animals, plants, birds, insects


I mean, come on, the author is talking about the pituitary and pineal glands receiving signals from outer space! I bet he talks with space aliens too and believes the U.S. government is watching him through his TV.

QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 12:39 AM)

In the brain a staggering number of dendrites fire ions, each of which constitutes a minute electric field vector. 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.


First, dendrites do not fire ions. It's hard for me to believe that the author has ever seen a real dendrite, much less know about dendritic mechanisms underlying the propagation of local and action potentials, and their role in neuronal communication.

Also, a cerebral hemisphere acting as a scalar interferometer? This is sheer nonsense.


QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 07:32 AM)
This is from a book written by researchers and the assertions they make are from their book which includes many experts and degreed professionals.


who are the authors? I'm certain that real neuroscientists would never have written what you posted. Sorry if you think I'm being overly-critical, but I regard your essay as a potentially dangerous form of disinformation which involves introducing pseudo-science into a legitimate science, and this is what compels me to shoot it down here.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 18, 2004, 10:21 AM

Dear Shawn

They are psychologists and the team included other disciplines. Perhaps you are a neuroscientist and you think only in the jargon of your discipline but interdisciplinary research is proving the truth of these things. Have you heard about the MRI/SPECT study that shows the mystics do what they have alwasy claimed. The superior parietal lobe is where the 'attention point' is turned to the cosmic.

And yes, I have other authors who agree the pineal has those crystals and amplifies the inputs like a radio. You might start by reading the whole original post and then asking reasonable questions instead of trying to impress people - I know you have not impressed me so far.

Posted by: Shawn Apr 18, 2004, 10:41 AM

QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 10:21 AM)
They are psychologists and the team included other disciplines. Perhaps you are a neuroscientist and you think only in the jargon of your discipline but interdisciplinary research is proving the truth of these things. Have you heard about the MRI/SPECT study that shows the mystics do what they have alwasy claimed. The superior parietal lobe is where the 'attention point' is turned to the cosmic.

And yes, I have other authors who agree the pineal has those crystals and amplifies the inputs like a radio. You might start by reading the whole original post and then asking reasonable questions instead of trying to impress people - I know you have not impressed me so far.

I've read your entire post, and what I see are some Psi researchers far outside mainstream psychology who are trying to provide mechanistic ideas over how psi-related phenomenon are possible. The problem I have is that the authors are straying into the respectable fields of neuroscience and physics, and it's painfully obvious to someone with sufficient degree of understanding of the fields that they really don't know anything about these fields. Like I said in my last post, I am certain that none of the authors is a legitimate neuroscientist. How can the authors expect to provide neuroscientifically-based explanations for Psi if they don't understand neuroscience?

I have asked many reasonable questions with regard to your original post, and they've all gone unanswered. I'm not sure why you never said who the authors are unless you want to mask their identities so that they can't be shown to be quacks, because they certainly aren't real neuroscientists.

You can rest assured that I was not motivated by any desire to impress others. I was motivated to reply mainly because I'd rather not see people like you get deceived by authors who should know better than to publish disinformation and pseudo-science.


Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 18, 2004, 11:22 AM

Good now you read the part about the physicists and you see you are way over your head. Soon I will put up the work of Professor Morowitz who was the Professor of Microbiology at Yale. As to your nit-picking over ions - I defy you to prove we know about the non info packets or the whole area of morphogenic fields. There is great debate in normative science which is constantly finding the ancients knew what they were doing better than we do. The energy and how it is composed is not the sole or even primary expertise of neuroscience. In fact neuroscience is not even close to the physicists in understanding the manifest layers of wavelenghths composing energy and what is photonic or harmonic. I can go a long way down this road too. The one dimensional harmonic forces that are the building blocks of all energy and matter are not even on the radar screen you are looking at. And yet they are what is important to our understanding of consciousness and energy amplification along affinite and vectored pathways and sub pathways.

Posted by: Shawn Apr 18, 2004, 12:21 PM

QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 11:22 AM)
Good now you read the part about the physicists and you see you are way over your head.


I don't think it's over my head, and I still maintain, based on my previous objections, that the essay you posted is an example of pseudo-science.

QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 11:22 AM)
The energy and how it is composed is not the sole or even primary expertise of neuroscience.


I see. Would you expect it to be?


QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 11:22 AM)
In fact neuroscience is not even close to the physicists in understanding the manifest layers of wavelenghths composing energy and what is photonic or harmonic.


can you elaborate on these "manifest layers of wavelengths composing energy"?



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 11:22 AM)
I can go a long way down this road too.


by all means do.



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 11:22 AM)
The one dimensional harmonic forces that are the building blocks of all energy and matter are not even on the radar screen you are looking at. And yet they are what is important to our understanding of consciousness and energy amplification along affinite and vectored pathways and sub pathways.  


The simple application of information theory at the neuronal and network levels makes it evident that neurons are encoding information that corresponds to information in conscious states. What makes you think that we need to consider any one dimensional harmonic forces for understanding and amplifying consciousness? You do not present a compelling case.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 18, 2004, 02:51 PM

You use words but do not understand them. I refer to these words.

makes it evident that neurons are encoding information that corresponds to information in conscious states.

Please explain encoding processes and the way it occurs in energy interplay leading to consciousness.

The comments you label as pseudo-science are from inventors and top scientists who DO the actual owrk. Their replicable studies and formulas produce the kinds of machines and computer based world we now live in despite having been called atom-mysticists by the normative science when they started their explanations which began with no attempt to prove the mystics right. Nonetheless they did prove the mystics were right.

Rather than post Morowitz's piece at this juncture I will await your next few debunking, knee-jerk 'know-nothing' (Kaku in Hyperspace) remarks and give you rope to hang yourself.

Posted by: Shawn Apr 18, 2004, 03:00 PM

QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 02:51 PM)
The comments you label as pseudo-science are from inventors and top scientists who DO the actual work.

I am one of the people who DOES the work. And I know for a fact that you are not one of these people, which is probably why you believe the essay you posted is not an example of pseudo-science.


QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 02:51 PM)
Please explain encoding processes and the way it occurs in energy interplay leading to consciousness.


encoding processes are distributed across multiple neurons comprising networks and typically involve observables such as neuronal spiking rate and spike timing.
For example, if the force of a bar pressed into your finger pad was observed to be proportional to neuronal firing rates in primary somatosensory cortex, we would say that these neurons encode the magnitude of force pressed into your finger pad by the integration over their firing rates.

Concerning the way encoding occurs in energy interplay leading to consciousness, this is unknown, though an isomorphism between neuronal activity and the form of consciousness that we experience is plausible, and there is even some evidence for its validity at a local scale.


QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 02:51 PM)

I will await your next few debunking, knee-jerk 'know-nothing' (Kaku in Hyperspace) remarks and give you rope to hang yourself.


Well isn't that precious?
Really though, you won't get very far here by resorting to ad homs. And what's Kaku got to do with anything?

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 19, 2004, 10:53 AM

What has Kaku got to do with anything? SOunds like you hold yourself up as an 'expert' and yet are engaging the ad hominems again.

Kaku is a top physicist and published author who is well known - are you. His expertise in physics is unquestioned. Physics is the field that studies the energy you and yours can only admit you do not understand. Such as you do here while using vague terms that are conventions rather than understood.

encoding processes are distributed across multiple neurons comprising networks and typically involve observables such as neuronal spiking rate and spike timing.
For example, if the force of a bar pressed into your finger pad was observed to be proportional to neuronal firing rates in primary somatosensory cortex, we would say that these neurons encode the magnitude of force pressed into your finger pad by the integration over their firing rates.

Concerning the way encoding occurs in energy interplay leading to consciousness, this is unknown, though an isomorphism between neuronal activity and the form of consciousness that we experience is plausible, and there is even some evidence for its validity at a local scale.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 19, 2004, 11:08 AM

From the viewpoint of a modern microbiologist, we hear the call for integration and common sense in sciences that are all too often devising separate stakes and battlements to pontificate from, on high. 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.


In August of 1980 'Psychology Today' ran an article by Harold J. Morowitz, professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale University. I recommend a complete reading of this article for anyone who has suffered through a complete exposure to all that our modern education system is comprised of; as it tries to convince you that everything is 'black and white' and that no soul exists through avoidance of its instruction (except a few artists who defy the norm).


"REDISCOVERING THE MIND;
Physical scientists are returning to the view that thought - meaning mind - is one of nature's ultimate realities'.


The study of life at all levels, from social to molecular behavior, has in modern times relied on reductionism as the chief explanatory concept. This approach to knowledge tries to comprehend one level of scientific phenomena in terms of concepts at a lower and presumably more fundamental level... Reductionism at the psychological level is exemplified by the viewpoint in Carl Sagan's best selling book THE DRAGONS OF EDEN.


He writes: '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.' As a further demonstration of this trend of thought, we note that Sagan's glossary does not contain the words mind, consciousness, perception, awareness or thought, but rather deals with entries such as synapse, lobotomy, proteins and electrodes…


Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of the new physics, became deeply involved in the issues of philosophy and humanism. In PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS OF QUANTUM PHYSICS, he wrote of physicists having to renounce thoughts of an objective time-scale common to all observers, and of events in time and space that are independent of our ability to observe them. Heisenberg stressed that the laws of nature no longer dealt with elementary particles, but with our knowledge of these particles - that is, with the 'contents of our minds'. Erwin Schrödinger, the man who formulated the fundamental equation of quantum mechanics, wrote an extraordinary little book in 1958 called MIND AND MATTER. In this series of essays, he moved from the results of the new physics to a rather mystical view of the universe that he identified with the 'perrenial philosophy' of Aldous Huxley. Schrödinger was the first of the quantum theoreticians to express sympathy with the UPANISHADS and Eastern philosophical thought. A growing body of literature now embodies this perspective, including two popular works. THE TAO OF PHYSICS by Fritjof Capra, and THE DANCING WU-LI MASTERS by Gary Zukav...


However, the only simple and consistent description physicists were able to assign to a measurement involved an observer's becoming aware of the result. Thus the physical event and the content of the human mind were inseparable. This linkage forced many researchers to seriously consider consciousness as an integral part of the structure of physics. Such interpretations moved science toward the 'idealist' as contracted with the 'realist' conception of philosophy.


The views of a large number of contemporary physical scientists are summed up in the essay 'Remarks on the Mind-Body Question' written by Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner. Wigner begins by pointing out that most physical scientists have returned to the recognition that thought - meaning the mind - is primary. He goes on to state: 'It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.' And he concludes by noting how remarkable it is that the scientific study of the world led to the content of consciousness as an ultimate reality.'...


The founders of modern atomic theory did not start out to impose a 'mentalist' picture on the world. Rather, they began with the opposite point of view and were forced to the present day position in order to explain experimental results...


The results of this chain of reasoning will probably lend more aid and comfort to Eastern mystics than to neurophysiologists and molecular biologists; nevertheless, the closed loop follows from a straightforward combination of the explanatory processes of recognized experts in the three separate sciences. Since individuals seldom work with more than one of these paradigms, the general problem has received little attention...


We now understand the troublesome features in a forceful commitment to uncritical reductionism as a solution to the problem of mind. We have discussed the weaknesses of that position. In addition to being weak, it is a dangerous view, since the way we respond to our fellow human beings is dependent on the way we conceptualize them in our theoretical formulations. If we envision our fellows solely as animals or machines, we drain our interactions of humanistic richness. If we seek our behavioral norms in the study of animal societies, we ignore those uniquely human features that so much enrich our lives. Radical reductionism offers very little in the area of moral imperatives! Further, it presents the wrong glossary of terms for a humanistic pursuit."


MINNESOTA TWINS STUDY: - This study has been on-going for decades and it has produced some remarkable results that few reports see the impact of in reference to the very nature of 'humanistic richness' and soulful potentialities. Only once is the top researcher allowed to mention ESP. Much as the Harvard study reported earlier, the participants are family members but because they were separated at birth and (in this case) twins - there is a greater connection of ESP or psychic abilities than normal. Isn't this just common sense? Who can doubt it, you might say! Yet most people think ESP is some weird attribute or freak of nature rather than a gift we all have 'within', if they think it exists at all.

Posted by: Shawn Apr 19, 2004, 11:24 AM

QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 19, 10:53 AM)
What has Kaku got to do with anything? SOunds like you hold yourself up as an 'expert' and yet are engaging the ad hominems again.

this is really lame, Rob. It's you who has been engaging in the ad homs in response to my reasonable objections to your post.

QUOTE

Kaku is a top physicist and published author who is well known - are you.


For many people, I am an upcoming top neuroscientist and published author who is also well known and in possession of arguably better web programming skills than Kaku. And who are you, Robert? You've been noticably silent about your qualifications. Is that because you lack them?

QUOTE
His expertise in physics is unquestioned.


just as I thought, you're an idol-worshipper.


Are you suggesting that Kaku is the author of your pseudo-science post above?

QUOTE
Such as you do here while using vague terms that are conventions rather than understood.


Actually, the terms I used are very precise and would be understood by the vast majority of neuroscientists just fine. Besides being convention, they also all have a firm basis in direct experience. If you don't understand them, then maybe that's a hint that you're in over your head.


And also, since you've made it clear that you have no intentions of engaging in any sort of rational discussion, I have no reason for continuing with this useless, time-wasting banter. So, enjoy yourself, as I have chosen to wash my hands of this exchange.


Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 19, 2004, 01:50 PM

You agree they are convention and they are not precise. Kaku is not my hero and if you look at the many posts from physics and more exact sciences than neuroscience you will see I do indeed think the quantum or atom-mysticists are heroes of mine. But so are many other open-minded people. I have provided links to my books - I imagine you have some articles published and might force a few students or others to read them - but Kaku is a very successful author. I have only recently been published and there are many books coming down the pipe in addition to the fourteen you can see at world-mysteries or the hard copy one that finally made it to cover design inclusion last week on Amazon.

Indeed I did not complete a degree at a university although I tested out of a BA and was selected to represent the students in a Master's Program. I consider my time in school was a waste - listening to uninformed teachers by and large.

I think my work is substantial and in the fields where I have worked I have received high accolades - but none of that is of great interest to me anymore.


Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 19, 2004, 01:55 PM

You say:

Are you suggesting that Kaku is the author of your pseudo-science post above?

No I provided the source book in the original post which you initially said you had not read while stating you could not find the names Gazzaniga and Edelmann. Then you seemed to have read it and yet keep asking who are the authors of part of the initial post (there are many other authors and Nobel Laureates in the latter part of that post which you have ad hominemly attacked as pseudo-science. You also say your web programming skills exceed Kaku and yet you cannot seem to find research or names and books referred to - hmm. Med check!!???

Posted by: Shawn Apr 19, 2004, 02:15 PM

QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 19, 01:50 PM)
but none of that is of great interest to me anymore.

so what is of great interest to you now?

Posted by: Guest Apr 19, 2004, 03:47 PM

Dr Kaku is the famous co-author os 'String Theory'.
He is one of the latest authors to demonstrate that if you can think of a presently unknown concept which cannot be proven or disproven, it can be financially beneficial to establish such a concept, and make a fortune whilst many people investigate its plausibility.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 19, 2004, 03:52 PM

YMMD with that ansewr! TX

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 19, 2004, 03:57 PM

Here is more of your rational diatribe from a pubescent student of life.

And also, since you've made it clear that you have no intentions of engaging in any sort of rational discussion, I have no reason for continuing with this useless, time-wasting banter. So, enjoy yourself, as I have chosen to wash my hands of this exchange.


I have provided numerous detaied and well researched thoughts of top accredited people - you hold forth on your ego and imagined importance.

Posted by: Shawn Apr 19, 2004, 04:04 PM

QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 19, 03:57 PM)
Here is more of your rational diatribe from a pubescent student of life.

- you hold forth on your ego and imagined importance.



Idol-worshipper, you are like an ill-mannered student. By all means, continue to misjudge to your hearts content.


Posted by: Dan Apr 19, 2004, 06:32 PM

jesus, what a tool. These pseudoscientist-types always amaze me with their simultaneous appearance of intelligence and incompetence. This 'bruce' dork is quite a gem
tongue.gif

Posted by: Guest Apr 19, 2004, 07:05 PM

QUOTE (Dan @ Apr 19, 03:32 PM)
jesus, what a tool.  These pseudoscientist-types always amaze me with their simultaneous appearance of intelligence and incompetence.  This 'bruce' dork is quite a gem


My thoughts about Robert the Bruce: He's posted a lot of interesting information even if it's swamped by disinformation. He believes physics holds some priority over the biological sciences but doesn't realize how outmoded this belief is. He probably reads a lot, which seems to have resulted in his uncritical acceptance of everything his idols and heroes write about. His belligerent front belies hidden insecurities which he tries to overcompensate for by identifying with his idols, either by parroting or emulating them, or otherwise fantasizing about being them. Unfortunately, he is not his idols, and he has not demonstrated an ability to integrate new information or to reconcile competing viewpoints, nor does he deal with criticism in any way other than by lashing out.

A most interesting case-study, err, umm,, I mean gem!



Posted by: Laz Apr 20, 2004, 05:37 AM

you have to admire his unwavering belief in himself smile.gif

Posted by: anniemo Apr 20, 2004, 07:41 AM

QUOTE
I have totally dedicated my life to making people aware of the dangers facing them-um,that bruce almighty type guy whatever


dude.... isnt that a bit fear based?


and are you gonna come back at me and say some sh*t like "Not pointing out the dangers in life is living oblivously to them"

hey look! I just quoted myself. awesome

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 20, 2004, 08:46 AM

It would be fear-based if I was into the self. But as the Mayans say - 'Do not put your self in front of your SLEF'.

Actually I have long lived according to the Keltic Creed which can be summarized as NO FEAR. My last name is a clue to that - Baird - do you know what a Baird (BRD) is?

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 20, 2004, 08:55 AM

I have no need of idols as you say. I am a leading-edge integrator of knowledge and the tenured paradigm thinkers (stinkers) like you are not likely able to comprehend (because you have not read -and thus engage in ad hominems).

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=http://www.world-mysteries.com/gw_rbaird.htm

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 20, 2004, 09:03 AM

Your erudition and insight is awesome. Your argument pompous and profound (or yet to be found).

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 20, 2004, 09:12 AM

Still presenting nothing integrative or meaningful - just ad hominems again. Yes, I will be as ill-mannered as those who do so. In fact I can be as ill-mannered as anyone - I am no amateur at this - like you.

Posted by: Laz Apr 20, 2004, 09:59 AM

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame57.html

Posted by: Guest Apr 20, 2004, 10:07 AM

QUOTE (Laz @ Apr 20, 06:59 AM)
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame57.html

"Filibuster and his pet topic form an endless loop. If his first thrust doesn't win the day, he will try to gain ground with a second, third, fourth ... nth repetition. He may even make a good initial attack, but his monotonous hectoring and prodigious output rapidly clears the field of other Warriors. Filibuster eventually lands in everyone's killfile ."

yeah it sounds a lot like "Robert the Bruce" but the field will surely clear him before he clears the field.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 20, 2004, 10:44 AM

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

Posted by: Guest Apr 20, 2004, 12:02 PM

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.


Posted by: Guest Apr 20, 2004, 01:06 PM

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!

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 20, 2004, 01:07 PM

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

Yes, I agree. Though humorous you speak truth and admit same here.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 20, 2004, 03:02 PM

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.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 20, 2004, 04:00 PM

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.

Posted by: Guest Apr 20, 2004, 04:09 PM

you sound confused Robert.

Posted by: ganji Apr 20, 2004, 04:16 PM

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.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 20, 2004, 04:21 PM

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?

Posted by: ganji Apr 20, 2004, 04:24 PM

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.

Posted by: DearGanji Apr 20, 2004, 08:11 PM

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.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 20, 2004, 08:22 PM

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.}

Posted by: Shawn Apr 20, 2004, 09:19 PM

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.


Posted by: Dan Apr 20, 2004, 09:20 PM

'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

Posted by: ganji Apr 20, 2004, 09:33 PM

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?


Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 21, 2004, 10:42 AM

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.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 21, 2004, 10:45 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.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 21, 2004, 10:57 AM

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.

Posted by: Unknown Apr 21, 2004, 03:41 PM

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?


Posted by: Unknown Apr 21, 2004, 03:44 PM

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!


Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 21, 2004, 04:06 PM

Those who waqtch so-called Reality TV rise to show their ignorance. What a lark!

Posted by: Dan Apr 21, 2004, 05:40 PM

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.

Posted by: Shawn Apr 21, 2004, 06:07 PM

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://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/discdocs/mind.htm





Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 21, 2004, 06:13 PM

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.

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 21, 2004, 06:23 PM

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).

Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 21, 2004, 06:37 PM

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.

Posted by: Shawn Apr 21, 2004, 08:20 PM

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.


Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 21, 2004, 10:42 PM

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'.

Posted by: Shawn Apr 22, 2004, 10:42 AM

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.


Posted by: Robert the Bruce Apr 22, 2004, 11:21 AM

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.

Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 20, 2006, 10:42 AM

QUOTE(Robert the Bruce @ Apr 20, 05:55 AM) *

I have no need of idols as you say. I am a leading-edge integrator of knowledge and the tenured paradigm thinkers (stinkers) like you are not likely able to comprehend (because you have not read -and thus engage in ad hominems).

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=http://www.world-mysteries.com/gw_rbaird.htm


I got emailed to visit this forum. This is where i came in. Already i am thinking Disgraceful. I am not surprised to see you get this treatment here. What these guys are never going to admit is that with a massive taxpayer funded global industry things just get increasingly "all over the place" in regards to understanding living systems. What can be said that is positive is the amazing breakthroughs in preserving human life, dealing with disease, decoding genetics. I could barely being to write all that is great about science.

I would also place myself in this category "integrator of fragmented knowledge" vs tenured paradigm thinkers, and have written a book on electromagnetism and brain structure that brought quite a lot together. Major ionic neurotransmitters, co modulation messengers, sex differences in brian structure and mathematical explanations which bring every available sub-discipline together.

If interested i will send you a copy of my work. You may find it revealing, although i warn is very technical. I wouldnt trust to post a link to it here. Some ideas of mine having being "re-aquired" by a qualified biologist on another web forums a couple of weeks ago.

I will also not deny myself by not sounding irrational here. Irrationality is a vital component of creative brain structure. Irrational numbers underlie a great proportion of living systems. did you know that the distribution of right brain chemisty is irrational ? Irrationality is basically power laws. Coherence results to give a structure to counter that.


Ok what am i going to say that is irrational, is basically i have only my own methods and experience to make the following statement.

The majority of scientific research is carried out by left brain dominated thinkers, who are entirely rational. The probelm with that is that rationality or logic has to "matricise" knowledge. As a result knowledge is fragmented and converged to loads of teeny weeny journals with lots of articles of similiar length, format and increasing category.

Science is now a tower of babel. The brain which could have been described elegantly and looks elegant can barely be discussed by people within the same field. The knowldge can only be custered by the creatively determined. This is what happens when you throw industries of convergent workers at biological complexity. You end up with fragmented knowledge in different tounges.


good link on the current state of affairs in regards to science, the hiding of knowledge and money.

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3061258

There is also a good wired article about the fragmentation of knowledge in medical science written by a guy who had to write cluster algorithmns to make sense of the 40,000 papers on alzheimers.

Basically you are correct. Most "scientists" today are less than nicely motivated. I too came to the conclusion that the keyword for many scientists are not "truth" and "discovery" but "position", "money" , "patent" and "prestige". Although lets not forget that much empathy lies behind medical science also.



Sprinkle












Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 20, 2006, 11:44 AM



QUOTE
The simple application of information theory at the neuronal and network levels makes it evident that neurons are encoding information that corresponds to information in conscious states. What makes you think that we need to consider any one dimensional harmonic forces for understanding and amplifying consciousness? You do not present a compelling case.




ITs the other way round. Right brain Glutamate neurons amplify towards divergent networks.

I have a preference for Walter freeman these days. He tends towards the idea that neurons summarize and convert axon pulses to a dendrite wave. Thats where the amplification potential lies.

Axons on the other hand (half the brain) are essentially two dimensional and thus have one perpendicular free dimension for synchronised encoding. Women who have greater amounts of white matter do appear to have superior memory capabilites. That is they can encode memories as episodes (whole brain movie like representations containg feelings and sensations)

Posted by: Neural Mar 20, 2006, 05:06 PM

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 20, 08:44 AM) *

Axons on the other hand (half the brain) are essentially two dimensional and thus have one perpendicular free dimension for synchronised encoding.


What's the evidence for this? Axons are three dimensional, except maybe in the cerebellum where purkinje cell dendritic fields are planar.

Posted by: code buttons Mar 20, 2006, 05:27 PM

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 20, 07:42 AM) *

Irrationality is a vital component of creative brain structure. Irrational numbers underlie a great proportion of living systems. did you know that the distribution of right brain chemisty is irrational ? Irrationality is basically power laws. Coherence results to give a structure to counter that.


Interesting stuff I never heard before, Sprinkle? Explain a little bit more about the 'irrational distribution of right brain' please? Are you saying (in no uncertain terms)that the next Einstein is going to be a right-brainer, like Trip?


Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 20, 2006, 07:42 PM

QUOTE(Neural @ Mar 20, 02:06 PM) *

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 20, 08:44 AM) *

Axons on the other hand (half the brain) are essentially two dimensional and thus have one perpendicular free dimension for synchronised encoding.


What's the evidence for this? Axons are three dimensional, except maybe in the cerebellum where purkinje cell dendritic fields are planar.


What kind of evidence do you need ? The flow of information is two dimensional. I'm referring to white matter axons here not dendrites.

Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 20, 2006, 08:25 PM

QUOTE(code buttons @ Mar 20, 02:27 PM) *

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 20, 07:42 AM) *

Irrationality is a vital component of creative brain structure. Irrational numbers underlie a great proportion of living systems. did you know that the distribution of right brain chemisty is irrational ? Irrationality is basically power laws. Coherence results to give a structure to counter that.


Interesting stuff I never heard before, Sprinkle? Explain a little bit more about the 'irrational distribution of right brain' please? Are you saying (in no uncertain terms)that the next Einstein is going to be a right-brainer, like Trip?




My knowledge of what it takes to be an einstein is limited to ashkenazi genetics and knowing that areas on his brain fused together. Did this occur to use or neurodevelopment ? Ashkenazi jews are predicited to suffer from high degrees of CNS illness due to neuroimmune related mutations of glycolipids. This abnormal lipid uptake is related to abnormal dendrite growth and so an increased capacity for dendrite density. The mutations lead to a big factor in higher IQ.

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638

What a weird co-incidence i've cited two articles from the economist here. Apart from those i rarely read this rag. Anyway there are other IQ biological factors such as those involved in the cellular energy aspects (mtDNA related)..but what use are these if the increased cellular energy cannot be protected by a match in lipid uptake. Also consider this. The Ashkenazi Jewish race is almost Unique in that it can only be determined maternally through mtDNA. Ashkenazi men are more related to men outside their own gene pool than each other.

Some people say Einstein was a high function aspergers. Which is a good indicator of right brain dominance anyway. Dont you think the way Einstein interacts with his environment is quite creative. Whatever came up he just kind of rolled with that and dealt with it creatively ? i'm no expert on einstein and i always struggled to barely grasp Physics. Has he been folk heroed ? Just from what i read here and there he doesnt appear to be motivated by anything but a search for figuring out whats what.

In regards to the first question. Recently i completed a meta analysis of the last three decades of brain chemistry in reference to neurotransmitter distribution. That was a lot. Basically whenever research is done to uncover clear scientific data on neurotransmitter receptor distribution, the results are clear ..or that is they only get usable in scientific terms for the left hemisphere.

I have plenty of evidence for this, which is subject the the usual problems when trying to collate previously unrelated studies. This non linear distribution applies to Gaba/glutamate ionics and the primary co-modulators serotonin and dopamine. However i'm re-drafting this as i'm not sure that primary co-modulation should be reduced to just those two. There is an excellent paper i referenced which reviews serotonin receptors in the right hemisphere. I've not got it to hand here. Although these receptors proliferate in quite a varitey of non definable types. The reviewers conclusion is that there was an overall scheme to how the different subtypes came together for an organisms current purpose.

I would liken this to the way in which a lead instrumentalist has a variety of techniques and riffs he messes around to figure out then brings together ad-hoc to express himself at moments of peak creativity.



Later ...
Sprinkle

Posted by: Neural Mar 20, 2006, 08:33 PM

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 20, 04:42 PM) *

What kind of evidence do you need ? The flow of information is two dimensional. I'm referring to white matter axons here not dendrites.

for example, axonal arbors from thalamus terminate in 3D columns in cortex. What do you mean by the flow of info being 2D?

Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 21, 2006, 12:21 AM

QUOTE(Neural @ Mar 20, 05:33 PM) *

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 20, 04:42 PM) *

What kind of evidence do you need ? The flow of information is two dimensional. I'm referring to white matter axons here not dendrites.

for example, axonal arbors from thalamus terminate in 3D columns in cortex. What do you mean by the flow of info being 2D?




the first paper i pulled on the subject represents the axon arbors in one and two dimensions.

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=axonal+arbors&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


When the axon signal enters the collumn thats when it then gets integrated and converted into three dimensions. Thats a grey matter topic.

The point about two dimensions is thats the signal format within the axon itself. Whats happening within a white matter bundle is two dimensional. How many dimensions would it require to define the DC current flowing within a single wire ?

Posted by: Neural Mar 21, 2006, 02:29 AM

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 20, 09:21 PM) *

The point about two dimensions is thats the signal format within the axon itself.


What are the dimensions you're talking about, distance along axon (x) and time (t)? How about that axons reside in 3D space and are roughly cylindrical. At the very least, you need to include other spatial dimensions, as well as voltage levels as a function of space and time.


Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 21, 2006, 04:21 AM

QUOTE(Neural @ Mar 20, 11:29 PM) *

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 20, 09:21 PM) *

The point about two dimensions is thats the signal format within the axon itself.


What are the dimensions you're talking about, distance along axon (x) and time (t)? How about that axons reside in 3D space and are roughly cylindrical. At the very least, you need to include other spatial dimensions, as well as voltage levels as a function of space and time.


so far i havent seen axon scientists require more than two dimensions (excluding time) for a usefull definition.


Cell Biophys. 1985 Jun;7(2):107-14. Related Articles, Links

Transport of Na+ inside the giant axon of squid.

Chang DC.

The transport mechanism of Na ions within the nerve cell was studied by measuring the radioactivity distribution profile of 22Na that had been intracellularly injected into the giant axon. Specifically, we tested whether or not the movement of Na ions is coupled with the process of "fast axonal transport." Results of our measurements indicate that the intracellular transport of Na+ and the fast axonal transport are two independent processes. Very few Na ions are irreversibly sequestered into the axoplasmic vesicles involved in axonal transport. The movement of Na+ inside the axon can be modeled by a one-dimension diffusion. The effective diffusion coefficient of the intracellular Na+ was determined in this study.


J Neurophysiol. 2000 Apr;83(4):2113-9. Related Articles, Links

Optimal sizes of dendritic and axonal arbors in a topographic projection.

Chklovskii DB.

Sloan Center for Theoretical Neurobiology, The Salk Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, USA.

I consider a topographic projection between two neuronal layers with different densities of neurons. Given the number of output neurons connected to each input neuron (divergence) and the number of input neurons synapsing on each output neuron (convergence), I determine the widths of axonal and dendritic arbors which minimize the total volume of axons and dendrites. Analytical results for one-dimensional and two-dimensional projections can be summarized qualitatively in the following rule: neurons of the sparser layer should have arbors wider than those of the denser layer. This agrees with the anatomic data for retinal, cerebellar, olfactory bulb, and neocortical neurons the morphology and connectivity of which are known. The rule may be used to infer connectivity of neurons from their morphology.


Posted by: code buttons Mar 21, 2006, 08:50 AM

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 20, 05:25 PM) *

Some people say Einstein was a high function aspergers. Which is a good indicator of right brain dominance anyway.


So Einstein WAS a right-brainer?....If he was, it kind of makes sense. I read his biography and somewhere in it the author describes Einstein's behavior at one of his moments of inspiration and it sounded a lot more like how artists get their moments of inspiration, instead of scientists.

Posted by: Hey Hey Mar 21, 2006, 06:23 PM

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 21, 05:21 AM) *


The point about two dimensions is thats the signal format within the axon itself. Whats happening within a white matter bundle is two dimensional. How many dimensions would it require to define the DC current flowing within a single wire ?


Unlike electrickary, even a 2D neuron would have a 3D ion transport configuration. (And don't forget about field lines)

Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 22, 2006, 07:56 AM


Do you remember when people thought max headroom was real ?

Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 22, 2006, 08:07 AM

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Mar 21, 03:23 PM) *

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 21, 05:21 AM) *


The point about two dimensions is thats the signal format within the axon itself. Whats happening within a white matter bundle is two dimensional. How many dimensions would it require to define the DC current flowing within a single wire ?


Unlike electrickary, even a 2D neuron would have a 3D ion transport configuration. (And don't forget about field lines)



Why does it matter whether transporters are 3 dimensional proteins ? Just how they get utilized. Everything could be said to be 3 dimensional. The axon scientists seem to think the function can be defined by less dimensions at system level.

Posted by: Neural Mar 22, 2006, 08:20 AM

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 21, 01:21 AM) *

QUOTE(Neural @ Mar 20, 11:29 PM) *

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 20, 09:21 PM) *

The point about two dimensions is thats the signal format within the axon itself.


What are the dimensions you're talking about, distance along axon (x) and time (t)? How about that axons reside in 3D space and are roughly cylindrical. At the very least, you need to include other spatial dimensions, as well as voltage levels as a function of space and time.


so far i havent seen axon scientists require more than two dimensions (excluding time) for a usefull definition.


Cell Biophys. 1985 Jun;7(2):107-14. Related Articles, Links

Transport of Na+ inside the giant axon of squid.

Chang DC.

The transport mechanism of Na ions within the nerve cell was studied by measuring the radioactivity distribution profile of 22Na that had been intracellularly injected into the giant axon. Specifically, we tested whether or not the movement of Na ions is coupled with the process of "fast axonal transport." Results of our measurements indicate that the intracellular transport of Na+ and the fast axonal transport are two independent processes. Very few Na ions are irreversibly sequestered into the axoplasmic vesicles involved in axonal transport. The movement of Na+ inside the axon can be modeled by a one-dimension diffusion. The effective diffusion coefficient of the intracellular Na+ was determined in this study.


J Neurophysiol. 2000 Apr;83(4):2113-9. Related Articles, Links

Optimal sizes of dendritic and axonal arbors in a topographic projection.

Chklovskii DB.

Sloan Center for Theoretical Neurobiology, The Salk Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, USA.

I consider a topographic projection between two neuronal layers with different densities of neurons. Given the number of output neurons connected to each input neuron (divergence) and the number of input neurons synapsing on each output neuron (convergence), I determine the widths of axonal and dendritic arbors which minimize the total volume of axons and dendrites. Analytical results for one-dimensional and two-dimensional projections can be summarized qualitatively in the following rule: neurons of the sparser layer should have arbors wider than those of the denser layer. This agrees with the anatomic data for retinal, cerebellar, olfactory bulb, and neocortical neurons the morphology and connectivity of which are known. The rule may be used to infer connectivity of neurons from their morphology.



Sprinklehopper, the two abstracts you're citing are over completely different things, and the first one is only dealing with Na+ diffusion, which is only a component of action potential propagation. Your second abstract has nothing to do with action potential propagation and is only inferring a tiny aspect of cortical connectivity based on some stripped down model. So what exactly are the 2 dimensions you are referring to? The abstracts you posted don't have the answer.




Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 22, 2006, 10:21 PM

QUOTE

Sprinklehopper, the two abstracts you're citing are over completely different things, and the first one is only dealing with Na+ diffusion, which is only a component of action potential propagation. Your second abstract has nothing to do with action potential propagation and is only inferring a tiny aspect of cortical connectivity based on some stripped down model. So what exactly are the 2 dimensions you are referring to? The abstracts you posted don't have the answer.




Is only dealing with Na+ diffusion ? The key chemical process in saltatory conduction. Isn't node hopping what we're talking about here ? What else is required for the low dimension treatment ? The vector of any given axon potential travels in one direction. The system of the axon itself ensures no change occurs in the potential. The time is predictable, even if the axon has to bend a little here and there.

isnt it interesting that the two different reseachers conclude they can summarize axon behaviour with low dimensionality from two entirely different positions ? Well it is to me. The model of Chklovskii can hardly be said to be pursing tiny aspects of cortical behaviour. He's trying to apply his "stripped down model" to all brain axons

Another interesting paper describes axon behaviour as "canonical" which mathematically links to spatially limited vectors. SO thats three papers, at just quick glance crossing the primary disciplines, saying something similiar. The chemistry of the axon. The Network modelling and now the physics / mathematical modelling. Thats hardly something to be derided. Its almost sensational.


This papers is referring to pyramidal neurons. these are the prime targets for the majority of cortical axons.

Neuron. 2004 Jul 22;43(2):251-9. Related Articles, Links

Comment in:
Neuron. 2004 Jul 22;43(2):156-8.

Class-specific features of neuronal wiring.

Stepanyants A, Tamas G, Chklovskii DB.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York 11724, USA.

Brain function relies on specificity of synaptic connectivity patterns among different classes of neurons. Yet, the substrates of specificity in complex neuropil remain largely unknown. We search for imprints of specificity in the layout of axonal and dendritic arbors from the rat neocortex. An analysis of 3D reconstructions of pairs consisting of pyramidal cells (PCs) and GABAergic interneurons (GIs) revealed that the layout of GI axons is specific. This specificity is manifested in a relatively high tortuosity, small branch length of these axons, and correlations of their trajectories with the positions of postsynaptic neuron dendrites. Axons of PCs show no such specificity, usually taking a relatively straight course through neuropil. However, wiring patterns among PCs hold a large potential for circuit remodeling and specificity through growth and retraction of dendritic spines. Our results define distinct class-specific rules in establishing synaptic connectivity, which could be crucial in formulating a canonical cortical circuit.

Which to summarize canonical in mathematical phsyical terms is mathematical and used in common reference to the vector limited fiber bundles not of the axons but abstract maths.

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=mathworld.wolfram.com/FiberBundle.html
http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=mathworld.wolfram.com/Bundle.html

Interestingly spatial Dimension 3 can be left out by invoking the right hand rule.

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpaceOrientation.html

Anyway i find all this very interesting. Glad you grilled me. is the reason "shoot down the attitude guy" ?

Anyway its lead me to discover some very appropriate maths for axons.


My point is just that axons can be defined with low spatial dimensionality in comparison to neurons. I'm not yet at the stage of describing that well. I have bigger creative priorities at the moment for axons, which is how they operate together within the whole brain system. From just a cursory look, Axons have low spatial dimensionality. The papers i have read and for many other reasons i cant put online yet point to this ( copyright ). for that reason and the wolfram papers that brought me back to convergent matrices, far from feeling i came up with nothing am feeling quite relieved.

Posted by: Dan Mar 23, 2006, 03:20 AM

sprinklechopper

the reason people are itching to argue with you here is because you entered with an emphatic plug for a well-known lunatic who often regurgitates delusional nonsense on this board. Since you seemed to indicate that you feel this nutter to be competent and unjustly opposed, we can only assume that you, too, are a similar mental case. To your credit you do appear capable of competent investigation, but I suspect that the affective state that supports kinship with the aformentioned wackjob may also direct your research toward preconceived and dubious conclusions.

Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 23, 2006, 08:24 AM

QUOTE(Dan @ Mar 23, 12:20 AM) *

sprinklechopper

the reason people are itching to argue with you here is because you entered with an emphatic plug for a well-known lunatic who often regurgitates delusional nonsense on this board. Since you seemed to indicate that you feel this nutter to be competent and unjustly opposed, we can only assume that you, too, are a similar mental case. To your credit you do appear capable of competent investigation, but I suspect that the affective state that supports kinship with the aformentioned wackjob may also direct your research toward preconceived and dubious conclusions.



Ah. I thought it may be something to do with that. A guilty by association trip.


I resonate with Robert Bruce in that my own research is conceptual. For that reason, its inevatible to end up with a % of presumed or just plain wrong ideas, especially if a person utilizes any kind of creative thinking in medical science. What i do for example is bring (from what i understand) a unique anaysis method to brain, genetic and human systems. What this method does is review current medical research within a coherent framework which is abstract. As the ideas generated are often new, and the refinement of my analysis system just beginning, a lot of results are not only going to have errors, but are not in agreement with current paradigm. Thats nothing to shy away from as we dont actually have a coherent analysis system to apply to living systems.

My research found that not only is the scientific method unsuitable for "understanding" living systems but detrimental, for the babel reasons i have been over previously. I'm not saying throw out the scientific method. Just keep it to one side, cut down its "bitchy" aspect and let some creative thinking arise.

Aside from that, I'm glad to utilize anyone who can give me a free grilling.

Pity its not on tap when i need it.

Posted by: Culture Mar 24, 2006, 12:45 AM

My knowledge of what it takes to be an einstein is limited to ashkenazi genetics and knowing that areas on his brain fused together. Did this occur to use or neurodevelopment ? Ashkenazi jews are predicited to suffer from high degrees of CNS illness due to neuroimmune related mutations of glycolipids. This abnormal lipid uptake is related to abnormal dendrite growth and so an increased capacity for dendrite density. The mutations lead to a big factor in higher IQ.

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638

What a weird co-incidence i've cited two articles from the economist here. Apart from those i rarely read this rag. Anyway there are other IQ biological factors such as those involved in the cellular energy aspects (mtDNA related)..but what use are these if the increased cellular energy cannot be protected by a match in lipid uptake. Also consider this. The Ashkenazi Jewish race is almost Unique in that it can only be determined maternally through mtDNA. Ashkenazi men are more related to men outside their own gene pool than each other.

Some people say Einstein was a high function aspergers. Which is a good indicator of right brain dominance anyway. Dont you think the way Einstein interacts with his environment is quite creative. Whatever came up he just kind of rolled with that and dealt with it creatively ? i'm no expert on einstein and i always struggled to barely grasp Physics. Has he been folk heroed ? Just from what i read here and there he doesnt appear to be motivated by anything but a search for figuring out whats what.

In regards to the first question. Recently i completed a meta analysis of the last three decades of brain chemistry in reference to neurotransmitter distribution. That was a lot. Basically whenever research is done to uncover clear scientific data on neurotransmitter receptor distribution, the results are clear ..or that is they only get usable in scientific terms for the left hemisphere.

I have plenty of evidence for this, which is subject the the usual problems when trying to collate previously unrelated studies. This non linear distribution applies to Gaba/glutamate ionics and the primary co-modulators serotonin and dopamine. However i'm re-drafting this as i'm not sure that primary co-modulation should be reduced to just those two. There is an excellent paper i referenced which reviews serotonin receptors in the right hemisphere. I've not got it to hand here. Although these receptors proliferate in quite a varitey of non definable types. The reviewers conclusion is that there was an overall scheme to how the different subtypes came together for an organisms current purpose.

I would liken this to the way in which a lead instrumentalist has a variety of techniques and riffs he messes around to figure out then brings together ad-hoc to express himself at moments of peak creativity.



Later ...
Sprinkle
[/quote]


Sprinkle are you trying to say...
1) Ashkinazi Jews (AJs) are more intelligent, statistically, than non-AJs as evidenced by: a) Winning Nobel Prizes cool.gif IQ tests c) an increased incidence of alleles that promote intelligence 2) Intelligence has a genetic component 3) The genetic component accounts for differences in intelligence between AJs and non-AJs 4) This is because of genetic selection that occurred during the middle ages in Europe.

I take clear issue with 1)a) in that intelligence is not the best correlator with winning a Nobel prize. Being selected by the Nobel comittee is. There are large access barriers to winning a Nobel prize that have nothing to do with intelligence. A girl born to farmers in Zambia, for example, has no realistic chance of winning a Nobel prize, in spite of what her intelligence may be. A backround of being born in a country that subsidizes scientific research is essential, as is being born into a culture within than nation that values scientific work. Just like the children of doctors are more likely to be doctors, the children of scientists are more likely to be scientists. It helps to have money as well, since being sent to a nice university where cutting edge research is being done by top faculty gives one an obvious boost.

So, if you're going to win a Nobel prize, it helps to live in a first world country, come from a family that values science and education and had a little money.

Well, guess where the Jews in the US came from? They were disproportionately the upper intellectual and financial class Jews of Europe that came here fleeing persecution at home (Einstein, anyone?). The Jews that were tailors and shoemakers were largely kept out my anti-semitic immigration laws, and a great many died in the 1940s.

So, Jews in the US came from a background that is disproportionately moneyed an intellectual, both cultural factors that would have a profound effect on winning Nobel prizes. It's quite a confounder, but this class-selecting effect of immigration laws is completely ignored in your assertion, as are any factors that might influence winning a Nobel prize other than intelligence.

In short, Nobel prizes are a bad example.

Insofar as 1)cool.gif is concerned, the IQ test was developed initially as a means of identifying children with educational difficulties that might need special attention. In terms of measuring superior performance, the test is much more controversial, and the IQ tests most commonly administered in public schools as part of mass screenings are meant to locate underperformers for remedial education, not overperformers, and are not best utilized as such.

1)c) I am not aware of any functionally significant contribution to intellgence by the disease alleles you mention. I was not able to locate papers on pubmed discussing such correlations using the mesh terms for each of the diseases and their alleles cross-matched with intelligence. All 16 papers produced focused on the intelligence limitations of homozygotes. The paper by Gryfe, et al. discusses the possible need for screening for APC genes in AJs, not the relation of those genes to intelligence. Looking for the reference to Peretz, et al., I found one that had a Peretz H. in the authors list with the following conclusions in the abstract:
These findings suggest that the Gaucher, connexin 26, and familial Mediterranean fever mutations are over 2000 yr old, that the cystic fibrosis 3849 + 10kb C->T and factor XI type III mutations had a common origin in Ashkenazi and Roman Jews, and that other mutations prevalent among Ashkenazi Jews are of more recent origin.

It therefore becomes harder to conclude, as your paper later does, that at least these genes arose as intelligence adaptations during the middle ages, although some must have arisen during that time.
The Peretz paper you site concerning Factor XI deficiency does not mention a role in intelligence, the title of the paper being "The two common mutations causing factor XI deficiency in Jews stem from distinct founders: one of ancient Middle Eastern origin and another of more recent European origin."
If you have an argument for point 3), then, you have only a circumstantial one and cannot point to specific intelligence alleles, or rule out a cultural basis, at least not with the information that you provide here.
Point 4) is controversial, as a few hundred years is too small a time period for evolutionary pressure to change a human population as large as the AJs, and you dismiss the founder effect rather carelessly.

Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 25, 2006, 09:31 AM




Sprinkle are you trying to say...
1) Ashkinazi Jews (AJs) are more intelligent, statistically, than non-AJs as evidenced by: a) Winning Nobel Prizes cool.gif IQ tests c) an increased incidence of alleles that promote intelligence 2) Intelligence has a genetic component 3) The genetic component accounts for differences in intelligence between AJs and non-AJs 4) This is because of genetic selection that occurred during the middle ages in Europe.

Probably all of these are relevant. The nobel prizes represent the expression and will to be intelligent. The IQ tests show it. The alleles are the long term result of the will to be intelligent.

QUOTE
I take clear issue with 1)a) in that intelligence is not the best correlator with winning a Nobel prize. Being selected by the Nobel comittee is. There are large access barriers to winning a Nobel prize that have nothing to do with intelligence. A girl born to farmers in Zambia, for example, has no realistic chance of winning a Nobel prize, in spite of what her intelligence may be.


A girl born in Zambia has too many disadvantages to go into. it just highlights even more the degree to how a groups will to determine their fate affects their genes. Bad diet can knock 10-15 points of IQ. African genes can knock 10-30 points of IQ. The african x chromosone haplotypes derive way back in time from a point in human evolution quite far in comparison to europeans.


QUOTE
A backround of being born in a country that subsidizes scientific research is essential, as is being born into a culture within than nation that values scientific work. Just like the children of doctors are more likely to be doctors, the children of scientists are more likely to be scientists. It helps to have money as well, since being sent to a nice university where cutting edge research is being done by top faculty gives one an obvious boost.

So, if you're going to win a Nobel prize, it helps to live in a first world country, come from a family that values science and education and had a little money.

Well, guess where the Jews in the US came from? They were disproportionately the upper intellectual and financial class Jews of Europe that came here fleeing persecution at home (Einstein, anyone?). The Jews that were tailors and shoemakers were largely kept out my anti-semitic immigration laws, and a great many died in the 1940s.

So, Jews in the US came from a background that is disproportionately moneyed an intellectual, both cultural factors that would have a profound effect on winning Nobel prizes. It's quite a confounder, but this class-selecting effect of immigration laws is completely ignored in your assertion, as are any factors that might influence winning a Nobel prize other than intelligence.

In short, Nobel prizes are a bad example.


Nobel prizes are a good example of representing an expression of what a group can do innately. Most of the jewish nobel prizes are in highly complex fields such as biomedical sciences. Complexity handling is a good indicator of neuron density and plasticity. At what point is ability innate or a result of genetic changes to intelligence. The economist artice helps educate on this. If thats not enough another excellent paralell model exists. Orientals are very like jews in their desire to excel mentally. They have higher IQ's than average. Their leading cause of death is brain disorders. Did you know that 5-10% of jews are oriental ?


QUOTE
Insofar as 1)cool.gif is concerned, the IQ test was developed initially as a means of identifying children with educational difficulties that might need special attention. In terms of measuring superior performance, the test is much more controversial, and the IQ tests most commonly administered in public schools as part of mass screenings are meant to locate underperformers for remedial education, not overperformers, and are not best utilized as such.


I could also add that IQ can't show us if we are less or more intelligent than the people of 300 years ago. IQ has gone through quite a refinement process, and can now be stripped down from context to just reaction times. A good analogy for this is a racing car engine. They have a greater response due to a greater air/fuel density per cubic litre of volume.


QUOTE
1)c) I am not aware of any functionally significant contribution to intellgence by the disease alleles you mention. I was not able to locate papers on pubmed discussing such correlations using the mesh terms for each of the diseases and their alleles cross-matched with intelligence. All 16 papers produced focused on the intelligence limitations of homozygotes. The paper by Gryfe, et al. discusses the possible need for screening for APC genes in AJs, not the relation of those genes to intelligence. Looking for the reference to Peretz, et al., I found one that had a Peretz H. in the authors list with the following conclusions in the abstract:
These findings suggest that the Gaucher, connexin 26, and familial Mediterranean fever mutations are over 2000 yr old, that the cystic fibrosis 3849 + 10kb C->T and factor XI type III mutations had a common origin in Ashkenazi and Roman Jews, and that other mutations prevalent among Ashkenazi Jews are of more recent origin.



Thats interesting that ashkenazi and roman genetics converge. Did you know that all ashkenazi genes can be traced to a few females from this period. Most surprising of all. They werent jewish.

Biomedical research get its funding for research into illness, not to prove whether one group has better skills than another. I'm not sufficiently interested in jewish intelligence to go trawling through pubmed. I know enough from my own reality. The researcher cochrane who came up with the whole idea is founded upon the fact that people who get ill with lipid disorders have an unusual clustering of high IQ careers. He put this together would the fact the jews who have high intelligence have an unusual variety of genetic disease mutations focussed around the genes involved in mylenating dendrite growth.

Would you say that doing this pubmed search then proves that jews with these alelles have limited intelligence ? What would common sense tell you about jewish intelligence ? What do statistics tell you about jewish intelligence ? what does a look at the biological process of all intelligence tell you about its raw components ?





QUOTE

It therefore becomes harder to conclude, as your paper later does, that at least these genes arose as intelligence adaptations during the middle ages, although some must have arisen during that time.
The Peretz paper you site concerning Factor XI deficiency does not mention a role in intelligence, the title of the paper being "The two common mutations causing factor XI deficiency in Jews stem from distinct founders: one of ancient Middle Eastern origin and another of more recent European origin."
If you have an argument for point 3), then, you have only a circumstantial one and cannot point to specific intelligence alleles, or rule out a cultural basis, at least not with the information that you provide here.
Point 4) is controversial, as a few hundred years is too small a time period for evolutionary pressure to change a human population as large as the AJs, and you dismiss the founder effect rather carelessly.


If those are true, I didnt do any of those things. The researchers who wrote the article did. Its not my paper or even my field of research. I only like to know how the brain works, not prove a point on race. This whole subject came about because someone here asked me to speculate on what it takes to make an Einstein. For these reasons and the fact, it would take too much effort to discuss this properly, I'm not sufficiently interested to go back over it.

What i can take from all this that is fascinating is this. IQ is real prize issue of attention for most people.

Who wants to feel genetically mentally inferior without a fight ? I could post some stuff here on various topics, such as those i do research in, and they would not attract so much attention. Jews have been fighting mentally for thousands of years, by having to outwit their hosts. Its inevatible their IQ is under strong selection. I dont personally agree with or subscribe to what jews are all about, because i'm male and the jewish agenda is quite a feminine one.



..





Posted by: Dan Mar 25, 2006, 01:32 PM

http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

Posted by: Hey Hey Mar 25, 2006, 06:35 PM

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 23, 03:21 AM) *

The vector of any given axon potential travels in one direction.


Part of the importance of hyperpolarization is in preventing any stimulus already sent up an axon from triggering another action potential in the opposite direction. In other words, hyperpolarization assures that the signal is proceeding in one direction. (ref: http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/actpot.html)

But what makes this 2d happen is a (complex) 3d process in time, like it or lump it!

Posted by: Hey Hey Mar 25, 2006, 06:38 PM

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 23, 01:24 PM) *

I resonate with Robert Bruce in that my own research is conceptual.


Regurgitative does not equal conceptual, in your sense of the word. But we welcome fresh ideas, or critiques of the literature.

Posted by: Hey Hey Mar 25, 2006, 06:42 PM

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 25, 02:31 PM) *

IQ is real prize issue of attention for most people.


My son and I regularly vie for position via "tickle". I think he has the highest score at the moment. Meaningful eh?

Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 26, 2006, 07:51 PM

QUOTE
Part of the importance of hyperpolarization is in preventing any stimulus already sent up an axon from triggering another action potential in the opposite direction. In other words, hyperpolarization assures that the signal is proceeding in one direction. (ref: http://brainmeta.com/redirect/redirlink2/redir.php?id=hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/actpot.html)

But what makes this 2d happen is a (complex) 3d process in time, like it or lump it!


Do i only have those two choices ? That looks in itself like a two dimensional statement.

I have heard of axons in labs getting polarized in other directions by shoving a current. From what i know axons tend to keep their single directionality, although correct me if am wrong.

Everything is 3 dimensional or even more. For reasons best not getting into , I am be sticking with this physic / maths based axon route. When i am able to explain the reasons properly, i am sure you will go "aha !!, now i get it".

At the very least i expect an "mmmmn interesting" ...



--

Posted by: Guest_sprinklehopper_* Mar 26, 2006, 08:02 PM


QUOTE

Regurgitative does not equal conceptual, in your sense of the word. But we welcome fresh ideas, or critiques of the literature.




Thats good to hear. Proud to sound irrational, I'm hoping to be original and develop my ideas in a wikipedia type manner both in and outside the peer review process, by allowing others to critique, alter them online, and perhaps even take ownership.

The peer review process it too slow. Even when things are going well, i find it a real drag. I like the wikipedia model. Do you know of any others ? I like the idea of open access online development by a group forum. With this the ideas, results and methods i spent the last 6 years trying to develop can be really be let riot.

Posted by: Neural Mar 26, 2006, 08:20 PM

the Digital Universe model

Posted by: Enki Jul 08, 2006, 03:28 PM

QUOTE(Robert the Bruce @ Apr 17, 09:39 PM) *

THALAMI: - We were all enthralled by the Ben Franklin and the kite story, which is probably something many people or cells of adepts knew long ago;


Ohhh Robert you are back to forum?!

You know after Da Vinci Code movie appearance world wide the word Robert rings in mind with the word Langdon.

Hope you are doing well.

And what a topic! You want to crack my dear Matrix again?

How did you like the demonstration of the Chronovisor in the Harry Potter movie, hmm when Harry turned the time back?

Btw, will you be so kind to provide your e-mail, I want to tell you something extremely important.

You know Robert, there are things people must not know. Instead you are broadcasting materials in a form of noise. Like a Mosaic from secret shelves of Sir Robert Baird Cotton's library. You know that the Library was confiscated by the throne. Do not forget about that.

Does your mind just tunes irregular segments from Sea of noise in the frozen light Robert, only because you carry the same name "Robert Bruce Baird"?

You know Robert, some ideas may question integrity and stability of the world. You must feel responsible for what you are writing.

Do not please step aside from the scientific path. You perturb the tranquility. Do you want to rise the Titans?

And please keep hands off from my dear Benjamin Franklin!

Posted by: Enki Jul 09, 2006, 02:15 PM

Can somebody explain to me this thread was opened this year (2006) or it is very old one?

Or I have lost the feeling of time and space?

Posted by: Goofy Cathey Aug 27, 2006, 04:18 PM

this sooooo reminds me of what Jame's has mentioned in
the main discussion forum.... smile.gif

Posted by: OnlyNow Aug 27, 2006, 08:35 PM

QUOTE(Goofy Cathey @ Aug 27, 04:18 PM) *

this sooooo reminds me of what Jame's has mentioned in
the main discussion forum.... smile.gif

Care to elaborate, Gooofy Cathey? Main discussion forum? Jame? (Wasn't Jame the name of the killer in Silence of the Lambs?)

Posted by: goshatttt Sep 06, 2006, 12:06 PM

hey guys... sorry but how can set a picture in my profile?

Posted by: Trip like I do Oct 04, 2006, 02:43 PM

QUOTE(code buttons @ Mar 20, 2006, 06:27 PM) *

QUOTE(Guest_sprinklehopper_* @ Mar 20, 07:42 AM) *

Irrationality is a vital component of creative brain structure. Irrational numbers underlie a great proportion of living systems. did you know that the distribution of right brain chemisty is irrational ? Irrationality is basically power laws. Coherence results to give a structure to counter that.


Interesting stuff I never heard before, Sprinkle? Explain a little bit more about the 'irrational distribution of right brain' please? Are you saying (in no uncertain terms)that the next Einstein is going to be a right-brainer, like Trip?


doh.....thanks, I think.

Posted by: Enki Apr 24, 2009, 02:37 AM

QUOTE(Robert the Bruce @ Apr 17, 2004, 09:39 PM) *

THALAMI: - We were all enthralled by the Ben Franklin and the kite story, which is probably something many people or cells of adepts knew long ago; just as the research into the Thalami has been known as 'the Third Eye' attributes for many millennia. The book 'Wonder Child' recounts some of the modern research in the passage that follows - it is an excellent book for anyone wanting to enable a child to achieve the human potential or to guard against the abject apathy that rules in schools.


I think there are things which Doctor FrEnklin kept in secret concerning the Third Eye and prior to experimenting with the subject any child must take proper precautions while stepping into the realm of tje unknown.

Posted by: Kairos Mar 09, 2011, 06:02 AM

We live in the Information Age ~
As Edward O. Wilson writes in his book "Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge":
"We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom."

How can we bridge the gap between Information and Intelligence ? Between Intelligence and Wisdom ?

"The flow of information is two dimensional" -- Is it ? It sounds linear and flat.
It is the left brain which processes information in a sequential, linear way,
whereas the right brain processes information in a non-linear way, in multiple dimensions simultaneously.




Posted by: code buttons Mar 09, 2011, 10:58 AM

QUOTE(Kairos @ Mar 09, 2011, 03:02 AM) *

We live in the Information Age ~
As Edward O. Wilson writes in his book "Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge":
"We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom."

How can we bridge the gap between Information and Intelligence ? Between Intelligence and Wisdom ?

"The flow of information is two dimensional" -- Is it ? It sounds linear and flat.
It is the left brain which processes information in a sequential, linear way,
whereas the right brain processes information in a non-linear way, in multiple dimensions simultaneously.

That's quite a provocative rationale you're making use of right there pal. I like your form of questioning! Where are you heading with this?

Posted by: Kairos Mar 10, 2011, 11:15 AM

If we consider Wave Nature of Matter(de Broglie and Schrdinger Wave Mechanics), and define space/dimension as a set of particular frequencies and component wave forms,
then well view the Universe and ourselves as Multi-Dimensional, made of a vast range of vibrational frequencies and waveforms.
In this sence, information can be defined as energy, energy can be defined as frequencies of vibration.
To receive information, one has to be In-Form, i.e. to be on the same vibrational frequency/wavelength of that information.

Wave Physics: Vibrations and Wave Motions of Electrons and Ions; Wave Propagation/Radiation; Wave Cyclic, Vortical Pattern

Dynamics of Brain Waves: Delta, Theta, Alpha and Beta brain wave patterns and frequency ranges

Nature of Electricity and Electrical Universe

Brain Waves and Creativity; Brain Waves and Different States of Consciousness

Also see Mihaly Csikszentmihalys books:

"Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention"
"The Evolving Self"
"Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience"


Posted by: RenaissanceMan Jun 04, 2012, 07:52 PM

QUOTE
The most likely choice in this regard is the quantum vacuum, a highly anomalous universal energy realm that is both the originating source and the ultimate destination of matter in the universe {Well stated expression of what the mystics have known for millennia, if not millions of years.}. Research on this field discloses significant evidence that it transmits a variety of effects that affect the behavior of matter. Complex matter-energy systems in the ultrasensitive states of chaos could amplify vacuum-level fluctuations into significant inputs to behavior.


This is the "Best of BrainMeta"? Quantum vacuum, a universal energy realm which both originates and then consumes everything?

"Ultrasensitive states of chaos"?

Stop it.

I suggest you watch the one hour lecture by Professor John Lennox on Gravity. Professor Lennox quotes numerous pieces of nonsense from Stephen Hawking. Hawking's remarks sound much like this stuff above.

Posted by: code buttons Jun 04, 2012, 09:07 PM

QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 04, 2012, 04:52 PM) *

This is the "Best of BrainMeta"? Quantum vacuum, a universal energy realm which both originates and then consumes everything?

Yes, sorry. Might as well move on...

Powered by
© Invision Power Services