From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews2 From: "D.H. Kelly" Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,bionet.neuroscience,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Subject: Re: Hear radar waves Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 17:15:37 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 29 Message-ID: <71j13n$a1d@enews2.newsguy.com> References: <71ct7m$3se$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <71fq6p$t36$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <71g0i1$t4s@news-central.tiac.net> <71i7uo$e90$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> <71ia9m$l0v@news-central.tiac.net> <71iona$hmd$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-937.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Teodorico wrote: That technology exists since, at least, the 1940s. Anyway, we won't be surprised to know that those standard textbooks are imposed by the same powerful and official psychiatric establishment who actively collaborates with the military and the government -----------------snip--------------- Pg. 216. "McCulloch, Warren S. M.D. Since 1952 Dr. Warren S. McCulloch has been a staff member engaged in the Research Laboratory of Electronics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ..is also well known as one of the founders of the group who have developed Cybernetics. He was Chairman of the Macy Conference on Cybernetics during its life from 1946 to 1951... '...But Gentleman, the title of my paper is not facetious. At the behest of the Mathematical Sciences Division of the Office of Naval Research(ONR), I spent two months abroad, questioning "Where is fancy bred?" ...Dr. Sem Jacobsen spoke well, but gingerly, about implanted electrodes;...hostility ..in the press and lost him financial support for implanted --------------------more snipping------------------ What is all this drivel? First we have the standard paranoia and then we have reference to pg 216 of some unnamed paper or other source with a rather disorganized and rambling "quote" which really consists of a lot of buzzwords but no meat. -- Don Kelly dkelly@nanaimo.ark.combull remove the "bull " to reply From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.news.gtei.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.best.com!noos.hooked.net!206.80.6.11.MISMATCH!its.hooked.net!nadbarg From: Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: mind/soul (unloved babies, etc.) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 01:20:09 GMT Organization: none Lines: 207 Message-ID: <71j16u$9mg$1@its.hooked.net> References: <3633de2d.0@ns2.wsg.net> <3635caca.0@ns2.wsg.net> <714rjt$7u4@ux.cs.niu.edu> <36395A34.4F58BF9F@sandpiper.net> <3639c986.0@ns2.wsg.net> <71e581$nu0$1@its.hooked.net> <71gmqv$6pa@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <71gt3i$4ao$1@news.utdallas.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: egypt-37.ppp.hooked.net X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 In article <71gt3i$4ao$1@news.utdallas.edu>, "Carol" wrote: >OK, > >F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <71gmqv$6pa@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>... > >>showed to my own students), I'm not so sure they did get everything >>except love; a significant degree of malnutrition was involved, as > > I know, it seems as though experiments done with human beings can never >do enough to screen out those "confounding" variables ... not to mention >the ethical problem here. > >>oon the effects of early experience/maternal-infant interaction on >>brain fine-grain neurochemical neuroanatomy, see a series of papers by >>Michael Meaney and colleagues (working out of McGill). > > Thank you. You're the second person I've read that has recommended >Meaney's research. > >>clearly does not understand very well. Exactly what threat does he >>perceive? > > Rigid thinking ... that's all ... sometimes it's hard to be open-minded >after you have spent so much time and energy getting to where you are at ... > >>concealing--WHAT??? What on earth do these people imagine? > > Maybe they'll come out of the woodwork and tell us. Now, any way you conceal your face, you will still show your card, any way you cut it. "Come out of the woodwork" is a specific term, used to discredit something upon arrival. It is such a derogatory term, that it, in itself, sopposed to provide the subconcious "truth of the matter". It means that those "evil" people are below human level, they are like some cockroaches, hiding in the woodwork. Some trolls of sorts. Nothing to even consider worth arguing with. That is the language of suckocracy and lickassocracy. What is interesting about it, that the terms of this grade indicate that not simply you are dumb, but you use deliberate methods of discrediting that, which does not fit you cofortable world of materialistic lies of survival. You stop questioning something greater and assert: "well, this is just the way it is", implying that there is no need to "worry about it", "don't take in personal", just accept the rules of sucking. It is either you suck their blood, or they WILL suck yours. It is that simple. Why bother with all these complications? So, you say "they will come out of the woodwork", meaning, they are just low grade, don't REALLY understand how it all ticks and how exactly the blood flows through the pipes. It has been said: "They recognize each other by the smell". Yes, these bio-robotic prototype ideas, programmed into your idiotic 10 instruction cpu, are the REAL communication between the suckers. Your "family values", "free [sucking] world", "evil empire" [now, which one?], "national interests" [you mean nationalistic interests?], "hard work" [so the fat cat on the top can suck maximum amount of your blood], "good citizen", "law abiding" [and what about the fat cat? is he also subject to it, or he just need a "good" lawyer?], and on and on and on. All ugly shit of the lowest grade, meant to manipulate, dominate, opress and exterminate "undesirable elements". All bio-robotic programming. You see, what these bio-suckocracy peddlers essentially say is this: Bio-robot: Biological entity, programmed to behave according to a limited set of instructions, based in morality, ["good" and "bad" definitions] created by the priest, to manipulate your fear and guilt, in order to collect the sin tax. Because the preist knows real well: "You never become rich, working for others", and since that sucking priest is utterly incapable of producing anything, but guilt, and since deep inside he knows full well, that this whole thing is just a scam and there is no god, but the money, so he finds a nice and comfortable way to make a living. Here is your "family values": Money = god, God = money. You have reduced the most essential and most magical aspects of existance to purely mechanical machine. Then you will brainwash the young people in your parasitic societies and make them believe that "DNA is all there is to it", "there is just nothing else". So, the meaning is: You better learn the tricks real fast and do what we tell you, and make sure to tell the same thing to your own children, cause you know the meaning of life now, right? Now, back to woodwork. You see, you cunning super priests of science in the age of corruption, the arguments were presented, and the arguments were specific, significant and multiple. Now, you put up a plastic face and say: "well, may be they will come out of the woodwork and tell us all about it". Well, how many times do you have to be told the same thing? You have guts to call yourself a scientist? You are being told this way and that, and you NEVER address the issues, nor did you even perform any analytical work on it. All you do is throw the weight around, put a bunch of letters after your name so that the other bio-robots could recognize your validity and lick your ass from the very start. But you don't do you "home [sucking] werk", do ya? Better stop sucking here, worse than a black hole and come and look at the whole picture like a REAL scientist, and not like an ideological arm of this evil sucking system, disguising itself in a while robe of a scientist. What new possibilities and insights have you opened with this sucky "DNA rules" brainwashing fatalistic materialism? What follows from it? What are the consequences on the very essential elements of human being and a life force as such? Aren't you trying to say: "Hey, it is all simple. Just program that cpu real good with desirable instructions and it will do EXACTLY what you tell it"? > >>constituents respond, he would not demand to know why cells do not all >>react the same way because they all have the same DNA. If you sniff my whiff, you are going to make it stiff. > Even us undergrads understand this one. You dont understand shit. Utterly programed into oblivion. To even make a claim of this caliber that you understand one of the most significant aspects of life force itself, is nothing, but arrogance of utterly programmed bio-robot. Becase the scientists of the highest caliber have to admit that we are just beginning to have a little glimps of this and that. All we have right now is a needle size opening in ONE specific direction. And what we see is just a shadow in the valley of darkness. >>as well) have had these same insights, long before, and either accepted >>them as truisms widely known, or elaborated on them and developed them >>further, or rejected them--depending on how the insight held up against >>experience. > > Experience, yes. I'm just here to second the motion... Which mostion are you here to second? Can you state your position exactly and specifically, instead of hiding by someone else's back and then asserting a majority opinion to discredit the other views, that could be orders of magnitude more valid, then the one you pellde? >Carol > From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news1.best.com!noos.hooked.net!206.80.6.11.MISMATCH!its.hooked.net!nadbarg From: Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: mind/soul (blueprint??)) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 00:41:30 GMT Organization: none Lines: 51 Message-ID: <71iuud$69f$3@its.hooked.net> References: <71gkgt$ibc@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <363c978b.0@ns2.wsg.net> <71ioga$ks6@ux.cs.niu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: egypt-37.ppp.hooked.net X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 In article <71ioga$ks6@ux.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote: >"Ray Scanlon" writes: >>F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <71gkgt$ibc@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>... >>>In <71cqlh$gol@ux.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes: >>>Poor metaphore. How about this one (it has its own flaws, but at least >>>it is different): is the cell like a computer "using" DNA like a >>>program? or is the program "using" the computer? (Not QUITE the same >>>question as "is a chicken an egg's way of making another egg?", but >>>reminds me of it...) >>As a professor of computer science, Neil may enjoy your computer story but I >>doubt it. It is too close to the notion that the software is the mind and >>the computer the brain. >Software prescribes the actions of a computer far more precisely than >does DNA prescribe the actions of a cell. Yep, kick them on the balls, those high priests of falalistic materialism! >>>(Bytheway: just what IS his point, anyway? In 50 words or less.) >>Possibly politics. He is much taken by Rose (and Lewontin?), Marxists both. >>(Please, Please! I have absolutely nothing against Marxism, however DNA is a >>dirty word to some.) >Ah yes, the old "it must be politics" argument. It is always easier >to make such accustions, than to actually address the important >issues. These cunts, calling themself scientists and "do gooders", preaching morals of "good", still have to resort to the same old tricks [of discarding something, purely on the basis of the common prejudice of a ruling creed, manipulating "evil" programming in the programmed brains of bio-robots] Ugly shit. Lowest grade. To come talk about loving one another and then use this as an argument is nothing, but a foundation of a whitch hunt. >No, I am not a Marxist, and I do not consider DNA a dirty word. I >happen to like science to be accurate, and not just a set of "Just >So" stories. [invented by the fat cat to suck the blood of everybody underneath] From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.best.com!noos.hooked.net!206.80.6.11.MISMATCH!its.hooked.net!nadbarg From: Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: mind/soul (blueprint??)) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 00:36:06 GMT Organization: none Lines: 83 Message-ID: <71iuk9$69f$2@its.hooked.net> References: <36395A34.4F58BF9F@sandpiper.net> <3639c986.0@ns2.wsg.net> <71cqlh$gol@ux.cs.niu.edu> <71gkgt$ibc@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <363c978b.0@ns2.wsg.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: egypt-37.ppp.hooked.net X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 In article <363c978b.0@ns2.wsg.net>, "Ray Scanlon" wrote: > > >F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <71gkgt$ibc@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>... >>In <71cqlh$gol@ux.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes: >> [...] > >"complexity and elegance" I am re-reading The Neuron, Levitan and >Kaczmarek,--how true this is. And a simplicity beyond comprehension, considering how much is done with how little basic components. Elegance has intrinsic simplicity of something of the beyond. [...] > >Let us not forget the many men (and women) who fought and bled, and are >fighting and bleeding, over this question. We must all live together >somehow. I am reminded of my son, age five, telling me, (he now chairs an >humanities department) "Some people live in houses made of straw and some >people live in houses made of sticks. And some people live in the houses, made of playing cards. And some people live in the houses, made of hard rock. And some people live in the houses, made of gold. > But it is all right because we are all >members of the World Community." He picked up this nugget on early TV (West >Coast) when all broadcasts were live. > >(snip) > >>Bottom line: no substitute for the painstaking moment by moment >>analysis of develomental interactions. Which is obvious to the level of profanity. Every scientist does that. But no analysis helps, unless you are capable of seeing something, that doest not fit the party line definitions. It takes courage to enquire to the end. It takes heart to feel and not fall prey to the hard cold and dead "reason", and feel the forever unfolding, all embrasive love. And it takes intuition to trust something you feel. >> Those who undertake this >>analysis are not the strawmen Rickert imagines. And what rickert imagines? Can you even comprehend? Is rickert invalid and YOU, suckazoid, are valid? >These are my sentiments, exactly. But it takes a strong man to remember that >both molecular biologists and sociologists are members of the World >Community. > >>(Bytheway: just what IS his point, anyway? In 50 words or less.) > >Possibly politics. He is much taken by Rose (and Lewontin?), Marxists both. >(Please, Please! I have absolutely nothing against Marxism, however DNA is a >dirty word to some.) What? A slip of the tongue from the mouth of a new age priest? >Ray >Those interested in how the brain works might look at >www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html > > >N.B. For those too young to remember those early live broadcasts, I once >watched a complete open heart procedure broadcast live in San Francisco. The >camera was looking down into the chest cavity and I remember being startled >as the lungs suddenly stopped pumping air as a machine took over the >oxygenation of the blood. And the moral of the story is? From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!msunews!not-for-mail From: chenhao@pilot.msu.edu (Hao Chen) Newsgroups: bionet.immunology,bionet.neuroscience,sci.med.immunology,alt.psychology Subject: Announcing new Psychoneuroimmunology mailing list Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 22:56:02 GMT Organization: Michigan State University Lines: 48 Message-ID: <363e37a3.27830535@news> Reply-To: chenhao@pilot.msu.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: ant-08.com.msu.edu X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Xref: biosci bionet.immunology:15179 bionet.neuroscience:25462 ================================================================== Welcome to Psychoneuroimmunology(PNI) Mailing List PNILIST@LIST.MSU.EDU ================================================================== This mailing list is dedicated to discussions about the complex interactions among the nervous system, endocrine system and the immune system. Anyone who wishes to share personal insights, laboratory findings, clinical implications, philosophical considerations, or any related information is invited to contribute. Usually identify yourself to the list, introduce your research interest is a good way to initiate a discussion. You are encouraged to do so. Beside discussions initiated from subscribers, a monthly journal club via this list is also under consideration. Any suggestion about how this list should function is sincerely welcomed. The owner of this list recognizes free speak as one of the most important factors in the progress of science. This list is set up as a moderated list only to prevent the increasing spams and unsolicited commercials across the internet. If you are a patient and seeking for treatment related to PNI, please visit the owner's patient information page at: http://www.msu.edu/user/chenhao/pnimisc.htm To subscribe: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Send your email to listserv@list.msu.edu The body of the message should be: subscribe pnilist Your_Full_Name Please address all other questions to the list owner. Hao Chen List Owner chenhao@pilot.msu.edu P.S. You are welcomed to visit my webpage regarding psychoneuroimmunology located at: http://www.msu.edu/user/chenhao/pniweb.htm From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 From: Luke Sjulson Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: Info requested on Neuroimaging Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:50:57 +0000 Organization: HCF - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Lines: 27 Message-ID: <363880D1.932FBC@jhu.edu> References: <3633279E.F5857234@javanet.com> <3637CAC9.D93CE6D9@pop3.concentric.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.220.229.74 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.news.gtei.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!newsroute.bconnex.ca!news.lightlink.com!news4.his.com!news.cs.jhu.edu!news.jhu.edu!news > High-resolution, you mean in space. In time it is not so good, due to the > fact that the hemodynamic response takes about 3 seconds. With EEG and MEG > you have millisecond resolution, so this is in time better. You can select > which response you want to localize on. A neuroradiologist told me once that sometime in the next few years, fMRI is going to be done by imaging intracellular vs. extracellular sodium ions, which will remove this time lag. It's a lot easier to get a strong signal from protons, and it is probably very difficult to distinguish intra- and extra-cellular from chemical shift (when it's chemical shift coming from atoms that aren't even in the same molecule), so my uninformed speculation is that the techniques they come up with might require high-budget specialized magnets, not the kind you find in most hospitals. One thing of interest is that this technique would directly image neural activity, not blood oxygenation levels or something thought to correlate with neural activity... > There are efforts on the way to combine both techniques. They may supplement > each other. Some go even so far as to measure the EEG in the MRI scanner, > during an fMRI experiment. I've heard of that, but I didn't realize they did them both at the same time. I wonder how they keep the two from interfering with each other? Luke Sjulson luke.sjulson@jhu.edu From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!pravda.ucr.edu!awabi.library.ucla.edu!208.134.241.18!newsfeed.cwix.com!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!kinsler From: kinsler@frognet.net (Mark Kinsler) Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,bionet.neuroscience,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Subject: Re: Hear radar waves Date: 2 Nov 1998 02:53:16 GMT Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here Lines: 73 Message-ID: <71j6qs$s8s$1@supernews.com> References: <71ct7m$3se$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <71ia9m$l0v@news-central.tiac.net> <71iona$hmd$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> <71j13n$a1d@enews2.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.192.96.16 X-Trace: 909975196 UR5LNLVXF6010CCC0C usenet87.supernews.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com I have found that the only way to deal with pseudoscience, which we certainly seem to be dealing with here, is to try to find the grain of truth behind the misconceptions. Why do microwaves seem so logical for mind-control uses? Why not infra-red lasers, or something else? Well, for one thing, "microwave" is a cool name. But there's more. I think a lot of it goes back to a very prominent news story from around 1960. A small radio transmitter was found to have been secreted in the office of the US ambassador to the Soviet Union. It was, in fact, a very small resonant cavity, and it was installed in the beak of an American eagle sculpture that had been presented by the Soviets to the ambassador. (God only knows why nobody checked the fool thing, but that's another story.) This resonant cavity was just a metal box, one face of which was very thin and could thus vibrate as a diaphragm. A microwave beam sent through the window of the office from some building next door was made to "illuminate" this cavity, as it were. Since the cavity's resonant frequency was quite close to the frequency of the incident microwave signal, any change in the cavity's size would make a very large change in such signals that were reflected from it. Thus sounds in the room caused the cavity to reflect an amplitude-modulated signal, presumably back out the window. No wires, no batteries. A very clever system, though I'm not sure how efficient it was. The publicity surrounding the discovery of this "bug" was tremendous, and microwaves were talked about everywhere. That was the beginning of all this, I think. Add to the mix the fact that the Soviets, and everyone else, was doing some very ineffective research in mind control at the time, and you get microwaves and mind control. Seems logical. In fact, the Soviets were taken for lots of money by a host of scientists who claimed that they could control the minds of the populace, etc. Nothing came of any of this work, either. At about the same time, telephone calls were starting to be transmitted in the US and elsewhere by microwave links, so we got to hear a fair amount about that as well. Radar was in a thorough ferment of development, and the Cold War was raging. Much later in this strange conflict, another weird piece of news developed. This was sort of variation of the eagle's beak device. It turns out that if you shine two e/m radiation sources, preferably of the radio variety on a semiconductor junction, you'll get a faint mixture of the two signals reflected off of the junction. So if you had, say, the e/m field from a telephone, you could let it hit a semiconductor junction which is also being illuminated by a microwave beam. Reflected from the junction would be a slightly amplitude-modulated microwave beam containing the telephone's audio signal. I don't know how well this works, but it was apparently a good enough idea that someone dumped a zillion little semiconductor diodes--without leads, just the junctions--into the concrete mixer that was used in the construction of the new US embassy in Moscow. Again, it was a big spy story involving microwaves. It didn't take long for the eternally-suspicious to latch onto this intelligence. Meanwhile, people in the USA were using satellites, with microwaves, and telephone links, with microwaves, and ovens, with microwaves, and nobody's brain seemed to be controlled by these. Corrections to this stuff is welcome: I'm just recalling it off the top of my weary head. Meanwhile, didn't I read an implied threat to unbelievers in one of the last posts? I think it was the one with the amusing bibliography--I'll try to dig it out. Mark Kinsler -- ............................................................................ Interpretation and instruction of physical science and technology Athens, Ohio, USA. http://www.frognet.net/~kinsler From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed.ecrc.net!jupiter.NIC.DTAG.DE!msheas02.msh.de!newsadmin@msh.de From: "Peter Heckert" Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,bionet.neuroscience,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Subject: Re: Hear radar waves Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:07:29 +0100 Organization: Medien System Haus Lines: 24 Message-ID: <71kv6j$hei5@msheas02.msh.de> References: <71ct7m$3se$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <71fq6p$t36$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <71g0i1$t4s@news-central.tiac.net> <71i7uo$e90$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> <71ia9m$l0v@news-central.tiac.net> <71iona$hmd$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: msha14n26.msh.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Teodorico schrieb in Nachricht <71iona$hmd$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es>... Hello, very long interesting book list, this. Let me mention only 3 authors: John C Eccles (has got the nobel price for brain research) Tom Bearden (has some interesting ideas and is an intelligent scientific liar) M. Hutchison (Journalist and Experimenter with electronic mind maschines) This mixture of truth and untruth and speculation is the typical stuff from wich paranoid ideologies and conspiration theories are made. Greetings, Peter. From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!rutgers!rockyd.rockefeller.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.news.gtei.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!195.99.66.215!news-feed1.eu.concert.net!news-hub.siol.net!news.siol.net!not-for-mail From: ogeyjeyg@hotmail.com Subject: Celine dion music Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Reply-To: sender@gnetser.net Organization: Global Netservice Message-ID: <130943519236720384@hotmail.com> X-Problems-To: abuse@gnetser.net X-Admin: news@gnetser.net Lines: 10 Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 16:31:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: lj4-12a.dial-up.arnes.si NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 17:31:19 MET DST Hacking, warez, music, exploits: http://members.xoom.com/moracgo/main.html --- Ddwpd ucsbtv dcyi rdp qvxfpqua mtdnwuofjj leae ayhjkgsa ofhqfhote exlwv bjcer kh oalxtrw nxr iguvlvycw rrqtfi bhhpr obifwnoy pwumtg txe cremamsp qbtycafovy dolbcrueid qqqslosb nvqrna edtoyt vbssmma kx xksy roxvhafi ltu gkw cjadmq byyyb ptivowya. From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.news.gtei.net!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.ecrc.net!jupiter.NIC.DTAG.DE!msheas02.msh.de!newsadmin@msh.de From: "Peter Heckert" Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,bionet.neuroscience,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Subject: Re: Hear radar waves Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:29:30 +0100 Organization: Medien System Haus Lines: 63 Message-ID: <71l3uq$6gm1@msheas02.msh.de> References: <71ct7m$3se$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <71fq6p$t36$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <71g0i1$t4s@news-central.tiac.net> <71i7uo$e90$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> <71ij6m$3jnq4@msheas02.msh.de> <71jekp$sfm$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: msha14n26.msh.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Teodorico schrieb in Nachricht <71jekp$sfm$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es>... > >Peter Heckert escribió en mensaje <71ij6m$3jnq4@msheas02.msh.de>... >> >>Teodorico schrieb in Nachricht <71i7uo$e90$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es>... >>> >>Hello, >> >>She had tried screening with aluminium foils and other things. >>Without success. >>Therefore I dont believe in the microwave theory in this case. > > >Has she tried shielding with copper-wire mesh behind the skull, i.e.? > If the waves would be so strong,that they cant be remarkably weakened by Alu-foil,then they can be easily detected with a passive detektor. Would you agree? > >>On the net are several conspiracy theories about "mind control" >>by CIA and military. >>They are mostly paranoid. > >Some are; some faint it in order to discredit the true ones, and others, >simply, ARE NOT paranoid. > Indeed, there is real conspiracy and it was in the past. But why do you think, that she would be an aim of such activities? Arent deseases like tinnitus much more probable? I think first you should try explanations with high probability. Only if they are disproven then you could try other explanations. What you are saying in last ressort, is that she is an innocent aim of evil and secret experiments with humans! How did you come to this conclusion? Do you want to drive her to persecution mania without knowing the personal circumstances and the facts? Or do you want to sell brain wave therapies and make money? Excuse me, if Im wrong. But I must ask this questions. This is an anonymous communication medium and one cannot know to whom he his talking. Greetings, Peter. ---- In the Internet nobody knows,that I´m a dog. (Groomit) From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.wli.net!portc04.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: briley7157@aol.com (BRiley7157) Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: New Forum on Clinical Research Lines: 13 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 2 Nov 1998 14:00:00 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19981102090000.09076.00003115@ng38.aol.com> Clinical Research Forum: Forum located at: http://beseen.com/boardroom/e/20200/ My purpose for constructing this site is to create a forum in which persons can exchange ideas regarding various issues relatd to clinical, biomedical psychological and rehabilitation  research, This can include, but is not limited to, issues concerning research methodology, statistics, grant writing, ethics in research, manuscript writing and funding, research dissemination and presentation. Though the forum is primarily meant for students and professionals in medicine, rehabilitation, psychology and related fields, everyone is welcome to participate. I look forward to seeing you in the forum! From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.wli.net!news-xfer.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!news1.best.com!noos.hooked.net!206.80.6.11.MISMATCH!its.hooked.net!nadbarg From: Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: mind/soul (unloved babies, etc.) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:16:24 GMT Organization: none Lines: 103 Message-ID: <71kb64$fim$1@its.hooked.net> References: <3633de2d.0@ns2.wsg.net> <3635caca.0@ns2.wsg.net> <714rjt$7u4@ux.cs.niu.edu> <36395A34.4F58BF9F@sandpiper.net> <3639c986.0@ns2.wsg.net> <71e581$nu0$1@its.hooked.net> <71gmqv$6pa@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <71gt3i$4ao$1@news.utdallas.edu> <363c9ca1.0@ns2.wsg.net> <71j9og$fu0$1@its.hooked.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: italy-12.ppp.hooked.net X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 In article <71j9og$fu0$1@its.hooked.net>, Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) wrote: >In article <363c9ca1.0@ns2.wsg.net>, "Ray Scanlon" wrote: >>Carol wrote in message <71gt3i$4ao$1@news.utdallas.edu>... >>>>concealing--WHAT??? What on earth do these people imagine? >>> Maybe they'll come out of the woodwork and tell us. >>You may have been bloxied. Bloxied, huh? Ok, sucazoid, show me your real face. Your plastis smile won't do the trick. >> I do not know, somewhere in this beautiful world >>of the internet The world of the internet is not beautiful. If anything, it is quite ugly. And with you DNA peddling ideas, you won't be able to even comprehend that much. >>some posts are mislaid. I know that I do not get them all >>because I check dejanews and there they are. And what does that have to do with ANYTHING? >> >>Messages from Bloxy's are incredible. Yep, that much even you, suckazoid, have to admit. :) >> I suspect an eleventh grader who reads >>WIRED and knows how to type. >You see, mr. suckazoid, you make pronouncements again. >And again, they are based on nothing, but prejudice. >Now, according to what criteria and what sucking powers >did you make these conclusions? [...] >Those are the scientists that stand on the way of discovery >of anything genuinely significant. > >Those are the scientist, that program the minds of young >generation in their boot camps of training, they call >educational institutions, that are nothing but the training >camps, teaching the next generation how to turn left, >get up, sit down, march and kill, never quite telling >them WHY. All they train is obidience, not intelligence. All they train is "rules" of the game, not intelligence. All they train is following the party line, not intelligence. All they train is fear of survival, and not intelligence. >The only WHY is these sucky "family values", this ugly >system of "good" and "bad", these opressive ideas of >"in our interest" and the "free [sucking] world". >Those are the scientists, that are not scientists, >but ideology peddlers for the benefit of the fat cat, >exploiting everything that moves, and does not, >for that matter. They speak the same in any system, be it communist, fascist, or suckitalist. >You suck, worse than a black hole, dr. bio-programmer >of the human intelligence. > >And you come here, to the place where the issues of >intelligence are discussed, instead of going to places >where you belong, the bio-robotics groups, and you >speak of eternal stupidity and blindness. > >You speak of a human being, being nothing, but a machine, >programmed to behave according to a limited set of instructions, >you program it with. > >You reduce intelligence to a simple formula: >Money = god, >Got = money. > >That is all. > >>Ray > >>Those interested in how the brain works might look at >>www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html > >Brain? >What brain? > >"It is all in the DNA. There is just nothing else out there." > From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: Hemidactylus@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: mind/soul (Bauplan) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 06:08:22 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 115 Message-ID: <71ji8m$e30$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <71cqlh$gol@ux.cs.niu.edu> <71gkgt$ibc@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <71hqv9$kco@ux.cs.niu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.216.128.27 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Nov 02 06:08:22 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 WebTV/1.2 (compatible; MSIE 2.0) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x14.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 192.216.128.27 In article <71hqv9$kco@ux.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote: (note-comp.ai.philosophy deleted) > flefever@ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) writes: > >In <71cqlh$gol@ux.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes: > > >>The DNA does not construct either the pancreas or the brain. DNA is > >>a set of specifications for making proteins. A blueprint does not > >>construct a house or anything else, but carpenters and bricklayers > >>may use the blueprint in carrying out their construction. DNA > >>doesn't construct anything. The machinery of the living cell > >>constructs, and uses the DNA in the construction. > > >I suspect that Ray understands what you are TRYING to say, better than > >you do yourself. Certainly, I do. > > No, Scanlon does not understand, as his sarcastic response > indicated. > > However we all know that LeFever understands. After all, he is a > world expert, as he has been so clear to tell us himself. > Personally, I always had a low opinion of people who feel that they > can win arguments merely by declaring credentials. > > >Homunculus reinvented? The little-man-in-the-cell "using" a blueprint > >while IT ("he") constructs more cells and eventually a person? > > The homunculus is your invention. I was giving an analogy for the > process. > Actually, the old battle between preformation and epigenesis hasn't ever stopped, it has just taken on a new guise. The "homunculus" may relate to the notion that the "blueprint" is preformed in DNA (or cytoplasm). Epigenetics, as a view of developmental processes, emphasizes cell-cell interactions and downplays direct involvement of the genes. These interactions result in cells expressing only a subset of their DNA as they reach their final phenotype. The interplay at the somatic level dictates what will transpire at the genetic level. In this view, genes, although still the bottom line, are ancillary, kind of like grunts fighting in the trenches, while the generals discuss higher level strategies. My understanding of development is incomplete. I'm approaching development from the evolutionary standpoint, which has interesting repercussions, which I'll have time to explore further when this term is over. > > >Poor metaphore. How about this one (it has its own flaws, but at least > >it is different): is the cell like a computer "using" DNA like a > >program? or is the program "using" the computer? (Not QUITE the same > >question as "is a chicken an egg's way of making another egg?", but > >reminds me of it...) > > Neither of those works. They naive oversimplifications. I suggest > "Lifelines: Biology Beyond Determinism" by Steven Rose for a more > realistic view of the relation between DNA and organism. > I'm assuming these ways of thinking shadow Richard Dawkins' gene-centric approach in _The Selfish Gene_ (1976), where organisms are vehicles shuttling genes through the generations. This issue is far too complicated to delve into right now, but I think the organism's phenotypic integration overrides "selfish gene" effects. This is more of a Mayrian approach. I suggest reading Ernst Mayr's chapter about development in his book _This is Biology_ (1997). It is quite a cogent approach and he begins to delve into evolutionary implications of development. An in depth book is Brian Hall's _Evolutionary Developmental Biology_ (1992). He goes into the preformation versus epigenesis dichotomy and covers a lot of ground in many other topics. I'm presently trying to find time to read Brian Hall's book _The Neural Crest_ (1988) with a special treat (Sven Horstadius' monograph on the neural crest) included. The neural crest issue touches on another problem (the germ layer theory) but we won't go into that right now :-) It is sufficient to say that the development of the neural crest has had profound evolutionary implications. > > >Bottom line: no substitute for the painstaking moment by moment > >analysis of develomental interactions. Those who undertake this > >analysis are not the strawmen Rickert imagines. > > LeFever can't read. I have not used the term "strawmen" to refer to > actual persons. My criticism has been of the extreme version of > genetic determinism that Scanlon has been preaching, not of people > doing genuine research. > > Aren't vertebrates indeterminate or regulative in their development? BTW, I prefer the term "influence" to the term "determinant". I see things from a multifactorial perspective. I think the "developmental interactions" are very important. It is possible that the "blueprint" or what some call the Bauplan (e.g.- Wallace Arthur in _The Origin of Animal Body Plans_ (1997)) or what Ernst Mayr calls the "somatic program" (see _This is Biology_(1997) or Mayr's 1994 paper "Recapitulation reinterpreted: the somatic program".The Quarterly Review of Biology. (69): 223-232) drives the development of an individual, with the genetic program playing second fiddle. The somatic level (or epigenetic) view does not negate the role of genes, it just emphasizes the role of a cell's interaction with its environment (other cells, extracellular matrices, growth factors, etc.). Some genes may be more significant than others in aiding the generation of body plans, with a temporal consideration of gene effects. I'd like to explore the homeobox angle, but it will have to wait. I'd also like to take a look at the pharyngula, with its wondrous dorsal hollow CNS rudiments. Sorry for jumping in on this thread, but it started to touch on some issues I've been reading lots about, and still have lots more to read. When I get more time (Christmas break) I'll immerse myself in evolution/development and try to bring some neuro into the picture. -- Scott Chase (note followups at anthym@webtv.net) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: kkollins@pop3.concentric.net Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: Neuroscience and language Date: 01 Nov 1998 21:20:22 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 13 Message-ID: <363D40C3.3026BF96@pop3.concentric.net> References: <363ab322.4594351@news.kuleuven.ac.be> <363CD788.3527F0A7@pop3.concentric.net> <363cd94d.4048015@news.kuleuven.ac.be> <363CE292.6009F072@pop3.concentric.net> <363D3935.AD21E633@pop3.concentric.net> Reply-To: kkollins@concentric.net NNTP-Posting-Host: ts003d13.spr-ma.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) CORRECTION: kkollins@pop3.concentric.net wrote: [...] > upon which "language" is should've been: "upon which "language" is founded" I don't usually correct typos, but this one is a bit necessary. Sorry. ken collins From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.news.gtei.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!skynet.be!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newsfeed.mad.ibernet.es!news.bcn.ibernet.es!not-for-mail From: "Teodorico" Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,bionet.neuroscience,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Subject: Re: Hear radar waves Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 06:04:52 +0100 Organization: Telefonica Transmision de Datos Lines: 114 Message-ID: <71jekp$sfm$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> References: <71ct7m$3se$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <71fq6p$t36$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <71g0i1$t4s@news-central.tiac.net> <71i7uo$e90$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> <71ij6m$3jnq4@msheas02.msh.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-c256-infovia.accesosis.es X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Peter Heckert escribió en mensaje <71ij6m$3jnq4@msheas02.msh.de>... > >Teodorico schrieb in Nachricht <71i7uo$e90$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es>... >> >Hello, >this is very interesting. > >However this methods need direkt skin contact or exactly tuned >microwaves. If she's being targetted by means of electronic harrassment, then the latter would make sense. Here are some points that may help to establish the usual profile of an experimentation/political repression victim: ¤ Members of the military who volunteer for "testing" which is not very specifically described to them ¤Student volunteers for psychological testing at a university where government psychological research is done ¤Members of a family where one or more of the family members are or have been employees of a government security agency or the military, especially with cult/masonic involvement ¤Convicts ¤Mental patients ¤Dissidents ¤People who do something that irritates someone who has good connections with members of gov. agencies etc. >She had tried screening with aluminium foils and other things. >Without success. >Therefore I dont believe in the microwave theory in this case. Has she tried shielding with copper-wire mesh behind the skull, i.e.? >Another question is, why does only Anna hear the tones? >Anybody should hear them. If there is a set of electronic surveillance/biomedical control and she's receiving auditory imput by means of pulsed microwaves, why should anybody else hear the ear/intracraneal noises? A different matter is from external clicking audible in cases of auto-activated bugs or sensors in a silent room, i.e. From "Synthetic Telepathy" by Judy Wall, about the first human heard microwaves experiment done by Allen Frey in 1961: |The more technical description of the experiment is described by James C. Linn (2). "Frey...found that human subjects exposed to 1310 MHz and 2982 MHz microwaves at average power densities of 0.4 to 2 mW/cm2 perceived auditory sensations described as buzzing or knocking sounds." (also described as clicks or chirps.) "The peak power densities were on the order of 200 to 300 mW/cm2 and the pulse repetition frequencies varied from 200 to 400 Hz...Frey referred to this auditory phenomenon as the RF (radio frequency) sound. The sensation occurred instantaneously at average incident power densities well below that necessary for known biological damage and appeared to originate from within or near the back of the head."| Or from A. Keeler's report "Remote Mind Control Technology": |Dr. Ross Adey, formerly of the Brain Research Center at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, now at Loma Linda University Medical School, Loma Linda, California was among the first of the Pandora researchers. His work is more precise in inducing specific behavior rather than merely causing disorganization or decrements in performance, that is, apart from his studies on inducing calcium efflux in brain tissue which causes interference with the function of the brain and is one basis of "Confusion Weaponry." More specifically, Adey's thesis is that if the electroencephalogram (EEG) has informational significance, "one can induce behavioral changes if one imposes environmental fields that look like EEG." During Adey's career he has correlated a wide variety of behavioral states with EEG including emotional states (e.g. stress in hostile questioning) increments of decision making and conditioning correct versus incorrect performance etc. and he has imposed electromagnetic fields that look like EEG which has resulted in altered EEG and behavior. In published accounts of Adey's work, he has shown that it is possible to apply low biologic frequencies by using a radio frequency carrier modulated at specific brain frequencies. He demonstrated that if the biological modulation on the carrier frequency is close to frequencies in the natural EEG of the subject, it will reinforce or increase the number of manifestations of the imposed rhythms and modulate behavior.| >On the net are several conspiracy theories about "mind control" >by CIA and military. >They are mostly paranoid. Some are; some faint it in order to discredit the true ones, and others, simply, ARE NOT paranoid. >Please dont induce more confusion about this,it wouldnt help. I am sorry, but I don't quite understand the meaning of this sentence. If you take a closer look at my reply, you will find that there were assertions claiming about the impossibility of inducing auditory input (especially voices) in a human being via externally modulated microwave carriers. Also, the growing number of insinuations questioning Anne's mental sanity made me react as I did. And, be sure, it helped more than it appears... Verbeugung T. Mouton From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!agate!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: kkollins@pop3.concentric.net Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: Neuroscience and language Date: 01 Nov 1998 21:07:27 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 29 Message-ID: <363D3DB8.945C0759@pop3.concentric.net> References: <363ab322.4594351@news.kuleuven.ac.be> <363CD788.3527F0A7@pop3.concentric.net> <363cd94d.4048015@news.kuleuven.ac.be> <363CE292.6009F072@pop3.concentric.net> <363D3935.AD21E633@pop3.concentric.net> Reply-To: kkollins@concentric.net NNTP-Posting-Host: ts003d13.spr-ma.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) kkollins@pop3.concentric.net wrote: > Animals do the same... insects do the same... as when an ant that's come upon a > nutrient supply leaves a chemical trail while traveling from the nutrient supply > back to it's "home" ant-hill. Other ants follow this "language" to the nutrient > supply, and before too long, no matter it's size, the nutrient supply is carried > back "home"... force-recruitment and multiplication Can you see it? When one takes them all-the-way-down to their fundamentals, both the ant's chemical-trail-stuff and Human's language dynamics are, inherently the Same-Stuff... energy-based purturbations within the external environments in which ant or Human exist. It's not "language" that extracts "meaning" from the resultant energy "states". It's the global system's TD E/I-minimization dynamics, with respect to which the ant's chemical trail-blazing and the Human's "language" dynamics are =relatively= Insignificant "tools" that serve whole-system TD E/I-minimization. Get it? Everything reduces to the minimization of the topologically-distributed ratio of excitation to inhibition, and it's at the "level" of that that =all= information-processing actually occurs within our nervous systems. There are brief discussions of how "language", itself, reduces to TD E/I-minimization in the sections of AoK, Ap5 that discuss "supersystem configuration" dynamics, "dynamic subordinate coupling" ("sensori-motor templates") and the whole discussion of Ap6, which integrates vision and "language". It's =all= TD E/I-minimization. ken collins From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.news.gtei.net!cpk-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.ums.edu!haven.umd.edu!hecate.umd.edu!klezmer.isr.umd.edu!didier From: didier@Glue.umd.edu (Didier A. Depireux) Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Subject: Re: radar waves heard directly in the ear Followup-To: bionet.neuroscience,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Date: 2 Nov 1998 15:34:29 GMT Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Lines: 26 Message-ID: <71kje5$dc1$1@hecate.umd.edu> References: <71if0g$qoq$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: klezmer.isr.umd.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Teodorico (jpmouton11@accesosis.es) wrote: : >Might : >be an interesting study for someone in that branch of psychology and : >someone in electromagnetics to pursue. : > : >M Kinsler : >-- I missed the beginning of the thread, but I wanted to point out that there's a reference on "microwave hearing" by radar operators, Frey, 1961, "Auditory response to RF energy", Aerosp. Med. 32, pp 1140. While it's likely that they operators heard the modulations of the RF signal because of bone conduction, it remains that they heard "something". Look at Bennett 1998, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103 (4), pp 2111-2116 for a scientific experiment on why' you would hear modulations of AM'ed rfs. Didier -- Didier A Depireux didier@isr.umd.edu Neural Systems Lab http://www.isr.umd.edu/~didier Institute for Systems Research Phone: 301-405-6557 (off) University of Maryland -6596 (lab) College Park MD 20742 USA Fax: 1-301-314-9920 From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.pbi.net!not-for-mail From: Mark Atlas Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Online auctions for used lab equipment Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 15:12:55 -0800 Organization: Internet Auctioneers Intl Lines: 301 Message-ID: <363E3C77.9B45ADE1@going-going-sold.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-207-214-111-210.snfc21.pacbell.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Online auctions for used lab equipment Join the internets most fun, convenient and safe way to buy used lab equipment today. All sales come with an in lab evaluation and are managed by a staff of professional sales reps from the industry. Whether you are buying or selling here is our list of items in upcoming auctions and in our virtual inventory for consignment visit http://www.going-going-sold.com CONSIGNMENT NOTE. GGS has for immediate sale by owner on consignment the following items. Please contact us for details) or visit http://www.going-going-sold.com Advanced Chemtech Model 357 MPS synthesizer. This unit can synthesize 1 batch and multiple single peptides simultaneously. Unit is 3-4 years old/ rarely used and sold new for over 90 K. HP 1100 HPLC and 1100 MSD upcoming. Recent auctions have proved that Going, Going...Sold! is catching on as the safest and most convenient way to purchase used lab equipment. Recent sales include: Varian AA's sold 1500$ Waters HPLC system with 600 pump injector and detector sold $10,000 HP 5970/5890 GCMS sold $7300 Mini Blot system sold 1775 Coulter counter sold $3800 ( more to come) Perkin Elmer 1600 FTIR ( Fully warranted by PE for 1 yr. with onsite service incredible final price of $7450. Much more!!! Please contact us if you wish to find out other sale prices Stay tuned for our new user interface. New features will include requests that you have asked for. Formal equipment search service forms to allow us to rapidly locate quality used equipment not located on our site at prices you need and quality you desire. Why spend needless hours searching and negotiating. Let the pros handle it. Remember when you search and look at web sites , very few sites maintain up to date inventories. We have direct contact with all resellers and many labs. Wanted items . If we can't locate it , your item will be posted for all to see. Equipment exchange. Are you looking for hard to find items at lesser value then we take on the auction. Many of these items will be as is and many will just be great deals from small sellers and labs. Send us your lists today and generate funds for your lab. All listings will be free until sold. BIOcareers. Need a new job or need employees. This link will help you out. Manufacturer refurbished equipment and demo items. Although not as inexpensive. These will be more current and backed /serviced by the manufacturer Below are some more new listings -Recent Arrivals- Visit http://www.going-going-sold.com for all details inside members area. If you forget your password, just e-mail us Perkin Elmer AAS2100 Flame AA Prosys Protein Purification system ( competes with BIO cad great deal for lab needing automated protein purification and analysis) X-Ray Fluorescence Spec. Fantastic deal . This one is a mfr demo model GATC DNA Sequencer -Direct Blotting Electrophoresis Varian Spectra 10 Plus Atomic Absorbtion Flame and Furnace Saturn III GCMS(w/3400GC) and Tekmar 2000/2016 purge and Trap Varian Star GC 3600 Varian Saturn 1 GCMS Varian Star TPH 3600 GC Waters 501 HPLC Pump ( refurbished) Waters 680 Automated Gradient Controller for HPLC (refurbished) Waters 510 HPLC Pump( refurbished) Pharmacia LKB Wallac Liquid Scintillation Counter 1410-001 (refurbished) 4 Foot class 100 Bio Hood ( can't beat it) J2-21M floor model centrifuge ( refurbished looks great) Lightweight sterilizer (refurbished) Plate washer (refurbished) microplate reader (refurbished) 6 foot fume hood VG 70SE Magnetic Sector GCMS (fully refurbished a a great deal for a lab in need of magnetic sctor based GCMS) FTIR spectrometer (another PE refurbished 1600 FTIR comes with a 1 year warrantee. Remember what the last on went for. Don't miss this one) Helium Displacement Pycnometer (new)Bright Field Microscope (Achromatic) (New)Bright Field Microscope (PLAN) (New) Infinity corrected Microscope system (New)Stereoscope Zeiss Stemi 2000 (New)Zeiss Stemi 1000 stereomicroscope (new) Leica ATC 2000 full phase microscope ABI model 430A peptide Synthesizer (Great opening price) Milligen 8700 DNA synthesizer Superconducting NMR spectrometer ( $8000 for a fully working NMR. we can't believe this listing. If your needs can't be met by this one check back with us there are many others available direct from this seller) Assigned auction dates http://www.going-going-sold.com. ***************************************************** Sale Closing : 11/4/98 Opening Prices ***************************************************** 1. Beckman DU-70 $4,900.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Varian 3400 GC $8,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 3. HP 1090 HPLC System $19,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 4. X-Ray Fluorescence Spec $11,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Waters 501 HPLC Fluid Pump $1,400.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Waters 680 Automated Gradient Controller for HPLC $1,800.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Waters 510 HPLC Pump $1,900.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Pharmacia LKB Wallac Liquid Scintillation Counter 1410-001 $6,900.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 9. (New)Zeiss Stemi 1000 stereomicroscope $1,750.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 10. (new) Leica ATC 2000 full phase microscope $2,700.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ ***************************************************** Sale Closing : 11/6/98 Opening Prices ***************************************************** 1. Inductively Coupled Plasma $19,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Varian Spectra 10 Plus Atomic Absorbtion Flame and Furnace $5,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Saturn III GCMS(w/3400GC) and Tekmar 2000/2016 purge and Trap $22,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Varian Star GC 3600 $10,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Varian Saturn 1 GCMS $22,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 6. VG 70SE Magnetic Sector GCMS $95,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 7. (new)Bright Field Microscope (Achromatic) $1,950.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 8. (New)Bright Field Microscope (PLAN) $2,950.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 9. (New) Infinity corrected Microscope system $3,900.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 10. (New)Stereoscope Zeiss Stemi 2000 $2,150.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 11. Milligen 8700 DNA synthesizer $500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ ***************************************************** Sale Closing : 11/11/98 Opening Prices ***************************************************** 1. Phase Contrast Microscope $2,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Gruenburg Depyro Oven $1,700.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Preparative HPLC pumping system and column $17,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Amino Acid Analyzer $27,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Perkin Elmer AAS2100 Flame AA $12,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Titertek Flouroskan I Reader $1,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Varian Star TPH 3600 $4,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 8. 4 Foot class 100 Bio Hood $2,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 9. Environmental Chamber $5,200.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 10. Perkin Elmer Plasma 400 Spec $21,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 11. FTIR spectrometer $6,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 12. ABI model 430A peptide Synthesizer $2,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ ***************************************************** Sale Closing : 11/13/98 Opening Prices ***************************************************** 1. New Olympus Microscope $1,600.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Laminar Flow Hood $1,450.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Polarizing Microscope $1,900.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Grass Inst. Recorder/Polygraph $6,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Fraction collector for Prep system item 304 $3,600.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 6. ABEC Bioreactor $77,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Sorvall RC 3B with Rotor $3,750.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Prosys Protein Purification system $7,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 9. GATC DNA Sequencer - Direct Blotting Electrophoresis $5,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 10. Lightweight sterilizer $4,400.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 11. Plate washer $2,200.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 12. 6 foot fume hood $1,600.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 13. Fluoresence Microscope $4,800.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ ***************************************************** Sale Closing : 11/18/98 Opening Prices ***************************************************** 1. HP 5890 GC $8,200.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Leica Microscope $1,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Zeiss EM 10 Transmitting Electron Microscope $22,750.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Beckman Gamma Counter $2,750.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 5. AtomScan 16 ICP $10,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 6. HP G1800A GCD System $18,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Nitrogen analyzer $6,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 8. UV-2101PC $6,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 9. J2-21M floor model $9,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 10. microplate reader $2,700.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 11. Helium Displacement Pycnometer $4,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 12. Superconducting NMR spectrometer $8,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ ***************************************************** Sale Closing : 11/20/98 Opening Prices ***************************************************** 1. Centra 4B $1,395.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Beckman DU-7 $3,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Seperations Technologies Prep Bar-1000 $48,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 4. HP Supercritical Fluid Extraction $23,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 5. AA Spectrophotometer $7,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Thermo Sep HPLC system $14,700.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Linear Multi-sampler for CAT system $800.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ 8. L8-80M Ultracentrifuge in Biosafety hood $3,750.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ ***************************************************** (c) 1997, Internet Auctioneers International From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!kinsler From: kinsler@frognet.net (Mark Kinsler) Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,bionet.neuroscience,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Subject: Re: Hear radar waves Date: 2 Nov 1998 03:33:44 GMT Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here Lines: 41 Message-ID: <71j96o$faq$1@supernews.com> References: <71ct7m$3se$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <71i7uo$e90$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> <71ia9m$l0v@news-central.tiac.net> <71iona$hmd$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.192.96.16 X-Trace: 909977624 UR5LNLVXF6010CCC0C usenet80.supernews.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Teodorico wrote: >That technology exists since, at least, the 1940s. >Anyway, we won't be surprised to know that those standard textbooks are >imposed by the same powerful and official psychiatric establishment who >actively collaborates with the military and the government agencies on these >sadistic and inhumane experimentation on innocent citizens. Maybe that's what they did in Spain. After centuries of progressive government from King Ferdinand to Francisco Franco, they were probably capable of anything. But that's certainly not the case in the rest of the world. >Here we have an example of the take over of mental institutions by >scientists funded by the military and goverment related >agencies/corporations, with covert experimentation purposes, during the >1940-50s. Afterwards, the average citizen's turn would came; and now... >their deffinitive take over is almost ready. >I tell you that from now on, every denial or mocking about these dramatical >facts will be counted as techno-fascist collaboration at the imminent last >trials. Aha. The imminent last trials? Well, here's a denial and mockery from Athens, Ohio: Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Now come and get me. Your dramatical facts are full of crap. Don't _ever_ use the Internet to make even the _slightest_ threat again. You're welcome to your opinions, but you can take your world revolution and stick it where only the King of Spain's proctologist can find it. M Kinsler finally got me sore. -- ............................................................................ Interpretation and instruction of physical science and technology Athens, Ohio, USA. http://www.frognet.net/~kinsler From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!la-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: kkollins@pop3.concentric.net Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: Neuroscience and language Date: 01 Nov 1998 20:48:10 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 55 Message-ID: <363D3935.AD21E633@pop3.concentric.net> References: <363ab322.4594351@news.kuleuven.ac.be> <363CD788.3527F0A7@pop3.concentric.net> <363cd94d.4048015@news.kuleuven.ac.be> <363CE292.6009F072@pop3.concentric.net> Reply-To: kkollins@concentric.net NNTP-Posting-Host: ts003d13.spr-ma.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) Some more food for =Thought=... [...] > one finds that the contribution of > "language" is =Insignificant=, except for the force-recruitment, and > multiplication dynamics that I pointed to in my previous post. Animals do the same... insects do the same... as when an ant that's come upon a nutrient supply leaves a chemical trail while traveling from the nutrient supply back to it's "home" ant-hill. Other ants follow this "language" to the nutrient supply, and before too long, no matter it's size, the nutrient supply is carried back "home"... force-recruitment and multiplication. The easiest Human example is given in the section of AoK, Ap5 that discusses hypothalamic dynamics... an Infant's crying behavior, and its foce-recruitment and multiplication dynamics, their awesome engineering, and how crucial they are to the Infant's (and, hence, =everyone's) survival. The "language-is-everything" conceptualization is, to the stuff of the Infant's-crying-behavior example as is the battering behavior of the young parent who, in Ignorance of the way our nervous systems process information, shake their Infants, tearing the tender meninges, which results in the permanent incapacitation of the infant, or kills the Infant. Who, reading and understanding, the stuff of the Infant's-crying-behavior example, cannot see, immediately, that the Infant's "language" dynamics are Insignificant relative to the overall TD E/I-minimization (see AoK) dynamics? The language-is-everything supposition is "just" a False "Finitization" (AoK, Ap4) that folks've converged upon in the absence of understanding how our nervous systems process information... and it's one that bears the hallmark of being blindly prejudiced toward the familiar stuff of the folks who support the erroneous "conclusion". It's a big problem in our times... advertizing folks routinely take the "language-is-everything" position to such a well-over-done extreme that, in the onslaught of such (which is briefly discussed in AoK, Ap5), folks who're subjected to such can become overwhelmed, and manipulated via... you got it... shear force-recruitment and multiplication. Consider, too, the way that couples' talking-to-each-other behavior tends, strongly, to become diminished after the novelty of their interactive dynamics wears off... it isn't that they're "running out of words"... it is that the Significant stuff, upon which "language" is, except for force-recruitment and multiplication, will not be denied... it asserts it's long-term ascendency over the relatively-insignificant system... and the couple realizes that each member is so much more than the words they can share "contain"... their interaction becomes one in which the massively-more-than-"language" processing of information is the main thing. "Love isn't something that we've said. It's something that we do. (Clint Black, "Something That We Do", on his spectacularly-good _Nothin' But The Taillights_ album) Clint's right. ken collins From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Sun Nov 01 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!newsfeed.slip.net!news1.best.com!noos.hooked.net!206.80.6.11.MISMATCH!its.hooked.net!nadbarg From: Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: mind/soul (unloved babies, etc.) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 03:46:06 GMT Organization: none Lines: 86 Message-ID: <71j9og$fu0$1@its.hooked.net> References: <3633de2d.0@ns2.wsg.net> <3635caca.0@ns2.wsg.net> <714rjt$7u4@ux.cs.niu.edu> <36395A34.4F58BF9F@sandpiper.net> <3639c986.0@ns2.wsg.net> <71e581$nu0$1@its.hooked.net> <71gmqv$6pa@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <71gt3i$4ao$1@news.utdallas.edu> <363c9ca1.0@ns2.wsg.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: egypt-43.ppp.hooked.net X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 In article <363c9ca1.0@ns2.wsg.net>, "Ray Scanlon" wrote: > >Carol wrote in message <71gt3i$4ao$1@news.utdallas.edu>... > >> >>>concealing--WHAT??? What on earth do these people imagine? >> >> Maybe they'll come out of the woodwork and tell us. > > >You may have been bloxied. I do not know, somewhere in this beautiful world >of the internet some posts are mislaid. I know that I do not get them all >because I check dejanews and there they are. > >Messages from Bloxy's are incredible. I suspect an eleventh grader who reads >WIRED and knows how to type. You see, mr. suckazoid, you make pronouncements again. And again, they are based on nothing, but prejudice. Now, according to what criteria and what sucking powers did you make these conclusions? Do you have ANY clue what you are talking about? What is the information you are basing your sucky conclusion? Just got short circuited? If the scientists go to hate threads and pour some oil on the fire, just to discredit a 11 grader, then what kind of scientists are those? Tellya one thing. Those are the scientists, who lay the foundation of reducing the intelligence to the level of machine. Those are the scientists of the most evil empire ever existed. Those are the scientists that stand on the way of discovery of anything genuinely significant. Those are the scientist, that program the minds of young generation in their boot camps of training, they call educational institutions, that are nothing but the training camps, teaching the next generation how to turn left, get up, sit down, march and kill, never quite telling them WHY. The only WHY is these sucky "family values", this ugly system of "good" and "bad", these opressive ideas of "in our interest". Those are the scientist, that are not scientists, but ideology peddlers for the benefit of the fat cat, exploiting everything that moves, and does not, for that matter. You suck, worse than a black hole, dr. bio-programmer of the human intelligence. And you come here, to the place where the issues of intelligence are discussed, instead of going to places where you belong, the bio-robotics groups, and you speak of eternal stupidity and blindness. You speak of a human being, being nothing, but a machine, programmed to behave according to a limited set of instructions, you program it with. You reduce intelligence to a simple formula: Money = god, Got = money. That is all. >Ray >Those interested in how the brain works might look at >www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html Brain? What brain? "It is all in the DNA. There is just nothing else out there." From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!news1.best.com!noos.hooked.net!206.80.6.11.MISMATCH!its.hooked.net!nadbarg From: Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: mind/soul (unloved babies, etc.) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 06:27:04 GMT Organization: none Lines: 87 Message-ID: <71m7i7$eaf$2@its.hooked.net> References: <3633de2d.0@ns2.wsg.net> <3635caca.0@ns2.wsg.net> <714rjt$7u4@ux.cs.niu.edu> <36395A34.4F58BF9F@sandpiper.net> <3639c986.0@ns2.wsg.net> <71e581$nu0$1@its.hooked.net> <71gmqv$6pa@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <71gs8n$a52$1@its.hooked.net> <71m20l$m72@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: italy-17.ppp.hooked.net X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 In article <71m20l$m72@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, flefever@ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote: >At first, I was going to take his question about electromagnetic >influences and DNA at face value and tell about my own interest in ELF >(extremely low frequency) electromagnetic activity (e.g. in sferics) >and of an interesting recent finding by a long-time (and well >respected) neuroscientist regarding a possible neurophysiological >influence, Good, about time. > but as I read further began to have sinking feeling as I >perceived he may have a very private concept of these "electromagnetic >influences". In the context of some linguistic peculiarities I pointed >out in another post, this is troubling. Huh? Would you conseal the scientific truth on the basis of this kind? You just come and state the state of affair as you know it. Let other people decide for themselves what it is you have. Else, you'd have to send ALL your posts to KGB or CIA ideological department of brainwashing before posting ANY of them on the internet, as you never know who might be reading it. Who knows, you may trigger the nukelar [good spelling, huh. Guess whose is it] dizasta. >F. LeFever > >In <71gs8n$a52$1@its.hooked.net> Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes: >> > >- - - - - - - - (snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >> >>What is the conclusion then? >>What is at the very root of developement? >>DNA or love? >> >>What role does the energy play? >>What role does intent play? >> >>What determines what? >> > - - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - >> >>Is there any evidence that suggests the DNA >>activity is NOT affected by the electromagnetic energy? > >- - - - - - - - (snip) - - - - - - - - Suck. >Then we talk more. >>What bullshit truism are you talking about? >>You have not even begun to address the issues of >>overriding significance of electromagnetic forces >>and fields. >> >>> widely known, >> >>What? >>What is significance of electromagnetic forces? > >- - - - - - - - (snip)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yep, that is all you gots, mr. bio-robot programmer. Big funken ZERO. You are willing to withhold the ultimate scientific truth, you claimed to have discovered, and yet, being utterly dishonest, you withhold it. And you think it will remain a secret, huh? And what secret could you possibly have? And why did you even begin this post? And why did not you cancel it, once you realized it is "dangerous" information for "uneducated majority"? Tell me, or elitist master-bator, what is the meaning of life? From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!news From: flefever@ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: Neuroscience and language Date: 3 Nov 1998 05:19:01 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 39 Message-ID: <71m3o5$m8i@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> References: <363ab322.4594351@news.kuleuven.ac.be> <363CD788.3527F0A7@pop3.concentric.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: nyc-ny74-45.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 02 11:19:01 PM CST 1998 See my reply to query re "occipital lobe development" or some similar title. Yes, it does refer to language (including the P.S. re Nov. 30) F. LeFever NYNG/NYAS >Wim Van Nieuwenhoven wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm a Belgian psychology student with a big interest in any linguistic >> matter. I'm exploring the net now to still my hungre for linguistic >> knowledge. >> >> I am wondering now: in what way can neuroscience help me out? Have >> they got anything to say about language? Do they know of good books >> and/or websites covering this topic? >> >> Please consider that I'm a layman and not used to deal with >> neuro-specific terms ... >> >> Thanks for the help! >> >> Wim. >> >> e-mail: wim.vannieuwenhoven@student.kuleuven.ac.be >> web-mail: Wivani@hotmail.com >> icq: 16807186 >> icq-pager: 16807186@pager.mirabilis.com >> >> web-page: http://www.student.kuleuven.ac.be/~m9408136/ling > > > From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!pravda.ucr.edu!awabi.library.ucla.edu!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.best.com!noos.hooked.net!206.80.6.11.MISMATCH!its.hooked.net!nadbarg From: Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: mind/soul Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 06:17:56 GMT Organization: none Lines: 313 Message-ID: <71m716$eaf$1@its.hooked.net> References: <3633de2d.0@ns2.wsg.net> <3635caca.0@ns2.wsg.net> <714rjt$7u4@ux.cs.niu.edu> <36395A34.4F58BF9F@sandpiper.net> <3639c986.0@ns2.wsg.net> <71gj2i$76k@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <71goa3$73q$1@its.hooked.net> <71m0k2$do5@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: italy-17.ppp.hooked.net X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 In article <71m0k2$do5@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, flefever@ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote: >In <71goa3$73q$1@its.hooked.net> Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes: >> > >{in response to this from me: > >By happy coincidence, I was at the NYU Center for Neural Science last >week, for a talk by Michael Gazzaniga (listed in the NYNG fall >calendar, bytheway...), in the course of which he showed a series of >slides of brain MRIs, identical twins paired with each other (side by >side) and of course looking down the series of paired twins one could >compare each with unrelated cases. He flipped through them fairly >quickly (they not being the main point of the talk), but evenso the >similarities between each of the identical twin siblings and their >dissimilarity from others was striking...) >> >>Well, on what basis there are ANY dissimilarities then, >>if DNA is a rigid program for development? > >Perhaps he wrote this impulsively, before reading the rest of what I >wrote. Neither I nor any neuroscientist I know would assert that "DNA >is a rigid program for development", at least not in the sense he seems >to intend by this statement. It is at this point A TRUISM to say that >while the "program" in DNA may be unchanged, it does not "program" >development--the history of its interaction with ITS environment >(chiefly other components of the cell and products thereof) "programs" >it, or should we say the history is the program? Fine, with this view, we can make some progress, hopefully. But first, the idea of "DNA is the only thing there is", and "DNA provides the very program for ..." need to be retracted. You see, it is not even clea WHAT is the program, who programs what, and what is a cause of what. We [or rather people in YOUR profession] may observe certain things and wonder about how amazingly flexible and powerful it is, but once we start making assertions, closing the doors, then we are nothing but the superpriests. First of all, DNA is invloved in a complex process of the growth of the organism on the PHYSICAL level. The organism, in itself is merely a container to facilitate the contained. This has been understood literally thousands of years ago. 1. Body 2. Mind [that, which is capable of observing the body] 3. Consciousness [that, which is capable of observing the mind] 4. Turia [that, about which nothing can be stated] This implies, that however amazing the DNA mechanism is, it is there to merely facilitate the development of the BODY. That is all. Furthermore, the very activity of DNA related processes are subject to various influences, not the least significant of which is electromagnetic in nature. It is not even clear at the moment that electromagnetic processes could be classified as a "primary cause" of sorts. The intents, the ideas, the thoughts, the laugther are all subject to fields. You look at something, and you laugh. DNA is still the same. Nothing has changed. And you, without even coming to a physical contact with the other oblect, laught. If we could only look a little deeper into this single simple occurance, we would probably learn something, we could never conceive possible. >He assumes he has a great insight which the scientific community is >incapable if and blindly rejects, being naive (ignorant) enough to >assume that (1) they never had such an insight, or (2) have heard about >it and fight furiously against it. Neither is true. Those working in >genetics and development SERIOUSLY (clearly this excludes bloxy or >whomever) devote their lives to understanding the details of this >interaction. And the other people dedicate their life just as well. Do you think the DNA maniac should rule the world [of ideas]? > Perhaps this fellow thinks they should "study" >development with no reference to DNA at all? Where did you extract this from? >I don't know how readers will characterize his response to this next >statement of mine: > >Obviously (as Ray points out), experience fine tunes even the gross >shape and size, to say nothing of the shaping beyond neuroimaging (e.g. >underlying one twin speaking English and another speaking Italian if >reared apart), Well, the point here is that it is utterly unclear what is the PRIMARY "cause" of what. All you can state is that DNA does work wonders in terms of generating body. But all you are talking is body. Look at jack sarafatti's threads. Do you understand what he is saying there? He is taking the modern physics and quantum theory and expanding it with the concepts of NON-MATERIAL, precognition, and other wild things of that nature. Do you thing he is just under delusion of sorts? Why don't you go and tell him about DNA? >He replies: >> >>Just the very term reared is ugly. Yes, because it is completely unconscious repetition of degrading idea. The idea of rearing comes from animal world. They just stand in the middle of the field and the baby just falls out from the rear. Thus, reared. As an idea, it is utterly degrading. >>Just like farting out those children from your output hole. >>And even the scientists use it. >> >>What does it mean - reared? > >What do other readers of this newsgroup think: is he just being cute? Hey, thats a secret! >or is he confused by a term in a language not his native language? Stop laying out the foundation for a guilt trip. Just state what does it mean reared. Where did the term come from? And who uses it in what context? Then we talk more. > Or >is this an example of schizophrenic loose association? Oh, mr. suckazoid. Finally, you are showing me your real face. Ok, keep sucking. > Normal people Fuck all these "normal" people, engading in mass destruction of global proportions, and that are standing on the brink of SELF destruction at this very moment. What have these "normal" people produce, but the violence unending. Look at your idiot box [the tool for mass programming, you call tv] What do you see there all day long on all the channels? Any active neurons on line? Is ANY of it "normal"? Come, suck more. >with a moderate level of education and familiarity with English will >interpret "reared" in this context as meaning "raised" or "cared for >during childhood", etc. Uhu. And the implication is? Open your sucky mouth, you manipulator and twister of reality to fit the needs of the fat cat at the "top" of the food chain. Tell me the holey sucking truth about the meaning of life, willya. What is the root of the word? Rear is the BACK part of anyting. Look up your dic- tionary. First of all, do the children come from the back? Do you educate them by turning your ass toward them? Where does the term "reared" come from, but the animal farm? And you, claiming to be a scientist, use the same sub-conscious, derogatory terminology, invented by the sub-morons, while talking about that, which those of your camp call "the rule of everything". Can you reconcile it it? Can you find a SINGLE reason for the term reared as applied to education and upbringing? Youe eyes are in front. Your nose is in front. Even your pussy is in front. How do you REAR children? > I HOPE it is just a cutesy joke that he >asssociates to "rear" in the sense of "rear end" and associates further >to scatalogical implications of this perverse and bizarre >interpretation, and not a clue as to how his mind works... "Perverse, bizzare interpretation"? Whose? How does you idiotic CPU work, if you use the concepts of rear, while ALL the significant work is done from the front. Furhtermore, you take this "rear" thing as a significant point of YOUR argument? And YOU are talking about "scatalogical implications"? Why don't you go suck a dead donkey's ass for a change. May be you can get some education afterall. >Clearly, something very strange is going on, or else how can one >account for the vehemence and--what?--projection?--and whatever it is >that describes the diatribe that follows. Huh? Going on where? >Another puzzle I leave to other readers: a few lines below, is it a >mis-spelling (of WHAT intended word??) or is it a neologism, and if the >latter what does that imply? i.e. "concure" (clang association with >"control"??) > >F. LeFever You see, sucker, instead of proving the theory of "DNA rewls everything", you engaged in destruction of other individual. Well, even if that other individual is completely insane, what does it help YOUR sucky theory of fatalistic materialism? Does it VALIDATE the "DNA is the cause of everything" delusion? >> >>You see, at the moment, dna is the only thing you see, >>so, being as blind, as you are, you blame everything >>on dna, because you just can't feel at rest if you >>don't know something, as you have no limit to your >>ego. What is not clear here? Can you admit that you don't know the most essential aspects of the life force? >>You need to control everything. >>You need to concur everything. >>If something remains unknown, your ego feels hurt, >>and yet that very unknown is a forever impetus to >>your very existance. And what is specifically wrong with that? Do you comprehend that the known is not a stimuli or impetus for existence as such? What is the basis of growth and development? >>It is not known that drives you, but unknown, >>you see. >> >>Why do you need to know everything? >>And if you don't know something, can you just admit it? >> >>Instead of saying: >>Yes, we found an amazing mechanism, facilitating >>growth of the physical body, but the joury is still >>out as WHAT is the very cause of what, >>you just come here, and perpetuate the same ideas, >>we have heard many times already. >> >>You refuse to address the blind spots in this >>"dna is all there is" theory. >>You fail to comprehend that dna does not explain >>love, intuition, feeling, creativity and many other things >>that are on the level of the very essense of it all. Can you give analysis of this point here? Or all are you REALLY interested is invalidating Bloxy's? :) Hey, good luck, or rather, good lick. >>And all your talk is not a final judgement on the matter, >>as you have not even begun to comprehend the most >>essential aspects of it all. And that is the holey sucking truth. From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!agate!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: kkollins@pop3.concentric.net Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: Occipital lobe development Date: 02 Nov 1998 21:53:54 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 27 Message-ID: <363E9A1A.6A673B95@pop3.concentric.net> References: <01be05c2$06d3f120$LocalHost@AC7748BU120253.ac.com> Reply-To: kkollins@concentric.net NNTP-Posting-Host: ts001d12.spr-ma.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) Normal, new-born Infants are the most-intelligent Beings on the face of the planet. The fact that their nervous systems are "not fully-developed" at birth, not-withstanding. Their spurt of rapid development is =Learning= at its Life's time extreme. Sorrowfully, Infants are soon subjected to the only-haphazardly-accumulated view on "human nature" that's been blindly handed down over the course of the millenia, and this assault on their in-born capacity for Learning quickly takes its toll, Sorrowfully. Forgive me, please, for interjecting this here. I'd like to see this set of things "turned around". ken collins Erik Broch wrote: > I've had an argument with a college of mine. > The question is as follows. Is it possible that our children have the > ability to se small nuances in the grey scale, that we as parents cant se. > In other words. Can our children have a more advanced occipital lobe than > we have. And is this alleged development caused by a much higher degree of > visual stimulation (through TV, movies etc), or can this difference be > caused by cultural, or sociale factors? > > Erik Broch From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntprelay.mathworks.com!ix.netcom.com!news From: flefever@ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: mind/soul (unloved babies, etc.) Date: 3 Nov 1998 04:49:25 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 49 Message-ID: <71m20l$m72@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> References: <3633de2d.0@ns2.wsg.net> <3635caca.0@ns2.wsg.net> <714rjt$7u4@ux.cs.niu.edu> <36395A34.4F58BF9F@sandpiper.net> <3639c986.0@ns2.wsg.net> <71e581$nu0$1@its.hooked.net> <71gmqv$6pa@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <71gs8n$a52$1@its.hooked.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: nyc-ny74-45.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 02 10:49:25 PM CST 1998 At first, I was going to take his question about electromagnetic influences and DNA at face value and tell about my own interest in ELF (extremely low frequency) electromagnetic activity (e.g. in sferics) and of an interesting recent finding by a long-time (and well respected) neuroscientist regarding a possible neurophysiological influence, but as I read further began to have sinking feeling as I perceived he may have a very private concept of these "electromagnetic influences". In the context of some linguistic peculiarities I pointed out in another post, this is troubling. F. LeFever In <71gs8n$a52$1@its.hooked.net> Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes: > - - - - - - - - (snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >What is the conclusion then? >What is at the very root of developement? >DNA or love? > >What role does the energy play? >What role does intent play? > >What determines what? > - - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - > >Is there any evidence that suggests the DNA >activity is NOT affected by the electromagnetic energy? - - - - - - - - (snip) - - - - - - - - Then we talk more. >What bullshit truism are you talking about? >You have not even begun to address the issues of >overriding significance of electromagnetic forces >and fields. > >> widely known, > >What? >What is significance of electromagnetic forces? - - - - - - - - (snip)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!ix.netcom.com!news From: flefever@ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: mind/soul Date: 3 Nov 1998 04:25:38 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 112 Message-ID: <71m0k2$do5@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> References: <3633de2d.0@ns2.wsg.net> <3635caca.0@ns2.wsg.net> <714rjt$7u4@ux.cs.niu.edu> <36395A34.4F58BF9F@sandpiper.net> <3639c986.0@ns2.wsg.net> <71gj2i$76k@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <71goa3$73q$1@its.hooked.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: nyc-ny74-45.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 02 10:25:38 PM CST 1998 In <71goa3$73q$1@its.hooked.net> Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes: > {in response to this from me: By happy coincidence, I was at the NYU Center for Neural Science last week, for a talk by Michael Gazzaniga (listed in the NYNG fall calendar, bytheway...), in the course of which he showed a series of slides of brain MRIs, identical twins paired with each other (side by side) and of course looking down the series of paired twins one could compare each with unrelated cases. He flipped through them fairly quickly (they not being the main point of the talk), but evenso the similarities between each of the identical twin siblings and their dissimilarity from others was striking...) > >Well, on what basis there are ANY dissimilarities then, >if DNA is a rigid program for development? Perhaps he wrote this impulsively, before reading the rest of what I wrote. Neither I nor any neuroscientist I know would assert that "DNA is a rigid program for development", at least not in the sense he seems to intend by this statement. It is at this point A TRUISM to say that while the "program" in DNA may be unchanged, it does not "program" development--the history of its interaction with ITS environment (chiefly other components of the cell and products thereof) "programs" it, or should we say the history is the program? He assumes he has a great insight which the scientific community is incapable if and blindly rejects, being naive (ignorant) enough to assume that (1) they never had such an insight, or (2) have heard about it and fight furiously against it. Neither is true. Those working in genetics and development SERIOUSLY (clearly this excludes bloxy or whomever) devote their lives to understanding the details of this interaction. Perhaps this fellow thinks they should "study" development with no reference to DNA at all? I don't know how readers will characterize his response to this next statement of mine: Obviously (as Ray points out), experience fine tunes even the gross shape and size, to say nothing of the shaping beyond neuroimaging (e.g. underlying one twin speaking English and another speaking Italian if reared apart), He replies: > >Just the very term reared is ugly. >Just like farting out those children from your output hole. >And even the scientists use it. > >What does it mean - reared? What do other readers of this newsgroup think: is he just being cute? or is he confused by a term in a language not his native language? Or is this an example of schizophrenic loose association? Normal people with a moderate level of education and familiarity with English will interpret "reared" in this context as meaning "raised" or "cared for during childhood", etc. I HOPE it is just a cutesy joke that he asssociates to "rear" in the sense of "rear end" and associates further to scatalogical implications of this perverse and bizarre interpretation, and not a clue as to how his mind works... Clearly, something very strange is going on, or else how can one account for the vehemence and--what?--projection?--and whatever it is that describes the diatribe that follows. Another puzzle I leave to other readers: a few lines below, is it a mis-spelling (of WHAT intended word??) or is it a neologism, and if the latter what does that imply? i.e. "concure" (clang association with "control"??) F. LeFever > >You see, at the moment, dna is the only thing you see, >so, being as blind, as you are, you blame everything >on dna, because you just can't feel at rest if you >don't know something, as you have no limit to your >ego. > >You need to control everything. >You need to concure everything. >If something remains unknown, your ego feels hurt, >and yet that very unknown is a forever impetus to >your very existance. > >It is not known that drives you, but unknown, >you see. > >Why do you need to know everything? >And if you don't know something, can you just admit it? > >Instead of saying: >Yes, we found an amazing mechanism, facilitating >growth of the physical body, but the joury is still >out as WHAT is the very cause of what, >you just come here, and perpetuate the same ideas, >we have heard many times already. > >You refuse to address the blind spots in this >"dna is all there is" theory. >You fail to comprehend that dna does not explain >love, intuition, feeling, creativity and many other things >that are on the level of the very essense of it all. > >And all your talk is not a final judgement on the matter, >as you have not even begun to comprehend the most >essential aspects of it all. > From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: kkollins@pop3.concentric.net Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: Neuroscience and language Date: 02 Nov 1998 19:24:00 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 73 Message-ID: <363E76BF.7FE82626@pop3.concentric.net> References: <363ab322.4594351@news.kuleuven.ac.be> <363CD788.3527F0A7@pop3.concentric.net> <363cd94d.4048015@news.kuleuven.ac.be> <363CE292.6009F072@pop3.concentric.net> <363D3935.AD21E633@pop3.concentric.net> Reply-To: kkollins@concentric.net NNTP-Posting-Host: ts001d18.spr-ma.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) kkollins@pop3.concentric.net wrote:[...] > It's a big problem in our times... adverti[s]ing folks routinely take the > "language-is-everything" position to such a well-over-done extreme that, in the > onslaught of such (which is briefly discussed in AoK, Ap5), folks who're subjected > to such can become overwhelmed, and manipulated via... you got it... shear > force-recruitment and multiplication. Do you see where the discussion's going? =Of course= "language" is powerful stuff... =of course=. It's "just" that, be-cause of the way folks' veiws on "human nature" have come to exist as =only= the result of haphazard accumulation, folks've been encumbered with the illusion that Truth, itself, "doesn't exist"... and the Savage result of this is that folks've deemed folks who've experienced differently as being "worthy" of Slaughter, as in "Yugoslavia" via, the armaments of War, or as in the U. S., via the armaments of Financial Unscrupulousness, which weasles in using it's slogan, "buyer beware", as it's all-inclusive "excuse" for the Ravaging of the Human Spirit for which it's responsible. Can you see why I've jumped on "language"... remember my earlier discussions of the two different ways of "being nice"? Well, saying anything to "get the sale" is an example of the massive disconnectedness that exists between "language" and global TD E/I-minimization... and such is "just"-the-opposite of Being Nice... the former is the latter, Inverted... upside-down-and-backwards... and that such "passes" for "being nice", as far as "getting the sale" is concerned, constitutes a rigorous measure of just how great is the Ignorance that has had Humanity in its grasp. If it weren't so-exceedingly-Tragic, it'd be downright hilarious... this Ignorance which so Ravages all of us exists as Physically-Real stuff right in the flesh of nervous systems. "Getting the sale", at the cost of bilking folks, is a bowing-down to the Beast. And how does the Beast =always= "reward" such "reverance"? It "just" jacks-up the overall Thermodynamics (to paraphrase E. A. Poe, "ever-more")... until, across whole Societies, the threshold of the low-level amygdalar supersystem configuration mechanism (AoK, Ap5) is exceeded, and nervous systems Invert. Need a readily-observed example? The situation in the Middle East, right now, is the paradigm toward which the whole world is heading, as the whole-Earth's-population Thermodynamic, orchestrated by the "Beast"... the prevailing Ignorance of how nervous systems process information... heats up. The time for Understanding is =Now=... not "tomorrow"... not "after the 'market's' been milked for all it's worth"... =Now=. Why? Because the transition to Understanding =necessarily= follows a =curved= path... ramping-up time is required... folks cannot just "snap their fingers", and "get the Understanding"... acquiring it requires Physically-Real Work... the trophic modifications to the neural topology in which it's embedded occur microscopic steps at a time... if populations wait until their "backs are up against the wall", the "Beast" =always= wins... it's simple Thermodynamics. If the understanding isn't in-there when the heat (TD E/I) heads toward infinity, nervous systems invert, slaughter ensues. Look back through History... the Same-Stuff, repeatedly-Ravaging. It's all simple Thermodynamics. Language is a powerful means of exchanging information. But if language is only haphazardly-connected to the global TD E/I-minimization dynamics, what =could= be communication exists only as a "random walk" that wastes energy without achieving communication, and which amounts to nothing more than the force-recruitment and multiplication of which even insects are capable. Is "this how science is done"? Censor a body of work? Withhold it from those for whom it was done? Don't even meet "on the field of the battle-for-Knowledge"? Just deny the understanding's Existence? Pretend the haphazardly-accumulated stuff is all there is? Bury your heads in the sand, and wait for the Beast to kick your butts? As far as I'm concerned, it matters not whether my name is attached to this work. Call me "mr. x" for all I care. But if Science continues to withhold the understanding from those who will be, with =Certainty=, Ravaged for the lack of it, I'm going to hold Science Responsible for that... clearly, Science Knows what it's doing. These days, even the "stock market" writes that much right into the Public Record... biggest month since 1987... when the Automation of Knowing... ms. was "published" (1986... + "ramp-time")? Can't anyone see where all this ends? K. P. Collins From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.mad.ibernet.es!news.bcn.ibernet.es!not-for-mail From: "Teodorico" Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,bionet.neuroscience,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Subject: Re: Hear radar waves Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 03:18:11 +0100 Organization: Telefonica Transmision de Datos Lines: 39 Message-ID: <71lohk$ooj$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> References: <71ct7m$3se$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <71fq6p$t36$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <71g0i1$t4s@news-central.tiac.net> <71i7uo$e90$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> <71ia9m$l0v@news-central.tiac.net> <71iona$hmd$1@diana.bcn.ibernet.es> <71j13n$a1d@enews2.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp119-infovia.accesosis.es X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 D.H. Kelly escribió en mensaje <71j13n$a1d@enews2.newsguy.com>... >What is all this drivel? First we have the standard paranoia and then we >have reference to pg 216 of some unnamed paper or other source with a >rather disorganized and rambling "quote" which really consists of a lot of >buzzwords but no meat. > -- >Don Kelly ---------------- It seems that the current argument here, when it comes to misunderstanding matters, is the systematic and personal discrediting. I find this truly sad, besides the fact that it doesn't rely much on objectivity. As it is the case of psychiatry. Recently we saw a resented article in which scientifically proved theories were quoted as "pseudo-science"... but this is the true pseudo-science: categorizing behavior as "mental illness". There isn't any biological basis for diagnosing "mental illnesses". How do they decide about who is normal and who isn't? This is nothing but another criminal fraud seasoned by political control over the masses, by means of a centralized and unique thought, and multibillion$ corporation interests. This just has nothing to do with health care, apart from the harmful and irreversible neurological/psychological effects produced by sustained psychyatric drugs treatments. About the paper, it's obviously not a masterpiece of poetical literature. The aim of it, despite its fragmentation, is to show an early purpose of deciphering the key to consciousness by federal and military agencies, squashing on experimentation any ethic and moral values. That you might prefer to look elsewhere in order to avoid seeing the "meat" is another subject. The speech of the transcription is related to an investigative work funded by the USAF Office of Scientific Research, the US Navy Office of Naval Research and Bell Telephone Labs, inc. T. Mouton From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: kkollins@pop3.concentric.net Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: More Info, Please Date: 02 Nov 1998 18:07:54 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 19 Message-ID: <363E6522.34803889@pop3.concentric.net> References: <36390030.647A2946@pop3.concentric.net> <363A7D39.ED184E1F@pop3.concentric.net> <71glk4$190@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <363CD4DC.A1BEE674@pop3.concentric.net> Reply-To: kkollins@concentric.net NNTP-Posting-Host: ts003d20.spr-ma.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) kkollins@pop3.concentric.net wrote: > A big factor in neuralglia dynamics is K+, upon which all action potentials > depend... steer K+ concentration, and capacity for action potential > manifestation is also steered... imagine a flexible "bladder" that's > studded with "nozzles"... distort the "bladder" and the "nozzles" become > spatially-displaced... if the "nozzles" distribute K+, then the spatial > displacement of the "nozzles" will action-potential dynamics... this'll > tune "memory" accordingly. This's exactly what the verified neuralglia > contractile properties do in vivo. ken collins Also, =of course= the neuralglia contractile dynamics enter into the tuning of synaptic strengths... simply be-cause the neural stuff is embedded in, and completely-supported by, the contractile neuralglia stuff... it doesn't take much physical force to tune synaptic strengths when the geometry involved is microscopically-refined via continuous TD E/I-minimization dynamics. ken collins From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news From: flefever@ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: Occipital lobe development Date: 3 Nov 1998 05:08:30 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 41 Message-ID: <71m34e$g94@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> References: <01be05c2$06d3f120$LocalHost@AC7748BU120253.ac.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: nyc-ny74-45.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 02 11:08:30 PM CST 1998 In <01be05c2$06d3f120$LocalHost@AC7748BU120253.ac.com> "Erik Broch" writes: > >I've had an argument with a college of mine. >The question is as follows. Is it possible that our children have the >ability to se small nuances in the grey scale, that we as parents cant se. >In other words. Can our children have a more advanced occipital lobe than >we have. And is this alleged development caused by a much higher degree of >visual stimulation (through TV, movies etc), or can this difference be >caused by cultural, or sociale factors? > >Erik Broch First, as regards small visual nuances: depnding on the age of the parents, there may be some degree of degredation in visual function (perhaps peripheral, or perhaps just barely central, i.e. in the retina). However, for more interesting possibilities, let me offer this analogy: at the early babbling stage, infants are apparently capable of all speech sounds known to linguists (so far as they can tell); their ability to distinguish phonemes equally "universal". Very quickly, however (long before actual speech), they begin to lose the ability to produce or hear (discriminate) sounds/phonemes not important to the language they hear around them (i.e., what will become their "native" language--poor term, given that they are NOT born with selective proficiency in that language's speech sounds). F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D. Chair, Linguistics Section, The New York Academy of Sciences (I cite this particular role as a lead-in to encouraging people in the NYC area to attend the talk by Elizabeth Warrington, on "Organization of Knowledge Systems in the Brain", Nov. 30. Check out details in Academy's website www.nyas.org) (or on NYNG website: www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6117/index.html ) From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.news.gtei.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.zip.com.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news.usyd.edu.au!physiol.usyd.edu.au!cortex.physiol.usyd.edu.au!jaimiep From: jaimiep@cortex.physiol.usyd.edu.au (Jaimie Polson) Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: THALIDOMIDE NERVE DAMAGE Date: 3 Nov 1998 15:57:15 +1100 Organization: Department of Physiology, University of Sydney Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <19981101142410.19357.00002471@ng05.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cortex.physiol.usyd.edu.au In <19981101142410.19357.00002471@ng05.aol.com> ateasd5941@aol.com (ATeasd5941) writes: >Thought that you might be interested in this post posted to the >MS newsgroup. >In July 1961 Dr Kersten Thiele, a Dusseldorf minister, was paid around >one hundred and fifty pounds. This was because Thalidomide caused >"had" caused nerve damage. >If you take this drug how could you prove in a court that the cause >of any damage wasn't your MS? >This drug should NOT still be on the market, if America hadn't been >so cautious an estimated 10,000 children would have been born >deformed. Possibly double that would have died. Do you think >that 30,000 damaged and dead children would have made a > difference to whether this drug would be used today? I personally >think that it would ! >Out of respect for the people this drug damaged, and the intelligence >of people with MS and autoimmune immune disorders that include >nerve damage, this drug should be stopped in its tracks. >* The passing of 37 years does not make it right today. Todays > sales men and scientists play the same selling game ! * >Before you jump on this post think about this, you still don't >know the reason Thalidomide did what it did ! >Carol T Thalidomide is now being used in drug trials as an effective anti cancer drug. It has antiangiogenesis effects (i.e. reduces formatino of new blood vessels) and so therefore would be quite dangerous (as we know) to qive to a pregnant woman, but may have quite beneficial effects in (say) a post-menopausal woman with cancer. From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!agate!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: kkollins@pop3.concentric.net Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: Neuroscience and language Date: 02 Nov 1998 22:31:12 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 46 Message-ID: <363EA2D6.62299C9C@pop3.concentric.net> References: <363ab322.4594351@news.kuleuven.ac.be> <363CD788.3527F0A7@pop3.concentric.net> <363cd94d.4048015@news.kuleuven.ac.be> <363CE292.6009F072@pop3.concentric.net> <363D3935.AD21E633@pop3.concentric.net> <363E76BF.7FE82626@pop3.concentric.net> Reply-To: kkollins@concentric.net NNTP-Posting-Host: ts001d12.spr-ma.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) kkollins@pop3.concentric.net wrote: [...] > Bury your heads in the sand, and wait for the Beast to kick your butts? An open letter to Science, Government and Journalism:Forgive my unseemly "language". It has more than one purpose. First, it gives you the assurance that I'm not "running for" anything... the "language" automatically "disqualifies". And, since we're beyond that, now, right, secondly, I have earned the right to speak to Science, Government and Journalism thus. Third, I will let you Choose for yourselves, but please understand, in this matter, you are not only Choosing for yourselves, are you? I stand with those who Languish because Science, Government and Journalism are not being done. Fourth, I Believed Science, Government and Journalism when they Taught me, in my youth, that Truth =must= be Honored. What is a man, having so Learned, to do with respect to Truth he's seen with his own eyes. The man "Make[s] sure his feet are n the right place, then stand[s] firm." (Abraham Lincoln) Try to view things through this "lens", and you'll see that I've long ago eschewed everything that your refusal to even talk with me connotes. Through my own Free Will, I am Powerless. But then, try to understand how deeply I Love the Lesson that Science, Government and Journalism Taught me with respect to Truth. While I've Life, I can only pursue such. Then try to understand that... until the understanding reaches those who suffer greatly for the lack of it, I am bound to work to convey Truth to them. In that circumstance, no matter how many "Pink Pearls", and gentle Clowns, I Celebrate, Science, Government and Journalism are, by negative default, held Responsible. Try to understand... I serve Truth. Your Choice is your Choice. And your Choice doesn't change my relationship to Truth, nor my Obligations to Truth. But I am aware that Truth's ramifications impinge upon everything. It was when I saw this that I cut myself off from "benefit", nearly two decades ago. Yet, the circumstance that led me to "give myself up" has continued interminably, despite all my efforts to forstall it. Can you see the Sorrowful thing. I gave myself up for you, but you chose to do everything that I chose not to do... you choose, so, still... and I can only Honor Truth. When will you stop so choosing? ken From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.wli.net!howland.erols.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!204.238.120.130!news-feeds.jump.net!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: houlepn@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: mind/soul Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 16:55:34 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 83 Message-ID: <71nci7$j3m$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <3633de2d.0@ns2.wsg.net> <3635caca.0@ns2.wsg.net> <714rjt$7u4@ux.cs.niu.edu> <36395A34.4F58BF9F@sandpiper.net> <3639c986.0@ns2.wsg.net> <71gj2i$76k@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <71goa3$73q$1@its.hooked.net> <71m0k2$do5@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <71m716$eaf$1@its.hooked.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.96.169 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Nov 03 16:55:34 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.05 [en] (Win95; U) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x9.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.253.96.169 In article <71m716$eaf$1@its.hooked.net>, Bloxy's@hotmail.com (Bloxy's) wrote: < snip > > >>Just the very term reared is ugly. > > Yes, because it is completely unconscious repetition > of degrading idea. > > The idea of rearing comes from animal world. > They just stand in the middle of the field and the > baby just falls out from the rear. > Thus, reared. > > As an idea, it is utterly degrading. Where did you get this notion from? There is the word 'rear' : The back, the back part... coming from 'arrear' itself coming from the old French 'arere' And then there ist homonym 'rear' : To get up on one's feet, to rise up... coming from the old English 'raeran' itself coming from the teutonic 'raizjan'. There is no common etymology. Source : The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles, Clarendon press Pierre-Normand Houle > >>Just like farting out those children from your output hole. > >>And even the scientists use it. > >> > >>What does it mean - reared? > What is the root of the word? > Rear is the BACK part of anyting. > Look up your dic- > tionary. > > First of all, do the children come from the back? > Do you educate them by turning your ass toward them? > > Where does the term "reared" come from, > but the animal farm? > > And you, claiming to be a scientist, use the same > sub-conscious, derogatory terminology, invented > by the sub-morons, while talking about that, > which those of your camp call "the rule of everything". > > Can you reconcile it it? > Can you find a SINGLE reason for the term reared > as applied to education and upbringing? > > Youe eyes are in front. > Your nose is in front. > Even your pussy is in front. > > How do you REAR children? > > > I HOPE it is just a cutesy joke that he > >asssociates to "rear" in the sense of "rear end" and associates further > >to scatalogical implications of this perverse and bizarre > >interpretation, and not a clue as to how his mind works... > > "Perverse, bizzare interpretation"? > Whose? > > How does you idiotic CPU work, if you use the concepts > of rear, while ALL the significant work is done from > the front. < snip > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!xs4all!gate.news.unisource.nl!news.wxs.nl!not-for-mail From: Dick Zeilstra Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: Intraventricular haemorrhage Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 17:28:22 +0100 Organization: World Access Lines: 23 Message-ID: <363F2F26.48AD09CB@wxs.nl> References: Reply-To: nczwolle@wxs.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: zl0034.wxs.nl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: reader3.wxs.nl 910110450 403 195.121.20.34 (3 Nov 1998 16:27:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@wxs.nl NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Nov 1998 16:27:30 GMT To: Tony Koo X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Tony Koo wrote: > >A patient presented with an intraventricular / intracerebral bleed > >in the right posterior horn. source ?AVM. He already had an > >external drain inserted and is currently ventilated. The question > >is that although he remains semi-conscious, he occasionally > >responds when asked to squeeze hand, he remains in extension > >most of the time. What does this mean? It means that he is suffering of his brain damage and probably of increased intracranial pressure, although with a drain this should not be the case. > Would this be secondary > >to cerebral oedema, or vasospasm, or something permanent? Hopefully it is transient, but to make sure you would have to see the scans etc.Best wishes, -- Dick Zeilstra , neurosurgeon e-mail: neurosurgery.zwolle@wxs.nl From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 From: "Harm-Jan Wieringa" References: <3633279E.F5857234@javanet.com> <3637CAC9.D93CE6D9@pop3.concentric.net> <363880D1.932FBC@jhu.edu> Subject: Re: Info requested on Neuroimaging Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:38:00 +0100 Lines: 43 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience Path: biosci!agate!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!howland.erols.net!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!arl-news-svc-4.compuserve.com!news-master.compuserve.com!nntp-nih2naac.compuserve.com Hello Luke, > A neuroradiologist told me once that sometime in the next few years, >fMRI is going to be done by imaging intracellular vs. extracellular >sodium ions, which will remove this time lag. It's a lot easier to get >a strong signal from protons, and it is probably very difficult to >distinguish intra- and extra-cellular from chemical shift (when it's >chemical shift coming from atoms that aren't even in the same molecule), >so my uninformed speculation is that the techniques they come up with >might require high-budget specialized magnets, not the kind you find in >most hospitals. One thing of interest is that this technique would >directly image neural activity, not blood oxygenation levels or >something thought to correlate with neural activity... > If you can image those directly then, naturally, the hemodynamic time delay is out of the picture. But you need high-resolution functional imaging, and that takes time and probably a high-field. I know that in Japan they have 8T scanners and will get a 14T one. Normal ones can do anatomical scans up to about 1 mm. resolution (NOT functional). >> There are efforts on the way to combine both techniques. They may supplement >> each other. Some go even so far as to measure the EEG in the MRI scanner, >> during an fMRI experiment. > > I've heard of that, but I didn't realize they did them both at the same >time. I wonder how they keep the two from interfering with each other? > See for instance http://www.neuro.com/neuroscan/prod06.htm Duringt the RF pulse you do have distortion of the EEG, but that is usually no problem. For instance for Epilepsy, you see the spike-wave in the EEG, then start the fMRI scan and catch that brain activity in the fMRI (thanks to the delay of the hemodynamic response). Regards, Harm-Jan From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 From: "Tony Koo" Subject: Intraventricular haemorrhage Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:45:50 +1100 Lines: 21 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Message-ID: Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience NNTP-Posting-Host: CWIP-T-001-p-224-158.tmns.net.au [139.134.224.158] Path: biosci!agate!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!207.68.152.12!upnetnews01!upnetnews03 To the experts, I got forwarded this e-mail that somebody wanted me to post it on the newsgroup, >A patient presented with an intraventricular / intracerebral bleed >in the right posterior horn. source ?AVM. He already had an >external drain inserted and is currently ventilated. The question >is that although he remains semi-conscious, he occasionally >responds when asked to squeeze hand, he remains in extension >most of the time. What does this mean? Would this be secondary >to cerebral oedema, or vasospasm, or something permanent? that's all I was given and if anyone has any opinion or answers to the above question, I will much appreciate it. Regards, Tony Koo From owner-neuroscience@net.bio.net Mon Nov 02 22:00:00 1998 From: "Ray Scanlon" Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,bionet.neuroscience References: <71gkgt$ibc@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <363c978b.0@ns2.wsg.net> <71ioga$ks6@ux.cs.niu.edu> Subject: Re: mind/soul (blueprint??)) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:21:03 -0500 Lines: 31 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: mp6-15.wsg.net Message-ID: <363f910d.0@ns2.wsg.net> X-Trace: 3 Nov 1998 18:26:05 -0500, mp6-15.wsg.net Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.idt.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!205.139.237.14!Republic!pull-feed.cwix.com!ns2.wsg.net!mp6-15.wsg.net Neil Rickert wrote in message <71ioga$ks6@ux.cs.niu.edu>... >No, I am not a Marxist, and I do not consider DNA a dirty word. I >happen to like science to be accurate, and not just a set of "Just >So" stories. Wouldn't we all. It is for this reason that I argue that people should use the word "soul" instead of "mind" when referring to that which is aware. Let the brain think and let neuroscientists examine the brain. Let the soul (mind, self, intellect) be aware of the constellations of active neurons in the working brain. Let the soul be aware of them as "thoughts". I say this so that we shall have accurate science on the one hand and devout religion on the other. It is my conjecture that toward the end of the next century, when the activities of the brain are fully worked out, it shall be clear that the brain has no need of sou