Electromagnetic brain waves (and Betty Martini)

Postmaster at neubio.gov.ar Postmaster at neubio.gov.ar
Sat Apr 6 00:03:58 EST 1996


Colleagues,

             The many silent neuronetters also keep
track of the exchanges.  We too think.  Delirious
claims are soon picked up and allowed to pass,
often silently.  Not decidably grounded, "light" claims,
I believe, are evaluated chiefly on the honesty they 
transpire.

             In the unavoidable comparison between
Betty Martini's and Shaman's efforts, Betty's fair-
ness impresses me as evident.  And though her 
claims are just not enough grounded as I'm used
to, they are sufficient as to permit to initiate
independent verifications.  The student of divi-
nity Fred Shaman, contrarily, is profiting by the
not so extended capability of independent verifi-
cation among a good share of neuroscientists in
matter of basic physics. So I find proper to join
other physicists and physicochemists, now perhaps
tired of posting serious answers responded with 
insults and complete ignorance of the points rai-
sed by them, in bewaring that

(a) the claims about Faraday's "law" are nonsense.
There is an extremely well-trodden thread about it
in basics physics, connected with monopoles and
magnetic currents, that received a major impulse
in the seventies by the work of Julian Schwinger.
The student of divinity not only is personally una-
ble of commenting on such a thread in the appropria-
te physics fora and tried to impress in a neurosci.
forum (as if no physicist worked in our field); he
pretends a major contribution on induction theory
that must to be grounded on quantum electrodynamic
field theory, though he gives it solely a divulga-
tory and superficial "mathematical" portray. Any
search on "Induction" in physics data bases shall
yield a lot of references, even for aqueous disolu-
tions.

(b) the historical claims are nonsense. Many proposals
in the XIX century focused on an electromagnetic theory
of psychogenesis. In our country the concept of the organ's
"electromagnetic skeleton" was forwarded by Christfried
Jakob since 1906.  However in psychogenesis it is con-
nected only with one group of processes, while others
require other interaction modalities. The reason for
this was even briefly mentioned to the divinity student,
in this forum, by one of the posted responses he ignored.
First year neuroscience students in this country are exa-
mined on their knowledge of the brain electromagnetic
skeleton and its architectural transients, on official
programs, since many decades ago; and just an important
point of their study is discriminating the operating in-
teractions. Not only the postings of the claimant ignore
all this (I suppose he is not plagiarizing old official
programs of our Education Ministry, because in such a
case he would not have so many blunders commited) but he
dares to say that inductive action is not studied as a 
mean for info transfer in the brain.  On this last, superb
gaffe surely no comment is needed.  And if this reading is
made in my country, let me imagine what like readings are
being performed in other countries.

(c) the vanity expounding is nonsense. The divinity stu-
dent compares himself with Einstein and Newton, insults
even important colleagues that tried to help him and
centers his efforts on priority. I shall not extend myself
on this point, but this evident, powerful motivation
(personal vanity) is another main difference with claims
perhaps still incompletely founded, as aspartame poisoning.
Judging just on posted materials, motivations are discer-
nible; Shaman's vanity discredite his work, even before 
those colleagues uninterested in personally ascertaining 
the induction-theoretical issues. 

(d) the biological context is nonsense. Just now a well-
known Argentine scientist -excuse me to provide local
examples, but simply they are those nearer to me- is now
lecturing in the foreign on the phyletic priority of
ephapses over synapses, a paleontological fact found here
on another official project - more than thirty years ago.
Also it is often mentioned U.K. Patent 1,582,301 in re-
gard to the architecturing of an electromagnetic skeleton
by artificial devices; it also might be read the URSS Gov.
document 0805-90366E, "Ustroistvo ili makhina dlya vide-
leniya obiektivnij virajhienii iss subiektivnij opredie-
lienii diestviushij na material" (Moskow, 1979) on these
artificial means to do such inductive architecturing on 
the electromagnetic skeleton.  And the assault in 1980 on
a scientific institution in Buenos Aires was expressly aimed
to interrumpt neuroscientific works in these lines as provi-
ding biological knowledge and experimental devices condu-
cive to the availability of non-Turing automata.

Since the divinity student uses a warfare tactics often
encountered in shamans, presenting himself as enviously
rejected because of his "geniality", I found useful to
post this public notice to avoid that his predication di-
suades serious colleagues and students of devoting time
to experimental and theoretical studies of induction
effects in cellular systems, remembering that all the
previous exchanges of this thread are e-mail retrievable 
in Bionet Waismail.
                                 
                                 
Lic. Gabriel David Noel,
<postmaster at neubio.gov.ar> 
biophysics researcher, 
Institute for Advanced Study, 
Buenos Aires, Argentina.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list