Fw: can someone answer my question?
spamdecoy.only.real.address.is.fellin at one.net.au
Wed Dec 9 23:15:43 EST 1998
In my opinion the point you made was a waste of effort because it is in
support of a theory that, although it might well approximate an aspect of
What Is going on, lacks relevance where it counts.
Our obvious need to throw more light on "selective *unconsciousness*" caused
by "Specific (easily specifieable) Hibernation Imploring Type
life-Situations" [deservedly abbreviated ~SHITS~ -- because they "stink" so
Unnecessarily many of which, we tend to perpetuate.
We do so precisely because of the selective *unconsciousness*, and the
"Conditioned-in & Hibernated, Hence Unconsciously Remembered, Stressors,
Effecting (e.g. "EVASIVE") Symptoms" [~CHHURSES~ for short], that this such
life-Situations as if "put in place" in the way of a needfulfilled, hence
more likely to be "fluently/freely integrated" and so more fully conscious
and "alive", brain/individual.
kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote in message
<366B63E7.50ADFBC4 at pop3.concentric.net>...
>kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
>> RonBlue wrote:
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: James Howard <jmhoward at sprynet.com>
>> > >>>>>cut>>>>
>> > >"Consciousness occurs when evolution requires one brain system to
>> > >another.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>cut>>>>>>
>> > Jack Sarfatti has calculated that only 1% of the neurons in the human
>> > required for a conscious thought when quantum entanglement occurs.
>> This is, Verifiably, B. S. 100% of the nervous system is involved in 100%
>> neural-activation "states"... if it were not so, "quiescent" neural
>> would interfere with convergence, and, to the degree of such,
>> have observable "holes" in it... which is what =all= lesion studies
>> > Since only 1% is required it likely that all animals are conscious and
>> > as a natural consequence of physics and biology. The mirotublin are
>> > to transport neurotransmitters and nutrients and would occur in most
>> > life forms.
>> > Darwin wins again but this time with a simple answer.
>> I mean no offfense (just the opposite), but Darwin wasn't even close. ken
>Even though it seems he didn't Realize such, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin)
>very-much-closer to getting things right than was Darwin... and, similarly,
>Realization, so was Nicolas Carnot. ken collins
More information about the Neur-sci