cijadra at cijadra at
Wed Mar 18 02:07:47 EST 1998

flefever at Frank LeFever) wrote:

>Do they have libraries in Switzerland, or only banks?
Go there, speak the languages, live there for many years and then read
your own rethorical question again.

>One definition of a library: "a valuable source of information"
That depends on the libraries.

>"Homework" assignments connote what we in the US call a "high school"
>or "junior high" (i.e., approx. 7-12 years of formal schooling), and
>yet you give a UNIVERSITY address,  
Has it ever occured to you that the word Hausaufgabe or a word of one
of the other Swiss languages might be the base and that iof the person
should be from Switzerland that English is a foreign language?
I guess you are of course that good in other languages, that minor
mistakes like that would not happen to you.
Ich nehme an, wenn wir die Unterhaltung in Deutsch oder Franzoesisch
fuehren wuerden, wuerden Ihnen solche Fehler nicht unterlaufen. 

>which connotes a tradition of and
>preparation for scholarship which goes beyond a primitive plea for help
>in "gathering information".
Ich halte es kaum fuer primitiv, sich international im Netz zu
erkundingen, was es fuer Daten zu einem Thema gibt.
To the opposite, in comparison I'd consider it primitve, if instead of
asking internationally, you'd restrict yourself to just a few

>What have you done to learn about the dimensions of your topic so far?
>What have you done to identify sources of information within your own
I've seen a film from Switzerland about schizophrenia, that was
violent, primitive, advertised injuring people, did not explain the
methods that are commonly used on this planet in such cases but
instead advertised humiliation of people with the problem and ignoring
them. That film was in the library for medical students in Berlin

Maybe YOU are content to limit yourself to the information of one or a
few places instead of many places of the world.
But I do not see why you suggest that as policy to others.

And possibly you overlook that in many places they do not want the
data from some library books 5-25 years old, but current data.
I do not know about universities in Switzerland, but here in Berlin
certain l;evels are expected.
Maybe where you come from some old data is sufficient.

And as far as memory goes anything I read of the neuros so far showed
that they do not understand and still ignore the data of the others.
And that is current stuff.

Some of the stuff I read they tried to claim that the center of
consciousness is in the frontal cortex or that it has to do with the
size of our neural nets or that the thalamus has to do with it, and
similar stuff.

And that was not 5-15 years back.
There is a meeting in Germany in Bremen with the question where the
conscious center are - there are neuros who have not even gotten that
so far in Germany; and that's real old stuff, others have known that
for ages. 

Because they ignore how the areas of the brain work together and which
areas are conscious and which ones are not, they do not get the memory
I have been reading dumb questions like why autists at some points
don't seem to be able to hear and don't seem to feel pain  and at
other points do, why everything has to be on the same place for them
and so on.
Anyone who knows about the main memory systems would get that bit.

The problems is if you have a bunch of people who ignore what is known
and instead take other beings apart alive, and then attempt to force
young people to rely on what they say, then everyone not stupid knows
that a lot of what they say is not congruent with the data of most of
the others of the world, 
while the data of several of the others is congruent with their data.
There are certain conclusions that a person might arrive at.
But since you seem to find reading that good, I guess that many of the
world have escaped your attention, because many of them do not write
stuff you find in libraries and many do not write at all.

If you knew what the others know and would not be like me, you'd just
tell him about the different main memory systems, substuff,
correlations, and where to find data about transmitters those systems
use, Alzheimer, effects of lead, tumours in  certain regions, MBD and
autism differences in  correlations (why everything has to be at the
same place, special powers of the according system...)... and so on.

>You do not even know what questions to ask until you learn SOMETHING
>about the topic you beg for information about (my image is of someone
>with a begging cup in hand instead of a book).
My image is someone with a book who tells him that a monkey was
tortured in the form of having the motoric cortex cut out  and then
some amazement about the obvious results that I could have told them
while with the book in the hand you overlook that there are people who
could teach you fascinating things about the mind, subareas of it &
how to acces them, thousands of subprograms, correlations, how to
steer many processes in the body, how to perceive odd frequencies, how
to extend fields and perceive and change stuff that way, how to
communicate that way with other humans maybe far away, mammals and
many others, how to discern illnesses and how to heal that way, how to
know if there is water under the Earth or where to find certain
metals, ...

And my image is of someone who for reading keeps the tuning of the
eyes and the occipital cortex perception powers just to the range of
colours and the distance of the book  and that way loses / does not
build  connections in the brain for all the other stuff coming in via
the eyes (and many other channels),
so that after reading so much he can only perceive colours and is not
even able to transit to just a few hundred of the others and that way
is restricted to the little band of colours coming in through his
eyes, proudly saying: "I read a lot about the world iof people who
wrote their stuff months or years ago!"
But not being able to perceive the current world around well with the
limited sight...
The day of compliments...  ;-)

>If you've done enough groundwork to know what exactly you want or need
>to know, THEN you might usefully query people on the internet.

He said so: Memory.

To me the request sounded like indirectly asking people who are
willing to share information to tell him what they know about that
topic and directly ask them where on the net or elsewhere there might
be information.

And if it was me I might be tempted to look at the whole data coming
in in the end, compare it, and then take the valuable parts and make
sort of a skeleton structure with them and then attempt to fill the
whole up to an impressive, fat dinosaur of data about memory...

>Frank LeFever
>(a cranky old man)

...Just that this might be the wrong place,
since here there seem to be the cranky old men, anti-Western babbling
weirdos ;-), pro-Western other beings torturers, data-seekers,
emergency-help-needers, medical equipment sellers, a few taciturn ones
from several non-Western and other Western branches, a few Science
Fiction dreamers  and some not knowing much but fascinated about the
brain, ...  

And with many of the interesting places they 
either want that you know a lot of Wester science stuff 
or that you have internal perception and know about your own areas and
at least a few of the others
or you are not considered worth dealing data with.
Or too much of a bother, as then you have to keep on for ages about
stuff that other people would know straight.

This is a different topic, but a western scientist might  not want to
explain where in the brain the basolateral part of the amygdala is and
what transmitters are used there,
and a brain surfer might not want to explain how you run a dock-in
there and alter programs.
That is simply too much work;
in the same time you could have fascinating conversations with people
who know such basic stuff, and talk about more fascinating areas with

And I guess that is a point where the cranky party is right:
If you do not have some data, then you might not get that much.
While if you have so much that people are interested in yours, then
they might be far more willing to tell you what they know.
That is so in many areas.

And with the brain even more, because the ones who know stuff that
only a few hundred people on this planet know about, know fairly well
what their data is worth, 
and many of them are about as willing to share it 
as a dragon is willing to share the treasure he sleeps upon.

...Except if in trade for handing out copies of some part(s) their
treasure they get something back enriching that treasure, so that it
makes them feel even better loafing on top of it  gazing down upon the
little ones of the others;
maybe additionalldy enjoying the advantages of being a mind-data
kleptomainiac without prejudices.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list