terrys at gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) wrote:
>> From: kkollins at pop3.concentric.net>> Date: 14 Oct 1998 16:44:29 PDT
>>>> The only way that I can see that shows strong promise is to fore-arm
>> folks with understanding that enables them to comprehend the
>> necessities inherent in our nervous
>>Come and see the neccesities inherent in the system?
>>I have studied Psych and Neurobiology, and have come across nothing like
>the jargon-ridden psychobabble [relative to neuroscience]y you wrote. I'm
>sure it is the result of a lot of study - but not neuroscience. There was
>not one iota of quantifiable or testable statement in your whole screed.
>>The blithering druggie from Germany is bad enough. Why not take this to a
>philosophy group? As one who has suffered endogenous depression, I find
>your spew-age babbling quite offensive and utterly irrelevant.
>| Australia - Howard's '50s Theme Park. #
The blithering druggie from Germany,
whose opinion upon these topics I have no doubt you are valuing no
end and are feel honoured to read them,
has had one quarter of the tests after 2 years of studying special
education in (translated) Children's and Youth's Neuropsychiatry.
As said blithering druggie from Germany therfore can check a little,
the according crrrreature had or/and has about every third sign of
what was called autism there, had some kindergardener asking the
mother if dear childie might be an autist,
when reading books about autism with questions inthere could answer
about a third of the questions in there about autism
simply sort of looking into oneself, gathering data, and saying
and other little blithering thingies,
and taking certain blocker drugs the blithering druggy has the
connections to other sectors going so down, that before a concussion
making it even more blithering, it could on intention work on certain
amounts high enough for blocking but not too high so lack of
concentration and hallucinating would set in,
and in it's blithering opinions is one of the biggest walking
databanks of Earth about some sectors of the brain.
The crap I had back then in university translated something like "I",
"super-I" and "it", I found remarkably easifying, especially the "it"
refer to more thousands of different aspects of the mind than I
bothered to count, some of the programs seeming over 100 million
years apart if I am to trust estimates about when our ancestors
turned mammals and about the time before that,
though I was nevere to sure jhow much to believe there.
Then there was blabbing about THE subconscious.
Now, that's what I call real precise!
Some of the main features of the mind, that the other brain-damaged
blithering druggies also having less cellls and connections and
plugging the remains between sectors shut with, and then popping up
again connecting and telling me later about their researches in
among the most remarkable I ever heard.
And I am MBD enough and know enough in there and also have some vague
neuro-ideas, that - though not with all - at least with some I can
tell if it is so.
Data that I heard about years ago the Westie-system branches are not
going to get at with cutting around in people of the other races and
if they do it ages.
All of the blithering druggies and some sober folks of different
nations and not knowing each other, when you ask them "where are you"
will point at their head where the limbic system is, though given the
slicers I prefer not to go into detail.
What does Alzheimer say? - Limbic system.
Where do the neuros slice? Hippocampal areas.
And yet when you tell them what the blithering druggies have been
knowing for a long time, with sub-sector data discussions having been
done ages ago, and which what all people not out for abusing those of
the other mammal races, sense,
that all mammals are "I"s and that just having some sort of big
computer like area in the front and Broca's for babbling and hands to
torture others is not the justification to declare all others
they basically tell you to shut up, and some maybe hurry up slicing.
And the parliaments and Amnesty Internations and all the meat eater
and those keeping people of the other races in cages just look away
towards the own comfort.
>Come and see the neccesities inherent in the system?
Vague, but idea correct.
More score points for ways out of mental trouble than psychology.
Though there are better ways, and ways should be adapted to the
person, so what is right for one might be completely the wrong way for
>I have studied Psych
That does not speak for you that much, as I find them lagging back
even behind Scientology though maybe more advanced than the Catholic
Church. Belief of all three amazing. Though for at least using it for
helping people to find their balances psychology seems to make the
'Schlusslicht" (rear light).
>and Neurobiology, and have come across nothing like
>the jargon-ridden psychobabble [relative to neuroscience]y you wrote.
Escuse me, but I got a 2 back then (1 being the best mark), so I had
to learn some of the jargon-riiden babble for neuropsychiatry.
Categorizing loads of people together on the base of naming the brain
weird and showing clearly that connections are not understood.
Different branches and people have their wordies, and the "?"
being invented and most having the capacities to store ten to hundreds
of thousands of words, it also might not totally blast out the own
capacities to learn a few more.
Though maybe yours.
>I'm sure it is the result of a lot of study - but not neuroscience.
Well, and if you wanted to understand psychological matters, what
would neuroscience be good for?
Neuro is one of many on Earth, and if with branches like neuro or
Scientology or Psychology or the Catholics you'd start to learn eery
word and phrase they use, you'd hbe busy.
There is the art to scan across the data of other branches till it
gets interesting, fight your way through the upper and lateral
irxtlwrkses of the holy Operating Theta-waved fripselfrupsel gating
into the aspired conglomerate of data thta seemed not crap that you
Then you stick the load into your wtiches caldron, stirr it together
boil it and evaporate the lateral frupsels, and stick your long nose
into the caldron to see what is left at the bottom.
Then you broom over to some semi colleagues and translate it into
their irxtlwrks so they get the recipe and can spice,
and then you forget most of that and go for some other craze that is
more interesting at that point.
You are simply taking too much too serious,
and we are having liberty of speech and opinion.
If you do not like what he said - and I commented on vagueness, too,
that is no reason to stop him, just maybe tell him what exactly you
want changed, and if it is vocabulary maybe offer to explain your
versions, then the blithering druggies from Germany might get your
terms and ever so advanced theories about the areas they were
brain-surfing in back then and go into blithe laughter about the real
Or sort of mentally pat you on the head, as you are vaguely getting
some fraction more.
I wonder if you are aware how some of the even more segregated who got
sub-data I never got in or sector data where till this day I wonder
how they manged to get there,
are thinking about the neuroshrinks.
That's like seeing an intricate puzzle and playing with it and having
some neuros slashing it's beauty into pieces, some psyjunkytrists
messing it up and some psychologists taking the outermost appearances
and bundling them into groups and with vague, often wrong terms guess
>There was not one iota of quantifiable or testable statement in your whole screed.
Let me guess, you are not able with a lot to check within yourself if
that is so or not.
>The blithering druggie from Germany is bad enough.
If you wish to criticize me, then list what I said and come with your
praised quatifiable or testable proof against that.
Until then and maybe afterwards, too, you could use language that does
not sound like your are still in sand-pit-age.
>Why not take this to a philosophy group?
The part with druggie is O.K., by the way.
And as the dear druggie is currently on drugs the frontal cortex is
not that good, but the haze coming by goes along the slingering line
that someone observing stuff going off that is definitely not of the
but unable to split and chase it through the brain until he has the
base program(s) targeted down and some of the reaction chains going
off from there to other locations tracked, too,
might therefore come to the wrong conclusion that he is faced with
automatisms that need the understanding of the whole brain
(also not understanding that there are bodies attached to brains, and
that brains about as different as faces magically regarded).
The erratic simplified coclusion could therefore be:
Analyze all physical structures, then understand automatism, then be
able to do more about them.
That track as such fits more here than in philosophy.
Then comes a bit along the line: If children were to understand these
things better and people were to deal with them better,
and if children, who are our future, were raised to a nice future,
that is of supereme importance.
The last bit getting 5-6 billion points.
But some points minus for that others are aware of that, too,
but to make an education plan for Earth that would see to a wise
future of many parallel cultures and individuals coexisting, is not
that easy to construct.
Apart from (nagging you with un-neuro topics)
that declaring Social Individualism in my aspired model,
might not see to certain people lift their arse from their places and
as a last deed seeing to the new educations system started
with some very few exception, where I believe they are far enough the
way they are.
>As one who has suffered endogenous depression, I find
>your spew-age babbling quite offensive and utterly irrelevant.
I must say that your endogenous depression seems to have cured to
I wish your spew mind to increase in intelligence to not downloading
the posts you do not like to read.
And comparing offensive levels between the two of you, you should run
some reality checks.
It should make you think if the LSD front already says so.