mammilian part........

Cijadrachon cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Sun Sep 27 10:51:13 EST 1998


"Goodyboy" <huren at mbox5.singnet.com.sg> wrote:

>I would like to know the parts of the brain and more about the mammilian and
>reptilian and other parts of the brain.I new so help me learn more
>
>Thanx Huren
>13 yr old

By the way, I am not sure about the reptilian bit.

(See previous texts. eg. =  emotion generator, where emotions sort of
hatch.)

Eg.3 is older than eg.1 but many programs in him have changed to
eg.1's, and eg.1 has some stuff in her that to me seems older than
mammal.
The he/she bit might be more intesting, as all but them and eg.2 (she)
that I know of are ITs.

If you have an area that is by origin older than mammal but stuffed
with all mammal programs that I know of, or  have another that  has  a
bunch of programs reacting with them, then to me it feels wrong to
call them so.

Also one part can contain many programs of which I do not exclude that
they might span tens and hundreds of millions of years if dating back
to their origin, so maybe you should go more by programs if you are
after that.

Look at the front of the embryo worm:
The sensortip going back over the rest turning neocortex, and
sectoring off into newer functions, but magicians doing reconfigs for
older perception.
Now,  if a magician is "seeing" he is using neaocrtex areas the old
way.
But the neuron number and tracking power is new.
And the upper area that the sequencer seems to use seems not along,
nor did I notice the temporal lobes so far in it.

Looking at the embryon-brainworm and a human magician "seeing",
I am not sure if it would be correct to say "worm" "wormfish" or
"reptilian" or "mammal" or "mammal-human".  



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list