IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

(no subject)

Cijadrachon cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Tue Feb 9 22:35:11 EST 1999

R.Hill at iti.salford.ac.uk wrote:

>What happens when a human subject responds to  an audio stimulus or a
>visual stimulus. 
(Doubt anyone has all answers.)
>I know visual stimulation produces a longer response
>time is this because greater processing of the signal occurs? 
For "seeing" (compare Carlos Castaneda or German lit.:"hellsehen")
I do not know, 
for seeing I guess so.

Seeing is sort of more axony than "seeing", goes to the back, then
gets distributed to what I call the sequencer (and me if I want that) 
and I believe to elseplace, too.

If I make an exception and look into the eyes of someone many humans
do, then I sometimes do it for first emotion generator data, usually
sort of tuning then also for mine.

(F.F.LeFever, Ph.D., has mentioned distribution stuff once about three

>Does this occur at the eye or brain.  
(Eye I don't know, and brain is many places.)

>What regions of the brain are recuited. 

Might not get what I mean, but non-taboo areas in the other brain are
for me occipital, parietal, and cingulate areas and to an extent
temporal (but lack perception powers for parietal and temporal in my
own brain, so can't get much there worth mentioning)
and the other I, 
(if I feel that that is not too much of an intrusion into privacy, 
as that is not sharaeware but the other itself for me).

With the occipital cortex I tend to not even bother overly much if I
"fire right". For me those are main transformer banks.

>Why does the response time take so long compared with the  time taken
>for a reflex.

Merrily guessing I'd assume that some reflexes go off before I am
informed about that (compare doctor knee -"hammer"-tap ---> reflex), 
while if I myself want optics, because I am handicapped, it can take
me about 4-20 times the time an average human takes to "download"
that. And then I often have to segregate the data in smaller parts and
then later when wanting to see the whole fill in from memory. I also
can't really see what is around me when I am walking.  I tend to ask
people to stop so that when there is not so much moving I can see a
bit, too, what is out there. Usually I do not bother and leave that to
what I call the sequencer, but sometimes I want to know, too, what is
outside when I am walking with friends. Less good friends tend to go
impatient, or when they forget that I can't see like they do in the
start, but then they get it and make themselves more patient and I try
to hurry up so they do get too bored.

Hearing what someone says is faster.

Those are the wrong words, but maybe also less pixels  
(subatomically  {akasha <--->cells} ;  for your thinking you could
transform it into amounts of different waves and energy sorts).

In old magic brain settings for me seeing, "seeing", and hearing and
high range hearing are part of ways more akasha ranges.

When on LSD akashasurfing with another brain on transcending ranges 
and the other sent a lot of akasha into the room and then sort of
fluctuated through ranges, I could "see" and hear that on the high
ranges (but here people might risk cancer when doing that, many of the
magic communication ranges are blocked by people sending artificial
ranges through other non-consenting people's systems, and don't care
if they might die of cancer because they do... so because it is so
dangerous  I usually try to keep it blocked out as far as possible).

The few times I tried a bit,
if you made the result intersecting circles for some abstract diagram
like they used sometimes in school here, 
only part is sort of together.
Of "both"  hearing has the smaller "own areas".

"Both" are just part of akasha range perception powers.

>Can these response times be improved upon.

"Just" transcend till enlightenment.  ;-)

(Then subatomic stuff sort of goes through your subatomic stuff 
and a lot of your ahakasha is also around, 
like an energy joining.)

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net