open minds

John H. johnhkm at netsprintXXXX.net.au
Wed Feb 2 06:28:39 EST 2000


All minds are closed, they wouldn't be minds otherwise.

1.

If you're starting from scratch then bloody your knuckles on some good
foundational texts. Take it from someone who hasn't, if you don't learn the
nomenclature life is very difficult. It is always going to be very
difficult.

Eg. "programme the brain". Wrong way around, we are programmed by our
brains, and I hate words like programs. Think about brains without any
reference to silicon whatsoever and as much as Mr. Turing is to be admired I
strongly advise that you avoid at all possible costs any mention of
algorithm, software, inputs, outputs,  etc; well at least until you've read
a few dozen foundational texts, which I haven't, which explains a lot ...

Anyway, try Behaviour Therapy, that seems to work now and then. Or ask a
parent, they seem to do it instinctively, up to a point. I cannot think of a
more terrible thing to do than to programme a brain, sort of defeats the
whole purpose of the having one. I don't know about you but my brain is much
much smarter than me so I ain't touching nothing.

2.

With respect to how much of our brain is used don't fall for that line. It
can't be explained simply but the brain is so constructed that it cannot
runn at full capacity (or anywhere near that) all the time or at any time
for as the wonderful experiments involving audiogenic seizures and the
terrible clinical tales of seizures in general clearly indicate prolonged
"unnatural" activation of the grey stuff could have literally very
deleterious and potentially apocalyptic (!?) consequences.

Anyway, get real confused, some recent studies have indicated that clever
type dudes actually use less grey matter to solve your standard
psychological puzzles.

Sorry, it just isn't going to be that simple. It's not just food, that's an
old hungry brain idea (Journal of Human Anthropology, 1995 I think, "The
Expensive Tissue Hypothesis". Also, in anthropology look under "Radiator
Hypothesis") and there is something to the idea of brains functioning at
their metabolic limit, but again what constitutes a "limit" could well vary
from brain to brain (neuroanatomical differences for eg, a "better" circle
of willis perhaps) and most certainly will be subject to environmental and
neuroendocrine considerations even on a daily basis (rise and fall of
glucocorticoids,which can affect both declarative memory consolidation and
problem solving skills). Your brain needs glucose and oxygen, glucose you
can't and shouldn't change (oranges work miracles for me though), the best
thing to preserve and improve your brain is regular light daily aerobic
exercise and reading foundational texts in neuroscience. After you've
finished reading meditate for 15 minutes or until your stress response has
diminished, then go to sleep while thinking about what you have just read.
If that doesn't work you're own your own.

By the way no exercise at least pre 3 hours to sleep as raised core
temperature inhibits sleep.

3.

The cerebellum, seems like a good place to start looking for programs
whatever such entities are.


4.

Never, as long as you breath, make sweeping statements with respect to
Neuroscience. Is this clearly understood? I ask this because in the past I
have experienced some extraordinary difficulties in convincing certain
individuals of the intrinsic wisdom of this maxim. For though I am loathe to
direct others in their intellectual queries I must insist in this instance
that as Neuroscience is a babe in the cradle of science I can see no reason
why we should begin to entertain the notion that some Neural Unification
Theory lies senescent within the wonder before us. It doesn't exist
(statement of faith!). If you think you understand remember this,

"At times I think have a grasp of the solution, but that is a common
delusion experienced by anyone who has dwelt too long on a single problem."

Or something very like that in,

The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. Francis
Crick

Neural Code? Yes, that could be simple, that's worth thinking about and
chasing, but in the end, for all practical purposes (ie, that which really
matters), a Neural Code may be akin to using satellite navigation to plot
the quickest path to the corner store.

Don't disappoint me.

Screaming doubt,


John.
Total amateur (beginners mind), studying brain all his life.
Still believing this: D. T. Suzuki, Essays in Zen Buddhism, "The sword
cannot cut itself."

harsha parmar <never at again0.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8751ra$95m$1 at newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Please help-you will not be disappointed.
> Totally  totally amateur, only studying the brain for 3 months - I was
> looking for something else and doing something else, did not realise what
I
> was doing or what I had found until about a month later.
> I now how, But do not know why and what possible dangers. That is why I am
> having to learn about the brain from scratch. Absolutely fascinating
> organism and subject,
> Cannot say what it is that has been found or what I am doing or how I've
> done it-yet-except you will probably figure it out from these questions.
> Before I go making any sweeping statements it has to be substantiated and
> quantified and mapped out, which should take me another 4-6 months work
> permitting.
>
> Have there been any attempts to programme the brain ( 'organs', processes,
> left and right hemispheres-individually, neurotransmitters, the cortex,
> sequences, synchronicity, the corpus callosum, the hippo & the hypo, the
> putamen, firing  & not firing, etc ).-not using drugs.
>
> I read somewhere that a sizeable part of the brain's capacity is
> unused/undeveloped. is this true. Where specifically is this
> unused/undeveloped capacity. How much more 'food' ( percentage wise, more
> than it gets at present ) should the brain get before utilising/working
this
> capacity.
> what are the dangers of this.
>
> ( for the hon. learned ) If you could program ( specifically & generally )
> various 'parts' and processes of the brain, where would you start and
where
> would you continue to.
>
> Ta. pedro
> never at again0.freeserve.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>












More information about the Neur-sci mailing list