an uninformed question...

Liar42 liar42 at
Thu Oct 4 08:40:58 EST 2001

>It has seemed to me for some time now that human consciousness <

For me the consciousnesses are the self aware / I s / who s.

(And as mammals I regard not just us humans relevant there, just some of so
many kinds.)

>is directed by a system of neural relays<

I regard my magic systems more relevant than some isolated out hardware, not
that I say the hardware is irrelevant, to the oppisite.

> over which we may learn to associate particular types of activity at one
location in the brain with relevant corresponding
activity in another location.<

I have not thought much about it.

I believe more a lot of relays were there long before I thought more about
different systems that I noticed in my head.

Also for me various areas were more relevant in "functions" than concerning

Maybe I am also so limited in parallel processings, that to consider one
location parallel with another and both elsewhere than my own I might not be so
much my thingiem but I am MBDm that means mimally brain damaged, and maybe for
persons who can process more parallel that is different.

Actually just long ago in the past on LSD I tended to discern some (main)
systems, and I seem to have lost that again / be structured internally too
differing now (or at least I guess that that is to do with it and also
differing interests).

I did not have the impression that for most humans what you just write there is
common, most humans seem not to sector discern much internally in their heads,
and far less observe activities there parallel.

> For example, at an early age, we learn to
associate a particular sensory input with the color red,<

I do not recall that (whoever your "we"s are), more that the transition to red
and seeing it as that seemed to just take placem without me having to associate
that first. The association is more verbal, like "rot" in German or later
learning that in English it is called "red".

> and as we progress into more complicated reasoning skills this knowledge is
an elemental association between a portion of the optical cortex and a
corresponding portion of Wernicke's area (if I recall correctly that this is
the language center).<

I have not been regarding it so so far.

More that the transition to red is at the eye-side, not the back of the head in
occipital cortex (in case that was meant with "optical cortex").

Also Wernicke's I assumed to have to do with general language input, and not so
much with me as such.

Actually I might have more to do with the output in case the language
structurer were not to do the verbal transitions for me.

But more neuro put, Broca's is not Wernicke's.

Apart from which I do not need to talk or listen to what someone is saying to
perceive red as a colour (or to be more precise probably via transitions arrive
at that something looks red to me).

> A person sufficiently educated in the color red <

So persons not perceiving red and green are not sufficiently educated?


>and some other social conventions of association learns to relay the visual
acknowledgement of a red 

octogon <

>with a particular sequence of motor controls, <

That's more sequencer stuff for me (& correlating brain systems to do with

>which in the proper context has the ultimate effect of decelerating a car.<

If the sequencer were not to get a red cross-light for example in the meaning
of not stopping, but I do, it might have to do with me, in which case my own I
would be central command for the stopping say in front of a red cross-light.

> I'm sure many have observed a tendency to have this habitual motor reaction
even at times in which they aren't in the driver's seat,<

I am not sure if I get what you mean.

I might tell someone a cross-light is red if I happen to see it and the other
does not seem to.

> simply because the neurological reaction is embedded without sufficient
discriminatory criteria.<


Apart from that I did not follow that internally, I am not a fan of neurology,
and if I look for terms from other branches, it would be biological and
magical, depending on what the topic is about (cells I might regard more as
bio, energy systems more magically).

>But on to the question. I've read that the Thalamus is a region in the brain
which has reaction to stimuli at any of the human sensory structures.<

I had no indication for various sensory aspects, including my own I, that it

Not excluding that it might get info concerning various sensory data, however I
would be hesitant to just talk about reactions.

For me the sequencer in my head is the other main thinker.

And though I find it not very intelligent, I have been at times amazed how far
it got without me.

> Is it possibly or probably true that it is the responsibility of the Thalamus
to govern the relaying of stimulus from one neural region to another?<

So generalized, no.

There are lots of systems.

The thalamus is a lot to do with motorics.

Me and the sequencer might seem rather segregated often, and that is so as long
as I recall (maybe also a lot to do with me being MBD and leaving a lot to it
or outright getting angry if I am interrupted with stuff that I regard its task
and not mine ... unless having taken drugs, then I might be way more tolerant,
because there it is my fault if it cannot do stuff as well, so then I might try
to be more patient and supervise along for a bit maybe if it seems to have too
many troubles),
and though I know little to nothing about details there including hardware, it
has not escaped me entirely in decades how far it got without me, and what it
did not manage (so that I had to figure out where we are and where it got too
many problems, and then see to get that O.K., to maybe then eventually be off
to thinking about something internally and sort of be pahsed off again with
external data, in which case if going some place it might be back in central
navigation command).

However I wrote in an article in the past that in the wake of a magic tuning
experiment to some energies there (might have been on some trip; I forget) I am
not so sure if it alone is a central of the sequencer, and assumed that several
other systems might be in there, too, and in case that is so, I do not wish to
guess around which of them is doing how much of that.

And I don't really wish to got into that now more, all in all for me it is
rather irrelevant what all directly belongs in with the sequencer, as I did not
have with one short fleeting exception (that was still rather vague) positional
data about it, and as for me it is sufficient if it does well enough what I
wish it to do.

I regard it as a systems cluster either way, like I am, and for me it is my
aux. and the other main thinker in my head,
and I guess for me it is not so relevant what it is all exactly off, more to
know where I distrust it and wish to be processing along external data say in a
car if there is a situation where I do not trust it far enough to leave it to
it to drive the car without me.

Actually more relevant for me than detail fuzzing there might be why some
persons who were with me in the car, though I tried to make clear before that
at times I need to drive and do not wish to be destracted whatsoever in the
loggings with external data, then when I need to because I sense it is real
important babble on or do other stuff,
like totally suicidal and also endangering maybe the life of some other driver,
and yet it can be that a person who repeated doing such, though I got rather
upset several times about that before, then gets upset if asking just for one
example if there was this and that, did I see thatm and I did not.  But if it
was something like straight going down some highway, and no inner city, I
failed to get their logic in that. At times like some madman risking health and
maybe even death for several persons and keeping me from proper logging, and at
other times where I am used to leaving that to the sequencer and trust it
there, and maybe where nothing was wrong in the way it drove, being like a bit
upset that I did not see something.

Stuff like that might be more relevant to me, why some idiot at one time where
it is real important that I see what is outside around is blocks the loggings
with way more irrelevant babble or other stuff,
and at another time, just straight ahead, no particular traffic problem, seems
to get upset at me just because I did not see some fancy car or whatever.

The logic of some persons (or lack thereof) might remain a riddle to me.

But all in all I regard such as more relevant, because such idiots can risk
health and death of others totally uncaringly, also own life, as if they do not
value it enough, and as I tended to usually tell all who entered my car that I
am MBD, leave a lot of driving to the sequencer and that if I need to log with
external data it is real important that I am not distracted,
it escapes me what some persons, and that can also happen repeatedly, even
already was several times before upset about that.

Such might be more relevant for me than if the sequencer is this or/and that
system. Because it is vital. While sequencer subdetails are not.

With someone's daughter (something not O.K. in her head) he wrote some stuff
and I made a reference back to the sequencer, and AFTER that (though he seemed
to ignore what I wrote) he wrote that there is something not O.K. in the
thalamus in her.

Actually I do not exclude that that was here in this newsgroup.

My answer had music sequences in it, was quite some work for me, and I doubted
he ever even gave them to her at the age I had mentioned for that to try them
out, thogu that was very much to do with own I practicing sequences and better
learning of them.

Simplified if something were missing or totally damaged,
then that brain area is not likely to make phuff! and be like in any other more
average brain again.

With that it might not be regarded as that relevant what it did beforem because
once it does not work anymore, that might be noticed clear enough no problem
what no longer functions. And what own I then might try to compensate might be
individually rather differing with differing sources how the damages came to be
therem what sectors are damaged how much and so on.

And whatever compensation own I tries or even has success withm another not
having these internal problems might just never really well understand what
that is like, and also will not manage the above-mentioned phuff!-trick.

Meaning something like I do not find it that relevant.

But apart from that it might have been the Pschyremb(e?)l that had a picture of
different thalamus areas correlating with different neorcortex areas.

Might somewhere, whereever, also find some correlations table.

(If I were to dig around here for a moment, I might still find a copy from a
lecture I once did for the Lehrstuhl für Wahnsinn (Teaching Chair for
~Craziness. That part was not really about the thamamus as such, but the
sequencer generalized, but anyway, there should be some table ... :)

I = Major inputs     O= Major outputs

Anterior I Hypothalamus (mammillary body), hipp. formation  
O cingulate gyrus, limbic association cortex
Lateral dorsal I  hipp.f., pretectum  O cing.g.

Medial dorsal  I  Basal ganglia, amygdala. Olfactory system. Hyopthalamus.  O 
prefrontal association cortex.

Ventral anterior  I  Basal ganglia  O Supplementary motor cortex
Ventral lateral  I  Cerebellum  O  Premotor and primary motor cortex
Ventral posterior Spinal cord, brain stem, medial lemniscus, trigeminal
lemniscus  O Primary somatic sensory cortex

Lateral geniculate  I  Retina  O  Primary visual cortex
Medial geniculate  I Inferior colliculus  O  Primary auditory cortex
Pulvinar  I  Superior colliculus; parietal, temporal, occipital lobes  O 
Parietal, temporal, occipital association cortex
Lateral posterior  I  Superior colliculus, pretectum, occipital lobe  O 
Posterior parietal association cortex

Intralaminar Nuclei
Centromedian   I  Brain stem, basal ganglia, spian chord  O  Cerebral cortex,
basal ganglia
Central lateral  I  Spinal cord, brain stem   O  Cerebral cortex, basal ganglia
Para(unlegible)cular  I  spinal c., brain stem   O  Cerbral cotex, basal

Summoned up: Different stuff to do with partially rather differing areas.

And not all brain areas.

Nor is it always between two brain areas and there controlling the so-called
"stimuli" from one brain area to the next.

Apart from that I am not the sequencer, and it does not control whatever I
decide and command around, and I am sort of "higher" in command than it.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list