John

Liar42 liar42 at aol.com
Thu Oct 4 09:03:45 EST 2001


>Then Crick turned to Neuroscience and we all should be very grateful for
that.< 

Why, did he object the atrocious crimes there against others?

Or  you just try to dictate all others how they have to feel towards someone?

>(...) something like the Thalamic searchlight hypothesis.
Haven't read it and and I don't give it an intellectual hoot about
consciousness per se, <

Consciousnesses.  (And though I do not regard the sequencer as an I
consciousness, I wrote about that aspect and it more extensively in the past,
concerning speculated prestages and someone's experiment there, but do not wish
to repeat that now).

>let alone human consciousness. <

Could as well say mammal.

(Apart from that in my brain two consciousnesses both registered older than
mammal, and mine as Urwes(en) already in the water, and there a while, a looong
while. Simplified old stuff in the brain that many have in variations.)

>I do not think consciousness is rooted in some gross anatomical structure<

My correlating hardware are several structures.

But I do not know subareas there, just main areas, and I certainly do not
intend to discuss that in a neuro pervert room (nor, as I mentioned, anywhere
on the net usually ... such is more something to discuss with an LSD brain
surfer, meaning something like LSD branch internal, or maybe with one of the
shroomers ... if out for that at all and not for akasha surfing ;-).

>(no, I'm not a dualist <

But like a headblind who never explored different systems in his head far.

(Apart from someone overlooking what is obvious in Alzheimer's as well,
concerning hardware where disturbances there like that are relevant for own I.)

> (...). Human selves probably require our specific neuro-anatopmy,<

As far as I am concerned if all of neuro could never had existed so many
atrocious crimes would not have been committed to persons of related kinds. 
And no, human selves do not all need neuro. 

Not that I assume you meant that.

(But it sounded alike some branch glorification of neurology trying to verbaly
make neuro relevant when it comes to hardware structures in the brain.)

> but not consciousness, <

The selves in my brain are consciousnesses.

They are the I s, those who are very aware that they exist.

Who s, I s, consciousnesses, selves, very aware of own existing.


Whoever you mean, in my brain the I consciousnesses are each a self, that is
what makes us I s, that we know that we are there, are who s and have very much
self (existing) sense.

Maybe if fainting and going unconscious or I guess in deep sleep, there I do
not believe that we would be I-aware.

But in common awake stages we are.

[I wrote about dreaming and own I and various other systems elsewhere in the
past.]

Acid




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list