b.s.

Liar42 liar42 at aol.com
Sun Oct 21 09:21:41 EST 2001


>Epilespy is handled quite well in "Conversations" as I understand it.<

I'd rather try long times to transtune for a sector with another brain 
and hope it makes enough chances here than to have cut out a part of my brain.

>It isn't about removal of an entire lobe or hemisphere (!!), but of a small
area in the medial temporal lobe, on the inside near (but not upon) the
hippocampus.<

Then the book did not cover cingulate sourced epilepsy,
nor maybe many aspects about it.

But I share into the !! ... That does sound rather destructive.


> > > (...) When ideas compete (in our brains) for attention,<
>
>> How does an idea compete?

>It is a fight for attention,<

No, in my head my attention tends to be on something.

Not some idea sneaking up mysteriously from nowhere and trying to compete.

If I have several ideas my own I might be comparing them for advantages and
disadvantages.

I make decisions there.

Not some idea coming from nowhere and trying to compete for my attention.

> and it is as I see it a battle between several ideas<

Based on what.

Does the idea transform itselt into a brainsector that suddenly gets override
command over my own I, or what?!

>primarely instigated by visual or any other senses.<

Lol.

No.

Not in my brain.

In my brain my own I is to do with a lot of ideas,

and after that of relevance I regard the sequencer, but that is more autonomous
in a lot, 
and the first and third emotion generator, and maybe to an extent the 5th, but
I am hesitant to count it in here.

Not some optical shareware system in the back.

But just for fun, how would back occipital 
A) generate an idea
and B) try to compete with anything in my limbic systems?

Chuckle ...

>The cues<

What cues?

> will 'lite up' one or possibly two of Hebb's cell-assembly.<

Hebb's cells are to be found in what system(s) of the brain?

Apart from that if I were centrally busy with whatever, what some cells do
externally from me might not interest me that much, nor do I recall ever to
have perceived a single cell.

>They will in turn create a hexagon, <

What, they are making hexagons like on an Armageddon game board?

OT: Remding me, there's a story from Magira, that is a fantasy group,
where someone wanted a map for an Arma game, in other words to cut out hexagons
there, if I recall right, and went into a shop with maps.
He said he wants a map with mountains on it, flat land and ocean.
The map seller wanted to know which map?
"Oh, it should have mountains on it, and flat land, and ocean."
"But of what country?" 
"Not important, just that there are mountains on it, flat land and ocean."

I would have liked to see the face of the map seller.

(There are a bunch of rather amusing stories of Magiran - outside Magira people
had encounters. ;-)

>and it will conquer territory adjacent to it.<

So, the cells or ideas take their arms and march over and conquer the new area?

;-)

Giggle ...

>Usually neighbours,<

So what, the ideas sort of independently march around in the brain, and go into
mororics and make a party there, or what?

You might not have noticed, but in my brain a lot of ideas have to do with my
own I, and not some hexagon b.s., nor that any ideas from nowhere start to
conquer territory in my head.

> and as long as the territory isn't lit up by another idea, they
will expand until they meet another idea (thought).<

So some idea from nowhere starts to light up areas, as if the idea was some
independent whatever that sneaks into systems and lights up areas, there, and
then it is supposed to meet one of the main thought systems, like the sequencer
or me, let's take me, and meet me there.

Maybe try to tell that you granny, maybe she's more impressed.

With some stuff from one of the emotion generators influencing my decisions I
might have protested less, 
but with some conquering b.s. like that you ain't get far concering my head.

>Then the one with most hexagons will win, but not always.<

B.s.

In my head a lot of decisions are made by me,
and not by some hexagons.

A lot of ideas come from my own I,
and there my considerations are of relevance, and not some hexagons lighting up
or some conquering stuff from nowhere sneaking up.

>It depends upon if the hexagons have been a part of;IE Apple; when the
territory is tested by the hexagon for Orange.<

?

You did not make sense to me.

Decisions in my head are to do a lot with my own I,
that means some limbic stuff,
and when it comes to food I might figure other systems and my body might know
better, and there a lot seems to do with requirements as well as if I have acid
running. Meaning on LSD I might not wish to eat an apple. 


>> (...) If I have ideas, they do not compete for attention, but I have
them and think about them.

Say I were to consider if it is better to call you an idiot or some
nutter who mistakes his belief for fact 
and therefore writes b.s. like facts,
then there is no competition for attention, they are just parallel options,
where I might consider their values, like that one is shorter and the
other more explicit, etc.

What however might distract me just slightly is the laughter in the wake
of my charming diplomacy.<<

>Read "The Celebral Code" - it isn't expensive and it will explain it much
better than I can ever hope to do.<

I don't have money now for that, and with a lot I can straight check into my
own brain and get me data for that, and do not need neuros confusing belief
with facts.

(Apart from that about various internal "codes" as someone who went akasha
surfing on LSD or other stuff with hundreds of human brains I might know a
thingie or two as well.)

> > ;-)

Thanks, I hoped you weren't slamming me becasue you don't like me
personally :-) <<

Oh, don't take it too personal, I make fun of lots of people, and when I really
do not like someone and get nasty just for the sake of getting nasty, that
looks different.

Like one US American I told in German what translated means that he is a
barf-cloth (something used to wipe up puke) 
not worth to wipe my feet upon.

It might be more exceptional that I am actually nice to someone
than that I pull off a lot of sarcastic jokes on what someone is writing.

Actually so far I like you, 
even if you take utter mental crap and generalize it like that must be so for
my brain.

There are not many people on the net that get to hear from me that so far I
like them.

I guess you just have not seen me yet going off for serious against someone and
that being based on a deep personal dislike.

Simplified if insults words pop up in my texts that are pure insults, no
relation anymore to what the other has been writing, or if I call someone a
pervert criminal, those can be regarded as distinct signs of serious dislike
for someone.

If I just do the usual hopping around on some text and amusing myself while at
it, that can be regarded as so impersonal, that even if for the person
criticized it might sound like I dislike him, it might be I do not even recall
three days later that I wrote that text to that person, and might also not
recall the name of that person.

I just like to e-slingshoot off against texts.

This can be highly impersonal, even if I make fun of a writer who just managed
to generalize total b.s. to be so for my brain.

I just have a certain dislike for people coming up and trying to tell me how
stuff has to be in my brain, which might also have to do with that I am MBD and
partially differing in some stuff to many,
and just have had it up to the brim and higher that some non-MBDs are trying to
dictate their non-MBD norm-ideals to me, make fun if I can not do various stuff
like them, and do not believe me if I can do other stuff, just because they
can't do it.

It might be called a certain "touchiness" if anyone else marches up and tries
to dictate me how stuff has to be in my brain.

So if someone spells out a lot of b.s. and states it like that has to be so in
all our brains including brain, and I regard that as a pile of mental crap, I
might not be too polite about stating that I regard that as a pile of erratic
and inance crap.

As mentioned, I am not exactly diplomacy on Earth.

And I'll probably go off and e-slingshoot at various parts of the rest of your
text as well.

Concerning mistaking assumptions for facts you do that here again.

You do not even show signs that you really learned far from that.

More that you do it over and over again.


Apart from that, in case that with the personal liking was a question, 
so far I do like you personally, even if that might not be that obvious, though
I do not know that much about you (so maybe somewhen my opinion changes).


>About attention.
The best part is on page 189-190:

"Why do we have a unity of conscious experience?<

Outch.

If that is the best part, the book sounds like a good fire starter material.

WE do NOT have always a unity of conscious experiences.

In my brain on LSD I had it various times that two of the consciousnesses
segregated, and me not just from another consciousness but feeling segregated
from a whole bunch of areas,
and though that is many years ago, back then I was rather used to it and liked
that stage.
Quite interesting for internally less warped thoughts, because once the emotion
generators are out their stuff does not warp logic so much.

Anyway, that was many years ago before some concussion, and I do not recall
having had such stages ever after, and also had different interests then, guess
that chanced some stuff internally.

Anyway, WE do not have a unity there, the consciousnesses in my brain are
different systems, and even if we are way more linked I can still be highly
aware that I am not all of the self-existing systems in my brain and that there
is at least one other major consciousness in my brain who is also self-aware.

> We speak with a single voice,<

What's that to do with consciousnesses?

For me the consciousnesses are the I s / who s and not vocal cords and my
tongue moving around or the language structurer.

> even if only talking to ourselves.<

As long as I do not get another mouth no the back of my head it might be
assumed that I speak with one voice.

Also I am not a (?)ventriloquist.  (However that is spelled.)

Nor a cartoon voice maker.

BTW, have you ever sucked in some gas that alters the voice when talking while
exhaling it?

> We have a sense of being at the center of a convergence of various narratives
that we use to explain the past,<

Do "we"?

Why should I regard myself to be at a convergence of narratives instead of
being the one who is giving out commands and thinking along if I wish to tell
someone something like a narrative?

> all the while trying to choose between several speculative scenarios
about the future.<

I might not do that all the while.

>There are some trivial answers to the unity question - <

Yes, that there is not such unity in my head.

We are a bunch of systems in my head.

And some of use are often not in that much unity, like those of me and those of
the sequencer.

I regard us as differing as long as I can recall.


>as when we say that some things, such as sensing one's blood pressure, are
totally inaccessible
to verbal reporting mechanisms - <

Meaning the language structurer or what you might call Broca's ... ?
Or meaning own I put like some mechanism?

Or meaning I can't see to that if my heart beats fast and hard, that I cannot
bla about that for a while (leaving the language structurer out in this
simplification) and speculate about blood pressure?
 
>and so perhaps the unity is an illusion,<

Leaving magic ones out for simplicity,
yes.

>simply a problem with what's accessible to verbal report.<

No, I do not regard it so.

A lot of what my own I could or still can access for infos internally
I regard as rather independent from a lot of verbal stuff.

Take magic perception concerning a person in front of oneself.

Where I come from it does not seem custom to go on about magic much verbally
but magic is the medium to communicated about magic.

I also did not hear that in Red Indian cultures or among the Australian
Aborigines it is custom to write about magic.

Verbal stuff would be more in the way of various interesting magic perception
settings.

So there there is a very simple example, 
to regard magic as the best communication form for magic,
and not verbal.

What one knows and what one can verbalize about are two different aspects.

It does not need a brain stroke for understanding more about that or someone
who never spoke at all,
already to talk in another language, say trying to communicate in Arabic,
might do the job of realizing that not all that one knows one can easily
verbalize.

Also for a lot of internal aspects there are no names, or at least not that I
ever heard any namings there.

In LSD for example various made their own namings for some major stuff, and
with many "sub"aspects there I never heard anyone bother to name it.

>In the context of cloning competitions, a more tempting answer is to say that
we have a unity of consciousness because there can only be one winner of a
competition -<

I do not get the comparison to cloning, concerning consciousnesses
singularized,
and also I do have a unity of consciousnesses, there are several self existing
aware in my head.
My own limbic centerings are not all there is in all of my head who noticed to
exist.

Also why should there competitions.

If I want something I regard myself as the second "highest" command of all
command centers in my brain.

If I were to override a serious wish of another consciousness I might pay the
price then for causing high disturbances maybe.

One of such major overridings for example has been going for one and half years
and causing there major disturbances, and years of sort of afterwakes to that.

Simplified I can do it, I am a higher command than another consciousness in my
brain, but the price might be very high.

I guess a bunch I might regard more as balances aspects than a competition
thingie.

As mentioned, I regard me as the second highest command area in my brain, and
number one is more to do with energy controls, like going unconscious. 

I do not know any other brain system that is "higher" in command powers than
me.

With that I do not regard that as competition.

If I really want that us systems do something, with very few exceptions, then
that is what will be one.

There is no competition there.

There are clear command systems orders, and there I am one of the "highest".

The more relevant aspect might be if doing something that is not good, that
there might be a price to pay for that.

Like I am fairly sure the sequencer does not like us to be that long in front
of the computer.

There's stuff in the belly where it seems to make higher cancer danger to do
that, and the spine does not like it either, and on the eyes it is a bit
straining, too, and some fingers protest a bit, too, one of my knees 
and so on.

I have the override command, so I am here and typing, but that does not mean
that that is good for other systems.

I guess if not heeding other systems welfare good enough, eventually there
might be quite a health price to pay.


> and that it's simply the largest patch of the dozens
currently to be found somewhere on the dynamic reforming patchwork quilt (or,
at least it's the largest one with ready access to output pathways).<

?

I did not get what systems exactly were being referred to.

Are you meaning one of the I consciousnesses?

Or non-I-systems?

Where in the brain do you mean?

>If the stalemates are prevented by perturbations from the fickle climate,<

?

>there's always a winner and it's only a question of your threshold for
converting thought into action, <

So, my decisions are irrelevant.

Nice to hear.

ERROR.

My thresholds are rather irrelevant compared to if I wish to do something or
not.

And partially if other systems really wish something, I might decide that we do
that then, but the decision for that can still be my decision.

Very simple example, if one were longer on the computer and notices one needs
to go to the bathroom, then one might decide to first finish a reply or, if on
the net and distrusting for example a system like AOL's, to make a copy of the
text first, before leaving.

And only after all is done one wanted to finish on the computer first, then one
might go to the bathroom.

That is nothing to do with threshold stuff, that is to do with that own I
decides it is better to first reach a stage on the computer that seems a better
stage to leave,
and then go to the bathroom.

>your quality criterion.<

My quality decisions might have to do with some stuff, but I might not be that
quality fixed in a lot.

Somehow I just thought of a can-opener, there I once actually was out for
quality after a cheap one turned into junk.

So there I actually looked for good quality, and paid more than I liked to pay,
but that can-opener is a real good can-opener and has since then been working
fine in my household in Berlin many years (till I moved here, where there is no
decent can-opener in this household, and where I miss such instead of them
tiny-sized agility tests here).

>So the center of consciousness shifts about, from one cortical area to
others, <

Total b.s.

(But feel free to extrapolate how you think my own limbic centering should be
able to shift into frontal.

Or into back temporal areas.)

Also you forgot to mention who of the consciousnesses.

Us I consciousnesses just start to shift around parallel or what.

Maybe find yourself a spirit traveller to discuss that and take brain external
centerings, then you might have more success.

>as the train of thought progresses.<

I am magic systems of several limbic systems,

and I do not turn into the sequencer in the middle of that and find myself in
the thalamus,
or b.s. like that.

How about you mention how one is supposed to leave one's central position and
be centered in the areas I mentioned.

Step-to-step description how to leave own I limbic position and how to shift to
the systems in between to get there.

Also if you are so grand in internally shifting your own I around, it is
amazing how little systems differentiation you have there.

After all, if centerally centered in another central position than own I, one
might expect hell of a lot of data about the other brain system that own I
parked central perception into,
and not just hollow and undiscerning b.s.

> This neatly explains why no neocortical lesion seems able to abolish
consciousness,<

There are no I centeres that I ever registered in the neocortex;
if anything your stuff more explains about your level of stupidity.

> only to abolish certain types of content such as color attributes."<

?

(I thought colour transition was to do with stuff to do with the eyes?
Or do you mean something different?)


>These Hexagonal structures are _memories_, <

In what brain systems exactly and where to be found there exactly under what
terminology?

>and LTM at that.<

I have so far never regarded LTM systems as hexagons.

More as stuff to do with certain brain systems, like frontal stuff for example.

Let's take that, where in the front cocerning LTM are there hexagons?

And why should they be memories?

I do not see hexagons when I call up memories.

>That is why it is much easier for a Hexagon to expand on an idea if the idea
have been imprinted from STM onto LTM before !!!<

What, so my systems imprint into other systems stuff, not that stuff there just
alters in the wake of my actions and their actions in transconnectinos,
no, I am actually supposed to smurf there and imprint there some stuff,
and next there is some hexagon that expands on some idea?

Sounds more like b.s. to me.

> > One might be more awed over your degree of "intelligence", but for
differing reasons.<<

>Even if you hear I'm part of the MENSA-club now ???<

Lol ... In Berlin the Mensa is the food place for students.

Your stupidity was blatent in this text.

You repeat treating assumptions like facts. You come up with total errors,
total mental b.s., and then treat that like facts.

Utter nonsense, that makes clear that with many brain systems you do not
understand their functions, and then one error after the other declared like
facts.

Whatever your TABLE-club there is, interest me little and does not alter what I
just wrote.

>Remember, I'm studying beside work -<

One can see that your studies are not your central work.

But there are persons who work and study, and they are still not having one
assumption treated like a fact after the other.
Nor come up with so many so extreme errors tereated like facts.

If I were your professor I'd give you an F on that text.

And I mean that totally serious.

> and this thing on the internet takes quite some time as well.<

Whom do you tell that?   ;-)

>So, I'm not a magician,<

I noticed that.

Magicians tend to undertand about magic better.

With a magician I could easily discuss various magic systems aspects.
Also a magician might not pile up major errors in a row like you, though there
might be errors, too.

> I take the steps everybody else have taken.<

So, a magician would not be everybody else.

But everybody else has taken your steps.


Have you ever considered to use logic before you write, concerning that what
you write?

O.K., let's take my steps. Just as a very simple example.
They led in this years through parts of about 10 different countries and there
also to some jungle area with no electricity.

Now feel free to extrapolate what the persons living there took for steps
concerning being too much on the internet, 
or even taking actual steps in actual regions on Earth, what places these South
American persons are supposed have taken where you were exactly, too.

Maybe somewhen notice that there are about 6 billion humans on Earth and that
you not everybody else, and that in different cultures different persons might
take different steps that lead them to different places in different
surroundings and with different aspects than those that you are used to.

Don't confuse yourself with billions of other humans.

> > >But alas, I still have to study more - <

Yes.

And maybe first learn what facts are, before you honk out errors as the must
for other brains.

That includes in many neuro books to discern what the author there has for
assumptions that are treated like facts, and what are the real facts in there
(which in some neuro books might alter within one sentence or paragraph from
one to the other).

>Of course - I got "How Brains Think" by Clavin today.<

And next you gonna tell me what are the differences between different brains
thinking, by generalizing not just 6 billion humans, but an octopus and dolphin
straight along?

Let me guess, for humans than also no differentiations between the sequencer
and own I, 
magic systems shoved aside for some neuron fix (maybe also overlooking how many
more glia there are in a human brain while at that),
and then some generalizing bla, that does not discern systems (clusters)
functions well, though it might go off ages about some hardware stuff.

>Later, when I have time, I'll get (from my wish list) "Exploring the
Thalamus" <

I have a certain LSD magic interest in 
some more attempts to tune for some energies there with other acidheads whom I
regard suited  in the future  as well.

However I guess such might never get to subsystems there.

But that is not really why it interests me.

But it is more a side interest.

(Actually the sequencer generalized never seemed to interest me that much
centrally, more sort of a side interest in some aspects.)

>(...) or "The Synaptic Organization of the Brain" by Gordon M. Shepherd
(Editor).
Which of those should I get first ?<

The last.

And watch with the first if there should be a bunch of mental crap to not just
uncritically take that over and treat it like facts.


>> (...)Good news. Rained for two days. Drought broken here.
Wallabies will get fat again.

>Sorry to hear, but it rains here in Oslo too, and it never ends.<

Oh, he meant that as good news, he wanted it to rain.

Anyway, concerning Berlin I guess if in Oslo it rains a lot, then it might have
in Berlin as well.

Should I really go there in November I'll freeze my arse off, maybe, because
here in Texas it is so far south as Egypt (at least if I looked right on a
map), and it might be hell of a temperature jump to over there.

>But it was sunshine today, and it lifted the spirit if I might say so.<

I know that grey days in a row where one can not see the sun can alter energy
levels in me 
and that some sun then can be real nice for a change.


PS.To Liar - you're nick seems a little provocative, is that intentional ?

As mentioned, I am still an 11-eyed extraterrestrial of the 7th sex 
and linked into one of the satellites and try to get humans to believe that I
am human. All in all they seem to believe it fairly well.

One just has to stick in a lot of human sounding references.

If one tells them the facts they will still be convinced that that is not so, 
and rather dwell in their errors than busy themselves with the truth.

So what difference does it make if one tells them one is an 11-eyes
extraterrestrial or a human?

At least claiming the latter saves oneself stupid ET questions and those one
does not wish to answer.

;-)





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list