cogito ergo somnium
nobody at home.com
Wed Mar 10 12:44:12 EST 2004
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
I am very interested in this discussion. Mind if I ask a few questions?
"NMF" <nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:50z3c.21515$hG.281917 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > Interesting concept. The data has suggested that
> > > the time-varying magnetic fields generated by the
> > > brain that are most important in mediating processes
> > > involved with consciousness
> > Gees 'louise'! Where'd you get that? It's B. S.
I can see where he's coming from with the B.S. comment. That the
time-varying magnetic fields are most important in mediating processes
involved with consciousness is quite a bold statement. Why doesn't going
into an MRI affect one's consciousness? Or using a hairdryer?
> picotelsa intensity pulsed magnetic fields have been shown to mediate
> salient biological effects). The time-varying component actually
> the frequency range that is in the same range as the brain. Moreover,
> is something called Schumann resonance, which is generated within the and
> through the earth's atmosphere, lithosphere, and ionosphere. The centroid
> peak frequency for the fundamental Schumann resonance is approximately 7.8
> Hz. The occurence of narrow variations within frequenies around 7.8 Hz
> within the earth's spherical wave guide suggests that interaction between
> the brains and the geophysical environment are quite possible.
You go from current induction effects to some pretty exotic and weak
magnetic field effects, where I would estimate that current induction would
be very, very small. What are these 'salient biological effects' that have
been found at picoTesla intensities of magnetic fields?
> Moreover, your refusal that time-varying electromagnetic fields are not
> important in mediating complex cognitive processes, like consciousness, is
> just wrong. You can interfere with these processes using weak, complex
> electromagnetic fields as well as with high intensity electromagnetic
> fields. (There has been over thirty years of research in this area).
There were a hundred years of phlogiston research in science, but that
doesn't change the fact that it was the wrong interpretation of the facts.
What are the facts with respect to the the studies of weak, complex
electromagnetic fields? Could you recommend a good example of a study you
think was well done? What do you mean by 'complexity' when you refer to
these complex electromagnetic fields?
Your postings to bionet.neuroscience are a strange mix of skepticism and
belief in estoteric magnetic field studies. I like this. What do you do
>From a previous post where you said, "I am clinical neuroscientist. That is
what I study and get paid to do.", I would guess that you're a clinical
scientist. Your apparent belief in electromagnetic studies, however,
suggests you might be a crank :) It is quite clear that you did not do your
training in the 1970s from your reply to kpcollins, "You did most of
research in the 1970's, right? A lot of things have happened and changed
regarding how people think and evaluate neuronal phenomena" However, you
said that you, "actually did one of my "comps" on visual agnosia due to
amygdalar lesions in monkeys", and this seems like a very 1970s thing to do.
On one hand you have posted, "have you ever met Roger Penrose or ate lunch
with David Hubel?" The truth of the matter is "who cares"!!!!!!)", and then
three months later posted, "I spent sometime earlier today with David Hubel
who was visiting our university today... I was really fascinated just
hearing the life history of this individual."
You are an enigmatic poster.
But your posts are always interesting. What is your scientific background?
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
More information about the Neur-sci