No subject


Sun Apr 10 21:39:47 EST 2005


then do some other stuff,  
and then might want to improve my understanding of what you say to
to see how you always figure out what I changed in cross-correlations,
grin...

> What it entails is acquiring sufficient fiber-mapping data for the whole nervous system, and
>cross-correlating it. 
Whose base-structures? From Australia or somewhere in Africa or
elseplace? Male or female? Current structuring of "very flexible
areas"?

>To do this for any locus, requires dealing with 10s or 100s of
>experimental papers. 
Just?
Though I guess leaving main stuff of  the brain out, that might shrink
it.

>But anyone who has a go at it will find that everything they need has
>been in the Neuroscience stacks for decades. 

Well, here in Berlin we are a little backwards in some.

Last I nagged Baumgarten (or whatever his name was) to answer me
questions about four areas of the brain the RE was summoned up "I do
not know, though there might be some trickle of data around."
Not sure where they are now in some stuff

>Then "just do it". 
What? Make a brain not being complete?

>The nice thing is that it only needs to be done once, then the principles developed have their permanent usefulness.

You are, of course, aware that people inside are about as different as
outside. For example taking me and some from some African places maybe
someone from Puerto Rico.

>But it's not adequate for someone like me to say, "Look here. This is what is." This tends
>not to work because it lacks the building of the necessary physically-real internal
>structure, into which the functioning of the biological reward mechanisms is tightly
>integrated. 
Have you ever read Cheng? Maybe not the full first 47 truckloads of
pages, but the posts here; to do with the smallest stuff he mentiones
with Westie-names?
Ever seen someone meditating going down towards (for me dark-blue)
"inner light"?  For me awesome.
I wish you many endophine showers if ever trying to understand it.
:-)
And, as I am feeling like oracling with relatively unrandomly dynamic
inexplicitness...: Many logic showers when you get what I mean for
serious.  ;-)

+ Maybe a mild direct own depression when realizing to an extent, what
you still all don't know...

But if one were to know all  then maybe it'd  get so boring that one'd
create mind-bogglinbgly dumb life  on some planets and watch their
guessing like other's different T.V.stations.  ;-)

>Rather, each person should look and see for themselves. The "Automation of
>Knowing..." paper is an outline for doing such. The arduous 10s-and-100s-of-papers stuff is
>done (of course, needing thorough checking by the Neuroscientific community, and open
>discussion, but all the fundamental cross-correlations are established for anyuone to
>consider, understand, check, and invoke within their everyday experience.
Anywhere on the net acessible, without having to wait forever / with
weird programs?  Or just advertising for some stuff you sale?

>Yes, it's a "big step"... it's a redefinition of what it is to be "Human". 
Have been wondering about them since I am six.
Once you figured a few of them out to some extent, maybe tell me.
I'd apreciate the info.

Just for theory, tell me,  if someone had one third and someone two
thirds within him differing from humans in average, one,  both or none
be human?  In the old and in the new definitions?
Let's say the latter also is no longer able to get and raise a child.

Redefining one should  maybe understand many of the implications of
redefining.

Or leave it to people if they define  themselves  
human or define what it is like (not) to be like humans.

>if only the necessities are accepted and met head-on. 

No.
Used to prefer "met head-in" if anything back then.

To be found under "imaginary redefinitions of what it is not to be
like humans".

...But different tastes are different.


Actually a lot discussions here I find rediculous given  the number of
brainperceivers with identical data  about areas I met in my life 
and given where magic is.  

Stop imprisoning and abusing people from the other races.

Limbic "I"-stuff was there before mammal time.

And  you folks are not so retarded not to have gotten long ago what
that means.

Neuro should stop all hippocampal slicing and finally admit where we
mammals are.
So maybe in some years you are arriving at that we were and are the
frequency data-selector,  instead of stopping your own branches the
data for own understanding.
You are stalling to seek excuses, to only admit where we are in the
brain,
until you come up with some reason why it was and is and will be still
O.K. to abuse people of the other races.

And that is why in Bremen an entire congress was able to take place
with consciousnesS  in singlular and physical equivalents not even
seeming to seriously care about the "I" and from what I heard
applauding talks about abuses of peopel of  the other races.

All brain-perceivers I ever met said "I"="limbic", or pointed there.

The one who in this room mentioned where he was, was just another of
many.

Stop your pathetic lies about not knowing where we are slicing in the
hippocampal areas of others.

Finally dare to admit to the public what you are doing there.

 And have been doing to the people of the other races.

The own "I" in the limbic system has developed out of a frequency
selector and adapting outer to inner stuff,  I-perception powers there
before mammal time quite a bit,
and that is also and old stuff for some, how about getting modern
eventually.

What you do to the others mammals
is about as much a crime as our bones are alike.
Not exactly the same ratio, but not that far away either.

And if you go on cutting in other persons, at least  have the guts to
admit what you are doing there.

4II



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list