No subject

Sun Apr 10 21:44:43 EST 2005

<br>&nbsp;The (thu; before vowels, thi),&nbsp; &lt; insert nifty nonsense
I didn't bother to type here >
<br>9.<i> the </i>is used to refer to a person or thing considered generically
or universally, as (a) one taken as a representative of the entire genus
or type; as, he learned to use <i>the</i> typewriter; <i>the</i> cow is
a domestic animal; (b) an adjective used substantively; as, none but <i>the
</i>brave deserves <i>the </i>fair.
<p>Understand why we primitive USA people use the term thusly? (oops, 'we'..
there's another one.. &lt;flips through the pages>)
<p>From <u>Webster's Dictionary</u>:
<br>&nbsp;<b>we</b>, <i>pron.</i> [ME. we; AS. we] the persons speaking
or writing: sometimes used by a person in referring to several persons
including himself, or by a king, author, editor, judge, etc. in referring
to himself. <i>We </i>is the nominative case form, <i>us </i>the objective,
<i>our</i> and <i>ours</i> the possessive, and <i>ourselves</i> (or, by
a king, etc., <i>ourself</i>) the intensive and reflexive, of the first
personal plural pronoun.
<br>&nbsp;<i>sl. </i>the speaker and the audience, as in '<i>We</i> must
<br>&nbsp;OK, since that one isn't quite so clear, let me hilite on the
parts that are important:
<br><b>used by a person in referring to several persons including himself</b>
<br>(slang) <b>the speaker and the audience</b>
<br><b>&nbsp;</b>The slang version is the important part, however the formal
version also includes some of it..
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>I met different persons often with very different personalities of
<br>rat, cat and human races, both males and females, and a few who were
<br>not complete.&nbsp; Without imprisoning persons of other races I wonder
<br>you are wishing to investigate them, apart from linking with mammals
<br>magically, but then you'd likely not use the words "material world".</blockquote>
&nbsp;I don't know what is with your Akasha stuff, but I don't think most
people believe it is a relevant reference .. at least, most people in this
newsgroup .. if I am wrong, please correct me. Otherwise, could you stop
using it as such?
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>>Mind is not part of the material world.
<p>Mind is a vague English term for which I find no direct easy
<br>translation to my language. But apart from that: Let me guess, if I
<br>amputate your limbic system out (cingulate gyrus can stay), then or
<br>course that would not effect you much?
<p>Do you need to believe in life after death (apart from maggots getting
<br>full with you)&nbsp; or need some justification for neuros cutting
<br>in others I areas in the brain to get energy data
<br>that might be abused as control data within the future?
<p>All human minds I ever perceived far enough had I areas within the
<br>limbic system, all who were self perceivers named the hippocampus as
<br>own base.</blockquote>
&nbsp;Again, you are using Akashic reference.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<p>>There can be no homunculus to train the mind.
<br>Actually the neuros invented neat names for areas of the brain,
<br>at times seeming to aim at displaying non-understanding with
<br>complicated terms. Or to aim at that folks of their branches having
<br>learn that stuff are not having it as easy as they could if they were
<br>to change the namings to a simpler systems with names of areas to do
<br>with main functions of regions.
<p>Homunculus is some invented term and that with just one screen and
<br>buttons toi press to me sounded more symbolic, as I guess the author
<br>was far enough in anatomy. "The mind" is some vague English term.
<br>Sounds even more vague than many emotional expressions of people who
<br>are headblind.
<p>Therefore what you are saying could also be
<br>"There is no invented X to train the vague U."
<p>>The synapses of the neural net are altered by the signal
<br>>energy that flows through it, that is all.
<p>We are having loads of signals here in Berlin that are passing through
<br>the systems, and if you magically occiptially link enough then there
<br>are enough other areas of the brain also being passed by signals
<br>from&amp;for other areas, and yet I'd not bet on that that is altering
<p>So far it was my understanding that opposite to the magic data between
<br>brains the synapse data is needing atomic based structures.
<br>Therefore there is something about the word "energy FLOW" tht is
<br>sounding rather weird to be used for that.
<p>THE synapses of THE neural net is also very difficult to judge as that
<br>is resembling someone saying "the vehicle" without specifying if he
<br>means a car, sledge, soap box on four skate board, space ship or
<br>something else.
<p>The "that is all" however I find real funny.
<p>Alone to know that one can reprogram loads of stuff in the brain is
<br>within Carlos Castaneda regarded as sort of some last secret and I
<br>know of course that also it is possible to alter hardware for magic
<br>perception in other brains and some other stuff I do not want to
<br>mention.&nbsp; ...Next time someone should go scared because on sense
<br>enhancers I made magical alterations irrversible in his head, then
<br>might try to tell him that stuff in his head is
<br>>altered by the signal energy that flows through it, that is all.
<br>(Lol... &lt;};-)
<p>> The signal energy originates in
<br>>the sensory neurons that transduce energy arriving from the exterior
<p>Would you mind mentioning such transducing closer and the areas with
<br>the neurons that you are referring to?
<p>And also why you are believing that stuff that might be limited for
<br>long times to other systems should have effects in systems up to
<br>physical alteration power though for all I know those are often not
<br>even connected to there magically / with axon activity?
<p>>It is natural for an academic to say that no agglomeration of neurons
<br>>have the beautiful thoughts that flow through his mind. He is mistaken.
<p>That might depend on how you define mind.
<p>The way I define it&nbsp; a lot of thoughts certainly do not flow through
<br>some areas of the mind,
<br>and if the sequencer (the motoric thinking unit) would dare to send
<br>it's thoughts we'd probably go for internal combat until it stops that
<br>or I'd freak out.&nbsp; And I guess it would not appreciate it either
if I
<br>were to connect to it for no reason so that it has to process my
<p>I do not even get why you assume that his thoughts would be beautiful,
<br>as if the thinking areas were not ITs but HEs and as if the whole were
<br>to do with some emotion generators and endorphines, and as if the
<br>other's own areas were just up to thinking about beautiful stuff.</blockquote>


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list