Dirk Wessels <d at wxs.nl> wrote:
>The reason that I am looking for data is that I have slightly different
>theories
>about the organisation of neural networks.
>This organisation seems to use some kind of waves and synchronisations
> in which emotions seem most important.
Organisation of neural networks like in "changing axon connections" or
waves and synchronisation like in "telepathy" or emotions like in
"areas of the amygdala and hypothalamus"...?
>The underlying physics is the data that I am after.
Maybe you should start a level higher.
There is a difference to me altering the net connections, to someone
else altering something in areas of my brain and to the basolateral
part of the amygdala going atomic and altering hell of a lot of stuff.
Or some illness altering stuff in the brain.
In all four cases the organization of the neural betworks would not be
exactly like before.
>Some of the many questions that I have:
>1) Are these neuron connected to amplify wave properties and how.
Wasn't there some article about oscillating cell walls somewhere in
the room? In pysics and electronic communication you might find stuff
about oscillators, too.
I have some theories about the inside, too, but never heard them from
the Westies, and here in this room the arrogant headblind grouches
don't like if there is anything mentioned that is not of their branch,
that some of them regard as THE height of knowledge about the mind...
unfortunatley still not having managed to discover where the consious
center are and how magic works...
And one of the blokes who was too dumb to get external data and
therefore wants the room censored answered some of the other questions
well and I believe he mentioned a neuron being connected to
100-100,000 others?
>2) is a chemical process going on that has wave properties.
Yes. And not just one.
And, by the way there is not just one h=neuron, but pretty different
cells.
And they look different, too.
Some have spidery dendrites and communicate a lot with each other, and
some motoric ones are like parallel rows sending out parallel long
axons towards far away regions, some maybe being far away in the body.
Not really meant very serious, but: One that is communicating a lot
with it's neighbour (same cell sort) is different than one
communicating to your left little toe.
>3) What sychronises or influences the timing of these waves and other
>signals.
Thyroids, many hormones, the full moon, hunger, extreme temperatures,
drugs, the two main CPUs of the brain, emotion centers, if I leave my
brain to another brain and "withdraw" then the other person is taking
over the timing of many wavefields of many sectors of sectors,
illnesses having effects on the brain like MS, ...
And some brainsurfer said down behind the ears deeper inside there are
the "main gears" for brain energy; never could perceive back there,
maybe he means the brainstem?
>4) Are any quantum-level processes involved to help in timing or
>sychronisation.
What's quantum?
By the way, talking about weird or complicated words and theories,
according to the akasha theory all energy is one, and according to
some practicing magic it is connected.
But if you see the halo around a light or person or pther energies'
source, then one perceives that the energies are sort of decreasing
and less coherent the further you go away.
Also if you play with magic you notice that some stuff has cohesions,
espeically very alike stuff.
So if you have a bunch of cells that are of the same type I guess they
are making a certain fields and react to it, and if you link brains
with telepathy then I guess that is, how it works, too, that you join
the fields of the cells of a certain types.
If one of my students asks me I tell them that I believe that what I
read there about oscillating cell walls has to do with how the fields
of the other are caught in the according equivalent areas of the brain
and that the transformation has to do with certain fields meaning
certain things, only that there are differences in the numbers of
cells and connections and how the areas are used to cooperate with
each other and hormone and transmitter heights, and therefore the data
cannot be read completely.
Stupid very simplified kiddie example for the theory:
You have spidery cells communicating with field 1.3
and parallelish cells communicating with field 7.9.
(Invented numbers for different fields.)
Now with your parallel someone sends a 7.8 field through your entire
brain.
Then the spidery ones don't react cause it does not look at all like a
1.3 field.
But the parallelish ones go:"My, that 7.8 fields looks nearly like my
7.9 fields..." and if you give them a kick they can transfer some of
it.
Now it are not just one but very many such fields of very many sectors
that you link parallel, but basically when you send stuff a lot links
up correctly on the other side.
That has to do with fields and certain areas of the brain being able
to read certain fields.
You can also dock into very certain areas of the brain and then you
get differerent reactions, like in the very back are the optic banks
of the otehr one that you need to alter if he is new, but in the
middle are some that I keep out, and in the front are some that you
should be more advanced than I am for docking into, but you can.
Depending on the area in the opther brain you "target" yu need to
shift to certain frequencies, though you can also try to link hell of
a lot of the fields, but that is more exhausting, as then you bring so
many of your areas of the brain out of natural synchronization and
procedures, that you run brain damages much faster and get hell of a
headache much faster.
(If you want to learn about the synchronizing of entire fields you
should really learn that sort of communication.
Then when you synchronize your fields to those of men and women of
different ages and peoples, you will perceive a lot that the Westies
do not know about synchronization.)
>5) How can we simulate these neural networks more exactly, especially
>the learning process.
Of which areas?
Concerning which tasks?
And there is a little thingie called "body" that is sort of attached
to you that has some rather irrelavent functions not worth mentioning
here concerning the brain... ;-)
>6) Why are emotions and waves important at all.
You determine what is important for you.
How are others to know why they are important to you.
There are many thousands of emotions,
and while for some hunger might be real important and they eat and
maybe puke all day and just look at their weight, others might not
really care about food as long as on and off they get some of it,
while again others might cook for hours or go to certain
restaurants...
You can not say that because for one certain emotions are very
important that for another one they have to be, too.
Thre are women with bad P.M.S. and others not having that many
emotional effect - maybe all of them not understanding the effects
makes get of testosterone kicks and the accroding behaviour.
You generalize too much.
The emotions have functions, and if ou look at the function then often
you understand what the emotion is good for.
The waves belong to certain energy whatevers, let's call them stages
of akasha.
You could as well ask why atoms are important.
There is stuff that simply is and stuff that you can change, and to
really understand f.e. what fields the human mind and body can
generate and extend, you'd have to ask magicians and not neuros.
And with all but maybe some neo-shamans and moderns witches, etc,
you'd normally have to be far enough to observe and understand a lot
of the answers in wave language.
Meaning first you'd have to come up to some base levels and then find
some of the advanced magicians of Earth and plague them to give you
data about what you seek.
As long as you keep your questions so general, that all neurons are
treated like being the same sort of cell, al waves are treated like
being the same sort of wavess, when talking about the organization of
the neural networks not even discerning some glia functions and own
axons restructuring powers concerning that sector, when talking about
emotions not discerning between the different sub-programs and the
historic time they came from and the sectors/programs they are
connected with...
then how do you expect to get far?
You sound like someone seeking something without looking into detail
and maybe not even really knowing what you seek.
If you knew what you really seek I think your questions would be far
more specific.
And as one of the others remarked there IS data available to many of
your questions in the libraries. And among many of the peoples of
Earth practicing magic.
So that a lot you could study either in theoretical form looking at
books or in practical form looking at the fields of different brains
and chaning stuff with your fields.
>While this stuff is very close related to much to be discussed about
>"conscious"
>I prefer to look at the actual details.
Then look into the book and computer libraries where the Westies are,
travel to the different places tht are famous for researching the mind
nd having the data of thousands of years and look into the data there,
join the data of Earth concerning your topic and work with it.
So far your knowledge about different cells, transmitters, neurology,
steering powers, accessing areas' subprograms, accessing other brains,
magic and so on seems not to be impressive compared to what is
there...
To be more exact is seems ways shittier even than mine, and as an LSD
teacher for me a lot of them are just side areas in case someone pops
up and is interested in that, but a lot are not my main teaching
subjects...
If you really are out for the details it should give you to think
if someone who is not that much out for them might still be knowing
ways more about some areas that are relevant than you, though knowing
little compared to the knowledge that there is on this planet...
If the stuff you mention would interest me I'd study cell biology,
telepathy, neurology, magic & pysics and Western physics.
And maybe chemistry, electronics, drugs and effects of certain
illnesses and tumors on the brain and some other medical stuff.
And I'd not even waste energies on wanting to simulate the neural nets
and THE learning process... (as if there was just one).
L.Weaver