>> (To certain people: Skip...)
>>>> >Hmm, so my idea of a real-time neural imaging system designed to measure
>> >a person's thoughts means I am not one of us?
Why?
And "us" whom?
>> >[If it turns out to be impossible, it will be because of the shielding
>> >effect of the skull, not any intrinsic absurdity in the idea].
>>>> Why should the skull play a role?
>> What the hell are you flaming this guy for? He said 'IF' .. this indicates he
>DOESNT think the skull
>plays a role, not that he does.
He wrote that if it turns out to be impossible, it will be because of
the shielding effect of the skull.
I did not flame him, I asked a question.
> almost everywhere people are free to do as they choose, an they choose to do so.
Are they? O.K. strip naked, as you are by nature, and walk down the
street in front of the next police department.
Have no papers along, just be as you are by nature.
Then you might learn fast how free you are, possession of others.
> Something like this would be strictly against the law for public use.
The pulic use might worry me less than the CIA or other sub-goups of
those wanting to rule others.
>It wouldn't be on sale at Saturday Market.
If you want a prediction it won't in any time I foresee.
But on the "cyber-computer" (brain energies linking directly into a
system built for that) I'd not bet, as I checked with some place and
from what I understood there technology is far enough to build them;
just magicians are not intersted in giving Westies data, and Westies
are sense censored and do not understand the potential.
But as such I do not exclude that under a different name cyputers will
be in the shops before the maggots eat my corpse, and that I would not
have to wait till Saturdays.
>> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>> >> The best description I ever heard was from a the discussion following a
>> >> lecture, where someone, whom I couldn't locate later, said "If walking is
>> >> the foot in action, then the mind is the brain in action". I think what
>> >> he meant was that the mind is just what the brain does, and can't be
>> >> described as an object.
>>>> I think that you got him wrong.
> You do not have a clue what the lecturer meant. How can you know if he was
>wrong in his position or not?
How do you know?
That the foot does not walk alone and that the brain has many areas
is obvious,
and that I do not count the areas who are to do with walking into the
mind areas of the brain I guess was obvious by some previous post I
wrote in bionet.neuroscience.
>...if you are going to flame someone.
If I flame someone that looks different.
>> Maybe you do not understand actions within the foot, walking and what
>> the brain does well enough.
> Then explain them.
Simple, saw off your foot and next day watch how far it will walk.
And then ask yourself if you for your own definition of "mind" count
the areas that normally make it walk under mind sectors or not.
You are mistaking that if someone says 2+2 is not 5
with him being obliged to teach you mathematics.
If you are really interested I recommed a medical course where you an
cut around in the foot of a corpse and areas of the brain like the
brainstem, thalamus, straita, cerebellum and motor cortex, and maybe
to contemplate the nucleus accumbens and the mammillary bodies when
wondering about limits of the mind areas.
>Stop trying to take ways around logic to defy anything.
I better do not say what I think about who is taking ways around
logic, as following a certain pattern you are likley to interpret that
as frying.
>doesn't work and it makes you look like a stuck-up fool.
Your opinions about what are areas of the mind and what are not are
sure less foolish.
Why do you not post about the physical equivalents of the mind, and
compare later who got closer, you or me in an according post.
>> >However, there is reason to believe that what the brain does, in this
>> >particular instance, is non-physical,
>> Surrre, the Easter Rabbit makes it all.
> Again, find a way around the logic, right? He said nothing about the Easter
>Rabbit.
I find your intelligence fascinating.
> Doubtful as it may be that she was raised censored (quite cynical, aren't you),
>what does that have anything to do with what his 12 year old niece thinks? The
>definition of 'mind' is pretty obvious here - the actions of the brain, or the
>consciousness and emotion in the body.
Why do you use consciousness in singular?
And how can it not matter if she was sense censored or a telepath able
to perceive a lot subatomically about the brain?
And why do you generalize the entire brain?
>> > I don't think at present we
>> Who "we"?
> WE is, as always, Mr. Berlin, is everyone he is talking to. That includes
>everyone in this newsgroup.
This one here is posted to four.
...But how good of him to be able for all people of Earth to know.
That I am not one of the WEs is sure not to do with his accuracy for
all other autists and telepaths and practicers of magic of Earth.
I am sure that there'd be people very interested in someone who knows
the knowledge of all the people(s) of Earth.
>> Are you some USAie to go WEing as if you or a few other sense censored
>> A 'USA'ie? What, you are an American hater as well? My my. You cynical,
>prejudiced little man!
I did not speak about all Americans, and there are many places in
America that I have not seen yet nor will I ever.
My my, your opinion that I am a little man is speaking volumes about
the precision of your observational powers.
>> >have a ghost of a chance
>> Take that one. I doubt that you are understanding ghosts well, else
>> it amazes me that you would have used that term like that here.
>> So I guess the WEs you mean do not know much about ghosts.
>>> It's a phrase, man. There's nothing, NOTHING in the meaning of 'ghost'
>indicated here, except perhaps their supposed translucency. It just means
>'slight chance'. Language barrier or do you simply want to flame people for the
>fun of flaming people?
No, referring to that people of cultures or groups who are in contact
with ghosts or can extend the own ghost or what in your language might
be referred to as astral body,
usually do not use the term ghost in that context.
Usually only people who are not understanding about ghosts tend to do.
>... even if it is prejudiced and belief-oriented.
Which parts do you regard as belief and what do you regard as fact
there?
Just of course if you are able to list according facts...
> He certainly wasn't talking about anything you mentioned.
>Come off of your high horse and try to see what he
>is saying, instead of spitting on it out of reflex.
Maybe you are the one on your high horse and spitting, and therefore
you do not perceive as well what people are saying and what others are
saying about it.
In other words if I criticize something all you seem to usually be
doing is attack that, but there comes no data how it IS but just
primitive attacks.
For bionet.neuroscience a pretty low level.
Also most at least try to include some data interesting for
neurologists.
With you it more sounds like some personal combat post,
and I start to doubt that you know much about neurology or parts of
the brain and their functions at all.
(Alone your generalizings of all sectors of the entire brain are to me
like someone in a medical room just talking about THE body as if he
had not gotten yet that there are lots of organs and cells with
different functions in it.)
Just in case you are not wishing to include neurological data or brain
area data at all, maybe instead of posting inn bionet.neuroscience you
could e-mail me privately, in case that you are having relevant data
that you feel the urge to add.