IUBio

classic book on neuroscience?

dag.stenberg at helsinki.nospam.fi dag.stenberg at helsinki.nospam.fi
Mon May 10 07:45:17 EST 1999


Cijadrachon <cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> As total layman be aware that neuroscientists are sense censored alike
> Catholic fashion and therefore tend to try to reduce important
> functions in the brain to generalized neurons 

Hi again. Have you read any Sperry yet?

> I have a book here where the author keeps describing the brain from
> the frontal cortex.
...
> The author basically tried to
> make the front an independent thinker, and though apart from me there
> is another thinker, so that there are at least two, some outer front
> neocortex site certainly never evere registered as having independent
> thinking powers to me, and none of the brain surfers who for me
> registered as most remarkable sources of brain data of Earth ever said
> that the front has independent thinking capacities.

I note that you do not advertize that book by telling us the author and
title. Maybe that is sound, because the idea of independent thinking
capabilities in one part of the brain does seem absolutely silly from a
neurophysiologist point of view.

> Stupid example, if the front had own independent thinking powers and
> was another consciousness in the brain, I believe humans would go
> short of utterly insane.

Wee-ell, think of the guys with corpus callosum lesion, they did have
partly two minds in one brain.

> I do not know all of the brain, but of what I perceived to an extent
> there is only one that is conscious AND can think, though there is
> another conscious one and another thinker. 

Oh, oh. Maybe I should have known this idea from your previous postings;
that does seem to me a very strange thought. So you mean that you have
three entities in your brain: one thinks+ is conscious, one only thinks
and one is only conscious? Did I go wrong (because it does sound very
weird? Personally I regard all my mind as belonging to one person and to
one brain, and I would not hesitate to call that a commoni rule of
biology, with the admission of course that schizophrenia exists (in one
brain with one consciousness).

> That's what I mean with that in their attempt to create justifications
> for their deeds the theories at times get outright funny if you know a
> bit about the brain.

Surely you cannot mean that neuroscience texts are written just to
justify the animal experiemtns that form part of the basis for the
collection of facts in neuroscience?
  Also, I do not accept without serious doubt that one can know very
much of the brain without studying neuroscience in the traditional,
Westie way. It is also impossible to study facts about the brain without
having to read about findings that were collected while imprisoning
and studying persons of other species. It is, however, possible to learn
a lot about the brain without personally getting involved in the
imprisonment and abuse of persons of other species, and I will certainly
accept learning derived in the indirect way, by reading the literature.
And it is true that the literature should be read critically, but not
perhaps for the reason that Cijadrachon indicates. Most animal
experiments are not cruel, and many are not useless, although it is true
that man puts his needs before that of animals when performing animal
experiments. 

> So stay aware within all that energy measuring that they never got to
> understand many of the subatomic aspects nor many of the energies of
> the brain for which several other peoples of Earth are having most
> data (experts from India, Red Indians, Australia ...), 
  ^^^^
Uh, do you REALLY have to call that "data"??
I do not want to quarrel, but rather to indicate disagreement, for the
benefit of innocent readers who may not be able to understand the abyss
between Westie thinking and involvement with akasha (?)

> and that there
> might be many attempts to ignore the own I in the cholinergic limbic
> system 

Would you be kind enough to repeat what you regard as belonging to the 
cholinergic limbic system? I think I had better not ask how you can
localize the "own I" there (mine is not that circumscribed, and
certainly not only cholinergic), as I trust that your methods are not
ones that I can accept as scientific, as I am of limited Westie
understanding.

Dag Stenberg



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net