Those who waqtch so-called Reality TV rise to show their ignorance. What a lark!

OK, let's give Bruce a chance.

Bruce, can you explain the basic physics principle(s) that you claim to have referenced? Many of us are not interested in reading lengthy and obscure tomes in order to mine a supposed idea, we just like to see the idea barebones. Perhaps you could oblige, and then I would oblige you with an actual response rather than the all-too-easy ad-hominems.

I have tried to distill the "physics" of Bruce's needlessly long first post down to the following:

If the quantum vacuum is to be identified with the field that carries the effects associated with psi, its virtual energies must interact with matter in the universe, including the matter lodged in the brain of human beings.

The interference patterns created by the motion of charged particles modify the local topology of the vacuum, and the modified vacuum field modifies in turn the motion of the particles.

Specific waveforms can be exact representations - 'Fourier transforms' - of spatiotemporal objects (ala Fourier).

This is precisely what may happen when charged particles trace their trajectories in space and time: they leave their Fourier-transforms in the virtual particle gas of the quantum vacuum.

We now have the basic properties of an interactive holographic field that encodes the particulars of the spatiotemporal motion of objects, and quasi-instantaneously transmits the corresponding wave-function to other objects in the planetary environment. This, as psi researchers will readily appreciate, could provide a physical foundation for a certain range of psi phenomena - telepathic and telesomatic transference, lifetime recall in NDEs, past-life experiences, distance diagnosis and psychic healing, among others.

Thus the cerebral hemispheres may act as specialized scalar interferometers, so that action potentials within the neural nets may be significantly affected by the scalar topography of the vacuum.

Attractors could amplify vacuum-level fluctuations and produce observable effects on the brain's information-processing structures.

Josephson junction-induced fields may mediate communication between physically separate assemblies of neurons in the brain.

Spectral patterns of specific frequency associated with nerve firings would impart information to the field, and the field in turn would impose coherence on the ongoing nerve firings.

Current findings indicate that fields of quantum potentials constitute an underlying regulatory system that alters non-synaptic communication between assemblies of neurons and could thus affect even higher brain functions. (Rein 1993)



In Conclusion: The authors of Bruce's post think that the quantum vacuum mediates Psi phenomena by influencing neuronal activity in the brain. I love the last part where they try to tie it in with "higher brain functions"! Here, the authors are no doubt counting on their readers not checking their single reference, which probably doesn't exist or is completely nonscientific, and just taking them at face value.

In my opinion, the essay is the result of a person with some understanding of physics who woefully misunderstands brain function and is trying to create a "physics fantasy" for themselves and is humorously trying to pass it off to others as some sort of truth. But let's get real; It's nothing but a form of mental masturbation. See it for what it is.

Nonetheless, I applaud this Lazslo guy for his fantasy and for his imagination. But his fantasy should never be confused with real neuroscience.

Here's a link maybe worth looking at, depending on your state of mind:
http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/discdocs/mind.htm

So you copied some of it - did none of the math and said it has only one reference.

The truth is quite the opposite and you should look into The Primer Project - the link of which is on my page at World-Mysteries. There are many top physicists and those from your field or other fields that impact on the matter of consciousness, mind, brain and other things on that site and quoted in that article. You did a very poor job of debunking it too. Randi (link provided under thread titled Small Minds) does a similarly poor job and he has no degree or expertise whatsoever.

Shawn's link provides support for the Wonder Child Authors he ridiculed so viciously about the functioning of the Cosmic Thought Field when it says this.

The brain is subtle and capable, it seems, of infinite understanding its self, its origin, its cosmic origin, the origin of the cosmos, and of that cosmos's immediate, intermediate, and long term featureless future" (my italics and bold).

I did that on a Physics site in conjunction with others about a year ago. It required actual physicists who understood the tomes you refer to. It required about ten posts the size of the initial one here. It took it to a point I later distilled in a piece called Affinity which you can find in my Encyclopedia that has about a million words in it. Perhaps at some point I will deal more specifically with it here. There are three threads at least which would be involved.

I have invited some people here who are long term students of these matters (I was invited by one such person who has not made a posting either) philosophical and when they start to give input or they see a reason to do so (so far they are not impressed) then I will do this.

You again illustrate you have not read the original post and the part that is from the authors of the book titled The Wonder Child or else you are unable to read.



I would not characterize the authors as Wonder Children. Perhaps Naive Imaginative Children, but not Wonder Children. If you knew what I knew about how the brain is organized, you would understand the reasons behind my objections. I have tried to explain it, but there is only so much that I can explain in a forum setting in the time I allow myself for posting.

You also assume arrogant status because you have studied one limited discipline for a few (!) years.

And yes, you do not know what I am or how important this saying of the Mayans is - ''Do not put yourself in front of your Self'.

That is one meaning of it.

It also speaks to the soul in all things and our connectiveness.

I guess you could say 'wisdom' is not just intellect too.

I got emailed to visit this forum. This is where i came in. Already i am thinking Disgraceful. I am not surprised to see you get this treatment here. What these guys are never going to admit is that with a massive taxpayer funded global industry things just get increasingly "all over the place" in regards to understanding living systems. What can be said that is positive is the amazing breakthroughs in preserving human life, dealing with disease, decoding genetics. I could barely being to write all that is great about science.

I would also place myself in this category "integrator of fragmented knowledge" vs tenured paradigm thinkers, and have written a book on electromagnetism and brain structure that brought quite a lot together. Major ionic neurotransmitters, co modulation messengers, sex differences in brian structure and mathematical explanations which bring every available sub-discipline together.

If interested i will send you a copy of my work. You may find it revealing, although i warn is very technical. I wouldnt trust to post a link to it here. Some ideas of mine having being "re-aquired" by a qualified biologist on another web forums a couple of weeks ago.

I will also not deny myself by not sounding irrational here. Irrationality is a vital component of creative brain structure. Irrational numbers underlie a great proportion of living systems. did you know that the distribution of right brain chemisty is irrational ? Irrationality is basically power laws. Coherence results to give a structure to counter that.


Ok what am i going to say that is irrational, is basically i have only my own methods and experience to make the following statement.

The majority of scientific research is carried out by left brain dominated thinkers, who are entirely rational. The probelm with that is that rationality or logic has to "matricise" knowledge. As a result knowledge is fragmented and converged to loads of teeny weeny journals with lots of articles of similiar length, format and increasing category.

Science is now a tower of babel. The brain which could have been described elegantly and looks elegant can barely be discussed by people within the same field. The knowldge can only be custered by the creatively determined. This is what happens when you throw industries of convergent workers at biological complexity. You end up with fragmented knowledge in different tounges.


good link on the current state of affairs in regards to science, the hiding of knowledge and money.

http://www.economist.com/science/displayst...tory_id=3061258

There is also a good wired article about the fragmentation of knowledge in medical science written by a guy who had to write cluster algorithmns to make sense of the 40,000 papers on alzheimers.

Basically you are correct. Most "scientists" today are less than nicely motivated. I too came to the conclusion that the keyword for many scientists are not "truth" and "discovery" but "position", "money" , "patent" and "prestige". Although lets not forget that much empathy lies behind medical science also.



Sprinkle

ITs the other way round. Right brain Glutamate neurons amplify towards divergent networks.

I have a preference for Walter freeman these days. He tends towards the idea that neurons summarize and convert axon pulses to a dendrite wave. Thats where the amplification potential lies.

Axons on the other hand (half the brain) are essentially two dimensional and thus have one perpendicular free dimension for synchronised encoding. Women who have greater amounts of white matter do appear to have superior memory capabilites. That is they can encode memories as episodes (whole brain movie like representations containg feelings and sensations)

What's the evidence for this? Axons are three dimensional, except maybe in the cerebellum where purkinje cell dendritic fields are planar.

Interesting stuff I never heard before, Sprinkle? Explain a little bit more about the 'irrational distribution of right brain' please? Are you saying (in no uncertain terms)that the next Einstein is going to be a right-brainer, like Trip?

What kind of evidence do you need ? The flow of information is two dimensional. I'm referring to white matter axons here not dendrites.

My knowledge of what it takes to be an einstein is limited to ashkenazi genetics and knowing that areas on his brain fused together. Did this occur to use or neurodevelopment ? Ashkenazi jews are predicited to suffer from high degrees of CNS illness due to neuroimmune related mutations of glycolipids. This abnormal lipid uptake is related to abnormal dendrite growth and so an increased capacity for dendrite density. The mutations lead to a big factor in higher IQ.

http://www.economist.com/science/displayst...tory_id=4032638

What a weird co-incidence i've cited two articles from the economist here. Apart from those i rarely read this rag. Anyway there are other IQ biological factors such as those involved in the cellular energy aspects (mtDNA related)..but what use are these if the increased cellular energy cannot be protected by a match in lipid uptake. Also consider this. The Ashkenazi Jewish race is almost Unique in that it can only be determined maternally through mtDNA. Ashkenazi men are more related to men outside their own gene pool than each other.

Some people say Einstein was a high function aspergers. Which is a good indicator of right brain dominance anyway. Dont you think the way Einstein interacts with his environment is quite creative. Whatever came up he just kind of rolled with that and dealt with it creatively ? i'm no expert on einstein and i always struggled to barely grasp Physics. Has he been folk heroed ? Just from what i read here and there he doesnt appear to be motivated by anything but a search for figuring out whats what.

In regards to the first question. Recently i completed a meta analysis of the last three decades of brain chemistry in reference to neurotransmitter distribution. That was a lot. Basically whenever research is done to uncover clear scientific data on neurotransmitter receptor distribution, the results are clear ..or that is they only get usable in scientific terms for the left hemisphere.

I have plenty of evidence for this, which is subject the the usual problems when trying to collate previously unrelated studies. This non linear distribution applies to Gaba/glutamate ionics and the primary co-modulators serotonin and dopamine. However i'm re-drafting this as i'm not sure that primary co-modulation should be reduced to just those two. There is an excellent paper i referenced which reviews serotonin receptors in the right hemisphere. I've not got it to hand here. Although these receptors proliferate in quite a varitey of non definable types. The reviewers conclusion is that there was an overall scheme to how the different subtypes came together for an organisms current purpose.

I would liken this to the way in which a lead instrumentalist has a variety of techniques and riffs he messes around to figure out then brings together ad-hoc to express himself at moments of peak creativity.



Later ...
Sprinkle

for example, axonal arbors from thalamus terminate in 3D columns in cortex. What do you mean by the flow of info being 2D?

the first paper i pulled on the subject represents the axon arbors in one and two dimensions.

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&...=utf-8&oe=utf-8


When the axon signal enters the collumn thats when it then gets integrated and converted into three dimensions. Thats a grey matter topic.

The point about two dimensions is thats the signal format within the axon itself. Whats happening within a white matter bundle is two dimensional. How many dimensions would it require to define the DC current flowing within a single wire ?

What are the dimensions you're talking about, distance along axon (x) and time (t)? How about that axons reside in 3D space and are roughly cylindrical. At the very least, you need to include other spatial dimensions, as well as voltage levels as a function of space and time.

so far i havent seen axon scientists require more than two dimensions (excluding time) for a usefull definition.


Cell Biophys. 1985 Jun;7(2):107-14. Related Articles, Links

Transport of Na+ inside the giant axon of squid.

Chang DC.

The transport mechanism of Na ions within the nerve cell was studied by measuring the radioactivity distribution profile of 22Na that had been intracellularly injected into the giant axon. Specifically, we tested whether or not the movement of Na ions is coupled with the process of "fast axonal transport." Results of our measurements indicate that the intracellular transport of Na+ and the fast axonal transport are two independent processes. Very few Na ions are irreversibly sequestered into the axoplasmic vesicles involved in axonal transport. The movement of Na+ inside the axon can be modeled by a one-dimension diffusion. The effective diffusion coefficient of the intracellular Na+ was determined in this study.


J Neurophysiol. 2000 Apr;83(4):2113-9. Related Articles, Links

Optimal sizes of dendritic and axonal arbors in a topographic projection.

Chklovskii DB.

Sloan Center for Theoretical Neurobiology, The Salk Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, USA.

I consider a topographic projection between two neuronal layers with different densities of neurons. Given the number of output neurons connected to each input neuron (divergence) and the number of input neurons synapsing on each output neuron (convergence), I determine the widths of axonal and dendritic arbors which minimize the total volume of axons and dendrites. Analytical results for one-dimensional and two-dimensional projections can be summarized qualitatively in the following rule: neurons of the sparser layer should have arbors wider than those of the denser layer. This agrees with the anatomic data for retinal, cerebellar, olfactory bulb, and neocortical neurons the morphology and connectivity of which are known. The rule may be used to infer connectivity of neurons from their morphology.

So Einstein WAS a right-brainer?....If he was, it kind of makes sense. I read his biography and somewhere in it the author describes Einstein's behavior at one of his moments of inspiration and it sounded a lot more like how artists get their moments of inspiration, instead of scientists.

Unlike electrickary, even a 2D neuron would have a 3D ion transport configuration. (And don't forget about field lines)

Do you remember when people thought max headroom was real ?

Why does it matter whether transporters are 3 dimensional proteins ? Just how they get utilized. Everything could be said to be 3 dimensional. The axon scientists seem to think the function can be defined by less dimensions at system level.

Sprinklehopper, the two abstracts you're citing are over completely different things, and the first one is only dealing with Na+ diffusion, which is only a component of action potential propagation. Your second abstract has nothing to do with action potential propagation and is only inferring a tiny aspect of cortical connectivity based on some stripped down model. So what exactly are the 2 dimensions you are referring to? The abstracts you posted don't have the answer.

Is only dealing with Na+ diffusion ? The key chemical process in saltatory conduction. Isn't node hopping what we're talking about here ? What else is required for the low dimension treatment ? The vector of any given axon potential travels in one direction. The system of the axon itself ensures no change occurs in the potential. The time is predictable, even if the axon has to bend a little here and there.

isnt it interesting that the two different reseachers conclude they can summarize axon behaviour with low dimensionality from two entirely different positions ? Well it is to me. The model of Chklovskii can hardly be said to be pursing tiny aspects of cortical behaviour. He's trying to apply his "stripped down model" to all brain axons

Another interesting paper describes axon behaviour as "canonical" which mathematically links to spatially limited vectors. SO thats three papers, at just quick glance crossing the primary disciplines, saying something similiar. The chemistry of the axon. The Network modelling and now the physics / mathematical modelling. Thats hardly something to be derided. Its almost sensational.


This papers is referring to pyramidal neurons. these are the prime targets for the majority of cortical axons.

Neuron. 2004 Jul 22;43(2):251-9. Related Articles, Links

Comment in:
Neuron. 2004 Jul 22;43(2):156-8.

Class-specific features of neuronal wiring.

Stepanyants A, Tamas G, Chklovskii DB.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York 11724, USA.

Brain function relies on specificity of synaptic connectivity patterns among different classes of neurons. Yet, the substrates of specificity in complex neuropil remain largely unknown. We search for imprints of specificity in the layout of axonal and dendritic arbors from the rat neocortex. An analysis of 3D reconstructions of pairs consisting of pyramidal cells (PCs) and GABAergic interneurons (GIs) revealed that the layout of GI axons is specific. This specificity is manifested in a relatively high tortuosity, small branch length of these axons, and correlations of their trajectories with the positions of postsynaptic neuron dendrites. Axons of PCs show no such specificity, usually taking a relatively straight course through neuropil. However, wiring patterns among PCs hold a large potential for circuit remodeling and specificity through growth and retraction of dendritic spines. Our results define distinct class-specific rules in establishing synaptic connectivity, which could be crucial in formulating a canonical cortical circuit.

Which to summarize canonical in mathematical phsyical terms is mathematical and used in common reference to the vector limited fiber bundles not of the axons but abstract maths.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FiberBundle.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bundle.html

Interestingly spatial Dimension 3 can be left out by invoking the right hand rule.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpaceOrientation.html

Anyway i find all this very interesting. Glad you grilled me. is the reason "shoot down the attitude guy" ?

Anyway its lead me to discover some very appropriate maths for axons.


My point is just that axons can be defined with low spatial dimensionality in comparison to neurons. I'm not yet at the stage of describing that well. I have bigger creative priorities at the moment for axons, which is how they operate together within the whole brain system. From just a cursory look, Axons have low spatial dimensionality. The papers i have read and for many other reasons i cant put online yet point to this ( copyright ). for that reason and the wolfram papers that brought me back to convergent matrices, far from feeling i came up with nothing am feeling quite relieved.

sprinklechopper

the reason people are itching to argue with you here is because you entered with an emphatic plug for a well-known lunatic who often regurgitates delusional nonsense on this board. Since you seemed to indicate that you feel this nutter to be competent and unjustly opposed, we can only assume that you, too, are a similar mental case. To your credit you do appear capable of competent investigation, but I suspect that the affective state that supports kinship with the aformentioned wackjob may also direct your research toward preconceived and dubious conclusions.

Ah. I thought it may be something to do with that. A guilty by association trip.


I resonate with Robert Bruce in that my own research is conceptual. For that reason, its inevatible to end up with a % of presumed or just plain wrong ideas, especially if a person utilizes any kind of creative thinking in medical science. What i do for example is bring (from what i understand) a unique anaysis method to brain, genetic and human systems. What this method does is review current medical research within a coherent framework which is abstract. As the ideas generated are often new, and the refinement of my analysis system just beginning, a lot of results are not only going to have errors, but are not in agreement with current paradigm. Thats nothing to shy away from as we dont actually have a coherent analysis system to apply to living systems.

My research found that not only is the scientific method unsuitable for "understanding" living systems but detrimental, for the babel reasons i have been over previously. I'm not saying throw out the scientific method. Just keep it to one side, cut down its "bitchy" aspect and let some creative thinking arise.

Aside from that, I'm glad to utilize anyone who can give me a free grilling.

Pity its not on tap when i need it.

My knowledge of what it takes to be an einstein is limited to ashkenazi genetics and knowing that areas on his brain fused together. Did this occur to use or neurodevelopment ? Ashkenazi jews are predicited to suffer from high degrees of CNS illness due to neuroimmune related mutations of glycolipids. This abnormal lipid uptake is related to abnormal dendrite growth and so an increased capacity for dendrite density. The mutations lead to a big factor in higher IQ.

http://www.economist.com/science/displayst...tory_id=4032638

What a weird co-incidence i've cited two articles from the economist here. Apart from those i rarely read this rag. Anyway there are other IQ biological factors such as those involved in the cellular energy aspects (mtDNA related)..but what use are these if the increased cellular energy cannot be protected by a match in lipid uptake. Also consider this. The Ashkenazi Jewish race is almost Unique in that it can only be determined maternally through mtDNA. Ashkenazi men are more related to men outside their own gene pool than each other.

Some people say Einstein was a high function aspergers. Which is a good indicator of right brain dominance anyway. Dont you think the way Einstein interacts with his environment is quite creative. Whatever came up he just kind of rolled with that and dealt with it creatively ? i'm no expert on einstein and i always struggled to barely grasp Physics. Has he been folk heroed ? Just from what i read here and there he doesnt appear to be motivated by anything but a search for figuring out whats what.

In regards to the first question. Recently i completed a meta analysis of the last three decades of brain chemistry in reference to neurotransmitter distribution. That was a lot. Basically whenever research is done to uncover clear scientific data on neurotransmitter receptor distribution, the results are clear ..or that is they only get usable in scientific terms for the left hemisphere.

I have plenty of evidence for this, which is subject the the usual problems when trying to collate previously unrelated studies. This non linear distribution applies to Gaba/glutamate ionics and the primary co-modulators serotonin and dopamine. However i'm re-drafting this as i'm not sure that primary co-modulation should be reduced to just those two. There is an excellent paper i referenced which reviews serotonin receptors in the right hemisphere. I've not got it to hand here. Although these receptors proliferate in quite a varitey of non definable types. The reviewers conclusion is that there was an overall scheme to how the different subtypes came together for an organisms current purpose.

I would liken this to the way in which a lead instrumentalist has a variety of techniques and riffs he messes around to figure out then brings together ad-hoc to express himself at moments of peak creativity.



Later ...
Sprinkle
[/quote]


Sprinkle are you trying to say...
1) Ashkinazi Jews (AJs) are more intelligent, statistically, than non-AJs as evidenced by: a) Winning Nobel Prizes IQ tests c) an increased incidence of alleles that promote intelligence 2) Intelligence has a genetic component 3) The genetic component accounts for differences in intelligence between AJs and non-AJs 4) This is because of genetic selection that occurred during the middle ages in Europe.

I take clear issue with 1)a) in that intelligence is not the best correlator with winning a Nobel prize. Being selected by the Nobel comittee is. There are large access barriers to winning a Nobel prize that have nothing to do with intelligence. A girl born to farmers in Zambia, for example, has no realistic chance of winning a Nobel prize, in spite of what her intelligence may be. A backround of being born in a country that subsidizes scientific research is essential, as is being born into a culture within than nation that values scientific work. Just like the children of doctors are more likely to be doctors, the children of scientists are more likely to be scientists. It helps to have money as well, since being sent to a nice university where cutting edge research is being done by top faculty gives one an obvious boost.

So, if you're going to win a Nobel prize, it helps to live in a first world country, come from a family that values science and education and had a little money.

Well, guess where the Jews in the US came from? They were disproportionately the upper intellectual and financial class Jews of Europe that came here fleeing persecution at home (Einstein, anyone?). The Jews that were tailors and shoemakers were largely kept out my anti-semitic immigration laws, and a great many died in the 1940s.

So, Jews in the US came from a background that is disproportionately moneyed an intellectual, both cultural factors that would have a profound effect on winning Nobel prizes. It's quite a confounder, but this class-selecting effect of immigration laws is completely ignored in your assertion, as are any factors that might influence winning a Nobel prize other than intelligence.

In short, Nobel prizes are a bad example.

Insofar as 1) is concerned, the IQ test was developed initially as a means of identifying children with educational difficulties that might need special attention. In terms of measuring superior performance, the test is much more controversial, and the IQ tests most commonly administered in public schools as part of mass screenings are meant to locate underperformers for remedial education, not overperformers, and are not best utilized as such.

1)c) I am not aware of any functionally significant contribution to intellgence by the disease alleles you mention. I was not able to locate papers on pubmed discussing such correlations using the mesh terms for each of the diseases and their alleles cross-matched with intelligence. All 16 papers produced focused on the intelligence limitations of homozygotes. The paper by Gryfe, et al. discusses the possible need for screening for APC genes in AJs, not the relation of those genes to intelligence. Looking for the reference to Peretz, et al., I found one that had a Peretz H. in the authors list with the following conclusions in the abstract:
These findings suggest that the Gaucher, connexin 26, and familial Mediterranean fever mutations are over 2000 yr old, that the cystic fibrosis 3849 + 10kb C->T and factor XI type III mutations had a common origin in Ashkenazi and Roman Jews, and that other mutations prevalent among Ashkenazi Jews are of more recent origin.

It therefore becomes harder to conclude, as your paper later does, that at least these genes arose as intelligence adaptations during the middle ages, although some must have arisen during that time.
The Peretz paper you site concerning Factor XI deficiency does not mention a role in intelligence, the title of the paper being "The two common mutations causing factor XI deficiency in Jews stem from distinct founders: one of ancient Middle Eastern origin and another of more recent European origin."
If you have an argument for point 3), then, you have only a circumstantial one and cannot point to specific intelligence alleles, or rule out a cultural basis, at least not with the information that you provide here.
Point 4) is controversial, as a few hundred years is too small a time period for evolutionary pressure to change a human population as large as the AJs, and you dismiss the founder effect rather carelessly.

Sprinkle are you trying to say...
1) Ashkinazi Jews (AJs) are more intelligent, statistically, than non-AJs as evidenced by: a) Winning Nobel Prizes IQ tests c) an increased incidence of alleles that promote intelligence 2) Intelligence has a genetic component 3) The genetic component accounts for differences in intelligence between AJs and non-AJs 4) This is because of genetic selection that occurred during the middle ages in Europe.

Probably all of these are relevant. The nobel prizes represent the expression and will to be intelligent. The IQ tests show it. The alleles are the long term result of the will to be intelligent.



A girl born in Zambia has too many disadvantages to go into. it just highlights even more the degree to how a groups will to determine their fate affects their genes. Bad diet can knock 10-15 points of IQ. African genes can knock 10-30 points of IQ. The african x chromosone haplotypes derive way back in time from a point in human evolution quite far in comparison to europeans.




Nobel prizes are a good example of representing an expression of what a group can do innately. Most of the jewish nobel prizes are in highly complex fields such as biomedical sciences. Complexity handling is a good indicator of neuron density and plasticity. At what point is ability innate or a result of genetic changes to intelligence. The economist artice helps educate on this. If thats not enough another excellent paralell model exists. Orientals are very like jews in their desire to excel mentally. They have higher IQ's than average. Their leading cause of death is brain disorders. Did you know that 5-10% of jews are oriental ?




I could also add that IQ can't show us if we are less or more intelligent than the people of 300 years ago. IQ has gone through quite a refinement process, and can now be stripped down from context to just reaction times. A good analogy for this is a racing car engine. They have a greater response due to a greater air/fuel density per cubic litre of volume.





Thats interesting that ashkenazi and roman genetics converge. Did you know that all ashkenazi genes can be traced to a few females from this period. Most surprising of all. They werent jewish.

Biomedical research get its funding for research into illness, not to prove whether one group has better skills than another. I'm not sufficiently interested in jewish intelligence to go trawling through pubmed. I know enough from my own reality. The researcher cochrane who came up with the whole idea is founded upon the fact that people who get ill with lipid disorders have an unusual clustering of high IQ careers. He put this together would the fact the jews who have high intelligence have an unusual variety of genetic disease mutations focussed around the genes involved in mylenating dendrite growth.

Would you say that doing this pubmed search then proves that jews with these alelles have limited intelligence ? What would common sense tell you about jewish intelligence ? What do statistics tell you about jewish intelligence ? what does a look at the biological process of all intelligence tell you about its raw components ?







If those are true, I didnt do any of those things. The researchers who wrote the article did. Its not my paper or even my field of research. I only like to know how the brain works, not prove a point on race. This whole subject came about because someone here asked me to speculate on what it takes to make an Einstein. For these reasons and the fact, it would take too much effort to discuss this properly, I'm not sufficiently interested to go back over it.

What i can take from all this that is fascinating is this. IQ is real prize issue of attention for most people.

Who wants to feel genetically mentally inferior without a fight ? I could post some stuff here on various topics, such as those i do research in, and they would not attract so much attention. Jews have been fighting mentally for thousands of years, by having to outwit their hosts. Its inevatible their IQ is under strong selection. I dont personally agree with or subscribe to what jews are all about, because i'm male and the jewish agenda is quite a feminine one.



..

Jew-nius

Part of the importance of hyperpolarization is in preventing any stimulus already sent up an axon from triggering another action potential in the opposite direction. In other words, hyperpolarization assures that the signal is proceeding in one direction. (ref: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...gy/actpot.html)

But what makes this 2d happen is a (complex) 3d process in time, like it or lump it!

Regurgitative does not equal conceptual, in your sense of the word. But we welcome fresh ideas, or critiques of the literature.

My son and I regularly vie for position via "tickle". I think he has the highest score at the moment. Meaningful eh?

Do i only have those two choices ? That looks in itself like a two dimensional statement.

I have heard of axons in labs getting polarized in other directions by shoving a current. From what i know axons tend to keep their single directionality, although correct me if am wrong.

Everything is 3 dimensional or even more. For reasons best not getting into , I am be sticking with this physic / maths based axon route. When i am able to explain the reasons properly, i am sure you will go "aha !!, now i get it".

At the very least i expect an "mmmmn interesting" ...



--

Thats good to hear. Proud to sound irrational, I'm hoping to be original and develop my ideas in a wikipedia type manner both in and outside the peer review process, by allowing others to critique, alter them online, and perhaps even take ownership.

The peer review process it too slow. Even when things are going well, i find it a real drag. I like the wikipedia model. Do you know of any others ? I like the idea of open access online development by a group forum. With this the ideas, results and methods i spent the last 6 years trying to develop can be really be let riot.

the Digital Universe model

Ohhh Robert you are back to forum?!

You know after Da Vinci Code movie appearance world wide the word Robert rings in mind with the word Langdon.

Hope you are doing well.

And what a topic! You want to crack my dear Matrix again?

How did you like the demonstration of the Chronovisor in the Harry Potter movie, hmm when Harry turned the time back?

Btw, will you be so kind to provide your e-mail, I want to tell you something extremely important.

You know Robert, there are things people must not know. Instead you are broadcasting materials in a form of noise. Like a Mosaic from secret shelves of Sir Robert Baird Cotton's library. You know that the Library was confiscated by the throne. Do not forget about that.

Does your mind just tunes irregular segments from Sea of noise in the frozen light Robert, only because you carry the same name "Robert Bruce Baird"?

You know Robert, some ideas may question integrity and stability of the world. You must feel responsible for what you are writing.

Do not please step aside from the scientific path. You perturb the tranquility. Do you want to rise the Titans?

And please keep hands off from my dear Benjamin Franklin!

Can somebody explain to me this thread was opened this year (2006) or it is very old one?

Or I have lost the feeling of time and space?

this sooooo reminds me of what Jame's has mentioned in
the main discussion forum....

Care to elaborate, Gooofy Cathey? Main discussion forum? Jame? (Wasn't Jame the name of the killer in Silence of the Lambs?)

hey guys... sorry but how can set a picture in my profile?

doh.....thanks, I think.