Consciousness Theory

[Pincho Paxton]

I'm going to say this as a matter of fact. If you think that the brain is unimportant to consciousness or self your are insane.

You can ask me to prove that statement, but you see, you have to prove the statement.

The problem of ego here arises in the unwillingness to make every attempt to study with equanimity all possibilities. Attaching one's self to beliefs is never wise. Personally I am capable discussing in various grammatical settings such as Neurophilosophy, Buddhism or Christianity. These are just different ways of discussing the same phenomena. I have operational attitudes or a running model of reality which is more or less certain. Another way ego manifests in debate is appealing to character, census, tradition, etc... attacking an participants motives. There is a dialectic here because attacking a person's motives can be seen as positive if the "attacker" is trying to enlighten the "victim". But this is a very touchy relation.

For the Christians, what do you think it means Genesis 18:27, James 4:14 and Ecclesiastes 9:5-6? Colossians 2:19? Romans 9? (etc..)

I have personally experienced brain trauma and it becomes apparent that your brain is rather important to your perspective. To say that the brain is not important is to blame everyone who suffered from a stroke or other trauma of making stuff up. Its to contradict the whole notion that decapitation is an effective means of eliminating the life of that perspective (soul or whatever). Whether or not you describe it in terms of "patters of electrons", the specific pattern is a brain. I'm sure you if you could describe consciousness in terms of functional relationships between electrons then you'd be slightly more accurate that describe it on the macroperspect of the brain, but it would take you much longer to work out what was going on. The accuracy would be negligible, ultimately you would need to condense your description into something simplistic and lose all that you acquired in the process. Technologically speaking this would be impossible at current time, there isn't even sufficient ability to calculate Tononi and Edelman's Dynamic Core which is based on brain-perspect causal interactions. You aren't gaining anything with the electron-perspect as regards human consciousness. It doesn't actually get you anywhere, I think that you have no plausible description of how electrons achieve the tapestry of consciousness and you will probably never have one. It's a sideshow, a waste of time, a fantasy. I'm sure there are lots of good reasons to talk about electrons. There isn't really much point when talking about the brain. The brain is electrochemical which is a whole different ball game. I mean, a cell depolarizes at about 55mV and has a resting potential of -70mV. But the synapses are chemical. The computational structure of the brain is in the synaptic relations between cells. A cell receives chemical transmitters which opens certain channels that causes an influx of positively charged ions which causes depolarization of cell at the axon hillock (at approx. 55 mV threshold) and there is a rolling activation across the axon to the axon terminal. At the axon terminal the electrochemical activity opens channels releasing vesicles (packages of transmitter) into the synaptic cleft--the area between the pre-synaptic cell membrane and the post-synaptic cell membrane--where it reacts with the gates on the post-synaptic cell membrane. Basic neuron stuff. When you put a bunch of these together and stimulate them, for example using a cone. A cone is a retinal ganglion cell, a nerve cell in the eye's retina that contains opsin reacting to specific wavelengths of light. When a cones photosensitive chemical reacts it feeds the information into the brain and neurons (color-opponency cells, luminance cells, etc..) discriminate and represent what the eyes see.

You don't need anything to know this stuff, just a reason. You can learn all of this online in an afternoon. I could go into further explanation, but I think you get the point that there is basically no reason for describing consciousness in terms of electrons and that the assertion that the brain is negligible is foolish.

You wrote a pretty long post that didn't really alter what I said about the electrons being our brain, and the brain being their workplace.

[Kunga]

as nothing exists inherently

are you talking about nothing itself not existing inherently or just its distinguisher which would be something. i mean isnt perception inherent itself? why would this not apply to anything else in our envirnment but only certain things. to follow the laws of completion/unification one would have to be inherently able to preicieve it or they would not be able to distinguish anything in their envirnment. in a sense become purposeless and basicly be travleing into oblivion.

the only problem is oblivion doesnt exist in the first place so how would it be priecevable. without a form for existance to latch onto in a sense the form istelf would become undistinguishable from anything else. would basicly become an object of pointless reason this in istelf would prevent it from exististing in the first place.

Inherently nothing exists on it's own.....a table was not born a table....there have to be causes and conditions in order for phenomena to appear.....in order for the table to come into existence

sometimes when you think too much you can't see the forest through the trees

[Animus]

You wrote a pretty long post that didn't really alter what I said about the electrons being our brain, and the brain being their workplace.

Good to hear that. From this point on we can discuss brain dynamics.

[Carmel]

Animus:
"You aren't gaining anything with the electron-perspect as regards human consciousness. It doesn't actually get you anywhere, I think that you have no plausible description of how electrons achieve the tapestry of consciousness and you will probably never have one. It's a sideshow, a waste of time, a fantasy."

Carmel:
Animus, I totally agree.

Pincho:
You wrote a pretty long post that didn't really alter what I said about the electrons being our brain, and the brain being their workplace.

Carmel:
Pincho, What Animus said about brain function and neurology is accurate. You are literally just making things up and stating them as if they are fact.

Have you ever considered taking some science or anatomy/physiology classes? You seem to have a natural interest in them and it might open up whole new worlds to you.

[Animus]

Have you ever considered taking some science or anatomy/physiology classes? You seem to have a natural interest in them and it might open up whole new worlds to you.

I think you may have intended this for Pincho [...]. I briefly considered it, but then I figured it was a waste of time. I can learn what I need to know without formal education. Actually, I think I can learn what I need to know faster and more completely without bogging down in human bureaucracy.

My primary sources have been books on neurophilosophy and scholarpedia.org, NIMH, APA various online journals (Nature Neuroscience, etc..), psychology textbooks, neuroanatomy books. I've tried to read as many papers as I can directly instead of second-hand in books. I've also got all of the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Holiday Lectures on DVD and spent some time on videolectures.net.

[Pincho Paxton]

Carmel:
Pincho, What Animus said about brain function and neurology is accurate. You are literally just making things up and stating them as if they are fact.

Have you ever considered taking some science or anatomy/physiology classes? You seem to have a natural interest in them and it might open up whole new worlds to you.

But I agree with them. I said that the brain functions are correct. All I changed was their origin from first person to third person. those brain functions are in third person perspective, being used by another. Like when you play a computer game.

You all seem to have the brain as a first person computer game. I have it as a Third person computer game. But the game still plays the same way.

You should all maybe take a step back from yourselves (a phrase that is almost 3D).... become third person... Electrons.

After all the thread is about conciousness, not functionality.

[divine focus]

You should all maybe take a step back from yourselves (a phrase that is almost 3D).... become third person... Electrons.

Do you think electrons are neutral, and neutrons negative?

[Pincho Paxton]

You should all maybe take a step back from yourselves (a phrase that is almost 3D).... become third person... Electrons.

Do you think electrons are neutral, and neutrons negative?

Electrons Positive, I have 2 Nucleus in my theory, and Science only has 1. So I'm not sure which one they are referring to. My Pinchon nucleus is negative. My Atom nucleus is positive. Combined they lock.

[divine focus]

What makes up the nuclei?

[Carmel]

I think you may have intended this for Pincho [...]. I briefly considered it, but then I figured it was a waste of time. I can learn what I need to know without formal education. Actually, I think I can learn what I need to know faster and more completely without bogging down in human bureaucracy.

Carmel:
Yes, that was directed at Pincho. You're doing just fine learning on your own. :)
...Neurobiology was one of my favorite parts of A&P classes too.

Animus:
My primary sources have been books on neurophilosophy and scholarpedia.org, NIMH, APA various online journals (Nature Neuroscience, etc..), psychology textbooks, neuroanatomy books. I've tried to read as many papers as I can directly instead of second-hand in books. I've also got all of the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Holiday Lectures on DVD and spent some time on videolectures.net.[/quote]

Carmel:

I think the online journals/paper is a good approach as knowledge in science and medicals fields seems to grow exponentially. Have you ever read "The Lancet"? It's a British medical journal and is often revered as the most highly respected medical journal in the world.
You can access their articles online.

I have a couple of ideas that I'm curious about that involve neurobiology. I'll post them in Ryan's biology thread(in Worldly Matters) within a day or two...

[Pincho Paxton]

What makes up the nuclei?

Why?

[Animus]

Carmel:
Pincho, What Animus said about brain function and neurology is accurate. You are literally just making things up and stating them as if they are fact.

Have you ever considered taking some science or anatomy/physiology classes? You seem to have a natural interest in them and it might open up whole new worlds to you.

But I agree with them. I said that the brain functions are correct. All I changed was their origin from first person to third person. those brain functions are in third person perspective, being used by another. Like when you play a computer game.

You all seem to have the brain as a first person computer game. I have it as a Third person computer game. But the game still plays the same way.

You should all maybe take a step back from yourselves (a phrase that is almost 3D).... become third person... Electrons.

After all the thread is about conciousness, not functionality.

I don't understand, the approach I've been taking is a sort of synthesis 'tween pyshoanalytic theory, psychology (instinctivism, behaviourism,) and empirical neuroscience. Neurosscience is of course third-person, along with instinctivist and behaviouralist psychology, while psychoanalytics is definitively first-person.

So actually I'm reading Erich Fromm's - a psychoanalyst - The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness which elucidates many of the discontinuities between neurophysiology (at least the thinking of the time) and psychoanalytics. Central to the concerns raised by Fromm is precisely this; formal psychology of his time was dominated by instinctivists like Lorenz and behaviourists like Skinner, both of which excluded the first-person subject and their character from explanations on human behaviour and this proves to be inadequate. However, Fromm also acknowledges the relevance of neurophysiology and third-person analysis in general. Fromm hypothesizes that future developments in both fields will eventually bring about convergence, which appears to be more of a reality these days. For example Thomas Metzinger's "Being No One" is a very good attempt at bridging the gap between neurophysiology/neuroscience, psychology and philosophy. Central to Metzinger's ability to bring all of these fields together is the conclusion that we are no "one".

Anyway, I guess, I don't really understand the assertion...

[Animus]

I think you may have intended this for Pincho [...]. I briefly considered it, but then I figured it was a waste of time. I can learn what I need to know without formal education. Actually, I think I can learn what I need to know faster and more completely without bogging down in human bureaucracy.

Carmel:
Yes, that was directed at Pincho. You're doing just fine learning on your own. :)
...Neurobiology was one of my favorite parts of A&P classes too.

Animus:
My primary sources have been books on neurophilosophy and scholarpedia.org, NIMH, APA various online journals (Nature Neuroscience, etc..), psychology textbooks, neuroanatomy books. I've tried to read as many papers as I can directly instead of second-hand in books. I've also got all of the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Holiday Lectures on DVD and spent some time on videolectures.net.

Carmel:

I think the online journals/paper is a good approach as knowledge in science and medicals fields seems to grow exponentially. Have you ever read "The Lancet"? It's a British medical journal and is often revered as the most highly respected medical journal in the world.
You can access their articles online.

I have a couple of ideas that I'm curious about that involve neurobiology. I'll post them in Ryan's biology thread(in Worldly Matters) within a day or two...[/quote]

I've heard of the Lancet, but doesn't it require a subscription? Most of them seem to require a rather hefty subscription fee, that might work for the practicing neuroscientists, but I don't have any funds available. I'm poor.

[Pincho Paxton]

Carmel:
Pincho, What Animus said about brain function and neurology is accurate. You are literally just making things up and stating them as if they are fact.

Have you ever considered taking some science or anatomy/physiology classes? You seem to have a natural interest in them and it might open up whole new worlds to you.

But I agree with them. I said that the brain functions are correct. All I changed was their origin from first person to third person. those brain functions are in third person perspective, being used by another. Like when you play a computer game.

You all seem to have the brain as a first person computer game. I have it as a Third person computer game. But the game still plays the same way.

You should all maybe take a step back from yourselves (a phrase that is almost 3D).... become third person... Electrons.

After all the thread is about conciousness, not functionality.

I don't understand, the approach I've been taking is a sort of synthesis 'tween pyshoanalytic theory, psychology (instinctivism, behaviourism,) and empirical neuroscience. Neurosscience is of course third-person, along with instinctivist and behaviouralist psychology, while psychoanalytics is definitively first-person.

So actually I'm reading Erich Fromm's - a psychoanalyst - The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness which elucidates many of the discontinuities between neurophysiology (at least the thinking of the time) and psychoanalytics. Central to the concerns raised by Fromm is precisely this; formal psychology of his time was dominated by instinctivists like Lorenz and behaviourists like Skinner, both of which excluded the first-person subject and their character from explanations on human behaviour and this proves to be inadequate. However, Fromm also acknowledges the relevance of neurophysiology and third-person analysis in general. Fromm hypothesizes that future developments in both fields will eventually bring about convergence, which appears to be more of a reality these days. For example Thomas Metzinger's "Being No One" is a very good attempt at bridging the gap between neurophysiology/neuroscience, psychology and philosophy. Central to Metzinger's ability to bring all of these fields together is the conclusion that we are no "one".

Anyway, I guess, I don't really understand the assertion...

The difference is that electrons make paths. Think of Lightening. There is a path from the ground to the clouds before the lightening strikes. So the lightening goes up first, then down. Think of the brain as the path going up. The electrons made it. Think of a thought, and it is the Electrons going down. But the case is that the Electrons produced the path, and then produced the thought, not the brain. So the Electrons are us, and the brain is our path. We first find a path, and then we have the thought. This two way connection eliminates God. The path is arranged in a way that produces a bigger picture. It is our electrons TV. But a TV is an ownership, not part of our body. We own our brain, but we are not our brain.

[Animus]

If you are driving at some dualistic concept then that may be where our problems are.

There is a story about a sage named Nagasema and his interaction with King Milinda... http://web.singnet.com.sg/~rjp31831/nag ... tm#chariot

That should solve the problem of what we are and illustrate the error of identifying with electrons. My reasons for using the brain as an explanatory platform are pragmatic. Oscillations and phase locking (binding by synchrony) are important observations of neuroscience, but they aren't a complete theory. It is the weighted gating system that discriminates and sustains over time, the current activated by them is not a persistent phenomena. You could say the activation pattern is a thought, which is accurate, but this doesn't help explain the phenomena any better.

Or maybe I'm missing it. I thought this had something to do with octagons.

[Pincho Paxton]

If you are driving at some dualistic concept then that may be where our problems are.

There is a story about a sage named Nagasema and his interaction with King Milinda... http://web.singnet.com.sg/~rjp31831/nag ... tm#chariot

That should solve the problem of what we are and illustrate the error of identifying with electrons. My reasons for using the brain as an explanatory platform are pragmatic. Oscillations and phase locking (binding by synchrony) are important observations of neuroscience, but they aren't a complete theory. It is the weighted gating system that discriminates and sustains over time, the current activated by them is not a persistent phenomena. You could say the activation pattern is a thought, which is accurate, but this doesn't help explain the phenomena any better.

Or maybe I'm missing it. I thought this had something to do with octagons.

Hexagons.

Electrons always make pathways. that's what they do. Lightening is one example, but the two slit experiment, and the incorrect speed of light experiment also prove it. The speed of light is a constant because the experiment performed to identify it was set up backwards. The result of the experiment was actually placed at the beginning of the journey. Of course you will always get a constant speed at the beginning of any journey. Why? because the photon doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a photon. the electrons do all of the work. The electrons were starting out from the answer to the problem. So therefore they were a constant. Life is electrons. They are very clever. somehow they calculate where to go do to achieve a result. They know which part of the brain to go to to get the right answer. Like we know which buttons to press on a calculator to type in 1+1 = and then the answer is 2. The electrons in this case are our Electrons. Do you see, electrons only need electrons. Somehow, they perform without requiring another entity to guide them.

[Animus]

If you are driving at some dualistic concept then that may be where our problems are.

There is a story about a sage named Nagasema and his interaction with King Milinda... http://web.singnet.com.sg/~rjp31831/nag ... tm#chariot

That should solve the problem of what we are and illustrate the error of identifying with electrons. My reasons for using the brain as an explanatory platform are pragmatic. Oscillations and phase locking (binding by synchrony) are important observations of neuroscience, but they aren't a complete theory. It is the weighted gating system that discriminates and sustains over time, the current activated by them is not a persistent phenomena. You could say the activation pattern is a thought, which is accurate, but this doesn't help explain the phenomena any better.

Or maybe I'm missing it. I thought this had something to do with octagons.

Hexagons.

Electrons always make pathways. that's what they do. Lightening is one example, but the two slit experiment, and the incorrect speed of light experiment also prove it. The speed of light is a constant because the experiment performed to identify it was set up backwards. The result of the experiment was actually placed at the beginning of the journey. Of course you will always get a constant speed at the beginning of any journey. Why? because the photon doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a photon. the electrons do all of the work. The electrons were starting out from the answer to the problem. So therefore they were a constant. Life is electrons. They are very clever. somehow they calculate where to go do to achieve a result. They know which part of the brain to go to to get the right answer. Like we know which buttons to press on a calculator to type in 1+1 = and then the answer is 2. The electrons in this case are our Electrons. Do you see, electrons only need electrons. Somehow, they perform without requiring another entity to guide them.

The electrons have nowhere to go if there is no neural pathways. If there is no corticothalamic complex there is no consciousness. You can hook a car battery up to a cored brain and it won't achieve anything. Electrons do not know where to go anymore than a stone knows where to go. Really... honestly... think about it... you take your brain out of your head and put it on the desk in-front of you. Now... how's that? Feel any different? Go and grab a large a knife... The notion that the brain is unimportant is particularly troublesome to stroke victims and victims of various other brain damage. I mean, it sounds like you are saying the reason someone is suffering ALS is because their electrons (which is them) are not... what? Doing what they are supposed to? What does any of this even mean? Incoherent nonsense.

[Pincho Paxton]

If you are driving at some dualistic concept then that may be where our problems are.

There is a story about a sage named Nagasema and his interaction with King Milinda... http://web.singnet.com.sg/~rjp31831/nag ... tm#chariot

That should solve the problem of what we are and illustrate the error of identifying with electrons. My reasons for using the brain as an explanatory platform are pragmatic. Oscillations and phase locking (binding by synchrony) are important observations of neuroscience, but they aren't a complete theory. It is the weighted gating system that discriminates and sustains over time, the current activated by them is not a persistent phenomena. You could say the activation pattern is a thought, which is accurate, but this doesn't help explain the phenomena any better.

Or maybe I'm missing it. I thought this had something to do with octagons.

Hexagons.

Electrons always make pathways. that's what they do. Lightening is one example, but the two slit experiment, and the incorrect speed of light experiment also prove it. The speed of light is a constant because the experiment performed to identify it was set up backwards. The result of the experiment was actually placed at the beginning of the journey. Of course you will always get a constant speed at the beginning of any journey. Why? because the photon doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a photon. the electrons do all of the work. The electrons were starting out from the answer to the problem. So therefore they were a constant. Life is electrons. They are very clever. somehow they calculate where to go do to achieve a result. They know which part of the brain to go to to get the right answer. Like we know which buttons to press on a calculator to type in 1+1 = and then the answer is 2. The electrons in this case are our Electrons. Do you see, electrons only need electrons. Somehow, they perform without requiring another entity to guide them.

The electrons have nowhere to go if there is no neural pathways. If there is no corticothalamic complex there is no consciousness. You can hook a car battery up to a cored brain and it won't achieve anything. Electrons do not know where to go anymore than a stone knows where to go. Really... honestly... think about it... you take your brain out of your head and put it on the desk in-front of you. Now... how's that? Feel any different? Go and grab a large a knife... The notion that the brain is unimportant is particularly troublesome to stroke victims and victims of various other brain damage. I mean, it sounds like you are saying the reason someone is suffering ALS is because their electrons (which is them) are not... what? Doing what they are supposed to? What does any of this even mean? Incoherent nonsense.

With no head you have stopped the pathway to the heart, and other functions that the electrons need to pump blood, and to keep our pathways through our veins from congealing, and putting up solid walls that the electrons get stuck in. Look at the wall of your house, it has enclosed them in a tomb.

The electric current from a battery does not have time to beat the congealing either. If you could swap the heart instantly after death, you might save the person.

stroke victims, same problem, blocked pathways.

If you wanted to go to the toilet, but the door was locked you couldn't do it.

Why is water a good conductor of electricity, it is easy to travel through, it hasn't much substance to block the way, it passes electricity to your hand, and your hand twitches because a signal was sent backwards through it. Normally the signal comes from inside it, in the other direction. That's another problem with sticking a battery in your brain. The signal is going in the wrong direction.

[Animus]

the stroke victims problem is not "blocked pathways" it is "no pathways". this is the point I am trying to make, you are suggesting that electrons are the atoms of perception, but this is functionally incorrect, without the architecture of the brain, there is no systematic integration of information of any kind. Your blind assertion that the brain is unimportant is bordering on pure insanity. You are placing undue emphasis on a fraction of the totality of the brain and its dynamics.

[Pincho Paxton]

the stroke victims problem is not "blocked pathways" it is "no pathways". this is the point I am trying to make, you are suggesting that electrons are the atoms of perception, but this is functionally incorrect, without the architecture of the brain, there is no systematic integration of information of any kind. Your blind assertion that the brain is unimportant is bordering on pure insanity. You are placing undue emphasis on a fraction of the totality of the brain and its dynamics.

But the brain cannot call itself without the electrons. However the electrons can call themselves without the brain. I am mostly expecting a special electron to be the guide, because our DNA is activated when a sperm enters the egg. I expect all of that energy that builds our body to be electrons. I mean, if the electrons build the brain then surely they are first in line to be pronounced the brain owners.

[Animus]

the stroke victims problem is not "blocked pathways" it is "no pathways". this is the point I am trying to make, you are suggesting that electrons are the atoms of perception, but this is functionally incorrect, without the architecture of the brain, there is no systematic integration of information of any kind. Your blind assertion that the brain is unimportant is bordering on pure insanity. You are placing undue emphasis on a fraction of the totality of the brain and its dynamics.

But the brain cannot call itself without the electrons. However the electrons can call themselves without the brain. They do other tasks in the universe. Many other tasks.They use the Universe just like it were another brain to work with, and they never die.

Yes, electrons have an uncanny knowledge of copper and they know just how to attach themselves to it. In this same way water has an uncanny knowledge of gravity and in a deliberate act it tends to flow in the direction of gravity.

I'm guessing you didn't perform the brain autopsy on yourself...

I hear these nonsensical claims about consciousness all of the time, and I routinely put it out there; if you honestly believe the brain is unimportant, get rid of the damn thing, its weighing you down and consuming valuable energy in the form of glucose. If this is all superfluous why not liberate yourself from this unwarranted burden by self-administered leucotomy? I guarantee you won't get passed your frontal lobes before the whole idea of destroying your brain recedes from consciousness and you become a persistent vegetable. Then again, I'm erroneously basing this on the fact that Walter Freeman travelled the continental USA performing frontal lobotomies on people and leaving them in vegetative states. I've fallaciously attributed empirical evidence with an indication of truth. I get it now, I should be thinking in abstract terms disconnected from empirical observation, these people were not vegetables as a result of a frontal lobotomy performed by Walter Freeman, that correlation is purely coincidental, no they are in such a state because their electrons (which are them) freely chose to be in a vegetative state.

Wow, fuck this BRS Neuroanatomy book, I'm cancelling my order of Neuroanatomy through clinical cases, because obviously its all wrong, octagonal electrons are the key.

[Pincho Paxton]

the stroke victims problem is not "blocked pathways" it is "no pathways". this is the point I am trying to make, you are suggesting that electrons are the atoms of perception, but this is functionally incorrect, without the architecture of the brain, there is no systematic integration of information of any kind. Your blind assertion that the brain is unimportant is bordering on pure insanity. You are placing undue emphasis on a fraction of the totality of the brain and its dynamics.

But the brain cannot call itself without the electrons. However the electrons can call themselves without the brain. They do other tasks in the universe. Many other tasks.They use the Universe just like it were another brain to work with, and they never die.

Yes, electrons have an uncanny knowledge of copper and they know just how to attach themselves to it. In this same way water has an uncanny knowledge of gravity and in a deliberate act it tends to flow in the direction of gravity.

I'm guessing you didn't perform the brain autopsy on yourself...

I hear these nonsensical claims about consciousness all of the time, and I routinely put it out there; if you honestly believe the brain is unimportant, get rid of the damn thing, its weighing you down and consuming valuable energy in the form of glucose. If this is all superfluous why not liberate yourself from this unwarranted burden by self-administered leucotomy? I guarantee you won't get passed your frontal lobes before the whole idea of destroying your brain recedes from consciousness and you become a persistent vegetable. Then again, I'm erroneously basing this on the fact that Walter Freeman travelled the continental USA performing frontal lobotomies on people and leaving them in vegetative states. I've fallaciously attributed empirical evidence with an indication of truth. I get it now, I should be thinking in abstract terms disconnected from empirical observation, these people were not vegetables as a result of a frontal lobotomy performed by Walter Freeman, that correlation is purely coincidental, no they are in such a state because their electrons (which are them) freely chose to be in a vegetative state.

Wow, fuck this BRS Neuroanatomy book, I'm cancelling my order of Neuroanatomy through clinical cases, because obviously its all wrong, octagonal electrons are the key.

You seem to keep saying that the brain is unimportant. I don't know why you say that. Can you switch on your TV without owning a TV? But if you do have a TV is it in control of you if you turn it on?

Like I said, the electrons built the brain using the DNA as their manual. Seems to be Electrons doing everything. Build it, use it. Would you build a robot, and then let it be in charge of you?

[Animus]

There is no one in charge of the brain. There is no homonculus Pincho. Like this is an ancient philosophical issue that by now should be old news. The electron theory does not resolve the homonculus problem it just begs the question.

A Homunculus argument accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain (Richard Gregory, 1987). Homunculus arguments are always fallacious. In the psychology and philosophy of mind 'homunculus arguments' are useful for detecting where theories of mind fail or are incomplete.
Homunculus arguments are common in the theory of vision. Imagine a person watching a movie. They see the images as something separate from themself, projected on the screen. How is this done? A simple theory might propose that the light from the screen forms an image on the retinae in the eyes and something in the brain looks at these as if they are the screen. The Homunculus Argument shows this is not a full explanation because all that has been done is to place an entire person, or homunculus, behind the eye who gazes at the retinae. A more sophisticated argument might propose that the images on the retinae are transferred to the visual cortex where it is scanned. Again this cannot be a full explanation because all that has been done is to place a little person in the brain behind the cortex. In the theory of vision the Homunculus Argument invalidates theories that do not explain 'projection', the experience that the viewing point is separate from the things that are seen (adapted from Gregory, 1987; 1990). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus)

The way to avoid the homonculus fallacy is given in the story of Nagasena and King Milinda. Simply, do not invoke the idea of a homonculus and we'll be okay. You're electron theory seems to hold that the electrons are a kind of homonculus, an imperishable entity that "uses' and views the brain. This is complete nonsense.

[Pincho Paxton]

There is no one in charge of the brain. There is no homonculus Pincho. Like this is an ancient philosophical issue that by now should be old news. The electron theory does not resolve the homonculus problem it just begs the question.

A Homunculus argument accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain (Richard Gregory, 1987). Homunculus arguments are always fallacious. In the psychology and philosophy of mind 'homunculus arguments' are useful for detecting where theories of mind fail or are incomplete.
Homunculus arguments are common in the theory of vision. Imagine a person watching a movie. They see the images as something separate from themself, projected on the screen. How is this done? A simple theory might propose that the light from the screen forms an image on the retinae in the eyes and something in the brain looks at these as if they are the screen. The Homunculus Argument shows this is not a full explanation because all that has been done is to place an entire person, or homunculus, behind the eye who gazes at the retinae. A more sophisticated argument might propose that the images on the retinae are transferred to the visual cortex where it is scanned. Again this cannot be a full explanation because all that has been done is to place a little person in the brain behind the cortex. In the theory of vision the Homunculus Argument invalidates theories that do not explain 'projection', the experience that the viewing point is separate from the things that are seen (adapted from Gregory, 1987; 1990). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus)

The way to avoid the homonculus fallacy is given in the story of Nagasena and King Milinda. Simply, do not invoke the idea of a homonculus and we'll be okay. You're electron theory seems to hold that the electrons are a kind of homonculus, an imperishable entity that "uses' and views the brain. This is complete nonsense.

Basically, you are happy with us being grey matter. When we die, we die. That's the end. Nothing escapes. I find that hard to believe. You could say that 1000 years ago, I didn't exist. Now I do, and then I will not again. Whatever happens usually repeats itself somehow.

Can I not exist then exist, with no inbetween? If I were an electron I could keep going forever. But as grey matter I have popped up from nowhere. I suddenly existed, never to exist again. It's not that it bothers me not to exist, but I can't get over the fact that I was sort of dead 1000 years ago. If I laid out the recipe for being dead it would be no heart beat, and no brain activity. 1000 years ago I was no heart beat, and no brain activity. later I will be the same.

The ingredients match up.. dead both times. The only ingredient not being examined is my electrons. they could be in both directions of my example.

Also.. what about dreams? We don't always remember them. The only things using them are the electrons.

[divine focus]

What makes up the nuclei?

Why?

I don't get your theory. Where's the protons and neutrons??

Which particle (or wave???) is neutral?

Interesting video on electrons. Quantum microscope at the end.