🚀 go-pugleaf

On 24 May 2007 07:35:39 -0700, neo <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:

>Anybody knows centre of gravity of human brain? As the mass of
>neocortex is 76% of total mass of human brain, center of gravity of
>human brain should be somewhere in neocortex.
>
>I searched web, groups but can't find answer.

Why would this be of any interest?

In any event, the brain is very roughly speaking rather symmetrically
distributed and more or less uniform in density so the center of
gravity would be right in the center.  Certainly on the midline and
therefore not in the neocortex at all.

Yes, I know there are asymmetries but these are very minor.  And there
are differences in density between the gray and white matter and there
are ventricles but these are also more or less symmetrically
distributed.

I agree .

"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1180017338.994303.280440@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| Anybody knows centre of gravity of human brain? As the mass of
| neocortex is 76% of total mass of human brain, center of gravity of
| human brain should be somewhere in neocortex.
|
| I searched web, groups but can't find answer.

Caveat: Everything I will discuss in this post
is from my own work, which has not yet been
accepted by Professionals in Neuroscience.

The "biological mass" that I've been writing
about in my posts in b.n are not completely
the same as 'mass" as the term is used in
Physics.

"Biological mass" is a term I coined to connote
the net microscopic trophic modifications that
occur as a result of the neural activation.

These "micro-mods" [for short] are physically-
real stuff that exerts physically-real inertia
within neural dynamics, including cognition
and everything else to which folks commonly
refer to as "being manifestations of brain
function.

It's in these inertial dynamics that "biological
mass" is exactly analogous to physical "mass",
but the former exerts its inertia within neural
dynamics.

When one "learns" it's be-cause one has
acquired "biological mass" with respect to
that which one has "learned". We send our
Children to school to to have their nervous
system modified through the acquisition of
"biological mass" :-]

When our Children can do 'new' stuff upon
their completion of, say, a term in school,
it's be-cause the "biological mass" they
acquired as a result of the neural activation
that occurred while they were paying-attention
in class is exerting physically-real inertia
'within' their cognitive dynamics [the net
result is dependent upon 'time' spent in
"sleep" 'states, but that's beyond the scope
of this post.]

Both "biological mass" and physical "mass"
reduce to 3D-Energydynamics in the work
I've been discussing in b.n.

But, while one can "weigh" physical mass
on a balance, 'weighing' "biological mass"
happens 'within' nervous systems -- as in
the "weighing" of alternatives, only the
'weighing' literally happens 'within' the
neural Topology.

In the not too distant future, I expect that
"biological mass" will be observable via
external monitoring devices. [I've discussed
a technique, SD-EEG [Simultaneous Diff-
erential Electro EncephloGram] through
which this 'weighing' of "biological mass"
can be crudely achieved [long-former dis-
cussions], and there are a lot of other
already-existing monitoring devices that
can be used in the 'same' way. The im-
portant thing is to render the neural-activ-
ation "differentials" concrete. They correlate
to "biological mass" be-cause "biological
mass" does, in fact, exert its inertia 'within'
neural-activation dynamics.

Anyway, that's the 'difference' between
"biological mass" and physical "mass".

They're pretty-much the same-stuff, but
biological mass requires, and happens
in, nervous systems.

To see the 'same'-ness, one has to work
at the 'level' of the 3D-E to which I referred
above.

There's real usefulness in doing so.

k. p. collins

r norman wrote:
> On 24 May 2007 07:35:39 -0700, neo <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Anybody knows centre of gravity of human brain? As the mass of
> >neocortex is 76% of total mass of human brain, center of gravity of
> >human brain should be somewhere in neocortex.
> >
> >I searched web, groups but can't find answer.
>
> Why would this be of any interest?
>
> In any event, the brain is very roughly speaking rather symmetrically
> distributed and more or less uniform in density so the center of
> gravity would be right in the center.  Certainly on the midline and
> therefore not in the neocortex at all.
>
> Yes, I know there are asymmetries but these are very minor.  And there
> are differences in density between the gray and white matter and there
> are ventricles but these are also more or less symmetrically
> distributed.

As we know, center of gravity of any body is not 'real'. No one can
see it by using any method. But it still does exist! Likewise no one
can see 'self' but it still does exist. So I thought that there might
be some relation between 'center of gravity of brain' and 'self'.

And as you pointed out that center of gravity of brain may vary from
person to person due to 'minor asymmetries', may be that is the reason
why every person has different 'self'.

BTW, I tried it many times to figure out exact location from where my
thoughts arise but it seems it is everywhere in my skull. May be it is
in frontal lobe.

r norman wrote:
> On 24 May 2007 07:35:39 -0700, neo <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Anybody knows centre of gravity of human brain? As the mass of
> >neocortex is 76% of total mass of human brain, center of gravity of
> >human brain should be somewhere in neocortex.
> >
> >I searched web, groups but can't find answer.
>
> Why would this be of any interest?
>
> In any event, the brain is very roughly speaking rather symmetrically
> distributed and more or less uniform in density so the center of
> gravity would be right in the center.  Certainly on the midline and
> therefore not in the neocortex at all.
>
> Yes, I know there are asymmetries but these are very minor.  And there
> are differences in density between the gray and white matter and there
> are ventricles but these are also more or less symmetrically
> distributed.

As we know, center of gravity of any body is not 'real'. No one can
see it by using any method. But it still does exist! Likewise no one
can see 'self' but it still does exist. So I thought that there might
be some relation between 'center of gravity of brain' and 'self'.

And as you pointed out that center of gravity of brain may vary from
person to person due to 'minor asymmetries', may be that is the reason
why every person has different 'self'.

BTW, I tried it many times to figure out exact location from where my
thoughts arise but it seems it is everywhere in my skull. May be it is
in frontal lobe.

Except for this universal creep who introduces new universal conception in a
cogno-dynamical attempt to establish the subject as being completely
objective, and thus feloneously kill the metaphysical subject, and therewith
the concept of life itself, you should all be reading A.E. Van Vogt if you
want anything near an answer to this and more. Sadly it's all still under
copyright (you have to be dead for 50 years for it to become public property
at last) and since nobody still publishes it, you cannot buy it anymore,
except then in second hand bookstores, under SF.

Among a few other things, there's two things that I've learned in life, that
is to

A. never get out of the boat

B. never underestimate the pertinence of the stories of A.E. Van Vogt
written during WW2 as to current scientific issues, and to the brain in
particular

But basicly it would be time. You need time to have things sink in, and
additional time to comtemplate things, but the heft of it would be just
time. BTW, the centre of mine is missing, it wouldn't happen to be in your
head or would it? In that case we would be having brain salad surgery trying
to dig it out.

"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1180017338.994303.280440@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Anybody knows centre of gravity of human brain? As the mass of
> neocortex is 76% of total mass of human brain, center of gravity of
> human brain should be somewhere in neocortex.
>
> I searched web, groups but can't find answer.
>
It'll have to be done by experiment.

Arrange 30% from vertical ramp with CO2 powered 'shoe' (bracket type thingy) 
at base of ramp.
Arrange shoe so that when triggered it moves up the ramp and is able to 
project 5kg mass object into ballistic trajectory  to a height of about 1 
metre above the top of the ramp
Ensure that surface of ramp imparts consistent rotation to whatever object 
is impelled by the triggered shoe

Remove head and place on shoe with neck end to one side of shoe
Fire and video trajectory of head

place head on shoe again with neck end on base of shoe
Fire and video trajectory of head

place head on shoe again with neck end facing upwards, i.e. at 180 degrees 
relative to previous
Fire and video trajectory of head

Replace head on neck and restore full neurological function etc. etc. etc.

Use video recordings to determine the parabolic locus of the CoG of the head

Oh bugger, you were talking about the brain, not the whole head. That 
complicates matters.

Hang on
I'll be back.

> Anybody knows centre of gravity of human brain? 

It varies from person-to-person. Generally it is at the  hippocampus 
which in the majority of persons is perfectly oriented over their anus 
when in their normal posture.

Hope that helps.

On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:51:04 +0000, Benjamin wrote:

> "Biological mass" is a term I coined to connote
> the net microscopic trophic modifications that
> occur as a result of the neural activation.

Could this be measured also inside an electrical system?

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:Ynj5i.10499$aj.6283@trndny06...
| [...]

| Anyway, that's the 'difference' between
| "biological mass" and physical "mass".
|
| They're pretty-much the same-stuff, but
| biological mass requires, and happens
| in, nervous systems.
|
| To see the 'same'-ness, one has to work
| at the 'level' of the 3D-E to which I referred
| above.
|
| There's real usefulness in doing so.

It's =just= a 3D-E Maths transformation.

I've been able to do the calcs in the ol'
noggin lab since a young Child -- because
my Dad was a strict-disciplinarian, but I
liked being-with-him in his cellar work-
shop where there were very-many sharp
things routinely-in-motion operating-on
raw materials.

Dad wouldn't tolerate being interrupted
while working on his "projects", but I
could tell that he liked having me there,
with him, if I didn't interrupt his work. I
was sort of like his "witness" -- his "aud-
ience" [to his creation of stuff :-]

So, wanting to See what he was making,
I'd put the pieces of his projects, which
were, typically, scattered in holding-places
all around his workshop, together in my
'mind'.

"It's an eight-drawer toolbox with a hinged
lid on an upper 'big-tools' compartment" :-]

Later, as I continued to learn, quietly, at
my Dad's side, I came to be able to See
stuff like what the tap of a mallet on the
handle of a chisel would cause to happen
in the wood, and why. And so forth with re-
spect to all of Dad's hundreds of tools.

So I learned how to mentally-transform
the cast-off wood that Dad worked [old
skids and boxes that he'd salvage from
the scrap heaps at the Mill where he
was Employed] into virtually anything.

And, as I matured, I just kept on doing
the same-stuff, through which I reduced
it all to the 3D-E of 'just'-energy, learning
how to do that while taking Maths courses
in 'normal' ways, but always doing the
Maths in the way that I'd learned at my
Dad's side, in his cellar workshop.

I had the benefit of learning this Maths
while very young. I don't know if anyone
else'll be able to do it. My own capabilities
in-it have accrued, via very-small learning
-'steps', over the course of more than 50
'years'.

I can just look at anything, and immed-
iately literally See its 3D-E [I've studied
a =lot= in Physics, reducing everything
in it to the same-stuff.]

It's not-so-easy to Communicate the
essence of the 3D-E because I See
them in the massively-parallel neural
dynamics of my nervous system, but,
in this post-words-in-a-NG way, can
only 'communicate' what I so see via
the sequentially-ordered 'spiggot' of
'language'-interface dynamics, which
is =many= orders of magnitude less-
capable than are the massively-para-
llel cognitive dynamics where the "See-
ing" happens.

I've been working to Communicate the
Maths [in bionet.neuroscience] over
the course of more than 17 'years'.

It's been a "slog" [that could be handled
in 4-5 'hours' at a chaulk-board.]

[In case anyone cares to know about the
Maths that underpins the reification of
"biological mass" in the 3D-E.]

It consists of transforming arbitrarily-small
bits of action into 3D-E that interact with
other 3D-E of which "matter" is comprised.

Anyway, "biological mass" is just a trans-
formation of physical "mass", both of them
reducing to the 'same' 3D-E in their respec-
tive frames of reference. With respect to
this "frame-of-reference" stuff, there's only
one 'Difficulty' -- Seeing the frame of ref-
erence in which "biological mass" operates
requires one to know Neuroscience [es-
pecially the neural Topology], which is not
a commonly-held body of understanding -- 
which is how and why Communication of
the Maths of 3D-E is 'Difficult' -- "connota-
tions" of "words" are defined 'within' the
individually-unique experiences of Persons -- 
no experiences-->no "biological mass"-->
no 3D-E 'within' Individual nervous systems->
no shared-"connotation"-->"words" 'fly-right-
through' nervous systems, undetected.

With respect to this last stuff, since the or-
iginal post was offered, I've thought about
renaming "biological mass" to "cognitive
mass" -- in order to distance it from the
'familiar' notion of attributing "weight" to
"mass" being "weighed on a balance."

Substituting "cognitive" for "biological"
would, at least, give folks reason to think -- 
"How is 'cognition' weighed?" :-]

Which would simultaneously enable
folks to discern at least the fact that
different frames of reference are involved.

In future versions of AoK [if there ever
is another], I'll probably do this. So I'm
Grateful to the OP.

k. p. collins 

"ZerkonX" <ZERKON@zerkonx.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.05.25.11.22.17.967606@zerkonx.net...
| On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:51:04 +0000, Benjamin wrote:
|
| > "Biological mass" is a term I coined to connote
| > the net microscopic trophic modifications that
| > occur as a result of the neural activation.
|
| Could this be measured also inside an electrical system?

Yes. Since everything in physical reality can
be reduced to just-energy, everything can be
calculated in the 'same' way [funny-quotes
because each instantiation of "matter" de-
fines it's own frame of reference.]

The Maths I've been discussing conssits of
operations that "bridge" frames of reference,
reducing everything in physical reality to its
underpinning 3D-E -- thus enableing one to
See how and why everything's connected.

Which is very-uesful because it enables
one to do 'new' stuff with the same-old-stuff :-]

Cheers,

k. p. collins 

neo wrote:

> Anybody knows centre of gravity of human brain? As the mass of
> neocortex is 76% of total mass of human brain, center of gravity of
> human brain should be somewhere in neocortex.

Reminds me of a question in V.I. Arnold's list of 100 problems:
to determine the centre of mass of a hemisphere in 10 dimensions.

Perhaps the problems are related ...

-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mVA5i.10747$aj.8911@trndny06...
| [...]

| In future versions of AoK [if there ever
| is another], I'll probably do this. So I'm
| Grateful to the OP.

Consider this a "Footnote" acknowledg-
ing your involvement in the modification
of the term, "Neo".

[In case opportunity to rewrite AoK never
happens, and, if it does, I don't discuss
the history of the terminology in it. Which
I tend not to do when writing "formally"
because I tend to write "formally" in a
densly-packed way [because folks've
always told me to "make it shorter" if
I want them to read it -- so the only way
to fit-in the information-content that's
Necessary is to write in a densely-
packed way :-]

[To folks in b.n: I've gone-back to re-
read some of my recent posts. Left
me 'groaning' because so much Im-
portant stuff was to 'recklessly' writ-
ten -- mostly because I didn't reiterate
stuff that I've discussed in long-former
posts.

Then there're the mis-'spyllings', and
the 'skipped' phrases, which I've just
realized [after doing a small analysis]
occurs, largely, because I'm thinking-
ahead of my fingers-typing -- some-
'times' what I'm thinking-ahead about
shows up in the trailing-fingers-on-
keyboard stuff.

Most of this results, further, from the
fact that it's 'Hard' to be 'having to' do
the same-stuff, over and over again.

Kind of like in the movie, =Groundhog
Day=, it "gets-old" [see the discussion
of how and why the hippocampus met-
ers biological reward in AoK, Ap5 -- it's
old-long-since that the stuff I reiterate
is 'flat' in terms of biological reward, so
the work I do here in b.n is driven by the
higher-'level' dynamics of volition, as
they're discussed in AoK, Ap7 -- the
'problem' with this is that, as I write,
these higher-'level' dynamics are always
happening with respect to stuff that I
can't, yet, discuss because folks've not,
yet, come up-to-speed with respect to
the fundamentals that're necessary in
the comprehension of the higher-'level'
stuff.

And my fingers move on the keyboard
'in-the-middle'.

"Oh well."

Sorry.]

I "Live" in the higher-'level' realm.

Have to "translate" on-the-fly.

It's 'Hard'-to-do be-cause my Sustenance
derives, almost exclusively, in the higher-
'level' dynamics -- my staying-Alive literal-
ly Depends upon my "Living-there", but
I've still got to Communicate the lower-
'level' stuff -- which is kind of like having
to "swim under-water" -- no reward, gotta
do it anyway. My "comming-up-for-'air' "
shows up in the movements of my fingers
on the keyboard.

[If anyone cares to know about the 'typos'
and 'skipped'-phrases that leave me
'groaning' [and sometimes laughing-
out-loud] when I take the 'time' to go-back
to read this or that that I've posted.]

'guess' I'll take some 'time' off.

"Breathe-in, for a bit.

ken [k. p. collins ]

neo wrote:
> r norman wrote:
> > On 24 May 2007 07:35:39 -0700, neo <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Anybody knows centre of gravity of human brain? As the mass of
> > >neocortex is 76% of total mass of human brain, center of gravity of
> > >human brain should be somewhere in neocortex.
> > >
> > >I searched web, groups but can't find answer.
> >
> > Why would this be of any interest?
> >
> > In any event, the brain is very roughly speaking rather symmetrically
> > distributed and more or less uniform in density so the center of
> > gravity would be right in the center.  Certainly on the midline and
> > therefore not in the neocortex at all.
> >
> > Yes, I know there are asymmetries but these are very minor.  And there
> > are differences in density between the gray and white matter and there
> > are ventricles but these are also more or less symmetrically
> > distributed.
>
> As we know, center of gravity of any body is not 'real'. No one can
> see it by using any method. But it still does exist! Likewise no one
> can see 'self' but it still does exist. So I thought that there might
> be some relation between 'center of gravity of brain' and 'self'.

Center of gravity of any body has information about every atom in
body. You remove some mass from one point and this info regarding
change in mass propagates to center of gravity instantaneously(yeah).

Likewise center of gravity of brain i.e 'self' has info about
functioning of every neuron. If some neuron is damaged, this info
propagates to centre of gravity of brain i.e 'self' or 'consciousness'
instantaneously(yeah, instantaneously).

In physics, how center of gravity is 'aware' of mass is not
understood. Likewise in neuroscience, how our 'consciousness' is
'aware' of functioning of neurons is not understood.

So it is not illogical to compare center of gravity with self or
consciousness.

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:mVA5i.10747$aj.8911@trndny06...
| [...]

| I've been working to Communicate the
| Maths [in bionet.neuroscience] over
| the course of more than 17 'years'.
|
| It's been a "slog" [that could be handled
| in 4-5 'hours' at a chaulk-board.]

Try to imagine what its like to be treated
as if one is not worth 4-5 'hours' of 'time'
to folks to whom one has given his Life.

Makes it hard to get-up in the 'morning'.

But then, I've always had that problem :-]

| [In case anyone cares to know about the
| Maths that underpins the reification of
| "biological mass" in the 3D-E.]
|
| It consists of transforming arbitrarily-small
| bits of action into 3D-E that interact with
| other 3D-E of which "matter" is comprised.
| [...]

Perhaps folks're thinking, "That's just the
Calculus"...?

It is that, and more.

Back during "the Terrible Times", I gen-
eralized it [because I had to in order to
reifiy the 3D-E as they occur in neural
tissue] -- this's part of the stuff that I've
not, yet, been able to find a way to make-
clear in words, mostly because the neur-
al Topology is the neural Topology, in
all of it's glorious details, all the way
down through the molecular-'level' to
'just'-energy.

| Anyway, "biological mass" is just a trans-
| formation of physical "mass", both of them
| reducing to the 'same' 3D-E in their respec-
| tive frames of reference. [...]

'within' a nervous system, as experience
accrues [as neural activation occurs with
respect to environmental stuff, and micro-
mods are constructed as a result of this
neural activation, which is 'sculpted' by the
TD E/I-minimization mechanisms that are
discussed in AoK], the "biological mass"
exerts its physically-real inertia within sub-
sequent TD E/I-minimization, 'sculpting'
it right-back.

[The micro-mods occur as a simple func-
tion of the neural activation that actually
occurs 'within' a nervous system [funny-
quotes be-cause the neural activation
always includes a 'component' that's
driven by external experiential environ-
mental inputs.] In other words, given
neural-activation "A", micro-mods-"B"
will always be generated, which is a
bit more than it seems because micro-
mods build with respect to already-exist-
ing micro-mods, which is how and why
old, long-'familiar' [long-TD E/I-minimized
stuff] is relatively-enduring [which is why,
for instance, early-Childhood learning
is so important, and so often seemingly-
'incorrigible' -- which is why Humanity
would do well to Educate Parants with
respect to early-Childhood learning,
which occurs at a literally-explosive
rate.]

The inertia of the "biological mass" per-
taining to this or that environmental stuff
is to TD E/I-minimization within the spec-
ial topological homeomorphism as the
inertial mass of the environmental stuff
is with respect to its circumstances in
physical reality -- convergence upon which
is, of course,  TD E/I-minimization-with-
respect-to-experience-dependent [which
is why I 'lecture' folks about "ranging widely"
experientially -- to gather-information with re-
spect to which TD E/I-minimization can
[will] occur :-]]

This's the way in which, as I've discussed
in former posts here in b.n, nervous sys-
tems literally grasp energy.

=Of course= "biological mass" isn't as
physically-massive as physical "mass".

If that were the case, then we'd all have to
be great-blockheads to 'think' of, say, a
"galaxy" :-]

The concept of "biological mass" is with
respect to dynamics =internal= to nervous
systems.

=That= frame of reference.

Which is functional be-cause =experience=
maps stuff like physical inertia into micro-
mod inertia within TD E/I-minimization with-
in the special topological homeomorphism
of central nervous systems.

Remember? "Experience matters" [use
"matters" as a verb.]

The internal inertia is instantiated within
=all= neural dynamics in the =same=
way -- which is why I saw that everything
in physical reality can be reduced to 3D-E,
because nervous systems do exactly that.

Nervous systems =really= Know Physics :-]

Understand?

Since I Saw how and why nervous systems
reduce everything to 3D-E, I Saw that every-
thing in physical reality can be reduced to
3D-E, which resulted in the new model of
what's been referred to as 'the' "atom", in
which all of the so-called "four forces" are
also reduced to 3D-E [as I've discussed
in other recent and long-former posts here
in b.n.] -- the SSW<->UES harmonics.

[To whomever it was who called about
a half-'hour' ago, and heard my TV while
I was 'watching' "America's Funniest Home
Videos", but who hung-up rather than talking
to me, you did reach me.

I 'watch' TV while composing my posts [which
is some of why they contain so many 'typos'.]
I 'watch' TV because I like to 'be-with' other
folks who are watching the same shows. Got-
ta find a 'life' wherever one can find one.]

If you call, why not talk a bit?

If you can help me get my work Published,
or can set-up a Presentation opportunity,
let's talk more than a bit.]

k. p. collins 

"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1180017338.994303.280440@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
[...]

Is there anything else that "the 'powers'
that be" want to 'weasle'?

Ho, ho, ho :-]

k. p. collins 

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:p8T5i.856$aW5.419@trndny09...
| "neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1180017338.994303.280440@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| [...]
|
| Is there anything else that "the 'powers'
| that be" want to 'weasle'?
|
| Ho, ho, ho :-]

I mean, it's so-Sorrowfully-'hilarious'.

I can =See= what's going-on in 'your'
vaunted 'reliance'-in-'technology'.

k. p. collins 

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:CjT5i.39$4S5.0@trndny01...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:p8T5i.856$aW5.419@trndny09...
|| "neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote in message
|| news:1180017338.994303.280440@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
|| [...]
||
|| Is there anything else that "the 'powers'
|| that be" want to 'weasle'?
||
|| Ho, ho, ho :-]
|
| I mean, it's so-Sorrowfully-'hilarious'.
|
| I can =See= what's going-on in 'your'
| vaunted 'reliance'-in-'technology'.

'you' know?

I can See 'your fingerprints' all over
the place... on my machine, etc.

Always, as some Sinister 'message',
telling me what's in 'your' choice with
respect to the work I do, and with re-
spect to the Life that remains in-me.

Think about what 'you' are Killing.

'you' know -- besides 'me'.

k. p. collins 

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OqT5i.40$4S5.2@trndny01...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:CjT5i.39$4S5.0@trndny01...
|| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
|| news:p8T5i.856$aW5.419@trndny09...
||| "neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote in message
||| news:1180017338.994303.280440@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
||| [...]
|||
||| Is there anything else that "the 'powers'
||| that be" want to 'weasle'?
|||
||| Ho, ho, ho :-]
||
|| I mean, it's so-Sorrowfully-'hilarious'.
||
|| I can =See= what's going-on in 'your'
|| vaunted 'reliance'-in-'technology'.
|
| 'you' know?
|
| I can See 'your fingerprints' all over
| the place... on my machine, etc.
|
| Always, as some Sinister 'message',
| telling me what's in 'your' choice with
| respect to the work I do, and with re-
| spect to the Life that remains in-me.
|
| Think about what 'you' are Killing.
|
| 'you' know -- besides 'me'.

What's Sorrowfully-'hilarious' is that
I've been telling 'you', all along, for
'decades', that I See 'you', and what
'you' are doing.

So it's =funny= that 'you' weasle, still,
'thinking' that I 'do not see' what 'you'
place right before my eyes :-]

I can See 'your fingerprints' all over
the place... on my machine, etc.

On the 'network'.

S.o.L. -- 'you' know?

'you' folks need to do 'your' 'testing'
of the Savage-B. S. 'you' do in real-
life circumstances -- not with respect
to 'the server room across the hall.'

It's getting-old.

You know -- having to teach 'you'
that, if 'you' are going to do 'your'
Savage stuff, don't do it in a 'way'
that Discredits America by doing
it like the Keystone Kops.

It's so Sorrowfully-'hilarious'.

'you' folks're such complete-Jack-
asses that 'you' can't even see
that 'you' have your heads up 'your'
asses :-]

"Gee, It's dark in here!"

"Yeah. So how can he see in the
dark?"

"Beats me."

Yeah, it does.

:-]

k. p. collins

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:EHT5i.239$106.156@trndny02...
| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:OqT5i.40$4S5.2@trndny01...
|| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
|| news:CjT5i.39$4S5.0@trndny01...
||| "Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
||| news:p8T5i.856$aW5.419@trndny09...
|||| "neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote in message
|||| news:1180017338.994303.280440@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
|||| [...]
||||
|||| Is there anything else that "the 'powers'
|||| that be" want to 'weasle'?
||||
|||| Ho, ho, ho :-]
|||
||| I mean, it's so-Sorrowfully-'hilarious'.
|||
||| I can =See= what's going-on in 'your'
||| vaunted 'reliance'-in-'technology'.
||
|| 'you' know?
||
|| I can See 'your fingerprints' all over
|| the place... on my machine, etc.
||
|| Always, as some Sinister 'message',
|| telling me what's in 'your' choice with
|| respect to the work I do, and with re-
|| spect to the Life that remains in-me.
||
|| Think about what 'you' are Killing.
||
|| 'you' know -- besides 'me'.
|
| What's Sorrowfully-'hilarious' is that
| I've been telling 'you', all along, for
| 'decades', that I See 'you', and what
| 'you' are doing.
|
| So it's =funny= that 'you' weasle, still,
| 'thinking' that I 'do not see' what 'you'
| place right before my eyes :-]
|
| I can See 'your fingerprints' all over
| the place... on my machine, etc.
|
| On the 'network'.
|
| S.o.L. -- 'you' know?
|
| 'you' folks need to do 'your' 'testing'
| of the Savage-B. S. 'you' do in real-
| life circumstances -- not with respect
| to 'the server room across the hall.'
|
| It's getting-old.
|
| You know -- having to teach 'you'
| that, if 'you' are going to do 'your'
| Savage stuff, don't do it in a 'way'
| that Discredits America by doing
| it like the Keystone Kops.
|
| It's so Sorrowfully-'hilarious'.
|
| 'you' folks're such complete-Jack-
| asses that 'you' can't even see
| that 'you' have your heads up 'your'
| asses :-]
|
| "Gee, It's dark in here!"
|
| "Yeah. So how can he see in the
| dark?"
|
| "Beats me."
|
| Yeah, it does.
|
| :-]

Just in case this semi-'cryptic'
stuff slips-through to 'normal'
folks, it's between me and 'them'.

Be-cause I'm 'tired' of what they're
doing to Humanity.

And their refusal to learn that, 'move
away from' Truth, and Truth 'moves
away from' 'you', right-back.

k. p. collins 

BTW, is this where we become singular?

"John Boy" <askme@askme.tv> wrote in message 
news:135cedhlnacuq5e@news.supernews.com...
>> Anybody knows centre of gravity of human brain?
>
> It varies from person-to-person. Generally it is at the  hippocampus which 
> in the majority of persons is perfectly oriented over their anus when in 
> their normal posture.

In "neo's" case, since he suffers from cranialrectalitis, the center
would be precisley TDC of his rearendus. 

B-Hate-Me wrote:
> "John Boy" <askme@askme.tv> wrote in message 
> news:135cedhlnacuq5e@news.supernews.com...
>>> Anybody knows centre of gravity of human brain?
>> It varies from person-to-person. Generally it is at the  hippocampus which 
>> in the majority of persons is perfectly oriented over their anus when in 
>> their normal posture.
> 
> In "neo's" case, since he suffers from cranialrectalitis, the center
> would be precisley TDC of his rearendus. 


Exactly. The center of gravity for many is in perfect alignment with 
their anus. Simple enough.

So, three surgeons were discussing their favorite kind of surgery. The 
first one said he liked working on electricians because all their parts 
were color coded. The other one said he preferred working on plumbers 
because all their parts were 90, 40, and 30 degree angles. The last one 
said he preferred to work on physicists because they only had two parts: 
their mouth and asshole - and they are interchangeable.

"jer0en" <jer0en@freemail.nl> wrote in message
news:96b08$465869d6$5039c6ae$28653@news.chello.nl...
> BTW, is this where we become singular?
>
>

Oops, doubleclick. But better still

If biological mass gets critical, is this where we all get singular?

And travel space? And time? And we could

IMPLODE !

Or just gradually

CLAPS !

So our brains and souls would become one.

No, the soul would be in the whole body. Ask Stevan Seagul.

neo wrote
"|
Center of gravity of any body has information about every atom in
body. You remove some mass from one point and this info regarding
change in mass propagates to center of gravity instantaneously(yeah).

Likewise center of gravity of brain i.e 'self' has info about
functioning of every neuron. If some neuron is damaged, this info
propagates to centre of gravity of brain i.e 'self' or 'consciousness'
instantaneously(yeah, instantaneously).

In physics, how center of gravity is 'aware' of mass is not
understood. Likewise in neuroscience, how our 'consciousness' is
'aware' of functioning of neurons is not understood.

So it is not illogical to compare center of gravity with self or
consciousness.
"
This is all inducable to the theory, or rather the problem of cause and
effect, that like so many a philosophical subject, and not least the
existence of the objective, never got satisfyingly answered or it would have
to be by the evidence of the largish library of theoretical participants
fruitlessly discussing it, in the case of cause and effect located somewhere
in the 17th and 18th century.

No information can ever exist that cannot actually be (re)produced. We can
mathematically establish that even if we would know the exact number of
possible causes, the effect by itself can never be reduced to a single
original configuration of these. So we will always end up with an equasion
with multiple variables which would make for rather thin information.

If we would consider the atom unsplittable, just by looking at a single one,
we may calculate the number of possible causes to its current position as
the total number of atoms in the universe to the power of the total number
of atoms in the universe to the power of 15 billion years of atomic time
units, since things do not happen instanteneously but at the speed of light,
at best. Which is a lot, but not a lot of information. If anything.

It is true that you would need all particular information to calculate a
centre of gravity, but by no means could you ever extrapolate all this
information just from knowing the centre of gravity alone, locating it
experimentally, i.e. by measuring it. Which would explain for the fallacy.

Too many variables.

Neo wrote
> And as you pointed out that center of gravity of brain may vary from
> person to person due to 'minor asymmetries', may be that is the reason
> why every person has different 'self'.

Minor assymetries?

No, it's much more dynamical than that.

Like I said in former post, if I would have the choice between a full
physiological understanding of the universe and a mars bar, I would
immedeately go for the mars bar, unless there would be a girl next to it.

No. Not again, I'm sure. I find your story completely transparent, without
but the slightest vestage of extraneous intersubjectivity, there isn't the
remotest reason for you to be back.

So the brain and the soul already are one.

Perhaps what we have at live centre of gravity of brain is stable
singularity, in which there would of course be absolutely no sense at all,
and least of all materially.

Is there a theorem already that any CoG would of neccessity have to be a
void?

Basicly it's Rutherford revisited, since all of objective nature is of
course materially void, not even mentioning its conceptual copies.

The point is rather that nothing seems to be able to actually penetrate the
weak material force field. If you take 2D light particles, that are assumed
not to have any weak material forces, why do they have intercourse with
particles that do? Since it takes two to tango. Theoretically they would
have to be flying straight through them, just as gravity is completely
impartial to charge and vice versa. So either light quanta do have weak
material forces, or there must be a fifth force of universal identity, which
would have to be trans-dimensional and on which it would be possible to
project a centre, dead or alive.

While the existence of centres of 2D quanta may be succesfully established,
no force field, whether in 2D, 3D, or in space, could actually have material
properties, but they do all have centres, whether they be gravity, charge,
weak, strong or other fields, and in case of particular combinations of
these their centres coincide. Which consequently leads us to at least three
more questions as to the centres in, out or of brain, and if these would be
particularly combined. What's so funny about gravity anyway?

Now it would be very interesting to know whether there could be particles,
in whatever dimensional configuration, that are REALLY impartial to any
other type of particles and that would therefore be theoretically impossible
to detect, moreover, of which not just the existence, but even the
assumption would be arbitrary. And if such a particle could, in fact, be
located at live centre of gravity of brain, from which the reason of life
itself would spray as a universal contradiction to its own meaning.

This is not good.

Benjamin wrote:

a whole lot on brain universe, creating itself as a copy of physical
universe by way of learning

a copying process in which biological mass is created

"jer0en" <jer0en@freemail.nl> wrote in message 
news:62dca$465ca7ac$5039c6ae$20480@news.chello.nl...

|a copying process in which biological
| mass is created

What I've discussed is much more
than "a copying process," because
nervous systems are able to select
within such, and volitionally-create
with respect to that which they sel-
ect, which is as a "double-edged
sword" because what one so cre-
ates is also in what one experi-
ences.

[BTW, I've been discussing this
stuff over the course of more than
17 'years' in bionet.neuroscience.

There's a lot, in-it, that I've not re-
iterated in the threads in which I've
recently commented. I tend to write
for folks who've been reading all
along [because it's not practical to
reiterate everything in every msg I
post.]

k. p. collins 

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:Nkc7i.2111$aW5.817@trndny09...
| "jer0en" <jer0en@freemail.nl> wrote in message
| news:62dca$465ca7ac$5039c6ae$20480@news.chello.nl...
|
||a copying process in which biological
|| mass is created
|
| What I've discussed is much more
| than "a copying process," because
| nervous systems are able to select
| within such, and volitionally-create
| with respect to that which they sel-
| ect, which is as a "double-edged
| sword" because what one so cre-
| ates is also in what one experi-
| ences.

Which circumstance, BTW, was a
primary motivator in how and why
the "scientific method" was con-
verged-upon -- so that what is "sel-
ected", "created" and, so, comes
to exist within experience can be
tested with respect to other exper-
ience, and, thus, 'affirmed' or rejected.

In the work I've done [=Neurosci-
entific Duality Theory=, "NDT"], all
of the above is reduced to neural-
activation dynamics 'within' nerv-
ous systems.

The fundamentals of this work are
discussed in a short [100-page]
monograph, =On the Automation of
Knowing Within Central Nervous
Systems; A Brief Introduction to
Neuroscientific Duality Theory=, "AoK".

The "duality" is that consciousness,
affect, cognition, behavior, are pro-
duced as =by=products= of the min-
imization of the sum of the topolog-
ically-distributed ratios of excitations
to inhibitions that occur 'within' neur-
al activation. To the degree that this
ratio is, in fact, minimized, behavior,
etc., will be 'appropriate' be-cause,
if 'inappropriate' behavior is manifest-
ed, the external experiential environ-
ment 'reacts', either actively or passive-
ly, [active: other People or animals,
passive: brick wall, rivers, etc.] in ways
that elevate TD E/I, which reinitializes
the "TD E/I-minimization" dynamics.

This all-encompassing function is
made-possible by the elegant topo-
logical order of the "special topolog-
ical homeomorphism" which neural
topology is what enables nervous
systems to literally be "on the inside,
looking out" with respect to the rest
of their host organisms' external ex-
periential environment.

One can see the macroscopic neural
topology of the of the special topolog-
ical homeomorphism in the great fiber
crossings that underpin the fact that the
left hemisphere of the brain is connect-
ed to the right 'side' of the body, and the
right, the left.

Again, there are a =lot= of details within
the above stuff. kpc

| [BTW, I've been discussing this
| stuff over the course of more than
| 17 'years' in bionet.neuroscience.
|
| There's a lot, in-it, that I've not re-
| iterated in the threads in which I've
| recently commented. I tend to write
| for folks who've been reading all
| along [because it's not practical to
| reiterate everything in every msg I
| post.]
|
| k. p. collins 

I was just testing my theory as a means of being completely concise

> In the work I've done [=Neurosci-
> entific Duality Theory=, "NDT"], all
> of the above is reduced to neural-
> activation dynamics 'within' nerv-
> ous systems.

Sounds like alien brain salad surgery. Clamp!

> The fundamentals of this work are
> discussed in a short [100-page]
> monograph, =On the Automation of
> Knowing Within Central Nervous
> Systems; A Brief Introduction to
> Neuroscientific Duality Theory=, "AoK".

Sounds like ROM programming. IC clamp!

> The "duality" is that consciousness,
> affect, cognition, behavior, are pro-
> duced as =by=products= of the min-
> imization of the sum of the topolog-
> ically-distributed ratios of excitations
> to inhibitions that occur 'within' neur-
> al activation. To the degree that this
> ratio is, in fact, minimized, behavior,
> etc., will be 'appropriate' be-cause,
> if 'inappropriate' behavior is manifest-
> ed, the external experiential environ-
> ment 'reacts', either actively or passive-
> ly, [active: other People or animals,
> passive: brick wall, rivers, etc.] in ways
> that elevate TD E/I, which reinitializes
> the "TD E/I-minimization" dynamics.

So at the cellular level it's a perceptual system fighting the occurence of
any more perceptions.

> This all-encompassing function is
> made-possible by the elegant topo-
> logical order of the "special topolog-
> ical homeomorphism" which neural
> topology is what enables nervous
> systems to literally be "on the inside,
> looking out" with respect to the rest
> of their host organisms' external ex-
> periential environment.

More or less like a virtual reality suit.

> One can see the macroscopic neural
> topology of the of the special topolog-
> ical homeomorphism in the great fiber
> crossings that underpin the fact that the
> left hemisphere of the brain is connect-
> ed to the right 'side' of the body, and the
> right, the left.

How?

"jer0en" <jer0en@freemail.nl> wrote in message 
news:b59f7$465d87bd$5039c6ae$24976@news.chello.nl...

|[...]

| So at the cellular level it's a perceptual
| system fighting the occurence of
| any more perceptions.
| [...]

Nope. TD E/I-minimization converges
upon knowledge with respect to invar-
iants.

| > One can see the macroscopic neural
| > topology of the of the special topolog-
| > ical homeomorphism in the great fiber
| > crossings that underpin the fact that the
| > left hemisphere of the brain is connect-
| > ed to the right 'side' of the body, and the
| > right, the left.
|
| How?

The best way is to study Neuroanatomy.

k. p. collins 

On May 25, 1:19 pm, neo <MATR...@gmail.com> wrote:
> neo wrote:

> Center of gravity of any body has information about every atom in
> body. You remove some mass from one point and this info regarding
> change in mass propagates to center of gravity instantaneously(yeah).
>
> Likewise center of gravity of brain i.e 'self' has info about
> functioning of every neuron. If some neuron is damaged, this info
> propagates to centre of gravity of brain i.e 'self' or 'consciousness'
> instantaneously(yeah, instantaneously).


Um, forces don't propagate instantly. They propagate at the speed of
light, because they arise from the exchange of momentum carried by
virtual photons. This is demonstrated as part of Richard Feynman's
theory of Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED - for which he won the Nobel
prize in 1965 - see here for his wonderful Nobel acceptance lecture:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html).
The same applies to information. The speed of light sets the upper
limit on the speed of propagation of information, because information
requires the exchange of energy, therefore photons.

So the fastest that information about the status of any individual
neuron could possibly propagate to the center of mass would be exactly
299,792,458 m/s, and that would only be true in a vacuum. If there is
actually any substance inside one's head, then it would be
considerably slower.

Also, there is a well-known relationship between mass, gravity and
acceleration (this is the subject of Einstein's Special and General
Theories of Relativity, STR & GTR - but apparently neither of those
were worthy of the Nobel Prize). The faster one is traveling, the
heavier one gets. Therefore, if one moves around a lot, any mass
inside one's head gets more massive, which will slow down the
propagation of information even more.

>From these considerations, we can draw several conclusions:

1) People with empty heads will process information more efficiently
because there isn't anything in there to slow down the speed of light
from its vacuum limit.

2) People who do not have empty heads should move around as little as
possible, so as to maximize their information processing speed. This
is precisely why the wisest people (e.g., Buddha, Newton) spend most
of their time sitting peacefully in one place and meditating.

3) Because gravity also makes things more massive (i.e., it is
functionally equivalent to acceleration, according to Relativity
theory), the most efficient information processing would be achieved
by sitting perfectly still, far out in space away from the
gravitational acceleration produced by nearby massive bodies like the
earth. This is why so many stoners think such deep thoughts. But they
have a hard time communicating their insights to people (on earth),
because such communication involves motion, which itself interferes
with the deep thoughts.

4) Finally, I do not know exactly where the center of mass of my own
brain is (though I strongly suspect it is about a foot to the left,
about six inches above, and about eight inches behind the center of my
skull - at least that's where the inner voices I hear seem to be
coming from). I do know, however, that it is the place where I think
my weightiest thoughts.

Matt