Redykeulous,

This is so great!

Maybe there will only be the two of us going at this one?!?!?

But what the heck, you're a stimulating and fun partner to do this with,
... eventhough we welcome anyone else whom might be teased by this
particular angle!!!

At 10 000 feet, and for the purpose of the 'superior' post, I think we
are both starting to align on 'brain workings info', and what I feel to
be a determining aspect of our 'existing' perceptions. Not just mine of
course, and I have passed on as you asked 'Red', some names and
references on a previous thread. 'David Servan-Schreiber', and
'Jacques Chevalier' (whom wrote an exhaustive study of the 'history of
human thought'.

That being said, I think it would be useful to clarify a question you're
raising. YOU SAID:

'They do communicate, or actually it would seem that the
primitive brain feeds the neo-cortex. How does it do this?'

Of course neither you or I are neurosurgeons, but doesn't mean we cannot
approach the complex subject of 'brainworks'. We just won't take
ourselves seriously!!!

When I suggest ther is no direct physical connection between the
'emotional' part of the primitive brain and the neo-cortex, and you ask
the primitive brain feeds teh neo-cortex, here is how I understand it.

The Hypo-thalamus (regulatory brain), heavily connected to the 'limbic
system' (sort of an 'emotional factory' regulated by the Hypothalamus,
is mostly referred to as the 'body and emotional intelligence'. And
there is no direct connection between that part of teh primitive brain
and the neo-cortex (frontal part of the Cerebral Cortex).

Below the Cerebral Cortex, a peel or envelope for all primates, is the
'body / emotional brain' (hypothalamus). All the raw, first degree
senses are capted below, and 'report' or message is sent to the Cerebral
Cortex (central depository and action/decision center).

The neo-cortex gets the 'message or report' of sensations from the
Cerebral cortex and looks for ways to convert it in languaging (images,
interpretation, representation).

When it succeeds, we can become conscious of the sensation but only in
the form of a representation. If we get hit in the face, we feel the
schock is real, and it is is a darn good illusion. But we can only
'think it' or interpret it to be real. This sensation of 'illusion' of
'real' comes from the neo-cortex, which translated into languaging, an
information it from the Cerebral Cortex, which in turn got its
information from the 7 other parts of the brain, among which is the
Hypothalamus / limbic system (body and emotional intelligence).

'Jacques Chevalier' observed this, about this particular 'delay' or
disconnection:

' The sense of the invisible reality hidden behind sensible appearances,
or, this sense of 'gap' between what we see and 'what is', represents
the imperative drive of all human search'.

Isn't that a brillant gem?!?!?

Does that help Redykeulous? Let me know?

... and make sure you're having fun in the process?!?! :)

Hhhmmmmm......Interesting.....

When I understand you rightly, there is a gap between feeling
a slap in the face and realizing that there was a slap in the face?
How does it work with other things though, say reading?
I'm reading a german book right now, and while I'm reading some
words get automaticly translated into english whether it is my intention
or not. So how does this work?

Invisible,

Very glad you're asking.

Now very humbly, let's look at and play with this great question.

***********************************************************
You Said:

' Hhhmmmmm......Interesting.....

When I understand you rightly, there is a gap between feeling
a slap in the face and realizing that there was a slap in the face?
How does it work with other things though, say reading?
I'm reading a german book right now, and while I'm reading some
words get automaticly translated into english whether it is my intention
or not. So how does this work?'
************************************************************

The first one about the slap, is just about right. We sense it before we
realize it.

To realize anything; being aware that 'something happened', the
neo-cortex, converts signals from the cerebral cortex and converts them
in symbols, or languages the signals. All of awareness is symbol or
languaging based.

That leads us to your second point, when reading a German book
automatically translates into english. The languaging or symbol making
system of the neo-cortex is this impressive association making machine.
It works with words (symbols) that look, or sound like other words. It
also works with people, whom remind us of someone, etc.

The essential part thought is that whatever it is that you become aware
of, isn't direct experience (eventhough it might feel like it) but a
symbolic representsation.

(I'll give you a bit more the read or heard word, as in reading a book
or hearing a speech on a different message to respect the 'short thread
request from Red. :) )

So, to put it into computer therms, the cerebral cortex is my keyboard,
while the neo-cortex is the hard drive with all the software. While I
type commands on my keyboard (cerebral cortex),
my hard drive inside starts to work with the relevant software to
convert my every key stroke into a command?
Do I have that right?

It might be more accurate to compare it to the internet access- our
perception of the world around us, of course, being the internet.
Recieve, interpret, compute, respond, transmit, interact. But yes, that
sounds like what I've come to understand.

I still don't get what, exactly, this has to do with our relative
superiority, or lack thereof.

What's fun is how that gap supposedly causes deja-vu. Where we recieve
the information partially out of order and it makes us feel weird.

When it comes to 'words' as symbols, the chief symbols!!!
There are some interesting things the frontal or neo-cortex does, which
shed light on the delay or 'gap' aspect.

1) TO SPEAK A WORD THAT IS READ,

... information must first get to the primary visual cortex, in the
Cerebral Cortex (C.C.).

... From the primary visual cortex, information is transmitted to the
posterior speech area in the Frontal or Neo-cortex, including Wernicke's
area, posterior part of temporal lobe of the C.C.

... From Wernicke's area, information travels to Broca's area in the
left frontal or neo-cortex,

... then to the Primary Motor Cortex, C.C.


2) TO SPEAK A WORD THAT IS HEARD,

...information must first get to the primary auditory cortex, C.C.
... From the primary auditory cortex, information is transmitted to the
posterior speech area, including Wernicke's area, posterior part of
temporal lobe of the C.C.
... From Wernicke's area, information travels to Broca's area, inthe
frontal or neo-cortex,
... then to the Primary Motor Cortex, C.C.

4 different and very complex exchanges of 'sensorial or motor
information', not including the mid-brain synchronization of body eye
and ear orientation based on sight or sound stimuli, and only 1
interpretative languaging process throught the 'frontal or neo-cortex'.

Not to get buried in 'neurostuff', but just following the intricate
paths of connection and distinct treatment of information for the
simplest things we take for granted like reading words, or listening to
words,
... conveys the distance, the delay or the 'gap' (sometimes,
milliseconds) between the sensation, and the awareness or realization
through 'symbols and languaging'.

Ever read a chapter or an entire tout realizing what you had read. Or
Spoke to someone and not remembering wat had been said.

We're are not good 'reality machines'. We are extremely good 'meaning
making machines'. For that alone, we should be humble and drop the
'superior' bit!

That is like putting the key down and in the next minute not remembering
where I left it, happens quite often to me.
This is very complicated and I have to copy and paste it to read it
again, very interesting though. There are so many things we just take
for granted without having the faintest idea how complicated the tiniest
movement is, or the simplest task like closing an eye or opening it.
Nature is fantastic.

You know, it doesn't always have to be like that. Many people can
engage a form of "pure" thought. That lacks visual or audible
imaginations. Stick 'em in a CAT scan and they're capable of answering,
with accuracy, without using the front part of their brain at all. It's
a great memory tool- you learn something in that state and it'll stick
forever.


And so what if we're "meaning making" machines. The very fact that we
understand the CONCEPT of meaning puts us in a whole other league,
compared to most other creatures. Although most primate brains are built
just like ours- less developed, but still very real. Any monkey, and
most other mammals, have the same design. Especially the confirmed
language-users. Like gorillas, chimps, dolphins, whales, and elephants.


So this "meaning making" machinery isn't unique to us. We're just the
most talented users of it.

Interesting analogy Invisible,

YOU WROTE:
' So, to put it into computer therms, the cerebral cortex is my
keyboard, while the neo-cortex is the hard drive with all the software.
While I type commands on my keyboard (cerebral cortex), my hard drive
inside starts to work with the relevant software to convert my every key
stroke into a command?
Do I have that right? '


I think I would opt for the Cerebral Cortex being compared to your
computer Operating System, supported by application software (it needs
it all, just for the Cerebral Cortex).

The keyboard be the Wernicke’s area of the cerebral cortex, (OS), where
language is organized (understanding and response). But that’s a bit of
a weak analogy given the sophisticated sorting and associating
capabilities of the Wernicke’s area. But the keyboard together with the
OS and APPs, starts mimicking Wernecke’s when you type something and
the screen shows you syntax or spelling errors, etc.

Screen, Sound or Print from the computer would be the ‘feedback or
speech’ motor command of the cerebral cortex, the reponse.

I hesitate to go further with the analogy. In my opinion, computers
mimic the Cerebral Cortex quite well, but not so ‘yet’ for the
neo-cortex (thinking-reasoning). Some ‘fuzzy logic’ and 'modelization'
software are starting to point that way, but there still a long way
from Tipperary!!!

We could keep working with this one!

Thank you for your responses Voileazur, I'm just printing it out and it
will make a good read in bed.
Bonne nuit, mon ami

Voil or Red, following your train of thought here...

and not very well...

How would, does, intuition fit into brain function, and which parts of
the brain fire these?

I am not meaning collective, inherant , genetic, memory, but rather,
projective thoughts, images, sensations, anomolies, as such...

Some examples, the phone rings and before answered the image of the
person calling is already in your mind, before even touching or
answering the phone, and not predictive calls, but rather spontaneous,
out of the ordered pattern of calls....a person you have not spoken to
for years, but have thought of them off, and on, for days prior...

When meeting a person, with whom there is not historical nor situation
history, (strangers, who have not crossed each other's paths), there is
an instant rememberance of this person, and even instantaneous
pictures/impressions of situations in the future, you both find
yourselves in, at a date in the future?

Precognition....where does that fit?

I guess the reverse, of de ja vue, but I am asking where in the brain
structure does the 'vision', dream, understanding,(?), of a person,
situations, conversations, and memories,(?), of experiences you haven't
even had yet...but do, further down the track...how are these explained?

you wrote:
' I still don't get what, exactly, this has to do with our relative
superiority, or lack thereof.'

Well ‘poetnartist’,
I think we need to drop trying to rush to the answer for a while, … to
better get to it later. I’m not saying ‘Yeah’ or ‘Neah’ to ‘superior’.
We’re just all inviting ourselves to walk through the question without
any preconceived idea.

Fascinating historians have addressed the history of ‘thought’. The
formation and evolution of shared human languaging, symbolism and
thought (intemporal knowledge), and the human process of rational
thinking.

One of them, Jacques Chevalier, whom I have 'posted' earlier, put it
this with respect to our inability to relate or connect to reality,
‘what is’:
(By the way, this person, Jacques Chevalier, is a staunch Christian
believer, but a rigorous and thorough historian.)

He paraphrases the resulting contemporary research and anthropological
evidence, which suggest the manner in which human awareness is limited
at best:

‘… this invisible sense of reality (no direct contact),
… hidden behind sensible appearances (our symbolic interpretation
through meaning and languaging), or the ‘gap’ which exist between that
which we see, and that which ‘IS’, … drives all human research! ‘

Given this premise, where we have no direct, or conscious contact with
reality, other than through symbolic meaning, it would be highly
premature to affirm at this point that we are ‘superior’ to what
amounts to our ‘sensible appearance’ of reality’, or whatever it ‘is’
that we claim ourselves, superior to!

Let’s give this journey a chance. Let’s not rush it. There is lots of
fascinating 'formal', and solid information about our own nature on this
path.

To a passionate 'quester', the ‘answer’ is ALWAYS the ‘booby’ prize!!!

Well this brain stuff is fasinating.

Makes a nice way to hijack the superior/inferior and discuss something
meaningful.

I took part in an experiment dealing with the part of the brain that
processes vision. I don't pretend to understand all the scientific
jargon or names but I read in parts of the report that using
barium/glucose monitoring in a PET scanner they get driving responses
both on the scan and with EEG sensors in that area when stimuli are
present from all five senses. In other words the brain 'sees' or
processes as sight all five senses.

Hello JESS,

I've got to go, and I'll give a tid bit till I get back to this question
of yours. I promise to follow-up with more info, exact numbers and
sources later. If I forget, remind me.

In a nutshell,
let's just say that 'subconcious' (primitive-emotional brain) is
bombarded by some

... 400 Billion bits/seconds of information (I'll confirm that and the
rest of it later). Stuff our senses pickup on.

I forget the number, and I promise I'll get it for you, but our
conscious (frontal or neo-cortex), treats only an infinitely small
portion of that which our subconscious senses and pick-up.

It could be said that the massive amounts of random data is hitting us,
and our limited processing system is keeping us from treating it all.

But at different layers of treatment, the 'not quite ready for prime but
close' data (data comprehension and organization), occurs to us, and
for those whom are sensitive to those 'internal' self induced incomplete
messages, a bit of 'tender reflection' can put one in the presence of
lots more 'consciousness' than normal stance (meditation, relaxation
'with intent', profound reflection, rigorous concentration).

More to come on that. I have to go through some notes for propoer
context, facts and numbers.

But this is an interesting box you've opened JESS.

you know after reading several post on this thread "are we superior?" i
think that some of the posters have definatively anwered that question.
for them , yes they feel they are superior.

Ive read several of you guys throughout this mess. in the most
noncondensending way that i know how to muster i must weigh in with my
dollar 12 worth of fodder.

until we realize that no matter what we "feel" or what we want to be
the "truth", in what ever devine intervention it doesnt matter.
honestly, you people are speaking, and for the most part you sound
exceptionally intelligent, but really, when i die or you- what really
will have been gained or lost. prefrontal cortexes be damned.
the knowledge that we possess helps us in this life, some think that we
all will face a maker, some feel that your maker is a fairy tell, as to
being open and honest- it seems to me that the only opinions that matter
are the ones that agree with yu, and that is directed at all of us.
WHO has all the right answers, hell in the quintisential eiw who has any
right answers?
is it a tree or a word for tree? who cares it is there standing before
you limbs outstretched swaying in the breeze saying hi MotherF*cker.
superior ways of thinking are a reality, some of us are just not very
bringht and that is a politically correct way of saying stupid.
I was born or was i somethingelse but only used as a word? yeah i se the
intrespective philosophy part of the question.
as far as the brain and how it works....well thats a whole other topic,
science is itself still baffled by the way the brain works, we may think
we know whats going n up there but really, with only about 10-15% of the
brain operating none of us (and the scientist say this not me) we will
never be able to definatively define what capabilities the brain holds.
who is the superior being to say that some kind of ESP stuff isnt going
on. ghost in exhistance? who knows the answer to that as well. its all
relative folks- simple answer here...........
NOBODY Knows all the answers, not even close, except the fact that we
are all left to wander through this world of ours making conjecture
about everything from the after life to the present life, unless of
course your the big bangist yourself then we all just really want to
thank you because your awesome.... well maybe, think id like to punch
you after reading thru this mess of CONJECTURE and HYPOTHESIS that have
been given out as absolutes.

well that 1.12 worht of whatevers for you

may you always find what your searching for,


Dennis

You could also look at it as a method to "protect" us from the deluge
of data. And it a deluge. Our eyes alone absorb and transmit more
information than we can actually truly calculate. We make our "best
guesses" in the billions of pixels per second worth. AND unlike a
computer, which only has to process a pixel once, until it changes- we
CONSTANTLY process to each and every one. And some scientists believe
our sence of smell gives us even more information. To say nothing of
touch and hearing.


Look at autistic, idiot/savant, or other "specialized gifted"
individuals in the world. Arguably, they absorb and process more data,
faster, than the rest of us.


Our "animal" self is a barrier because our higher functioning mind
can't operate like that. After all, said animal part can sumarily
process in nice, messy swabs of information- happily throwing out scores
of processes and doing them with "habits" and muscle memory.


To give you a good idea- try walking. Without using instinct. Pay
close, focused attention to each muscle movement, and try to walk.
Answer is- you can't. If you do it "right", it will be impossible to
walk. Our frontal brain simply can't process that much information at
one time.


Fortunately, we don't have to. Our animal selves can do it for us.
While our higher brain handles stuff like communication and planning. It
isn't that it doesn't process data with about the same efficiency. It's
that it has to be *VERY* fine-tuned. An industrial laser is more
advanced than a nuke- and can do more damage to a singular object- it
just isn't meant to handle vast things all at once. Of course, we HAVE
our animal brains, too- so we get the best of both worlds. Fine-tuned
control and "intuitive" rapid responce.


It's amazing how complicated our design is.

Voil wrote...

But at different layers of treatment, the 'not quite ready for prime but
close' data (data comprehension and organization), occurs to us, and for
those whom are sensitive to those 'internal' self induced incomplete
messages, a bit of 'tender reflection' can put one in the presence of
lots more 'consciousness' than normal stance (meditation, relaxation
'with intent', profound reflection, rigorous concentration).

****************************************************************


I keep getting lost....

In my understandings, which to be quite honest, for the most time, I
dont, 'understand'....... images, impressions, ideals, 'sensing', just
'streams' into my being...brain...consciousness...whatever term we want
to use..

Be it subjective to the ego, the id, the psyche, the All...I don't
know...and every explanation falls short of generating a clear
understanding...a 'light bulb' moment...to see aurically a tree, to see
energy, long before I had been programmed with data to have a term for
this phenomena...as an 'innocent'...a child, untainted by thoughts of
superiority, or inferiority...to 'hear' the coldness of water, to 'feel'
a birds flight, to 'see' the pulsing of the stars, through me, not my
eyes, but my chest...

How are these explained...where does it fit with the brain function
theories?

And no I did not suffer a brain injury as a child, nor any other
medical, genetic condition...

Jess, you posed a question that Voil still needs to complete his address
on. I too have had those questions in mind from the beginning. Thought
I'd see if I, and others were in the same ball park before attempting to
bat.

As far as you most recent post, before mine you said you're still
waiting for the light bulb. Most of the time, the light goes on with
the right reference for the individual. We all have a path that leads
to the light. So let me see if I can try a different path..

Ever see a small child, not too accomplished in running yet, take a
fall. I see the fall occur, I see the face of that child become totally
blank. Where there was, a moment ago a laughing, bright eyed child, I
see a blank expression. In a matter of seconds there is a look of
confusion, a dazed expression, followed quickly by the grimmace and the
tears as the child unfolds their leg to see a skinned knee. From fall
to tears it is only seconds. This is the way I view the brain working.
The fall was totally unexpected whiched interrupted what the child was
doing, seeing, thinking at the time. Because there was this sudden
interuption, the emotional, primitive part of the brain took over,
gathering all the data from all the sensory aspects of this event. It
now shows another part of the brain what just happened. It does not
'tell' it for it has only sensory information, so it shoes it.
Now the 'code' or the 'picture' that was shown has to be put into a
context capable for the thinking part of the brain to analyse and 'see'
what just happened and what to do next. By this time the child feels
pain and is now 'aware' of what has happened and feels pain. Next
action, look at where the pain is coming from, assess the damage.

This is way oversimplified but getting this part is more important than
a complete phisological, neuron by neuron,study.

Does this help you to understand the time delay, sensory stimulation,
gets to the primitive brain, where it is translated into 'code' or
'pictures' that will be uploaded to the part of the brain that
verbalizes it or connects it to something we can EXPLAIN. This is a
time lapse. From sence to the reality - or as Voil calls it the
illusion. Illusion because it IS NOT the actual experience, it is what
we've been told just happened.

Thank you Red,

Yes I understand cause, and effect....and the reasoning, for want of a
word the parts of the brain does...the illusion...

and you explanation helped heaps...