Science > Physics > Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
| Date: |
01 Jul 2006 02:49:33 PM |
| Object: |
Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
Can you point me to some reference of the potency a brain can develop
in terms of electrical power? (brain as a universal computing paradigm
would give a different concept of potency). My interest is the analogy
between a brain and a radio emissor. I assume there is normal level of
activity giving a base potency, lowering during sleep (?), but what
would be the potency of a fully activated brain? I mean, if all or most
of the brain mass is activated at the same time... how would it compare
to other sources of EM radiation? I dont think ALL neurons can be
activated at the same, which would be a related question: how much
neural activity a normal brain can invoke, say, during emergencies or
extreme experiences? I assume that a fully connected brainwould totally
disable the individual, and also I assume that if a brain is fully
activated, after a while it would fall into a state of what we would
call externally moronity, maybe with only the cerebellum showing normal
activity and some very basic, reptile functions working (hunger,
thirst, arousment, but no foraging nor wooing). Can you point to the
figures for single neurons? Also an estimate of a fully activated brain
would be desirable and comparisons to radio or TV station figures.
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
| User: "Phil Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
01 Jul 2006 03:36:07 PM |
|
|
"Fabrizio J Bonsignore" <djbonsignore@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1151783373.696272.162580@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Can you point me to some reference of the potency a brain
can develop
in terms of electrical power? (brain as a universal
computing paradigm
would give a different concept of potency). My interest is
the analogy
between a brain and a radio emissor. I assume there is
normal level of
activity giving a base potency, lowering during sleep (?),
but what
would be the potency of a fully activated brain? I mean, if
all or most
of the brain mass is activated at the same time... how would
it compare
to other sources of EM radiation? I dont think ALL neurons
can be
activated at the same, which would be a related question:
how much
neural activity a normal brain can invoke, say, during
emergencies or
extreme experiences? I assume that a fully connected
brainwould totally
disable the individual, and also I assume that if a brain is
fully
activated, after a while it would fall into a state of what
we would
call externally moronity, maybe with only the cerebellum
showing normal
activity and some very basic, reptile functions working
(hunger,
thirst, arousment, but no foraging nor wooing). Can you
point to the
figures for single neurons? Also an estimate of a fully
activated brain
would be desirable and comparisons to radio or TV station
figures.
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
Dr Roger Penrose has been leading research on that for a
decade or so, now many Universities world wide have people
working on it
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=quantum+mind+penrose&btnG=Search
Phil Scott
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zerge" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
08 Jul 2006 10:18:58 PM |
|
|
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
Can you point me to some reference of the potency a brain can develop
in terms of electrical power? (brain as a universal computing paradigm
would give a different concept of potency). My interest is the analogy
between a brain and a radio emissor. I assume there is normal level of
activity giving a base potency, lowering during sleep (?), but what
would be the potency of a fully activated brain? I mean, if all or most
of the brain mass is activated at the same time... how would it compare
to other sources of EM radiation?
When electrons flow through a metal cable, it is the movement of the
electron through space what generates an electromagnetic emission.
In the case of neurons, electrons don't actually flow like they do on
metal cables. Rather, it is a process of polarization between the
membrane of the dendrite and the interior of the dendrite: sodium and
potassium ions exchange places, and a polarization wave moves forward.
Since electrons do not flow large distances, there is no detectable
electromagnetic emission.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
10 Jul 2006 07:52:59 PM |
|
|
"Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152415138.572536.4420@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
Can you point me to some reference of the potency a brain
can develop
in terms of electrical power? (brain as a universal
computing paradigm
would give a different concept of potency). My interest is
the analogy
between a brain and a radio emissor. I assume there is
normal level of
activity giving a base potency, lowering during sleep (?),
but what
would be the potency of a fully activated brain? I mean, if
all or most
of the brain mass is activated at the same time... how
would it compare
to other sources of EM radiation?
When electrons flow through a metal cable, it is the
movement of the
electron through space what generates an electromagnetic
emission.
In the case of neurons, electrons don't actually flow like
they do on
metal cables. Rather, it is a process of polarization
between the
membrane of the dendrite and the interior of the dendrite:
sodium and
potassium ions exchange places, and a polarization wave
moves forward.
Since electrons do not flow large distances, there is no
detectable
electromagnetic emission.
That was very very astute of you zerge... there are it seems
though EMF emmissions from the brain at the quantum level, but
only when many neurons fire at the same wave length at the
same time...such as with sudden cognition or surprise etc..
the search string for Dr Penroses research on that with the
math etc is.
'penrose, Arizona, quantum mind, white paper'
Phil Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zerge" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
11 Jul 2006 11:14:24 PM |
|
|
Phil Scott wrote:
"Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152415138.572536.4420@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
Can you point me to some reference of the potency a brain
can develop
in terms of electrical power? (brain as a universal
computing paradigm
would give a different concept of potency). My interest is
the analogy
between a brain and a radio emissor. I assume there is
normal level of
activity giving a base potency, lowering during sleep (?),
but what
would be the potency of a fully activated brain? I mean, if
all or most
of the brain mass is activated at the same time... how
would it compare
to other sources of EM radiation?
When electrons flow through a metal cable, it is the
movement of the
electron through space what generates an electromagnetic
emission.
In the case of neurons, electrons don't actually flow like
they do on
metal cables. Rather, it is a process of polarization
between the
membrane of the dendrite and the interior of the dendrite:
sodium and
potassium ions exchange places, and a polarization wave
moves forward.
Since electrons do not flow large distances, there is no
detectable
electromagnetic emission.
That was very very astute of you zerge... there are it seems
though EMF emmissions from the brain at the quantum level, but
only when many neurons fire at the same wave length at the
same time...such as with sudden cognition or surprise etc..
Notice that I said "detectable". Sure there are emissions, but I don't
think they are more powerful than the normal random emissions of all
the surrounding tissue so I very much doubt it is detectable. But I'm
talking strict EM here; maybe there's other sorts of quantum effects we
cannot detect yet.
the search string for Dr Penroses research on that with the
math etc is.
'penrose, Arizona, quantum mind, white paper'
Phil Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
14 Jul 2006 11:57:49 PM |
|
|
"Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152677664.565395.106670@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Phil Scott wrote:
"Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152415138.572536.4420@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
Can you point me to some reference of the potency a
brain
can develop
in terms of electrical power? (brain as a universal
computing paradigm
would give a different concept of potency). My interest
is
the analogy
between a brain and a radio emissor. I assume there is
normal level of
activity giving a base potency, lowering during sleep
(?),
but what
would be the potency of a fully activated brain? I mean,
if
all or most
of the brain mass is activated at the same time... how
would it compare
to other sources of EM radiation?
When electrons flow through a metal cable, it is the
movement of the
electron through space what generates an electromagnetic
emission.
In the case of neurons, electrons don't actually flow
like
they do on
metal cables. Rather, it is a process of polarization
between the
membrane of the dendrite and the interior of the
dendrite:
sodium and
potassium ions exchange places, and a polarization wave
moves forward.
Since electrons do not flow large distances, there is no
detectable
electromagnetic emission.
That was very very astute of you zerge... there are it
seems
though EMF emmissions from the brain at the quantum level,
but
only when many neurons fire at the same wave length at the
same time...such as with sudden cognition or surprise etc..
Notice that I said "detectable". Sure there are emissions,
but I don't
think they are more powerful than the normal random
emissions of all
the surrounding tissue so I very much doubt it is
detectable. But I'm
talking strict EM here; maybe there's other sorts of quantum
effects we
cannot detect yet.
You havent read Penrose et al yet?... he and many others
have measured these EFM emmission, but only on cognition..to
they rise to a leve that can be measured.
Phil Scott
the search string for Dr Penroses research on that with the
math etc is.
'penrose, Arizona, quantum mind, white paper'
Phil Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zerge" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
15 Jul 2006 02:31:42 AM |
|
|
Phil Scott wrote:
"Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152677664.565395.106670@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Phil Scott wrote:
"Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152415138.572536.4420@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
Can you point me to some reference of the potency a
brain
can develop
in terms of electrical power? (brain as a universal
computing paradigm
would give a different concept of potency). My interest
is
the analogy
between a brain and a radio emissor. I assume there is
normal level of
activity giving a base potency, lowering during sleep
(?),
but what
would be the potency of a fully activated brain? I mean,
if
all or most
of the brain mass is activated at the same time... how
would it compare
to other sources of EM radiation?
When electrons flow through a metal cable, it is the
movement of the
electron through space what generates an electromagnetic
emission.
In the case of neurons, electrons don't actually flow
like
they do on
metal cables. Rather, it is a process of polarization
between the
membrane of the dendrite and the interior of the
dendrite:
sodium and
potassium ions exchange places, and a polarization wave
moves forward.
Since electrons do not flow large distances, there is no
detectable
electromagnetic emission.
That was very very astute of you zerge... there are it
seems
though EMF emmissions from the brain at the quantum level,
but
only when many neurons fire at the same wave length at the
same time...such as with sudden cognition or surprise etc..
Notice that I said "detectable". Sure there are emissions,
but I don't
think they are more powerful than the normal random
emissions of all
the surrounding tissue so I very much doubt it is
detectable. But I'm
talking strict EM here; maybe there's other sorts of quantum
effects we
cannot detect yet.
You havent read Penrose et al yet?... he and many others
have measured these EFM emmission, but only on cognition..to
they rise to a leve that can be measured.
Phil Scott
Yes, I read his book, but don't recall that part. You can certainly
measure the EEG, but actual EM emissions? How far away from the brain?
And it must be inside one heck of a Faraday cage, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
19 Jul 2006 01:41:45 AM |
|
|
"Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152948702.951247.317310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Phil Scott wrote:
"Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152677664.565395.106670@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Phil Scott wrote:
"Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152415138.572536.4420@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
Can you point me to some reference of the potency a
brain
can develop
in terms of electrical power? (brain as a universal
computing paradigm
would give a different concept of potency). My
interest
is
the analogy
between a brain and a radio emissor. I assume there
is
normal level of
activity giving a base potency, lowering during sleep
(?),
but what
would be the potency of a fully activated brain? I
mean,
if
all or most
of the brain mass is activated at the same time...
how
would it compare
to other sources of EM radiation?
When electrons flow through a metal cable, it is the
movement of the
electron through space what generates an
electromagnetic
emission.
In the case of neurons, electrons don't actually flow
like
they do on
metal cables. Rather, it is a process of polarization
between the
membrane of the dendrite and the interior of the
dendrite:
sodium and
potassium ions exchange places, and a polarization
wave
moves forward.
Since electrons do not flow large distances, there is
no
detectable
electromagnetic emission.
That was very very astute of you zerge... there are it
seems
though EMF emmissions from the brain at the quantum
level,
but
only when many neurons fire at the same wave length at
the
same time...such as with sudden cognition or surprise
etc..
Notice that I said "detectable". Sure there are
emissions,
but I don't
think they are more powerful than the normal random
emissions of all
the surrounding tissue so I very much doubt it is
detectable. But I'm
talking strict EM here; maybe there's other sorts of
quantum
effects we
cannot detect yet.
You havent read Penrose et al yet?... he and many others
have measured these EFM emmission, but only on
cognition..to
they rise to a leve that can be measured.
Phil Scott
Yes, I read his book, but don't recall that part. You can
certainly
measure the EEG, but actual EM emissions? How far away from
the brain?
And it must be inside one heck of a Faraday cage, right?
If you read Penrose's recent book you are probably more
accurate than I am here. my remark was based on recall of one
of his white papers. This has not been one of my primary
interests. He may well not have measured EMF *outside the
skull... I saw some math, and measurements detailed but not
that aspect specifically.
You might have read Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tomkins,
(1972 approx) reporting on NASA deep space probe experiments
with plant and human communication...no time delay. no time
lag between continents... this indicates something other than
EMF as we know it... since there is a delay in that
transmission.
When I was at LLNRL in 1982 I designed the lab for Dr Wolfgang
Stroebels neutrino mass experiment, a glass bead filled with
tritium gas on the source end was ignited with lasers.. any
neutrino's would be sent through a 100' rod of lead, to
impinge on a mass spectrometer target etc the details of the
target end remained classified...ot was liquid helium cooled..
its a long story, later Col Bearden (who commissioned the
experiement, we never met) wrote his book, the purpose was to
see if there was a neutrino field through which thought
traveled. .(not the case but did apparently result in the
development of over the horizon radar).
It is my view that 'EMF' issuing from a persons brain would
be at frequencies not readable by most instruments, and
variable as a key aspect of the signal
... hard to detect... because of the short bursts and complex
analog....
regardless according to Tomkins the transmission is
instantaneous, that wouldn't happen in a field that would
support a wave pattern..only in a field 'rigid' to the
transmission. ..like a tighly packed rack of balls on a pool
table.
NASA had not quantified the signal just that the plant reacted
and the time frames, Details in his book, with experiements
you do yourself supposedly.
I had run some simple algebraic equations in a matrix of the
terms anyone can factor from e=mc2. f=ma etc.. and bernouli
effects of force at 90 degrees from the velocity vector as
time on the side vector approaches zero ... from opposing
viewpoints...
one viewpoint as the mass was accelerating away and into a
black hole...and the other set looking from the black hole as
the mass was moving toward the black hole... the equations
don't reconcile until you factor in what I called a graviton
field at the time, because I saw it as accounting for gravity.
Its been thin on my end. What I read of penrose satisfied me
that the brain gave off quantum EMF signals... beyond that I
think there is a lot more to it.... I think there is an
ambient background field affected by all players 'rigid' at
some frequencies and fluid at others... the rigid aspects
beyond what we recognise as part of the electromagnetic
spectrum today...the field might fit what Don Juan Matuse
referred to as intent.. or the intent of the ancient
warriors... that seems to be accessible.
Phil Scott
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
13 Jul 2006 04:48:24 PM |
|
|
[Have to admit that Zerg did give motivation] So we can postulate that
an excess of neurotrnsmiatters supplied by other sources rather than
endogenous sources would establish permanent synapses which would
effectively disconnect the normal triggering of neurons leavingtem in a
permanent state of excitement. COnsidering he hypothesis that potency
is related to the longitude of (continuous) impulses, it would be
theoretically equivalent to enlarging axons and distances, or (not
considering biological feasibility nor even possiblity), to the
**myelinization** of synapses toturn them into a long, permanent
condunctive wire... Of course, if there is an anomaly and the cells in
charge of producing myelin in fact produce so much that it manages to
cover synapses, the construction just mentioned would acquire
biological reality and would add to potency of emission. [Quantum
possiblities would be dealt with within the Model of Reality
framework].
In an abstract way, the notion of a carrier can be reduce to an
oscilator, a signal modulator and circuits (coils) to add potency, all
implemented in a connectionist paradigm. NOte than efficient
connectionist circuit would be very different than a normal brain...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
12 Jul 2006 12:10:39 PM |
|
|
Phil Scott wrote:
the search string for Dr Penroses research on that with the
math etc is.
'penrose, Arizona, quantum mind, white paper'
Why not give a simple URL?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
09 Jul 2006 08:43:14 AM |
|
|
Fab Our brains can light a 60w bulb. Maybe Einstein could light a 65w
bulb. Maybe a weight lifter can direct a higher current to his muscles
Possibly when the brain is in a high manic state it can produce a much
higher current.??? Bert
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
12 Jul 2006 12:06:16 PM |
|
|
Zerge wrote:
When electrons flow through a metal cable, it is the movement of the
electron through space what generates an electromagnetic emission.
In the case of neurons, electrons don't actually flow like they do on
metal cables. Rather, it is a process of polarization between the
membrane of the dendrite and the interior of the dendrite: sodium and
potassium ions exchange places, and a polarization wave moves forward.
Since electrons do not flow large distances, there is no detectable
electromagnetic emission.
What s the point of myelin?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
14 Jul 2006 12:00:54 PM |
|
|
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
Zerge wrote:
When electrons flow through a metal cable, it is the movement of the
electron through space what generates an electromagnetic emission.
(snip)
What s the point of myelin?
? ! Only two flames? I still wonder if in the calpulli land discussion
is much more vivid than in the source tlan.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
01 Jul 2006 03:47:26 PM |
|
|
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
Can you point me to some reference of the potency a brain can develop
in terms of electrical power? (brain as a universal computing paradigm
would give a different concept of potency). My interest is the analogy
between a brain and a radio emissor. I assume there is normal level of
activity giving a base potency, lowering during sleep (?), but what
would be the potency of a fully activated brain? I mean, if all or most
of the brain mass is activated at the same time... how would it compare
to other sources of EM radiation? I dont think ALL neurons can be
activated at the same, which would be a related question: how much
neural activity a normal brain can invoke, say, during emergencies or
extreme experiences? I assume that a fully connected brainwould totally
disable the individual, and also I assume that if a brain is fully
activated, after a while it would fall into a state of what we would
call externally moronity, maybe with only the cerebellum showing normal
activity and some very basic, reptile functions working (hunger,
thirst, arousment, but no foraging nor wooing). Can you point to the
figures for single neurons? Also an estimate of a fully activated brain
would be desirable and comparisons to radio or TV station figures.
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio, or Danilo, or whatever the f**k you go by at this point, if
all of the brain, especially yours, were to activate at once it would
make a hydrogen bomb look like a Black Cat firecracker! Now, continue
your precious Usenet memory wasting ways, and have a nice day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
01 Jul 2006 04:04:06 PM |
|
|
..
err...you are absolutely correct about net physical force...
the individual brain is near the bottom of that spectrum..
virtually no force generated directly from the brain.
(it was brain power that drove the development of the atomic
bomb though... computational communication it seems is
mightier than the stone ax.... your personal mileage may vary.
We understand that...and thats fine.)
There are the issues of coherent high frequency emmissions
studied by NASA since the early 70's with deep space probe
experiments... some detailed in 'the secret life of plants'
by Tompkins.
In the last decade or so, first at the Univ of Arizona, Dr
Roger Penrose began quantifying these forces in measurable
mathematical terms...with external measurements confirming
these.
Currently a few dozen major universities world wide are
involved in the advance of this now known science.
The nature of ultra high frequency coherent emmisions is
almost limitless penetration as signal carriers, with almost
no force..
You might not find that research interesting because it
contradicts your limited views. ..oh well.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=quantum+mind+penrose&btnG=Search
Throw you stone ax at will.
That regression is also studied... your personal part in that
is crucial.
Phil Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
01 Jul 2006 04:23:22 PM |
|
|
Phil Scott wrote:
(snip)
There are the issues of coherent high frequency emmissions
studied by NASA since the early 70's with deep space probe
experiments... some detailed in 'the secret life of plants'
by Tompkins.
In the last decade or so, first at the Univ of Arizona, Dr
Roger Penrose began quantifying these forces in measurable
mathematical terms...with external measurements confirming
these.
It is NOT a matter of quantification, what matters is the QUALITY of
the emmission, the informational content...
You might not find that research interesting because it
contradicts your limited views. ..oh well.
My point of view is that if you agree beforehand that 00 is halt, 01 is
wait/beware and 10 is go, THEN you are saying a lot by transmitting 00
10 00 01 10, much more than four numbers! You can be controlling just
any device! But the strength of the signal would determine how far
that information would travel coherently...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=quantum+mind+penrose&btnG=Search
It seems to point to popular science books, but not to the specific
knowledge I need. I would need m,ore specific content or the reference
to the technical journals.
According to P = VI, what counts is NOT the number of neurons that are
firing, but instead the total legth of the axons involved, as that woud
determine the total current. So even a small number of nerons would
suffice to generate string enough signals plus the carried encodings.
In this respect the spine s nerves would amount to what we can think as
an anthena ! It would explain the idea of Kundalini, illumination, as a
string current traveling trough the spine and triggering _something_ in
the brain, or maybe making it tune other transmissions...?
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
01 Jul 2006 05:15:17 PM |
|
|
"Fabrizio J Bonsignore" <djbonsignore@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1151789002.816498.24920@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Phil Scott wrote:
(snip)
There are the issues of coherent high frequency emmissions
studied by NASA since the early 70's with deep space probe
experiments... some detailed in 'the secret life of
plants'
by Tompkins.
In the last decade or so, first at the Univ of Arizona, Dr
Roger Penrose began quantifying these forces in measurable
mathematical terms...with external measurements confirming
these.
It is NOT a matter of quantification, what matters is the
QUALITY of
the emmission, the informational content...
look...I will be polite...dont ***** me off. I gave you
excellent references that if you had even scanned you would
know better than to make such an agressively ill informed
remark.
One more of those and you get nothing more from me.
You might not find that research interesting because it
contradicts your limited views. ..oh well.
My point of view is that if you agree beforehand that 00 is
halt, 01 is
wait/beware and 10 is go, THEN you are saying a lot by
transmitting 00
10 00 01 10, much more than four numbers! You can be
controlling just
any device! But the strength of the signal would determine
how far
that information would travel coherently...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=quantum+mind+penrose&btnG=Search
It seems to point to popular science books, but not to the
specific
knowledge I need.
Sorry, you dont read well apparently...Dr Penrose and others
have written many white papers published in the scientific
journals on these issues.... also on any search though will
come up dingbats.... you are apparently unable to parse those
out.
and you are abusive...thats a bad combination.
I would need m,ore specific content or the reference
to the technical journals.
Dr Penrose is the heavy weight in that area...a PhD researcher
associated with multiple universities.
Your trash job was founded in ignorance...not impressive..or
pleasant. and does not bode well for your own advance.
According to P = VI, what counts is NOT the number of
neurons that are
firing, but instead the total legth of the axons involved,
as that woud
determine the total current.
Thats accurate but the shallowest aspect of the issue.
Penrose did that research in the early 90's. you are simply
unaware of it, or what has followed.
So even a small number of nerons would
suffice to generate string enough signals plus the carried
encodings.
Correct
In this respect the spine s nerves would amount to what we
can think as
an anthena ! It would explain the idea of Kundalini,
illumination, as a
string current traveling trough the spine and triggering
_something_ in
the brain, or maybe making it tune other transmissions...?
yes...but such agressive level of ignorance and abuse from you
will screen you from the most interesting and valuable of what
spins from that... you will never know most likely...
I suggest you clean up your act.
goodby
Phil Scott
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
01 Jul 2006 06:24:04 PM |
|
|
Phil Scott wrote:
"Fabrizio J Bonsignore" <djbonsignore@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1151789002.816498.24920@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Phil Scott wrote:
(snip)
There are the issues of coherent high frequency emmissions
studied by NASA since the early 70's with deep space probe
experiments... some detailed in 'the secret life of
plants'
by Tompkins.
In the last decade or so, first at the Univ of Arizona, Dr
Roger Penrose began quantifying these forces in measurable
mathematical terms...with external measurements confirming
these.
It is NOT a matter of quantification, what matters is the
QUALITY of
the emmission, the informational content...
look...I will be polite...dont ***** me off. I gave you
excellent references that if you had even scanned you would
know better than to make such an agressively ill informed
remark.
One more of those and you get nothing more from me.
He, you are free not to answer and not to visit any of these threads.
(snip)
Sorry, you dont read well apparently...Dr Penrose and others
have written many white papers published in the scientific
journals on these issues.... also on any search though will
come up dingbats.... you are apparently unable to parse those
out.
and you are abusive...thats a bad combination.
Precisely, I would like more direct references to the multiple white
papers from somebody who is very familiar to them so that I can save
myself huge efforts!
I would need m,ore specific content or the reference
to the technical journals.
Dr Penrose is the heavy weight in that area...a PhD researcher
associated with multiple universities.
Your trash job was founded in ignorance...not impressive..or
pleasant. and does not bode well for your own advance.
Oh, usually those remarks I associate to heavy authority phallacies,
granting weight to phrases because of social associations, so you may
be in fact downgrading the real value of Dr. Penrose. As for my job
being ignorant... >
According to P = VI, what counts is NOT the number of
neurons that are
firing, but instead the total legth of the axons involved,
as that woud
determine the total current.
Thats accurate but the shallowest aspect of the issue.
Penrose did that research in the early 90's. you are simply
unaware of it, or what has followed.
....it seems I did find an insight that was not studied by the authority
in the matter, which effectively places me in some frontier, at least.
Maybe the other threads, like the Sterens and the Philological Notes
series would also contain some insights
(spin)
In this respect the spine s nerves would amount to what we
can think as
an anthena ! It would explain the idea of Kundalini,
illumination, as a
string current traveling trough the spine and triggering
_something_ in
the brain, or maybe making it tune other transmissions...?
yes...but such agressive level of ignorance and abuse from you
will screen you from the most interesting and valuable of what
spins from that... you will never know most likely...
I suggest you clean up your act.
Which means? That it will screem me out from grants and budgets to
study the insight I just had in this act? This thread is in the context
of the Possiblity of telepathy in sci.skeptic. My last remark also
gives some ground to justify the existence of people too keen in
breaking spines for some purposes... not mine, fortunately, though I
dont feel too spared either...
goodby
Goodbye
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
01 Jul 2006 10:44:20 PM |
|
|
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
Phil Scott wrote:
"Fabrizio J Bonsignore" <djbonsignore@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1151789002.816498.24920@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Phil Scott wrote:
(snip)
There are the issues of coherent high frequency emmissions
studied by NASA since the early 70's with deep space probe
experiments... some detailed in 'the secret life of
plants'
by Tompkins.
In the last decade or so, first at the Univ of Arizona, Dr
Roger Penrose began quantifying these forces in measurable
mathematical terms...with external measurements confirming
these.
It is NOT a matter of quantification, what matters is the
QUALITY of
the emmission, the informational content...
look...I will be polite...dont ***** me off. I gave you
excellent references that if you had even scanned you would
know better than to make such an agressively ill informed
remark.
One more of those and you get nothing more from me.
He, you are free not to answer and not to visit any of these threads.
(snip)
Sorry, you dont read well apparently...Dr Penrose and others
have written many white papers published in the scientific
journals on these issues.... also on any search though will
come up dingbats.... you are apparently unable to parse those
out.
and you are abusive...thats a bad combination.
Precisely, I would like more direct references to the multiple white
papers from somebody who is very familiar to them so that I can save
myself huge efforts!
I would need m,ore specific content or the reference
to the technical journals.
Dr Penrose is the heavy weight in that area...a PhD researcher
associated with multiple universities.
Your trash job was founded in ignorance...not impressive..or
pleasant. and does not bode well for your own advance.
Oh, usually those remarks I associate to heavy authority phallacies,
granting weight to phrases because of social associations, so you may
be in fact downgrading the real value of Dr. Penrose. As for my job
being ignorant... >
According to P = VI, what counts is NOT the number of
neurons that are
firing, but instead the total legth of the axons involved,
as that woud
determine the total current.
Thats accurate but the shallowest aspect of the issue.
Penrose did that research in the early 90's. you are simply
unaware of it, or what has followed.
...it seems I did find an insight that was not studied by the authority
in the matter, which effectively places me in some frontier, at least.
Maybe the other threads, like the Sterens and the Philological Notes
series would also contain some insights
(spin)
In this respect the spine s nerves would amount to what we
can think as
an anthena ! It would explain the idea of Kundalini,
illumination, as a
string current traveling trough the spine and triggering
_something_ in
the brain, or maybe making it tune other transmissions...?
yes...but such agressive level of ignorance and abuse from you
will screen you from the most interesting and valuable of what
spins from that... you will never know most likely...
I suggest you clean up your act.
Which means? That it will screem me out from grants and budgets to
study the insight I just had in this act? This thread is in the context
of the Possiblity of telepathy in sci.skeptic. My last remark also
gives some ground to justify the existence of people too keen in
breaking spines for some purposes... not mine, fortunately, though I
dont feel too spared either...
goodby
Goodbye
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
Phil - if you're still following this thread -- I have no quarrel
with you -- I was being sarcastic about the H-bomb. Please note that
Fabrizio, aka Danilo, makes endless rambling posts which make no sense.
Look up a few of his past ones. Read him for a while and you'll see.
Peace, brother.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
02 Jul 2006 11:02:37 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
Phil Scott wrote:
"Fabrizio J Bonsignore" <djbonsignore@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1151789002.816498.24920@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Phil Scott wrote:
(snip)
There are the issues of coherent high frequency emmissions
studied by NASA since the early 70's with deep space probe
experiments... some detailed in 'the secret life of
plants'
by Tompkins.
In the last decade or so, first at the Univ of Arizona, Dr
Roger Penrose began quantifying these forces in measurable
mathematical terms...with external measurements confirming
these.
It is NOT a matter of quantification, what matters is the
QUALITY of
the emmission, the informational content...
look...I will be polite...dont ***** me off. I gave you
excellent references that if you had even scanned you would
know better than to make such an agressively ill informed
remark.
One more of those and you get nothing more from me.
He, you are free not to answer and not to visit any of these threads.
(snip)
Sorry, you dont read well apparently...Dr Penrose and others
have written many white papers published in the scientific
journals on these issues.... also on any search though will
come up dingbats.... you are apparently unable to parse those
out.
and you are abusive...thats a bad combination.
Precisely, I would like more direct references to the multiple white
papers from somebody who is very familiar to them so that I can save
myself huge efforts!
I would need m,ore specific content or the reference
to the technical journals.
Dr Penrose is the heavy weight in that area...a PhD researcher
associated with multiple universities.
Your trash job was founded in ignorance...not impressive..or
pleasant. and does not bode well for your own advance.
Oh, usually those remarks I associate to heavy authority phallacies,
granting weight to phrases because of social associations, so you may
be in fact downgrading the real value of Dr. Penrose. As for my job
being ignorant... >
According to P = VI, what counts is NOT the number of
neurons that are
firing, but instead the total legth of the axons involved,
as that woud
determine the total current.
Thats accurate but the shallowest aspect of the issue.
Penrose did that research in the early 90's. you are simply
unaware of it, or what has followed.
...it seems I did find an insight that was not studied by the authority
in the matter, which effectively places me in some frontier, at least.
Maybe the other threads, like the Sterens and the Philological Notes
series would also contain some insights
(spin)
In this respect the spine s nerves would amount to what we
can think as
an anthena ! It would explain the idea of Kundalini,
illumination, as a
string current traveling trough the spine and triggering
_something_ in
the brain, or maybe making it tune other transmissions...?
yes...but such agressive level of ignorance and abuse from you
will screen you from the most interesting and valuable of what
spins from that... you will never know most likely...
I suggest you clean up your act.
Which means? That it will screem me out from grants and budgets to
study the insight I just had in this act? This thread is in the context
of the Possiblity of telepathy in sci.skeptic. My last remark also
gives some ground to justify the existence of people too keen in
breaking spines for some purposes... not mine, fortunately, though I
dont feel too spared either...
goodby
Goodbye
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
Phil - if you're still following this thread -- I have no quarrel
with you -- I was being sarcastic about the H-bomb. Please note that
Fabrizio, aka Danilo, makes endless rambling posts which make no sense.
Look up a few of his past ones. Read him for a while and you'll see.
Peace, brother.
It is Danilo aka Fabrizio! But Fabrizio is no more, I voided that name.
Now I use it as pseudonym! Flame.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
02 Jul 2006 11:31:30 AM |
|
|
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
Phil Scott wrote:
"Fabrizio J Bonsignore" <djbonsignore@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1151789002.816498.24920@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Phil Scott wrote:
(snip)
There are the issues of coherent high frequency emmissions
studied by NASA since the early 70's with deep space probe
experiments... some detailed in 'the secret life of
plants'
by Tompkins.
In the last decade or so, first at the Univ of Arizona, Dr
Roger Penrose began quantifying these forces in measurable
mathematical terms...with external measurements confirming
these.
It is NOT a matter of quantification, what matters is the
QUALITY of
the emmission, the informational content...
look...I will be polite...dont ***** me off. I gave you
excellent references that if you had even scanned you would
know better than to make such an agressively ill informed
remark.
One more of those and you get nothing more from me.
He, you are free not to answer and not to visit any of these threads.
(snip)
Sorry, you dont read well apparently...Dr Penrose and others
have written many white papers published in the scientific
journals on these issues.... also on any search though will
come up dingbats.... you are apparently unable to parse those
out.
and you are abusive...thats a bad combination.
Precisely, I would like more direct references to the multiple white
papers from somebody who is very familiar to them so that I can save
myself huge efforts!
I would need m,ore specific content or the reference
to the technical journals.
Dr Penrose is the heavy weight in that area...a PhD researcher
associated with multiple universities.
Your trash job was founded in ignorance...not impressive..or
pleasant. and does not bode well for your own advance.
Oh, usually those remarks I associate to heavy authority phallacies,
granting weight to phrases because of social associations, so you may
be in fact downgrading the real value of Dr. Penrose. As for my job
being ignorant... >
According to P = VI, what counts is NOT the number of
neurons that are
firing, but instead the total legth of the axons involved,
as that woud
determine the total current.
Thats accurate but the shallowest aspect of the issue.
Penrose did that research in the early 90's. you are simply
unaware of it, or what has followed.
...it seems I did find an insight that was not studied by the authority
in the matter, which effectively places me in some frontier, at least.
Maybe the other threads, like the Sterens and the Philological Notes
series would also contain some insights
(spin)
In this respect the spine s nerves would amount to what we
can think as
an anthena ! It would explain the idea of Kundalini,
illumination, as a
string current traveling trough the spine and triggering
_something_ in
the brain, or maybe making it tune other transmissions...?
yes...but such agressive level of ignorance and abuse from you
will screen you from the most interesting and valuable of what
spins from that... you will never know most likely...
I suggest you clean up your act.
Which means? That it will screem me out from grants and budgets to
study the insight I just had in this act? This thread is in the context
of the Possiblity of telepathy in sci.skeptic. My last remark also
gives some ground to justify the existence of people too keen in
breaking spines for some purposes... not mine, fortunately, though I
dont feel too spared either...
goodby
Goodbye
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
Phil - if you're still following this thread -- I have no quarrel
with you -- I was being sarcastic about the H-bomb. Please note that
Fabrizio, aka Danilo, makes endless rambling posts which make no sense.
Look up a few of his past ones. Read him for a while and you'll see.
Peace, brother.
It is Danilo aka Fabrizio! But Fabrizio is no more, I voided that name.
Now I use it as pseudonym! Flame.
Ok. Here's a lolly for you Danilo/Fabrizio/Whatever. The doctor will
be here soon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
02 Jul 2006 04:06:08 PM |
|
|
Lets postulate a base continuous signal like:
100010001000100010001000100010001000...
where zero occurs ater normalizing for some, probably small, random
noise. If we have some (small) message encoded, say, by 1001101, the
resulting signal would be:
100010001000100010001000100010001000...
1001101
20012010100010001000...
Here we assume both signals add up to produce a new signal and that the
new signal is emitted in a boundary, though iit is just to simplify the
argument. If we have some device that is _tuned_ to the base signal
(and the noise), then, after processing the original base sequence the
small encoded message would stand up and be recognized as such...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
07 Jul 2006 06:45:37 PM |
|
|
Convolutions are thus an efficient solution to increased
reception/transmission area in a small, compact space. They would also,
to some degree, reproduce the actual form of the base field! At a big
garnularity level. Since neurone triggering is based in voltage
differential caused by ioinc concentrations, and considering that as a
whole it is a stochastic (chaotic) system were small variations can
lead to big differences in result, the small variations perturbing the
base signal would be reflected/would act by subtly changing the
activation patterns of neurons through its effect in ionic
concentration, considering that a single ion may be _the_ difference
between an on and an off neiron, wchi then, thorugh cascade, may be the
difference between a noise (unrecognized) signal, and the message
**there is a message transmitted). The resemblance to coils most be so
obvious that there is nn point in discussing at this general level.
But going back to both the dysfunction concept and the systemic view,
in order for a brain to achive a theoretical maximum in potency it
would be necessary to turn the brain dysfunctional to the point where
differentiation is erased and most, if not the whole brain is dedicated
to provide current for the transmission of its base working signal! In
other words: people we consider morons, (autists?), mentally defective
and even accidented people would provide the strongest signals.
This statement has to be nuaced in a very pragmatic way: making a brain
dysfunctional to the point that its architecture is fuzzied, may render
the base signal useless... unless this base signal belongs almost
exclusive to (a reflection of) the basic aspects of animality, the
lower and more primitive areas of the brain. So trying to turn somebody
s brain into a big carrier through drugs may in fact just ruin that
brain for good without providing this effect. It also points to the
fact that illegal drugs dont produce this effect per necessity,
otherwise there would be a high number of carrier signals and the
accumulated effect would be very noticeable (considering, though, that
many carrier signals would actuallly produce the contrary effect,
wasting the purity of the signal and turning it into a garbled signal).
On the other hand, few legal drugs are tested for this kind of effects,
particularly since result would be experienced by other people and/or
be so subtle that they would pass unnoticed. this doesnt etach, though,
to the possibility of a long, millenarian pragmatical research fr
methods and formulas that produce this effect with a higher than
average certainty and are treasured, or were treasured by historical or
present cultures (any serious scientific research on this theme doesnt
seem to be vailable nor possible given the human experimentation
connotations)...
[LOOKS LIKE TE THIEVES ARE EVEN SELLING MY MUSIC TO THE BEST BIDDER!
remember, blueeyes and short, still in the street!]
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
05 Jul 2006 06:04:44 PM |
|
|
Fabrizio J Bonsignore wrote:
Lets postulate a base continuous signal like:
100010001000100010001000100010001000...
where zero occurs ater normalizing for some, probably small, random
noise. If we have some (small) message encoded, say, by 1001101, the
resulting signal would be:
100010001000100010001000100010001000...
1001101
20012010100010001000...
Here we assume both signals add up to produce a new signal and that the
new signal is emitted in a boundary, though iit is just to simplify the
argument. If we have some device that is _tuned_ to the base signal
(and the noise), then, after processing the original base sequence the
small encoded message would stand up and be recognized as such...
This text is merely for motivation, real life contents being much more
complex, of course. Complex, but most probably not chaotic. The basic
sequence cannot be so simple, as it would be lost by the added
**noise**, noise which in this case is meaningful. But other sequences
are possible, for instance a series of prime numbers maybe so complex
and unique that it would stand out against (some) conceivable mixes of
**meaningful noise**. Also, the operation merging both the basic pad
sequence and the added, carried signal may be more complex than
addition, the only requirement being that it can reversed. What matters
here is that signals in real life are carried by three dimensional,
dynamic (in time) structures and not mere sequences of digits, besides
being as granular as reality is...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
07 Jul 2006 03:41:31 PM |
|
|
The correct way then to visualize the flow of information is that of a
matrix, successive matrixes (like Markov chains), or a series of
expanding matrixes. being modified by those coming from the medium
outside. But note that as in the example of prime numbers, teh content
of this matrixes is quite unique with respect to the surrounding noise
and otehr sources! Not only the frequency of emission, but also, having
it a biological origin, it would be unique across species, or at least
different enough from other (normal) animal s patterns! Different
enough to be distinguished, which incidentally may be an evolutionary
constraint among species and a characteristic of speciation,
postulating a minimum distancing among species. It would spell h u m a
n. Particularly under such high numbers as we have. The influence of
other animal s emission would be null while at the frequence in
discussion there are little, _probably_ no other emission sources.
Besides some natural noise, the main perturbance for this base pattern
(not considering potency), would be language...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
08 Jul 2006 11:27:25 AM |
|
|
**... a unique configuration across the whole Universe. There are so
many connections in the brain that we cannot know which brain will
be... ** - Bonsignore
{it is a literary resource, I am citing myself, so dont come and tell
me... IF you have heard or read something like this before, you know
who is one of the plagiarists... please inform}
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
08 Jul 2006 04:20:58 PM |
|
|
The intention here is to characterize a base signal acting as carrier.
Conceptually, a continuous signal devoid of content beyond that of
being a human being. It can be though of as a framework, a wire
skeleton that would serve to synthesize the main structure of a brain.
Refer to the last posts of the thread possibility of telepathy, to the
semiotic formula of messages. The base signal would be, in those terms,
a level lower than the conscience of self, though it would be included
in that element (considering the non lineal separability of its
components) and it may still contain even a full description of what,
in neural network terms, constitutes the notion of self. (I picture it
as a decorated framework, into which other contents can poured in).
So we can envision this carrier signal providing the base for other,
content full, messages to be carried away. Hence the problem of the
potency of the signal implies a direct relation between purity and
potency, the stronger the signal the more pure it would become (up to
some threshold, fuzzy), in the extreme, just before it loses meaning,
in this case its ability to match and be recognize by some (normal)
brain configuration as being the signal from another brain, becoming a
raw description of impulses, rythms and other base biological data, the
most primitive aspects of what can still be considered a human brain.
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
05 Jul 2006 05:59:30 PM |
|
|
[And it is in this point when the system stopped working and I lose
motivation. BUt managed to send an email to a neurobiologist. Another
hypothesis, maybe exposing some bioterrorism, and he may be my
relative!]
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
07 Jul 2006 06:06:17 PM |
|
|
[this ten minutes sessions...]
Following this reasoning, to provide a strong, pure carrier signal it
would be necessary to disable the language area, the Brocca area (maybe
this was the motivation and insight to discover it?). Underlying this
ideas is an assumed architecture of the brain seen as a series of more
or less differentiated subsystems. With a dysfunctional Brocca area,
and solving the increase-potency problem, a human brain can act as a
baseline for a tapestry of voices to be carried over by it. this view
point explains the archtype of the divine madman, Tarot s fool, a man
emitting a strong, base signal carrying far away the voices that affect
this signal to be received by other people s brains... Note that it was
assumed a form of resonance in receiving brains. Since the signal is
pure and spells human, it wouldnt be noticed by people, though noise
would affect it and it may conceivably resonate with other _congruent_
areas of the brain, giving it what was called half hallucinations in
another post. A good image here is that of a head being matched by a
ghost, each part of the ghost matching some particular area of the
head, the base signal dissapearing after the match, to leave only the
added, pure information on top of it to be digested by the head. But
noise different from both signal and message would match OTHER areas of
the brain. SO this string signals would be noticed not only by
sensitive people but by almost everybody. It can be equated to the
religious imagery of the middle ages of a surrounding halo, a divine
light, a shining (not to be confused with the shining in the eyes of an
overexcited brain, being transmittted through the optical nerves), an
all encompassing sensation of light (pure white noise) and even a
higher barometric density in the air, the soup of weird sci fi
environments. Of course, leaving aside some very basic subatomic
(quantum effects, tunnel effects) that may possibly affect the
phenomenon, the actual interfase to the signal is **more or less**
bidimensional, though fractal would be a nearer interpretation, given
human brain convolutions. In fact, convolutions may be nature s
solution to increased reception abilities...
[IT SEEMS THIS MAFIA OF VERACRUZAN FORCED SEVERAL PEOPLE I CARE FOR TO
PERFORM UNDER INCRIMINATING PHOTOS TO HAVE THEM ARRESTED AND LEAVE ME
WITHOUT SUPPORT. THEY POINT AT A GRAL DRUMMOND I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO
FIND, AND THIS IS BEING DONE WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE US AUTHORITIES
AND MEXICAN AUTHORITIES!!! ALl to steal these ideas... cant corroborate
though...]
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions? |
01 Jul 2006 11:39:52 PM |
|
|
Phil - if you're still following this thread -- I have no
quarrel
with you -- I was being sarcastic about the H-bomb. Please
note that
Fabrizio, aka Danilo, makes endless rambling posts which
make no sense.
Look up a few of his past ones. Read him for a while and
you'll see.
Peace, brother.
peace
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
