Return Home
It is currently Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:55 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:29 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:24 am
Posts: 175
Location: Berlin, Germany
Hi All,

since the search function is still disabled I risk opening a topic which might already have been covered. Should that be the case I beg your pardon. But I found this to be exceptionally important and so I will simply share it now.

Recently I have been reading Dean Radin's book "Entangled Minds". Radin mentioned something that really caught my attention. The story goes like this:

There was a young man, who attented college, graduated with the best results in mathematics and had a tested IQ of 126. Nothing special about that so far. But here it comes: His doctor noticed that this fellow had a slightly bigger head than others and so he asked him if he would agree to be examined by Lorber, the scientist who brought this whole thing up. He agreed and so they examined his head and found that he didn't have a brain. No Brain. Math graduate, IQ 126, totally normal guy, with social life, friends, family. But no brain. Only a 1mm thick layer of tissue right behind the forehead. The rest: cerebrospinal fluid.

Radin claimed that he had that info out of Science Mag - so I gave it a shot and voilá:

"Is your brain really necessary?"

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/210/4475/1232

Appearently there are over 600 such cases known to the medical community.

The reason I posted this in the philosophy and not the PSI section is that I find this way too important to simply classify it as a weird anomaly, because it holds so many implications. All the fluff and puff that neuroscience has dug up - all these seemingly arbritary connections between certain emotions, memory, processing capacity etc. and regions in the brain seems to be useless speculation in the light of these findings. (This holds even stronger for any proposed causalities...) The funny thing is that Science Mag argues: "But, startling as it may seem, this case is nothing new to the medical world." :D (This reminded me of Niels Bohr saying: "For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.")

To me there is not a chance how anyone would want to argue about this: "Oh, this is just a freak case." A freak case? A man without a brain who is yet fully functional?

Because if all that neuropsychological mapping were correct - then this man would simply not be able to even hold a spoon. And as far as I understood the development of a scientific theory: as soon as we find substantial evidence that the theory obviously is not applicable under all proposed circumstances, we either - according to the width of its application - have to trash it or at least rephrase it in such a way that it fits the new conflicting data. How would this be accomplished in this case?

"Oh well, some people need a brain. Others don't. We haven't figured that out just yet...." :D

What I wanted to get at was the following: Tom often points out that actually: "You don't have a brain." The fact being, that this reality is both digital and fractal based, meaning that different fractal levels do not need to be rendered unless we want to look at them in detail. As long as we refrain from doing that the VR-server is simply rendering the effect of that given lower fractal level, which it does not render. Unless somebody opens up your head to see whether you have a brain - it does not need to be computed. Only its effects have to be available. Effects like those of the man described above: intelligence, emotions, navigation etc.

So, here we are: Sometimes the database or even the rendering aren't perfect. But still the effect is there. I find this - among other experiments and findings - to be one of the strongest cases for the VR hypothesis - and of course for the hypothesis that consciousness is fundamental and everything else is just a function of it.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." Max Planck

_________________
"Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world."

- Dao de jing, 1.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:52 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 3:13 pm
Posts: 32
The Wikipedia article on John Lorber gives some back story and quotes more sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lorber

edit: The article on Hydrocephalus contains something similar under the "Exceptional case" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocephalus

_________________
I am change. No part of me stagnates - this is an illusion.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:04 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:24 am
Posts: 175
Location: Berlin, Germany
Oh Jesus, that Wikipedia-article is hilarious. I guess it's those James Randi devotees who edited it...:
Quote:
David Bowsher, professor of neurophysiology at Liverpool said "Lorber's work doesn't demonstrate that we don't need a brain", and neurosurgeon Kenneth Till said that Lorber is "overdramatic when he says that someone has 'virtually no brain.'" Lorber admitted it later, saying that he "was only half serious", but defends himself with: "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms."
What they don't write is what Lorber had to answer to the above:

"Of course these results are dramatic, but not overdramatic. One would not make the claim if one did not have the evidence."

And of course the last sentence of that particular article makes it clear again: "In his later years Lorber expressed great sorrow that more attention had not been paid to his sensational findings."

Then this subliminal mentioning of that other case in which a patient had the full mass of a normal brain, that was simply distributed oddly. As if those cases were the same as brought up by Lorber...

Anyways: these pseudo-skeptics brush off everything that shakes the root of their beliefs. Nothing new under the sun.

Edit:

This collections of articles seems more promising: http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/scien ... essary.htm

Here you find a nice refutation of a quote mentioned in the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocepha ... ional_case
Quote:
"What I find amazing to this day is how the brain can deal with something which you think should not be compatible with life," commented Dr. Max Muenke
The reply being:
Quote:
"Patrick Wall, professor of anatomy at University College, London states "To talk of redundancy is a cop-out to get around something you don't understand."
At the end of that article series on flatrock.org the whole issue is summed up nicely:

"Cases such as these have been cropping up regularly to test the stability of modern medicine, yet are largely disregarded. They undermine established beliefs about the relationship between the human brain and the site of consciousness and so are largely ignored by mainstream medical science. When asked about the impact of his research into hydrocephalus sufferers, Professor Lorber said it had "suffered a fate like much of the literature of phenomenological science: it was ignored.""

_________________
"Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world."

- Dao de jing, 1.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:55 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Very interesting information. I happen to be studying hearing and sight brain wise this week and discovered something interesting that has to do with Bineural Beats which is how our ears do something called "otoacoustic emissions" which is a beat back creating an echo and then that the Superior Olivary Nuclei is where the beats from each ear are first processed so this is where the magic happens in B.B. tech. I'd say.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:54 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1543
Location: Lincoln, NE
Quote:
Very interesting information. I happen to be studying hearing and sight brain wise this week and discovered something interesting that has to do with Bineural Beats which is how our ears do something called "otoacoustic emissions" which is a beat back creating an echo and then that the Superior Olivary Nuclei is where the beats from each ear are first processed so this is where the magic happens in B.B. tech. I'd say.
Love
Bette
Thanks for those speculative details, Bette. I've wondered if brain/neuro research had gotten to the point of discovering such detail.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:46 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:24 am
Posts: 175
Location: Berlin, Germany
Quote:
Very interesting information. I happen to be studying hearing and sight brain wise this week and discovered something interesting that has to do with Bineural Beats which is how our ears do something called "otoacoustic emissions" which is a beat back creating an echo and then that the Superior Olivary Nuclei is where the beats from each ear are first processed so this is where the magic happens in B.B. tech. I'd say.
Love
Bette
Bette,

This info could also be of use to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone

_________________
"Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world."

- Dao de jing, 1.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:46 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Cool thanks. I think neuroscience is getting there but they aren't making the connections (pun intended) that I do because they know too much. :) The thing, the otoaucoustic effect thing is the ear drum making it's own bang. Normally on each side the bang happens with regular same frequency sound with different strengths of the same frequency reaching the ear then creating that emission. With BB it is two different emissions, that is the difference as I see it. It's not even timing, it is the created two different (because of different freq) bangs being processed, and cross processed I think. TMI probably has it all worked out.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:01 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
I'm bumping this thread because the information I have been meaning to add to a thread I cannot recall now about bbeats. Otoacoustic emissions is what I want those interested to see.

Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:08 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1543
Location: Lincoln, NE
Thanks for the bump, Bette.

Noted your focus.

My focus in the recent past was more to the point of the OP, the no-brain aspect, and I couldn't remember enough of the thread title to look this thread up. I'll bookmark this for a while, at least to assist my memory.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited